Minutes Concerning Wallet Connection Doubt
The wallet was connected. The doubt was not disconnected.
TRANSCRIPT: INTERNAL HEARING ON WALLET CONNECTION DOUBT Convened: Q2 2022. Background: Crypto Winter, Ongoing.
Chair: This hearing has been convened to examine the persistence of wallet connection doubt following the events of late 2021 and Q1 2022.
OPENING STATEMENT
In November 2021, the subject purchased a quantity of cryptocurrency following three separate recommendations from sources the subject considered credible at the time. The purchase was made through an exchange. The exchange required a connected wallet. The wallet was connected. The transaction was confirmed.
The subject then received two follow-up recommendations suggesting the holding be moved to a hardware wallet for security. The subject researched hardware wallets for eleven days and purchased nothing. The coins remain on the exchange.
THE DOUBT
Chair: Can you describe the doubt?
Subject: The doubt has several components. There is the doubt about whether the exchange is solvent. There is the doubt about whether the wallet, if I had purchased it, would have required a seed phrase and whether I would have stored the seed phrase correctly. There is the question of the current value.
Chair: What is the current value?
Subject: Lower. The current value is lower than the purchase price. It is also, technically, higher than zero, which I have been informed is a relevant comparison.
Chair: Have you told anyone about the position?
Subject: No. I told two people when I bought. I have not updated them since approximately December.
TESTIMONY ON INFRASTRUCTURE FAITH
The asset exists in a state that requires continuous faith in the infrastructure supporting its existence. This is not different from a bank. The subject is aware that this is not different from a bank. The argument that it is different from a bank was the original premise of the purchase.
First consequence: the subject checks the price with a frequency unrelated to any planned action. No planned action exists. The checks produce data with no decision attached.
Second consequence: the subject has watched educational content on DeFi, staking, and yield farming. The subject has not taken any of the actions described in the content. The content was accurate. The actions remained theoretical.
Third consequence: the coins were purchased at a value that no longer applies. They are being held for a value that has not arrived. This is called a long-term strategy. The length of the term has not been specified.
Absurd Rule in Effect
The decision to sell would require acknowledging the loss, which would require acknowledging the original investment thesis did not hold on the timeline anticipated. This requires admitting the purchase to the two people who were told about it. Both people have not asked for an update. The update has not been given.
Contradiction
The subject strongly believes in the technology's long-term potential and has not sold. The subject also strongly doubts the timeline and has not bought more.
Hearing adjourned. No verdict reached.