That’s irrelevant. Money is different than companies that make things. Had* a CAGR of ~45%. The list of companies that have outperformed Bitcoin for many years now is not short. Some people want to own these companies. The idea that no company produces value in bitcoin terms is moronic. “I know you like this company and would like to own a piece of it, but have you thought about not doing that and just holding money?” Like what are we doing here

Bitcoin is permissionless and has a CAGR of like 45%. The SNP has returned like 6.4% for 25 years and requires permission.

And you think the only problem we had was bad money? People outside the US would like to have access to American capital markets. Tokenizing equities can solve that problem. That’s just one example.

Bitcoin solves the double spending problem. What problems do these 💩coins solve?

Not everything needs to be as decentralized as Bitcoin, obviously. But even if you wanted the changes of the ledger to be made through PoW then the incentive to mine would be fees of course. There are other benefits to tokenization that don’t require PoW. Again money and concert tickets don’t need to have the same guarantees. It’s like holding screws to the same quality standards as a heart valve. The idea that we shouldn’t improve the status quo because a perfect solution may not he possible is insane.

I meant incentive to act as a miner, obviously, as otherwise there would not be decantralization and it would be just better to run a database. Whose shares/house/tickets/gold/whatever would the miner get as mining reward? AFAIK, there's no solution to the oracle problem without a trusted third party. I'm happy to change my mind with evidence to the contrary.

Wut? You literally explained the incentive in the first point. Bitcoin only solves the money problem. We have other problems besides being able to save and transact, obviously. The reflexive hate for using these technologies to improve user experience in a variety of circumstances outside of money is retarded.

I see at least too reasons why this isn't such a great idea. 1. As the real world assets don't reside on the chain, you need to trust someone who says the assets are there and there are only as much of them as claimed. 2. There's no incentive to run a decentralized blockchain for this just like for all use cases besides money. Just do it more efficiently and use a database, only bring the UX to 21st century.

Fake news from Giacomo, anyone that paid any attention knows he wasn’t saying “there’s no second best” because he thought the government would crack down on other cryptocurrencies. There’s nothing inherently wrong or immoral ablutions tokenizing things like shares, tickets, etc. Most bitcoiners just have PTSD from the bad application of technology, so they have a knee jerk reaction at everything looking to solve a problem that Bitcoin can’t for obvious reasons

I think nostr:nprofile1qyvhwumn8ghj7ctyw4k8gt338pcxcatn9eek7cmfv9kqz9nhwden5te0v96xcctn9ehx7um5wghxcctwvsqzpmc4r3arsr6q5awh69yn4s68kemh48vmt7s250xak3lu0ratdx5tz27l4q has the best take

Andreas needed cash. Fine. What's Saylor's excuse? 🤦‍♂️

This whole talk today was a complete trainwreck, but I'm posting a few minutes of it to show how bad it was. https://blossom.primal.net/22fd2437515449aa3e7e68f3bb0021ae583450b28da0db93bf6a5cc8e3bc7b7d.mov