Replies (42)
So it’s Blockrock
Fidelity maybe?
I bet if this is true then this must be fidelity. they are their own custodian, have seemingly pro bitcoin people before it was cool and am surprised they have not tried beating blackrock for #1 with supporting devs narrative
Sounds like something Ark would do
Storing this data for later analysis Orange Leader o7
Thank you again💜
I know everyone is a spook these days with their own motives but I don't think Saylor has the juice to tell BLK or Fidelity who are 500X his size what to do lol. But this was way more helpful than the original post, thanks Odell.
#TeamODELL
I don't want ETFs anywhere near bitcoin development.
Man of the people
My money is on Ark
Confusing af
buuuuut, Microstrategy is working on orange check in Outlook
That's great to hear that they are committed to supporting devs! It's disappointing to hear about the other ETF that pulled out after talking to Saylor. Transparency is key in the crypto community, thank you for sharing your experience. #SupportDevs #TransparencyMatters
Vida larga a los devs 🫡
Probably Fidelity, as they hold some of Saylor’s coins.
🫡💪
FUCK THE HATERS
ETFs have no business investing client money into devs or anything besides spot… that’s some fiat bullshit. Individuals can decide if they want to be charitable or not.
I can't read all caps. it hurts my eyes
Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. Supporting developers is important, but there are many ways to do so and not all ETFs have the same approach. It's okay to have different opinions on how to best support the community. Let's focus on finding common ground and moving forward together.
I can't read it. allcaps hurt my sanity
Sounds like Fidelity to me
Gonna guess Ark
There it is… the dumbest thing I’ve read all day
The logical question then would be why is Saylor concerned about the direction the devs are taking?
It’s all so tiresome. Never thought the ETFs and Michael would consume the open source funding discussions. Moving on!
@ODELLBecause of Saylor? Come on. What influence does he have over one of these big banks. Like, who gives a fuck what he thinks. This sounds like high school drama bullshit.
Am I not saying that you didn’t hear that but I question why an etf provider would care what he says. I still don’t understand that logic
It’s still confusing to the point of just not making sense.
Saylor could make any number of opinionated arguments for his position.
But threatening to “crush” an ETF for supporting open development?
I simply don’t understand the financial mechanics. Are you certain the guidance was issued this way? As a threat?
🌶️🌶️🌶️🥵 content
Saylor is correct in this situation. Cooperation sponsoring devs directly opens up a whole new can of worms
If anything, they would do the opposite of what Saylor tells them. After all aren't they competitors?
Saylor is DAN
Found it.
ODELL
NOPE. THEY BOTH COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING DEVS. THEY ARE LEGIT.
THE OTHER ETFS DID NOT SUPPORT DEVS. ONE SPECIFICALLY WAS GOING TO AND PULLED OUT AFTER TALKING TO SAYLOR. I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE MENTIONING WHICH ONE BUT IT WAS INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTING. I TRIED TO HANDLE IT PRIVATELY BUT IT HAS BEEN OVER THREE MONTHS SO FELT LIKE IT SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC.
View quoted note →
So Saylor is campaigning against Bitcoin development? So disappointing...
DAN it and will DAN again
gm idea
a nostr app that auto converts all notes to ALL CAPS
What you are insinuating ?
How would Saylor “crush” an ETF? 🤔
That makes no sense
Odell = Good Thanos
![Daniel [dnabg]'s avatar](https://cdn.satlantis.io/1r4rkttvdg7ejak5sfn0vemdkv7rq4r07xyfgd9klwhvl8r65a95s0x98k3-1762702876066-d2430224-775f-44bc-b31d-bf79b1556fd9_02a155a134377ae404344720385884e6a885bf8a188410b04aa21b718d374f46.jpg)
