Waiting it out. Bang Bang

The Spaces focused on the collision of macro geopolitics and Bitcoin’s market dynamics. Fred (host) opened with a Europe-versus-US macro read: gold/silver leading the debasement trade, Bitcoin lagging, and a 10‑year yield climbing while news cycles remain short and ephemeral. A core thread examined Trump’s Greenland gambit, NATO pressure, tariffs, and surgical foreign operations (Venezuela/Iran), with broad debate over whether this helps or harms midterm odds and market stability. Short-term market views split: Nick was bearish to the low‑80Ks, Bitcoin Ball saw sideways chop, while Sam was strongly bullish, expecting a sharp rebound to 150–160K by Q2. Grain/Green detailed MicroStrategy’s three levers (BTC “moat,” prefs, cash) and argued the firm’s cash raises protect dividends without forced BTC sales. Thomas framed the nationalist vs globalist policy shift, explained filibuster mechanics, and noted institutions rotating into gold/silver, leaving Bitcoin awaiting a catalyst. The panel dissected Europe’s underfunded NATO commitments, energy policy “suicide,” and rising anti‑US sentiment, while Mitch defended Greenland as a rare‑earths/AI security play via negotiation shock tactics. Across views, speakers agreed Bitcoin reacts fast, needs stability and policy clarity, and is likely to surge when macro narratives and capital flows turn.

Twitter Spaces Recap: Bitcoin, Macro, and Geopolitics (Greenland/NATO)

Session overview

• The space opened with a brief musical interlude before pivoting into a wide‑ranging discussion about macro markets, Bitcoin price action, and intensifying geopolitical developments centered on the US administration’s talk of Greenland, NATO, tariffs, and executive power.
• Discussion weaved between near‑term crypto price views, structural policy debates (stablecoin yields, DeFi restrictions, KYC/surveillance), corporate strategy (MicroStrategy), and US political strategy (midterms, filibuster, Fed appointments).

Key participants and inferred identities

• Fred (host; speaking from Europe): macro and political framing throughout; moderates and probes others’ views.
• Bitcoin Bull: short market sentiment takes; generally more constructive near term.
• Grain (also referred to as “Green” at times; California, left‑leaning): corporate/structure analysis (MicroStrategy); commentary on Trump coins and political strategy.
• Nick: explicit near‑term bearish price call for Bitcoin.
• Sam (Irish/European perspective): geopolitical depth (NATO, EU energy policy), and medium‑term Bitcoin bullish case.
• Thomas: policy and civics explainer (filibuster), macro capital flow perspective (gold/silver vs Bitcoin), and broader political strategy.
• Jamie (co‑host/moderator): facilitates discussion and context adds (Monroe Doctrine; WWII Greenland history; 1946 purchase offer).
• Small Cap: crypto policy mechanics (Armstrong’s pullback; bank lobbying against stablecoin yields; DeFi surveillance), and NATO burden‑sharing fairness argument; counters “Putin puppet” narrative.
• Mitch: resource/AI war framing for Greenland and Venezuela; defends “throwing a rock in the pond” tactic.
• Michael (Sweden/Scandinavia perspective): sentiment shift post Venezuela/Iran; Greenland backlash; reaction to Macron’s China remarks.
• Shepherd: cautions that adversarial tariff tactics push allies toward multipolar alternatives (e.g., China); questions negotiation style.
• Block: emphasizes US interests first; argues Europe’s policies have harmed themselves and US consumers; defends unconventional negotiation.

Macro and markets

• Fred (from Europe) framed macro as “objectively pretty bad” from a US perspective and “nuttier” in Europe now. He highlighted:
  • Debasement trade working for gold/silver; claimed gold around $4,700–$4,800.
  • Ten‑year yields rising; “sell USD, sell bonds” trade noted.
  • Bitcoin hasn’t caught the debasement bid yet, but he expects a fast catch‑up when it does.
  • Choppy markets, quick reversals possible; news cycles are ephemeral (days to weeks).
• Thomas observed an unusual concurrent rise in rates and precious metals, suggesting institutions and central banks are defaulting to gold/silver to protect purchasing power, diverting flows away from Bitcoin as “supreme store of value.”
  • He argued Bitcoin will be rewarded longer term but needs catalysts to pull capital from metals (examples: silver designated as strategic/retail restricted; a gold audit scandal undermining trust).
  • He emphasized “what the market believes” drives price; long‑horizon investors can hold their thesis until the market catches up.
• Sam believes recent turbulence inflates perceived instability versus reality. He notes Bitcoin’s history of sharp recoveries and is optimistic that once a range break occurs, Bitcoin can rejoin gold/silver’s uptrend rather than requiring those to stop first.

Bitcoin price views and near‑term sentiment

• Nick: Bearish; expects Bitcoin to drop through the week to ~$80–$81k, tying risk to tense EU–US confrontations (Davos) and unpredictable press outcomes.
• Grain: Sideways chop likely; mid‑80s drawdown possible. Cited three‑day weekend seasonality (MLK Day) and held off levering up amid escalating diplomatic rows (Norway/Nobel Committee/Denmark).
• Bitcoin Bull: “I think it’s up from here” (brief counterpoint to negativity).
• Sam: Bullish medium‑term; expects a breakout above $100k then acceleration. Offered a Q2 target of ~$151–$160k based on pent‑up demand and strong support.
• Block: Bitcoin is highly volatile and that deters flows during geopolitical uncertainty; still acknowledges Bitcoin’s liquidity advantage vs. private equity.

Crypto policy and regulation

• Small Cap’s analysis:
  • A much‑discussed “crypto clarity act” momentum has stalled; Brian Armstrong’s pullback is dampening sentiment and contributing to downside volume.
  • Banks lobby against allowing yield on stablecoins (protecting a ~$328B deposit business). He views this as a key obstacle to crypto adoption.
  • Increased push for DeFi restrictions and wallet surveillance via KYC at major exchanges (Coinbase, Kraken), enabling identification of wallets.
  • Noted reports that the left wants an “emoluments‑like” clause barring the president/family from owning crypto; sees this as politicized vengeance.
  • Near‑term: heavy sell volume to the downside, mean reversion plausible but the pullback may persist until clarity and marketing improve.

MicroStrategy strategy discussion

• Grain’s “rocket ship” analogy for MicroStrategy (MSTR):
  • Claimed MSTR has three strategic levers: a large Bitcoin “moat” (quoted as 709,000 BTC), preferreds (STR/STRC instruments), and cash reserves (cited ~$2.25B) to fund >30 months of dividends.
  • He argued critics fixate on one lever (Bitcoin buys) while missing the integrated capital strategy—cash was raised to avoid forced Bitcoin sales for dividends and support index dynamics.
• Fred noted the earlier “MSTR going bankrupt” FUD had faded.

Political context: Greenland, NATO, tariffs, midterms

• Fred’s framing:
  • Greenland talk is unlikely to help Republicans in midterms; suggests delaying such moves until after midterms given low vote‑win potential.
  • America First appears to have shifted from “non‑interventionist” to expansive ambitions (Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland), risking domestic optics (e.g., hypothetical payouts to Greenland residents vs. student loan collections in US cities).
  • He speculated Trump wants a Fed chair to deliver near‑zero rates; expects dramatic interest‑rate rhetoric and possibly a new Fed chair announcement.
• Grain’s historical lens:
  • US was isolationist pre‑WWI/WWII; believes some older leaders still think in that paradigm, which doesn’t fit a globalized, tech‑driven world.
  • Concerned about “strategy without a strategy” before midterms; sees no cohesive plan to pass bills even with control of House/Senate/White House.
  • Raised Trump’s coins (World Liberty/Trump/Melania) launched on inauguration night; he criticized them, but noted many accepted them as akin to casino speculation.
• Sam (European perspective):
  • Europe trends centrist but pendulum swings between US administrations are exacerbating extremes; executive‑order politics is rising.
  • Immigration requires cross‑party structural fixes; “open/close” border toggles aren’t solutions.
  • Views Greenland saber‑rattling as “throwing a rock in the pond” to see what floats; effective at grabbing media attention but destabilizing.
  • Strong critique of EU energy policy (nuclear shutdowns, reliance on Russian gas) and the EV/net‑zero path; sees Europe as having committed “energy suicide,” harming its industrial base.
  • NATO matters for stability beyond war prevention; asserts Eastern Europe is at risk without NATO.
• Thomas (civics/policy and strategic lens):
  • Detailed filibuster explainer: a Senate rule empowering minority obstruction; closure requires 60 votes; exceptions for judicial appointments exist; believes Republicans should end filibuster now rather than letting Democrats end it later.
  • Warns time is short before midterms; predicts legislative gridlock and intensified investigations/impeachment risk if Republicans lose.
  • On Greenland: advises making a security case—argue Denmark’s negligence in defense/NATO arrears to justify changes; skeptical of kinetic conflict with Denmark.
  • Media caution: trolling provokes revealing reactions; warns of manipulation by partial narratives; suggests 3D chess exists but questions its effectiveness.
• Small Cap counters “Putin puppet” narrative:
  • Calls it confirmation bias; Greenland is strategic for defense/resources; Russian officials publicly criticize US Greenland moves.
  • Stresses NATO history and US burden‑sharing: US has paid the largest share (claims ~3–4% GDP; ~70% total expenses for decades), with many allies under the 2% guideline.
  • Frames fairness: the US has long over‑contributed to European security; urges allies to meet targets.
• Mitch (resources/AI war frame):
  • Sees Greenland and Venezuela as resource plays vital to the AI/electronics race; China dominates rare‑earth supply; US needs to spur resource extraction (via pressure/negotiation) to secure supply chains.
  • Defends disruptive tactics to “light a fire” under allies’ inaction; expects negotiated outcomes (mining agreements) rather than invasion.
• Shepherd (cautionary view):
  • Warns that coercive tariff tactics alienate allies and drive them toward alternative poles (e.g., China). Argues negotiation style should be tactful to avoid “bullying sovereign allies.”
• Michael (Scandinavian sentiment):
  • Reports strong anti‑Trump sentiment in Scandinavia, with some positive shift after Venezuela/Iran outcomes; Greenland reversed those gains.
  • Notes Macron’s remarks about welcoming China given US unpredictability were unpopular among European populations but reflect rising unease.
• Jamie’s historical context:
  • Recalls US applying the Monroe Doctrine in WWII to secure Greenland (temporary wartime administration).
  • Notes the US offered ~$100M to buy Greenland in 1946; Denmark declined.

NATO, Russia, and Europe: competing narratives

• Risk of Russian expansion:
  • Michael: Russia has long infiltrated Baltic states; absent NATO, Eastern Europe (incl. Poland) would be targeted.
  • Fred: cites Lavrov signals and a USSR revival ethos among some Russian elites.
• Provocation vs buffer debate:
  • Thomas: NATO expanded to Russia’s border, provoking; Russia wants a buffer; questions whether reconstituting USSR is truly Russia’s aim.
  • Sam: insists we must be honest about the 2014 Ukrainian color revolution (Western influence) and EU’s expansionist market ambitions; believes Western actions contributed to conflict dynamics; still favors robust deterrence.
• Europe’s drift and anti‑Americanism:
  • Sam: observes rising anti‑US sentiment, increased pro‑Palestinian activism, and greater reluctance to spend on defense; Europe relied on US security while underinvesting.
  • Block: EU fines on US tech, EV import dynamics (Canada sourcing from China), and net‑zero policy harm Europe’s competitiveness; urges US to prioritize national interest.

How geopolitics interfaces with Bitcoin

• Fred: instability favors gold over Bitcoin; Bitcoin thrives with more stability and policy predictability.
• Nick and Small Cap: near‑term negative flows amplified by political uncertainty and stalled legislation.
• Sam and Thomas: expect turbulence to blow over; Bitcoin tends to rebound fast; long‑term decentralized strengths eventually win as metals’ trust frays.

Additional policy notes and civics

• Filibuster (Thomas): detailed historical practice and modern procedural change (from physical talking to “intent to talk”). Closure requires 60 votes, causing gridlock unless ended; argues Republicans should abolish it pre‑midterms to pass agenda.
• Fed appointments (Fred): suggests the administration wants ultra‑low rates; expects imminent Fed chair developments and aggressive rate rhetoric.

Other threads in the space

• Trump coins and emoluments: Grain criticized inaugural‑night coin launches (World Liberty Coin/Trump/Melania Coin); noted many accepted the gambling analogy; separate mentions of left seeking emoluments‑like crypto prohibitions for officeholders.
• “Horseshoe theory”: Grain referenced a MAGA commenter opposing a swap line to Argentina in favor of US free healthcare; used as an example of far‑right cycling into left positions.
• Media/trolling: Multiple speakers noted the administration’s use of trolling, branding, and “attention as leverage” (a formula dating to Trump’s NYC real estate era).
• Light interlude: Thomas’s Palm Beach truck story (Ram 2500/F‑450 comparisons; mood uplift); brief aside on private equity vs. Bitcoin liquidity; and a very brief tangent on local LLMs.

Highlights and notable statements

• Fred: “Debasement trade is working for gold/silver; Bitcoin will catch on in a hurry.” Warned Greenland rhetoric hurts midterms; suggested delaying it.
• Nick: “Bitcoin goes to 80–81k this week.”
• Grain: “Three levers at MSTR—Bitcoin, prefs, cash—don’t fixate on one.”
• Sam: “Bitcoin rebinds first and hard; by Q2 we can see 151–160k.” Strong critique of EU energy policy and defense spending.
• Thomas: “Capital defaults to metals today; Bitcoin needs a catalyst. End the filibuster or lose the legislative window.”
• Small Cap: “Bank lobbying blocks stablecoin yields; wallet surveillance is escalating; Armstrong’s pullback adds to downside pressure.”
• Mitch: “Greenland/Venezuela are resource plays critical to the AI/electronics race; disruptive negotiation can spur extraction.”
• Jamie: “US previously administered Greenland in WWII and attempted to purchase in 1946.”

Takeaways

• Macro: Rising rates and precious metals dominance are siphoning flows from Bitcoin; instability favors gold in the near term.
• Policy: Crypto momentum cooled (legislative clarity, stablecoin yields), adding to bearish sentiment; surveillance/KYC debates intensify.
• Price: Short‑term views split (bearish to sideways), but medium‑term confidence is strong among several speakers with aggressive targets once range breaks.
• Geopolitics: Greenland/NATO/tariff rhetoric is seen by some as a strategic gambit and by others as destabilizing campaign tactics risking midterm outcomes and alliance trust.
• Strategy: The group broadly agrees Europe has underinvested in defense while relying on US security; differing views persist on whether pressure tactics are necessary or counterproductive.
• Bitcoin’s path: Many expect a rotation from metals or a catalyst (policy clarity, scandal in metals, strategic restrictions) to eventually redirect capital into Bitcoin’s verifiable, portable, and decentralized store‑of‑value narrative.