Reddit Posts
Mollars ($MOLLARS) ICO | Store of Value ERC-20 | SOV Token for Ethereum Blockchain | Avoid Scams Utilizing The Mollars Name
Hard capped coins vs uncapped coins.
Bitcoin is an inflation hedge and a store of value? What you think it means VS What it really means
in YOUR opinion is Bitcoin...top 5? 10? 15?..... ultimately I see it's a SOV with P2P properties and how about ETH? Can you imagine a list without these at number 1 and 2?
Algorand: Bit of a Deep Dive
I see this as generation Zoomer's chance to buy Bitcoin in 2010. 99.99% of you wouldnt then and wont now. Read on.
Why hasn’t the SOV narrative of BTC played out?
Battle LEET- An upcoming blockchain game from GMR!
Salvadorians can borrow from themselves at 0% interest.
How are we supposed to use BTC as a medium of exchange when every transaction is a taxable event?
Mentions
This is what I suggest you think about. There are a large number of currencies around the world that move up and down against each other, there are alternative ways to store your value - houses, gold, silver, diamonds, stocks, bonds, real estate, oil and many more. Some are better than others. The USD sits amongst all of these and everything is connected. Worldwide everyone has a choice of where to store their hard-earnt value, that choice changes as the relative performance of each SOV changes. And it's not just about storing your value, it also about debt. Any debt priced in USD will be reduced, annoying debtees. There's a lot of inter-country debt priced in USD. With such financial complexity flying around is it no wonder that BlackRock states that bitcoin is a flight to safety.
Bitcoin is being treated as more of an SOV and investment vehicle rather than its primary purpose of subverting centralised control.
The dude has talked shit about bitcoin for years now. When we 'crash' to 150k years from, he'll be like, "I told you it was too volatile and not a SOV!!"
This guy is the epitome of if I talk louder than you my argument will win, even when he's hit with reality and factual information. Does this guy even buy what he is saying or is he just that bitter that he bet on the wrong SOV? Natalie on the other hand was cool, calm, and collected. Which means she is confident in the mechanics of Bitcoin as a whole and sees the bigger picture that gold will be outdated, and fiat is a failure and in free fall. It even seems like Charles was offended by Peter's absurdity at times.
Wow, just realized Bitcoin replacing real estate as SOV means housing prices become more affordable for people...
I think the “endgame” for most maximalists would be that bitcoin becomes a new unit of measure for the global asset supply. So instead of measuring the value of as you say the gold supply as 15T fiat dollars, it could also be denominated as X bitcoins. Right now, since we are early in the adoption process, the value in bitcoin for many is in its potential appreciation, which in a sense is a hindrance to its actual purpose as a better currency as no one wants to sell it and miss out on future gains. However, once adoption is saturated “price” will plateau, and people will better understand its use as a superior SOV/medium of exchange/unit of measure. And when this happens the concept of the “price” of bitcoin will sound as silly as the “price” of $100, because we will now not be thinking of bitcoin in terms of how many $ for 1 BTC, but what is the value of say a car or a house in satoshis.
The main use of BTC is store of value. Which right now is held in gold ($15T), fine art(5T), real estate($300T) , bonds...to name a few. The overall market of SOV is around 350T. So the real question, in my mind, is how much market share will BTC take in SOV? The biggest market of SOV is real estate at $300T. So, lets just focus there. We know people need to live in homes to survive, that market will always exist. The next question is, how many wealthy people are storing their money in real estate... the answer is A LOT!! Im not talking about their primary family homes and a couple of vacation homes. We're talking houses and condo's they rarely visit, because that isnt why they bought them (which is one of the causes for our inflated real estate markets) . Would you (as a wealthy investor) rather put your money into a house that has to be maintained with gardeners, pay property tax, take the risk of 'acts of god' destroying your investment ... and then, when you decide you want to sell, you have to find and agent to take pics, put it on the market, show the property, which could take a minimum of 60 days to liquidate (being generous)? Or would you rather have a digital asset that you can travel the world with and when/if you wish to liquidate you can do so anywhere with an internet connection instantaneously? Of course ive heavily over simplifying for sake of conversation here. But, to answer you question, IMO, I feel its safe to say BTC should grab about 1/3 of the SOV market which puts it roughly at a $100T asset. Brining the total price per coin to around $7 Million and change.
Bitcoin is an SOV, a collectable like watches, art, and stamps.. etc. They might not have a necessity or real underlying value, but they are great store of value. Remember that diamonds have no underlying value but have high market value.
DOGE not nearly as good of a SOV bechae it doesn't undergo halvings and is infinitely inflationary
Much less hassle than houses. Not as complicated as stocks and bonds. The value of Bitcoin as a SOV is so high, I couldn't care less whether it becomes a currency.
Beanie Babies! Tulips! : Show me Beanie/Tulip ETFs ETF’s only care about fees! : Is that why Black Rock filed to allocate it under one of their funds? Waste of Energy! You mean like social media, pornography, video games, & non-educational television? You can’t all cash out at the same time! : You mean like literally EVERY market? What happens if everyone decides to sell a stock at the same time? No use case! : Use case like SOV which many are currently doing? Bad for the environment! : You mean like all the EV batteries that we can’t recycle yet so we pollute the works until further notice? Criminal activities! : You mean like FIAT which has been THE currency for 99% of all criminal activity? EVER. Too slow! : You mean like wire transfers? We got credit cards for speed and security. CULT like following! : You mean like followers of sports teams, stocks, companies, brands, political ideals, (insert anything here. ANYTHING can have some cult-like participants)
>From an economic point of view it is a great store of value. Do people care about that definition of SOV though? Usually, people concerned about SOV are interested in wealth preservation, which Bitcoin is not good for. Its highly volatile.
They don't have to be dicks about it And it's not like they're exclusively saying alts are shitcoins cause they underperformed BTC long term They claim that BTC as a p2p/SOV is the only use case in crypto They totally ignore what ethereum has achieved technology and adoption wise by repeating the that ETH had ICO which must mean it's a security and the DAO hack/fork which must mean it's centralised The fact that you can use ethereum in countless more ways than bitcoin gets totally ignored
yeah you could probably get a shop to accept gold pieces too. but in the end there are easier ways to do small transactions. btc has kinda evolved to be a long term SOV inflation hedge.
Who cares about layers 2? The main use case of BTC today is SOV, years of labor stored securely, in digital property with a limited supply. If once a month I need to convert a bit of BTC back to fiat to pay my expenses, so be it.
But bch will do it all just as good or better than each respectively. Virtually free tx Fully capable defi with cashtokens. Albeit it’s so new it needs to be built up still. But that is working. Virtually for free as opposed to ETH There are quality mixers to achieve adequate privacy that just need to be developed to the point they auto run in the back of all wallets. The only reason it isn’t a SOV yet is because it it was ever allowed to be it would eclipse everything.
Considering its exellent SOV properties, exchanging it across borders is cheaper and faster than sending gold or a building in Manhatton that's for sure.
I love this: " It doesn't have to be a currency. Nobody's trying to buy a cup of coffee with a fraction of their building on 5th avenue." People say Bitcoin failed as a currency. I personally only care to use it as a SOV. I have credit cards for my everyday transactions. Spend FIAT. Save in BTC.
You take out a 1M ZUSD loan Immediate step: Convert into DLLR, the main stablecoin used for DeFi applications across Sovryn ecosystem With this, you currently can: 1. Convert into USDT or USDC through Babelfish aggegator, then transfer and cash out through the many options that exist throughout the cryptoworld, eg through Coinbase. Fund your lifestyle pay bills, etc. 2. Lend to earn interest on [Sovryn](https://sovryn.app/earn/lend) (interest paid out stablecoin) 3. Trade for more assets - like buying BTC or the protocol's governance token, SOV. 4. Provide liquidity for trading pools When do you pay back? Whenever you want. Or never. You're lending against yourself. No one is coming to ask you questions. But remember to watch your collateral ratio. If it fall before 110%, automatic liquidation begins. Add/remove collateral as needed. No other charge throughout the life of the loan. 8% Origination fee: Charged immediately the loan is issued, and distributed to stakers in the protocol as per their voting weight. (SOV stakers controlling the Bitocracy) As always, Disclaimer: Not Financial advice. You still need to DYOR.
All of that is horseshit except for maybe SOV and Bonds.
Seems ironic that you got so excited by the price movement that you forgot BTC is an SOV now, not a medium of exchange.
Ehh i just looked too. I just call people out who give their opinion as fact with no evidence. Like saying gold is a SOV when a small bit of fact checking will show the complete opposite.
BitcoinOS from the creators of SOV over on rootstock
Maybe externally, inside the community the debate was always that BTC could be both SOV and for spending.
No because copper isn’t supposed to be a store of value. Cheap copper is good for a productive society since it has so many uses. A monetary premium on Copper would be detrimental to our current economy. They’re both metals, yeah, but they’re not the same when talking SOV.
You forgot to mention SOV Sovryn
Hilarious how it was Yago from Sovryn that destroyed SatoshiVM with a single question. Sovryn is a legitimate project that has built though multiple bear/bull markets and will release BitcoinOS in 2024. BitcoinOS is an open protocol, and rollups on BitcoinOS can be built with in smart contract language. But $SOV or FUD it, I don’t care. BitcoinOS is going to change everything.
The Spaces scam reveal by Yago was hilarious. If you want a real project that's been through bear/bull markets and has a token that has re-awoken buy $SOV and learn about the Sovryn ecosystem on RSK/Rootstock. [BitcoinOS](https://sovryn.com/bitcoinos) is coming, and it's going to change everything.
The problem with this train of thought - and the "SOV" mantra in general - is that Bitcoin was never created to make people fiat rich. Its initial intent was to REPLACE fiat altogether as fiat currency is central (pun intended) to so many societal woes. There's nothing wrong with becoming fiat rich, but we've really lost the original "freedom money that can't be fucked with" narrative completely at this point, IMHO.
I would actually argue those are detriments to using it as a store of value. For one, just like real estate the utility cases become more expensive due to the monetary premium. As for the investment thesis, when 80%+ of the value is monetary premium you either need to disregard the utility cases from your thesis or you need treat the asset as being 500%+ over valued. In other words, if an economic crisis can force gold into a position where the utility demand is required to form a floor then you are looking at massive losses. If you don’t think that’s actually plausible (I agree) then you realize you don’t need the utility value. You just need the scarcity properties. So that brings me back to it being a downside of using gold as an SOV. All it does is make electronics, jewelry, etc. more expensive.
It depends on your expectation. If you think it will make you rich, then yes it's too late for that. Do you want an alternative SOV to diversify your portfolio, then no it's not too late. Mentally I have it in the same bucket as gold. I own zero gold and BTC, but I see several scenarios in the future where I would add exposure.
LTC does not need to overthrow BTC to be relevant. It continues to be a very efficient means of value transfer and is much cheaper and faster to transact with than BTC and for that reason it has a use case as a cryptoCURRENCY, not just a SOV which BTC has become due to it's slow and expensive transfer fees.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin is a failed project. Maxis like you can spit out platitudes such as Bitcoin is the solution but let's face it, Bitcoin is just a good SOV, and judging from the white paper, I doubt that's what Satoshi intended.
Most of gold's value is actually not derived from its use as a commodity (in dentistry, electronics, art etc). Its very high price premium comes from its *use as money*, specifically a store of value. If BTC were to replace gold as a SOV, gold's price would likely drop >80% down to its actual industrial commodity value.
I agree, Bitcoin and ETH are a complete two different creatures, to me Bitcoin is the perfect SOV digital asset and ETH is a tech platform product like a PC or Windows, ETH is needed as long crypto exists, but it needs to adapt to changes like any other tech product in order to survive against competitors, Bitcoin has no competition in the digital assets sphere.
Plenty of cryptos out there actually being used for thijgs beside SOV m8 . . .
Sure. Since I always try to argue in good faith I assumed he meant 'using' it for purchases. Obviously I won't because it is still in the SOV phase. But whatever. The dude sounds like a Buttcoiner. HFSP.
My pov: Collectible -> SOV -> MoE -> UoA. Btw, BTC hodlers make the floor price. If it weren’t for hodlers, you’d have seen way lower lows than the 15k of Nov 2022 this bear. M
Intrinsic Value not to be confused with the word 'intrinsic, I agree has a specific meaning in finance. There are different types of asset types and I'm not sure that sure whether the objective calculations apply to store-of-value asset types(SOV) because SOVs do not create a cash flow. The objective calculations usually reduce future cash flows to a present value divided by investment costs. Since metal commodities, BTC and the dollar do not produce a cash flow. In the absence of an Intrinsic Value calculation, some then fallback to utility valuation, which for gold and silver is significantly lower than the traded price. By utility value I mean the value to some other manufacturing process. For BTC there is no 3rd party utility value and there is no Intrinsic Value, but for me this does not mean it is valueless. My preference is 'the ledger as value' idea posed by Lyn Alden; that gold, the dollar (and other currencies) and bitcoin offer different means of implementing a ledger. And the features, quality and use determine the relative value of this class. I'm not aware of a financial value calculation for this class, although there may be one.
No. Access to price action without needing to take possession of the underlying asset. Think of Oil. You want to invest in oil. Are you going to buy/transport/store hundreds or thousands of barrels of oil? Of course not. But you want to buy oil when it’s low and sell it when it’s high, right? An oil ETF allows you to do that. It’s just paper exchanging hands based on current prices. Now. To someone on this sub, you might think “that’s absurd! I want my own bitcoin!” And for you, that may be the right answer. But for the TRILLIONS of dollars that are AOM by legacy financial institutions it makes sense. For grandma, it makes sense. For someone with a 401k that they want to point some or all toward a harder money/SOV, it makes sense. Not a “scam.”
Store of value is a necessary step on the way to widespread medium of exchange. If something sucks as a SOV, not many will want to accept it as payment. So yes, Bitcoin will one day be a widespread medium of exchange, but it will take time for it to firmly establish itself in people's minds as the best option for SOV. After that comes unit of account, eg bananas cost 15 sats per lb.
Nobody has ever said owning Sats is a status symbol.. There aren't 120 bn ETH either.. BTC once aimed to be a P2P *currency*. Satoshi wanted to increase the blocksize 30% each 2 years to facilitate increasing activity, to pair with halvings, and we'd all speculate and see increased economics emerge over time. Well.. After Satoshi died, people decided they wanted a "store of value" instead. People will fight to never scale the blocksize even 1%. The idea of Bitcoin being for mass adoption died with Satoshi. BTC is a symbol only, obviously it can never be a currency in this state. It is a "SOV", like gold *bars*... If the chain ever faces congestion, or you simply DCA into the same address once a week for a year, your UTXO fees will be $100s due to the once-temporary now-forever handicapped blocksize - meaning everyone holding only *sats* will be priced out of transacting entirely. If everyone in the world had BTC they'd be able to make just 2 transactions each in their whole life. Bitcoin isn't for people with a few sats, or for people who need blockspace, but huge interest to people who can gamble on a few BTC's ie **price speculation** - the same people who would never use blockchain for anything more than monkey jpgs are the people who buy the most BTC, by design. The BTC narrative right now is literally the Blackrock ETF. People today are pricing in rich money entering the space, not average Joe with $40 'extra' at the end of every month.. Even though ETH is diluted 6x to BTC I can't recall another coin that costs more per each than those two, everything else is either diluted more or worth a lot less. The Veblen good with ETH I think is running a solo validator (or owning a dumb $800K NFT), which right now a validator costs $72.5K to set up and yields ~1.8 ETH annually. The higher the price, the more out of reach 1 coin or 1 validator - and absolutely the more people get FOMO.. You see it with altcoins too. Those people the most will claim BTC is too expensive now, they missed the boat. So they bought Shib/Safemoon to own 10M of something instead, to feel that same psychological ownership someone with 10 BTC feels. 100%, they know Bitcoin is divisible... No one wants 10 microscopic flakes off a gold bar, at least not to make themselves feel better. The few buying 10 Sats isn't what's pumping the price either. Just look at a chart with volume. People open those insane record breaking leverage positions near ATH and never ATL. Or listen to anyone who says they bought at ATH, there are many, and ask them exactly why... I can see no evidence BTH or ETH aren't Veblen goods.
No, it's not perfect. There is no perfect product or crypto. Bitcoin needs to improve its issues with fees and block size. It could be perfect as a SOV but not as a P2P electronic cash which has already failed. On the other side Lightning has also some issues regarding channel management and funding. It's not so different from a bank because sooner or later I will need to rely on someone else's liquidity to make payments and transfers. It's important to say that also if you don't have a good watchtower who custodies your funds, your funds can be stolen. Soooo... I don't see the same philosophy behind "no middlemen involved" applied.
Many inventions turned out to be successful on different usecase. It seems like SOV will be the most significant atm.
Governments of major economic countries will not accept bitcoin as currency until they give up a monetarist policies - that's decades away. However bitcoin might replace gold as a settlement vehicle between governments it looks a better vehicle than the current slow arcane systems. I can imagine that some governments will prefer to continue settle inter-government debt in fiat currencies as they do now, but using CBDCs to prevent bitcoin being used. In the retail sector I don't see what CBDCs would add, systems are quite quick and sophisticated. None of this really impacts bitcoins place as a SOV asset. Small economic countries may still adopt bitcoin. This is all speculation, but I could imagine bitcoin is driving strategic planning at inter-government level to preserve the status quo.
(2) A proud Bitcoin maxi????? What's that supposed to mean? Find me anywhere in the world (apart from some weird Bitcoin maxi region, or El Salvador) where you can buy with your Bitcoin in any store you enter... So you'll gonna have to exchange them constantly to be able to spend them. Or you're just using it as an SOV, your saving account? And you don't have to be a maxi to do that. We're all free in doing so. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, if it were to be used on a global scale eventually, without some huge improvements, you can even forget to do, on average, more than even a single transaction ever in your life... so far for being a Bitcoin maxi !!
Increasing the blocksize 30% every 2 years would not affect the properties of the network. Do you think miners, at industrial scale already today, can't afford $10 in disk space each year? Or full nodes, for that matter? I agree L2 can be used to achieve greater complexity and scale. I completely disagree there's any possible implementation for an L2 on Bitcoin, which are on-chain by definition. The Bitcoin language intentionally won't allow for it, and miners/Blockstream refuse to update it. E.G. to use Lightning Network to send someone $5 when BTC fees are $25 would cost $55, and there's no self custodial way to buy 'L2 BTC' because it's locked up in some off-chain network. Just compare Ethereum L2s after less than 2 years, to Bitcoin's only L2 after over 6 years. Only 5000 BTC are using Lightning today, $200M, approx 0.025% of the circulating supply, statistically no one in this sub has used it before. 6.64M ETH are inside L2's now which is about 7.5% of all circulating ETH, plus an additional $14B in RWA/stablecoins. CEXs supported ETH L2s before LN. Just a hunch but probably the market thinks Bitcoin's (off-chain non-trustless or else non custodial) scaling design sucks, relative to Ethereum's on-chain L2 design which even itself is far from trusted/safe yet. Lightning released their first whitepaper before the Ethereum whitepaper was written. There has been ample time to adapt and fix the problems with LN or Bitcoin. Ethereum tried to use Lightning tech initially (Plasma) but it failed, while they put out 100s of pages of research why it won't work and how to make it work, that the rest of the industry except Bitcoin has capatalized on in their L2 design already. People are stuck in their ways, while better tech has been battle tested and implemented all without Bitcoin, is it truly sustainable to be stuck in 2015 indefinitely through an emerging tech sector? If there were work being done to achieve goals of scaling or complexity, or they could already be achieved today simply, your argument would have some backing. For now, I don't see how that reflects reality. All that needs to be done is to allow miners to validate ZK-proofs. That way entities can post compressed ZK blocks on L1 to be secured by L1. But people argued that ZKBTC will make Bitcoin *too much like ETH* so it's already a non-starter. Lightning is the only option Blockstream will agree to implementing, yet it sucks and still no work is being done on making it viable after almost a decade. If Bitcoin is a SOV and people are meant to stay in Lightning Network off-chain or in non-custodial wallets like Strike, who's going to pay the miners once BTC inflation isn't high enough to sustain them all? If people want Bitcoin to be used this way they should at least come up with a new whitepaper or better distribution model, because this new off-chain never pay for shit idea doesn't make sense - not in conjunction with halvings that *now* only serve to halve the security budget each ~3.5 years, because now no one is using or consuming or doing anything with BTC blockspace even after 95% distribution.
Bitcoin is not just a SOV. It’s a secure base layer to build everything else on. A design decision to not scale infinitely on L1 in order to protect the properties of the network doesn’t mean those properties can’t be achieve on L2 or higher
Bitcoin's original monetary policy was to be a P2P electronic cash. Satoshi wrote instructions to scale its blocksize 30% each 2 years. Under Incentives in the whitepaper this is made clear. Since about 4 years ago that was changed. Now Bitcoin suddenly became a "store of value" and not a currency, and it will never scale to become a currency. A SOV can never collect enough fee revenue to sustain itself without inflation, while inflation is algorithmically racing to 0. SOV or HODL is counter productive to halvings, ie the long term miner security budget, because Bitcoin was never designed to be used in that way. Huh. Same thing in my eyes. Consensus voted to burn base fees on Ethereum. Consensus voted to make BTC into a SOV - after the distribution and entire design to be a growing currency were already well in place, ie halvings. Bitcoin doesn't look anything like it's whitepaper today, so something obviously changed or went wrong between then and now. I find it odd maxis don't like to bring that up.
Could be but hard to predict I wouldn't say it's set in stone that BTC follows S&P and always will Many invest in BTC having in mind it being a potential SOV like gold. Gold usually performs well in recessions I would rather have a certain exposure to BTC than risk being proved wrong. Worst case scenario, I will have to wait for a couple of years. But hey, I'm just an idiot on internet who's invested so my objectivity is probably tainted
BTC is sucking the monetary premium out of other SOV assets Holy shit I swear every day I go deeper down this BTC rabbit hole
> You cant compare an element with computer code. Why not? We're comparing them purely as money. >You got thousands of spinoffs of the code and other code which went up price wise over the years.Are those SOV as well? Even shiba inu had a higher price gain in less time than btc and isnt mineable. Just a printed token. But how have they managed vs. Bitcoin? Every alt from 2017 is down 60-99% vs. Bitcoin. Even Ethereum.
Its an easy sales pitch. You cant compare an element with computer code. You got thousands of spinoffs of the code and other code which went up price wise over the years.Are those SOV as well? Even shiba inu had a higher price gain in less time than btc and isnt mineable. Just a printed token.
Why? Its creation is compared to gold mining in the White Paper. As for SOV, why else would he model Bitcoin's supply and issuance after gold's? Why not just insta-mine a trillion coins every year?
SOV, digital gold. Always laugh at those 2.
It is less a problem if it is just a store of value. However, in the unlikely event, it were to become the "world reserve currency" then yes, obviously have a problem because you can't have growth if inflation is negative (negative due to lost keys). The other problem, in either scenario, is the security problem. Without some small increase in supply there is likely a problem with miner incentives as fees alone won't be enough of an infinitive (especially if the main use case is SOV and everyone is hoarding their BTC). The good news is that this is all way down there road and I'm sure the Bitcoin community will act like adults and make the necessary changes.
> Bitcoin's SOV is pathetic No. You are.
Bitcoin's SOV is pathetic, the rampant volatility is the primary criticism of the currency.
> What happened to those IF IF IF's you were dropping earlier? IF there were nothing in the world with intrinsic value then BTC may have a shot? All this thought experiment is suggesting is value exchange is an innate human nature, which it is. That doesn't mean Bitcoin will persist, it's saying even in the absence of BTC people will still find a means of value exchange. > This even states, our assumption which isn't changing anytime soon, our makeshift currencies will be with something that has an 'automatic bootstrap of intrinsic value' due to that meaning infinite demand for them.. versus a literal but unique pebble. In the absence of all money and intrinsic goods, we would exchange unique pictures of our pets for our goods and services, but why would we ever get to that point if there are still intrinsic goods to use instead? That's the only part that's missing from BTC maxi's heads. Again you don't disprove the gold part. And at no point have you explained how gold can be a good SOV with no network, never mind not even 7 tps.
>WHAT?? We can't have the gold until it is mined. I guess if picking a rock off the ground is considered mining. The act of mining isn't what creates gold, obviously.. All humans will eventually die, and gold will persist regardless if anyone is there to mine it. >Further bitcoin need to be mined. So what? There's no shortage of miners. Just as there's no shortage of gold miners. So what, 95% of all BTC has been mined already. There's no inherent or even good speculative reason miners will expend as much money fishing for that 5% as was spent on the 95%, meaning there's no reason BTC will remain secure after the reward dwindles away to practically nothing in a few more halvings. People won't pay *any* price for BTC because at a high enough price there's no left room to sell to someone else at profit. Compared to a commodity like gold, which if it were even $100M per oz you could buy and profit on it through work, by making a pace maker or GPU or anything more valuable than gold itself. Gold miners work to mine gold because gold has this intrinsic value, so there is demand at any price. Bitcoin miners work to mine BTC because Bitcoin issues a temporary block subsidies as a reward. These are not the same... >IF IF. Why on Earth would they stop mining it? If my aunt had balls. Because miners are profit maxis, they don't work for free, fundamentally and as intended by design of POW. But it was also part of Bitcoin's design to have on-chain scaling, a fee accrual method which itself serves to building out intrinsic value. But other than Satoshi (as it was his idea) miners didn't like this. Miners preferred small blocks to scaling because *short term* it means more congestion therefore higher fees and more profit, as any profit maxi would want. The temporary subsidy today is 900 BTC, which gets minted by miners and sold onto the markets. Any rational person isn't spending $1000 to go to work to make $100, it's safe and rational to say miners aren't expending over 900 BTC to mint that 900 BTC subsidy. Next halving the subsidy will be 450 BTC. Rationally miners won't expend over 450 BTC in cost to mint 450 BTC. Ok so far? The problems with this are that halvings are exponential, and that each halving matters to the market (to the 95%+ of BTC circulating already) half as much as the previous one so can't just 2x the price each halving itself forever. Just FIVE halvings later the subsidy will be 14 BTC per day, in FIVE more the subsidy will be 0.43 BTC per day, and in FIVE more and we are down to 0.01 BTC per day. YES miners may *still* spend up to 0.01 BTC on minting that 0.01 BTC reward in 60 years. But unless Bitcoin is a multi-hundred-quintillion dollar network by then, that means Bitcoin will be insecure. An insecure Bitcoin means all BTC loses their properties, something that isn't physically possible for gold. Is 14 BTC even enough? At some point down this trajectory security will get called into question, at which point do you still believe BTC will 2x and 2x 2x 2x 2x to make up for halvings *on a meme* after its hashrate has become as volitile as the price? >We saw in 2017 the miners wield no power. Despite wanting bigger blocks (for some reason; lower fees?!?) they were unable to introduce them. Now it would be even harder. Blockstream won, you're right. Then Blockstream released an off-chain network (Lightning) to siphon fees away from miners to themselves, to their permissioned LN 'hubs' anyway, like the profit maxis they always were. Then through successful marketing and astroterfing *people* felt like they won too - hey look BTC scales now, if you squint really hard it's just like what Satoshi wrote about!! For some reason, lmao. It's very sad the pet rock 'never pay miners' party stole Bitcoin from the P2P digital currency party. Metcalfe's law is simply stated ass backwards, I guess. Imagine how valuable Verizon would be if they went back to dial-up, probably worth the hundreds of quintillions you imagine BTC will become... >If Bitcoin wasn't intended to be a SOV (as any good money SHOULD be) why would Satoshi model its issuance and supply after gold's? He even compares the creation of new coins to gold mining in the white paper. Why did he launch his novel tech network like a tech startup, you mean? It's literally the exact model of enshittification that you see everywhere. Netflix costs double or triple what it did when it started, is it too following the same supply as gold by making entertainment more scarce? Soon Netflix will cost $100 with ads, but had they launched that way nobody would've used it at all. If it cost money to mine BTC at the start nobody would've done it, and if it wasn't promised they'd be rich through algorithmic ie **artificial** scarcity few would've persisted. It's called a subsidy for a reason. You're able to buy BTC blockspace CHEAP today and still not worry about security, because miners are getting paid 99% through temporary subsidies today. Ideally and according to the whitepaper (read: incentives) as the network effect grows people will add more and more value to this always secure blockspace - intrinsic value. By the time the subsidy weans away, there is meant to be so much inherent intrinsic value for Bitcoin's blockspace that people will *pay* for it themselves, and miners can go from working for subsidies to income. Except so many people believe Satoshi was wrong after halvings flared the price up so dramatically. It became a meme "you don't want to be like the BTC pizza guy" and "HODL", which both spit in the face of this tech growth model. Imagine if you sold food boxes and you wanted to grow a network effect, so you send the first 100,000 out for free, then you start to charge $5 for them and no one buys any because "nobody wants to use this, HODL tight and we might get more free boxes!" well, your startup would obviously fail. Bitcoin just hasn't made it to the 'make it' stage yet luckily, there is some nonzero chance people change their mind before it's too late and try building with BTC instead of strictly speculating on the next halving with it.
No store of value is 100% safe. Some more then others. Bitcoin is growing in safety, but there are still safer SOV’s. That’s it I guess.
So you’re 25. In 2012 (when you were 14 yrs old), on the old bitcoin talk forum people were asking the same question. And the comments were the same as the comments on your post right now. The fact is, nothing has really changed. People are still trying to figure out their exit. People are still waiting to buy things with it like a house, a car and coffee. You can but…come on. Bitcoin was a SOV back then, it’s a SOV today and it’ll be an SOV 10 years from now. It’s not about the change of bitcoin whether it’s the tech or the USD value. It’s about the change of what the world is becoming and that’s global authoritarian. As long as bitcoin can keep doing what it has been doing then it will always be here just there won’t be as much to go around. That is why you don’t exit bitcoin…ever
It's a matter of reality. Very few, if no crypto project ever had anything presentable beyond speculation, and despite billions being dumped, they have all failed across the board with the exception of BTC and ETH. BTC was grandfathered in as a SOV everyone trusts, and ETH is being used for ecosystem transactions. How can your chart go up when you provide nothing? there is no real world value actually being created by anything, there is no actual real world service. Even benign things like Litecoin and Doge are worthless in the grand scheme. Why are you paying money, to buy money, so you can buy less things?
Probably work side by side, but crypto could be SOV.
That's why people are bullish on spot ETF's finally I can recommend people investing in Bitcoin who aren't capable of Op-sec and using a HW safety. If you get these people to invest now, they will lose their coins and be jaded forever. With an ETF they can use BTC only has a SOV. It would put upward pressure on the price and would stabilize it too so its less volatile, we could cash out gradually instead of trying to time the tops and pay less taxes in the long run. Its great for everyone
I think hyperbitcoinization will take place, just not in my lifetime. We havent even established SOV yet. The vast majority of people still dont understand the true scarcity of Bitcoin. Once spot ETFs are approved and new institutional money flood in, at some point there will be a panic buying moment to bitcoin where everyone just "gets it". And that moment is gonna be painful bc then \*everybody\* will want in and there will be exchanges without any bitcoin. Its not like gold, its not like real estate. You just cant find it! Demand jumps and price will just keep climbing and climbing thanks to its absolute finality of supply. Hyperbitcoinization is years if not decades away and still not guaranteed, but Bitcoin doesnt need to become unit of account to do so, it will succeed by simply becoming the defacto store of value asset.
Read "The Bullish Case For Bitcoin", it talks about how money (not currency) goes through four phases...collectible, SOV, medium of exchange, unit of account. It's a great short read.
I can know nothing about bitcoin or custody and “safely” go into my 401k allocation website and choose bitcoin and magically have exposure. No wallets or security required. Strictly for SOV amd investment purposes. For us enthusiasts, it injects more liquidity, driving the price in fiat up and taking native adoption with it.
imo the adoption won't happen simultaneously for the store of value and for the currency. We need to get through the SOV first and once that becomes self-evident, businesses will start accepting btc at the points of sale. The magnitude of this change is huge and historical, it stands against a somewhat functioning fiat system and the benefits are not apparent to the majority. So just give it time, another 10-15 years I think before we see btc accepted pretty much everywhere. Don't forget to simply and quietly stack.
I would say in 10 years the market is gonna look a lot different The regulation is coming, in EU in 2025 and the rest will follow shortly after Nano won't have any trouble with the regulation and I hope people will start to recognize it as a great p2p and possibly SOV coin as it has no inflation Nano also won't have any issues with ESG regulation as it's very green So imo, it's stands a lot better than most projects out there
We are already in a recession though. It is the government and central banks changing the definition to fit their narrative. BTC is holding pretty well now though, I will not say it is 100% recession proof, but BTC could be used as a hedge due to its properties (hard asset, SOV, mathematically proven max supply, etc.)
Monero and Nano are a lot closer to what BTC was supposed to be so focus kind of turned to SOV And Bitcoin is the number 1 SOV, not because it was first but because it's most decentralised and most secure. It has been battle tested the most and has the most trust from investors
Just giving my take... SOL is good for NFT gaming because of the fast and cheap tx. However, SOL is not a place I will store any of my main assets, it does not work as a good Store of Value (SOV) because the network has downtime as you mentioned. Also, from decentralization perspective, SOL requires very powerful computers in order to run, this make it less decentralized as only the rich can run a node. Lastly, due to the huge blockchain size, I believe SOL only stores 2 epoch work of information on chain? Personally, I do own some SOL for gaming, that's all.
People in the fiat world monetized other sparse assets - such as houses/flats. If your thesis is "Bitcoin will become the standard #1 money" the SOV monetary premium will flow from properties to bitcoin. So under this thesis it's a reasonable action to sell home for bitcoin.
Well, you have to zoom out Most investments have a recommended holding period and historicaly no one who has held BTC for more than 4 years has been down I mean people who invest in gold in 2011 had to wait for 10 years to break even. And yet we aren't arguing that gold is not SOV
If bch is ever allowed to be a SOV for any period of time it completes its fiction as money, making it the only true money 2.0 in existence. All you need to do is comprehend the ramifications of that and you’ll start to get a glimpse into the workings behind the curtain to surprise bch SOV.
I like BCH it's cheap and fast and widely accepted and respected by the market regardless of its price decline issue, but I accepted the idea it's not a SOV it's what intended for it to be, a digital cash, so I keep my savings in Bitcoin and convert to BCH or LTC or even better to XLM or XRP when I need to do cheap and fast transaction, there is a place and a job for every coin, I don't call any of them a failure.
Crypto to be stable I mean 99% of cryptocurrencies aren't even tackling that area I'm not gonna buy my milk with LINK So that leaves p2p crypto like BTC, XMR, XNO which aren't yet stable. Perhaps they will reach that point but they first need to be seen as a good SOV and get wide adoption And stablecoins which I'm not sure what they bring to the table, at least in first world countries. We can all pay pretty cheap and instantly with our banking apps. And it looks like CBDC are coming with stable coins which will take a piece of pie Plus you have projects like Ripple and Quant which are tackling commercial banks and traditional payment processing systems
Yes, BTC is a SOV. So, I will buy BTC and spend the rest/divest into real estates & stocks.
SOV and MOON are my moon shots for 2023/2024
Well I dont think anyone plans. Personally I just found myself curious about ETH and as time went by I added a couple of alts like DOT, MATIC, BNB and TWT some lowcaps like ORE,SOV and UDO also made this list.
1. They hate it because Core purposely ruined it to delay adoption because it ruins legacy finance thus then current power structure. Plenty of info out there if you care to open your eyes. 2. BCH the resistance to that movement has made substantial improvements to the original movement. The latest being CashTokens that went live a week ago. Plenty of info out there if you care to open your eyes. 3. Doesn’t matter. The original design still functions regardless of what any organization outside the networks thinks. Including USG. 4. There is only one coin that can achieve mass adoption. BCH. This requires a circular economy to form. However there is an organized campaign to keep BCH from establishing any level of SOV by printing USDT and naked shorting it. Without the ability to achieve any sort of SOV it cannot be used as a MOE and never form a circular economy, so no mass adoption. There is plenty of info out there if you care to open your eyes.
Anyone know if Sovryn (SOV) does proof of reserves?
Tokenomics and fairness matter. The Other coins you mentioned had unfair token allocations or premines that make them inherently centralized. LTC had proven that it is here to stay time and time again and has the longest network uptime out of any coin. LTC had optional privacy and is accepted nearly everywhere BTC is, which you can't say about the coins you mentioned. LTC has lightning network and MWeb optional privacy and is an honest, real world payment coin and SOV.
theres a shib original version (SOV) thats trending now lmao
You cannot disregard a bottom for BCH. It could quite possibly fall perpetually albeit under false pretenses. If BCH as a form of cash is allowed to be anything but a negative SOV over time then it becomes viable as a MOE. If it can be used as a MOE then it’s viable to be held over time. If it can be held as a SOV over time and be used as a MOE then it’s actually money and capable of becoming world reserve That is a dangerous proposition for we all know who. Therefore the number one goal of the existence reserve currency is to keep BCH from even holding value over time.
This sub should make up its mind about if BTC is a SOV or if it is money. One thing can be both, but BTC is either one or the other, it's shit at being both.
But for real tho.... If u missed the PEPE pump, check out $ELONPEPE, or the new Shib, $SOV... Lets win together!
If utility determined value, then oil would be way more expensive then it is, since its the backbone of global industry. And gold was used as a SOV way before it's use in electronics. Bitcoin's real world value is being able to store your value outside the confines of the economy with 12 words in your head, bit more practical then sticking a rock up your ass.
If you missed pepe, check out ELONPEPE & SOV for similar type of gains!
> Cardano (yellow line) continues to experience substantial development. Still, its price hasn’t increased at the same rate as other projects over the past three years. Commits ≠ Development Try again. > Development activity is a crucial metric for evaluating a cryptocurrency project’s potential for success and growth. Investors should keep tabs on projects with high development activity to optimize their portfolios. **Real** development? - maybe. Crucial? Not so much. Biases aside, the global financial status is by far the biggest influence that we have all observed (shitcoin "pump and dump" aside of course). This id of course followed very closely by investor sentiment. SOV-ness, real utility and use (includes developments) comes after. That is, if we are all being honest.
$SOV and $ELONPEPE to the moon!!!! 🚀🚀🚀🌕🤑
I think decentralised currency will be a thing as CBDC will bring nothing new in terms of inflation which was pretty much the reason BTC originated. But I'm not so sure whether BTC will be the one to pull it off in an original sense. BTC narrative kind of steered from P2P to SOV when it became clear that L1 wouldn't be able to process the amount of trx. So today, many are not fans of LN and see BTC as primarily as SOV asset. Plus the amount of energy mining takes could be challenged in an ESG environment to which we are certainly heading This opened up a small space for some niche competitors (one is often lost on a boat and the other is 2 fast 2 feeless) which I see as potential niche coins that could take a piece of the pie. Or we might see some sort of stable coin like DAI but not pegged to USD but perhaps some sort of inflation index or something In the end it's to early to tell but I don't think the idea of decentralised p2p will die out as history has showed that centralised money making power always gets abused. So best to hedge our bets and enjoy the ride
BTC and LTC are good friends. LTC makes for a backup network for cheaper and faster Txs if BTC's chain gets bloated and inefficient and makes for a great currency while BTC makes for a great SOV.
I like the energy and bandwidth concept, it makes it good for gaming or any other not so serious dapps. For SOV, I will use decentralized blockchains. Also, I have no idea where he gets so much money to buy those failed projects.
The price rises faster because there's a lower marketcap and liquidity and there's more speculation and hype in Bitcoin over traditional assets. Which is why it's more volatile and can crash just as easily as it pumped. Like I said, you're making hindsight claims about things that have already happened in the past. Even after I'm accepting your definition and criteria for IH and SOV - the most you can say with certainty is that Bitcoin WAS an IH and SOV. Not that it is one now and wil continue to be.
>I asked you for evidence of IH an SOV and all you had was a picture of a price chart and hindsight claims. Because it literally shows that it has a long history of outpacing inflation. I'll make it even simpler: We already know that gold and the S&P 500 are two of the traditional hedges against inflation, and what's most often used to define the term "hedge against inflation" in finance. So if Bitcoin has outpaced the very two assets that have been the definition of a hedge against inflation, wouldn't Bitcoin be by definition an even stronger hedge against inflation?
I didn't start off with the wrong definition right off the gate. I'm literally describing what people think inflation hedge means and the way it is portrayed by Bitcoin pumpers Vs what it actually is. 2 price points in the past and using hindsight to claim your speculative gamble was an IH and SOV because it went up in value during a specific time period. I asked you for evidence of IH an SOV and all you had was a picture of a price chart and hindsight claims. And also I never claimed that Inflation linked bonds are the strongest hedge of them all. Just that they are actually legitimately linked to inflation metrics and are much safer option than betting on risky assets that have crashed 50-80% in the past and only depend on fresh money and greater fools to pump. I know and I'm well aware of the "long term bro" nature of IH and SOV claims made about Bitcoin. There's no real time frame or rate or return mentioned. All vague and loose time ranges. Like I said in my post - the most you can claim using hindsight and past data is that Bitcoin WAS an IH and SOV. Not that it is one now and will continue to be.
Alexander The Great burned his soldier’s ships forcing them to fight and beat the opposing army, and so they could leave on their opponent’s ships. There was no monetary incentive or promise of riches. Alexander changed the circumstances by taking away his own soldier’s ships. His army did not want to stay on the island and die, so they opted to fight even though they could die in battle. Expounding on your thoughts, there are two ways to motivate a person and have a thing be a success. Incentive is one; ie give them a carrot to support the cause or give them the stick (ie change their circumstances so they are forced to support something new). By not understanding BOTH, you may find yourself blinded as Bitcoin may not be used as a future P2P medium of exchange in, but just regarded as a SOV. And here in lies a problem. As block rewards halve every 4 years, transactions will need to be bid up to help replace the block rewards lost to pay the energy cost of mining the hash. End users will seek out more frictionless projects like Nano or others with lower fees than Bitcoin. Higher transaction fees to support the miners will force people to stop using Bitcoin just like Alexander did to his Army when he changed the circumstances. Network effect will implode onto itself as transactions will need to go higher but the people will leave to pursue a better alternative. In addition. Bitcoin has a dwindling incentive as entities with more capital than you and me force us out of block rewards and transaction fees. What is left is hope the value of your Bitcoin asset goes up, so you can sell it once you realize Bitcoin is not being used as a P2P medium of exchange; which by the way, will screw the miners of transaction fees, and thus the security platform of Bitcoin fails and miners do evil things b/c their is no more incentive to be honest and they cut bait leaving you with the bags. The global financial crisis of 2008 comes to mind as bankers started doing shitty and illegal things once they realized they were on the wrong side of the mortgage bond trade. Just remember, “it’s never what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain In summary, you are correct, perceived incentive is is driving Bitcoin higher. That’s for damn sure. Just be mindful of the policy change, so you don’t get blindsided. A lot of people at the top are going to lose a lot of money by not fully understanding the game theory of what motivates people, incentive is one, but change in circumstances is the other. Stay well. Help others who are less fortunate. Thanks for replying. Thanks for reading.