pull down to refresh
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @KudzaiK OP 29 Dec 2024
You absolutely nailed it! Then in addition to that, layers of regulations will be added that will confine BTC to be recognized as a “digital asset” (a meaningless term btw) or a commodity. The worst would be having btc backed “stablecoins”. More MoE tools and merchants accepting it are needed going forward
reply
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 28 Dec 2024
Completely agree.
Unfortunately, most Bitcoiners are not even aware of this.
Worse still, even if they were, many wouldn't care...they only care about NGU.
reply
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @KudzaiK OP 28 Dec 2024
Indeed! This is also the problem with some of Michael Saylor's points of Bitcoin being "digital capital or a digital hotel in cyberspace" while ignoring the medium of exchange function, which is the reason bitcoin exists in the first place.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 28 Dec 2024
Yes Saylor assists the bankers cartel strategy of increasing institutional custody (where it is not and cannot be used as a p2p MoE) capture and control and reinforces the narrative of Bitcoin as a speculative commodity, not a P2P payments protocol.
This narrative renders Bitcoin harmless to fiats MoE hegemony which is a basis of fiat monetary power.
Coinbase (where Saylor holds his BTC) now holds over 10% of all Bitcoin.
At current rates more than half of Bitcoin will be held under US institutional custody by 2030.
Bitcoin as a P2P payments protocol has been successfully obstructed by the legacy fiat operators.
They don't need to implement an order 6102฿ as long as Bitcoin MoE use is so successfully constricted . . . but with ever growing institutional custody the efficacy of and potential rationale for any Order 6102฿ (if ever needed) is equally increased.
reply