we're dca'ing bitcoin https://block.xyz/documents/bitcoin-blueprint.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ms-dE6aasA

I've been retweeting or reposting Odell's various observations on this topic for a while and so I'm happy to share this too, including on Twitter today, even as a filthy blue-check myself.

Where I disagree with Odell (slightly) is on tactics. He thinks people should give up blue checks in protest. And that's a very fair position. I don't disagree, especially for someone like Odell with a purist position and a generally cypherpunk audience.

But I think there are multiple successful paths on this. I have always been a Twitter fan, and my normie audience is there. I wanted to be able to pay for better UX and anti-impersonation defenses for years before they became available. Just because Musk is running it doesn't mean I won't pay for helpful services, especially if they protect my audience. Real people lose money to Lyn Alden impersonation scams if they can't tell my account from others, and I directly hear from them when it happens. It's always heartbreaking.

So, I'm on the offensive, not the defensive. The way I view it, unless or until someone censors me on Twitter, they're locked in there with me, rather than me being locked in there with them. If having a blue check reduces the success rate of impersonation scams and amplifies my reach at calling out Twitter's problems, I'll have the blue check. What I absolutely *won't* do is change what I say based on a blue check. If anything, I purposely overdo it to the opposite and exaggerate my criticisms on purpose to push back against platform incentives.

Two simultaneous approaches:

1) Call out the problem on Twitter. Don't give Musk a pass. Point out that a pro-freedom, pro-anonymity view doesn't match with what is going on there. Don't let his rhetoric disguise his inaction. If Twitter cares about freedom and anonymity then they will offer a paid option that doesn't require identity (e.g. the "orange check" bitcoin payment.) Until something like that, they are LARPing and are fair to criticize as such.

2) Have your foot here on Nostr and on decentralization technologies generally. In the long run, I think this is the future. And more importantly, I hope it is.

https://void.cat/d/UDKNKEAwg1f4bWkWxZrdL5.webp

This wasn't from buying bonds or ending QT, but rather from making loans. To the extent that they continue QT, they will likely need to keep providing this type of liquidity, so it's like the Fed is taking liquidity out of the financial system with one hand and putting it back with the other. They've basically hit the liquidity floor of the banking system, which seems to be around $3 trillion in bank reserves.

However, that doesn't mean the balance sheet will go straight up. The Fed will try to limit the balance sheet growth to whatever extent is possible.

After the September 2019 repo spike, the balance sheet stopped decreasing and started going up, and then it began to stabilize sideways by January 2020. It then got slammed by the COVID-19 and lockdown impacts in March 2020, and the money printers went into hyperdrive due to that.

This time, without such a crazy catalyst, the balance sheet will likely spend more of its time in that intermediate state, similar to what it did in that September 2019 to January 2020 period.

In other words, this is still going to be a bumpy process.