buckyfonds
Control-Plane Capital

How Central Banks deliberately cause crises and inflation
Central Banks under-inject liquidity by however much they want, whenever they want, to rug-pull whoever they want and bail out whoever they want.
#naddr1qv…yx08

2026-02-05 10:19:17 UTC

- reply

I'm pretty sure I have seen him on interviews with Witney Webb, but I don't know about his bitcoin/stablecoin theory.
In my view stablecoins are CBDC normalization.
I also think it is likely to remain a store of value because its transparent design and 21M marketing is very useful to the Controllers.
I don't think it will "fail" either (if by fail you mean it goes to 0). I think it will likely fail in freedom terms (mass, non-custodial MoE).
I think tokenized gold will be huge, especially as settlement between central banks, but I have to do more research. If you own tokenized gold, you likely get bailed-in in the not so distant future.
I'll have to check out Mark Goodwin, but from what I remember he used to work for Bitcoin Magazine (David Bailey) back then so I didn't take him very seriously.

2026-02-05 04:20:57 UTC

- reply

When I first found out about paper Bitcoin (
- 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/why-bitcoins-21m-cap-is-not-guaranteed
), I got a bit black-pilled on Bitcoin because of the Coordination Tax I've described in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ).
When you raise the problem of paper Bitcoin, captured, retarded influencers hit you with: "I hate to break it to you, but Bitcoin is for everyone."
"Bitcoin is for everyone" is true at the protocol boundary and false in the lived system.
Because the path of least resistance is: paperization + perimeter control. That means other people's choices (custody ETFs, policy clients, protocol-bloat, KYC defaults) directly degrade your outcomes — just like bad drivers raise your accident risk and premiums even if you drive perfectly.
In the lived system most people's incentives are convenience, rebates, and legality.
So power will keep steering the majority into programmable, supervised money, and that majority's behavior redefines the economic surface you live on — even if your keys are perfect.
"Bitcoin is for everyone" is an oversimplification only a retarded/captured (or both) influencer would use.
#nevent1q…em8m

2026-02-05 04:09:08 UTC

If I ever wonder what the government's opinion on something is I go to Elon Musk's twitter page and use the search function.
As I wrote in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would ) in which I gave Quantum Computing as an example:
"If you want to know what the government wants to sell you, look no further than Elon Musk.
From fake climate change, to fake space, to DARPA chips in your brain, to social scoring via Twitter, to turning your car off, he’s got them covered."
Of course, you disregard the republicrat vs demopublican theater, the Fort Knox gold audit, how Palantir/xAI/OpenAI used doge to take everyone's data and bailed on "government efficiency", etc.
Elon Musk is very similar to the young saleswomen that Purdue Pharma used to get doctors to kill their patients with OxyContin.
He might just be the best salesman of all time.
He can go to a party in a "New World Order" costume, lie about being elite at games, build social scoring via Twitter, be seemingly very low IQ, and the plebs will still love him.
The actual best actors in the world are not the ones you see in Hollywood productions. They are Musk, Trump, Alex Jones, etc.

2026-02-05 03:12:49 UTC

- reply

One more post from Bob Kendall on the topic of paper Bitcoin ( https://x.com/PortfolioXpert/status/2019237396563595317 )
Copy-pasting the entire post from his twitter:
Kevin
you’re conflating custody with price discovery.
Yes, spot ETFs hold real BTC in custody. That’s not the question.
The question is whether those coins are removed from the price-setting float.
They are not.
Why:
• ETFs custody BTC via prime brokers
• Authorized Participants hedge ETF exposure with futures, options, and swaps
• Market makers short derivatives against ETF inventory
• The same BTC supports multiple paper claims
Result:
One coin → multiple price claims
That is textbook rehypothecation — even if the underlying asset is “physically held.”
This is identical to gold ETFs:
They hold real bars and yet paper gold trades 50–100× physical supply because price is set in derivatives, not vaults.
Bitcoin now works the same way:
– Futures
– Perpetuals
– Options
– ETFs
– Swaps
All referencing the same underlying BTC.
So scarcity still exists on-chain …
but it no longer exists where price is discovered.
That’s the entire point!
#nevent1q…em8m

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.

2026-02-04 05:02:35 UTC

The way gold is trading, it seems the financial system is failing.
Might be smart to hold assets in self-custody, not in brokerage accounts.

2026-02-03 13:21:14 UTC

Interesting.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190404074246/https://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/another1.html

2026-02-03 05:26:36 UTC

The Great Taking will be used to usher in CBDCs + Digital ID
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/the-great-taking-will-be-used-to

2026-02-03 03:00:45 UTC

- reply

I keep hearing about this fragmentation and deglobalization and I go to open the Atlantic Council CBDC tracker and I see that everybody and their mother is building/has launched a CBDC. ( https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/cbdctracker/ )
"137 countries & currency unions, representing 98% of global GDP, are exploring a CBDC. In May 2020 that number was only 35. Currently, 72 countries are in the advanced phase of exploration — development, pilot, or launch."
Of course, there are many, many more examples of these "adversarial" countries working together behind the scenes and pretending to hate each other in front of cameras.
Henry Kissinger, a man in the running for the most evil human to have ever lived, has some very interesting quotes that should be revisited.
Here's one.
https://blossom.primal.net/23da08db0cc9ee9b07d5ec79e0caff81c5357f2287e6813a1369a55767fd4d2e.jpg
There is no US vs China AI race, the race is who can implement AI governance quicker, and better.
It's a competition for who can fully enslave their people before fiat fails.
It's a competition for your soul.
And here is another Henry Kissinger quote which the Amish probably read and knew they were on the right track. (Unfortunately Bill Gates probably read it as well)
https://blossom.primal.net/3d68fd62f6926967cbc761091fd1bf452e3614425fca4959a019481ecb852361.jpg
#nevent1q…50j8

2026-02-02 05:25:41 UTC

- reply

I agree. That's why I'm buying a house, more land, and more of the things I've noted in this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-are-the-best-great-taking-expropriation )
I have to write more on this but based on what I've researched, I don't see how they don't rug most people with a Great Taking type event in the next few years (e.g. 5-7).
Maybe I'm a doomer, but a Great Taking type event is already legal in every country in the world. Legalizing it took a lot of resources over many decades.
So they can definitely rug, the question is when. Maybe I'd outperform if I just kept all my money in a brokerage account, but it's akin to picking up pennies in front of a steamroller.

2026-02-02 05:15:25 UTC

Governments love Gold-backed stablecoins (tokenized Gold)
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/governments-love-gold-backed-stablecoins

2026-02-02 04:44:21 UTC

One thing that was interesting about this last Bitcoin cycle was that degens were almost never allowed to significantly lever up.
Once levered longs started forming, they almost instantly got drop-kicked by 5 market makers.
In previous bull runs, degens levering up caused the blow off tops.
This is to be expected in the post-ETF era, but I didn't expect it to be as aggressive.
Pre-ETF: 20–100× perps → vertical melt-ups → liquidation cascades.
Post-ETF: basis carry (long ETF/spot, short futures) + dealer options + marginable ETF → bigger notional, lower directional beta.
- Upside: capped by call walls / long-gamma dealers.
- Downside: cushioned by basis unwind, dealer buying, AP/NAV arb.
Probably also has to do with how CZ, Brian Armstrong and the other big boys are in bed with the government.
Some of the big players might have been given the green light to stop-loss hunt more aggressively.

2026-02-02 03:54:06 UTC

Since we can't make fun of gold anymore:
https://blossom.primal.net/2d276466ce7fbbb62bbd3efd16e23b02935dc1d4e7b768ad3769a813485cd899.webp

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 18:00:51 UTC

- reply

Tether is basically the government, so they do what they're told.
If they were told to stack gold, it indicates that the Controllers want to direct capital away from Bitcoin and toward gold right now.
Central banks + Tether + various sovereigns = strong revealed preference.
The other buyer in size of BTC (MSTR) also got disciplined very heavily (from margin increases to unrealized capital gains tax fud to index removal fud, to S&P 500 rejection, etc.) at a time when MSTR had an mNAV of about 2 (meaning they could issue shares to stack lots of Bitcoin in an accretive way).
So they basically implicitly told institutions: "stay away from Bitcoin, buy gold".
Bitcoin's current value proposition is a store of value with regulatory overhang and a Great Taking hedge.
Unless Bitcoin is private by default (no special mode), I don't see a scenario in which Bitcoin's value proposition becomes mass, non-custodial Medium-of-Exchange.
Which basically means that we have to hope that the Controllers allow for Bitcoin to go up in fiat terms and remains a store-of-value, so that they don't alienate the masses into Monero, physical alternatives, etc.
So far it hasn't worked in the post-ETF era and I have a feeling that we have a wave of Quantum FUD on the horizon, but what can you do.
If you get this cucked, you kinda have to wait for your turn or take a stand and there are too many simultaneous attacks for the community to coordinate a coherent response (coordination tax).
When governments capture "error assets" such as Bitcoin, they use the "Honeymoon → Normalization → Harvest" playbook because the plebs always fall for it.
New financial tech follows the same arc: big sweeteners at launch, normalization once everyone is on board, and then the quiet fee/tax/regulation harvest.
In other words, you pay people with higher fiat prieces whilst you paperize and capture so that they associate regulation with "winning".
The incentives flip as soon as enough users are corralled.
Bitcoin's honeymoon phase was very short (mostly pre-ETF) which indicates to me that they already know they have us by the balls, so they didn't have to pull out the big sweeteners.
The deeper into the Paperization game Bitcoin gets, the more they'll fuck with us.
Most Bitcoiners still don't understand that the 21M cap doesn't mean much if most people don't self custody.
The protocol can cap issuance at 21,000,000 BTC.
Markets can create claims on far more than 21,000,000 BTC.
Bitcoin's 21M cap is a protocol invariant, not a shield against synthetic supply created by ETFs, funds, wrappers, futures, structured notes, and rehypothecation.

2026-02-01 17:13:44 UTC

- reply

Thank you sir, appreciate the kind words! 🫡

2026-02-01 16:15:14 UTC

- reply

It is all good mate, you can believe whatever you want to believe.
Maybe look into how secret societies work or how everything at the top level of government agencies is on a need-to-know basis and there are grave consequences for stepping out of line.
You seem to be assuming that you know what kind of technology/resources the Controllers have.
You seem to believe in official narrative history which is kind of strange. If you can't get reliable information on events that are occurring right now, why would you assume to have gotten reliable information on events that may or may not have occurred hundreds/thousands of years ago.
Some of the things I've pointed out in the previous note are difficult to coordinate (e.g. Covid).
A virus has never been isolated ( https://rumble.com/v6rh2e3-there-was-no-covid-virus-how-weve-all-been-duped-by-the-medical-establishme.html ) so there is no evidence that viruses exist, but every country is poisoning their population with heavy metals. Kind of strange.
There's always going to be some level of plausible deniability. You won't get Elon Musk and Bill Gates to come out and tell you that they are puppets and we live under a one world government.
One other example: kind of weird that George Bush and John Kerry were both members of the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale and ran against each other in the 2004 United States presidential election.
This is just 1 cherry-picked example of many. The coincidence stack is amazing (if you have an open mind and eyes to see).
But to each their own.

2026-02-01 15:07:32 UTC

The Bitcoin or Gold psyop is silly and the debaters on both sides are usually clueless.
Why wouldn't you own both Bitcoin and Gold? They are both assets outside the system and have different advantages/disadvantages.
To mention some of gold's advantages (because everyone here already knows about Bitcoin's advantages):
(1) Physical gold has no public ledger.
- No historical chain of custody anchored in a global database.
- Evidence of holdings is fragmentary: vault records, invoices, eyewitnesses, maybe customs records.
- Outside that, the state has suspicion, not a cryptographic audit trail.
- The "omniscient ledger" simply doesn’t exist.
(2) Harder to geofence at scale from a screen.
- Once it is in your physical possession, there is no equivalent "app store ban" or "node-liability" lever that instantly makes it unusable for most people.
(3) Gold has no "core devs", no client politics, no mempool policy.
- "Protocol" = physics, metallurgy, and a scale.
- There is no equivalent of a small GitHub group with agenda-setting power.
- There is no "v30" for gold. No client upgrade that suddenly increases storage risk by 1200x.
- Coordination burden is basically zero at the "how it works" layer.
(4) No need to defend a node/mempool ecosystem.
- No nodes.
- No mempool.
- No UTXO set to bloat.
- You don't need an army of volunteer maintainers to keep "gold full nodes" defensible.
- Less coordination tax, fewer sociotechnical attack surfaces.
(5) Gold expropriation requires physical enforcement, not just data + policy.
There is no universal gold UTXO set or "travel rule".
Expropriation requires either:
- Knowing where the gold is (vault, safe deposit box, storage facility).
- Or house-by-house enforcement with massive manpower/legitimacy cost.
In practice, enforcement tends to focus on:
- Formal channels (vaults, dealers, banks).
- Border crossings.
- Declarations above thresholds.
@nprofile…4l07 also opened my eyes to some very significant issues regarding Bitcoin hardware wallets.
TL;DR - I'd imagine the government has access to the vast majority of seed phrases.
From what I've researched, getting this risk to zero is extremely hard (if not impossible). It can be minimized with multi-sig, heterogeneous devices instead of trusting any single black box.
Just one of the many issues are "secure" elements in which many wallets store the seed phrase.
A secure element (SE) is:
- Closed-source silicon + firmware
- Designed and signed off by a tiny number of entities
- Certified by processes you don't control (Common Criteria, labs, NDAs)
- Distributed at scale into "secure" devices (wallets, phones, SIMs, payment cards)
Secure elements are perfect for creating choke points where keys & identity cluster:
- Centralized design
- Long lifetimes
- Hard to inspect physically
- Wrapped in "security" narrative
So if you assume a serious state-level adversary wants that lever and can get it sometimes, the right prior is:
- "Treat any closed-source Secure Element as potentially backdoored if you're defending against a nation-state"
That's not the same as "we know for a fact every Secure Element is backdoored". We don't. Lacking verifiable proof is exactly what makes this such an asymmetric control point.
Dice-based seeds fix RNG trust, not key exfiltration. If a device ever sees the full seed, a malicious Secure Element/firmware can leak it later.
The only real structural defense is collusion forcing:
- Heterogeneous multi-sig (different vendors + DIY),
- Multi-source entropy (XOR’d seeds),
- Passphrases kept off the compromised device,
- Independent stacks for different key shares.
There is no neat solution that makes you "immune to NSA". The best you can do is:
- Make mass, silent theft via one corporate/vended rail impossible,
- Force any serious adversary into messy, noisy, manual operations if they want you specifically.
A state-level actor can plausibly:
- backdoor RNG/nonces,
- exfil keys via signatures,
- coerce vendor into "minor tweaks",
- intercept shipping,
- or just use host+legal leverage.
(6) Gold doesn't need electricity, internet, DNS, app stores, or routers.
- You can transact in a blackout.
- You can pay a smuggler without any digital evidence.
- You don't care about packet filtering or "crypto port" throttling.
There are many more examples of where Gold has an advantage over Bitcoin.
And of course, Bitcoin has many advantages over gold (teleportability, shock convexity in a specific Great Taking scenario, programmability for complex, conditional arrangements, granularity in price discovery, verifiability, etc.).
That's the point, gold vs bitcoin is a stupid debate.
BTC sovereignty is mathematically elegant but socially expensive and perimeter-fragile.
Gold sovereignty is technologically dumb but perimeter-resilient and legally fuzzier.
Both are useful, but for different failure modes of the system.
The same exercise can be repeated for Bitcoin and Monero. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

2026-02-01 13:26:35 UTC

- reply

Most of the individual points - yes. The one world government conspiracy I haven't encountered very much. I'm sure it's out there, but probably very niche.
Your cherry-picks below are not very strong and are probably due to lower consent levels in Russia. But to each their own.

2026-02-01 13:09:46 UTC

- reply

Yes, his book is a free PDF on his website.
The main point is not "they rug everything tomorrow", the main point is: "they've put this into law in every country in the world".
Why would they do that? 😂
It can either be as a fallback for when they lose control over the financial system, or as a deliberate rug mechanism used to install the next financial system.
Either way, if you're mostly in the system, they have you by the balls and I don't like that feeling very much.
And why are the BIS and FSB (basically the central banks of central banks - the ones who coordinate the puppets) constantly publishing documents for how to best rug everyone in an event of a financial crisis 😂
In July 2025, the BIS published FSI Insights on policy implementation No 67 - Public support for bank resolution.
It is a pdf on the internet everyone can read it.
The document explains how to best rug everyone to save the failing system because "financial stability is a key public good and using public resources as a last resort to enhance funding capacities appears only natural".
If you're a rational person and see the central bank of central banks publishing documents intended to coordinate ALL central banks on how to rob everyone, you probably hedge a little 😂
They call robbing everyone "public support for bank resolution".
https://blossom.primal.net/9ba88eb25d3ea2ea0785fedfbaeaca9357ba985ae2f5973893235d253b35ac79.png
https://blossom.primal.net/0bdd6a3ef612525764f68d7a49b2ed51ef1bab84610baf268020fb5f8f624f10.png

2026-02-01 12:27:27 UTC

I recently had to increase my odds of a Great Taking (mass expropriation) event happening in the near future.
One of the reasons is that consent has been massively deteriorating (which is mostly a good thing) and I think they'll use a Great Taking type event to usher in the CBDC + Digital ID era.
More and more people understand how the game is played and you can see Central Banks becoming more and more cornered and hiring more "credible" actors.
It's like when one of these scammers on the street (with the cups) gets exposed, they can't run the same scam in front of the same people anymore.
If the Controllers rob everyone in an artificial financial system collapse, a massive cyber attack, or w/e mass crisis they pick, people won't have much of a choice but to accept their CBDC + Digital ID.
This guy is the founder of Interactive Brokers and basically explains how most people lose everything in a Great Taking.
I remember watching this clip a few years ago and I went to check the comments and I didn't find anyone who even reacted to what he said. Blows my fucking mind 😂. This is the owner of Interactive Brokers (almost a trillion USD under management).
https://blossom.primal.net/d5f7015ee26e3f9b8910144f55055709e475ebe815953a5d93a2fd5f3268f734.mp4
And of course, you also have the 2016 predictions for 2030 of the World Economic Forum with their 1st prediction of "In 2030, you'll own nothing and you'll be happy".
You also have UN's agenda 2030 which is basically the same thing.
https://blossom.primal.net/c4019ceb3aa798ecdb0b6b71a364af7c929fafe3f089854ab70ceb505e7193dd.mp4
To give you 1 more data point: Using Federal Reserve distribution data summarized by multiple outlets:
- The top 1% by wealth hold roughly 40–45% of all U.S. corporate equities and mutual fund shares.
- The top 10% hold something like 80–90%+ of all equities; one analysis of Fed data has top 10% at ~90%+ of stock and mutual-fund wealth, bottom 50% at ~1%.
You don't have to rug very many people to actually execute the "Great Reset".
It can easily be sold as: "protecting the many from the excesses of the few".
Of course, the few will quietly be robbed via inflation, forced conversions, and taxes.
You probably have noticed the push toward socialism especially with this Mandani actor (redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor to reduce "inequality").
By 2030, they want to equalize us.
For more context on the Great Taking, watch David Rogers Webb's documentary: https://odysee.com/@EarthNewspaper:e/The-Great-Taking-by-David-Rodgers-Webb:3

2026-02-01 11:55:15 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…zpyc

2026-02-01 11:46:41 UTC

- reply

Yes, came to the same conclusion.

2026-02-01 09:00:15 UTC

Politics is completely fake and the easiest way to figure out that someone is mentally disabled is when they say they are a republican or a democrat.
The republicrats and the demopublicans are equally bad and equally fake.
The people you see on TV are actors. They are not the ones making the important decisions.
They are the ones who sell you decisions that have already been made.
And because this is a midterm year in the US, you often hear: "Trump has to juice markets to win the midterm elections."
And because politics is fake, this of course is completely incorrect.
In fact, Trump wants to lose House seats.
In midterm years, historically, the president's party usually loses House seats and often loses control of at least one chamber.
And this is useful to the system (the bosses of these actors) for multiple reasons, but I'll give you the main one.
It is a blame machine & excuse generator.
If the president's party keeps a big majority:
- They "own" everything.
- They have no one to blame when they don't deliver what the base wants (and what they've promised).
- The gap between promises vs outcomes becomes too obvious. Even the biggest dummies eventually figure out that the game is rigged.
When they lose seats and often lose one chamber:
They can say:
- "We wanted to do X, but the other side blocked us."
- "We're constrained by a divided Congress."
The opposition gets partial ownership of austerity, rate hikes, and "discipline".
So the regime gets:
- A durable excuse for why deep structural things never change.
- A way to redirect anger horizontally (left vs right) instead of vertically (people vs system).
Midterm losses create narrative cover.
It's all fake.
https://blossom.primal.net/8035c1c18dc1e98154c2a294cd0640d4cbee9762c7c59eb1d20165b780626687.png

2026-02-01 08:16:51 UTC

How Central Banks deliberately cause crises and inflation
In this article, I've exposed the entire game of Central Banking.
How they under-inject liquidity by however much they want, whenever they want, to rug-pull whoever they want and bail out whoever they want.
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-central-banks-deliberately-cause

2026-02-01 06:01:27 UTC

- reply

I do as well. David Icke recently released a book named "The Road Map". I'll have to read it.

2026-02-01 06:00:23 UTC

One thing that has been disappointing is watching how Bitcoiners react to endorsements from demons such as Larry Fink, Kevin Warsh, Howard Lutnick, Donald Trump, Scott Bessent, etc.
When Kevin Warsh says "Bitcoin does not make me nervous", and that Bitcoin is not a replacement for the dollar, he really means: "Bitcoin is completely captured" and he is correct.
Would Kevin Warsh and Scott Bessent say stuff like that if Bitcoin had stealth receive addresses (no address reuse) and sender-receiver coinjoin by default, and if small Bitcoin communities started popping up everywhere and abandoned the dollar?
Privacy as a default (no special mode) lowers legal/UX risk for small commerce and defeats trivial chain surveillance that scares merchants. Privacy must be boring and automatic.
We see clips of Bitcoiners begging Trump for tax exemption on small payments and the only way we're going to get a tax exemption is by strengthening privacy.
Even if they allow for de-minimis tax, it will only be through their captured, full KYC custodians like Square.
You probably won't see these demons endorse Monero.
And to understand what I mean, you have to look at the Amish who mostly live outside the system.
They sell/trade raw milk, honey, meat, fruits, vegetables without pesticides and antibiotics and federal agencies constantly fuck with them "for your safety" (especially the ones who manage to scale).
The solutions won't come from the system, the only viable solution is for people to coordinate and stop playing a game they can never win.
Are we going to be the retards who HODL themselves into the upcoming AI governance, digital ID, CBDC era from which there is no return for the masses? It certainly looks that way.
https://blossom.primal.net/6afc892fa7467eef813a56c4bc15fd92bf94088abe6f62172584ffb680ca8368.mp4

2026-02-01 05:17:53 UTC

Listened to this David Icke interview yesterday ( https://www.bitchute.com/video/mUCo7vtWyFmR ) and what he said hit hard:
"When you open to consciousness beyond the program - what you tend to do is what you think is right.
You don't go through this mental gymnastics of "what will people think of me, or say about me, or do about me if I say this", you say and do what you feel is right and you don't make a list of all the consequences of what you believe to be right, you just do it.
If you start a list of all the consequences in this world of many things that people do that are necessary to do, you'll reach a point in the list where you'll say: "OK, I'd like to do it, I'd like to do what I know to be right but not that badly.", but if you really mean it then you just do it and whatever consequences come come, because in the end I'm out of here and I'll still be all that is, and that has been, and ever can be.
I can handle that."

2026-02-01 02:43:34 UTC

- reply

I think that's a given unless you are able to spend the tainted UTXOs directly for goods/services (then it could get arbitraged).
If you wanted to push everyone into paper Bitcoin ETFs (which they do), you'd make this extremely annoying for people (frozen coins, more taxes, etc.).
Everyone who lives in the EU and has had their Bitcoin frozen due to the "travel rule" or any other bullshit reason knows what I'm talking about.
Sadly, in the current regime 1 BTC is not equal to 1 BTC in some cases. You have "compliant BTC" and "non-compliant BTC". This will only get worse.

2026-01-31 05:23:42 UTC

The system doesn't need you to love it; it needs you to need it.

2026-01-30 16:55:20 UTC

- reply

Yes, all we can do is demand conclusive evidence.
In reality, the community's response probably looks closer to:
1. DARPA's QBI:
- 10-20% chance of utility scale QC by 2030, X% by 2033, etc.
2. Bitcoin's price dumps, community panics: "We need a quantum-resistance upgrade now".
3. Roadmap for quantum-resistance upgrade accepted, price rallies, everyone happy.
4. After the upgrade: Network 5 times less performant and everyone KYC'd by being pushed through centralized migration path. Most people scared of being hacked, so they just ETF instead of self-custody.
DARPA and NIST (the government) have already written the script:
- https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/quantum-benchmarking-initiative
- https://www.quantum.gov/nist-releases-post-quantum-encryption-standards/
QBI (DARPA) - stage B, expected response around 2027:
The goal is to "determine":
- "Is utility-scale Quantum Computing by ~2033 plausible with any architecture on the table?"
Probable result:
- timeline distributions ("10–20% chance by 2030, X% by 2033, etc"),
- what scale (# of logical qubits, error rates) threatens which cryptosystems,
- what constraints look binding (cooling, error correction, supply chains).
NIST PQC standards (released in 2024):
Public, bureaucratic migration rail:
- "Here are the blessed algorithms; build around them".
Probable result:
- a new global default for key exchange + signatures,
- compliance hooks (gov contracts, Federal Information Processing Standards, audits, regulatory guidance),
- a pretext to re-issue, re-sign, re-identity everything.
They can say in 2027:
- to the public: "We've done the studies; quantum is a serious long-term concern, but we have standards, and if everyone migrates on schedule, we'll be fine."

2026-01-30 10:55:00 UTC

Quantum computing, like most things coming out of the government, seems like a complete scam.
- https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/17/quantum_cryptanalysis_criticism/
- https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf
However, Covid also was a complete scam (viruses have never been isolated and don't exist - https://rumble.com/v6rh2e3-there-was-no-covid-virus-how-weve-all-been-duped-by-the-medical-establishme.html ) and it was still used throughout the entire world to further the agenda of the Controllers.
As I've shown in these 2 articles, this is also going to be the case for "Quantum Computing":
- https://controlplanecapital.com/p/is-quantum-computing-a-threat-to
- https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would
"Adversarial" countries like US, China, Russia, the EU, UK, Canada are all investing massive amounts of money into quantum computing.
And you'll see that most of their "scientists" who work on quantum computing previously worked on nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons don't exist as there is 0 evidence that an atom has ever been split ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oGXzXz6yQ ) - so they went from one scam to another.
We literally live under a one world government.
I'm not trying to fud. Obviously I don't know when they'll decide to pull out the quantum scam, but it's a matter of when, not if.
As I cover in this article, a quantum-resistance "upgrade" would be terrible for Bitcoin (and Monero).
- https://controlplanecapital.com/p/a-quantum-resistance-upgrade-would
I have a bad feeling that because it is a more technical topic, we might get a covid-type reaction from the community once the government-funded scientists come out with a paper how quantum computing is going to hack everything in X years.
I hope I'm wrong.
When I see videos like this 1 from Bitcoin core devs, I kind of lose faith. Obviously, Core is completely captured, but most people will still upgrade to whatever bullshit upgrade Core pushes on auto-pilot.
https://blossom.primal.net/c1229e32627be842f98a1cea78e048e6baa84a1936c11c176e4e1dac74935527.mp4
"I believe that privacy is a right and encryption is not a crime. That said, I’m reticent to recommend either Zcash or Monero because they both use elliptic curve cryptography which is vulnerable to quantum computing"
There is 0 evidence that Quantum can be engineered to scale cheaply and reliably enough to be broadly useful and this guy is just waiting to get told by NIST (the government) what post-quantum algorithm to migrate to and literally murder the network as MoE.

2026-01-24 08:04:47 UTC

What are the best "Great Taking" (expropriation) hedges
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-are-the-best-great-taking-expropriation

2026-01-23 02:09:19 UTC

- reply

It's the best digital cash we have for the current regime for sure, still not an "inflation hedge" as I've defined above though.
It is the best digital cash at least until it gets cucked by its developers, the Controllers decide to omega spam L1 until running nodes becomes annoying, they make it radioactive so 99.99% of people avoid it like the plague, or a bunch of other reasons.
My point is - the boys in Zomia don't give a fuck about Monero I'd imagine. Even if you use Monero, you're still playing the Controllers' game.
They'd much rather you use Monero than fuck off somewhere and barter, use silver/gold, use labor, grow your own food and be self-sufficient.
You can see that all the countries in the world have the same problems, and they have the smartest people in the world and the most advanced LLMs helping them solve these problems.
There's a reason we have access to the tech that we do and it's not "innovation".
There's also a reason we don't have access to some of the tech that they do.
Yes, Monero is the best digital cash for the current regime, but it will only be allowed to be a solution for the few. If it starts becoming a solution for many, expect a rug, and then most will probably have to revert to the Zomia/Amish lifestyle.

2026-01-23 01:49:14 UTC

- reply

Yes, sad times for the gigachads in the Netherlands, but as you said, it's probably coming all over Europe, so tax revolt is probably the only option other than slavery.

2026-01-22 16:47:35 UTC

- reply

I prefer gold, but having some silver wouldn't hurt.
I mostly prefer gold because of the central bank bid and it being more convenient for me to buy where I live (silver has VAT, gold doesn't).
I can't be sure why silver has run as much as it has so I wouldn't ape at these prices, but probably worth to get some once they pull liquidity and things go back to normal.
I like gold because I am not convinced that the official narrative about gold's inflation rate is true.
My hypothesis is that Gold's true supply inflation (new metal entering freely tradable float) is materially lower than the "official" 1.5–2.5% headline you see from industry yearbooks.
The gap is classification games + off-market absorption + paper overlays that make supply look fatter and price look tamer than the underlying physical reality.
Once gold starts running, you see all types of news about Elon Musk mining gold on asteroids, people finding trillions of tonnes in caves, shipwrecks and all sorts of other bullshit 😂

2026-01-22 14:57:55 UTC

It is crazy to think that an inflation hedge doesn't exist and cannot exist as the system is designed.
By hedging inflation, I don't mean hedging CPI in the official narrative sense, but hedging something closer to:
True Cost-of-Living inflation (TCLI):
- Housing (owner-equivalent or rent),
- Food/energy,
- Health/education,
- Tax drag & bracket creep,
- Plus "mandatory" subscription/rail rents (connectivity, ID, cloud, payments).
A universal clean hedge would be a widely available, legally favored asset that:
- earns TCLI-tracked return + spread,
- can't be haircut or taxed ad hoc,
- is safe from FX/capital controls,
- is open to the median saver.
If that existed:
- They couldn't use financial repression to shrink real debt.
- Every crisis would require overt default, explicit austerity, or explicit wealth taxes.
- Political and legitimacy cost would explode.
Therefore, any candidate that approaches this holy grail will:
- be taxed,
- regulated,
- capped in size,
- or confined to insiders.
That's why:
- Real estate gets property tax, zoning, and mortgage dependence.
- Gold gets paperization, FX/capital controls and demonization in crises.
- Bitcoin gets paperization, KYC moats, surveillance, and MoE friction.
Outrunning real inflation is supposed to require speculation, timing and path risk. The system's design enforces it.
In other words, inflation hedge is "to what extent does this asset":
- participate in inflated nominal flows,
- resist being harvested by repression,
- survive the policy responses,
- and stay convertible into real resources?
So a clean, zero-risk, everyone-can-use-it hedge is structurally impossible. As soon as something approaches that, it gets co-opted, taxed, capped, paperized, or regulated into compliance.

2026-01-22 14:27:49 UTC

- reply

I guess the goal is to make it outside the brave new world (land, self-sufficiency, homegrown food, access to water, energy, hard assets, community, etc).

2026-01-22 14:25:10 UTC

- reply

https://blossom.primal.net/3311d300ac21bc273d93c2bef2d1773dbc4cef75cf87dcc4d86868e3f4acd44b.jpg

2026-01-22 14:15:38 UTC

- reply

QC is not something I've researched much, so I don't know how much is science vs scientism.
If reality ontologically blocks scalable QC, then the "full-spectrum quantum" is a narrative weapon more than a physical one.
BTC's real risk reverts to:
- Capture of rails (app stores, nodes, KYC).
- Paperization & containment corridors,
- Legal/regulatory assaults on self-custody,
- not superposition-based math magic.
If time is discrete and ontology weird:
- QC still works as long as there is a stable effective Hilbert space.
- But unknown deeper limits could prevent Shor-scale factoring.
- No one can prove ahead of time which world we're in.
A Bitcoin block is proof that given current hardware, energy prices, and incentives, this ledger history is the locally cheapest one to coordinate around and the most expensive one to challenge.

2026-01-22 12:52:34 UTC

- reply

I think so, but I don't know for sure. Probably worth to start making an exit plan (have at least a couple of outside-the-system hedges for when they rug).
2030 seems like a nice, round year, and who knows what fuckery they have in store for 2033 (they like the 33s).

2026-01-22 12:48:54 UTC

- reply

Thank you, much appreciated. I haven't looked into any specific countries much other than the US.
I have a bunch of more general topics to cover in the next few days, but I'll have to check it out. Enjoy the Euro 😃

2026-01-22 12:41:13 UTC

- reply

It is very interesting to look at how the Controllers have adjusted since they had to issue executive order 6102.
Executive Order 6102, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on April 5, 1933, prohibited the "hoarding" of gold coins, bullion, and certificates in the U.S. to combat the Great Depression (the great rug-pull of liquidity), requiring citizens to exchange their gold for paper currency at a fixed price.
They were forced to exchange their gold for paper at ~$20.67 per ounce and after they did, the government revalued gold to ~$35 per ounce, effectively scamming the obedient plebs.
This order was repealed in 1974, restoring private ownership of gold.
From the Controllers' revealed behavior since 1933, the 6102 update looks roughly like:
- Lesson: Overt confiscation is legitimacy-expensive and operationally messy.
- Adjustment: Move expropriation into rules, inflation, collateral, taxation, and custody rails, so you almost never need a frontal "hand it over" order again.
And for Bitcoin specifically: any future 6102-style move is more likely to be:
- a "soft 6102" on custodial/paper BTC plus
- a regulatory minefield around self-custody,
not "knock on every door and take the hardware wallet".
It is important to note that we can't be 100% sure that they don't have full-spectrum quantum / cryptanalytic capability.
- Bitcoin's ownership is secured by ECDSA over secp256k1 (elliptic curve signatures).
- Bitcoin's plumbing & history are secured by SHA-256 (block hashes, PoW, Merkle trees, script hashes, addresses, etc.).
If they have full-spectrum quantum / cryptanalytic capability:
You have effective breaks on both SHA-256 and ECDSA (ECDLP solvable).
Then you can:
- Derive private keys from public keys (or from reused addresses).
- Forge signatures.
- Sweep coins at will.
- That's a different level: it's not just Bitcoin that dies; almost all contemporary public-key crypto dies.
Even with SHA-256 + ECDSA god-mode, full cryptographic seizure is extremely unlikely.
If they reveal an ability to mint/spend arbitrary BTC:
Every other ECC-based system is suspect:
- SWIFT, banking APIs, military comms, corporate SSO, cloud auth, etc.
That:
- Raises the cost of control, not lowers it.
- Forces mass migrations and scrutiny.
Revealing a universal cryptographic backdoor is:
- High cost of control.
- Massive legitimacy depletion.
So if such capability exists, it's for:
- Catastrophic scenarios,
- Or very targeted, plausibly deniable use.
The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure, but still, it pays to make it as annoying for them as possible.
#nevent1q…jpal

2026-01-22 10:36:25 UTC

Once you start to research the financial system, it really humbles you.
You have to start questioning everything you think you know.
The official narrative story often diverges from reality.
For example, the real cycle is Debt/Liquidity, not Debt/GDP.
Almost every "crisis" is: not enough liquidity, at the right points in the plumbing, to roll the existing debt at a politically tolerable price.
- "Too much liquidity vs debt" → bubbles.
- "Too much debt vs liquidity" → refinancing crisis.
In other words, they inflate the currency at will and rug-pull at will.
Richard Werner did a good job of illustrating this with his book and documentary "Princes of the Yen" ( https://odysee.com/@Reachthedivine:d/Princes-of-the-Yen---The-Hidden-Power-of-Central-Banks_fixed-2014:e ), where he documents how the banking cartel allowed Japanese, South Koreans, etc, to lever up with credit (caused inflation), then intentionally pulled liquidity and rug-pulled everyone into a depression.
Think of the global system as a giant refinancing conveyor belt:
- The belt carries maturing obligations (bonds, loans, repos, margin).
- The operators can spray liquidity foam (reserves, facilities, swap lines, fiscal deficits, regulatory relief) to keep things rolling.
- If they over-spray, everything slides too easily → bubbles.
- If they under-spray, some pile of debt sticks, catches fire, and they have to choose who burns.
Debt/Liquidity = how well that belt runs at any given time.
Debt/GDP is the fake, official narrative story (it is stock vs flow), whereas Debt/Liquidity is about timing and plumbing.
Every financial crisis is basically a roll failure (not enough liquidity to roll the existing debt at tolerable prices).
They can under-inject liquidity by however much they want, whenever they want, to rug-pull whoever they want and bail out whoever they want.
Each Debt/Liquidity cycle is another Hegelian loop:
- Problem: refi wall + under-injection of liquidity → crisis.
- Reaction: fear, political pressure.
- Solution: more centralized rails (CBDCs, ID, Palantir-style governance OS, tighter collateral rules).
We're basically playing a game we can't win and have been for a very long time.
If you think in Debt/Liquidity terms, "macro" stops being a blur and becomes a timing overlay on top of a very stable structural direction: more debt, more crises, more patches, more rails.
Michael Howell does a good job of illustrating the Debt/Liquidity relationship with this chart.
- "Too much liquidity vs debt" → bubbles.
- "Too much debt vs liquidity" → refinancing crisis.
https://blossom.primal.net/fa34c7f072e6571c7cd9cb18b08e5459caf019e2cb0d790e849249b429f050c4.webp

2026-01-22 10:03:35 UTC

- reply

So in the 1960's they began the process of dematerializing securities to hold them all electronically because "too much paper" (for your safety).
Many people were suspicious back then and for good reasons.
The beginning process to dematerialize securities was literally run by the CIA.
The man who was charged to lead the DTC (now DTCC) which controls every aspect of stock and bond sales was a career CIA operative.
https://blossom.primal.net/e1342063cbcaea4848b55ecb18eecc39685291a9ed13414d194ba880cb7fe96b.png
The construct of the securities entitlement (that you have a claim-on-a-claim, not direct property) was put into Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and pushed through all 50 states in 1994.
It took them ~10 years to get it done in all 50 states.
Then they changed the bankruptcy law in 2005 and tested it in the 2008 crisis.
Then they began a process of harmonization to force the law globally and today there are no exceptions.
It is crazy how much work it took them over decades and decades to ensure that people everywhere in the world don't directly own their assets and if the system fails, everyone gets rugged.
Who should we vote for next in order to resolve this? 😂
https://odysee.com/@EarthNewspaper:e/The-Great-Taking-by-David-Rodgers-Webb:3
#nevent1q…gh2k

2026-01-22 08:28:56 UTC

At this point, everyone knows about CBDCs (programmable money) which are basically already here via stablecoins.
https://blossom.primal.net/e110fdf7ce6cc4fe3ced52134651156a37d678f7814d83c945ccad0a10749597.png
However, not many people talk about tokenization.
This video on the Great Taking by David Rogers Webb is a must watch:
- https://odysee.com/@EarthNewspaper:e/The-Great-Taking-by-David-Rodgers-Webb:3
Tokenization is very similar to CBDCs and stablecoins.
You can treat tokenization as: turning everything important into machine-readable, permissioned, and programmable state.
It's not about "democratizing finance". From the Controllers' perspective tokenization is:
- "Put all economically and politically relevant claims into a standardized, queryable, enforceable substrate that my AI and rules engines can see and control in real time."
That means:
- Every claim (cash, bond, equity, fund share, real estate interest, invoice, carbon credit, benefit entitlement, even identity attribute)
Has:
- a unique ID
- a traceable history
- an attached policy envelope (who can hold it, where, when, under what rules)
- and lives on a ledger that some small set of institutions can gate, pause, or rewrite under color of law.
Once that's true, everything else (UX, DeFi theater, "24/7 markets") is just skin.
If you wanted the option of a Great Taking (even as a tail):
- You'd want everything that matters dematerialized, held by intermediaries, and expressed as tokens on systems controlled by a small institutional set.
You'd want clear legal language that:
- distinguishes between beneficial and legal ownership, and
- puts token-holders behind secured creditors and CCPs (central counterparties).
You'd want resolution / bail-in logic encoded in contracts and, over time, in token standards.
Tokenization = the technical implementation layer that makes a Great Taking operationally feasible in days, not years.
Even if they never push the red button, the option value is enormous from a Controller perspective.
You can think of tokenization as:
- State capacity up, latency down. They can see more, faster, and push changes directly through code.
- Expropriation gets smoother. Instead of chaotic bank runs and court fights, you get parameter changes on tokens.
- Going off-grid gets harder. You don't just opt out of banks; you opt out of the graph where ownership lives.
- Plausible deniability increases. They can say "the smart contract did it" or "it's in the prospectus" instead of "we ordered a seizure".
Tokenization is basically the bridge that makes a "Great Taking" technically trivial if they ever need it. Whether they press that button is a separate probability question — but the incentives to build the option are very clear.
If you look into Ethereum, it is evolving into the programmable sandbox for dollar/compliance rails:
- Governance testbed for next-gen money/IDs
- Volatility sink for speculative energy
- Prototype control rail for tokenization / programmable finance
- Moral placebo ("bankless", "decentralized") for the ideologically restless
Ethereum is like the R&D lab + casino + early beta for future regulated rails.
They use Ethereum as a test environment and build their own prod networks separately - e.g. Canton which recently partnered with DTCC, JP Morgan, etc.

2026-01-22 06:50:11 UTC

You'll own nothing and you'll be happy (predictive programming)
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/youll-own-nothing-and-youll-be-happy

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.

2026-01-21 08:36:48 UTC

- reply

Is Quantum Computing a threat to Bitcoin (my take)
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/is-quantum-computing-a-threat-to

2026-01-21 08:36:05 UTC

Is Quantum Computing a threat to Bitcoin (my take)
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/is-quantum-computing-a-threat-to

2026-01-21 08:33:44 UTC

- reply

So Peter Schiff was mostly right then. Right for the wrong reasons, but still right 😂
I still think Bitcoin outperforms Gold and most if not all of the other assets you've mentioned (in fiat terms, not freedom terms) long-term (due to it being so useful to the Controllers), but it has gotten too complicated.
Bitcoin is not a pure liquidity play anymore.
Bitcoin is a play on liquidity with regulatory overhang.
Whenever they want to cuck you, they'll cuck you and there's nothing you can do about it.
This adds a lot of complexity.
Core v30 opening endless attack vectors, the Controllers clearly setting up a Quantum theater phase, all of this paperization, regulation, and centralization, makes Bitcoin a lot more complex.
I also don't see Bitcoin's freedom properties improving any time soon - it would tank the fiat price and you'd have people asking for freedom go down for fiat go up.

2026-01-21 05:30:41 UTC

- reply

Since Bitcoin went mainstream, it has had a black cloud over it, especially in the post-ETF era.
Usually when an error-asset such as Bitcoin gets co-opted, you have a period of outperformance (post-regulation pump) - people are rewarded to do the Controllable thing and associate regulation with fiat price increase so that they ask for more regulation.
I wrote about the "Honeymoon → Normalization → Harvest" playbook a month ago and it seems we are firmly in the Harvest phase.
From the Bitcoin Core v30 fiasco, to the paperization, privacy-preserving software attacks, to the Quantum FUD, it doesn't end.
This year is likely going to be another down year in fiat terms, but what gives me pause for the next bull market is the Quantum FUD.
I am not going to speculate on whether Quantum is impossible, Quantum is going to be here in 5-10 years or the Controllers already have access to Quantum/similar technology.
Even if Quantum is not possible, guess what - a virus has never been isolated - Covid literally didn't exist, and you saw what happened there.
They can absolutely fud Bitcoin to the max if they decide to.
I'd be absolutely shocked if they don't pull out the Quantum card in the next few years.
(1) As of Nov. 6, 2025, DARPA has selected 11 companies to enter the second stage (Stage B) of the agency's Quantum Benchmarking Initiative (QBI), which aims to rigorously verify and validate whether any quantum computing approach can achieve utility-scale operation — meaning its computational value exceeds its cost — by the year 2033. Source: https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/quantum-benchmarking-initiative
As far as I'm aware, they'll release their conclusion on whether this is doable by 2033 at the end of 2027.
Notice how they always spam 33 because of their masonic bullshit 😂
(2) In August 2024, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) published its first post-quantum cryptography (PQC) standards:
- ML-KEM (key encapsulation, based on CRYSTALS-Kyber),
- ML-DSA (signatures, based on CRYSTALS-Dilithium),
- SLH-DSA (hash-based signatures, based on SPHINCS+).
Source: https://www.quantum.gov/nist-releases-post-quantum-encryption-standards/
(3) Open the national Security Strategy of the USA published in November 2025 ( https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf ) and CTRL + F for quantum
> We want to ensure that U.S. technology and U.S. standards — particularly in AI, biotech, and quantum computing — drive the world forward.
> The United States must at the same time invest in research to preserve and advance our advantage in cutting-edge military and dual-use technology, with emphasis on the domains where U.S. advantages are strongest. These include undersea, space, and nuclear, as well as others that will decide the future of military power, such as AI, quantum computing, and autonomous systems, plus the energy necessary to
fuel these domains.
Of course, their National Security Strategy is 33 pages long 😂
(4) Institutional investors read these official narrative papers and take them into consideration when investing.
> One of the most widely followed Wall Street strategists Chris Wood (Jefferies, former CLSA), author of GREED & FEAR, removed BTC from his long-term asset allocation model portfolio last week, due to quantum computing risks.
> The paper that spooked him is in replies. (https://x.com/matthew_sigel/status/2013266516112712139)
https://blossom.primal.net/79ebb7251106414b162f3d96e20f4acb46c6a2994062811937e9e1a832f25739.png
Luke Gromen also talked about "Quantum computing concerns".
In the short-term on Quantum FUD, Bitcoin is going to take a serious hit in fiat terms.
We were expecting a rotation from Gold to Bitcoin, but are we going to get a rotation from Bitcoin to Gold? 😂
My base case is "Containment via Quantum-Upgrade Narrative" -
- QBI conclusion says "yes, utility-scale by 2033 is plausible; you must migrate"
- Controllers lean into "Quantum Threat" as:
- wedge to accelerate AI governance spending,
- justification to herd BTC into regulated custody,
- PR shield for post-ETF containment ("it's not us, it's quantum risk").
Custodians/ETFs run marketing:
- "We offer quantum-safe storage; your coins are managed through PQ-hardened key ceremonies".
Regulators:
- require regulated custodians to maintain PQ migration plans,
- treat self-custody as "buyer beware".
In the short-term (2027–2028), from whatever level we're at (call it 1.0), a 30–60% drawdown purely on "quantum panic + macro/liquidity context" is very plausible.
In the medium-term (2028–2030), as soon as a credible technical migration path is visible and big institutions signal "we're staying, just upgrading", the existential discount shrinks.
- BTC re-rates from "maybe doomed" back to "risky but fixable".
- You get the classic pattern: puke on fear → grinding recovery → overshoot on "Bitcoin 2.0 is now quantum-safe" hopium.
Long term (2030–2033): deeper capture, not death
Economic majority of BTC volume flows through:
- ETFs,
- banks,
- large custodians,
- tokenized wrappers,
- all of which manage the PQ upgrade off-chain or via tightly controlled on-chain transactions.
Raw self-custody survives, but:
- more legal risk (especially if running your own PQ-upgrade scripts is framed as "technical / risky / maybe non-compliant"),
- more friction (fewer venues/service providers for direct UTXO control),
- more social pressure: "only cowboys hold unwrapped BTC".
Even if the Controllers have access to Quantum/similar technology, it'd be massively counterproductive for them to nuke BTC.
Concretely:
1) BTC is already semi-captured.
- Spot ETFs,
- futures dominance,
- KYC on-ramps,
- chain surveillance,
- regulatory moat around compliant custodians.
2) BTC is a useful:
- volatility sink,
- laboratory for financial engineering,
- avatar for "freedom" that can be carefully corralled,
- bargaining chip in geopolitics.
3) Killing BTC via quantum:
- disrupts an asset many normies and elites now hold,
- exposes secret QC capabilities,
- destroys a functioning lab for vol management and product design.
The rational move for the Controllers is:
- milk quantum threat for budgets and rails,
- use it to push BTC deeper into containment rails,
- oversee (and gate) a "quantum-safe" BTC upgrade,
- keep the asset alive but more tightly coupled to policy plumbing.
Not:
- show off Shor by nuking a globally relevant, heavily surveilled store of wealth that they already partially control.
Because quantum FUD is such a perfect obfuscation layer for post-ETF containment, any BTC underperformance can be blamed on "quantum risk", not:
- paperization,
- corridor management,
- macro liquidity.
In my view, even if we assume Quantum is possible/they already have a similar technology, Quantum is not the end of BTC; it's the next big excuse to reshape who is allowed to hold it, how, and under which rails.
"Quantum threat" justifies:
- huge cyber / PQC / cloud modernization budgets,
- new standards and certifications (PQC-ready, quantum-safe HSMs),
- more identity / provenance rails ("we must re-key the entire planet cleanly").
The AI governance build-out loves Quantum.
"Quantum threat" is perfect:
- plausible,
- techy enough that voters can’t check the math,
- slow-burn enough that it justifies recurring funding.
The "optimum" Quantum FUD level for the Controllers is:
High enough to:
- force migration to PQC on their timetable,
- centralize more trust in certified rails (clouds, HSM vendors, ID rails),
- justify new oversight over keys and identities.
Low enough to:
- avoid visible systemic panic,
- avoid triggering mass exits from digital rails into physical cash / gold in a chaotic way,
- keep a gap between what they privately know about timelines and what the public thinks.
The Quantum FUD gives the Controllers three additional tools in the containment corridor project:
1) "Safety" gating for self-custody:
They can say:
- "Old addresses and self-managed wallets are quantum-vulnerable".
Policy response:
- deadlines where old UTXOs must be moved to "quantum-safe" wallets,
- those wallets being KYC'd, tied to regulated custodians, with PQC migration controlled centrally.
2) Narrative for favoring paperization:
- "ETF/ETN custody is quantum-ready; your coins in random cold storage are not".
- This skews flows further toward paper BTC, reinforcing containment.
3) Justification for freezing / clawing certain coins:
In the name of "protecting" users:
they can freeze or heavily scrutinize coins that:
- stay at vulnerable addresses,
- belong to sanctioned clusters,
- or are suspected of being tied to adversarial actors.
Quantum risk becomes the moral cover ("we had to step in to stop massive thefts").
(without even proving that Quantum is possible)
Net: Quantum FUD is not used to "kill BTC"; it's used to:
- accelerate KYC and custody centralization,
- justify new rounds of "for your safety" rules,
- and make the corridor narrower and more supervised.
But don't worry, JP Morgan stablecoin and CBDCs will be quantum-ready 😂
CBDCs:
Eventually get sold as:
- "the only truly quantum-resilient, state-guaranteed digital money".
PQC is part of their sales pitch:
- "We've built post-quantum security from the ground up; you don't need to worry".
Quantum is just another argument (and a great one at that) to push people off raw, permissionless rails and onto regulated, programmable rails.
If Quantum computing progress disappoints (because it is impossible or for any other reason):
- Nobody will loudly admit "we overreacted"; the PQC migration and centralization are sticky.
Quantum FUD will be retrofitted into:
- We prudently prepared; even if quantum is slower than we thought, those defenses improve cybersecurity anyway".
Quantum is just another "problem → reaction → solution" loop
(1) Problem:
- theoretical quantum decryption threat.
(2) Reaction (we are here 👈️):
- fear, funding, think-tank papers, QBI reports.
(3) Solution:
- centralized, PQC-certified rails,
- expanded ID and audit infrastructure,
- marginalization of DIY cryptography and permissionless rails.
Quantum FUD is the narrative wrapper for a control + procurement supercycle that was coming anyway.
It's basically a justification for:
- heavy AI/HPC capex ("we must simulate, benchmark, and defend"),
- stricter ID/provenance rails ("we must know who is who as we re-key everything"),
- more invasive endpoint controls ("legacy clients & wallets are a national security risk").
I don't know why Gold has gone up as much as it has in fiat-terms (I have some assumptions), and how much of it has to do with this Quantum script we are about to experience.
1 year ago, if you had told me that Gold is at all time highs while Bitcoin is stuck in the mud, I'd have called laughed at you probably (I was expecting a post-regulation pump).
About a year ago, I slept like a baby with 98% of my net worth in Bitcoin.
There's no way I could do that with what I know now.
A very painful tail case for the next bull market (2027-2029) would be for the Controllers to use Quantum fud as the excuse for massive spending (the Big Print) and for Bitcoin to sit most of it out because it's being omega fudded by papers and Quantum experts 😂
By pure luck, I sold most of my stack last year because of the Core v30 fiasco which prompted me to do some more research.
We've practically been getting cucked since Oct. 10 - watching everything run (in fiat terms) except for Bitcoin.
If this were to happen for most of 2028-2029, Bitcoin would become an absolute shit show.
Most of the hardcore Bitcoiners will have fled to Monero, Gold, real estate, land, etc., (assuming they haven't already) due to Bitcoin getting so captured in the post-ETF era.
Once the holderbase is more governable (wall street and cucked influencers), they can pump the fiat price to the moon.
I don't think Bitcoin sitting out most of the next bull market is very probable, but predicting the future is hard.
For all the 33 enjoyers, we have 33 cases of 33.
https://blossom.primal.net/d34b48781b3a5e335c910e6a965453171e639f2b4bd76b430f1fbcddceb0f68b.mp4
#nevent1q…grw4

2025-12-15 11:13:29 UTC

My 2026 markets & Bitcoin outlook + current positioning
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/my-2026-markets-and-bitcoin-outlook

2025-12-08 10:56:01 UTC

Opened a ~big MicroStrategy position today for a short/medium-term trade — completely unlevered.
https://blossom.primal.net/b4a9d4e4b72c422dcb5a38fe9b27079825255db5506bcb398c3a67f48cbfe96f.png
Short-term will be volatile with December being a prime tax-loss harvesting month and MSTR being one of the biggest losers this year, but I like the risk/reward here. There are also a couple of MSTR-specific factors that will add volatility.
If it gets fudded some more and dumps without a break in fundamentals, I might buy more.
I'm basically betting that:
The system still wants a public BTC casino node, and this one is already built, so they won't nuke it — and the market has overshot to the downside.
Could Peter Schiff have predicted the bottom? Only time will tell.
https://blossom.primal.net/94d4a816b77f592cf1280824bfc7e408ae0fe8dd62880d13ec0d52f4b5e31207.png
https://blossom.primal.net/5dc0581fbea9bd36beb0c98e169a87329561dd461fc14856aa03078a8ef82fac.png

2025-12-05 05:57:46 UTC

Now is a good time to reflect — how did we get here? How did we get to the point where the Bitcoin community cannot widely agree on what Bitcoin is — is it money, is it arbitrary data storage, a combination, something else.
If the Bitcoin community cannot agree on what Bitcoin is, then any change to the protocol is not an attack. You are just optimizing for the "arbitrary data storage" community instead of the Bitcoin as money community.
As I wrote, in my last article: "I am not particularly bullish on any community, but 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."
How did incentives align for the arbitrary data storage crowd to be so successful?
What is the incentive map? Who are the real winners of "Bitcoin as random data substrate"?
You might've been shocked by just how many people in the Bitcoin space are in favor of turning Bitcoin into arbitrary data storage, but if you map out the incentives, it all makes sense.
To understand the Bitcoin ecosystem, you first have to understand the Coordination tax ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ).
The Coordination Tax — Three Stacked Systems
- S₀ Protocol: consensus rules, Proof-of-Work, 21M.
- 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, relay/mempool policy, bank heuristic, pool template) can shift millions. Defenders must hold all fronts, all the time.
1) Who really wins from "Bitcoin as arbitrary data storage"
1.1. Direct economic / career winners
(a) Miners (short-term fee maximizers)
They get:
- Higher average feerates when inscriptions/ordinals spam appear
- A "fee market maturing" narrative to backfill halvings
They do not price in:
- Long-term node attrition
- Legal attack surface (CSAM, malware blobs, etc.)
- MoE utility loss (not their P&L line item)
So miners are structurally biased toward:
- "If it pays the fee, it's good."
Even if that trades long-run decentralization and legal safety for short-run revenue.
(b) Exchanges, custodians, and structured-product shops
Ordinals, tokens-on-BTC, inscriptions = new casino SKUs:
- More trading pairs
- Higher churn, higher spreads, higher fee income
They also love:
- Arbitrary data narrative → ETF / custodian "clean, non-tainted BTC" premium ("let us deal with the messy chain, you just buy exposure")
They win when:
- Running a full node gets more complex / risky
- Self-custody looks scary / legally exposed
- People are nudged to use custodial wallets and ETFs instead
(c) VC-funded protocol / infra companies
Ordinals/NFT infra, L2s, indexing services, inscription explorers, marketplace APIs, "data on Bitcoin" startups:
- Need sustained demand for non-monetary blockspace
- Need the narrative that Bitcoin is not just money, but a base for rich "use cases"
Many Core-adjacent devs:
- Work for, or receive grants from, these entities
- Build tools that assume arbitrary-data use is legitimate and permanent
So dev + VC + product is one economic cluster, not separate.
(d) Core / Core-adjacent devs (funded & entangled)
They sit at the S₀/S₁ hinge:
Funding:
- Salaries from companies with economic exposure to fee markets, ordinals/L2s, infra monetization
- Grants from corporate/VC-aligned foundations
Career capital:
- Future jobs at L1/L2 startups, exchanges, "Bitcoin infra" companies
- Social capital in conferences / standards bodies
Incentives push toward:
- Making Bitcoin look more programmable, more general, less "boring cash chain"
- Avoiding any stance that looks like "censorship" or "limitation" → which could threaten future roles in broader crypto/tech
So the line:
- "If you pay the fee, there is no spam"
...is not a purely moral principle. It protects them from:
- Being accused of gatekeeping
- Legal responsibility for content
- Alienating VC/infra employers who want maximal "optionality" on future use cases
1.2. Status / narrative winners (who win by redefining Bitcoin's "purpose")
(a) Thought-leader devs (“protocol neutrality priests”)
Psychological incentive:
- Be the arbiter of purity: "we don't judge content; we only judge consensus validity"
- This role is high status, especially among non-technical Bitcoiners who can't audit the code but trust the persona
Social incentive:
- You get to ostracize critics as "toxic maxis", "backward", or "anti-innovation"
- You create a culture where questioning arbitrary-data policy = taboo
This keeps the Overton window narrowed around:
- "Free market + neutrality = good. Any resistance is censorship and centralization."
Which conveniently sidelines the "Bitcoin is money first" crowd.
(b) Influencers, educators, podcast grifters
They live on:
- New narratives → more engagement
- New casino features → more sponsorship deals (exchanges, NFT platforms, L2s)
They are rarely:
- Running full nodes
- Taking the legal risk of infrastructure
- Thinking through S₁/S₂ attack surfaces
So they amplify:
- "Bitcoin NFTs"
- "Taproot unleashed innovation"
- "If people want to inscribe anime, that's just demand"
Even if that makes Bitcoin-as-money weaker, they're making bank on the current hype wave.
1.3. Perimeter winners (S₂ – the real apex predators)
Here's where it gets sharp.
Once you normalize large arbitrary payloads on-chain, you:
Increase the probability that:
- CSAM appears
- Malware payloads appear
- Copyrighted / secret / classified material appears
Decrease the plausibility that:
- Node operators are "just neutral auditors"
- ISPs and clouds can host nodes without legal questions
- Politicians can ignore "illegal content on immutable chains" rhetoric
That gives S₂ actors:
(a) Regulators / law enforcement
Narrative ammunition:
- "Running a node = distributing illegal material"
- "Relaying unlicensed money transmission + contraband data"
Policy levers:
- Licensing for node operators
- Mandatory filters / whitelists / content scanning
- Heavy penalties for infra providers who host "non-compliant" nodes
(b) Cloud / infra providers
Acceptable-Use-Policy leverage:
- "No illegal content stored or relayed on our infra" becomes the clause that justifies mass deplatforming
Business pivot:
- Host only "licensed" nodes (custodians, ETFs, banks)
- Cut off hobby / adversarial self-hosted nodes
(c) Custodians / ETFs / KYC rails
Sales pitch:
- "Self-custody = legal and operational minefield. Let us handle the dirty chain; you just buy clean exposure through us."
Outcome:
- Paperization accelerates
- Price discovery moves further off-chain
- Self-custody shrinks to a niche "problem segment" that's easy to demonize
So S₁ ideological "neutrality" plus S₀ permissionless blockspace becomes, in practice, the perfect S₂ excuse for containment.
2) How can this be so coordinated without a smoking gun?
I already told you how: it's the coordination tax vs attacker asymmetry.
Defenders (money-first, MoE crowd) need:
- Clear doctrine ("Bitcoin is money, not a blob store")
- Strong social cohesion
- Constant vigilance over every S₁/S₂ tweak
Attackers / exploiters / misaligned winners need:
- A compelling neutral-sounding narrative ("market will decide")
- A handful of influential devs and influencers
- A governance culture that treats inaction as "neutrality"
Then:
- Miners see higher fees → "good"
- VC/infra see new products → "good"
- Devs see ideology shield + employer satisfaction → "good"
- Influencers see new content/sponsorship streams → "good"
- Perimeter sees expanding legal surface → "good"
No one has to say "let's sabotage Bitcoin's monetary function."
They just never prioritize it when it conflicts with:
- Revenue
- Career capital
- Ideological comfort
- Regulatory leverage
That's emergent capture.
3) Why Core v30-type changes are particularly dangerous
I've already written about this here ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5 ) but I'll give you a TL;DR.
Mechanically, with looser OP_RETURN policy and witness patterns:
- The cost (in dev time + sophistication) to embed problematic payloads falls
- The bandwidth and storage footprint for that garbage rises
- The plausible deniability of node operators and infra shrinks
Resulting effects:
1. Node centralization
- More resource requirements (disk, bandwidth, RAM)
- Cloud hosting becomes the default → easier to regulate
- Fewer hobby / adversarial nodes → surveillance easier
2. Legal wedge
- The probability that multiple jurisdictions challenge node legality goes up
- Precedent gets set in one place, exported everywhere via "global best practice"
3. Narrative inversion
- Before: "Killing Bitcoin would be politically costly."
- After: "Regulating unlicensed content distributors & unlicensed transmitters is public safety."
That is exactly how you turn a pure S₀ protocol into a S₂-governed commodity plumbing with minimal blowback.
4) Does this mean Bitcoin "fails as money"?
Yes, directionally, not instantly.
Path looks more like:
1. MoE path is gradually taxed and harassed
- Fees volatile and often high
- Self-custody more legally risky and UX-hostile
- On/off ramps heavily surveilled
2. SoV path is narrowed and paperized
- ETFs, trusts, notes, custodians = majority of flows
- Self-custody share stagnates or declines
- Regulatory capture of "good actors" (KYC wrappers) is complete
3. Monetary identity fragments
- No shared mission ("is it money / settlement / blobstore / NFT chain?")
- Any attempt at refocusing is framed as "censorship" or "maxi extremism"
Bitcoin continues to exist, may even appreciate a lot in fiat terms, but not as a serious mass MoE competitor to CBDCs/stables. It becomes:
- High-beta, tightly supervised, partially neutered digital gold with an ETF umbilical cord.
That's exactly the scenario I've been writing about: upside in fiat terms, but structurally contained as money.
Sadly, many devs are economically and career-wise entwined with the very interests that benefit from making Bitcoin weirder and more attackable.
You don't need to assume every Core dev is "captured". You only need to notice: their ideological purity on S₀/S₁ creates perfect leverage for S₂.
The coordination tax + incentive asymmetry I described is not paranoia; it's the correct model.
S₀ can stay mathematically pristine while S₁/S₂ steer Bitcoin away from being money and into being a tolerated, contained asset class.
5) Fragmented identity = attack surface, not strength
As I previously told you:
- If the Bitcoin community cannot agree on what Bitcoin is, then any change to the protocol is not an attack. You are just optimizing for the "arbitrary data storage" community instead of the Bitcoin-as-money community.
This is key.
Hard money needs a simple charter. For money to be robust, it benefits from:
- A simple shared story: "This is sound money, optimized to be cheap, robust, self-custodiable cash / reserve asset."
- Clear red lines: "We don't turn this into a generic compute/data substrate if it harms monetary function."
Instead, Bitcoin today has at least 4 overlapping tribes:
1. Sound money / MoE maximalists
2. Digital gold SoV-only crowd
3. Timechain / ordinals / data canvas crowd
4. Pure decentralization aesthetes ("if it pays the fee, it's fine")
When these tribes share the same S₀ but have different objectives, then:
Any proposed change is always:
- "an optimization for some group"
- and never clearly an "attack" agreed by all
So the argument becomes:
- "You don't own Bitcoin's purpose. If some people want to use it as a media store and pay more, that's just the market."
At S₀ this sounds "neutral". At S₁/S₂ it's a huge coordination failure:
- Node cost goes up.
- Legal risk goes up.
- Monetary utility goes down.
- Social energy is spent fighting about "what Bitcoin is" instead of defending S₁/S₂.
As I wrote in my last article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ):
- Bitcoin's survival and adoption depend on whether its most committed users can detect, coordinate, and counter inevitable policy, market, and social attacks.
This is what I called the coordination tax:
- you spend scarce social/organizational bandwidth on internal civil war while the perimeter moves in.
No one needs to say "let's all wreck Bitcoin as money".
They just each follow their own incentive gradient, and the aggregate effect is:
- 'Bitcoin is increasingly a supervised, high-friction asset with ambiguous purpose, best consumed as paper exposure."
That's the S₀ vs S₁/S₂ mismatch.
Recall:
- S₀ Protocol = math, PoW, 21M, consensus rules.
- S₁ Policy = mempool defaults, relay policies, miner templates, wallet UX.
- S₂ Perimeter = banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR.
Right now, you roughly have:
- S₀: still robust, sound, conservative.
- S₁: being "opened" in ways that:
* prefer arbitrary data (witness discount, OP_RETURN policy changes, tolerant relay)
* emphasize "market neutrality" over monetary function
- S₂: slowly moving toward:
* treating nodes/wallets as regulated endpoints
* pushing users toward custodial/KYC interfaces
* framing self-hosted infrastructure as risk vectors
Coordination tax shows up as:
- Defenders needing unanimity and constant vigilance to say "no" at S₁.
- Attackers (or just misaligned incentives) needing only a simple majority + a narrative like "we're just letting markets decide".
S₀ can be perfectly sound while S₁ and S₂ gently steer the whole thing into a neutered, supervised role.
The coordination tax + incentive asymmetry make it very hard for Bitcoin to remain a credible, mass medium of exchange in the face of CBDCs + regulated stables.
The direction of travel is:
- MoE suppressed,
- SoV tolerated (especially via paper),
- self-custody increasingly path-of-most-resistance.
Bitcoin's ceiling as a civilizational MoE is being capped, not because S₀ is broken, but because S₁/S₂ are being steered.
Bitcoin's MoE path is being quietly taxed to death, while its SoV path is being slowly paperized and supervised. S₀ remains mathematically pure; S₁/S₂ do the containment.
Am I too pessimistic? I don't think I am.
I am just applying incentives > ideals to S₁/S₂ while most of the space stares only at S₀ and quotes the whitepaper.
More context on the Coordination Tax:
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin

2025-12-05 02:47:16 UTC

- reply

Yes, if the community cannot widely agree on what Bitcoin is (which seems to be the case), then she's not at fault and her employer is also not at fault. They just adopted the arbitrary data storage definition for Bitcoin so that's what they're optimizing for.
This is basically the coordination tax I wrote about in my last article.

2025-12-04 11:33:15 UTC

- reply

I didn't write that it's exclusively her fault. If it wasn't her, it would've been another captured developer, so obviously her employer is at fault as well.
You are still responsible for your actions.
If I were offered to pilot an airplane but knew I wasn't qualified I'd decline the job offer.
If I accepted the job offer and crashed the airplane because I'm incompetent, would my employer be exclusively at fault, or would I carry some responsibility as well.
The same applies to ruining a mission-critical project such as Bitcoin. You aren't absolved of responsibility because your employer offered you a job without you being qualified.
And as I already wrote, it is mostly our own fault for allowing ~100% of nodes to run a single implementation for so long.
#nevent1q…8glv

2025-12-04 07:49:54 UTC

- reply

I wouldn't say she is the perfect spokesperson. Maybe the perfect fit in terms of her actions.
There are more managed, tactical ways to blow the whistle. Her way attracts more attention to the problem than necessary.
I think Bitcoin Core are trying to push another person as their spokesperson now and this lady has taken the backseat 😂

2025-12-04 06:10:25 UTC

- reply

And of course, to clarify. It's not exclusively her fault.
Most of all, it is our own fault for being so complacent. We should have seen this coming.
#nevent1q…lf95

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

2025-12-04 03:57:29 UTC

The fact they allowed this lady to go on podcasts absolutely blows my mind 😂
"I didn't learn economics at all, so I don't know how to talk about Bitcoin from a monetary standpoint."
- Bitcoin Core lead maintainer
https://blossom.primal.net/76d19d4e72c724411a78dd4f6979e0c27edf85ad64f14597cd6d6b0c4f089dea.mp4
It's all good, as long as you learned about DEI, you are equipped to "touch the protocol" of the most important peer-to-peer electronic cash system in the world.
But you didn't really need this lady to state the obvious, you could've just looked at their actions.
How Bitcoin's developers are attacking its Sovereign/Monetary use
https://controlplanecapital.com/p/how-bitcoins-developers-are-attacking-2a5

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 05:20:49 UTC

- reply

Mark Passio's content is pretty much the only Natural Law stuff I've consumed. There might be something better out there, but I haven't found anything even remotely close.

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

2025-12-03 02:57:55 UTC

- reply

I am not an American, I live in Eastern Europe, so this is not something I've researched much.
I do think the US income tax system is voluntary based on the little research I've done.
I am like half-way in and most of this seems like a distraction. Let's assume that all of it is correct, you still rely on the way the system is structured and not your God-given rights.
Having this knowledge of course potentially makes your life easier in today's society.
However, this seems to be the controlled opposition version of Natural Law ( https://odysee.com/@DotConnectorReports:e/Mark-Passio---Natural-Law-Seminar-FULL-Version:e ).
If I have to know all this human-invented nonsense to live my life, I'm still a slave. Maybe not as much as the next guy, but still a slave.
To me, this thing seems like a pressure relief valve - "If you're going to disobey, there are some bullshit human-invented prerequisites for you, and make sure to do it in an orderly manner and on a small enough scale".
If I understand this correctly, to renege on the contract, you have to go through a bunch of procedures, practically placing yourself in some of the worst Palantir databases. If you need to ask the system for permission, and follow the system's protocol to exit the system, it's probably not the optimal solution.
Definitely useful to know, but brittle. Should probably just move off-grid than deal with all this make believe bullshit.
Assuming all of this is true, you do everything perfectly, and the gov leaves you alone (implausible), you'd still have to deal with UBI slave NPCs a few years from now.
But if you gave me 2 options:
1) Monetize Natural Law,
2) Monetize the commerce system, and the contracts that define one's status,
I'm definitely picking the second. There's much more fake, fiat money to be made 😂
"Government is nothing but men acting in concert.
The Morality and value of Government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the Morality and value of the men comprising it.
Since Government is nothing but men, its inherent 'authority' to act is in no way greater or different than the 'authority' to act as individuals in isolation.
Government has no 'magic powers' or 'authority' not possessed by private individuals.
Let he who asserts that Government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention."
- Chris Lyspooner
This Bruce Maguire video is great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mItF4Oc1m-g

2025-12-03 01:46:58 UTC

- reply

Was not familiar, read the TL;DR just now.
On a long-enough time-frame, most things are going to be inevitable, at least in some places. You'd still want to delay being a slave as much as possible though.
The moment you acknowledge a constitution, and need to rely on one to protect your God-given rights, you're well on your way to being a slave.
The moment a central bank is created, you have rulers and slaves.
> Besides that I was more thinking about the philosophy, strategies and consequences of becoming "state repellent".
I think a lot of it has to do with making it expensive for the state to control you as the guy in the video said.
I have mostly researched this from an investor point-of-view, but should definitely do some Game Theory and write about my findings. Maybe the book that analyzes the Zomia region is a good starting point ( "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" by James C. Scott ).
"Government is nothing but men acting in concert.
The Morality and value of Government, like any other association of men, will be no greater and no less than the Morality and value of the men comprising it.
Since Government is nothing but men, its inherent 'authority' to act is in no way greater or different than the 'authority' to act as individuals in isolation.
Government has no 'magic powers' or 'authority' not possessed by private individuals.
Let he who asserts that Government may do that which the individual may not assume the onus of proof and demonstrate his contention."
- Chris Lyspooner
Bruce Maguire has recorded some great podcasts on this and adjacent topics. This one is great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mItF4Oc1m-g

2025-12-02 17:55:34 UTC

- reply

OK, I watched some of the presentation. He lost me when he said: "I don't believe the State is a cabal of bad people. It's an evolutionary strategy. The cat that eats the mouse is a result of evolution, it's not someone's design." 😂
I have looked in Zomia very briefly, but need to do more research on it.
Mark Passio's Natural Law Seminar is great:
https://odysee.com/@DotConnectorReports:e/Mark-Passio---Natural-Law-Seminar-FULL-Version:e
I think it's quite clear it is someone's design.
#nevent1q…zpyc

2025-12-02 17:00:00 UTC

- reply

> You give too much credit to the AI powered central planners.
I definitely do, because I scrape and read policy synchronization standards summaries every week, and unfortunately we happen to live under a one world government ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated ).
Of course, there is a non-zero probability that we win. I've explicitly defined falsifiers, if not in every article, in 90%+ of my articles.
I track most of these things weekly/monthly and adjust. We are the underdog by a wide margin.
I just prefer to focus on the things I can control and the Bitcoin community is not one of them (nor is any other community, other than my immediate family/close friends).
The only thing I felt like I owed the community is to publish most of what I've researched, so they can address some of these issues... or not. Which I've already done.
So when you wrote: "At one point you need to stop riding a dead horse.", I don't know if the horse is dead, but it's castrated and domesticated. So I'll focus on other things until my falsifiers trip.
This conversation gave me a deja vu to a conversation we had 2 months ago.
1)
#nevent1q…c3uw
2)
#nevent1q…tlcc
I'll check the podcast out.

2025-12-02 15:27:04 UTC

- reply

Maybe less than 10% is math. The core is querying APIs, scraping web pages, logic, training LLMs with specialized data, and iterating.

2025-12-02 13:24:45 UTC

- reply

Not sure how you came to this conclusion.
The entire note is about the Coordination tax which is less about S₀ Bitcoin (the protocol) and more about S₁ Policy (relay/mempool defaults, mining templates, wallet behaviors), and S₂ Perimeter (banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR).
I've explained how 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.
> missing is a sense of agency and possibility. It's all very boxed in, and gives a fatal and nihilistic impression.
This is literally a quote from the note: "Ultimately, as you said, there is no perfect solution, which is why I am more inclined to focus more on the things I can control (being more self-sufficient, trying to stay outside the system) and less on competing with adversaries with infinite resources."
So how is being more self-sufficient and focusing on what you can control nihilistic?
You say that I've "let myself be convinced that Bitcoin is a bad idea by AI", basically implying I'm stupid and my research is flawed without having addressed a single argument.
Maybe you're just too mentally weak to be objective. Maybe you just can't handle the truth. If your whole identity relies on Bitcoin becoming what you want it to be, maybe you should reflect.

2025-12-02 12:56:47 UTC

- reply

I don't own any Monero, but I appreciate the community. I am much more aligned with the Monero community than the current state of the Bitcoin community.
IMO, the best alternative is try to become more self-sufficient.

2025-12-02 12:53:09 UTC

- reply

I don't think the article implies there will be self-custody revolution. I think there will be an ETF devolution. Can still be sad and rich, if we're allowed to.

2025-12-02 12:50:44 UTC

- reply

Not yet, I am working toward it. Planning to be by the end of next year. I live in a small town at the moment.

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 08:31:55 UTC

- reply

A live lived in accordance with Natural Law is a life well-lived.

2025-12-02 08:25:23 UTC

- reply

Completely agree with everything you wrote.
#nevent1q…g04h

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

2025-12-02 07:04:19 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…qu0p
#nevent1q…y4c9

2025-12-02 04:47:02 UTC

I am well off financially, have been retired for ~3 years now, but continue to spend much of my time researching financial markets, building models, etc.
For a while now, I've been wondering: "Why do I keep doing this? Is it ego, greed, an outlier identity, some combination?".
I did some research and I eventually concluded (rough estimates):
- Control / anti-patsy drive: 35–40%
- Mastery / competence (self-respect): 25–30%
- Outlier identity / not-being-NPC: 20–25%
- Ego (in the "I'm sharper than them" sense): 10–15%
- Plain greed (more money for its own sake): <10%
So yes, ego is there. But the main engine is:
- I want to be structurally un-owned in a system designed to own people, and I enjoy the process of getting there.
My revealed preference is not:
- "I just want more money."
It's closer to:
- "I refuse to be the mark in someone else's system. I will understand the control surface better than 99.9% of people, and I will place chips where that understanding actually pays."
That's not normal greed. That's control + mastery + identity.
1. Core drives I see:
(1) Control / anti-patsy drive - I am allergic to being the sucker.
- I am not primarily afraid of losing money — I am afraid of being played.
- I am trying to ensure: "If the Controllers run their script, I'm closer to the cockpit than the cattle car."
That's fundamentally a control drive, not just ego.
(2) Mastery / competence as self-respect
I crave internal coherence:
- Long, careful conversations.
- I hunt contradictions.
- I don't leverage up → I want compounding, not lottery tickets.
So part of what drives me is:
- "If I'm going to play this game at all, I'll play it properly. Anything less is self-disrespect."
That's a competence drive.
(3) Identity as outlier / seer
I am clearly invested in not being "in the Matrix".
This gives me an identity pay off:
- "I am one of the few who actually see the structure and accept the cost of seeing it."
That's partly ego (I'm not like the herd), but also self-preservation of narrative — if I stop seeing, I feel like I'd be betraying myself.
(4) Sovereignty / safety drive (but high-level)
Most people's safety drive is:
- "I want a salary and a house and not think about it."
Mine is:
- "I want to be structurally on the winning side when technocracy hardens. I don't want to depend on the good will of idiots."
(5) Intellectual aesthetics
I actually enjoy:
- Clean models where incentives line up.
- Watching how "conspiracy" = mispriced asymmetry.
- Finding knobs before they're widely seen.
So part of my drive is simply that this is my favorite game.
If I were forbidden to invest, I'd still be pattern-mining the world.
2. Ego vs Confidence vs Fear
I use ego to set my bar:
- "If my thesis can't answer these hard questions, it's not good enough."
Ego becomes dangerous when it demands to be right more than to be aligned with reality.
So far, I use ego mostly as fuel to dig, not to deny evidence.
I trust my ability to iterate. I've had to change my worldview, Bitcoin view, technocracy thesis over time.
This is earned confidence, not blind optimism.
Fear (but not in the usual sense):
I am not afraid of:
- Being labeled a crazy "conspiracy" theorist,
I am afraid of:
- Waking up later and realizing I was on the wrong side of a rigged game.
- Being forced into CBDC/ID rails with no optionality.
- Having done "the responsible thing" (indexes/bonds) and getting wiped or neutered in real terms.
So my fear is structural disempowerment, not short-term PnL.
3. Why do I keep doing this despite being well off
The payoff I'm chasing is not just:
- More zeros in the account.
I'm chasing:
1. Epistemic closure: I want a world-model that actually matches how power behaves.
2. Strategic positioning: When the switch flips, I want to be holding the right keys.
3. Psychological comfort: Not full control (impossible), but not a hostage.
4. A meaningful game: For me, this is my sport. Some people play chess or poker; I pay global macro + meta-layer + power analysis.
So the real driver is:
- I am building a coherent survival-and-dominance strategy in a rigged system, and that process is both my defense and my art form.
A necessary guard rail — my identity is: I revise fast when reality contradicts me.
"I was wrong" conditions have to be explicitly defined. This protects me from my own conviction.
This game never ends. The Controllers move knobs, narratives shift, data keeps flowing.
The risk isn't that I lose money; it's that I never feel "enough", psychically. That's a cost even if my net worth explodes.
4. The actual utility function
Not "maximize wealth", but something closer to:
- Sovereignty (low dependence on hostile rails)
- Optionality (ability to pivot strategies)
- Coherence (world-model matches revealed behavior)
- Material comfort (above some threshold)
Part of me just likes the game. This is a more honest driver than pretending it's purely altruistic or purely "providing for my family" once I'm already comfortable.
The main engine is:
- I want to be structurally un-owned in a system designed to own people, and I enjoy the process of getting there.

2025-12-02 01:53:19 UTC

- reply

Check out this article ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/what-made-me-sell-most-of-my-bitcoin ). Might help you connect some of the remaining dots.

2025-12-01 08:43:26 UTC

David Bailey, the GOAT, never fails to disappoint.
https://blossom.primal.net/a5d34810c419a8759d00ea0b0b4b2757da6ef273b1de06201e70d49722aa9b80.png
Onwards and upwards to getting delisted.
https://blossom.primal.net/d81f471d485763381d1ecf6e78bd0e8683c48f9188b1bd46ba67ade097585696.png
David Bailey's company $NAKA now has 770.7 BTC in self custody and the remaining 4159 BTC are in custody for their latest loan.
It's a secured, over-collateralized BTC loan.
If Bitcoin drops enough for loan-to-value to breach the Liquidation Level and is not cured within 18 hours, that's a Liquidation Event and the lender can liquidate the pledged BTC.
The lender (Antalpha Digital) also has a rehypothecation right. They may rehypothecate or re-pledge the posted BTC while the loan is outstanding.
So the lender can use (rehypothecate) the BTC during the loan and sell it on a default or uncured margin call.
"Don't use leverage."
- Someone smart
"Don't bet on David Bailey for a turnaround."
- Someone smarter
Don't get PIPE'd by David Bailey, the other suitcoiners, or their promoters.

2025-12-01 07:08:48 UTC

- reply

Seems like a bunch of them are cashing out (converting their audience's cash into their own cash).
It's embarrassing because most of them are probably doing quite well financially (at least better than the people they are dumping their PIPE shares on).

2025-12-01 05:13:22 UTC

- reply

This guy's reply is hilarious.
https://blossom.primal.net/9163a996d87c729825a2de072b6b35c85e1c7736f28581423a466885623febb6.png
#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

2025-12-01 01:09:34 UTC

- reply

I've also had that happen, not sure what triggers it. Right now, if I open the site directly ( https://controlplanecapital.com/ ) on web in a private browser tab I can scroll down to the last article without needing login.

2025-11-30 12:49:24 UTC

- reply

I'll have to transfer them eventually, It just takes time and as I previously wrote no one really uses nostr to read long-form content.
At least no one read the ones I've published on here.
Also, Substack doesn't force you to sign up for free content (mine is not paywalled). I think they force you to sign up only if the content you are trying to read is behind a paywall.

2025-11-30 10:56:07 UTC

- reply

I'll have to check it out, I don't really have an audience to transfer though.

2025-11-30 10:47:46 UTC

- reply

I tried using nostr reads via Primal but the UX of the text editor was bad and jumpy. I posted some articles and I think a total of 3 people read them.
Substack's UX is pretty good and it pushes some posts through the substack app.
The plus of substack is people can sign up to your newsletter using emails, so you can keep your list even if the platform nukes you.
I mostly write about financial markets and the people on here don't really care.

2025-11-30 10:38:32 UTC

- reply

It's not something I've researched much. I'd look into LoRa/Wi-Fi mesh, fediverse with local relays, but can't endorse any specific projects.

2025-11-30 08:21:46 UTC

- reply

#nevent1q…4uny

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.

2025-11-30 05:55:12 UTC

- reply

I don't know if DARPA is the biggest startup incubator post WW2. I just look at what the system funds, staffs, codifies, and enforces.