#Bitcoin is widely misunderstood because it is evaluated using the wrong framework.

Most financial advisors and wealth managers analyse Bitcoin as if it were an equity, a commodity, or a speculative risk asset. It is none of those.

Bitcoin is a monetary system.

Equities are claims on future cash flows.

Commodities are inputs to production.

Currencies are liabilities issued by states and managed through policy.

Bitcoin is different. It has no issuer, no balance sheet, no management team, and no cash flow because money is not supposed to produce yield. Its function is to store value, measure value, and transfer value without reliance on trust or discretion.

This is where the confusion starts.

When advisors ask:

– “Where is the income?”

– “What’s the intrinsic value?”

– “How does it compound?”

They are asking questions appropriate for businesses, not for money.

Bitcoin’s value comes from its rules:

– Fixed supply

– Predictable issuance

– Verifiable scarcity

– Censorship resistance

These properties remove dilution risk and counterparty risk. Over time, that matters more than narratives, models, or opinions.

Bitcoin does not replace productive assets.

It replaces the measuring stick used to evaluate them.

Until Bitcoin is understood as money rather than an investment product, it will continue to be misunderstood — even by professionals paid to allocate capital.

That misunderstanding is not a flaw in Bitcoin.

It is evidence that the transition is still early.

Endless war sustains weak money.

Weak money sustains endless war.

The question is not whether this is intentional.

The question is who can afford peace.

Agreed. This is the institutional discovery phase. Access comes first through proxies, then through experience. Over time, they learn that substituting ownership introduces counterparty risk, leverage, governance risk and forced liquidity events that do not exist with spot Bitcoin.

Proxies behave like financial instruments. Bitcoin behaves like money. The difference becomes clear under stress. Volatility is the mechanism through which that lesson is learned. Spot holders should understand this dynamic and be prepared. As intermediated structures unwind, coins tend to move toward holders with no liabilities attached.

When direct ownership is restricted, capital seeks substitutes. Large institutions and sovereign funds operate within regulatory and custodial limits that often prevent them from holding spot Bitcoin. In those conditions, exposure shifts to proxies that fit existing frameworks. Equity vehicles become stand-ins for an asset they cannot yet hold directly.

MicroStrategy has filled this role by converting its balance sheet into a large Bitcoin position wrapped in a publicly traded structure. For institutions, this offers liquidity, reporting standards, and regulatory familiarity. The trade-off is that exposure now includes equity risk, management decisions, and capital structure, none of which exist with direct ownership.

This behaviour does not reflect preference for proxies. It reflects constraint. When access to the underlying asset is limited, intermediated exposure becomes the next best option. As a result, demand concentrates in vehicles that can be traded within current rules, even if those vehicles introduce additional risks.

Allegations of manipulation around proxy instruments highlight the difference between holding Bitcoin and holding claims on Bitcoin exposure. Equities can be influenced by sentiment, leverage, and market structure. Bitcoin itself cannot be diluted, rehypothecated, or altered through commentary. The proxy absorbs those dynamics. The asset does not.

Over time, these pressures tend to resolve in one direction. Either access to spot ownership expands, or reliance on proxies grows more fragile. History suggests that capital ultimately moves toward the asset with fewer intermediaries and fewer points of failure.

Bitcoin was designed to remove the need for proxies. Until that access is widely available at institutional scale, substitutes will continue to form. Their existence is not a signal of preference. It is evidence of demand constrained by structure.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/norway-s-sovereign-wealth-fund-0H26rx2KScW_OBdMH1C_kg

Short-term price moves are secondary and hard to predict accurately. Markets tend to revisit areas of high participation before extending trends, hype and euphoria need to be ironed out. A retrace toward anchored VWAP (red plot around $60k) from the prior cycles high, would not be unusual and would reset positioning rather than signal failure. Every prior cycle this has been the case. This could take the next ~12 months before starting to appreciate in value further against fiat currencies.

When viewed over short intervals, Bitcoin appears volatile. When viewed over long intervals, the pattern is consistent. On multi-month timeframes, including three-month candles like in the screenshot below, Bitcoin has never entered a true bear market. Each period of consolidation or drawdown has been followed by repricing driven by fixed supply and declining issuance. This is not accidental. Scarcity is enforced through the halving schedule, while demand expands unevenly over time. Fiat currencies, by contrast, expand by design. The result is a persistent divergence when the timeframe is long enough. Outcomes therefore depend less on prediction and more on horizon. Bitcoin’s behaviour changes with perspective, but its monetary mechanics do not.

Gold’s sharp move reflects a familiar response to monetary conditions. When interest rates are reduced and the currency weakens, assets with limited supply tend to reprice upward. The rise is not a statement about growth. It is a statement about confidence in the unit of account.

The increase in jobless claims reinforces this dynamic. As labour markets soften, central banks face pressure to ease even when inflation remains elevated. The result is a narrow policy range where rates are lowered to support activity, while currency strength is sacrificed in the process. Gold responds because it has no issuer and no counterparty risk.

Powell’s emphasis on waiting reflects this constraint. Further cuts risk inflation persistence. Holding steady risks deeper economic slowdown. Markets interpret this uncertainty as a reason to seek assets that are not managed through discretion.

Bitcoin was designed for the same environment. Gold preserves value by physical scarcity. Bitcoin preserves value by verifiable digital scarcity. Both respond when monetary policy becomes reactive rather than rule-based. The difference is that Bitcoin’s supply is not only limited, it is fully predictable.

Movements in gold and Bitcoin are often described as price rallies. In practice, they are measurements of currency weakness. When the denominator changes, assets that cannot be expanded adjust accordingly.

This is not a signal about short-term direction. It is a reminder that when policy must balance inflation, employment and debt simultaneously, confidence shifts toward money that does not require intervention to function.

Headline revenue growth does not necessarily indicate real growth. When the unit of account weakens, nominal figures rise even if underlying output does not. A seven percent increase measured in a depreciating currency can coexist with flat or declining real profitability.

Rising labour, energy and input costs suggest that margins are under pressure. In that environment, higher revenues often reflect price increases rather than higher volumes or productivity gains. The business may be working harder to stand still.

This distinction matters. Real growth comes from producing more value with the same or fewer resources. Nominal growth can be achieved by adjusting prices in response to currency debasement. The latter creates the appearance of progress while purchasing power erodes.

Bitcoin exposes this difference. When measured in a unit with fixed supply, growth must be real. Revenues cannot rise unless more value is created. This is why comparisons made solely in fiat terms increasingly mislead. The problem is not the business. It is the measuring stick.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/burger-king-uk-revenue-climbs-R9MglHqWRQKPNhou23NSTQ

Claims that Bitcoin’s four-year cycle is ending reflect changes in market composition rather than changes in the protocol. The halving schedule remains fixed. Issuance still declines at predictable intervals. What has changed is the type of participant interacting with that supply.

Earlier cycles were dominated by marginal buyers and sellers with limited balance sheets. Large price swings followed because liquidity was thin and leverage was unstable. As institutional participation increases, more capital absorbs volatility. Spot ETFs and custodial products introduce steady inflows that smooth short-term dislocations, but they do not alter the underlying scarcity.

This does not mean cycles disappear. It means they express differently. The amplitude may compress, and the timing may drift, but the cause remains the same. New supply continues to fall while demand adjusts. Markets still reprice scarcity over time. They simply do so through deeper pools of capital and longer decision horizons.

Price targets and declarations of cycle death are attempts to simplify a complex adaptive system. Bitcoin does not follow narratives. It follows incentives. When supply is fixed and issuance is known, participants eventually adjust their behaviour around those constraints. Whether volatility is high or low in a given period does not change that process.

Institutional adoption changes who holds Bitcoin and how it trades. It does not change why it exists. The halving remains a structural feature, not a trading signal. As the market matures, focus naturally shifts away from short-term patterns and toward the long-term implications of fixed supply in a system that continues to grow.

Bitcoin does not need cycles to function. It only requires that the rules remain enforceable. The rest is market discovery.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/wood-says-bitcoin-s-four-year-6r6bPS2WRIqcROxGR0Uopg

Michael Burry’s remarks point to a recurring feature of modern banking systems. When reserves decline and liquidity must be restored through central bank asset purchases, it indicates that stability depends on continuous intervention rather than balance sheet strength. Banks that require trillions in excess reserves are not demonstrating resilience. They are demonstrating sensitivity to funding conditions.

The Federal Reserve’s decision to purchase short-term Treasury securities to replenish reserves follows a familiar pattern. Liquidity is withdrawn during tightening phases, stress appears in funding markets, and balance sheet expansion resumes to prevent dislocation. Each cycle leaves the system larger and more dependent on central bank support than before. This is not temporary. It becomes structural.

The growth of the Fed’s balance sheet from under one trillion dollars before 2008 to nearly seven trillion today reflects this trajectory. After each crisis, the level of reserves required to maintain stability increases. What is described as “ample” today would have been considered excessive in earlier periods. The definition shifts because the system adapts to higher leverage and lower tolerance for volatility.

Bitcoin was designed in response to this fragility. It does not rely on reserves, lenders of last resort, or discretionary liquidity injections. Settlement does not depend on confidence in counterparties remaining solvent overnight. The supply cannot be expanded to backstop losses or smooth funding gaps. Participants either hold valid coins or they do not.

In fiat banking systems, stability is achieved through balance sheet growth and policy intervention. In Bitcoin, stability is achieved through fixed rules and independent verification. One system requires constant maintenance to avoid failure. The other operates continuously without adjustment.

Warnings about fragility are not predictions of imminent collapse. They are observations about incentives. When survival depends on permanent expansion of central bank balance sheets, the monetary base becomes a tool for crisis management rather than a stable foundation. Bitcoin exists to remove that dependency.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/big-short-investor-michael-bur-eTlWTnBXTka_nFRazhHM4A

Agreed. The issue is not companies holding Bitcoin. It is leverage. Firms and individuals that stack with no debt remove the failure mode entirely. Bitcoin works best when it is earned and held, not accelerated through borrowing.

We do not use leverage to accumulate Bitcoin. We do not plan on selling to service liabilities. We are happy to exchange sats for real value when it makes sense, but not under obligation. That distinction matters. Hard money rewards patience and productivity. Debt reintroduces fragility the system was designed to remove.

The rise in UK youth unemployment reflects long-standing structural pressures rather than a short-term fluctuation. When employer costs increase faster than productivity, hiring becomes more difficult. Recent changes to National Insurance and minimum wage rules have added several thousand pounds to the cost of employing a young worker. In an economy already experiencing weak growth, these additional burdens reduce opportunities at the margin. The result is predictable: fewer entry-level jobs and a larger share of young people not participating in the workforce.

The broader data reinforces this trend. Youth unemployment has risen from 11 percent to 15.3 percent in three years, the fastest deterioration in the G7. Nearly one million people aged 16 to 24 are now classified as NEET. At the same time, automation has reduced demand for junior roles in technology sectors by nearly twenty percent. When economic conditions weaken, firms automate earlier in the employment pipeline and hire later in the cycle. These adjustments are a consequence of incentives, not policy statements.

Underlying these symptoms is a monetary system that makes long-term planning difficult. When money loses purchasing power over time, governments rely on increasing taxation, higher borrowing and continual intervention to maintain services. These pressures fall disproportionately on younger workers, who face rising living costs and fewer opportunities to acquire skills. Employers respond by limiting new hires and reducing training investment. The cycle reinforces itself.

Bitcoin was created to avoid these distortions. A monetary base with fixed supply does not require continual expansion of taxes or credit. It removes the inflationary pressure that erodes wages and forces households and firms into short-term decisions. In an economy built on predictable money, saving becomes viable, investment horizons lengthen and employment grows from productivity rather than from stimulus.

Youth unemployment on this scale signals deeper issues in the foundation of the system. Adjustments to tax rates or wage rules may influence outcomes temporarily, but they do not address the cause. A more stable economic environment arises when the currency itself does not require perpetual manipulation to sustain activity.

Satsuma Technology’s decision to sell a significant portion of its Bitcoin holdings to cover an upcoming convertible loan repayment reflects a structural issue common to many corporate treasuries. When companies acquire Bitcoin using debt or issue convertible instruments to expand their positions, they introduce fixed liabilities that do not adjust to market conditions. If prices fall or remain flat, servicing these obligations requires liquidation of the asset they intended to hold.

This behaviour shows a misunderstanding of Bitcoin’s role. Bitcoin was created as a monetary base that removes counterparty risk and maintains purchasing power over long horizons. It was not designed to support leveraged strategies or to replace operational revenue. When firms treat Bitcoin as a substitute for future productivity, they expose themselves to the same liquidity pressures that affect any leveraged asset.

The broader trend is becoming clear. A majority of corporate Bitcoin treasuries are now in unrealised loss positions. These entities relied on appreciation to justify their strategies, but appreciation cannot be guaranteed in the short term. If their liabilities mature faster than their assets recover, forced selling becomes unavoidable. This outcome results from the leverage, not from Bitcoin itself.

As long as companies attempt to use debt to accelerate accumulation, similar situations will appear. The incentive to grow holdings quickly conflicts with the discipline that hard money requires. A system based on fixed supply rewards long-term saving and productive output. It does not reward attempts to compress that process through financial engineering.

Bitcoin remains neutral. It enforces no leverage and provides no protection to those who assume it. When firms borrow to acquire a monetary asset, they turn a stable store of value into a speculative position that must outperform the cost of capital. If the position fails, the coins are redistributed to holders without such constraints.

One bitcoin remains one bitcoin. Its design does not accommodate the pressures that arise from debt cycles or market expectations. Companies that align with these principles will be more resilient. Those that ignore them will continue to discover the limits of using leverage to accumulate hard money.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/uk-firm-sells-half-its-bitcoin-BEzvfehhRaCtNUYmHnW5Ag

The Federal Reserve has reduced interest rates again while simultaneously announcing a new round of Treasury bill purchases. These actions indicate that the financial system is becoming dependent on continuous liquidity support. When the underlying economy weakens and inflation remains above target, central banks face conflicting incentives. Lowering rates risks further inflation. Maintaining high rates risks liquidity stress. The response is usually a partial adjustment in both directions, which is what we are seeing now.

Purchasing forty billion dollars of Treasury bills is a form of balance-sheet expansion. It increases demand for government debt and helps stabilise funding markets. At the same time, the cut in policy rates lowers borrowing costs across the economy. This combination typically appears when growth is slowing, inflation is persistent and the government requires reliable financing. The description of the labour market “cooling” with inflation “somewhat elevated” is a straightforward definition of stagflation.

These interventions reflect the design of the system. When money is created elastically, economic stability depends on adjusting interest rates and expanding the central bank balance sheet. Over time, each cycle requires larger interventions to offset the effects of previous ones. The result is an economy increasingly driven by policy signals rather than genuine productivity.

Bitcoin was created to avoid this dynamic. Its supply cannot be expanded to support government borrowing or to manage short-term fluctuations. Verification is decentralised, and issuance is predictable. The unit of account does not change as policymakers respond to the constraints of the debt cycle. This removes the need for stimulus and the distortions that follow.

In fiat systems, interest rates and asset purchases are tools used to maintain liquidity and preserve confidence. In Bitcoin, no such tools exist. The rules are fixed, and participants adjust to them rather than the other way around. This difference becomes clearer each time central banks attempt to manage outcomes produced by a flexible monetary base.

One bitcoin remains one bitcoin. Its value does not depend on policy announcements, balance-sheet adjustments or electoral cycles. It is a monetary system designed to operate without the interventions that characterise the present environment.

Is there any possibility to ship this to the UK?

Mallorca is a great spot

Never selling, happily exchange sats for value.

Fiat is not value.

History shows a consistent pattern in monetary evolution. Communities begin with forms of money that are easy to produce. As trade expands, the weaknesses of these units become apparent. When supply can be increased with little effort, the unit cannot store value. People seek alternatives that are harder to create, because hardness protects the results of their work.

This pattern appears in every era. Societies moved from shells to metals, from soft metals to gold, and later from paper claims to systems backed by scarce reserves. The preference is not ideological. It is an economic response. Hard money reduces uncertainty. It allows saving without requiring speculation. It encourages production rather than endless attempts to outrun debasement.

When governments removed convertibility and adopted fully elastic monetary systems, the long-term effects were predictable. Purchasing power declined. Debt expanded. Asset prices rose faster than wages. Individuals were pushed toward risk-taking simply to preserve living standards. This is not a flaw of individuals. It is a consequence of the properties of the money they use.

Bitcoin extends the historical trend. It provides a monetary unit with a fixed issuance schedule and decentralised verification. No authority can dilute it, and no institution controls access to it. The hardness is enforced by code and consensus, not by trust in custodians. As more people recognise these properties, economic activity shifts toward the system with the strongest guarantees.

The movement toward hard money is not driven by sentiment. It is driven by incentives. When the alternative is a currency designed to lose value, the hardest form of money becomes the rational choice.

One bitcoin remains one bitcoin. Over time, systems built on predictable rules outperform those dependent on discretionary policy. This is why monetary history continues to converge on hardness, and why Bitcoin represents the next step in that progression.

#Bitcoin #HardMoney

Strategy Inc.’s continued accumulation now totals 660,624 bitcoin. The company has financed these acquisitions through repeated issuance of equity and debt, exchanging future claims on the firm for present access to a scarce monetary asset. This approach converts the balance sheet into a leveraged position on Bitcoin rather than a traditional operating enterprise.

The numbers are large, but the economic principle remains simple. Bitcoin has a fixed supply and a predictable issuance schedule. Any entity that accumulates coins faster than they are created increases its exposure to volatility and to the constraints of its capital structure. Shareholders absorb dilution, preferred dividends and debt obligations that do not exist for ordinary holders. The asset is neutral. The liabilities are not.

The recent purchase of 10,624 BTC at an average price near ninety thousand dollars raises the aggregate cost basis to around seventy four thousand six hundred ninety six dollars per coin. These figures matter less than the structure behind them. A system built on external financing must continually maintain market confidence. If that confidence weakens, funding becomes more expensive and the premium over net asset value can reverse, which is what has occurred through much of 2025.

From Bitcoin’s perspective, Strategy is one participant securing a large share of the supply. If its strategy succeeds, the coins remain off the market under a long-term holder. If it fails, the holdings disperse to others without affecting the protocol or its monetary rules. This asymmetry is intentional. No single actor, regardless of scale, can alter the design or the economic incentives that govern the network.

Bitcoin’s resilience comes from decentralised verification and fixed issuance, not from corporate treasuries or public endorsements. Entities may choose to accumulate at any pace they wish, but the long-term outcome still depends on prudent management of liabilities. The protocol imposes no requirements and offers no guarantees. It simply continues producing blocks at the expected rate.

It is also important to separate Bitcoin’s utility from its fiat price. One bitcoin is always one bitcoin. The unit does not change as external currencies fluctuate. Price is a temporary expression of how the fiat system values scarcity at a given moment. The success of Bitcoin is measured by its integrity and predictable monetary policy, not by the number it trades at in depreciating currency.

Bitcoin’s liveliness rising to cycle highs shows a clear shift in how participants are using the network. Older coins are moving in volumes far larger than any previous cycle, yet spot prices remain stable. This suggests a demand floor strong enough to absorb renewed supply without breaking structure. In systems with fixed issuance, these transitions often mark deeper liquidity and redistribution rather than exhaustion. The market will eventually price the change in behaviour.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/bitcoin-network-demand-surges-KSayNEshS3ud6PrWAi5aMA

The recent decline of companies that adopted “digital asset treasury” strategies highlights a basic misunderstanding of how balance sheets and monetary assets function. A scarce asset can protect purchasing power, but it does not remove the need for productive cash flow. When firms borrow against future income that does not exist, they become vulnerable to even small price movements.

Bitcoin was never intended to replace business fundamentals. It offers a predictable monetary base, not a substitute for revenue. Companies that issued debt to purchase volatile assets introduced a structural mismatch. Their liabilities were fixed, while their ability to service those liabilities depended on market appreciation rather than operational output. This is the same pattern seen in speculative bubbles throughout economic history.

The error was not in holding Bitcoin. The error was in assuming that appreciation would cover the absence of a sustainable business model. Hard money principles require discipline. Saving is most effective when liabilities are limited and debt levels are modest. Without these constraints, a balance sheet can become unstable regardless of the asset held.

A decentralised monetary system does not guarantee success for any individual firm. It simply provides a neutral unit of account and store of value. The market will always discount companies that rely on price speculation rather than productive activity. If forced selling becomes widespread, it will be a reflection of excessive leverage, not a failure of the underlying asset.

Bitcoin’s design removes the need for trust in monetary issuance. It does not remove the need for prudent capital allocation. Companies that treat hard money as a speculative instrument instead of a foundation for long-term planning will continue to experience these predictable outcomes.

https://www.perplexity.ai/page/from-2600-gains-to-86-wipeouts-tDCE6F7pRGe1NbNQzLuRLg

Most economic problems trace back to the use of money that can be expanded at will. When supply is elastic, the unit cannot reliably store value. People are pushed toward speculation to offset the loss, which diverts attention from productive activity.

Hard money avoids this. A fixed or tightly constrained supply forces economic growth to come from real output rather than monetary expansion. Individuals can save without needing to predict policy decisions. Prices adjust naturally to changes in productivity, creating long-term stability.

#Bitcoin applies these principles in digital form. The supply schedule is predetermined, and enforcement comes from independent node verification rather than trusted authorities. No participant can change the rules for their own gain. As adoption increases, the network becomes more resistant to manipulation.

The result is a monetary system that aligns incentives. Value is earned through work, stored without dilution and exchanged without intermediaries. In a world built on uncertain policies and expanding balance sheets, a system based on hard money principles is not just an alternative. It is a necessary correction.

Why #Bitcoin Matters

Most people do not realise how dependent the current economy is on the continuous expansion of credit. When money can be issued without constraint, its value becomes a function of political decisions rather than economic productivity. This creates cycles where individuals must take on more risk simply to maintain their standard of living.

Bitcoin was designed to remove this dependency. The fixed supply and predictable issuance schedule prevent arbitrary dilution. This allows participants to store the results of their work without needing to speculate to offset monetary debasement. Over time, a system with these properties encourages saving, long-term planning and productive investment rather than short-term extraction.

The network continues to operate without central authority. Nodes verify independently and reach consensus through proof of work. This ensures that no single actor, including governments or financial institutions, can alter the rules for their own benefit. The security of the system increases as more participants join, forming a feedback loop of adoption and resilience.

Bitcoin does not solve every economic or political problem, but it removes a key point of failure that has distorted economies for decades. A monetary system that is neutral, scarce and decentralised creates a foundation on which individuals and businesses can plan with greater certainty. In the long run this is likely to produce more stable and sustainable growth than any policy intervention.

I’ve spent the last 13 years building nostr:nprofile1qqsq2urhn2dfn6q3yl0r00w0263gkse28u9qz3s6nm07ll5vjc54v9qpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3kamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwvf5hgcm0d9h8qctjdvhxxmmdf5kvek on the back of the very platforms I criticise. Google, Meta, LinkedIn, X… I know them better than most because my entire career has been spent navigating their systems, their algorithms, and their incentive structures.

And if I’m honest, in a lot of ways I’ve been part of the problem. I’ve helped businesses grow inside an ecosystem that is fundamentally unhealthy. I’ve played the game because you have to play the game if you want to grow a company today.

Organic reach is gone. Attention is pay-to-play. Most businesses simply cannot survive without digital marketing.m in some form.

But the more I study the economics behind these platforms, the more obvious it becomes that the model itself is broken. They extract attention, manipulate behaviour, and amplify whatever keeps people emotionally reactive. Not because they’re evil, but because that’s the only way their ad-based, fiat-driven model functions.

So it raises the uncomfortable question: how do you build and scale a business without feeding the very system you know is destroying genuine human interaction?

The honest answer is that it’s difficult. There’s no magic switch. But there is a way forward.

You build differently.

You create real value instead of noise.

You focus on long-term relationships instead of short-term clicks.

You build ecosystems instead of funnels.

You align incentives so that everyone involved wins from actual performance and productivity.

That’s why I have rebuilt nostr:nprofile1qqsq2urhn2dfn6q3yl0r00w0263gkse28u9qz3s6nm07ll5vjc54v9qpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3kamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwvf5hgcm0d9h8qctjdvhxxmmdf5kvek around the VCM (Value Creation Metric ) model.

It’s why I started The Bitcoin Transition. It’s why I’m leaning into decentralised tech like Nostr. I want to be part of building a direction that leads out of the mess, not deeper into it.

We can’t change the entire digital landscape overnight. But we can change how we operate inside it. We can build businesses that serve people instead of exploiting their attention. We can anchor growth in real value creation. We can stop pretending the system is fine and start actively designing something better.

Because at the end of the day, the tools aren’t the problem.

The incentive structures are.

Lately I’ve been thinking about how unhealthy most social platforms have become. X gets all the attention for being toxic, but truthfully the rot is everywhere.

X is designed to keep you in a loop of negativity. Outrage, fear, conflict, repeat.. and when it’s not that, it’s hype boys from fintwit promoting some bullshit trading strategy.

Instagram is the opposite flavour of the same problem. Endless perfection theatre. Everyone pretending their life is perfect when everyone secretly knows it is not. The whole thing is one big performance to protect the illusion.

LinkedIn might actually be the worst. A never-ending wall of corporate circle jerking, humble-brags, fake success stories and people clapping for themselves in the hope others clap back. Steven Bartlett, seems to be the ring leader here. It is less a professional network and more an attention marketplace where authenticity quietly goes to die.

Not to mention Facebook is just a digital retirement village these days. Boomers talking about their all-inclusive cruises, funded by inflated property prices and the distortions of the fiat clown world. A place where yesterday’s economic luck gets paraded as personal brilliance.

TikTok. YouTube. All of them run the same playbook. They do not optimise for connection, truth, or human wellbeing. They optimise for whatever keeps you scrolling long enough to show you another advert. That is the business model. That is the incentive structure. That is the problem.

People aren’t broken. The platforms are. They are built on a foundation of emotional manipulation and attention extraction because that is what the ad-driven, fiat-fuelled economy demands.

This is why decentralised protocols like Nostr feel refreshing. No algorithms trying to control what you see. No company harvesting your psychology for profit. Just people, conversations, and actual freedom to choose how you engage.

I think more of us are waking up to how toxic the legacy platforms have become. And honestly, the quicker the old social media models die, the better.

A healthier internet is possible. It just requires building systems that respect authentic human connection rather than exploiting it.

💯

nostr:nevent1qqstta54cw8pyzhqg07zea2f05szln2jnwucwn0zxky64n824mw07rgpr9mhxue69uhhq7tjv9kkjepwve5kzar2v9nzucm0d5dq53sx

Amazing idea.

If you want to apply for a role jump onto our careers page https://www.involvedigital.com/careers

#SEO managers do you want to earn #Bitcoin

I’m hiring the below position

Commission-Only SEO Manager | Digital Marketing & Growth (Remote, Global)

Earn 25% Lifetime Commission — Paid in Fiat or Bitcoin

Involve Digital is expanding globally across Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US — and we’re searching for a results-driven SEO Manager who thrives on performance and believes in free-market rewards.

If you’re tired of fixed salaries that limit your upside and want to build true wealth by directly linking your output to your income, this is your opportunity.

⸻

About the Role

This is not a traditional agency position — it’s a performance-based partnership. You’ll be responsible for driving organic traffic, leads and conversions for Involve Digital through world-class SEO strategy and execution.

You’ll have full creative and technical control to shape our organic growth engine — from keyword strategy, link building and on-page optimisation, to building high-converting landing pages and content funnels.

We’ll support you with design, copywriting, and lead-magnet production so you can focus purely on ranking, optimisation, and scaling organic leads that convert.

⸻

How You’ll Be Rewarded

25% Lifetime Commission on net revenue generated from clients who originate via organic leads.

Paid monthly in your choice of fiat currency (AUD, NZD, USD, GBP) or Bitcoin.

Commissions continue for the entire lifetime of each client relationship.

No income ceiling — the more qualified leads you generate, the more you earn.

⸻

What You’ll Do

Develop and execute a full SEO growth strategy across our website (Webflow).

Increase organic traffic, domain authority and lead conversion rates.

Optimise landing pages, blog content, and lead magnets for performance.

Manage link-building campaigns and technical SEO improvements.

Track, report, and continuously improve key metrics — impressions, CTR, rankings, and conversions.

⸻

What We Offer

A highly optimised Webflow site ready for you to enhance and expand.

Full creative freedom to build and test new pages, funnels, and lead magnets.

Design, copywriting and development support from our internal team.

Alignment with a company that rewards excellence through performance — not tenure.

⸻

Why Join Involve Digital

Involve Digital is not a typical agency. We’re building a new model of digital growth — one driven by meritocracy, results, and wealth creation for those who perform.

Our philosophy is simple: when you create value, you should own the upside.

⸻

You’ll Thrive If You

Have proven SEO experience driving measurable growth for B2B or agency brands.

Understand technical SEO, keyword research, and content optimisation at an expert level.

Know how to convert traffic into qualified leads through smart funnel design.

Are entrepreneurial, self-motivated, and comfortable working on a commission-only basis.

Message me if you would like to apply.

I started nostr:nprofile1qqsvlrp873f0sz486re4rw9tx8l7thcpk8w9dgqavs9ctsm2e9dekhqpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpramhxue69uhkummnw3ezuampd3kx2ar0veekzar0wd5xjtnrdaksj7p4gv www.The BitcoinTransition.org to help with this. I just need more hours in the day to spend building it out further. Quick 10min or less easily digestible videos which are free for everyone to access. I don’t want there to be any barrier to entry for the hard working people who need Bitcoin the most.