This isn't really about the validity or utility of BitCoin.

It's about the financial wisdom of:

    1. Buy some BitCoin.
    2. Valuate that BitCoin as an asset at well over 100% in value,
       because the market lets you.
    3. Issue stock against your supposed new valuation.
    4. GOTO 1

It doesn't matter if BitCoin is the future, this is still going to end in tears.

It wouldn't matter what the asset is or how valuable or useful it is... if the market is bonkers enough to value something $YOU buy at 200% of what you paid, simply because $YOU bought it (it's not like the actually become any more valuable when purchased by this company, it's not like an acquisition where there could be synergy of some kind), and then you repeatedly turn that overvaluation into leverage to buy more, the scheme will eventually collapse when the market returns to even a sane 100% valuation.

The only thing relevant about BitCoin is that it's on the short list of assets that a good chunk of buyers is willing to valuate at well over 100% just because someone bought it. A number of people are getting in on this game now too and that's going to further dilute this play.

Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast just interviewed Jim Chanos about this topic.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2025-06-30/odd-lots-jim...

If you like a digestible discussion of markets and economics, I highly recommend this episode and all their podcasts.

> The crypto world is buzzing.

When isn't it?

> they’ll say this is just the beginning of a financial revolution.

Any decade now.

> between two of the biggest names in finance.

Oh, well, now I definitely don't care.

I disagree this over the future of money. Bitcoin is a speculative asset and maybe Saylor will continue doing well or maybe not but that's about the future of bitcoin, not money. Saylor's thing is more like borrowing to buy real estate. Maybe you'll get rich, maybe you won't but money will go on as usual.

Crashed my browser. Got some malware on that page I think.

I would have considered this article as overly grandiose a year ago. Part of me wonders if there is some possibility that this is becoming a more prevalent thinking. Even if bitcoin crashes to $0.01 USD, it still has some usefulness as a way to transfer value (Western Union's market cap: $2.77 billion). If the mighty dollar eventually falls out of favor, is the volatility enough to drive people away? Can it become a collective delusion to rival gold? For the near and medium term, I think giz user 'curry for breakfast' had a relevant comment:

"Money? No, not money, just dollars, and specifically dollars because that's all that are at stake here.

The bitcoin bubble could burst tomorrow and the rest of the world, and their currencies, which are backed by their nation's economies, will trundle on as happily as they've always done.

The only real losers would be the unlucky crypto gamblers. Wrong bet, wrong time. "

A yes, because I trust the financial acumen of a Gizmodo byline and neither Saylor nor Chanos have credible reputations with expertise in finance. Nice click-bait.

Call me when I can buy a backhoe in bitcoin.

Another article where discussion is engineered. If the article is in any way provoking you to question it in any way and to go down those rabbit holes with preconceived talking points, it’s by design. It’s getting tiresome reading articles where comment sections write themselves.

Avoid.

I've been waiting for bitcoin to collapse since it started, and books like Number Go Up make an excellent case for why the whole thing is built on a house of cards. And yet, empires are bought and sold off of questionable financial vehicles all the time. Most of it is a ponzi scheme or some other mean grift.

The question mostly becomes, how much do you trust the creator of Inspector Gadget and a bit child actor with the guaranteeability of every Tether? The first full-scale run on it that shows an exchange can't be fulfilled in a timely fashion brings the whole enterprise to its knees, right?

The problem has now become that enough people think these instruments are legitimate that, like most questionable financial vehicles, when they collapse, some government entity will be required to bail the bad guys out and shift the cost onto anyone who was unlucky enough to be within the blast radius of the whole thing. Which is pretty much all of us at this point, either directly or indirectly.

After all these years, people still aren’t accepting the basics of this argument.

Using nation-backed currencies, inflation can speed up rapidly — and often does. Money becomes cheaper, and it can lead to economic growth if done well, or economic destruction if done poorly.

In a Bitcoin-dominated world, the supply rate slows down as programmed, so it ends up being deflationary and winners take all.

So the only factor that decides if Bitcoin is a bubble is whether we take policy action to ban it as an investment product and method of exchange, or we let it replace money on a macro level.

To the Americans here: given recent inflation and increasing deficits, the time to decide is NOW. In my view, if you care about 1) national sovereignty or 2) income inequality, the answer is clear that we must take a much stronger step towards censoring Bitcoin on a banking and financial sector level.