Topic: MicroStrategy Buys $250M in Bitcoin, Calling the Crypto ‘Superior to Cash’ - page 32. (Read 14637 times)

I'll go with what Saylor himself already said. He said only in 2020. The thousand hours may be hyperbole, but that does not matter if one spends days and weeks, maybe even months reading everything one can about bitcoin.

I had not known about the claim of having had spent more than a thousand hours studying bitcoin, so sure it takes time to reach 1,000 or even thousands of hours.  Perhaps around 62.5 days bare minimum to reach 1,000... which would be 16 hours per day, and that would get the number of hours to 1,000  (1,000 / 16 = 62.5).  By the way, when you own a pretty decently sized business and you employ the services of attorneys and accountants, you likely can get some magnitude manpower hours - and gained knowledge from the employment of those kinds of professional people and having them focus efforts upon bitcoin.  I am not saying that you would still not have to have personal hours in order to claim that you have spent more than a thousand hours studying bitcoin, even if you might have some abilities to get access to better information and even the fact that you have studied some similar (and even difficult) topics in the past might allow you to understand deeper concepts more quickly and require fewer hours of study in order to get to the level of understanding of someone without that kind of educational/experiential background.

In any event, so far there is nothing really contradicting the claim that Saylor first got started in bitcoin in 2020, and he has proclaimed on a few occasions that the March 2020 liquidity event caused him inspiration to really start looking  into the matter...  

Look at the beginning of this thread.  Saylor became a public figure in bitcoin in about August 2020 through some of those first Company purchases of bitcoin that he had made, and I believe that later Saylor disclosed that he had personally purchased around 17k bitcoin before his company bought... so maybe a month or so earlier.. but he had already been studying bitcoin for a few months by the time August came and he became a public figure.  So, if he had not quite yet achieved 1,000 hours by the time that he got into bitcoin, he did quite a few things since August 2020 that may well have taken him above a thousand hours of bitcoin study, so having had studied bitcoin for more than a thousand hours should not be inaccurate - even with his seemingly somewhat short involvement in bitcoin, relatively speaking.

Am I missing your point, Daltonik?

Yes, if you consider that in the advice to Michael Tyson in the question of what to choose BTC or ETH, Saylor mentions that he spent thousands of hours studying questions about bitcoin, and only after that he invested $2.9 billion in bitcoin, then this definitely did not happen in 2020.

Saylor claims to really only know about BTC since last year, 2020. He did tweet about it in 2013, but he claims he completely forgot about it back then. Sounds believable as there are no other words coming from him until around 2020.

Again, overall I agree with everything that you are saying, oHnK, but I feel a need to emphasize the fact that Saylor has chosen to be so public about his various strategies and explaining why in a lot of ways provides a lot of fodder in which members of all kinds of intelligence levels, whether greater, lesser or equal to Saylor can chime in about Saylor's investment choices and how he communicates about those choices.

I personally consider Saylor to have had been a very good bitcoin advocate, even if I might not agree with everything he says or even some of his approaches.  I doubt that we can automatically equate Saylor to being above average in intelligence merely because he has a lot of money or he is a CEO of a company, but I do believe that he has shown through both actions and words that he actually is very intelligent and even innovative and he figured out various aspects of bitcoin in a very fast way (calling him a quick study may be pretty accurate).

Even if we grant that Saylor is very smart, that still does not mean that he made the right investment choices for himself, his company, for others or even for the benefits of bitcoin - even though it seems to me that in the long run we are quite likely to see that his plan is going to play out well for him and his company... and perhaps for bitcoin too. 

For sure, we know that bitcoin does not need marketers, but bitcoin still does get a decent number of folks who either decide to market bitcoin for free or they find ways to profit from marketing bitcoin, but bitcoin is also distinguishable from a decent number of shitcoins that do have marketing budgets and strategies that seem to be part of their coin promotion - and likely any marketing and promotion of bitcoin is a lot less coordinated, and sure there can be and has been a lot of disagreement through the years about what bitcoin was, is or should be... yet bitcoin plods on with a kind of consensus mechanism that seems to make it very difficult to change - absent the building of very large majorities agreeing to change it.. so there might be some ways that Saylor/MSTR could also change or attempt to change bitcoin by trying to persuade or influence changes... and we will see how those kinds of matters play out.. but in the meantime, bitcoin still seems to be a very great investment - and not everyone is going to come to the same conclusions regarding whether to invest or how to invest, and surely a lot of regular peeps are not going to either have cashflow, access to credit or even abilities to build credit in order to realistically attempt to employ strategies similar to Saylor, even if they wanted to try such bitcoin investment (or do we call it gambling?) strategies.

By the way, if we consider investing/gambling on a spectrum rather than absolutes, I have said this before in this thread, but I would characterize Saylor/MSTR as way more gambling than I would be ready, willing and able to employ, and surely each of us are going to make differing choices and have differing particulars to be able to exercise our discretion in differing ways, which makes those kinds of weighing of choices to be good discussion because there is likely no completely correct answer because they are/should be individually tailored, and some choices about actions are going to playout better than others - but still does not mean that there is ONLY one good choice or best choice for everyone because the balancing of individual factors** is going to affect how to approach and strategically allocate BTC.

**individual factors are cashflow, timeline, other investments, view of bitcoin as compared with other investments, risk tolerance, and time, skills and abilities to learn, strategize, plan and tweak or reallocate from time to time based on learning and experiences (including decisions regarding the employment of trading tactics, financial instruments, leverage, etc).

Yes I also think so, maybe my previous analogy is too much but I want to specialize my previous comment that what I say is on the analysis of Saylor's company management or the management decisions taken by the CEO of MSTR.  If we judge what he decides or what will happen to his position if this or if and think it's wrong, it's legitimate, but are we not too brave because what we judge is an experienced CEO not just an ordinary person  I'm sure there are friends here who have even known BTC longer than Saylor, and it's only natural to comment on the MSTR CEO's policy to be correlated with BTC development, and that's something I support so that in the future we can give each other an idea of ​​what potential  BTC will have in the future.  After all, the progress of BTC will represent the entire crypto market because we all know the proportion of BTC's market cap in the market.

I agree with your overall points, oHnK, but I would NOT agree with any characterization that we are like a bunch of quasi-blind participants.. the sports fan analogy does not seem to capture it - and sure Saylor has become famous in the bitcoin space quite fast, but surely does not mean that some of us might not have better insights than him in various regards, but in the end, sure he has to make choices about how to manage his company, and even though he has tended to have been quite public about a large number of his moves, plans and ideas in regards to bitcoin, he has quite a large level of discretion regarding how to employ his various plans and strategies - and we need not agree with him or with each other..

We can criticize some aspects of his various talking points or his strategies or even question some of his seemingly somewhat novel financial tools (or try to understand what he is doing in comparison to what other companies might be doing or what individuals are doing... he gives us quite a bit of ammunition and ideas) and he has given us a lot of good talking points - even if several of us might seem to NOT agree about various aspects of what he seems to be doing and there might also be some questions regarding the level of the understanding of some of us either regarding what Saylor/MSTR is doing and what bitcoin is, as well.

I would also NOT conclude that all members in the forum have equally good ideas (or bad) ideas, because it seems to me that some people have better ideas than others whether they understand the facts better, have better logic or just put the matters together better (maybe some peeps have better or worse english skills, too), and I am not even claiming myself to have superiority in a lot of aspects.. because I am also attempting to learn as I go.. too - perhaps beyond willingness to debate matters and to spout out various ideas that I have from time to time.

Now when push comes to shove there remains another aspect in regards to how to personally use whatever information that we might learn in this thread and if learning such information might help to cause any of us to take a better position in regards to bitcoin, whether changing our investment strategies, changing our allocations, deciding to invest into bitcoin or not, or whatever other actions that we learn, take or plan to take.. and sometimes, maybe we just learn to hone some of our arguments better... perhaps?

Surely some members have more active bitcoin portfolios than others, and I have even heard that failure/refusal to take a position in bitcoin may well be taking a position, but some people are surely just learning about bitcoin in recent times as well, so we cannot expect everyone to have the same levels of knowledge or even experiences with bitcoin (Many times I am surely feeling that I lack quite a bit in my technical and programming skills, even though I feel that I have learned some things about those topics too.. maybe not as much as I should, but whatever, there are ONLY so many hours in a day, too).

There is another aspect of genuiness, shilling and trolling that sometimes can be going on, too, and I personally do not feel any need to call any of the recent participants of this thread into that category, but sometimes we do end up going down that area of discussion too in terms of our ways of getting into topics in these kinds of threads and trying to filter between what we might perceive to be the difference between good information, bad information and sometimes disinformation...  and sometimes personal attacks might start to fly too.. and I have not seen too much of that, so far, even though sometimes that happens.. been there and done that plenty of times...

Sometimes members have differing approaches to their ways of interacting on the forum, and sure may as well engage in some of those kinds of conversations here, too (if they come up) because they are out there in other forums and information sources as well, and frequently they bleed into some of our forum threads, but surely if anyone seems to be devolving into behaviors that are violative of the forum rules or engaging in personal attacks, then there are some of us who are more than willing to report that kind of behavior too, even if sometimes those kinds of matters can also be handled in the thread prior to even needing to be reported.. and sometimes they resolve themselves.. sometimes.

There is a lot of great information in this thread and even links to other related sources, and I am NOT even proclaiming that every participant needs to understand all the information or read all 22 pages of the thread, but at the same time, sometimes our discussion can get to higher levels when we might not have to repeat some aspects of the topics or even some matters that might have been pointed out in OP or soon thereafter, over and over that seem to be something that should be learned at some point.

At the same time if some newbie were to come into this thread and reference some specific past post in his/her post, and say that s/he did not understand what the hell is going on with MSTR and Saylor in the context of bitcoin and some of the ideas of some past post(s), there are likely going to be several members in this thread who are ready, willing and able to attempt to address the issues of the post rather than directly asserting that the newbie has to read and understand all aspects of the 22 pages of this thread first.  ... by the way, there are a lot of people who come into threads late, and still end up bringing up good points, even if those points have been previously discussed.

I think we are too bold to be a CEO of a big company on the policies that have been done.  I don't think any of us are better than Saylor either because if we were better I guess we wouldn't be so busy talking about it in this thread.  We are just like football fans who think we know best what players should do even though we don't play professional football.  So far, Saylor is whales who are quite stable in all of his statements, but as players, we still have to have our own strategy for bad things that happen.  Risk mitigation is definitely owned by a Saylor, and it can't be denied.

Seems to me that all publicly traded companies are NOT equal, so there are some devils in the details regarding design of shares....Could get yourself into trouble if you make predictions based on facts that might apply in some other company situation, but those same facts may well not be present in the Saylor / MSTR situation.  There have already several posts on this same point in this thread and perhaps some other threads.. including some of some of Fillippone's posts that likely need not be repeated for some peeps who choose not to read or attempt to study and understand actual facts on the ground (could I be wrong.. and MSTR is just some random publicly company in which Saylor is just some random CEO, perhaps perhaps.. I doubt it.... I am not even saying that some traditional financial forces or even government forces.. or some minority shareholders (purely trying to stir shit) might not want to make an example out of him.... and bring up bogus criminal/civil charges.. or some other nonsense that Saylor becomes unable to defend,...  but we do not currently have those kinds of facts in front of us so seems way too premature to be presuming those kinds of outlier scenarios, yet).

And I'm saying Michael Saylor's job as CEO may not be as secure as you think, especially if bitcoin were to drop to a price low enough that it starts adversely affecting MSTR's stock.  It doesn't matter if Saylor thinks it's his company.  MicroStrategy is publicly traded, and if a strategy starts causing stockholders to lose money, they'll be out for blood.  And when that happens to any corporation, who do you think is the first person out the door?  The CEO.

Note: I'm not hoping bitcoin drops or that MSTR's profits or valuation decrease or that Michael Saylor lose his job.  I hope none of those things happen.  But we're talking about one man who happens to be at the helm of a company that might not care for his vision for bitcoin should the price of bitcoin sink.  The fact is that he doesn't own MicroStrategy.  

And look at how much debt MSTR has taken on since the 2nd quarter of 2020:



And while I said MSTR's share price is stable, it isn't exactly in an upward trend:



Time will tell what happens with MSTR, but my point is to keep in mind that all of this bitcoin was not purchased with Michael Saylor's own money--it was MSTR's money, and even though he's CEO and chairman of the board (I think), he's as dispensable as any CEO should shit hit the fan.

Edit:

This is a long thread, and I'll admit I haven't read every post in it.  If there are different types of shares, e.g., voting/non-voting, then I could be mistaken--but that would only be applicable if Michael Saylor owned a majority of those shares--or if the voting shares were owned by someone in his corner.  I'll see what I can do about reading through the posts in this thread to see if anything was said about that.

Keep in mind that Saylor is both the vastly dominant shareholder and controller of Microstrategies, so he has already been in bitcoin for nearly a year and has done quite a few things in the bitcoin space that goes beyond his company's various seemingly creative and seemingly persistent investment strategies - and also some levels of educational campaigns with seminars starting in early this calendar year and also getting involved in mining discussions which surely he may well end up getting involved in that too.. because he seems unable to control himself in that way (and not even saying that there is anything wrong with the guy... he's just an aggressive businessman who seems to have developed a strong interest and believe in bitcoin and it even seems to be in his interest (from his perspective) to be sharing his strategies and spreading the word and setting himself as a kind of example and model for others to follow whether we are talking about various kinds of businesses or rich individuals or even regular individuals - even though regular individuals might NOT be served as well by his kinds of strategies if they either do not have strong cashflow that they understand pretty well and Saylor even seems to be a kind of potential market mover in some kinds of ways - and surely regular peeps do not tend to be in any way approaching levels of Saylor's level of influence - not that the bitcoin price is going to automatically go in his favor).   

In any event, your concern about the effects on Saylor or his business in the event that bitcoin were to go to $10k, seem a bit lacking in terms of how vulnerable you believe Saylor's business to be.  When we are getting all worked up about potential short-term price falls, we should attempt to keep in mind that even though Saylor price per bitcoin (at least for MSTR) is in the $26k per BTC arena, he also bought quite a few bitcoins at prices below $13k.. and there is likely quite a bit of forward sight in terms of considering what obligations that he has to service the debts that he has taken on in order to make many of his BTC purchases that were way more something like where a bottom could go (if $10k were even very possible when the 208-week moving average is getting close to $14k).  So we know that he has some debt service contracts that may well be coming due in a wee bit over 4 years, but he has other debt service contracts that are close to 7 years from now, so to me it seems to be way the hell too premature to either be suggesting that Saylor might even be phased by dips to $10k (that are highly unlikely, without presuming that the $10k price might not be sustained for several years.. which also seems quite unlikely, if you even want to go their with your painting of a dire scenario that seems to have very low chances of happening and then also without accounting for the fact that he would not even be incurring potentially heavy debt burdens on the bitcoin that he owns until about 4-7 years from now.. so your scenario seems to be quite out there... even presuming that it could happen for a short term but then almost having to presume that bitcoin is dead or near dead (of bitcoin being in sub -$10k for 4-7 years) for Saylor or his company to really get put into a panic mode... and I am not even sure if that would be enough because we might need to see some interim details as well for the next 4-7 years before attributing such a high value to negativeness of BTC price going to $10k  - again, likelihood?  again 4-7 years of such?

By the way, it can be taken for granted that on a personal level, I am no way in hell as close to the level of sophistication of Saylor or the various consultants that he might have in his circle - even though he may well be a kind of final decider regarding the level of risk to take or the level of allocation or leverage to use, but even in my own personal circumstances, I started buying BTC at $1.2k in November/December 2013, and my highest priced bitcoins were not really in profits (and consistently so) until March 2017, so that is over 3 years, but even by the time that March 2017 came, my average price per BTC was $500-ish based on my continuing to buy BTC when the BTC prices were lower in those 3 years-ish... so sometimes actions can be taken along the way in order to help mitigate whereever a company (or person) might be at time X in order to potentially be in a better place at time X + 4-7 years without even necessarily selling any BTC along the way.. even though selling some BTC might not be out of the set of options - and there are some BTC in his stash that are profitable to sell at $13k - if he were to choose to do that, even though it might raise his average price of the remaining stash.. perhaps?  perhaps? 

I guess that part of my point is that the mere fact that a narrow interpretation might assess BTC to be in profits or not or even to be 50% the average value, but there can still be ways of both accounting and even achieving ongoing cashflow or management of cashflow that allows to both get through the seemingly tougher period and perhaps even come out way the hell on the positive side for so damned long that peeps are second guessing the value and blah blah blah.. and remember that in late 2015 my own BTC were averaging around $500 per BTC, but the BTC price had still been stuck in the $250s.. and then BTC prices went from $250-ish to nearly $20k in the next two years and perhaps causing me to appear like a genius from people looking at the then profits of hanging onto all of those (used to be unprofitable BTC), and then even holding through the phase of going from 39x profits at $19,666/$500 to only 4.165x profits at $3,124 / $750 (presuming that mistakes were made), and then maybe only being at 31.5x profits at $31,500/$1k (presuming that more mistakes were made).

Some people still may well consider that having a position of 31.5x profits (at this particular time, around 6 years later) is pretty damned attractive compared to having had been around 50% in the red when BTC prices were bounding around $250 for much of the whole year of 2015.  So if individuals can hold through such periods of being in the red, and shit, Saylor (Mstr) started out being way the fuck in profits, and they just kept buying, buying and buying, and they brought their own average cost per BTC up, but they are still currently in profits, so seems to be a better starting point as compared with someone buying in late 2013 and taking three years for those initial buys to get into profits..

Of course, there are no guarantees, even in bitcoin, but still there seem to be way the hell more risky bets out there, too.. for some peeps who might not even understand what bitcoin is or what the hell Saylor and MSTR is doing and how they are playing their cards including what cards they have and the name of the game that they are playing (I know mixed metaphors sometimes might not come out too well).

This may be one of Sylor's investment strategies to convince other investors involved in bitcoin investment, both institutional and individual investors, not to sell and are willing to stay in their investments. If Microstrategy's massive investment in bitcoin is their way of obtaining a hedge against macroeconomics, then I think profits are to be expected. It's natural that Sylor says he doesn't care about bitcoin price, whether high or low, because maybe he still benefit from the current price.

China's mining and trading ban effect has caused the value of MicroStrategy investments to drop and I'm not sure Sylor will survive if bitcoin dump to the $10,000.

While I admire Michael Saylor for his seemingly infallible belief in bitcoin, I once again wonder what the shareholders of MSTR would think if bitcoin collapsed to a point where it was nowhere near the price they bought it at.  Unless the company is somehow hedging their massive bitcoin bet, that would be a major ding to MSTR's balance sheet--and as I've also said before, he might be CEO now but there is a board of directors he's accountable to, and a CEO position is never one that can't be filled by someone else's shoes.

I did take a look at MSTR's price chart on Friday, and it looks like the stock is pretty much steady.  This week might show whether their bitcoin position's value has any effect on the stock, because btc did drop pretty significantly over the weekend.  Not a massive drop, but given how much of it they own they've lost a lot of money on paper.

Hmm.  I thought he bought it for MSTR as an alternative to fiat (though I could be thinking of another company).  Either way, I agree with him.  Bitcoin certainly can be used as a currency, but it's most often used as an investment and I believe it's considered one in the legal sense.

It seems that your last paragraph is correct, that MSTR is largely buying Bitcoin with whatever cash that comes available as it comes available - and presumably they are holding back enough cash to pay their known pending or even there known soon into the future bills - and hopefully they are not juggling too much of their short-to-medium dollar denominated expenses into bitcoin.  We do know that a couple of months ago, they had agreed to pay their board members in bitcoin, but as far, as I know that paying in bitcoin policy has not extended to employees (or any of their other labor/service/parts contracts that they have to presumably pay on a regular basis). at least not so far.

Maybe I don't know the data well enough either, but I had thought that MSTR was holding off some of their BTC purchases to conduct monthly, but your list of dates of purchases in March, April and May does not really show that.. it shows a bit buy BTC whenever the cash is available and more strongly supporting my assertion that they hardly seem to give any shits about BTC price and just seem to want to get in as soon as possible, no matter what the BTC price (which seems a bit crazy, even to the most BTC bullish of bulls).

Regarding the timing of their BIGGER purchases, such as the $489 million one or some of the other ones that employ those various kinds of "debt instruments", it seems that they might be just announcing those separately, and perhaps they might hold back on some of their company BTC purchases while that kind of money is pending to come available - or maybe they are still buying BTC with their regular cashflow, but just reporting it separately - I do kind of suspect that so far they have not been engaging or employing their regular buys while the funds of such BIGGer buy is coming available.. and maybe it is mostly a logistic matter rather than anything that they are doing with focus and purpose because we know that they have discretion to do whatever Saylor wants, and if Saylor were to order the company to jump, the question would not be whether to jump, but rather how high the jump should be. 


I don't see what is so weird about that statement.

Pretty much he is saying that they (MSTR) were planning to buy BTC no matter what, and the BTC price dropping during this most recent period merely provided a bargain for MSTR.



The details of what the shareholders think is irrelevant in terms of whether they might be buying their own BTC or whether they believe that they already have enough BTC exposure thorugh their holding of MSTR shares.  In other words, their relevant action in terms of whether they hold shares or not is all that matters, so by definition if they hold shares, they are all on board.. if they are thinking about selling and blah blah blah.. who fucking cares, it does not matter until they sell, so if they sell, then that shows that they are not on board, and they are also no longer on board, so presumably anyone who buys their sold shares would be on board.  Saylor did his part (duties) to tell them what he was doing before he did it, and to disclose any additional plans that he has or any additional actions that he is taking, as he takes them or as he changes his plans.. which his only changes, so far, seem to have been to continue to double down on bitcoin in various ways.



Fair enough.


That seems correct.


yep. 


No problem with skepticism either as long as such skepticism is not making shit up, or giving way too much weight to fringe theories or mostly irrelevant facts in order to support skeptical theories.

I happen to believe Mr. Saylor and his enthusiasm about bitcoin.  I've seen a couple of interviews with him, and to me there's no doubt he's very passionate about it--but saying he'd pay 2-3 times more for bitcoin than he did is kind of weird for a CEO to say, even if it is MSTR we're talking about.  I just keep wondering what their shareholders think about all of this.  I should probably see if there's some kind of chat board for owners of MSTR stock and if so, what they're saying.

My guess is that a lot of them are bitcoiners, and maybe that's the whole reason some of them bought the stock in the first place. Owning shares of MSTR is partially a play on bitcoin and partially on MSTR as a company that does everything it did prior to scooping up all of that bitcoin.

Anyhow, I don't fault Ratimov for being skeptical--especially since some of the big players in the crypto space have turned out to be charlatans.  You just never know.

It would seem MSTR simply buys bitcoin as soon as it has at least $10 to $15 million in cash. Essentially has they are paid or make profits they set aside that amount for purchasing bitcoin.

Thanks for the video link and your commentary on it, Ratimov.


I am pretty sure that you brought this point up previously, Ratimov.  You have a kind of ongoing skepticism regarding whether Saylor is good his word, and you seem to want to ascribe a kind of BTC price timing strategy that Saylor just does not seem to possess. 

The actions and the words of Saylor has been consistent, and Saylor said that he would have been willing to pay 2x or 3x more for the same coins that he bought at $37k, and I seem almost no reason to doubt him beyond retaining some healthy skepticism that we should have when anyone says anything.  But from my point of view, maintaining healthy skepticism does not rise to the level of either interpreting the opposite of what Saylor says when he has already repeatedly shown that when the BTC price rises he was buying at whatever price was on the table at the moment.  He hardly even seems to be attempting to buy dips.. He just buys whatever the BTC price happens to be which is a kind of DCA and front/loading concept.


Bullshit, oHnK.. Don't be living in a fantasy.   China FUD is never going to end (or at least it has about a snowballs's chance in hell of ending.

Furthermore, stability is a fantasy too.

We have a war going on right now, which is largely the largest transfer of wealth in history.  Do you believe that such war is not going to happen without volatility?  That's crazy to expect that, even though you are not the ONLY one from whom I have heard those kinds of unrealistic wishes.

Another thing about "stability" is that we are still a low ass level of world adoption of bitcoin.  What do you believe world-wide bitcoin adoption to be?  Not more than 1%, right?

Yeah, we hear many proclamations about 10% of people know about bitcoin or have adopted it or have bought some of it.. right

Snap into reality.  Even educated people and even technologically well connected people either do not own much if any bitcoin, most of them have dumb ideas when it comes to bitcoin, and they believe things like doge coin bitcoin and ethereum are almost the same thing... That's what level of dumb we are dealing with, and there are a lot of motives to keep normies as dumb as possible and for as long as possible... Who the hell is scooping up all the bitcoin?  Guys like Saylor, and sure there are others, but at least Saylor is telling people why he is doing it and not doing it in secret and perhaps some normies might learn from this?  Perhaps?  perhaps?  Don't hold your breath, it is going to take a long time for bitcoin adoption, even if there is good information out there, but many peeps have trouble understanding the good information and absorbing it. 

A couple of days ago, I heard Pomp interview Harry Campbell, and for sure Campbell is a really smart guy talking about Uber and Lyft and also talking about bitcoin at the end of the podcast.  Within about the last 5-10 minutes of the podcast, when Pomp asked Campbell what he thinks about bitcoin, Campbell said that he likes bitcoin a lot, but he recognizes that he is "too late"  blah blah blah... And Pomp really did not respond very well, and sure Pomp was trying to be nice and diplomatic, so I am not really blaming Pomp for his response, but he should have immediately, directly and unambiguously corrected Campbell, and said something like:  "You are a real smart guy Campbell, but when it comes to bitcoin, you are a dumbass.  You are not too late."  hahahahaha.. something like that. 

Anyhow, my point is that there is a lot of nonsense coming from people who seem to be otherwise really smart but seem to truly believe that they are too late to bitcoin, and in the meantime several of these people are likely going to be having to buy bitcoin in the supra $200k levels because they are not recognizing the value of getting into bitcoin now and they are not even on the verge of buying bitocin anytime soon including when we go up to $500k, they are going to need another cycle or two before they end up "having to buy" at whatever is "then the existing price."


Surely, I agree with you that the Chinese influence is likely to be way, way, way less if they actually do what they say that they are doing... but the influence of China is not going away any time soon.. (whether they are ongoing naysayers, bitcoin attackers or otherwise) that's for sure.



What do you want to pass?  I doubt that anything related to bitcoin is going to be clean for quite a long time to come.  Bitcoin is a world-wide phenomenon with a lot of opinions about which way it should go, but we know in the end, the maths and science that is already embedded into bitcoin's existing code (to date) has a lot more sway than various attacks, or support or attempts to ignore it.  Bitcoin remains a rolling dynamics situation, so if we do not have one dynamic, then we are going to have another dynamic.  Having dynamics and drama connected with bitcoin comes with the territory, especially if bitcoin continues to gain market cap and market share.. which surely seems to me to be the current and ongoing bitcoin direction whether people, institutions or countries like it or not..


Let them blame all that they want. In the meantime, stack sats.   You will thank me later.    #justsaying. 

I always regretted e the irony of having BTC, the ultimate anarco-capitalist store of value so deeply inter tangled with China, the ultimate statist-centralised-dictatorship.
The fastest this relationship ends, irrespective of the price, the better.

After the end of the relationship between BTC and China because of the fud they continue to create, I feel that future price increases will be more stable because the market is no longer worried about the China issue.  The Chinese government will also no longer have any influence in their statement, because the miners have been banned from operating.  Hopefully this passes soon and the crypto investment climate becomes even sexier. BTC is the best financial tech innovation, but everyone is blaming BTC for all acts of abuse such as money laundering or terrorism, even though BTC is the victim of exploitation, and not looking for solutions for this best innovation.

Not so sure, MicroStrategy has all the incentives in seeing bitcoin growing. They of course would benefit in first person of the rise in price, but of course the bigger effect would be the snowballing pressure of the FOMO.
So, for sure they didn’t like this correction.


As per the error made by Chinese, I couldn’t be more happy about this: the less Bitcoin has to do with China, the better.