The ECB called the Bitcoin Bottom – Trustnodes

[ad_1]

On November 30, amid FUD’s spike as bitcoin unraveled fractional reserve attempts, the European Central Bank (ECB) was jubilant.

Bitcoin is on the “last gasp before the road to irrelevance,” said Ulrich Bindseil and Jrgen Schaaf on behalf of the ECB.

They then proceed to the usual arguments that bitcoin is not a suitable investment because it has no yield, such as dividends.

Ignoring the fact that no one is buying stocks for the dividend, bitcoin has a return but in a decentralized way because bitcoin itself is the commodity and if you want to use that commodity it increases the demand – and therefore the returns .

The rest of this statement falls under the same superficial analysis. On the one hand, they say that regulations should be enforced, but on the other hand, they should not be “taken as an endorsement”.

It’s still a less confusing argument than the one presented more recently, now that bitcoin has recovered to double from the ECB’s $15,000 bottom, by Jon Danielsson, a teaching economist at the London School of Economics.

Writing for LSE’s Business Review, he first says bitcoin will collapse “under its own internal contradictions”.

Sneaking into the elite towers of thought of communist jargon that so loves to argue that others are full of internal contradictions, but not the perfect Chinese Communist Party, will hopefully not go unnoticed.

But that aside, Danielsson says, “the very fact that the government is acting in such a brutal way might just be what protects crypto.”

He argues that the crypto should be left alone instead, because that way it will somehow disappear, but if the regulatory attack continues, the crypto will be strengthened, explode, not disappear, and it will be the fault of the government for all this.

Interesting companion. A bit different from “Bitcoins last stand” as the ECB said in November, as it clearly turned out that it wasn’t.

The concern now is whether the fight against crypto could turn against you. Our answer is obviously, but it’s interesting to see in the open statements why it’s not just going to go away.

The answer is what it’s always been when certain members of the establishment don’t like something: it’s good for the people, and they like it, and there are a lot more of them.

So keep collapsing under your own internal contradictions of communist thinking where one man or one institution decides our money because crypto isn’t going anywhere.

Except to the Moon, of course, as our plans to go to Mars have been delayed with the Starship rocket’s T-0.40 second test indicating it might take a bit longer.

However, no time can help those who are against the competition. Whether it’s the US government, or the Chinese government, the ECB or that guy from Danielsson.

Nature abhors monopoly, including money, and the fact that the competition for such a monopoly comes from well-educated, polite, math-heavy coders is and should be seen as a gift of that nature.

Because while ECB President Christine Lagarde speaks of “policy frameworks for a fragmented world”, some code these frameworks.

And it is this code that will decide many things in the digital age. China has made the strategic error of underestimating it in terms of financing.

Western leaders and thinkers should start thinking about why they were wrong to underestimate it for so long, and consider that new innovation can instead help achieve many of the things we want.

More dynamic markets, more competition, more dynamism and more empowerment, to rule the border and even the borders.

And that they were wrong is at this point obvious, as the ECB’s illusion could not be any clearer than it was in November, as has now been proven.

These people also need to look in the mirror and ask themselves what they have become in order to rejoice that an innovation may fail.

Code money, whatever your opinion of bitcoin itself, is an achievement of man and science, and is definitely a step forward.

It must be exploited, should be and it will be, for it is fortunately by largely fairly competent men who are leading our societies into a new era of greater capacity and greater autonomy.

Where the code sets the rules, immutably, under fair conditions for all, and where the market controls, not the selfish or power-hungry man or men.

[ad_2]