Discussions

Good points.  I’ve “done my own research” on this and Crypto recently (actually, been privy to other smarter people talking about the latter) and here’s a couple observations: 1. Crypto (any one of them) has been described as a decent place to store value.  Like gold, people have decided it HAS value, so it could be a good store.  Unlike gold, there are like a million crypto varieties and many last just long enough for the creator to get rich and disappear.  Gold is harder to keep of course…it’s heavy and not very portable. 2. I saw one tech-bro/crypto pumper say Crypto was better than land as a store of value.  Mostly, because, in his words, Crypto was more flexible (portable, could be easily broken into smaller portions for trade, etc.).  However, land actually has several advantages.  It also can be broken down into smaller portions for trade/sale.  But, perhaps most importantly, land has value even if nobody else wants it!  Even with all the restrictions on land use, you can harvest timber, grow food, build a house, etc.   Will share one final tidbit, was watching a webcast recently with our financial brokerage service. The head economist was asked about crypto.  He made the following points… 1. rolled his eyes 2. composed himself and admitted that the technology has great potential for payment systems, etc. 3. admitted it could be good store of value, except for the fact that there are lots of them so picking the “right one” could be challenging. 4. the risk is that eventually Central Banks will get involved.  What happens to Dogecoin once the US fed establishes its own digital currency?  This theory is already being tested in some countries (Japan, Cambodia, China — which backs theirs at 1:1!)  Yes, it goes against the decentralized nature of crypto, BUT… it does start to reign in the security of it too (less laundering, fewer scams, etc.).  With the current Ru/Uk conflict raising more awareness of shady deals, it seems only a matter of time before regulation. 


Load more...

Good points.  I’ve “done my own research” on this and Crypto recently (actually, been privy to other smarter people talking about the latter) and here’s a couple observations: 1. Crypto (any one of them) has been described as a decent place to store value.  Like gold, people have decided it HAS value, so it could be a good store.  Unlike gold, there are like a million crypto varieties and many last just long enough for the creator to get rich and disappear.  Gold is harder to keep of course…it’s heavy and not very portable. 2. I saw one tech-bro/crypto pumper say Crypto was better than land as a store of value.  Mostly, because, in his words, Crypto was more flexible (portable, could be easily broken into smaller portions for trade, etc.).  However, land actually has several advantages.  It also can be broken down into smaller portions for trade/sale.  But, perhaps most importantly, land has value even if nobody else wants it!  Even with all the restrictions on land use, you can harvest timber, grow food, build a house, etc.   Will share one final tidbit, was watching a webcast recently with our financial brokerage service. The head economist was asked about crypto.  He made the following points… 1. rolled his eyes 2. composed himself and admitted that the technology has great potential for payment systems, etc. 3. admitted it could be good store of value, except for the fact that there are lots of them so picking the “right one” could be challenging. 4. the risk is that eventually Central Banks will get involved.  What happens to Dogecoin once the US fed establishes its own digital currency?  This theory is already being tested in some countries (Japan, Cambodia, China — which backs theirs at 1:1!)  Yes, it goes against the decentralized nature of crypto, BUT… it does start to reign in the security of it too (less laundering, fewer scams, etc.).  With the current Ru/Uk conflict raising more awareness of shady deals, it seems only a matter of time before regulation. 

Hi!  I can’t tell you specifics w/o knowing your kit makeup; and, this is only my opinion based not on making a BOB but rather backcountry hiking.  All the things you’ve done so far sound like the right strategy.  My thoughts are probably fairly obvious, recognizing that you’ll have to make choices. 1) reduce redundancies. following this site’s kit list, do you need water filter and purifiers? Do you need plastic garbage bags?  Is a radio critical or can you make do with your phone?    The weight of H2O pills seems minimal, but ounces add up.  I know people who would remove the zipper pulls from their bags to reduce weight just a little more.  There are plenty of items on the list that are “nice to have” depending on what type of situation you think you’ll face.  Obviously, look at heavier items first. 2) prioritize.  I used to hike with a paperback book b/c I liked to read after making camp.  If I thought I wasn’t going to have time to do that, I’d obviously leave the book.  Or, I could tear it down to chapters, or keep it digitally on my phone now! Some other thoughts…  27 lbs is a really good weight, I’d be really happy with that.  25 years ago, I’d carry 50+ lbs and be able to make 15 miles in a day.  That’s not my range anymore.  at this stage of my life, circumstances are such that I don’t imagine I’d be going anywhere quickly.  But, my assessment is that I can’t even think of anything that would force us to leave in a hurry.  So, I emphasize having a few more things knowing we’ll be going slow anyway. Lastly, I purchased a small woodburning camp stove so we could practice cooking in the backyard (though, we mostly just make s’mores).  It’s decent.  The benefit of packing this is not having to carry fuel.


Load more...