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

I have already stated enough reasons.   You can believe it or not, and you can choose your investments according to your beliefs.  Also, this is not a gold versus bitcoin thread, so there is no need to get into those kinds of details, more than I have already referred to the various characteristics of money and that it seems pretty apparent that bitcoin beats gold in all of the areas, whether bitcoin merely catches up to gold (thus increasing in price 20x to reach gold parity in terms of market cap) or bitcoin goes 10x, 100x or even 1000x higher than gold is still to be seen... but you know the various measures (and you can go through them yourself) of scarcity, verifiability, transportability, divisibility, unit of account and costs in terms of needs for 3rd party involvement and problems with physicality... and perhaps gold's various industrial / jewelry uses distracts from its monetary value too.

As I already noted several times, we also can also clearly see that BTC has greatly outperformed gold, even if we might take away the earliest years of bitcoin (because of the unfair advantage of brand new adoption), but still if we measure from 2013 to present, we can see that bitcoin has done around 200x better performance than gold, and bitcoin has gone from just below 0.1 ounces of gold to 20 ounces of gold currently.. which continues to show the direction that we are going and likely to continue to go.. you can believe it or not. and you can invest accordingly.. hopefully you are not going to put very much value into gold relative to bitcoin, perhaps 10% of the size of your BTC holdings at most...and even that is likely to be a losing portion of your portfolio, but if you feel like hedging into gold maybe limit that size to 10% or less...  and surely in the end these are personal choices and you are free to do what you like, including having fun staying poor.

https://www.longtermtrends.net/bitcoin-vs-gold/


First of all, how many times do I have to repeat myself that we are talking about bitcoin here, not crypto.  Sure, there is no problem to weave crypto into the topic to the extent that it might be relevant to make certain points, but the thrust of the discussion is about bitcoin and if you have grievances and/or gripes about bitcoin, then state them clearly in terms of bitcoin rather than speaking in gobbledy gook, and yeah maybe I can infer that you are talking about bitcoin when you say "crypto," but surely it is not as clear as if you were to just use the right word (bitcoin) in order that we might be a bit more clear about what you are talking about.

Second, I don't really have any problem with the idea that some portfolios perform better than others, and portfolio performance is not completely measuring whether the portfolio had been successful in terms of protecting against downside risks...  So sure, I will grant you that  there are needs to mitigate risks; however, you could still mitigate risks and still be invested in bitcoin, and even in 2014, there are ways to get into bitcoin, at even 1% of your investment portfolio, and still you would have had sufficiently mitigated risks... but if you stayed mostly on zero and you traded in and out of bitcoin, you likely fucked up over the past 9-ish years.

A mere $35 per week (right around $5 per day) over the past 9.5 years would have resulted in right around $17.5k invested and an accumulation of right around 14.7 BTC (average cost per BTC of right around $2,400 and current value of $643k.. which is right around 37x difference between the amount invested and the current value ($643k/$17.5k)), and surely the amount would have been potentially reasonable, and sure if you have a smaller budget then the amount could be adjusted to your budget in order to recognize and appreciate that there is power in long term investing that that might even allow for the mitigation of risks by investing ONLY an amount that is fairly easily within your budget.


I probably already sufficiently and adequately addressed this, and surely people have differing opinions on when, or into what, and/or how much to diversify, so I am not against the idea of diversification.

For example, there is likely no need to diversify for the mere sake of it, if someone is starting out investing $35 per week, there may well be no need to diversify until reaching a certain level of investment.  Also before anyone should invest at all, it is likely better to make sure he builds an emergency fund that is 3 to 6 months of income and/or expenses, and having an emergency fund is a form of diversification; however, with bitcoin, I frequently suggest that people get started right away, and they can build their emergency fund at the same time that they are investing into bitcoin... so there could be some challenges with a person who might ONLY have around $35 per week of extra income to both build his emergency fund and his BTC investment at the same time.

Of course if you already have an investment portfolio that is about 25% to 5x the size of your annual income/expenses, then you are are at more luxury to start to diversify, and at what point would it be justified to start to diversify is a discretionary question, and then we get into what to diversify into and how much into each.. NO problem with those ideas, but people are still not going to necessarily agree on the specifics, yet I am going to argue to the death that diversification is not necessary for a brand new investor, and he may even be at liberty and even in a better position to not be diversifying until at least getting to a place in which his investment portfolio is reaching at least 25% of his annual income/expenses.

1. Let's get to the FACTS ? "but there are plenty of reasons to see that bitcoin is way stronger than gold in terms of each of the monetary characteristics... including in the neighborhood of 1,000x better." - please state the arguments that will prove your PROPOSAL ?

2. "If you are in cryptocurrency then you are pretty vague about what you are in and what you are talking about.
here we are talking about bitcoin, so maybe you would like to focus your selfie a wee bit moar better?
So maybe you want to clarify... Have you been in bitcoin since 2014?  Are you still in bitcoin? And can you show me where on the doll that bitcoin has hurt you?"
Let's emphasize your assumptions with the phrase "and it seems to me that" first, and then your fantasy. Otherwise it looks like a narrative that you are just trying to attribute to me

I answer - personally I have NOT lost, because I approach the question from the point of view of an investor who assesses risks. Moreover, I have earned money, and very well. And I continue to earn. But the problem is that 99% of ordinary people do not behave this way, unfortunately. if everyone were smart - everyone would earn, but as practice has shown - only a few people earn money on crypto.

3. "There is no need to diversify into gold ... especially if you have bitcoin. there is also no need to diversify into shitcoins...."

Diversification is one of the key rules for life and not only for investors. Anything that has potential can be a diversified asset. Anything you can get your hands on that is investable can and should be used to create a diversified portfolio. This is normal. Of course, I agree that you shouldn't spread yourself across 100500 assets. I have chosen a limited list of assets for myself - real estate, currencies, gold, cryptocurrencies (which in the medium term have the potential to grow) and some others. And this model shows itself very well, even in my country where the economy is unstable, because my country is now suffering from a terrorist war unleashed by a neighboring state.

Everyone can easily see how much knowledge and insight Michael Saylor has on the context of crypto currency mostly BTC, with his thought showing an appreciation for BTC. Well, he is a business CEO and is more than just a believer, but an investor in the crypto currency market.
I agree that cryptocurrency needs to be properly regulated so as more countries would allow it be a legal tender for transactions rather than it being termed as a tool for money launderers and terrorists elements. With such directional discussion, we hope to see the crypto market being more stable and less volatile, giving value in return for its decentralized and private nature of which makes many investors DCA rather than save their funds in the local banks.

BTC is still the leader in the cryptocurrencies movement because the management and developers are trying so much more to enact some regulations and initiatives to steady its vision of making it a profitable currency for both trading, certain transactional payments and a number one investment choice for good returns and security.
Michael understands this and we got to appreciate that he understands what is wanted and can say it without biase of belief.

Yes and TYI all bunisseses are conducted to create a profit.
Binance is, and Binance is able to pay a whooping fine over 4 000 0000 0000 US$.

We need sincere celebrities like Michael Saylor who are diehard proponents of Bitcoin to keep spreading the news about Bitcoin. We all know that institutional investors are in the Bitcoin space to make a profit but it also affects the price positively. We need this support in the bitcoin system but there is scepticism that institutional investors are driving the Bitcoin space to centralisation.

Banks are profit-making organisations that will accept any business that will bring more gains. Banks in my country were comfortable with crypto transactions until the government came up with draconian legislation that banned them from dealing with cryptocurrencies. So I agree that banks are not anti Bitcoin but they just have to respect the laws of the country.   

​I don't think that banks are anti crypto. They are just afraid of the pressure a government can give them.

Do you think that banks are against cash payments into bank accounts? They gladly would take millions if not for the government which would do something against them. If you have a licence, which moves money, employs thousands of people you just need to be careful.

Seeing how the ordinals are still in existence because we're so afraid of what the miners are going to do if we remove it says something about cooperation, bitcoin is just too profitable for some people that they don't like the idea of this even though they're still probably going to get more out of it if it comes to be, and there's also the anti-bitcoin institutions like banks and investment companies that will be trying to fight bitcoin from becoming a big thing that will eclipse them and the governments of many countries still resisting since they don't like the idea that there's financial freedom for people without their help or intervention.

Bitcoin doesn't need a marketing department but if no one what Michael Saylor does, Bitcoin may be less known, which would mean less market participants, which would mean less price. Same goes as not having fiat proxies, like ETFs, or MSTR itself, which I believe is better than any ETF. Michael Saylor uses debt in a great way, borrows at very low interest, buys BTC, and increases the holdings of BTC of their company. Instead of charging you management fees diluting your BTC exposure, he increases it. This guy is great and is putting his money where his mouth is. He isn't bluffing, and he gets BTC. As a result, he does great marketing for BTC while helping the price. There's also nothing wrong about being on BTC to hold and see the price increase, that is a legit use case, basically the most basic one.

That may well be your perspective in regards to my way of framing matters, and I have plenty of posts and even fairly organized information regarding my various theories of bitcoin and its price dynamics, and I even seemed to have explained it well enough for you in such a way that I don't need to explain any further than I already have.

Another thing, whether or not the specifics are correct likely does not matter very much, so there is no real need to get caught up in academic level justifications of the magnitude of the difference in value between bitcoin and gold, and we can even see that since bitcoin has been in existence (and we do not even need to go back to its 2009 beginnings or 2010 when it first started to realize some monetary value), but instead we might even start from something like early 2012 when bitcoin had a spot price of around $4, and if we go from there, we can see that bitcoin has been fairly consistency increasing in value compared to gold, and sure there have been ups and downs along the way, but directionally, it should be fairly clear to an overwhelming number of folks who have been paying attention to the space (rather than in their own fantasies that deny the value and/or the price direction of bitcoin) that bitcoin has been and will likely continue to eat gold's lunch, even though the magnitude and intensity in which bitcoin continues to eat gold's lunch might well be a bit of speculation, but there are plenty of reasons to see that bitcoin is way stronger than gold in terms of each of the monetary characteristics.. including in the neighborhood of 1,000x better.

Do you happen to know the monetary characteristics of verifiablity/recognizability, scarcity, transportability/portability, unit of account, divisibility (and sure there are some others, too, such as the use of third parties and expenses in using it)?

Do you happen to know that right now the world has around $900 Trillion in various asset classes and money that represents bitcoin's addressable market?  and gold is about $12 trillion of that and bitcoin is right around $0.7 trillion... yet at the same time, the addressable market is likely going to increase in the future, including what bitcoin brings to the table and we are likely quite easily able to imagine a future world in which bitcoin's addressable market is $2.1 quadrillion or more, which is already more than 1,000 times greater than gold's current valuation, and I really doubt that gold is going to end absorbing that addressable market, especially since gold had already had opportunities to gain in market share and to increase it's addressable market, yet gold does not even seem to be better than fiat and the various ways that fiat systems have been able to suppress gold over the last 50 years, in spite of your chart trying to show how wonderful gold has been since 1971.. which seems to be more of a fantasy in regards to golds future potential than anything.


If you are in cryptocurrency then you are pretty vague about what you are in and what you are talking about. 

here we are talking about bitcoin, so maybe you would like to focus your selfie a wee bit moar better?

So maybe you want to clarify... Have you been in bitcoin since 2014?  Are you still in bitcoin?   And can you show me where on the doll that bitcoin has hurt you?


There is no need to diversify into gold.. especially if you have bitcoin.  there is also no need to diversify into shitcoins.

So yeah, if you are referring to diversification of real world assets, then traditionally those would be considered to be equities, property, bonds, commodities and cash or cash equivalents.  If you are a new investor, you also may not need to diversify until maybe you build your investment portfolio and/or your savings up to a certain high enough level in which it starts to make sense to diversify, whether that is 25%, 50%, 100% or even 200% of your annual salary/expenses or some other level would be somewhat of a discretionary consideration and it makes more sense to diversify the larger amount of wealth that you have in your investment portfolio, but there is no reason to diversify for the mere sake of diversification, so a brand new investor into bitcoin, may well start investing into bitcoin and cash, and so likely with any investment there is a need to have an emergency fund of 3-6 months when embarking on investing and frequently there can be needs to get debt into a meaningful place, such as eliminating some of the debt that charges high percentages,

and so if someone just hears about bitcoin, they still might want to get started investing into it right away (which I suggest to be a good idea), but at the same time, they likely are  going to need to make sure that they get other aspects of their finances and psychology in order in order that they can be aggressive as they are able to be without recking themselves (and/or without putting their finances at risk).  In any event diversification for the mere sake of diversification is not necessarily a good idea, and probably not a good idea until a person gets to stage of having some decent sized investment portfolio, and there is no reason to actually not get started investing in bitcoin while they are getting their shit together and then focusing mostly on bitcoin while they are building up to a state of affairs in which diversification is starting to seem more justifiable rather than engaging in diversification merely because it sounds like a great buzz word and they don't know what the fuck they are doing so they merely diversify for the mere sake of diversifying.. 

 

0. - with that question I take it the question is closed ?

1. "I am not going to back up my assertion that bitcoin is around 1,000x or more valuable than gold." - then you should write - I have a FANTASY that bitcoin is 1000x better than gold If there is no argument - it is called a fantasy or a dream

2. "Sure it is.  But is it still your choice regarding what position size you take, if any, and yeah if you end up choosing not to get into bitcoin and staying on zero, then you probably are not choosing correctly, and you are free to do what you like.... and also to have fun staying poor, too." - you are so brave to paint my story as if you were my close friend ))))) But again, start such sentences with the phrase "I assume". I've been in cryptocurrency since 2014. Investing, accumulating, earning from it and not badly. So your assumptions are "not even in the target"

3. "About stupid and poor" - again your morbid fantasies Both charts show the REAL value of an asset in the real world, not the fairy tale world. At the same time you again make an incomprehensible assumption that I invest in gold. I take it the word "diversification of investments" is not familiar to you ?

I am not going to back up my assertion that bitcoin is around 1,000x or more valuable than gold.  You can choose to buy bitcoin or not, and the fact that it may well take 30 to 200 years to play out means that it is not any kind of a short-term guess, assumption, conjecture, speculation... .but if any of us have ideas of directionally where bitcoin is likely to go then we are better able to prepare, and we can see some of the historical support for the upward trajectory, even though there certainly are not any guarantees, and I have no need or reason to back up anything that I am saying.  You, as an individual, company or government, can choose to invest into bitcoin if you like or you can choose to refrain. You can also choose your position size in accordance with your own situation, and hopefully you are not so dumb as to not get off zero, so even if you are skeptical of bitcoin, it is likely best to get off zero, even though I frequently suggest to be as aggressive as you can without causing yourself to get reckt.



Sure it is.  But is it still your choice regarding what position size you take, if any, and yeah if you end up choosing not to get into bitcoin and staying on zero, then you probably are not choosing correctly, and you are free to do what you like.. and also to have fun staying poor, too.


Yes, you can choose to be dumb and choose to be in gold, and have fun staying poor.   Your first chart ONLY goes back to 2018 and shows bitcoin USD pairs, and your second chart shows gold dollar pair and tries to suggest gold is better than bitcoin because it has a longer history, and your chart going back to the 70s, but I already showed you the gold and bitcon pairs and you can go back and see that bitcoin is largely eating gold's lunch and likely will continue to do so.. and you likely don't even need to get involved in gold, except people who are already used to gold like to stick with it, even though it has been a loser compared to bitcoin and is likely going to continue to be a loser compared to bitcoin.. but you can do whatever you like in terms of holding gold, and sure maybe gold will do better than the dollar, but it has not really done very well compared to the dollar since 2011.. so kind of sucks to have been in gold during that time, and maybe it will do better in the future compared to the dollar, but probably not as good as bitcoin is likely to do.. buy hey, whatever do what you like.


Oh gawd WillyAp you are even devolving into even dumber claims throwing litecoin into the mix.    I am going to stick to what I already said. I see no reason to engage with your seemingly dumbness, and if you do not either understand and/or appreciate bitcoin as a good investment and/or you are getting distracted by some likely short-to-medium term fee issues in bitcoin that that is on you, and you can also have fun staying poor, if you believe that litecoin is going to be your savior... let's check back in 5-10 years, whether we are talking your getting involved in shitcoins and/or failing to invest into bitcoin and/or DrBeer's distraction into gold... and maybe both of you come from similar but different bitcoin hating schools, shitcoin pumpers and/or whaver denial distractions that might even be pretty well felt in the next couple of years, if you have failed and refused to adequately and sufficiently prepare your portfolios for the potential of bitcoin going up.

Well how wrong can one be. The very 1st sentence of the Abstract says it all  A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Purely P2P lets not second guess any further, a P2P, Person to Person tool is the true intent of Cryptos 1st Currency.
No trading, not taking over the world, topple the US or anthing else
 
Most are here due to money value and its raise. Which is also its downfall once we look at fees.
There Litecoin is the better Bitcoin jejeje
 

1. Sorry - is this your suggestion?

If you haven’t guessed, it was me who answered this phrase

2. This is your guess. The only thing you can offer as “proof” right now is that NOW 1 Bitcoin is worth more than 1 ounce of gold. But this is NOW. Regarding the ASSUMPTION that Bitcoin is 1000 times better than gold - can I ask a simple question? Give an economic justification for the price/benefits of Bitcoin, in relation to the real price of this asset?

3. The price of Bitcoin is also speculative and manipulative.

4. We can use graphs for a long time. There will be only one answer - gold has a more stable growing chart. I'm just providing historical data.



[ /url]

Great read. Saylor is on the money but everyone should be aware that he is speaking long term. Short term, so much can happen because of some of the flaws that he mentioned, such as the hundreds of unregulated exchanges, the opaque stable coins, the lack of regulations, etc.

Whales will continue to take advantage of this over the near term. There's no doubt about it.

One thing I think is important to facilitate this change is the creation of a bitcoin-mainnet decentralized exchange with the blockchain that connects the government sponsored fiat stablecoin chain. After that, goodbye stablecoins, margin/unregistered exchanges, etc


Yes, he would have said UST, referring to Terra Luna's stablecoin, that collapsed in spectacular fashion.

I don't know.  You tell me. It's the area that you seem to want to talk about, and surely it would be nice if we were able to somehow relate the discussion to the topic of the thread.


Yep.. It is an estimate, and I am not even suggesting that the BTC vs gold pair would reach those numbers until some time down the road maybe 30 years at the soonest, but it could take between 100 and 200 years, perhaps?  there are a lot of variables that can affect relative BTC to gold prices, and one of the reasons for me bringing up gold is that we might be able to determine a longer history of value in order to make comparisons (as compared with fiat), and sure maybe there are some real world goods that we could compare too, such as how many 1,000 pound cows we might be able to buy for 1 bitcoin... or how many 3 lb roasting chickens, or barrels of crude oil.


We are not talking about shitcoins here.

If you meant to talk about bitcoin, then o.k, at least you are close to being on topic.


Bitcoin is the same, except it is right around 1,000x better than gold, even though it has a much shorter history, merely coming upon 15 years of existence in January.


I already provided that chart in my earlier post, and it appears that bitcoin is ongoingly appreciating relative to gold.

https://www.longtermtrends.net/bitcoin-vs-gold/

Bitcoin went over 1 ounce of gold in 2017, and then it got up to nearly 40 ounces of gold in the various 2021 peaks, and then it went back down to nearly 10 ounces in late 2022, and now it it bouncing around 20 ounces currently as I type this post, and it is likely going to get way past 100s of ounces in the fairly near future.. or at least in the next 4-10 years or so.. I am not going to claim that I know exactly how the BTC versus gold price dynamics are going to play out, but since bitcoin is still about 1/20th the value of gold, that means that bitcoin has around 20,000x to go up, relative to gold in the coming 30 to 200 years or so.. and yeah, no guarantees, even though any of us with eyeballs and a brain should be able to recognize and appreciate the direction.


I am talking about the 200-week moving average, the 400 day  moving average would only be the equivalent of the 60 week moving average, so it's timeframe is too short in order to have longer term meaning. 

You likely are going to be able to learn more about what is going on with bitcoin by looking in longer trends such as 4 years or longer rather than getting caught up in looking at price movements (or whatever else) in terms of trends that are right around 1 year because  that can be quite misleading.. especially since bitcoin has already been shown to historically have had 4 year cycles, and sure I am not even suggesting that 4 year cycles are guaranteed to continue, but they are way more accurate and informative to look at as compared to looking at 1 or 2 year trends that could be quite misleading and out of context.


Probably more and more people are learning about bitcoin, but I cannot really know or say how long it is going to take for bitcoin to be accepted in more locations and for more products, and even in El Salvador apparently they still ONLY have low levels of adoption, even though quite a few of the regulatory barriers have been removed that might exist in some other jurisdictions... but at the same time, there are pockets of communities in which bitcoin is widely adopted, and it is likely that those kinds of pockets are gong to continue to grow.. even though sometimes it can be difficult to measure and appreciate some of the growth dynamics.. including maybe measuring the growth in the various (7) network effects as outlined by Trace Mayer.


You are likely lacking in investigatory skills if you believe that you have to convert bitcoin to fiat prior to being able to use it, and sure there are going to be quite a few folks who do convert into bitcoin from fiat and out of bitcoin to fiat, but there are also individuals who earn bitcoin and who send bitcoin to others without touching fiat... and no those peer to peer networks are not necessarily widespread, yet.

I'll admit I never read the whitepaper for bitcoin, but it's my understanding that Satoshi did intend that bitcoin become a form of currency, which would kinda-sorta imply that one of its primary uses would be to buy things with it.  That certainly hasn't been its primary appeal to people, but people also use currency as savings too, right?  That's where things become grey, because currency doesn't fluctuate in value as much as bitcoin does, and that's the big reason people the latter as an investment.  Well, that and the fact that fiat works just fine for people and the average person isn't looking for a replacement.

MS is a bitcoin evangelist if we have the same definition of the word.  What he shouldn't be treated as is a bitcoin guru and--I agree--a mentor or a figurehead, spokesperson, whatever.  He's definitely a huge bitcoin supporter, and for that he's got my respect.  That and that only, because I don't know much else about him aside from the fact that he's the CEO of MSTR.  But as I've said before, his company's value now very much hinges on what bitcoin does, and that wasn't originally in MSTR's business plan.  For his sake (and for the rest of us, too) I hope bitcoin doesn't tank.  I've also said that before and the company didn't implode, so who knows.

1. We're talking about completely different things. Corruption and totalitarianism are completely different entities if we are talking about total control of the media and the possibility or not of access to real information. I understand both the idea of outrageous run away inflation and the fact that USA is attempting to cover up the inflation numbers in order to attempt to camouflage the ongoing depreciation and debasement of the dollar" - the issue here is about COVERING up real information by using power and leverage over free media. What does this have to do with corruption ?
2- That bitcoin is 1000 times more valuable than gold is your assumption. The price of cryptocurrencies, for the umpteenth time, is formed by purely speculative market and manipulation. Gold, unlike bitcoin, is recognized as an asset to preserve value, both in good times and in difficult times. It is enough to look at the chart of the price of these two assets in relation to crises - and it will be immediately obvious - what people invest money in unstable times.
3. "200-week moving average it continuously moves up" - I can show a 400-day moving down chart, from 2018. Or a two-year downward moving chart, from 2021. The latter is very telling - no one in the world has decided to buy bitcoin en masse until 23, as the chart confirms.
4. "You are quite unclear here." - It will be possible to talk about a non-fiat world only when at least 30-40 products on earth will be priced in bitcoin and it will be the official means of payment.  So yes, the example is for today's world.
5. So far, I consider bitcoin and some altcoins as an investment instrument with its own peculiarities. Yes. Because for real everyday life I cannot use bitcoin without converting it into fiat bills to buy goods and services.

Are you really saying anything?  Sure the degree and the extent to which there is corruption in countries varies, and the ways in which various kinds of corruption is hidden also varies, including that some of the current corruption involves ways of trying to control information, but we still have the physical world, and we still have various values in the physical world, even though it can take a decently long time for people to figure out that bitcoin is about 1,000x more valuable than gold, but we have the relative prices moving in that direction... but still bitcoin is about 1/20th the price of gold when we are referring to the respective market caps of bitcoin versus gold.


Perhaps we cannot completely discard the role of shitcoins, but yeah bitcoin ends up being a base, and there will end up being transactions at various other levels that will also likely include several shitcoins, in terms of some of the transactions and then also sometimes some of the distractions into various scam products, ponzi schemes and those various ways in which people will likely get distracted into various inferior products.


No one is saying that, but if you look at the 200-week moving average it continuously moves up.  You can look at my entry-level fuck you status chart that shows both the present and the future projections that I attempt to formulate fairly conservatively, but even my own attempt at conservatism could end up being too optimistic because there surely are no guarantees, but the 200-week moving average is a bottom measurement (relatively speaking, so far), a lagging indicator, and something that largely averages out the BTC price over the past 4 years.. ... so there has always been a ongoing grind UPpity, and the lowest period of UPplty has been the last 18 months or so, in which the 200-week moving average has ONLY moved up around 10% for each of the 6 month periods (which equates to 20% annually), and so yeah, I would expect the 200-week moving average to increasingly gravitate towards a lower and lower upward slope, and that's much of the reason that my future projections of it's upward slope is flattening out towards something like 3-6% per year.. which also may be too optimistic.. I am not sure.


You are quite unclear here.  You seem to be talking about the fiat world.  Even though there are no guarantees that bitcoin is going to continue to go up in value, so far bitcoin has continued to go up in value, so it purchases more and more and more.  And, yes, at the same time most products and even services should be going down in value because of various efficiencies in production (consider the ideas of Jeff Booth, the Price of tomorrow), but fiat perverts a lot of the perceptions of these kinds of valuations because we perceive goods and services to be going up in price, even though they don't because the money is actually perverted to create such impressions.. and the perversion of value has likely gotten worse and worse and worse and worse..

Anyhow, maybe you can try to explain your seemingly nonsensical assertion (above).


You are correct that the better your discretionary income situation, the easier it is for you to save and benefit directly by bitcoin, but people can still benefit if they have lower levels of discretionary income and they can also benefit from the various ways in which bitcoin contributes towards making monetary systems more honest, so if monetary systems do not try to make themselves honest in ways like bitcoin, they are going to continue to lose out to bitcoin.


Well no one should be buying bitcoin with expectations of profits with money that they need within the next 4-10 years or more for their expenses.... including that everyone should also continue to maintain an emergency fund... so discretionary income is money that you do not need right away, and if you are using non-discretionary money to invest, then you are not managing your finances in a prudent way.  Yes.. bitcoin can serve as both an investment vehicle and as a transactional vehicle, but if you are planning to make money off of bitcoin in the short term there are no guarantees that the price is going to move in your direction for the next 4-10 years or longer, but still the bitcoin has been the best long term investment amongst broad swaths of the world's population (if it is known how to get in and to manage it), and there is no infoirmation that bitcoin is worsening rather than improving in the strength of its investment thesis.


I think that both of you are getting off-track in your framing or even trying to suggest one thing - even though I think that fillippone was getting at bitcoin's sound money angle and you (WillyAp) seem to be distracted into the bullshit BIG blocker talking points about buying coffees with bitcoin .. Surely, bitcoin's history has been showing it to have a broad set of use cases, but the sound money (and strong store of value) seems to be the back-bone of why anyone would be incentivized to want to receive bitcoin - in the peer to peer transaction sense..    Surely, in current times there are difficulties (and more and more obstacles) in transacting with bitcoin in a peer to peer sense, and some of the distractions and barriers might even relate to various attempts to attack bitcoin being able to be transacted freely, and surely a decent number of people get exposure to bitcoin prices through their buying it on exchanges and then also using various other third-party services to hold and/or to transact with bitcoin - while at the same time, there seems to be a decently large number of coins that are kept in private wallets rather than being held on third party services.  Some of the third-party services allow for the moving of coins into private wallets, and some of them serve as traps for the coins (so the client may or may not realize that they likely do not legally own the bitcoin that they are holding in an overwhelming majority of those third-party services, to the extent that they care beyond wanting to get exposure to BTC prices), and surely if some of the coins that get moved into private wallet are not moving, either, even if they are safer and also more self-sovereign, then we might wonder how many of those privately-held coins are still capable of being moved, but even the non-capability of coins to move does not break bitcoin, but instead makes the remaining coins (that can be moved) towards being more valuable.

There are no doubts that bitcoiners are going to continue to have challenges in terms of the adoption of various ways to self-custody their coins and also ways to transact in their coins in peer to peer manners, and even the creation and facilitation of various bitcoin circular economies in which fiat does not need to be touched.

Here we go

Yes there are many more use cases but the decentral ideal is P2P.
To set everything into a blockchain as the web3 theory is daydreaming.

1. In the US, the power structure is such that it is not possible to hide real data, as there is quite strong opposition between the two key parties, which use such data to "fight" their competitors. Hiding and manipulating data is possible only in countries with totalitarian or close to totalitarian regimes..... And as you know - they officially classify many indicators - from the volume of natural resources extraction, to the real state of affairs with gold and currency reserves of central banks.

2. Such a picture can take place only in the case of global recognition of cryptocurrencies. If you look at the volatility of bitcoin - yes, there will POSSIBLY be spikes up to the levels you mentioned. But it will not be a guaranteed linearly rising rate. Today you have 1 bitcoin 1 lambo, and then 3 years later you have a used volkswagen And I will add - for investors working "for a long" distance - it is still profitable. Such investors can wait 3-4 years and get x10 for example. But for the average person such a scheme of bitcoin ownership, with, I will remind you again about volatility, is not acceptable. If he bought bitcoin for 60.000 today, and in 3 months the price became 18.000, he will be upset, to put it mildly, because he can not wait 3 years for growth, and he has to feed his family today....  

this is the reality with so many people and as a person I had this misconception in the first place because I initially felt that bitcoin is the same as crypto and to be really honest I didn't even know the difference between bitcoin and other cryptocureency. This ignorance is caused by lack of the proper knowledge and sometimes getting the knowledge from the wrong source which could be be false and misleading. It was through this forum I got to learn about bitcoin and got the understanding of it uniqueness compared to other shitty coin that's fills up the whole crypto network.

This is a detailed and informative video and watching it has divine me a better understanding of so many things.

right now, many sees bitcoin as an investment and nothing else which i think makes sense because right now not everyone uses bitcoin so it’s quite unreasonable to use it for your daily transactions especially with its high transaction fees

Micheal Salyor talking about it will attract more investors maybe even change those who don’t understand bitcoin into finally being interested

Indeed, the presence of these new market players will increase liquidity and reduce volatility and Investors' fear of missing out seems to have turned into a fear of not getting out and People are spending some real money in the game Although the impact on bitcoin is not yet clear.

I think that is the porpos of many investors. The primary motive of every investor is to make profit and nothing more. So saying his only concern about the value seems that he should have thinked of other factors which I don't know. I think the number of bitcoin held by micro strategy is the reason behind Why most investors are clamouring to have a slice of Bitcoin. I think his investment plan has changed the motive of many investors who literarily invest in physical asset than a digital asset like Bitcoin. Now Michael j sailor has becomes talk of the day by almos all  investors. His investment on bitcoin is an eye opener to many who never knew bitcoin could be so profitable to that extent. In all investment micro strategy had, bitcoin investment was the only one that made them came to lam light. and that was the hardest decision tooked by Michael j sailor. Now to many newbie, micro strategy seam to be like  a strategy of investment, not knowing that it's a company. So I think his investment plan brought more investors to Bitcoin and Making Bitcoin more popular. One of the factor of a successful project is the amount of investors they have. Checking on Bitcoin corrently it has millions of investors with billions of dollar investment.

Which is the "use of a crypto currency is the one that is intended"?
I am perfectly fine with Micheal Saylor and whichever use he wants to do with this coins.
I am certainly less ok with people looking at MS as a mentor, or a Bitcoin evangelist
A figure that we need to follow in order for Bitcoin to succeed. No, bitcoin doesn't need  a marketing department.

The only thing  Micheal Salyor is after is the raise its value.
He doesn't wish to use a crypto currency as its intended, he wants more value.
That is the tenor of many, the complaint goes: its value is too little.

Spot on. I tried to summarise the sentence with a little bit of freedom, but you are right.
Wondering if Microstrategy will update their reporting standards already in the next EOY reports. Given their bitcoin stash is now in the money I wouldn't know it.
Italian companies for example, seeks to avoid showing profit because... you get taxed for it!


I have a 100 trillion dollar note (Zimbabwe dollars) of course, just to remember myself of the risk of debasing.

We can still attempt to make our projections in terms of today's dollars, even though yes, I understand both the idea of outrageous run away inflation and the fact that USA is attempting to cover up the inflation numbers in order to attempt to camouflage the ongoing depreciation and debasement of the dollar.

At the same time, we can still attempt to project ahead using "today's dollars" and yeah of course, the numbers will end up looking BIGGER in future dollars because the debasement is ongoing, and seeming inevitable, and mostly just a matter of degree rather than a matter of whether. but still, personally, I prefer attempting to project out in terms of today's dollars (even though I know in the future the actual nominal amount is likely to be quite different.. but why should I give any shits if I am trying to compare whether one bitcoin might by me 1/5th of a lamborghini today, but then in a year or two I may well be able to get 1 or 2 of the lamborghini with similar features for the same 1 BTC, and then in 10 years I may be able to get 50 or 100 of those similar lamborghinis for the same 1 BTC.  So yeah the dollar value of the lamborghini may have changed a lot more, but I am still trying to measure in today's dollars in regards to how my BTC might perform.

We could also consider gold's value as compared to BTC, even though gold seems to have had been pretty damned flat in the last more than 10 years since bitcoin has been eating its lunch.  ..

https://www.longtermtrends.net/bitcoin-vs-gold/

Is it?
You have no idea how it is when you paying 4 million $ for an hamburger.
Ask Venezuelans how its was with eliminated 14 zeros from their currency.
https://en.mercopress.com/2021/08/06/in-thirteen-years-venezuela-has-eliminated-14-zeroes-from-the-bolivar-currency

I think that the below statement from the article more clearly states what you might have been wanting to say in your last sentence.


Essentially public companies have to apply the new rules after December 15, 2024, but they are allowed to adopt and apply the new rules earlier.. which likely means that any public company that holds significant amounts of bitcoin may well already be wanting to apply the new rules to any reports that they make about their companies finances from here on out (because they can and because the new rule is better and more accurate in terms of showing actual value as compared with the old rule).

Finally, as the news was much anticipated, the FASB amended the accounting rules companies must follow when adding Digital assets on their balance sheets.

Standards Board Approves Long-Sought Change in Crypto Accounting Rules


Having a mark to market pricing approach means the price discovery of the asset is efficient, meaning that the asset class is investable. Current standards actually tried to prevent swings in balance sheets trough a very cautious approach, that on the other hands potentially could lead to swings upon investment unwind.
This new rules is much more informative of the true value of the investment in the balance sheet, making it more transparent to the investor.

New rules will come in effect from 2025, but companies can anticipate the rule in 2024.

I personally believe that when making predictions in regards to future prices, it is much better to attempt to presume the value in current dollars and/or presume a low level of debasement (even though surely many of us realize that various status quo fiat systems have seemed to have had gotten themselves into such a pickle that is it is likely that debasement is not going to end up playing out in modest kinds of ways)..

In other words, what I am trying to say is that we should be attempting to project forward in terms of real world values rather than in nominal values... even though it might sometimes be difficult to determine if we are being various accurate in terms of our denominations of values.. such as how much a shopping cart full of groceries costs and what is the quality of the groceries, are we talking about actual real food versus artificial imitation food products... and yeah there are a lot of ways of attempting to measure prices outside of fiat currencies, even though that has been our common reference, but we are getting into situations in which we know we cannot really count on the dollar from even greater levels of outrageousness in its level of debasement, as contrasted with previous decades.

The reason leverage might reduce is to do with the dollar and deficit debt issuance, so long as thats around then there is an excess supply of dollars leading to possible excessive lending.  I dont see its to do with regulation exactly with the people in control of dollar have so little self control, BTC is global not bound to one country but its undeniable dollar tides and flows will have this influence.
   I see its likely the future is less regulatory if Dollar does decline, its hard to predict when chaos is quite likely if the world reserve currency should decline especially.  I cant see us switching to any other country alternative especially and neither can others I guess or we'd not be so lopsided to constantly track dollar as the main world currency and source of liquidity world wide.
  A ten piece plan is nice but I presume chaos not an ordered progression like we're going shopping and we'll get everything precisely measured as desired, you will get what you are given is my experience in life generally :p

Yes that's absolutely correct. If bitcoin reaches it ATH in 2025 then calculation or analysis can start. I didn't understand your absumption earlier but now I can understand your prio on bitcoin. If the all time high is achieved to about $80k, a little pumps on bitcoin would increase massively due to higher price. For example if bitcoin is on early stage of $30k %25 push might be a result of about $37.5k but if the price of bitcoin is at the price of $500k %35 growth will also pump to about $675k that will make it more realistic. With my explanation have I gotten your absumption right?

Thats actually correct. I see the reason to why Michael J saylor's analysis might not even meet up the ATH by 2025 %15 - %20 sounds unrealistic because for bitcoin to achieve it's ATH it requires a massive push %100 and above.

For ease of reference, I have added how much of a price rise each of the categories would constitute in terms of using a $30k BTC price as a jumping off base (starting point for the run), and it seems to me that the main thing that I am assuming is that BTC prices will reach an ATH prior to the end of 2025, so then if it ends up that we get a new ATH prior to the end of 2025, then at least the lowest end of the ranges ends up being met. .By the way,  after rethinking this matter, I am would ONLY give around 70% to 80% odds of the BTC price reaching new ATHs by the end of 2025, so even in my own head, my presumption has around 20% to 30% odds of not even being met. 

Nonetheless, if the presumption is met and a new ATH is reached prior to the end of 2025, then the next question is merely a matter of how optimistic is too optimistic and thus becoming too unrealistic from your point of view. 

It also seems to me that the earlier that BTC prices breaches into new ATH territory, then some of the upper price ranges become more realistic.

At this time, I consider my timeline and by outline of various price ranges and even my assigning of odds to be quite a bit more realistic than the narrowness of Saylor's prediction.. even though surely he could end up being right but maybe he is ONLY in the ballpark of 15% to 20% odds of being correct, and my chart covers way more possible outcomes, but yeah even with mine, we might have to concede that it is may well ONLY be around 70% to 80% odds that we will even reach a new ATH prior to the end of 2025, so the mere assumption of reaching a new ATH prior to the end of 2025 is not a 100% given.

He’s such a breath of fresh air & will be seen as a genius within a couple of years. Reports say he is currently in $1,000,000,000 of unrealised profit with his/MSTR bitcoin holdings. Can you imagine what he will be worth in a couple of years. When, as is expected, bitcoin goes to over $100,000 he will be one of the richest men in the world. It’s fascinating to see his conviction.

I don think if Michael J saylor is in anyways ambitious obout the future price of bitcoin. Rather being optimistic in bitcoin. Checking from his history I have never seen him being such a person. His love for bitcoin is top notch and had no other intention. I think his 10poin conversation with Emily Chang wasn't because of his selfish desier of his multi-million investment in bitcoin to micro strategy but rather things he finds inportant to improve the growth of bitcoin. Even if all what he said weren't right with many people.

Inflation of a country can never make bitcoin reach it ATH. It can not change anything or makes it reach it ATH or add any much value to bitcoin rather they will be free from hyper inflation if they convert there fiat to BTC.



I don't know how you compunded this, but it's too unrealistic to me, ranging from each percent growth. I might still be a newbie to understand your analysis but I think your absomtion is very high. And unrealistic LoL.

I think that you are a bit negative on bitcoin, and sure it could take a bit of time for the BTC's price to get to $100k and beyond, but I doubt that it is as far out of reach as you are making it out to be...

Do you remember the 3.5x that bitcoin did from April 1, 2019 to June 29, 2019 (from $4,200 to $13,880)?  Well I doubt that Bitcoin's investment thesis and/or fundamentals or the various kinds of shortage of liquid bitcoin for sale is really that much different now as compared to 2019, even if we might be talking about a need to have 10x more interest (financial power) in bitcoin to have it pump from $42,000 to $138,880 in 3 months.. .or maybe it takes longer than that.. but it is not such a low probability event as you seem to be making it out to be, even though sure it may well be less than 10% odds of happening in the coming 6 months or so... but you never know.

Not to get too far off topic, but what do you think about my below numbers that relate to BTC prices until the end of 2025?  Am I being unrealistic? 

I am thinking that I might even be a bit more conservative (and realistic) than Saylor in regards to my timeline and then also the fact that I have various alternative scenarios and also I have odds assigned to each of the price ranges.. so his 10x from today of $370k in a year is quite a ways out there as compared to the way that I am framing it, and I would give his projection something less than 20% odds, maybe even less than 15% odds.. but it is surely not zero odds.. just seems to be a bit too much too soon.

Just since you two happened to mention debasement of fiat in relation to appreciation in bitcoin's price, it makes me think back a few years when I remember writing that in order for bitcoin to hit $10k/$20k/$50k that the global economy would have to be in such a crisis that any celebration of bitcoin's gains would be blunted by the effects of the crisis....and I was so wrong that I don't think I can ever be as wrong about something again.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the strength of fiat, its future, its downfall, whatever, may not be as correlated with demand for bitcoin as you or I think.  Or at least I was proven wrong so badly that I know better than to make predictions like the ones I made years ago (and I forget when those were, but probably around 2015-16).  And while I think it's unlikely bitcoin is going to reach a six-figure valuation anytime soon, what the hell do I know?  Markets have fooled me so many times that I've thrown in the towel and admitted I know nothing about how or why they move the way they do.

But here's hoping Michael Saylor's hexadodecalogue is on the money.

I'm trying to digest this one point. This is a fairly basic point, but actually it is the most important point and also a point that many beginners who have just entered this field do not understand. I wish I could have understood this better earlier too. And this is indeed one of the important things that needs to be said more to overcome everyone's doubts and fears about bitcoin. I admit that MS is exemplary in his very optimistic and unwavering attitude when talking about Bitcoin and the speculation he puts forward for the future.
But sometimes he does exaggerate a little when talking about rapid increases and such. But even so, I agree with almost all the points he put forward. Although sometimes he seems too ambitious about the future price of Bitcoin.

However Bitcoin will indeed be bullish in time. But I don't think the increase will be so fast and drastic as MS is talking about. However, fiat continues to experience a decline in value whether consciously or unconsciously. It's not about a decrease in the value of one currency from country A to country B. But a decrease in the value of the price if bartered with objects that we usually buy and sell. Ah, sorry, it's hard for me to find the words to convey this. I didn't find suitable words.
But this is also what seems to be helping Bitcoin's price increase more quickly. In fact, in some countries there are citizens who trust their assets to be converted to BTC rather than their own country's currency. So in some countries BTC even reaches its own Ath based on that country's currency. Because the inflation rate is quite severe. or hyper inflation.

The fiat currency system is already debasing, so I doubt that we need to presume extraordinary debasement for bitcoin prices to go up 10x in a cycle.. maybe not in a year but in a cycle.. which surely is closer to the 2 years from now range rather than the 1 year from now range.  Of course, we are going to have to try to keep both ideas in our head at the same time regarding how much is bitcoin going up in real terms versus the debasement of the underlying measurement. 

I personally attempt to predict in terms of today's dollars, but that's kind of unrealistic too because if we go to measure in 1 year or 2 year's time, we are going to be using nominal terms that would reflect the relative values at the particular time of measuring, and many times we do not go back and really try to battle out the real term values.. even though we likely can presume that bitcoin's appreciation has outpaced the debasement of the dollar.. especially if we zoom out 5-10 years. and maybe no need to go beyond that even though bitcoin is coming on 15 years of age, but really even arguments of its value 12 or 13 (in 2010 and 2011) years ago might not really be very fair measurements.. but when we get into 2012.. and maybe even more so 2013, there were more and more ways to establish fair market value.. and surely we have financial instruments (and ways to liquidate) still growing and being developed and implemented in the space... even though we have manipulation too. .and some of the gambling practices of entities (3rd parties) not having the coins that they claim to have, and so if they get caught, then that may well be a good thing.. but still is it likely not a problem that is going to go away anytime soon.

Was it already complete or it remained lacking? The previous times he mentioned his decalogue, he provided an octalogue and sometimes a nonalogue. LOL!

Anyway, while I agree with many points in his decalogue, I feel like he's exaggerating in his price prediction of Bitcoin. 12 months from now and Bitcoin already hitting $370,000? Come on, that's not realistic. But, of course, such bullish kind of prediction serves him pretty well.

As to fiat's debasement, whether there's Bitcoin or not, fiat is all about it.

Salor resonated the decalogue in a recent speech at the Australia Crypto Convention:

Bitcoin Boom: Michael Saylor Forecasts 10X Surge in Demand Within a Year, Predicts Multi-Million Dollar Future


The conclusion is always the same:


OF course, getting to these values, would imply the debasement of the corresponding FIAT base currency, in my humble opinion. 

I doubt that Saylor gives any shits about whether or not "crypto" pumps, and he mostly does not talk about crypto, but instead he seems to already know that the tail does not wag the dog, so why consider or frame what's happening or might happen in those kinds of dumb, vague and loosey-goosey terms.

By the way, Saylor seems to recognize and appreciate that crypto is largely an affinity scam against bitcoin, and he has largely made those kinds of statements, including pointing them out to be inferior product, pointing out that bitcoin is far and above anything else in the space in terms of a pristine asset and even acknowledging that a lot of people get distracted into the various snake oil and/or vapor ware of the non-bitcoin products.


You are pointing out such outlier kinds of scenarios fillippone.. and sure your overall point is still valid.

I will still quibble a bit and assert that Saylor has not sold any bitcoin so far, and the one time that anyone can point out to his selling (at the end of 2022, right?) has to do with a situation in which he bought more than he sold, so hardly even a sale in the whole scheme of things.

You might be correct that overall, there might be times in which he sells some bitcoin, inspite of his saying that he is never selling... and there could be times in which he is forced to sell because some 3rd party rug pulls him or some kind of a governmental persecution (forcing of the matter)... but still? 

Your overall point is that whether he sells or not should not matter too much about how anyone chooses to invest in bitcoin or not, even though there could be times in which Saylor ends up becoming bitter and rage-quitting or engaging in some kind of purposeful manipulation of the BTC price because he can, and he does not seem like that kind of a guy, but surely anyone is capable of getting caught too much into their own egos and engaging in seemingly erratic and/or self-serving/self-destructive behaviors based on known or perhaps yet unknown factors.

Who knows? Bitcoin doesn’t need heroes, and you shouldn’t invest in Bitcoin because MS is a hero to you. Don’t trust, verify applies also to other people's intentions.
Sooner or later he will sell more bitcoin, this is inevitable, but I hardly understand hw this should affect your assessment of your investment.

The only proof of his prediction and his belief in his thoughts, will be the move to get a comfortable $1 trillion dollar loan And soon, he will exaggerate this amount to 10 trillion, easily close the loan obligations, repay the loan body, and become a legal trillionaire ! Or to give forecasts is one thing, but to act according to them is not interesting ?
I would rather believe that it was preparation and warming up the masses for the next crypto pump, where skillful manipulators will successfully nab fiat, than the reality that has a real justification.

I think he understood Bitcoin better than many of us out there, and this "decalogue" has been one of the most underestimated statements/cogitations ever.
People are too focused on his DCA, but there's more behind it.
Ultimately, his target is turning Microstrategy into the Berkshire Hathaway of the Bitcoin World. Difficult with an ETF around, but possible.

I cannot recall seeing any Saylor predictions that are overly optimistic, and I doubt that he is really predicting anything that is much different from what other bitcoiners had been saying prior to Saylor's mid-2020 coming onto the bitcoin scene.

In other words, he seems to be a famous person who is very articulate who is saying a lot of the same things that other bitcoiners had already been saying, and I am not even denying that he is likely much more articulate than a large number of previous bitcoiners  who also do not seem to as easily get a large platform as Saylor.

If you recall, Saylor was a pretty damned newbie bitcoiner in August 2020, and he was already getting on all kinds of podcasts and even nation-wide (and international) news outlets from the start - and Saylor even took on a spokesperson's role in regards to bitcoin so he could show us that he was learning along the way, but from the start, Saylor was a pretty quick study in terms of being able to articulate information that was already out there and even coming up with his own analogies and bringing his own smartness into the mix.. and sure maybe he ended up bringing some new ways of looking at bitcoin.. but it is still like he has any more power or ability to see the future than anyone else, except sure there is likely a bit of a magnifying effect to have a number of people working with him (and for him) from the start, and including his choices to put on conferences and to tailor various bitcoin educational materials.

A lot of the early discussions of MSTR's/Saylor's involvement in bitcoin can be seen in fillippone's other thread on the topic.


Well, he was already shown to be a bit wrong in terms of some of the varying ways that he was stocking up on bitcoin, which kind of shows that even rich (and smart people) are not immune from having to go through bitcoin cycles and perhaps even suffer from the manipulation of other (even bigger players) and/or to fail to see certain kinds of overleveraging coming into the bitcoin space and/or tied to the bitcoin space.. so in some sense likely getting caught off guard from the severity of some of the so far 2022 bitcoin price corrections that might even be continuing to hold bitcoin prices down further and for longer than they really should be held down.  

Maybe I am playing off of some of the criticisms that Saylor receives for not really predicting anything that is outside of what many of us already know about bitcoin cycles, which is that they are pretty powerful, and not exactly guaranteed, but fools are likely going to continue to miss out on bitcoin because they either fail/refuse to buy any BTC or to buy enough or they end  up selling too many BTC too soon.

Many of us should appreciate that there is a lot of power with the likelihood of being directionally correct with bitcoin historically and likely the ongoing likelihood of continuing to be directionally correct without really exactly being able to guarantee any kind of exact timeline.. and merely if bitcoin is continuing to appreciate at least higher than the dollar is losing its value then it is doing its job, and there is additional icing on the cake if bitcoin ends up also beating other real property assets.. because of bitcoin's being a kind of real property that is way more moveable, and surely that is something that Saylor continues to repeat, and there really is no way that he can be wrong about his description of what bitcoin is, but at the same time, doesn't necessarily mean that he is going to get any kind of the timing correct.. or that he can take credit if he ends up being correct..

.....even though many of us who have bitcoin and who have continued to have bitcoin are likely getting some level of glee when we see bitcoin prices going up and then we have a kind of "I told you so" feeling going through us, whether or not we choose to gloat about it.. and bitcoin seems to never endingly allow for that kind of gloating every few years (maybe we can call them cycles), but perhaps the other portions of the cycle we look stupid unless we have been in a few cycles then we surely have enough of a price cushion that we can even gloat about how great bitcoin is, even when it is at the deeper ends of its correction periods..

People like Michael Saylor are very useful to the cryptocurrency world.  Yes, perhaps some of his predictions look overly optimistic now, but he may turn out to be right in the distance. Let's wait until 2025 - and then we'll see how right or wrong he turned out to be

I choose rapidity.
My source didn’t provide me the link from BBG as the story was behind paywall only.
I wanted to timely inform my readers.
I will later edit the post with complete references.

Link(s) or it didn't happen.



Edit: Whoops.  I sent you an smerit in the other thread that you provided a link, but then I noticed that you linked back to this above link-less post of yours.

Very important development according to Bloomberg.

Long-Awaited Bitcoin Accounting Rules to Capture Rises, Dips (2)



Bloomberg's Nicola White, who wrote in the past about this subject,  comments:

Bullish Microstrategy, more Bullish Bitcoin.



EDIT: Added link to the news, so that JJG is happy with that.

ATH are not sustainable price zones that are suppose to sustain

the ATH of 2013, 9 years ago.. was infact suppose to "crash"
although the better wording is correct back down away from its premium and come back down to value

shouting
"bitcoins days are numbered, It seems like just a matter of time before it suffers the same fate as online gambling." is not the best way to say that the bitcoin price is definitely goring to correct back down


everyone knows the sea level is rising, slowly. but that does not mean when you see a tsunami to think the peak of a tsunami wave is suppose to be the new sea level.

so warning that the tsunami will crash and the waves will return back to a more valued sea level thats slightly higher than the sea level before the tsunami. is actually accurate advice

its just how you word it that matters

Funny and shocking how Micheal Saylor nine years ago was a big Bitcoin critic. Sayings that Bitcoin will crash just as most gamblers do

So much Financial Awareness and Education he must have achieved putting so much latter on in the whole Bitcoin stuff.
Now he stands as a big influencer of Bitcoin fighting for daily freedom

for me the only regulation i want to see is regulation that supports consumer protection.

using the current rules and remit of SEC/CFTC and FATF just do not work in crypto.(bad regs)

in short KYB(B for business) is needed more than KYC

a new regulator is needed(crypto trained and crypto understanding). and its remit should be consumer protection. categorising what a business does, how a business treats its custodianised coins to then categorise whether SEC or CFTC need to get involved should the business play dirty

by then being regulated, the new hybrid regulator can help the native banking industry to offer insurance products to further protect consumers of a business

all done without the crappy "KYC everything" model of native regulators, that dont care about insurances to protect customers or auditing a business every quarter/monthly

i do find it funny how every citizen has to be audited for tax.
citizens banks give them a monthly statement
but am exchange business does not need to report on its corporate accounts as much as citizens do..
when it comes to custodianising customers funds exchanges can jsut refuse to show accounts. like coinbase refuses to show "legal entities" public addresses of coins it has in custody

Regulators are actually damaging agents in this space. I think bad regulation is actually worse than no regulation. Or do you believe the bad regulation allowing GBTC instead of a spot ETF is better than no regulation?

my pains

regulations:
regulators protect business, police customers
regulators dont police businesses, protect customers

they cant evolve/have a hybrid regulator that understand the differences between mainnet PoW assets vs speculated PoS/pegged tokens.

they refuse to recognise crypto business/ico models, so decline licences. but then whinge that a business/ico is not licenced

leverage risk:
allowing loan sharking (20x leveraging)
allowing customer to have 2000% risk without credit checks or max %risk

excessive corporation valuations:
exchanges that do $1.1b for 2year cashflow valuation.
(normal 2x of cashflow is fair value)
yet markets rating them at $8billion (16x of cashflow)
yet these exchanges do not have their own corporate assets of 16x cashflow
coinbase: $750m volume
=$1.5m fee(cashflow/income) /day (0.2% fee)
=$547m/year
=$1.1b 2 year

In my opinion, the value of Bitcoin lies in the fact that it is an alternative to the modern financial system. 

Does Bitcoin need regulation? 

Yes, - if it will contribute to its survival and development. 

No, - if we consider the situation from the point of view of an attempt to introduce the first cryptocurrency into the traditional financial system. 

Bitcoin is the antagonist of the modern financial system.  For Bitcoin, the best thing is to stay in the "grey" zone. 

If there are no other alternatives, then you can pretend to be a traditional financial instrument.  But that's just pretend...

More on the same.
Apparently the mark-to-market approach is getting more and more probable for bitcoin holdings:

Crypto Accounting Plan Would Have Net Income Reflect Value Swings


At least here we have a regulator who's taking action to regulate, instead of whining about the lack in regulations.

Something new on this front:


Micheal Saylor just tweeted this:



This is the relevant part:



This kind of valuation is more keen to the mark-to-market criteria, which is important for a reliable representation in the balance sheet, in the best interest of the stakeholders.

---

Just a little trick if you bump into the paywall: https://12ft.io/

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.

Not by some proposal at the annual shareholder's meeting for sure, but there are thousands of ambulance-chasing lawyers out there just itching to throw class action lawsuits at companies whose share price has tanked because of some perceived (or actual) doing of the CEO, the company itself, or whatever they can think of.  I've gotten so many postcards alerting me of various lawsuits against companies I've owned stock in over the years that I could probably wallpaper my living room with them had I kept them all.

My point is that Saylor may be the largest shareholder, but he isn't the only one, and the others have some rights in the eyes of the law.  I have no clue what those rights are, but those aforementioned lawyers do, and I guess we'll just see how it all plays out.  The stock was up quite a bit last I checked, but nowhere near where it was some months ago.  Whoever bought it when it was $200 and above has lost money if they held onto it, and unless they share Saylor's attitude about MSTR and/or bitcoin they can't be happy.

I doubt that it is really fair to characterize Saylor as silent even though it is true that he bought something like 17k BTC for himself in mid 2020 before buying even a a larger amount with his company about a month or more later. and since his company was already public he had to make some disclosures in regards to his company and intentions before buying that first time and then he came out more publicly after his company had accumulated its initial stash..

Saylor seems to have ben going over backwards in regards to s various disclosures and publicness about bitcoin and buys and intended buys. .maybe even to his detriment.. We should also concede that there is some strategic disadvantage to telegraphing in advance too much because no one wants to be front run in terms of purchases, if they can avoid it.   

You do seem to referring to a kind of unfairness that Saylor bought 17k BTC prior to his company and prior to less ambiguous and more direct public disclosures.. I personally would not conclude that he was unethical in those kinds of ways . but surely people draw their eithical (and even is it legal?) lines in different places.


Welcome to the forum.  I doubt that there are any absolutes, and it takes quite a while to really get into learning a lot of the various intricacies of bitcoin, including that the wholes pace and what is happening and what has historically happened to get us to where we are at can feel like a bit of a moving target to try to figure out and to make sure that you are getting bette4r information sources and sorting out some of the misleading information sources and/or their ways of presenting information.  sure critical thinking tends to be a good skill that can be applied in all areas of life, not only bitcoin related matters.

Of course, Saylor is a very articulate and smart person.. even though in bitcoin we try not to worship the ideas of any one person, and he has been speaking out about bitcoin quite eloquently, even though he really has only been involved in bitcoin for about 2 years, but he has done quite a bit on the education about bitcoin front over that time, even some courses that he had in February 2021 that were meant to help teach businesses how to get involved in bitcoin.

.. so hopefully you can continue to study various bitcoin-related matters, figure out if you want to invest into bitcoin and some bitcoin accumulating strategies for yourself in terms of how much you want to invest and how long you might want to accumulate... and even if bitcoin works for you  .and then hopefully learn along the way too. while avoid getting involved in shitcoin which from my perspective tends to be a pretty common newbie distraction and mistake that does not really help their getting understanding of king daddy and the reason that a whole hell of a lot of shitcoins are imitating and copying bitcoin and also building their scams around trying to act as if they provide some kinds of value that plays off of bitcoin's having had provided security for the whole space.

So this list of 10 items does seem to express more concerns about some of the seeming ongoing craziness around various shitcoins and shit projects that end up luring folks into wanting to gamble with either shitcoins or even gamble with their bitcoin..

Don't get me wrong.. I am not opposed to a bit of gambling.. but some of the services in both the bitcoin space and the shitcoin space allow for extremes or even sometimes people end up being their own worst enemies in terms of using those kinds of services in ways to gamble to the extremes too or believe that they are not gambling when they are engaging in pretty shitty risk-management practices.. even really smart people sometimes get lured into some of those products. and I am not sure if all of those behaviors need to be regulated, but there are probably some areas in which improvements can be made.. and probably not everyone agrees with all of Saylor's suggestions, either. which as Op mentioned seems to be part of the purpose of this thread to maybe attempt to figure out how much we may or may not agree with all or some of those Saylor points.

I had many difficulties understanding the speech word by word, but I am pretty sure he said UST, short for TerraUSD which was supposed to be a stablecoin.
Please, if you find any other errors let me know.


Mixed feelings about that. I think that for a "short term" return, compatible with his 10years view,  he has to be right. In order to open the floodgates of the fiat money, there must be a clear regulation.
But in the long term, regulation is useless. and bitcoin will ultimately succeed.
It depends on how steep are your time preferences.



No way Micheal Saylor can be put in hot water by his shareholders when he controls the 74% of the voting power.

To be fair before 2022 people did think that they had a stable coin but now they are most probably going to evaluate and use the government owned coins in the market since they would have better results in the domestic approach, even though they are not a crypto, they can have benefits in case of trading and would be supported by the governments alike.

Other than that I think the reason we need a stable coin is for trading and regulations might not be the answer everywhere, all the unregulated sites might be doing alright because the individual sites have to pay loads of fee for their license and thus it can be bad for some of the people running these sites.

I happened to have Youtube on autoplay and that video came up, and I ended up listening to it.  I don't agree with the first few of his "pains", in particular that wash trades are allowed and that there are so many unregulated exchanges.  Well, it's a 'sort-of' disagreement on that second one, because I'm not a fan of regulation in general as governments tend to fuck things up more than they actually help markets, and I like the fact that there are so many crypto exchanges.  If they all had to submit to whatever governments would impose on them, I'm sure half the altcoin market wouldn't even be listed on exchanges, and that would be a bad thing IMO.

By the way, these are the kinds of statements that I think might put Saylor in hot water if his shareholders decide he's made a bad decision by having MSTR invest so heavily in bitcoin.  The SEC might even decide that he's trying to hype up assets that his company owns, to the extent that it runs afoul of what's legal.  I'm just thinking aloud here, but I just get the feeling that he really ought to stay silent about his love of bitcoin for his company's sake, if not his own.

I am a new investor in Bitcoin. I entered the market before this bearish period and it has made me to study about the causes of this downward movement of Bitcoin and the solution to this problem. Micheal Salyor decalogue is the summary of all I have learnt or studied. As much as Bitcoin promotes freedom and decentralization but there must be a trade rule. People should not take advantage of the freedom it offers to harvest gains to the detriment of the market. There should be an entry and exit rule. So many shitcoins are being founded everyday and most people don't seem to understand the difference between Bitcoin and others. These unregistered crypto exchange and security firms sometimes acts like ponzi schemes that swindle people of their investment thereby giving the crypto industry a bad name. In fact I agree totally with all his points and I am sure if it is applied the Bitcoin industry would be strong and less volatile while other shitcoins would gradually disappear..      

These problems are not new (PS. Are you sure he said UST and not USDT?), just most don't speak up - I guess that they prefer to see Bitcoin market in a "wild wild west" status. Actually he was rather silent too until he has filled his "pockets" with bitcoin 
However, he's right. And the more big names speak up, the more chance we'll get there too... eventually.

I saw Micheal Saylor discussing Bitcoin Strategy with Emily Chang:

MicroStrategy's Unrelenting Bitcoin Bet




At one point he hints at something causing him pain, Emily Change ignores and asks a question about Bitcoin and monetary policies and BAM! Saylor starts on autodrive enumerating the things he thinks are needed for Bitcoin to evolve from a 1 trillion industry to a 10 trillion industry:

Mark 4:18

Then he goes with the decalogue:

Mark 5:22

Wow!
This is very interesting.
Even if I am sure he's still short of two full points, and I missed some sentences and misspelt a few words I think the message is very clear.

I even do agree with the majority of those.

I later found another video where he explains more extensively the decalogue:

Navigating the Storm - Michael Saylor - Sven Henrich - Bitcoin




The explanation is very extensive, so Im'm reporting here only the decalogue:

Also here, there's a missing reason.


Lots of the details in the videos I highly recommend everyone to look at.

Micheal Saylor thinks those are the milestones of Bitcoin as an asset class, everyone has to cooperate to get those removed, and empower bitcoin as an ultimate asset class.