Cdub100

That's fine, but everything has some volatility. The Bitcoin isn't a store of value argument is so absurd it blows my mind. The history and chart says it all. Anyway you're right. I'm gonna back out before someone says tulips.

In 2010, 10,000 bitcoin bought 2 large pizzas. In 2025 10,000 bitcoin can buy Pizza Hut... the whole focking company. You don't call that a store of value? Seriously WTF are you talking about?

Look dude I don't need to sell you on it. I was just trying to help you understand some of the misinformation you have. Buy it don't buy it I don't care. But BlackRock is buying billions of dollars. Fidelity is buying billions. So honestly they don't want you buying it. Because they want to buy it. Anyway have a good weekend. See you in 10 years when BTC is over a million per coin. That's your money preservation

No I didn't lose a sh1t ton of money on bitcoin in the last year. I've never lost money on bitcoin.

Trying to keep you guys from being poor. Yall need to get with the times.

Easily proven false with a quick search. Very first link https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/morgan-stanley-wealth-advisors-bitcoin-etfs.html

BlackRock: Recommends a starting allocation of 2% for Bitcoin in investment portfolios. This small weighting is suggested to operate as a separate risk driver in a balanced allocation. Beyond 2%, Bitcoin’s volatility could contribute an outsized share of total risk, potentially overshadowing other components. https://www.blackrock.com/us/financial-professionals/insights/bitcoin-unique-diversifier JP Morgan: Strategists at JP Morgan recommend adding up to 1% of an investor’s allocation to cryptocurrencies in a multi-asset portfolio to achieve any efficiency gain in the overall risk-adjusted returns. This recommendation is based on Bitcoin’s potential as a diversifier and a hedge. https://cointelegraph.com/news/jpmorgan-report-endorses-1-allocation-to-bitcoin-as-a-hedge Fidelity Investments: Suggests an allocation of 2% to 5% for investors who want to hedge against inflation and include alternative investments in their portfolios. This range is believed to have an outsized positive impact in an optimistic adoption scenario. https://institutional.fidelity.com/advisors/insights/topics/investing-ideas/the-case-for-bitcoin Grayscale: Proposes a 5% allocation for investors with a moderate risk appetite, highlighting Bitcoin’s potential as a hedge against certain risks. https://www.grayscale.com/research/reports/the-role-of-crypto-in-a-portfolio

Again, to be clear Bitcoin has a proven history of being the best store of value. It's not just a belief but proven. Even the big firms are recommending 5% allocation into bitcoin. So if you are diversifying your money you should have some in bitcoin. BTW I'm recommending bitcoin NOT crypto, because there is a difference. Maybe it's not for you, and I understand that but I'd like to see you not get left behind.

To be clear, there is no better money preservation than Bitcoin.

That's a billion dollar pizza.

500k in bitcoin ETF or 100k VRT 100k Nvidia 100k Microsoft 100k FDVV 100k VST

In celebration of Trump mandating Federal employees return to the office, I made a mem coin: Fed RTO https://pump.fun/coin/BBcDVzesKCnfasr9Ftr2fNmVrdMR1YY6j9nVy5Akpump

Quick! Someone get this global economic genius into the white house. Truly stunning analysis nobody has thought of yet.

Including Jews?

Yeah just like it's never real communism. Right boyo?

So the question I have is there are rules about the color and sex of people on the interview panel. The rule was basically only one white man allowed per 3 person panel. Obviously it didn't say that but instead said one woman and one minority and they couldn't be the same person. Is that going away?

FYI I just received notification all my job postings are being removed. There is a 100% complete hiring freeze.

Trump was signing these while giving an overview of each and taking questions all at the same time AFTER a long day of inauguration crap. The previous administration could NEVER do that.

I don't know anything about this case specifics. I heard about it but never looked into it. So this is all assumptions. When it comes to meme coins they aren't traded like stocks or even bitcoin and other high-value cryptos. They traded using a liquidity pool. This guy created tiktok. He could sell it to investors this is called an ICO initial coin offering. the vast majority of meme coins don't have investors so when they create the meme coin they create a liquidity pool. Liquidity pools (LP) are why it's not "free" to make a coin. What you have to do is take your coin, in this case tick-tock Coin (TTC) and put it in a pool with I assume Solana. The ratio of this pool is 50/50. AS people trade their SOL for TTC the LP starts filling up with SOL. Because the LP wants to keep a 50/50 balance the price of TTC goes up and often cases because of small pools it shoots up a lot. This is where most developers rug people by pulling everything out of the LP. This guy probably didn't want to rug but like all meme coins eventually people start pulling their cash out. So it started dropping and he freaked out and sold what he had which emptied the LP and left everyone else holding the back.

Enlighten you with what?

I don't like Saylor owning so much Bitcoin.

The concept of birthright citizenship in the United States is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This clause, known as the Citizenship Clause, was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to mean that children born to legal or illegal immigrants in the U.S. are automatically U.S. citizens if they are born on U.S. soil and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This has been the basis for birthright citizenship in American law. Seems like another court case brewing

I can tell you with 100% conviction there is accountability. In the past few months I have fired an employee who wouldn't come into the office per OPM policy and revoked another employee's telework agree so he has to come into the office every day. There is a huge misconception about WFH. People think you can hide when you WFH. You can't because what you produce from week to week must stand on it own. If I have an employee who isn't producing there's no hiding it like you can in an office Instead of costing tax payers billions of dollars to maintain these buildings, we should be giving supervisors more authority to manage their employees and fire the ones who do not perform.

When the people who went on a witch hunt to punish these people get pardons..., it probably says a lot about your interpretation of the events that unfolded. Have you thought about that?

I am very pro WFH. Employees are happier, we get more work done, WFH is like getting a 10% raise, and employees are more flexible with their time. The benefits far outweigh the negatives. Boomer executives and blue coller people don't understand or like it.