Content
@
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
72 reactions
Stuart
@olystuart
Unfortunately Eth does have it's up and coming "Michael Saylor" and it's name is BlackRock, and if it gets as much Eth as it wants, Eth is going to be worthless to the open source, decentralized, censorship resistant world we wanted to build with it. I'm with you, we should want it to be as widely distributed as possible instead.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
Blackrock purchases ETH for the purpose of the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF. The beneficial owners are the ETF buyers. Blackrock can’t arbitrarily sell that ETH, they are merely its custodian in an analog way that Coinbase is a custodian among CEXes Very different from $MSTR purchasing BTC for its own treasury IMO
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
