BTC

jc456_

SP500 confidently broke 7k. It's a good sign for BTC.

TexasJB

I’d rather own 250 TAO than 1 BTC

H3adshotfox77

It died the moment to made it POS. I can understand the desire for energy efficiency for environmental reasons, but the POW pathway is what drives a large part of BTC value.

Left_Entrepreneur918

Allot of people may clown you but honestly if anyone would be giving double your BTC investment saylor has the sats to do it.

RefrigeratorLow1259

As I stated earlier on another thread: BTC is a dead token walking. They just don’t know it yet. BTC is… Inefficient, has high fees when moving, Slow TPS, Isn’t green, no ISO20022 or MiCA standard, has high energy consumption, is'nt scalable and not quantum safe.

RefrigeratorLow1259

BTC is a dead token walking. They just don’t know it yet. BTC is… Inefficient, has high fees when moving, Slow TPS, Isn’t green, no ISO20022 or MiCA standard, has high energy consumption, isnt scalable and not quantum safe. What's there to like? 😉

fan_of_hakiksexydays

The two guys leading BCH and BSV got into a beef, and got the main BCH and BSV miners to dump their holdings (which was mainly BTC plus other coins), to finance their hash war.

lukesmit695

lol it’s what taught me that yield on BTC isn’t worth the risk

MinimalGravitas

Good question, but unfortunately not really. In order to move assets onto Lightning you need to make an L1 transaction... so you may as well just move them with that transaction instead. It does raise another interesting question though, what happens to funds that have previously been onboarded to Lightning from old non-quantum resistant addresses... is that another bunch of UTXOs that need to me migrated? Not a huge deal if so I suppose as there is very little BTC on Lightning anyway (less than the amount wrapped on the main Ethereum L2s).

ATLienZ777

Then BTC will become useless in the public eye, for someone who believed in the tech there is no real good solution and everyone crying about consensus will be the same ones crying when BTC price gets capitulated and never return because no one will trust it.

Logical_driver_42

Not saying it’s safe just saying you’re opening yourself up to more attack vectors if you have no idea what you’re doing. I had thousands in my exchange wallet before I finally decided to get a cold wallet. I know a guy who has 3 BTC in his Coinbase and has had it there since 2019 and I’ve told him he’s a maniac for that but he doesn’t seem too concerned so everyone has a different tolerance for risk I guess.

Slow_Grapefruit_9373

It is a known factor that BTC is controlled by the markets, politics, etc. We can’t be asking that question now and then when there is as rise, or fall. Just check what could be the reason that affects it at that moment. That can also put you in a good position to sell some, if not all. Same as when it falls, you will do vice versa. 🤞

Cowdungflung399

Up to you. Just keep in mind that VT, VTI, VOO etc have all beaten BTC over the last 5 years. Not saying BTC wont go on another tear, but it may be 5 more years of stagnation.

Logical_driver_42

Well if you don’t use a vpn you can expose yourself as you are allowing the whole public internet to see your IP and if you use a device that isn’t solely a BTC node you can accidentally give someone access to your computer. I’m sure it is safer but for someone who’s new I dont think its necessary.

Dwaltster

I'd clap chubby BTC with my short ETH pecker

Wolfkurt1

They can control and track your BTC too lmao 🤣

Wolfkurt1

I have been saying that last 15 years lol 😂 BTC is new world order part of it , idiots believe it was some random guy invented 😂🤫🫵🏻

Realistic_Fee_00001

> it wasn't ever going to be used for global payment processing with 10 minute block times. That's why 0-conf exists and BCH made it even safer as it already was. Just listen to this: r/btc/comments/1kjz8zb/the_only_reason_they_killed_0conf_on_btc_is/ BTC worked as p2p cash before it was crippled and blocks got full. >and BCH is pointless now. Ah yes, now we get to the bottom of your post. In reality there is only a handful of sound PoW blockchains and only a few of them try to offer a better MoE system to the current crooked fiat one. And from them the one with the best tech is BCH.

DazHawt

Not just pools. The publicly traded crypto farms as well. But maybe we’ll get lucky, and as BTC gets harder/less profitable to mine, they’ll switch gears AI computing…

Gloomy_Ad_2185

For a crypto expert he doesn't seem to know much. Satoshi didn't create blockchain. He also didn't spend years creating bitcoin. Also BTC isn't the first attempt at a digital currency. Its the culmination of a decade+ of work and research. It became apparent as a need after the 2008 crisis. He has emails about this people can read. I just don't get why people act like it was magic or something that requires the CIAs involvement.

AnonTheGreat01

Whenever he says game theory he either doesn’t substantiate anything or keeps it super surface level. Seems more likely to me that Bitcoin was created by a highly intelligent person who just hated the government/fiat etc. And dedicated a few years to the development of BTC just for their own satisfaction and as a fuck you to the establishment.

ecelps

Going all in is usually where people get burned, regardless of the asset. I’m bullish on BTC too but having some diversification helps you breathe if things don’t go as expected. I hold both BTC and a BTC ETF lol

FYATWB

While I don't think BTC should have ended up as strictly a store of value or hedge against inflation, it wasn't ever going to be used for global payment processing with 10 minute block times. BTC crawled so other faster and smarter chains could walk and run today, and BCH is pointless now.

Nice_Ad8308

If you didn't knew, BTC is hijacked several years ago already block blockstream and others. Read: "Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC"

AutoModerator

Post is by: Animalverse and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: https://animalverse.social/community/p/35547/ LATEST: ⚡ Michael Saylor says Strategy generated $1.3 billion in BTC Gain — its Bitcoin-accounting metric — in the first two weeks of April alone. https://animalverse.social/community/p/35547/ \#Bitcoin #BTC #MichaelSaylor #Strategy #CryptoNews #CryptoMarket #DigitalAssets #Investing #BTCGain #Institutional *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

VeryThicknLong

What specific products allow you to invest through an IFISA on a BTC ETF?

user_name_checks_out

> BTC falling by 50% has nothing to do with cycle theory but based on investor sentiment and perception. * but *is* based But let's ignore the fact that you write like a third grader. Why is your assertion more valid than mine? Please, no tears, don't break any plates. Just hit me with logic.

Abject-Stretch-1187

Based on emotion? Everything I asked is based on pure facts. You clearly are married to the four yr cycle theory and it shows buddy. BTC falling by 50% has nothing to do with cycle theory but based on investor sentiment and perception. You’re too old to be this naive 

norfbayboy

Efforts to apply KYC to BTC buys did not begin until 2013-2015, became more common in 2017-2018. Note the first Bitcoin halving was Nov 28 2012 and 50% of all bitcoins were already mined by then. There are lots of coins owned by anonymous early adopters. Its also relatively easy to move your own coins around and create plausible deniability about owning any.

GIGAbtcHodl

Isn't it funding it now? one barrel of oil - $1 in BTC

Nice_Category

Found the BTC Cash bag holder. 

PuzzleheadedBell4057

If one BTC equals one BTC, then one dollar equals one dollar. I don't know how it can be any other way. If you're attempting to debate the value of each, then that's an entirely different debate

RefrigeratorLow1259

You're missing a big part of the problem, what about the old P2PK addresses that expose public keys on the Blockchain? That's at least 20% of BTC, old Satoshi era coins, addresses that have never been spent from, and addresses where you can see the public key in a tx?? You can just record those keys now and wait for QC to derive the private key and steal funds! ( HNDL)

BFMAcademy

Yes just send it like a normal BTC transaction

Cryptizard

How is it modifying the original intention of BTC?

Whiskey_Water

Investing in BTC is investing in greed, investing in XRP is betting on Brad’s ability to make backroom deals with the current admin, and investing in HBAR is betting on fundamentals and utility of a clearly superior technology. I used XRP gains to buy more HBAR and BTC, but if I’m honest, I’ve been burned by focusing on the best tech before. We’ll see what happens this time, lol. I’m a creature of habit.

nugymmer

BTC tanks, Monero soars. Period.

nugymmer

Maybe that's why Monero is delisted everywhere, perhaps because it happens to be everything BTC was supposed to be, but isn't.

nugymmer

Why would anyone with a hint of sanity do that? BTC will free-fall because people will lose confidence in it. If some group of actors can decide to destroy someone else's stored value, then there is no store of value. There's some bizarre system, that's all.

nugymmer

It won't free-fall for very long. That money will be redistributed, and we'll have you and everyone else another chance to secure your financial future. The purpose of BTC is to be PERMISSIONLESS. This bullshit is anything but permissionless. It's dystopian. It's like early governments, much like the USA, where the early governments were fair, just, and equitable, and small. Then they grew to a monstrous size, are less fair, less just, and less equitable.

7ailwind

Just buy actual BTC instead of the ETF. Not your keys, not your coins.

nugymmer

The whole price is dependent upon BTC being a store of value, and a TRUSTWORTHY and RELIABLE store of value at that.

nugymmer

That is the question. This is about protecting those who already have it all. If it were truly 100% fair, BTC would only be mineable with a PC, much like Monero is only really mineable with a PC, so in all honesty, BTC isn't all that fair at its current stage. So none of this bullshit surprises me anyway. BTC hasn't been truly fair since 2011 when ASICs started ramping up the hashrate. The fewer ASICs and the more powerful ASICs there are, the less decentralised BTC will be. If you have a few giant miners who are mining all of the BTC, and no one else can reasonably mine it, then you have a problem.

alt-co

That makes sense as an allocation strategy. The part I would still think about in advance is the source of funds / source of wealth side once you actually rotate BTC or XMR into the banking system. Compliance is very strict when it comes to crypto even at "crypto friendly" banks. For smaller amounts, it's often manageable. For larger amounts, banks usually want a coherent file showing: * how the position was built (trades from an exchange if it's still around & salary slips other proof of income) * which wallets / exchanges were used * Forensic report on your crypto addresses (Scorechain, Chainalysis etc) * how the assets were sold (ideally you prepare this before selling to avoid your funds getting frozen) These are the requirements for a basic case they can get a lot more complex and they usually are for early adopters, privacy coin users, miners, high frequency traders, market makers, MEV bot operators, ICO participants, Early OTC purchases (in cash) etc. BTC is usually easier to document. Monero is possible too, but obviously more complex from a compliance and documentation standpoint. I actually posted on r/Monero about how people can prepare that file in advance if that is useful to you. Something to keep in mind for when you eventually diversify part of your crypto holdings.

nugymmer

Yes, provide quantum-resistant keys to those who want them. To those who want to stick to the old keys, the risk is on them. You don't need to freeze (that is, burn) those addresses. You don't need to re-release those blocks to new mining rewards either. This is something that I'd expect some other crypto to do. Not BTC. I wouldn't even expect ETH to do it either. It goes against the entire ethos of the project. And fuck greed. Greed is God, for some reason. Understandable, but this is a self-contained financial system. You don't mess around with such a system unless you want people to abandon it, and I can assure you they WILL do that.

Realistic_Fee_00001

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convince people that hard forks are bad and Bitcoin can't scale. BCH regularly delivers advanced tech on all fronts, stayed true to the p2p cash goal and yet because BTC captured the media attention and slandered BCH, people are to lazy to even look into it.

Realistic_Fee_00001

And you can't even get the name right. It's BCH or Bitcoin Cash and neither did they fuck up, nor did they centralize. BTC: https://mempool.space/graphs/mining/pools vs BCH: https://bchexplorer.cash/graphs/mining/pools Quite to the contrary Knotters currently demonstrate how centralized BTCs development is. Something BCH has overcome years ago already.

MinimalGravitas

From the article (for those who only read titles): > *"BIP-361 will freeze approximately 34% of the BTC supply if implemented on the network."* The 34% of BTC being referenced here are those stored in potentially vulnerable addresses. These users would have to move their coins to new types of address that are secured with quantum resistant signiatures. The type of signiature hasn't yet been decided, but there are 3 possibilities being considered (FALCON512, Dilithium2 or Dilithium5). The problem with all of these however is that they are much bigger than the currently used ECDSA one... between 9.7x and 64x bigger. This means that each bitcoin block can fit a lot less transactions, which increases costs for the user and reduces TPS. The disadvantage with increasing transaction cost is obvious, but the reduced TPS is much more important. Bitcoin already has a very slow throughput, and if all of the vulnerable coins need to be moved then this would take around 2 years, assuming that they used 25% of the network's capacity. Obviously if every other Bitcoin user agreed to stop using the chain then this migration could be done in a few months... but that seems unlikely. So in summary the plan being laid out involves: * setting a 5 year countdown for migration of 34% of all BTC to new addresses that of with a signature standard that hasn't yet been decided; * if you don't move in time then your coins will be locked forever (with the vague hope of using ZK to maybe prove ownership in the future); * moving all the BTC that needs to be migrated will take around 2 years to process all the required transactions; * and after migration transactions will be 9x to 60x more expensive, with the chain able to process an order of magnitude less TPS. Sounds great, nothing to worry about!

nugymmer

I guess allowing greed to take control and modify the original intention of BTC is a good thing? Nah. No chance bud.

Realistic_Fee_00001

What's BTC cash?

nugymmer

Only 1 works with BTC's ethos. The rest are someone literally frigging with the system, tinkering with it so it suits them and their collective agenda. 1 does nothing of the kind. 2 and 3 enrich those who do not deserve to be enriched. 1 allows anyone with a powerful enough machine to access the funds. I say to anyone who has not secured their funds, if they disappear because someone with a machine way, way more powerful than yours has stolen them, I say, "Tough luck." With crypto, you are your own bank. Period. 1 is the most democratic. The rest are bullshit solutions that could literally dissolve trust in BTC. I personally would never touch BTC again if they ever pulled off 2 or 3.

AutoModerator

Post is by: No_FOMO11 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1smzk4o/btc_has_been_rejected_at_the_same_level_for_6/ I've been watching this setup build for a while and something shifted this week. Bears had two full months to push BTC below the range. We had stock market corrections, tariff panic, extreme fear everywhere. And Bitcoin just kept holding 65K. That's not weakness, that's absorption. Now we're pushing up against the level that's rejected price for half a year. The 12H 200 MA. Every single attempt to break above it since October has failed. If you zoom out it looks like a wall. [BTC rolling VWAPs](https://beehiiv-images-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/asset/file/a7e6429f-f2c3-4502-828e-29f2e11ca7ee/image.png) But here's what's different this time. The 30 day VWAP has started sloping upward and acting as support instead of resistance. Spot demand has been persistent on this move up, this isn't a perp-led pump. And the S&P rebound has been stronger than almost anyone expected, which matters because BTC has been tracking equities closely. [BTC 12H 200 MA](https://beehiiv-images-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/asset/file/0b185564-7e5d-4dab-9774-79b600ab59b4/Screenshot_2026-04-13_at_14.07.46.png) The levels are clean: * 69K needs to hold as support * 73.4K is the real breakout trigger Above that, the mid 80s open up relatively quickly based on the low volume node above Below 70K with no reclaim, momentum likely rotates back toward the mid to low 60s I've been slowly adding through Nexo during this whole consolidation period. If this is genuinely the macro bottom forming, I'd rather be positioned and patient than waiting for confirmation that comes after the move. Not financial advice, just sharing what I'm watching. Do you think this is the real breakout attempt or another rejection at the wall? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

nugymmer

Yep. BTC maintains its integrity as a balance sheet, a global ledger, and anyone who wants to secure their assets is free to move their assets to a newer quantum-resistant wallet. Anyone else who decides not to can face a risk of loss of funds if someone else with a very powerful machine breaks the keys and therefore can access the funds at the corresponding address.

beanbalance

so what is the problem here? the new wallets will be protected, the network will be protected after upgrade. THe old wallets wont be but so what? oh so he is worried about the price now??? No more 1 BTC = 1 BTC?

Brave_Goal_1300

Good prompt. My pre-trade pass is BTC/ETH context, funding + OI, then 4H/1H/15m alignment. I’m building Effortless Chart, a crypto-focused multi-chart beta, because bouncing between too many tabs was slowing that exact workflow down.

nugymmer

Pretty simple. If those tokens are not secured, someone will claim them. I'm OK with that, because it fulfils Bitcoin's original game plan. There is no need to fix this problem. Just move everything to a quantum-proof ledger, and keep the old coins that have not moved; leave them as is. If by chance someone claims them, good for them. QC machines are incredibly expensive, so only the super-rich will have access to them. And here's the thing: if you're worried about some Povvo getting super rich from a QC-broken BTC key, then you're worried about nothing.

alt-co

Agreed on having the off-ramp sorted early. The only part I’d push back on is parking serious size on Nexo while you “plan the next move.” You’ve reduced BTC market risk, but you’ve replaced it with platform / credit / jurisdiction risk. Nexo itself markets yield products and savings accounts, which is exactly the point: that yield is not free of risk. A lot of larger holders choose to move part of the proceeds into a private bank instead, where idle liquidity can still earn something through short-duration: Treasuries, money market funds, or similar instruments, without depending on a crypto platform being the thing standing between them and their cash. Even with Nexo’s security and licensing claims, that is still a different risk profile from holding bankable cash at an established private bank.

RandomPlayerCSGO

More of less my strategy is keeping the portfolio equally distributed, so 1/3 stocks 1/3 gold and silver and 1/3 BTC and Monero. The rebalancing strategy is if one of those goes up enough to be significantly more than 1/3 of the portfolio y rotate capital to the other 2 sectors to balance it again. So I guess you could call that an exit strategy into other assets.

alt-co

A lot of people off-ramping parts of their BTC holdings think exactly like that. The goal is often not to sit in fiat long term, but to use fiat as a bridge into other hard assets or traditional investments. In that case the exit plan is not really an exit to cash, it is a transition plan: BTC into bankable liquidity, then into real estate, physical gold & silver, private markets, diversified portfolio of equities, bonds and other instruments you can access through an established private bank.

MarioWilson122

That would not surprise me. Last cycle was weak for most of the market outside of BTC, so a lot of people probably either had little worth reporting or did not care enough to report it properly. So the ones that mostly did were likely ones holding BTC.

moldyjellybean

Everyone in crypto is a BTC Maxi they just don’t know when they become a Maxi

RandomPlayerCSGO

Why would I? If I am saving in Bitcoin because government currency is a scam why would I have a plan to go back to government currency? My long term plan is to accumulate good quality assets: Bitcoin, Gold, Silver and my handpicked stocks that I trust long term, and just keep growing my capital and when I need money try to pay straight with gold silver or BTC or just borrow against my assets and let inflation devalue my debt

Capital_Rhubarb6249

I think what’s key is what’s a good buying price and when do we reach that point. I always thought it was a guessing game till I understood there is a pattern. This guy explains it very clearly. Bitcoin: The Pattern Nobody Talks About (Price Prediction) https://youtu.be/pIMgW_IEdNY As for how many own more than 1 BTC- no idea. And honestly don’t care :)

Ketworld

You spend ETH, you sell BTC, that’s the difference.

AlgonikHQ

Only buy what you can explain to someone else in one sentence. If you can’t describe what it does and why it has value, you’re speculating on price movement not investing. BTC and ETH first, understand those properly before touching anything else. Keep position sizes small enough that a 70% drop doesn’t change your life. That scenario has happened multiple times in crypto history and will happen again. Automate your buys on a schedule and stop checking the price daily, the emotional noise from watching crypto tick by tick causes more bad decisions than anything else. Good luck

PabloEscobarino1

This guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Anybody can download the entire BTC block chain because it's open source. Also after downloading the entire chain, any one can run Bitcoin core software ( again, because it's open source and anybody can download and audit the code themselves ) through their owner server to validate their own transactions themselves. I can show this knucklehead my start 9 server running Bitcoin in my living room lol Dude is clueless

FriendsMade_MeDoIt

not gonna lie this sounds exactly like the kind of convo that pops off in our group chat when someone gets a big win and everyone starts theorycrafting lol but trying to “target” 1M from 230k in one cycle is kinda where people in my circle usually get burned. the moment it turns into a number goal, people start reaching for riskier plays just to hit it, and that’s usually when things go sideways. most of my friends who’ve lasted more than one cycle ended up doing the boring split. like a solid chunk in BTC/ETH and then a smaller “high risk” bucket for alts they actually believe in. the ones who went all in on trying to 3-4x fast usually either sold too early or rode something all the way back down. also mentally it hits different when it’s a big lump sum like that vs slowly stacking. people get way more emotional about every move. if it were my group, we’d probably be arguing over allocations more than specific coins tbh. are you thinking of going heavy into alts or keeping most of it in the safer side?

Legitimate_Cry_5194

It didn't flip BTC by a hair in 2017 actually

Majestic_Plane_1656

No muting allowed. If the BTC devs can't figure out how to quantum drain and burn all the vulnerable wallets before bad actors can then they lose out.

GILL-47

Oh for god sake, these posts again. Why didn't you post it when BTC was at 65k that its going to the moon. BTC will still revisit 60k eventually and even lower.

PandorasBucket

I don't think these numbers are correct because ETH marketcap would have been higher than BTC, which never happened.

AlgonikHQ

Your dad isn’t wrong, crypto is genuinely high risk and the scam rate is higher than almost any other asset class. His instinct to protect you as a beginner is correct. That said, a small allocation to established crypto like BTC or ETH alongside a solid ETF foundation isn’t unreasonable once you understand what you’re buying and why. The key word is small, 5-10% of a portfolio maximum, money you could lose entirely without it mattering. Your ETF choices are solid. VOO and SCHB as the core is exactly the right foundation for a beginner. Get comfortable with those first, understand how they work, then consider adding a small crypto position later if you still want the exposure. Never buy crypto because it’s exploding, that’s usually when the late buyers get hurt.

Fit-Poet6736

hodl BTC and earn interest on it at nexo - never selling, only using it as collateral when I need the liquidity

ashleyshaefferr

Should have a mechanism where it goes to Bitcoin Core or the development of BTC. And somehow claimable if someone has sufficient proof

ZICRON_ULTRA

This is likely bs. Anyone that had 24 BTC would have all kinds of legacy plans for it. Ignore.

tooandto

The rollout on Coinbase after the fork was absolutely criminal, pumping that garbage to almost 0.5 BTC. The geniuses over in r/BTC at the time, (inconceivably a BCH sub), were pushing the flippening- a ridiculous fantasy about a death spiral event for BTC. Some of those poor idiots took the bait. Imagine trading BTC for BCH at 0.5 in 2017 then holding it til now. On its way to zero. Ouch.

Brave_Goal_1300

56%ish BTC.D still reads risk-off to me. I'm treating BTC as the liquidity anchor until BTC.D rolls over and ETH/BTC + TOTAL3 actually confirm alt strength. Dominance by itself can fake you out, so I usually keep BTC.D, TOTAL3, ETH/BTC, and perp charts side by side. Builder note: that workflow is why I started making Effortless Chart. Curious what 3 to 4 panes everyone else keeps open.

Iapetus404

Oh dear its like 2011-2013 again..... BTC dont need servers dummy! The "professor" dont know how blockchain and "proof of work" works! No need CIA...just miners!

miamiair92

Don’t worry I’m only 93% BTC

ricksy

- Not every investor wants growth. The fixed income market is well over $100 trillion. - BTC needs a CAGR of just 1.2% for Strategy to cover it. - Strategy have 2 years of cash for such instances. BTC needs to go to $10k and stay there for 2 years for Strategy to fail.

AppleiOS1234

Fuck this click bait. Why this is allowed? The article itself says that developers planning to migrate to quantum resistant wallets. Old wallets have 5 years time to migrate to new wallets. No where it says they plan to explicitly freeze early BTC wallets

pkyang

I absolutely love this guy but his rudimentary knowledge of Bitcoin really undermines him, he needs to study BTC badly

Brave_Goal_1300

One thing that helps with posts like this is keeping the relative view open instead of only the BTC chart. I usually want BTC, ETH/BTC, BTC.D and a small alt basket side by side, otherwise it is too easy to overread one timeframe. Builder disclosure: that is why I started building a crypto-only multi-chart dashboard in beta. The win for me is less tab thrash and better relative-strength context.

BlazingPalm

I think this question is too broad, it covers all “crypto users” when their makeup is very diverse. Long story short, frequently trading alts and BTC is a shortsighted strategy that doesn’t end well for many. Emotions get involved, bad decisions made. The strategy that works better, imo and many others’, is DCA buy and hodl BTC only. It’s very simple and frankly, often boring. The end goal of this crowd is quite different than the traders’: long term transition away from fiat while the traders are short term focused on increasing fiat gains. This is an oversimplification, but I think yall get the point m.

HSuke

Pretty much. If BTC grows higher than STRC dividends, you're better off buying BTC. If BTC grows slower than STRC dividends, they'll probably reduce the dividends If BTC falls, STRC will eventually fail as investors lose NAV and end up selling, leaving only die-hard bag holders. Yeah, you're better off buying BTC directly.

isofakingwetoddid

Probably the opposite, they’d probably wait and want to stock up expecting whales to sell but if retail buyers are picking up the crumbs and standing by to scoop up BTC dumped by whales when the price drops because of that, retail buyers swoop in and buy what the whales sold off, raising the price back up, no?

isofakingwetoddid

I’m surprised BTC didn’t hit $140k by the end of 2025. Was expecting it to hit $150k in late January but it just plummeted

jekpopulous2

This is the most likely option. We’ll probably have a quantum-resistant BTC vs OG BTC the same way there was a hashing battle with Bitcoin Cash. The difference is that this time the fork will win.

DrGarbinsky

The core devs have been anti BTC for over a decade

edwin_case

I got CHAT GPT to do some estimates based on a Pareto Distribution A simple Pareto X∼Pareto(xmin⁡,α)X\\sim \\text{Pareto}(x\_{\\min}, \\alpha)X∼Pareto(xmin​,α) so that the **average BTC per holder** equals total coins ÷ number of holders. I used a common wealth-inequality shape **α=1.3\\alpha=1.3α=1.3**. That sets xmin⁡=α−1α×avgx\_{\\min}=\\frac{\\alpha-1}{\\alpha}\\times\\text{avg}xmin​=αα−1​×avg. 1. **2025-ish calibration** (≈106M holders, ≈19.6M BTC in circulation) * Derived xmin⁡x\_{\\min}xmin​ ≈ **0.0427 BTC**. * Rough counts (rounded): * ≥1 BTC: **1,755,789 people** * ≥10 BTC: **87,998** * ≥100 BTC: **4,410** * ≥1000 BTC: **221** * Bands: * <1 BTC: **104,244,211** * 1–<10 BTC: **1,667,791** * 10–<100 BTC: **83,588** * 100–<1000 BTC: **4,189** * ≥1000 BTC: **221**

gimperion

It's a big red flag that says Microstrategy is running out of ways to prop up BTC and wants your money to do it.

R4ID

>This is a proposal...that's all. >If this was implemented then you would have a point.. Tell me how BTC plans to be quantum resistant. So far this is the best proposal and it involves going against everything the "church" has been preaching about for the last 15 years.

MarioWilson122

No one actually knows if it will be the end or not. BTC has been following a different path than before, so it could be around the same price in 6 months or much higher, so it’s hard to tell.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Bcom_Mod and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/bitcoin_com/comments/1smpifd/the_man_about_to_become_the_next_fed_chair_just/ Kevin Warsh's [ethics filing dropped this week ahead of his Senate Banking Committee confirmation hearing](https://news.bitcoin.com/ethics-filing-fed-chair-pick-kevin-warsh-lists-estee-lauder-wealth-and-crypto-stakes/) and the portfolio disclosure is genuinely remarkable context for where crypto sits right now inside the US financial establishment. The headline number: over $192 million in combined assets. Buried in the detail: indirect stakes in Solana, Optimism, and the Lightning Network through a venture fund called AVGF I. Direct positions in dYdX, Dapper Labs, and Polychain Capital through other fund structures. A direct stake in Metatheory Inc., a Web3 company. More than 30 crypto-related investments in total. He's pledged to divest specific holdings if confirmed. So the person who will replace Jerome Powell as the most powerful central banker in the world has been, until this week, an active participant in DeFi, L2 scaling networks, and Bitcoin infrastructure. That's not a peripheral observation. The Fed Chair sets the monetary policy framework that crypto has been fighting against for the past two years: the high-rate environment that's been the dominant macro headwind for risk assets including BTC since late 2022. The policy implications are genuinely complicated. Warsh is historically inflation-hawkish: as a Fed governor in 2006-2011, he was one of the most vocal inflation fighters on the board. More recently he's argued that rates *and* the balance sheet should be lower if productivity gains hold. His public comments on Bitcoin have been openly positive, calling it "important for policymakers to understand" and saying it doesn't make him nervous. What the market hasn't fully priced is what it means to have a Fed Chair who has skin in the game in the crypto ecosystem, who has publicly called Bitcoin an important asset, and who takes over from a chair that crypto markets viewed as an obstacle. The April 21 hearing will be watched closely. Expect questions about whether his crypto holdings created conflicts of interest, and whether he'll be pressured to divest more aggressively than currently pledged. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

WellieWelli

Quantum will destroy Bitcoins credibility, permanently. Signature alone determines a valid translation so in a scenario where BTC could be stolen ownership would be meaningless as the protocol has no way of knowing if funds were stolen. Restrictions on dead accounts would have a short term impact on price and sentiment (thanks to fear mongering from folks like you), then it'll quickly recover and 99% holders would not give a shit because their wallets are now protected. The mindset of people like you will disappear the second the first quantum attack takes place, the option is to either let it die or make it quantum resistant, there is no other option. If you're saying you'd rather let it die just on principal then fuck off already and sell.

Competitive_Milk_638

Stick to BTC. The rest are shitcoins.

LuckyWinds

> So a decade plus of all the BTC maxi bozo's claiming XRP can be frozen on the XRPL (which it can't) They now come out and want to freeze BTC on chain.... You cant make this nonsense up It appears you are making this up as that's not what is happening. This is a proposal...that's all. If this was implemented then you would have a point.

LongLonMan

They have to sell BTC to pay back the loan

ryanmichaelpower

Buy Real BTC. If you’re going all in, then go all in.

shakdnugz

One concession is that Strategy determine the number of STRC outstanding, so it can never get "out of hand" per say.. They can limit the issuance to the amount they believe they can afford, it's not like a JPM or Citi can just print x number and expect a dividend.. So with that in mind STRC < BTC holdings notional. 2nd it's not protocol, decentralised or liquidity based.. The funding comes from declared and reported assets. He's said it a million times but its "stepping down" the vol, so if we anticipate >12 ARR, then Strategy pockets the alpha and pays out the rest in dividends, and as the industry matures, you shouldn't necessarily expect them to need to sell, they could collateralise stock, some other financial instrument, or the underlining bitcoin. Compare that to say a Celsius, or Luna which has a less broad base user base than bitcoins, where liquidity was provided by retail and MM. You would need to expect a run on BTC first, before MSTR, or STRC is at risk -- no where near similar to a run on Luna or Celsius. Disclaimer: I don't own or endorse STRC or MSTR; NFA.