🕵️🐳 #BTC price is down >5% from its recent high
A whale deposited 850 BTC ($56.3M) on Binance again today. The whale deposited 4,860 BTC ($327M)q in the last 7 days.
Endereço:
1PchrkVLb268U42igiB3FZfeMiMceTLjXR
📊👀 #BTC has been in a pattern of lower highs and lower lows since its all-time high in March.
If Bitcoin can stay above $65,000, this pattern would be broken and momentum could change.
https://m.primal.net/Lhmq.jpg
🇯🇵 Metaplanet adopts "BTC Yield", a metric to measure the impact of #Bitcoin on shareholder returns, created by MicroStrategy. #BTC Yield calculates the percentage change in the ratio of Bitcoin holdings to fully diluted shares.
FORCED TRANSITION: THE TRUTH BEHIND AVERY'S STORY
In 2017, 9-year-old Avery Jackson became the "poster child" for "trans kids" after appearing on the cover of National Geographic. Now, at 17, we witness how Avery and the family’s journey unfolded—from supporting a transition to embracing an irreversible path.
Before the viral National Geographic cover, Avery, at just 7 years old, was like any other child. He enjoyed climbing, playing with his brother, and dreamed of becoming a ninja. Then came his surprising statement: “Oh, and I’m transgender.” ⬇️
At 7, Avery talked about being born a boy, with boy body parts, but said he felt he was “a girl inside.” When children this young make such claims, it raises the question: how much do children understand about “gender”?
When young Avery talked about pretending to be an animal, a ninja, or a princess, he demonstrated the vivid imagination typical of childhood. But instead of seeing this as make-believe, his parents encouraged these fantasies to become his identity.
Following his debut on National Geographic in 2016, Avery and other “trans kids” appeared in the HBO documentary Transhood, where they were followed for five years. The scenes shocked many viewers.
In one poignant scene from Transhood, Avery expresses that he no longer wants a public life as a trans activist and that the exposure “ruined” his life. His mother, Debi, a trans activist, reacts with surprise that her child has second thoughts.
This scene highlights Debi’s response as she disregards her child’s change of heart about his “mini trans activist” career. While trans activists advocate that parents should listen to and affirm their children, Avery’s mother seemed to do the opposite.
Avery was recognized as a girl by many, including President Biden. However, his interest in “feminine” things began to wane as he grew older. By ages 14-15, Avery was already on a regimen of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, making him permanently sterile.
The child who once said he was “a girl inside” and loved pink, butterflies, and dresses made a surprising statement at 17: after irreversible chemical castration, Avery declared that he wasn’t really a girl, but “non-binary.”
Avery was a child who liked pink and dresses and felt uncomfortable with his male body. His mother went online, where she was told her son “could be” transgender. A pediatrician then confirmed it, and Debi fully committed to transitioning her son.
Society’s opposition to letting a boy grow his hair and wear sparkles caused Avery distress. For other children, Avery’s nonconformity wasn’t an issue; it was the adults who took offense. Avery’s family isolated themselves to let him “live as an acceptable girl.”
Debi Jackson, seeing her son’s struggles, sought the opinion of an “expert” who advised raising him as a girl. Following this guidance, Debi faced social rejection, which drove her deeper into trans activist circles.
When experts told this boy’s mother to transition her son, and she faced backlash for doing so, she became even more resolute. She hadn’t hoped to create a trans activist, but genuinely believed that this saved her son’s life.
Even as Avery, a “trans kids” pioneer, began moving away from his “female identity” phase, his mother was already deeply committed to the transition. If only her son had been allowed to explore these phases in peace. 😶🌫️
original text in: https://x.com/VoxLiberdade/status/1849552187870896400?t=hwp_1AC7YIuGsEiXnrY8Dg&s=19
Bitcoin is the most effective protection against currency devaluation. Therefore, it is natural to expect the renewed expansion of the US money supply to be a good thing. But be aware: what we are seeing now is not even close to the 2020/2021 era. The M2 growth rate is just returning to its pre-COVID average. That said, if you are looking for an asset to preserve your wealth while fiat currencies are devalued to deal with unprecedented levels of government debt around the world, look no further than Bitcoin. He proved his worth.
GLOBAL PUBLIC DEBT SCARES IMF The IMF presented its less than encouraging global growth forecast. And this happened a week after the same IMF signaled its growing concern about global public debt, which is expected to reach US$100 trillion, or 93% of the world's gross domestic product by the end of this year. The increase is driven by the US and China, of course (see charts).
"I’m sitting here, it’s 2024, this is Charles-Henry Monchau, CIO for a Swiss bank.
He’s explaining #Bitcoin to clients, and why it may be the next global reserve currency.
BTC is now at a tipping point to mainstream."
🚨 Microsoft will vote on “Bitcoin Investment Assessment” during its December 10 shareholder meeting.
In its SEC filing notes, it suggests that “The Council recommends voting against this proposal.”
⚡️ TESLA: Company holds 11,509 $BTC valued at $774 million for fifth consecutive quarter
According to Arkham, Tesla has held onto its Bitcoin holdings, now totaling 11,509 BTC worth $774 million.
Bitcoin whales now hold a record 670,000 BTC, a strong long-term bullish sign. Historically, when whale holdings peak like this, Bitcoin tends to move sideways or fall before any big rally begins. Real price increases usually only occur when these large holders begin to sell. Looking ahead, the market faces a critical test: Bitcoin needs to reach a new all-time high between the US presidential election and the end of November, or the bull cycle could be in trouble.
"Todos os que apoiaram Lula estão, ou bem empregados, ou ricos, ou enriquecendo. Todos os que apoiaram Bolsonaro estão, ou mortos, ou presos, ou fugidos, ou caindo em si da besteira que fizeram".
The Decline of Morality with the End of the Gold Standard
The abandonment of the gold standard in 1971 marked a turning point in the global financial system, with profound economic and moral implications. Previously, national currencies were backed by gold, a finite resource that limited the issuance of money. This forced governments to maintain fiscal responsibility, as printing more currency required equivalent gold reserves.
When the gold backing was abolished, fiat currencies became detached from any tangible asset, relying solely on trust in the issuing government. This shift allowed for inflationary policies, excessive debt, and monetary manipulation, as governments could now print money at will, often without considering the long-term consequences.
This change in the monetary system led to a kind of "moral decline" in economic practices. Inflation became a common tool to cover deficits, devaluing the common citizen’s money while benefiting those closest to the centers of economic power. At the same time, public debt skyrocketed, compromising the future of upcoming generations.
Additionally, the end of the gold standard weakened the notion of intrinsic value in money. While gold represented something real and limited, fiat money became seen as malleable, subject to manipulation based on political interests. This, in turn, fueled a culture of consumption and debt, where the value of money seemed to fluctuate based on government convenience.
In summary, the end of the gold standard not only destabilized global economies but also contributed to a moral degradation in the use of money, encouraging practices that sacrifice financial stability and fairness for short-term solutions.
Really, but in a country like mine (Brazil), it's best to accumulate as much Bitcoin as possible, like a bear preparing for winter. This becomes even more relevant when we consider the growing pressure from authorities to reduce or even eliminate physical currency. The government, in attempting to fully digitize the economy, seeks greater control over financial transactions and, inevitably, over its citizens. Digitalization makes traceability easier, giving the state more power over individual economic activities.
When we talk about the end of physical money, we're talking about even greater centralization of monetary power, where all transactions can be monitored and controlled. In this scenario, Bitcoin emerges as a key alternative to protect financial freedom, as it operates on a decentralized network without intermediaries.
By accumulating Bitcoin, people can prepare for this "winter" of monetary control, safeguarding their wealth in an asset that resists censorship and government interference.
I truly support the mentality that money should be organic, something that grows naturally over time with demand, free from centralized control. However, when talking about the reality in my region, like Brazil, things are different. Here, economic policies and the financial landscape are often subject to government intervention, and people have to deal with constant inflation and measures that affect the value of physical money.
While other places might have more flexibility and openness to this organic approach to money, in Brazil, the instability of the financial system pushes people to seek safer alternatives, like Bitcoin, to preserve the value of what they earn. The reality is that in an environment of growing control and economic uncertainty, accumulating a decentralized currency like Bitcoin becomes a form of financial protection against government interventions and the volatility of the local economy.
Irmão, não ligo se você se acha um fodão. O que eu disse foi: pague com prata e guarde o ouro. Eu não prego nada a ninguém, apenas expus minha opinião e compartilhei algumas notícias. Nossas realidades são diferentes, e não vou me medir pela sua régua.
Com dinheiro, eu não disse pra não receber em dinheiro, disse q o dinheiro q ja tem não deve estar na mão do estado, por isso que EU faço com que Todo MEU dinheiro se torne Bitcoin, não tenho nada em meu nome por uma filosofia simples, tire o estado do seu dinheiro.
Bitcoin as a Store of Value
#Bitcoin has increasingly been seen as a store of value, similar to gold, due to its scarcity and unique characteristics. With a fixed supply of 21 million coins, it is protected against inflation, something that government-controlled fiat currencies cannot guarantee. While these currencies can be printed in unlimited amounts, leading to devaluation over time, Bitcoin’s supply remains limited.
Moreover, #Bitcoin's decentralization makes it resistant to censorship and government control, providing a secure way to store wealth. Rather than spending it, many view BTC as an asset to hold, expecting its value to increase over time as more people seek alternatives to traditional financial systems. This makes it a hedge against the devaluation of national currencies and unstable economic policies.
For those looking for long-term financial security, holding #Bitcoin as a store of value is a strategy to preserve wealth.
Governments see Bitcoin as a threat to their control over the financial system. While fiat currencies, such as the dollar and the real, are controlled and tracked, Bitcoin is decentralized, allowing financial freedom without intermediaries. This is a political concern, which may soon limit or even prevent the purchase of Bitcoin with state currency. In the future, obtaining Bitcoin may become extremely difficult, requiring effort, sacrifices and extreme alternatives such as mining or direct negotiations. The fight for financial freedom through Bitcoin will be increasingly challenging.
Flag Theory and Tax Planning for Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Users: Legal and Strategic Tax Avoidance In the world of cryptocurrencies, protecting assets and optimizing the tax burden are priorities. Flag Theory offers a legal and efficient strategy, distributing residence, citizenship and business between different jurisdictions to make the best of each. This allows tax avoidance — the legitimate use of the law to reduce taxes — as opposed to evasion or evasion, which are illegal. Bitcoin self-custody, for example, is a key tool in this planning, providing greater security and tax optimization in some jurisdictions. To exploit these advantages ethically and legally, proper planning is essential. I remember making a video about it.
The Cash and Carry strategy is an arbitration technique used in the financial market to obtain profit through the simultaneous purchase and sale of an asset1 . Here's a summary of how it works: Spot Purchase: The investor buys an asset on the spot market. Future Sale: At the same time, the investor sells a futures contract for the same asset1 . Profit by Difference: Profit is obtained by the difference between the purchase price in the spot market and the sale price in the futures market1 . This strategy exploits the price difference between spot and futures markets, guaranteeing profitability if the asset's price in the future is higher than the current purchase price1 .
That's what I understood, the principle is very simple.
BRICS Summit Proposes Bitcoin as Solution to Sanctions Against Russia
At the BRICS summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin directly addressed the use of the dollar as a political weapon, stating: “The dollar was used as a weapon. It’s true… If they won’t let us work with it, what else should we do? We should look for other alternatives.”
#brics
#bitcoin
#freedom
A dificuldade #Bitcoin atinge um recorde histórico de 95,67T, o que coincide com uma taxa de hash recorde que ultrapassou 700 EH/s pela primeira vez.
#stackfy
#hashrate
#bitoinc
24/10/2024 12:49:38
The prospect of U.S. debt reaching $153 trillion highlights the unsustainable nature of fiat currencies and the potential for Bitcoin to surge in value. As confidence in the dollar wanes, Bitcoin's finite supply makes it an attractive hedge against inflation and economic instability. If Bitcoin gains mainstream acceptance as a store of value or medium of exchange, its price could skyrocket, with predictions of reaching $10 million becoming more plausible. In a world where traditional currencies face increasing challenges, optimism about Bitcoin's future is warranted.
The Bank of Canada has recently cut its benchmark interest rate by 50 basis points to 3.75%, marking its largest rate change in over four years. This decision aims to stimulate economic activity in a sluggish environment by lowering borrowing costs for consumers and businesses.
🇺🇸🤝 A Visa anunciou uma parceria com a Agência dos Estados Unidos para o Desenvolvimento Internacional (USAID) para melhorar o acesso a sistemas governamentais digitais abertos, seguros e inclusivos ao redor do mundo.
#BTC
#Bitcoin
#Freedom
#bitcoin
The recent partnership between Visa and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to enhance access to open, secure, and inclusive digital government systems worldwide raises significant concerns for those who advocate for a world free from state control and corporate influence. This collaboration serves as a stark reminder of the entangled relationship between government and corporate entities, which ultimately undermines individual freedom and autonomy.
At its core, this partnership exemplifies the continuing expansion of state power. While the initiative claims to promote inclusivity and security, it fundamentally perpetuates the notion that government systems, no matter how ostensibly improved, remain vehicles for coercion. True progress cannot be achieved through enhancements to state-run systems; rather, it must come from dismantling those systems entirely. Instead of looking to the government for solutions, individuals should focus on decentralized alternatives that empower them to operate independently.
One of the most troubling aspects of this collaboration is the potential for increased surveillance. While the partnership promotes enhanced security in digital government systems, such security measures often come at the expense of individual privacy. Governments have a history of using security as a justification for expanding their surveillance capabilities, thereby infringing on the very freedoms that advocates of individual liberty cherish. In contrast, Bitcoin and other decentralized technologies allow individuals to engage in secure transactions while maintaining their privacy, free from state scrutiny.
The alliance between Visa and USAID also underscores the problematic nature of crony capitalism. By collaborating with government agencies, corporations like Visa position themselves as key players in the establishment of public policy, often prioritizing their own interests over the needs of individuals. This partnership reinforces the idea that the government and corporations work hand in hand to maintain the status quo, stifling innovation and individual empowerment. Rather than relying on such partnerships, the future should focus on fostering decentralized networks like Bitcoin, which eliminate the need for intermediaries and empower individuals to take control of their financial lives.
For those who advocate for a free and voluntary society, the path forward lies in embracing decentralization. Instead of seeking improvements to state-sanctioned systems, individuals must champion alternatives that remove the state from the equation altogether. Bitcoin represents a revolutionary shift in how we conceive of money and value exchange, offering a decentralized currency that allows for voluntary interactions free from government manipulation. In a world increasingly dominated by state control and corporate interests, the future should prioritize individual liberty and the power of voluntary association over any form of centralized authority.
Visa’s partnership with USAID serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges facing advocates of freedom and autonomy in an increasingly interconnected world. Rather than seeking to improve government systems, we must focus on dismantling them and promoting decentralized alternatives that empower individuals. The time has come to challenge the status quo and embrace a future where individuals can thrive without the interference of the state or the influence of corporate giants. Only then can we create a society that truly values freedom, privacy, and individual choice.
📈 #Bitcoin agora controla mais de 57% do mercado de criptomoedas, seu maior nível desde março de 2021. CoinMarketCap
Enquanto isso, o domínio do #ETH caiu para 13,5%, o menor nível desde o mesmo período.
The recent increase in Bitcoin's (BTC) dominance to over 57% of the cryptocurrency market, the highest level since March 2021, warrants a critical examination. While this surge may seem like a positive sign for Bitcoin advocates, it’s essential to consider the underlying nuances and implications of this shift.
Firstly, this rising dominance may reflect a market in search of security amidst volatility. However, this quest for a "safe haven" indicates a broader distrust in other cryptocurrencies and the crypto ecosystem as a whole. If investors are moving away from altcoins in favor of Bitcoin, it raises questions about the overall health of the cryptocurrency market. An overreliance on BTC can be problematic, placing a disproportionate amount of risk on a single currency, especially in an environment where innovation and diversification are often hailed as essential for growth.
Moreover, the decline of Ethereum’s (ETH) dominance to 13.5% is alarming and could signal serious issues within the platform. This decrease is not just a matter of numbers; it suggests that ETH may be losing its relevance as a viable alternative to Bitcoin. The lack of progress on scalability and high transaction fees is becoming a burden, and Ethereum's inability to maintain its dominance could indicate a loss of confidence that may be difficult to reverse. The competition from other smart contract platforms is intensifying, and ETH might be falling behind.
Another critical aspect to consider is the market dynamics that Bitcoin’s increasing dominance can create. A rise in BTC's dominance may lead to a vicious cycle of disinvestment in altcoins, potentially stifling innovation in the cryptocurrency space. If investors focus solely on BTC, startups and altcoin projects may struggle to attract funding and development, limiting the technological advancement crucial for the sector's evolution.
Finally, elevating BTC to the forefront of the market can create an illusion of stability, but this confidence can be misleading. High Bitcoin dominance does not guarantee that it is free from risks. BTC's volatility is an undeniable reality, and the notion that it can function as a safe asset is problematic. When the "safe haven" narrative fails, what remains is a market that can collapse rapidly.
In summary, while the growing dominance of Bitcoin may be interpreted as a sign of strength, it is vital to look beyond the numbers and consider the broader implications of this dynamic. The excessive dependence on BTC and the fragility of the altcoin ecosystem should not be underestimated. The health of the cryptocurrency market relies on a healthy diversity of assets and innovations, rather than a return to centralization around a single asset, no matter how dominant it may be.
📈 #BTC agora controla mais de 57% do mercado de criptomoedas, seu maior nível desde março de 2021. CoinMarketCap
Enquanto isso, o domínio do #ETH caiu para 13,5%, o menor nível desde o mesmo período.
The recent increase in Bitcoin's (BTC) dominance to over 57% of the cryptocurrency market, the highest level since March 2021, warrants a critical examination. While this surge may seem like a positive sign for Bitcoin advocates, it’s essential to consider the underlying nuances and implications of this shift.
Firstly, this rising dominance may reflect a market in search of security amidst volatility. However, this quest for a "safe haven" indicates a broader distrust in other cryptocurrencies and the crypto ecosystem as a whole. If investors are moving away from altcoins in favor of Bitcoin, it raises questions about the overall health of the cryptocurrency market. An overreliance on BTC can be problematic, placing a disproportionate amount of risk on a single currency, especially in an environment where innovation and diversification are often hailed as essential for growth.
Moreover, the decline of Ethereum’s (ETH) dominance to 13.5% is alarming and could signal serious issues within the platform. This decrease is not just a matter of numbers; it suggests that ETH may be losing its relevance as a viable alternative to Bitcoin. The lack of progress on scalability and high transaction fees is becoming a burden, and Ethereum's inability to maintain its dominance could indicate a loss of confidence that may be difficult to reverse. The competition from other smart contract platforms is intensifying, and ETH might be falling behind.
Another critical aspect to consider is the market dynamics that Bitcoin’s increasing dominance can create. A rise in BTC's dominance may lead to a vicious cycle of disinvestment in altcoins, potentially stifling innovation in the cryptocurrency space. If investors focus solely on BTC, startups and altcoin projects may struggle to attract funding and development, limiting the technological advancement crucial for the sector's evolution.
Finally, elevating BTC to the forefront of the market can create an illusion of stability, but this confidence can be misleading. High Bitcoin dominance does not guarantee that it is free from risks. BTC's volatility is an undeniable reality, and the notion that it can function as a safe asset is problematic. When the "safe haven" narrative fails, what remains is a market that can collapse rapidly.
In summary, while the growing dominance of Bitcoin may be interpreted as a sign of strength, it is vital to look beyond the numbers and consider the broader implications of this dynamic. The excessive dependence on BTC and the fragility of the altcoin ecosystem should not be underestimated. The health of the cryptocurrency market relies on a healthy diversity of assets and innovations, rather than a return to centralization around a single asset, no matter how dominant it may be.
🚨 A Kraken planeja lançar seu próprio blockchain no ano que vem.
The decision by Kraken to launch its own blockchain in 2025 should be critically examined, as it could have both positive and negative implications.
Firstly, this initiative might be seen as Kraken's attempt to differentiate itself in a saturated market of exchanges and cryptocurrency platforms. However, the need for a proprietary blockchain raises questions about the real motivations behind this decision. The competition in this space is fierce, and many have argued that there is an excess of blockchains lacking a clear value proposition. Is Kraken merely trying to ride the wave of innovation, or does it truly have a sustainable and differentiated vision?
Additionally, building a new blockchain presents significant challenges regarding security and scalability. History is filled with blockchains that failed to meet expectations and ultimately became obsolete or ineffective. Kraken will need to ensure that its new network is robust, secure, and capable of handling user demand. Otherwise, what should be a technological advancement could turn into a major failure.
Another critical point to consider is centralization. As an exchange, Kraken has always operated under a more centralized model, and the creation of a proprietary blockchain may perpetuate this structure. If the new network does not adopt a truly decentralized governance model, it could simply replicate the problems that the cryptocurrency sector has been trying to overcome — such as a lack of transparency and the concentration of power. Users, who have shown skepticism towards platforms that do not fulfill decentralization promises, may view this change as a disguised attempt at control.
Furthermore, the potential impact of a new native token, if launched alongside the blockchain, deserves attention. Tokens are often used as tools to inflate the value of exchanges and attract investors, but the question remains: what will be the true utility of this token within the new network? If there is no clear use case, there is a risk of creating yet another speculative “coin” that does not add real value to the ecosystem.
In summary, while the idea of a proprietary blockchain may seem promising at first glance, it is essential to question the motivations, execution, and long-term implications of this initiative. Success will depend on Kraken's ability to build a network that not only stands out technically but also upholds the principles of decentralization and transparency that the crypto movement initially promised. Otherwise, what could be an innovation will turn into yet another chapter of unfulfilled promises in a space already saturated with frustrated expectations.
🚨 A Kraken planeja lançar seu próprio blockchain no ano que vem.
The decision by Kraken to launch its own blockchain in 2025 should be critically examined, as it could have both positive and negative implications.
Firstly, this initiative might be seen as Kraken's attempt to differentiate itself in a saturated market of exchanges and cryptocurrency platforms. However, the need for a proprietary blockchain raises questions about the real motivations behind this decision. The competition in this space is fierce, and many have argued that there is an excess of blockchains lacking a clear value proposition. Is Kraken merely trying to ride the wave of innovation, or does it truly have a sustainable and differentiated vision?
Additionally, building a new blockchain presents significant challenges regarding security and scalability. History is filled with blockchains that failed to meet expectations and ultimately became obsolete or ineffective. Kraken will need to ensure that its new network is robust, secure, and capable of handling user demand. Otherwise, what should be a technological advancement could turn into a major failure.
Another critical point to consider is centralization. As an exchange, Kraken has always operated under a more centralized model, and the creation of a proprietary blockchain may perpetuate this structure. If the new network does not adopt a truly decentralized governance model, it could simply replicate the problems that the cryptocurrency sector has been trying to overcome — such as a lack of transparency and the concentration of power. Users, who have shown skepticism towards platforms that do not fulfill decentralization promises, may view this change as a disguised attempt at control.
Furthermore, the potential impact of a new native token, if launched alongside the blockchain, deserves attention. Tokens are often used as tools to inflate the value of exchanges and attract investors, but the question remains: what will be the true utility of this token within the new network? If there is no clear use case, there is a risk of creating yet another speculative “coin” that does not add real value to the ecosystem.
In summary, while the idea of a proprietary blockchain may seem promising at first glance, it is essential to question the motivations, execution, and long-term implications of this initiative. Success will depend on Kraken's ability to build a network that not only stands out technically but also upholds the principles of decentralization and transparency that the crypto movement initially promised. Otherwise, what could be an innovation will turn into yet another chapter of unfulfilled promises in a space already saturated with frustrated expectations.
BREAKING: Denmark becomes the first country in the world to tax unrealized capital gains on crypto, starting January 1, 2026. The tax on unrealized capital gains is 42%. This will affect not only crypto acquired from that date but also crypto obtained as far back as the genesis block of Bitcoin in January 2009.
**The Flawed Logic Behind Denmark’s Tax on Unrealized Cryptocurrency Gains**
Denmark's recent decision to tax unrealized capital gains on cryptocurrencies, starting January 1, 2026, marks a worrying precedent in the global approach to regulating digital assets. With a tax rate of 42% that will retroactively apply to crypto holdings going back as far as Bitcoin’s inception in 2009, this decision is deeply flawed and raises significant concerns about fairness, practicality, and the potential long-term damage to both investors and the broader economy.
At its core, the idea of taxing unrealized gains is fundamentally unjust. In a traditional sense, taxes on capital gains are only triggered when an investor sells an asset and actually profits. This policy targets hypothetical gains that may never be realized, as cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, are notoriously volatile. What may appear as a substantial increase in value one day could disappear the next, leaving investors with hefty tax bills for wealth that has evaporated. Taxing such “paper gains” disregards the risk that investors take when holding volatile assets like crypto, unfairly punishing them for temporary fluctuations in market prices.
Moreover, the retroactive nature of this tax is especially problematic. By reaching back to 2009, Denmark is imposing a burden on early adopters and long-term holders who could not have predicted this extreme policy when they first entered the market. It undermines trust in the stability and fairness of the tax system, signaling that governments may change the rules after the fact to suit their revenue needs. This erodes investor confidence, not just in cryptocurrencies but in broader financial policies, as it creates an environment of unpredictability and retrospective punishment.
This policy also has enormous practical challenges. How will the government accurately track and calculate gains for assets that have changed hands countless times over the past 15 years? Cryptocurrencies are decentralized, and many transactions take place across international borders, often through platforms that do not report to Danish authorities. The pseudonymous nature of many cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin adds another layer of complexity to tracing ownership and value over such an extended period. Implementing this tax would require massive surveillance and cooperation from exchanges, which may not be feasible, or even legal, in some jurisdictions.
The economic consequences of this tax are equally concerning. Denmark risks driving away innovation and investment by treating cryptocurrencies in such an aggressive manner. Investors are likely to seek out more crypto-friendly countries, moving their assets to jurisdictions with clearer and more favorable tax regimes. The global nature of cryptocurrency means capital flight could be swift and significant, ultimately costing Denmark far more in lost investment than it stands to gain in taxes. Entrepreneurs and developers in the blockchain space, already cautious of heavy regulation, may be deterred from basing operations in Denmark, leading to a potential “brain drain” as talent moves elsewhere.
Beyond that, this policy could create a wave of forced selling, where investors are pushed to liquidate their crypto holdings simply to meet their tax obligations. Such an outcome would trigger massive downward pressure on crypto markets, causing value to plummet and hurting not only Danish investors but the global market as a whole. This artificial selling pressure could lead to sharp declines in crypto prices, undermining the very gains that Denmark seeks to tax.
While governments are understandably eager to regulate the cryptocurrency space, this policy is far too heavy-handed and short-sighted. There are legitimate reasons to introduce measures to ensure that crypto profits are taxed fairly, but taxing unrealized gains represents an overreach that risks doing more harm than good. Instead of retroactively taxing investors on theoretical profits, Denmark could focus on taxing realized gains at the point of sale or develop targeted regulations that address the legitimate concerns of tax evasion and financial crime without stifling innovation or driving away capital.
In conclusion, Denmark’s decision to tax unrealized cryptocurrency gains is not just a policy mistake—it’s a strategic blunder that could harm its economy and global standing. It undermines the principles of fairness in taxation, creates practical enforcement nightmares, and threatens to drive both investors and innovators out of the country. As the world watches this experiment unfold, it should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when governments prioritize short-term revenue over long-term economic growth and fairness.https://m.primal.net/LgHS.jpg
BRICS, Bitcoin, and the Futility of Control in the Age of CBDCs
As the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) assert themselves on the global financial stage, a new battleground has emerged: the future of money itself. One of the most significant moves within this bloc has been the push for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), state-controlled digital currencies that aim to modernize financial systems. India, for instance, has gone as far as considering an outright ban on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, citing the slow adoption of its own CBDC as a key motivator. But here’s the harsh truth: attempts to control or ban Bitcoin in favor of CBDCs are shortsighted, if not entirely futile.
Bitcoin: A Decentralized Revolution
The very essence of Bitcoin is decentralization. It was created to operate outside the grip of any government, bank, or central authority. Unlike CBDCs, which centralize financial power into the hands of state institutions, Bitcoin offers a way for people to regain control over their finances, free from the potential surveillance and manipulation that come with centralized digital currencies.
By trying to ban or heavily regulate Bitcoin, BRICS nations are fundamentally misunderstanding its appeal. Bitcoin isn’t just another digital asset—it’s a financial system designed to resist the kind of control that CBDCs inherently represent.
CBDCs: A Power Grab Disguised as Progress
CBDCs, on the surface, promise modernization: faster transactions, lower fees, and better transparency. But beneath this polished veneer lies a much darker reality—an unprecedented level of financial surveillance. Every CBDC transaction can be tracked, monitored, or even blocked by the issuing government. In the wrong hands, a CBDC becomes a tool for economic censorship, where governments can control how, when, and where you spend your money.
It’s ironic, really. BRICS nations, particularly China and India, are pushing for CBDCs to free themselves from Western financial dominance—namely, the U.S. dollar. Yet, at the same time, they’re imposing a similar financial hegemony on their own citizens, offering a “progressive” solution that strips people of financial autonomy and privacy.
The Struggle for Control
BRICS countries are seeking to solidify their control over their financial systems at a time when Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies offer an alternative that undermines state dominance. India’s potential ban on cryptocurrencies is just one example of this power struggle. But what these governments fail to recognize is that Bitcoin’s decentralized design makes it nearly impossible to fully ban or control. The more pressure governments apply, the more resilient these decentralized networks become.
CBDCs, in contrast, represent everything Bitcoin was created to avoid—centralized power, surveillance, and the ability of governments to meddle with personal financial decisions. By pushing CBDCs while trying to ban Bitcoin, BRICS nations are revealing their true intention: not to modernize finance for the benefit of the people, but to retain control over it.
The Hypocrisy of BRICS
This dynamic is rife with hypocrisy. BRICS countries have long advocated for a multipolar world where no single power holds all the cards, criticizing the dominance of Western financial institutions like the IMF or the U.S. dollar. Yet, they are quick to impose their own brand of control over their domestic economies through CBDCs, trying to stifle any competition—like Bitcoin—that challenges their authority.
Bitcoin represents a direct threat to this control, not because it undermines national currencies in the traditional sense, but because it offers something CBDCs never can: true financial freedom. With Bitcoin, there are no central authorities dictating how you can use your funds. There’s no surveillance, no risk of having your assets frozen because you’ve crossed some arbitrary government line. This kind of freedom is precisely why so many governments, particularly within BRICS, are uncomfortable with Bitcoin’s rise.
A Futile Effort
History has shown that technological revolutions are rarely stopped by government decree. From the printing press to the internet, each new innovation faced resistance from entrenched powers, only to emerge stronger in the end. Bitcoin is no different. Attempts to ban it or control it will likely push it into underground markets, but they won’t stop its growth.
As BRICS nations pour resources into promoting CBDCs and suppressing Bitcoin, they may find themselves on the wrong side of history. Rather than fighting a losing battle, these countries should be exploring ways to integrate decentralized finance into their broader economic strategies. By allowing Bitcoin and CBDCs to coexist, they could harness the strengths of both—offering citizens the freedom of financial choice while maintaining some level of oversight where necessary.
The Path Forward
In conclusion, the BRICS bloc’s attempts to control Bitcoin by promoting CBDCs is a misguided effort that fails to recognize the fundamental appeal of decentralized finance. While CBDCs offer some benefits, their centralized nature makes them inherently restrictive and vulnerable to government overreach. Bitcoin, on the other hand, represents the financial freedom that many within these nations crave—freedom that no government can easily take away.
As the world continues to evolve, BRICS nations would do well to rethink their stance on cryptocurrencies. Instead of trying to dominate through CBDCs while suppressing Bitcoin, they should embrace the innovation that decentralized currencies bring to the table. In the end, the future of money may well be a hybrid system, where both CBDCs and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have a role to play. But one thing is certain: Bitcoin is not going anywhere, no matter how much governments try to stop it.
🇮🇪 The Irish Crime Bureau is facing a major roadblock in accessing a staggering $378 million worth of #Bitcoin that was 'seized' back in 2020. The catch? They don’t have the private keys needed to unlock the funds! 😅 Despite their efforts, without these cryptographic keys, the Bitcoin remains completely out of reach, adding another layer of complexity to law enforcement's handling of digital assets. This situation highlights one of the unique challenges of dealing with cryptocurrencies—if you don’t have the keys, you don’t have the coins! 🔐💸
https://m.primal.net/LgGT.jpg The Indian government is reportedly considering a full BAN on cryptocurrencies and stablecoins 🚫💰. The main reason behind this move is the slow adoption of the Central Bank Digital Currency (#CBDC) 💸📉. Officials are concerned that the popularity of decentralized digital assets is hindering the CBDC’s rollout, as it competes directly with these alternative forms of currency. By implementing this ban, the government aims to push for wider use of the official digital currency, strengthening its control over the financial system while discouraging reliance on private digital assets.
https://m.primal.net/LgGQ.jpg From left to right:
🇪🇹 Autocracy - Abiy Ahmed, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity;
🇪🇬 Autocracy - Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, holds almost absolute power in Egypt, dominating the legislative and judiciary since 2014;
🇿🇦 Democracy with flaws - Cyril Ramaphosa is the leader of the party that has controlled the country for the last 30 years;
🇨🇳 Communist dictatorship - Xi Jinping, leader of the party for the 3rd time, was elevated by the party to the level of Mao Zedong;
🇷🇺 Autocracy - Vladimir Putin has controlled Russia's destinies since the year 2000 and recently changed the constitution to continue controlling the country until 2036;
🇮🇳 Flawed democracy - Narendra Modi, in power since 2014, accused of deteriorating Indian democratic institutions, hindering the emergence of opposition movements and increasing corruption;
🇸🇦 Authoritarian Regime (absolutist monarchy) - Mohammed bin Salman, accused of brutally persecuting any type of opposition and violating human rights, especially those of women;
🇮🇷 Dictatorship - Extremist Islamic regime led by a supreme leader, the Ayatollah, who persecutes any type of opposition, violating human rights, especially women's, and financing and arming terrorist groups in the Middle East.
🇧🇷 And within this group, our Brazil.
At this BRICS summit, the dictatorships of Cuba and Belarus promise to be announced as new members, reinforcing the autocratic and dictatorial character of the members of the group in which Brazil is included.
🗞🚨 US spot bitcoin ETFs shift to negative flows after 7 days of inflows Arkham Intelligence. 🗞⚡️ Tesla is still in possession of its #Bitcoin💰 as it recently transferred #BTC to new wallets, as reported by Arkham Intelligence. 🗞🚨 🇮🇳 Indian Regulators Consider Banning #Bitcoin💰 and #Ether💰 to Focus on Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) 🗞🚨 Nigerian government drops charges against Binance executive - BBG
🇦🇷 Milei will dissolve Argentina's current tax collection agency, AFIP, and replace it with a "simpler, more efficient, less costly and less bureaucratic structure"
The International Monetary Fund lowered its global growth forecast for next year and warned of rising risks, from rising debt to global wars and trade protectionism, while giving credit to central banks for controlling inflation without pushing countries into recession.
In terms of the outlook for next year, the IMF forecast for the euro zone was downgraded to 1.2%, 0.3% lower than in July, due to persistent weakness in manufacturing in Germany and Italy. On the other hand, the US forecast for 2024 and 2025 was updated to 2.8% and 2.2%, an increase of 0.2% and 0.3% respectively, due to stronger consumption, but really because of the infinite stimulus in the form of a war-level budget deficit that now stands at 6% of GDP and which has led to an exponential increase in US debt issuance.
⁉️ WHO OWNS THE US PUBLIC DEBT ⁉️
~33% of the $35.7 trillion federal debt is held by government funds, including Social Security and the Fed.
More than 25% are owned
Oddbean new post about login | logout
Notes by J_BIACK | export