Cryptocurrencies

[gfp]

4 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

What do you think MSTR does successfully?

 

I understand what MSTR does that results in what they term Bitcoin yield.  What is the version of that that applies to what the government would do?  The government doesn't have a security to issue at 2x nav.  The government has 1x liabilities to issue.  Anyone can borrow a dollar to buy Bitcoin.  It doesn't create an infinite money glitch or whatever the bitcoin yield is being characterized as.

 

I am not against MSTR doing the Berkshire buying General Re gambit over and over and over.  (and over)

[james22]

9 hours ago, james22 said:

There's a fantastic advantage to being the first mover (of size).

 

 

[james22]

7 minutes ago, gfp said:

What is the version of that that applies to what the government would do?

 

Let's see what is suggested tomorrow.

[james22]

[james22]

1 hour ago, james22 said:

I think a lot of people can't read.

 

 

[james22]

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

It is a step - it is not a step that pleases the moon boyz. It is more measured than you'd expect from Trump - and perhaps James is right he'll still full-Trump it tomorrow. 

 

I myself am happy to continue holding and accumulating and this doesn't do much to change anything for me other than to act as one of many confirmations that mainstream adoption is happening right before our eyes. 

Edited Friday at 05:07 AM by TwoCitiesCapital

[Paarslaars]

While I understand the 'moon boyz' would prefer a "let's buy 1M BTC tomorrow" announcement, I'm actually quite positive about this.

 

1) Clear statement that the reserve is there and the U.S. will not be selling BTC.

2) No shitcoins will be bought, meaning the U.S. is going full BTC. This was an important one for me... to me this indicates that the U.S. isn't just doing random crypto shit but is serious on BTC. In terms of game theory, very important because it will force other countries down the same path.

3) BTC will be added, sure it is specified 'in a budget neutral way' but considering the deficit, that's just common sense. If you're making the switch to a reserve of digital gold, might as well sell physical gold to buy it.

 

I'm curious which strategies Saylor will put forward today.

 

Edited Friday at 06:59 AM by Paarslaars

[james22]

1 hour ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

It is a step - it is not a step that pleases the moon boyz. It is more measured than you'd expect from Trump - and perhaps James is right he'll still full-Trump it tomorrow. 

 

The moon boyz can't read.

 

It's a BIG step.

 

 

And one they got right (BTC > else), important after Trump's last tweets.

 

I expect tomorrow only that they'll make it clear they intend to acquire more.

 

How much they share (for fear of being front-run), I don't know, but sure they've already a plan.

 

Now, if they wanted to announce they've already bought $40B bitcoin with the Exchange Stabilization Fund, or from the sale of gold (MTM via federal gold revaluation), I'd be OK with that.

 

1 hour ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

I myself am happy to continue holding and accumulating and this doesn't do much to change anything for me other than to act as one of many confirmations that mainstream adoption is happening right before our eyes. 

 

It's hard to imagine the basis for continued resistance in the face of this.

 

[james22]

 

[Dave86ch]

16 hours ago, nsx5200 said:

I'm not quite sure what a government would do with a cryptocurrency reserve besides HODL.  With the gold reserve, this is from the wiki:

"A gold reserve is the gold held by a national central bank, intended mainly as a guarantee to redeem promises to pay depositors, note holders (e.g. paper money), or trading peers, during the eras of the gold standard, and also as a store of value, or to support the value of the national currency."

 

So would it be used to support the USD, or would it be used to pay depositors?  I would hate to wake up to find any of my US bonds paid out in crypto.  Any real compelling reason that a gold reserve doesn't already provide?  Digital currency has its own set of logistical challenges, many are still unknown at scale, as pointed in the previous posts.

 

The smart approach is to let fiat currencies die while gradually shifting funds into Bitcoin.

 

Stablecoins will open their channels on Lightning under the name of the USD, maintaining hegemony and the demand needed to continue printing fiat’s dying paper.

 

This will transition the economy onto a common value protocol, providing both privacy for sovereign individuals and an inflationary safety net for the masses—improving international exchange through a monetary system that stands above political interests.

 

 

[Dave86ch]

5 hours ago, james22 said:

 

I think a lot of people can't read.

 

No bitcoin buying announcement ≠ announcing there will be no bitcoin buys.

 

 

 

It is clear that Bitcoin is set to benefit republican states and international allies as they adopt the new monetary system.

 

This transition takes time—the asset is still in its infancy, as is its ecosystem (considering Lightning, Layer 2s, and sidechains). Beyond that, Bitcoin is inelastic, requiring careful handling to manage society’s response.

 

The lack of foresight never ceases to amaze me.

 

 

[james22]

51 minutes ago, Dave86ch said:

The lack of foresight never ceases to amaze me.

 

Why assume that?

 

I once spent a year on assignment as Head of Expat HR Policy and learned to always schedule a virtual meeting after ever major policy announcement because no matter how carefully we crafted the message it'd always be misunderstood.

 

I'm sure whoever drafted Sacks' release was very proud of how carefully they made the distinction between Reserve and Stockpile, and how they used IN ADDITION. LOL

 

But someone had the foresight to release it tonight when it can be explained just half a day later.

 

 

 

 

[Paarslaars]

 

Haha the U.S. has a strategic reserve of 1.4 billion pounds of cheese? 

Man it's going to be really easy to find budget neutral ways to buy bitcoins.

[james22]

2 hours ago, james22 said:

I expect tomorrow only that they'll make it clear they intend to acquire more.

 

How much they share (for fear of being front-run), I don't know, but sure they've already a plan.

 

 

[james22]

 

[gfp]

It will be interesting to see if the QQQ stops falling and joins BTC or if BTC stops rising and joins QQQ.  Or maybe they will part ways and stop correlating with risk-on / risk-off swings.  Both have a double top they are dealing with, but BTC had its correction interrupted by some presidential tweeting, while QQQ did not.

[james22]

 

[backtothebeach]

@james22 with all respect, why are you using this board like Twitter / X, reposting stuff 20 times a day? Seems inappropriate.

[james22]

21 minutes ago, backtothebeach said:

@james22 with all respect, why are you using this board like Twitter / X, reposting stuff 20 times a day? Seems inappropriate.

 

Is it? It's easy enough to ignore the thread if you aren't interested.

 

And hopefully gives any half-interested value investor an idea of what's going on with arguably the biggest thing in finance right now.

 

Besides:

 

 

 

[backtothebeach]

Seems desperate. Keep pumping.

[Buckeye]

I think it’s hilarious that we have been hearing for 10+ years how BTC was the ultimate asset, because it didn’t need the government, or banks or regulators to exist.  And now these same folks are clamoring for a government bailout of their BTC

 

What a disingenuous group of people…tells you about all you need to know. 

Edited Friday at 07:10 PM by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

On 3/2/2025 at 12:00 PM, Paarslaars said:

Don't see any sense in holding any other crypto than BTC but don't really care if they waste additional US tax payer money

Here’s Paar saying the quiet part out loud. This isn’t about anything other than “Number Go Up.” 

[Fly]

I think the political ramifications are interesting too. A Republican president issues an EO to create the SBR for these ~200k BTC (just assume nothing else ever gets put into the SBR). 
 

Will a future Democratic Presidential candidate risk their career by trying to end the SBR and sell the BTC? It is widely known that a contingent of single issue Bitcoin voters contributed heavily to Trump and voted for him. Dems missed that opportunity. 
 

Will they try to reverse course and come out with favorable BTC policy? Maybe bipartisan support for the Bitcoin Act from Lummis? Interesting game theory.

Edited Friday at 08:01 PM by Fly

[Paarslaars]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Here’s Paar saying the quiet part out loud. This isn’t about anything other than “Number Go Up.” 

Nah I'm just not a US citizen so that part doesn't concern me... though I can name a bunch of things I would rather not see my goverment spend tax payer money on and rather have them buy BTC.