Bessent Red pill wallet coms...
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (54)
sorted by:
For some people maybe. You can tell it isn't simple to most, because if it were, then there probably wouldn't be so many anons that find it anywhere from challenging to impossible to understand.
The same can be said for people that have never used a smartphone or multiple other categories of tech.
The issue is that the people that have no experience or idea of what they are talking about tend to be the people offering up opinions on those things based on their misconceptions.
Then there's the fact that anyone could watch a 10 min YT video and get a better understanding of crypto than 90% of people that have never used it... BEFORE offering an opinion on it.... But most people don't.
There will always be idiots that try to speak on subjects they don't understand in any are of life. That's the real problem.
Let me tell you what it means to be simple:
If I have silver, and you have land, or bread, or a car, etc., I can trade my silver for your real asset if we agree on the amounts. Similarly for gold and any other real asset. That's because these assets have intrinsic value. It's value is not ambiguous, it is as clear as a fucking golden bell.
For anything that doesn't have real value, like FRNs, or BTC, or any other nonsense where you have to explain HOW it has value, it's nothing but a FUCKING PSYOP.
It's really THAT SIMPLE.
That actually is simple, and so am I. It's why I own no crypto even though Trump loves it and two of his sons have a crypto company of some sort.
The argument that "crypto is not a viable asset because it isn't backed by anything" is one of those claims that sounds profound right up until you ask what exactly backs the U.S. dollar.
The answer used to be gold. Now the answer is essentially, "trust us." The dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of a government that is $30+ trillion in debt and creating new currency units faster than rabbits produce offspring. If "backed by something" is the standard, fiat currency is standing on thinner ice than its critics would like to admit.
A good currency has traditionally been judged by six core characteristics:
Crypto performs remarkably well on all six.
Durability? Bitcoin does not rust, burn, rot, or wear out.
Portability? You can move millions of dollars across the world in minutes without armored trucks, bank holidays, or permission slips from bureaucrats.
Divisibility? A single Bitcoin can be divided into 100 million satoshis.
Uniformity? Every Bitcoin is identical to every other Bitcoin, just as every dollar is supposed to be.
Scarcity? This is where Bitcoin particularly shines. There will only ever be 21 million. Nobody can wake up one morning and decide to print another few trillion because Congress has expensive hobbies.
Acceptability? Millions of individuals, businesses, institutions, and even governments now recognize and use crypto. Acceptability grows wherever people voluntarily choose it.
Notice the irony. The one characteristic fiat currency struggles with most is scarcity. Governments are structurally incentivized to create more currency. Bitcoin is structurally designed to prevent it.
Critics often say crypto is too volatile to be money. Fair enough. New technologies frequently experience volatility during adoption. The internet stocks of the 1990s were volatile. Railroads were volatile. Oil companies were volatile. Volatility does not determine whether an asset has value. It often reflects a market discovering that value.
The deeper issue is that crypto is not merely competing with dollars. It is competing with central control. A currency that cannot be inflated at will, censored easily, or transferred only with institutional approval represents a fundamental challenge to the existing financial order.
Now, crypto may succeed or fail depending on the project, technology, and adoption. Plenty of crypto projects deserve to fail. But the blanket claim that crypto is not a viable asset because it is not backed by anything is rather like a man living in a glass house mocking his neighbor's windows.
The dollar is backed by confidence.
Bitcoin is backed by mathematics, cryptography, decentralization, and an immutable supply schedule.
Whether one prefers the latter to the former is a legitimate debate. Pretending only one side relies on belief is not.
Your gold and silver intrinsic value collapses the moment we start mining asteroids.
I'm guessing this is a canned response since it has exactly nothing to do with my statement except the last sentence, which was completely disconnected by the rest of your "response."
That is a false argument, suggesting that any inflation automatically and instantly "collapses" the economy. For example, if we had a gold based free market economy (we'll call that "best case scenario" for now) and we had an immediate tripling of all gold influx, that would be (by your contrivance) a tripling of inflation. That is a contrivance, and an impossibility, but I'll play.
Your contrivance would not "collapse" the economy. Instead, it would just cause inflation. We can work with inflation, and indeed, history shows that with real assets (gold, silver, copper, and bronze specifically), the increase of PMs tends to adjust well into the system (for various reasons, not the least of which that they are useful regardless of their use as a currency, because they are real assets), stabilizing (to an extent) the economy and eventually reducing the inflation (through deflation through other uses), despite the total increase.
Yes, it is conceivable that at some point in the future (which at the moment doesn't actually exist and is thus a red herring argument) a substantial increase in gold and/or silver will, within a free market (which too doesn't actually exist and never has in over 5000 years of evidence) will cause inflation commensurate with the total value v. the demand (which also changes based on the population, technological uses, etc.).
But the truth is, according to the evidence, the value of both gold and silver has been incredibly stable (with some caveats that I won't elaborate here) for the entirety of human history. That's despite massive mining efforts and massive population swings. Yes, it has changed, yet those changes in the PMs has remained more constant than any other assets throughout all of all time (not counting the specific and world wide coordinated fuckery occurring during the past ~150 years to change things which has been designed to destroy the world for their "Utopia").
And that is the BEST argument presented here by you.
All other arguments are nil (with a couple caveats of the usefulness of some of the qualities of crypto in general (not as a currency, but as a technology), which I will get to later).
Let's look at just a couple of your other arguments, so we can look at how bad they really are. And note, none of them are relevant, because they are based on the opposite of my statements, nevertheless, I'll play.
Actually, it falls apart immediately and it never makes a lick of sense. The U.S. Dollar hasn't existed in any meaningful amount since 1913. The Federal Reserve Note (FRN) on the other hand is based on the future labor of all citizens of America. That "future labor" doesn't actually exist, thus it too is a red herring. But it gets much worse than that. A FRN is a debt instrument. It comes into being in a negative, balanced by a zero value ("future" labor) pretending to be a "positive."
To be more meaningful, the way it actually works is; Money = Debt, or rather, Money + Debt = 0. Which means if the US were to pay off their debts, all their "money" would be exactly 0. The entire economy would cease to exist.
But that's really a false statement, because "money" isn't equal to debt, it's equal to debt + interest. So "money" = debt + interest. That means that the future labor of all US citizens (through the 14th amendment) + the USURY ON THAT DEBT is owned by the people who create "money" (as it turns out, from nothing).
In other words, we are forever enslaved by the people who take out loans ("debts") from the Federal Reserve (a private bank), which is to say...
...the US Govt (AKA We The People, through coercion and fraud) must legally use FRNs to buy anything (infrastructure, medicare, transexual assistance for people in Pakistan, etc.).
What does it mean that the people who create the FRNs got "interest" (usury) on our future labor? It means you are legally completely owned, body and soul, by "law" for all of time.
So any ideas that the "US Dollar" is:
shows that you have NO FUCKING CLUE what is really going on. Thus any argument based on that premise is instantly invalidated.
So what's the solution?
Well, it is well known that no matter what is used as a currency, as long as a real asset can be used, any non-backed currency would immediately be eliminated as a currency, because no one would use a non-backed currency if a real asset could be used instead. E.g., would you sell your car for someone's non-backed crypto if you could get gold instead? Maybe you would, as a true believer, but most wouldn't, not assuming the option existed. That's the difference between "faith" and in your hand reality.
You noted a couple "pluses" for crypto. Those pluses (and more) do exist. But you can tie real assets to crypto and get the best of both worlds. It is trivial to do so, and such things already exist (NFTs e.g., which can be tied directly to stocks, art (real and virtual), all precious metals, land, etc.).
The concept of using a non-asset currency requires a non-free market (free market PMs would destroy non-asset crypto immediately in all cases). Thus something like BTC requires that the market be a redheaded little bitch, controlled by a Centralized Authority 1984 style (which is what currently exists).
The ONLY way to have sound money is through a free market. That is the only solution for any concept of social human freedom at all. Any efforts working towards any other "solution" other than creating our own truly free market is doomed to fail, so any other "solution" must be immediately abandoned (like BTC) for people to be free.