Uniswap-style automatic market making for everything. Every possession you have, constantly marked to market by ~2040.
The defi matrix
As each asset class goes on-chain, it can be stored in a digital wallet. And it can be traded against other such assets. Not just cryptocurrencies, but national digital currencies, personal tokens, etc.
We’re about to enter an age of global monetary competition.
Uniswap-style automatic market making for everything. Every possession you have, constantly marked to market by ~2040.
This is an interesting point. Cash doesn’t make you money. In fact, it can lose you money in an inflating environment.
Reliable, 24/7 mark-to-market on everything is hard — but if achieved, means less % of assets in cash. https://t.co/Hg7W32iCDY
Thus less use for currencies as people can more easily store their wealth into assets and easily trade them.
— Pierre-Yves Gendron (@pierreyvesg7) February 24, 2021
- All assets trade against all assets in the defi matrix
- Automated market makers give liquidity for rare pairs
- Everything is marked-to-market 24/7
- Value of cash drops, as you can liquidate instantly
- The new no-op is to keep your assets in BTC
Though in practice this may mean WBTC/RenBTC [or ETH!] rather than BTC itself.
Total global liquidity for everything via automated market makers will drive the world to minimize national currency holdings.
Because the scale-up of AMMs & yield farming will allow anyone to instantly get a better return than holding cash!
But no more than that. Every excess unit of fiat beyond the necessary minimum goes into crypto to seek higher returns in the defi matrix.
It all becomes arbitrage.
Maybe you can constantly find a better job too...
https://t.co/NhCP1AGNzu
And what follows is the end of the bullshit job. What you do has tokenized and appreciable value, since otherwise, by definition, that capital could be earning immediate yield. There\u2019s a mark-to-market cost to bullshit.
— manhattanbeachproject (@manbeachproject) February 25, 2021
From drudgery to flourishing.
More from Bitcoin
I have a different take on bitcoin, tether, and dollars
Can also speak with authority on nation state violence
"Nothing makes you feel more free than taking another person's freedom"
and @profplum99 concerns with tether, bitcoin, and decentralization make sense yet I remain long BTC
They are correct on force, I worked in decentralized societies, they are dangerous because the state does not have a monopoly on violence
For those in the first world who have never seen a milita ride out of the desert, kill and enslave farmers, and the government cannot stop it because the 21st century slave trade pays better than the UN, the reality of decentralization is might equals right
I know, that isn't the decentralized future Buterin talks about while wearing a t-shirt with a cat fighting space invaders on it (love those shirts)
But we need to be real, disrupting the global centralized economy won't be like Uber putting taxis out of work
It will be war and faminine level disruption as old empires come alive again
For decentralization to rise the centralized global power of the last 70 years (US Hegemony) has to weaken
Yes we will be rich, but as the Big Short says,
"you can be happy, just don't fucking dance"
Can also speak with authority on nation state violence
"Nothing makes you feel more free than taking another person's freedom"
After much investigation and conversations with people on here, I\u2019ve formed a relatively robust theory of what may be happening with Tether.
— Travis Kimmel (@coloradotravis) January 18, 2021
This thread will attempt to lay it out with neutral language for the purpose of discussion.
1/
and @profplum99 concerns with tether, bitcoin, and decentralization make sense yet I remain long BTC
They are correct on force, I worked in decentralized societies, they are dangerous because the state does not have a monopoly on violence
For those in the first world who have never seen a milita ride out of the desert, kill and enslave farmers, and the government cannot stop it because the 21st century slave trade pays better than the UN, the reality of decentralization is might equals right
I know, that isn't the decentralized future Buterin talks about while wearing a t-shirt with a cat fighting space invaders on it (love those shirts)
But we need to be real, disrupting the global centralized economy won't be like Uber putting taxis out of work
It will be war and faminine level disruption as old empires come alive again
For decentralization to rise the centralized global power of the last 70 years (US Hegemony) has to weaken
Yes we will be rich, but as the Big Short says,
"you can be happy, just don't fucking dance"
Agree mate. Well done @ttmygh @profplum99 and @nic__carter on a ripping show. Im obviously in the "gold is superior" camp, though I am long #BTC (tiny position). I thought the best/most interesting point of whole debate was raised by @profplum99 regarding the fact that a 1/n
#Bitcoin transaction is never really final, given the energy required to keep the network running, and obviously its scale issues will only grow over time. That said, I actually though @nic__carter "won" the debate as it were, and I was unconvinced by the threat to national 2/n
security or undermining Fed policy angles Mike put forward. Two areas that are super interesting to me. One is the issue of #Bitcoin ownership, and how concentrated it is in terms of a small % of addresses that own most of it (2% addresses > 95% of holdings I think). 3/n
made great point a lot of this is omnibus/exchange related - so exchange or fund - ie @Grayscale holds #bitcoin for multiple investors. That may well be true - but it brings up 2 other issues. One - it proves that #bitcoin doesn't really "work" without 4/n
centralisation - as this implies most people need exchanges or funds (or @Paypal) to buy it. If so, that kills off a major "bitcoin is better than gold argument" - as in reality, gold is way more decentralised (from mine supply to ownership distribution). It also brings up a 5/n
Exceptional listen on #Bitcoin.
— Joseph Skewes (@josephskewes) January 26, 2021
In particular Nic's responses to Mike's aggressive anti-BTC stance.
One dispute with Nic: Even if crypto mail list was best place to announce BTC, if Satoshi wanted fair distribution, surely creating 50% of the supply by Nov 2012 was too fast? https://t.co/e1Hpx4wWOu
#Bitcoin transaction is never really final, given the energy required to keep the network running, and obviously its scale issues will only grow over time. That said, I actually though @nic__carter "won" the debate as it were, and I was unconvinced by the threat to national 2/n
security or undermining Fed policy angles Mike put forward. Two areas that are super interesting to me. One is the issue of #Bitcoin ownership, and how concentrated it is in terms of a small % of addresses that own most of it (2% addresses > 95% of holdings I think). 3/n
made great point a lot of this is omnibus/exchange related - so exchange or fund - ie @Grayscale holds #bitcoin for multiple investors. That may well be true - but it brings up 2 other issues. One - it proves that #bitcoin doesn't really "work" without 4/n
centralisation - as this implies most people need exchanges or funds (or @Paypal) to buy it. If so, that kills off a major "bitcoin is better than gold argument" - as in reality, gold is way more decentralised (from mine supply to ownership distribution). It also brings up a 5/n
