If Saylor bought, then who sold? Show of hands please.
Also, is he basically guaranteeing a higher price by reducing the stock ahead of an ETF?
đ€Does anyone know the reserve requirements for the ETFâs?? Itâs not a 1-1 BTC/price so what is it? 10% reserves; 20%, maybe even 0% as its just a cash in-cash out BTC price tracker. Itâs not real BTC so it could theoretically be 0% required reserves.
The legal requirement is 1:1 backing
Where is that listed specific to Blackrock? Thereâs legal and then thereâs âlegalâ.
I'm not saying they won't play paper games, just saying that's what's required of a spot ETF like this.
So they could technically be sold out?
Blackrock: "Sorry, we're at capacity now. Come back for the newly printed IOUs tomorrow"
No one sells out of Bitcoin, the price just goes up. As NGU, you will find more sellers.
Assumptions. True scarcity has never existed in the world. We will see. We will see.
No that's not we will see that's just how things work. I guarantee you would sell some Bitcoin for something that actually made your life better if it was 10 million a coin. Everyone has their price. You can't eat Bitcoin.
Maybe. Maybe.
If you're not ever going to spend your Bitcoin on something then what's the point?
The assumption is on price. I do well, I may not need to sell anything. Generational wealth means future generations.
What I mean is as in NGU "later" gets sooner.
Thatâs not true.
Which part?
1:1
Iâm not sure of the prospective ETFs in US, but in Canada the spot holds 1:1.
And that is the million billion trillion dollar question.
US ainât Canada.
I asked questions. How can questions be untrue?
Well, tbf your questions implied that BTC ETFs donât hold btc 1:1.
Yes. I agree and I did that on purpose. Who makes sure that the cash-in matches the owned BTC? If they donât have to issue anything but cash back, why would they be rehired to hold 1:1??
And whatâs the timing on the requirements? Lots of cash-in and then they scramble to then catch up or do they need 100% reserves to even accept the cash???
Itâs settled daily.
Theyâre required because it was the only way for them to get for approved.
Theyâre audited like any other etf.
Bitcoin is so unique and thatâs why I ask. Stock ETFâs are simple. Shares are there & readily available. Not so much with BTC.
An open ledger is hard to audit? Wtf?
No, thatâs not what I mean. True scarcity has never existed. I guarantee they wonât require 100% reserves (1:1). Auditing is easy, yes. Access to a truly scarce commodity isnât. Gold isnât scarce. BTC is.
I donât deal in guarantees.
Iâm basing my statements on the facts as they are right now.
I believe Fidelity will hold btc 1:1. Why would anyone buy a spot that doesnât?
And once again the spots that already exist around the world, only exist because they are required to hold 1:1.
Facts & then the term âI believeâ are in conflict with one another đ§
I need to read the filings more closely. The big push for cash out makes me believe thereâs games afoot.
Unlike you, I didnât guarantee anything.
The facts are in relation to the spots which are currently offered and the application that fidelity put forward.
My belief is pure conjecture, and a guess. I donât know shit about dick.
I donât know dick about shit so thereâs that. đ€
đ
Two dudes who donât know shit about dick, probably got some of it right!
All in the percentages. Just keep slinging it & something will stick.
Doesnât matter anyway, Iâm not a buyer of these there ETFâs.
You may be once you can put it in a tax free education account, or a tax free savings account. Not sure what those are called in the US?
And no I wonât take legal advice from you and have a boating accident, or hacking episode đđ
I like to spread my risk, like a wet fart in a grocery store.
