Avatar
Des Imoto マキシ
16897bfab409ff12a768217e14d472dd5e8a2ae11cc0e3340bf2d6f67f5bac83
Bitcoin is the only chance we have | Toxic Maxi | Anarchist | Voluntarist | #Bitcoin | #Plebchain
Replying to Avatar Soak Quest

The original purpose of Bitcoin was simple: peer-to-peer transactions and separation of money from the state. Sixteen years in, the Bitcoiners who believed in that purpose the most either joined early or stacked hard under that narrative.

These are now the biggest capital allocators in the ecosystem—and they remain committed to a Bitcoin-only future. Their top priority isn’t tokenization or bridging to legacy systems. It’s growing peer-to-peer infrastructure, the medium of exchange use case, and keeping Bitcoin on Bitcoin rails.

You can see this clearly on platforms like NOSTR, where the most evangelical Bitcoin users are building and coordinating. Jack's top post yesterday? P2P growth. Not stablecoins. Not tokenization.

Trying to push Bitcoin Maxis outside a Bitcoin-only ecosystem misses the point entirely. They joined because they wanted to get off traditional rails. They already spend with Bitcoin-only companies. They already get loans in USD or Tether from Strike, LEDN, or Unchained. They even built their own open-source comms infrastructure.

Stablecoins are fine. Banks will adopt them. And yes, Washington's Bitcoin bills are increasingly tied to stablecoin growth. But let’s be honest: Bitcoiners don’t need them. They’ve opted out—and trying to market those products to them is like selling pork at a vegan festival.

If you're working on tokenization or stablecoin products, more power to you—but pitch them to a different customer base. Because Bitcoiners, the people sitting on the most capital, are building their own future—and it’s Bitcoin-only by design.

Hear! Hear! Even if greed is your driver, the expected value (risk/reward) of #Bitcoin is so much higher than anything else, why even tinker with anything else?

Yes, but there’ll be a point at which one has to measure increasing purchasing power in goods and services. Until hyperbitcoinization is complete. At which point one has to earn Bitcoin.

The issue is more nuanced, for instance:

- “trophy” real estate carries a higher monetary premium and it is likely to retain it because it is objectively scarce (unique location, unique architecture, period buildings etc). This is less than 1% of the properties.

- properties with a yield will be repriced according to the yield and alternative investment yields with similar risk profile.

- all the rest will gradually lose the monetary premium and revert to utility value depending on characteristics of the property and its relative supply-demand on the specific market.

- generally though, excluding the first 2 variables above, real estate should be increasingly demonetized as an asset class if #bitcoin adoption as a SOV increases. This, however, will be contingent on how governments will act because they cannot afford a real estate collapse. Real estate is one of the biggest sources of tax revenue for all governments. Therefore the incentive will be to keep interest low and keep the bubble afloat. On the other side there are strong deflationary forces. Consider the EU for a second. In the last 40-50 years the middle class has used real estate as its main SOV. The middle class was growing wealthier and many had second and even third houses. Usually empty. No returns, just maintenance costs. Now the middle class has been decimated and they cannot afford such properties anymore. Where is all this stock of properties going? Think about it…

Below some excerpts from a Chapter of my book on that topic

There’s also the money printing aspect associated with real estate. As mortgages are created out of thin air. And then, the government and banks extracts intrest and taxes thus reallocating capital mostly from the middle class.

Unfortunately people are sheeple. Even Winston, in 1984, in the end gives up. Winston Smith, broken and compliant, experiencing a sense of victory over himself as he loves Big Brother, a final act of submission to the Party's control.

The fact we have 20,000 nodes for #bitcoin and what, 200,000 users on #Nostr isn’t bad…

Replying to Avatar HODL

Are there still places with vibes anymore? Or did the internet kind of kill it?

I feel like digital spaces have vibes. Nostr has a vibe for sure, but everywhere I go (in America at least) feels flat, steril and homogenous now.

People like to pretend otherwise, romanticizing local charm and it’s fun to do so, but in reality there is no meaningful difference between New York, LA, Chicago, Austin, Miami etc…

The differences feel increasingly superficial. Miami with its neon pink and bad Latin art. New York with its identical minimalist cafes selling identical oat lattes. These aren’t cities anymore, they’re brands. “Keep Austin Weird” feels less like the rallying cry of a bohemian collective and more like a safe corporate brand slogan.

It wasn’t always like this. Cities used to incubate true subcultures that couldn’t thrive anywhere else. Seattle once had grunge music emerging organically from local clubs, distinct in sound and attitude. Detroit was a birthplace for techno and industrial grit that couldn’t have been manufactured. New Orleans had jazz clubs and vibrant local traditions that permeated every street corner authentically. Before the internet collapsed distances, you could sense deep authenticity upon arriving somewhere new. The vibe wasn’t something designed by marketing departments; it was organically woven into the streets, the people, the music, and local myths.

Now, vibes feel engineered and commoditized, reduced to Instagrammable moments and easily replicable aesthetics. I once watched from the balcony of my hotel in Nashville as 200 women waited in line to take the same stupid picture with the same stupid set of angel wings.

Digital spaces, ironically, have become refuges of uniqueness, fostering communities unburdened by geographical homogenization. Platforms like nostr host unique niche communities, from hyper-specific gaming bitcoin cultural milieu to obscure philosophical discussions, that retain genuinely distinctive vibes.

Perhaps we’re now entering a strange inversion, where real-world spaces chase digital popularity, adopting blandness to maximize broad appeal.

In this inversion, digital worlds might become the primary spaces where unique vibes survive, thrive, and multiply—leaving our physical world as little more than a flattened reflection of what used to be.

Nostr is where the vibes are at.

Havana is emerging. As long as they stay isolated from the globalists, the better. They now allow free market for small businesses. Lots of art, cafes, small businesses…vibe.

How will we organize after hyperbitcoinization?

I’m wondering what our society will look like in the future. I’ve posted before thoughts about why large centralized democracies don’t work. So, in the vein of decentralization, we may end up moving toward small communities, tribes of like minded peoples in the pursuit of their happiness.

Which led me to look at how American Indians organized. They seemed to, within their tribes, live so harmoniously amongst themselves and with nature.

American Indians organized many decisions around family units and tribal councils. One way to illustrate how it works is to look how American Indians disincentivized bad behavior.

Now probably the first thing to know about Native American history is that there was very little crime.  Perhaps crime and punishment go with Western Industrial-type nations.  Historically, travelers to the outermost regions of Native America commented on how honest and how little crime existed.

So what did they do if one of their own committed a “crime”?

Firstly, there were no jails. Secondly, while all tribes were different, in matters of severe offenses, the family or the clan usually dealt with the offender. Often the person guilty of the crime was “sentenced” to go away from the tribe and try to make it on his own — which in the long ago past, was almost a testiment to a death sentence.  In the Lakota tribe there is a reference in the book, WATER LILY, about the offender having to make restitution with the family by taking a role in the family.  Usually such people were so happy to not be put out of the tribe, that they became the best family members of all. Imagine if this were so in our society today?  That the offender had to make restitution with the family for his acts?  What do you think might be the result?  Less crime, perhaps?

In the Creek society, as well as the Blackfeet, the crime of adultery (for women only) was a cut off nose — the tip of the nose.  This was usually performed at the request of the offending husband and was done by the society that he belonged to.

As far as stealing is concerned, it was almost unheard of.  George Catlin remarked that in all his travels in Native America he had never had one single thing taken from him, or even a hand lifted against him.  In truth, one young man made quite a journey to join Catlin in order to return to him some of his property.  However, if stealing had been done, the offending party again made restitution with the “victim” by supplying them with whatever they needed in return.  Seems a much simplier process, doesn’t it?  Make up the damage one has done to the person who has been harmed, himself.

Besides almost non-existent crime, there was also no poverty.  Some people were more prosperous than others — such has always been the case amongst a people.  But noone went hungry when there was food to be had within the tribe, nor did anyone go without.

And if a culture is known by its humanity towards others and the material condition of its people, then I would have to say that American Indians were, indeed, a culture to be proud.

#Bitcoin. Fix the money, fix the world.

#Bitcoin. It’s the only chance we have.

Parts extracted verbatim from CRIME & PUNISHMENT — Native American Style

October 14, 2008 by Karen Kay

Most normies will never realize what’s going on. The movie The Jones Plantation depicts a few normie archetypes. The little enforcers that get a kick out of their little power, the cowards, the group thinkers, etc etc.

Even Winston in 1984 complied in the end: Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother

You know how we all talk about trojan horsing with bitcoin.

I'm starting to get a creeping feeling that nostr:nprofile1qydhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuum9d45hxmmv9ejx2aspr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5qqs2rqy9tprs8zg59c5h63efuzq6hz7l7x44p58tughl57y43aax4dcr0rju9 (and Trump, David Sacks, etc...) trojan horsed bitcoiners instead. The first meeting she chaired yesterday on digital assets was just about stablecoins (aka psuedo-cbdc). They didn't talk about bitcoin, it wasn't really mentioned in any meaningful way.

Seems like they got us all excited about possibilities like a bitcoin strategic reserve, de minimus tax exemption, etc... to get votes and massive donations. But all we're going to get are a bunch of shitcoin etfs, more pump/dumps (aka 'friendly' regulation), and essentially a government wet dream panopticon CBDC (disguised as "NOT A CBDC, BUT PRIVATE STABLECOINS, WE PROMISE")

Hopefully I'm wrong, but I don't like the direction things are going thus far.

nostr:nprofile1qyv8wumn8ghj7urjv4kkjatd9ec8y6tdv9kzumn9wsq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgqgzx3h

nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7etyv4hzumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgqgswaehxw309ahx7um5wgh8w6twv5qzpduedsvruqmd7fuq99zmszaaezct7kt3ke3p4p4lx45uxvs30uramc7k5h

nostr:nprofile1qyt8wue69uhh2mtzwfjkctnvda3kzmp6xsurgwqpp3mhxue69uhkyunz9e5k7qpqd3f4m9dgvkdjxn26pqzsxn6lpfn78sxwllxyt8mp76q0a9zyyjlsu8qztu

nostr:nprofile1qyf8wumn8ghj7cnfw3ehgctrdvhxzursqy28wumn8ghj7cnvv9ehgu3wvcmh5tnc09aqqgy9hk6cwhs38hxfjjvtgarrv3ycsthptgw8s922kp7qvk68xwwkwg05kxcv

Frankly, Lummis has always been honest about her campaign against #Bitcoin. From the very beginning she‘s been talking about government regulation, such as taxation (above certain amounts) and track and trace and even the government buying #Bitcoin with our money (SBR) to control it. #Bitcoin is a peer to peer electronic cash system separate from any government. I’m not sure why the ambiguity?

Replying to Avatar Jeff Booth

Speaking in probabilities versus guarantees but I think the highest probability is a chaotic and long transition (especially for those living in fiat) that continues to test the decentralized and secure nature of Bitcoin through our actions. In other words - how many people care?

Here is one very probable scenario that you can see playing out right now (and could see coming from a mile away if you think in first principles and understand human nature)

Most people are pricing bitcoin through US dollar - which ensures centralization of bitcoin and people taking more risk (ETF, microstrategy, etc, etc)

As that system (still inflationary) prices Bitcoin FAR higher in fiat terms, it also underpins a global control structure that is “more” solvent because of Bitcoins dramatic rise in price. (Strategic reserve)

Imperialism 3.0. 1. Gold/USD 2. Petro dollar/ USD 3. Bitcoin/USD

Again, this is all centralizing and many Bitcoin holders today will sell into this and reinforce it because it will seem more convenient and they will “get rich” (Similar to how most people still using Twitter today)

Eventually that system MUST attack Bitcoin and the nodes, economic nodes, decentralized nature of Bitcoin mining pools, communication that can’t be shut down like Cashu, Fedi, Nostr etc will decide its outcome.

If I were the centralizing system, I would not engage in that attack until I thought I could win (ie - not for a long time - but that would also allow Bitcoin to gain more utility as medium of exchange,

Protocol layers listed above, etc)

But, this attack should not be underestimated because it aligns with human nature in thinking short term.

If we prevail, which I think is probable ….(only because I know how deep this thought process goes in this community) then that becomes true hyperbitcoinization as the alternate chain fails and with it the exploitative control structure (including everyone who trusted counterparties)

Or to simplify - we decide what world we’re going to live in and as long as enough people choose truth, hope and abundance - “we” win.

All 20,000 of us (nodes) ;)

What I came to realize during COVID and through #bitcoin, it’s the people….how do you save the people from themselves?

On June 12, 1987, at the Brandenburg Gate, United States president Ronald Reagan delivered a speech commonly known by a key line from the middle part: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I saw interviews of people afterwards and they thought it would take at least 50 years to change.

2-years later the wall came down.

Slowly, then suddenly #bitcoin

Replying to Avatar ZacG

With world leaders launching meme coins becoming a trend, here’s what I discovered while researching the Central African Republic’s government-backed meme coin $CAR for HRF’s financialfreedomreport.org🧵

On February 10th, CAR President Faustin-Archange Touadéra announced on X the launch of a government backed meme coin called $CAR claiming it will “unite people” and “support national development.”

The reality is actually more simple: meme coins are largely speculative assets, prone to pump-and-dump cycles, and often serving as vehicles for insiders to profit at the expense of those who buy in.

CAR’s 1 billion token supply was carved up predictably: 35% to ‘country development,’ 25% to ‘creators & company,’ 20.7% for liquidity, 10% for charity, and just 9.3% for public distribution. In short, insiders controlled the vast majority.

Within a day of its launch, $CAR shot to a market cap of $900 million before crashing spectacularly, plunging 97% from its peak and leaving the vast majority of investors holding worthless tokens.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because President Toudéra pulled a similar stunt only a couple years earlier.

In 2022, they launched Sango Coin, a token that promised citizenship and land to its investors. The reality? Only 7.5% of the supply was sold, and those who did “buy in” did not receive what was promised. The official Sango Coin website is also non functional.

They even convinced people to donate their Bitcoin to “back” Sango Coin, then took all the donated funds.

Even before Sango, CAR made global headlines by adopting Bitcoin as “legal tender.” Unfortunately this was less about freedom and individual sovereignty and more about optics. In other words, a marketing ploy to propel the Sango Coin scam.

Regardless of the intentions, Bitcoin as legal tender didn't last long as CAR bowed to pressure from the regional monetary union, the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa, and walked back Bitcoin’s legal tender status and their paper promises.

The recurring theme in CAR is that the government continues to pedal schemes they claim will benefit the public, but instead repeatedly benefits regime insiders. This came at the opportunity cost of instead advancing decentralized, open, and censorship-resistant money that can actually benefit such an impoverished population.

The $CAR meme coin is just the latest gimmick and reports are already surfacing that regime insiders cashed out $40M.

With a second scam in just as many years, this clearly isn’t about financial innovation: it’s about power and profit for the few.

The real tragedy? CAR’s people deserve financial freedom.

#Bitcoin could provide a way to escape the CFA system that is deeply rooted in monetary colonialism, but instead, the government has chosen speculative tokens that enrich elites at the expense of the public.

Until then, its citizens remain trapped in a system where politicians experiment with money, and the people pay the price.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself…or, we are our enemy.