Topic: Micheal Salyor decalogue for a 10x Bitcoin Appreciation - page 4. (Read 1032 times)

Thanks for the heads up. I totally missed the reference in the WO post.
I will certainly add this podcast in the things I have to do today.
The kind of things one does on an holiday: update the spreadsheets, stamp a few seeds on washers, fight in toxic maximalism feud on Twitter).
I like Pompliano, but I am not the exact fan of Max Keiser.

I will be back!

I did not want to make two posts in a row, so I waited for a post in this thread.. including that I had tried to get fillippones attention in the WO thread, but he might not have seen my post.  Here it is for reference (at the bottom of the post). 

Fillippone was having too much funzies and on vacation. .I must tattle.


Ok. back to topic: 

I had heard a good run down and criticism of Saylor's 10 points on Pomp's podcast - interviewing Max Keiser.  It is a pretty good discussion, and Keiser went over all 10 of them one by one with Pomp.

The Pomp Podcast: #1017 Max Keiser On Helping A Nation Build On The Bitcoin Standard

Caitlin Long explain why regulation isn’t against Bitcoin Idea:



She resonate Micheal Saylor’s idea of (lack of) regulation acting as a drag on bitcoin appreciation.

You must be new here (hahhahaha that's meant to be a joke)

I am pretty sure that as far back ass early 2014 (and perhaps even earlier) there was wide-spread accusations that various Chinese exchanges were faking trade volume which also had other ramifications about manipulating BTC price, too, and there were various iterations pf the China bans bitcoin story - but the late 2016 China bans bitcoin really seemed to have had put a damper on the somewhat normal Chinese citizen participation in bitcoin, and a lot of the funds that had been stuck on Chinese exchanges ended up getting locked through most if not all of the 2017 bull run.. so those guys really got fucked, and sure maybe the Koreans took over in 2017 - because I do remember some of that high Volume matters going over to Korea in 2017 - but the Korean exchanges were quite a bit less influential than the Chinese exchanges had been between 2014 and 2016, so the gap in prices was much greater between Korean and western exchanges in 2017 as compared to what the price gap that had usually been between Chinese exchanges and western ones in 2014 to 2016 (IE. Chinese had a tighter gap .. but a gap still existed).

This dates back to korean crypto exchanges in 2017.

They had no commission on trades.

Which many criticized claiming it was possible to make multiple accounts on exchanges and buy/sell to alternate accounts to influence prices without suffering significant losses in the process.

Many stock brokers adopted this trend around 2019 with commision free trades. But it was actually crypto exchanges who were the 1st to implement the practice of commission free trading in 2017.

I guess the Decalogue is meant to reassure the volatility is a price to be paid for a greater future reward.
Lowering time preference, and sensibility to current price fluctuations declaring the final objective (10X) and the path needed to achieve this.

A person who invested all that money cannot come to people and simply tell them that Bitcoin is not good, they will only benefit from it if they want to buy more, which is unlikely at the moment.

Institutional investors were the reason for the continuous rise in the price of Bitcoin, but with the monetary tightening, the money allocated to invest has decreased a lot, so if they do not sell (Dimond hands) we are on the right point for a rise in the near term.

Frankly, what frightens me now is the repeated failure of stablecoin and decentralized projects.

Let's not forget, in the first and the last they are investors and will sell, now or sooner.

The man is in an unenviable position. Microstrategic losses are about a billion dollars as a result of the decline in the price of Bitcoin. What can a man say in a situation like this???!! Michael Saylor bet on the future of bitcoin and crypto assets and bought about 129,000 bitcoins at an average price of 30k and now the bitcoin price is around 20k. This is a very difficult situation for the company.
Saylor said in a previous tweet:
 He also said:
 
https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1536695409648836609



This means that Microstrategy has prepared itself well to face the huge fluctuations in the market, so perhaps the "Ten Commandments" that Saylor mentioned, in addition to HODL, are part of the company's strategy to face the fluctuations in the market.

I don't disagree with anything that you are saying, but it still seems that you and I might be speaking past each other to some extent, and I am not even sure how much it matters, but when I was attempting to contrast Saylor's perspective to poor peep, it seems that I have a different understanding of what might be the relevant contrast than you, because you ended up contrasting Saylor's view to the average Joe.

Of course, we know that there are all kinds of people in the world, and to some extent when I am using the word "poor peep," and am not really thinking about someone who might be an "average joe."

There are a lot of contradictions in bitcoin and a lot of disconnection between  those who are buying bitcoin and those who may well have the potential of benefitting the most from bitcoin, in terms of being unbanked.  I consider the average joe to be banked and even somewhat unclear about how he might benefit from bitcoin, even though there should be plenty of evidence that the dollar is not holding value when it comes to purchasing power.

I don't want to flesh out my ideas further regarding how poor peeps might differ from average Joes (and sure they might overlap in several ways, too), but I did find it interesting that your descriptor did bring a different image than the perspectives contrast that I was trying to make.


Of course, there are a variety of ways to invest in bitcoin, and to try to assure that you are attempting to invest rather than gamble.. I have my doubt whether investing large amounts of money is a good tactic, but I do agree with dollar cost averaging, lump sum investing and buying on dips over a 4-10 year time horizon or longer and not investing more than you can afford to lose. A good newbie strategy is to start with a modest amount of money such as $100 per week or maybe even less than that, and to study bitcoin while investing to figure out whether increasing or decreasing such weekly amount might be more comfortable.

The more you known about the investment (bitcoin in this case) the more aggressive that you might feel comfortable with.. but still it seems that a 4 to 10 year or longer investment timeline should be expected for any new money that is put into bitcoin. So maybe my points is recommending to get started right away (perhaps starting with a small amount), and study as you go and then tailor your approach to how you feel after studying and investing.

I consider bitcoin as a speculative asset, but in short term, while a store of value in long term, that is obvious from the past and present. Bitcoin is an asset that has both bulls and bears periods. If the past is analysed with the present, this year itself shown to be bearish.

Anyone investing in bitcoin needs to properly analyse and make the right decision, especially if investing large amount of money. Before the Luna, UST and others that seem like a ponzi crashed, bitcoin has never been massively bullish this year. I remember the last time Microstrategy invested in bitcoin, the price of bitcoin continued to crash unlike in 2021 when bitcoin market soar to all-time-high. Without this proper analyses, even long term holders can be in time of panic. But all needed is to remain strong and watch the whole bear market end and see a massive bull run which may likely be in 2024 after halving.

There are over 19000 altcoins existing, bitcoin is bitcoin, it is perfect without regulation, but altcoins needs to be regulated. Many altcoins are just ponzi schemes just like the Luna and UST. Normally this year supposed to be bearish, but some people can panic during the ponzi altcoin crash and made the crash more deeper, but this is just a guess, I do not think those altcoins has to do with this because bitcoin does not depend on altcoins. But the rate new altcoins are created is high and regulation will help against it and the shadiness within altcoin projects.

About the stable coin aspect, TUSD, USDT and some others are not algorithmic stable coin, that is the problem many stable coin are facing, they are algorithmic and resulting to the stable coins to become volatile and decreased in price during massive sell of the coin if compared to its pegged fiat, this has been happening many years ago and I still do not know why new projects keep coming to be algorithmic stable coin. I believe traditional collateralized stable coin like TUSD and USDT are not the problem because they are pegged to remain $1. Even if there is any risk, it is still better that those algorithmic stable coin. The only problem I see more about some traditional collateralized stable coins is that some like USDT can be freezed on noncustododial wallet. But I will always prefer fiat than those stable coins as they can not be fully trusted, only bitcoin that is most decentralized is trustworthy, altcoins are centralized in one aspect or the other.

But above all, I still see bitcoin to be independent from those altcoins, the period we are is just not a good time for bitcoin. A period that will not only encourage many bulls that are now bears to invest but also people that have not invested before, thinking they have missed and preparing to invest and this will make period of all-time-high possible. We can not expect the market to continue to be grow, it also shrinks in order to grow more.

I don't have expectations from him to show the perspective of the average Joe. His target are wealthy entities that would invest into bitcoin and, why not, into MicroStrategy.
Of course that "certain details" are avoided in his speech. No problem with that, none at all.

But the problem is that the average Joe doesn't know what he wants. Or each Joe wants something different. We seem to want governments stop scammers that create misleading products or do market (and media) manipulation, but when this translates into KYC requirements for example, we become angry. We want wild and free market (which means also allowing manipulation), but we also want the price never go down. A lot of odd contradictions.

Of course that his business man views will contradict to some of the average Joe views. But if we want a proper market for Bitcoin, then he's right. If we don't care that some do wild things, if we don't care whether Bitcoin remains legal or not (!), then we're good as we are.

This is how I see it.

The problem is not what Saylor wants. The problem is that the rules and regulations imposed by politicians are more similar to throwing a bomb than doing some "surgical" changes like we would probably like (or don't mind).
And another problem is that with so many countries in this world, regulations imposed by a couple of countries cannot change much of the overall situation, unless the example of those countries is taken by most.

Almost, but not quite stompix.

I take Saylor at his word in regards to the March 2020 events causing him to get motivated to place his value/cash (and his company's) somewhere that was not like a melting ice cube.

Later Saylor became more aggressive, so at later dates the initial motivations might not have had still been applicable.. to the extent it matters much in terms of a distinction. ... .. so in that regard, his gravitation towards extreme and more extreme did start to seem like the initial motives no longer described what he was doing.


Ever since the events around the OP starting his other Microstrategy's thread (MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’) Saylor has always been quite vocal regarding his having had gotten involved in Bitcoin and the reasons why, and of course, he likely considered it beneficial to his company to be very public about bitcoin .. and there was likely some positive feedback loop, too (he has even mentioned those kinds of ongoing positives to his company)... why not kill two birds with one stone?

Even if many of us consider Saylor as a very quick study in terms of frequently being able to articulate bitcoin's investment thesis better than many of the bitcoin OGs, he still has been growing as he goes, and some of his ways of emphasizing certain topics have changed and even flip-flopped to some degree with the times and current events.

There are some ways that Saylor expresses some bitcoin-related matters from a BIG company and rich-person perspective that might still be ok. and from time to time sill aligned with the interests of normie poor peeps.. but there are other ways that tensions exist between his perspectives and the perspectives of normie poor peeps.. .. so even if there may well be advantages that come (trickle down) from the abilities that poor peeps get from the lifting of all boats, there are als sometimes some advantages that are available in bitcoin in terms of poor people remaining unbanked and being able to skirt regulated systems.

We are not tending to see Saylor speaking from such poor peep perspective and even there might be some tensions from time to time with various kinds of competing perspectives and Saylor is surely better able to articulate from his perspective, and every once in a while we might see some common man perspectives that are articulated well too.. but not through Saylor... Bitcoin does still seem to allow for quit a bit of abilities to do all the things, even if sometimes there might be trade-offs too.. and Saylor is no dummy.. but he might not find it a good idea (or use of his speaking skills) to talk much about the ways that bitcoin might allow the skirting of regulations and to potentially overthrow governments, even though he seems to know about those kinds of possible bitcoin features and sometimes even makes some references to some of those kinds of powers and bitcoin features. He just does not tend to emphasize those kind of angles very often, and seemingly subtly when he does if at all.


UST was likely designed to scam people, and make it seem that there was something valuable there, and it was successful in attracting a lot of capital.

I am surely not opposed to having innovations and freedom for developing. .incentives, too.. yet UST should show us that even very smart people can get lured into shitty/scammy projects for reasons that do not make a lot of sense if looked at with a microscope.. (and retroactively), but seems to enticing and even seem to make a lot of sense while the project is in its growth - capital luring stages. ..

For example, take the more obvious dynamic of the 20% interest rate that is not sustainable that is used as a payout to lure new capital that then funds the payment of 20%, so when the new entrants are not coming in anymore, then the 20% cannot be paid.. which causes a cascading of exits.. but not enough capital to sustain the paying out of everyone because the fund had already been paying 20% to the earlier entrants so there is not enough money remaining in the system to pay folks as they increasingly exiting and causing incentives to leave as early as possible and a death spiral to any ability to hold pegs, even if there are desires to try to hold up the peg.. value had already left earlier by the earlier payouts of 20% and then having to pay the earlier folks as they leave.. ..   

I find difficulties in realizing how could that kind of "innovative" scam system creation be considered "worth developing?"

It is clear that Saylor has been bullish on bitcoin and a big maximalist for a long time. Why would we be shocked that he would talk about how it is much better.

I mean think about it, what other assets that you could own, which has a chance to bring you money as much as crypto could? I believe that he doesn't stop with bitcoin love, he loves a bit of other coins as well, but when you are handling billions of dollars, it is smarter to just invest into bitcoin since it is at the top and most trusted one, has the least risk as well. I believe that all the money they "lost" right now, will be fine because they will hold it as long as possible.

Yep.  And how long until crypto exchanges can only operate between 9:30am-4pm, like the stock exchanges in the US?  One of the many things I love about crypto is precisely how unregulated it currently is.  Part of the responsibility of being your own bank is knowing the risks and taking whatever precautions are necessary to keep your money safe--and the point is that it's the individual's responsibility, without the need for a big government daddy figure making up rules as they go along.  Once governments decide to step in, they're without a doubt going to fuck everything up.

Part of me (and not a small one) wishes Michael Saylor would just zip his mouth shut, especially about this kind of stuff.  On the other hand I realize any regulations the government(s) decide to implement won't come about just because of what he says.  I'm pretty sure there are a lot of other big players working behind the scenes, deciding what regulations should be written into law.

I chuckled at your medical analogy, by the way.  Funny, but very appropriate.

I like to listen to logical people who do not have investments in bitcoin because their opinions will be less biased, provided that those opinions are after research and not convictions that have no meaning.

I agree with him in some parts such as unregulated crypto exchanges, ignorance and the absence of institutional regulation, this regulation will eliminate many Altcoin/DeFi that claim to be decentralized, but they are completely centralized.

But when we come to mentioning stable currencies, if they are centralized or from regulatory bodies, then they are paper money in digital form. It is better to say that a decentralized stable currency must be developed that does not need reserves, but it is something that is closer to the impossible now, especially in the case of market fluctuations.

UST was a failed model for thAT, but it is an idea worth developing.

I still don't comprehend it why Micheal Saylor thinks regulating the crypto market could be a shootout for Bitcoin massive bullish movement. He had so much invested in Bitcoin which he made known to the public but his perception about the crypto market is totally different. Does he thinks the regulation of crypto changes and the entire market could skyrocket the price of Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a very volatile financial asset and we'll know that most time, price do go up and down depending on liquidity and other factors that do trigger price movement.


Michael Saylor
It seems that he's already in lose and I am very much interested in his confidence to buy more Bitcoin even if the price tend to go more bearish. Everything in the crypto space is all about and it be more profitable if we can hold our Bitcoin for a long time so Bitcoin price movement can get mature.

I still don’t know why such talk shows are always in “talks” irrespective of how we invest into crypto currencies and most specifically in the bitcoin. If the tech was injected into world system then there were surely thousand thoughts behind it and the man actually succeeded in the same. I’m talking about the real Mr Satoshi so I’m sure we do not want to hear anyone else whatsoever.

These things are just out of the blues all the time. Big people barge in with their nice and swift speech, manipulate the whole thing and put us on the bitcointalk thread discussion. Lolz.

I somehow thought it's USDT because he was also talking about Tether, but I've re-run it and indeed, he was talking about both (and you were right, it's UST there)


This pretty much summarizes all. Just since the world is big and human greed even bigger, it's not possible (at least not easily) to impose such rules. Plus a balance between proper trade rules and restricting the users is not easy.
And every time somebody tries to impose rules he will have to face both freedom preachers and errors (intentional or not) in setting the right boundaries between big traders and the average Joe.


I won't call him unethical. He didn't really do different than the vast majority.
Maybe I'm wrong, but he has become this vocal only after he noticed that this helps his company. Again, it's in the norms, or even better, but I think that he knew about most of these problems also in 2020.

---

Fully back on topic: I think that he cannot influence much the big exchanges running in non-"western" companies. But I don't think that anything stops him from making an exchange with more functions, lower fees and a real competitor to the more shady exchanges. The lower fees should attract the bigger traders that pay their taxes anyway and maybe this kind of moves could level the balance a little.
Since Bitcoin is not ruled by an entity, it cannot choose sides and allow only fair players buy or sell it. And most countries won't care to adapt the legislation to the wishes of big American investors (in some case simply because they're american and "they should not teach us"). Obviously the exchanges will prefer those countries.

Nobody goes to the doctor when they know they can finish a half marathon, it's the moment when 3 steps to the first floor get you tired that suddenly you feel the need to know what's happening with your body. And as usual, when it comes to this kind of stuff, be it crypto or shares or anything related to the economy, everyone gets pissed, things are no longer going in the right way, let's find somebody to blame and pitchfork him!

For a bitcoin maximalist, it's easy for me to say yeah, kill all shitcoins, put on all exchanges a half-page banner stating the differences between bitcoin and other "cryptos", and regulate to death all those Defi, and in case he missed it fuck NFTs also!  And if we talk about tether, yeah, screw that too, that's another time bomb waiting to happen.

But once you open Pandora's box stuff will keep coming out, what happens after unregistered exchanges are all regulated, mandatory KYC and AML and SOF, how many will agree with there? Kill all shitcoins or regulate it to reduce volatility, good, the next step is trading hours for BTC and shutting down trades in cases of high volatility. Once you start with regulations more will follow, first, it will be nice, then all of them will turn into a colonoscopy.




Let me rephrase this to become more accurate, when he caught the smell of money that could be made from it suddenly from the excitement his eyes popped out so much he saw the truth. 

So essentially he wants more and more government regulations? But when Bitcoin was above $60k, everything was perfect, those things weren't a problem, Bitcoin was a strong and independent swarm of cyber hornets that needs no dirty regulators, am I right? He sounds desperate, because he knows he won't be able to endure Bitcoin winter for long, as he has obligations to shareholders.

Regulations will happen regardless if we want them or not, but it's up to us to choose if we want to be a part of the regulated market or unregulated. I think having a large share of coins being a part of the regulated market could be dangerous, because the government might start demanding changes to Bitcoin protocol, like surveillance or changing to PoS, and a large number of holders would support these changes if it would mean saving their money or making profit, and only a minority would stay true to the decentralized, peer-to-peer roots. This is the risk of Bitcoin market becoming dominated by rich people and institutions.