I’m on the fence about this, and not even from an anti-politician viewpoint (although a bit of that, too).
If a public speaker, who is widely viewed as being the fringe conspiracy guy (ie RFK), becomes a spokesperson for something new and strange, I would be concerned that he is more likely to slow adoption and create more FUD, than to give the average person a sense of confidence or curiosity in Bitcoin.
That would also be good for Bitcoin;
Antifragility only amplifies through experiential learning - re: outcomes.
Ignore Bitcoin because of "xyz.." reasons - it doesn't change the core principal.
Taleb is dumb bish, but that book is worth reading.
That’s a fair point. All the environmental BS about Bitcoin mining will ultimately serve to show how beneficial Bitcoin is for the renewable energy industry and anyone who cares about that will sooner or later appreciate the benefits that Bitcoin has to offer
I was listening to the Jfk presentation. I was appalled. He basically stated everything bitcoin already does- mentioned self custody and sovereignty.. then stated - I will support this. ***ch we dont need your support. Thats what sovereign and self custody removes from the equation. He basically cited #Satoshi. So many supporting him. How do we un-brainwash the population to realize WE DONT NEED PERMISSION.
Agree 💯 on the permissionless point
That said, I want everyone to voluntarily adopt a Bitcoin standard. Sooner than later, if possible.
If more “mainstream” voices can get visibility while articulating what makes Bitcoin special, that is helpful.
But “fringe-y” voices doing this will more likely slow adoption down.
I’m no fan of JFK. But also, Bitcoin is for enemies, and I can agree with him (or Ted Cruz) on Bitcoin without aligning on various other values.
These kinds of discussions always remind me that it’s so fucking early and we have yet to see how this plays out over the long term
😁
