pull down to refresh
219 sats \ 15 replies \ @optimism 24 Jul \ on: Scenes from the frontier of Bitcoin Treasury Companies bitcoin
Fixed that for you.
There were so many points in the OP where I could have used that word. I'm generally reluctant to call people scammers, though. The term fits so much of this industry, if once one starts, I'm not sure where to stop.
reply
Yeah, I was sarcastically proposing hyperbole, even though I kind of believe that it's got about a 99.99% chance to be true in this case too.
The problem that the "industry" has is that the most efficient route in Bitcoin to transact is as p2p as possible, as close to L1 sats as possible. That means currently on-chain for larger amounts and peer-through-peer using the lowest possible fee-route on LN.
This causes a dilemma for bankers because the Bitcoin system is rigged against them: there is no need for a middleman. Thus, you see very little legit services and many technically unnecessary attempts to seek rent.
But I do agree with you that we could call everyone a scammer and its kind of bad hyperbole, even when it's true.
reply
there is no need for a middleman.
That's the key, isn't it?
The whole bitcoin treasury sector feels awfully scammy to me. And yet I can't even convince my dad to hold btc instead of mstr. It's just stupid.
reply
civilization was built on the division of labor, so far people don't consider custody of assets an exception to this rule
reply
reply
I do, but I also think I should clean my own toilets, take care of my own home, and education my own children (tack a "mostly" on to all of those).
I do think self custody is an exception to the general rule that division of labor makes things better.
I'm not going to be as good a baker as some French guy who's been doing it for generations. I can't make good beer, either. But the closer things get to your person, the more I feel I should try to exert control over them.
Medical stuff sure makes consistency difficult here, but I do also believe that patients should be way, way more involved in their treatment than the US medical system currently allows.
But this gets at the conversation I was having with @kepford (#1050253) and @justin_shocknet (#1050277) the other day.
If I understood Justin correctly, he sees free banks as the peers that make up the p2p bitcoin network and the trust model largely remains the same (because remains censorship resistant by transcending geography).
Whereas I think kepford sees a needed cultural change to where people do see custody of assets as an exception to the rule.
(hopefully, I've done justice to their respective viewpoints)
How does the trust model for Bitcoin change if the masses don't self-custody?
reply
I agree with @ek. I'm describing the world as I see it. Not as I want it to be. Most people are lazy and not motivated to care about custody. Tech can't solve that. But their custodians can exchange with peer banks. In that way it is peer to peer. The system is still more secure and open than what we have now. I call that a win, not to mention the supply cap.
Yep basically, though it might even be more secure this way than if everyone self-custodied.
A little meat left on the bone aligns the incumbant 5th column against the legacy system.
Bitcoin is an incentive operation first and foremost, the technology is just a means to that end.