People are like:
“Fix the money, fix the world.”
And
“MSTR is a shitcoin, it creates nothing of value.”
Dude, MSTR is raking in billions in fiat every week and converting it sound money. It’s telling the normies, you might not believe in sovereign money, but if you use your fiat to buy some, I’ll give you 10 percent tax deferred forever.
IOW, he is building a tool to get normies to put their fiat toward sound money whether they believe in, understand or are interested in it or not.
Naive retards are like, “we just have to get the average person to understand the perils of fiat money creation and the downstream effects.”
The average person does not give a fuck and cannot be bothered. You must offer people what is in their interest, not convince them that it is “morally” right.
In fact, seeing fiat/bitcoin as a *moral* question is a real impediment IMO. People, being retarded, want to believe they are “good”. So just like some neoliberal who hates “transphobes” and loves oppressed people and illegal immigrants in order to feel good about himself, even the bitcoiner fancies himself “good” for loving sound money and rejecting fiat.
You are not “good” for being on Team bitcoin or Team Jesus or Team Gay or whatever. It’s all fake and pathetic. You are not good for your “correct” beliefs or your lack of wrongthink. That is all just some bullshit you tell yourself to prop yourself up. It’s fake.
The reasons for wanting sound money to prevail are not because that makes you a “good” person. It’s because it is in your self interest to live in a thriving, prosperous society where value is exchanged voluntarily and based on merit. One where governments and NGOs are not siphoning off some giant percentage of the energy to control and destroy you. It is in your interest.
IMO, MSTR is one of the biggest catalysts toward that interest. I could be wrong, of course, but if I am wrong, it’s not because “fiat = bad, and stocks are fiat.” Of that I’m certain.
Replies (23)
Most people are thoughtless sheep. They echo what they are able to grasp.
Four legs good; two legs bad….
This includes most “Bitcoiners”
Few explore critical thinking.
Nice post, Amigo.
You should read the great taking by David Rogers. These “retards” don’t actually own MSTR and there is a high likelihood they’re getting rugged.
I saw the documentary -- while it’s possible, he doesn’t even mention bitcoin, so how on top of things can he really be, second it was released during the Biden admin which was a whole different bunch of kleptocrats, and third it’s probably not the base case in any event since so many people of the ruling class own stocks. I would not make investments decisions based on something like that other than hedging a bit for tail risk.
I have no clue if Strategy owns any bitcoin. I do not trust them, nor should any bitcoiner. If they verified their stack things would be different but they refuse. Shady.
I don't trust Strategy, but I do trust their incentives. Why bother to do any of it just to commit fraud? Saylor was already a billionaire, could have just retired. No reason to do prison time for fraud.
Could be an intelligence agency asset running an eventual bitcoin psyop. Either soaking up spot demand to stifle price and/or with the eventual goal of dumping their stack to crash price and cause a panic. FTX was probably something like this.
Could be a vector for government to stack bitcoin via eventual federal confiscation.
I don’t think those are probable realities but certainly possible.
It's not Saylor or MSTR, I'm worried about, it's the CONBASE.
I've listened to Saylor talk about Murray Rothbard for hours. It's unlikely he can fake that. Also what are the chances CONBASE have provided Saylor with on chain addresses?
Saylor has also said a lot of suspect things and is a government groveler. I trust neither, and their partnership is SUS.
I've also considered this possibility
Yeah, I would never rule those things out, in fact I wrote a piece about the 6102 scenario, though in that case I think you’d still get compensated in fiat at market value for the stock.
But it would be a pretty long con now five years into the “strategy” and Saylor would have to be a great actor for it to be a total scam, e.g., if they really didn’t have the coins.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing here or what Bitcoin has to do with his book. I didn’t watch the documentary but I listened to the audio book read by guy swan. The point is, stocks are not legally the property of Americans. They are IOUs that can be repossessed. To assume that something like that will never happen is irresponsible imo. Why would they legally change the ownership of these assets? Why does one organization hold all stock certificates on behalf of users when people used to custody their own stock certificates before?
In the documentary he suggested buying land (good luck keeping it if full on government confiscation of all stocks is happening) and other assets, didn’t mention it, i.e.. the one unseizable asset. Doesn’t seem like he knows what the hell is going on in that case as it would be by far the most obvious thing to have.
I would take that book with a grain of salt, maybe it’s true, and it’s a contingency plan for some factions if things go awry, but avoiding stocks as though that’s the base case seems rash to me.
I mean at a certain size, every CEO is involved with government to some extent. There IS counterparty risk, no doubt, and any of these things are possible, but I don’t think it’s the base case.
I tend to agree with everything you’ve said but my base case also doesn’t include trusting Strategy.
again, it's not about trusting them, it's about trusting the incentives
The incentives are a mixed bag imo. Paper bitcoin schemers just don’t check out. Too much potential for subterfuge.
Billionaire Saylor has no reason to risk going to prison for paper-bitcoin profits. He does have an incentive to do something really huge and game-changing.
We don’t know what really goes on behind closed doors. That’s the issue.
Why do people in positions of power sometimes make very odd decisions that are seemingly not incentive aligned?
There’s a lot of subterfuge, leverage and agendas we’re not privy too. Saylor could absolutely have relationships / alliances / agendas that necessitate deception that nobody can see or even imagine.
I don’t necessarily believe this, but I also don’t necessarily believe he is necessarily honest and forthright in his public facing commentary / actions either.
I remain skeptical despite perceived incentives, as I know there can be different hidden incentives and pressures.
I agree with this, but you could say this about any company and any counterparty.
We’re talking about Strategy though.
Something feels off about this company and the fact that they’re a vector for accumulating so much bitcoin, something finite and extremely undervalued, that will underpin global finance in the future, I think increases potential for nefarious subterfuge / intelligence agency involvement.
I hope it’s not the case and I don’t have strong beliefs in any direction about Strategy. But I remain skeptical of the thing overall.
Idk what his suggestions are. I don't remember him talking about that in the book. All the book focused on from what I recall is how we got to where we are today and how no one owns anything. I can't care less about his stance on bitcoin. But if you can't really own any assets and you can't move any meaningful sum of gold to a different country if SHTF, then you really don't have any other option but bitcoin. Non kyc bitcoin specifically.
How many companies and counterparties have CIA members on their board and work down the street from a CIA office?
Skeptism is healthy
