Coming soon: Meta announces they are buying bitcoin anyways, because fuck them plebs.
most of the shareholders aren’t ‘plebs’
I suppose compared to our lord zucc they might be
yeah honestly though a man with 200 billion is vastly more wealthy than someone with 100 million
It’s difficult to comprehend just how much more wealthy a billionaire is. If you spent $10 every ten minutes, it would take you about 70 days to go through $1 million. To reach a billion would take 190 years.
The difference between a million and a billion is approximately a billion
Why would they in the first place? It would be like a newspaper buying gold. If investors want to buy bitcoin they can just do that.
Businesses are following the lead of Microstrategy with keeping BTC on the treasury books to increase profits and hedge against inflation.
But now they’re essentially just a bitcoin proxy, they even changed the logo to have a bitcoin on it.
Now that there’s lots of ETFs and stuff, why buy Microstrategy and not just bitcoin?
Their value-add is that they financialize their bitcoin holdings to grow their bitcoin-backed shares faster than the bitcoin itself. Higher risk than just holding bitcoin or ETFs that just hold bitcoin, but something like 30-40% better returns.
In good times. We’re yet to see how they do in a bitcoin winter.
What does “financialize their bitcoin holdings” mean? Do you mean they use leverage (i.e. debt) to buy bitcoin than they could otherwise? That’s nothing new and is a common ETF strategy (see BITX). And yeah, it also means the bad times hit much harder.
They issue “convertible notes”, which this coindesk article explains far better than I could because I am not a finance head and honestly do not fully understand them.
Yep, that’s leverage. They sold notes which can be converted to shares of microstrategy. So while they don’t have to issue more shares right now (which would dilute shareholders and lower the value of individual shares), they will have to in the future given the conditions on the convertible notes. If they have to convert those notes into shares while the price of bitcoin is dropping, it’s a double whammy because the value of their holdings (which their value is entirely based on) drops AND they’re diluting individual shares by having to issue more shares. This wards off investors which will tank the price even more.
If you own a share of meta then you own a share of meta and meta owns a mix of assets ranging from physical to various liquidity, whether its USD or BTC there isn’t any difference in this regard.
Because holding USD is a liability these days.
Is it?
Seems like petrodollars have been riding high for decades.
!remindme in one year
Since you’ve missed the news, the USA has been overtaken by a fascist christian white supremacist party who gut social programs, cut science funding, literally completely disbanded the department of education, increased the defficit, and enacted large Tariffs on every other nation.
the USA has been overtaken by a fascist christian white supremacist party
For the third time (assuming you don’t count Congressional cycles) in twenty years. I’ve spent a solid 13 of the last 25 years living under a Christian Fascist presidency. Why am I supposed to assume that will devalue the dollar this time around?
You’re either pretending this administration isn’t worse than any previous example or you are woefully naïve.
Apparently GameStop are considering it too.
Yeah but GameStop’s entire existence depends on crypto meme hype, while Meta’s depends on extracting our data as efficiently as possible
is gamestop even relevant anymore
Gamestop already did last week
I’m out of date then.
Do the shareholders not realize how much easier it is to bribe the president with crypto?
I don’t think people who give or take bribes usually like having a permanent history of the transaction.
Which is why they take the bribe in monero
Big incentive to keep trump in power if your bribery of him is public record. Someone else might do something about it
corpos might not necessarily want this.
sometimes they want to get rid of these people when public opinion about them is too dirty, and get a fresh puppet in.
Workarounds for the shortcomings certainly make bribes possible with crypto but not exactly easier than with traditional currencies.
Bribery isn’t illegal, theres no need to be coy and secretive about it.
That entirely depends on context. Bribing a cop is illegal. Bribing a politician doesn’t appear to be illegal anymore (USA)
I due not want my corporation holding Bitcoin, if I want exposure I’ll buy Bitcoin directly. They should be holding a bit of debt optimally.
TBH if the choices are USD or BTC then I think the latter has a better future at the moment.
BTC is still less stable. It will need to stop being a pump and dump cycle target before it could claim a true future.
With a Market Cap of 2 Trillion it’s pretty difficult to impact the purchase price as an individual or group. Even a small nation would struggle with it.
You’d think that but as Bitcoin becomes tied to more and more those things become part of what holds up Bitcoin.
Bird flu won’t affect Bitcoin valuation but could affect most fiat currency, but that’s only because of the system now. If Bitcoin became more prominent wouldn’t it be bound to thing more?
So you’re saying there is a group out there pumping and dumping hundreds of billions equivalence to USD?
I think you should learn more about the stock market. It’s literally a lie point blank and totally manipulated aggressively by actors who aren’t even THAT big.
Okay but we were talking about BTC pump and dumps and to perform that on the massive scale which dwarfs any stock ticker below the top 5 by hundreds of billions of dollars while somehow completely illuding people who watch the blockchain like hawks for big movers…
It’s just not feasible. You would have to be much richer than the official richest man on earth and have almost all of your assets liquid and then on top of that you would need millions of wallets acting asynchronously. And why would you even bother? If you’re that rich you could just not hide it.
Yes. That bitcoin dogshit fell and rose with the covid fall and rise of stocks. You think bitcoin is some profound new form of currency, but it’s really just another avenue for wall street to steal from main street.
I think the latter has a better future at the moment.
Crypto ‘godfather’ of Bel-Air: Probe widens into L.A. deputies’ alleged links to mogul
- Federal authorities accuse Adam Iza, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur, of financial conspiracies and extortion.
- Prosecutors allege Iza used L.A. County sheriff’s deputies to carry out his criminal bidding.
- Iza has pleaded not guilty. A judge ordered him jailed despite claims that he needs medical care after a cosmetic leg-lengthening procedure.
If you want a deeper dive, check out the TrueAnon episode series Zort a three-parts-and-counting plunge into the seedy underbelly of Cryptocoin scams, extortion, leg-lengthening surgery, LASD rampant corruption, and age-gap discourse.
Oh no! Lmao. You’ve really only demonstrated that you don’t understand what Bitcoin is, that you think Iza owns and operates it.
Don’t need to be the owner to grift.
And grifting is specific to any one form of currency because…?
With how volitile the USD is under ahem this administration, Bitcoin is probably the slightly less shittier option.
If only there were some other major currency, maybe controlled by some larger union of countries so that one country’s poor decisions can’t tank it
Greece has entered the chat
Seriously, I do not have faith in USD anymore. What’s left of my paycheck after bills all goes to BTC, and I sell what I need on demand to cover day to day costs. Been doing this since 2019 and it has paid off handsomely.
It returns 50-80% on average… so yea, it’s better in that context.
I didn’t really parse what your comment is saying. Are you saying that whenever you buy BTC you later sell it for half your buy average? Or are you saying like 150%?
Is it just you or are you implying that everyone loses/gains 50% from the magical BitGoblin?
On average, if you hold bitcoin over time, you would average that in profit.
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification.
BECAUSE CRYPTO IS A SCAM
I had an acquaintance ask me about my opinion on crypto a few years ago and I explained it only has the perceived value and is highly volatile as a result, and that all but a few coins were basically rug pulls waiting to happen. He was satisfied with that and moved on. About a year later crypto had roughly doubled in value and he gave me shit about bad advice (it was an opinion not investment advice) and proceeded to move $10k into some coin I’d never heard of. About a month later a mutual friend said the other guy had lost like $8k of his $10k investment. Next time I saw the acquaintance there was no mention of crypto.
Yeah, it’s like those people who fall for ads where people get rich going to the casino.
i notice that is usually conservatives that buys into the scam, and the ones that peddle it too.
It’s not, but there are plenty of crypto scams. It’s not an investment and it’s also not a particularly good store of value, but it is decent for P2P transactions, with some coins also providing privacy.
If that’s not your use case, don’t buy cryptocurrencues. Most people shouldn’t buy them until more places accept them for payment.
Most people shouldn’t buy them until more places accept them for payment.
It’s not going to happen. You can’t price things when the value of the currency changes every 10 minutes.
That is not what’s stopping people from paying for things in bitcoin. When you buy something in BTC you pay the equivalent to whatever you would have paid in the local fiat. And on the vendor side, merchant services often convert that paid BTC into fiat in the moment after the sale. Both parties are insulated from volatility in the context of the exchange. What actually keeps people from paying for day to day goods and services in BTC is Gresham’s Law, the observation that nobody wants to pay for purchases with an appreciating asset, so long as there’s also a depreciating asset they could pay with instead.
You’re aware we just use the conversion price in fiat, right?
I don’t know what you’re saying. If I charge a particular amount for a loaf of bread and then the cryptocurrency value drops halfway through the day then that person still has the bread but I now don’t have the money.
The whole point of currency is to get away from the fluctuating value of exchange that everyone had to deal with when we used to buy things with gold and semi-precious stones.
Vendors can immediately sell upon receipt. And prices rarely change that much in a day, usually it’s a few percent at most (within the credit card fee range), especially for the currencies targeted at actually being currencies instead of scams.
This ^
Most vendors do frequently sell or convert to stablecoins to avoid this problem, and in times of uncertainty, they often charge more to cover the eventual losses
What is the point of using them if you are expected to switch them to an actual real fiat just to keep your value?
That happens to every currency, BTC is more volatile than many, but things can be priced.
Also until twiddling is made illegal, prices can be set by some other currency or some function, and be calculated in BTC from that, and displayed on electronic price tags for example.
Never gonna happen is a bit of a stretch. It used to be a thing. Steam accepted bitcoin. They stopped accepting it due to volatility and high transaction fees at the time. You still price things in your local currency but convert at checkout. There are “plug and play” payment processors who can handle it now… Spar in Switzerland accepts it.
But imo, its not something regular people should be using anyway.
The fact that they stopped due to volatility kind of proved my point.
I thought your point was it was never happening? I provided examples where it did happen in the past and where its happening now. Volatility of the price vs USD is not the biggest issue if the payment processor gives the vendor USD back after the transaction. If the vendor believes in crypto, they can decide to keep it as well. Had Valve chosen to hold their crypto earnings in 2016 for a few years, they’d have seen even larger profits. But thats beside the point. I personally believe they canned it more because of transaction fees. At the time, bitcoin network was oversaturated due to an explosion of popularity which reduced it to unusable levels for everyday transactions.
You should be focusing on why other vendors are still supporting crypto and asking yourself why.
Never happening doesn’t mean they don’t try.
Fees are predictable. Volatility is not. If you can’t make sure the money you are paid retains its value then the price you are selling something for is also volatile rather than inert.
I like GNU Taler, and I would like there to exist not just such a payment system, but also an electronic currency system without blockchains (global synchronization is a pain), unfortunately currencies are not like most applications.
I also wrote two smartass paragraphs completely wrong after this, and now thinking about it - Taler is as good a solution as possible. It’s basically what can be done. You can’t decentralize an issuer or a bank, except for the BTC way. If you can, then you can’t plug it in seamlessly , you need some synchronization (would be a shame if a failed transaction made it into Taler as passed).
If I understand that correctly.
Gosh. It’s year 2025, I’ve achieved nothing. I was blabbering on these subjects in year 2011! I’ll be 29 in less than a month. But so cool that someone is making the humanity better.
Taler is cool, but it solves a completely different set of problems vs cryptocurrencies, and is ripe for being replaced with alternatives, undermining its primary purpose.
Here are a few of the problems being solved here:
- transaction fees
- privacy
- decentralization
- independence from fiat
Taker largely attacks the first two, and cryptocurrencies largely attack the second two, and I’m mostly interested in the middle two. However, since Taler doesn’t do either of the last two, it’s subject to either being ignored (i.e. if no banks are willing to support it) or directly competed against with something that sacrifices one of the first two, and customers won’t get the option of Taler.
I think Taler makes a ton of sense for something with its own currency, such as microtransactions or a browser extension for rewarding creators (say, in lieu of displaying ads). I don’t see benefits for banks who make a ton from credit cards. There are some cryptocurrencies that hit the last three (e.g. Monero), so that’s what I’m excited to see take off.
My portfolio disagrees.
Y’all should have bought BTC when the price was hovering around $19K about 3 years ago. I told you the price was going to go up, but no one listened. Now it’s at $105K, I’m $60k richer, and y’all are still whining and complaining that it’s a “scam”.
Hate to break it to you, but bitcoin isn’t to crash and burn anytime soon. It’s still early; buy in now or regret it for the rest of your life.
It won’t crash indeed, cause it is too useful to scam people.
My Enron stock disagrees.
Your attack missed!
You can pull the Enron card when talking about investments in general; your comments do 0 damage.
The point did fly over your head, you’re right about that. Pointing at the current value of your scam investment as proof of it not being a scam does not make it legitimate.
deleted by creator
What argument? You pointed to the price of bitcoin going up and I pointed out that scams go up in value. Then you think it doesn’t apply to bitcoin because…? Oh, that’s right, you didn’t make any argument other than “number went up”.
No, it’s not. SOME cryptos are scams. Saying it all is a scam is ignorant.
deleted by creator
imagine not being able to read
they literally said some is a scam
therefore they don’t consider all of it to be good, and therefore they don’t ‘simp’ for it
deleted by creator
Even the “legit” parts are only used by people to try to get richt from it. It isn’t a currency and won’t ever be.
And as an investment it is bad. At least with real investments the company actually uses the money to improve. Crypto is nothing more than a sock under your bed.
You are wrong.
Monero is the only good crypto
No, but one of the good ones
Same way fiat is.
Édit: damn, and I thought bitcoiners were obnoxious You guys take the cake with so much copium.
Oh stop it
What’s the GDP of Bitcoinistan?
Can’t be any worse than the GDP of the 2025 fascist USA
I mean, it is worse
Probably the same as North Korea, with the amount of money laundering, ransomware, propaganda and scams they do 😄
They’re the same with AI. Had these people been interested years ago, they would be sitting pretty. But they kept telling everyone it’s garbage. Now it’s just sunk costs for them
I’m sure that if they found a set of keys for a Bitcoin wallet, they would just throw it away.
I certainly wouldn’t keep anything in cryptocurrency. I would transfer it to something stable.
I mean if I found a wallet with a million euros worth of bitcoin, I’d sell half and keep half. If it rises significantly, sell half of the remainder. And so on.
If I found a wallet with like 5k worth of BTC on it though? Just sell it all right away, it’ll do more for me now than say 10k in 5 years which is an insane long term return tbf.
The Cult of the Torment Nexus knows a scam when it sees one.
Meta: Fuck it, we ball. (commits PR to add Bitcoin)
They also tried to create their own shitcoin back in the day: https://www.ft.com/content/a88fb591-72d5-4b6b-bb5d-223adfb893f3
ok, so the link was working the first time, but now it has a paywall…I’ll post the thing below:
spoiler
Facebook Libra: the inside story of how the company’s cryptocurrency dream died on linkedin (opens in a new window) current progress 13% Hannah Murphy and Kiran Stacey PublishedMar 10 2022 UpdatedMar 10 2022, 08:37 68 Stay informed with free updates Simply sign up to the Cryptocurrencies myFT Digest – delivered directly to your inbox. On June 24 2021, Jay Powell and Janet Yellen sat down for their weekly breakfast amid the austere surroundings of the US Treasury building on 1,500 Pennsylvania Avenue. There was only one major question on the agenda: should they give the green light for a global cryptocurrency designed by Facebook? The chair of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury secretary were both DC veterans; Powell had replaced Yellen at the top of the Fed. But neither had had to make such an unusual decision. An alliance of tech companies led by Facebook proposed to launch a product it hoped would profoundly change the world. Rather than adhering to the social media giant’s one-time mantra “move fast and break things”, executives had come to Washington to ask permission first. Powell laid out his position with his customary precision. As Fed chair, he told Yellen, he was willing to give the go-ahead for Facebook and its partners to trial Diem, as the digital currency backed by the US dollar was called at the time. He knew the Treasury had concerns, not least the possibility that such a currency could become a vehicle for money laundering or grow so popular as to threaten global monetary stability. But on balance, his staff thought Diem was designed carefully enough to avoid such outcomes and would have the added benefit of setting industry standards. The social media company’s reputation was sullied in Washington, following a series of controversies over data privacy, misinformation and alleged censorship. During his presidential bid the year before, Joe Biden said he had “never been a big fan” of Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg, describing him as “a real problem”. And prominent Democrats and Republicans alike had already spoken out against Diem specifically. A cautious operator, Powell wanted backing from Yellen, who is close to the president and popular among progressives. After weeks of deliberation, Yellen had made up her mind: she was out. “Yellen told him it was his decision to make, but that she would not protect him from the political fallout if he did so,” says one person briefed on the conversation. “And that was the end of Facebook’s digital currency.” Diem’s leadership would spend the next six months in a last-ditch drive to rescue the project that began by attempting to woo government regulators, then trying to browbeat them and, in a final folly, exploring working with Zuckerberg’s one-time nemeses. But this January, Diem confirmed that it was winding down for good. The remains of Zuckerberg’s digital money dream would be sold to a little-known Californian bank for $182mn, marking one of the most spectacular, if little-noted, failures of his career. Over the past few months, the Financial Times has spoken to some 30 people involved with the project, including executives, developers, lobbyists and the regulators and politicians who ultimately killed it. (Many of them spoke on condition of anonymity because Facebook requires employees and partners to sign non-disclosure agreements.) What emerges is a picture of Silicon Valley executives who thought they could charge into finance and make billions, if only they could surmount technical and regulatory barriers. What they failed to realise was that the very fact Facebook had conceived the idea, doomed it. As one government official involved in the process puts it: “Diem spent years trying to reverse engineer their project to fix all of its faults. But they could never fix being linked to Facebook. It was their original sin.” Meta, as Facebook has since been rebranded, is one of a handful of tech companies now threatened with much stricter regulation, even break-up, by US politicians and regulators who have come to see it as a malignant force in American commerce and democracy. Nowhere has the divide between Silicon Valley and Capitol Hill been more clearly exposed than in the tortured downfall of Diem. David Marcus was soaking up the Caribbean sun. It was the winter of 2017, and the dapper, French-born executive was on holiday in the Dominican Republic. Marcus, 48, was the head of Facebook’s Messenger app and a close confidant of Zuckerberg’s. His silver hair and slick suits set him apart from his younger, scruffier colleagues. Peers jokingly called him the “George Clooney of Silicon Valley,” and he was seen as powerful within the company. Lying on the beach, Marcus indulged in some blue-sky thinking. What if he could find a way to create a global digital currency and integrate it into Facebook? Marcus was no stranger to the worlds of start-ups and digital payments. He sold his first company at 27. In 2011, a subsequent mobile payments start-up he founded was acquired by PayPal for $240mn. Within nine months, he was PayPal’s president. In 2014, Zuckerberg recruited him to run Messenger, which he’d help grow to more than 1.3bn users. But three years on, he was restless. Meanwhile, blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies had become useful tools for dark web criminals as well as the lofty obsessions of programmers and utopian technologists. But they had yet to be adopted by any big corporations. For Facebook’s more than two-billion-strong user base, crypto could offer a convenient and cheap way to move money around the world, Marcus thought. For the social media company itself, it could provide a treasure trove of data about what people spend their money on. Interrupting his holiday abroad, Marcus texted Zuckerberg to outline his ruminations. Intrigued, the CEO gave his blessing to explore the idea further. So Marcus began methodically crafting a tool beloved by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs: a memo outlining the new project’s objectives, defining success and quantifying how to get there. Morgan Beller was a 24-year-old whirlwind. Fast-talking and animated, she had been a partner at venture capital group Andreessen Horowitz before joining Facebook’s corporate development team in 2017. She was also a fierce blockchain advocate, who spent the latter part of that year trying to shop the technology to whichever Facebook executive would listen: why wasn’t the company embracing decentralisation and open protocols for its users? Could it get into bitcoin mining? Should Facebook groups be able to issue their own digital tokens? “It’s a really big company and taking really big risks is hard,” she tells the FT. “To give Facebook credit, the leadership was very receptive and very open. I didn’t have anyone say no, at least to meeting and brainstorming.” In early 2018, Marcus and Beller joined forces. At first, they worked in a small, empty room, walls adorned with whiteboards, on Facebook’s main campus in Menlo Park. Soon they moved to a larger, more secluded building on the outskirts of the company’s headquarters. Only employees with particular passes — the crypto experts, engineers and economists they brought on board — could access the facility. Their top-secret project was codenamed Libra. The team was “paranoid about leaks”, says Beller and was “like a secret Swat operation”. This would be the first of several incarnations, each intended to conform to the difficulties and demands of launching a digital currency from within Facebook. Initially, the dream was for Libra to be like bitcoin, a currency owned by no one group and built on open-source technology. This would allow individuals to store, spend and transfer money across borders with close to zero transaction fees. Unlike bitcoin, it would be backed by something real: a reserve of low-risk assets including bank deposits in various currencies and US Treasuries. (This kind of crypto is known as stablecoin.) Facebook declined to comment. Marcus, who also declined to be interviewed, wrote in a statement: “Libra was about building a protocol for money on the internet to enable people and businesses who are currently left behind by the current system to access sound digital money and cheap payments.” To get the project off the ground — before it was to become fully decentralised — leadership was needed to develop the technology. Marcus and Beller were conscious that Facebook alone should not be seen as directing the effort. So they created a non-profit association, also called Libra, of which Facebook was to be one of many members. To avoid appearing US-centric, it would be technically based in Switzerland, a more neutral financial centre that was also an emerging crypto hub at the time. (Marcus and Beller continued to work primarily from California.) Weekly newsletter For the latest news and views on fintech from the FT’s network of correspondents around the world, sign up to our weekly newsletter #fintechFT Sign up here with one click The set-up proved convincing. By mid-2019, Marcus and Beller’s pitching had brought on board some 28 companies and non-profits, including Uber, Vodafone, Spotify, Visa and Mastercard as founding members. Each would have equal voting rights and pay $10mn into the reserve; each would guide the project’s development and, eventually, integrate Libra into its services, bringing the digital coin to consumers worldwide. On top of being an equal founding member, Facebook would build its own digital wallet for the
Funny to hear from the company that went all in to the point it renamed itself. The metaverse failure seems to have a big impact
The metaverse is for creating, not really for visiting. If you are an artist, creating worlds in 3d in VR might be interesting to you. I wouldnt look at it as a way to make money, more of a hobby tool.
Yeah, and they can’t expect it to become mainstream if they build the experience around VR headsets
Yeah turns out people don’t like wearing things on their head that are heavy, and quite a lot who don’t mind will get motion sickness anyways. Its an interesting creative tool, similar to a 3d printer in my opinion. Oh also beat saber is pretty great but thats like a single game.
I enjoy my VR headset quite a bit personally.
I do too, its just not changing the world. I don’t have issues with motion sickness but it is a bit of a chore to wear a quest 2 for more than an hour or so. Still theres a bunch of great games and experiences on there.
Fortunately I don’t really fatigue from it much, if anything I just got hot after a while.
I wouldn’t say it’s a failure, it’s more in development still than anything else.
Who was the 1%?
I bet Zuck is regretting not going forward with their crypto scheme
deleted by creator
Who even made the proposal?
Just like MS’ shareholders did. Most of these big companies don’t need to at the moment given how successful they are under the current system but eventually they will.
There is no logical reason not to hold BTC on your balance sheet over short duration US treasuries. One is an appreciating asset that has been growing at 50-60% per year since inception, while the other can’t even keep up with inflation. And Trump has made it patently clear only four months in office that the US and the entire dollar system can’t be trusted anymore. Hence more and more foreign countries and entities moving their capital out of US stocks/bonds and into gold, international equities, bitcoin, etc.
There is no logical reason not to hold BTC on your balance sheet over short duration US treasuries.
One is stable and is backed by the full faith and credit of a nation, the other’s value is determined solely by the current speculative state of the market. For a company which requires stability, they don’t want to invest in an extremely volatile asset. That is a highly logical reason.
deleted by creator
holding BTC long term isn’t that risky
and the ‘full faith and credit of a nation’ uhhhh the nation in question is the US. not a bad idea to consider other things to put money into
uhhhh the nation in question is the US. not a bad idea to consider other things to put money into
I don’t disagree that the US has been quite destabilized as a financial player on the world stage, but the US still has an insane amount of influence over global trade, and holds a ton of power within its own economy.
To argue that Bitcoin is more strongly backed than the entire long-standing, heavily globally financially integrated nation is silly, especially considering, comparatively, how relatively few manufacturers of ASIC miners there are for Bitcoin that could theoretically heavily influence the distribution of hashrate over time if compelled, or how most transactions in crypto still require a financial middleman to offload into currencies like USD because businesses simply can’t operate well when transacting with BTC in most circumstances if that also requires holding onto the BTC afterwards.
holding BTC long term isn’t that risky
And the original post was comparing short term treasuries to Bitcoin, not long term ones.
And even then, Bitcoin’s long-term outlook is bleak considering the % of block rewards paid from fees hasn’t substantially increased to make up for the halvings, which if the trend continues, will result in the cost per block cratering over time, leading to heavily slashed overall hashrate protecting the network.