@ 21335073:a244b1ad

The other day, I had the privilege of sitting down with one of my favorite living artists. Our conversation was so captivating that I felt compelled to share it. I’m leaving his name out for privacy.

Since our last meeting, I’d watched a documentary about his life, one he’d helped create. I told him how much I admired his openness in it. There’s something strange about knowing intimate details of someone’s life when they know so little about yours—it’s almost like I knew him too well for the kind of relationship we have.

He paused, then said quietly, with a shy grin, that watching the documentary made him realize how “odd and eccentric” he is. I laughed and told him he’s probably the sanest person I know. Because he’s lived fully, chasing love, passion, and purpose with hardly any regrets. He’s truly lived.

Today, I turn 44, and I’ll admit I’m a bit eccentric myself. I think I came into the world this way. I’ve made mistakes along the way, but I carry few regrets. Every misstep taught me something. And as I age, I’m not interested in blending in with the world—I’ll probably just lean further into my own brand of “weird.” I want to live life to the brim. The older I get, the more I see that the “normal” folks often seem less grounded than the eccentric artists who dare to live boldly. Life’s too short to just exist, actually live.

I’m not saying to be strange just for the sake of it. But I’ve seen what the crowd celebrates, and I’m not impressed. Forge your own path, even if it feels lonely or unpopular at times.

It’s easy to scroll through the news and feel discouraged. But actually, this is one of the most incredible times to be alive! I wake up every day grateful to be here, now. The future is bursting with possibility—I can feel it.

So, to my fellow weirdos on nostr: stay bold. Keep dreaming, keep pushing, no matter what’s trending. Stay wild enough to believe in a free internet for all. Freedom is radical—hold it tight. Live with the soul of an artist and the grit of a fighter. Thanks for inspiring me and so many others to keep hoping. Thank you all for making the last year of my life so special.

@ 9ca447d2:fbf5a36d

Gen Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) are not rushing to stack sats, and Oliver Porter, Founder & CEO of Jippi, understands the challenge better than most. His strategy revolves around adapting Bitcoin education to fit seamlessly into the digital lives of young adults.

“We need to meet them where they are,” Oliver explains. “90% of Gen Z plays games. 70% expect to earn rewards.”

So, what will effectively introduce them to Bitcoin? In Oliver’s mind, the answer is simple: games that don’t feel preachy but still plant the orange pill.

Learn more at Jippi.app

That’s exactly what Jippi is. Based in Austin, Texas, the team has created a mobile augmented reality (AR) game that rewards players in bitcoin and sneakily teaches them why sound money matters.

“It’s Pokémon GO… but for sats,” Oliver puts it succinctly.

Jippi is like Pokemon Go, but for sats

Oliver’s Bitcoin journey, like many in the space, began long before he was ready. A former colleague had tried planting the seed years earlier, handing him a copy of The Bitcoin Standard. But the moment passed.

It wasn’t until the chaos of 2020 when lockdowns hit, printing presses roared, and civil liberties shrank that the message finally landed for him.

“The government got so good at doing reverse Robin Hood,” Oliver explains. “They steal from the working population and reward the rich.”

By 2020, though, the absurdity of the covid hysteria had caused his eyes to be opened and the orange light seemed the best path back to freedom.

He left the UK for Austin “one of the best places for Bitcoiners,” he says, and dove headfirst into the industry, working at Swan for a year before founding Jippi on PlebLab’s accelerator program.

Jippi’s flagship game lets players roam their cities hunting digital creatures, Bitcoin Beasts, tied to real-world locations. Catching them requires answering Bitcoin trivia, and the reward is sats.

No jargon. No hour-long lectures. Just gameplay with sound money principles woven right in.

The model is working. At a recent hackathon in Austin, Jippi beat out 14 other teams to win first place and $15,000 in prize money.

Oliver of Jippi won Top Builder Season 2 — PlebLab on X

“We’re backdooring Bitcoin education,” Oliver admits. “And while we’re at it, encouraging people to get outside and touch grass.”

Not everyone’s been thrilled. When Jippi team members visited one of the more liberal-leaning places in Texas, UT Austin, to test interest in Bitcoin, they found some seriously committed no-coiners on the campus.

“One young woman told me, ‘I would rather die than talk about Bitcoin,'” Oliver recalls, highlighting the cultural resistance that’s built up among younger demographics.

This resistance is backed by hard data. According to Oliver, some of the Bitcoin podcasters they met with in the space to do market research reported that less than 1% of their listeners are from Gen Z and that number is dropping.

“Unless we find a way to capture their interest in a meaningful way, there’s going to be a big problem around trying to sway Gen Z away from the siren call of s***coins and crypto casinos and towards Bitcoin,” Oliver warns.

Jippi’s next big move is Las Vegas, where they’ll launch the Beast Catch experience at the Venetian during a major Bitcoin event. To mark the occasion, they’re opening up six limited sponsorship spots for Bitcoin companies, each one tied to a custom in-game beast.

Jippi looks to launch a special event at Bitcoin 2025

“It’s real estate inside the game,” Oliver explains. “Brands become allies, not intrusions. You get a logo, company name, and call to action, so we can push people to your site or app.”

Bitcoin Well—an automatic self-custody Bitcoin platform—has claimed Beast #1. Only five exclusive spots remain for Bitcoin companies to “beastify their brand” through Jippi’s immersive AR game.

“I love the Jippi mission. I think gamified learning is how we will onboard the next generation and it’s exciting to see what the Jippi team is doing! I love working with bitcoiners towards our common mission – bullish!” said Adam O’Brien, Bitcoin Well CEO.

Jippi’s sponsorship model is simple: align incentives, respect users, and support builders. Instead of throwing ad money at tech giants, Bitcoin companies can connect with new users naturally while they’re having fun and earning sats in the process.

For Bitcoin companies looking to reach a younger demographic, this represents a unique opportunity to showcase their brand to up to 30,000 potential customers at the Vegas event.

Jippi Bitcoin Beast partnership

While Jippi’s current focus is simple, get the game into more cities, Oliver sees a future where AR glasses and AI help personalize Bitcoin education even further.

“The magic is going to really happen when Apple releases the glasses form factor,” he says, describing how augmented reality could enhance real-world connections rather than isolate users.

In the longer term, Jippi aims to evolve from a free-to-play model toward a pay-to-play version with higher stakes. Users would form “tribes” with friends to compete for substantial bitcoin prizes, creating social connections along with financial education.

Unlike VC-backed startups, Jippi is raising funds pleb style via Timestamp, an open investment platform for Bitcoin companies.

“You don’t have to be an accredited investor,” Oliver explains. “You’re directly supporting the parallel Bitcoin economy by investing in Bitcoin companies for equity.”

Anyone can invest as little as $100. Perks include early access, exclusive game content, and even creating your own beast design with your name/pseudonym and unique game lore. Each investment comes with direct ownership of an early-stage Bitcoin company like Jippi.

For Oliver, this is more than just a business. It’s about future-proofing Bitcoin adoption and ensuring Satoshi’s vision lives on, especially as many people are lured by altcoins, NFTs, and social media dopamine.

“We’re on the right side of history,” he says firmly. “I want my grandkids to know that early on in the Bitcoin revolution, games like Jippi helped make it stick.”

In a world increasingly absorbed by screens and short attention spans, Jippi’s combination of outdoor play, sats rewards, and Bitcoin education might be exactly the bridge Gen Z needs.

Interested in sponsoring a Beast or investing in Jippi? Reach out to Jippi directly by heading to their partnerships page on their website or visit their Timestamp page to invest in Jippi today.

@ 51bbb15e:b77a2290

Yeah, I’m sure everything in the file is legit. 👍 Let’s review the guard witness testimony…Oh wait, they weren’t at their posts despite 24/7 survellience instructions after another Epstein “suicide” attempt two weeks earlier. Well, at least the video of the suicide is in the file? Oh wait, a techical glitch. Damn those coincidences!

At this point, the Trump administration has zero credibility with me on anything related to the Epstein case and his clients. I still suspect the administration is using the Epstein files as leverage to keep a lot of RINOs in line, whereas they’d be sabotaging his agenda at every turn otherwise. However, I just don’t believe in ends-justify-the-means thinking. It’s led almost all of DC to toss out every bit of the values they might once have had.

@ c9badfea:610f861a

1. Install Sky Map (it's free and open source)
2. Launch the app and tap Accept, then tap OK
3. When asked to access the device's location, tap While Using The App
4. Tap somewhere on the screen to activate the menu, then tap ⁝ and select Settings
5. Disable Send Usage Statistics
6. Return to the main screen and enjoy stargazing!

ℹ️ Use the 🔍 icon in the upper toolbar to search for a specific celestial body, or tap the 👁️ icon to activate night mode

@ bc6ccd13:f53098e4

The global population has been rising rapidly for the past two centuries when compared to historical trends. Fifty years ago, that trend seemed set to continue, and there was a lot of concern around the issue of overpopulation. But if you haven’t been living under a rock, you’ll know that while the population is still rising, that trend now seems set to reverse this century, and there’s every indication population could decline precipitously over the next two centuries.

Demographics is a field where predictions about the future are much more reliable than in most scientific fields. That’s because future population trends are “baked in” decades in advance. If you want to know how many fifty-year-olds there will be in forty years, all you have to do is count the ten-year-olds today and allow for mortality rates. That maximum was already determined by the number of births ten years ago, and absolutely nothing can change that now. The average person doesn’t think that through when they look at population trends. You hear a lot of “oh we just need to do more of x to help the declining birthrate” without an acknowledgement that future populations in a given cohort are already fixed by the number of births that already occurred.

As you can see, global birthrates have already declined close to the 2.3 replacement level, with some regions ahead of others, but all on the same trajectory with no region moving against the trend. I’m not going to speculate on the reasons for this, or even whether it’s a good or bad thing. Instead I’m going to make some observations about outcomes this trend could cause economically, and why. Like most macro issues, an individual can’t do anything to change the global landscape personally, but knowing what that landscape might look like is essential to avoiding fallout from trends outside your control.

The Resource Pie

Thomas Malthus popularized the concern about overpopulation with his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population. The basic premise of the book was that population could grow and consume all the available resources, leading to mass poverty, starvation, disease, and population collapse. We can say in hindsight that this was incorrect, given that the global population has increased from less than a billion to over eight billion since then, and the apocalypse Malthus predicted hasn’t materialized. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The global standard of living has risen to levels Malthus couldn’t have imagined, much less predicted.

So where did Malthus go wrong? His hypothesis seems reasonable enough, and we do see a similar trend in certain animal populations. The base assumption Malthus got wrong was to assume resources are a finite, limiting factor to the human population. That at some point certain resources would be totally consumed, and that would be it. He treated it like a pie with a lot of slices, but still a finite number, and assumed that if the population kept rising, eventually every slice would be consumed and there would be no pie left for future generations. That turns out to be completely wrong.

Of course, the earth is finite at some abstract level. The number of atoms could theoretically be counted and quantified. But on a practical level, do humans exhaust the earth’s resources? I’d point to an article from Yale Scientific titled Has the Earth Run out of any Natural Resources? To quote,

> However, despite what doomsday predictions may suggest, the Earth has not run out of any resources nor is it likely that it will run out of any in the near future. > > In fact, resources are becoming more abundant. Though this may seem puzzling, it does not mean that the actual quantity of resources in the Earth’s crust is increasing but rather that the amount available for our use is constantly growing due to technological innovations. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the only resource we have exhausted is cryolite, a mineral used in pesticides and aluminum processing. However, that is not to say every bit of it has been mined away; rather, producing it synthetically is much more cost efficient than mining the existing reserves at its current value.

As it happens, we don’t run out of resources. Instead, we become better at finding, extracting, and efficiently utilizing resources, which means that in practical terms resources become more abundant, not less. In other words, the pie grows faster than we can eat it.

So is there any resource that actually limits human potential? I think there is, and history would suggest that resource is human ingenuity and effort. The more people are thinking about and working on a problem, the more solutions we find and build to solve it. That means not only does the pie grow faster than we can eat it, but the more people there are, the faster the pie grows. Of course that assumes everyone eating pie is also working to grow the pie, but that’s a separate issue for now.

Productivity and Division of Labor

Why does having more people lead to more productivity? A big part of it comes down to division of labor and specialization. The best way to get really good at something is to do more of it. In a small community, doing just one thing simply isn’t possible. Everyone has to be somewhat of a generalist in order to survive. But with a larger population, being a specialist becomes possible. In fact, that’s the purpose of money, as I explained here.

nostr:naddr1qvzqqqr4gupzp0rve5f6xtu56djkfkkg7ktr5rtfckpun95rgxaa7futy86npx8yqq247t2dvet9q4tsg4qng36lxe6kc4nftayyy89kua2

The more specialized an economy becomes, the more efficient it can be. There are big economies of scale in almost every task or process. So for example, if a single person tried to build a car from scratch, it would be extremely difficult and take a very long time. However, if you have a thousand people building a car, each doing a specific job, they can become very good at doing that specific job and do it much faster. And then you can move that process to a factory, and build machines to do specific jobs, and add even more efficiency.

But that only works if you’re building more than one car. It doesn’t make sense to build a huge factory full of specialized equipment that takes lots of time and effort to design and manufacture, and then only build one car. You need to sell thousands of cars, maybe even millions of cars, to pay off that initial investment. So division of labor and specialization relies on large populations in two different ways. First, you need a large population to have enough people to specialize in each task. But second and just as importantly, you need a large population of buyers for the finished product. You need a big market in order to make mass production economical.

Think of a computer or smartphone. It takes thousands of specialized processes, thousands of complex parts, and millions of people doing specialized jobs to extract the raw materials, process them, and assemble them into a piece of electronic hardware. And electronics are relatively expensive anyway. Imagine how impossible it would be to manufacture electronics economically, if the market demand wasn’t literally in the billions of units.

Stairs Up, Elevator Down

We’ve seen exponential increases in productivity over the past few centuries, resulting in higher living standards even as population exploded. Now, facing the prospect of a drastic trend reversal, what will happen to productivity and living standards? The typical sentiment seems to be “well, there are a lot of people already competing for resources, so if population does decline, that will just reduce the competition and leave a bigger slice of pie for each person, so we’ll all be getting wealthier as a result of population decline.”

This seems reasonable at first glance. Surely dividing the economic pie into fewer slices means a bigger slice for everyone, right? But remember, more specialization and division of labor is what made the pie as big as it is to begin with. And specialization depends on large populations for both the supply of specialized labor, and the demand for finished goods. Can complex supply chains and mass production withstand population reduction intact? I don’t think the answer is clear.

The idea that it will all be okay, and we’ll get wealthier as population falls, is based on some faulty assumptions. It assumes that wealth is basically some fixed inventory of “things” that exist, and it’s all a matter of distribution. That’s typical Marxist thinking, similar to the reasoning behind “tax the rich” and other utopian wealth transfer schemes.

The reality is, wealth is a dynamic concept with strong network effects. For example, a grocery store in a large city can be a valuable asset with a large potential income stream. The same store in a small village with a declining population can be an unprofitable and effectively worthless liability.

Even something as permanent as a house is very susceptible to network effects. If you currently live in an area where housing is scarce and expensive, you might think a declining population would be the perfect solution to high housing costs. However, if you look at a place that’s already facing the beginnings of a population decline, you’ll see it’s not actually that simple. Japan, for example, is already facing an aging and declining population. And sure enough, you can get a house in Japan for free, or basically free. Sounds amazing, right? Not really.

If you check out the reason houses are given away in Japan, you’ll find a depressing reality. Most of the free houses are in rural areas or villages where the population is declining, often to the point that the village becomes uninhabited and abandoned. It’s so bad that in 2018, 13.6% of houses in Japan were vacant. Why do villages become uninhabited? Well, it turns out that a certain population level is necessary to support the services and businesses people need. When the population falls too low, specialized businesses can no longer operated profitably. It’s the exact issue we discussed with division of labor and the need for a high population to provide a market for the specialist to survive. As the local stores, entertainment venues, and businesses close, and skilled tradesmen move away to larger population centers with more customers, living in the village becomes difficult and depressing, if not impossible. So at a certain critical level, a village that’s too isolated will reach a tipping point where everyone leaves as fast as possible. And it turns out that an abandoned house in a remote village or rural area without any nearby services and businesses is worth… nothing. Nobody wants to live there, nobody wants to spend the money to maintain the house, nobody wants to pay the taxes needed to maintain the utilities the town relied on. So they try to give the houses away to anyone who agrees to live there, often without much success.

So on a local level, population might rise gradually over time, but when that process reverses and population declines to a certain level, it can collapse rather quickly from there.

I expect the same incentives to play out on a larger scale as well. Complex supply chains and extreme specialization lead to massive productivity. But there’s also a downside, which is the fragility of the system. Specialization might mean one shop can make all the widgets needed for a specific application, for the whole globe. That’s great while it lasts, but what happens when the owner of that shop retires with his lifetime of knowledge and experience? Will there be someone equally capable ready to fill his shoes? Hopefully… But spread that problem out across the global economy, and cracks start to appear. A specialized part is unavailable. So a machine that relies on that part breaks down and can’t be repaired. So a new machine needs to be built, which is a big expense that drives up costs and prices. And with a falling population, demand goes down. Now businesses are spending more to make fewer items, so they have to raise prices to stay profitable. Now fewer people can afford the item, so demand falls even further. Eventually the business is forced to close, and other industries that relied on the items they produced are crippled. Things become more expensive, or unavailable at any price. Living standards fall. What was a stairway up becomes an elevator down.

Hope, From the Parasite Class?

All that being said, I’m not completely pessimistic about the future. I think the potential for an acceptable outcome exists.

I see two broad groups of people in the economy; producers, and parasites. One thing the increasing productivity has done is made it easier than ever to survive. Food is plentiful globally, the only issues are with distribution. Medical advances save countless lives. Everything is more abundant than ever before. All that has led to a very “soft” economic reality. There’s a lot of non-essential production, which means a lot of wealth can be redistributed to people who contribute nothing, and if it’s done carefully, most people won’t even notice. And that is exactly what has happened, in spades.

There are welfare programs of every type and description, and handouts to people for every reason imaginable. It’s never been easier to survive without lifting a finger. So millions of able-bodied men choose to do just that.

Besides the voluntarily idle, the economy is full of “bullshit jobs.” Shoutout to David Graeber’s book with that title. (It’s an excellent book and one I would highly recommend, even though the author was a Marxist and his conclusions are completely wrong.) A 2015 British poll asked people, “Does your job make a meaningful contribution to the world?” Only 50% said yes, while 37% said no and 13% were uncertain.

This won’t be a surprise to anyone who’s operated a business, or even worked in the private sector in general. There are three types of jobs; jobs that accomplish something productive, jobs that accomplish nothing of value, and jobs that actually hinder people trying to accomplish something productive. The number of jobs in the last two categories has grown massively over the years. This would include a lot of unnecessary administrative jobs, burdensome regulatory jobs, useless DEI and HR jobs, a large percentage of public sector jobs, most of the military-industrial complex, and the list is endless. All these jobs accomplish nothing worthwhile at best, and actively discourage those who are trying to accomplish something at worst.

Even among jobs that do accomplish some useful purpose, the amount of time spent actually doing the job continues to decline. According to a 2016 poll, American office workers spent only 39% of their workday actually doing their primary task. The other 61% was largely wasted on unproductive administrative tasks and meetings, answering emails, and just simply wasting time.

I could go on, but the point is, there’s a lot of slack in the economy. We’ve become so productive that the number of people actually doing the work to keep everyone fed, clothed, and cared for is only a small percentage of the population. In one sense, that’s a cause for optimism. The population could decline a lot, and we’d still have enough bodies to man the economic engine, as it were.

Aging

The thing with population decline, though, is nobody gets to choose who goes first. Not unless you’re a psychopathic dictator. So populations get old, then they get small. This means that the number of dependents in the economy rises naturally. Once people retire, they still need someone to grow the food, keep the lights on, and provide the medical care. And it doesn’t matter how much money the retirees have saved, either. Money is just a claim on wealth. The goods and services actually have to be provided by someone, and if that someone was never born, all the money in the world won’t change anything.

And the aging occurs on top of all the people already taking from the economy without contributing anything of value. So that seems like a big problem.

Currently, wealth redistribution happens through a combination of direct taxes, indirect taxation through deficit spending, and the whole gamut of games that happen when banks create credit/debt money by making loans. In a lot of cases, it’s very indirect and difficult to pin down. For example, someone has a “job” in a government office, enforcing pointless regulations that actually hinder someone in the private sector from producing something useful. Their paycheck comes from the government, so a combination of taxes on productive people, and deficit spending, which is also a tax on productive people. But they “have a job,” so who’s going to question their contribution to society? On the other hand, it could be a banker or hedge fund manager. They might be pulling in a massive salary, but at the core all they’re really doing is finding creative financial ways to transfer wealth from productive people to themselves, without contributing anything of value.

You’ll notice a common theme if you think about this problem deeply. Most of the wealth transfer that supports the unproductive, whether that’s welfare recipients, retirees, bureaucrats, corporate middle managers, or weapons manufacturers, is only possible through expanding the money supply. There’s a limit to how much direct taxation the productive will bear while the option to collect welfare exists. At a certain point, people conclude that working hard every day isn’t worth it, when taxes take so much of their wages that they could make almost as much without working at all. So the balance of what it takes to support the dependent class has to come indirectly, through new money creation.

As long as the declining population happens under the existing monetary system, the future looks bleak. There’s no limit to how much money creation and inflation the parasite class will use in an attempt to avoid work. They’ll continue to suck the productive class dry until the workers give up in disgust, and the currency collapses into hyperinflation. And you can’t run a complex economy without functional money, so productivity inevitably collapses with the currency.

The optimistic view is that we don’t have to continue supporting the failed credit/debt monetary system. It’s hurting productivity, messing up incentives, and contributing to increasing wealth inequality and lower living standards for the middle class. If we walk away from that system and adopt a hard money standard, the possibility of inflationary wealth redistribution vanishes. The welfare and warfare programs have to be slashed. The parasite class is forced to get busy, or starve. In that scenario, the declining population of workers can be offset by a massive shift away from “bullshit jobs” and into actual productive work.

While that might not be a permanent solution to declining population, it would at least give us time to find a real solution, without having our complex economy collapse and send our living standards back to the 17th century.

It’s a complex issue with many possible outcomes, but I think a close look at the effects of the monetary system on productivity shows one obvious problem that will make the situation worse than necessary. Moving to a better monetary system and creating incentives for productivity would do a lot to reduce the economic impacts of a declining population.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

This piece is the first in a series that will focus on things I think are a priority if your focus is similar to mine: building a strong family and safeguarding their future.

---

Choosing the ideal place to raise a family is one of the most significant decisions you will ever make. For simplicity sake I will break down my thought process into key factors: strong property rights, the ability to grow your own food, access to fresh water, the freedom to own and train with guns, and a dependable community.

A Jurisdiction with Strong Property Rights

Strong property rights are essential and allow you to build on a solid foundation that is less likely to break underneath you. Regions with a history of limited government and clear legal protections for landowners are ideal. Personally I think the US is the single best option globally, but within the US there is a wide difference between which state you choose. Choose carefully and thoughtfully, think long term. Obviously if you are not American this is not a realistic option for you, there are other solid options available especially if your family has mobility. I understand many do not have this capability to easily move, consider that your first priority, making movement and jurisdiction choice possible in the first place.

Abundant Access to Fresh Water

Water is life. I cannot overstate the importance of living somewhere with reliable, clean, and abundant freshwater. Some regions face water scarcity or heavy regulations on usage, so prioritizing a place where water is plentiful and your rights to it are protected is critical. Ideally you should have well access so you are not tied to municipal water supplies. In times of crisis or chaos well water cannot be easily shutoff or disrupted. If you live in an area that is drought prone, you are one drought away from societal chaos. Not enough people appreciate this simple fact.

Grow Your Own Food

A location with fertile soil, a favorable climate, and enough space for a small homestead or at the very least a garden is key. In stable times, a small homestead provides good food and important education for your family. In times of chaos your family being able to grow and raise healthy food provides a level of self sufficiency that many others will lack. Look for areas with minimal restrictions, good weather, and a culture that supports local farming.

Guns

The ability to defend your family is fundamental. A location where you can legally and easily own guns is a must. Look for places with a strong gun culture and a political history of protecting those rights. Owning one or two guns is not enough and without proper training they will be a liability rather than a benefit. Get comfortable and proficient. Never stop improving your skills. If the time comes that you must use a gun to defend your family, the skills must be instinct. Practice. Practice. Practice.

A Strong Community You Can Depend On

No one thrives alone. A ride or die community that rallies together in tough times is invaluable. Seek out a place where people know their neighbors, share similar values, and are quick to lend a hand. Lead by example and become a good neighbor, people will naturally respond in kind. Small towns are ideal, if possible, but living outside of a major city can be a solid balance in terms of work opportunities and family security.

---

Let me know if you found this helpful. My plan is to break down how I think about these five key subjects in future posts.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

For years American bitcoin miners have argued for more efficient and free energy markets. It benefits everyone if our energy infrastructure is as efficient and robust as possible. Unfortunately, broken incentives have led to increased regulation throughout the sector, incentivizing less efficient energy sources such as solar and wind at the detriment of more efficient alternatives.

The result has been less reliable energy infrastructure for all Americans and increased energy costs across the board. This naturally has a direct impact on bitcoin miners: increased energy costs make them less competitive globally.

Bitcoin mining represents a global energy market that does not require permission to participate. Anyone can plug a mining computer into power and internet to get paid the current dynamic market price for their work in bitcoin. Using cellphone or satellite internet, these mines can be located anywhere in the world, sourcing the cheapest power available.

Absent of regulation, bitcoin mining naturally incentivizes the build out of highly efficient and robust energy infrastructure. Unfortunately that world does not exist and burdensome regulations remain the biggest threat for US based mining businesses. Jurisdictional arbitrage gives miners the option of moving to a friendlier country but that naturally comes with its own costs.

Enter AI. With the rapid development and release of AI tools comes the requirement of running massive datacenters for their models. Major tech companies are scrambling to secure machines, rack space, and cheap energy to run full suites of AI enabled tools and services. The most valuable and powerful tech companies in America have stumbled into an accidental alliance with bitcoin miners: THE NEED FOR CHEAP AND RELIABLE ENERGY.

Our government is corrupt. Money talks. These companies will push for energy freedom and it will greatly benefit us all.

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

There is something quietly rebellious about stacking sats. In a world obsessed with instant gratification, choosing to patiently accumulate Bitcoin, one sat at a time, feels like a middle finger to the hype machine. But to do it right, you have got to stay humble. Stack too hard with your head in the clouds, and you will trip over your own ego before the next halving even hits.

Small Wins

Stacking sats is not glamorous. Discipline. Stacking every day, week, or month, no matter the price, and letting time do the heavy lifting. Humility lives in that consistency. You are not trying to outsmart the market or prove you are the next "crypto" prophet. Just a regular person, betting on a system you believe in, one humble stack at a time. Folks get rekt chasing the highs. They ape into some shitcoin pump, shout about it online, then go silent when they inevitably get rekt. The ones who last? They stack. Just keep showing up. Consistency. Humility in action. Know the game is long, and you are not bigger than it.

Ego is Volatile

Bitcoin’s swings can mess with your head. One day you are up 20%, feeling like a genius and the next down 30%, questioning everything. Ego will have you panic selling at the bottom or over leveraging the top. Staying humble means patience, a true bitcoin zen. Do not try to "beat” Bitcoin. Ride it. Stack what you can afford, live your life, and let compounding work its magic.

Simplicity

There is a beauty in how stacking sats forces you to rethink value. A sat is worth less than a penny today, but every time you grab a few thousand, you plant a seed. It is not about flaunting wealth but rather building it, quietly, without fanfare. That mindset spills over. Cut out the noise: the overpriced coffee, fancy watches, the status games that drain your wallet. Humility is good for your soul and your stack. I have a buddy who has been stacking since 2015. Never talks about it unless you ask. Lives in a decent place, drives an old truck, and just keeps stacking. He is not chasing clout, he is chasing freedom. That is the vibe: less ego, more sats, all grounded in life.

The Big Picture

Stack those sats. Do it quietly, do it consistently, and do not let the green days puff you up or the red days break you down. Humility is the secret sauce, it keeps you grounded while the world spins wild. In a decade, when you look back and smile, it will not be because you shouted the loudest. It will be because you stayed the course, one sat at a time. \ \ Stay Humble and Stack Sats. 🫡

@ 04c915da:3dfbecc9

Here’s a revised timeline of macro-level events from The Mandibles: A Family, 2029–2047 by Lionel Shriver, reimagined in a world where Bitcoin is adopted as a widely accepted form of money, altering the original narrative’s assumptions about currency collapse and economic control. In Shriver’s original story, the failure of Bitcoin is assumed amid the dominance of the bancor and the dollar’s collapse. Here, Bitcoin’s success reshapes the economic and societal trajectory, decentralizing power and challenging state-driven outcomes.

Part One: 2029–2032

• 2029 (Early Year)\ The United States faces economic strain as the dollar weakens against global shifts. However, Bitcoin, having gained traction emerges as a viable alternative. Unlike the original timeline, the bancor—a supranational currency backed by a coalition of nations—struggles to gain footing as Bitcoin’s decentralized adoption grows among individuals and businesses worldwide, undermining both the dollar and the bancor.

• 2029 (Mid-Year: The Great Renunciation)\ Treasury bonds lose value, and the government bans Bitcoin, labeling it a threat to sovereignty (mirroring the original bancor ban). However, a Bitcoin ban proves unenforceable—its decentralized nature thwarts confiscation efforts, unlike gold in the original story. Hyperinflation hits the dollar as the U.S. prints money, but Bitcoin’s fixed supply shields adopters from currency devaluation, creating a dual-economy split: dollar users suffer, while Bitcoin users thrive.

• 2029 (Late Year)\ Dollar-based inflation soars, emptying stores of goods priced in fiat currency. Meanwhile, Bitcoin transactions flourish in underground and online markets, stabilizing trade for those plugged into the bitcoin ecosystem. Traditional supply chains falter, but peer-to-peer Bitcoin networks enable local and international exchange, reducing scarcity for early adopters. The government’s gold confiscation fails to bolster the dollar, as Bitcoin’s rise renders gold less relevant.

• 2030–2031\ Crime spikes in dollar-dependent urban areas, but Bitcoin-friendly regions see less chaos, as digital wallets and smart contracts facilitate secure trade. The U.S. government doubles down on surveillance to crack down on bitcoin use. A cultural divide deepens: centralized authority weakens in Bitcoin-adopting communities, while dollar zones descend into lawlessness.

• 2032\ By this point, Bitcoin is de facto legal tender in parts of the U.S. and globally, especially in tech-savvy or libertarian-leaning regions. The federal government’s grip slips as tax collection in dollars plummets—Bitcoin’s traceability is low, and citizens evade fiat-based levies. Rural and urban Bitcoin hubs emerge, while the dollar economy remains fractured.

Time Jump: 2032–2047

• Over 15 years, Bitcoin solidifies as a global reserve currency, eroding centralized control. The U.S. government adapts, grudgingly integrating bitcoin into policy, though regional autonomy grows as Bitcoin empowers local economies.

Part Two: 2047

• 2047 (Early Year)\ The U.S. is a hybrid state: Bitcoin is legal tender alongside a diminished dollar. Taxes are lower, collected in BTC, reducing federal overreach. Bitcoin’s adoption has decentralized power nationwide. The bancor has faded, unable to compete with Bitcoin’s grassroots momentum.

• 2047 (Mid-Year)\ Travel and trade flow freely in Bitcoin zones, with no restrictive checkpoints. The dollar economy lingers in poorer areas, marked by decay, but Bitcoin’s dominance lifts overall prosperity, as its deflationary nature incentivizes saving and investment over consumption. Global supply chains rebound, powered by bitcoin enabled efficiency.

• 2047 (Late Year)\ The U.S. is a patchwork of semi-autonomous zones, united by Bitcoin’s universal acceptance rather than federal control. Resource scarcity persists due to past disruptions, but economic stability is higher than in Shriver’s original dystopia—Bitcoin’s success prevents the authoritarian slide, fostering a freer, if imperfect, society.

Key Differences

• Currency Dynamics: Bitcoin’s triumph prevents the bancor’s dominance and mitigates hyperinflation’s worst effects, offering a lifeline outside state control.
• Government Power: Centralized authority weakens as Bitcoin evades bans and taxation, shifting power to individuals and communities.
• Societal Outcome: Instead of a surveillance state, 2047 sees a decentralized, bitcoin driven world—less oppressive, though still stratified between Bitcoin haves and have-nots.

This reimagining assumes Bitcoin overcomes Shriver’s implied skepticism to become a robust, adopted currency by 2029, fundamentally altering the novel’s bleak trajectory.

@ 6ad3e2a3:c90b7740

I’ve written about MSTR twice already, https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr and https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr-part-2, but I want to focus on legendary short seller James Chanos’ current trade wherein he buys bitcoin (via ETF) and shorts MSTR, in essence to “be like Mike” Saylor who sells MSTR shares at the market and uses them to add bitcoin to the company’s balance sheet. After all, if it’s good enough for Saylor, why shouldn’t everyone be doing it — shorting a company whose stock price is more than 2x its bitcoin holdings and using the proceeds to buy the bitcoin itself?

Saylor himself has said selling shares at 2x NAV (net asset value) to buy bitcoin is like selling dollars for two dollars each, and Chanos has apparently decided to get in while the getting (market cap more than 2x net asset value) is good. If the price of bitcoin moons, sending MSTR’s shares up, you are more than hedged in that event, too. At least that’s the theory.

The problem with this bet against MSTR’s mNAV, i.e., you are betting MSTR’s market cap will converge 1:1 toward its NAV in the short and medium term is this trade does not exist in a vacuum. Saylor has described how his ATM’s (at the market) sales of shares are accretive in BTC per share because of this very premium they carry. Yes, we’ll dilute your shares of the company, but because we’re getting you 2x the bitcoin per share, you are getting an ever smaller slice of an ever bigger overall pie, and the pie is growing 2x faster than your slice is reducing. (I https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr how this works in my first post.)

But for this accretion to continue, there must be a constant supply of “greater fools” to pony up for the infinitely printable shares which contain only half their value in underlying bitcoin. Yes, those shares will continue to accrete more BTC per share, but only if there are more fools willing to make this trade in the future. So will there be a constant supply of such “fools” to keep fueling MSTR’s mNAV multiple indefinitely?

Yes, there will be in my opinion because you have to look at the trade from the prospective fools’ perspective. Those “fools” are not trading bitcoin for MSTR, they are trading their dollars, selling other equities to raise them maybe, but in the end it’s a dollars for shares trade. They are not selling bitcoin for them.

You might object that those same dollars could buy bitcoin instead, so they are surely trading the opportunity cost of buying bitcoin for them, but if only 5-10 percent of the market (or less) is buying bitcoin itself, the bucket in which which those “fools” reside is the entire non-bitcoin-buying equity market. (And this is not considering the even larger debt market which Saylor has yet to tap in earnest.)

So for those 90-95 percent who do not and are not presently planning to own bitcoin itself, is buying MSTR a fool’s errand, so to speak? Not remotely. If MSTR shares are infinitely printable ATM, they are still less so than the dollar and other fiat currencies. And MSTR shares are backed 2:1 by bitcoin itself, while the fiat currencies are backed by absolutely nothing. So if you hold dollars or euros, trading them for MSTR shares is an errand more sage than foolish.

That’s why this trade (buying BTC and shorting MSTR) is so dangerous. Not only are there many people who won’t buy BTC buying MSTR, there are many funds and other investment entities who are only able to buy MSTR.

Do you want to get BTC at 1:1 with the 5-10 percent or MSTR backed 2:1 with the 90-95 percent. This is a bit like medical tests that have a 95 percent accuracy rate for an asymptomatic disease that only one percent of the population has. If someone tests positive, it’s more likely to be a false one than an indication he has the disease*. The accuracy rate, even at 19:1, is subservient to the size of the respective populations.

At some point this will no longer be the case, but so long as the understanding of bitcoin is not widespread, so long as the dollar is still the unit of account, the “greater fools” buying MSTR are still miles ahead of the greatest fools buying neither, and the stock price and mNAV should only increase.

. . .

One other thought: it’s more work to play defense than offense because the person on offense knows where he’s going, and the defender can only react to him once he moves. Similarly, Saylor by virtue of being the issuer of the shares knows when more will come online while Chanos and other short sellers are borrowing them to sell in reaction to Saylor’s strategy. At any given moment, Saylor can pause anytime, choosing to issue convertible debt or preferred shares with which to buy more bitcoin, and the shorts will not be given advance notice.

If the price runs, and there is no ATM that week because Saylor has stopped on a dime, so to speak, the shorts will be left having to scramble to change directions and buy the shares back to cover. Their momentum might be in the wrong direction, though, and like Allen Iverson breaking ankles with a crossover, Saylor might trigger a massive short squeeze, rocketing the share price ever higher. That’s why he actually welcomes Chanos et al trying this copycat strategy — it becomes the fuel for outsized gains.

For that reason, news that Chanos is shorting MSTR has not shaken my conviction, though there are other more pertinent https://www.chrisliss.com/p/mstr-part-2 with MSTR, of which one should be aware. And as always, do your own due diligence before investing in anything.

* To understand this, consider a population of 100,000, with one percent having a disease. That means 1,000 have it, 99,000 do not. If the test is 95 percent accurate, and everyone is tested, 950 of the 1,000 will test positive (true positives), 50 who have it will test negative (false negatives.) Of the positives, 95 percent of 99,000 (94,050) will test negative (true negatives) and five percent (4,950) will test positive (false positives). That means 4,950 out of 5,900 positives (84%) will be false.

@ 91bea5cd:1df4451c

Contexto e início

O precursor direto do avivamento foi William J. Seymour, um pregador afro-americano filho de ex-escravos, influenciado pelos ensinamentos de Charles Parham, que pregava o "batismo no Espírito Santo" com evidência do falar em línguas.

Em 1906, Seymour foi convidado para pregar em uma igreja em Los Angeles. Após ser rejeitado por alguns por sua pregação sobre o batismo com o Espírito Santo, ele começou a liderar reuniões de oração na casa da família Asberry. Em abril de 1906, durante uma dessas reuniões, os participantes começaram a experimentar manifestações intensas do Espírito Santo, incluindo glossolalia (falar em línguas), curas e profecias.

A Rua Azusa

Logo, o número de participantes cresceu tanto que foi necessário mudar para um antigo prédio da Igreja Metodista Africana Episcopal, no número 312 da Rua Azusa, no centro de Los Angeles. Esse local se tornou o epicentro do avivamento.

Características marcantes

Cultos espontâneos e fervorosos, muitas vezes sem ordem pré-definida.

Diversidade étnica e social: negros, brancos, latinos, asiáticos, ricos e pobres adoravam juntos — algo radical para os padrões da época.

Ênfase nas manifestações espirituais, como línguas, curas, visões e profecias.

Igualdade de gênero e raça no ministério, com mulheres e homens de diversas origens pregando e liderando.

Impacto

O avivamento da Rua Azusa marcou o nascimento e expansão global do pentecostalismo, hoje uma das maiores forças do cristianismo mundial. Missionários saíram de Azusa para várias partes do mundo, levando a mensagem pentecostal. Movimentos como as Assembleias de Deus e Igreja do Evangelho Quadrangular têm raízes nesse avivamento.

Tensão e Interpretação entre Reformistas e Pentecostalistas

Evangelhos e Atos

João Batista profetiza: “Ele vos batizará com o Espírito Santo e com fogo” (Mateus 3:11).

Em Atos 2, no Pentecostes, os discípulos falam em línguas e recebem poder (Atos 1:8; 2:4).

Outros episódios: Atos 10 (Casa de Cornélio) e Atos 19 (Éfeso).

Cartas Paulinas

Paulo não relaciona diretamente o “batismo com o Espírito” ao falar em línguas. Em 1 Coríntios 12:13 ele diz: “Pois em um só Espírito todos nós fomos batizados em um corpo”.

A glossolalia aparece como um dom entre outros, mas não como evidência obrigatória (1 Coríntios 12:30).

Tensão

Pentecostais veem o batismo com o Espírito como uma segunda experiência após a conversão, evidenciada por línguas. Reformados geralmente interpretam que o batismo com o Espírito ocorre na conversão e que línguas não são obrigatórias ou cessaram com os apóstolos.

Reformadores e o Batismo com o Espírito Santo

Martinho Lutero, João Calvino e outros reformadores não falavam em línguas nem davam ênfase a experiências carismáticas.

Cessacionismo: Doutrina comum entre reformados que diz que os dons sobrenaturais (línguas, profecias, curas) cessaram com a era apostólica.

Continuação (posição pentecostal): Os dons continuam hoje.

Filmes / Documentários

“Azusa Street: The Origins of Pentecostalism” (2006) – Documentário com imagens históricas e entrevistas.

“Wesley” (2009) – Biografia de John Wesley, precursor do metodismo e influência indireta no pentecostalismo.

“The Cross and the Switchblade” (1970) – História de David Wilkerson e a conversão de Nicky Cruz; enfatiza a obra do Espírito.

Série “God in America” (PBS) – Episódio sobre o pentecostalismo (não só Azusa, mas seu impacto cultural).

@ 39cc53c9:27168656

Read the original blog post

Know Your Customer is a regulation that requires companies of all sizes to verify the identity, suitability, and risks involved with maintaining a business relationship with a customer. Such procedures fit within the broader scope of anti-money laundering (AML) and counterterrorism financing (CTF) regulations.

Banks, exchanges, online business, mail providers, domain registrars... Everyone wants to know who you are before you can even opt for their service. Your personal information is flowing around the internet in the hands of "god-knows-who" and secured by "trust-me-bro military-grade encryption". Once your account is linked to your personal (and verified) identity, tracking you is just as easy as keeping logs on all these platforms.

Rights for Illusions

KYC processes aim to combat terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activities. On the surface, KYC seems like a commendable initiative. I mean, who wouldn't want to halt terrorists and criminals in their tracks?

The logic behind KYC is: "If we mandate every financial service provider to identify their users, it becomes easier to pinpoint and apprehend the malicious actors."

However, terrorists and criminals are not precisely lining up to be identified. They're crafty. They may adopt false identities or find alternative strategies to continue their operations. Far from being outwitted, many times they're several steps ahead of regulations. Realistically, KYC might deter a small fraction – let's say about 1% ^1 – of these malefactors. Yet, the cost? All of us are saddled with the inconvenient process of identification just to use a service.

Under the rhetoric of "ensuring our safety", governments and institutions enact regulations that seem more out of a dystopian novel, gradually taking away our right to privacy.

To illustrate, consider a city where the mayor has rolled out facial recognition cameras in every nook and cranny. A band of criminals, intent on robbing a local store, rolls in with a stolen car, their faces obscured by masks and their bodies cloaked in all-black clothes. Once they've committed the crime and exited the city's boundaries, they switch vehicles and clothes out of the cameras' watchful eyes. The high-tech surveillance? It didn’t manage to identify or trace them. Yet, for every law-abiding citizen who merely wants to drive through the city or do some shopping, their movements and identities are constantly logged. The irony? This invasive tracking impacts all of us, just to catch the 1% ^1 of less-than-careful criminals.

KYC? Not you.

KYC creates barriers to participation in normal economic activity, to supposedly stop criminals. ^2

KYC puts barriers between many users and businesses. One of these comes from the fact that the process often requires multiple forms of identification, proof of address, and sometimes even financial records. For individuals in areas with poor record-keeping, non-recognized legal documents, or those who are unbanked, homeless or transient, obtaining these documents can be challenging, if not impossible.

For people who are not skilled with technology or just don't have access to it, there's also a barrier since KYC procedures are mostly online, leaving them inadvertently excluded.

Another barrier goes for the casual or one-time user, where they might not see the value in undergoing a rigorous KYC process, and these requirements can deter them from using the service altogether.

It also wipes some businesses out of the equation, since for smaller businesses, the costs associated with complying with KYC norms—from the actual process of gathering and submitting documents to potential delays in operations—can be prohibitive in economical and/or technical terms.

You're not welcome

Imagine a swanky new club in town with a strict "members only" sign. You hear the music, you see the lights, and you want in. You step up, ready to join, but suddenly there's a long list of criteria you must meet. After some time, you are finally checking all the boxes. But then the club rejects your membership with no clear reason why. You just weren't accepted. Frustrating, right?

This club scenario isn't too different from the fact that KYC is being used by many businesses as a convenient gatekeeping tool. A perfect excuse based on a "legal" procedure they are obliged to.

Even some exchanges may randomly use this to freeze and block funds from users, claiming these were "flagged" by a cryptic system that inspects the transactions. You are left hostage to their arbitrary decision to let you successfully pass the KYC procedure. If you choose to sidestep their invasive process, they might just hold onto your funds indefinitely.

Your identity has been stolen

KYC data has been found to be for sale on many dark net markets^3. Exchanges may have leaks or hacks, and such leaks contain very sensitive data. We're talking about the full monty: passport or ID scans, proof of address, and even those awkward selfies where you're holding up your ID next to your face. All this data is being left to the mercy of the (mostly) "trust-me-bro" security systems of such companies. Quite scary, isn't it?

As cheap as $10 for 100 documents, with discounts applying for those who buy in bulk, the personal identities of innocent users who passed KYC procedures are for sale. ^3

In short, if you have ever passed the KYC/AML process of a crypto exchange, your privacy is at risk of being compromised, or it might even have already been compromised.

(they) Know Your Coins

You may already know that Bitcoin and most cryptocurrencies have a transparent public blockchain, meaning that all data is shown unencrypted for everyone to see and recorded forever. If you link an address you own to your identity through KYC, for example, by sending an amount from a KYC exchange to it, your Bitcoin is no longer pseudonymous and can then be traced.

If, for instance, you send Bitcoin from such an identified address to another KYC'ed address (say, from a friend), everyone having access to that address-identity link information (exchanges, governments, hackers, etc.) will be able to associate that transaction and know who you are transacting with.

Conclusions

To sum up, KYC does not protect individuals; rather, it's a threat to our privacy, freedom, security and integrity. Sensible information flowing through the internet is thrown into chaos by dubious security measures. It puts borders between many potential customers and businesses, and it helps governments and companies track innocent users. That's the chaos KYC has stirred.

The criminals are using stolen identities from companies that gathered them thanks to these very same regulations that were supposed to combat them. Criminals always know how to circumvent such regulations. In the end, normal people are the most affected by these policies.

The threat that KYC poses to individuals in terms of privacy, security and freedom is not to be neglected. And if we don’t start challenging these systems and questioning their efficacy, we are just one step closer to the dystopian future that is now foreseeable.

Edited 20/03/2024 * Add reference to the 1% statement on Rights for Illusions section to an article where Chainalysis found that only 0.34% of the transaction volume with cryptocurrencies in 2023 was attributable to criminal activity ^1