Category: Crypto

Follow Nikolaus On X Here

MicroStrategy’s corporate Bitcoin treasury strategy is taking off. Public companies are FOMO’ing into bitcoin. It’s almost as if Trump’s pro-Bitcoin stance is giving companies the green light to stack BTC.

Yesterday alone, seven public companies announced that they have bought or plan to buy bitcoin for their treasury reserves, with one new company committing to purchasing $1 million in BTC today. Crazy, right? It has felt like a minimum of one to two new companies a day are adopting bitcoin as a reserve asset — not to mention all the companies getting bitcoin exposure via the ETFs.

It’s surreal to witness the FOMO from companies adopting a corporate Bitcoin playbook in real time. I mean, Michael Saylor has been preaching this and leading by example for the last four and a half years, and now that we’re almost at $100,000 bitcoin, companies are FOMOing in en masse.

Was it the dramatic increase in bitcoin’s price that catalyzed this surge in more and more companies adopting Bitcoin, the incoming Trump presidency, or are companies finally taking Saylor’s advice seriously after his strategy has proven to be successful? It’s hard to tell — it’s probably a mix of all three.

Beyond the borders of the U.S., other companies are also adopting the MicroStrategy playbook — and reaping the benefits of it. Metaplanet, a publicly-traded Japanese company, went from a zombie company to ranked #29 out of 4,000 listed companies in Japan by trading value since adopting a corporate Bitcoin strategy. Unreal.

Metaplanet ranked #29 out of 4,000 listed companies in Japan by trading value, surpassing much larger market peers such as Itochu and NTT https://t.co/mUgdytMRM6 pic.twitter.com/Xzf66g9o1r

— Simon Gerovich (@gerovich) November 19, 2024

Over the course of the next year I’m expecting this corporate Bitcoin adoption to only increase as the price of bitcoin rises and Trump takes office.

“Welcome to the Bitcoin Standard” — Michael Saylor.

Company Name: Casa

Founders: Nick Neuman, Jameson Lopp and others

Date Founded: Late 2017

Location of Headquarters: Remote

Website: https://casa.io/

Public or Private? Private

Being self-sovereign isn’t easy — especially if you aren’t technically-minded.

The team at Casa gets this and this is why, for over six years, the company has been helping customers secure their bitcoin in multisig wallets (also referred to as multi-key vaults).

The company was the first to offer an easy-to-use version of such a product that also came with customer support. It was Casa’s plan from the onset to be there for their customers, as this type of support was lacking in the broader crypto industry.

“The service element was what was missing from a lot of solutions out there,” Casa co-founder and CEO Nick Neuman told Bitcoin Magazine.

“People need help doing this stuff, especially for large amounts of money. It was always the plan to support customers, because it was impossible to get support from exchanges or hardware wallets,” he added.

“So, we just took a very support-heavy and user experience focused approach to everything.”

Casa’s approach has paid off, as the company has become a household name in the Bitcoin and crypto space, and has come a long way since Neuman first had the idea for a company like Casa seven years ago.

How Casa Started

It was toward the latter part of the 2017 bitcoin bull run when Neuman had grown tired of his previous work in finance and tech, and found himself down the proverbial Bitcoin (and crypto) rabbit hole. By February 2018, he had an idea for a company and entered himself into a hackathon to attempt to bring the idea to life.

“I participated in the first ETHDenver hackathon,” said Neuman.

“I went in with an idea that I called key split, which was basically taking a private key using Shamir secret sharing and creating a social recovery mechanism,” he added.

“I recruited a couple of people at the hackathon to build it with me, and we ended up winning.”

Neuman quit his job and set out to start a company around this technology he and his team had created. But word had gotten out about his victory at ETHDenver, and the previous CEO of Casa, who was the head of the company before it pivoted to offering multisig wallets, reached out to Neuman, asking him to come on board.

It was after learning that Casa had just recruited Jameson Lopp, self-described “professional cypherpunk” and now Chief Security Officer at Casa, that Neuman decided to join the team.

“I was like, ‘Well, Jameson’s going to be an unfair advantage,’” recalled Neuman with a chuckle. “Instead of starting my own company, I’m going to join.”

Soon after Neuman came on board, Casa retired its then flagship product, the Casa Node, and the company shifted its focus to user-friendly multi-key vaults, a much needed product at the time. Before Casa, multisig software was so complicated that even Neuman himself struggled to use it.

“There was the Armory multisig wallet and the Glacier protocol,” recounted Neuman.

“Glacier wasn’t even software. It was like a giant GitHub repo that you had to follow in order to set up your cold storage. Armory was super janky, too. I remember trying to use it once, and I couldn’t figure it out,” he added.

“We were the first to create multisig that was usable.”

How Casa Works

Casa offers users two main set ups. The first is a five-key vault, which includes three keys on three different hardware wallets, one on the user’s phone (which is backed up securely in the cloud) and one that Casa holds.

This was Casa’s first multisig product, which it rolled out while the company primarily focused on serving customers with a high net worth in bitcoin. Casa learned an important lesson while serving these clients, which was that even if developers create easy-to-use software, people still want an expert there supporting them as they use it — especially if they’re securing a lot of value.

“When you’re dealing with millions of dollars worth of Bitcoin, you really want to have an expert there who helps make sure that you don’t make a mistake,” said Neuman.

Casa’s other main product is for those who might not be sitting on bitcoin whale-type wealth, but who still hold enough bitcoin where a less-than-ideal security setup has the potential to keep them awake at night.

This product is Casa’s three-key vault, which the company brought to market in early 2019. It includes a key on a hardware wallet, a key on the user’s phone (which can be swapped out for another key on a second hardware wallet if the user prefers) and a key that Casa holds.

Casa began offering this setup because it “always wanted to be able to offer great security and usability to as many people as possible,” according to Neuman.

New Casa Services And Features

In the past year, Casa has further broadened the services it offers.

Two weeks ago, it announced its Enterprise Plan, which enables companies to more easily secure their bitcoin treasuries.

“We’ve had businesses using Casa for self-custody for years, but they were always using our retail plans and just making it work,” explained Neuman.

“We changed that, though, because I think corporate treasuries holding bitcoin has been popularized by MicroStrategy. We actually see that as a growing trend that’s worth taking advantage of, and we’re hearing from more Bitcoin companies that are storing bitcoin on their balance sheet that they need help with security,” he added.

This summer, Casa also began enabling users to replace hardware wallets used in their vaults with YubiKeys.

“We see people struggle with hardware wallets all the time, and so we were thought ‘How can we make this simpler?’” said Neuman. “We pieced together a couple of new pieces of technology that have passkey and and YubiKey key capabilities and were able to build something that hadn’t been done before.”

And in March, Casa launched Casa Inheritance, a service that makes it easier for the loved ones of Casa users to access the bitcoin secured in the vaults in the event of a user’s death.

“With Inheritance, we heard from our customers all the time ‘Okay, I feel good about my Casa setup, but I’m worried about what happens if I die,’” explained Neuman. “So, we built that feature to make it super easy for their family to recover the bitcoin in case the main account holder dies.”

Normalizing Multisig

Despite all of the work Casa has done in the last six years, some still have an emotional block when it comes to switching to a multisig setup. Whether it’s because this type of wallet format was more difficult to enable years ago or because it’s understandably anxiety-provoking to make changes to one’s bitcoin security, people seem to drag their feet when it comes to using a multisig setup — even if they really want to — according to Neuman.

“They hear the word ‘multisig’ and they’re like, ‘That’s too hard,’” explained Neuman. “What they don’t realize is that to get started with multisig with Casa, you can use your same hardware wallet, and it is literally the same amount of effort as using a hardware wallet, but you significantly improve your security by doing it.”

Neuman thinks that more people will come around and that multisig will become more widely adopted, especially during a bull market.

“It takes the price of bitcoin going up where people suddenly have more value to secure,” said Neuman. “And it takes people hearing from their friends ‘Yeah, I’m doing multisig and it’s not as hard as it sounds.”

For those that do get the urge to try Casa, the company is allowing people to try the service at no charge for a month.

Neuman feels that as more users come on board, it will not only benefit them, but potentially the industry at large as well.

“If we can make it out of this bull market without another massive blow up like FTX because we’ve helped more people self-custody in a way that they feel good about, that feels like a real win to me.”

If you have been following Bitcoin news today, like I have, you can not be more bullish on Bitcoin. Seriously, what a time to be alive!

Just today:

MicroStrategy purchased another 51,780 BTC for $4.6 billion and announced its plans to raise $1.75 billion to buy more bitcoinSemler Scientific bought another 215 BTC for $17.7 millionGenius Group launched its Bitcoin treasury by purchasing 110 BTC for $10 millionMARA Holdings announced a $700 million raise to buy more BTC Metaplanet issued ¥1.75B debt offering to buy more BTCGlobal healthcare group Cosmos Health adopted BTC as a treasury reserve asset

Insane, right?

The corporate Bitcoin adoption is going absolutely parabolic. The race among public companies to stack the most satoshis has kicked into hyperdrive.

Some other news:

Donald Trump is meeting with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and is expected to discuss appointmentsDonald Trump’s media $DJT in talks to purchase crypto trading platform BakktOptions trading on BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF could be listed as soon as tomorrow

It’s only Monday, and my head is already spinning! With this tidal wave of positive adoption, I’d be downright shocked if we don’t blast through $100,000 per Bitcoin this week.

I expect a flood of more bullish news and serious FOMO buying pressure this week. Seriously, tighten your seatbelts, folks—with this momentum, Bitcoin hitting a hundred grand is coming sooner than you imagined!

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Follow Frank on X.

A co-worker recently told me about NiHowdy, a platform that helps you save on prescription medication while earning bitcoin rewards in the process.

For context, I’m a fan of bitcoin rewards programs like Fold, which let you earn bitcoin for making everyday purchases (I can’t help but appreciate deals like this — I grew up with a coupon-clipping mom.) I also like that NiHowdy differentiates itself from other bitcoin rewards companies by offering a discount on a product.

While I’ve yet to use NiHowdy, it seems fairly simple to do so. You simply sign up through the company’s website, where you’ll obtain either a discount card or a QR code that can be scanned at selected pharmacies. You can also use the website to compare prices and find the cheapest locations to purchase prescription medication (the company is also working on a mail-order service).

When you pay for your prescription, you’ll earn 3% back in bitcoin, which automatically gets deposited into your Coinbase account. (While I’d prefer NiHowdy had partnered with a different exchange, as I don’t like how Coinbase partners with government agencies to surveil transactions, this isn’t a deal breaker for me.)

NiHowdy sees itself as fighters of Big Pharma…

At Nihowdy, we’re not just a prescription savings platform. We’re warriors in the battle against big pharma, fighting for your right to reclaim the savings that are rightfully yours. #NiHowdy #PrescriptionSavings

Join us in reclaiming the savings that belongs to you. 💪💊 pic.twitter.com/rTP3MgUWLZ

— NiHowdy (@nihowdyrx) May 31, 2024

…which I’d say is a bit of a stretch, but it does seem to provide a good way to save money on potentially burdensome prescription drug costs while at the same time stacking sats.

The ultimate hack here would be if you could use your Fold debit card to pay for your prescriptions, earning some extra sats on top of the 3% back in sats you earn through NiHowdy.

If that’s possible, I might get so pumped that I’ll need to go and refill my sedative prescription.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

In anticipation of a solo exhibition by artist Nardo at Bitcoin Mena, in collaboration with AOTM Gallery, I sat down with him to explore the intersections of memes, mythologies, and digital culture. Nardo’s work navigates the intriguing space between the tangible form of traditional painting and the fleeting nature of meme culture—two seemingly contrasting mediums that are evolving in tandem with Bitcoin.

The title of your exhibition, Fresh Impact, and the centerpiece painting, Sandwich Artist, both reference Subway-related memes. Notably, Subway became the first fast-food chain to accept bitcoin in 2013—a moment documented by Andrew Torba, who famously used bitcoin to buy a $5 sub in Allentown, Pennsylvania (an ironic detail, given that Torba is now CEO of the social network Gab). This early mix of Bitcoin and meme culture sparked humorous reflections on “spending generational wealth” on footlongs and highlighted themes of currency value over time, as the dollar’s purchasing power wanes while bitcoin’s grows. How does this Subway meme resonate with you, and how does it shape your approach to painting in an increasingly digital age?

I think there is something to be said about quick consumption in contemporary culture—whether it’s fast food footlong subs or internet memes. The attention span of human senses has diminished to bursts of repeated dopamine, where selecting your type of bread, meats, and toppings becomes the most exciting part of your afternoon. Then comes the tireless effort of finishing 12 inches of processed food matter. You repeat this over and over because it’s convenient, and maybe next time, you’ll excite yourself by swapping cheddar for provolone.

However, Subway has developed a systematic experience that feels eternal. Memes and internet behavior function in a similar way. The ephemeral consumption of entertaining or humorous memes acts as the dopamine hit—we share them with friends, they spread at rapid speeds, and then they often die off, leading us to move on to the next. Yet, the success of memes also lies in their systems: cultural iconography, bold fonts superimposed onto captivating imagery, hyper-sharpened visuals, deep-fried aesthetics, or low effort applications. Memes rely on visual and cultural layers—bread, meat, and toppings.

I think, as it relates to Bitcoin, we should really confront its experiential nature in the exact moment of exchange. To have purchased a footlong for $5 worth of Bitcoin in 2013, only to view it today in 2024 as ~$4,300, is both absurd and somewhat painful—but the experience is eternal. The very act of using digital internet money in exchange for physical, consumable goods feels almost alchemical.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term “memes” to describe units of cultural transmission, likening their spread to gene replication. Memes also resemble viruses in how they propagate through social networks, blurring the lines between genes and viruses as both can integrate into DNA and influence evolution. You and I have joked that memes—and memecoins—are akin to the fast food of digital culture, serving as cybernetic junk food or street drugs. Do you consider memes to be a low art form? Is the buildup of studio trash made famous by painter Francis Bacon or the outlandish waste and detritus of Dash Snow’s 2007 “hamster nest” installation somehow related? What are your thoughts on contemporary artists like Christine Wang, who replicates notable memes in her recent painting exhibition, “Cryptofire Degen,” at The Hole in New York? What happens when a digital meme becomes a physical painting? 

This all ties back to what I discussed earlier—I am interested in slowing down the process of consumption. To meticulously hand-paint a meme in oil and present it as such can be a little jarring. Similarly, considering trash as form or content, rather than something to be discarded, fascinates me.

After the user has consumed their lunch and doom-scrolled through countless memes on Twitter, what remains as the detritus of all that? The whole experience can feel like nullifying brain rot—a diminishing of structure and existence within passive chaos. Perhaps, though, that is the liminal mindset necessary to birth the most viral ideas.

My introduction to cybernetics came from Japanese animation series like Ghost in the Shell (1995-2014), which explore cyberpunk themes such as internet-connected minds, hackers, and cyber viruses, echoing Dawkins’ ideas about memes and cultural transmission. The series highlights concepts like “ghost-hacking” and “thought viruses,” which replicate across networks and influence societal behavior, aligning with Dawkins’ notion of self-replicating cultural units. Given your recent exploration of the “skibidi toilet” meme phenomenon, what insights have you gained about how this meme has propagated across social networks and shaped the collective consciousness of younger audiences?

The Ghost in the Shell connection isn’t far removed from the world as we know it now. Much like the premise of that “fiction,” our fleshy brains are nestled within a cybernetic façade of digital personas and communications. We practically live vicariously through a digitized shadow-self—a projection of what we think we could become. This aligns with why I often say, “You become what you meme.”

I am deeply intrigued by the phenomenon of American youth becoming obsessed with new memes that older generations are unable to compute, such as Skibidi Toilet. I think it is in this fracturing of sensibility that new languages are born, while old mythologies are repackaged in contemporary ways. Skibidi Toilet is the Iliad of the Internet.

Beyond Ghost in the Shell’s exploration of cybernetics, the seminal anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion intersects with the Age of Aquarius concept through its themes of interconnectedness and collective consciousness. The series delves into the merging of individual identities, echoing how “hive mind” behaviors in contemporary internet culture reflect the rapid influence of shared information and memes. In your artwork Sandwich Artist, you highlight the tension between individual artistry and the pressures of representing a faceless brand. How have you observed this shift over time, and how can artists engage with collective ideas while preserving their individuality in today’s digital culture?

The Sandwich Artist piece utilizes a well-known meme template, yet through various digital alterations—specifically the literal scribbling out of pre-existing text—it takes on the feel of graffiti and eventually becomes my own. I like this piece for how it represents an individual manifesto of my work and reflects how I think about my artistry as a whole. Sure, consistent branding and aesthetics are great for sales if done right, but I’m more interested in how my work exists within a long enough historical timeline. The hive mind desires a brand to rally behind, yet history yearns for individual artistry.

We’ve discussed the term “subway” in relation to submarine sandwiches, but it also evokes the idea of underground transportation. Japan famously studied mycelial growth patterns to optimize its subway and train systems. Similar to fungi, memes propagate and connect individuals in a vast, decentralized network, evolving as they move from one “host” to another. This fungal comparision highlights how memes adapt and spread dynamically, mirroring natural systems of growth and communication. How do you think artists can consciously navigate this memetic landscape of propagation, host vessels, and network dynamics?

The lifespan of most internet memes moves so rapidly that it’s difficult to grasp them before they vanish into a shallow grave. Among the few that manage to take hold of the collective consciousness, I find it fascinating to analyze how they connect to humanity’s past on a metaphysical level. Trends and symbols have remained consistent throughout human history; they simply resurface in different forms as time passes.

Efficient memes rely on efficient systems for delivering information. As artists, we should remain conscious of history and metaphysical symbolism, as this awareness can help us uncover our own primordial self through the mirror of memes.

 

Follow Mark on X.

Did you know the Bible is practically a financial thriller? Yep, it’s got more money talk than a Wall Street boardroom—over 2,300 verses on cold, hard cash. That’s right, the Good Book might as well have been the Good Ledger, with more mentions of money than heaven and hell put together. So, in the spirit of financial enlightenment and a dash of divine humor, let’s ponder a celestial question: Would Jesus have been a Bitcoin enthusiast?

In the cosmic comedy of finance, Bitcoin burst onto the scene like a rebellious angel, vowing to overthrow the old guard of dusty banks and sneezy central bankers. With its blockchain chariot and peer-to-peer prowess, Bitcoin promised a financial utopia: freedom from restrictive permissions, the tyranny of borders, and the inflationary antics of print-happy central banks. But as this digital David takes on the Goliath of traditional finance, one can’t help but wonder: Would Jesus be sporting a “Satoshi Nakamoto” T-shirt?

Jesus had a lot to say about wealth, and not all of it was about giving it all away. He was into fairness, helping the needy, and not letting your left hand know what your right hand’s up to—basically, the first-century version of anonymous transactions. Enter Bitcoin. With its knack for bypassing the money changers of today (looking at you, central banks), could Bitcoin be the modern answer to ancient prayers?

But let’s not convert all our loaves and fishes into Bitcoins just yet. Jesus also warned about the love of money being a root of all kinds of evil. And with Bitcoin’s rollercoaster value, it’s more bipolar than a Galilean storm. Would JC be cool with something that turns investors into overnight millionaires or leaves them crying into their keyboards? Divine verdict: probably not.

Jesus was all about helping the little guy, and Bitcoin’s decentralized gospel sings a similar tune. It’s a financial lifeline for the unbanked masses, promising escape from the clutches of overbearing governments and hyperinflation hellfires. But here’s the heavenly hiccup: Bitcoin’s not exactly the Robin Hood of crypto. Its kingdom is a tad unequal, with a few digital disciples holding the lion’s share of the coins.

In the beginning, Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin. And it was good. Fast forward a few millennia (in internet years), and Bitcoin’s disciples are spreading the good news far and wide. Like Jesus’ OG crew, they’re on a mission to liberate the financial faithful from the Romans—err, central banks—of our time. But instead of crosses, they bear the mark of the Bitcoin, preaching the blockchain gospel of hope and financial freedom.

Despite being crucified by critics more times than we can count, Bitcoin keeps rising from the dead. Its resilience mirrors the biblical tales of underdogs and persecuted heroes, proving that sometimes, faith (and a good encryption algorithm) can move mountains—or at least market caps.

Picture this: Jesus mulling over the Bitcoin craze. It’s not just water into wine; it’s transforming the financial system. Would He be a fan? You bet! Jesus, with His knack for shaking up the status quo, might just see Bitcoin as the loaves and fishes of the digital age—multiplying financial access for the masses and sticking it to those temple-money-changer types, a.k.a., the centralized banks of today.

Imagine Jesus in today’s digital marketplace. He’d likely be intrigued by Bitcoin’s potential to empower the least among us. After all, here’s a technology that transcends borders, cuts out the financial middlemen, and offers a beacon of hope to those sidelined by traditional banking systems. Bitcoin’s blueprint for a more inclusive economy might just get a celestial thumbs up.

But would He dive headfirst into the speculative whirlpool? Probably not. However, He might champion the underlying principles—freedom, equity, and the chance for everyone to participate in the global economy. Jesus, the carpenter, was all about building things up, not tearing them down. In that light, Bitcoin could be seen as a tool, not just for wealth creation, but for forging stronger communities through shared economic opportunity.

As we tread the ethereal pathways of cryptography and conscience, let’s ponder a Jesus-inspired approach: balancing our digital dollars with acts of kindness, generosity, and a commitment to uplifting others. The ledger of life isn’t just about accruing Bitcoin; it’s about the wealth of our actions and the currency of our character.

So, while diversifying your earthly portfolio, remember the most precious investment of all: love and goodwill. After all, in the grand scheme of the universe, those are the assets that yield the highest return. And who knows? In the grand, interconnected network of humanity, we’re all part of a greater blockchain, each of us a link in a chain of acts of kindness, stretching out into eternity. Now that’s an investment strategy even Jesus might endorse.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

As Bitcoin once again finds itself in price discovery mode, market watchers and enthusiasts are curious: has retail FOMO set in yet, or is the retail surge we’ve seen in past bull cycles still on the horizon? Using data from active addresses, historical cycles, and various market indicators, we’ll examine where the Bitcoin market currently stands and what it might signal about the near future.

Rising Interest

One of the most direct signs of retail interest is the number of new Bitcoin addresses created. Historically, sharp increases in new addresses have often marked the beginning of a bull run as new retail investors flood into the market. In recent months, however, the growth in new addresses hasn’t been as sharp as one might expect. Last year, we saw around 791,000 new addresses created in a single day—a sign of considerable retail interest. In comparison, we now hover significantly lower, although we have recently seen a modest uptick in new addresses.

Figure 1: The number of new addresses on the Bitcoin network has begun to rise.

View Live Chart 🔍

Google Trends also reflects this tempered interest. Although searches for “Bitcoin” have been increasing in the past month, they remain far below previous peaks in 2021 and 2017. It seems that retail investors are showing a renewed curiosity but not yet the fervent excitement typical of FOMO-driven markets.

Figure 2: Google searches for ‘Bitcoin’ are also rising but are still relatively low.

Supply Shift

We are witnessing a slight transition of Bitcoin from long-term holders to newer, shorter-term holders. This shift in supply can hint at the potential start of a new market phase, where experienced holders begin taking profits and selling to newer market participants. However, the overall number of coins transferred remains relatively low, indicating that long-term holders aren’t yet parting with their Bitcoin in significant volumes.

Figure 3: Only a slight increase in bitcoin shifting hands to new holders.

View Live Chart 🔍

Historically, during the last bull run in 2020-2021, we saw large outflows from long-term holders to newer investors, which fueled a subsequent price rally. Currently, the shift is only minor, and long-term holders seem largely unfazed by current price levels, opting to hold onto their Bitcoin despite market gains. This reluctance to sell suggests that holders are confident in further upside potential.

A Spot-Driven Rally

A key aspect of Bitcoin’s latest rally is its spot-driven nature, in contrast to previous bull runs heavily fueled by leveraged positions. Open interest in Bitcoin derivatives has seen only minor increases, which stands in sharp contrast to prior peaks. For instance, open interest was significant before the FTX crash in 2022. A spot-driven market, without excessive leverage, tends to be more stable and resilient, as fewer investors are at risk of forced liquidation.

Figure 4: Open interest has been declining on a macro scale, with only a slight recent increase.

View Live Chart 🔍

Big Holders Accumulating

Interestingly, while retail addresses haven’t increased substantially, “whale” addresses holding at least 100 BTC have been rising. Over the past few weeks, wallets with large BTC holdings have added tens of thousands of coins, amounting to billions of dollars in value. This increase signals confidence among Bitcoin’s largest investors that the current price levels have more room to grow, even as Bitcoin reaches all-time highs.

Figure 5: Addresses holding at least 100+ BTC is at the highest value since 2019.

View Live Chart 🔍

In past bull cycles, we saw whales exit or decrease their positions near market peaks, a behavior we’re not seeing this time. This trend of accumulation by experienced holders is a strong bullish indicator, as it suggests faith in the market’s long-term potential.

Conclusion

While Bitcoin’s rally to all-time highs has brought renewed attention, we’re not yet seeing the telltale signs of widespread retail FOMO. The subdued retail interest suggests we may be only in the beginning phase of this rally. Long-term holders remain confident, whales are accumulating, and leverage remains modest, all indicators of a healthy, sustainable rally.

As we continue into this bull cycle, the market’s structure suggests that the potential for a larger retail-driven surge remains ahead. If this retail interest materializes, it could propel Bitcoin to new heights.

For a more in-depth look into this topic, check out a recent YouTube video here: Has Retail Bitcoin FOMO Begun?

Follow Mark on X.

Well, well, well—if it isn’t Jack Mallers dropping truth bombs like they’re going out of fashion! His latest video on Bitcoin scarcity has me more thrilled than a Brit who’s just found out the pub’s open early.

You see, we Brits have a knack for understatement, but when it comes to Bitcoin, subtlety takes a backseat. We often babble on about Bitcoin being an inflation hedge—as if it’s some sort of financial umbrella protecting us from the monetary drizzle. But let’s cut the crumpets; the real magic lies in its finite supply.

In his recent episode of The Money Matters Podcast, streamed live on 11 November 2024, Mallers didn’t just hit the nail on the head; he used a sledgehammer. “Bitcoin is a solution, it is not a hedge,” he proclaimed, with the kind of conviction you’d expect from someone who’s just discovered tea and biscuits.

He pointed out the glaringly obvious—yet often overlooked—fact that Bitcoin is the only asset where increased demand doesn’t lead to increased supply. If everyone suddenly wants an iPhone, Apple will churn them out faster than you can say “planned obsolescence.” But if everyone wants Bitcoin? Well, tough biscuits. There’s a fixed supply, and that’s that.

Mallers eloquently stated, “Bitcoin is the most performant asset in the world because it’s the scarcest asset in the world. It’s the only asset that demands a higher price for more supply.” It’s like trying to get tickets to a sold-out Oasis concert; the more you want them, the more you have to cough up.

He also took a delightful jab at those who think Bitcoin is just another cog in the financial machine, correlated to stocks or precious metals. It’s as if he’s telling us that while the world fiddles with monetary policies like a cat with a ball of yarn, Bitcoin stands unflinchingly firm.

Now, I don’t know about you, but the idea that Bitcoin is immune to the whims of central banks and governments makes me sleep better at night. Well, that and a good cup of Earl Grey. The finite nature of Bitcoin means it can’t be diluted, devalued, or tampered with—unlike my neighbor’s opinion on my lawn gnomes.

Mallers sums it up brilliantly: “Bitcoin can change the world because the world cannot change Bitcoin.” It’s the financial equivalent of an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object—except, in this case, the object is a decentralized ledger, and the force is our collective realization that scarcity is valuable.

So, what’s the takeaway here? If you’re still treating Bitcoin like an optional side dish rather than the main course, it’s time to rethink your financial menu. The scarcity of Bitcoin isn’t a bug; it’s a feature—a rather splendid one at that.

In the grand tapestry of assets, Bitcoin is that elusive thread of gold that doesn’t tarnish, doesn’t fray, and certainly doesn’t multiply just because we fancy a bit more bling. It’s high time we recognized Bitcoin not just as a hedge against inflation but as a standalone solution to the age-old problem of value preservation.

As for me, I’ve decided to value two things above all: my time and my Bitcoins. Everything else is just window dressing—or, as we say across the pond, mere fluff.

So here’s to Jack Mallers for reminding us that sometimes, less truly is more. And if you haven’t watched his latest video, do yourself a favor and give it a gander. Just be prepared—you might find yourself nodding along more vigorously than a bobblehead on a bumpy road.

Cheers!

Watch the video:

#Bitcoin can change the world because the world can’t change #Bitcoin pic.twitter.com/3WnamG8nL7

— Jack Mallers (@jackmallers) November 14, 2024

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

A lot of consensus-change proposals for bitcoin are on the table at the moment. All of them have good motivations, whether it’s scaling UTXO ownership or making self-custody more tractable. I won’t rehash them here, you’re probably already familiar. Some have been actively developed for years.

The past two such changes that have been made to bitcoin successfully, Segwit and Taproot, were massive engine-lift-style deployments fraught with drama. There have been smaller changes in bitcoin’s past, like the introduction of locktimes, but for some reason the last two have been kitchen sink affairs.

The reality not often talked about by many bitcoin engineers is that up until Taproot, bitcoin’s consensus development was more or less operating under a benevolent dictatorship model. Project leadership went from Satoshi to Gavin to… well, I’ll stop naming names.

Core developers will likely quibble with this characterization, but we all know deep down that to a first order approximation that it’s basically true. The “final say” and big ideas were implicitly signed off on by one guy, or maybe a small oligarchy of wizened autists.

In many ways there’s really nothing wrong with this – most (all?) major open source projects operate similarly with pretty clear leadership structures. Oftentimes they have benevolent dictators who just “make the call” in times of high-dimensional ambiguity. Everyone knows Guido and Linus and the based Christian sqlite guy.

Bitcoin is aesthetically loath to this but the reality, whether we like it or not, is that this is how it worked up until about 2021.

Given that, there are three factors that create the CONSENSUS CONUNDRUM facing bitcoin right now:

(1) The old benevolent dictators (or high-caste oligarchy) have abdicated their power, leaving a vacuum that shifts the project from “conventional mode of operation” to “novel, never-before-tried” mode: an attempt at some kind of supposedly meritocratic leaderlessness.

This change is coupled with the fact that

(2) the possible design space for improvements and things to care about in bitcoin is wide open at this point. Do you want vaults? Or more L2s? What about rollups? Or how about a generic computational tool like CAT? Or should we bundle the generic things with applications (CTV + VAULT) to make sure they really work?

The problem is that all of these are valid opinions. They all have merit, both in terms of what to focus on and how to get to the end goal. There really isn’t a clear “correct” design pattern.

(3) A final factor that makes this situation poisonous is that faithfully pursuing, fleshing out, building, “doing the work” of presenting a proposal IS REALLY REALLY TIME CONSUMPTIVE AND MIND MELTING.

Getting the demos, specs, implementation, and “marketing” material together is a long grind that takes years of experience with Core to even approach.

I was well paid to do this fulltime for years, and the process left me disgusted with the dysfunction and having very little desire to continue contributing. I think this is a common feeling.

A related myth is that businesses will do something analogous to aid the process. The idea that businesses will build on prospective forks is pretty laughable. Most bitcoin companies have a ton on their backlog, are fighting for survival, and have basically no one dedicated to R&D. The have a hard enough time integrating features that actually make it in.

Many of the ones who do have the budget for R&D are shitcoin factories that don’t care about bitcoin-specific upgrades.

I’ve worked for some of the rare companies that care about bitcoin and do have the money for this kind of R&D, and even then the resources are not sufficient to build a serious product demo on top of 1 of N speculative softforks that may never happen.

—

This kind of situation is why human systems evolve leadership hierarchies. In general, to progress in a situation like this someone needs to be in a position to say “alright, after due consideration we’re doing X.”

Of course what makes this seem intractable is that the Bitcoin mythology dictates (rightly) that clear leadership hierarchies are how you wind up, in the limit, with the Fed.

Sure, bitcoin can just never change again in any meaningful way (“ossify”). But at this point that almost certainly resigns it to yet another financial product that can only be accessed with the benefit of a large institution.

If you grant that bitcoin should probably keep tightening its rules for more and better functionality, but that we should go “slow and steady,” I think there are issues with that too.

Because another factor that isn’t talked about is that as bitcoin rises in price, and as nation-states start buying in size, the rules will be harder to change. So inaction — not deciding — is actually a very consequential decision.

I do not know how this resolves.

—

There’s another uncomfortable subject I want to touch on: where the power actually lies.

The current mechanism for changing bitcoin hinges on what Core developers will merge. This of course isn’t official policy, but it’s the unintended reality.

Other less technically savvy actors (like miners and exchanges) have to pick some indicator to pay attention to that tells them what changes are safe and when they are coming. They have little ability or interest to size these things up for themselves, or do the development necessary to figure them out.

My Core colleagues will bristle at this characterization. They’ll say “we’re just janitors! we just merge what has consensus!” And they’re not being disingenuous in saying that. But they’re also not acknowledging that historically, that is how consensus changes have operated.

This is something that everyone knows semi-consciously but doesn’t really want to own.

Core devs saying “yes” and clicking merge has been a necessary precursor every time. And right now none of the Core devs are paying attention to the soft fork conversations – sort of understandable, there’s a bunch to do in bitcoin.

But let’s be honest here, a lot of the work happening in Core has been sort of secondary to bitcoin’s realization.

Mempool work is interesting, but the whole model is more or less upside down anyway because it’s based on altruism. For-profit darkpools and accelerators seem inevitable to me, although that could be argued. Much of the mempool work is rooted in support for Lightning, which is pretty obviously not going to solve the scaling problem.

Sure, encrypted P2P connections are great, but what’s even the point if we can’t get on-chain ownership to a level beyond essentially requiring the use of an exchange, ecash mint, sidechain, or some other trusted third party?

My main complaint is that Core has developed an ivory tower mindset that more or less sneers at people piatching long-run consensus stuff instead of trying to actually engage with the hard problems.

And that could have bitcoin fall short of its potential.

—

I don’t know what the solution to any of this is. I do know that self-custody is totally nervewracking and basically out of the question for casual users, and I do know that bitcoin in its current form will not scale to twice-monthly volume for even 10% of the US, let alone most of the world.

The people who don’t acknowledge this, and who want to spend critical time and energy wallowing in the mire of proposing the perfect remix of CTV, are making a fateful choice.

Most of the longstanding, fully specified fork proposals active today are totally fine, and conceptually they’d be great additions to bitcoin.

Hell, probably a higher block size is safe given features like compactblocks and assumeutxo and eventually utreexo. But that’s another post for another day.

—

I’ve gone back and forth about writing a post like this, because I don’t have any concrete prescriptions or recommendations. I guess I can only hope that bringing up these uncomfortable observations is some distant precursor to making progress on scaling self-custody.

All of these opinions have probably been expressed by @JeremyRubin years ago in his blog. I’m just tired of biting my tongue.

Thanks to @rot13maxi and @MsHodl for feedback on drafts of this.

This is a guest post by James O’Beirne. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Follow Aaron on Nostr or X.

In his Take from Wednesday, Shinobi argued that the surge of institutional bitcoin adoption will lead to premature ossification of the Bitcoin protocol. While I share this concern to an extent, I am less convinced this is necessarily true.

Bitcoin is inherently a permissionsless system. For protocol changes specifically, it “just” requires users to upgrade their software. And when it comes to deploying soft forks, it really only needs a majority of miners to upgrade. (This is admittedly a simplification for the sake of brevity, but I’d say it’s still “true enough” to state it this way.)

Miners will for the most part follow economic incentives. If a protocol upgrade makes Bitcoin (say) more scalable or more private, there is actually good reason to think this would make Bitcoin more valuable, which in turn means there is good reason to think miners will activate the upgrade.

Even in an extreme scenario where a soft fork occurs through a user activated soft fork (UASF) that splits the blockchain, and even if in this scenario the institutions prefer the legacy version of the chain (this is the scenario Shinobi is ultimately envisioning), it’s not obvious to me that the non-upgraded chain would “win”.

Just owning lots of bitcoin does not give you a “say” on which side of a chain split is more valuable. Initially, everyone receives coins on both sides. Only if you’re willing to buy or sell these coins (eg.: “dump” coins on one side of the split to get more coins on the other side) does your economic weight matter. But this means you have to take a risk: skin in the game.

Would big institutions really be willing to bet everything they own on the version of the protocol without the upgrade? That’s a big assumption to make.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.