1 as well is not surprise. In Every SBR discussion it never was the FED designed to hodl the coins. It either was the Treasury or a newly designed Entity (presumedly non the crypto Kratz, btw).

A lots of details, but no need to change any current scheme or law.

People have all kinds of foolish expectations, but the market is more complicated than it looks like. When all the stocks are on fire, it's reasonable for bitcoin to lose some percentage as well, because it's plausible that some people liquidate their holdings at that time.

---

Powell stated that they "are not allowed" to own any bitcoin. To me, this marks a significant shift in perspective. We've moved from the critique that bitcoin is "backed by nothing other than thin air" to the acknowledgment that "this is not the appropriate department to hold it". It's bullish, but I remain skeptical until I see it put into practice, and so should everyone in this thread. You're relying on politicians to do their job right. Hasn't worked well as far as history is concerned.

Bitcoin is a peace instrumentm: in a FIAT world, if you want to go to war, just print a hoard of currency, and buy weapons.
In an hard currency world (Bitcoin) you cannot do that, hence you are forced to choose your battles very wisely, as you have to sign a loan to buy more weapons, and the war must be won, to repay it.
Fiat are backed by armies.
Peace is backed by Bitcoin.

This isn't something I worry about. It's not as if we can do anything about it, and "the Bitcoin market" is as free as it gets.

One question: How? Miners can't access lost coins without finding the private key or changing the protocol, and none of that is going to happen.

It's interesting to notice that El Salvador sped up their Bitcoin buying after the IMF granted them a few extra funds:




On Dec 20 and Dec 22, they bought 11 BTC in addition to the usual 1 BTC daily.

I don't know if they will keep buying these additional 11 BTC, but surely it is trolling at its best.

I like this part:
Anyone else is wary about central banks. I realized this years ago: if governments and central banks are against something, it's most likely something I'm going to like

I bet they're already figuring out a way to replace it with some sort of paper money, like they did with gold. Or maybe a bit more modern, in the form of CBDC backed by Bitcoin. Until they decide to inflate it away.
I'm not handing over my coins.

I don't write much outside the Italian forum, but I follow and read
for example the question of the Lummis law would shatter all my predictions and those of others
let's say it would be a good step, or rather a leap forward

it would also be the most logical choice, if politicians had logic

This is a great thread with lots of ideas.. ty fillippone

Dumping the coins to force a sell off then buying back more at the new lows to realize a profit on foreseen BTC accumulation would resemble the OJ futures scene from Trading Places.  Chaos but funny I guess and price is not the greatest thing to worry about, its only a label for approximated value on that day.


A remember a motion to take the Swiss back to the gold standard, they were the last to leave it.  The country or at least its withheld assets would have been much richer had they done so at that time.  Generally central banks on purpose are constantly devaluing common currency that the workers are paid in, making people poorer and labor cheaper is not accidental and it benefits the richest of those countries.

To say I dont believe a leopard will change its spots is a slight understatement on this or any similar idea.

I guess that agencies ARE the Trump administration, and if they are ordered to hand over the seized funds to a "Bitcoin Strategic Reserve agency", they have little to do against it.
I am unfamiliar with that part of the legislation, but the agencies don't "own" the bitcoins. Otherwise, they wouldn't need a judge to authorise them to sell the funds trough the US Marshalls.