Visser ⚡🔑

∞/21M, from Holland, Nostr: npub1vxjslf0cm3hdnrrd03yprsg3ctwty6zp8uuztwvqmsvwegpl4ulsmgkwpn

[Visser ⚡🔑 @BasVisser2]

The EU members that voted for the bitcoin ban
@MavridesCostas @PedroMarquesMEP @AuroreLalucq @jonasfernandez @spietikainen @ernesturtasun @Kira_MPH @PediciniEu @KarimaDelli @RasmusAndresen @MacManusChris @ManonAubryFr @itinagli @paultang @SantAlfred @Evelyn_Regner @nayibbukele

[Henk Otten @hendrikotten3]

Een hele “vieze wet” inderdaad. En enorm schadelijk voor de Nederlandse economie, het vestigingsklimaat en het Nederlands innovatievermogen. De @EersteKamer moet deze idiote Box 3 wet stoppen! https://t.co/MtdJrLNc59

[Maizy Daizy @MaizyDaizyZzzz]

Why is their privacy more valuable than mine or yours.👇

[Martin van Rooijen @MvRooijen]

50PLUS senator Martin van Rooijen over BOX 3
Dit is een heel slechte wet die niet beter wordt door beloofde aanpassingen in najaar!

‘Rottend vlees leg je ook niet nog een maar maanden in de koelkast in de hoop dat het toch ooit lekker gaat ruiken’

@nos @nu @telegraaf @AD

[𝕮𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖆𝖎𝖓 𝕰𝖉𝖜𝖎𝖓 𝕾𝖍𝖆𝖉𝖔𝖜𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖘𝖊𝖗 @ShadowchaserFox]

Wait, so the MPs largely voted against it and yet its still being implemented?

The fuck is the point in voting at this point

[Chris Heatherly @chrisheatherly]

I’m actually a child online safety expert and was one of the pioneers in this space with Club Penguin and so I feel uniquely positioned to critique this.

The groomer problem is real but it’s also vastly overstated. The far larger issue we saw at Penguin was suicidality or reports of sexual abuse in the home.

There is no solution for lazy/bad parenting. You can implement all the ID laws you want but if parents are going to just hand kids their phones unlocked, those kids will have access to all the same things the parents have unfettered.

What I found is that these draconian safety laws actually make it harder to be an honest operator of kids apps because on one hand it’s so much legal risk and so much user friction that it simply becomes uninvestible as a business.

Parents will just lie to let their kids use the unfettered internet. For example, I have a friend who works in mobile gaming who has two kids, one above and one below the age limit but separated by just 2 yrs, and the two wanted to play and chat together on Roblox - which is reasonable. To do this, he just verified that his younger kid is old enough for the chat feature when he’s not.

This happens all the time and will happen with these laws to. How far do we want to go with this? Scan the face of the user in real-time to make sure it’s not a kid using the device? We could do that but it feels like a massive unwanted intrusion of privacy.

That’s how you know this law isn’t about kids. COPPA and GDPR-K and so forth already make it illegal to allow chat and other grooming vectors to kids.

What’s really being done here is trying to eliminate online anonymity. And this is a far bigger issue that goes to core speech rights because if you cannot criticize the govt anonymously and if wrong speech is a crime then it becomes easy to identify all the detractors of the govt in power, and ban, fine or jail them for speech crimes.

Starmer has already been doing this and he wants to do it at a much bigger scale. Starmer won’t even acknowledge the problem of actual grooming gangs in Britain’s neighborhoods but he’s worried about online grooming?

No he’s not, and this hypocrisy gives away the game. What he wants is to kill online anonymity so he can enforce censorship of his unpopular policies. No politician should have this power.

[Madelon Vos @MadelonVos__]

Ik snap de reflex volledig. Kinderen worden te blootgesteld aan algoritmes, dopamineprikkels, vergelijking, verslaving en volwassen ellende.

Maar de oplossing ‘verplicht ID uploaden voor iedereen’ is wéér zo’n typische systeemoplossing: men zegt kinderen te willen beschermen, maar we eindigen met digitale identificatie voor de gehele bevolking.

Hier schuilt een enorm gevaar, want wie beheert die data? Wie bepaalt hoe die data gebruikt mag worden? En wat gebeurt er als die infrastructuur later anders wordt gebruikt?! Denk aan digital ID etc.

Je kan dit echt anders oplossen: door platformen aansprakelijker te maken, algoritmes richting kinderen beperken, verslavend ontwerp verbieden, ouders meer tools te geven, scholen kids laten opvoeden in digitale weerbaarheid met - als het echt nodig blijkt - leeftijdsgrenzen, maar zónder dat íedereen zijn paspoort bij Big Tech hoeft in te leveren.

[🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Cal 🧡 @CalixerGC]

Grand total of 0 people voted for this fyi

[Alex Armstrong @Alexarmstrong]

Read this open statement by Signal and your jaw will hit the floor.

Govts always use “protecting children” as their guise for more control and censorship.

I interviewed a prev Govt minister, who wrote the Online Safety Bill, and asked if they could tell me how a VPN worked. They couldn’t. These are the people writing these laws.

This new tool is another dangerous form of silent oppression that once again uses children’s safety as a guise to control the masses.

We can protect children online, but that starts at home, with parents, not in the Home Office, GCHQ, Apple, Google, Microsoft or Samsung.

[Mullvad.net @mullvadnet]

The UK government spyware demand means that the government decides exactly what should be censored on every mobile device. They say they will start with nude pictures (if you don’t identify yourself as an adult). But it could at any time be expanded to anything the government disapproves of. Today, 30 people are arrested every day in the United Kingdom for writing something online that the government classifies as "grossly offensive". It is obvious that they will use this tool to restrict free speech.

Currently, there appears to be no requirement to report findings outside the device. However, with both legal and technological decision-making power taken away from individuals and transferred to the government, that is only a pen stroke away.

This means that the government could also use this system for total mass surveillance.

And they can do so in secret.

The government recently, in secret, tried to pressure Apple (which is now agreeing to client-side scanning) to build backdoors into its end-to-end encrypted cloud service. They can do this under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, also known as the "Snoopers' Charter" – a law that makes it illegal for tech companies to disclose secret demands from the government.

[Jesse Myers @Croesus_BTC]

I’m sick of it. The Bitcoin gloom and disappointment. Don’t you see what is underway?

When you close your eyes, there’s one number you should see in your mind: $500T of fiat assets.

That’s how much global asset value is sitting in Bonds (fixed income) & Money (M2 fiat currency). Why does that matter?

Because that giant reservoir of ~½ the world’s asset value contains the potential energy necessary to power hyperbitcoinization.

This is what Saylor sees.

But do you see it yet?

Consider Hoover Dam. The reservoir behind it contains 12 TWh of usable hydroelectric energy – it just looks like one big lake, calm and placid. But if you stick a pipe through that damn and put a turbine generator in the middle of it and let the water run through it… you can generate enough energy to power the city of Las Vegas for 5 years.

That’s potential energy. Stored, untapped power. And by removing the barrier for the water to flow towards a lower energy state, you can harness the pent up power of the reservoir.

This same mental model works for capital.

A high Sharpe ratio is the financial analogue of a low-energy equilibrium state. Capital flows downhill, always seeking lower risk per unit of return.

(Yes, I know everyone thinks about it as “highest return per unit of risk”, but this is the equivalent and helps understand the physical metaphor)

Do you see it yet?

Think about all the capital parked in fixed income instruments or money market funds. All of this capital is parked there because it has historically provided an acceptable trade-off of modest nominal returns for minimal risk.

The entire premise of fixed income is “here’s a way to park cash in low-risk instruments that will generate a positive return slightly greater than inflation.” Adjacent to this asset category is “cash and cash equivalents” where the value proposition is somewhat smaller returns in exchange for even less risk.

And over the decades, a steady stream of capital has found its way into these asset buckets that promise low risk and modest nominal returns via future fiat cashflows.

These buckets have become a giant fiat reservoir, brimming with nearly $500T of capital.

Do you see it yet?

Along comes Strategy. @saylor realizes that much of this $500T of capital would be better off if it flowed into Bitcoin. But Saylor also recognizes that this reservoir of capital is inherently constrained. Boxed in by convention, investment mandates, risk management, volatility aversion, etc.

It won’t flow to Bitcoin on its own. It can’t – it’s walled off, dammed up.

Strategy engineers a solution. Creates a product to meet that capital where it’s at. The $500T fiat asset reservoir wants low risk, low volatility, fiat cash flows. Strategy designs preferred equity instruments that solve for these constraints, while Strategy uses the fiat capital proceeds to buy Bitcoin (which it believes will appreciate at 29% CAGR for the next 20 years).

In exchange for capital today, STRC offers 11.5% annual returns with volatility asymptotically approaching 0. The Sharpe ratio is off the charts. It breaks everything in tradfi portfolio allocation. At first glance, it seems impossible. But it works because it’s not powered by risk-taking layered on top of fiat inflation; it’s powered by the ongoing monetization of a superior monetary asset whose endogenous properties ensure its appreciation when valued in fiat currency units over time.

Saylor terms this kind of Bitcoin-powered fixed income offering “Digital Credit.”

When a commodity flows from a high-energy state to a low-energy state, it releases energy. In the case of Hoover Dam, that energy can be used to power a hydroelectric turbine. In the case of Bitcoin treasury companies with Digital Credit offerings, that energy can be used to power shareholder returns for common equity holders. This can happen in every major capital market in the world.

Do you see it yet?

Strategy has stuck a pipe through the dam. A conduit through which capital can flow out of the Fiat Asset Reservoir and towards a low-energy equilibrium state. Digital Credit offerings (e.g., STRC, SATA, and others) create that value proposition.

And what’s the Total Addressable Market (TAM)? All $500T of fiat assets in the reservoir.

The recent SpaceX IPO Prospectus recently made a splash by claiming the company had a combined $28.5T TAM, proclaiming that this was the “largest TAM in human history.”

But my essay from 2023 titled “Bitcoin’s Full Potential Valuation” already articulated how Bitcoin’s TAM is all value itself, above and beyond the usual lens of annual economic activity across industries. Saylor read it, adopted it for his presentations, and built on it with the Bitcoin24 valuation model.

The SpaceX Prospectus is wrong. Bitcoin has the largest TAM in human history.

And Digital Credit has the second largest TAM in human history – the $500T Fiat Asset Reservoir.

Do you see it yet?

Digital Credit offerings will redirect some % of the $500T Fiat Asset Reservoir into Bitcoin. This will happen because the value proposition of Digital Credit offerings is higher Sharpe than anything I am aware of in the entire $500T reservoir, inflation-adjusted.

Think of it as the Second Law of Capital Dynamics: capital flows toward assets offering superior risk-adjusted returns.

If Digital Credit ingests 1% over the coming decades, that’s $5T. It seems unreasonably pessimistic to think that only 1% of the $500T Fiat Asset Reservoir would be interested in vastly better returns with a similar (or better) risk profile.

Let’s say Digital Credit appeals to a (still-conservative) 10% of the $500T fiat asset reservoir, that’s $50T.

Bitcoin is currently a $1.5T asset.

Do you see it yet?

Digital Credit may direct a torrent of $50T of capital into Bitcoin over the coming decades. All of it bidding for a finite supply of Bitcoin.

The scale of that inflow would likely drive Bitcoin’s valuation to $10m/BTC, or ~$200T total.

Digital Credit is the plumbing of hyperbitcoinization.

This is how it happens – you’re watching the early stages of Bitcoin’s monetization megatrend.

The question is: do you see it? Or will it have to play out first?

[Luxmaxxer @Luxmaxxer]

Hoe heeft het eigenlijk zover kunnen komen dat de enige twee kampen in het publieke “debat” over box 3 alleen maar 36% vermogensaanwasbelasting of 36% vermogenswinstbelasting zijn? Waarom zijn er geen geluiden voor tarieven die niet crimineel hoog zijn, of voor compleet andere vormen van vermogensbelasting?

Omdat het debat allang niet meer over goede belastingheffing gaat, maar over morele signaling. Links wil vermogens actief straffen in naam van “rechtvaardigheid”, het midden durft geen lager tarief voor te stellen uit angst voor het etiket “vriendjes van de rijken”.
Een bescheiden tarief (15-20%) op reëel rendement, of een heel ander stelsel (bijv. een lage vermogenswinstbelasting met inflatiecorrectie en verliesverrekening, of zelfs een verschuiving richting meer consumptiebelasting), wordt niet eens serieus besproken. Te veel stemmen hangen aan het narratief dat vermogensbelasting per definitie “eerlijk” is, hoe contraproductief en economisch schadelijk ook.

Het resultaat: een vals debat met twee varianten van hetzelfde idee - extreem hoge belasting op kapitaal - terwijl niemand durft te zeggen dat 36% roof is en groei doodt.

[Madelon Vos @MadelonVos__]

Prijsstijgingen in twee maanden tijd.

Gelukkig zit inflatie alleen maar tussen de oren.

[Madelon Vos @MadelonVos__]

De heisa omtrent box 3 gaat over 1,7% van de totale Nederlandse begroting.

Los van boze beleggers en een boze middenklasse ligt m.i. het échte risico
In het feit dat ondernemers stoppen met investeren in Nederland of zelfs kiezen voor emigreren.

26% van de Nederlandse belasting- en premieinkomsten komt vanuit de bedrijven.

Juist die ondernemers aan het roer, geven aan klaar te zijn met de alsmaar hogere belastingen, de regeldruk. Jitze Groen, Robert Vis etc.

Ook in mijn netwerk zie ik mensen vertrekken. Box 3 gaat om maximaal 2% van de begroting, maar de schade die het voor de schatkist aanricht kan zo veel groter zijn.

Dat mis ik compleet in het onderzoek van de heer @_basjacobs.

[Henk Otten @hendrikotten3]

Beste @EersteKamer leden, voormalige collega’s. Wat Gijs Strijker hier zegt klopt 100%. Gijs houdt zich zelfs nog in. De schade die dit onzalige Box 3 voorstel voor ons investeringsklimaat real time aanricht is gigantisch. Stop dit kansloze gedrocht!

[Huib Boissevain 🇪🇺 @annexum_huib]

Box 3 heffen over rendement dat je niet maakte. Spaarders pakken die negatief rendement na inflatie draaiden. Beleggers straffen voor papieren waardes.
De Eerste Kamer vergadert deze week over dit plan – en denkt dat niemand protesteert zolang het “vermogenden” heet.

Ik heb ze geschreven. Niet om te zeuren, maar om te zeggen: dit is niet rechtvaardig, niet uitvoerbaar en raakt meer mensen dan jullie doorhebben.

Doe hetzelfde. Mail [email protected] en vertel wat dit voor jou betekent.

Democratie werkt alleen als die inbox vol zit.

[De Belegger @De_belegger]

Oproep: Vergeet niet om te mailen naar [email protected] om je zorgen omtrent Box 3 te uiten. Dinsdag vindt weer een meeting plaats waar een mogelijke besluit kan vallen! Morgen deel ik nog e-mails van relevante eerstejaars leden! Als we twee dagen van te voren onze mails sturen geven we de meeste impact voordat men die meeting induikt!

Tip: Gebruik eventueel AI om een persoonlijke, nette mail en inhoudelijke op te stellen.

[Huib Boissevain 🇪🇺 @annexum_huib]

De ongemakkelijke waarheid:
Het nieuwe box 3-stelsel is ontworpen vanuit angst voor gaten in de begroting — niet vanuit vertrouwen in een rechtvaardig systeem.
En dat voel je in alles: complexiteit, uitzonderingen, juridische spanning.
Dus de echte vraag is niet hoe we dit repareren.
Maar: durven we het uitgangspunt te veranderen?

[Tuta @TutaPrivacy]

Don’t call it age verification. Call it centralised personal data collection. And understand that it serves surveillance, not safety for children.

[Global Dissident @GlobalDiss]

🚨 WEF founder Klaus Schwab says people will have to “get used to” losing privacy.

“If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t be afraid.”

This is a dangerous mindset that normalizes mass surveillance.

[alpha @omarsbigsister]

In every single country that passed age verification laws:

1) databases got leaked
2) innocent websites got censored
3) governments became more censorship heavy
4) protests became more criminalized
5) information got harder to find