Good afternoon,

I had a thought while traveling. People like Renato 38itão, Daniel Fraga, among others who have exposed themselves to evangelize; not just them, but anyone who puts everything into a wallet could potentially die for not giving their money to the state.

There is a real possibility that 'bitcoiners' could be killed for not complying in a kidnapping. Up to this point, it’s a known risk, albeit a macabre one. However, I became concerned with the systematization of this process. Consider the line of reasoning: if a person is killed while being the only bearer of the key, this implies deflation. Those who possess coins will become richer. If N people have access to the keys (multisig), you increase the chances of the money being taken by N times. Considering that once a failed democracy has a considerable amount of Bitcoins, in both scenarios it stands to gain. It’s just a matter of knowing who has it and applying pressure to obtain it—even if it costs the person's life.

The title I gave to this text is indeed illustrative. If something like this were to happen, if a number of people fail to protect such information (that they have BTC), what would be the ideal alternative to make this unprofitable for the state? I think it’s wise to consider such scenarios. The institutional adoption by BlackRock opens this gap. It is well-known, for example, the symbiosis between large corporations and the state. This should concern us.