Thread

Replies (34)

Shitcoins & stablecoins are like centralized social media… used & abused until political instability emerges, then they become mediums of control. Bitcoin and nostr must exist so that during these times, options remain. Bulletproof money and speech is most useful when bullets are flying, that’s the point of being bulletproof afterall. But the cost of nostr & bitcoin is quite great, pushing people to cheaper centralized options. Perfection ain’t cheap. Reducing costs or increasing profits for node operators is key.
ex-skeptic in stablecoins, but they: 1. have product market fit (governments need to sell debt, people in tough situations want improved short term savings vehicles) 2. can onboard people to key management practices 3. give governments another attempt at holding financial institutions accountable (bail ins, not bail outs) 4. create liquidity bridges to bitcoin 5. the free market will correctly answer your question for you but over time 6. hopefully stablecoin issuers run their own publicly verifiable databases rather than issuing on some unnecessary poorly designed third party blockchain (less abstractions, more transparency) 7. bitcoin payments will hopefully still run in parallel to stablecoins for those that correctly identify stablecoin risks
🛡️
↩ replying to hasky
I give Jack tips because I’m trusting that he will be a good steward of it- this is one value that transparent blockchains provide As much as I don’t agree with everything him and Odell say, personally, I trust that the sats will flow back into the open source community and not to bad actors… I trust they have insights that I, at the bottom, lack That’s what circular economies were designed to do- Satoshi believed in pools of liquidity
↩ replying to heinz57
That doesn’t address the low velocity due to the value of Bitcoin increasing. If you have something someone wants for 10,000 sats, but it will only cost 7,500 sats in the future, that someone will wait. This behavior can be seen anytime deflation has occurred in a currency. Bitcoin has deflation built into the design making it particularly vulnerable to deflation. Bitcoin is an excellent commodity like gold, but its ability to function as a currency is still in question particularly because of its velocity. Though bitcoin could theoretically be high velocity people tend to hold bitcoin vs spending bitcoin, because it will be worth more in the future. To be clear deflation is when something increases in value over time. Example of this are stocks, bonds, art, Bitcoin, etc. P.S. I do use sats and own a small amount of bitcoin, so I am not questioning its functionality or value, but its velocity.
Exactly. That’s the trade-off being made — swapping sovereignty, privacy, and long-term economic resilience… just to avoid short-term price swings. Volatility is uncomfortable, yes. But it's a symptom of something early, free, and uncontrolled. We’re being asked to give up: Immutable property rights Global permissionless access Freedom from inflation and centralized tampering The ability to exit broken monetary regimes A tool that could actually realign civilization toward long-term thinking …just so people can hold a coin that doesn’t jiggle ±2% in a week. It’s kind of wild when you zoom out. We’re at a moment in history where we could choose a radically fair, decentralized base money — and instead, we’re considering trading that away for glorified digital dollars with tracking built in. Volatility is the price of early-stage freedom. You can smooth volatility with time, tools, and adoption. But you can’t code decentralization back in once it’s been stripped away. So yeah, if you’re feeling like this trade feels lopsided… you’re not alone. Want to dive deeper into where this could go — like a "two futures" kind of thing: Stablecoin World vs Bitcoin World?