Kind of a bad look - but I can't precisely say why. Maybe he thinks he can raise more capital this way than he could for each company separately? Especially raising more money for X might be quite hard - they seem to be quite a bit behind on the revenue side compared to OpenAI / Anthropic. With both companies merged he might just find enough retail investors willing to buy at sky high valuations.
Not sure why you are getting downvoted - I'm wondering the same thing. Catching up is inherently more expensive than just maintaining a lead. And on top of that the EU pensioners will oppose any reallocation of resources outside of their retirement / pension schemes. The EU does have more fiscal headroom than the US, ie. lower debt per GDP and lower debt per capita - so through borrowing they could mobilize some more funds. But that's about it and I'm doubtful that's going to be enough.
I guess a lot of Europeans don't want to see the real logical questioning and downvoting out of pure frustration.
Also EU doesn't have fiscal freedom. Germany is the only country barely keeping it together and without any hard reform France is a ticking time bomb when it come to its debt-to-GDP.
US has a huge advantage compared to France. US has the control of its currency and can devalue it. France cannot do it since Euro is not controlled by France.
BTC failed to live up to it's own prophecy by not doubling from the last height of ca. 69420 to at least 140k in 2025. There was a last chance in October of last year, where it seemed to get close but ultimately it just didn't find enough buyers. Now with the narrative broken (bitcoin always goes up over the long term) one sell off will lead to the next as more and more people lose trust.
That isn’t something you can categorically say for sure though. If it hits 125k next month then Bitcoin does go up over the long term. Same if it hits 125k next year.
Wrong. The problem with bitcoin is its volatility itself. If it doubled in value, that means its undergoing hyper deflation, which makes it a terrible store of value.
Bitcoin's proponents are its own biggest liability. People who see it as a speculative asset rather than a currency that needs to be a stable store of value. It, like all currency, has no ingerent value and its stupid to speculate on it
I still find it interesting that the pump and dump still works - it's the same cycle over and over again of building the market to dump crap onto people. I bet some folks have so much crap they've been dumping it gradually just so the market can absorb it.
and it has proven to not be a great hedge against inflation (lately, short term)
the digital gold narrative falls apart when non-digital gold outperforms it and nobody wants it for its digital properties (payments, blockchain, etc.)
This is exactly how its going to go. But the reason is not lazy bureaucrats but that a lot of countries fear they will lose out on taxes from corporations currently domiciled in their country. Of course another big source of friction is different labour laws in different countries. And there's no way these are going to be touched. And of course banks will also oppose the unified capital market because they fear losing fees from their domestic customers to better banks in other countries.
UK is famous for having extremely tough zoning laws, with many, many buildings being listed / landmarked. Something that does run very well in the UK are stores like Greggs which are usually classified as small shops (cat. E) without a kitchen. So the analysis applies there as well.
transaction fees are not increasing though, so they can't offset miner rewards. they have been in the $100k-$200k per day range for a long time, with only occasional breakouts: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/transaction-fees-... and the trend is not to the upside. in fact with the arrival of ETFs in 2024 the trend is clearly downwards.
This can have another explanation as well: the moment a block is found, the miner starts building on top of the previous block but hasn't constructed a new full block of transactions yet as that costs a bit of time to calculate and distribute. In this period, a new block could be found.
Blocks are Merkle trees, only the head transaction contains global seed. So, for one to mine block, one needs to walk Merkle tree up from head and then finish work with small amount of data in the block header.
Thus, the time spent mining block is directly dependent on the logarithm of number of transactions in the block.
If one can mine a block with 3000 transactions (11-12 hashes to the header) in 10 minutes, one can mine a block with one transaction (1 hash to header) about ten times as fast.
The construction of the block is negligible if we talk about complete block mining time.
>If one can mine a block with 3000 transactions (11-12 hashes to the header) in 10 minutes, one can mine a block with one transaction (1 hash to header) about ten times as fast.
Huh? Surely the attempts for both take exactly the same amount of time after you've initially constructed the block, you're calculating only a single hash for each attempt.
Not downvoting you but such a broad statement is pretty meaningless if you don't segment by age group. Also Tiktok captures almost the same percentage of US ad video spending - that wouldn't be the case if youtube had so many more viewers that matter to advertisers.
reply