The point of the quoted post was to ask why many OGs who emphasized the importance of self-custody, privacy and non-KYC are suddenly MSTR stock bulls and how they can square the two positions.

I own MSTR, but I am not trying to justify it to anyone or to knock it per se, only to point out the contradiction I’m seeing and to wonder whether people have considered what in the medium term I think is a plausible vector of attack — the 6102ing of the coins.

My thesis as to what the OGs who are now also MSTR enthusiasts are doing is this:

They want to see this new paradigm succeed, and, low time preference though they may have, they’d like to see it sooner rather than later and certainly in their lifetimes.

To that end, encouraging people to self-custody and punish exchanges that tried to fractionally reserve it was the best way to make NGU and drive adoption. If everyone left it at FTX or Coinbase, demand could be met via paper bitcoin.

So the whole self-sovereignty, self-custody push was real, but it was also a means to the NGU and adoption end.

But now there’s a new avenue to hyperbitcoinization, and the biggest driver of it is a maniac with a nearly $30B public company, and investing him with capital might be an even more powerful lever than each person self-custodying to make NGU individually which was always a big ask. So now they’re suddenly comfortable with counterparty risk because it’s a more direct route to punishing late adopting institutions and worth the acceleration toward the goal.

So they’re going back on basically everything they said because everything they said was true, but they mostly said it to accomplish a goal, and now they realize that same goal might be more easily accomplished another way.

But this makes me a bit nervous, as does the centralization of so many coins in one place and person as a single point of failure. And of course, I don’t want to get rugged on the stock, either.

nostr:note1qyvgjk82x8f9d0gd0fctffgkpxkgensmyyj0kgddeu0ka55637jqgmy4cr