Think of it this way, if I had borrowed $40000 to buy my wife’s minivan, I would have saved 7 bitcoin. I effectively bought those 7 Bitcoin over time with each loan payment. So those 7 bitcoin were dca’d into over say 5 years. My return over 5 years is undoubtedly less than had I just held those 7 Bitcoin, because my cost basis moved up, but remember we are comparing against having sold the bitcoin, not merely hodling. After paying off the loan, you have 7 bitcoin and a vehicle.

But the amount of bitcoin has changed.

To calculate yield, you need to look at how many bitcoin do you have at the unwind of the leverage compared to the amount of bitcoin you hold had you not levered (which in the case of a car loan is the lesser number). You must take as a given a car will be bought and you will either borrow dollars or sell bitcoin to get it. You can’t compare to the scenario of doing nothing.

What may also seem confusing is this type of leverage multiplies yield by less than 1 (minimizing lost bitcoin) which seems strange to financial types who can only see leverage as magnifying yield.

To be clear, it’s either the purchase of levered bitcoin or the addition of leverage on to bitcoin not sold.

Like all yield, it’s what was done with the money.

So you even know what denominated in Bitcoin means? 1 bitcoin > 0.9 bitcoin or equivalently 1.1 bitcoin > 1 bitcoin.

But you do you.

If you are handed everything needed to calculate the percent per year yield denominated in bitcoin and can’t recognize it, you have a poorly developed understanding of the term.

True. All yield has risk and there is no reward without risk.

When Bitcoin crashed from $32 to $2, I felt kinda foolish as I could have made a mortgage payment if I weren’t greedy.

But I was fortunate enough to tolerate this paper loss and risk further loses and live to see massive gains compared to the amount of risk.

If you can’t see it or don’t understand it, I don’t have time to explain it to you. Sorry.

The amount of bitcoin I own is not the same. It’s less because I sold bitcoin. The math is identical whether you are dealing with positive or negative numbers.

Suppose I decided not to buy a mini van. Suppose instead I took out a home equity line of credit and bought bitcoin instead. Then instead of avoiding a loss of bitcoin, my stack went up.

Whether you avoid decreasing your stack or increase your stack by using someone else’s money, it’s still a yield if you denominate in Bitcoin.

If you have any debt and bitcoin, you literally are getting a bitcoin yield whenever your Bitcoin holdings increase in value more than the interest paid to date.

This applies to many people.

Let me give you another example: I bought my wife a mini van in 2017. Was I smart and try to get a yield on my bitcoin by taking out a loan to buy the car? Nope. I was a moron and managed to avoid the massive Bitcoin yield by selling Bitcoin to buy the vehicle. Whereas had I taken out a $40,000 loan at 5% to spare my Bitcoin, I would be up about $350,000.

This is what I mean when I say only an idiot can manage to avoid bitcoin yield. I am he. And unwittingly there are many like me.

I’m a radiologist. But I’m starting to feel like I’m being fooled by a bot with fairly few lines of code.

But on the off chance that you were actually curious about how prescribing medicines or using medical tests works in the United States, here goes: no government entity can tell a physician how a medicine must be used. Nor how a test must be used. But there are regulations on charging for services such as medicines and tests. Any physician can prescribe any drug in the best interests of the patient, bound only by malpractice, which is a standard set by local medical practices. But government can deny you payment.

I don’t think you understand how medicine works. The word boss doesn’t apply. Just like the words business hours don’t apply.

Oh, I see. You think here is nostr. It’s a big world out there.

Many don’t understand the term anarchy. Most see it as equivalent to chaos. And chaos cheerleaders are often authoritarians using chaos as a springboard to dictatorship.

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. It’s an ideal. It doesn’t exist, it’s a goal to move towards.

Yawn. You must be new here.

This think you’re kinda wrong.

Nobody can argue bitcoin can generate a yield forever. But you’d have to be a moron to avoid a yield on any asset with Bitcoin’s price history.

Getting such easy yields on bitcoin won’t last forever. I’d bet you’re getting a Uriel’s on Bitcoin right now, presuming you own bitcoin and have a mortgage.

If I had paid off my medical student loans with Bitcoin I’d be education debt free, and I would be saving thousands or tens of thousands in interest payments…but I’d have no bitcoin. If you have any debt at all, you’re using leverage.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. It had nothing to do with a global network of volunteers working with rough consensus over many decades beginning in the 1960’s.

True, one could argue both. But they’re insightful arguing one way, and just kinda stupid arguing the other.

Which sort of anarchist? The chaos cheerleaders or those that brought you the Internet?

Many misuse the term anarchist. Many think anarchy is somehow a bad thing, which is utter nonsense when you realize what anarchy actually is.

Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules. It’s an ideal, a noble and honorable idea…but also something that is never implemented properly when enough humans are involved. Humans are incapable of this ideal, at scale at least, as best I can tell.

Too often anarchy is used as a synonym for chaos. And chaos is used by authoritarians as a springboard to dictatorial power. This is the antithesis of anarchy.

You are a partial cryptoanarchist every time you use https to connect to a website. Why? Because you connect in a way where you insist nobody on earth can see what you’re doing. This is an example of a rule without a ruler.