Comte de Sats Germain on Nostr: Its not what they're doing now, its an exercise in finding the market tolerance for a ...
Its not what they're doing now, its an exercise in finding the market tolerance for a risk.
The remedy is they disburse their holdings to holders of mstr because if btc is money, then having the money should be preferable to a stock that represents the money. Short of that, the danger is that btc can't be used as money.
The danger isn't binary - the usability of bitcoin is endangered by it not circulating, which is a progressive danger. My original question was, at what percentage of total btc do we start to see mstr as deleterious to the economy of btc? But the same question leads into the values we champion as bitcoiners. There is some point where mstr's and the etfs' accumulation makes btc unusable for p2p money. Maybe its 100℅. But I think it's less. How do we find the limit?
I'm asking an economics question. I am unfortunately not that great at providing answers to my questions.
The remedy is they disburse their holdings to holders of mstr because if btc is money, then having the money should be preferable to a stock that represents the money. Short of that, the danger is that btc can't be used as money.
The danger isn't binary - the usability of bitcoin is endangered by it not circulating, which is a progressive danger. My original question was, at what percentage of total btc do we start to see mstr as deleterious to the economy of btc? But the same question leads into the values we champion as bitcoiners. There is some point where mstr's and the etfs' accumulation makes btc unusable for p2p money. Maybe its 100℅. But I think it's less. How do we find the limit?
I'm asking an economics question. I am unfortunately not that great at providing answers to my questions.