I can’t decide if bitcoin backed loans perpetuate the old system or is a key phase of entering the new system or is completely orthogonal to system transition.

Vibecoding is zombie-fying. I’ve been there. $200/mo Claude is such a deal right now and probably won’t last past ipo.

My biggest fear is that people will perpetuate the old system, as would call it, by using Bitcoin as collateral…it’s hard to reconcile what I think is an inherent conflict between perpetuating the paper money system by using bitcoin as collateral for a loan and hoping fiat debasement continues… I want to be wrong here…but it doesn’t seem like just sell bitcoin if you want to buy something is the right answer either.

Here is a good question to ponder: why has the “money” the world uses like USD been so successful despite proof of debasement? Is proof of debasability somehow a desirable property of “money” in the modern world? The answer might be yes! Taking a loan backed by collateral creates more of the lent and makes the collateral more scarce while the trade is “on.” Repaying the loan reverses this relationship. People are more willing to borrow “money” when armed with proof of debasement or at least the possibility of debasement. Nobody borrows bitcoin long term. That would be ruinous. Maybe somehow debasement as encouragement to take risks and work hard is a useful feature of “money” itself? This is a bit like arguing that stealing is ok, and obviously stealing is wrong, but is it really stealing when people have a choice to hold dollars or Bitcoin? I mean, I still think it is stealing despite the choice, but I suppose the theft isn’t a pure loss for society: by stealing from the poor to fund the sometimes profitable ventures of the future rich, more goods and services enter the economy…or so they say. Proving this theft buys more productivity than having a fair standard measure of value has never been done — in large part because there never was a good money before. The desire to borrow and lend is largely about getting more collateral, not more “money” at the end of the day, but people think “rich” means “money” and I’d argue that’s not at all the case.

If you think about it, trying to write code to break bitcoin is a service to Bitcoin and bitcoin holders. I’m no ordinals fan, but Bitcoin passed that stress test. And if someone did break bitcoin meaningfully, this is also a service as it makes the zero value case happen sooner than otherwise, allowing people to allocate accordingly. would get this concept. It sounds bad, very bad, but is in fact the greatest good.

I am going to miss

Well done again at ! My daughter loved your talk. Thx bro

True story, I saw that!

Does anyone have detailed information on Bitcoin custodian relationships amongst the big players? Eg, MSTR or blackrock and Coinbase, etc? What exactly are the custody terms? Do they pay a percent per year? Can custodied funds be lent by custodian?

lol…you’re clearly not a physician

It degrades bitcoin as much as using bitcoin. That’s it. There is a nontechnical consideration: if pegged side chains like liquid and citrea become more valuable than bitcoin per block, moving chain forward as opposed to reorg in low subsidy era becomes trickier for miners.