“Let me explain. This is my daughter. I’m willing to marry her off, but only to a man that values her more than I value her.”
That’s what MicroStrategy executive chairman and co-founder Michael @saylor told the potential buyer of his voice.com domain.
Saylor would eventually sell voice.com for $30 million, a record for the highest price ever paid for a domain name.
It’s an incredible story that few people have heard…
In the early days of the internet, Saylor was quick to recognize the value of domain names which were also words everybody understood. He figured it was like owning a part of the English language.
So, Saylor purchased several of these prominent domains—like voice.com—thinking they would be worth a fortune to the right company in the future.
After around 20 years, one day, out of the blue, a domain broker contacted Saylor and offered him $150,000 for voice.com on behalf of a potential buyer.
Saylor told them, “Look. I’ve been waiting for 20 stinking years. $150,000 isn’t going to do much for me. Tell him no.”
A week later, they came back and offered him $300,000. Again, Saylor said no.
A few days later, the potential buyers returned and offered $600,000.
Saylor told them he wasn’t interested unless it was something serious—like north of $10 million.
They then offered him $1.2 million, and again Saylor declined.
The potential buyers then asked what he would accept for voice.com.
Saylor remained non-committal and vague, insisting they had to make a serious offer for a lot of money.
The potential buyers then more than doubled their offer to $3 million, then to $6 million, and then to nearly $10 million.
At this point, Saylor’s colleagues urged him to accept the offer.
However, Saylor continued to decline, noting that voice.com could be worth a lot more to the right company and that he had a whale on the line.
He said, “I have $500 million in the bank. And I love my things. Maybe you can tell that I’m a little bit passionate about some of this stuff. So I would rather own it and not have the $10 million than sell it for that.”
The potential buyers then upped their offer to $12 million.
Saylor realized the potential buyers were serious. He didn’t want to discourage them entirely with his repeated refusals.
So, he told them he has seen people drop $100 million on a marketing campaign and that he thinks voice.com is worth at least $100 million. That being said, he would reluctantly accept $30 million for it.
They then offered him $22 million.
Saylor again said no, but offered to have a phone meeting with them to discuss further.
As the meeting started, the potential buyers again offered $22 million.
Again, Saylor declined, noting that owning the word “voice” in English was like owning an acre of Central Park. He was in no rush to sell it and could hold on to it for many more years until a buyer came to his price.
At this point, the buyer agreed to come to Saylor’s price.
After being offered $150k, Saylor sold voice.com for $30 million—the most anyone has ever paid for a domain name.
It’s a record that still stands as of writing.
Mistaking an altcoin token for equity would be like mistaking Chuck E. Cheese arcade tokens or airline frequent flyer miles for an ownership stake in the underlying airline or arcade business.
I think the SEC should have been abolished yesterday, and there should be a totally free market in investments.
That would be better for everyone except the insiders who benefit from the cronyism of the current system.
That said, as a practical matter, nobody should be surprised that the SEC and US government go after those who flout it.
If you have a centralized group of people creating a digital token, giving a bunch to themselves, marketing it to pump the price, and then dumping it on the retail market without a registration statement and disclosing who owns the token, that’s like sticking your head in a crocodile’s mouth and hoping it doesn’t bite.
You would have to be pretty dim not to see the SEC would inevitably go after crypto. Anyone with their eyes open could have seen it coming from a mile away.
I expect the crypto crackdown to accelerate and potentially wipe out hundreds of billions in market value.
That’s terrible news for every cryptocurrency—except Bitcoin.
Amid the regulatory crackdown and the ongoing Shitcoin Apocalypse, remember Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that is unambiguously NOT a security.
Here's why hard forks are a big problem for the credibility of the supply...
Imagine there was a group of people who could hard fork gold. Let's call them the Gold Cartel.
Suppose the Gold Cartel decided to hard fork gold to change its essential characteristics (what they would euphemistically call a "protocol upgrade"), but not the gold supply.
Then suppose the Gold Cartel mandated a gold hard fork that would change gold from a solid to a liquid and from the color yellow to brown. But they decided that, this time, they would leave the gold supply unchanged.
They claimed they were making these changes to gold to upgrade its fungability and that everyone must go along with them and their new and improved version of gold.
Then suppose the Gold Cartel told everyone the gold hard fork would occur in 2 weeks and that everyone in the world must come to one of the Gold Cartel's offices to exchange the old yellow, solid gold for the new brown, liquid gold.
After the Gold Cartel's hard fork, the old yellow, solid gold would not longer be valid. It would no longer be gold and thus useless to anyone who didn't exchange it for their newly mandated liquid brown gold.
In such a situation, would gold be a neutral, apolitical, decentralized asset?
Would its supply have any credibility?
Or would it be a shitcoin?
Privacy coins are shitcoins...
The most important characteristic of a good money is that it is credibly “hard to produce,” which makes it resistant to debasement.
All other monetary characteristics—including privacy and fungibility—are meaningless if the money is easy for someone to produce.
For example, I can obtain good privacy by using physical Mexican peso bills in transactions, but that doesn’t mean the peso is good money.
The same concept applies to so-called privacy coins.
Like all altcoins, it is trivial for privacy coin developers to change the protocol through hard forks, which they frequently do. That means their monetary policies have no credibility, and their scarcity is artificial because the developers can change the protocol. It might be a neat privacy tool, but it won’t be a good money.
It is far better to have a money that is credibly resistant to debasement—like Bitcoin—and build privacy features on top of it rather than start with something that can easily be debased but has good privacy.
Further, several excellent privacy tools are available to anyone right now on Bitcoin, eliminating any need for privacy coins.
Shitcoin Apocalypse
This is 100% the correct take on the unfolding shitcoin apocalypse.
Mistaking a shitcoin token for equity would be similar to mistaking Chuck E. Cheese arcade tokens or airline frequent flyer miles for an ownership stake in the underlying airline or arcade business.
With altcoins, it’s a game of hot potato with fundamentally worthless digital tokens, not investing in the next Steve Jobs.
A slice of the fiat life
Single income no kids
A hop, skip, and a jump away from living in the pods
It's a game of hot potato with fundamentally worthless tokens.
It's a game of finding the next dog coin, not investing in the next Steve Jobs.
Many erroneously think “crypto” is just another asset class like bonds or stocks, and they need diversification within that asset class.
That would be like adding pyrite to your portfolio to diversify your gold holdings.
The Case Against Altcoins: 3 Reasons Why You Should Stick to Bitcoin Only
Once people realize altcoins are not good money, they often fall back on the claim that they are like equity or investing in tech start-ups.
When you invest in the equity of a start-up, you have an ownership stake. It’s a legal claim to the assets of the business and its future cash flows.
However, altcoins do not represent any ownership stake or legal claim on any asset or cash flow whatsoever. That’s why they are nothing like equity, despite what many believe.
It would be similar to mistaking Chuck E. Cheese arcade tokens or airline frequent flyer miles for an ownership stake in the underlying airline or arcade business.
But suppose altcoins did represent an ownership stake or a claim on an asset. They would then undoubtedly be “securities,” which means their developers must register with the government.
Practically no altcoins have registered as a securities, yet most of them probably are indeed securities—even though they offer no legal claim to ownership.
Given their statements, it’s clear that the SEC views altcoins as unregistered securities.
That’s because altcoins have issuers.
By contrast, the SEC and the rest of the US government have been clear that it views Bitcoin—and only Bitcoin—as a commodity, a much more favorable designation.
That’s because Bitcoin does not have an issuer.
It brings up another relevant point. Most altcoins would cease to exist if the SEC went after them, which illustrates that, despite the marketing claims and technobabble, altcoins are not decentralized.
Here’s the bottom line…
When you buy altcoins you get the worst of both worlds.
You get the regulatory and legal risk of owning an unregistered security without any ownership stake in assets or future income.
Altcoins are nothing like equity.
Altcoins are securities because they have issuers.
Bitcoin—and only Bitcoin—is a commodity because it does not have an issuer.
In Capitalism, companies must please their customers.
In Fiat Cronyism, companies must please those closest to the (fake) money printer.
https://twitter.com/catsscareme2021/status/1666082106177634310?s=20
The Lightning Network makes Bitcoin a viable medium of exchange for everyday consumer transactions.
Inflation is a big bonus to debtors. It allows you to borrow in dollars and repay in dimes.
And since the US government is the biggest debtor in the history of the world, it is the single largest beneficiary of inflation.
Bugs are the new seed oils.
The Economist: “We’re not going to convince Europeans and Americans to go out in big numbers and start eating insects… The trick might be to slip them into the food chain on the quiet.”
Do you really own something if someone forces you to make never-ending (and ever-increasing) payments on it?
https://financialunderground.com/articles/the-disturbing-truth-about-the-home-you-think-you-own/
Ask yourself, why does money laundering have draconian penalties, yet the media, academia, politicians, midwits, and many others engage in inflation laundering with impunity?
Social Security = socialist insecurity
Too big to fail = is proof there is no free market
Bailout = whip the tax donkeys harder to prop up a Ponzi scheme run by connected insiders
Legal tender laws = if you use anything besides government confetti as money we'll put you in prison
Risk free return = return free risk
Lender of last resort = counterfeiting operation to backstop a Ponzi scheme
Fractional reserve = fictional reserves
Policy makers = central planners
Elites = parasites
Federal Reserve = the 5th plank in Marx’s Communist Manifesto
Fiat currency = government Chuck E. Cheese arcade tokens, confetti created from thin air
Interest rates = the price of money and most important prices in the entire economy, manipulated by central planners
Inflation = increase in money supply
Depositors = unsecured lenders to a bank
Bank deposits = IOU from a bank
Deposit insurance = false sense of security
Bail-in = using depositors funds to shore up a Ponzi scheme
Bank holiday = surprise restrictions on depositors to prevent them from fleeing
Haircut = theft
Regulations = anti-competitive barriers to entry to protect large incumbents and empower politicians
Official denial funds are at risk = confirmation funds are at imminent risk
The penny used to be 95% copper.
Today, pennies are only 2.5% copper, with cheaper zinc making up the remaining 97.5% of the coin.
In short, the US government couldn’t even maintain a copper standard.
#1. The leading opposition candidate was hit with frivolous, politically motivated charges.
#2. The main opposition TV show was canceled and silenced.
#3. The incumbent party declared there would be no debates.
Imagine if it happened in a country that Washington doesn't like.
H.L. Mencken was correct:
"Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."
There are four powerful trends that I think will push hydrocarbon prices higher.
Trend #1—The End of the Petrodollar System: The US government will soon lose its ability to print money to buy energy—an incredible privilege no other country has. That will have significant consequences for oil prices.
Trend #2—Rampant Currency Debasement: Governments worldwide have no choice but to engage in ever-increasing currency debasement. 2023 could be the year it reaches a crescendo.
Trend #3—Carbon Hysteria and Under-Investment: Governments have redirected trillions in capital away from nuclear and hydrocarbons and sent it to wind and solar. Further, ESG madness, “net zero” goals, and other unfavorable government policies have led to a massive under-investment in hydrocarbons. I expect the carbon hysteria will cause tighter supplies and higher prices.
Trend #4—Geopolitical Turmoil: The conflict between Russia (the 2nd largest oil exporter) and Ukraine has no end in sight. Tensions with Iran could explode at any moment. As a result, geopolitical turmoil could easily escalate, causing hydrocarbon supply disruptions out of Russia and the Middle East.
Sloppy, vague words lead to sloppy, vague thinking.
The term “fossil fuels” is an excellent example of this.
When the average person hears “fossil fuels,” they think of a dirty technology that belongs in the 1800s.
Many believe they are burning dead dinosaurs to power their cars.
They also think fossil fuels will run out soon and destroy the planet within a decade.
None of these absurd things are true, but many people believe them.
Using misleading and vague language plays a large role.
I suggest expunging “fossil fuels” from your vocabulary in favor of hydrocarbons—a much better and more precise word.
The Great Energy Deception:
The Truth Behind the $5 Trillion Renewable Energy Scam
Monero and all so-called "privacy coins' ARE shitcoins... here's why....
The most important characteristic of a good money is that it is credibly “hard to produce,” which makes it resistant to debasement.
All other monetary characteristics—including privacy and fungibility—are meaningless if the money is easy for someone to produce.
For example, I can obtain good privacy by using physical Argentine peso bills in transactions, but that doesn’t mean the peso is good money.
The same concept applies to so-called privacy coins.
Like all altcoins, it is trivial for privacy coin developers to change the protocol through hard forks, which they frequently do. That means their monetary policies have no credibility, and their scarcity is artificial because the developers can change the protocol. It might be a neat privacy tool, but it won’t be a good money.
It is far better to have a money that is credibly resistant to debasement—like Bitcoin—and build privacy features on top of it rather than start with something that can easily be debased but has good privacy.
More...
Pretty neat...
BORDER WALLETS: Storing Bitcoin In Your Brain
Many erroneously think that since there are more than 20,000 cryptocurrencies, they need diversification within "crypto."
That would be like adding pyrite to your portfolio to diversify your gold holdings.
The biggest mistake you can make in the coming Bitcoin bull market would be to get distracted with altcoins—all cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin.