Historically, committees promise to "research" a matter when the intention is to slow walk the promise into a black hole in an effort to dance around directly betraying voters.

Note that David Sacks reluctantly brings this up in a final question, never mentioning it before. Each time he says they are tasked to study a #Bitcoin reserve, his body language looks remorseful.

Here are some screens where a deep state insider tells James O'Keefe how "researching" something is used to slow role and ultimately sideline things.

Will this somehow be different? 🤔

nostr:note1rxg6u0qy3rkauv6mc7n5scuuxrj0rh4l7t9862hs5vp6v4xeet5sx22k78

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

At least the guy stood behind him looked like he was enjoying himself.

Yikes. Well spotted !

When the entire committee already knows what "studying the potential for a #Bitcoin reserve" really means...

nostr:note1tztunn8znss5rrrnp7aalqg243yrcxtecrc9hnn7l0tj6q33qqjspsku94

Interesting analysis. “Feasibility” was a very interesting word for an administration that does as they wish.

The feasibility question is answered by the law that Lummis drafted. Unless they are going to allow the fed to hold the reserve which would be BS as the fed is owned by the member banks, not the taxpayers.

I am now hoping for no #BTC reserve at all

I suspect a No recommendation or no real movement given the signals we're seeing.