uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️

Exposed 🇷🇺, 🇨🇳, 🇮🇷 & 🇮🇳 APTs. Also ⛵️ the 🌎. Founded @waarneming & others. Currently @responders_now. 4.669; 3.14159. Bitcoin since 2011. Focus 🎯

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Dutch Politician fianlly gets it. 👇

[Bart Groothuis @bgroothuis]

Some 3000 AI large language models in the world currently, of which 30 are European. 0 (zero) are compliant with EU regulations. #deregulate

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

"Het gaat hier om de problemen van de 30% rijkste mensen".

Box3 is gewoon een directe aanval op de rijkste mensen. Socialisme & communisme in actie. Pure afgunst.

[Scienceseur @Scienceseur]

Wat is die Bas Jacobs toch een stuk genetisch afval.

Journalist: Leuk verhaal, maar dat is toch niet de realiteit?

Bas Jacobs: Nee klopt maar boeiend. 60% van de mensen heeft niets aan beleggingen!

Iedere drogredenering na de andere, hoogleraar onwaardig.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Emotioneel ongemak is iets waar velen niet mee kunnen omgaan.

[Arend Jan Kamp @ArendJanKamp]

Iedereen zit toch te eten en sneak ik deze er tussendoor
Ik ben uit mn #bitcoin ETN (ETF) à -43,8%
Waarom psychologische schade vele malen groter is dan financiële
Want waar ik een van mijn eigen regels overtrad, behoedde een andere mij voor erger https://t.co/4Bgao4VBmM

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

@KerenHirsch Hier heeft ie vast niet over nagedacht. 🤣

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Nature's law is simply that capitalism raises average wealth.
Another interesting aspect is that people with wealth take more risks. Raising their chances of going broke fast. Elon can for example easily go broke, as he's all-in on his companies. If the USG cancels SpaceX contracts (or loses the war China started) & Tesla goes bankrupt because of Elon's reputation. Done. Wealthy people are mainly people that are good with calculations. Another reason why wealth hardly lasts longer than 3 generations in a family.

Communists and socialists want everyone to be equal. Mainly because this is safety behaviour of the brain. It tends to search for a safe heaven incase everything goes wrong. But that's simply not how Mother Nature creates humans. We have randomly selected parameters and they could be good or bad and in rare cases extremely good. As a human species it is better to embraces these gifts of others rather than flatten them out because of emotional discomfort from others.

This is all natures law. There is not really a discussion about this possible.
If a ship with 10 strong man strands. Chances of all of them surviving are way higher than a ship stranding with 10 weak man.

Make others strong again! 👊

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

@aleabitoreddit need your view on CRCL & OUSD.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Crazy timing indeed. 🤪

[The Block @TheBlockCo]

THE BLOCK: Cathie Wood's Ark Invest bought $3.3 million worth of Circle shares on Tuesday as the stock plunged 17.6%.

The firm also purchased more shares in Coinbase, Bullish, and Robinhood.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

I was extremely shocked by the events around OUSD & CRCL.

But I agree with this analysis. I know many people in the banking industry including bank owners. They've always warned me: "You underestimate the power of traditional bankers". And I guess we are seeing that power play unfold here. With their blocking of the clarity act and now basically their 'invention' to comply and take all the profits from this new clarity act, that they themselves are writing right now.

BUT! This is like Tesla. For ten years everyone said they would never beat traditional car makers. And now Volkswagen is firing 100k employees and cancelling their selfdriving ambitions.

[Lorenzo Valente @LorenzoARK]

Every year we get our consortium style initiative around a stablecoin, we have seen this with Diem, Global dollar and now Open USD. While the set of players here is obviously potent, I remain highly skeptical any of these initiatives can hit scale.

A few thoughts on OpenUSD:

1. Liquidity and the cold-start problem. USDC and USDT have massive network effects across exchanges, payment processors, and brokers. This is always repeated but it's true, there are no BTC/sofiUSD pairs to trade on any of these exchanges or markets. These are not stableocin market makers and participants are willing to hold in size, as you can’t really use them anywhere.
The fair counter is that crypto markets will be far smaller than remittances or equities/bonds. Probably true, I suspect in the medium term, but those markets are still converging on the same stablecoins. Hyperliquid just struck a massive deal with USDC/Coinbase. Every tokenization initiative so far is built around the incumbents too.

2. A consortium of 500 rivals has no precedent for working. The pace of decision-making across 500 competitors is going to be glacial. Not everyone gets a board seat at Open Standard I imagine, so what happens when decisions cut against some of the players? Circle and Tether ship whatever they want, whenever they want, with zero commitment to anyone.

3. Regulatory and antitrust risk at scale. Circle and Tether are willing to absorb enormous pressure, they have being doing so for years. They hold hundreds of licenses they can use to arbitrage markets, Yes GENIUS act gave a lot of breathing room and clarity, but oversees, this is not the same story. The moment this gets hard under regulatory pressure, I think a lot of these partners just walk away. And a bloc of the largest banks and card networks jointly issuing money is an obvious antitrust target.

4. The "socialist" economics starve the issuer. Passing reserve revenue back to partners sounds great in practice, but what does Open Standard actually operate on? Little to no retained capital. People forget Circle doesn't just have marketplace/exchange partnerships; it funds a whole web of rebates across on/off ramps, stablecoin settlement, OTC desks, and more, with each deal being somewhat bespoke depending not he partner. Who funds that at Open Standard? Who decides which deals, on what terms, especially when the counterparty is a rival of an existing member?
Circle GAAP Opex for 2025 were 900M USD, if you strip out one time cost and IPO related cost, its adjusted OPEX is closer to 500M annually. Let’s say open Standard gets 25 bips, which is what other consortium did, At 10B of supply, open standard is making 25M a year… You don’t fund much with that…. You need to become huge very quickly.

5. The announcement is basically a giant LOI. Read the quotes: BlackRock calls it "a constructive step," BNY "looks forward to exploring ways to support," others say it's "interesting." Meanwhile the partners are backing rivals: Stripe owns Bridge and has its own stack, Coinbase is wedded to USDC, banks are building their own deposit tokens, and the card networks support every token out there. They'll hedge across all of them. Distribution only matters if it's exclusive — and it clearly won't be.

6. The "mint/redeem fees are a problem" claim is wrong. In practice every large institution minting and redeeming through Circle and Tether already gets big rebates. The real cost of moving money is FX, not mint/redeem and there's no moat there, because anyone can just match free mint/redeem.
All in all: one to monitor, but I'm deeply skeptical that an organization that looks like a DAO of 500 companies can move fast enough to matter long term. Who decides go-to-market? Capital allocation? Anything?

Ultimately this reminds me of the DAO experiment. The pitch was identical: no single owner, "neutral" governance, aligned incentives, decisions made collectively for the good of the network. In practice DAOs almost universally failed at the thing that actually matters: shipping. Governance turned into endless forum debates and token-weighted voting where nothing decisive got done, capital sat idle because no one could agree how to deploy it, and the projects that won were the ones with a clear owner willing to move fast and take risk. "Owned by everyone" almost always means accountable to no one. Open Standard is a DAO of competitors that are not really committed to anything, and I'd bet on the two operators who can ship unilaterally over a committee that has to ask 500 rivals for permission.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

CEO of CRCL reposts this message. He clearly still believes in CRCL 👍.
But the betrayal from Coinbase must feel terrible.

[Lorenzo Valente @LorenzoARK]

Every year we get our consortium style initiative around a stablecoin, we have seen this with Diem, Global dollar and now Open USD. While the set of players here is obviously potent, I remain highly skeptical any of these initiatives can hit scale.

A few thoughts on OpenUSD:

1. Liquidity and the cold-start problem. USDC and USDT have massive network effects across exchanges, payment processors, and brokers. This is always repeated but it's true, there are no BTC/sofiUSD pairs to trade on any of these exchanges or markets. These are not stableocin market makers and participants are willing to hold in size, as you can’t really use them anywhere.
The fair counter is that crypto markets will be far smaller than remittances or equities/bonds. Probably true, I suspect in the medium term, but those markets are still converging on the same stablecoins. Hyperliquid just struck a massive deal with USDC/Coinbase. Every tokenization initiative so far is built around the incumbents too.

2. A consortium of 500 rivals has no precedent for working. The pace of decision-making across 500 competitors is going to be glacial. Not everyone gets a board seat at Open Standard I imagine, so what happens when decisions cut against some of the players? Circle and Tether ship whatever they want, whenever they want, with zero commitment to anyone.

3. Regulatory and antitrust risk at scale. Circle and Tether are willing to absorb enormous pressure, they have being doing so for years. They hold hundreds of licenses they can use to arbitrage markets, Yes GENIUS act gave a lot of breathing room and clarity, but oversees, this is not the same story. The moment this gets hard under regulatory pressure, I think a lot of these partners just walk away. And a bloc of the largest banks and card networks jointly issuing money is an obvious antitrust target.

4. The "socialist" economics starve the issuer. Passing reserve revenue back to partners sounds great in practice, but what does Open Standard actually operate on? Little to no retained capital. People forget Circle doesn't just have marketplace/exchange partnerships; it funds a whole web of rebates across on/off ramps, stablecoin settlement, OTC desks, and more, with each deal being somewhat bespoke depending not he partner. Who funds that at Open Standard? Who decides which deals, on what terms, especially when the counterparty is a rival of an existing member?
Circle GAAP Opex for 2025 were 900M USD, if you strip out one time cost and IPO related cost, its adjusted OPEX is closer to 500M annually. Let’s say open Standard gets 25 bips, which is what other consortium did, At 10B of supply, open standard is making 25M a year… You don’t fund much with that…. You need to become huge very quickly.

5. The announcement is basically a giant LOI. Read the quotes: BlackRock calls it "a constructive step," BNY "looks forward to exploring ways to support," others say it's "interesting." Meanwhile the partners are backing rivals: Stripe owns Bridge and has its own stack, Coinbase is wedded to USDC, banks are building their own deposit tokens, and the card networks support every token out there. They'll hedge across all of them. Distribution only matters if it's exclusive — and it clearly won't be.

6. The "mint/redeem fees are a problem" claim is wrong. In practice every large institution minting and redeeming through Circle and Tether already gets big rebates. The real cost of moving money is FX, not mint/redeem and there's no moat there, because anyone can just match free mint/redeem.
All in all: one to monitor, but I'm deeply skeptical that an organization that looks like a DAO of 500 companies can move fast enough to matter long term. Who decides go-to-market? Capital allocation? Anything?

Ultimately this reminds me of the DAO experiment. The pitch was identical: no single owner, "neutral" governance, aligned incentives, decisions made collectively for the good of the network. In practice DAOs almost universally failed at the thing that actually matters: shipping. Governance turned into endless forum debates and token-weighted voting where nothing decisive got done, capital sat idle because no one could agree how to deploy it, and the projects that won were the ones with a clear owner willing to move fast and take risk. "Owned by everyone" almost always means accountable to no one. Open Standard is a DAO of competitors that are not really committed to anything, and I'd bet on the two operators who can ship unilaterally over a committee that has to ask 500 rivals for permission.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

@LorenzoARK @jerallaire Don't you feel betrayed @jerallaire?

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

This demands clarification. You co-create CRCL. Block Clarity Act. And now you submit yourself to this project? Did traditional banking just win the game? This is betrayel from the highest of forms to the people that believed in you. Selling everything I have that touches you now

[Brian Armstrong @brian_armstrong]

Excited to advance the adoption of stablecoins! Let’s update the financial system.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Wtf? Coinbase just killed its own CRCL?

[Coinbase 🛡️ @coinbase]

Open USD is coming to @Base and other leading chains this year.

We're joining 140+ industry leaders to support @openstandard, as we work to bring regulated, high-quality products to our customers, and build stablecoin infrastructure at scale.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

@dvdeijk @BartGonnissen @masterprogram1 AI

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

En zo geschiedde! De man gooide er vanaf dag 1 met de pet naar.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Ahahahahaha Koeman: "kan leven met gelijk spel"

Deze man wil gewoon zsm naar huis. Wtf 😆😆😆😆 https://t.co/S6GWCCCdaY

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Nooit vergeten dat Koeman het Nederlands elftal al eerder in de steek liet voor Barcelona. NL is altijd al tweede keuze bij hem geweest.

[De Telegraaf @telegraaf]

Valentijn Driessen: ‘Ronald Koeman moet nu opstappen als bondscoach van Oranje’ https://t.co/SVWGugTdCL

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

Koeman en zn billenmaatje DePay naar huis. Niemand zag het aankomen.

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

@Dymff Had ik je ook wel kunnen vertellen!

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

@Dymff Nee al mn paniek dus JUIST om heel veel! En terecht!

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

@Smokeyiiiiiiii 🤣 je hebt gelijk!

[uid.eth | Rickey Gevers ⛵️ @UID_]

I sailed the whole caribbean now. But what the Americans did with their oceanlife revival around florida is insane. Only in the med I've seen this many dolphins.