Categories Crypto

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
1/ As $BTC / $ETH passed $40K /$1.2K yesterday (>2x under a month), I sat there thinking about the upcoming quarters and how it may turn out.

I came across a few posts which I found immensely thought-provoking by @cburniske @RaoulGMI @DegenSpartan (see below):

2/
https://t.co/xztuB0Tfd5
https://t.co/670x6ErykB
https://t.co/1xEba2Usjk

I think the general CT community / retail are super bullish on crypto in general right now and rightfully so. The narratives I hear are: 1) Institutions are coming in, 2) money printing goes brrrr and


3/ 3) US gov transition is +ve for crypto.

While I agree in general with these 3 narratives, I want to also be mindful of time horizons of those narratives and the scale / magnitude / speed of which those play out.

4/ 1st - let's look at @cburniske post on the concerns of the over-frothy sentiment in the last several weeks in crypto. I share that same concern and try to balance this out ongoingly with Wall Street's famous phrase "climbing the wall of worry".

5/ Crypto is generally a pretty illiquid market (from an institutional perspective), whale traders pump and dump all the time on a day-to-day / week-by-week basis
The debate about stablecoin regulation is at bottom part of a broader debate about regulatory classification of fintech payment service providers (PSPs). But it is, IMHO, wrong to reduce this debate to the question, "Is it a 'bank' or not?"


Posing the question that way implies that there are only two options: (1) Fintech PSPs aren't banks, and therefore shouldn't have to get stnd. bank charters or abide by the reg's that go w/ such to gain access to public settlement facilities. That's what many stablecoin fans say.

(2) fintech PSPs are banks; and therefore must be get bank charters and be subject to the same regulations ordinary banks must abide by. That's the answer offered by the STABLE Act

The second answer relies, not unreasonably, on the standard regulatory definition of a bank as a "deposit taking" institution. But IMHO it's that definition that's problematic, and that renders the conventional bank-nonbank dichotomy so.

For conventional banks aren't just "deposit taking institutions." They combine deposit taking with lending. It's this combined set of activities, not deposit taking per se, that (rightly or wrongly) supplies the rationale for many bank regulations, including deposit insurance.
THE 2020 YEAR IN #BITCOIN

Ah yes, New Year's Eve. A time to reflect, look forward, celebrate, and throwback Long Reads Sunday style with the BEST BITCOIN TWEETS OF 2020.

Strap TF in, it's time for a thread!

šŸ‘‡šŸ‘‡šŸ‘‡šŸ‘‡

2) Let's start by going back to February.

Even before the full impact of COVID-19 kicked in, bitcoiners were thinking big about the epoch shifts we were in the midst


3) When the markets DID start to finally react, bitcoiners were quick off the draw to point out that, whatever the risk the virus posed, the economic threat was significantly predetermined by fragility borne of decades of decisions.


4) Focus quickly shifted to a global dollar shortage and what it might mean across industries - The "Dollar Wrecking Ball" as @RaoulGMI put it.


5) As every market (including BTC) crashed on the infamous March "Black Thursday," Coinbase buying told a story that would be persistent throughout the year - the bitcoin community scooping underpriced corn as others fled to
@adam3us @tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Long reply, please do not start replying until I say *end*. — I’m always happy to discuss. Problem is that nothing ever comes from it. You only want to talk ā€œethosā€. Facts are simple: Blocksize increase or not. Non mining full nodes have virtually zero benefit. Proven ad nauseum.


@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Once we establish the fact that non-mining full nudes are not required, which I have discussed with you for years (and you still fail to recognize), we can talk about the effects you caused and will cause by refusing to increase the blocksize limit.

@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver Ridiculous transaction fees: - Noone will use Bitcoin as a currency for payments. Those who did, ditched it (Steam, etc). Bitcoin is a P2P electronic cash system (title of whitepaper), not just a atore of value. - People now have to resort to using centralized exchanges.

@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver - Bitcoin was designed to simply and easily increase the blocksize limit. It was actually 1 line in the code and was absurdly easily changed (compared to Segwit, dont get me started). Satoshi put the limit in place as a temporary fix for a ddos issue (prove me wrong, I was there)

@tyler @Blockstream @rogerkver - You and a couple of co-conspirators wanted the limit to stay in place. From Blockstreams business perspective, that makes total sense. From an end-useds perspective, you screwed everyone. I fought and convinced miners/companies to remove the limit. They agreed. You stopped it.