tigs on Nostr: Rough translation: Assistant qwen2.5-7b-instruct-1m Certainly, I'll translate the ...
Rough translation:
Assistant
qwen2.5-7b-instruct-1m
Certainly, I'll translate the provided text from Spanish to English.
Here is the translation:
How One Protects Oneself
Having Assets within This System or Sacrificing Personally
Clearly saying: Well, I don't want any part of it. I don't want stocks; I don't want any kind of financial asset because this system seems unjust to me, and thus I will bear the burden of justice personally and lose all possible profitability that could be obtained. Because I do not want to be involved with the system. But if the system does not fall, you're going to have to sacrifice your entire life. So, I think it's important to educate in the battle of ideas to see if some consciences can be raised and for the system to change. But as long as the system doesn't change, obviously, you will have to adapt to the environment in which you are: survival, survival, and building a fortune.
I don't agree with this approach once. I believe that the issue of gravity is not something I fully understand, but what they're criticizing about the system is based on an essentially different fundamental idea from the fiduciary model—completely different. That's right; Bitcoin cannot be invented by anyone and fiat money can be invented every morning.
Now, one thing is to protect yourself from assets that you already have, whereas another thing is, as long as this world continues to be the world and we don't invent something else, companies need liquidity to make payments. But that's not protecting yourself. Well said: it’s about protecting the company so that it can continue living.
But the question is, what do we do to protect our assets? For our company, we must pay and we need money. Thirdly, by today's standards, you're absolutely right when you say that holding money in exchanges gives you a Visa card, and the system allows you to make fiat currency payments within milliseconds.
But there are technologies available now that I know about and am very well aware of regarding how they’re called—TPRS or something like that—how those trading platforms work. Yes, for paying directly in cryptocurrency, it will come. The crypto system is exactly what I see it as—it’s a system, but I could be completely wrong; it has nothing to do with the traditional banking system.
But more so: banks need to have deposits to lend money because if they don’t have creditors' accounts, they can't extend credit within the inter-bank system. After all, if I have 100,000 and Javier has 100,000 euros—let’s say I deposit my 100,000 in a savings account, then I can lend you 80,000. But if Javier withdraws his 100,000 from the system to invest in cryptocurrency, it’s gone. The system is affected because it drains the banks' liquidity and impacts the entrepreneur's ability to invest.
And that's why with mergers, they've created these so-called systemic banks that can destroy the system if they fail. So who created the systemic banks? It seems like Spanish society has tolerated this concentration of banking power over time. If someone runs into trouble in Spain today—like with BBVA, Santander, or Caixa—there's little else available to them.
To me, the crypto system is an instrument of defense against the abuse of the fiduciary model. I see it that way. Another thing: In my daily life and within my businesses, clearly, I need money because if the store says they'll pay in Ripple but it doesn’t mean it's protecting working capital—here we're not talking about protecting working capital; we’re talking about protecting wealth—the capital.
We’ve been saying what you pointed out correctly: another issue is that while we don't change this system, we have to live in our current environment. But as long as we live there, we must protect ourselves. Before listening carefully, I had said that I do not trust the fiduciary system—I didn’t ratify it—but totally; there's no doubt about it.
Be careful, Mario, because in what you call the crypto system, there are many or worse players too—like exchanges, which don't leave out banks. Banks can fail, but it depends on you: what doesn't depend on you is knowing where your money is going and into which player you’re investing. But we've seen how some exchanges, for example, failed (FX). I thought it was the Financial Times at first, but no; it's clear that in a system with bad elements, the system isn’t necessarily bad—it just makes people more aware of what they should or shouldn't do.
In my opinion, insistent: The fiat currency as it is today—created artificially and printed money—makes me think that fiat money as an instrument for preserving value has disappeared. In my opinion, it has disappeared, but what are you calling?
For instance, I would also call the actions of a company an asset that depends on its market value. But the value of the company will depend on how well it operates and sells. If regulations increase costs, they can't raise prices; they put expenses in your pocket and say you lost them. Everything is financed within a certain model.
So what are the bricks trying to do? They're trying to create an area for trade among themselves—a gold-backed currency like Bitcoin has an inelastic supply as money. I’m not sure how well it would work, but those are my doubts when it comes to money. On this side, I don't see it as a true money because of the inelastic supply.
Daniel said something interesting earlier: you need depreciation for people to use it; otherwise, they'll hoard it. What level of depreciation? Obviously, not 8%, but gradually decreasing will encourage consumption. Then why did the dollar become the reserve currency—leading to the triffin dilemma—the Bretton Woods system couldn't sustain itself on gold because after World War II, the U.S. flooded the world with dollars, and that elastic supply led to this situation.
Now if you introduce Bitcoin as a money with inelastic supply, I'm not sure it would function well. And here is where the government might step in: they could mandate that if you bill in Bitcoin, just like they do now with cash, some people don't comply but others say “pay me 3 ways.” If the government said you can’t sell Bitcoin for Bitcoin, I’m not sure it would be a payment currency. The Bitcoin system is more of an antitoxin to this—or rather, the solution and antidote.
This explains why the price has skyrocketed; it doesn’t go down nor up—it stays stable because the dollar falls instead of Bitcoin. You see how Bitcoin Cash hasn't made any significant impact because it’s used as a currency. Mario, did you think that?
Assistant
qwen2.5-7b-instruct-1m
Certainly, I'll translate the provided text from Spanish to English.
Here is the translation:
How One Protects Oneself
Having Assets within This System or Sacrificing Personally
Clearly saying: Well, I don't want any part of it. I don't want stocks; I don't want any kind of financial asset because this system seems unjust to me, and thus I will bear the burden of justice personally and lose all possible profitability that could be obtained. Because I do not want to be involved with the system. But if the system does not fall, you're going to have to sacrifice your entire life. So, I think it's important to educate in the battle of ideas to see if some consciences can be raised and for the system to change. But as long as the system doesn't change, obviously, you will have to adapt to the environment in which you are: survival, survival, and building a fortune.
I don't agree with this approach once. I believe that the issue of gravity is not something I fully understand, but what they're criticizing about the system is based on an essentially different fundamental idea from the fiduciary model—completely different. That's right; Bitcoin cannot be invented by anyone and fiat money can be invented every morning.
Now, one thing is to protect yourself from assets that you already have, whereas another thing is, as long as this world continues to be the world and we don't invent something else, companies need liquidity to make payments. But that's not protecting yourself. Well said: it’s about protecting the company so that it can continue living.
But the question is, what do we do to protect our assets? For our company, we must pay and we need money. Thirdly, by today's standards, you're absolutely right when you say that holding money in exchanges gives you a Visa card, and the system allows you to make fiat currency payments within milliseconds.
But there are technologies available now that I know about and am very well aware of regarding how they’re called—TPRS or something like that—how those trading platforms work. Yes, for paying directly in cryptocurrency, it will come. The crypto system is exactly what I see it as—it’s a system, but I could be completely wrong; it has nothing to do with the traditional banking system.
But more so: banks need to have deposits to lend money because if they don’t have creditors' accounts, they can't extend credit within the inter-bank system. After all, if I have 100,000 and Javier has 100,000 euros—let’s say I deposit my 100,000 in a savings account, then I can lend you 80,000. But if Javier withdraws his 100,000 from the system to invest in cryptocurrency, it’s gone. The system is affected because it drains the banks' liquidity and impacts the entrepreneur's ability to invest.
And that's why with mergers, they've created these so-called systemic banks that can destroy the system if they fail. So who created the systemic banks? It seems like Spanish society has tolerated this concentration of banking power over time. If someone runs into trouble in Spain today—like with BBVA, Santander, or Caixa—there's little else available to them.
To me, the crypto system is an instrument of defense against the abuse of the fiduciary model. I see it that way. Another thing: In my daily life and within my businesses, clearly, I need money because if the store says they'll pay in Ripple but it doesn’t mean it's protecting working capital—here we're not talking about protecting working capital; we’re talking about protecting wealth—the capital.
We’ve been saying what you pointed out correctly: another issue is that while we don't change this system, we have to live in our current environment. But as long as we live there, we must protect ourselves. Before listening carefully, I had said that I do not trust the fiduciary system—I didn’t ratify it—but totally; there's no doubt about it.
Be careful, Mario, because in what you call the crypto system, there are many or worse players too—like exchanges, which don't leave out banks. Banks can fail, but it depends on you: what doesn't depend on you is knowing where your money is going and into which player you’re investing. But we've seen how some exchanges, for example, failed (FX). I thought it was the Financial Times at first, but no; it's clear that in a system with bad elements, the system isn’t necessarily bad—it just makes people more aware of what they should or shouldn't do.
In my opinion, insistent: The fiat currency as it is today—created artificially and printed money—makes me think that fiat money as an instrument for preserving value has disappeared. In my opinion, it has disappeared, but what are you calling?
For instance, I would also call the actions of a company an asset that depends on its market value. But the value of the company will depend on how well it operates and sells. If regulations increase costs, they can't raise prices; they put expenses in your pocket and say you lost them. Everything is financed within a certain model.
So what are the bricks trying to do? They're trying to create an area for trade among themselves—a gold-backed currency like Bitcoin has an inelastic supply as money. I’m not sure how well it would work, but those are my doubts when it comes to money. On this side, I don't see it as a true money because of the inelastic supply.
Daniel said something interesting earlier: you need depreciation for people to use it; otherwise, they'll hoard it. What level of depreciation? Obviously, not 8%, but gradually decreasing will encourage consumption. Then why did the dollar become the reserve currency—leading to the triffin dilemma—the Bretton Woods system couldn't sustain itself on gold because after World War II, the U.S. flooded the world with dollars, and that elastic supply led to this situation.
Now if you introduce Bitcoin as a money with inelastic supply, I'm not sure it would function well. And here is where the government might step in: they could mandate that if you bill in Bitcoin, just like they do now with cash, some people don't comply but others say “pay me 3 ways.” If the government said you can’t sell Bitcoin for Bitcoin, I’m not sure it would be a payment currency. The Bitcoin system is more of an antitoxin to this—or rather, the solution and antidote.
This explains why the price has skyrocketed; it doesn’t go down nor up—it stays stable because the dollar falls instead of Bitcoin. You see how Bitcoin Cash hasn't made any significant impact because it’s used as a currency. Mario, did you think that?