Published 1 Sept 2026, 14:03 UTC · fetched 3 Nov 2026, 13:36 UTC
Matt Hougan
@Matt_Hougan
In reply to · 1 Sept 2026, 13:10 UTC · context given to the AI
I honestly feel like you’re invoking some sci-fi fantasy. Some arbitrary software has arbitrary rules, which is entirely abstracted from the physical universe, and which has exactly zero regulatory standing, and which properties make granting regulatory status extremely unattractive to the authorities that matter, is somehow something real that I should pay attention to. I just can’t make that compute. I am completely aligned with the view that we will modernize our financial system, that tokenization is a genuine innovation we should adopt broadly, and that we need infrastructure to deploy crypto as a way to move regulated money around. None of this grants BTC a single satoshi of value. Some of it may grant ETH value, but also there’s no guarantee ETH chain will be blessed by global authorities, and there may be either a state sponsored or superior tech that will come along and displace it.Adam -- Think of bitcoin as a service. The service it provides is the ability to store wealth in a digital format without a government or a bank. We are all used to services having value. For instance: Microsoft offers a service; the ability to edit Word and Excel documents, access cloud compute, etc. The more people who want that service, the more valuable Microsoft is; the fewer people who want it, the less value Microsoft is; if no one wanted it, the value would be zero. The same is true of bitcoin. The difference is, Microsoft is a company. To access its service, you can pay a fee to Redmond. Those fees are aggregated and paid out in dividends. Bitcoin is not a company. The only way to access its service is to buy the asset. If you buy the asset, you get the service. Your (eminently reasonable) criticism is that you don't like the service bitcoin provides. But millions of people do. I think if you frame it as a "service" you can get close to the debate of its future value. Will more or fewer people want a digital way to store wealth that doesn't rely on a government or a bank in the future. I suspect the answer is more, but we will see!View original on X ↗
Deterministic: the same prices and policy always give the same result
unscored Awaiting manual review
Only the end-of-horizon price counts. A brief move followed by a reversal is not a success. Read the methodology
Uses only text available at publication time
Think the interpretation or outcome is wrong? Sign in with X to request a correction, so reviewers know who is asking.
Sign in to request a correction