Because reddit likes to forget that publicly owned companies have a non-negotiable fiduciary obligation to maximize profits for shareholders. If they don't, leadership replaces them with someone who will.

People think leadership is disconnected from what the audiences want but in reality it's the audiences that are disconnected from the business operation and how it works.

I get why the show wasn't super popular but god damn was it ever a good show.

But my brain controls my mouth therefore I am work.

> Again, I understand that but the vast majority of the population does not use encrypted data and those that do,

iMessage is end to end encrypted, among other popular communication software. While metadata and cellular phone calls may be intercepted, I think that's a far cry away "all data".

> and those that do, are probably using something that is backdoored by the NSA like Tor nodes and over the counter software like Windows.

This is a gross oversimplification of the security surface of today. Outside cellular phone calls and SMS messaging, the majority of communication happens with VoIP/internet, which is typically encrypted.

> Not hard to tie things together. Especially when you have a gigantic budget.

It's not hard to tie together because your definitional scopes are too vague IMO.

Capturing encrypted data ≠ decrypting encrypted data

> Collateral IS the risk premium. It defeats the purpose of asking for collateral if the collateral is itself so risky it has to be offset with higher interest or can only reliably back a tiny percentage of its nominal value.

First, let me remind you that this is a hypothetical that we are discussing. That being said, the volatility is not this needle that moves from $0 and Current VAL.

If I have 3.5 billion dollars worth of BTC or 3.5 billion dollars worth of TSLA shares and I want to have 500 million dollars of liquid FIAT, I'm not going to sell 500 million in BTC on the open market nor am I going to sell 500 million in TSLA shares on the open market. I'm going to find a market maker and use the assets as collateral for a loan from a market maker. I'm going to pay them interest and likely negotiate a deal which specifies how obligations are to be paid by X date if there is not Y payments made or if the BTC/TSLA shares drop Z%.

This isn't a rare or unusual thing and it depends entirely on what the assets are, the size of transaction, as well as the private individuals involved in the deal, along with their perceived capabilities of repayment.

everyone has their price and thats mine

its proportionate

> But IS it $3.5 billion? Was that the value today or when it was seized? Will that be its value tomorrow?

This is why I called it volatile. The price fluctuates within an expected range.

> Collateral is collateral because it has definable value.

Not true. The lender of the FIAT will undoubtedly charge a risk premium-- that is how they will make money when the owner of the crypto hypothetically pays them back. It would likely be negotiated in such a way that the wallet is moved to escrow which would allow the lender of the FIAT to recoup whatever they are owed from the wallet itself before returning the difference to the owner of the crytpo.

The more volatility, the larger the risk, the more risk premium that can be charged. Say you are a billionaire investor who wants to take on a billion dollars in crypto-- you would definitely be willing to lend your FIAT with the crypto as collateral. Best case, you make free money when the crypto owner pays you back up. Worst case, you can obtain a large quantity of crypto in bulk off exchange via the middle man.

That's just the birdseye view. One man's risk is another man's opportunity.

> When it comes to crypto, that minimum is getting closer to $0 by the day.

Crypto may be overvalued but its definitely not going to 0 anytime soon.

Sorry I only sell in bulk

It's a 3.5 billion dollars in the form of a volatile asset...I guarantee you there are countless individuals who would accept that crypto as collateral in exchange for liquid FIAT.

I will show you the way.

Why not both?

You'd never sell it into FIAT to garner returns. You'd collateralize it for liquidity at an interest rate that still nets you a return based on whatever your strategy is. The same idea is at play when CEOs use their company shares as collateral for liquidity.

3.5 billion is a lot of money and I'd suck a million miles of dick and cup a hundred million balls for 480k. There's a financial instrument for every risk profile so in the event that these seized funds were used for passive income while being held (they aren't and won't) there would definitely be someone willing to provide liquidity on that crypto, even with consideration for it's volatility.