brb just telling my wife somebody thinks I’m cool.

don’t know nearly enough about it to have an interesting take, sorry.

lol, no idea. seeds and ammo probably 😂

is that a question?

I’ve thought about this a lot and I honestly have no idea. it’s essentially trying to predict not only when a bubble will pop, but also *how*, but the whole point of bubbles is you can’t know. it’s an emergent behaviour from a complex and reactive crowd. if you could know, they would never happen. so given you can’t, you just have to insure yourself against the bust and wait.

I think they are all basically legit given people value the service and don’t wanna do it themselves. the problem is just that there are way too many of them and they have toxic political power.

Late medieval and early renaissance Italian and Low country city states 😉

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commenda

ooo that’s a super fun question. so the main different is the dimensionality: economics stocks have the dimension of $, whereas flows have the dimension $/t.

this is academic in some senses, but the point I am getting at in the piece is to properly understand *time and causation*. the flows can only happen because they are created by stocks, and you need the stocks first. once you have them, the flows play out over time, and allow you to replenish the stocks.

this is the gist of the “economic potential energy” metaphor: the stocks can be transformed into something more useful or even consumable, but it takes purposeful action and time to get there.

in terms of valuation, yeah it’s probably best to use NPV, but I’d argue it’s better still to just admit you don’t know. if you bake in “uncertainty” as another foundational concept, you realise you can’t possibly know what these future flows are going to be.

rounding off your question, though, this presents a super interesting contrast in terms of the dimensionality: if the argument is you want to sum up a bunch of flows, then yes, that forces the stock to be “worth” an amount with dimension $/t. but then that kinda has to be the case because you aren’t actually *getting* this value now. it doesn’t exist in any tangible form. you are getting it over the period of time you discount over. whereas if you say “I don’t know” (as I recommend) you mark it at book value ($) and move on.

given I primarily use the bird app for shitposting (and now apparently marketing, fml) whereas nostr is where real work gets done and real learning happens, I’d be very happy to discuss Capital In The 21st Century if anybody has any questions.

AMA!

my new thing! (with some fresh content to boot!)

https://www.axiombtc.capital/capital

haha almost certainly not.

lmfao that somebody had to type those slurs to construct that list. they are going straight to hell and they know it 😂

I forget exactly what we said so I may just be repeating it but everybody besides Marxists thinks central banking is “capitalistic” and so dares not attack any of the consequences of fiat because it seems to them like they’d be attacking freedom itself. Marxists obviously don’t care about attacking freedom, hence they are fine (inadvertently) attacking fiat, and end up being the only people who point out things like the obvious evils of consumerism … besides bitcoiners!

mrs Allen’s review of Tchaikovsky’s 5th Symphony:

“yeah, it slaps.”

yeah shockingly that didn’t come up. not sure what’s wrong with Peter …

here’s the note, fyi:

note1pnwmy4rf8gazepvpkr5770pcnts8685qe9ake96m56refs78atzsam7cnn

sometimes I regret only using twitter for shitposting and nostr for actual thinking because occasionally it’s useful to take actual thoughts from nostr and use them to dunk on degenerate fiat tweeters.

the current thing™, if you are curious, is that a lot of people are revealing themselves to be closet MMTers in their take on Sequoia keeping $1bn at SVB and I had a massive note a while back about how t-bills and money market mutual funds are effectively the only real “money” now (even though this is entirely circular since they are defined as the rights to money …)

well you as an individual wouldn’t have that option anyway. the authorised participants could (allegedly) redeem ETF shares for bitcoin of equal value, but “physical” means BlackRock would have to provide it onchain (although I suppose an exchange balance might count) rather than in some other form of IOU.

I’ve found the reaction to all this very telling. of course he’s wrong about some things because if you have an opinion on *everything*, as you tend to have to when you run for president, of course some of it will be wrong.

the regime is freaking out not because of the output here but the throughput: it’s not that he gets things wrong that they hate, it’s that he thinks for himself. he isn’t captured by borg financial interests. they are gaslighting everybody about the symptoms to try to deflect from the cause.

the real issue he is drawing attention to is whether or not you are allowed to think for yourself in the first place. if you are, it doesn’t matter that he might be wrong - as he would undoubtedly agree and encourage! but if you aren’t, then any narrative dissent must be crushed. and note I didn’t say “falsehood” - what I am pointing to is more like what is now euphemistically called “misinformation”.

to a thinking person, even the concept of “misinformation” as opposed to “falsehood” is offensive. to a regime that takes the concept of misinformation seriously, thinking people are offensive. RFK is appealing to thinking people and, in doing so, showing them that it’s okay to think.

long version is in the piece. short version would be to look into OnRamp - they are doing the same idea in a far more appropriate way.