@CynthiaMLummis 1) Yes ma'am. Thank you for the question. Writing thread now:
USD & SWIFT are fundamentally monetary systems, the security of which is dependent on our ability to prevent four types of loss events from happening.
@CynthiaMLummis 2) Of these different types of financial system loss events, #4 is the most strategically significant because it represents the largest existential threat to a given monetary network.
@CynthiaMLummis 3) To prevent our financial system from experiencing these loss events, it is OUR responsibility not to perform "unsafe control actions" that could put the system in a state where we experience a loss event. But that's precisely what we're doing by DoS-attacking Russia from SWIFT
@CynthiaMLummis 4) This constraint becomes *EXTREMELY* important in the presence of #bitcoin because users now have an option to exit USD & SWIFT at massive scale for near-zero marginal cost. This creates an "unplanned change" in the environment that IDK if authorities fully appreciate...
@CynthiaMLummis 5) From Russia's PoV, getting kicked off SWIFT gives them two options for restoring zero-trust & egalitarian control over their monetary property (1) kinetic power projection, or (2) electric power projection (Bitcoin). They're signaling option #1
@CynthiaMLummis 6) So right off the bat, kicking Russia off SWIFT does escalate strategic (i.e. nuclear) tensions. But it also greases the skids for Russia to pursue Option #2 as the ostensibly nonviolent option to restore their financial sovereignty. Which means, they can punch us back by...
@CynthiaMLummis 7) ... demanding that their energy exports be priced in #BTC, thus Russia can effectively force the people who need USD/SWIFT off USD/SWIFT at no penalty to themselves b/c they're already banned from SWIFT, so there's nothing for them to lose
@CynthiaMLummis 8) And there's nothing we can do about it - we can't ban Russia from using #Bitcoin or demanding their exports in Bitcoin. And it would be detrimental to US interests to ban #Bitcoin anyways since we have the most to gain from it long term (as you already know)
@CynthiaMLummis 9) Our responsibility to avoid this, in the 1st place, is not to motivate users to exit our financial system. By kicking Russia off SWIFT, we motivate them to *accelerate* mass exodus. They drag way more people than themselves off SWIFT, at zero marginal cost, faster than...
@CynthiaMLummis 10) ... US is even aware of the strategic imperative of #Bitcoin and how vital it is for us to buy it. Now Russia basically has an excuse to be the biggest BTC 1st mover, & US has to avoid fratricide of banning ourselves from BTC
@CynthiaMLummis 11) So we have to ask ourselves - is our financial system, already weakened by COVID, really prepared for the amount of users its about to lose by (1) forcing Russia off SWIFT, and (2) Russia potentially forcing others off SWIFT via re-pricing their exports in BTC or Yuan?
@CynthiaMLummis 12) Bottom Line: I don't think our leaders understand the immense capital flight risk they're taking by kicking 🇷🇺 off SWIFT. They think capital flight risk is safe b/c 🇷🇺's $$ stays locked in banks. But 🇷🇺 can recapture seized value & ignite capital flight en masse using #BTC
@CynthiaMLummis 13) And in the process of doing that, they position themselves as 1st movers in #BTC & while simultaneously benefitting from US having more mixed feelings & hesitation regarding #BTC support than it already has
@CynthiaMLummis 14) Summary: #BTC is a mountain. NATO isn't aware of the mountain & is placing airplane on a crash course w/the mountain. After it crashes, Russia will strategically benefit from NATO blaming the mountain f/the crash. But in reality the mountain is GOOD & we just suck at flying.
@CynthiaMLummis 15) Thank you for listening ma'am I'll stop there.
@CynthiaMLummis@CynthiaMLummis FYSA I extended thread from 11 to 14 tweets to give you a better summary of the ideas presented. Thanks again for the opportunity.
1) As Russia begins to threaten a strategic (i.e. nuclear) response to financial sanctions & rejection of SWIFT, we affirm my thesis that #Bitcoin has major national strategic implications that will lead us towards a new strategic policy of Mutually Assured Preservation (MAP).
2) As both sides of the current conflict weigh using #Bitcoin to minimize the attack surface on their monetary property, it reaffirms my point that we should not get caught up on offense vs. defense but instead focus on the means of power projection being used to defend money.
3) And by far the least important political issue concerning #Bitcoin is its energy usage. Those who criticize Bitcoin's energy usage fundamentally misunderstand the point of Bitcoin, and especially don't appreciate its enormous global strategic implications.
Imagine how much worse Feudalism would have been if citizens had no idea the king existed, or what he looked like, or where he lived, and none of the peasants had any mechanism to kill the invisible King if the King became oppressive.
That Feudal System is called Ethereum 2.0
It's also called Web 3.0. And all the Kings trying to sell you on this horrible Feudal system are going to try to convince you that it's "better for the environment."
So now that we've established we're not going to get in a kinetic fight against a nuclear-armed peer, and instead going to get into competition where we attempt to deny the other access to a financial network...
Why isn't US buying all the #Bitcoin before Russia/China does.
Every #Bitcoin that US buys is a BTC that Russia & China can't have...
We should probably have someone in our military looking into this... maybe that person should advice the National Security Council on this recommendation...
"Dead men tell no tales" means dead men don't break promises. The implication of this idiom is that violence gives people zero-trust control over people & property. There is no such thing as zero-trust control over ppl/property w/o violence. Peace is merely a state of high trust.
What people misunderstand is that they assume violence must be kinetic. This has never been true.
I argue, an act qualifies as violence if it presens a credible threat of harm. Doesn't have to be physical harm. Can be social, emotional, or financial harm.
Thoughts?
The fundamental tension between peace & violence is that trust, itself, is an exploitable security vulnerability. Peace is a state of high trust, but higher states of trust are more vulnerable to exploitation that need to be resolved via violence.
Problem is, u have to make sincere effort to understand the legitimacy & impact that war has had in scaling civilizations, to fully comprehend/understand why #bitcoin is so disruptive. So military guy has to explain war in notoriously anti-govt community. Recipe for disaster.
I end up being targeted as a warmongering spook for trying to point out the similarities (which is essential for understanding why #Bitcoin disrupts it).
Ironically, the "power projection" framework I'm introducing in my thesis destroys the FUD that nocoiners are so gullible to (ex. ESG, Web3), and are demonstrably effective a orange-pilling govt officials & boomers.
It's also a refreshingly new perspective for ppl IMO.