$BTC: Two Bitcoin FUDs to address this Thanksgiving weekend:

1. China PlusToken FUD: Old news. Please see linked thread.

2. U.S. Treasury FUD: Read thread below...

1/ These news are much more relevant, as they imply severe trade-offs for people who want to keep their bitcoins undoxxed, with the cost and risks of doing so. I would not disqualify the tweet as mere FUD in the sense that what he posted is false. It should be taken seriously.
2/ For all we know, his decision of making it public before TG weekend may come out of the urgency of informing CT of a poignant anti-Bitcoin move by a Trump administration trying to cut lose ends before leaving office—not just "price manipulation" as I've seen suggested around.
3/ It implies the acceleration of a process already planned for for months in advance, not something he just came up with to "crash the market."
4/ In practicality, assuming this passes, it will have two major consencuences:

a. Armstrong's analysis is correct. And I would go further in saying, this regulation would leave the U.S. severely handicapped to continue to be the leader in the cryptocurrency industry worldwide.
5/ b. It would bifurcate major market actors into two camps. For the sake of simplicity, I´ll call the former the "Conservationsists" and the latter the "Integrationists."
6/ Conservationists are mostly old Bitcoin money, big early-adopter HODLers who believe in Bitcoin's value proposition as a whole, including scarcity, pseudonymity, untraceableness, and unconfiscatableness.
7/ Integrationists are mostly new Bitcoin money, insitutions and HNWIs who value only Bitcoin's scarcity and its capacity to accrue value over time. They also believe that BTC needs to be integrated into the legacy financial system.
8/ Frankly...

The former see the value of Bitcoin as a mechanism to protect individuals against government overreach, as well as save and invest their property in a permissionless manner.
9/ The latter would like to see it taxed to build roads, it seems. They like ETFs and already protect their investments within safe haven jurisdictions.
10/ What does this mean for price direction long-term? In my opinion nothing changes...

Conservationists will continue to HODL (with the added incentive of keeping their coins burried for no-one to find, so even less sell pressure there).
11/ Integrationists will see this as expected or needed or "a trade-off" and continue to buy and hold.
12/ What does this mean in terms of narrative in public debate?

Privacy and ownsership, even more so than price, will be the most contested subjects in Bitcoin in the next few years.
13/ To clearify, a lot of people don't neatly fall in either of camps. Some are apathetic, undecided, a certain mix of both. Also, let's not confuse all major players with insitutional or legacy pedigree as Integrationists:
14/ Jack Dorsey, Cathie Wood, and Michael Saylor, for example, don't strike me as Integrationists at all, as they have supported Bitcoin's entire value proposition in the past. Notice how two of them are also OGs.
15/ I'll leave examples of Integrationists diguised as Conservastionists for you to come up with...
Fin/ In summary, the fundamentals remain the same, so in my view even if we continue correcting ($14k, 12k, or whatever), the cause would be simply out of major market actors taking profits with the aim to buy cheaper.

More from Bitcoin

1/ #Bitcoin FUD-busting time!

claim: bitcoin ownership is heavily concentrated.

@business published an article claiming "2% of accounts control 95% of all Bitcoin" 🤣

truth: the facts, my friends, simple don't line up. let's dive in!

2/ interrogating on-chain addresses is tricky.

address =/ account.

one person can control multiple addresses.

one address can hold bitcoin belonging to multiple ppl.

exchanges and trading firms will have addresses with large balances that represent client funds.

3/ the fine folks @glassnode published an excellent analysis of on-chain address balances in January

the ownership distribution of bitcoin among wallets is actually much more diverse than one might expect.

full piece here:
https://t.co/n5IdIQdNoA


4/ 31% of BTC is held in addresses not identified as exchange wallets.

these are likely institutions, funds, custodians, and OTC desks.

our analysis at @CoinSharesCo indicates >15% of all bitcoin is held in third party custody, including @coinbase and our own @KomainuCustody

5/ in fact, between asset managers @Grayscale ($36B in BTC) and our @xbtprovider ($4B in BTC), 4% of bitcoin is locked up by fund providers and asset managers!

our @CoinSharesCo research team publishes an EXCELLENT weekly report on fund flows and AUMs -
The #Bitcoin fundamentals of four generations of inflation, entitlements, and regulations are separate and apart from #Bitcoin the technological innovation. If we had sound money there would be little demand for Bitcoin. (1/13)


The notion that gold futures hold down the physical gold price or subjects the gold price to long-term manipulation is a canard. CME gold futures deliveries are settled with warrants meeting exact specifications met by approved refineries, carriers, and warehouses which (2/13)

ensures the integrity of delivery apart from the exchange. https://t.co/CpV1OBSsAT One need look no further than the 1980 Hunt Silver fiasco which illustrates how deliverable futures contracts provide for the discovery of an untapped silver supply resting in people's homes.(3/13)

Not so for Bitcoin. The CME Bakkt Bitcoin contract is for Bakkt Bitcoin. It is not Bitcoin. Bakkt Bitcoin is a cash-settled monthly futures contract. While the Bakkt Bitcoin has geographically storage of private keys, they are not your private keys. (4/13)


Not your keys, not your bitcoin. The Bitcoin Warehouse is an internal ledger The internal ledger operates separate and apart from the Bitcoin blockchain. The only interaction with the public blockchain is during the deposit of bitcoin into the Bakkt Warehouse and the (5/13)
Another #FreeLoveFriday. So far, I’ve covered Bitcoin, Mastercoin/Omni, and last week ChainLink and the importance of decentralized oracles. Today, let’s talk about one of the most fascinating projects in crypto - @MakerDAO


In my thread about Mastercoin, I briefly touched on the vital role fiat-backed stablecoins play in crypto markets, but there’s a catch with them:

The counterparty risk of a third-party holding fiat in reserves.

Enter MakerDAO, which set out to create a decentralized, collateral-backed cryptocurrency, DAI, that would be “soft-pegged” to the U.S. Dollar using the power of algorithms. In crypto tradition, its supporters said trust game theory, not operators.

In 2017, MakerDAO published a whitepaper describing a system where anyone could create DAI by leveraging ETH as collateral to create Collateralized Debt Positions. Essentially, you take out a digital USD loan against your crypto.

The game theory of the system is structured such that DAI issuance is controlled to keep the price pegged to $1.00. In essence, it buffers the fluctuations of the underlying collateral to create a synthetic dollar bill.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Хајде да направимо мали осврт на случај Мика Алексић .

Алексић је жртва енглеске освете преко Оливере Иванчић .
Мика је одбио да снима филм о блаћењу Срба и мењању историје Срба , иза целокупног пројекта стоји дипломатски кор Британаца у Београду и Оливера Иванчић


Оливера Илинчић је иначе мајка једне од његових ученица .
Која је претила да ће се осветити .

Мика се налази у притвору због наводних оптужби глумице Милене Радуловић да ју је наводно силовао човек од 70 година , са три бајпаса и извађеном простатом пре пет година

Иста персона је и обезбедила финансије за филм преко Беча а филм је требао да се бави животом Десанке Максимовић .
А сетите се и ко је иницирао да се Десанка Максимовић избаци из уџбеника и школства у Србији .

И тако уместо романсиране верзије Десанке Максимовић утицај Британаца

У Србији стави на пиједестал и да се Британци у Србији позитивно афирмишу како би се на тај начин усмерила будућност али и мењао ток историје .
Зато Мика са гнушањем и поносно одбија да снима такав филм тада и почиње хајка и претње која потиче из британских дипломатских кругова

Најгоре од свега што је то Мика Алексић изговорио у присуству високих дипломатских представника , а одговор је био да се све неће на томе завршити и да ће га то скупо коштати .
Нашта им је Мика рекао да је он свој живот проживео и да могу да му раде шта хоће и силно их извређао