pull down to refresh
Because our bills are dominated in dollars. A lot of people LARP as Bitcoin only but it’s impossible.
Last year July the price was at $118k today it’s at $66k. The purchasing power of the Bitcoin got nuked. Thus people don’t want to deal with that.
So all MSTR is doing is saying hey we will deal with that give us your fiat we will buy the bitcoin and pay you a dividend (which they can stop at anytime!) and we will take the downside risk and capture all of the upside gains as well.
For some people they like this risk profile and buy the STRC others hate it. Think Saylor is running some sort of scam.
Meanwhile Bitcoiners will put their money in high yield savings account or money market fund and say it’s safe. Meanwhile the Fed who prints casino chips and buys bonds that prop up these cash accounts in the open market to prop up bond prices (and lower yields) is safer than STRC. But this is the true cantillon effect because no one else can buy/create the fed casino chips and buy a government debt haha.
And this is why bitcoiners talk themselves into pretzels in this fiat hellscape.
You're describing exactly why the transition is hard, and I agree that it is. I lived through it the past 18 months hands-on. The marketing article in this series covers that tension and my experience directly: https://daniella.io/bitcoin-marketing/
The point about the Fed and money markets is fair, that is the original Cantillon effect. The article's argument is that STRC reconstructs that same geometry on top of bitcoin since the entity closest to the accumulation point holds the scarce asset, and fiat obligations flow to the participants furthest from it. Both can be true at the same time.
The difference is whether we choose to participate in rebuilding that pattern or not. Living on a bitcoin standard today is difficult, I'm not pretending otherwise (really). But choosing STRC is choosing to fund the reconstruction of fiat mechanics on top of the protocol built to end them. I think the transition just asks us to be honest about that cognitive dissonance, even when it's uncomfortable; to make conscious personal choices.
The article's argument is that STRC reconstructs that same geometry on top of bitcoin since the entity closest to the accumulation point holds the scarce asset, and fiat obligations flow to the participants furthest from it. Both can be true at the same time.
This is false. Anyone can buy bitcoin!! Both can’t be true if no one is locked out from buying bitcoin! No one needs Saylor. But banks NEED collateral. Which comes in the form of US debt which the Fed can buy with bank reserves!
People can’t buy bank reserves!!
This where your “both can be true” argument blows up!
You're right that anyone can buy bitcoin, and that's a real difference from the Fed system. The article says that explicitly: "No money is printed, no outsider is diluted, and every STRC buyer participates voluntarily and is paid for it." The Cantillon reconstruction isn't about access but the distribution pattern that results. STRC holders could buy bitcoin directly but instead chose to fund Strategy's accumulation in exchange for fiat yield. The geometry ends up the same even though the entry point is open, but I hear your point and yes I acknowledge where the analogy breaks down.
some investors want fixed dividend
it’s called a diversified portfolio
Of course, the article doesn't argue people shouldn't want yield. The question it raises is what it means to receive that yield in fiat while the company keeps the bitcoin. In this case 'diversification' is into a depreciating currency with no claim on the appreciating asset.
Right, and that's the core of the article. The question is why choose fiat yield over just buying bitcoin directly? Especially when roughly 80% of STRC shares are held by retail investors who could do exactly that.