Strictly4MyBitcoin

@TylerDivv @dmweisberger That's fair. But then this isn't a Bitcoin issue.

@IBIT4Life @dmweisberger Yes they should be banned. Derivatives are scams.

"They" CANT print more Bitcoin than the 1 million or so that will be mined in the next 100ish years. "They" CAN sell Derivatives and HOPE that SPOT sellers follow through. If not, SPOT buyers, led by Strategy via STRC will lead to a Bitcoin rally and "they" get their faces ripped off...

@FinFreedom414 yesterday during the epic storm I used Gemini to help with an investment project. I ended up with about 15 pages that I broke into 4 separate documents. It looks like 50 hours of work. I was blown away

What are the most creative things that you're using AI for in your day to day lives at the moment? Has anyone setup bots working around the clock? I want to pick some of your brains.

Listening to you on spaces It's too early for the market to run up. Let's say August 1, about 100 days out. Nothing before matters and you can't have the market too high and maintain it. Get all the bad news and BS done now because it's still early. Set yourself up to the 100 day run, that's what Trump is doing. At this time before the election Hillary was a lock.

@TheRealPlanC @Glenn1661335 Using the genesis block never made sense to me. Intuitively, looking back some of the earliest data may be incorrect/incomplete or chaotic. Picking an early point with reliable data makes sense.

@Glenn1661335 It reveals that there is no power law when using Genesis. There is significant decay at the median. The model needs a decay function. The only way to get a pure power law is to use a completely different start point.

Important: Every Bitcoin power law regression ever published has the same hidden flaw. Not one of them is scale invariant. Scale invariance is the defining property of the Bitcoin Power Law. The pattern remains the same at every scale, like a fractal. Bitcoin's growth from $0.01 to $1 has the same proportional structure as $10,000 to $1,000,000. This is what has held across 9 orders of magnitude over 17 years. A regression estimating a power law should respect this property. It should treat every order of magnitude of time equally. But that is not what happens. The standard approach regresses log(price) on log(time). The regression fits in log-time, but the data is sampled in linear time. In linear time, every era looks equal. In log-time, the most recent era has 8.78 times more data than the earliest era. The regression is not fitting Bitcoin's full history. It is fitting overwhelmingly to recent data. This is not a modeling choice. It is a consequence of using uniformly sampled data in a log-space regression. Every power law regression on Bitcoin has this bias built in, whether the modeler knows it or not. The fix is a single weight: w = 1/t. This is the Jacobian, the exact mathematical correction for the change of variables from linear time to log-time. With this weight applied, every era gets exactly 10% of the regression's attention. Every order of magnitude counts equally. The regression becomes what it always should have been: scale invariant. The left chart shows what every existing model uses. The right chart shows what scale invariance looks like.

This has also led to a growth in property taxes. My local government, like most, used the temporary COVID money to grow. Now that the money has run out, we've had 3 years of 9-11% increases (we got 0% the first 2 Covid years when they got FED money) Now my home carries $300 more per month of property taxes...permanently. The same has happened with insurance to the tune of $200 month. Same house 3 years ago came with $500 less of monthly expenses that the bank uses in their calculations of what you can afford.

Imagine you can afford a $2,000 monthly mortgage payment. At 8% interest, that payment might let you borrow roughly $275,000. Now imagine rates fall to 4%. The same $2,000 payment can suddenly support a loan of about $420,000. Your income didn’t change. But the amount the bank is willing to lend you did. Now imagine that happening to millions of buyers at the same time. Everyone suddenly has more borrowing power. And when buyers can borrow more, they bid more. So prices rise. Houses didn’t magically become twice as valuable. Credit became cheaper. And when credit gets cheaper, asset prices usually rise with it.

@HODL15Capital I think when we cross $100k the next time, IBIT will hold significantly more Bitcoin than Nov 2025 when we dropped below $100k My guess is 900k-1M. We are at about 772k Bitcoin now. Same with MSTR

@FinFreedom414 If people are selling Bitcoin to buy ETF or STRC is should net out. If they're buying STRC specifically, MSTR is also selling the common when this happens, so there should be additional buy pressure.

Perhaps, or did the market dynamics lead to people swapping their $BTC for paper Bitcoin to collect yield and covered call income. There's a lot of questions here, but I'm just not sure how buying tens of thousands of Bitcoin weekly doesn't aggressively soak up the the selling volume.

So Strategy is just soaking up thousands upon thousands of Bitcoin on a daily basis now and price remains relatively flat. Not only is price flat, but no one in the market aside from a select few from the Bitcoin community can catch on to how this might disrupt the dynamics of the market? I don't know, to me something just feels off. The markets are generally pretty jumpy and tend to overcorrect on new developments. How is there no reaction here? Also, I just went to check on the daily $STRC numbers and it appears that STRC.live blocked me. This is just weird.

@FinFreedom414 @Rahim_mahtab They're also not buying that much. Average daily volume the past month across all platforms is $55.7 Billion according to Gemini. They're only a tiny fraction of that.

@Rahim_mahtab @IBIT4Life That could certainly be it. Idk I’m just watching this daily $STRC accumulation tracker as a small retail investor wondering what I’m missing. I think it’s good to be a skeptic and ask questions.

@hillery_dan How long does STRC have at this rate of issuance before it's done? I'd assume MSTR will approve more?

That's your sign.

@dgt10011 Excellent article Jeff! Possibly the next 2 things with 100% certainty are that SSN benefits will be paid as promised and that treasury will not default on debt. How they decide to pay for it is the question

@ProofOfMoney You forgot to mention Vitalik's political wokeness that he weaves into Ethereum's vision

Michael Saylor said: “There is no second best.” And he’s right. Ethereum ($ETH) has fallen 65% compared to Bitcoin since its founders decided to move from Proof of Work (energy) to Proof of Stake (privilege) in 2022. Yes, those “investors” lost 65% more of their wealth to align with an unfairly launched token on a chain that can be stopped, reversed, and inflated unpredictably with votes by those at the top. Proof of Stake = digital fiat

@HODL15Capital IBIT has also been trading above NAV on 45M shares so far 45M is approximately 25k Bitcoin of volume

I get what they are doing, but someone had to take the other side of the trade on the CME short. Funds are doing this trade daily to willing call buyers. I would add in IBIT. If the basis trade didn't happen 1) call buyers still exist, pushing premium up 2) ETF demand goes down as they don't need to hold spot 3) call sellers decline, pushing premiums up Isn't that the outcome? I view it as the basis trade is a demand on spot and pushes call premiums down. My guess is the "other side of the trade" is a lot of naked long IBIT from degens

@IBIT4Life Funds were buying Bitcoin ETFs while simultaneously shorting Bitcoin futures. From a demand perspective, it’s a wash trade. I subtracted it out.

Paper Bitcoin can distort the path, not the destination Proof: I stripped out $10.3B of ETF “inflows” that were really carry trades (long ETF / short CME, basically zero BTC exposure). The fit didn’t move. Read that again, it didn't move. β stayed 0.27. So the model isn’t pricing headlines. It’s pricing committed capital money that actually has to compete for scarce BTC. What paper does: • Inflates rallies with fake “demand” • Exaggerates dumps when carry unwinds • Keeps BTC below fair value longer than it should What paper can’t do: Rewrite Bitcoin’s absorption curve Bottom line: Derivatives are noise. Scarcity + adoption are signal. When the basis flattens and the next wave is real buyers again, BTC won’t crawl back. It will jump. $DYOR

@david_eng_mba What about the $10.3B of CME long? The other side of the open trade on CME, where does that fit in?

Cumulative ETF “inflows” were $43.9B, but only $33.6B was real directional demand. $10.3B (23%) was basis/carry (ETF long + CME short).

DCA'd my way to 20,000 shares of IBIT

@sminston_with @_Checkmatey_ I think what's the most important part is that people want to believe JS is responsible. They're searching for a narrative to explain price. Maybe this is bullish? If it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy like the 4-year cycle, we have a good 2 day start

@_Checkmatey_ Sure, I think the retail sell off is what the reasonable people realize is the direct cause of the price falling- I think my question is, isn't it feasible that the manipulation from JS represented a meaningful trigger in holder capitulation and the further retail selling?

Jane Street didn't suppress the Bitcoin price folks. HODLers all did. It's just not that hard, stop summoning your inner salty goldbug but blaming manipulators. People. Sold. A. Fucktonne. Of. Spot. Bitcoin.

@_Checkmatey_ Why is it that some Bitcoiner's have issues with derivatives and options? Calling it "paper Bitcoin" What do they think of derivatives and options on Nvidia? Is that "paper Nvidia" Why doesn't the "paper Nvidia" cause it to go down?