My 2026 markets & Bitcoin outlook + current positioning
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/my-2026-markets-and-bitcoin-outlook
Opened a ~big MicroStrategy position today for a short/medium-term trade β completely unlevered.
Short-term will be volatile with December being a prime tax-loss harvesting month and MSTR being one of the biggest losers this year, but I like the risk/reward here. There are also a couple of MSTR-specific factors that will add volatility.
If it gets fudded some more and dumps without a break in fundamentals, I might buy more.
I'm basically betting that:
The system still wants a public BTC casino node, and this one is already built, so they won't nuke it β and the market has overshot to the downside.
Could Peter Schiff have predicted the bottom? Only time will tell.
Now is a good time to reflect β how did we get here? How did we get to the point where the Bitcoin community cannot widely agree on what Bitcoin is β is it money, is it arbitrary data storage, a combination, something else.
If the Bitcoin community cannot agree on what Bitcoin is, then any change to the protocol is not an attack. You are just optimizing for the "arbitrary data storage" community instead of the Bitcoin as money community.
As I wrote, in my last article: "I am not particularly bullish on any community, but Iβd be more bullish on a community that has a single goal and some courage than a community that is pulling in ten different directions."
How did incentives align for the arbitrary data storage crowd to be so successful?
What is the incentive map? Who are the real winners of "Bitcoin as random data substrate"?
You might've been shocked by just how many people in the Bitcoin space are in favor of turning Bitcoin into arbitrary data storage, but if you map out the incentives, it all makes sense.
To understand the Bitcoin ecosystem, you first have to understand the Coordination tax ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ).
The Coordination Tax β Three Stacked Systems
- Sβ Protocol: consensus rules, Proof-of-Work, 21M.
- Sβ Policy: relay/mempool defaults, mining templates, wallet behaviors.
- Sβ Perimeter: banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR.
Security: Sβ is math; Sβ/Sβ are sociotechnical.
Tax: recurring human + legal + distribution cost to keep Sβ/Sβ aligned with Sβ's ideals.
Attacker asymmetry: One cheap perimeter tweak (Acceptable Use Policy line, relay/mempool policy, bank heuristic, pool template) can shift millions. Defenders must hold all fronts, all the time.
1) Who really wins from "Bitcoin as arbitrary data storage"
1.1. Direct economic / career winners
(a) Miners (short-term fee maximizers)
They get:
- Higher average feerates when inscriptions/ordinals spam appear
- A "fee market maturing" narrative to backfill halvings
They do not price in:
- Long-term node attrition
- Legal attack surface (CSAM, malware blobs, etc.)
- MoE utility loss (not their P&L line item)
So miners are structurally biased toward:
- "If it pays the fee, it's good."
Even if that trades long-run decentralization and legal safety for short-run revenue.
(b) Exchanges, custodians, and structured-product shops
Ordinals, tokens-on-BTC, inscriptions = new casino SKUs:
- More trading pairs
- Higher churn, higher spreads, higher fee income
They also love:
- Arbitrary data narrative β ETF / custodian "clean, non-tainted BTC" premium ("let us deal with the messy chain, you just buy exposure")
They win when:
- Running a full node gets more complex / risky
- Self-custody looks scary / legally exposed
- People are nudged to use custodial wallets and ETFs instead
(c) VC-funded protocol / infra companies
Ordinals/NFT infra, L2s, indexing services, inscription explorers, marketplace APIs, "data on Bitcoin" startups:
- Need sustained demand for non-monetary blockspace
- Need the narrative that Bitcoin is not just money, but a base for rich "use cases"
Many Core-adjacent devs:
- Work for, or receive grants from, these entities
- Build tools that assume arbitrary-data use is legitimate and permanent
So dev + VC + product is one economic cluster, not separate.
(d) Core / Core-adjacent devs (funded & entangled)
They sit at the Sβ/Sβ hinge:
Funding:
- Salaries from companies with economic exposure to fee markets, ordinals/L2s, infra monetization
- Grants from corporate/VC-aligned foundations
Career capital:
- Future jobs at L1/L2 startups, exchanges, "Bitcoin infra" companies
- Social capital in conferences / standards bodies
Incentives push toward:
- Making Bitcoin look more programmable, more general, less "boring cash chain"
- Avoiding any stance that looks like "censorship" or "limitation" β which could threaten future roles in broader crypto/tech
So the line:
- "If you pay the fee, there is no spam"
...is not a purely moral principle. It protects them from:
- Being accused of gatekeeping
- Legal responsibility for content
- Alienating VC/infra employers who want maximal "optionality" on future use cases
1.2. Status / narrative winners (who win by redefining Bitcoin's "purpose")
(a) Thought-leader devs (βprotocol neutrality priestsβ)
Psychological incentive:
- Be the arbiter of purity: "we don't judge content; we only judge consensus validity"
- This role is high status, especially among non-technical Bitcoiners who can't audit the code but trust the persona
Social incentive:
- You get to ostracize critics as "toxic maxis", "backward", or "anti-innovation"
- You create a culture where questioning arbitrary-data policy = taboo
This keeps the Overton window narrowed around:
- "Free market + neutrality = good. Any resistance is censorship and centralization."
Which conveniently sidelines the "Bitcoin is money first" crowd.
(b) Influencers, educators, podcast grifters
They live on:
- New narratives β more engagement
- New casino features β more sponsorship deals (exchanges, NFT platforms, L2s)
They are rarely:
- Running full nodes
- Taking the legal risk of infrastructure
- Thinking through Sβ/Sβ attack surfaces
So they amplify:
- "Bitcoin NFTs"
- "Taproot unleashed innovation"
- "If people want to inscribe anime, that's just demand"
Even if that makes Bitcoin-as-money weaker, they're making bank on the current hype wave.
1.3. Perimeter winners (Sβ β the real apex predators)
Here's where it gets sharp.
Once you normalize large arbitrary payloads on-chain, you:
Increase the probability that:
- CSAM appears
- Malware payloads appear
- Copyrighted / secret / classified material appears
Decrease the plausibility that:
- Node operators are "just neutral auditors"
- ISPs and clouds can host nodes without legal questions
- Politicians can ignore "illegal content on immutable chains" rhetoric
That gives Sβ actors:
(a) Regulators / law enforcement
Narrative ammunition:
- "Running a node = distributing illegal material"
- "Relaying unlicensed money transmission + contraband data"
Policy levers:
- Licensing for node operators
- Mandatory filters / whitelists / content scanning
- Heavy penalties for infra providers who host "non-compliant" nodes
(b) Cloud / infra providers
Acceptable-Use-Policy leverage:
- "No illegal content stored or relayed on our infra" becomes the clause that justifies mass deplatforming
Business pivot:
- Host only "licensed" nodes (custodians, ETFs, banks)
- Cut off hobby / adversarial self-hosted nodes
(c) Custodians / ETFs / KYC rails
Sales pitch:
- "Self-custody = legal and operational minefield. Let us handle the dirty chain; you just buy clean exposure through us."
Outcome:
- Paperization accelerates
- Price discovery moves further off-chain
- Self-custody shrinks to a niche "problem segment" that's easy to demonize
So Sβ ideological "neutrality" plus Sβ permissionless blockspace becomes, in practice, the perfect Sβ excuse for containment.
2) How can this be so coordinated without a smoking gun?
I already told you how: it's the coordination tax vs attacker asymmetry.
Defenders (money-first, MoE crowd) need:
- Clear doctrine ("Bitcoin is money, not a blob store")
- Strong social cohesion
- Constant vigilance over every Sβ/Sβ tweak
Attackers / exploiters / misaligned winners need:
- A compelling neutral-sounding narrative ("market will decide")
- A handful of influential devs and influencers
- A governance culture that treats inaction as "neutrality"
Then:
- Miners see higher fees β "good"
- VC/infra see new products β "good"
- Devs see ideology shield + employer satisfaction β "good"
- Influencers see new content/sponsorship streams β "good"
- Perimeter sees expanding legal surface β "good"
No one has to say "let's sabotage Bitcoin's monetary function."
They just never prioritize it when it conflicts with:
- Revenue
- Career capital
- Ideological comfort
- Regulatory leverage
That's emergent capture.
3) Why Core v30-type changes are particularly dangerous
I've already written about this here ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5 ) but I'll give you a TL;DR.
Mechanically, with looser OP_RETURN policy and witness patterns:
- The cost (in dev time + sophistication) to embed problematic payloads falls
- The bandwidth and storage footprint for that garbage rises
- The plausible deniability of node operators and infra shrinks
Resulting effects:
1. Node centralization
- More resource requirements (disk, bandwidth, RAM)
- Cloud hosting becomes the default β easier to regulate
- Fewer hobby / adversarial nodes β surveillance easier
2. Legal wedge
- The probability that multiple jurisdictions challenge node legality goes up
- Precedent gets set in one place, exported everywhere via "global best practice"
3. Narrative inversion
- Before: "Killing Bitcoin would be politically costly."
- After: "Regulating unlicensed content distributors & unlicensed transmitters is public safety."
That is exactly how you turn a pure Sβ protocol into a Sβ-governed commodity plumbing with minimal blowback.
4) Does this mean Bitcoin "fails as money"?
Yes, directionally, not instantly.
Path looks more like:
1. MoE path is gradually taxed and harassed
- Fees volatile and often high
- Self-custody more legally risky and UX-hostile
- On/off ramps heavily surveilled
2. SoV path is narrowed and paperized
- ETFs, trusts, notes, custodians = majority of flows
- Self-custody share stagnates or declines
- Regulatory capture of "good actors" (KYC wrappers) is complete
3. Monetary identity fragments
- No shared mission ("is it money / settlement / blobstore / NFT chain?")
- Any attempt at refocusing is framed as "censorship" or "maxi extremism"
Bitcoin continues to exist, may even appreciate a lot in fiat terms, but not as a serious mass MoE competitor to CBDCs/stables. It becomes:
- High-beta, tightly supervised, partially neutered digital gold with an ETF umbilical cord.
That's exactly the scenario I've been writing about: upside in fiat terms, but structurally contained as money.
Sadly, many devs are economically and career-wise entwined with the very interests that benefit from making Bitcoin weirder and more attackable.
You don't need to assume every Core dev is "captured". You only need to notice: their ideological purity on Sβ/Sβ creates perfect leverage for Sβ.
The coordination tax + incentive asymmetry I described is not paranoia; it's the correct model.
Sβ can stay mathematically pristine while Sβ/Sβ steer Bitcoin away from being money and into being a tolerated, contained asset class.
5) Fragmented identity = attack surface, not strength
As I previously told you:
- If the Bitcoin community cannot agree on what Bitcoin is, then any change to the protocol is not an attack. You are just optimizing for the "arbitrary data storage" community instead of the Bitcoin-as-money community.
This is key.
Hard money needs a simple charter. For money to be robust, it benefits from:
- A simple shared story: "This is sound money, optimized to be cheap, robust, self-custodiable cash / reserve asset."
- Clear red lines: "We don't turn this into a generic compute/data substrate if it harms monetary function."
Instead, Bitcoin today has at least 4 overlapping tribes:
1. Sound money / MoE maximalists
2. Digital gold SoV-only crowd
3. Timechain / ordinals / data canvas crowd
4. Pure decentralization aesthetes ("if it pays the fee, it's fine")
When these tribes share the same Sβ but have different objectives, then:
Any proposed change is always:
- "an optimization for some group"
- and never clearly an "attack" agreed by all
So the argument becomes:
- "You don't own Bitcoin's purpose. If some people want to use it as a media store and pay more, that's just the market."
At Sβ this sounds "neutral". At Sβ/Sβ it's a huge coordination failure:
- Node cost goes up.
- Legal risk goes up.
- Monetary utility goes down.
- Social energy is spent fighting about "what Bitcoin is" instead of defending Sβ/Sβ.
As I wrote in my last article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ):
- Bitcoin's survival and adoption depend on whether its most committed users can detect, coordinate, and counter inevitable policy, market, and social attacks.
This is what I called the coordination tax:
- you spend scarce social/organizational bandwidth on internal civil war while the perimeter moves in.
No one needs to say "let's all wreck Bitcoin as money".
They just each follow their own incentive gradient, and the aggregate effect is:
- 'Bitcoin is increasingly a supervised, high-friction asset with ambiguous purpose, best consumed as paper exposure."
That's the Sβ vs Sβ/Sβ mismatch.
Recall:
- Sβ Protocol = math, PoW, 21M, consensus rules.
- Sβ Policy = mempool defaults, relay policies, miner templates, wallet UX.
- Sβ Perimeter = banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR.
Right now, you roughly have:
- Sβ: still robust, sound, conservative.
- Sβ: being "opened" in ways that:
* prefer arbitrary data (witness discount, OP_RETURN policy changes, tolerant relay)
* emphasize "market neutrality" over monetary function
- Sβ: slowly moving toward:
* treating nodes/wallets as regulated endpoints
* pushing users toward custodial/KYC interfaces
* framing self-hosted infrastructure as risk vectors
Coordination tax shows up as:
- Defenders needing unanimity and constant vigilance to say "no" at Sβ.
- Attackers (or just misaligned incentives) needing only a simple majority + a narrative like "we're just letting markets decide".
Sβ can be perfectly sound while Sβ and Sβ gently steer the whole thing into a neutered, supervised role.
The coordination tax + incentive asymmetry make it very hard for Bitcoin to remain a credible, mass medium of exchange in the face of CBDCs + regulated stables.
The direction of travel is:
- MoE suppressed,
- SoV tolerated (especially via paper),
- self-custody increasingly path-of-most-resistance.
Bitcoin's ceiling as a civilizational MoE is being capped, not because Sβ is broken, but because Sβ/Sβ are being steered.
Bitcoin's MoE path is being quietly taxed to death, while its SoV path is being slowly paperized and supervised. Sβ remains mathematically pure; Sβ/Sβ do the containment.
Am I too pessimistic? I don't think I am.
I am just applying incentives > ideals to Sβ/Sβ while most of the space stares only at Sβ and quotes the whitepaper.
More context on the Coordination Tax:
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin
Yes, if the community cannot widely agree on what Bitcoin is (which seems to be the case), then she's not at fault and her employer is also not at fault. They just adopted the arbitrary data storage definition for Bitcoin so that's what they're optimizing for.
This is basically the coordination tax I wrote about in my last article.
I didn't write that it's exclusively her fault. If it wasn't her, it would've been another captured developer, so obviously her employer is at fault as well.
You are still responsible for your actions.
If I were offered to pilot an airplane but knew I wasn't qualified I'd decline the job offer.
If I accepted the job offer and crashed the airplane because I'm incompetent, would my employer be exclusively at fault, or would I carry some responsibility as well.
The same applies to ruining a mission-critical project such as Bitcoin. You aren't absolved of responsibility because your employer offered you a job without you being qualified.
And as I already wrote, it is mostly our own fault for allowing ~100% of nodes to run a single implementation for so long.
I wouldn't say she is the perfect spokesperson. Maybe the perfect fit in terms of her actions.
There are more managed, tactical ways to blow the whistle. Her way attracts more attention to the problem than necessary.
I think Bitcoin Core are trying to push another person as their spokesperson now and this lady has taken the backseat π
And of course, to clarify. It's not exclusively her fault.
Most of all, it is our own fault for being so complacent. We should have seen this coming.
> I don't want to make fun of this young lady, because it's not her fault.
I agree, however, I'm not making fun of the way she looks or a disability.
I'm making fun of the fact that she's unqualified for the job and knows it.
She isn't a cashier at Burger King. Her actions have downstream effects on millions of people.
> because it's not her fault.
It is her fault. No one forced her to take a job she isn't qualified for and make ~$400K a year to turn Bitcoin into arbitrary data storage.
Making fun of her being unqualified might prompt a few people to switch to Knots, but we still need more, viable implementations.
The fact they allowed this lady to go on podcasts absolutely blows my mind π
"I didn't learn economics at all, so I don't know how to talk about Bitcoin from a monetary standpoint."
- Bitcoin Core lead maintainer
https://blossom.primal.net/76d19d4e72c724411a78dd4f6979e0c27edf85ad64f14597cd6d6b0c4f089dea.mp4
It's all good, as long as you learned about DEI, you are equipped to "touch the protocol" of the most important peer-to-peer electronic cash system in the world.
But you didn't really need this lady to state the obvious, you could've just looked at their actions.
How Bitcoin's developers are attacking its Sovereign/Monetary use
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5
I think the moon missions were most likely faked, but I see what you're saying.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, and the evidence they went to the moon is practically 0.
This guy does a good job of presenting the evidence for and against if you're interested (starts around 10:40)
Mark Passio's content is pretty much the only Natural Law stuff I've consumed. There might be something better out there, but I haven't found anything even remotely close.
Looked at the comments of this post and realized that a bunch of people are allegedly subscribed to Elon Musk on twitter.
Imagine paying the richest man in the world, who is practically the government ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/public-facing-elites-using-myth-making ), to collect telemetry on you, fake space, profit from "human-made climate change" and put DARPA chips into your brain.
This is some prime humiliation ritual type stuff π
Might as well donate to the IRS to pay down the national debt next.
I can't wait to put the government in my brain. What could possibly go wrong?
I'll finally be able to control all of my devices using my Neuralink implant.
Vaccines have worked so well. Trust the science.
Doing some research on the AI bubble on blue-pilled, mainstream media websites, and it turns out the bubble is much worse than I thought.
> "Analysis: OpenAI is a loss-making machine, with estimates that it has no road to profitability by 2030 β and will need a further $207 billion in funding even if it gets there"
Interesting... Who keeps funding this "loss-making machine" with billions of dollars. These people must be really stupid.
Maybe I should start a "loss-making machine" company and get funded for billions. What do you think are the requirements? Can't be that hard.
Or could it be that there's more to the story β maybe profitability is not the main goal? Maybe they're rolling out AI governance? No... that would be crazy.
I appreciate your honesty. The breakdowns of the percentages definitely hit home for me. I'd add a good 15-20% to almost always being a contrarian since I've been questioning how the mainstream culture operates since being a kid
I've been coming to a better understanding of the structure that surrounds us as just contracts and commerce, where natural law and consent still play major roles- and there is always remedy in equity
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about these sorts of concepts and if you've dug in at all?
They cover a few pillars in this pod if you have a chance to listen:
The Way Forward with Alec Zeck: Ep 204: The Foundations for Self Governance with Sacred Honor Educational Fellowship
Episode webpage: https://www.thewayfwrd.com
I am not an American, I live in Eastern Europe, so this is not something I've researched much.
I do think the US income tax system is voluntary based on the little research I've done.
I am like half-way in and most of this seems like a distraction. Let's assume that all of it is correct, you still rely on the way the system is structured and not your God-given rights.
Having this knowledge of course potentially makes your life easier in today's society.
However, this seems to be the controlled opposition version of Natural Law ( https://odysee.com/@DotConnectorReports:e/Mark-Passio---Natural-Law-Seminar-FULL-Version:e ).
If I have to know all this human-invented nonsense to live my life, I'm still a slave. Maybe not as much as the next guy, but still a slave.
To me, this thing seems like a pressure relief valve - "If you're going to disobey, there are some bullshit human-invented prerequisites for you, and make sure to do it in an orderly manner and on a small enough scale".
If I understand this correctly, to renege on the contract, you have to go through a bunch of procedures, practically placing yourself in some of the worst Palantir databases. If you need to ask the system for permission, and follow the system's protocol to exit the system, it's probably not the optimal solution.
Definitely useful to know, but brittle. Should probably just move off-grid than deal with all this make believe bullshit.
Assuming all of this is true, you do everything perfectly, and the gov leaves you alone (implausible), you'd still have to deal with UBI slave NPCs a few years from now.
But if you gave me 2 options:
1) Monetize Natural Law,
2) Monetize the commerce system, and the contracts that define one's status,
I'm definitely picking the second. There's much more fake, fiat money to be made π
"Government is nothing but men acting in concert.
The Morality and value of Government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the Morality and value of the men comprising it.
Since Government is nothing but men, its inherent 'authority' to act is in no way greater or different than the 'authority' to act as individuals in isolation.
Government has no 'magic powers' or 'authority' not possessed by private individuals.
Let he who asserts that Government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention."
- Chris Lyspooner
This Bruce Maguire video is great:
Was not familiar, read the TL;DR just now.
On a long-enough time-frame, most things are going to be inevitable, at least in some places. You'd still want to delay being a slave as much as possible though.
The moment you acknowledge a constitution, and need to rely on one to protect your God-given rights, you're well on your way to being a slave.
The moment a central bank is created, you have rulers and slaves.
> Besides that I was more thinking about the philosophy, strategies and consequences of becoming "state repellent".
I think a lot of it has to do with making it expensive for the state to control you as the guy in the video said.
I have mostly researched this from an investor point-of-view, but should definitely do some Game Theory and write about my findings. Maybe the book that analyzes the Zomia region is a good starting point ( "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" by James C. Scott ).
"Government is nothing but men acting in concert.
The Morality and value of Government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the Morality and value of the men comprising it.
Since Government is nothing but men, its inherent 'authority' to act is in no way greater or different than the 'authority' to act as individuals in isolation.
Government has no 'magic powers' or 'authority' not possessed by private individuals.
Let he who asserts that Government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention."
- Chris Lyspooner
Bruce Maguire has recorded some great podcasts on this and adjacent topics. This one is great:
OK, I watched some of the presentation. He lost me when he said: "I don't believe the State is a cabal of bad people. It's an evolutionary strategy. The cat that eats the mouse is a result of evolution, it's not someone's design." π
I have looked in Zomia very briefly, but need to do more research on it.
Mark Passio's Natural Law Seminar is great:
https://odysee.com/@DotConnectorReports:e/Mark-Passio---Natural-Law-Seminar-FULL-Version:e
I think it's quite clear it is someone's design.
> You give too much credit to the AI powered central planners.
I definitely do, because I scrape and read policy synchronization standards summaries every week, and unfortunately we happen to live under a one world government ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated ).
Of course, there is a non-zero probability that we win. I've explicitly defined falsifiers, if not in every article, in 90%+ of my articles.
I track most of these things weekly/monthly and adjust. We are the underdog by a wide margin.
I just prefer to focus on the things I can control and the Bitcoin community is not one of them (nor is any other community, other than my immediate family/close friends).
The only thing I felt like I owed the community is to publish most of what I've researched, so they can address some of these issues... or not. Which I've already done.
So when you wrote: "At one point you need to stop riding a dead horse.", I don't know if the horse is dead, but it's castrated and domesticated. So I'll focus on other things until my falsifiers trip.
This conversation gave me a deja vu to a conversation we had 2 months ago.
1)
2)
I'll check the podcast out.
Maybe less than 10% is math. The core is querying APIs, scraping web pages, logic, training LLMs with specialized data, and iterating.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
The entire note is about the Coordination tax which is less about Sβ Bitcoin (the protocol) and more about Sβ Policy (relay/mempool defaults, mining templates, wallet behaviors), and Sβ Perimeter (banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR).
I've explained how Security: Sβ is math; Sβ/Sβ are sociotechnical.
Tax: recurring human + legal + distribution cost to keep Sβ/Sβ aligned with Sββs ideals.
Attacker asymmetry: One cheap perimeter tweak (Acceptable Use Policy line, bank heuristic, pool template) can shift millions. Defenders must hold all fronts, all the time.
> missing is a sense of agency and possibility. It's all very boxed in, and gives a fatal and nihilistic impression.
This is literally a quote from the note: "Ultimately, as you said, there is no perfect solution, which is why I am more inclined to focus more on the things I can control (being more self-sufficient, trying to stay outside the system) and less on competing with adversaries with infinite resources."
So how is being more self-sufficient and focusing on what you can control nihilistic?
You say that I've "let myself be convinced that Bitcoin is a bad idea by AI", basically implying I'm stupid and my research is flawed without having addressed a single argument.
Maybe you're just too mentally weak to be objective. Maybe you just can't handle the truth. If your whole identity relies on Bitcoin becoming what you want it to be, maybe you should reflect.
Seems like a bunch of them are cashing out (converting their audience's cash into their own cash).
It's embarrassing because most of them are probably doing quite well financially (at least better than the people they are dumping their PIPE shares on).
Most Bitcoin influencers need to stay mainstream for their platforms and wider audience. But yeah, even many Bitcoiners are fully programmed in.
Especially topics about science, space, nuclear, even when they make it so obvious its a farce.
http://blossom.happytavern.co/c670758859bdc7a18e986662d2f1d1d1e1a7f1e09ba7399ae7c89597f3221eb3
The blue pills bring the views. The red pills are a one way ticket to the dog house. Once the algo labels you "bad", there's no coming back.
Especially, conspiracy theory channels grounded in logic (like Bruce Maguire on YT) are omega throttled and from time to time get deleted without an explanation.
~15% of liquid net worth is in self-custody BTC for a Great Taking scenario hedge, rest I use to trade stocks and paper BTC, so I guess mostly TradFI.
By fiat, I mean trading/investing, not passively hodling Bitcoin. I am not hodling fiat either if that's what you're asking.
Imagine the arrogance of Core to fuck with our money and then imagine how complacent we got to allow it to go this far.
Depends on your definition of 'expensive'. I wouldn't buy gold hoping it outperforms Palantir, Bitcoin, or even QQQ long-term.
I'd buy gold because it is the second best asset outside the system.
If the regime cracks, gold & bitcoin get repriced much higher.
Can gold drop 10-15%, maybe even 20%? Sure. Will gold be higher 2 years from now? My best guess is yes.
Of course, the only solution is for people to decide to stop respecting a system that robs them blind.
You don't free yourself from slavery by following the rules your slave master imposed on you.
Sure as AI models get better and better, people will unknowingly communicate more and more with bots.
If I had to guess most of the bot networks on social media at the moment are government-run.
I was mainly referring to networking with well-connected, government-linked individuals if your goal is access to information, permits, subsidies, etc.
You don't need to use your brain when the science converges π
Not holding cash, I own Palantir and Microsoft and continue to do research.
As of now, 137 countries and currency unions, representing 98% of global GDP, are exploring Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).
Among these, 72 countries are in advanced stages of development, pilot, or have launched their CBDCs.
The writing is on the wall. I am looked at as a crazy conspiracy theorist just because people usually discount things they don't want to be true.
I'll see what happens in the Bitcoin space re price action when core v30 comes out.
More context:
I have a new essay up at Reason on why Trump is not the Bitcoin president
Heβs the stablecoin president
Bitcoin separates money from state, but stablecoins expand and strengthen state power
https://reason.com/2025/09/12/donald-trump-is-not-the-bitcoin-president/
You missed the part where stablecoins are used to normalize CBDCs.
We are in a transition from the current rails -> regulated stablecoins (plus tokenized deposits) -> phased CBDCs, with years of overlap.
Many people will tell you how stablecoins are useful to the US government because they buy treasuries.
However, they are much more useful to the US government because they are the Trojan horse that normalizes programmable money (CBDCs).
Context:
Yes, 3rd worlders are normalizing stablecoins at the moment, you'll have to wait some more if you live in a 1st world country.
Your use-case for fiat is - that's what is accepted - so your use-case is largely dependent on what your government wants to do.
Should probably expand on "how AI itself is being used as a meta-layer tool of governance".
1) Governance/National Security - AI as the stateβs brain - Governing AI becomes the way governments read, anticipate, and act - control of that layer = control of state action.
2) Identity & Digital ID - AI as gatekeeper of person-hood - Whoever issues valid identities controls who can transact, travel, access welfare.
3) Financial rails & CBDCs - AI as monetary flow enforcer - Money as programmable policy - gatekeeping of economic behavior.
4) Surveillance & Social Control - AI as continuous observability - constant observability converts behavior into predictable control surfaces.
5) Healthcare & Public Health - AI as triage, rationing, and surveillance of bodies - AI redefines who gets care and how resources are prioritized at the population level.
6) Labor & Employment - AI as gatekeeper of employment and upskilling - Who gets access to jobs becomes algorithmically mediated.
7) Media, Narrative & Information Ops - AI as narrative author & censor - control of narrative = control of legitimacy.
8) Legal/Compliance/Sanctions - AI as automated adjudicator - AI shortens the loop from suspicion to enforcement.
9) Infrastructure & Utilities - AI as grid manager & operational lock-in - AI manages load-balancing, emergency response, allocation of scarce resources (power, water), and schedules rationing.
10) Education & Cognitive Infrastructure - AI as gatekeeper of credentialing and learning frames - AI offers personalized learning + credentialing + state-sponsored reskilling + issues qualification certificates via algorithmic credentialing.
"Sadness is caused by intelligence. The more you understand certain things, the more you wish you didn't understand them."
- Charles Bukowski
If you are so smart, would you try to dumb yourself down to improve your quality of life?
Are you really so smart when you haven't figured out arguably the most important thing - how to live a happy life?
It seems to me that understanding certain things that other people don't understand or care to understand can make you feel alone.
And I don't mean alone as in not having people around you, you can have plenty of people around you and still feel alone.
It also doesn't seem like you need to be that intelligent to understand most things in this day and age, you just need to study logical fallacies and be a critical thinker.
It's easy to fall into the trap of "Oh, I'm so smart and that's why I'm depressed, the problem is with everyone else. I guess I'll just have to wait for everyone else to improve to be happy."
But are you though? Or are you just too comfortable being sad and lazy π€
The Biggest Lie Of All. #FlatEarth
https://blossom.primal.net/eff4d7b5ba9fdaa37383a46a29eeedf2667a2055e3af611366e5373e87c3ad41.mp4
The comments on anything Flat Earth are always amusing.
This topic triggers people like no other topic.
You tell someone that we don't know where the fuck we are and they get so mad.
"But bro, the lights in the sky are spheres, therefore the Earth is a sphere."
Let's assume that the lights in the sky are physical and are spheres, and this is just an assumption as there is no evidence, imagine that you are in a giant warehouse and look up and you see a spherical light bulb, does that prove that the floor is also a sphere?
"A pool table has balls on it, therefore the pool table is also shaped like a sphere."
Then you have people who have not spent 2 hours doing research discovering that waves, atmospheric conditions, precipitation, mountains and valleys exist.
"But bro, if the world is flat, I should be able to see from Madrid to New York. It should be glass-flat and you should be able to see forever. Fog doesn't exist."
Then they tell you: "Well at least we have a model, you don't even have a model. How does X work on a Flat Earth?"
Most of them just don't get that falsification is independent of replacement.
I don't have to prove how everything works on a flat plain to disprove that the Earth is a spinning ball of the alleged size.
The default position is flat and stationary as you cannot observe curvature or movement and you see the sky moving, not the ground.
You have the burden of proof to prove that it's a spinning ball of the alleged size without falling for logical fallacies and this hasn't been done yet.
You can start asking questions, such as "How did all these seemingly competing countries all agree on The Antarctic Treaty?", or you can be a foot soldier for the establishment.
The only other things they seem to agree on are the Coronavirus plandemic response and the fiat scam.
Does not explain how you would verify the number of people connected to the Internet even a little bit, but alright.
I don't know mate, I find it hard to believe that governments will lose importance when they have everyone on their payroll and people's needs depend on magic government money.
Direct democracy means mob rule aka information wars, but it's still better than what we have now.
I also don't know how "UBI makes the printer available **equally** to everyone. ".
UBI is just play pretend world, where the money is even more fake than we have now, however, the UBI money will be much more programmable.
I find it hard to believe that UBI doesn't progress into CBDC, but your take is more optimistic.
I didn't know Dave had a shitcoin π, he is jewish after all.
I don't know much about him but he seems like a nice guy and often does presentations to channels with 100 subs, so I'm guessing he's passionate about this kind of stuff.
Are the normal people the ones who are perfectly adjusted to an abnormal society (vast majority) or the ones who refuse to adjust to an abnormal society (minority) π€
