cryptocurrencies can be made tangible, or "embedded" into tangible assets, with single use holograms. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Casascius_physical_bitcoins denarium released an solid gold and embedded bitcoin when bitcoin reached 1oz usd parity. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Denarium_physical_bitcoins
15. Rewards Gamification rewards users with tokens that can be exchanged for goods/services or more valuable tokens. From a Coingecko email I received: Move 2 earn:
Let's get some traction to drive BTC below $21,000 to bankrupt MicroStrategy Just planting the seed in few forums
https://www.fxstreet.com/news/micro...e-bankruptcy-on-bitcoin-collapse-202205121133: I'm more curious as to why the member wants to bankrupt Micro Strategy in the first place?
I have no beef with MicroStrategy but wallstreetbets (doubt they have any fire-power as most would have bought ARKK at its absolute high than started watching hodling Diamond hand YT/tiktoc vids and be margin called by now) potentially could run with it, than can buy btc cheaper
That makes more sense than the other explanation on offer. Tough ask though, especially when they've got around 4.5x as many assets not encumbered
I enjoy watching conglomerates crash and burn when they over-leverage themselves and take on considerable risk on the back of a speculative markets. Big money playing with fire and going up in smoke! It's enjoyable because it's predictable.
I don't think Michael Saylor and I share any views. This is especially true when he says things like this: "Bitcoin is better than gold. To call it digital gold is an understatement. It really is the hardest money in the history of the world." He sounds like the Mike Maloney of Crypto. Beyond Bitcoins volatility and speculative nature, how much interest would people really have in Bitcoin? Sure, it has some features as you've outlined previously but what does it really have to offer beyond what our current systems can already provide? What gap does Bitcoin specifically fill? I mean, Bitcoin has significant limitations in how many transactions can take place per second. Bitcoin has established itself on the back of speculative opportunity. Without volatility and a favourable climate, Bitcoin would only see ongoing interest from diehard fans and no-coiners jumping onboard thinking they'll get rich. If you took away the speculative element of Bitcoin, the capital inflows would trickle down to a small stream of hopefuls. Bitcoin doesn't produce anything of Benefit that is solely reliant on it's existence. The technology and infrastructure may be a result of it's inception, but it doesn't need Bitcoin to exist or to add benefit. Bitcoins ongoing adoption and interest is completely dependent on continued speculative investment support. Claiming it's "the hardest money in the World" is ignorant. It could easily be pushed aside to make way for something bigger, better and more functional + practical. That's the risk it poses. It's not "needed". The world would still move along and function perfectly fine without it's existence. Except now a serious crash could pose significant risks to some over-leveraged companies like MSTR and supporting financial institutions. It would be a necessary cleansing IMO.
There's nothing predictable about leveraging, it works at times, at others it doesn't. I don't necessarily share Saylor's views entirely, but to suggest that a crash and burn is predictable ignores market demand and the value that BTC adds. I'm not particularly interested in the gold v BTC debate so you won't get me defending his comments around any comparison to gold. snip The Whitepaper sets out the problem that BTC seeks to solve. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf The infrastructure also requires the use of BTC as the incentive for maintaining the P2P network. Apart from the fact that that claim can be levelled at any asset class, ongoing adoption and interest is continuing at a pleasing pace: https://lightning.network Taproot: https://www.investopedia.com/bitcoin-taproot-upgrade-5210039 Stacks (STX): https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/stacks/
Well said. But pro corners will easily refute that with. "You clearly don't understand the technology "