buckyfonds
Control-Plane Capital

https://controlplanecapital.com

Truth seeker

Public Key

npub1x9hghmfunry8wcgg8s8w5e3drmkndw92r8qu0cp2l28u32aqqn9q6p6rta

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsrzm5ta57f3jrhvyyrcrh2vck3amfkhz4pnsw8uq404r7g4wsqfjspz4mhxue69uhk2er9dchxummnw3ezumrpdejqlxpwkk

Publishing to

eden.nostr.land

Author Public Key

npub1x9hghmfunry8wcgg8s8w5e3drmkndw92r8qu0cp2l28u32aqqn9q6p6rta

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-04-02 12:04:59 UTC

- reply

Francis Hunt has theorized that Saylor, Jack Mallers (Howard Luttnick), Adam Backstein, and co have had the task of providing exit liquidity for the big boys (insider whales) for the last ~2 years.
It is a very interesting theory considering that with all the corporate stacking, we're back at 2021 price levels on Bitcoin.
There is no way to get to lever up the way Saylor, Mallers and co are doing unless the banksters allow you to.
We also kept hearing about how there was no retail interest during the last bull market.
Of course, there was retail interest, but the interest was mostly amongst retail plebs whereas retail whales were looking for the exit.
Businesses in the chart below are mostly treasury companies, and individuals are mostly retail whales.
Do these whales who bought way cheaper have insider information in terms of what governments are cooking?
Last midterm year (2022), the US (Israeli) government created the Scam Bankmann Fried character. This midterm year, they'll probably come up with scammy Quantum computing "breakthroughs".
Expect more and more attacks on Bitcoin/Monero as we transition to CBDCs.
https://blossom.primal.net/6e13f6ffd94bdcd1ae25a5b92ac7a70c7abfd9637f7a2c5cc3e989ead24a9af3.png
#nevent1q…k7ax

2026-04-02 06:10:55 UTC

- reply

Jeff Booth cryptically describes the Coordination Tax ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-will-fail-as-mass-non-custodial ).
And the reaction to Covid is a great example of how Bitcoiners will react to the Quantum scam.
I used the same example in my first Quantum article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/is-quantum-computing-a-threat-to ).
https://blossom.primal.net/87f0f63b24b0822802981223a040ee8aa4f34477aa87fbec81fbbab0b393149f.png
During Covid (no virus has ever been isolated):
Government: "Citizen, we'd really like you to take this safe and effective vaccine to protect your grandma. It's free... and you must get it... or you will be responsible for killing your grandma."
Quantum (never been proven to scale cheaply and reliably enough to be broadly useful):
Government: "For your safety, dear Bitcoiners, we'd really like you to migrate to these algorithms we have selected for you. If you don't comply, Bitcoin will get hacked and you will lose everything by 20XX."
Most Bitcoiners don't care about (1) how a potential Quantum-resistance upgrade would castrate Bitcoin as money ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would ), or (2) whether scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing is economically (or operationally) viable, they care about NGU.
A serious quantum-resistant upgrade for Bitcoin almost certainly means: much bigger transactions, faster chain growth, higher node requirements, and thus either (a) fewer transactions per block on L1 or (b) bigger blocks and more centralization pressure.
As I wrote in the "A Quantum-resistance upgrade would be terrible for Bitcoin" article:
- A quantum-resistance upgrade for Bitcoin would be one of the most complex, politically loaded, and coordination-fragile events in its history. It touches every private key, every wallet, every L2, every custody stack. It's also a perfect vector for capture, centralization, and "safety"-framed control.
#nevent1q…juau

2026-04-02 05:13:28 UTC

- reply

Her heart is at the right place, but she is so brainwashed, it's hard to listen to.
(1) Somehow she noticed that when the covid plandemic started hospitals were empty while the media was reporting they were overrun.
Proceeds to say they noticed the same patterns they noticed during the regular flu season.
(Spoiler alert covid didn't exist - https://rumble.com/v6rh2e3-there-was-no-covid-virus-how-weve-all-been-duped-by-the-medical-establishme.html )
(2) She then noticed that hospitals were paid handsomely to "treat" (poison) patients using Remdesivir.
(3) Hospitals had never seen patients so inflamed, so she assumes patients were inflamed because of covid and not because of poisoning them with vaccines and Remdesivir 😂
(4) She then says that hospitals were not allowed to treat the inflammation with steroids even though these steroids were shown to be effective.
She wants to treat the symptom of poisoning her patients with Remdesivir by administering steroids (another big pharma poisonous concoction)
(5) She then noticed that after they injected their patients with the covid shots, hospitals actually got overrun. So they finally managed to fill the hospitals by poisoning people with the covid jab.
Her manager told her "Gale, this hospital has had 3 times more admissions than we have ever had since the hospital opened the doors. A 300% increase in hospitalizations directly associated to the onset of the covid shots."
Open your eyes, lady.
https://blossom.primal.net/358bd13c44630a647175ae4cc09f73bec4c7d23f105e0dff29c4f1efdbc73cce.jpg
#nevent1q…3plu

2026-04-01 02:31:35 UTC

- reply

Haven't had the chance to read Google's new paper from yesterday yet.
"Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities: Resource Estimates and Mitigations"
- https://research.google/blog/safeguarding-cryptocurrency-by-disclosing-quantum-vulnerabilities-responsibly/
Just wanted to CTRL + F for the "national security" section and it is as bad as I thought and covered in "A Quantum-resistance upgrade would be terrible for Bitcoin" ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would )
https://blossom.primal.net/ce371174d9eeed543eafe2085fb3e0dcb4e6240bd2bf8cd8c2258c331dfeb658.png
"As before, blockchain's loss of the ability to reliably identify asset owners combined with the laches doctrine enables governments to argue that the original owners, through years of inaction, have failed to assert their property rights."
I already covered why I think Bitcoin is goy gold in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-i-think-the-government-created )
#nevent1q…3glm

2026-03-30 14:17:09 UTC

- reply

Is Bitcoin Core gay or straight? 🤔
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5a7QjY4XKA
#nevent1q…v50s

2026-03-27 09:39:14 UTC

- reply

Perhaps, the most important question of our time:
- What would have to happen for a few dozen people to enslave a few billion people?
A very compressed TL;DR
The hardest truth is that a few dozen people do not enslave billions by being superhuman.
They do it by sitting above systems that most people cannot see, cannot exit, and cannot coordinate against.
The public usually imagines slavery as maximal visible brutality.
But the more durable form is:
- administratively soft,
- technologically deep,
- financially integrated,
- morally justified,
- narratively fragmented,
- and psychologically internalized.
In that form, many slaves call themselves free because they can still choose entertainment, careers, identities, purchases, opinions, and aesthetic tribes inside the cage.
That is the real danger.
So, for a few dozen people to effectively enslave a few billion people, they would need:
- monopoly on force as backstop,
- dominance over money and payments,
- universal identity and legibility,
- integrated surveillance and behavioral telemetry,
- control over media, prestige, and the language of legitimacy,
- the ability to punish through exclusion rather than visible violence,
- destruction of horizontal trust and local autonomy,
- a dependent "middle class", not a starving mass,
- fusion of state, corporate, legal, media, and financial power,
- a population fragmented into isolated individuals and reactive tribes,
- permanent crisis to justify centralization,
- and a permissioned lifeworld where survival, mobility, work, savings, and speech all depend on system-compatible access.
That is how a few dozen could rule billions.
Not by owning every mind.
By owning the rails that decide what happens to people who do not comply.
#nevent1q…wpz4

2026-03-16 07:47:15 UTC

Elon Musk keeps spamming this "universal high income" nonsense 😂
"All jobs will be optional. There will be universal high income."
What could possibly go wrong if you put every citizen on the State's payroll? Surely, they won't abuse UBI (Universal Basic Income) in any way.
https://blossom.primal.net/5b5acc028bfe2d0cf44f772d97ba43670bea0b3ba22785b9271b6110b87776fa.png
Unfortunately, UBI is going to be inevitable.
And UBI is not just "free money" as Elon would like you to believe. It's a control rail to manage the losers of the reset, stabilize consumption and harden behavioral obedience.
Unfortunately, it's not about "ending poverty" 😂
UBI is a centrally engineered, always-on income stream from the State to individuals, delivered through traceable digital channels, with conditions hiding inside the surrounding system (ID, tax, social credit, eligibility rules).
UBI is going to be perfect for soft policing:
- Carrot: "Behave, and your floor is guaranteed."
- Stick: "Break certain rules (tax, "health", speech, protest in the wrong way), and administratively you can be investigated, delayed, or temporarily cut off."
It is a perfect on-ramp to the CBDC + ID stack. "To get your UBI, you must:"
- register your digital wallet,
- verify your ID,
- keep your biometrics up to date,
- accept the terms (AML, travel-rule, etc.).
That brings everyone into the rails they already want for tax, surveillance, and capital controls.
So essentially, UBI = social shock absorber + behavioral throttle after they've run the Great Reset.

2026-03-14 09:08:00 UTC

If the name of a company contains the words "truth", "honesty", "transparency", "safety", etc., you can be almost certain it's a scam.
Shout-out to "truth social" 😂
Inversion is the core operating pattern for modern control systems.
Inversion = when the label and the function trade places.
- "Freedom" rails used to tighten control.
- "Safety" doctrines used to centralize risk.
- "Decentralized" tools pinned to centralized choke-points.
- "Protection of property rights" used to rewrite who owns what.
- "Transparency" means: you are transparent; the system is not.
Blunt tools:
- naked expropriation,
- open censorship,
- outright bans,
- top-down classification,
... all burn legitimacy and trigger resistance.
Inversion is cheaper:
1) It piggybacks on real desires:
- "Protect my kids."
- "Prevent the next 2008."
- "Save the planet."
- "Give me better UX."
2) It lets the Controllers pose as:
- protectors,
- technocratic fixers,
- responsible adults
…while the actual consequence is: tighter rails, fewer exits, more programmable constraints.
3) It's self-enforcing:
- people defend the inverted rail because they're attached to the original value word.
If you attack the rail, most people hear "you hate safety / fairness / the planet / children".
So inversion is not decorative; it's the main way to turn:
- legitimate needs -> high-acceptance control systems.

2026-03-13 14:01:11 UTC

- reply

That's a great question and the answer is - I don't know for sure, which is why I advocate for owning both (bitcoin and gold).
It is possible that some governments are accumulating BTC behind the scenes, although I haven't seen any credible evidence.
I like to read revealed preference - you prefer X over Y if, when offered both, you choose X. So far in my view, revealed preference points to gold.
You are looking at this from the multipolar (competing governments) viewpoint, whereas in my opinion we live under something very close to a One World Government ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-i-know-we-live-under-a-one-world ).
With countries representing 98% of global GDP developing/implementing CBDCs, the level of coordination is striking.
https://blossom.primal.net/6e13f6ffd94bdcd1ae25a5b92ac7a70c7abfd9637f7a2c5cc3e989ead24a9af3.png
BTC's settlement doesn't require state-controlled rails, which in my opinion is not something the Controllers are likely to embrace.
This would destroy their ability to weaponize monetary rails.
As you noted gold reserves of the West are very opaque.
Only a small portion of gold buying by Central Banks is reported, and usually mostly by Emerging Market Central Banks.
G7 can’t be seen stampeding into gold. If you're running the incumbent fiat+bond system (US, Eurocore), it is suicidal optics to visibly join the gold rush.
If the US or major euro Central Banks started aggressively buying gold, the obvious signal to foreign creditors and domestic savers is:
- “We are preparing for currency debasement / reserve system change.”
That would basically nuke the bond market.
Also, the moment you say "we’re buying gold because it’s the ultimate money", you implicitly admit:
- "Your pensions and savings are sitting in a debasing unit we control."
That's a legitimacy grenade.
The official script still needs:
- "fiat is fine",
- "the dollar/euro are stable reserve currencies",
- "gold is just another reserve asset, barbarous relic, diversification".
If you visibly act like a goldbug, you blow up that narrative.
I have written more about why I think all roads lead to gold in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/all-roads-lead-to-gold ).
If you look at the EU architecture, it is practically the Freegold model ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/mario-draghi-revealed-the-plan-for ).
Euro was deliberately designed so that:
- Gold is not legally "backing" the currency (no fixed parity),
- But is held on the Eurosystem balance sheet,
- And crucially, marked to market regularly in euros.
I can write more on this and this is something I've done a lot of research on, but many people in positions of power and many bankers have slipped over the years (have given away that for them gold is the final store-of-value). I could probably write a 100 more articles like the Mario Draghi one just analyzing how different individuals in positions of power give up the game.
If you want to look at it from a darker point of view - if the Controllers are thinking in global balance-sheet terms, it's coherent:
1) You want the manufacturing/real-asset bloc (China + some EM) to survive the reset with:
- enough private wealth in hard assets to keep working,
- enough sovereign + household gold to have credibility in the Freegold world.
2) You want the rentier/consumption bloc (US/EU middle classes) to bear a bigger share of the claim destruction, because:
- their wealth is easier to dematerialize,
- their consumption can be cut without immediate loss of productive capacity.
Hence the asymmetry:
- West: encourage paper, discourage gold.
- China: accept/encourage physical gold accumulation.
Chinese state-linked media regularly push narratives like "gold is a safe long-term store of value" and encourage retail buying. The West, not so much.
Ultimately, I don't have any insider information, so all I can do is read incentives based on the information that I have and guess.

2026-03-13 08:43:37 UTC

- reply

Well, your lived experience, just like mine, is that we have been brainwashed from the day we were born.
My assertion is that no virus exists, not that just Covid doesn't exist.
1) https://rumble.com/v6rh2e3-there-was-no-covid-virus-how-weve-all-been-duped-by-the-medical-establishme.html
2) https://www.bitchute.com/video/pWcHXqLDVvYL
3) https://www.bitchute.com/video/URcvRFVibHJF
No virus has ever been isolated. Vaccines are used to depopulate.
Your cousin got sick of something (doesn't mean it was Covid), even if she had a positive Covid test.
Falsification is independent of replacement and the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
In other words, if you say that Covid exists, you ought to isolate the virus and prove it and so far no virus has ever been isolated as shown in the 2 documentaries above.
You can't conclude that your cousin was sick from Covid just because she was sick.
In regards to nuclear weapons, I wrote that there is no evidence that anyone has ever split an atom and nuclear weapons as advertised exist. That doesn't mean that very powerful bombs don't exist.
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oGXzXz6yQ
The podcast I've linked to above has all of the receipts. There is no evidence that an atom has ever been split.
There was a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in 1990. The 40-year study of thousands of Japanese who survived the "atomic bombs" dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki found radiation exposure did not cause genetic damage that could lead to human mutations.
"intense study of 70,000 offspring of atomic bomb survivors has failed to identify an increase in congential abnormalities, cancer, chromosome aberrations or mutational blood protein changes."
All of the receipts are in the podcast I've linked to (peer-reviewed scientific journals).
The Japanese people likely got firebombed.
"It is an established fact that napalm chemical firebombing of wooden Japanese cities was extremely destructive. In May 1945, Tokyo was hit with incendiary payloads from 334 B-29 Superfortresses, burning 16 square miles and destroying more than half of the city. The Hiroshima operation involved 4 sq. miles. Using the Tokyo ratio, it could have been achieved with 83 planes.
Hiroshima was a wooden shantytown constructed in a concentrated area. It was a sitting duck for a carefully crafted firebombing terror attack with an atomic-bomb psyop added on for full effect."
There are literally pictures of concrete buildings that survived a ground zero atomic blast. Hiroshima looks carpet-bombed.
I'd focus more on the "viruses don't exist" part because very many people poison themselves and their loved ones with vaccines.
Whether somebody gets bombed with an "atomic bomb" or gets fire-bombed, the end result is likely the same.

2026-03-11 13:34:19 UTC

The US-Israel war with Iran brings us closer to the Great Reset
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/the-us-israel-war-with-iran-brings

2026-03-09 03:59:27 UTC

The more and more people start waking up, the more and more the script's execution has to speed up.
Once a good enough portion of the population starts asking questions such as these, you're on borrowed time:
- How many people did it take to make a decision to close down the world in 2020 due to a "virus" that doesn't exist and was never isolated?
- How many people did it take to make a decision to start poisoning the world's population by injecting them with heavy metals (vaccines)?
- How many people does it take to make a decision to start a war because of "nuclear weapons" that don't exist? What about a world war?
- How many people does it take to make a decision to incinerate our savings?
- How many people will it take to make a decision to run the Great Taking (which is now legal in the entire world) and expropriate practically everyone.
And the answer to these questions is - not that many. Probably less than a few dozen.
Look at this poor bastard with his stupid mask pretending to take the Covid vaccine.
https://blossom.primal.net/eb766e62dd1a02eea7e0b26bc00421a890c9cb7b10197bf5b2ea8693aaa3e7e2.jpg
The leader of the "opposition" then proceeded to convince his people to inject themselves with poison to protect them from a virus that doesn't exist.
Of course, like every other leader that matters, he's part of the club.
There's no solution from within the system.
The solution is: keep your health and wealth outside the system and stay armed to be able to defend yourself and your loved ones.
Try to be more self-sufficient every month. Be more Amish.
History rhymes.
The Controllers have repeatedly:
- overloaded the claim-stacks,
- centralized ledgers and custody,
- detonated a crisis at a convenient time,
- swept / rewritten claims,
- and rebooted the same control architecture with upgraded rails.
https://blossom.primal.net/4fd4011596a18610d337d5e8f5b859e1901c40c08b9872dd4542ab8a8c2052da.jpg
It's not a matter of if but when.
At some point, more and more people will stop playing games that cannot be won (at scale) which will inevitably speed up the execution of the script.
The "everything bubble" was used for the AI governance buildout (a.k.a the AI bubble if you listen to mainstream media).
https://blossom.primal.net/fa34c7f072e6571c7cd9cb18b08e5459caf019e2cb0d790e849249b429f050c4.webp
The AI governance buildout is in its late stages and debt levels are rapidly rising. We might be nearing the Great Reset.
https://blossom.primal.net/6e13f6ffd94bdcd1ae25a5b92ac7a70c7abfd9637f7a2c5cc3e989ead24a9af3.png

2026-03-01 08:25:31 UTC

Out of all the retarded ideas people believe in, "democracy" is definitely up there.
"Democracy" is the front-end UI, not the operating system.
The OS is the Controllers + plumbing (money, collateral, standards, surveillance).
Elections, parties, parliaments = the skin that keeps the organism looking human while the internal organs quietly swap out.
What "Democracy' actually is:
Firmware layer:
- Debt/Liquidity physics.
- Collateral architecture (Central securities depositories, rehypothecation, bail-in law).
- Gold & reserve structure.
- CBDC/ID rails being built.
OS layer (Controllers):
- IC/security, Treasury/CB/BIS, big asset managers, primes, key megacaps, law/compliance, insurers, foreign blocs.
- Objective: keep funding, collateral and consent intact at minimum career/legitimacy cost.
UI layer (democracy):
- Elections, parties, presidents, parliaments, coalition politics, "public debate".
- Functions:
1. Measure and manage Gross Consent Product.
2. Allocate blame and credit (villains vs saviors).
3. Refresh avatars (faces in front of persistent rails).
4. Legitimize pre-planned structural moves (resets, wars, pension reforms, Great Taking-type sweeps).
5. Route anger into reversible channels (votes, protests, memes, speculation) instead of permanent regime damage.
Democracy is a behavioral feedback layer wrapped around the real constraints:
- Net Liquidity,
- refinancing walls,
- reserve structure,
- security imperatives,
- external balance.
When those constraints tighten, the democratic layer's job is to translate "we have to do this" into "you voted for this / you forced our hand / we had no choice but to save you".

2026-02-24 13:55:19 UTC

The next few years are probably going to be very messy for Bitcoin and Monero.
The Quantum computing scam is easily the most telegraphed attack.
I am not a believer in Quantum, but I think it will be largely irrelevant whether Quantum can be engineered to scale cheaply and reliably enough to be broadly useful because the incentives line up almost too perfectly (More context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would ).
The BIS (the central bank of central banks that is developing CBDCs with 137 countries) has published quite a few papers on how important "quantum-proofing payment systems" is.
I already knew Quantum FUD was inevitable when I saw that CBDCs are being designed with post-quantum cryptography to "defend against future threats". Notice that existing systems rely on "vulnerable public-key encryption".
https://blossom.primal.net/b63e30c653650fb08ca30a3738082c22f6e606783cf56a8493e71b8c4abf4340.png
In July 2025, the BIS published their "Quantum-readiness for financial system: a roadmap paper".
The first few sentences of the Abstract are quite clear: "Quantum computers may in the future break today's widely used encryption. This paper provides a framework to support the financial system in the transition to quantum-safe cryptographic infrastructures. It emphasises the need to start the transition today – with broad awareness and cryptographic inventory as critical foundations".
Then in December, the BIS published their "Project Leap phase 2: quantum-proofing payment systems" paper.
"Protecting financial systems from the potential threat posed by quantum computers requires a proactive and coordinated approach. Challenges go beyond technical aspects and include awareness, resource allocation, competence development, inventory, pilots, governance and more.
Project Leap Phase 2, a collaboration between the BIS Innovation Hub Eurosystem Centre, the Bank of Italy, the Bank of France, Deutsche Bundesbank, Nexi-Colt, and Swift, tested post-quantum cryptography in an operational payment system.
The experiment replaced traditional digital signatures with post-quantum cryptography, while sending liquidity transfers. It involved modifying numerous system components to ensure compatibility with updated cryptographic libraries.
"
https://blossom.primal.net/3e8d8b4997b9eae4755c9d533cf6bc251d9fad1e852dbac1741b50195d889b5d.png
In June 2025, the EU published their "A Coordinated Implementation Roadmap for the Transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography" paper.
"
The EU Member States, supported by the Commission, issued a roadmap and timeline to start using a more complex form of cybersecurity, the so-called post-quantum cryptography (PQC).
Quantum computing has been identified as a threat to many cryptographic algorithms used to protect the confidentiality and authenticity of data. This threat can be countered by a timely, comprehensive and coordinated transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography (PCQ).
This document is the first deliverable and is meant to be a first high-level paper aimed at Member States. It includes a set of recommendations that Member States need to implement for a synchronised transition to PQC, as well as measures to ensure that all stakeholders are well informed on the quantum threat to cryptography.
"
These are just 3 recently-published papers of many. They are written as if Quantum Computing being able to scale cheaply and reliably enough to be broadly useful is a foregone conclusion.
The coordination between ALL countries is insane. If you want to be a part of the new financial system, you'll have to play game.
As I've shown in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would ), a quantum-resistance upgrade would be terrible for Bitcoin (and Monero).
The Coordination tax I've outlined in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-will-fail-as-mass-non-custodial ) is why the next few years are probably going to be very messy.

2026-02-10 03:10:51 UTC

- reply

Yes, in my opinion it didn't happen organically.
In the 2000s China was integrated tightly and the eurodollar bloomed.
China became dollar shock absorber & reserve sink.
Offshoring + overcapacity = disinflation buffer → more room for USD debt growth.
If they kept most of the jobs in the US, they wouldn't be able to QE + ZIRP, otherwise inflation would skyrocket.
From Lyn Alden's latest newsletter:
- "....This is because nearly 90% of stocks are held by the top 10% of society, and that same 10% of society performs nearly 50% of all consumer spending."
I knew that 90% of stocks are held by the top 10%, but didn't know that the top 10% performs 50% of all consumer spending.
This is how you get to QE infinity without having record-high inflation - almost everyone is broke because the manufacturing jobs are in China.

2026-02-08 05:14:03 UTC

How I know we live under a One World Government
The US, China and Russia are building interoperable programmable, surveilled money, programmable, surveilled movement, programmable, surveilled speech while pretending to hate each other on TV.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-i-know-we-live-under-a-one-world

2026-02-05 03:09:20 UTC

Very interesting post from a guy named Bob Kendall on twitter.
( https://x.com/PortfolioXpert/status/2019180840958529601 )
First the TL;DR of his tweet:
* Bitcoin price discovery shifted from onchain supply to synthetic float
* Financial derivatives created a theoretically infinite supply of Bitcoin
* Synthetic manufacturing of supply eliminated asset scarcity
* Institutions use paper inventory to manipulate price movements
* Bitcoin now functions as a fractional reserve price system
And here is Bob Kendall's original tweet:
So here’s the issue you get influencers like this guy have a quarter million followers and they claim they don’t know why it is declining… it’s because they don’t understand basic mechanics of price discovery.
They don’t understand that the marginal buyers or the float determines price they think the onchain bitcoin is that is the price discovery
Well, it was once upon a time but now..
Once you can synthetically manufacture the supply, the asset is no longer scarce and once scarcity is gone, price becomes a derivatives game, not a supply-and-demand market.
This is exactly what has happened to Bitcoin.
This is the same structural break that occurred in gold, silver, oil, and eventually equities once they became derivatives-dominated.
The original premise that no longer exists
Bitcoin’s entire valuation logic was built on finite supply (21M) and inability to be rehypothecated.
That died the moment:
•Cash-settled futures
•Perpetual swaps
•Options
•ETFs
•Prime broker lending
•Wrapped BTC
•Total return swaps
were layered on top of the chain.
From that moment forward:
Bitcoin supply became theoretically infinite.
Not on-chain in price discovery.
The metric that explains the collapse
Synthetic Float Ratio (SFR)
Once you can synthetically manufacture the supply, the asset is no longer scarce — and once scarcity is gone, price becomes a derivatives game, not a supply-and-demand market.
That is exactly what has happened to Bitcoin.
This is the same structural break that occurred in gold, silver, oil, and eventually equities once they became derivatives-dominated.
Why Wall Street can now “trade against” Bitcoin
They do exactly what they’ve done in every commodity market:
1.Create unlimited paper BTC
2.Short into rallies
3.Force liquidations
4.Cover lower
5.Repeat
They are not “betting” — they are manufacturing inventory.
The same 1 BTC can now support:
•An ETF unit
•A futures contract
•A perpetual swap
•An options delta
•A broker loan
•A structured note
All at once.
That is six claims on one coin.
That is not a market.
That is a fractional reserve price system.
----------------------------------------------
I have written about this in my "Why Bitcoin's 21M cap is not guaranteed (Paper Bitcoin)" article:
- https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-bitcoins-21m-cap-is-not-guaranteed
Even though I'm not very bullish on Bitcoin's fiat price short-term, I am starting to DCA into self-custody at these prices because something with the financial system seems very off. I'd rather take a drawdown on an asset I own than get bailed-in and get wrecked.

2026-02-02 01:40:14 UTC

What are the odds that Jeffrey Epstein is sitting somewhere on an island enjoying all this attention he's been getting?
Probably higher than the odds of him having killed himself.

2026-02-01 17:13:44 UTC

- reply

Thank you sir, appreciate the kind words! 🫡

2026-01-25 10:59:54 UTC

- reply

My post doesn't argue that Quantum is a threat to Bitcoin, it argues that it is largely irrelevant whether Quantum can be engineered to scale cheaply and reliably enough to be broadly useful because the incentives for Quantum FUD line up almost too perfectly.
If they have a 100+ page whitepaper coming, then this changes everything and Google, Microsoft, IBM, xAI, DARPA and the other government agencies will have to pack it up.
Either way, I'm happy to be wrong on this. Time will tell.

2026-01-21 15:29:03 UTC

- reply

Yes, if have infinite resources, you generally have the best experts on everything you need to remain resource-unconstrained.

2025-12-04 05:19:08 UTC

- reply

> 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.
#nevent1q…hf96

2025-12-03 05:57:48 UTC

- reply

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)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnBFABSbRMA

2025-12-03 05:18:17 UTC

- reply

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 😂
Might as well donate to the IRS to pay down the national debt next.
#nevent1q…mcmr

2025-12-03 04:58:43 UTC

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.
https://blossom.primal.net/58381cdb61d212cf918c6d2680a8ff7aa349f908864e7efa150088f2782a43a3.png

2025-12-03 03:57:12 UTC

- reply

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 — 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 — maybe profitability is not the main goal? Maybe they're rolling out AI governance? No... that would be crazy.
#nevent1q…ermp

2025-12-02 12:44:37 UTC

- reply

I actually agree on most of the Monero vs Bitcoin points.
As I previously wrote, I am not particularly bullish on any community, but I’d be more bullish on a community that has a single goal and some courage than a community that is pulling in ten different directions.
In terms of perimeter leverage: Banks, brokers, ETFs, futures venues, app stores, and custodians can mediate BTC.
That yields paperization, KYC funnels, blacklistable endpoints, and tax visibility.
Monero's endpoints are harder to mediate without banning the rail itself.
BTC looks like opposition while remaining policy-addressable. Monero looks like non-addressable opposition. Privacy-by-default is a political non-starter.
Right now, the Controllers rely on:
- Exchange treatment: On/offs ramped sporadically de-list XMR or confine it to geos with looser rules.
- Liquidity starvation: Starve fiat pipes → starve network effects. Keep it "there", not "everywhere".
Right now, BTC serves as a release valve for risk appetite and as a narrative safety valve ("you can opt out... via a ticker"). It absorbs dissident energy inside surveillable venues.
But, I previously wrote: "At this point, I am more bullish on small, circular economies than any of these projects."
What I've described in the post above of course is extremely unlikely. The base case is what I've described in the post below (the "What made me sell most of my Bitcoin a few months ago" article).
In this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ), I wrote about the "Coordination tax" ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin?open=false#%C2%A7the-coordination-tax ).
TL;DR on Coordination tax in regards to Bitcoin - Three Stacked Systems
- S₀ Protocol: consensus rules, Proof-of-Work, supply.
- S₁ Policy: relay/mempool defaults, mining templates, wallet behaviors.
- S₂ Perimeter: banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR.
Security: S₀ is math; S₁/S₂ are sociotechnical.
Tax: recurring human + legal + distribution cost to keep S₁/S₂ aligned with S₀'s 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.
There's of course much more to it, if interested, check out the article.
As you said - "Monero is far from perfect". The Coordination tax applies to Monero, but mostly in different ways.
The root of the problem is:
1. The Controllers have infinite resources (money printers).
2. You don't have a perfect solution.
3. Your odds of winning are slim to none.
You can have a better solution, but it's not a good enough solution.
Monero has the same Coordination tax, mostly in different places.
When users can choose between sovereignty vs defaults, they default. In a world of defaults and choke points, sovereignty becomes a minority practice and a tail option.
In regards to Monero, S₀ privacy helps — but S₂ punishes: Better on-chain privacy reduces forensic leverage, but increases perimeter hostility: delistings, geofenced wallets, criminalization narratives. Liquidity thins, spreads widen; merchants mostly don't take the onboarding/legal risk.
Distribution choke: App stores and CEXes are the mass market. If they won't distribute, S₀ superiority doesn't compound network effects.
Monero improves the Great Taking hedge (might be worth to get some) if you already live self-custody, but worsens monetization/exit and raises S₂ risk. That's why it stays niche.
Monero is basically Bitcoin with S₀ strengthened (very nuanced) and S₂ enraged.
Mapping S₀ / S₁ / S₂ for Monero
S₀ – Protocol (math / code)
- Design goal: privacy by default. Ring signatures, stealth addresses, confidential amounts. No equivalent of a public UTXO graph you can casually chain-analyst.
(Of course privacy can still be weakened by poor wallet usage or statistical attacks.)
Implication:
- For users: every spend looks like plausible-deniable noise.
- For the Controllers: forensic leverage collapses at S₀; you're forced to work the edges (on/off ramps, endpoints, devices, network metadata).
Compared to BTC:
- Bitcoin S₀ says: "All history is public; privacy = opt-in, fragile, and tool-dependent."
- Monero S₀ says: "You get privacy even if you do nothing extra."
From a control perspective, that's a hostile baseline.
S₁ – Policy / implementation layer
This is wallets, node defaults, mempool/relay rules, mining template norms.
For Monero:
Wallet defaults:
- Privacy is not "a mode" it's the default. There's no "tainted coin" concept at the protocol level.
- But UX, fees, and latency still shape what people actually do (e.g., how many mix-ins, how often they churn, etc.).
Node / relay policy:
- There's no big public drama around "spam vs free market inscriptions" like in BTC, but DoS/spam vectors exist all the same (e.g., bloating chain size, abusing ring structures).
- Changing default relay rules or fee policies can still push certain usage patterns out of economic viability.
Mining / pool layer:
- Monero tries to resist ASIC centralization (RandomX), and encourages CPU mining.
- In practice, hash still clusters: a few large pools matter.
- A pool policy client that deprioritizes certain transaction patterns (even if you can't see amounts/addresses clearly) still influences effective throughput.
Takeaway:
S₁ for Monero is less about taint heuristics (those are hard) and more about spam economics, wallet defaults, and miner incentives. But the coordination tax at S₁ is still real:
- Devs must maintain privacy properties under attack,
- without blowing up performance,
- while trying to keep nodes and wallets usable.
S₂ – Perimeter (the real war zone)
This is where Monero pays the heaviest coordination tax.
Actors:
Exchanges / brokers / payment processors
- Listing = regulatory headache: "privacy coin → AML red flag".
- Result: delistings, geofencing, higher withdrawal fees, restricted markets.
- Liquidity thins, spreads widen, on/off ramps become fragile.
Banks & fiat rails
- Banks see "funds came from a Monero-linked venue/on-chain interaction" → immediate Enhanced Due Diligence or flat rejection.
- Compliance departments don't care about cypherpunk purity; they care about regulatory exposure and examiners.
- Users buy convenience; businesses buy liability shields; politicians buy cheap control.
App stores & wallets
- Apple/Google don't need a law that says "ban Monero"; all they need is: "apps that facilitate privacy coins are high-risk", then shove them down-ranking, slow-roll approvals, or reject updates on vague policy violations.
- That kills distribution — not protocol.
Jurisdictions & law
- Lawmakers don't need to prove "Monero is bad"; they just say "privacy coins raise AML/terrorist finance risk", then require higher reporting, or effectively blacklist them from regulated venues.
- Net effect: Monero is coded as "black market tool" in the legal imagination.
Narrative layer
- The more Monero works as designed (private), the easier it is to frame it as "only criminals need this".
- That framing is enough for risk-averse users and institutions to self-censor.
So:
S₀ privacy directly increases S₂ hostility.
The stronger the math, the stronger the perimeter reaction — because control loses an analytic handle.
How the coordination tax specifically hits Monero
Think of "coordination tax" as: how much continuous cost does it take to keep S₁/S₂ aligned with S₀'s ideals?
For Bitcoin:
- S₀ is "sound money, transparent ledger."
- S₁/S₂ constantly drift towards: "KYC rails, chain analysis, ETF paperization".
- Defenders pay the tax: devs, advocates, wallet authors, node runners.
For Monero:
- S₀ is "private-by-default money."
- S₂ actively resists aligning with that ideal. It's not a drift; it's a counter-force.
Where the tax falls:
1. Access & liquidity
- Every delisting, every geofence, every risk memo raises the friction cost of using Monero for anything outside P2P niches.
- Devs and users must constantly build/maintain P2P marketplaces, DEX bridges, or other workarounds.
2. Legal uncertainty
- People holding or using Monero live with higher perceived regulatory risk than BTC holders, even if they're doing nothing illegal.
- That uncertainty is a tax on adoption: most people opt out before they research.
3. Network effects
- Payments need availability + acceptance + exit.
- If CEXes, payment processors, and merchant Payment-Service-Providers avoid Monero, S₀ superiority doesn't convert into N(users) or N(merchants).
4. Psychological tax
- For a normal person, "I hold BTC at a big broker" feels socially acceptable.
- "I hold Monero" feels (and is portrayed as) suspicious. That emotional framing is deliberate; it's a compliance tool.
So Monero's coordination tax is:
- Lower on "privacy correctness at the protocol layer".
- Much higher on "getting people, institutions, and pipes to align around that privacy".
Why Monero doesn't get banned outright (and why that's worse than it looks)
If S₀ privacy is so antithetical to control, why not just ban it?
1. Channeling "unacceptable" flows
- Leaving a stigmatized but not fully outlawed rail around (like Monero) can serve as a honeypot for high-risk behavior.
- You don't fully see the flows, but you cluster the highest-risk users in one subculture that can be monitored at edges (exchanges, devices, endpoints).
2. Avoiding martyring
- Outright bans create martyrs and push development further underground.
- Containment is cheaper: "it's legal, but good luck cashing out".
3. Policy optics
- Authorities can say, "We're not against privacy, but institutions must follow AML".
- That's enough for banks/exchanges to self-police Monero out of mainstream view without headline bans.
So the equilibrium is:
- Not big enough to matter as money.
- Not small enough to bother exterminating.
- Just stigmatized and throttled.
The Monero vs Bitcoin coordination tax comparison
Bitcoin:
- S₀: transparent, sound money.
- S₁/S₂: drift towards KYC, taint, paperization.
- Coordination tax: on defenders trying to keep self-custody + MoE + fungibility alive.
Endpoint:
- BTC = semi-tolerated SoV / collateral,
- MoE mostly contained, sovereignty a minority niche.
Monero:
- S₀: private money.
- S₁: reasonably aligned with S₀ (default privacy).
- S₂: aggressively anti-aligned: delistings, reputational attack, regulatory chill.
Coordination tax:
- Devs: preserve privacy + performance under adversarial pressure.
- Users: accept liquidity and reputational costs to use it.
Endpoint:
- XMR = permanent gray/black-market niche,
- very strong for some edge cases, crippled for mainstream flows.
Broadly:
- Bitcoin: attacked softly by co-opting / paperization.
- Monero: attacked by containment and starvation of distribution.
A) Incentives > ideals
- Ideals: "Everyone deserves financial privacy."
- Incentives: regulators, banks, app stores, and big venues get no upside from Monero but a lot of regulatory downside.
Revealed preference:
- They don't waste time integrating it at scale.
- They quietly drop it or restrict it.
So even if Monero is technically superior for privacy, the net payoff for large intermediaries is negative. That's enough to keep it niche.
B) Control > fairness
Bitcoin can be surveilled and steered via S₁/S₂ (paperization, KYC, analytics). So it is tolerated and slowly domesticated.
Monero breaks too many control levers at S₀, so control shifts to:
- Access suppression (liquidity, listings),
- Reputational warfare ("only criminals"),
- Legal gray zones ("high risk", no need for specific new law).
From a Controller's view:
- BTC = "Let's fence it in and use it as a supervised asset."
- XMR = "Let's keep it small, suspicious, and peripheral."
C) Stability > truth
Having a large, liquid, truly private global money would complicate tax collection, sanctions, capital controls, and law enforcement.
The system will look to keep global control and stability at all costs. Monero is collateral damage of that choice.
So what does this actually mean?
Monero's coordination ceiling is low. Not because the protocol is weak — but because:
- S₂ actors have strong incentives not to touch it,
- and S₁ actors must work constantly just to keep infrastructure functioning against that headwind.
It improves "hedge quality" only if you already accept S₂ pain.
For someone who already operates in self-custody, P2P, and is comfortable with legal/exit risk, Monero can be a stronger privacy hedge than BTC.
For anyone who needs:
- fiat exits,
- compliant brokers,
- low enforcement risk,
- Monero's S₂ costs dominate its S₀ benefits.
As a mass alternative, Monero is structurally capped.
- Every step that makes Monero more user-friendly to normals (easier on-off ramp, better UX, more listings) triggers a counterstep from the perimeter.
- The more successful it becomes, the more aggressive the containment.
Where this equilibrates
BTC:
- Becomes a mostly-supervised SoV + tradable macro asset (with paper layers and self-custody minority).
- MoE: tolerated in niches, but not allowed to undercut CBDCs/stablecoins.
XMR:
- Remains a voluntary fringe rail for those willing to pay the S₂ coordination tax (liquidity, legality, reputation).
- Too small to bother abolishing, too private to integrate.
From a control perspective, that's perfect:
- The main energy is contained in mapped, surveillable BTC rails + CBDCs/stables.
- The truly private rail exists, stigmatized, throttled, and non-systemic.
So Monero "wins" S₀ so hard that it triggers a permanent S₂ containment response. That's the coordination tax: not on the math, but on access, liquidity, and legitimacy. Bitcoin gets co-opted; Monero gets quarantined.
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.
Might still be worth to get some as a Great Taking hedge.
More context on the Coordination Tax: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin
Let me know if you disagree. You've certainly researched Monero much more than I have (probably ~5-10 hours total), but most of what I've written is not S₀-related.
Every architecture has trade-offs. I've covered 1 in the note below.
#nevent1q…cnuy

2025-12-02 11:00:02 UTC

- reply

1) https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-bitcoins-21m-cap-is-not-guaranteed
2) https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-the-bitcoin-cycle-changes-in

2025-12-02 08:12:00 UTC

- reply

Why Bitcoin's price is being suppressed and how the community can pump the price without access to much capital
Yesterday I wrote how Bitcoin's influencers are almost never objective and how unfounded hopium does more harm than good.
In this note, I'll give you the TL;DR version of how the community can use accurate negativity (not doomerism) to pump Bitcoin's price without access to much capital.
1) What high levels of Hopium do to Bitcoin's price
Hopium in BTC social spaces is very high, especially around "institutional adoption", "nation-state game theory", and "multi-cycle superstructure".
Self-custody + Medium-of-Exchange usage are low relative to market cap, especially in developed markets.
Paperization is accelerating (ETFs, treasury companies, structured products).
The Controllers currently see BTC as mostly tamed: a volatile, monetizable, but containable Store-of-Value gadget that helps them (capital gains tax, fee revenue, data exhaust) more than it hurts.
Bitcoin is managed into a rising, volatility-capped channel: paperized Store-of-Value, Medium-of-Exchange throttled, squeezes sold, crashes patched — never cheap enough to trigger a self-custody revolt, never euphoric enough to create escape velocity.
Negativity about capture is still too niche and too uncoordinated to force any "pay up or lose us" moment.
That means:
- Volatility will be managed, not eliminated.
- Upside blow-offs will occur mainly when they help: during liquidity expansions, or when "innovation/leadership" narratives are needed.
- Structural usage as MoE will be discouraged, via: tax rules, compliance friction, "illegal content" and "unlicensed transmitter" narratives, and more convenient, subsidized stables/CBDCs.
2) "Hopium" = Compliance
In Controller terms, Hopium max, price meh =
- Community psychologically domesticated ("ETF flows, institutions coming, supercycle bro").
- Majority of flows inside surveilled pipes (ETFs, KYC exchanges, custodial wallets).
- "Rebel asset" narrative is neutered by its own fans: they are now cheerleaders for BlackRock, not adversaries of the system.
So from the System's Point-Of-View:
- Non-compliance risk is low.
- Capture is working.
- There's no need to "overpay" for further control via higher price right now.
The Controllers can afford to:
- Run sideways, bleed out spec leverage.
- Nudge narratives toward "digital gold / 60-40 allocation / wealth preservation".
3) Negativity is a threat telemetry
Negativity in the community is not purely bearish from the System's point of view.
Negativity like:
- "ETFs = paper Bitcoin"
- "Core is captured"
- "We're being turned into digital gold"
- "CBDCs are coming"
...is a signal of residual refusal cohort — people who might route around controlled rails.
The System then has two cheap choices:
- Ignore → allow a possibly growing adversarial subculture to form.
- Co-opt → buy them off in fiat while constraining their actual freedom of movement.
Price is the cheapest co-opt tool:
- "Yes, you're technically right that it’s captured... but your net worth just did a 4–5x. Are you really going to fight the hand that made you rich?"
4) Hypothetical: if the Bitcoin community could organize, how could negativity be used to raise price?
The System adjusts prices to serve its five goals:
1. Survival
2. Control
3. Growth
4. Stability
5. Comfort (optional extra)
The only way a community without huge capital moves price indirectly is by changing how dangerous it looks to ignore or repress them. In other words:
- More credible non-compliance → higher willingness of the System to pay (via price) to co-opt instead of crush.
So, hypothetically, an organized, intelligent Bitcoin community would use negativity not as emo whining, but as signaled threat of off-rails energy.
(A) Make the off-ramps real, not just memes
Visible growth of self-custody + circular economy:
- Businesses actually accepting BTC non-KYC.
- Real, measurable commerce (local, cross-border) that matters at the margin.
If the System sees:
- "If we clamp too hard, these people can actually exit into a shadow monetary zone."
- Then it must decide: co-opt (pay them) or confront (break them). One is cheaper than the other.
(B) Weaponize accurate negativity, not doomerism
Negativity that moves the needle:
- "Here is how ETFs = paperization, with concrete custody/derivatives structure."
- "Here is how Core governance is captured (funding, maintainers, client defaults)."
- "Here is how CBDCs + KYC rails would shut off BTC-as-MoE."
Negativity that does nothing:
- Vague "it's all a scam", "we're doomed" posts.
The System cares about credible threat, not vibes. If the critique is so clear that:
- Regulators get asked hard questions.
- Journalists can't easily wave it away.
- Some subset of aligned-but-uncomfortable insiders starts to agree.
...then co-optation (bribe via price / ETF adoption) becomes cheaper than overt war.
(C) Build internal norms that resist paperization
This is the big one. The more the community self-organizes against capture, the higher the co-opt "price" the System would need to pay:
Social status awarded to:
- Self-custody, running nodes, verifying, demanding proof-of-reserves.
- Merchants using BTC for actual commerce, not just HODL shrines.
Social status penalizing:
- Celebrating ETF flows as "adoption".
- Flexing paper-BTC statements.
If you made ETF/treasury exposure something like:
- "Okay as a side sleeve, but not the core of your identity."
Then to pull people off that stance, the System has to make paper payouts so large that even hardliners wobble.
The levers are:
- Norms (what's admired vs ridiculed),
- Memes (what gets repeated),
- Defaults (what wallets, what settings, what stacks).
None of that costs capital; it costs coordination and discipline.
(D) Timing negativity to exploit the System's own needs
Our best leverage window is when the System needs BTC for something:
- FX / sanctions arbitrage (states using BTC at the margin).
- "Innovation" optics (e.g., a pro-BTC administration narrative).
- Pension/ETF demand in a yield-scarce world.
Organized community negativity at those moments — "we know what this is, we're not playing unless X" (X = legal self-custody protections, Proof-of-Reserves norms, etc.) — forces a choice:
- Ignore → more off-rails adoption.
- Co-opt harder → support price via official flows and "legitimacy" pushes.
That's about as close as you get to "using negativity to pump" without capital: you turn resistance + coordination into a higher co-optation bid.
Hopium/ETF narratives → comfort → docility.
Negative but accurate narratives → discomfort → potential for real bargaining.
The System's cheapest move is to pay people (via price and integration) to voluntarily stay in compliant pipes.
The price is a control knob and the community's mood is a sensor.
Hopium dominance + ETF worship →
- System sees low non-compliance risk.
- Comfortable to keep BTC in a managed corridor (contained upside, liquidity, periodic harvests).
Serious negativity + visible self-custody behavior →
- System sees growing off-rails threat.
- More incentive to buy off that threat via: favorable ETF regimes, regulatory "clarity" that ignites flows, narratives that "normalize" confiscation resistance as "unnecessary extremism".
If the community remains disorganized, negativity just becomes fodder:
- Bear market: deep, correct critiques.
- Bull market: drowned out by "wen ETF inflows" and memes.
The System doesn't need to fight that — it just rides the cycle.
5) How the System uses price as the bribe
The system doesn't argue in essays, it argues in charts.
If "BTC is being co-opted" is the meme, the most efficient counter-meme is:
- "You're being co-opted… but you’re richer. Number go up. Are you mad or grateful?"
6) Spectacle displaces scrutiny
Spectacle displaces scrutiny (e.g. surveillance rollouts) with 'number go up' talk.
In any bull phase:
- 99% of the content is price, targets, halving models, "ETFs flows", "supercycle" chatter.
- 1% of the content is boring but crucial: Who runs the nodes? Who sets the defaults? Which clients are actually being used by big custodians? How much of the supply sits in: ETFs, custodial treasuries, yield products?
Negative, nuanced discussion about capture is always a bear-market topic:
- In crashes: you get deep threads on governance, censorship, incentives.
- In rallies: anyone raising those issues is called "bear", "FUD", or "has no skin in the game".
The Controllers don't need to censor that scrutiny; they just need to drown it in euphoria when it matters most.
Negativity in the community is not a blocker. It's:
- A diagnostic of where resistance still is.
- A pretext to run "clarity" cycles.
- Eventually a minority voice that can be marginalized by "Look, if they were right, why are we all richer and why are pensions holding BTC?"
If you understand the game, you see the green candle, and instead of saying "We're winning", you ask: "What did we just agree to for number to go up?"
7) TL;DR
Sentiment isn't just "bullish/bearish"; it's a compliance signal.
An organized, negative, self-custody Bitcoin community could, in theory, force the System to pay more to co-opt them — and that "payment" would likely come through higher prices and privileged rails for paper BTC.
In practice, the community is fractured and heavily captured by price dopamine + ETF respectability, which makes BTC much easier to park in the controlled "digital gold" lane with occasional speculative thrills.
The System doesn't win with arguments; it wins with defaults + price. That's the only language most people, including most Bitcoiners, actually respond to.
My notes on this topic are actually much longer, but I realize this note has become too long to read.
Of course, the more likely outcome is the one I've described in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ), but maybe there's fight left.
#nevent1q…ygl9

2025-12-01 04:51:31 UTC

Have you noticed that Bitcoin influencers are almost never objective?
This is a Pierre Rochard quote from today (but could really be any of the Bitcoin influencers on any given day)
"Bitcoin’s November candle was ugly. Lots of uncertainty about USD rate cuts, AI investments, and altcoin leverage. Notice that these are all external factors?
Bitcoin’s fundamentals are stronger every day. The long term BTC accumulation thesis is unchanged."
So "Bitcoin’s fundamentals are stronger every day... long-term accumulation thesis unchanged."
1) Are Bitcoin’s fundamentals "stronger every day"?
Depends what you call a "fundamental". If you actually list them, you get a mixed picture, not a monotonic up-only story.
A) Monetary fundamentals (fixed supply, issuance, uptime)
Still strong / unchanged:
- 21M hard cap still intact. (Context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-bitcoins-21m-cap-is-not-guaranteed )
- Halving schedule intact.
- Chain uptime high.
- Global awareness higher than ever.
These are the only things influencers usually mean when they say "fundamentals". They talk about design, not control surface.
But there are other axes they conveniently ignore.
B) Censorship resistance & sovereignty
This is where things are not "stronger every day":
1. Paperization — A growing chunk of "Bitcoin exposure" sits in:
- ETFs
- MicroStrategy & treasury cos
- Custodial exchanges
- Structured products, futures, notes
This pushes more BTC into KYC, surveilled, easily frozen pools, and more price discovery into instruments that are trivial to regulate.
2. Self-custody share vs AUM: More normies hold "BTC" via brokerage accounts and apps, not cold storage. That weakens the monetary sovereignty story, even if total holders go up.
3. Node centralization & implementation politics:
- Heavy reliance on Bitcoin Core + a tiny dev set, with funding from a small number of entities ( Context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5 ).
- Now a split narrative (Core vs Knots) over policy and spam / OP_RETURN / inscriptions.
- A non-trivial part of the full-node network sits on centralized cloud providers (AWS, etc.) - Context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/governments-dont-like-sovereign-bitcoin .
4. Chain bloat / illegal content risk — Inscriptions, arbitrary data, and v30-style policy loosening expand the attack surface:
- Legal/regulatory risk for node operators and infra providers.
- Easier vectors for spam from actors with deep pockets.
From a regulatory capture perspective, that's bearish sovereignty, bullish for "we need to regulate/filter nodes" ( Context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/governments-dont-like-sovereign-bitcoin ).
5. Bitcoin mining is more centralized than ever. Context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoins-mining-centralization-problem
These are just a few. Obviously, I won't cover everything in a nostr note.
Net: monetary schedule is still clean, but sovereign, censorship-resistant usage is under attack on multiple fronts. That is not a daily increase in "fundamentals".
C) Use as medium of exchange vs asset
If BTC's real threat is as self-custodied, censorship-resistant MoE, then:
- KYC perimeters, FATF travel rule, AML pressure, exchange surveillance ( Context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-governments-and-large-institutions )
- Stablecoins + cards giving people "almost-crypto" UX with fiat rails
- Institutional BTC treated as risk asset, not transactional money
All of that is pushing BTC away from MoE, toward "digital gold-ish risk asset".
So the honest version isn’t "fundamentals stronger every day"; it's:
- Monetary design mostly unchanged ( Context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5 ); freedom properties under strategic containment pressure; usage skewed toward paperized SoV, not sovereign MoE.
D) "Multiple implementations" as a positive
It's good that not 100% of nodes run Bitcoin Core. A monoculture is easy to capture.
So yes, on this narrow axis, BTC's fundamentals are better than when Core was a totally unchallenged monoculture. That's one of the few genuine positives.
2) Why Bitcoin influencers almost never give this picture
A) Their income, identity, and status = "number go up"
Most big Bitcoin voices have:
- Bags (obvious).
- Revenue tied to: Courses / coaching ("how to hodl / self-custody / retire with BTC / BTC inheritance"), Bitcoin Treasury Companies, Conferences, merch, subs, referrals, sponsorships, Speaking gigs premised on being a maximalist voice.
If they seriously said:
- "Look, BTC's sovereignty is under coordinated pressure; paperization and regulatory capture are real; upside is path-dependent on state behavior,"
they would:
- Lose a big chunk of their audience (no one wants nuance, they want certainty).
- Threaten their own business model (fear + hopium sells, balanced realism does not).
- Risk ostracization inside the tribe (maxi culture punishes deviations).
So they rationalize:
- Any negative is "short-term noise".
- Any structural attack is "bullish because it means we're winning".
- Any critique is "FUD".
Incentives > ideals. Full stop.
B) Audience capture & algorithm design
Platforms reward strong, one-sided emotional narratives.
"Ugly candle but fundamentals stronger than ever" outperforms:
"Mixed structural picture: some fundamentals up, some under attack".
Audience selection:
- People who need BTC to be salvation filter into those feeds.
- Over time, the creator optimizes for retention: more hopium, less doubt.
If they suddenly became fully objective, their audience would either leave or revolt. That's the prison.
C) Cognitive dissonance / sunk cost
Most of these guys:
- Went all-in socially and financially.
- Built their entire identity on "Bitcoin fixes this".
Admitting:
- "BTC is being co-opted as a controlled, paperized SoV and its true sovereign potential is under active containment"
is psychologically brutal. So the mind does what it always does: selective blindness + glorious narrative spin.
3) My best attempt to steelman "fundamentals stronger every day"
If I had to steelman that tweet, the strongest points:
- Global knowledge / Lindy effect: more people, companies, and states now know BTC exists and treat it as an asset; it hasn't died; that's real Lindy.
- Infra maturity: wallets, custody solutions, multisig, hardware devices, and analytics tools are better than they were 5–7 years ago.
- Implementation plurality: Knots vs Core, other clients exist — less monoculture.
- Regulated access: ETFs / brokers make it easier for large pools to get exposure (even though this as a double-edged sword).
Bitcoin is stronger as productized financial exposure, weaker as off-grid monetary counter-system.
4) A more accurate statement would be:
- BTC's monetary design fundamentals (fixed supply, issuance) are intact and robust.
- BTC's institutional acceptability as a paperized SoV is increasing.
- BTC's sovereignty fundamentals (MoE freedom, censorship resistance, self-custody share, uncaptured infra) are under sustained attack and not obviously "stronger every day".
- Influencers mostly cannot say this because their incentives, audience, and identities punish that level of honesty.
I have explained this in more detail here - https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin
Perhaps this is obvious but unfounded hopium does more harm than good. You can't expect the community to address issues they don't know exist.
https://blossom.primal.net/66a7ccde95ab96e0454fb64159d064bcada1f56fb25f9893fbdb33899c048179.png

2025-11-30 08:18:31 UTC

- reply

In my article on "why prolonged Bear markets are no longer allowed" ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-prolonged-bear-markets-are-not ), I covered the possible solutions outside the system.
I'll give you a TL;DR version.
"Crises will be kept long-enough so that citizens ask their governments for a solution (knobs implementation), but not long-enough to birth alternatives outside the system."
Ideally, a tax revolt + a rejection of fiat slavery, but probably not realistic at scale.
(1) Medium-of-Exchange self-custody + (2) mesh comms + (3) mutual credit are the top three solutions outside the system the Controllers fear because they reduce legibility and raise switching costs back.
Some of the other solutions outside the system are:
- Off-grid energy & micro-grids,
- Food & logistics sovereignty,
- Parallel education & credentialing,
- Community mutual aid / gray insurance,
- Jurisdictional arbitrage & exit,
- Legal sanctuary tactics,
- Coordinated labor friction at choke-points.
The regime's crisis design is deliberate: short, sharp, subsidized, and synchronized — just enough pain to win consent for new knobs, never enough time to seed alternatives.
Most of these solutions outside the system become more realistic in a prolonged crisis.
Use a simple threshold model:
- Let D = duration of pain (weeks), P = perceived personal loss (jobs/savings), R = repression level (legal/financial risk).
- Adoption probability ~ f(D×P – R – F), where F = friction (UX, coordination, defaults).
- The Controllers tune R (sticks) and F (frictions) while adding C (carrots: subsidies, payment holidays) to keep D×P below the tipping point.
Implication:
- 2–8 week shocks + immediate backstops keep D×P < threshold → no mass switch to alternatives.
- >12–16 weeks, visible unfairness, and bungled backstops push D×P above threshold → outside systems scale.
- They plan to avoid the latter — revealed preference: fast facilities, forbearance, and "temporary" rules that ratchet.
#nevent1q…as5m

2025-11-30 07:29:39 UTC

"Transparency" is what systems offer when they want you calm, informed, and still stuck.
1) Transparency without exit = glass prison
If you can see everything but change nothing, transparency just upgrades the UI of your captivity.
- Bank shows you every fee and risk flag → you still have no alternative rails.
- Platform shows you every "community guideline" and strike → you still can't realistically move your audience.
- State shows you surveillance stats and oversight reports → you still can't opt out of the ID/payments stack.
You're no longer ignorant; you're powerless with full knowledge. That's not freedom; it's a glass prison.
2) Why systems love "transparency"
Legitimacy coating:
- "We publish dashboards, reports, APIs. We have nothing to hide".
- Looks like accountability; functions as reputation armor.
Pressure vent:
- Angry? Fine. Here's a dashboard, consultation, or public comment period.
- Your energy goes into reading and arguing about metrics, not building exits.
Better telemetry on you:
- Every "transparency portal" and "consent dashboard” is also a data intake channel.
- They watch what you click, what you complain about, which features keep you hooked.
They roll out reporting much faster than portability or decentralization. That tells you what it's really for.
3) Information is not power; options are power
Power = knowledge × credible alternatives.
If you know your bank is abusive, but:
- every other bank runs identical rails, and
- cash life is criminalized / impractical,
then your "informed consumer choice" is fiction.
Same with platforms:
- You know you're shadowbanned.
- Your data export is useless.
- Your followers can't find you elsewhere.
Without credible exit, transparency is theater.
Only when:
- exit is cheap, and
- re-entry elsewhere is practical,
does transparency start to matter — because you can use information to punish bad actors by leaving.
Once exit is real, transparency becomes a weapon for you. Without exit, it's just better lighting in the cell.
Real shifts come from changing defaults, budgets, and choke points — or from building parallel rails that make the old path economically irrational.

2025-11-29 04:50:47 UTC

I've been building a very advanced liquidity tracker and a few other models.
It's a lot of work but it's been fun.
Basically finance + logic + conspiracy theories.
The type of stuff that nuked my Substack from search engines. I was getting search engine traffic up until I wrote my One World Government article 😂 ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated ).
Ever since I started doing a deeper dive, I've been shocked to learn how blue-pilled financial analysts are (they are incentivized to be blue-pilled).
From time to time, I watch the more popular youtube analysts on 2-2.5 speed and man, they are absolutely clueless, or at least pretend to be.
Even the darlings of Bitcoiners — most are absolutely clueless.
Often, when they are right, they are right for the wrong reasons (assuming the stated reasons are what they believe in).

2025-11-27 08:42:26 UTC

- reply

From what I've watched, he's head and shoulders above the other Bitcoin influencers. It's not a high bar, but still.

2025-11-27 07:51:00 UTC

In one of Bitcoin Mechanic's videos, he said "Nothing survives the normie, and the normie is coming"
Fuck dude, this is so true 😂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enxoR9v3oEg

2025-11-20 10:22:59 UTC

- reply

The snake oil salesman vibes are through the roof with this one.

2025-11-20 09:20:47 UTC

David Bailey's company $NAKA missed quarterly earnings filing and their losses exceed $80 million.
https://blossom.primal.net/9acb1eaa5df78549025f19672a5840edd5b8ce71805b79bbb45daadc0cb32291.png
Meanwhile David Bailey's rough comp estimate exceeds $9 million a year 😂
The other execs are also absolutely crushing it.
https://blossom.primal.net/d61ad0e1edd351136684d137f8fb40834dc60a41431db126aa3c4ad4c1351a9b.png
The only ones who aren't crushing it are Nakamoto's shareholders as the stock is down ~99% from the recent top.
https://blossom.primal.net/b68e2454cfc538283e45a5e89c8a684c4289e7d58dc7d31119cb170c517c495f.png
There is probably a lesson to be learned from this. Try to stay away from obvious scams.
Also, David Bailey absolutely knew this was going to happen and continued to promote the stock.
Nakamoto's PIPE investors got in at $1.12 with no lockup and bought ~455M shares and then dunked on retail while David Bailey and co promoted the stock on all kinds of Bitcoin podcasts.

2025-11-17 11:14:41 UTC

- reply

I had not researched this.
For a sovereign medium of exchange in an adversarial world, I'd still prefer Bitcoin's architecture - tight, ossified, cheap-to-validate L1 + truly sovereign (non-custodial, batch-heavy) L2s.
Monero's elastic block policy is elegant for burst handling, but it hands adversaries a bloat lever and raises validation costs over time, which erodes home-node density and increases capture surface.
This of course ignores:
- Bitcoin's recent L1 drift - rising default policy that tolerates junk payloads; heavier relay requirements; sync time creeping up year on year.
- Current L2s being mostly "convenience custodians".
Elasticity is a bloat vector in a world where the opponent's budget ≈ unlimited.
If you copy Monero's elasticity, you must add hard ceilings and anti-subsidy heuristics that make adversarial expansion uneconomic — which drifts you back toward... a de-facto small L1.
So it's pros/cons.
Pros for Monero:
- Handles short-term demand surges without massive fee spikes.
- Privacy defaults are strong; observability/censorship is harder at the transaction level.
Cons:
- The Penalty mechanism can be gamed by a rich adversary to expand supply of blockspace and bloat the chain.
- As chain weight grows, residential nodes drop. Privacy without verifiers still invites macro-level capture (ISPs, clouds, peering).
Ideally, I'd put the scale knob on L2, not L1 and scale by:
- More users per UTXO (channel factories, pooled channels, Ark-like constructions with constrained trust, etc).
- More settlement per byte (aggressive batching/aggregation, proof compression, periodic settlement).
- No custodial intermediaries that can be deputized.

2025-11-17 03:00:33 UTC

I wonder how many Bitcoiners have a good understanding of who holds the actual power and who sets the rules.
And this is a topic I'll have to write about but I already alluded to it in ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5 ).
And namely, governance activations show who sets the rules.
Past upgrade processes (e.g., BIP9, BIP8, "Speedy Trial") revealed that miners and coordinated developers can accelerate or block changes faster than ordinary users can veto.
So power concentrates among aligned institutional actors.
Net effect:
- Technical ideals matter less than coordination leverage.
- Future upgrades will likely follow similar political dynamics.
1) What actually happens in upgrades:
- Rule changes need coordination. To activate, you need miners to mine the new rules, big pools to signal, exchanges/custodians to accept deposits, wallet/infrastructure teams to ship updates, and users to run them.
- BIP9/BIP8/“Speedy Trial” are coordination levers. They set thresholds and timers that, in practice, let miners + core devs + major infra decide when something flips on — or stalls.
2) Who really has leverage
- Miners/pools: Control signaling and block production. If they don't play ball, activation drags. If they coordinate, it can move very fast.
- Core maintainers & lead devs: Control what's merged, what binaries ship, and which activation method/warnings land in the "standard" client most people run.
- Exchanges/custodians/Payment-Service-Providers: Control where coins flow. If they choose a side, liquidity follows them. That decides practical reality more than forum votes.
- Ordinary users: Matter in aggregate, but only if they can withhold liquidity or hash in a coordinated way — which is rare.
3) Why this concentrates power
- Coordinating thousands of small users is hard; coordinating a few dozen institutions is easy.
- Activation schemes with time windows and thresholds reward actors who can move in lockstep (pools, large infra, top client maintainers).
- "User veto" exists in theory (run your own rules), but without miners and exchanges you're on a minority chain with no liquidity.
4) What this means in practice
- Technical purity loses to coordination. The "best" design doesn't win; the most coordinated coalition does.
- Messaging is part of the game. Activation method choices ("Speedy Trial", LOT=true/false, flag days) are politics encoded in software defaults.
- Future upgrades repeat the pattern. Expect negotiations between dev leads, pools, and big venues; users mostly ratify by upgrading after the fact.
5) Bitcoin's upgrades aren't decided by abstract ideals — they're decided by who can coordinate miners, code, and liquidity fastest. That's why power tends to cluster with aligned institutional actors, and why future changes will follow the same political playbook.
States would like to keep their monopoly on money issuance and aren't fond of permissionless money.
Bitcoin's survival and adoption, as censorship-resistant money, depend on whether its most committed users can detect, coordinate, and counter inevitable policy, market, and social attacks.
This is tough to do if you're oblivious to what's happening.
It doesn't help that Bitcoin mining is awfully centralized ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoins-mining-centralization-problem ).
The solution of course is a more vigilant community and more decentralization everywhere:
- miner-selected templates (DATUM/Stratum V2),
- more viable client implementations,
- privacy and self-custody defaults and better non-custodial payments UX,
- routing around perimeters (App-store independence, Cloud independence, ISP resilience, etc),
- routine, verifiable Proof-of-Reserves across custodians (anti-Paperization).

2025-11-16 09:47:00 UTC

- reply

It is at least a little bit surprising that I was the one to write this article. At least I haven't been able to find it anywhere on the internet.
I would've expected it to be written by someone who has previously contributed to Bitcoin Core and decided to blow the whistle before it's too late.
I haven't written a line of code for any of the implementations.
#nevent1q…37fx

2025-11-16 03:36:10 UTC

- reply

1) I've done little research on Monero relative to Bitcoin but I'm very impressed.
A community with a single focus and some balls is a dangerous community.
2) Re Bcash, I don't think the big-block path is the correct one.
I have to write an article on this but TL;DR.
In an adversarial, low-consent world, bigger blocks are a poisoned chalice: they make DoS cheaper, validation costlier, and capture easier. If the goal is sovereign MoE, the correct path is a tight, ossified L1 (hard anti-junk policy, cheap home validation) and sovereign L2s that cram orders of magnitude more users per byte without adding custodians. Anything else is speed-theater that hands your opponents a bigger, easier hose to pinch.
The vast majority of L2s are a complete custodial scam and not sovereign Bitcoin.
But I am of the opinion that the design has to be fixed, not the base layer.
Sovereign L2 scaling principle: More users per UTXO, more settlement per byte, without introducing intermediaries who can be regulated into compliance. L1 remains scarce, ossified, cheap to validate.
And of course if you treat privacy as an "expert mode", you guarantee surveillance wins by default. You have to make privacy invisible and automatic.
3) Re Knots, obviously I think Knots is much better than Core which is completely captured and has been attacking Bitcoin's sovereign/monetary use for a very long time.
However, I don't have blind faith in any of these motherfuckers. They have enough cheerleaders as is. I'd rather not trust and verify.

2025-11-15 06:51:00 UTC

How Bitcoin Core's developers are attacking its Sovereign/Monetary use
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5

2025-11-15 05:33:45 UTC

Started doing more research on how Bitcoin Core's developers have been attacking its sovereign/Medium-of-Exchange use a while back and it's wild.
The post became too long for email just from covering:
1. SegWit (BIP141): The “Witness Discount” and Block-Weight Accounting
2. Taproot (BIP340–342): Easier Complex Scripts and Data Embedding
3. Liberalized Data-Carrier Policies (OP_RETURN and “Standardness”)
4. Replace-By-Fee (RBF): From Opt-In to Broad Default
5. Relay and Mempool Settings that favor Large Players
6. Legal-Risk Externalities shifted to Node Operators
7. Increased Block Weight → Centralization Pressure
8. Convenience Defaults: Assumevalid, Pruning, and Checkpoints
9. Deprecation of Non-Standard Scripts
10. Fee-Market “Purism” — No Priority for Payments
11. Lightning Network Bias — L1 as Settlement Only
12. Governance Activations Show Who Sets the Rules
13. Quiet Merchant De-Feature: BIP70 Payment Protocol Deprecation
14. Removal of “Priority by Coin Age” & Free Relay (historical)
15. Dust Limits & MinRelayFee Floors as Gatekeepers
16. Core v30: OP_RETURN/data-carrier expansion (policy)
17. Core v30: RBF ergonomics tilt further to replaceability (wallet/API surface)
18. Core v30: Multiple OP_RETURNs per tx
Have written this in as simple as possible terms for non-developers. Will post later when done.
https://blossom.primal.net/88931de0905915c00b5610a81253c4255414ec7ba44c6005ae77331bf856c11f.png

2025-11-13 15:37:31 UTC

- reply

1) Removing the "legal/moral risk" wording is mostly an optics patch.
You can soften the text but the capability + precedent remain: a temporary consensus rule to gate behavior “for safety”.
Lawmakers don’t need the scary paragraph preserved — they only need the fact that Bitcoin shipped (or even seriously advanced) a safety-gating soft fork to later say: “Bitcoin has already limited X for safety; extend it to Y.”
2) The political cover persists - press, blogs, and mailing-list archives have already captured the “moral/legal” framing. You can delete lines in the BIP PR; you can’t delete the discourse trail.
3) Once “emergency soft fork for safety” is on the menu, subsequent asks are just parameter shifts: AI-safety provenance, public-health blocks, carbon budgets, foreign-influence filters, sanctioned payload exclusion, non-KYC path restrictions.
4) Even rejection is usable.
- Fail path: “You refused — now we must legislate and impose liability on nodes.”
- Pass path: “You acknowledged duty of care — make it permanent and expand scope.”
So the proposal’s substance — temporary consensus gating — remains the same goal whether or not the word “legal” appears. Multiple outlets already framed it as averting legal exposure for node operators. The record is fixed.
The text edit just removes an easy talking-point for critics; it doesn’t close the door that’s been opened.
The real move was normalizing consensus-level behavioral gating “for safety”.

2025-11-12 14:01:28 UTC

- reply

I don't think you read the article or you've just decided to argue using straw man arguments.
The "Censorship precedent" argument is that a consensus rule that behavior-gates transactions is a category change that redefines who has leverage at the protocol boundary.
Once that leverage exists and is legible, actors with power will use it.
I am not arguing that arbitrary data above 83 bytes improves monetary properties anywhere in my text.
I've not argued that limiting arbitrary data to 83 bytes in consensus can be used to censor monetary transactions either, so that's another straw man.
Censorship precedent = You've now normalized consensus-level behavioral gating for “safety”. That's an open door for later parameterization under new banners (AI-safety, “public health”, carbon, “foreign influence”).
Bitcoin's non-capture story rests on client plurality + rough consensus + time. A small, reputationally central cohort shepherding a soft fork that restricts content looks like governance (even if technically sound). This happens in a response to the changes a small, reputationally central cohort (Bitcoin Core) has made to Bitcoin.
Once the public accepts that “a group can push binding changes that prune behaviors”, external actors will lobby that group. You just created a policy choke-point.
So you've disagreed with yourself here because I didn't make any of the arguments you mentioned.
Precedent means an act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
I don't think censoring dickbutt jpegs in a monetary network is censorship. Hope this clears things up.

2025-11-12 11:57:28 UTC

Why Bitcoin is in a Lose-Lose situation with the BIP-444 Soft Fork
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-bitcoin-is-in-a-lose-lose-situation

2025-11-10 02:50:44 UTC

Elon Musk's grandfather was arrested in Canada for being part of a cult hell-bent on installing a technocracy.
The cult used to meet each Monday evening in the basement of a public library.
https://blossom.primal.net/09bb0e6125b5193f186520572f8b3e086ed0e6c49fdf8d7739f52b5db09e6625.jpg
Now, Elon Musk, the poster boy of technocracy is the richest man in the world, "pro free speech" and "pro humanity".
Started from the bottom now we here.
Many will have seen the chart depicting a dollar's worth over the years.
https://blossom.primal.net/0ddf1ed392f28e7098b1197eab7c90e209d5c9a4284e8ffaba41ba9df11abe45.jpg
I'd like to see a chart depicting discernment over the years 😂
Every single one of Elon's companies is run by the government, but the plebs love the "entrepreneurship".
- SpaceX - national security launch monopoly.
- Tesla - green-transition industrial policy vehicle.
- Neuralink - brain–machine interface R&D under DARPA watch.
Elon Musk — The Heroic Technologist:
- Turns state agendas into heroic challenges ("colonize Mars", "accelerate sustainable energy").
- Makes highly complex state projects legible to the masses (rockets, EVs).
- Redefines what is possible, i.e., multi-planetary destiny.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/public-facing-elites-using-myth-making

2025-11-09 13:53:25 UTC

- reply

You and me both. Core's dominance (~80% of nodes) is poison to Bitcoin.

2025-11-09 07:38:54 UTC

Bitcoin Ossification Client (BOC) — Community-Defended, Minimal-Change, Adversary-Hard
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-ossification-client-boc-community
TL;DR
Bitcoin is a fixed-supply, Proof-of-Work-secured, UTXO-validated settlement network that anyone can fully verify on consumer hardware. Its base layer resists censorship by making it costly — not by trusting gatekeepers. Its rules are simple, explicit, and operationally testable. If a change makes sovereignty harder, or hands control to perimeters, it isn't Bitcoin.
Ossify the base. Keep it livable. Adapt through optional layers. That's how Bitcoin survives adversaries who are richer than all of us, and how ordinary people keep the keys to their own money.

2025-11-06 11:03:53 UTC

- reply

1) Hash power is coordinated by a small number of mining pools (2-3 pools can easily reach more than 51% at times). These pools decide which transactions go into blocks by setting templates and policies — including filters, OFAC lists, and template upgrades.
2) Bitcoin relies heavily on a single dominant client implementation (Bitcoin Core) and a small group of maintainers. ~80% of nodes run Bitcoin Core.
3) A significant portion of reachable Bitcoin nodes are hosted on major cloud providers. These companies can modify their acceptable-use policies (AUPs), throttle ports, or silently remove images.
4) Most retail users interact through mobile wallets or browser extensions controlled by Apple, Google, or other platform gatekeepers.
5) Most Bitcoin flows touch regulated exchanges or custodians bound by Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) and Travel Rule obligations. These entities enforce address blacklists, apply heuristic “taint” analysis, and freeze funds on suspicion
6) ETFs, futures, and structured notes create synthetic exposure to Bitcoin that absorbs investor demand while keeping custody centralized.
7) Mining pools under insurer or exchange pressure may adopt “compliant templates” that delay or exclude certain UTXOs. (e.g. MARA, F2Pool)
8) Lightning Network Centralization - While the Lightning Network (LN) enables fast transactions, liquidity is heavily concentrated around large hubs and custodial wallets. These hubs are easy to regulate, bank, or deplatform. The result: “Fast Bitcoin” becomes fast, supervised Bitcoin.
9) Fee-Market Steerability - Mempool/policy defaults (datacarrier norms, package relay, ancestor/descendant limits) and state-sponsored spam bursts can crowd out small payments and reshape fees.
And so on, and so forth.

2025-11-06 10:04:42 UTC

- reply

Well, you're oversimplifying a lot.
Not sure if you read the "allowed to look decentralized and secure" part.
99.99% of stablecoin users can buy, hold and send p2p without having asked for permission (at least explicitly).
The whole point is to make it seamless, otherwise, you'd create Martyrs.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/is-bitcoin-decentralized-and-secure

2025-11-06 08:31:37 UTC

The question that sent me down the rabbit hole a few months ago:
- Is Bitcoin decentralized and secure, or is it allowed to look decentralized and secure?
TL;DR
Bitcoin is permissionless in code but permissioned in practice by choke-points that governments and large intermediaries either directly control or can cheaply coerce. It's allowed to look decentralized/secure so long as it functions primarily as a supervised store of value and speculative asset, not a mass medium of exchange outside compliance rails.

2025-11-04 10:40:47 UTC

Bitcoin's development process has been broken for a long time and Bitcoin's developers have failed the community.
Developers have to start treating Bitcoin's users as stakeholders, not an audience they have contempt for.
I wrote the first Bitcoin Development Governance Proposal (BDGP-1).
This is a rough draft. If someone wants to work on it further/take the idea and write a better proposal, feel free to.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-development-governance-proposal

2025-11-04 05:29:25 UTC

How Bitcoin's developers have failed the community
This will not be a technical post, I can eventually write one on the specifics of how Bitcoin's developers have weakened Bitcoin’s sovereign / monetary (MoE) use.
In this post, I'll cover the predictable chaos that developer have caused.
99% of users should have never had to know what OP_RETURN is — and the fact they do means Bitcoin's developers have failed the community.
The fact that non-technical users have had to learn about these details is a massive failure on the part of the developers.
Now you have users taking sides on a soft-fork debate purely based on their blind faith in influencers without understanding the technicalities.
When UX abstraction fails, politics invades the base layer:
- Money that requires protocol literacy isn't money yet. If non-technical holders must parse mempool policy, witness discounts, inscription hacks, or soft-fork signaling to judge existential risk, you've leaked governance from experts to the masses without giving them power — just anxiety.
- Abstraction debt. Bitcoin's developers are no longer shipping "safe defaults". That created a vacuum where influencers do protocol comms, and users pick tribes by vibes.
- Legitimacy hazard. The minute regulars think "the rules can shift under me", your store-of-value narrative becomes contingent on whoever writes/merges code, not on time. That's a reputational tax that compounds.
In the Bitcoin ecosystem (developers, miners/pools, exchanges/custodians, state/regulators), no actor with power is optimizing for "simple, sovereign Medium-of-Exchange for the masses". They optimize for revenue, deniability, and policy compatibility.
All of this chaos and retail anxiety caused by developers will lead more people to ETFs/custody adoption and will lessen self-custody and MoE use.
If node policy changes keep enabling more and easier illegal payloads, pressure lands on runners/miners first.
Captured developers is the most asymmetric attack vector - it hits sovereign users hardest, while leaving institutional wrappers unaffected.
Developers have to start treating Bitcoin's users as stakeholders, not an audience they have contempt for.
The only way out of this is for the users to start working on a rough draft of constraints that should be imposed on the developers.
I might write a very rough version eventually.

2025-11-04 04:56:27 UTC

- reply

What is this guy talking about 😂
Bitcoin's "default implementation" which ~80% of nodes are running changes every few weeks/months.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases
#nevent1q…9qhu

2025-11-01 10:31:00 UTC

- reply

Could be, it is not very relevant what he is referring to, I just analyzed the message.
Core 30 opens up major attack vectors as well.
But to say "the mining pool centralization problem is already solved with Datum - it just needs much wider adoption", is like saying "the MoE problem is already solved with Bitcoin/Monero - you just have to get people to use them".
Inside OCEAN, DATUM is now the default; network-wide it's still ~1% or less.
OCEAN is only about ~1% of total Bitcoin hashrate (order of magnitude; varies over time). If ~65–94% of OCEAN’s hashrate is on DATUM, that implies ~0.6–0.9% of the network hashrate is mining with DATUM today.
Stratum V2 is available at Braiins Pool and OCEAN/DEMAND’s pool, plus scattered tests elsewhere, but network adoption remains ~1% of hashrate or below.
So mining pool centralization isn't a solved problem for now. Solvable problem, but not solved.

2025-11-01 05:36:40 UTC

https://blossom.primal.net/2ed6e758a81651ad33045672988bea9082a538ac4e665a7b9aa0d1f2aca3ee1c.jpg
So why did Luke Dashjr say "Hashrate is irrelevant at this point"?
I won't pretend to know what his opinion is, I'll just give you mine.
1) Mining isn't decentralized — pools are (allegedly, not really).
Why are pools not decentralized? Because the interests of "rival" countries converge more often than most realize (More context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated ).
Hashrate aggregates into ~5–7 top pools; 2–3 could cross 51% at times.
Miners "vote with feet", but:
- Payout variance pushes them to big pools.
- Pools integrate with regulated fiat ramps and insurers; they may adopt OFAC/blacklist templates to avoid headaches.
Template power: Pools select transactions. If major pools adopt "policy clients" (e.g., template filters, blacklists), settlement becomes steerable — even if blocks remain valid under consensus.
So what? Incentives favor pool compliance with state policy — especially when insurance, utilities, and public listings are involved.
2) Hardware & energy are choke-points (supply-chain centralization)
- ASIC oligopoly. 2–3 manufacturers dominate. Firmware signing, remote management, and replacement cycles create vendor leverage.
- Jurisdictional energy. Large industrial miners rely on permits, grid interconnects, subsidies. In a low Gross Consent Product environment, regulators swap "ideals" for "stability" — conditional access > rights.
- Policy carrot/stick: cheap power for curtailment agreements, transaction policies, ESG attestations; penalties for non-compliant operators.
So what? If you need the grid and the power plant, the power plant owns you, and guess who owns the power plant.
I have just described the current state of mining "decentralization". Of course this could improve/worsen in the future.
Unless mining decentralization improves significantly, increasing hashrate is irrelevant at this point.

2025-10-22 02:10:07 UTC

Writing an article with my 17 Bitcoin predictions for the next 1-10 years.
Will post to nostr reads later today.
Does anyone have any predictions to make?

2025-10-21 12:28:49 UTC

- reply

Yes, Satoshi definitely knew how liquidity cycles work.
Nowadays everyone tracks liquidity cycles, but I've never seen anyone explain why liquidity is cyclical to begin with.
This is a dark rabbit hole and deserves its own post.
TL;DR: You keep liquidity cyclical because cycles are the cheapest way to discipline leverage, migrate users onto programmable rails, and entrench policy-grade vendors - without risking a consent crisis.
Cycles govern behavior at lower cost than constant repression.
A steady state would entrench incumbents you don't choose. Cyclicity lets you re-select winners every turn.
This Thomas Jefferson quote sort of explains it:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
There is a documentary (and a book) "Princes of the Yen" by Richard Werner that highlights exactly this. Very dark stuff.
https://odysee.com/@Reachthedivine:d/Princes-of-the-Yen---The-Hidden-Power-of-Central-Banks_fixed-2014:e
#nevent1q…sfsy

2025-10-21 05:45:56 UTC

I like this guy because he isn't a statist cuck like most of the other Bitcoin influencers 😂
https://blossom.primal.net/3326f1aedf26b43b066bcf5f8e184acfdc4423f457084af13a412c2df48c8526.png
My hot take is: "Just wait till Bitcoiners figure out Bitcoin".
Just wait till Bitcoiners figure out that the real speculative attack is not buying treasury companies that short the currency and allegedly buy Bitcoin, it is Bitcoiners taking self-custody and demanding proof-of-reserves from public companies.
Once that happens, gold bugs and non-gold bugs will be forced to figure out Bitcoin.
Until then, Bitcoiners still think that:
- Permissionless tech = permissionless adoption.
- Bitcoin is co-opting the state.
- You can enforce 21M by delegating to wrappers.
And until then, most gold bugs still think that Bitcoin is Ethereum is Solana.
Most people only care about Bitcoin because number goes up more than other things they can buy.
This is incompatible with on-chain BTC at the bottom, and layers of IOUs, wrappers, and derivatives on top.
The protocol can cap issuance at 21,000,000 BTC.
Markets can create claims on far more than 21,000,000 BTC.
More context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-most-bitcoiners-are-wrong-about

2025-10-21 04:26:08 UTC

- reply

I wonder what happens if conspiracy theorists start talking about the conspiracy theory that actually matters - our One World Government and how the head of the snake/coordination hub is Switzerland.
About how the US and China/Russia or more broadly the West and BRICS pretend to be in competition and meanwhile:
- They are all poisoning their citizens with the same vaccines and big pharma concoctions.
- Robbing their citizens with fiat fuckery, inflation and taxation.
- All these countries that hate each other meet in Switzerland every month to coordinate policy.
- All these countries are spraying their citizens with heavy metals from the sky.
- All these countries are blasting their citizens with 5G (6G upcoming).
- All these countries agreed to forbid private exploration of Antarctica during the Cold War when they allegedly hated each other.
- All Central Banks coincidentally have matching liquidity cycles and coordinate to cause crises/inflation.
- All rival states exhibited near-identical public-health playbooks (lockdowns, mandates, travel controls, QR systems) during Covid-1984.
- All of these countries (98% of global GDP) are simultaneously developing CBDCs.
- Across all these countries, investors do not directly own broker-held stocks, bank deposits, bonds in custodianship, mortgages, or lien-encumbered land; assets held via custodians/CSDs (DTCC, Euroclear, Clearstream, etc.) are legally collateralizable and sweepable in failure. The legal structure is globally synchronized (a relatively recent shift).
And there are many, many more examples.
When youtube starts putting banners under videos that we don't live under a One World Government and this is an archaic conspiracy theory, we'll know we're doing something right 😂
More context:
#naddr1qv…3wpy

2025-10-20 13:36:47 UTC

- reply

The system is designed to create normies. Unless your parents show you the way, it often takes very painful life experiences to un-normie yourself.

2025-10-20 11:27:16 UTC

It's wild that you can learn more about investing from Aldous Huxley than from any of these chumps who follow Powell's every move and record 1 hour podcasts analyzing his body language.
For example, this quote is great.
https://blossom.primal.net/7508569a2a04003ad45aeba57bef769c70ca5a861795a573d5b3b5f95165e62b.jpg
What Huxley is saying:
- “Abnormally normal” = perfectly compliant to a sick environment.
If a society’s core incentives reward obedience, consumption, and performative virtue over truth and agency, then adjustment is a pathology: you’re healthy-for-the-system, not healthy-for-yourself.
- Silenced “human voice” = the self that resists harmful incentives.
The child’s curiosity, refusal to lie, intolerance for double standards - trained out early via schooling, media norms, and micro-rewards/punishments until dissent feels wrong.
- No symptoms = no alarms.
The “neurotic” at least shows friction with false incentives; the “normal” runs without error messages. That’s efficient for rulers and lethal for authenticity.
Huxley’s core insight isn’t “future dystopia”, it’s cost curves: pleasure is a cheaper control input than pain, defaults govern better than laws, and language (“safety”, “stability”, “community”) edits reality. If you track incentives, defaults, and word swaps - not ideals - you’ll predict human behavior with embarrassing accuracy.

2025-10-20 08:52:16 UTC

- reply

Yeah, crazy. AWS crashed and apparently half the internet runs on AWS (including substack which is what I use).

2025-10-20 07:39:22 UTC

- reply

I've had this bookmarked for a while but haven't watched it yet. I am subscribed to this guy and like his content. Will have to watch it soon.
Actually I think you introduced me to him when you posted the Whitney Webb stuff 😂

2025-10-20 07:38:00 UTC

- reply

Yes, a margin requirement increase means that a broker or regulatory body has raised the minimum amount of equity that an investor must maintain in their margin account.
So if regulators hate the run -> they raise margin requirements to signal the plebs to chill -> plebs get the memo and chill.

2025-10-20 07:34:44 UTC

- reply

Yes, I think this is mostly obvious.
I've written about this in a few articles and the dots connect themselves.
I started writing my "The History of our One World Government" article this morning and substack crashed.
You can see the world government starting to form around 1815 and ramps up in the mid 1800s.
TL;DR for the 1800s:
- 1815: Concert of Europe. After Napoleon, the great powers formalize a balance-of-power coordination club to suppress regime-threatening shocks. Not democracy — order maintenance. You see synchronized interventions against revolutions across borders.
- Mid-1800s: gold standard + Rothschild/Barings/Brown networked finance. Whatever you think about individual families, the fact is: a transnational sovereign-debt syndication system emerges. States coordinate through the same London/Paris houses; defaults are handled with gunboats and restructurings — cross-border creditor solidarity over domestic politics.
- 1860s–1900s: telegraph + cable cartelization. Empires fight, but they share communications standards because liquidity and trade need it. Interoperability > ideology — an early template.
Call: From the mid-19th century, you can already see the meta-preference: keep capital mobile and settlements predictable even while flags posture.
https://blossom.primal.net/a5e2a248d015d735fb7e8479b0cab92aa353a69d73db7a9c64be4bed11ecffb5.png

2025-10-20 02:44:07 UTC

The most alpha I've been able to add to my process has been zooming out real far and researching "conspiracy theories".
I've already talked about the Public-facing Elites ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/public-facing-elites-using-myth-making )
The public-facing Elites are the interfaces between the Controllers and the masses.
They are carefully selected not because they are the deepest technical minds (those remain inside state/para-state labs and defense contractors) but because they can serve as myth-making avatars - “trustworthy human front ends” for systemic agendas.
The best example is Elon Musk:
- Turns state agendas into heroic challenges (”colonize Mars”, “accelerate sustainable energy”).
- Makes highly complex state projects legible to the masses (rockets, EVs).
- Redefines what is possible, i.e., multi-planetary destiny.
I've also talked about why Public Officials are deliberately selected and made look inept. ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/inept-public-officials-vs-genius )
A good example is Jerome Powell with is transitory inflation 😂
Making officials look inept is not a bug; it's the lubricant that shifts legitimacy from public institutions to private control substrates.
You manufacture "visible incompetence" at the top of public orgs (politicians, Fed chair, Treasury secretary, spokespeople, etc) because of:
1) Plausible deniability & blame absorption.
- If outcomes are unpopular, “the politicians bungled it”. Strategic continuity survives; personnel rotate. The cockpit stays untouched.
2) Consent management via despair.
- Chronic bungling signals “government can’t execute” → public begs for capable private operators. That’s a soft mandate for outsourcing power to state-embedded firms.
3) Overton-window widening.
- Visible ineptitude makes extraordinary measures and emergency procurement look reasonable. “We can’t wait for bureaucracy; give XYZ (pre-selected) the keys”.
4) Scapegoat economics.
- Credit is privatized (heroes, “innovators”), blame is socialized (”Congress/Fed messed up”). This sustains asymmetric payoffs to chosen vendors.
5) Narrative bifurcation: bumbling State vs heroic Genius.
- Positions private avatars (Musk/Altman/Karp) as only credible solvers. Funds, talent, and data flow toward them by default.
6) Obfuscation of the command layer.
- Clownish spokespeople hide where decisions are really made (standards bodies, security councils, procurement compacts, platform policies). Confusion is a moat.
7) Policy ratchet lubricant.
- Each “failure” justifies a new knob (ID, provenance, kill-switches, programmable money). Sunsets don’t sunset.
8) Humiliation tests.
- Public tolerates obvious dysfunction → the Controllers mark how far they can push next. Demoralization lowers resistance cost.
I've also written about Stanford Graduates/Dropouts ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/investing-in-stanford-graduatesdropouts ).
Perhaps the most impressive list.
Here are just some examples: Elon Musk, Alex Karp, John F. Kennedy, Rishi Sunak, Sundar Pichai, Mukesh Ambani, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Herbert Hoover, Mitt Romney, Peter Thiel, Cory Booker, Jawed Karim, Aaron Swartz, Dianne Feinstein, Philippe of Belgium, Steve Ballmer, Rachel Maddow, Laurene Powell Jobs, Kevin Systrom, Phil Knight, Sam Altman, Sam Harris, Jensen Huang, Ashraf Ghani, Adam Schiff, Reed Hastings, Josh Hawley, Mike Krieger, Reid Hoffman, Ehud Barak, Morris Chang, etc.
The article I have not yet written is just zooming out even more and defining all the roles in the system.
E.g. Peter Thiel sits above the public-facing Elites, below the Controllers.
He is an Intermediary Governor.
They are not the TV-facing “geniuses” or CEOs. They are the switch-owners: people who can change parameters on infrastructure others depend on. They don’t need public charisma; they need veto rights, standard-setting power, and custody over process.
What Intermediary Governors actually do
- Parameterize the rules (policy knobs, standards, eligibility lists).
- Sequence liquidity (who gets dollars/credit first, under what collateral).
- Bless or blacklist (who’s “compliant”, “safe”, “admissible”).
- Orchestrate harmonization (make the same rule appear across jurisdictions).
- Allocate narrative oxygen (what gets framed as “safety”, “best practice”, “responsible”).
Why Intermediary Governors matter
Because defaults beat laws. A single checkbox in a standard, an app-store clause, a custody rule, or a clearing constraint moves more money/behavior than a speech. Intermediary Governors bind the cockpit (Controllers) to the machine without showing up in headlines.
Some of the other roles are:
1) Legibility Architects
- Purpose: Make people, assets, and flows machine-readable so they can be governed.
2) Consent Sculptors
- Purpose: Keep apparent buy-in high enough that force stays cheap.
3) Shock Troopers (Crisis Accelerants)
- Purpose: Use crises to push new rails while opposition is stunned.
4) Intermediary Governors (e.g. Peter Thiel)
- Purpose: Enforce policy without passing laws - via chokepoints.
5) Valve Operators (Macro/Micro Fluidics)
- Purpose: Modulate liquidity, credit, and attention to maintain stability and reward insiders.
6) Plausible-Deniability Brokers
- Purpose: Split orders between state and private fronts; keep cockpit hidden.
7) Lightning Rods
- Purpose: Absorb outrage so the architecture survives.
8) Fog Generators
- Purpose: Keep opponents arguing over symbols while rails get installed.
9) Stability Farmers (Bread & Circus)
- Purpose: Dampen revolt with comfort and ritual.
10) Growth Ambassadors (Legibility-Friendly Growth)
- Purpose: Sponsor innovation that increases governability (not just GDP).
11) Lawfare Cartographers
- Purpose: Draw the legal map so resistance is pre-criminalized.
12) Quota Distributors (Patronage)
- Purpose: Buy quiet by allocating licenses, permits, grants.
13) Sacrificial Pawns
- Purpose: Demonstrate “accountability” without touching the system.
14) International Sync Agents
- Purpose: Keep allies’ knobs turning together so policy hits feel “inevitable”.
15) Ritual Priests (Legitimacy Caretakers)
- Purpose: Maintain civic myths (elections, courts, national moments) that keep compliance cheap.
The roles are many more, these are just the main ones.
I am not suggesting that everyone in the system knows the bigger picture.
Obviously, everything is on a need to know basis and some of this stuff is very complicated even at the surface level.
Plus, one of the greatest quotes of all time:
- "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
- Upton Sinclair

2025-10-19 23:27:32 UTC

I posted my "What most Bitcoiners are wrong about" article in Jeff Booth's comment section yesterday and it quickly got 50 views.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-most-bitcoiners-are-wrong-about
I paid Elon like 40 bucks for a 1 month subscription just so I can post my Bitcoin articles into the twitter void as well 😂
https://x.com/ControlPlaneCap
If podcasters steal my homework and talk about these Bitcoin issues, their channels would explode (assuming they don't get nuked by the platform).
Most of these issues are at the user level, meaning they are solved with education.
It's sad to see Bitcoiners trying to use "intelligent leverage" (e.g. Treasury Company penny stocks, BITX, etc) without understanding what they're doing.
The only intelligent leverage you can use is buy spot Bitcoin.
The more spot Bitcoin the plebs own, the harder it is to suppress the price with paper Bitcoin games. This is the kind of leverage you actually want.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-bitcoins-21m-cap-is-not-guaranteed

2025-10-19 08:17:45 UTC

- reply

This is on my list of things to research still.
I only started the examples from the 1900s because history (his story) is mostly fake.
If you can't get credible information on current events, why would you expect to get credible information on something that allegedly happened hundreds of years ago.
It's worth a shot still, if I find something interesting, I'll let you know.

2025-10-19 05:03:49 UTC

The Rivalry between Countries is curated; the plumbing is shared (One World Government) and this has massive investment implications.
The “Rivalry” is mostly curated spectacle; plumbing is shared (money, identity, provenance, networks).
States appear adversarial on the surface, but their structural incentives converge far more often than people realize.
That’s why even “enemies” like the US, Russia, and China act in concert when it comes to systemic rules.
1. Monopoly on Force & Money - Every state protects force + issuance. Fiat/CBDC is the control layer, not a policy choice.
2. Stability > Rivalry. War can be theater; credit/settlement collapse ends rule.
3. Narrative Preservation - Centralized media norms, staged symbolism, curated science/tech narratives when needed.
4. Asset Legibility & Seizability - Title/custody law converges globally so collateral can be swept in crisis (read The Great Taking from David Rogers Webb).
5. Standards as Sovereignty - Identity, payments, provenance, telecom: one fabric, many flags.
6. Information Sovereignty - All blocs share the same fear: lose the infosphere → lose compliance. Outcome: convergent AI governance, moderation, provenance mandates; different logos, same knobs.
How coordination happens without a “smoking gun”
Standards + perimeters.
- Standards (NGOs, fora, regulators) emit the same verbs: attest, revoke, trace, prove, rollback.
- Perimeters (banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, card networks) flip Acceptable Use Policies; law becomes optional.
What this reveals
- Rivalry is curated; plumbing is shared. When control or continuity is threatened, standards, swaps, and back-channels override ideology.
- One fabric, many flags. Payments, identity, telecom, and provenance standards are global fabrics with policy dials.
- Crisis = parameter update. Every shock resets the global knobs, not the fabric.
Across domains — public health, identity, money, risk, energy, trade, space, sanctions, and information control — formal rivals repeatedly synchronize standards, infrastructure, and legal frameworks. The pattern preserves interoperability, centralized visibility, and policy levers, even when public narratives emphasize conflict.
I've had to talk to my father about this a lot because we're both investors and he isn't as conspiratorial 😂. So I started doing research on examples of adversarial states working together behind the scenes and I found more than 50 widely-accepted examples since the 1900s. In reality, there are hundreds/thousands depending on how deep you want to go.
I've listed the main 40 examples here:
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated

2025-10-19 03:21:03 UTC

- reply

Hey Jeff, I know you like game theory. I do too.
I'd be interested to know if you can debunk my article:
- https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-most-bitcoiners-are-wrong-about

2025-10-18 09:28:33 UTC

The Bitcoin treasury company market is very brittle, especially for the smaller (not MSTR) companies.
If you listen to Bitcoin influencers, they'll tell you that Bitcoin treasury companies found an 'infinite money glitch' - they short fiat, long Bitcoin and profit.
Do these influencers not realize that the rules of the game are written by the guys who own the banks and have vested interest in the currency?
Bitcoin treasury companies didn't beat the game, they are allowed to exist.
If the rulers raise the price of funding, increase optical and operational pain, they can blow most of them up in very little time.
With a few quick rule changes, leverage on Bitcoin can become a widow-maker for most of the smaller companies.
You can see scammy treasury companies like David Bailey's buying other treasury companies.
Nakamoto is buying Metaplanet and other treasury companies that are allegedly buying Bitcoin.
Nakamoto's shareholders are paying the salaries of every motherfucking influencer in the Bitcoin space 😂
I have a prediction to make: before long Bitcoin treasury companies will be buying Bitcoin ETFs that are allegedly buying Bitcoin.

2025-10-16 23:59:34 UTC

- reply

I don't actually think most people understand what this means 😂
You were definitely right about 'normie version' > 'technical version' for engagement, but at least right now I am more interested in continuing my research than spreading the word.
Governments can just pay people to do the controllable thing, so there's not much to be done anyway.

2025-10-15 12:55:17 UTC

- reply

Thank you mate, glad you find it useful.

2025-10-13 23:49:48 UTC

- reply

Just transferring notes from localhost, not trying to become a Bitcoin influencer and start a treasury company.
Plus, normies don't want nuance, they want definitive statements (e.g. Bitcoin is going to $100 million by 2030) - just look at podcast view numbers (clickbait = high views, nuance = low views).

2025-10-13 14:01:09 UTC

- reply

In terms of fiat-denominated price, I am very bullish long-term.
"never cheap enough to trigger a self-custody revolt, never euphoric enough to create escape velocity"
Governments love Bitcoin now (paper BTC) and need it to go up in an orderly manner.
When you see mainstream financial media marketing "the debasement trade" (gold, Bitcoin), it tells you everything you need to know about how 'scared' governments are of Bitcoin's MoE potential at present.

2025-10-13 08:49:47 UTC

- reply

Game Theory: How Governments could delegitimize Bitcoin Maximalism
Shrink “Bitcoin-as-movement” into “Bitcoin-as-managed-product”. Don’t ban it; brand and bound it.
#naddr1qv…emu4

2025-10-13 04:35:18 UTC

- reply

Wrote an article: My Bitcoin 5-Year Price Model (Containment Regime)
Bitcoin is managed into a rising, volatility-capped channel: paperized SoV (Store of Value), MoE (Medium of Exchange) throttled, squeezes sold, crashes patched — never cheap enough to trigger a self-custody revolt, never euphoric enough to create escape velocity.
#naddr1qv…zq2t

2025-09-23 04:05:18 UTC

- reply

Why Gold has been allowed to run (incentive-based analysis)
As of September 23rd 2025, Gold has risen 42.5% YTD and 49.74% on the 1 year.
Gold's market cap is $25.5T, so it is by far the largest asset by market cap in the world.
Letting gold run while containing Bitcoin fits the State's incentives.
Gold can satisfy the public's "store-of-value" impulse without granting a parallel, censorship-resistant payments rail; it trades in surveilled, gate-kept markets (London OTC/COMEX, custodian oligopolies).
Central banks themselves are heavy buyers, and its price can be influenced via regulated derivatives and custody choke-points.
Bitcoin, by contrast, threatens monetary sovereignty if it spreads as money.
1) Gold as a Controlled safety valve
- Let savers vent inflation/sovereignty anxiety into the least threatening SoV (store of value). Gold is surveilled at on/off-ramps, heavy, slow, taxable, and easy to ring-fence (customs, export rules, windfall taxes). Every dollar that flees to gold is a dollar not pressuring Bitcoin-as-MoE (medium of exchange) or moving into parallel rails.
2) Balance-sheet relief (without headline QE).
- A higher reference price quietly recapitalizes sovereigns and Central Banks that carry gold at legacy/statutory marks. It strengthens reserve ratios and collateral narratives without Congress/parliament votes.
3) Collateral & settlement optionality.
- When duration supply and term premium wobble, a higher, steadier gold price broadens acceptable collateral in cross-border finance while keeping the USD system central.
4) Narrative management: "We tolerate sound money".
- A visible gold bull market signals tolerance for a "traditional hedge", undercutting the story that authorities crush every escape hatch. It buys legitimacy while more programmable rails (stablecoins/CBDCs) normalize.
5) Diversion & crowding-out.
- A strong gold tape soaks risk appetite that might otherwise chase Bitcoin self-custody. Retail and many institutions will choose the IRA/ETF-friendly, audit-simple, reputation-safe shiny rock.
And the main points here really are - Gold absorbs social inflation angst into a non-transactional hedge and supports Central Banks' reserves without explicit bailouts.
At the same time, Bitcoin has to be kept in a vol-managed corridor while programmable money rails get public buy-in.
Letting gold run is rational if you want a nonthreatening pressure valve that:
1) stabilizes balance sheets,
2) placates reserve managers,
3) siphons speculative and hedging demand away from a grassroots MoE (Bitcoin),
4) and keeps the public believing "sound money is allowed".
I'm not really interested in buying gold other than on large dips on plumbing-driven drains. Even then, I'd buy very little in relation to my NW.
There is a lot of speculation and hopium in regards to the possibility of gold getting revalued higher (e.g. to $10K/oz) but I find this very unlikely.
- As of now, the US allegedly holds ~261.5M oz of gold.
- It is valued at $42.22/oz while the current price sits at $3,777.25/oz.
- So the US could mark it to market. E.g. the ECB/Eurosystem already marks gold to market.
- However, it largely does nothing, so it signals fragility if framed as "repairing the sovereign balance sheet". So timing skews to recession/credit stress or a political inflection.
The odds of revaluing gold to $6K-$10K/oz I find extremely unlikely.
A dramatic reprice screams monetary regime shift, risking USD confidence and imported inflation - not what policymakers want absent a crisis.
It is also a limited debt cure. It improves optics (equity) but doesn't cancel nominal liabilities unless you monetize the gain, which is politically charged and inflationary.
1) What a Gold revaluation actually does (accounting)
- The U.S. holds ~261.5M oz of gold (allegedly).
- At $42.22/oz it sits on the books at ~$11B.
- If you mark it to, say, $6,000/oz, it becomes ~$1.57T; at $10,000/oz, ~$2.62T.
- The difference (to $2.62T) is an accounting gain - it boosts the government's equity/revaluation reserve.
- But, this does not by itself retire any Treasury debt. The nominal debt still exists in full.
2) Why it’s a "limited debt cure"
- Even at $10k/oz (~$2.6T total value), that's well under 10% of the federal debt stock (~$38T).
- So, revaluation improves optics (the government looks "richer" on paper), but it's not a balance-sheet nuke that cancels most liabilities.
3) When (and only when) it helps cash and debt for real
To actually pay down debt, the gain must be monetized - i.e., turned into spendable dollars that can retire Treasuries:
- Sell some gold and use the proceeds to redeem debt; or
- Pledge/issue new gold certificates to the Fed, which credits Treasury's account (new base money), then use that cash to retire debt.
Either path creates/introduces dollars, which brings us to the inflation part.
4) Why it's "politically charged and inflationary"
- Politically charged: It's an explicit, visible devaluation signal - a regime move that concedes the dollar buys less gold than the statute implies. It picks winners/losers (gold holders vs. cash/bond holders).
- Inflationary risk: Monetizing the revaluation (Fed credit or gold sales used for spending/redemptions) expands the money base unless the Fed fully sterilizes it. If not sterilized - it will push inflation or force offsetting tightening elsewhere.
What I mean by "the Fed fully sterilizing it":
- "Sterilize" here means: if the Fed (or Treasury via the Fed) creates new base money by monetizing the gold revaluation, the Fed then drains or neutralizes that same amount so the monetary base doesn't rise.
Balance sheet example (with a random number - $500B)
1) Monetization step: Treasury gives the Fed higher-value gold certificates; the Fed credits Treasury's account +$500B. The Banking system reserves rise +$500B when that money is paid out.
2) Sterilization step: Fed sells $500B of Treasuries (or uses $500B RRP). Buyers pay with reserves -> reserves −$500B. Net change in the monetary base ≈ 0.
Based on my research, I expect financial repression (sticky inflation of 3-4% - headline CPI equivalent, not real -) in the US over the next 24 months, not hyperinflation nor systemic collapse.
Market signaling of repricing Gold much higher
Such a re-pegging/repricing can re-anchor expectations about currency, commodities, and policy - potentially lifting risk premia and term premiums in bonds.
Of course, precedent exists. The 1934 reprice to $35 transferred gains to the Treasury.
The legal/administrative muscle memory is there, however, the regime and tools today are different.
The new fiat era is headed toward stablecoins/CBDCs with 137 countries and currency unions (98% of global GDP) developing CBDCs right now.
So, I find the revaluation hopium of gold bugs unlikely because:
- Revaluation alone = mostly an accounting lift (stronger "equity"), no automatic debt reduction.
- True debt relief requires monetization, which is politically sensitive and will be inflationary.
- Even aggressive revaluation only chips at the debt stock, so it's not a silver bullet.
#nevent1q…f35t

2025-09-22 12:39:53 UTC

- reply

CBDCs are the collapse for whatever little sovereignty most people have left.
For the system, CBDCs are a new beginning.
Programmable money = Programmable populations, so you will see more NPCs than ever before.

2025-09-22 10:46:41 UTC

People who constantly watch Bitcoin/gold/finance podcasts have become hopium addicted.
You watch Peter Schiff and friends predict financial collapse and hyperinflation year after year and you start believing it.
They tell you: "Hyperinflation in 5 years is inevitable. It's just math."
Just don't ask why their hyperinflation math isn't reflected in financial markets.
They'll tell you "Only I can do math" or "It will be sudden".
Maybe you're right that it will be sudden, you just have to move to Zimbabwe.
In first world countries however, we're about to transition to CBDCs/stablecoins so financial collapse/hyperinflation is an extremely unlikely scenario.

2025-09-21 10:21:13 UTC

- reply

I've been researching mainstream financial media and this might shock you but they lie a lot.
However, they don't just randomly lie, so I want to know what do they lie about and why do they lie about those things.
And I am not claiming that they all knowingly lie. Maybe some of the hotter chicks were hired based on looks and the mental capacity isn't fully there, so they just read words.
What mainstream financial media is for:
1) Set the Overton Window for finance
- Define what's "responsible investing" vs "reckless".
- Normalize benchmarks (S&P, 60/40 - Stocks/Bonds), risk models (Value at Risk), and vocabulary ("transitory", "soft landing").
The outcome is that allocators mainly hug the benchmarks, as dissent results in career risk.
The State mainly wants you to buy paper (bonds) and stocks of state-embedded companies. If you are going to buy Bitcoin, make sure to buy the ETF.
The State-embedded companies are usually the largest companies in the world, so they get a massive passive bid from just being a large part of indices.
2) Consent engineering for policy
- Testing how the plebs react to rate paths, liquidity tools, bailouts, bans.
- Leak to star reporters -> watch market response -> finalize decision (shout-out to your boy Nick Timiraos).
- Outcome: policies feel "inevitable" before they’re announced.
3) Volatility steering
- Calm tape with reassuring chatter when liquidity is fragile.
- Amplify fear during desired de-risking (tightening campaigns, sector rotations).
- Outcome: realized volatility is herded into corridors that suit balance-sheet objectives.
4) Crisis choreography
- Sequence: leak -> panic panel -> "adults in the room" segment -> facility explainer -> victory lap.
- Outcome: short, intense crises that justify new rails while avoiding systemic spirals.
- Crisis + suddenly collegial tone + veteran "adults in the room" -> policy floor coming; scale into quality growth and compliance rails.
5) Flow direction (retail & advisors)
- "What to buy now" = funnel to preferred wrappers (ETFs, model portfolios).
- Push yield tourists into safe supply (bills/coupons) when Treasury needs buyers.
- Outcome: funding the state at scale with media as distribution.
6) Narrative gating (what doesn't exist)
- Under-cover state-embedded software, identity/provenance, surveillance rails - until ownership has rotated into strong hands.
- Over-cover shiny but non-governable "AI toys" (losers).
- Outcome: delay smart adoption; buy time for incumbents and policy-aligned vendors.
7) Humiliation/discipline rituals
- Public beatings of "irresponsible" shorts/longs at turning points.
- Showcase a sacrificial villain to make the crowd internalize the rules.
- Outcome: self-censorship; fewer fights against desired trend.
8) Benchmark maintenance
- Obsess over index membership and mega-caps -> keep flows concentrated and predictable.
- Outcome: liquidity gravity well that's easy to support/withdraw as a macro lever.
9) Plausible deniability & controlled opposition
- Host contrarians who argue the losing side poorly or too early -> inoculate the audience.
- Outcome: "we platform all views", but timing neutralizes them.
10) Data embargo choreography
- Selective pre-briefs to prepare "explainers" that appear seconds after prints.
- Outcome: defined interpretation before independent analysis can spread (narrative control).
11) Sector rotation theater
- Theme weeks: "AI Infrastructure", "Onshoring", "Defense Supercycle", then "Profit Taking".
- Outcome: guide flows into policy-target sectors on schedule.
12) Memory-hole management
- Quietly retire bad predictions; loudly memorialize hits.
- Outcome: durable credibility despite directional steering.
13) Guest-booking as throttle
- They book volatility dampeners (calm, establishment macro) when funding is fragile (preserve stability);
- Then they book flamethrowers when they need risk-off (they use the plebs as exit liquidity).
14) Graphic choices
- Green heat-maps are used for targeted sectors, doom tickers for unwanted trades.
15) "Explainer" packages:
- Pre-canned animations that make complex rails (stablecoins/CBDC, C2PA) sound like pure convenience and safety.
16) Reputational veto
- Tag disfavored assets with "controversial", "unproven", "regulatory risk", even when opposite is true.
17) Image–tone mismatches
- Scary voice-over paired with green boards (or vice versa) to create felt urgency despite data.
So, you should treat TV as policy I/O, not information.
Mainstream financial media is the flow router: it sets acceptable ideas, choreographs crisis arcs, and nudges liquidity into the rails the system needs.
If you are a trader, the edge is not to "opt out", but to read the cadence: buy the policy-aligned names during fear messaging, and front-run the standards they're quietly normalizing.
Another interesting thing mainstream financial media does is:
- they often create a rivalry between 2 companies where there isn't any rivalry. This helps fight monopoly optics.
This is often done when there is close to 0 overlap between companies - e.g. Palantir vs Salesforce.
This is a completely fake rivalry designed to make Salesforce be the release valve for Palantir monopoly optics.
- Procurement optics: agencies want to show "we evaluated multiple platforms". Salesforce's brand makes that easy.
- Monopoly optics for PLTR: pointing to other "AI platforms" (CRM, cloud AI) diffuses monopoly narratives.
- Budget politics: "We're not locked in; look, we have Salesforce for the front office". It lowers scrutiny on the real control stack.
In other words, Salesforce is not a direct competitor to Palantir's mission software, but it makes it a politically convenient counterweight in slides.
Nothing is random in financial markets, not even short selling.
#nevent1q…8fh0

2025-09-21 07:03:37 UTC

- reply

I am generally more aligned with Monero people than Bitcoiners, in terms of my opinions.
However, I really think you're swimming against the current.
If I remember correctly, we already talked about it being a people problem, not a technology problem.
I'll definitely do more research into Monero when I get the time.
My base case is that it will be extremely niche, unless a Great Taking type scenario is triggered, which is not likely to happen in the near future.
I have to do more research on the technology and attack vectors though, in the same way I did with Bitcoin.

2025-09-21 02:57:15 UTC

How the Controllers will contain Bitcoin (attack decentralization and MoE use) without heroic fights - a TLDR version
- Paperization: Deep ETFs/futures/notes to satisfy demand while pulling usage into surveilled custody.
- Tax/reporting drag: Treat any non-KYC movement as "high-friction" - 1099-style reporting, wash-sale parity, travel-rule enforcement.
- Node/Mining pool pressure: Hosting TOS, app-store policies, and insurer clauses that make policy clients the default; off-policy is niche and risky.
- MoE marginalization: Make CBDC/stablecoin rails cheaper, faster, and incentive-rich so payments gravity leaves Bitcoin as a taxable SoV niche.
- Narrative steering: "Clarity" after scares -> price pops -> users settle into paper forms; self-custody shrinks to the ideologically committed and the skilled.
In other words, contain without martyring.
- Push liquidity and convenience toward custodial wrappers (ETFs, futures, payment gateways).
- Nudge perimeters (banks/app stores/clouds/pools) to require KYC/attestation.
- Price the "sovereign" path with friction (tax treatment, reporting, limited on/off-ramps) while avoiding outright bans that create hero narratives.
This doesn't mean Bitcoin won't go up in fiat terms, of course.
What I am saying is that most people are buying gold while thinking they're buying Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is gold for most, permissionless money for few.
I don't see this trend changing as of now, however, there are falsifiers that I am tracking.

2025-09-18 11:04:12 UTC

Politics to Plain English: a decoder 📒
"Safety & efficacy" -> We want visibility and control of systems and bodies; you'll accept constraints because they're framed as protection.
"National security" -> We're invoking the master key that overrides normal process, transparency, and timelines.
"For the children" -> We're moving the Overton window via an unassailable shield; expect ID, gating, and new platform rules.
"Misinformation/disinformation" -> We'll decide which narratives are allowed and throttle the rest through platforms and payments.
"Balance privacy and safety" -> We're carving exceptions so monitoring is on by default.
"End-to-end encryption, but responsible" -> We'll scan you before you encrypt or after you decrypt.
"Modernization / digital transformation" -> New data collection points and the ability to join datasets; audit trails for you, discretion for us.
"Resilience" -> Pre-authorization for emergency powers, fast procurement, and automated throttles.
"Temporary emergency measures" -> Defaults that will not sunset.
"Harmonization / international standards" -> Coordinated rules you can’t escape by jurisdiction hopping.
"Public-private partnership" -> State objectives routed through platforms, clouds, banks, and telcos. Less FOIA, more leverage.
"Trusted partners / stakeholders" -> The preselected winners.
"Evidence-based" -> We will pick the dataset and the definitions; dissenting data will be ruled "low quality".
"Independent experts" -> Funded, appointed, or scoped by us; independence is branding.
"Transparency" -> A dashboard of what helps our narrative; the rest sits behind exemptions.
"Accountability" -> A new reporting loop for you; minimal liability for us.
"Choice" -> Multiple options, one backend. All roads lead to the same ledger. Visa vs MasterCard - your choice.
"Affordability" -> Subsidies to push you onto our rails; competing rails get fee friction.
"Innovation" -> We'll pick winners that ship the policy knobs we need (identity, revocation, provenance).
"Free and fair" (elections/platforms) -> We'll police speech and money flows in ways we define as fairness.
"Common-sense reform" -> We're lowering your defenses by implying only extremists would object.
"Crackdown on bad actors" -> We're turning up the perimeter controls for everyone; bad actors are the frame, not the target.
"Pilot program / sandbox" -> A test we’ll later claim worked, then make the default.
"Voluntary guidelines" -> De facto mandates for any company touching banking, app stores, or clouds.
"Best practices" -> Adherence-or-else, enforced by insurers, auditors, and app-store terms.
"Zero tolerance" -> Permission to be arbitrary; the rule of men dressed as the rule of law.
"Sovereignty / strategic autonomy" -> Subsidies and obligations for domestic vendors; foreign escape valves will close.
"Tax fairness" -> Real-time reporting and withholding at the source; less discretion for you.
"Mature conversation" -> We're about to move a red line while shaming push-back as childish.
"Not about X" (said repeatedly) -> It is about X; repetition is inoculation.
"Learnings" -> No apology, no rollback - just the signal we're keeping the change.
"No plan to…" -> We plan to - after the next news cycle.
"Respecting rights" -> We'll define the right so it coexists with our program.
"Public consultation" -> We've already decided; we're collecting quotes to cite.
"International norms" -> We'll point to our peers doing the same thing next week.
"Criminals use…" (cash, crypto, anonymity) -> Expect restrictions for everyone under an anti-crime banner.
"Sector-neutral rules" -> Our rules target the small and spare the integrated incumbents.
"Metrics of success" -> We'll select numbers that can be gamed and then game them.

2025-09-16 03:52:05 UTC

- reply

Had to go from 95% net worth invested in Bitcoin -> 15% about 2 weeks ago.
A lot of the confidence I had, vanished, once I stopped listening to podcasts with Bitcoin authority figures and started to research on my own.
The reason I made the move is that I am pretty sure Bitcoin is going to become Gold.
Based on my research, the masses embracing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange over stablecoins/CBDCs is a very remote probability.
This doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not going to go up in fiat terms of course. I still think there are massive fiat gains to be made in Bitcoin.
I'll be a buyer on draw-downs of 45-55% from ATH, and seller during "clarity" (e.g. policy, liquidity, etc.) spikes.
For me, Bitcoin went from being Hope to being a hedge against "The Great Taking" type scenario and a niche, permissionless MoE.
If you are unfamiliar with the book "The Great Taking":
- The book describes what Webb calls "The Great Taking" - a systematic, global seizure of all collateralized assets through legal, technological, and financial mechanisms. In other words, you don't own the stuff in your brokerage account.
- This is enabled by the laws in every country in the World (they were changed recently to allow for this global seizure type scenario).
Of course, if this happens, then Bitcoin and Gold get revalued much higher overnight.
Based on my research, the Controllers changed the laws for an edge case, this is not the base case type scenario.
If I have a reason to believe that the odds of Bitcoin as a mass MoE increase over time, I will scale back into it.
For now, Bitcoin is a dissident MoE, a Store of Value, and a "Great Taking" scenario type hedge, and I don't see this changing for the better any time soon.
More context on the post-ETF era:
#nevent1q…8sqa
More context on how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption:
#nevent1q…j2ml
More context on how governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin:
#nevent1q…u4tf
More context on what OG Bitcoiners don't understand:
#nevent1q…s0uk

2025-09-15 03:02:36 UTC

- reply

Why I don't think there can be a prolonged financial crisis.
Previously I wrote about:
- Gross Consent Product (GCP) - Treat a nation's aggregate "consent" as a measurable stock like GDP.
Consent is the cheapest enforcement input; when it's scarce, systems spend more on tech + law (think Palantir, Microsoft).
Here is a GCP (Gross Consent Product) - pre-Covid vs now table (directional, on a 0–100 scale).
| Region | 2019 (pre-Covid) | 2025 (now) |
| --------------------------- | -----------------------: | ----------------: |
| **United States | **60–65** | **40–45** |
| **United Kingdom | **55–60** | **35–40** |
| **EU core** | **55–65** | **35–45** |
| **Japan** | **65–70** | ** ~55** |
Before Covid: higher institutional trust, fewer emergency decrees, lower protest/strike cadence, less policy after-burn in 2019.
The inverse is true today.
* (China/Gulf are different beasts: consent is manufactured; enforcement is baseline, not a response.)
We’re in a low Gross Consent Product (GCP) regime. The realistic "resolution" isn't a return to high consent; it's institutionalizing control surfaces so that consent is less necessary.
If GCP doesn't lift - and there's no sign it will soon, the environment favors platforms that (1) fuse data, (2) encode policy as parameters, and (3) emit auditable decisions - Palantir first among them, with Microsoft as the compliance default.
Low consent + modern toolkits make long recessions politically too costly.
In a low consent environment, Governments prefer:
- Soft landings manufactured via liquidity windows, swap lines, fiscal patches
- A sharp shock used to justify new rails/controls; fast backstops prevent cascade.
Why the odds of a prolonged financial crisis in a low consent environment are low
- Long pain pushes people to off-system solutions (parallel money, shadow rails). They keep the crisis short enough to sell the solution, not long enough to birth alternatives.
- The high-probability path is a short, intense shock engineered to make the "new rails" look inevitable and desirable, then a quick pivot to stability with the ratchet left in place.
What the solution window looks like (Problem -> Reaction -> Solution)
1) Problem (day 0–7): spike in spreads, ETF discounts, funding breaks.
2) Reaction (week 1–3): guarantee tranches (deposits/collateral), facility on-ramps, selective short bans/uptick rules.
3) Solution (weeks 2–8): programmable rails pushed: tokenized deposits/stablecoin corridors, KYC wallet incentives, identity-bound disbursements; standards harmonized.
4) Ratchet (months 2–9): pilots become defaults, reporting hardens, emergency powers linger.
So my Base case (most likely) is: Acute/managed crisis 2–8 weeks.
The financial crisis has to be just long enough for people to start reacting and asking for the solution, but not long enough for people to start looking for the solution on their own.
Likely crisis triggers they'd use (or not waste)
- Collateral shock: Treasury market dysfunction.
- Payments shock: stablecoin depeg -> "need safer digital cash".
- Cyber/settlement incident: "operational resilience" -> centralized rules.
#nevent1q…z30e

2025-09-13 08:54:08 UTC

- reply

I have already written a book, but it's mostly about programming.
Maybe I will write a book about Bitcoin and share it for free.
The book will be called "Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of how the US government is turning Bitcoin into Gold".

2025-09-13 07:27:28 UTC

- reply

Gross Consent Product (GCP) - Treat a nation's aggregate "consent" as a measurable stock like GDP.
Consent is the cheapest enforcement input; when it's scarce, systems spend more on tech + law (think Palantir, Microsoft).
How to measure:
- Build a GCP proxy: combine approval indices, protest intensity, compliance fines, emergency decree count.
When GCP falls, rails (identity/cloud/audit) outperform.
From my previous post: "When enforcement tech gets better and cheaper, the system can afford less consent."
Which can be inverted to "When consent is scarce, systems spend more on tech + law".
#nevent1q…e8t8

2025-09-13 05:24:13 UTC

- reply

The concept that permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption is very misunderstood in Bitcoin.
This concept is called "The Perimeter Capture Rule".
It means that you have to watch the perimeter:
- cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
- app stores,
- payments (exchanges, banks),
- policy.
Control at the perimeter beats control at the center (permissionless, global).
If a technology looks uncontrollable, ask: "Can a perimeter actor rate-limit (policy, app stores), de-list (exchanges, banks), de-prioritize (policy, app stores, exchanges, banks)?" If yes, price the center like a tenant.
Many Bitcoiners often say: "We have the best tech, it's permissionless" and I have to agree, the tech is brilliant.
However, is the tech good enough to compensate for the deficiency in the psychology of the user base?
And when you cut the ideology, the answer here is no.
Technology can't solve human preference for safety + ease (scale is assumed, I'm not talking about niche Bitcoin communities, I'm talking about a parallel to CBDCs/stablecoins global payments network).
#nevent1q…xlha

2025-09-12 05:06:48 UTC

- reply

How governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin:
- allow price exposure in surveilled wrappers,
- throttle sovereign self-custody at scale,
- and pin price discovery to venues they can supervise.
Let's look at the definitive signal list of State, corporate, and market-structure tells that add up to containment (not prohibition, not capitulation).
There will be signs (and there are).
A) Law, Regulation, and Supervision
1) KYC/AML hardening (Travel Rule everywhere). Mandates to identify senders/recipients across VASPs (Virtual Asset Service Provider); private transfers face added friction or are discouraged.
To simplify this if you don't know what the Travel Rule is, here is how it plays out:
Exchange -> exchange (VASP -> VASP):
Example: Kraken -> Coinbase. Coinbase is the receiving company. Kraken must transmit originator/beneficiary details (name, account/wallet identifiers, etc.), typically in the IVMS-101 format.
Exchange -> self-hosted wallet:
There's no receiving company (no VASP on the other side), so no counter-party to send data to. In the EU, the sending VASP must still collect info, and for transfers over €1,000 it must verify ownership of that self-hosted address (e.g., message signing).
Self-hosted wallet -> exchange:
The exchange you deposit to is the receiving company. It must obtain required info before/when crediting the funds and may ask you to prove you control the sending address.
2) "Mixer" criminalization/designation. Sanctions and special-measure rules against mixing/tumbling tools and related infrastructure; chilling effect on privacy tooling.
3) Licensing regimes that raise fixed costs. BitLicense-style authorizations; EU MiCA CASP licensing; UK/FCA registration - each converts compliance into a barrier to entry and increases gatekeeper leverage.
4) Broker-style tax reporting. Expansion of standardized gain/loss reporting (e.g., 1099-type forms), pushing exposure into surveilled intermediaries and making day-to-day spend onerous.
5) No de-minimis relief for payments. Everyday Bitcoin spending remains a taxable disposal (no small-purchase exemption), suppressing medium-of-exchange usage.
6) High prudential capital charges for banks. Unbacked Bitcoin exposures given punitive risk weights under bank rules, discouraging balance-sheet adoption and reserve use.
7) Sanctions reach extended to addresses/tools. OFAC-style designations of specific wallets/services; exchanges obliged to screen and freeze - normalizes address-level policing.
8) Advertising/marketing restrictions. Tightened rules on retail promotion; approvals required; compliant phrasing only - slows "organic" adoption.
9) Court acceptance of chain-surveillance evidence. Judicial normalization of on-chain heuristics (taint analysis) increases enforcement confidence and deters privacy use.
B) Market-Structure & Pricing Control
10) Spot ETFs approved; self-custody not scaled. Mass exposure routed into custodial funds with APs/market-makers under surveillance; retail "ownership" = brokerage claims, not keys.
11) Cash-settled futures hegemony (regulated venues). Institutional hedging and basis trades centered on supervised derivatives (e.g., CME), letting paper supply influence marginal price.
12) Custody concentration. A small set of brand-name custodians and a narrow AP set - choke points where policy can act without touching every holder.
13) Index-committee discretion against Bitcoin proxies. Flagship equity indices can exclude corporates that function as Bitcoin trackers (protect index optics; avoid importing crypto beta).
- S&P declined MSTR entry, even though the company meets the requirements. NASDAQ/QQQ inclusion is rules-based which allowed MSTR in (for now). My best guess is that the rules change and MSTR gets kicked out eventually, but this is just speculation.
14) Prime brokerage / funding dependence. Leverage and borrow routed through supervised lenders; stress events are resolved in ways that prioritize systemic stability over "code is law".
15) Stablecoin preference for transactional rails. Policymakers elevate fiat-pegged coins (with issuer KYC/redeem controls) as the "digital cash" path, crowding out Bitcoin as a payments rail.
C) Platform, Standards, and Default Settings
16) App-store / OS policy throttles. Wallet and node apps constrained by ToS (background processes, payment rails, external links), keeping users inside monitored ecosystems.
17) Exchange surveillance integrations. Mandatory chain-analysis (TRM/Chainalysis/Elliptic) as a license condition; withdrawal heuristics trigger holds or questionnaires.
18) Bank/payment "de-risking". Episodic account closures, rolling KBA (knowledge-based auth) challenges, and heightened SAR (Suspicious Activity Report) filing - keeps fiat on/off-ramps scarce and cautious.
19) Standards -> law copy-paste. FATF guidance and regional templates propagate globally; once a control is codified in one bloc, others replicate the same wording.
20) Compliance by SDK/API. Travel-rule messaging, address-screening, and risk scoring embedded in vendor SDKs - containment becomes the default implementation.
21) Identity-bound wallets. Movement toward government-approved digital ID tying KYC attributes to wallets - programmable compliance at the wallet-permission layer.
D) Tax, Accounting, and Corporate Policy Signals
22) Fair-value accounting = optical profits; policy still resists. New accounting lets Bitcoin marks hit earnings, but committees/boards still avoid Bitcoin balance-sheet strategies (volatility + optics + procurement risk).
23) Treasury/board guidelines against macro-speculation. Corporate policies codify "no non-operating macro bets", pushing Bitcoin exposure -if any - into ETF shares, not keys.
24) Insurance & audit gating. D&O/cyber insurance, auditors, and lenders attach covenants or exclusions when Bitcoin exposure is outside well-worn wrappers.
E) CBDC/Identity Build-Out (the strategic substitute)
25) CBDC pilots tied to digital ID and programmable controls. The preferred digitization path is controllable money with ledger-level policy hooks.
26) Merchant QR/soft-POS rails hardened around KYC'd accounts. New payment rails ship with identity and risk controls by default - Bitcoin remains "other".
27) Crisis playbooks tested. Emergency alerting, "essential commerce" allow-lists, and granular merchant categories - primitives for programmable payments at scale.
F) Soft Power: Narrative & Optics
28) Environmental and consumer-risk frames. Sustained messaging that miners "waste energy" or that self-custody is "unsafe for consumers" - used to justify new controls.
29) "Innovation, responsibly" rhetoric. Politically safe posture: bless ETFs/enterprise chain-analytics while sidelining the monetary-sovereignty use case.
30) Hero projects elsewhere. Official enthusiasm channeled to AI, quantum, chips - areas with easier control knobs - signaling where capital and regulatory patience will go.
G) "Absence" Signals (what you never see)
31) No legal carve-outs for small Bitcoin payments. A lasting omission that tells you payments isn't the intended role.
32) No HQLA-style treatment for Bitcoin. Banks are not allowed to count Bitcoin toward high-quality liquid assets.
33) No sovereign reserve disclosures (outside of stolen Bitcoin). If a major central bank/sovereign wealth fund wanted Bitcoin reserve signaling, you’d see it; you don't.
34) No mass-market self-custody education from public institutions. Education focuses on fraud avoidance and ETF literacy, not key management.
H) Second-Order “Pen” Effects
35) ETF-first adoption curve. Households "own Bitcoin" via retirement accounts/brokerage ETFs - behaviorally entrenches custodial dependence.
36) Price discovery anchored where toggles exist. During stress, derivatives and ETF flows dominate; spot self-custody has less marginal impact.
37) Talent and vendor gravity. Startups build to compliance SDKs and custodial APIs; few build UX-clean self-custody for the masses - market follows the money.
38) Jurisdiction shopping ends at the fiat door. Even if an exchange is permissive, fiat banking sits under Basel/FATF; rails re-impose containment at the edge.
Now, let's look at the Falsifiers (Bitcoin escape conditions) that would make this entire post incorrect:
1) G-7/major SWF (Sovereign Wealth Fund) discloses even 1–2% Bitcoin reserves/collateral (not stolen, but bought). In other words, big governments start purchasing Bitcoin.
2) De-minimis tax relief for Bitcoin payments in multiple big economies.
3) Banks get permissive risk weights or HQLA-like treatment for Bitcoin.
4) Non-custodial wallets become ID-neutral by default in major app stores/payment ecosystems.
#nevent1q…ad5u

2025-09-12 03:27:39 UTC

Had a quick look at Bitcoin twitter the other day and it is shocking how clueless most Bitcoiners (even OGs) are.
They fail to understand simple concepts and incentives, or at least pretend to not understand them.
Here are some of the things most fail to understand:
1. Confusing permissionless tech with permissionless adoption ( permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption).
- The system controls rails, not code; adoption is steered by defaults, custody concentration, and tax/reporting.
- Separate tech truth (permissionless, scarce, global) from adoption truth (defaults, rails, policy).
2. Ignoring revealed preferences.
- States repeatedly choose ring-fencing (ETFs, KYC, custody oligopolies) over Strategic reserve adoption. No G7 state is buying Bitcoin to pump your bags (they may steal it though), so stop begging 😂
3. Assuming "co-opt the State"
- In reality, the State co-opts Bitcoin by financializing price exposure while starving sovereign usage at scale.
- When I listen to Bitcoiners talk about how "Governments are so stupid and don't understand Bitcoin, but they'll understand it eventually", I have to laugh. These people might actually have a mental disability.
4. You can't enforce SoV (the 21 million cap) by not holding your coins, by investing in Bitcoin ETFs (remember GLD?), and by not asking treasury companies for Proof-of-Reserves, etc.
And I am not saying that you won't get incredibly rich by buying Bitcoin.
If you invested in gold in its infancy, you still got incredibly rich even with the State co-opting it.
What I am saying is that most Bitcoiners are buying Gold, while thinking they're buying Bitcoin.
In other words, digital gold for most, money for a few.
Again, the State's dominant strategy is containment, not capitulation (nor killing Bitcoin). Bitcoin will be tolerated as financial exposure (in surveilled wrappers) and as a self-custody tail hedge for individuals - but not as a parallel monetary base.
I have to write more about the Travel Rule / KYC hardening, etc, because the State has clearly shown its cards, but most Bitcoiners listen to words coming from charismatic politicians instead of looking at the actions of the string-pullers.
This has been a tough pill to swallow for me as well 😂, but burying my head in the sand is not an option for me. Mental weakness is not an option.

2025-09-11 14:53:35 UTC

- reply

It's kind of crazy to think that the main reason the Controllers let gold run is because:
- It soaks up SoV (Store of Value) demand without enabling a parallel payments rail.
- It's traded via custodian oligopolies (OTC/COMEX/ETFs), easy to steer with derivatives/custody. Central-bank buying gives it an official halo.
The brilliant effect is: "Hard money" crowd gets relief inside supervised pipes; attention is diverted away from Bitcoin's unique monetary case.
#nevent1q…2l8m

2025-09-11 12:34:02 UTC

- reply

Why I think that MicroStrategy's best days are behind it.
TLDR: before spot-Bitcoin ETFs existed, MicroStrategy (ticker MSTR) was a useful containment valve - a corporate proxy that soaked "number-go-up" demand inside regulated equity rails.
Post-ETF, the State's cleaner lane is ETF exposure (surveilled custody, halts, AP/MM plumbing) rather than a corporate that keeps removing coins from float.
MicroStrategy was very useful for the Controllers in the pre-Bitcoin ETF environment - it normalized holding Paper Bitcoin instead of holding your coins in self-custody.
However, the Controllers now prefer that you buy Bitcoin ETFs instead of MSTR.
Let's look at the Controllers’ incentives around MSTR:
- Pre-ETF (2020–2023/24): Let MSTR run as the de facto Bitcoin proxy; it channels retail/institutional risk into brokerage accounts and away from self-custody.
- Post-ETF (2024–): Prefer ETF rails (centralized custody; derivatives-anchored price discovery).
* A Bitcoin-dominant operating company accumulating more coins creates supply withdrawal you can't easily nudge.
* Keep it out of the S&P 500 to avoid importing crypto beta into the core benchmark; allow Nasdaq-100/QQQ because it’s rules-based and already tech-volatile.
* For context, 5 days ago MicroStrategy was denied S&P 500 entry, even though it meets all the requirements.
* MicroStrategy is included in the QQQ index which is rules-based, whereas S&P 500 inclusion is committee-discretionary (subjective).
- Committees and boards don't want a corporate balance-sheet Bitcoin fund inside widows-&-orphans benchmarks. That's why Robinhood/AppLovin/Emcor got the S&P nod instead of MSTR.
* In other words, the S&P index gatekeepers didn’t want a de-facto Bitcoin proxy (MicroStrategy’s balance sheet) inside a core benchmark.
- Reflexivity brake: In July '25 MSTR said it won't issue common stock below ~2.5× "mNAV" (the ratio that compares the company's market capitalization to the value of their Bitcoin holdings).
* So unless the equity premium widens, they buy less Bitcoin with equity. That dampens the feedback loop that would otherwise tighten Bitcoin float.
* MSTR's MNAV is ~1.4 right now.
In other words, MSTR has now entered the short selling price-manipulation phase (more context in the post below).
With spot ETFs + CME futures, MSTR trades inside a tighter cross-asset box; options/swap "synthetics" and borrow supply cap squeeze dynamics.
MSTR has been roughly flat and its volume has been much lower since joining the Nasdaq-100/QQQ on Dec 23, 2024.
On Dec 23, 2024, MSTR price was at $332, its price today is ~$326.45 (it has had episodic spikes).
Saylor really wants to get a pass from the Controllers with his endless "Bitcoin is a store of value, not a medium of exchange" narratives, but it doesn't seem to me like he's getting one.
Another way he wants to get a pass from the Controllers is by masterfully dodging Proof-of-Reserves questions with lame excuses.
Imagine if MSTR normalized Proof-of-Reserves, then most, if not all Bitcoin treasury companies would have to play along.
What would falsify this theory:
- If S&P 500 later adds MSTR with no methodology tweak -> committee tolerance for Bitcoin-proxy risk rose (containment softening).
- If MSTR's ops mix re-grows (software cash flow matters; Bitcoin marks minority) -> "operating company" optics improve.
- If a G-7 adopts Bitcoin reserves -> the whole "ETF-only containment" thesis weakens.
But for now:
- Containment = steer flows to Bitcoin ETFs, not a reflexive BTC-hoarding corporate inside the core equity benchmark.
- Allow QQQ (rules-based) but keep the S&P gate shut.
- Let MSTR’s own issuance rule cap its Bitcoin absorption unless its premium expands.
The Controllers aren't fond of corporations that keep removing coins from float, they'd like you to buy the ETF and shut the fuck up 😂
Here is more context on the Bitcoin ETF era:
#nevent1q…8sqa
Here is more context on how the Controllers suppress companies they don't like with magic short selling.
#nevent1q…8fh0

2025-09-11 11:45:50 UTC

- reply

When you look into how "Short Selling" actually works, and the laws and selective enforcement around them, you understand that the entire market is completely rigged by design.
However, the most important point is that the "rigging" isn't random.
If you understand how this works, you exploit it, and if you don't understand how it works, you get wrecked. Just ask the Bitcoin miners MARA and Cleanspark (more context below).
How price is suppressed in practice (legal/grey mechanics):
- Locate, not pre-borrow: Broker attests shares are "available"; in practice, this allows aggressive entry before borrow is secured.
* A "locate" is just your broker saying shares should be borrowable, so you can place the short immediately - even though the borrow isn’t locked - which speeds entry but may risk a forced buy-in if the shares can’t be secured later (depending on who you are).
- Market-maker exemptions: Hedging and "bona fide" market-making carve-outs tolerate temporary FTDs (Failure to Deliver); penalties are modest vs. profits.
* Failure to deliver (FTD) refers to a situation where one party in a trading contract doesn't deliver on their obligation.
* E.g. the seller (the party with a short position) does not own all or any of the underlying assets required at settlement, and so cannot make the delivery.
- Rehypothecation & reuse: The same share supports multiple economic shorts through chains of lending; beneficial owners are paid, but float is effectively multiplied.
- Derivatives "synthetics": Puts + short calls (reverse conversions), total-return swaps, and forwards create short exposure without printed short interest; can also manage FTD optics.
* You can get the same payoff as being short - without borrowing shares or showing up in reported short interest - by using "synthetics" like buying puts + selling calls (reverse conversion), total-return swaps, or forwards, which also helps sidestep ugly FTD (failure to deliver) optics.
- Internalization/dark pools: A large fraction of retail buy flow never hits lit books; price discovery blunts, capping momentum.
* When retail buy orders get filled off-exchange (internalizers/dark pools), they don’t lift the public order book, so the visible price doesn’t pop as much - blunting rallies and capping momentum, which helps shorts hold their ground.
- Ex-clearing netting: Bilateral/prime-to-prime arrangements can delay visibility of genuine settlement stress.
* When prime brokers net trades bilaterally outside the central clearinghouse, fails and margin holes can be masked or delayed, so real settlement stress doesn't show up on the public tape until later.
So why did I say that the market is "rigged by design"? Well because the scams around Short-Selling would be very easy to fix with:
- True pre-borrow regime with real-time public borrowing tape; FTDs (failure to deliver) collapse and short interest tracks borrow one-for-one.
- Kill of market-maker FTD exemptions and options-based "stock substitute" carve-outs then reverse-conversion volumes plunge.
- Centralized securities-lending CCP with public transparency on lendable, on-loan, and reuse - and enforcement with teeth.
- Lit-market share dominance (far less internalization) with narrow spreads still intact.
The architecture isn't "broken", it's tuned.
Elastic short supply and selective enforcement are features that let the Controllers stabilize optics, steer capital, and discipline outliers - without overt bans.
Price can rise in spite of that, but you should assume the default is containment, and plan your instruments and timing accordingly.
So the main investment implication is:
Prefer state-embedded companies - they're policy-aligned and rarely targeted by suppression; their demand is programmatic.
If a company threatens policy levers, index optics, or core rent streams, the Controllers (and their market-making/plumbing partners) have incentives to keep its equity "orderly" - i.e., downward-elastic via abundant, cheap short supply and opaque synthetics.
If a company is state-embedded (defense primes, identity/cloud rails, compliance vendors), persistent suppression is unlikely; those names are buffered because they are the rails.
So let's follow the suppression incentives by creating a scorecard where each company is scored 0–5 unless noted. Then sum 0–30.
- Policy friction (0–5): Does the business undermine monetary/identity/sanctions levers or embarrass policy? (Crypto rails, hard privacy, de-SWIFT, "shadow banking").
- Index optics risk (0–5): Would big inclusion (or relentless rallies) distort core benchmarks or "widows & orphans" products? My guess is MicroStrategy isn't getting into the S&P 500 index.
- Rail threat (0–5): Does adoption route around bank/KYC/app-store/payments choke-points?
- Retail mania sensitivity (0–5): Is it meme-prone (squeezes that stress clearing/settlement)?
- Clearinghouse/systemic risk (0–5): Could squeezes or gap moves threaten brokers/central counter-parties (high utilization, tight float, option crowding)?
- Data opacity & MM carve-outs (0–3): Is the name easy to short synthetically, with market-maker locate exemptions protecting "temporary" FTDs (Failures to Deliver)?
- Prime-broker rent (0–2): Is there rich, durable lending revenue (high borrow churn, reuse chains)?
Suppression Incentive Score (SIS) = sum of the 7 factors (0–30).
Here are some examples: (SIS = Suppression Incentive Score)
1) MicroStrategy (MSTR) - Bitcoin proxy.
- SIS: High (Policy 5, Index 5, Rail 3, Mania 3, Clearing 3, Opacity 2, PB rent 2 ≈ 23/30).
- Rationale: Bitcoin leverage on a corporate wrapper; explicit index-optics issue; easy to short synthetically through options/swaps.
🚨 REMINDER to self: Write specific post for MicroStrategy.
2) Chinese ADRs in sensitive tech (e.g., BABA, BIDU, BILI) - geo/NS risk.
- SIS: High (4/4/3/2/3/2/2 ≈ 20).
- Rationale: Policy headwinds both sides; recurring enforcement narratives; benchmark optics matter.
3) Highly speculative meme-beta names (e.g., GME/AMC during mania).
- SIS: High (2/5/1/5/5/2/2 ≈ 22).
- Rationale: Clearinghouse risk + retail mania; the Controllers prefer abundant short elasticity to keep order.
4) Fintechs that stress KYC rails (e.g., BKKT, MARA/CLSK Bitcoin miners when narrative runs).
- SIS: Medium-High (3/3/3/3/3/2/2 ≈ 19).
- Rationale: Policy narratives, energy scrutiny, and easy option synthetics.
If you look into Bitcoin mining stocks, you will see that while MARA/CLSK have been heavily suppressed by relentless shorting, the other mining companies who leaned into AI/HPC (aligned themselves with the government) have been allowed to run.
So basically everybody got the memo, other than MARA's CEO and Cleanspark's CEO.
And MARA's CEO Fred Thiel is the biggest kiss-ass when it comes to politicians, so how he didn't get the memo, I don't know 😂
Now, let's look at some examples of stocks are that unlikely to be suppressed with short-selling: (SIS = Suppression Incentive Score)
1) Defense primes: LMT, NOC, RTX, GD.
- SIS: Low (0/1/0/0/1/1/1 ≈ 4).
- Rationale: Budget-backed, procurement-entrenched; equities are policy instruments themselves.
2) Decision/identity/cloud rails: MSFT, ORCL, AMZN (AWS), GOOGL (Cloud).
- SIS: Low (0–1/1/1/0/1/2/1 ≈ 5–7).
- Rationale: Identity, compliance, and AI distribution; frequent buyers = governments & regulated enterprises.
3) Gov/defense IT & cyber integrators: PLTR, BAH, LDOS, ACN, PANW.
- SIS: Low-Medium (1/1/1/1/1/2/1 ≈ 8).
- Rationale: Valuation can draw shorts, but sustained suppression works against program outcomes.
4) Core rails in finance & payments: JPM, V, MA.
- SIS: Low (0/1/0/0/1/1/1 ≈ 4).
- Rationale: They are the choke-points; policy-aligned.
So, in summary - Quick red flags:
- Index gateway risk (S&P 500 committee optics).
- Bitcoin/crypto as core economic exposure.
- Prior meme history + thin float + high options participation.
- Sensitive geo/policy vectors (China tech, sanctions-adjacent).
- Anything that directly routes around ID/KYC choke-points.
If a company empowers parallel rails or embarrasses policy, the Controllers prefer abundant short elasticity so that the price remains "orderly".
If a company is a rail, it's the opposite - suppression is counterproductive.
This reinforces my State-embedded portfolio thesis from below.
The thesis concluded that owning Palantir and Microsoft is the closest you can get to owning a piece of the State.
Not investment advice. Just taking notes.
#nevent1q…x229

2025-09-11 10:11:29 UTC

- reply

So I agree on the on diagnosis of the problem (not freedom money, instead paper fiat wealth).
But, I disagree that Monero is the solution.
However, it is something that I'll spend more time investigating.
My opinion as of now:
1) Privacy Coins ≠ User Fix
2) Monero, Zcash, etc. fix tech-level privacy/censorship-resistance. But they don’t fix user-level apathy.
3) If 95% of people are fine living in the CBDC Matrix, then the user base for Monero will remain niche (activists, dissidents, darknet).
4) The deficiency is not the tool, it's the psychology of the user base. Technology can't solve human preference for safety + ease.
In other words, if:
1) Bitcoiners suddenly decide to self-custody,
2) use Bitcoin for payments and ignore taxes on de-minimis payments en masse,
3) stop investing in Paper Bitcoin ETFs that are heavily manipulated by Wall Street,
4) stop investing in treasury companies, or at least demand Proof of Reserves,
then I think we are in a good position.
What are the odds of this happening? I'd say very close to 0%.

2025-09-11 08:40:51 UTC

My take on how the 4-year Bitcoin cycle changes in a post-ETF era.
TLDR: The 3 years up, 4th year crash, halving-based cycle is breaking. We are in a post-ETF regime where price discovery is dominated by CME + ETFs, not offshore perps. Cycles persist, but they're longer, flatter on the way up, sharper but shallower on the way down, and more synchronized with macro liquidity and options positioning than with the halving.
What changes in the post-ETF era:
1) Where the price is set
- Pre-ETF: offshore perps + retail leverage -> parabolic blow-off tops, then -80% busts.
- Post-ETF: CME futures + ETF creations/redemptions + dealer gamma do the heavy lifting. That caps "face-melting" tops and engineers weekend flushes (ETFs closed, dealers hedge via futures).
* Authorized participants hedge creations/redemptions with CME futures intraday; dealers use options.
* The Net effect: tops get "pinned" near large open-interest strikes, flushes happen on weekends when ETFs are closed and futures/perps can run stops.
So "tops get pinned" because rallies often stall beneath the biggest call walls because systematic hedging injects sell pressure right at the breakout level.
ETF plumbing shuts down on weekends, so the Monday effect is that when the stock market reopens, ETF flows and AP (Authorized participants) arbitrage come back online, often snapping price back toward fair value after the weekend move.
* As ETF AUM grows, dealer gamma around key strikes/quarters caps blow-off tops (they sell into rips, buy dips).
When Bitcoin sprints into a strike with large positive dealer gamma, the street's systematic selling into strength adds supply right where momentum needs air, pinning price under/around that level. Same in reverse on dips.
* Basis trades (long ETF/spot, short futures) arbitrage dislocations -> fewer parabolas, more mean reversion.
When futures trade richer than spot/ETF, funds buy spot (or create/buy ETF shares) and short the corresponding futures to lock in the basis; at expiry the two converge and they harvest the spread.
ETFs amplify it: Authorized participants can create/redeem ETF shares against spot, so the long ETF/short futures leg is scalable and precise, making dislocation-arbitrage the standard and not an occasional trade.
Net effect: Systematic two-sided hedging compresses basis and injects mean-reverting liquidity, so you get fewer parabolic blow-offs and tighter ranges around fair value.
2) Who holds and how (Post-ETF era)
- More advisors/RIAs/401k money -> systematic DCA, less forced selling, but more correlation to real yields/tech.
Flows are calendar-driven and benchmark-aware, not reflexive ape/fear.
That raises the decision interval (weekly/monthly) and dampens realized volatility (the actual price fluctuations over a specific period).
- Real yields, DXY going down is bullish and the inverse is also true.
- On-exchange leverage migrates to options overlays and basis trades. Liquidations still happen, but they look like controlled air pockets rather than full implosions.
3) Policy containment
- The likely arc (OP_RETURN illegal content scandal -> regulatory clarity -> licensed infrastructure) encourages ETF/custody flows and raises friction on self-custody. That dampens upside reflexivity (fewer "buy + withdraw" feedback loops).
* "Upside reflexivity" = a positive-feedback loop where price up -> behavior that tightens supply further -> price up more.
* In prior cycles, "buy -> self-custody" tightened exchange float and amplified upside reflexivity.
* ETF units don't withdraw, they immobilize coins in custodians. Reflexivity weakens -> smaller upside overshoots.
Because ETF buyers purchase shares (and the underlying coins are parked at a custodian while dealers/arbs sell rips and buy dips), the classic "buy -> withdraw -> thin book -> vertical squeeze" loop is muted - upsides overshoot less and mean-revert more.
Example:
In a self-custody bull market, $1B of demand might chew through an already-thin exchange ask, jump price +3–5%, trigger momentum, and the coins immediately get withdrawn, further thinning the book.
In an ETF bull market, $1B hits ETF shares; APs short futures / buy spot gradually to create units, parking Bitcoin at the custodian (Coinbase Trust - yes very trustworthy, if it's named "Trust"). Dealers’ long-gamma hedging sells into the rip. The net result: smaller upside overshoot and faster reversion toward fair value.
4) Halving ≠ clock (in the Post-ETF era)
- Halving remains a narrative catalyst but not the scheduler.
- Macro liquidity (real rates, USD (DXY), credit spreads) and ETF flows matter more.
What the new cycle probably looks like (Managed cyclicality):
- 18-30 months of "orderly up", punctuated by policy/liquidity scares (-30% to -55%), followed by "clarity" squeezes.
- Peaks are capped by options walls/ETF plumbing, crashes are bought by systematic flows.
- Realized volatility declines, weekend wicks persist, Monday gaps normalize.
- Draw-downs: Typical big draw-down -35% to -55% (not -80%).
- Returns concentrate mostly in buying despair and fading "clarity".
- If custody share stagnates while ETFs climb, expect contained tops.
Implications of this scenario:
- Add only on despair (-25 to -40% swift drops), not during "clarity" spikes.
- Expect lower CAGR from Bitcoin than prior cycles.
- Do not blindly extrapolate 2013/2017/2021 analogs because the market micro-structure is different now.
So yes, cycles continue - but they're not the old halving-clock cycles.
Expect a longer, ETF-managed uptrend, capped blow-offs, and engineered flushes keyed to macro and dealer positioning.
Let's look at Pre-ETF vs Post-ETF leverage.
You probably remember that in previous cycles, when retail plebs overextended with leverage, we got insane price action to the upside, which was then followed by cascade liquidations to the downside.
1) Pre-ETF (offshore perps):
- 20-100x retail leverage, reflexive funding squeezes, cascading liquidations drive face-melting blow-off tops and then -70 to -85% busts.
2) Post-ETF (institutional structure):
- Leverage migrates to basis (cash-and-carry), dealer options books, marginable-ETF units, and delta-one baskets (derivatives that provide exposure to an asset with a one-to-one price movement).
- It's bigger notional, lower directional beta-less explosive upside, faster but shallower draw-downs (-30 to -55%) as hedges kick in.
* Bigger notional because the market now runs on ETF AUM + options/futures carry rather than mostly spot on retail exchanges. That's deeper balance-sheet capital (APs, dealers, basis funds) constantly trading billions in notional via creations/redemptions, hedges, and arbs.
* "Lower directional beta - less explosive upside" because a larger share of flows is hedged or volatility-sold (covered calls, collars, long-ETF/short-futures basis). Dealers frequently sit long gamma near popular strikes; they sell rips and buy dips, and APs stage creations over time.
* "Faster but shallower draw-downs (-30 to -55%) as hedges kick in":
1) Shock hits (macro/headline/weekend): thin liquidity + leverage = quick air-pocket.
2) Hedges fire: basis desks buy back short futures as basis collapses; dealers' long-gamma hedging adds bids on the way down; collars monetize; rebalancers and AP/NAV arbs step in when discounts open.
3) These counter-flows cushion the fall before it snowballs into old-cycle −70% to −85% bear markets. Result: drops start quicker but bottom earlier because mechanical buyers show up by design.
In older "buy -> withdraw" regimes, upside reflexivity was huge and downside liquidity thin; in the ETF regime, two-sided hedging and AP arbitrage replace that with mean-reverting flows - they won't stop a crash from starting, but they truncate it.
With ETFs, most capital is hedged and arbitraged, so rallies are capped and selloffs snap faster but bottom sooner - think bigger money, smaller parabolas, quicker yet shallower (-30% to -55%) draw-downs as hedges and arbs do their job.
Implication: Upside skew is sold, downside tails are managed (until policy shocks).
So, is this a controlled volatility decline? Yes it is.
- Immobilized float (custody) + option gamma walls + CME hedging = capped rallies and orderly ranges.
- Policy "clarity" funnels users to ETFs/treasury companies, raising the market share of the limited volatility range machine.
- You still get shocks (headlines, weekend stop-hunts), but the structure pulls price back into the pen.
What I foresee:
- MoE (Medium of Exchange) stagnation: Payment rails lose mind-share, stable-coins absorb transactions, Bitcoin cements as a supervised SoV (Store of Value) wrapper.
- On-chain signals degrade: Lower UTXO velocity; exchange reserves matter less; ETF flow + CME Open interest matter more.
- Culture shift: Self-custody cohort shrinks relative to paper holders; regulatory nudges make sovereign usage legally/operationally expensive.
- "Buy puke / sell clarity" is going to become systematic.
- Don't lever as the structure weaponizes leverage against late longs.
In summary:
As ETFs accumulate coins, realized volatility declines by design: slower hands, hedged creations/redemptions, and dealer gamma cap the highs and cushion the lows.
The market shifts from halving-clock reflexivity to macro + plumbing.
The old casino is dead, welcome to the Wallstreet-fuckery era of gold v2.0.

2025-08-27 06:52:33 UTC

- reply

Great question: "If money is your time and energy in abstracted form, what does it mean if another man can print the money you use?".
With added context, it means that you've been born into a system in which the vast majority of people have consented to being slaves unknowingly.
Slavery has been so normalized that the vast majority of people are willing to defend their masters by participating in humiliation rituals - paying taxes even though money is printed out of thin air, selecting masters (even though voting has never worked), proudly sacrificing themselves to further their masters' agenda (military).
The most common way to at least partially unslave is to aligning yourself with the State - working for the State, or starting a business that serves the State, or working for a very large company that serves the State to gather resources to exit the system (Bitcoin, land, homesteading, gardening).
When most people understand how the system works, they usually want to fight it or change it, but fighting the system or trying to change the system from within is most often a waste of time and energy.
How would you defeat a system that has the power to create infinite money to incentivize as many slaves as necessary to protect it? You wouldn't.
It is usually much easier to exploit the system and exit the system.
#nevent1q…u6c9

2025-08-25 11:19:18 UTC

- reply

Yes, looks like it is mirrored