pull down to refresh

49 sats \ 8 replies \ @Satosora 18h
I feel like number 7 is really reaching. Government wouldnt allow that.
reply
It would be trivial for them to weasel the definition of "lawfully owned" to allow seizure, the same as any other asset seizure.
reply
That too
reply
come and take it lads
reply
I could imagine that going through. Just remember that it's not an amendment and that Congress could reverse it just as easily.
reply
25 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 18h
They arent going to willingly give power to the people.
reply
They aren't, though. When the time comes to confiscate it, that would require a bill anyway. Now, that bill will just have to reverse this protection too. It's cheap talk.
reply
16 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 17h
I am just cautious.
reply
5th Amendment already covers it
reply
the reserve would be like the national gold reserve...
or the strategic oil reserve. strategic capital, and a lot of it, held by the US government to be used for whatever.
Call me crazy but I think it's a great idea
reply
The arbitrary specificity of numbers feel like a setup for this to fail...
We also have foreign reserves already, so why a special Bitcoin reserve instead of including Bitcoin with foreign reserves? That'd be much more easy to just do straight up...
Maybe this is for a future negotiation tactic, most likely its just a psyop to create awareness/debates on this issue... but I can't see the end result looking anything like this.
Most importantly, what happens when it's declassified that Satoshi's coins === NSA coins, and the USG already has 20-30% of total supply? Where are the strings to keep that in treasury?
reply
reply
reply
total bullshit.
Bitcoin as reserve = YOU are enslaved again and again... Bitcoin is to empower individuals and NOT governments and politicians. Bitcoin must flow around as money in order to be strong and give you more freedom. If it would stay in a gov reserve IT IS NOT USEFUL TO YOU AT ALL. They will give again a shitcoin token to use and controls you...
LET'S STOP THIS WHOLE MADNESS WITH THIS so called "bitcoin reserve". is a total bullshit.
FUCK LUMMIS, FUCK THE GOVS, FUCK THE STATE!
reply
I still don't see this happening. I will be surprised.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bren 14h
I wonder about the likelihood of this happening, but it is progress it is even being discussed.
reply
Are they going to purchase 200k a month, in addition to whatever is acquired from those other mechanisms?
reply
200k a month
200k per year, but yes that amount would be "in addition to" whatever holdings other government agencies have or acquire.
Further, the goal is to get states to contribute their holdings via segregated accounts (basically .gov becomes coinbase custodians for states).
reply
Thanks for the correction. That means the SBR would actually end up holding more than one million bitcoin.
reply
172 sats \ 2 replies \ @freetx OP 18h
Yes, reading the bill the idea is that after 20 years the SBR could sell up to 10% per year.
However I think that is a naive take....I think by the time we reach that point, the SBR would better be used a collateral for fiat loans. Or possibly better, is US Treasury issues "redemption certificates" using SBR as backing. We could wind up with a situation where US Treasury starts issuing its own money again, backed by SBR. (This is probably unlikely, but theoretically possible).
As an aside, Texas currently has a state Gold Depository bank. The idea is you deposit gold into Texas State controlled vaults and they issue you a "redemption certificate" for you to come redeem the physical gold at a later time. Clearly the idea was constructed with the idea that Texas State could become a "currency issuer" of sorts if people were to trade the certificates.....
A similar thing could happen via US Treasury / SBR.
reply
Twenty years from now will likely be a much different world. We could easily be in a scenario of bitcoin being legal tender. In which case, that reserve would basically act as a buffer to smooth out imbalances between revenues and expenditures.
reply
this
reply