Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies

Deathwing said:

I guess I don't see the advantage of using crypto/blockchain/whatever in this specific context. Did I mistake your original post and you're just enthused to see normalization of crypto?

Click to expand...

I'm enthused to see my investments looking like they are going to come to fruition. I say "looking like" because we definitely aren't there yet.

I'm not an activist investor and I don't invest with emotion, so you shouldn't really read much about my political or philosophical ideals through my investments.

That said, blockchain tech and crypto at least "offer" some really interesting possibilities to the world- some of them potentially really good, others very scary. Most of all, I feel like the world is on the cusp of a paradigm shift. Blockchain/crypto are just part of that change, but I think they are a big part of it, and I think they will open up opportunities for people savvy enough to read the writing on the wall.

Deathwing said:

I guess I don't see the advantage of using crypto/blockchain/whatever in this specific context. Did I mistake your original post and you're just enthused to see normalization of crypto?

Click to expand...

The general idea is that 'crypto' creates digital scarcity (value varying greatly depending on what 'crypto' we're talking about) thus it allows for 'skin in the game'. Scarcity is a requirement for value. Digital scarcity did not exist before Bitcoin. Always before there was some entity that could 'print' more of that digital scarce item. Granted that's true for a vastly large % of 'crypto' as well, but people don't seem to grok that.

Deathwing said:

Why is scarcity required for collateral? If someone has to pay $20 to register a Twitter username and also risk losing their username for abusing reporting, is that not effectively the same thing?

Click to expand...

That's not what I said. Scarcity is required for value. RE: Twitter, I dunno man. I think that they'll be using a digital ID system to authenticate real people to twitter accounts. Blockchain systems are the way these creeps want to track digital ID's as per their own words.

Deathwing said:

Why is scarcity required for collateral? If someone has to pay $20 to register a Twitter username and also risk losing their username for abusing reporting, is that not effectively the same thing?

Click to expand...

1. Scarcity is required for value. If there was an unlimited supply of Dogecoins and anyone could have as many as they wanted, they would be meaningless.
2. Value is required for collateral. If you don't value an item you are risking as collateral, there is no risk and no value, and the item is useless as collateral.
3. Thus: scarcity is required for value, and value is required for collateral.

As to your question about using $20: yes, it is effectively the same thing. There is scarcity for dollars and they have a "use case" that is off the charts (i.e. you can exchange dollars for virtually anything you want), thus they are extremely effective as collateral.

Your question is obviously, why not just use dollars, then, instead of crypto? The answer is the same as why bother with crypto at all? What's the point of crypto? Why not just stick with dollars for everything?

The answer to that is really long and I'm not sure I could do it justice. Briefly, crypto has some definite advantages over dollars. The scarcity of dollars is artificial: the Government can simply print more anytime, whereas something like BTC, the scarcity is hardcoded into the system. Control of dollars is extremely centralized: dollars are controlled by a very small group of people within one government, whereas BTC is much more decentralized. The advantages of a decentralized over centralized monetary system should be obvious. There is an entire class of middlemen imposed between you and your dollars: i.e. the Banking System. The Banking System has enormous power over you and your dollars. Crypto purports to cut out the middlemen and put control of your money directly in your hands. The list goes on...

Edit: Realizing I didn't really specify as to why Musk would specifically choose to use something like Doge for twitter. I can only speculate, but here are some interesting thoughts: first, if you are charging "dollars" for things, it opens you up to a whole bunch of rules, laws, and regulations that don't currently exist for something like Doge. In short, Musk would be much more free to do what he wants if with a non-dollar token system like Doge as a method of value exchange. Second, like I said before, if you are a pro-crypto person (like Musk) and want to see the proliferation and legitimation of crypto, putting the world's number one communication platform on a functional crypto system is a HUGE step in that direction. Third (and most succinctly), Musk owns a fuckton of Doge. If Musk manages to actually incorporate Doge into Twitter, his investment will skyrocket in value.

Those are all reasons why Musk might want to incorporate Doge into Twitter. But then you'll want to know why average twitter users should give a shit about using Doge? First, using some form of "skin in the game" system definitely does have the potential to clean up a lot of the bullshit out there now. That benefits everyone that legitimately uses Twitter. You could also do that with dollars (like you mentioned), just not as easily. Second, a token system like we are imagining gives twitter users the chance to actually earn money (in Doge) through twitter. Users with popular posts or maybe users who are good at sniffing out spammers could make money- theoretically really good money- just by using the platform. That's the basis for Web3. You just can't really do that with dollars, but you can with crypto.

Something to think about

Tmac said:

Pretty dumb strategy that one. Borrowing at ATH's to buy more BTC? Oof?

Especially considering that BTC is de facto tied to equities.

[edit] Nevermind. Apparently they have enough uncollateralized BTC to pay up. So, nothing-burger?

Click to expand...

From an investment standpoint? Absolutely dumb. But Saylor is more than an investor. Saylor is essentially the "ambassador of Bitcoin." He's a true believer (maybe THE true believer). The way he makes his BTC purchases is meant to convey a message as much as it's meant as an investment. The message is: "BTC is the future, the price I buy it at now doesn't matter because it will ultimately be priceless."

By putting his money where his mouth is, he's instilling confidence in the legitimacy of his message. Same with Bukele. Frankly, it works pretty well- he's one of the reasons BTC gained so much value over the past couple years. You need true believers who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, and the more money that risk, the more weight they have.

If Saylor and MicroStrategy get wrecked, it won't just be bad for him, it will be bad for BTC.

Tmac said:

If MicroStrategy dies, I'll just buy more inside the blood bath.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll be buying alongside you.

Rajaah said:

Bitcoin 30k. What the actual fuck. Set my last buy at 37.5k, wish I'd stuck to my previous buy order of 33k that I raised because it kept bouncing upward off of 37.

Is the bull run over? Considering capitulation with a 20% loss on this run to avoid a further loss until the market corrects, since the 20's seem to be largely air. 18k is indeed on the table if this keeps up. People who have their money in USD might be making out like bandits soon at least. Assuming there'll be a great bull run at the next halving as legends have foretold, and not a complete collapse of American financials.

Click to expand...

Bull run has been over since Feb bro. Actually it's really been over since December