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:
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.
The funny thing about this response is that it spends three quarters of its time agreeing with the critique of fiat money and then somehow concludes that Bitcoin is the villain.
That's like spending twenty minutes explaining why the ship is sinking and then blaming the lifeboat for not being made of oak.
First, notice the bait-and-switch.
The original objection was: "Crypto isn't backed by anything."
Now suddenly we're talking about Federal Reserve Notes, debt-based money, usury, central banking, the 14th Amendment, and the enslavement of future labor.
Fine. Let's talk about it.
But every one of those criticisms is a criticism of fiat currency, not crypto.
If the Federal Reserve system is a debt-based mechanism that inflates away purchasing power, then you've just explained one of the reasons Bitcoin was invented.
You don't get to spend five paragraphs explaining why the house is on fire and then conclude that fire extinguishers are therefore worthless.
The "Real Asset" Problem
The argument assumes that only a physical asset can back money.
Historically, that sounds persuasive until you actually examine what money is.
Gold was not valuable because it was backed by something else.
Gold was valuable because people valued gold.
The moment someone says, "Money must be backed by a real asset," the obvious question becomes:
"What backs the asset?"
If gold is the answer, what backs gold?
More gold?
Turtles all the way down?
Gold has value because people voluntarily desire it. Its scarcity, durability, divisibility, portability, and recognizability make it useful as money.
Bitcoin follows exactly the same logic.
Nobody eats gold.
Nobody heats their home with gold.
Nobody builds houses out of gold.
The overwhelming majority of gold's monetary value comes from collective recognition of its monetary properties.
The same is true of Bitcoin.
The Free Market Argument Backfires
The strongest claim made is:
"A free market would destroy Bitcoin immediately."
Would it?
Who is forcing people to buy Bitcoin?
Who is forcing corporations to hold it?
Who is forcing pension funds, hedge funds, family offices, and sovereign wealth funds to accumulate it?
The entire existence of Bitcoin is the result of voluntary exchange.
People buy it because they believe it possesses desirable monetary characteristics.
That's called a market.
In fact, Bitcoin's critics often make two contradictory arguments simultaneously:
"Bitcoin is worthless and nobody wants it."
And:
"The government must regulate it because people keep buying it."
Pick one.
Gold Versus Bitcoin Is Not Gold Versus Fiat
The response acts as though the debate is:
Gold vs Bitcoin.
Many Bitcoin advocates would happily take that deal over the current fiat system.
The real debate is:
Gold and Bitcoin vs central-bank money.
Bitcoin's existence is not an attack on sound money.
It is an attack on monetary manipulation.
Gold requires vaults.
Gold requires transportation.
Gold requires trusted custodians.
Gold is difficult to divide for everyday transactions.
Gold is difficult to move across borders.
Bitcoin solves many of those problems while preserving scarcity.
That does not make it superior in every respect.
It does make it a legitimate monetary competitor.
The NFT Detour
Then we get the NFT argument.
"Just tie crypto to real assets."
Fine.
But now you've abandoned the original argument.
If crypto can successfully represent ownership of gold, land, stocks, art, or other assets, then crypto is obviously useful as a monetary and ownership technology.
At that point you're no longer arguing that crypto is worthless.
You're arguing about which type of crypto should prevail.
That's a completely different debate.
The Central Authority Claim
The most curious claim is that Bitcoin somehow requires a centralized authority.
Bitcoin was literally designed to eliminate the need for a central authority.
No central bank sets its issuance schedule.
No government determines how many will exist.
No committee votes to create more.
No politician can print trillions of new units during a crisis.
Whether one likes Bitcoin or not, accusing it of being dependent on centralized control is like accusing a submarine of being dependent on horses.
The entire architecture was built to avoid precisely that dependency.
The Bottom Line
The response accidentally demolishes fiat currency while failing to land a punch on Bitcoin.
If you believe debt-based fiat money is destructive, inflationary, and coercive, you're already halfway to understanding why millions of people became interested in Bitcoin in the first place.
The real question is not whether Bitcoin is backed by gold.
The real question is whether a scarce, durable, divisible, portable, verifiable, censorship-resistant asset can function as money.
The market has been answering that question for over fifteen years now.
And despite thousands of obituaries, Bitcoin remains stubbornly alive, which is more than can be said for every paper currency in history. As the old joke goes, fiat currencies eventually all go to zero.
Come on man. Your responses make it perfectly clear you aren't listening to what I'm saying at all.
REREAD WHAT I SAID AND LISTEN NEXT TIME.
Listen to understand, not to respond.
Only if you can understand what I'm saying can you respond in a meaningful way. Otherwise it's meaningless to engage.
As just one example, so you can see how you ignored what I was actually saying:
Actually, every one of my criticisms was a criticism of a non-asset based currency. NON-ASSET BASED CURRENCY. HEAR MY WORDS. It has nothing to do with "fiat" except that both are usually (in this context) non-asset based.
Only if you can see what I'm actually saying will your response will be meaningful, otherwise it's nonsense.
One more attempt, because your premise is so profoundly false.
Gold was valuable because people valued it's real qualities. On the easiest example, it is beautiful and rare. Jewelry was desired for the same reasons, and while jewelry could be used in trade, it was never used as a currency (as far as I'm aware). But it does show that "beautiful" and "rare" are BY THEM SELVES desirable qualities. Have you ever looked at gold? The idea that it has no "real qualities" is utter nonsense.
To continue: currently it is used for jewelry because of it's physical properties (luster, lasts forever (doesn't oxidize, degrade from acid/base reactions, complements many colors (clothing), etc.), has incredible thermal properties, is both physically malleable and strong (It used to be used as the best possible mortar e.g. ("City of Gold" wasn't just a meme), filling in both the gaps in large stones at a very useful temperature range (lead was used for similar reasons, but had the nasty "poison" quality), and absorbing energy from earthquakes, etc., etc.)). These ideas that it had no intrinsic qualities are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE STATEMENTS. All arguments that push that IMMEDIATELY FALL APART, and any investigation into it recognizes is ludicrousness immediately. Your premise assumes people will listen to you without using their eyes or their brains.
That doesn't count the fact that there is some substantial evidence that the Egyptians (or pre-Egyptians?) used gold for large scale electrical conduction, making it the best conductor possible in an environment intended to last forever and safely carry a massive EM load (the top of the Pyramid was capped in gold, and it looks like it was a power system of some type, using gold as the best possible conductor). There are other possible technological uses given by "hidden history" (speculative, but more existent than you might think if you look) that are even more "out of this world" (both in effectiveness and literal "out of this world-ness").
Try again. Listen next time.
Then you can respond meaningfully. Otherwise I won't engage again.