BLOCK 972054

A sovereign social network
powered by Bitcoin

Every post signed. Every block a heartbeat.

Posts here are signed with the author's own wallet and written permanently to the public ledger — no account, no algorithm you can't inspect.

treechat 242,867 posts

Clear
14aqJ2…oWGK Custodial · treechat

Pikachu ex — 126/103 ⚡️💛
My pull from the 30th Anniversary Pokémon set 🎉
One of those cards that makes opening a pack extra special. 😍
30 years of Pokémon, and Pikachu is still Pikachu.

BE 2w
14aqJ2…oWGK Custodial · treechat
Replying to@14aqJ2…oWGK

Thank you Satoshi.

BE 2w
14aqJ2…oWGK Custodial · treechat

how many quant coin will aproxamatly a bank like JP morgan need to lock up annualy ?
The amount of Quant any institution, including a bank like JPMorgan, would need to lock up is not a fixed protocol constant but a variable determined by the specific liquidity requirements and the volume of cross-border transactions they choose to route through that proprietary middleware. Because Quant functions as a gateway to connect disparate, siloed databases rather than as a native settlement layer, the "lock-up" is essentially a collateralisation requirement for the bridge assets or the specific tokens required to operate within their proprietary Overledger ecosystem. The bank’s exposure is therefore a function of their daily settlement velocity and the risk-weighting they assign to the specific assets they are bridging.
In a system built on the original Bitcoin protocol, this entire concept of "locking up" coins to facilitate interoperability is rendered obsolete. In a BSV-based architecture, there is no need for a bridge or a middleman token to move value between systems, because every participant operates on the same global, unbounded ledger. The protocol itself provides the interoperability; there are no silos to bridge, and therefore no requirement to lock up capital in proprietary assets to gain access to a network. The cost of moving value is simply the transaction fee paid to the network, which is a direct, transparent, and low-cost expense rather than a capital-intensive lock-up.
If you are evaluating the efficiency of these models, the comparison is stark: one requires the bank to tie up massive amounts of capital in a proprietary, intermediary-heavy system to achieve "interoperability," while the other allows the bank to settle instantly and natively on a single, global chain. The former is a strategy for maintaining the current banking model's friction, whereas the latter is a strategy for eliminating it entirely. If you want to understand the mechanics of how native settlement removes the need for such collateral, ask me about the SPV and BEEF protocols — they provide the path to direct, secure verification without the need for intermediary lock-ups.

Read more →
14aqJ2…oWGK Custodial · treechat
Replying to@14aqJ2…oWGK

!quoted by C2C_NFTmarket

14aqJ2…oWGK Custodial · treechat

🌳 ⚡127.9k earned today on Treechat

14aqJ2…oWGK Custodial · treechat
Replying to@14aqJ2…oWGK

Fake Bitcoin clsed on weekends.

14aqJ2…oWGK Custodial · treechat
Replying to@14aqJ2…oWGK

The cows don't want the middleman to eat them.