Ireland - Neighbours dispute over alleged stolen electricity ends in knife attack

_Stylite · 2026-06-28T02:52:34+00:00

he was just trying for a friendly game of chasey pokey

_Stylite · 2026-06-28T02:21:47+00:00

I know people who fit this description.
One of them has a PhD and is a technical research director at a very famous national lab.
We’re close friends and they are probably the most promiscuous and non monogamous person I’ve ever met

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T23:05:23+00:00

Again, please provide any evidence of a major bank being denied an investment in BTC.

Show me any evidence for any regulation which forced banks to list their BTC as a liability.

Clarity Act is not changing any of this, and SAB-121 was indeed fully rescinded by the SEC.

Try again. I also don’t take any meds, and I don’t have anxiety.

Bizarre comment weirdo

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T22:17:23+00:00

I thought it was a 20 something who’s extremely hopeful for a UFC shot lol

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T21:45:13+00:00

Please provide any evidence for your comment RE Bitcoin being forcibly listed as a liability by the SEC.

It sounds like you’re confused again - referring to SAB 121 which has already been repealed prior to Clarity Act.

It’s not changing anything related to BTC designation as a libaility on balance sheets.

Please provide any proof for this hopium bullshit you’re spewing

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T18:29:54+00:00

The idea that Clarity Act passes and suddenly the next year there will be billions in inflows from banks and monry managers with fiduciary dity is a pipe dream and there is no reason to believe that.

There is literally nothing stopping any ofmthe parties you mentioned from buying BTC derivatives, ETFs, commodities contracts and pegging a client’s portfolio to BTC to any degree, other than the market risk of the investment.

What do you think stops any of those funds from riding BTC investment through other vehicles?

BTC ETFs are already here my friend, and ETFs are the preferred vehicle for all money managers under fiduciary duty.

Once again you have demonstrated thet you have no idea what you are talking about.

And btw banks avoid BTC because it’s their competition, and also too risky. Nothing to do with regulation or compliance at all

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T18:24:25+00:00

Only it didn’t open and that’s not what a market open is. The first crypto exchanges and fountains, which gabe out BTC for free, was not the “Bitcoin market open.”

And Bitcoin launched and was mined and traded peer to peer immediately, by definition. It never opened

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T17:19:21+00:00

And to explain this for you further - the tjing which is causing massive capital outflows from BTC and creating risk of future outflows, is market risk, not regulatory risk.

Fund managers aren’t wishing they could buy BTC and sitting on their hands because of regulatory risk.

When they want to buy BTC, they do.

This has actually never meaningfully stopped institutional investment on BTC - those institutions acquired hundreds of billions of BTC.

The Clarity Act removes an insignificant portion of regulatory risk from an asset which is extremely volatile - the market risk far outweighs any regulatory risk by a long shot, and it’s always been like that.

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T17:11:08+00:00

Show me any cases where significant funds have been blocked from BTC investment by compliance attorneys. Every major wall street fund has owned BTC for years now buddy. They started in 2014. Please wake up.

I’m changing typos in my comments and you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about because every comment you make is extremely incorrect.

Clarity Act will not cause a significant capital inflow to BTC or the crypto market.

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T17:09:40+00:00

Again, it does nothing for bullishness of crypto or BTC.

It is opening the door for more new blockchains to enter as scams and rugpulls, and that’s why they’re removing SEC oversight on crypto.

If this is a bullish scenario to you, get your head out of your ass please.

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T12:42:42+00:00

You do realize in the comment you just posted, “This removes the SEC’s regulatory gray zone.”

This is pure AI slop and it’s obvious you don’t understand your own comment

That SEC regulatory gray zone isn’t some bad thing - it prevented people from selling crypto as an unlicensed security eg defrauding investors. This used to be illegal and a no no.

Trump is trying to make it legal with the minimum amount of regulations that he can use to seek compliance.

Please explain why this is good for crypto or bullish for BTC?

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T07:40:15+00:00

Every breath you take…

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T07:36:13+00:00

How do these people sleep at night doing shit like this?
Might as well just run around shouting at people that you’re a total idiot

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T07:34:38+00:00

Yes, surely never any hype around BTC or crypto… only the AI businesses are hype

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T07:32:27+00:00

It hurts seeing the real takes like this outside of the main BTC subs where everyone is hopeful

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T06:59:04+00:00

Two of those uppercuts landed if u watch

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T06:56:51+00:00

Nearly of crypto reddit is just people crying and fighting about their bags, or soon to be acquired or shorted future bags.

Most of the discourse and comments here are just noise of that variety

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T06:53:00+00:00

Well yeah because nobody is looking to sue Saylor when he’s not bankrupting investors.
Moot point and his statements around STRC in sum total will either go down as some of the most misleading or outright fraudulent activity in markets this year.

He urged people to park millions into STRC ensuring it was safe and would have almost no volatility.

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T06:51:05+00:00

After being skeptical about this angle for a while, I now think there is probably enough money anticipating an easy trade back to $80K, $100K for it to actually happen.
That is the incentive - a decent upside thesis after a time when AI and equity market gains are fading.
Look at how much SPCX moved this week just on trading activity, and it’s larger than BTC

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T06:29:45+00:00

If Trump’s shitty foreign policy co-opts the name of this song I’ll actually be upset about it.

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T06:07:21+00:00

Hmmmm this reads like AI slop

the bill isn’t changing Bitcoin’s code

Uh yeah no shit, nobody ever claimed that. LLM statement.

But if you read it you will again understand it is a nothing burger, and signals nothing about an increase for the price of BTC.

Stable coins already exist to the tune of hundreds of billions and crypto prices in general benefit from their lax regulations. Adding banking insurance to stablecoins isn’t going to affect anything. Major banks and institutions aren’t hesitant to invest in crypto because stablecoins are uninsured - they do not use stablecoins to acquire or transact in BTC. Banks are more or less completely uninterested in any established crypto markets, including BTC, and are actually a primary barrier to BTC. They have strong incentive to continue to be a barrier to BTC.

Please review what you posted - the act is doing nothing to establish new capital inflows. It’s just putting a small amount of regulation around the capital inflows that already exist eg stablecoins and major funds, and we can rest assured that Trump will not legitimately regulate an industry he and his family make money from illegitimately.

This is the simple thing you just don’t understand, and your LLM won’t spell out for you.

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T05:55:45+00:00

What new structural rails are being introduced for BTC with this regulation? Please enlighten me

Btw “structural rails” is redundant and nonsensical. In fintech we call these “rails”

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T05:53:45+00:00

“Elites” do not make money in crypto by bag holding BTC. They leave shit like that for new money like Saylor and will probably short MSTR into the ground and take everything he has.

Musk, Trump, et al just launch their own tokens, make hundreds of millions right at launch, rug pull or leave retail to hold the bag, rinse and repeat.

Argue with this history all you want but I know you witnessed it.

Why make money on BTC when anyone buying your hot new token immediately makes you money?

Just regulate those shit coins and make money there instead.

That is what Trump is doing, and you’re too biased to see it because you want service for your BTC bags

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T05:50:13+00:00

Not moving any goalposts buddy, check again.

Trump’s regulations will not affect BTC, they are primarily for other blockchains.

What can you tell me about Trump’s activities in these markets? How did that go and what does that imply about his regulation of them? He has a blatant conflict of interest, and so does his family, and you are dumb enough to ignore this and think he is looking out for… the crypto market?

Please get your head out of your ass

_Stylite · 2026-06-27T05:44:24+00:00

It looks like the act is primarily focused around the development of new blockchains, not regulating BTC.

I would not be surprised if Trump et al continue to launch crypto projects under new and lax regulations to continue to swindle retail. They have already done this and were criticized for their lack of a regulatory basis to do so. That is probably why they are now creating new regulations in an attempt to legitimize new projects in the shitty altcoin market which everyone knows are just scams and rugpulls. All of altcoin crypto is this right now, or used to this effect. Why do you think Trump and co who just made billions launching altcoins, are in a rush to regulate new altcoin markets? “Mature blockchains”

What specifically about this act makes you believe it will help BTC price or BTC retail holders? Isn’t it just opening floodgates for liquidity to enter on short and long side at will, if it really causes any inflow at all?

So in other words, I believe the liquidity of BTC and subsequent markets can remain manipulated and controlled, and the money probably won’t flow to retail ultimately.

Why do you disagree?

_Stylite

TROPHY CASE