What is your response to it’s rising as a power law long term as ~ β/t >> 10% p.a. and more rational to hold instead and spend fiat. As long as net holdings << M2, stock market etc. and β/t large.
People speculating (“investing”) in it are evaluating against stocks (for now AI especially) or gold, stores of value.
As t increases the MoE case will grow in importance relative to SoV we are just not there yet in terms of mass consumer financial pressure. And yet innovation continues.
Forex and foreign trade finance seem the clearest P2P use cases for now. Savings in high inflation countries for those without access to stock markets etc. There are thousands of ways to spend money, almost no straightforward way to save.
Changing a monetary regime takes decades. The technology and design is superior so there is inevitability about it. At least Saylor is a consistent net buyer when he is able, whereas ETFs have manifested trader mentality. The narrative will continue to evolve.
What Warsh Might do at the 1st Fed Mtg (CLIP)- Luke Gromen and Dave Collum
My conversation with @LukeGromen and @DavidBCollum is now up on substack. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to watch the full conversation now. LINK IN THE COMMENTS:
WATCH: Sen. Cynthia Lummis just torched JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon: "Here's where Jamie Dimon is absolutely wrong" about the Clarity Act.
"He either hasn't read the bill or he wants to mislead people, and let's put the best construction on this, he hasn't read the bill.
AML, anti-money laundering provisions that apply to banks, and the Bank Secrecy Act provisions that apply to banks also apply to digital assets. It's in the bill."
Fun fact of the day:
If you don't think inflation has been the biggest problem in the world over the last century, you have been miseducated by people who get paid by inflation.
Mohnish Pabrai on How Richard Branson Started an Airline With Zero Money
@MohnishPabrai on the power of replacing capital with creativity:
The minimum you need to start transatlantic service is a Boeing 747. That's a couple hundred million dollars. Yet Richard Branson got Virgin Atlantic off the ground with no money.
Here's how he did it, according to Mohnish:
Branson called directory assistance in Seattle, got the number for Boeing's main switchboard, and asked to lease a 747 they might have "hanging around" that they weren't using.
They hung up on him. He kept calling.
Eventually, the receptionist said: "Let me transfer you to someone who can get rid of you properly."
She transferred him to the head of commercial sales, who told him: "Listen, Mr. Branson, in every country, we have one customer and you are not the customer in the UK. It's British Airways and so therefore there's nothing to talk about."
Branson didn't argue. He simply said:
"Listen, I agree with you. That's fine, but just humor me for a second. Do you have an old Boeing 747 lying around that you're not using?"
The Boeing executive admitted they did. So Branson asked what they'd lease it for if British Airways called asking for one. The answer: about $200,000–$300,000 a month.
Branson convinced Boeing to lease him that idle 747 sitting and doing nothing.
Then came the second piece of creative financing. Mohnish explains:
"When he set up Virgin Atlantic, he said, 'You get paid for all the future flights in advance because people buy tickets.' So the plane's going to fly in April. People already bought tickets in February."
Cash was coming in two to three months before the plane flew. Fuel got paid for 30 days after the plane landed. And the lease payment was in arrears.
The result? Negative working capital. Branson got Virgin Atlantic off the ground with zero equity.
Mohnish's takeaway:
"If you can start an airline with no money, you can start any business with no money. You just have to replace capital with creative thinking."
The next time you tell yourself a business idea requires capital you don't have, ask Branson's question instead: what's sitting idle that someone would rather have generating something than nothing?
Back in late 2020, I spoke with Michael Saylor and asked him why Bitcoin destroys every other store of value.
His answer will change how you think about money forever:
There is $250 trillion in global assets and every single one of them has the same fundamental problem when you look closely enough.
Your real estate is immobile, illiquid, and taxed annually without exception and half of all commercial real estate is structurally impaired from COVID with at least a decade of uncertainty still ahead.
Your bonds only work when interest rates keep falling and that game has a mathematical floor because the moment rates go negative everyone pulls their money out simultaneously and the entire mechanism that made bonds attractive for four decades inverts overnight.
Your equities get taxed at every single layer of existence:
> revenue gets taxed as sales tax
> cash flows get taxed as income tax
> expenses get taxed as payroll tax
> trade gets taxed as tariffs
(plus regulatory risk sits on top of all of it)
And when the price rises by a factor of ten it does not become safer, it becomes more dangerous because it is delaminating from its fundamentals and any disappointment from that point causes catastrophic volatility.
Here is what most people never understand about money:
Every traditional store of value you own is a vertebrate and if you are a vertebrate you can be killed with a needle because there is a headquarters, a jurisdiction, a regulator, a court that can reach in and end it.
Bitcoin is a swarm of hornets with no headquarters to raid, no jurisdiction to exploit, no CEO to arrest, and no regulatory throat to cut because there is no throat.
Your money should be a single celled organism, the base layer of the ecosystem, not a vertebrate with a backbone that can be decapitated the moment it becomes inconvenient to the wrong government.
Bitcoin is the only asset that structurally solves the problem every other asset you own creates: