<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>L0laL33tz wrote</title><author_name>L0laL33tz (npub1mz…q6mak)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1mznweuxrjm423au6gjtlaxmhmjthvv69ru72t335ugyxtygkv3as8q6mak</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>David Bailey just posted the draft for an executive order for the Bitcoin Strategic Reserve under Trump – and it&#39;s an absolute nightmare for anyone using bitcoin as money.&#xA;&#xA;First, the draft order defines Bitcoin as &#34;a finite store-of-value asset, akin to digital gold.&#34;&#xA;&#xA;As someone who has lived on Bitcoin for a fairly long time, I can say that Bitcoin is not merely a &#34;store-of-value asset&#34;, but a money for payment and day to day purchases.&#xA;&#xA;Defining Bitcoin as a &#34;store-of-value asset&#34; reinforces the ossification narrative (who needs to move a stonk several times in a day?) which may put developers at risk when prioritizing changes to btc to make it more usable as money (think scaling for example). &#xA;&#xA;With this definition, a softfork to activate covenants may become an issue of US national security that goes against the US&#39; definition of its primary goals - directly putting developers in the firing line of the United States Government.&#xA;&#xA;The draft states that federal agencies, such as the US Marshall&#39;s Service, may not auction seized Bitcoin off, but must contribute them to the strategic reserve.&#xA;&#xA;This not only reduces the Bitcoin in circulation available to the public, but additionally sets the incentive for the US to increase its seizing efforts – think increased AML/KYC.&#xA;&#xA;While I&#39;m no fan of the strategic reserve in general, this draft is an even bigger disappointment than Sen. Lummis&#39; proposed Bitcoin Act.&#xA;&#xA;To compare this to how El Salvador has implemented Bitcoin, which I admit I initially wasn&#39;t a fan of either, ES directly gives citizens rights to use Bitcoin as money - which is a huge upside to benefit the people, and not just the national security state.&#xA;&#xA;No offense, but letting a couple of children that just graduated college and a guy who runs a magazine draft US policy is a scene straight out of idiocracy. &#xA;&#xA;Next time, maybe try speaking to the people actually building and using bitcoin, not just to the boomers and national security goons that sit on the money like a fat kid at the cake buffet.&#xA;&#xA;Incredibly unprofessional conduct here by BPI, a huge risk to anyone using Bitcoin for anything other than an investment, and a testament to the people involved being more interested in furthering their own importance than to empower people with a money without state.&#xA;&#xA;Sincerely hope that this EO is drastically challenged on all levels and hopefully somehow deemed unconstitutional to protect btc and the people developing it. </html></oembed>