Larry must be talking his book. He will not acknowledge QTR's identification of risk and the "change in tune" to mortgage the house for BTC..... we will never be a seller.
Not a BTC owner, just watching the circus. And yes, I regret not getting in early.
No regrets - impossible for a sane individual to regret a refusal to act in an insane manner. (I do regret not buying Apple at the lows in the Oughts!)
I'll say it once again: If federal reserve notes are "IOU nothings" then Bitcoins are "IOU nothings squared"!
Chris did not predict a death spiral. He just pointed out the obvious vulnerability. It’s a red or black situation. Surprised Lepard would stake his reputation on this.
By the way, I own Bitcoin. I owned MSTR until a year ago. I own STRC and have re-invested all dividends -- happily so at these prices. I agree with Larry on Bitcoin's outlook, as well as on precious metals.
Still, I think there's one risk to Bitcoin that no one's discussing: Bitcoin used to be digital gold. It isn't anymore. Digital gold is digital gold. Tether (XAUT) and several others are tokenizing it. If done right and that catches on, it significantly undercuts Bitcoin's value proposition. Just my two cents and, again, I own BTC and STRC.
I really like Larry, listen to all his podcast interviews. I own bitcoin, I own gold, i am on the same "team". He seems to have become a bit religious in his views on what's happening in bitcoin, not willing to look at it objectively like you are Chris. I am really concerned about the financialisation of this asset, and I hope you keep reporting on this like you have without fear of losing friendships. thanks for what you do.
Re: a bit religious, I agree. Last night he accused me of "whining" on Twitter when talking about Saylor's stock sales. I was never whining. Just pointing out that he sold stock and made $100m+ from it. He's assigning a tone to my skepticism that just isn't there and took personal offense to my statements on Twitter this past week about Phong Le. Not sure what he feels he owes to these guys that he can't objectively look at how they could be changing the narrative (he admitted to me off interview that he understood how it could be seen as 'moving the goalposts') but that's what makes a market. Buyers and sellers. Agreements and disagreements. I really like Larry as a person and think he's brilliant so I'm happy to hear his side of the case.
exactly, the debate is where the magic happens. let people make up their own minds, continue to call it as you see it. props to Larry for agreeing to the debate. i would love for you to set up a Schiff / Saylor debate, would be one for the ages!
An off-the-wall notion. You write extensively about how passive investing is distorting markets. Algorithms, with no analysis behind it, drives money to certain stocks.
No women in my life have been interested in investing. Three wives let me do it all, two of them happy to take their lion's share in divorce, American style After which they still had no notion what to do with it.
Any figures on how much of the passive flows is to accounts managed by and benefitting women?
Related, recommend The Great Feminization. I'm doing a video review soon.
Chris, Larry said even if MSTR's bitcoin holdings drop 50% in value interest costs "only" rise to 6% of assets. True, BUT that interest percentage burden rises each year as assets fall due to interest payments and reaches 10% within six years. And that's if bitcoin stays at that level. Donald
Great conversation Chris, thanks, glad you and Larry are still buddies. I would pay real $$ to see a Schiff/Lepard debate on bitcoin and MSTR. Everytime Larry called bitcoin digital gold I pictured Peter having an anurism. If you had that podcast debate between them it would make a Conner McGregor fight seem like Sunday School prayer group.
Chris is talking about all these people in CC debt and car loan debt and school loan debt and housing debt and how they are going to get hurt if BTC collapses. They are not investing in BTC! Geez.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is these people - the average Joe that invests in the market - is tapped and saddled with debt. That leads eventually to deleveraging (esp. with rates where they are now) which eventually hits financial assets (stocks, bonds, housing, etc.). And then, once those start to pull in, people will be more inclined to sell their riskiest assets first to raise cash, and that includes crypto and bitcoin. So, pointing out that a general deleveraging could be a risk for crypto/bitcoin.
Larry must be talking his book. He will not acknowledge QTR's identification of risk and the "change in tune" to mortgage the house for BTC..... we will never be a seller.
Not a BTC owner, just watching the circus. And yes, I regret not getting in early.
This was pretty scary
No regrets - impossible for a sane individual to regret a refusal to act in an insane manner. (I do regret not buying Apple at the lows in the Oughts!)
I'll say it once again: If federal reserve notes are "IOU nothings" then Bitcoins are "IOU nothings squared"!
….MSTR may only be 4% of BTC, but the price is determined by the marginal buyer.
remember 17% of all bitcoin is dormant or lost and has not traded in 10 yrs. That makes MSTR's trades a larger percent of the "float".
Chris did not predict a death spiral. He just pointed out the obvious vulnerability. It’s a red or black situation. Surprised Lepard would stake his reputation on this.
By the way, I own Bitcoin. I owned MSTR until a year ago. I own STRC and have re-invested all dividends -- happily so at these prices. I agree with Larry on Bitcoin's outlook, as well as on precious metals.
Still, I think there's one risk to Bitcoin that no one's discussing: Bitcoin used to be digital gold. It isn't anymore. Digital gold is digital gold. Tether (XAUT) and several others are tokenizing it. If done right and that catches on, it significantly undercuts Bitcoin's value proposition. Just my two cents and, again, I own BTC and STRC.
I really like Larry, listen to all his podcast interviews. I own bitcoin, I own gold, i am on the same "team". He seems to have become a bit religious in his views on what's happening in bitcoin, not willing to look at it objectively like you are Chris. I am really concerned about the financialisation of this asset, and I hope you keep reporting on this like you have without fear of losing friendships. thanks for what you do.
Re: a bit religious, I agree. Last night he accused me of "whining" on Twitter when talking about Saylor's stock sales. I was never whining. Just pointing out that he sold stock and made $100m+ from it. He's assigning a tone to my skepticism that just isn't there and took personal offense to my statements on Twitter this past week about Phong Le. Not sure what he feels he owes to these guys that he can't objectively look at how they could be changing the narrative (he admitted to me off interview that he understood how it could be seen as 'moving the goalposts') but that's what makes a market. Buyers and sellers. Agreements and disagreements. I really like Larry as a person and think he's brilliant so I'm happy to hear his side of the case.
exactly, the debate is where the magic happens. let people make up their own minds, continue to call it as you see it. props to Larry for agreeing to the debate. i would love for you to set up a Schiff / Saylor debate, would be one for the ages!
Good take! I had the exact same thoughts on this.
Thank you Chris! Well done.
Larry Lepard has Bitcoin Derangement Syndrome.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. -Upton Sinclair
So - Larry and Chris debated the perennially significant question concerning the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
An off-the-wall notion. You write extensively about how passive investing is distorting markets. Algorithms, with no analysis behind it, drives money to certain stocks.
No women in my life have been interested in investing. Three wives let me do it all, two of them happy to take their lion's share in divorce, American style After which they still had no notion what to do with it.
Any figures on how much of the passive flows is to accounts managed by and benefitting women?
Related, recommend The Great Feminization. I'm doing a video review soon.
I now understand why Larry looks to have a tremendous headache. Poor Larry, more real headaches to ensue.
I repect Lepard, but in the long run Old Man Schiff wins the war.
Chris, Larry said even if MSTR's bitcoin holdings drop 50% in value interest costs "only" rise to 6% of assets. True, BUT that interest percentage burden rises each year as assets fall due to interest payments and reaches 10% within six years. And that's if bitcoin stays at that level. Donald
Oh and by the way….Larry is a tool
Great conversation Chris, thanks, glad you and Larry are still buddies. I would pay real $$ to see a Schiff/Lepard debate on bitcoin and MSTR. Everytime Larry called bitcoin digital gold I pictured Peter having an anurism. If you had that podcast debate between them it would make a Conner McGregor fight seem like Sunday School prayer group.
You're in luck. Courtesy of QTR himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHXgL0NPctU
Chris is talking about all these people in CC debt and car loan debt and school loan debt and housing debt and how they are going to get hurt if BTC collapses. They are not investing in BTC! Geez.
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is these people - the average Joe that invests in the market - is tapped and saddled with debt. That leads eventually to deleveraging (esp. with rates where they are now) which eventually hits financial assets (stocks, bonds, housing, etc.). And then, once those start to pull in, people will be more inclined to sell their riskiest assets first to raise cash, and that includes crypto and bitcoin. So, pointing out that a general deleveraging could be a risk for crypto/bitcoin.
Sounds like both are right and both are wrong. But it's BTC, so...