johnFX @0xjohnfx - Twitter Profile

Pinned Tweet

about 2 months ago

I thought about it and realized: what would Warren Buffett — the Ohio magic grandpa — actually say about hyperliquid:native? These are some of his claims about bitcoin:native: “Bitcoin is probably rat poison squared.” (2018) “Cryptocurrencies basically have no value and they don't produce anything. They don't reproduce, they can't mail you a check, they can't do anything... In terms of value: zero.” (2020) “If you ... owned all of the bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn't take it. Because what would I do with it? I'll have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn't going to do anything.” (2022) “In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending.” (2018) “It's a gambling device… there's been a lot of frauds connected with it. It hasn't produced anything.” (2019) Despite all those not-so-friendly words, here is what he said about solana:GoLDppdjB1vDTPSGxyMJFqdnj134yH6Prg9eqsGDiw6A: “The 170,000 tonnes of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.” “...if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end.” “[Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.” “Basically gold is a way of going long on fear, and it's been a pretty good way of going long on fear from time to time. But you really have to hope people become more afraid in the year or two years than they are now.” The legend — and he absolutely deserves that status — built his entire career around cash flow, productive assets, real-world utility and the ability of an asset to actually generate something. And this is where crypto starts becoming much more interesting. Because hyperliquid:native, and several other protocols today, actually DO have utility. They provide infrastructure. They facilitate economic activity. They charge fees. They generate real revenue. That is fundamentally different from simply owning a scarce asset and hoping somebody else values that scarcity more in the future. And while I still think bitcoin:native is the king of crypto today, I don't think it necessarily has to remain the king forever. History changes what society chooses as its monetary premium. Gold was the king long before Bitcoin existed. But what revenue does gold actually generate? None. From that perspective, I honestly don't see some enormous philosophical difference between Bitcoin — the digital gold of the new era — and gold itself: an old scarce asset that humanity collectively decided to obsess over and treat as a store of value. Both derive a huge part of their value from scarcity, credibility, social consensus and the belief that somebody else will still want to hold them decades from now. Which brings me to the more interesting question. If Bitcoin is increasingly becoming digital gold, why should we expect it to permanently trade like a leveraged Nasdaq instrument? At what point does its monetary premium become large and mature enough that it starts behaving less like speculative tech and more like an independent global reserve asset? And when do we finally see the real decoupling from TradFi? Because if that happens, the entire way we currently think about Bitcoin risk, correlations and portfolio construction changes with it.

0xjohnfx's tweet photo. I thought about it and realized: what would Warren Buffett — the Ohio magic grandpa — actually say about hyperliquid:native?

These are some of his claims about bitcoin:native:

“Bitcoin is probably rat poison squared.” (2018)

“Cryptocurrencies basically have no value and they don't produce anything. They don't reproduce, they can't mail you a check, they can't do anything... In terms of value: zero.” (2020)

“If you ... owned all of the bitcoin in the world and you offered it to me for $25, I wouldn't take it. Because what would I do with it? I'll have to sell it back to you one way or another. It isn't going to do anything.” (2022)

“In terms of cryptocurrencies, generally, I can say with almost certainty that they will come to a bad ending.” (2018)

“It's a gambling device… there's been a lot of frauds connected with it. It hasn't produced anything.” (2019)

Despite all those not-so-friendly words, here is what he said about solana:GoLDppdjB1vDTPSGxyMJFqdnj134yH6Prg9eqsGDiw6A:

“The 170,000 tonnes of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.”

“...if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end.”

“[Gold] gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.”

“Basically gold is a way of going long on fear, and it's been a pretty good way of going long on fear from time to time. But you really have to hope people become more afraid in the year or two years than they are now.”

The legend — and he absolutely deserves that status — built his entire career around cash flow, productive assets, real-world utility and the ability of an asset to actually generate something.

And this is where crypto starts becoming much more interesting.

Because hyperliquid:native, and several other protocols today, actually DO have utility.

They provide infrastructure.
They facilitate economic activity.
They charge fees.
They generate real revenue.

That is fundamentally different from simply owning a scarce asset and hoping somebody else values that scarcity more in the future.

And while I still think bitcoin:native is the king of crypto today, I don't think it necessarily has to remain the king forever.

History changes what society chooses as its monetary premium.

Gold was the king long before Bitcoin existed.
But what revenue does gold actually generate?
None.
From that perspective, I honestly don't see some enormous philosophical difference between Bitcoin — the digital gold of the new era — and gold itself: an old scarce asset that humanity collectively decided to obsess over and treat as a store of value.

Both derive a huge part of their value from scarcity, credibility, social consensus and the belief that somebody else will still want to hold them decades from now.

Which brings me to the more interesting question.

If Bitcoin is increasingly becoming digital gold, why should we expect it to permanently trade like a leveraged Nasdaq instrument?

At what point does its monetary premium become large and mature enough that it starts behaving less like speculative tech and more like an independent global reserve asset?

And when do we finally see the real decoupling from TradFi?

Because if that happens, the entire way we currently think about Bitcoin risk, correlations and portfolio construction changes with it.

2

9

0

425

johnFX

@0xjohnfx

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users