This is my Bitcoin Bingo for 2025. How many will we hit this year?? What else would be fun to have on a bingo card?

wrapped Bitcoin is to Bitcoin what UST (terra) was to USD: a shitcoin.

Trump is starting his presidency with selling unregistered securities and basically a money grab. This is a big FU towards SEC, basic rules and common sense. Not surprising, but still somewhat disappointing. Regulators will love the excuse for Chokepoint 3.0 when new government comes after Trump.

TWO UNPOPULAR OPINIONS on SBR and SAB121* *Related to banking accounting rules, de facto allowing commercial banks to custody Bitcoin. OPINION 1) Trump will repeal SAB121 before creating a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR). Neither will happen this week, although he might hint at or set in motion the former. 1. Creating an SBR would use up his political capital, while repealing SAB121 would generate political capital. From a shallow, but most common perspective: SBR: CLEAR what it is; benefits are VAGUE. SAB121: VAGUE what it is; benefits are CLEAR (for interested parties). Announcing the SBR could double the Bitcoin price in the short term, making SBR execution less viable. Announcing it prematurely would be a bad business decision. Instead, they should buy BTC and announce once they believe they've acquired enough. OPINION 2) Repealing SAB121 is far more important than the creation of an SBR. SBR would strengthen the government, while repealing SAB121 would empower the individual. A strong, happy society is built on strong individuals.

A simple heuristic to check if they are a Bitcoiner, is to ask them: "Is Ethereum a shitcoin?" YES - they are likely a Bitcoiner, NO - they are a shitcoiner.

On average presidents were signing 5 executive orders in the first three days in the office and some of you people say Trump will sign 1200 EO on day 1. It's ludicrous. Bitcoin Strategic Reserve is not happening via EO in January 2025.

MONETARY PRISONER'S DILEMMA: BITCOIN AND NATION-STATES A monetary prisoner’s dilemma explores four distinct scenarios: 1) Every nation-state buys Bitcoin. First come, first served. Demand from nation-states pushes the price higher, accelerating transition to the Bitcoin Standard. Early adopters accumulate more at lower prices, while laggards are left to accumulate less at higher prices. International trade increasingly settles in neutral reserve assets like Bitcoin or gold. Countries will either accumulate significant amounts of Bitcoin cheaply or need to generate it through a trade surplus. 2 and 3) Some nation-states buy Bitcoin, while others do not. Countries that purchased Bitcoin use it for trade settlement with one another, while non-adopting countries continue moving away from USD settlement towards gold. Countries using Bitcoin for trade settlement become more competitive and prosperous due to: 1. The devaluation of gold caused by new supplies of both physical and paper gold entering the market. 2. The high costs associated with transporting and verifying physical gold (e.g., melting and recasting). 4) No nation-state buys Bitcoin. (purely theoretical: Bhutan is already mining Bitcoin, and El Salvador is both buying and mining it.) Individuals, businesses, and funds continue accumulating new supply, driving adoption forward without government involvement. As an increasing amount of wealth secured in Bitcoin (which cannot be debased), money printing becomes ever more difficult and eventually impossible. Without money printing, twin deficits (trade and budget deficits) can no longer be financed, leading to a significant reduction in government size worldwide. This shrinkage of government is a welcome change for a large portion of citizens. Genuine question: Which scenario do you prefer, and why?

MONETARY PRISONER'S DILEMMA: BITCOIN AND NATION-STATES A monetary prisoner’s dilemma explores four distinct scenarios: 1) Every nation-state buys Bitcoin. First come, first served. Demand from nation-states pushes the price higher, accelerating transition to the Bitcoin Standard. Early adopters accumulate more at lower prices, while laggards are left to accumulate less at higher prices. International trade increasingly settles in neutral reserve assets like Bitcoin or gold. Countries will either accumulate significant amounts of Bitcoin cheaply or need to generate it through a trade surplus. 2 and 3) Some nation-states buy Bitcoin, while others do not. Countries that purchased Bitcoin use it for trade settlement with one another, while non-adopting countries continue moving away from USD settlement towards gold. Countries using Bitcoin for trade settlement become more competitive and prosperous due to: 1. The devaluation of gold caused by new supplies of both physical and paper gold entering the market. 2. The high costs associated with transporting and verifying physical gold (e.g., melting and recasting). 4) No nation-state buys Bitcoin. (purely theoretical: Bhutan is already mining Bitcoin, and El Salvador is both buying and mining it.) Individuals, businesses, and funds continue accumulating new supply, driving adoption forward without government involvement. As an increasing amount of wealth secured in Bitcoin (which cannot be debased), money printing becomes ever more difficult and eventually impossible. Without money printing, twin deficits (trade and budget deficits) can no longer be financed, leading to a significant reduction in government size worldwide. This shrinkage of government is a welcome change for a large portion of citizens. Genuine question: Which scenario do you prefer, and why?