BITCOIN

Zola.

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Scottex99

mooneysaver said:

I'm seeing way too much idiocy around trying to paint Dani as if he's some lost little girl in all of this.

You think it was sheer coincidence that we suddenly got those leaked screenshots where Dani is ShOcKed AnD ConFuSeD about Sifu's past?

It's one thing to put $$$ in a risky financial investment, and lose money.... IF that financial investment is presented honestly from the get go. The presentation of TIME Wonderland however, was full of deceit & misrepresentation from the beginning, which caused many to invest under a false premise. These 2 just fleeced people for hundreds of millions of dollars, and we all need to work together LEGALLY to try and get out money back. Bernie Madoff's victims got their $ back, and we can set a precident here with defi if we all work together.

Let's stop with the empty babble and show Dani and Sifu that we mean business. That money scammed away from us has to be returned. Does anyone have any experience filing class-action lawsuits?

Is there a reason why you’re just copying random stuff into this thread?

I know exactly what Wonderland is but I doubt much more than 3 other people here do.

Plus this one is for BITCOIN, it says it right up there in caps

Adyinvestment

Zola. said:

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Its amazing how fast Bitcoin is spreading, I know a filing is a long way from a done deal but does show how serious political people are taking it. Arizona has a larger population than El Salvador.

In the last week alone it seems to me that countries are waking up and realising that Bitcoin is the real deal and trying to get their heads around it so they are not left behind, I find it amusing that nearly the exact day Russia starts to embrace Bitcoin that Biden is rumoured to be issuing an executive order for the US departments to find the way to regulate it...perhaps this is the Bitcoin race 

Zola.

What a ponzi ! 

Adyinvestment

Zola. said:

What a ponzi ! 

   I am buying the dip ...I want to be near the top of the pyramid!

Parking_Eyerate

Zola. said:

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Hardly, It’s one senator that seemingly has a an anti-government and pro Q Anon history.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/arizona-senator-introduces-bill-bitcoin-213046518.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFfsNN1HH8vLm8pzN1hon9GYybbvkAAcn_4X_L4d4k5NsVkypbymd7ubIT3aaAf5AySz3TK7dvvYzGBrf_EuZwNZ_3hIMISAU-wl75oBg4iQ1W9-VDdCNwa2HZxGfIHn1vlL5CJDjl8ti47tj2GAPLz7wEaW0QK5a56Bu0zJmZyg
If you are similarly one step away from Q Anon then it is maybe something to get excited about.
There’s also the tiny fact that US States apparently can’t independently invent new legal tender. Who would have thought it?!

Zola.

Parking_Eyerate said:

Zola. said:

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Hardly, It’s one senator that seemingly has a an anti-government and pro Q Anon history.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/arizona-senator-introduces-bill-bitcoin-213046518.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFfsNN1HH8vLm8pzN1hon9GYybbvkAAcn_4X_L4d4k5NsVkypbymd7ubIT3aaAf5AySz3TK7dvvYzGBrf_EuZwNZ_3hIMISAU-wl75oBg4iQ1W9-VDdCNwa2HZxGfIHn1vlL5CJDjl8ti47tj2GAPLz7wEaW0QK5a56Bu0zJmZyg
If you are similarly one step away from Q Anon then it is maybe something to get excited about.
There’s also the tiny fact that US States apparently can’t independently invent new legal tender. Who would have thought it?!

Whether this person is a divisive character or not is largely irrelevant. An acting senator of a state has submitted a bill to make bitcoin legal tender, that is fact. Of course, it is yet to pass (and I have no idea how long these things take), but who knows where this ends up. States have shown the ability to change laws, look at the state cannabis laws for example.. 

In recent years Louisiana, Utah, and Texas have passed legislation recognising gold and silver as legal tender, and therefore exempt from taxes. This could be an additional tax play.

There are also states like Texas, Florida, New York (and now Arizona) etc all competing over who will be the hub of Bitcoin / crypto innovation, they are all trying to outdo each other. 

Parking_Eyerate

Zola. said:

Parking_Eyerate said:

Zola. said:

The state of Arizona is filing to make bitcoin legal tender. 

https://t.co/XhNfdJ4KNh

Hardly, It’s one senator that seemingly has a an anti-government and pro Q Anon history.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/arizona-senator-introduces-bill-bitcoin-213046518.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFfsNN1HH8vLm8pzN1hon9GYybbvkAAcn_4X_L4d4k5NsVkypbymd7ubIT3aaAf5AySz3TK7dvvYzGBrf_EuZwNZ_3hIMISAU-wl75oBg4iQ1W9-VDdCNwa2HZxGfIHn1vlL5CJDjl8ti47tj2GAPLz7wEaW0QK5a56Bu0zJmZyg
If you are similarly one step away from Q Anon then it is maybe something to get excited about.
There’s also the tiny fact that US States apparently can’t independently invent new legal tender. Who would have thought it?!

Whether this person is a divisive character or not is largely irrelevant. An acting senator of a state has submitted a bill to make bitcoin legal tender, that is fact. Of course, it is yet to pass (and I have no idea how long these things take), but who knows where this ends up. States have shown the ability to change laws, look at the state cannabis laws for example.. 

In recent years Louisiana, Utah, and Texas have passed legislation recognising gold and silver as legal tender, and therefore exempt from taxes. This could be an additional tax play.

There are also states like Texas, Florida, New York (and now Arizona) etc all competing over who will be the hub of Bitcoin / crypto innovation, they are all trying to outdo each other. 

The state senator’s character might be irrelevant to you but in my opinion it is very pertinent because, having looked at some of the things she has said, it makes me question her ethics and motivation. Your first post on the story suggested, to me at least, that the proposal was a lot more than a spurious bill proposed by a fringe Arizona state politician. Reading more about it, however, I think it is objectively difficult to characterise it as much beyond a fringe political attention grab.

Not only is it yet to pass, it is not at all clear if it’s even possible and I really can’t see that there is any suggestion that it’s likely to pass. Looking at her record I’d be somewhat surprised if the bill’s proposer manages to keep her seat, though this is Arizona so, as you say, who knows…

If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it.

My understanding is that only Utah has designated gold and silver coins as legal tender in the transactional sense. Notably, however, the coins in question are issued by the US Mint and since the US has a history of gold/silver coins being legal tender I imagine that the adoption in Utah would have been reasonably straightforward in a legislative sense. I would also be really interested to see how many transactions have been carried out in Utah using these gold/silver coins since the law was introduced. In essence I think it was possibly more about the tax breaks, as you acknowledge. For Louisiana and Texas my understanding is that the laws related to not taxing gold/silver purchases (rather than any transactional matters). Regardless, in my opinion gold/silver coins issued by the US Mint are not particularly comparable to bitcoin, so I really don’t see the overall relevance anyway.

User232002

Thrugelmir said:

That was an exceptional event which has yet to run it's course. The great unwinding is yet to follow. 

Interest payments on US debt currently stand at $420BN per year on a 0.25% interest rate. US GDP is twenty odd trillion, but federal tax receipts are $4T per year. 

They are also currently saying they will hike rates to four times their current position, to 1%, which increases govt debt payments, but not govt tax revenue.

There will be no great unwinding because it is just not mathematically possible. The idea that they will hike AND reduce the balance sheet is fanciful thinking. At this point, we are just playing a game of narrative.

Parking_Eyerate said:

The state senator’s character might be irrelevant to you but in my opinion it is very pertinent because, having looked at some of the things she has said, it makes me question her ethics and motivation. Your first post on the story suggested, to me at least, that the proposal was a lot more than a spurious bill proposed by a fringe Arizona state politician. Reading more about it, however, I think it is objectively difficult to characterise it as much beyond a fringe political attention grab.

Not only is it yet to pass, it is not at all clear if it’s even possible and I really can’t see that there is any suggestion that it’s likely to pass. Looking at her record I’d be somewhat surprised if the bill’s proposer manages to keep her seat, though this is Arizona so, as you say, who knows…

If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it.

Same old shifting of the goalposts. 

In 2012 Bitcoin was magic internet money. Now its being bought or retained as a balance sheet asset by multi billion dollar companies, bought by pension funds, is legal tender in a nation state and there are openly pro-BTC politicians in congress and the senate arguing for Bitcoin to be adopted. 

When its proposed by a bipartisan group, you'll say come back when its passed. When its passed, you'll say come back when its being used or adopted everyday by X number of people. When it fulfills that, you'll say come back when its being bought by central banks. And after all that, you'll then call for higher CGT or wealth taxes on those 'lucky people' that bought Bitcoin before you did.

Even the fact that is a 'fringe political attention grab,' is noteworthy, because it signifies that the considerable number of US Bitcoin holders have become substantial enough to be appealed to.

Hexane said:

Hey kid, you were the one saying a few months ago, that BTC would go to US$100,000 within a few months.

Are you sure that no-one believed you? Because the people that made money, made it off the back of people who bought based on that nonsense you peddled.

So if no-one believed you, then good...

People buying Bitcoin 'because number go up,' or based on what someone else said are idiots just as much as people buying Gamestop, AMC or whichever emerging market stocks are currently in vogue are. This happens every cycle. People buy because its in the news and then the people that don't understand what they have paper hand their asset away when it crashes (despite, as many people here have pointed out, to not overexpose yourself to the volatility) and the ones that did their research stick around.

And if you didn't think Bitcoin could crash to levels previously seen (*checks calendar*) 6 months ago, you havent done your DD. Bitcoin goes up 17x, crashes 50% and people call it a crash. At this point, its just a math test; and most people suck at math.

Hexane said:

Thank you for asking! A topic dear to my heart, but...

... two weeks, you say, TWO WEEKS? Well, gratifyingly, I think in the last two weeks my equities have stopped constantly going up like they did for the last few years and (on average) the last few decades. Worryingly, my equities only dipped a little in the last two weeks. Was something more dramatic supposed to happen?

Your bravado is misplaced. S&P500 down 8%. Nssdaq down 13%. That sounds a lot better than 50%, but its also the average return they make per annum so not something I'd describe as 'a little,' either.

Also think the US equity market being like 60% of global equities might be a bigger ponzi than anything I've seen in crypto too.

Parking_Eyerate

darren232002 said:

Thrugelmir said:

That was an exceptional event which has yet to run it's course. The great unwinding is yet to follow. 

Interest payments on US debt currently stand at $420BN per year on a 0.25% interest rate. US GDP is twenty odd trillion, but federal tax receipts are $4T per year. 

They are also currently saying they will hike rates to four times their current position, to 1%, which increases govt debt payments, but not govt tax revenue.

There will be no great unwinding because it is just not mathematically possible. The idea that they will hike AND reduce the balance sheet is fanciful thinking. At this point, we are just playing a game of narrative.

Parking_Eyerate said:

The state senator’s character might be irrelevant to you but in my opinion it is very pertinent because, having looked at some of the things she has said, it makes me question her ethics and motivation. Your first post on the story suggested, to me at least, that the proposal was a lot more than a spurious bill proposed by a fringe Arizona state politician. Reading more about it, however, I think it is objectively difficult to characterise it as much beyond a fringe political attention grab.

Not only is it yet to pass, it is not at all clear if it’s even possible and I really can’t see that there is any suggestion that it’s likely to pass. Looking at her record I’d be somewhat surprised if the bill’s proposer manages to keep her seat, though this is Arizona so, as you say, who knows…

If the bill had instead been proposed by a bipartisan group of moderate politicians I could understand why you might want to get a bit excited about it.

Same old shifting of the goalposts. 

In 2012 Bitcoin was magic internet money. Now its being bought or retained as a balance sheet asset by multi billion dollar companies, bought by pension funds, is legal tender in a nation state and there are openly pro-BTC politicians in congress and the senate arguing for Bitcoin to be adopted. 

When its proposed by a bipartisan group, you'll say come back when its passed. When its passed, you'll say come back when its being used or adopted everyday by X number of people. When it fulfills that, you'll say come back when its being bought by central banks. And after all that, you'll then call for higher CGT or wealth taxes on those 'lucky people' that bought Bitcoin before you did.

Even the fact that is a 'fringe political attention grab,' is noteworthy, because it signifies that the considerable number of US Bitcoin holders have become substantial enough to be appealed to.

Hexane said:

Hey kid, you were the one saying a few months ago, that BTC would go to US$100,000 within a few months.

Are you sure that no-one believed you? Because the people that made money, made it off the back of people who bought based on that nonsense you peddled.

So if no-one believed you, then good...

People buying Bitcoin 'because number go up,' or based on what someone else said are idiots just as much as people buying Gamestop, AMC or whichever emerging market stocks are currently in vogue are. This happens every cycle. People buy because its in the news and then the people that don't understand what they have paper hand their asset away when it crashes (despite, as many people here have pointed out, to not overexpose yourself to the volatility) and the ones that did their research stick around.

And if you didn't think Bitcoin could crash to levels previously seen (*checks calendar*) 6 months ago, you havent done your DD. Bitcoin goes up 17x, crashes 50% and people call it a crash. At this point, its just a math test; and most people suck at math.

Hexane said:

Thank you for asking! A topic dear to my heart, but...

... two weeks, you say, TWO WEEKS? Well, gratifyingly, I think in the last two weeks my equities have stopped constantly going up like they did for the last few years and (on average) the last few decades. Worryingly, my equities only dipped a little in the last two weeks. Was something more dramatic supposed to happen?

Your bravado is misplaced. S&P500 down 8%. Nssdaq down 13%. That sounds a lot better than 50%, but its also the average return they make per annum so not something I'd describe as 'a little,' either.

Also think the US equity market being like 60% of global equities might be a bigger ponzi than anything I've seen in crypto too.

Talk about shifting the goalposts, you’ve just gone way beyond that and, out of nothing, have created your own strawman to argue against. Congratulations!

It seems to have escaped your notice but I never said anything about the history or current status of bitcoin or whether pension funds or multi million dollar companies buy it as an asset or not, or indeed anything else you mentioned. So I really don’t see what or who you think you are arguing against.

Regarding your comments re what I would say if various events come to pass, well all you have done there is put words in my mouth, which I think is a very weird thing for you to do. If the events you described do come to pass, unlike you I don’t know right now what my opinions would be, but I can tell you that I would draw my own conclusions. Thanks for revealing your character anyway though.

Essentially all I have said in this thread is that I think that the Arizona bill proposal is a fringe political attention-grab and, despite the fact you seem to agree that could be the case, that one small point appears to have really triggered you. I have no idea why it has triggered you so and if your intention is to try and promote/support bitcoin then I personally don’t think you have taken the best approach.

Some studies put US Q Anon followers at around 15% of the population, does that substantial number automatically mean that they should be courted by politicians? Maybe the Arizona senator was trying to kill two birds with one stone.