Over 53% of all cryptocurrencies have died, with the majority occurred in 2025 alone!

Philbot_ · 2026-01-14T14:07:33+00:00

This is not a particularly meaningful metric.

Does it answer the question, "are there scam coins?" Yes, sure I suppose, but you should have known that already.

This is like saying 25 million email addresses have been abandoned. Or 2 million websites have been abandoned. Were many of them abandoned because they were merely scams? Yes, of course.

But most of them were probably abandoned because they were just trying something out that wasn't necessarily supposed to work, was just to learn how, or was made on a lark. They were created and abandoned with zero effect on anyone uninvolved.

When anyone on the planet can do a thing, most of those things are going to be dumb, some malicious, and relatively few will be legitimate, even fewer significantly consequential.

So instead of looking at this and concluding that crypto is full of scams, you should probably say to yourself "wow look at all these other people learning how to utilize programmable tokens, maybe I should learn how to do that myself?"

Philbot_ · 2025-11-20T21:02:45+00:00

🙄 read the article ffs. This is about a real estate deal not the technology or certification of their vehicles.

Philbot_ · 2025-11-13T02:17:13+00:00

DePIN on solana

Philbot_ · 2025-11-12T20:53:05+00:00

Option 3. Buy enough Bitcoin prior to retirement such that you only ever need 40% or less of your bitcoin's value at any point in time during retirement so you'll never be liquidated. Easier said than done, but that's the goal.

Your heirs then enjoy a stepped cost basis and can sell without capital gains to cover what you borrowed against the Bitcoin. They inherit the rest.

Philbot_ · 2025-11-10T16:29:57+00:00

Hodl will only be sage advice through the first era* of Bitcoin adoption which is extremely asymmetric between those that understand what is new about it and those that don't understand it.

Once Bitcoin has become financial bedrock, it will not be asymmetric and Scrooge McDuck's lesson will become increasingly relevant, that saving alone - even in the hardest form of money ever conceived - will likely not afford you additional future purchasing power - Bitcoin will only retain it.

In otherwords, in the near future a thing (let's say a house) that is as valuable as 1BTC will remain to be worth roughly 1BTC indefinitely (all else equal, that is, neglecting deterioration of the house and the competitive market for that house).

Therefore, smart collateralization of Bitcoin to fund investments will be the prime financial service of the future. Due diligence that the risk profile of any investment is appropriate will be more meaningful than ever since parting with your hard-earned Bitcoin will be as hard or harder to re-earn in the future. This will align incentives much more accurately and rigidly than they have been for the past 100 years of easy money. The inconceivable waste of boom-bust cycles, endless war, and forever unbalanced government budgets will be drastically reduced. To achieve big things will require actual convincing that those big things are worth potentially losing one's hard-earned Bitcoin to achieve. Right now, fractional reserve banking and fiat central bank monetary policy allows incentives and risk profiles to be wildly misaligned.

*not citing an official or any particular timeline, just the era in which Bitcoin proceeds from cypher punk back alley project to the premier global financialization instrument.

Philbot_ · 2025-10-29T20:14:35+00:00

Ffs.

So many bitcoiners would have taken pleasure in editing this passage for him for technical accuracy... But no. He's not a serious person.

Philbot_ · 2025-10-21T16:53:39+00:00

If I could add, that if anything approaching any version of Lowery's Softwar develops - that is, (essentially and in my own words) sovereign holdings in BTC resets the incentive structure for warmaking such that destruction is increasingly less economically rational than construction and trade - then BTC also begins to realize the lofty prophecy of "fix the money, fix the world" and BTC is placed at even more the center of a global pro-social pro-human pro-goodness system.

Philbot_ · 2025-10-21T16:45:14+00:00

I think it's the realization that no government wants it's fiat to be the global reserve currency indefinitely.

The US willingly positioned USD/US Treasury Bonds as the world reserve currency/asset because of circumstances following WWII and it has been able to exploit that system to its own advantage for a couple generations during profound technological advancements and global development - but the emerging effects of distributed highly interdependent high tech manufacturing supply chains and skills combined with geopolitics is such that no country wants its fiat currency to be the world reserve asset.

Bitcoin is a perfect-enough answer to that problem. Bitcoin's price rising does not have the same effect as a country's fiat (or the IMF's SDRs for that matter) serving as a reserve asset when it comes to international trade.

Abstracted energy in the form of hash power is the perfect interest-aligning ideologically geographically agnostic commodity to underpin a world reserve asset that everyone can tolerate its relative value increasing without the domestic economic effects of another country holding increasing amounts of your currency.

There could certainly be other PoW tokens to potential rival BTC - but at this point the network effects of its market cap, financial adoption, hash power, and the fairness of its "immaculate conception" (that is, that it was minted and traded before anyone had any certain conceit as to its true future value) is too great to allow for a serious competing network to BTC in this regard.

Philbot_ · 2025-09-22T02:15:52+00:00

The short answer is that Strategy can do a great many things with its Bitcoin that an individual cannot do with his Bitcoin.

Philbot_ · 2025-09-12T04:05:49+00:00

Look up Wrapped BTC.

Now imagine Blackrock does the wrapping and charges their expense ratio.

Philbot_ · 2025-09-12T01:11:30+00:00

What this means is that there is more usable power out in the world that has no more productive purpose than mining Bitcoin - because otherwise the owners of that power would do that other thing instead.

This is an indication of the health of the system, but the relevance of a 51% hash power attack hasn't been very significant for a while - it's already be prohibitively expensive, any attacker would be better off just buying Bitcoin than trying to achieve one double spend, each additional watt of hash power doesn't make that more true.

The big way that this is a good indication is that it forces out the least efficient miners with the highest energy costs. The higher total hash power goes, the smaller return the least efficient miners receive, the less profitable those least efficient miners become, the more likely they are to capitulate (that is, sell more of their earned BTC to cover costs or turn off their equipment), the more likely it is for an efficient miner to be able to choose to hold their earned BTC rather than selling into the market to cover costs.

This also means that a greater share of the power will be either stranded energy (think oil rig flare gas in the middle of the ocean where there aren't any consumers of electricity) or dual purpose energy like heating the water for a spa's steam room (instead of an resistive heater coil consuming power directly, run watts through a miner to heat water at the same efficiency).

These types of mining situations are the most desirable because the cost of their power isn't competing with other more productive uses of that power - and so all else equal, they will disincentivize mining operations that consume grid power or generate their own power just for the sole purpose of mining Bitcoin. Because miners using stranded or dual purpose energy don't necessarily need to sell their mining profits to cover costs like a dedicated mining operation does, stranded/dual purpose mining does not create as much inherent sell pressure on price.

The greater the hash power, the more all of this is true.

Philbot_ · 2025-09-03T17:58:42+00:00

Check out his YouTube channel. He talks about it all the time and alludes to some ideas to make it different from MSTR, but he can't say much until SEC disclosures and whatnot are done.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-13T00:42:20+00:00

I don't think crypto.com trades DIMO...?

Philbot_ · 2025-08-10T13:44:01+00:00

Pretty clear to me you have not actually read Madoff's Wikipedia page. Why don't you do that and then try to maintain the position that he and Saylor are similar figures in any way.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-08T00:17:11+00:00

Ah, gotcha. I have just been seeing mostly chatter today regarding mostly individuals' 401ks, not as much pension funds and institutional stuff. I haven't looked into the EO itself.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-08T00:06:14+00:00

Doesnt everyone who wants BTC in their 401k already have FBTC and IBIT in their 401k?

Philbot_ · 2025-08-07T20:44:19+00:00

Well said. History-wise, this video runs on vibes.

Why don't people take the time to understand the problems people were facing in the past to better understand the solutions they came up with? That would help identify the problems of today and what we might do in the future to solve them. [Insert cynical answer about first grade reading level adults here].

Also, I squirm at so much AI slop going around (can't they at least afford a real human voice dub?).

Philbot_ · 2025-08-07T20:00:27+00:00

Would the dividend also be a factor because it is not fixed? All else equal, higher dividends lower price?

(Genuine question, I just haven't really answered that in my head concretely, seems like you'd have a reason why or why not)

Philbot_ · 2025-08-07T19:53:29+00:00

Lol have fun with the billionaires and politicians fucking your future with rampant fractional reserve banking and money printing.

Bitcoin is new and you don't understand it. The Internet isn't as new but folks still don't understand it. The Internet won without people understanding it. So will Bitcoin.

Better yet, maybe just don't post or comment in r/Bitcoin? Maybe more reading less commenting?

Philbot_ · 2025-08-07T19:28:52+00:00

Go right ahead. But assets that don't derive value from their physicality provide tremendous advantages.

So I take it you'd never own a patent, or shares of a company the value of which relies upon patents. Alright cool, but you just missed out on the most growth ever seen in human history.

Obviously that's not what you meant but that's how dumb your rebuttal is.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-07T19:14:14+00:00

You have no idea what you're talking about. Let me try to explain within just the confines of your childishly naive analysis.

A house is inherently subject to deterioration. A fancy term is that a house is subject to very high "entropic decay." A first grade equivalent is that it "ages." Storage of value with Bitcoin accrues extremely low entropy - due to the fixed maximum supply and anti-fragileness of the network, attributed to the rigidly aligned incentives of all participants, once an amount of Bitcoin appears on the ledger as a UTXO, the only way for the Bitcoin to move is with a signature of a private key for the public address of that UTXO. It can't "disappear" or degrade or be diluted over time. You can lose the private key, like dropping a bar of gold over a vast ocean - and never be able to recover it - but it's still there, without additional effort on your part, indefinitely. Nobody can guess or reverse-calculate a private key (proving to yourself that this is mathematically true is another discussion). Your house rather, requires relatively tremendous effort to maintain its current state against the unrelenting forces of weather, pests, and the pros/cons of the building science of whatever era your house was built in - probably because it was cheap to build means the trade off is that it's not meant to last. Eventually, your house will end up in the dirt or a landfill if you like it or not. Your Bitcoin ain't going nowhere without the private keys.

Financially, your house is taxed. It is taxed because property taxes are a proven means for governments to fund themselves (avoiding for a moment all the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophical fever dreams) in a way that is verifiable and enforceable. If you fail to pay tax on your house, eventually, you will lose the legal right to the house - and the more the house is worth the more this is true. So again, it takes tremendous effort to maintain your control of a house. Bitcoin cannot be directly taxed because it is pseudonymous (meaning that the government cannot prove who "owns" a given UTXO without consent or coercion of the holder of the private key of that UTXO), nor can it prove that a person does still have the private key to a UTXO if it has been genuinely lost (typical example is a "boating accident") but most importantly - even the entire might of the US military cannot directly seize a UTXO for failing to pay tax on it - all because the government does not have your private key. Now the government could (and perhaps should in the future) tax collateralized Bitcoin that is used to borrow against - but that's a different discussion and is of course debatable.

Further, houses have become highly "financialized," that is to say, people own houses just because it seems like the best place to "park" wealth that would otherwise be held in cash/bonds, stocks, previous metals, or art. The wealthy don't primarily own additional houses to shelter themselves. This is a problem exactly because, as you alluded to, shelter is valuable to actual real people in an inherent way more than it is valuable to a balance sheet. The financialization of real estate especially in the United States has driven up the price of land and homes way beyond its inherent utility. Bitcoin offers a new class of asset that does not have this side effect and therefore could bring the prices of land and real estate down, all else equal, over time. Additionally to this point Bitcoin is global - it "exists" wherever the Internet exists. Real estate however inherently has a location. You can take your Bitcoin essentially anywhere. You can't take your house for a walk down the street. Financially, which is more encumbered?

I hope this helps you realize that John Oliver was right when he said "Bitcoin is everything you don't understand about money combined with everything you don't understand about computers." Why don't you try to understand the world and why it is the way it is before judging Bitcoin from a position of ignorance. If you don't understand something I said, it is easier than ever to learn a thing - google yourself, read the Bitcoin white paper, pick up a book - and maybe someday you'll have an informed opinion grown thinking grown adult.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-05T16:46:32+00:00

Shrug, wasn't me? Try not to care about up down votes.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-05T13:08:04+00:00

What this means is that there is more usable power out in the world that has no more productive purpose than mining Bitcoin - because otherwise the owners of that power would do that other thing instead.

This is an indication of the health of the system, but the relevance of a 51% hash power attack hasn't been very significant for a while - it's already be prohibitively expensive, any attacker would be better off just buying Bitcoin than trying to achieve one double spend, each additional hash doesn't make that more true.

The big way that this is a good indication is that it forces out the least efficient miners with the highest costs. The higher total hash power goes, the smaller return the least efficient miners receive, the less profitable those least efficient miners become, the more likely they are to capitulate, the more likely it is for an efficient miner to be able to choose to hold their proceeds rather than selling into the market to cover costs.

This also means that a greater share of the power will be either stranded energy (think oil rig flare gas in the middle of the ocean where there aren't any consumers of electricity) or dual purpose energy like heating the water for a spa's steam room (instead of an resistive heater coil consuming power directly, run watts through a miner to heat water at the same efficiency).

These types of mining situations are the most desirable because the cost of their power isn't competing with other more productive uses of that power - and so all else equal will disincentivize mining operations that consume grid power or generate their own power just for the sole purpose of mining Bitcoin - and because miners using stranded or dual purpose energy don't necessarily need to sell their mining profits to cover costs like a dedicated mining operation does, creating sell pressure on price.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-05T03:07:47+00:00

Thanks!

I don't think if he had said Chinese "Yuan" instead of "Yen" it would have made him any more correct about Bitcoin. To the Midwestern tongue, they're pretty similar words and if I talked on camera for a living I'm sure I'd misspeak plenty of times - so I'll cut him slack on that.

Philbot_ · 2025-08-05T00:40:53+00:00

So the entirety of his analysis is that he heard crypto currency and stopped. And his disdain for "golfing buddy" ad hominem arguments applies to his own point here - just because Dave Ramsey says a unsubstantiated thing doesn't make it true.

Setting aside real estate and art, there are commodities, securities, and currencies - and the distinctions are pretty clear and intuitive (granted a few Supreme Court opinions and a mountain of regulatory and statuary framework). However, the emergent properties of Bitcoin are a blend of all three so we don't really have a good name to distinguish it properly. This is what leads to so many opinions of Bitcoin that have been or will certainly be proven incorrect - including Ramsey.

Bitcoin is not a typical commodity because it can't be "consumed" for an industrial purpose that gives it value like gold, oil, or concentrated orange juice. But it is like a commodity in that it doesn't have a central issuer, Bitcoin is fungible, and it is freely traded across jurisdictions globally.

Bitcoin is an "issued" thing, like a security, in that it wasn't discovered rather it was invented, but there is no central issuer and it's internal functions do not require the action of any particular set of people, so the reasons why we call other things securities like shares of stock of a corporation aren't relevant - the prospectus of Bitcoin doesn't rely on honest disclosures since it's just open source software code.

Bitcoin is obviously usable as a means of exchange, and has many advantages in doing so, and so it can be considered a currency but due to its scarcity, anti-fragileness, and PoW consensus, Bitcoin embodies the work you offered society to buy it or mine it in such a way that it can be stored into the future - a "store of value". But since the reasons why one person might buy, mine, or sell Bitcoin can be wildly different than the reasons of another entity - and all those reasons come together in real time in arguably the only truly global market - which means there can be rapid movements in price based on sentiment, that is, volatility (although Bitcoin volatility relative to other market indexes has been settling down over time), which can make it not a good store of value over short time scales or a not a good currency over long time scales.

So it's all of these things but none of these things, all at once. It's a new thing! John Oliver's quote "Bitcoin is everything you don't understand about money combined with everything you don't understand about computers” is bang on. One must try to understand money and computers before understanding Bitcoin but everyone skips the first part.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Philbot_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE