Søren Arani Mortensen

@skdh Full carnivore

I feel much better since going gluten-free, hopefully soon I'll be fully back to being annoying. But I struggle to get my daily calories together, there's only so much butter I can put on rice before it gets disgusting. Please let me know if you have suggestions... 🙏

@cryptofreedomEU @olhuveli1988 Det tror jeg nu nok man vil kunne gøre. Men hvorfor ville man nogensinde sælge btc til en valuta som dkk?

@0urGreatLeader @olhuveli1988 Du vil aldrig kunne sælge dine bitcoins og få dem vekslet til dkk UDEN SKAT får information om det.

Grok om bitcoin som invsteringstema: Bitcoin står stærkt som et selvstændigt investeringstema frem mod 2027-2030. Det er ikke længere kun "crypto" – det er blevet et separat makro-asset og en egen aktivklasse for mange institutionelle investorer. Hvorfor Bitcoin bliver et selvstændigt tema Institutionel modning: Spot Bitcoin ETF’er har massive inflows (f.eks. rekorder i 2026 med milliarder af dollars ugentligt). BlackRock, Fidelity og andre driver det. Bitcoin handles nu som en high-beta makro-hedge (mod inflation, valutaudvanding og geopolitik) snarere end ren tech/speculation. Corporate Bitcoin Treasuries: Over 170+ børsnoterede selskaber holder BTC (ca. 5% af total supply). Strategy (tidl. MicroStrategy) og XXI (Twenty One Capital) er de største – det er blevet en strategi for balance sheets, ikke bare spekulation. Makro-drevet: Bitcoin reagerer stærkt på renter, likviditet, dollar-styrke og centralbank-politik. Det ses i stigende grad som "digital gold" eller et non-sovereign reserve asset. Analytikere fra Grayscale, Galaxy, JPMorgan og BlackRock peger på det som et strukturelt tema i 2026+ ("Dawn of the Institutional Era"). Cyklus og adoption: Halving-effekter, begrænset supply (20 mio. BTC minet i 2026) og voksende brug som collateral i banker understøtter det langsigtede case. Vurdering som fremtidigt tema (2027-2030): Institutionel adoption accelererer. Livscyklus: Midt (tidligere tidlig) Fra niche til mainstream asset class. Stadig volatilt, men modnet med ETF’er og regulering. Værdiansættelse Blandet (ofte undervurderet ift. scarcity) Prisforventninger: $150k–$250k+ i 2027 (Bernstein, Galaxy, Arthur Hayes op til $750k). Høj volatilitet, men stærkt case som hedge. Ikke "overvurderet" som nogle AI-aktier. Risici: Høj volatilitet, Makro-chok, regulering, kvante-computing (langt ude). Bedste investeringsbud inden for temaet: Direkte: Bitcoin selv (via ETF’er som IBIT, eller fysisk via regulated platforme). Bitcoin Treasury-selskaber: Strategy (MSTR), XXI, Metaplanet, MARA (høj beta). Indirekte: Coinbase (COIN), miners med stærk balance, eller infrastruktur (Chainlink, etc. via overlap med tokenization). Sammenligning med andre temaer Bitcoin kan stå alene på en top-10-liste 2027-2030 – ved siden af (men adskilt fra) AI, Nuclear, Tokenization og Space. Det overlapper med RWA/tokenization (tokenized BTC-produkter) og makro/hedge-temaer, men har sin egen identitet. Bundlinje: Ja, det er et stærkt, selvstændigt tema – især som "scarce macro asset" i en verden med høj gæld og valutausikkerhed. Det er mere modent end de fleste nye tech-temaer, men stadig med høj upside-volatilitet. #dkinv #GrokomBitcoin #DYOR

@cryptofreedomEU @olhuveli1988 Bitcoin er ikke konfiskerbar. Så held og lykke med den ide😅

@olhuveli1988 SKAT om bitcoin: Bitcoin og andre crypto valutaer skal beskattes så aggresivt at borgerne holder sig fra dem som investeringsobjekter og som midler til en reformation af vores betalingssystem. Industrien skal kvæles i Danmark og EU. Vi vil have fuld kontrol med alle.

@SamaHoole Needs proper quotes. But true.

8000 BC: "Plants are what we eat when the hunt fails." 3000 BC: "Grain and vegetables are what we feed the slaves." 500 BC: "Lentils and barley are the diet of the poor." 100 AD: "Bread and circuses for the mob. The legions get meat." 1200s: "Pottage and roots are what the serf gets. The lord eats venison." 1700s: "Vegetables and porridge are what the starving eat." 1800s: "The Irish are surviving on potatoes. The landlords are exporting the beef." 1900s: "Plants and grain are wartime filler. We're rationing the real food." 1950s: "Plants are cheap. Feed them to the poor." 1970s: "Plants should be the BASE of the pyramid. This is science." 1990s: "Plant-based is emerging as extremely healthy, actually." 2010s: "Plant-based is optimal. Meat is the problem." 2020s: "Plant-based is saving the planet!" 2025: "Plant-based is the healthiest diet on earth. The science is settled." You: noticing that the diet currently being sold as enlightened and optimal is the same one every ruling class in recorded history fed to the people it was trying to keep weak, compliant, and grateful.

@pelledragsted Korrekt. Alle partierne er økonomisk uansvarlige. Vi har tolv partier i DK der alle i en eller anden grad er socialdemokratiske, da de alle tror velfærds- pyramidespillet kan fortsætte uden katastrofale konsekvenser.

Lidt træt af fortællingen om, at der er nogle partier der er “økonomisk ansvarlige” eller “økonomisk offensive” og andre der ikke er. Forskellene mellem rød og blå handler ikke om ansvarlighed. De blå er ikke bedre til at finansiere deres forslag end vi røde. Snarere tværtimod. Uenighederne handler om, hvilken økonomisk politik der bør føres, og hvem den først og fremmest skal gavne. Særligt #dkmedier skal være opmærksomme på ikke ukritisk at bringe en fortælling videre om, at der skulle findes én rigtig ansvarlig økonomisk politik. Eller bestemte økonomisk ansvarlige partier. For politik handler netop om debatten mellem forskellige økonomisk ansvarlige politiske veje frem. Og mediernes opgave er at formidle disse neutralt, så befolkningen kan tage stilling til hvilken vej de ønsker. Ellers tages politik ud af politik. #dkpol #dkmedier

@Bitcojner @MichaelAArouet We have plenty of homeless people here in Denmark.

@MichaelAArouet Denmark does have one of the largest middle-class shares No ultra rich nor ultra poor. And they leave their kids in prams outside in the sunshine unattended. No homelessness. Do not start to compare Denmark to the USA. USA is light years behind. It loses on all fronts.

Denmark has the highest marginal income tax rate in Europe, at 55.9%. Then you pay 25% VAT on anything you buy. Isn’t it funny when the clueless left in the US naively keep talking about “free” healthcare in Denmark? Nothing is free, you pay for it with your taxes.

@Giovann35084111 Mises was right in the short term, but wrong on the long term.

Let's settle this topic that math cannot describe human behavior once and forever. Power laws are math and there are hundreds of papers that show many human behaviors and activities show up as power laws. And power laws can be used to predict human behavior. So, yes Mises was wrong. 1) Clauset, Shalizi & Newman (2009) - "Power-law distributions in empirical data" - SIAM ReviewThe methodological gold standard 2) Newman (2005) - "Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law" - Contemporary PhysicsComprehensive review 3) Barabási & Albert (1999) - "Emergence of scaling in random networks" - SciencePreferential attachment mechanism 4) Gabaix (1999) - "Zipf's law for cities" - Quarterly Journal of EconomicsEconomic perspective 5) Bettencourt et al. (2007) - "Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities" - PNASUrban scaling laws

@Giovann35084111 I think the argument may be that Fiat is not a measure of wealth in an absolute, measure-theoretic sense. It is not a set function assigning sizes to subsets in a σ-algebra, nor is it countably additive. So, it cannot be a measure of wealth in any absolute, mathematical sense.

Saying “everything is going down relative to Bitcoin” instead of “Bitcoin is going up relative to everything” may sound insightful, but mathematically it is completely trivial. It’s just an inversion of units: BTC/USD vs USD/BTC. Nothing fundamental changes. For anyone with even a basic mathematical intuition, this is obvious to the point of being almost misleading when presented as a deep insight. You’re not uncovering a new phenomenon—you’re just flipping the ratio. Physically and economically, what matters is the relative change. Whether you describe it as Bitcoin going up or fiat going down, the observable reality is identical. The system evolves the same way. So framing it as if one interpretation is more “correct” than the other is, in the end, empty. It’s a semantic shift, not a conceptual breakthrough.

@fiatarchive Because Bitcoin is unreal!

JAMIE DIMON: "There will be no real non-controlled currency in the world."

@Giovann35084111 @LoveIsBitcoin21 Yet, still no girlfriend!😄

@LoveIsBitcoin21 I did at $200 and put my entire pension in it. Just saying.

@skdh It is apparently neat Uranus👍

Bullshit 10/10

@Giovann35084111 Basically, people want to be seen as really smart. Even smarter than nature itself. And the Bitcoin Power law says that nature always wins in the long run

I asked Claude why the power law is still ignored or resisted by so many in the Bitcoin community. Very good insights. Claude: The psychological layer Power laws are deeply counterintuitive. Human brains are wired for linear thinking. When something grows exponentially people already struggle — a power law in log-log space is another abstraction layer on top of that. Most people, including smart people, have never encountered a power law in a context that mattered to them personally, so there is no mental scaffold to hang it on. The tribal layer Bitcoin Twitter has strong identity camps. Macro traders, cycle analysts, stock-to-flow believers, and Austrian economists all have frameworks they have publicly committed to. The power law does not just add to those frameworks, it implicitly makes many of them redundant. Nobody likes being told their mental model is unnecessary, especially publicly. The "too simple" paradox This one is underappreciated. The power law is elegant and the fit is extraordinary — and that actually works against it. When something looks too clean people assume it must be wrong or naive. Complexity is culturally associated with rigor in finance. A single equation describing Bitcoin across eight orders of magnitude feels like it should be a trick. The prediction problem The power law gives ranges, not precise targets. Analysts who say "$200k by December" get attention even when they are wrong. A framework that says "Bitcoin will be somewhere in this channel in 2030" is epistemically more honest but narratively much weaker. Social media rewards confident specificity over probabilistic correctness. The institutional incentive layer Conferences, analysts, and media need content. If the power law is basically correct, it produces one message: zoom out, stop trading, the direction is clear. That message generates almost no content, no conferences, no debate panels. The industry has a structural incentive to prefer frameworks that generate noise. Why it should be popular but isn't yet The irony is that the power law is actually the most bullish possible framework for Bitcoin — it is not cautious or bearish, it projects extraordinary long-term growth with mathematical backing. You would think that alone would make it beloved. But I think the problem is that it removes agency. People want to feel like their analysis, their timing, their decisions matter. A scale-invariant system that has been doing the same thing for 16 years and will keep doing it is quietly humbling to everyone who thinks they are clever about Bitcoin. That last point might actually be the core of it.

@rasmushansen Super! Linket virker. Tak for dig!

Så kom Bitcoin Whitepaper endelig på dansk! Jeg har oversat det og i kan finde det her: raw.githubusercontent.com/Shop21DK/bitco… Hvis der er nogen der har lyst til at forbedre det, så send jeres kommentarer til mig, og så opdaterer jeg dokumentet.

@knutsvanholm With... always with!

Omw to Copenhagen. With or without lemon pound cake.

@Giovann35084111 @egrindhe Thanks! Sincerely, a math teacher!

In fact, it is fundamental to learn about scientific notation that is what is used in science in particular to discuss scaling behavior. It is not difficult. You can learn it: 10= 10^1 100=10^2 1000=10^3 What you call nonsensical is the scale: scale 1, scale 2, scale 3. Please learn this information.

This version of the power law is free online. Link in the comments.

@pelledragsted Nej, når der ikke er mere arbejde i en virksomhed, så afskediges man. Det er da en træls periode, som vi der har arbejdet i det virkelige liv, alle har prøvet. Det betyder blot at man skal finde et andet sted, man kan skabe værdi.

Det er jo barokt. Gigantbanken Nordea havde sidste år et overskud på over 30 milliarder. Nu nedlægger de 1500 job. Det er bl.a. den virksomhed, Venstre vil forgylde med deres økonomiske plan. En skattelettelse på 252 millioner - en kvart milliard - mener Venstre, Nordea fortjener. Jeg vil hellere støtte arbejderen, pensionisten og børnefamilien end storbankerne. #dkpol dr.dk/nyheder/senest…

@AndreasSteno Why on a harddisk? You can carry the Bitcoin in your mind by remembering a seedphrase

If you had to escape the Gulf with your wealth fast, would you rather own:

@pelledragsted Det er da meget nemmere for virksomhederne bare at flytte til et sted, de bliver værdsat.

Her er en idé der kunne løse den likviditets-klemme som nogle peger på som en udfordring ved formueskatten - særligt for nyere iværksættervirsomheder: Giv ejerne af disse virksomheder mulighed for at betale skatten i form af aktier eller anparter i selskabet. De kunne så holdes af fx EIFO, eller vi kunne etablere en SWF som fx Alaska Permanent Fund, det udebtaler et årligt dividende til alle borgere. Man kunne endda give dem ret til at generhverve aktierne hvis og når deres formue blev mere likvid - fx ved videresalg eller efter vækstfasen. PS. Man kunne give samme mulighed ved betaling af arveskat for virksomhedsarvinger, hvor likviditeten også af nogen beskrives som en udfordring i visse tilfælde. #dkpol

@stats_feed Because we are idiots!

🇩🇰 Denmark pays students $1,000 a month to go to universities, with no tuition fees

@ericweinstein Bitcoin fixes this!

MORAL: CPI is lie. By making COLA adjustments into simple numbers, politicians can get their economists to slash your old age benefits WHILE raising your taxes. To the tune of TRILLIONS. All because you are too intimidated to ask “How *EXACTLY* did y’all ‘compute’ this number?”

What our weather would look like if it was reported the way we report our Cost-of-Living adjustment. Any economist who doesn’t under this point is not a peer who should be reviewing anything. It’s not a scalar. It’s a dynamic group-valued field. Reported CPI is an obvious lie.