BTC just outperformed ETH on the day the ETH2 launch was announced. Without news of its own or heightened volume. I'm still very new to trading, but that feels like the market sending a message about the immediate future.
And my interpretation of these events is that even very bullish in-cryto events can currently not hold water to the passive macro backdrop BTC finds itself in.
This is btw one of my favorite tools so far. Interpreting how the market reacts to good and bad information and especially the absence of new information. Markets that feast on hope are crushed by the absence of new info - you can see that everywhere in Defi right now.
I‘m not saying any of that because it‘s fashionable. My views on ETH haven‘t changed for months now (and neither have my long-long-term views btw). When people asked me what I think about ETH2 I said „it‘s a non-event. ETH1 is all I care about for at least the next 2-3 years“
I also think people predicting beacon chain staking to impact supply dynamics are jumping the gun. There‘s two ways this can play out: 1) BETH/ETH trades close to par -> more and more ETH is converted, but BETH is as a close substitute on exchanges. (cont)
(Cont) When that happens, the additional inflation from staking rewards will be felt by ETH holders.
2) if BETH/ETH does *not* trade at par (which I find more likely) then I don‘t expect many people to rush in and stake to begin with
— that‘s my prediction, and I could be wrong
I think a huge milestone (bigger than ETH2) will be the launch of EIP-1559, and I continue to be closely involved with that. Hope that answers the question if I „hate“ Ethereum. If you want to support Ethereum, support EIP-1559.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Drake and Vitalik both seem to think that disabling transfers in phase 0 can prevent the formation of a secondary BETH asset (beacon chain ETH). I disagree and predict that it will achieve the opposite.
Disabling transfers incentivizes the securization of BETH via staking through centralized exchanges. Those exchanges will allow users to trade in and out of BETH, which will be a significant value-add over non-custodial staking.
As a result, it not only can't prevent the formation of ETH/BETH, but also incentivizes TWO dangerous precedents: 1) centralized/custodial staking 2) securitization of stake (terribly for security, introduces principal-agent problems)
That's prob the best analysis of Bitcoin's social layer I've read. It's fascinating to see Ethereans discover and explain why Bitcoin "is doing it right" and why the winner in this space will maybe be 10% decided by technology, and 90% decided by narrative and coordination.
My thesis in 2018 was that competing L1s that previously criticized Bitcoin's social values and methods will ultimately come around to praising and adopting them. The alternatives are simply not scalable.
Not saying @TrustlessState only discovers these things now, he's been lucid on Bitcoin for a long time. My tweets are more the culmination of a larger trend I've been observing for two years
LEO:
Trader pays $10 in fees
Bitfinex sells $10 to buy $10 LEO
Bitfinex burns the $10 LEO
Result: Bitfinex +/- 0, trader -$10, LEO holders +$10
BNB:
Trader pays $10 BNB in fees
Binance burns the $10 BNB
Result: Binance +/- 0, trader -$10, BNB holders +$10
QED
Some people are correctly pointing out that not every trading fee is paid in BNB, and so it has to burn more than it receives from traders. These BNB are taken from their treasury.
The overall point still holds, because BNB has no obligation whatsoever to even hold BNB.
The other day I checked what my most-listened-to crypto podcasts are and was surprised to see @laurashin's Unchained/Unconfirmed on top of the list. As I tried to put the finger on why I like this show better than others, I came up with two reasons.
First, she asks uncomfortable questions. It's hard to do this delicately, and sometimes you get a crazy show like EP78 with Dominic Williams of Dfinity who practically collapsed from her (modest!) pushback. But overall, modest pushback makes shows much better.
That a host should see eye-to-eye with the guest seems obvious, so why don't other crypto podcasts do this as much? I think the answer lies in the relatively high supply of podcasts, and relatively low supply of interesting guests.
The Libra's fiat reserves are themselves a lever over nation-states. At any time, the Libra Association can threaten to dump one fiat on the market for another, and that is assuming they even want to sustain a reserve ratio.
There seems to be some confusion how exactly this gives Libra leverage.
Imagine that most people use Libra (backed by fiat) but not fiat directly. In this world, the Libra Association controls much of the demand for fiat via the composition of their reserves.
The Association can, at any time, change the composition of their reserve by replacing one fiat with another, while maintaining full reserve at all times. If you control the demand for an asset, you gain the power to set a ceiling on it's price.
A common question that precoiners have is, "How do you know it's not too late to buy bitcoin now?"
They still assume Bitcoin follows the value/adoption curve of a pyramid scheme - a system that needs to sustain itself with new buyers and collapses if those ever run out.
The question seems reasonable: Once Bitcoin is widely adopted, the future value from speculation will indeed be zero. But that ignores half the picture - where has that speculative value gone? And does it mean that earlier buyer now have an incentive to sell?
The EV of a pyramid scheme decreases the later we are in the adoption cycle. But the EV of a network good like money increases, as it becomes more useful the more people own it.