Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/ethfinance
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
> ETH needs its own Michael Saylor With all due respect to @sassal.eth and others who hold this view: I don’t think it does. The only reason BTC maxis love Saylor is because he holds the promise of pumping their bags. It’s a Faustian growth hack, though. If BTC moons, Saylor becomes its natural figurehead and spokesperson. If BTC dumps hard, $MSTR becomes a single point of cascading failure. Either outcome is terrible. It would be much more antifragile for BTC to achieve the same scarcity by being near-evenly spread across a large population. As for ETH, there’s only enough supply for every human on this planet to own 0.015 of it (~$50). Imagine a world with far fewer whales and much more krill — true abundance. To repeat: we don’t need a Saylor. Instead, we need to organically put ETH into as many hands as possible, which itself requires that we keep increasing its utility https://x.com/sassal0x/status/1870620451917209603
8 replies
10 recasts
30 reactions
Jabba
@jabba
$MSTR atm is the most critical point of failure of bitcoin price/adoption. Buying btc using leverage (as MS does) will only make them more vulnerable to next big crypto drop: who believe that btc price will rise incessantly in the future is a fool or a liar, and I don’t think that MSTR creditors (who now buy MSTR bonds) will accept stock instead of cash upon expiration if btc price (and MSTR value consequentially) will drop of a 20-50% (like crypto leverage assets sooner or later does). Yes, instead of a Michael Saylor we “just” need more development and more adoption
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction