There are numerous technological innovations and evolutions happening across various niches. In fact, this makes some things cheaper, but others that promise greater results, disruption, or a significant step forward often remain as costly as before—or even more so. For example, maintaining a quantum computer in operation is expensive, and there will always be governments imposing solar taxes to claim they're subsidizing it when the computer consumes more energy than what it generates in Bitcoin value. We already know we can achieve clean energy through nuclear fusion to solve global issues without needing "woke" ideologies and the like—it's always a matter of logistics and market incentives to resolve. What hinders progress is political lobbying, cultural barriers, the UN's inefficiency, and local ineptitude, which prevented Elon Musk from ending hunger in Africa for a year. It's a clash between those who don't want to save (and perhaps don't deserve or want to be saved) and those who hold the solutions.Outside the Agenda 2030 framework, there are possible cyberpunk-style escapes. For instance, hash wars could direct computation toward tokenizing energy used in computing—and perhaps AI—in a cohesive way through difficulty calibration without price fixing. This works via consensus based on mathematical scarcity and blockchain, as seen in Bitcoin. In reality, Bitcoin has more than paid for itself in the electricity spent, and its original destiny as mere circulating money wasn't realized without second layers. On-chain remains sovereign at the base level for price stability but not for evading governmental pursuit through assumptions. The Liquid network operates on a 1:1 peg and resolves the blockchain trilemma, as it's not much less agile than Lightning. Given Bitcoin's proposal, scalability hasn't yet become a pressing issue—likely, Liquid will eventually absorb BTC, much like Tether has done with the dollar.