PAYPAL Has Joined the BITCOIN MOVEMENT
Well it kinda looks like Raoul Pal was right. Paypal/Venmo are joining the crypto space.
What is that saying ? Oh yeah “”First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”,
Sounds like some things I have heard here. lol
The bus is loading, it hasn’t left the station yet. Still time to hop on board. Or you can ignore it, laugh at it or fight it but it will (is winning) win.
BTW it actually broke above $13, 200. Ethereum is over $400
The latest from Paul Tudor Jones
FWIW I paid for server time on a box sitting in the Netherlands a whole bunch of times using bitcoin. Maybe a dozen different transactions.
I’m not sure why, but the server company’s credit card processor rejected my actual credit card due for who knows what reason. But they accepted bitcoin just fine.
It was reasonably painless.
Not sure this is on point. I could have paid with paypal, but I think the charge would have been something like 5%. Bitcoin was significantly cheaper.
From observation, they said the transaction was approved as soon as they saw it hit the mempool. For those of you who know what that means.
2020 or 1984? Can Bitcoin Save Us?
No question Paypal will onboard thousands and tens of thousands. I find its model troubling, though. But I expect in time folks who get on board with them will find their way to their own wallets.
Corporate adoption is happening faster than I thought it would. We’re definitely case…case…case… Almost close enough to call a cluster… Maybe by Thanksgiving.
(Maybe next year’s PP Seminar will include a BTC presentation. Chris & Adam need to connect with, say, Swan so they can make some money off referrals.)
Chris and Adam need to continue to stay as far away from crypto as possible
The banksters have taken over bitcoin, with their futures markets for bitcoin, elimination of price discovery and artificial manipulation of valuation.
Time to focus on a community labor based cryto for real wealth creation, appreciation and trading. CHS has some ideas in his recent book, but no one is talking about how to implement that. Those of us who create real wealth need a tool outside the corrupt bankster system that acknowledges, encourages, and fairly appraises real wealth creation. Bitcoin clearly is not that tool.
The banksters have taken over bitcoin, Time to move on to something that is more linked to real wealth at the community level. I understand the excitement and desire of many here to join the bankster free shit for nothing sit around and take value from others class. But do not think that this will work out (I dont think you can get tons of free shit for nothing at the end of the day). Further, this diversion detracts from efforts towards real wealth creation.
you really don’t understand BTC’s paradigm shift. You’re evaluating from the now-passing paradigm. So is CHS. Until you take the deep dive into BTC you can’t build a steelman argument. Until you understand the essential difference of BTC compared to alt-coins (like CHS’s proposal) and sovereign currencies you won’t understand the reason BTC offers freedom from the banksters who you think are taking it over.
I reject out of hand the canard that people are interested in Bitcoin only because we want to grab some free money. The accusation is another example of the kind of selective application of pseudo-moral outrage that’s widely littering our post-modern cultural and political landscape.
Anyone who buys a company’s stock must then be similarly looking for “free shit.” More so if they buy a young “value” company (you know, like Microsoft or Apple in 2012 or so). BTC today is, at that level no different than buying a FAANG in early days. Where’s the outrage that someone would dare to risk their personal savings on a value stock? Rather, we recognize such adoption as virtuous even when misguided; that it is because of early, risk-tolerant investors that many truly good ideas get a chance to mature into the social good they promise to be.
So for we BTC early adopters. Or, perhaps, we will prove to be mistaken and BTC will prove over time to have been a failed effort. Either way, ours is not an immoral or amoral decision, nor a decision based solely in greed; we see a promising project and put our money where our mouths are to advance a vision we each personally believe in and together believe will be a good for humankind. We tell others precisely because we are not trying to scalp the process but believe in the project, and want others to join us in advancing it.
Will we materially benefit? Of course! But I submit that anyone who thinks the profit motive is in itself evil has already placed themselves outside the human dynamic, for we all seek to improve our lives and our ability to improve our lives. That we have different ideas of what makes for a good life does not mean, of itself, that differential ideas are vile. Less that seeking a return for our risk is somehow dirty.
Anyone who buys gold or silver when it’s out of favor is also looking for “free shit” if buying BTC before it’s caught on is. But, of course, people who understand what fiat currency is buy precious metals as a hedge with the full understanding that it’s not that they’re riding gold or silver up, it’s that they’re not riding USD or EUR down. Those who buy on the dip or when the metal is unpopular are maximizing their protection, they are not exacerbating an evil “free shit” motivation. It’s no different on that level with BTC, and it is why so many refer to BTC as digital gold (although BTC is more than just that).
Everyone and anyone can purchase BTC today. Doing so advances a project that, once understood, reveals a very real opportunity to set economics free of the very manipulation we suffer under in current fiat systems, world-wide. Anyone who buys an alt-coin rather than BTC continues the existing exploitative system because all of those alt-coins are owned by some coordinated entity – a government, an institution, a business, or a private group – possessing the power to manipulate the liquidity and properties of those alt-coins. (CHS’s proposed coin is no different on that level than any other cryptocoin except BTC. He cannot guarantee the independence of his AI model any more than anyone can today guarantee the independence of the SWIFT system or the IMF, or the Fed or any formally independent central bank. Or for that matter, the AI that front-runs every stock trade these days.)
If there is a choke point, any monetary system will be choked for the benefit of some elite. The unique virtue of BTC is that it has no choke point. It cannot be controlled or manipulated. Not even precious metals are as immune to manipulation or greed. After all, if the price of gold goes high enough, new mines will open and new mining technology will be applied to extracting more gold, which will change the stock-to-flow ratio. No increased energy or new technology can change the stock-to-flow of BTC; and no entity can corral the BTC supply the way silver was corralled by the Hunts.
Will secondary layers of betting on BTC’s direction and use emerge? Of course! That’s human nature. Whatever humans use for currency, if it’s got sufficient liquidity, some enterprising persons will find ways to arbitrage it. (Including CHS’s proposed coin; how about, for example, a “payday loan” against future production in his model communities? It’s inevitable because human nature does not change.) Some may castigate some of those secondary behaviors as unconscionably exploitative, and I would likely agree with many such complaints – but even a payday loan may be virtuous if it saves an honest producer who has had a run of bad luck. Context and persons involved matter in such determinations. Broadside attacks based in one or another abstracted, usually idiosyncratic, moralism are themselves sources of evil that we should strive to avoid.
Reducing the motives of BTC supporters and advocates to mere greed is to create a strawman argument – and to do so on murky moral grounds. A better argument has to begin with a steelman argument that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the target and proceeds to show how even at its absolute best, the target falls short of either or both its own value proposition and the higher good of the common weal.