The Fed’s critics have always had a point: “independence” is not a hall pass for “incompetence.”
It’s time: competence or bust. If the Fed can’t self-correct, the public eventually will.
It starts with first, understanding what the Fed's mission is.
Many people incorrectly think the Fed mandate is to promote 1) maximum employment, and 2) stable inflation. This is wrong.
The Fed has a different mandate, and it's measured via THREE affected outcomes, not two.
Here is the official definition of the Fed's monetary policy objectives as per the Federal Reserve Act.
Notice that the goal is to "Maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates ... to increase production" and the goals include MODERATE LONG TERM INTEREST RATES
So why does the Fed call it a 'dual mandate' rather than the three policy objectives as stated above?
Because the third mandate, by definition is highly political. It's easier to impress affecting #3 by #1, #2.
This is the big lie and why Fed credibility is nearing zero.
But this is precisely where Bitcoin comes in.
Money won’t be truly fixed until we restore a price-specie anchor where “inside money” once again rests on “outside money” that is credibly neutral.
TLDR: institutional trust will only be rebuilt when money itself is apolitical.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Blockworks "Treasury Companies" Market Data is a developing trove of metrics that are dynamically updated for its relevance by having well-defined inputs.
Early days but excited to see what features they will add! 👇
2/ Trading Volume by Asset
When you reframe the data as market share, it becomes abundantly clear that Ethereum is making a big dent. I tis over 50% on a daily basis on certain days over the past few weeks in July!
3/ Aggregate Market Cap
But make no mistake, that we are all still living in Bitcoin's world. $118Bn vs $8Bn is a huge spread, especially in the context for credit and how much more ETH NAVs needs to grow to access this lucrative market.
1/ A thread for those serious about understanding real BTC exposure🧵
🚨 Why “BTC per Share” is a nuanced metric
⚠️ How “Bitcoin Yield” could be misunderstood
🔥 And how to evaluate BTC-exposed stocks like $MSTR and $SMLR using a new metric→ Volatility Per BTC Share (“VPBS”)
2/ First, let’s define “Bitcoin Per Share” or BPS. This refers to the amount of BTC backing each share of a Bitcoin related investment product. For Bitcoin ETFs, the calculation is very simple: Total Bitcoin Held/Total Shares outstanding.
3/ Publicly traded companies like MSTR also hold BTC, and BPS is a commonly used metric to measure BTC exposure per common share. It is an “implied Bitcoin ownership” per each share of MSTR.
I have long shared privately with my Stanford friends that I have this idea in my head that if I do my job correctly as a parent, my kids may have the elite option to not go to college. I got a lot of pushbacks on this, but I have a feeling overtime this won’t sound so crazy.
First, there is this simple reality that most colleges are failing:
One of the most brutal moments of the Bretton Woods negotiations came when Keynes, exasperated by White’s steamrolling tactics, snapped:
“We are not here as beggars.”
But that was exactly the problem—Britain was a beggar, drowning in war debt and completely at the mercy of U.S.
In the end, Keynes had to swallow his pride and accept the deal on American terms: a dollar-backed system that entrenched U.S. financial dominance for the next half-century. The so-called negotiation was never such—it was a lesson in power, and Keynes walked away knowing he lost.
The stablecoin moment will become one of those rare, pivotal points in history, like the creation of the Federal Reserve, Bretton Woods, Nixon Shock—where the rules of money itself are being rewritten.
We will soon find out who our Harry Dexter White is. Keep your eyes open.
By the slimmest margin, half the people see it as a "cloud," while the other half see it as a "clock."
Incredible results, which means it's time for a thread. 🧵
Karl Popper, an influential philosopher of science, uses the metaphor of clouds and clocks to explain the difference between natural sciences (like physics) and the social sciences (like economics).
Clocks represent deterministic systems where events can be precisely predicted.
Clouds, on the other hand, represent complex, probabilistic systems that are inherently difficult to redict and shaped by many moving variables.
Popper argues that while natural sciences often work like clocks, social sciences are more akin to clouds.