I'm still trying to figure out how Bitcoin, which is backed by nothing and has no intrinsic value, can have fundamentals.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I'm still trying to figure out how Bitcoin, which is backed by nothing and has no intrinsic value, can have fundamentals.

---

That's how the fundamentals are unchanged

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

I'm still trying to figure out how Bitcoin, which is backed by nothing and has no intrinsic value, can have fundamentals.

---

#2 star.

It doesn't. It has no more intrinsic value than Monopoly money. The only "money" that matters is the stuff that says "Legal tender for all debts, public and private" on the front.

Even gold has no intrinsic value as money. It's a volatile asset that is worth whatever people will pay for it. The difference is that gold has value for manufacturing as well as being a volatile asset, whereas cryptocurrency is all inherently worthless. It only becomes useful once it gets converted into dollars.

Yet another smart move by the STABLE GENIUS.



When Trump signed the order in March 2025 to create a Bitcoin reserve, govt officials estimate the US owned about 200,000 Bitcoins with a market value of $18.5 Billion at the time.

The value of that stash is now about $4.7 Billion dollars less.

Another brilliant move with TAXPAYER money.

And the Trumpers were outraged over Joe Biden essentially shorting 200 MILLION BARRELS of crude oil up at an average price of $95 in 2022 via the SPR. - - - WTI Crude Oil is now at $63.52.

US Bitcoin Reserve loses nearly $5 billion in value after crypto wipeout

Did you panic buy, if not, why not? Prices are back up from yesterday's lows, bro.

On Thursday, Strategy (MSTR) reported a 4th quarter net loss of $12.4 Billion.

The company that does nothing but buy BITCOIN recorded and unrealized fair-value loss of $17.4 BILLION for the most recent period.

As of Feb. 1st the company known as STRATEGY held 713,502 Bitcoins.

Doesn't sound like a very smart strategy.

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Hope people didn't get BURNED by buying Bitcoin up at $95,000 as was strongly recommended here on Jan. 14th.

---

Don't worry, you'll buy it at $200,000 and sell at $95,000.

---

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
You sound like a major player.

DiabloWags said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Hope people didn't get BURNED by buying Bitcoin up at $95,000 as was strongly recommended here on Jan. 14th.

---

Don't worry, you'll buy it at $200,000 and sell at $95,000.

---

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
You sound like a major player.

---

https://www.wsj.com/subscribe/?page=wsjcoreiybpr&swg=true&trackingCode=a62908ec&ucid=WSJ_SCH_GOO_ACQ_NON_WJP_NAP_NAP_NAP_BAU&n2IKsaD9=n2IKsaD9&Pg9aWOPT=Pg9aWOPT&Cp5dKJWb=Cp5dKJWb&APCc9OU1=APCc9OU1&gclsrc=aw.ds&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=22106590496&gbraid=0AAAAAD_a1WNhuajRvPASbUs5HRicEUdya&gclid=CjwKCAiAtLvMBhB_EiwA1u6_PtzKWZdmEuwLTWUUTkQmpxuuj9M69L4x2Dncx3Goa5_BKmL0hfMpRBoCduMQAvD_BwE

You can get 40% off your first year.

I've been subscribing to the print edition of the WSJ for decades. I strongly recommend it for those that don't understand how tariffs work.

DiabloWags said:

---

I've been subscribing to the print edition of the WSJ for decades. I strongly recommend it for those that don't understand how tariffs work.

---

I agree. Some folks may need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills first though.

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I've been subscribing to the print edition of the WSJ for decades. I strongly recommend it for those that don't understand how tariffs work.

---

I agree. Some folks may need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills first though.

---

I've noticed that no one here appears to subscribe to the WSJ, so your introductory subscription link will most likely fall on deaf ears. People here seem to find tweets from anonymous X accounts more credible.

Weird.

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I've been subscribing to the print edition of the WSJ for decades. I strongly recommend it for those that don't understand how tariffs work.

---

I agree. Some folks may need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills first though.

---

I've noticed that no one here appears to subscribe to the WSJ, so your introductory subscription link will most likely fall on deaf ears. People here seem to find tweets from anonymous X accounts more credible.

Weird.

---

Shocking that people don't trust main stream media. Can't possibly guess why that might be…

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I've been subscribing to the print edition of the WSJ for decades. I strongly recommend it for those that don't understand how tariffs work.

---

I agree. Some folks may need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills first though.

---

I've noticed that no one here appears to subscribe to the WSJ, so your introductory subscription link will most likely fall on deaf ears. People here seem to find tweets from anonymous X accounts more credible.

Weird.

---

Shocking that people don't trust main stream media. Can't possibly guess why that might be…

---

What's shocking is your comment above. You've obviously never read the Wall Street Journal.

I pay $780 a year for it and I learn something new every single day.

And FWIW, it probably has one of the most conservative opinion sections on the planet.

I'll just leave it at that.

---

Had a subscription for years and have entirely turned myself off of main stream media. It's all biased and driven by money, hence you having to pay $780 a year for it.

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I've been subscribing to the print edition of the WSJ for decades. I strongly recommend it for those that don't understand how tariffs work.

---

I agree. Some folks may need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills first though.

---

I've noticed that no one here appears to subscribe to the WSJ, so your introductory subscription link will most likely fall on deaf ears. People here seem to find tweets from anonymous X accounts more credible.

Weird.

---

Shocking that people don't trust main stream media. Can't possibly guess why that might be…

---

What's shocking is your comment above. You've obviously never read the Wall Street Journal.

I pay $780 a year for it and I learn something new every single day.

And FWIW, it probably has one of the most conservative opinion sections on the planet.

I'll just leave it at that.

---

Had a subscription for years and have entirely turned myself off of main stream media. It's all biased and driven by money, hence you having to pay $780 a year for it.

---

Some of my best trading ideas have been inspired from reading the WSJ. But Im not surprised you're unable to grasp that and that's why you highlight the $780 price.

That makes no sense to me.
$780 is peanuts.

You're missing the point.

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

I've been subscribing to the print edition of the WSJ for decades. I strongly recommend it for those that don't understand how tariffs work.

---

I agree. Some folks may need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills first though.

---

I've noticed that no one here appears to subscribe to the WSJ, so your introductory subscription link will most likely fall on deaf ears. People here seem to find tweets from anonymous X accounts more credible.

Weird.

---

Shocking that people don't trust main stream media. Can't possibly guess why that might be…

---

What's shocking is your comment above. You've obviously never read the Wall Street Journal.

I pay $780 a year for it and I learn something new every single day.

And FWIW, it probably has one of the most conservative opinion sections on the planet.

I'll just leave it at that.

---

Had a subscription for years and have entirely turned myself off of main stream media. It's all biased and driven by money, hence you having to pay $780 a year for it.

---

Some of my best trading ideas have been inspired from reading the WSJ. But Im not surprised you're unable to grasp that and that's why you highlight the $780 price.

That makes no sense to me.

---

You brought up the price, not me. You shouldn't have to pay for the news. It becomes a money grab at that point and the information posted will always be skewed because of that

DiabloWags said:

---

So how is the WSJ biased because of a money grab?
Explain that to me.

---

Placing so much content behind a paywall can influence what gets published or emphasized, focusing on content that attracts paying readers rather than what might be most informative to a general audience.

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

So how is the WSJ biased because of a money grab?
Explain that to me.

---

Placing so much content behind a paywall can influence what gets published or emphasized, focusing on content that attracts paying readers rather than what might be most informative to a general audience.

---

So you think journalists should work for free?
That makes zero sense.

Again, it doesnt sound like you've ever read the WSJ.

DiabloWags said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

So how is the WSJ biased because of a money grab?
Explain that to me.

---

Placing so much content behind a paywall can influence what gets published or emphasized, focusing on content that attracts paying readers rather than what might be most informative to a general audience.

---

So you think journalists should work for free?
That makes zero sense.

Again, it doesnt sound like you've ever read the WSJ.

---

Again, you're not listening and I'm not gonna keep going back and forth with you.

I support independent journalists that's don't force people to pay for their content and aren't set to a guideline of what they can write by a parent company.