Bitcoin: 'This guy was never qualified to manage a gumball machine', now faces potential multi-billion dollar margin call

twitter ^ | May 11 | ClarityToast

[NoLibZone]

What was the price of gold in 2010?

Then research what the price of bitcoin was in 2010..

[GunRunner]

Bitcoin would have to fall below $21,000 for there to be a margin calls, and even then they have other reserves they could use. Saylor has positioned their stock as essentially a bitcoin ETF.

EVERYONE who buys or holds MSTR knows this, and is in this for the hodl, so I don’t know why this Twitwit thinks playing MSTR investors as victims makes him look smart. Quite the opposite.

[FLT-bird]

You could say the same about all software. Its all 1s and 0s. Yet several software companies have some of the highest market caps of any companies.

[C210N]

... bitcoin will [eventually] be back to $50k or higher, so you can treat this as an opportunity to double your money, or you can post Twitter trolls who seem to have a huge lack of knowledge of the subject of their ire.

What may be viewed as 'huge lack of knowledge' may actually be in fact a huge understanding of a different knowledge base.

Those 'in the know' folks that watch past performance comparing price of gold to BTC 10 years ago and that the 'currency' is seemingly private, might do well to consider some of the opposing knowledge, and research for themselves such issues as:

ISO20022, Tier 3 Assets, RV, fractional-reserve bankstering, fiat Central bankstering and the so-called FED

Great Awakening, and how it relates to Wall Street AND BTC

NESARA and GESARA

That there are PM-backed crypto and non-PM-backed crypto (BTC)

The shadowy creator of BTC, and how it could very well be CIA money laundering, with the cover of good and decent folks trading a portion of it

[Gay State Conservative]

I've developed a mild interest in Bitcoin recently and have seen that in the last couple of months it's fallen like a stone. But it would have been interesting to buy $100 worth when it was a $20 and held it until it reached $67,000.

[Gay State Conservative]

Wikipedia says that in early 2012 Bitcoin was at $5.27

[GunRunner]

What may be viewed as 'huge lack of knowledge' may actually be in fact a huge understanding of a different knowledge base.

Sorry, I was unclear. To clarify, the 'huge lack of knowledge' that I was referring to specifically was Nate Anderson's (his Twitter is the linked article) knowledge of Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy, not bitcoin.

He claims Saylor isn't "qualified to manage a gumball machine", even though he's run MicroStrategy for 33 years. Maybe bitcoin is the wrong call for a balance sheet asset for a publicly traded company, but Saylor has made no secret about what he's doing, and everyone investing in MicroStrategy is either on board or was given the option to exit. They're not victims.

There are lots of bitcoin critics who know a lot about the subject, and I'm not saying otherwise. Often, this criticism falls into a couple of categories:

*Erroneously amalgamating bitcoin's usefulness/reputation with more questionable aspects of crypto, such as NFTs, algorithmic stablecoins, or DAOs
*Criticism of the speed of the network, and downplaying upgrades like Lightning as "hacks"
*The obligatory "bitcoin is worthless but the blockchain technology is very exiting" canard (Buffet, Gates, Dimon)
*Monetarists who don't believe in any type of private money

This list isn't exhaustive, but most of the time I'm seeing these criticisms from people who appear to have done at least a little homework. I find it best to just ignore the "bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" critics who don't really add much to the discussion. Just by definition, even if bitcoin is a scam, it's not a Ponzi scheme. Maybe a pump and dump scheme (like many ICOs clearly are), but not a Ponzi scheme. But there's also really good reasons it's not a pump and dump scheme either.

The shadowy creator of BTC, and how it could very well be CIA money laundering, with the cover of good and decent folks trading a portion of it.

I know a couple of bitcoin whales and early adopters (bought in circa 2011) who believe there's an intelligence agency foundation for bitcoin (although their bet is NSA, not CIA), although they feel it was a rogue project by "good guys" within the intelligence infrastructure who wanted to build something empowering.

They also think Satoshi is probably 3 people; one who wrote the white paper, one who wrote the code, and one who created the cryptography infrastructure.