Max raises a popular rebuttal, which is that there is a game theoretical race for nations to acquire their stack first. Honestly, this doesn't make ANY SENSE to me. I like Max so this is not a knock on him, but let me respond to the idea with my own view. I don't see a game taking place between anyone except the network operators themselves, running the protocol and building on the longest chain. Beyond that we have very normal price competition that happens in every market. What do people think will happen if a few other countries buy Bitcoin before the United States? That the US will not be able to buy any? That they will need it for something urgent and be unable to gain a position in time? That they will lose some first mover advantage even though they're the biggest economy on earth? From my perspective this is a fantasy toy model of a future that no one has yet described in effective detail, but it sounds great because it suggests URGENCY on the part of everyone involved. It suggests you will be LEFT BEHIND if you don't take it seriously NOW. It kinda sounds silly to me. A nation's Bitcoin adoption IS NOT measured by the amount of supply the state owns. It's better measured by how much the PEOPLE own it and want it and see value in it. This should be obvious IMO but we have these debates. How about govt focus on fostering the best business and investment climate for the asset to thrive and get the fuck out of the way? Well that wouldn't jive with the URGENT GAME THEORY view and it wouldn't make for great content. It's way too grounded and that's just not sexy enough to become a contagious narrative. Again, no offense to Max. Just focusing on the grossly overused "game theory" phrase so prevalent in this community.