"There are 3500 publicly traded companies and there’s $5 trillion in their treasuries and it’s all melting and at some point, you have a fiduciary obligation to not lose the money.” The next 12 months are going to be very interesting.
Nobody, meaning you?? Lol
Voice has a 70,000 person waitlist because you know, it’s in closed beta. And if you were on Voice, you would see that it is growing by the day and be ranked as the most used blockchain for social.
Are you serious?? Lol
Ok, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. have a huge fake accounts/bots issue that cost them billions of dollars, users do not get paid for their content nor do they get compensated for sharing/curating, and anonymous trolls who hide behind a keyboard are forced to be accountable for their words and actions. Voice solves this.
The most lied post of all time on VOICE has 243 likes. IVe received 10x more than that from shit posting on a shitty World of Warcraft server check my postage.
Money can’t buy adoption and even if it could scaling voice to the size of Facebook would cost 2 billion in account creation.
That “random guy on Twitter” is a moderator of this subreddit, a reporter/writer for EOSWriter, and literally just had an interview with Dan Larimer, a person who doesn’t give interviews to anybody.
I trust him way more than your half-baked opinion, Memecoin Lol
>I trust him way more than your half-baked opinion, Memecoin Lol
I sold my EOS stack in February (because of how shit Voice turned out to be, and I'm still on that list with two emails btw). Not a bad move in hindsight. Sometimes it pays to consider the opinions of people who aren't financially incentivized to lie. I don't believe the 70k figure for a second.
It's great to have an excess of $500 million in cash to park.
Here's the thing: A lot of funds (pensions, insurance, hedge, universities and so forth) have the same "issue" of huge liquidity reserves. Many are willing to pay interest to hold government bonds - i.e. negative interest rates, when in fact they are meant to achieve a return on funds invested.
If some of them were allowed to invest just a portion of their funds into Bitcoin there's no worry about the missing demand side point of view in the S2F model.
**I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:**
*I did the honors for you.*
^[delete](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fu%2FLinkifyBot&subject=delete%20g5h16ep&message=Click%20the%20send%20button%20to%20delete%20the%20false%20positive.) ^| ^[information](https://np.reddit.com/u/LinkifyBot/comments/gkkf7p) ^| ^<3
This is a huge bet for a publicly listed company. I'm actually quite surprised that the shareholders would let him go all in like that. There is still lots of risk holding Bitcoin - theft of keys, severe bug, drop in price, etc. This could end up in triumph or tragedy.
Software is never flawless and Bitcoin hasn't been an exception. The life of Bitcoin has been far from trouble-free but it is true that it's a feat it has come so far.
Software development never ends though. If they ever decide to fix the obvious block-size problem or change the cipher to protect against quantum attacks, there will be major uncertainty and of course bugs. You can't say what will happen as a result of this and that is why I would always diversify.
If you worked for a bank you'd know they have multiple redundancies and plan for various disasters. If they do lose your account details it would be as a result of a catastrophic event where money will be the least of your concerns.
neither does bitcoin. One on-chain tx can represent a million lightning transactions. And bitcoin is not vulnerable to quantum.
> We find that in the near-term the impact of quantum computers appear to be rather smallfor all three directions. The impact of quantum computers would require considerably larger number of qubits and breakthroughs in quantum algorithms to reverse existing hash functions.
Most of the internet needs to be rewritten before bitcoin needs to care. And even then the change of cryptographic primitive is quite trivial to do, without much danger as it only affects new transactions that opt-in. As is block size increase. Banks etc. have much harder times ahead to make themselves quantum proof once the technology might emerge after 50 years.
Point 1 has already been disproved during periods of high transactional activity. No one is obliged to use Lightning and this naturally causes fees to rise and confirmations to become sluggish. Shoe me a bank that thinks that's acceptable.
there are no sluggish confirmations, only underpaying cheap users.
The whole point with bitcoin is that tx fees pay for the hashing security once block rewards drop. So the fees should rise, it means it is working as intended.
Taylor found himself reading up on bitcoin. He learned as much about crypto as fast as he could. Saylor said he pored over essays by “bitcoin luminaries,” listened to Nathaniel Whittemore’s and Anthony Pompliano’s crypto podcasts, scoured the internet for Peter Schiff’s bitcoin debates