This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think the main blocker is that stronger Bitcoin adoption could be a disaster for the US, given that it's a direct competitor to its main export: US Dollars/Treasuries.
On the other hand, stablecoin adoption should thrive, for the same reason.
The Fed's position is that Bitcoin is a competitor to Gold, not USD and that they already hold to Gold's current market cap not being a threat, so as long at BTC remains under Gold, it's also not a threat.
People seem to forget that while Bitcoin is now ostensibly "a real thing" it's still worth less than Apple. It's a contender but not yet a systemic risk in the grand scheme of things.
If maxis are right, it will become something of this (perhaps in the next cycle). But not right now.
More options
Context Copy link
On the third hand, what if the Federal Reserve did what Microstrategy is doing. Sold treasuries to gorge on the rapidly appreciating asset that is Bitcoin.
Is the Fed not required to disclose its asset holdings on a regular basis? If so, wouldn’t we find out soon if they were hodling BTC
More options
Context Copy link
Well, it's working for Saylor, so why the hell not?
Right? The current market cap of BTC is $2T-ish. The US National Debt is $36T. This much money, what's a
carcryptocurrency? I'm sure our government has wasted $2T on worse things.Part of the problem here is that for all its claims to be a valid currency (medium exchanged for goods and services) the most important factor is user buy-in. Gold is at least rare, shiny, and has practical uses. Fiat at least has governments willing to issue it, pay with it, and expect taxes in it. Bitcoin has, I guess, a decade of history and meteoric rising valuations.
Which isn't to say that we couldn't rapidly lose trust in fiat or gold either (goldbugs when the philosophers stone is invented, or asteroid mining), but I do have doubts people would take Bitcoin as seriously if the US Treasury owned a majority stake in it. Although I suppose that feels less existential to crypto as the idea has matured and people hear about it.
I mean, theoretically it would work more like a hostile takeover than a private acquisition. Which is to say, the Federal Reserve would be forced to pay market rates over a period of time allowing others to do the same. Unless they pull an FDR and just outlaw private ownership of Bitcoin the way they did Gold, in which case I agree, it would probably cause people to take Bitcoin a lot less seriously.
If you can get past the obvious 1A issue, that is; Bitcoin being speech and not a physical thing helps in that regard.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah this is a huge and complicated problem. Ultimately would have to tie it to the dollar somehow, which yeah I guess is what stablecoins are trying to do.
Can you invest in stablecoins the same way you do other cryptocurrencies though?
Sorta. In liquidity pools, there are coin/stablecoin pairings and stablecoin/stablecoin ones (with lower payout).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link