Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies

Kirun said:

The whole "major banks are pivoting to Bitcoin" narrative sounds exciting, but it's being wildly oversold. Banks offering custody, ETFs, or exposure to BTC isn't the same thing as Bitcoin becoming part of the global monetary system. That's like saying Fidelity selling gold ETFs means the dollar is collapsing and being replaced. It just means they found another product to collect fees on.

Institutions buying or offering BTC services doesn't "validate" Bitcoin's monetary thesis, it just means there's demand for another speculative asset. If anything, it proves the opposite of what the video claims - Bitcoin now sits inside the regulatory perimeter, under custodial control, subject to compliance, reporting, and institutional liquidity cycles. It's absorption, not sovereignty.

And let's be honest, banks don't adopt things because they’re about to be replaced by them. They adopt things because they see a revenue stream. If Bitcoin ever actually threatened monetary policy, capital controls, or sovereign settlement, those same institutions would be forced out of it overnight. They're permissioned entities.

So sure, institutions getting involved might help price discovery in bull markets. But institutional interest doesn't make Bitcoin the future of money. It just means Wall Street figured out how to profit from Bitcoin without believing any of the ideology behind it.

Click to expand...

On one level I agree with you.

On the other hand, there is plenty of reason to believe that there is a monetary regime change coming and a lot of institutions and influential people in and around the levers of power (Trump and Lutnik especially) that have significant Bitcoin and broader 'crypto' exposure. Bessent himself has said there will be "Bretton Woods 2.0" negotiations in the next few years and he wants to be at the negotiation table, likely how/why he got involved with Trump. I really only shared this video because it contains a lot of these people talking about exactly this.

I would say its unwise to have "Bitcoin replaces global monetary system by 2030" or something similar as your base-case. However I think its similarly unwise to ignore everything that moving in this space and assume that this is just another asset Wall Street is making money on. They definitely are, but Bitcoin is the first new asset class in a very long time, I don't think any of us really know how to parse this honestly.

Probably the most compelling aspect of all this for me is the Genius act and the treatment of USD Stablecoins. Specifically the requirement of owning US debt instruments to fully back them. This effectively can replace the entire Euro-dollar system and act as pseudo banking for the entire non-US population. When Bessent says he expect Stablecoin marketcap to be $3 trillion+ in the short term I tend to think hes right. If Stablecoin marketcap is that high, what do you think that does to the price of Bitcoin? If stablecoins are going to be used to plug a hole in the US Treasury market (US Treasury just bought back $12.5 Billion of its own debt) what does that mean for the current banking system?

I don't totally understand the ramifications of all of these things, but I do believe that Bitcoin has a role to play in the future of these markets and I tend to think not holding some is foolish if you're paying attention. I'm also unsure that any of this is actually GOOD, but it does seem to be happening.

Blazin These are content creators, so I wouldn't take the videos tone too seriously. This is simply a case of "Holy crap, its actually happening" not "Boy I sure do love Blackrock!". Institutions and governments buying and holding is a requirement for it to do what I think its going to do. Believing something is or could happen and watching it actually happen are very different things. We'll have to see if Wall Street can tame Bitcoin, or if they're going to get eaten by it.

Blazin said:

Okay what if we have the wrong meme, the "sell it" meme. The naysayers after all this time are finally on board, hell even Vanguard. Your grandma is now in the boat, wouldn't that possibly mark a top not a bottom?

The whales held it up until they sucked every last one of the doubters into the fold. Now even when countries invest their annual GDP on a daily basis the price heads lower. It's food for thought.

Kidding aside, BTC has matured. There is going to be consequences to that. BTC may become so boring that its a yawn fest for the people who want to be on the outside and taking big risks for big rewards. For an entire cohort, losing the chance for easy wealth means they'll go play ball somewhere else. I believe that is what is already occurring.

Click to expand...

I agree with the latter, I think things have the potential to be far less volatile moving forward and it 100% will bore and even shake out some longer term holders.

I think that the idea Jordy Visser has been throwing around has some credibility. He points to the legal clarity as a reason that "OGs" are now selling at record levels. They've held thousands of BTC for 10+ years and its finally safe and liquid enough for them to unload some and diversify, buy an island, whatever it is they're going to do. He refers to it as Bitcoins "IPO moment" insiders selling and supply is distributing, in this case to institutions, as there is clarity around its future for the first time. I dunno if thats the truth, but something worth considering with the recent price action. Something like 5% of the entire supply was sold by longterm holders and we're still at ~$90k. Thats pretty crazy honestly.

Flobee said:

On one level I agree with you.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that something is shifting. Clearly, the monetary architecture that's been running the world since the 1970s is creaking, and everyone with power is trying to figure out what comes next and how to make sure they have a seat at the table.

But I think where I diverge from your interpretation is that you're treating Bitcoin's institutional attention as evidence of an inevitable monetary regime change centered around Bitcoin. What's more likely is that Bitcoin is becoming one variable inside a much larger reconfiguration. Just a piece that can be used, co-opted, or sidelined depending on who wins the negotiation.

The Genius Act and the stablecoin collateral requirement you mentioned are actually perfect examples. They don't represent the state adopting crypto's values, they represent the state weaponizing crypto rails to reinforce the dollar's primacy. Forcing stablecoins to hold Treasuries is not some crypto liberation moment, it's a mechanism to create synthetic demand for U.S. debt, pull offshore dollar liquidity back under U.S. jurisdiction, and extend dollar influence into systems the U.S. can't directly control today. They're basically trying to upgrade the dollar's plumbing.

Your bigger point (that holding some BTC is rational if you believe we're entering a transition period) is the strongest part of your argument. I don't think anyone paying attention disagrees that the end of the post-1971 regime is on the horizon. The disagreement is over what role Bitcoin plays. I think you're implying it becomes pristine global collateral, but I'm suggesting it becomes just another tool inside a dollar-centric future. Owning Bitcoin because the system is mutating is sensible. Believing Bitcoin is the system that replaces it is where the leap happens.

If the last 50 years taught us anything, it's that monetary revolutions don't reward idealists. They reward whoever controls the settlement layer. Right now, that's still the United States, and they're not handing over that privilege because a whitepaper had better ideas. Bitcoin may be part of Bretton Woods 2.0. But that's a very different thing from Bitcoin running it.

Kirun said:

I don't disagree that something is shifting. Clearly, the monetary architecture that's been running the world since the 1970s is creaking, and everyone with power is trying to figure out what comes next and how to make sure they have a seat at the table.

But I think where I diverge from your interpretation is that you're treating Bitcoin's institutional attention as evidence of an inevitable monetary regime change centered around Bitcoin. What's more likely is that Bitcoin is becoming one variable inside a much larger reconfiguration. Just a piece that can be used, co-opted, or sidelined depending on who wins the negotiation.

The Genius Act and the stablecoin collateral requirement you mentioned are actually perfect examples. They don't represent the state adopting crypto's values, they represent the state weaponizing crypto rails to reinforce the dollar's primacy. Forcing stablecoins to hold Treasuries is not some crypto liberation moment, it's a mechanism to create synthetic demand for U.S. debt, pull offshore dollar liquidity back under U.S. jurisdiction, and extend dollar influence into systems the U.S. can't directly control today. They're basically trying to upgrade the dollar's plumbing.

Your bigger point (that holding some BTC is rational if you believe we're entering a transition period) is the strongest part of your argument. I don't think anyone paying attention disagrees that the end of the post-1971 regime is on the horizon. The disagreement is over what role Bitcoin plays. I think you're implying it becomes pristine global collateral, but I'm suggesting it becomes just another tool inside a dollar-centric future. Owning Bitcoin because the system is mutating is sensible. Believing Bitcoin is the system that replaces it is where the leap happens.

If the last 50 years taught us anything, it's that monetary revolutions don't reward idealists. They reward whoever controls the settlement layer. Right now, that's still the United States, and they're not handing over that privilege because a whitepaper had better ideas. Bitcoin may be part of Bretton Woods 2.0. But that's a very different thing from Bitcoin running it.

Click to expand...

More or less agree.

I tend to believe that putting an asset like Bitcoin into the traditional system that will, IMO, continue to increase in value at 20-30%+ CAGR and can't be reasonably re-hypothicated long term will at a minimum meaningfully transform the fractional reserve system and potentially break it entirely. That is completely conjecture on my part though, not a statement of fact.

EDIT: I guess I could make one additional caveat, I agree that the below is the intention, I'm just unconvinced thats how it will end up working out for them.

You're treating Bitcoin's institutional attention as evidence of an inevitable monetary regime change centered around Bitcoin. What's more likely is that Bitcoin is becoming one variable inside a much larger reconfiguration. Just a piece that can be used, co-opted, or sidelined depending on who wins the negotiation.

Click to expand...

Never seen anything from this guy's channel but does a great job going over the national Bitcoin mining angle and why it may increase dramatically

Fake news or is it that easy to seize bitcoin?