So I've been starting to worry we're really looking into the abyss of a serious and painful correction/recession, but then....
Looks like WAGMI
Not quite. You're still simplifying the positions in a way that obscures the real issue.Ok so it sounds like our real argument is:
I think BTC is sovereign resistant but not sovereign immune, and that it doesn't need to be immune to be a better currency than fiat.
You think it's not sovereign resistant, and therefore it's not better than fiat.
Fair?
You're describing peer-to-peer barter, not an economy.Curious how a government can force Bitcoin to be unusable? If you have Bitcoin, and I have beef and we want to trade that beef for Bitcoin... That's very hard to stop. Sure you can make arguments that they can make it illegal, 6102, etc... but you're failing to think about enforcement. How would they enforce that? Are they going to spend the resources raiding every home of a KYC'd holder and give em the ole wrench? Sure they can stop individuals but it's just not feasible at scale and they know it.
I think you're all giving the government too much credit regarding it's capabilities. Yes it's theoretically possible that it could be enforced, but multiple governments have tried and failed already.
Not quite. You're still simplifying the positions in a way that obscures the real issue.
I'm not saying Bitcoin has zero sovereign resistance. I'm saying its sovereign resistance only holds under conditions where the state is indifferent. The moment a government actually exerts pressure, Bitcoin's usability, liquidity, and convertibility can be restricted without touching the protocol.
So the real disagreement is this: You're defining "sovereign resistant" at the protocol level (immutability, capped supply, censorship resistance in theory).
I'm defining "sovereign resistant" at the economic-use level (can people actually transact, convert, and use it at scale under state pressure).
Those are not the same thing.
Bitcoin being "better money" in a theoretical design sense does not automatically translate to it being superior as a functioning currency in real-world conditions where governments control/regulate markets.
So the actual divide is:
You: If the ledger and supply are intact, Bitcoin remains superior even under pressure.
Me: If the ability to use it collapses, the ledger being intact is irrelevant to its economic value.
That's the core point and that's why "resistant vs. immune" isn't the right framing. The question is whether Bitcoin's practical utility survives state-level opposition. And that is where its weakness shows.
You're describing peer-to-peer barter, not an economy.
Sure, if you have beef and I have BTC, and we meet in person and trust each other, we can trade. That's not the question. The question is whether Bitcoin remains usable at scale - for businesses, payroll, imports, taxes, contracts, debt payments, lending, settlement, and large-volume commerce.
A functioning currency has to work at scale - for payroll, businesses, taxes, contracts, imports, etc. The moment you move beyond "guy with beef trades guy with BTC," you run into chokepoints.
The government doesn't need to raid homes or break the protocol. They just do things like: Require KYC on exchanges and wallets, restrict banks and businesses from touching BTC, require tax reporting on every transfer, deny convertibility to fiat, regulate stablecoin issuers, pressure ISPs/infrastructure.
Once institutions and payment rails back away, liquidity dies. The chain can run forever, but that doesn't mean it's useful.
Look at China. Bitcoin still "exists" there. But retail usage and on/off ramps collapsed overnight. That's the difference between the protocol surviving and it remaining functional as money.
On the "incentives" point - governments aren't hedge funds. They don't maximize profit, they maximize control over the monetary base. They don't need to "ban" BTC to neutralize it. They just wrap it in compliance until it behaves like any other regulated asset.
And that's the actual outcome we're heading toward: Not a ban, a co-option. KYC'd custodial wallets, stablecoins pegged to Treasuries, and Institutional control of rails.
At that point, BTC isn't "sovereign-resistant money." It's a speculative asset inside the fiat system. And if that's the case, the whole "this frees us from government monetary power" narrative collapses.
So the disagreement isn't whether one guy can trade beef for Bitcoin. The disagreement is whether Bitcoin survives as money if the state decides it doesn't want competition. That's where the weakness is and that's the part crypto bros never seem able to address - they just return to the same marketing soundbites about "sovereign resistant, decentralization, etc.".

I used to not check my funds all the time, and when there was a big dip I’d just shrug it off. For some reason I’ve been struggling to not look every day and it’s really stressing me out. I feel like I have a solid portfolio, aggressive but not dumb and I just need to put my head in the sand for a bit and let this shit just be volatile without my knowledgeYou can probably do that on anything. Almost all of my individual picks have gone down ~10% or more in the last 2 weeks or so. Even BTC keeps bouncing off 100k and I highly doubt it's out for the count, so even that would be be a good 15-20% gain when it heads back up to 125k where it had resistance.
Here is a pick I have a small(5k) position in that I keep being on the fence about when/if to go in larger. It's one of those speculative companies that could really hit it off and seems to be doing the right things.
Anyway, point for this particular topic is the options open interest. A 34:1 c-p ratio! I'm sure others are similar but this ones keeps that momentum day after day. I think everyone is ready for a major bounce back. The timing on the OI is all over the place so it does show some skepticism about when this could finally turn or the market in general.
My only point is the beatings are generally market-wide save energy/utilities/materials from a quick glance at a full map. Like all downtrends they never last forever and these days swings back up tend to be quick and fierce.
View attachment 608296
I’m not that aggressive. I’m like 50% VOO and then a decently large position in NVDA, the rest in growth and tech ETFs but I’ve ridden this train before and don’t plan on retiring for another 10-15 years (I actually love my job). I’m not in any leveraged ETFs or any large positions that wouldntI hate to say it, especially because I feel like most people invest too conservatively, but if it's stressing you out that much it may be a sign that you're invested too aggressively.
Have you considered taking up a position in a non-equity asset?
I’m not that aggressive. I’m like 50% VOO and then a decently large position in NVDA, the rest in growth and tech ETFs but I’ve ridden this train before and don’t plan on retiring for another 10-15 years (I actually love my job). I’m not in any leveraged ETFs or any large positions that wouldnt
I’ve also got a large holding in gold and silver and BTC and zero debt outside my house.
I’ve just been more closely watching the market in the last year and the last few weeks are less fun when the whole market takes a dump. But where would I move my money? SCHD/BNDS/Cash? Fuck that. I’m good, just noticing that it’s better when I don’t look every day. Being too “invested” in the day to day and week to week swings makes it harder to just chill.
Also, thanks for looking out bro.

I know and thank you. I just didn’t watch as closely before.If you're not looking to retire for 10+ years the events of this year will just be a blip in the graph the same way 2008 and 2020 are now blips in the graph
I don't even find myself tempted to look at the numbers often anymore. For my non-automatic accounts, money goes into account, I put it in stocks and then I close it for 6 months.I’ve just been more closely watching the market in the last year and the last few weeks are less fun when the whole market takes a dump. But where would I move my money? SCHD/BNDS/Cash? Fuck that. I’m good, just noticing that it’s better when I don’t look every day. Being too “invested” in the day to day and week to week swings makes it harder to just chill.
Also, thanks for looking out bro.

This exactly. As the numbers have gotten bigger, it’s like, did I just lose a car today?I don't even find myself tempted to look at the numbers often anymore. For my non-automatic accounts, money goes into account, I put it in stocks and then I close it for 6 months.
On a bad day I definitely go down 10s of thousands now adays, but its just not worth sweating over. Money go down, money will go back up. If I end up seeing the stock numbers I try to guess at what my portfolio is, but I almost never actually look, that's just opening the door to deciding to change something.
I have another MTTR port trade to lose money on. I'm buying UI, my entire network is now set up with Ubiquiti and I really like this companies products. The bad as I see it is that the CEO is little of a show boat, offset by the fact he is young and still holds nearly 90% of the company. Still so small compared to CSCO but there is a very big TAM for this company to grow into. Lose money at your own risk.
Holdings with cost basis:
UI @ 118
A few individual stocks I hold have gone down quite a bit the last few days (RKLB for instance) but overall aren't we basically back to where we were 3 weeks or so ago? This doesn't feel that significant. I guess I should say "YET"If you're not looking to retire for 10+ years the events of this year will just be a blip in the graph the same way 2008 and 2020 are now blips in the graph
I am planning on adding today. Premarket is sitting right above the 100DMA @ ~$317I might start DCAing aggressively into UNH here soon.