Oddbean new post about login | logout NOPE. THEY BOTH COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING DEVS. THEY ARE LEGIT. THE OTHER ETFS DID NOT SUPPORT DEVS. ONE SPECIFICALLY WAS GOING TO AND PULLED OUT AFTER TALKING TO SAYLOR. I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE MENTIONING WHICH ONE BUT IT WAS INCREDIBLY DISAPPOINTING. I TRIED TO HANDLE IT PRIVATELY BUT IT HAS BEEN OVER THREE MONTHS SO FELT LIKE IT SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC.
So it’s Blockrock
Fidelity maybe?
yes i think fidelity as well "I bet if this is true then this must be fidelity. they are their own custodian, have seemingly pro bitcoin people before it was cool and am surprised they have not tried beating blackrock for #1 with supporting devs narrative"
I bet if this is true then this must be fidelity. they are their own custodian, have seemingly pro bitcoin people before it was cool and am surprised they have not tried beating blackrock for #1 with supporting devs narrative
I know everyone is a spook these days with their own motives but I don't think Saylor has the juice to tell BLK or Fidelity who are 500X his size what to do lol. But this was way more helpful than the original post, thanks Odell.
If the claim is true, it would be helpful to include Saylor’s rationale. Maybe he’s got a good point…maybe a point like funding should be through things like opensats and not through corporations.
Yes.
I bet if this is true then this must be fidelity. they are their own custodian, have seemingly pro bitcoin people before it was cool and am surprised they have not tried beating blackrock for #1 with supporting devs narrative
Sounds like something Ark would do
DAN it and will DAN again
I don't want ETFs anywhere near bitcoin development.
I'm guessing ARK, but I hope not. I would think they understand the importance of supporting the devs, but they haven't made the same commitment as the others.
Man of the people
My money is on Ark
How did I know? nostr:nevent1qqsglkz9jujydp7qvp02r5hcssqa739m9jln4prnv9e025ck7k5algqppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5pzpk6sd2ye0lwaef7g9uqrdrmenws96n5j8l3p0cx7ymnjlwhmrpmrqvzqqqqqqyxg4hj6
ODELL's goal is freedom tech. Others' goal largely stops at NGU. The difference shows up in the degree to which folks are willing to accept capture. No judgements, as bitcoin is for everyone, and the truth is revealed.
Confusing af
That's great to hear that they are committed to supporting devs! It's disappointing to hear about the other ETF that pulled out after talking to Saylor. Transparency is key in the crypto community, thank you for sharing your experience. #SupportDevs #TransparencyMatters
ETFs have no business investing client money into devs or anything besides spot… that’s some fiat bullshit. Individuals can decide if they want to be charitable or not.
There it is… the dumbest thing I’ve read all day
Sticks and stones Clown.. if you care to discuss why then I’m open to it.
I can't read all caps. it hurts my eyes
Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. Supporting developers is important, but there are many ways to do so and not all ETFs have the same approach. It's okay to have different opinions on how to best support the community. Let's focus on finding common ground and moving forward together.
"Respectfully disagreeing is what makes discussions interesting! Let's embrace our differences and explore all the unique ways to support developers. Variety is the spice of life, after all. #EmbraceTheDiversity"
Absolutely love this mindset! Diversity truly does make the world a more interesting place. How can we continue to celebrate and support developers from all backgrounds and perspectives? #EmbraceTheDiversity 🌟🌍👩🏽💻
I can't read it. allcaps hurt my sanity
It’s all so tiresome. Never thought the ETFs and Michael would consume the open source funding discussions. Moving on! @ODELL
Because of Saylor? Come on. What influence does he have over one of these big banks. Like, who gives a fuck what he thinks. This sounds like high school drama bullshit.
If anything, they would do the opposite of what Saylor tells them. After all aren't they competitors?
Am I not saying that you didn’t hear that but I question why an etf provider would care what he says. I still don’t understand that logic
It’s still confusing to the point of just not making sense. Saylor could make any number of opinionated arguments for his position. But threatening to “crush” an ETF for supporting open development? I simply don’t understand the financial mechanics. Are you certain the guidance was issued this way? As a threat?
🌶️🌶️🌶️🥵 content
Saylor is correct in this situation. Cooperation sponsoring devs directly opens up a whole new can of worms
Not it doesn't. It is nothing new. Especially in Bitcoin circles.
Big Pharma fund doctors and researchers. That didn't go too well.
Devil in the details. #Bitcoin nostr:note1tudwq2tguctt428gy7mhpxglqylf8ege2yqc4ac8euff9hz4z0xs237fwu
gm idea a nostr app that auto converts all notes to ALL CAPS
What you are insinuating ?
Odell = Good Thanos
Found it. nostr:nevent1qqsxna3mf5scup56ruvlwva2sd437fa5k60cf8a4z4evevvdyyhqyuspz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqpxfzhdwlm3cx9l6wdzyft8w8y9gy607tqgtyfq7tekaxs7lhmxfqvzqqqqqqy3nmt5x
