[olddog2]

The problem is that if btc is a once in a 200 year “creation of a global reserve currency” event, those with bitcoin exposure (even 1% of portfolio or whatever) will be minted and those without will be fighting over the scraps.

You can buy insurance to ensure you’re not left behind this very cheaply, for just 1% of your portfolio. Yes, it is coordination dilemma with ponzi characteristics. Yes, sticking to your principles may feel like the intellectually correct thing to do. But its a big coordination dilemma which so far is only going in one direction, and the risk that anyone not getting involved ends up having fun staying poor increases as btc ascends.

[soared]

I don’t really see how/why/etc Bitcoin would achieve that use case. If governments and financial institutions aren’t bag holders then they are extremely financially motivated to stop that from occurring, and afaik those groups aren’t holding huge Bitcoin reserves (maybe fidelity is, or at least was).

[dutchbookmaker]

Meanwhile, Huawei Harmony just embedded the digital yuan at the system level.

All the ETFs mean is that it will be so much easier to get out of the position and cause even bigger cascades of selling than before when the next shock happens.

You can't have a reserve currency with an asset that has so much volatility it can't even function as a currency.

[dnamlin]

This seems like a comment from 10 years ago. In 2025, Larry Fink just announced he's a "big believer" at Davos, and the President of the United States ordered his team to evaluate creating a huge reserve.

[rsynnott]

> those with bitcoin exposure (even 1% of portfolio or whatever) will be minted and those without will be fighting over the scraps.

Why? There’s no way to derive value from that use.

There actually would be if it were, say, Ethereum (which is proof of stake, with fees accruing to holders). However, let’s say Ethereum were to become a global reserve currency. This would be essentially a tax on all financial activity, and governments and companies would be _strongly_ incentivised to create an alternative which they controlled and which did not have that tax. Something a _bit_ like this, incidentally, has already happened. Prior to the creation of SWIFT, international bank transfers generally went through what is now Citibank. Governments, and banks other than Citibank, generally saw this as unsatisfactory (even though AIUI Citibank was doing it extremely cheaply and not deriving all that much value from it; the mere threat that they _might_ was enough) and thus SWIFT was born.

[olddog2]

Also, the “blockchain not bitcoin” talking point in 2025 is cringe.