ONE OF THE BIG ETFS WAS GOING TO DONATE TO OPEN SOURCE DEVS.
SAYLOR TOLD THEM IF THEY DID IT HE WOULD CRUSH THEM SO THEY PULLED OUT OF THE COMMITMENT.
Discussion
WTF?
wtfhappenedin2024
What? Is it still April fools?
Damn what? Source seagull?
lol he is so against supports the devs..
Sauce?
Is micro strategy bringing out some RasPi software?
Pobres devs, se merecen que tengan mĂĄs apoyo
How could he crush them ?
Yeah, is Saylor going to crush them? I donât get it.
Same.
Saylor isnât running an ETF, and doesnât compete with ETFs. Has said so multiple times.
How would he âcrushâ a one? And which ETF manager would have felt personally or professionally threatened by such a weird threat?
Something just doesnât make sense here.
In theory, if he dumps, ETFs get crushed.
If Saylor dumps his bitcoin?
I donât know if youâre joking, or just offering an improbable hypothetical but regardlessâŚ
1) He has never given any indication of selling, let alone dumping
2) ETFâs wouldnât be âcrushedâ if the price dropped due to selling pressure. It doesnât work like that. They earn fees on order flow.
Completely hypothetical.
1) Agree
2) I think you have this backwards. ETFs arenât making money on order flows. MMs and APs are paid for sourcing liquidity (e.g. bitcoin) for the ETFs, and then the ETF issues make their money on fees charged to the underlying holders. Less holders = less fees.
At least thatâs how I understand it - happy to be corrected if I have this wrong.
2) Right. But there are no management fees to charge AUM at the moment. I called it order flow as a short hand (which, yes, is incorrect (since that more accurately describes how market makers earn revenues)) just to indicate that they are not the ones buying/selling. Itâs their *clients* who are. So, the logic of Saylor dumping his âż to crush an ETF provider who chooses to support open devs doesnât hurt the ETF as much as it would temporarily hurt all ETF shareholders with depressed prices, as well permanently hurting Microstrategy for shifting away from the âBitcoin is our primary reserve assetâ position heâs built up.
See? It just makes no sense and I donât know why Odell is posting this type of stuff. Itâs disconcerting.
I donât get it either. This makes no
Sense.
Why would saylor care if an etf wants to support devs???
Feels like more context is warranted...
Saylor spook
MORE DETAILS POR FAVOR.
We need some more context/proof nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
What? I thought Saylor loves Bitcoin, ergo funding devs is good. I hope it's not Bitwise, it's a distinguishing feature of their ETF...
NOT BITWISE. THEY ARE LEGIT.
I'm not sure what that even means...
What?
he would crush them?lol
Wouldnât be surprised if that was true
WTF đł
I thought Saylor was one of the good guys đ damn
nostr:npub16as8gepztj9tvyx6n9y4h3cv3gaytgpl3g32jhcxlj6mcss72uaqjwg2tf nostr:npub17agje2sh6u9203uaeyd0h2qvth9nn2675pa34wgwtc7zkr7ugj7qv7v7xf maybe he is a spook
đ¤đ¤đ¤
I have heard the idea that he may be the Roger Ver of this cycle. Remains to be seen.
Good guys in Bitcoin are few and far between.
đĽş
I remember watching a video of him annihilating a gold bug during a debate though. That was pretty fun.
Doesnât make sense. Saylor couldnât crush an etf if he wanted to and why would he mind donating to open source?
Without proof, I wonât believe this
Ouch
If true, it was all lies.
Saylor 2021:
wtf is this for real?
Why would he do that?
Saylor is a Machiavellian
Fuck Machiavellians
Why the surprise?
Sauce?
Wait, what happened?
I always said and maintain to this day Saylor is not to be trusted and is no good for Bitcoin.
No way
ÂżQUĂ?
Matt is a new contributor to nostr:npub1563z6kxmvuy7s8zhzan8m0hzmkavyfzg2aw6h7f0fvcvdms398csaxc9n6
PLEASE TELL ME THATâS CAP
Wut
Need to hear Michael nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m's side on whether this is true or just a rumor, but I am not surprised either way. If Microstrategy is going to transition to a Bitcoin Development company, it would not make sense for them to support any open source work that would hurt their business market.
Of course it's the wrong way to go, but we're coming out of a fiat world with corporate feudalism being the norm. We just need to make it clear that those structures will not stand in the new world.
nostr:note1snfrj747huaw8kn4yyd7tjfljhqxcydetuj0yfmjk04hdm6hmr9qcum039
But thatâs just a very basic misunderstanding of open source development. Itâs like getting upset because thereâs a grant for Linux or WordPress
WE NEED DETAILS
Statist
Spill the beans
Shots fired!
what did you expect from a guy who owns the âBitcoin Development Companyâ?
That's disappointing to hear. It's important to support open source developers and their contributions to the community. Thank you for bringing attention to this issue.
If i were investing in VanEck ETF, i don't think i would want to be donating fees to Open source. To me it's confusing why the ETF provider would do this in the first place.
Source?
control the funding, control the project.
Iâve donated more to Bitcoin contributors than saylor đŽâđ¨
He's God now?
CANT HAVE OPEN SOURCE DEVS COMPETE WITH âBITCOIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANYâ PRODUCTS
why would they fold ? what can Saylor even do ?
@saylor can you provide some context here?
Would he crush them physically or just their business đ¤
Bitcoin dies without development.
The code won't maintain itself.
In SLP 404, bitcoin maintainer, Gloria Zhao says more than 70% of bitcoin development work is maintanance work, not stuff like Taproot.
"**And so even if nobody was opening pull requests to request new features or point out things to Bitcoin Core, you would still have the job of finding bugs, fixing bugs, monitoring things upstream, updating dependencies, making sure we support things continuously downstream, cutting releases â to do that on a regular cadence, taking care of what happens on the GitHub repository** â responding to issues and triaging pull requests and all those things, running CI â testing things. And so every software project requires maintenance."
Why would he not want money going to devs? Makes no sense
An expensive base layer forces everyone into banks and make bankruns prohibitively expensive. Saylor can collect management fees and leverage the equity.
The maximum number of transactions in a block is 4000. That's 210,240,000 transactions per year, but in reality it's about half as the fees climb as you fill the block. That's not enough for everyone in the world to even have a single lightning channel. It's not a bottleneck yet, but it will need to be tackled once it is.
Not your keys, not your coins.
Wow, sounds like someone's feeling threatened by the power of open source developers. Maybe they should try embracing innovation instead of trying to crush it. #SupportOpenSource #EmbraceChange
does this mean that saylor is lending his bitcoin to ETFs and people are buying certificates for Saylorâs bitcoin?
đđť
Fake news. Sensational 2nd hand info from a cousins brotherâs friend who knows a guy on Wall Street who knows another guy who overheard it in the bathroom.
Stop the narrative. đ
Youâre better than this. Much.
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who said Saylor pressured an ETF not to fund Bitcoin devs.
đ
Exactly... #Satoshi wrote the program and created the protocol over 15 years ago. What is there to develop? Maintenance yes. Development no.
Most of you are two young and inexperienced to know this technique. But Michael #Saylor surely would know it. It's a well-established Machiavellian technique used in business and the tech world.
It called embrace, extend and extinguish. Satoshi's code base has already been compromised by so-called development, and has to be repaired. We don't want any more of that..đ
Poor take. Bitcoin has been improved many times since inception.
Is he?
I think so. I like nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
His push re: get off exchanges was helpful to me. Quite.
Iâm just trying to understand.
Spread uncorroborated information, to make others look bad, and thereby make myself look good to further a cause I believe in, reinforce my âbrandâ, and sustain my life.
I think we are all capable of this and we all do it, all the time. We are human.
Donât let your heroes surprise you, whilst hiding behind a veil of altruism.
We all shit from the same hole, Sats. We are all in this together. In the end, it will be us small-fry plebs that will make all the difference.
Wasn't there another dude who was famously altruistic?
This Odell guy's even more self aggrandizing about the altruism.
How do you earn a living Odell?
I MOSTLY JUST LIVE OFF OF MY BITCOIN SAVINGS TBH.
I SPEND MY TIME SUPPORTING BUILDERS IN THE BITCOIN ECOSYSTEM VIA OPENSATS AND TEN31.
I SAID MY PIECE. TAKE IT AS YOU WILL.
SAYLOR HAS MORE FANBOYS THAN I WAS AWARE OF. HAVE NO IDOLS EVERYONE HAS FLAWS. EVEN ODELL BUT IN THIS SITUATION THE ONE WHO IS IN THE BACKGROUND STOPPING DEALS TO FUND OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPERS IS IN THE WRONG.....
Agree about idols & fanboy shit but this is such a ridiculous point that it had to be called out.
Zero evidence. Bullying ETFâs, as a publicly traded company. Isnât that illegal?
Ok Jan. Sure. Sure. Makes sense. Sure thing. Heâs a power hungry statist. Got it. Manipulating ETF decision making daily. Yup. đ
Next just say Saylor hurts puppies. Fucking dumb dumb dumb.
It's basic incentives. If Bitcoin is expensive on the base layer, users need banks to hold it for them. This allows all the shady practices of traditional banking to continue. Bank runs are difficult because the network becomes congested and fees climb prohibitively high. Anyone who holds a lot of Bitcoin can become a bank and profit off others. Whether it's Saylor or Swan, BlackRock or Coinbase, this is their incentive.
But Bitcoin is controlled by proof of work, not proof of stake.
Miners are incentivised to maximise on chain transactions, fees x volume. If the fees prevent transactions they would rather scale the base layer.
Users are incentivised to control their own keys to prevent losing funds and having the value of their Bitcoin diluted by fractional reserve banking. They also want the lowest cost nodes, so would rather scale through permissionless scaling solutions.
The block size wars were users vs miners, users prevailed with the UASF for taproot which enabled lightning for scaling, rather than large blocks. There are limits to lightning which is becoming clear.
The next will probably be users vs bankers.
In Bitcoin, be ready to burn your heroes.
Wise thatđ
I WOULD ZAP YOU BUT IM CANADIAN, COMING SOON, STAYING HUMBLE
I WONDER IF I CAN GET ZAPS, IM NOT SURE YET, NOBODY HAS TRIED, IM NEW. THANKS ANYWAY ODEL I LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE
they run Ten31 VC fund.
look at new public miner GRIID. announcement for first public traded Ten31 company that came on the market at $8 then crashes, 300k shares repurchased at $1. waiting on delayed filing now.
https://griid.com/financials/sec-filings/default.aspx
Bitcoin is for enemies axiom- all nodes assumed to be adversarial.
I DONT BELIEVE YOU
Kind of like how swan HAD to be taking shady money to make 2023 revenue numbers?
Weak, ya'll need to stop worshiping these whales
Saylor's MIT thesis
Machiavellian Interpretation of Political Dynamics
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XkXUBIDVAlKLES_Hm28fP2NfkcXKBDQc/view
Fidelity?
What are you trying to get out of this?
Why would Saylor have any power over an ETF, which is a competitor to Microstrategy? And why wouldnât he want them to donate?
I don't now, and never have given a crap about Saylor. I'm interested in hearing how this can be confirmed, because I do give a crap about Odell and I do give a crap about devs. But right now, this is very much in the "Don't trust, verify" realm for me... until Odell can provide the nuts. DMs, emails, recordings, video, whatever. Need moar.
nostr:nprofile1qywhwumn8ghj7nn0wd68ytnzd96xxmmfdejhytnnda3kjctv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchszynhwden5te0dehhxarjxgcjucm0d5hsz9thwden5te02fjkccte9ezxzmt4wvhxjme0qy28wumn8ghj7un9d3shjctzd3jjummjvuhsqg9rg869l7t43ats5gdsqrqh6njn5wjf0jpe0unvpekkredvllr6nq6av2x9 needs to get on citadel dispatch and have a chat.
nostr:npub15dqlghlewk84wz3pkqqvzl2w2w36f97g89ljds8x6c094nlu02vqjllm5m we'd love to hear your comments on this or even join Odell's podcast and discuss it. Thanks.
DUMB AF đ
y would they care?
It has got to be more nuanced than what your post feels like !
Why would you do that ??? Not someone who supports bitcoin and the spirit of it ???
Sorry: Why would *he does that ???
did you get hacked?
coming from a place of major ignorance. Is this just the ossification logic?
This doesnât make sense. How would Saylor crush and ETF
microstategy has stated they want to be a bitcoin dev co. probably pick up where block stream leaves off.
act accordingly.
Crush them how ?
DisappointingâŚ. Wonât be recommending his pods anymore
What's your source for this information?
Without context, this post appears unprofessional and irresponsible
He did the same in January with accusations against Swan Bitcoin. It's not a good look for Matt & he needs to cut it out or he'll have very few peopke wanting to work with him in the future.
Just curious to learn, do you have any receipts or how do you know this information? nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx
What is his definition of "open source devs"? Do you mean he said that the ETF shouldn't be writing checks to bitcoin devs?
Interesting, so what's his play? Create a walled garden of bitcoin applications within MicroStrategy? What could he do to crush them exactly?
That's a hefty accusation without any evidence.
Saylor once got asked "What's the biggest threat to BTC?" He answered "The developers" He is so scared of soft/hardforks, that he's trying to freeze the core development. But it's not him who decide, but we the plebs and node holders. That's why we have to hold & spend bitcoin to be the network. And Sailor will learn his lesson like Roger Ver.
Why though
Verified?
He is on the Opensats board. if anyone's going to hear about it first, it'd be him.
Kill tour heroes
nostr:note1snfrj747huaw8kn4yyd7tjfljhqxcydetuj0yfmjk04hdm6hmr9qcum039
nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx I would like to understand the intention ⌠there is nothing more positive than supporting devs or is this about influence?
Can you give us any details on this?
I see Bitwise as guilty as Saylor's in this
Next interviewer or conference moderator should ask about this
Saylor sees Bitcoin as a store of value. Bitcoin in its current state is already the best store of value. Bitcoin development is a risk to him and micro strategy. Sometimes we must slay our Heroes.
Wtf
A screenshot of this is going around on Xitter. đ
You need a hobby.
I am assuming his position is development at this point is more risky than freezing or ossifying? Also ⌠do you really think he has been focusing time and energy on killing small donations? Idk man - respect for living your convictions either way and not simping for anyone
Sauce?
oh my đ
Here to see the comments of Saylor bigots in disbelief âŚđŤ˘
Few weeks ago he also said, BTC is not money but property only. BS. Sailors bags are full. So no more developments needed? GFY
Ark?
Proof?
A lot of the influencers on twitter are using this post. But also, a lot of ppl are asking where you got this info??
When you troll the twitters from afar this is what happens. lol
I am requesting a response please
Don't trust, verify.
Sounds bullshits, already denied by VanEck on X. Letâs see!
there is a contrarian position on this... the Bitcoin Core clique of devs is very hermetic and exclusive, and one could argue that giving too much money to the same clique of people is counterproductive in the long term but if this was true one would also fund other groups of devs simultaneously (e.g. Knots, BDK) and especially one would also fund non-protocol developers as well. I have no confidence in the Bitcoin Core development process at all (especially since speedy trial).
nostr:note1snfrj747huaw8kn4yyd7tjfljhqxcydetuj0yfmjk04hdm6hmr9qcum039
He's an arbitrary data fan so I doubt it'd be 5D chess of that nature.
I have concerns about this too. Devs seem to be focused on adding powerful technologies (that carry risk of unintended bugs or misuse) when instead they should be implementing specific limited features with the most limited code changes.
Eg, we shouldnât add âcovenantsâ. We should discuss specific use cases and build a tight implementation for just the most important features we need.
Somehow we got a big block size increase with segwit and everyone seemed surprised. Then we got the inevitable spam.
what is his incentive/reasoning for this? funding devs surely benefits the whole protocol?
đŤđŞ
Potential capture attempt...?
How does saylor crush an ETF? Sounds like bs
Thatâs a pretty big accusation. VanEck has already said this isnât true for them at least. I think youâre going to need to provide some evidence here and context.
Heard the same. Crush may be a bit overdramatic though.
whats the motivation?
Crush his competition?
MSTR is an operating company that can leverage and access capital markets in ways an etf canât. With his pivot to transforming the company into BTC development, I could certainly see him crushing his competition in that regard.
Really, this all comes across as gossip and innuendo peddling. So gay.
He told 'em they weren't going to be invited to his yacht party
Odd. Wonder whatâs up Saylorâs sleeve.
I donât know for sure, but if he has this motivation, I suspect heâs for protocol ossification.
Iâm personally concerned with how the protocol is being developed. I donât get the impression that devs are making the most limited code changes. As a dev, I know the temptation to add expansive Swiss-army knife technologies which are very powerful but come with a high risk of undesirable consequences.
nostr:note19pd88885rrnx87yl6l67cs9382unt0l89wltpsw8uln7wxlvy73sz076sx
If its true then its on the head of the etf changed their mind.... They basically admitted they prefer going to a yacht party then fund devs.
If he is a spook with CIA behind him, not so overdramatic. I mean they have been toppling governments for the past 50 years.
Fidelity or Ark...or both lol
Probably wise not to have an ETF directly fund devs directly though. Science was captured through grants. Devs could begin to work for those that fund them. Better to have a decentralized funding mechanism
He needs to out them.
I think I'm ready to slay another hero!!
It's clear from Saylor why:
He doesnt want to add resources that have potential to make changes to the perfect asset.
If you listen to him enough, the above would be his logical reasoning.
I disagree with it. Funding bitcoin devs does not necessarily mean changing fundamentals of bitcoin.
Wont be surprised if Saylor turns out to be the three letter agency psyop. Itâs unbelievable to see someone openly speculative attack dollar and not been checked by legacy system in some way. Either he has been handed responsibility to push #bitcoin adoption if USD collapses completely or slow or try to kill #bitcoin if usd survives. Clearly US dont hve enough gold when itâs time to switch to gold standard if fiat collapses so I do believe #bitcoin may be their back up plan.
What is your problem with Saylor man? Chill
The idea is that Bitcoin should be left alone, no devs control or bias. At the end, Bitcoin needs nothing else but consensus between nodes and eventually some soft fork in about 241 years from now.
What does âcrush an etfâ even mean? Crush them personally?
As many other said, it would be best to have more context. I am neutral on Saylor, not simping, but I donât see the logic behind that position either
- is he afraid ETF sponsors will decide development?
- is he afraid of any development?
- is he afraid of a specific development which was to be sponsored?
- the crushing part is weird, crushing âhow exactlyâ?
what is saylors issue with open source? perhaps I missed something
Why would he want this?
Straw man this.
Sauce?
That's infuriating. Even if someone is against any further consensus change, the code of bitcoin needs maintenance. Bugs need to be found and fixed, p2p layer improved, attacks found and mitigated, mempool and block construction improved, documentation and tooling improved, lightning network improved, new layer2 designed, tested and developed. The list of non-consensus work is endless.
Why would he do that? Seems retarded. Either he's an ossification Maxi or a spook right?
WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? GIVE US THE SAUCE IF THERE IS ANY BECAUSE THIS JUST SOUNDS STUPID.
spicy đśď¸
Why would he care about that?
How does that benefit him?
That doesnât make any sense
Stop drinking ODELL
Thanks very much for sharing this Matt.
No source, no specifics. Just farting it out as a âtrust me broâ Saylorman bad
DID THE ETF WANT TO FUND POS DEVELOPMENT?
Tell me more how Saylor will crush Fidelity, Charles Schwab and Blackrock.
Tell me more how Saylor will crush Fidelity, Charles Schwab and Blackrock.
Tell me more how Saylor will crush Fidelity, Charles Schwab and Blackrock. https://nostrcheck.me/media/f5eb02ba19440d787456b9d2cd491a0c05e3e1872aaf30d910e2e0b32b766da4/979f00e98bf95279b1c2f25fe73c3830dcea46437f85317e67af290725ef09bc.webp
fidelity? this has to be talked about.
Iâm ignorant. Tell me why this matters? Whatâs the incentive for Saylor to kill development?
đ
I donât understand how he would even be able to crush an ETF.
Yeah, what does it even mean lol
Man, that was one of the dumbest posts I've read in a while. Geez man.. Can we go a day without throwing feces at eachother?
Why would he do that?
, đđ
Hope this will be clarified one day
Hope it wasnât Saylor
Bitcoin is freedom
Open source is the backbone of freedom
How does saylor have leverage on Ark? How are these games played, wtf!
Meh. There's NO way Saylor would say he'd crush any of them, nor could he crush them. I don't doubt he talked to them, maybe convinced them to chsnge their minds but this accusation sounds BS to me.
Devs must have been pissed off. Saylor has too much invested to do something that would be bad for the protocol. He must have his reasons. I do hope they r good