Recent well liked threads
Alright! Det här är väl en bra dag för att dyka ner lite i Pakistan och prata lite om översvämningar, klimat, vattenkraftverk och kartor? (Jag är ju trots allt civilingenjör! 😎) Ni kanske kommer ihåg att det har blivit ganska så katastrofalt översvämmat?..
Först! Lite kartor! Pakistan är, som många andra länder, ett land som är beroende av sina flodsystem. Indusfloden är basen men den i sin tur består av ett gäng andra floder som rinner ihop med Indus som alla utgår ifrån smältande glaciärer i Himalaya (& Karakoram, Hindukush osv). 
Går att jämföra det här med en populationsdensitetskarta för att få lite feeling över hur stor betydelse det har för var folk bor! Och hur sådär det då kan bli med katastrofala översvämningar.
Yes, an excessive focus on equality undermines freedom. So does an excessive focus on FREEDOM.
Focusing only on freedom ignores the importance of social norms, backed up by SENSIBLE laws. Without those norms, society becomes dysfunctional & that INCREASES the power of the state.
Focusing only on freedom ignores the importance of social norms, backed up by SENSIBLE laws. Without those norms, society becomes dysfunctional & that INCREASES the power of the state.
That's why you never actually see a classically liberal or libertarian regime sustain itself. A state that tries to be too neutral is weak & creates atomisation & anomie. The resulting dysfunction then paves the way for socialists or progressives to take over. Happens every time.
Can anyone actually name a country that was classically liberal or libertarian for more than 5 minutes? Western democracies today certainly aren't. They typically ESPOUSE liberal values, but look at the size of the government & the levels of taxation in all of them. Not liberal.
Very interesting article.
You can debate the specific strategies that Hill & Salter advocate for in the second half of this paper. But the argument they make in the first half of the paper is very striking - the standard approach to DV is not working.
jesshill.substack.com/p/rethinking-p…
You can debate the specific strategies that Hill & Salter advocate for in the second half of this paper. But the argument they make in the first half of the paper is very striking - the standard approach to DV is not working.
jesshill.substack.com/p/rethinking-p…
This is perhaps the most striking extract from the paper.
And this one.
The latest homicide data should inform the current debate about violent crime.
In 2022/23 there were 247 victims of homicide. That includes 60 female victims who were killed by male offenders. aic.gov.au/sites/default/…
In 2022/23 there were 247 victims of homicide. That includes 60 female victims who were killed by male offenders. aic.gov.au/sites/default/…
60% of homicide offenders (155/260) had a criminal history. It would be interesting to know if there were more detailed data available about offenders' criminal history.
The data also shows again how much more of a problem homicide is within the indigenous community - the rate is 5.36 per 100,000 for indigenous people vs. 0.74 per 100,000 for non-indigenous people.
That clearly should be a major focus.
That clearly should be a major focus.
Many edgy takes on this platform about women voting.
Who did the men of America elect in the last US election before 19A? Wilson.
A few years earlier, the men of the UK & Europe elected the men who bumbled into WW1.
The West was in dire straits well before women got the vote.
Who did the men of America elect in the last US election before 19A? Wilson.
A few years earlier, the men of the UK & Europe elected the men who bumbled into WW1.
The West was in dire straits well before women got the vote.
Yes, UNMARRIED women vote much more progressive than the rest of the electorate in the US. That's probably because of abortion, mainly.
But you are not showing much political judgement yourself if you think it's a good idea to bang on about taking away the vote from women.
But you are not showing much political judgement yourself if you think it's a good idea to bang on about taking away the vote from women.
The sex of voters is not the issue. Their judgement & level of responsibility is. There is a strong case to restrict the vote to citizens who have demonstrated a capacity to exercise their civic duties responsibly. For example, net taxpayer households.
Mass immigration doesn’t just provide cheap labour & culinary diversity. It TRANSFORMS your nation’s culture.
That’s why conservatives oppose it. They love their culture & want it conserved.
And that’s why progressives support it. They hate their culture & want it transformed.
That’s why conservatives oppose it. They love their culture & want it conserved.
And that’s why progressives support it. They hate their culture & want it transformed.
The kind of person who holds up a sign saying “Abolish Australia” is exactly the kind of person who supports mass immigration. They hate their country’s heritage & culture. They hate the way their country IS. They hate that the country even exists. They want something different.
Even less radical supporters of mass immigration will frequently decry the way their nation used to be. It was so boring. It was pale & stale. It was all so monotonous because it was all so monochromatic. They simply don’t like their own culture. They want something different.
Motherhood has high status among those who love their culture & want to pass it on to the next generation. You need mothers for that.
Motherhood has low status among those who don’t love their culture & who are happy to import people to keep GDP growing. No mothers required.
Motherhood has low status among those who don’t love their culture & who are happy to import people to keep GDP growing. No mothers required.
This is why conservatives tend to value motherhood more than progressives. And fatherhood. And strong families.
We recognise that the only way a culture is conserved is by being passed onto the next generation. If you don’t want to conserve the culture, families are unnecessary.
We recognise that the only way a culture is conserved is by being passed onto the next generation. If you don’t want to conserve the culture, families are unnecessary.
@threadreaderapp unroll
Politics is not only about the distribution of material resources but also the distribution of respect.
In any society, choices are made about which type of people are shown respect in civic life, which type of people are ignored, & which type of people are shown disrespect.
In any society, choices are made about which type of people are shown respect in civic life, which type of people are ignored, & which type of people are shown disrespect.
In Australia, we make big civic displays of respect for indigenous people, immigrants & the rainbow gang. Our military also get two day dedicated to them.
We make little effort to show civic respect for other types of people.
And we actively disrespect Anglo-Celtic people.
We make little effort to show civic respect for other types of people.
And we actively disrespect Anglo-Celtic people.
How much recognition do farmers or tradies or entrepreneurs or stay-at-home mothers get? Basically none. There is a bit of recognition for teachers & medical workers & first responders, but even that is fairly limited.
Civic respect is a resource that is doled out selectively.
Civic respect is a resource that is doled out selectively.
The full breakdown of Australia’s foreign-born population shown here is not published by authorities - it would take a FOI request to confirm.
The regional split is solid but Grok has to make some assumptions about the split between different categories for each region.
The regional split is solid but Grok has to make some assumptions about the split between different categories for each region.
Here’s the same data shown the other way.
32% of the resident population were born overseas but the visa/citizenship status of foreign-born residents makes a big difference to the impact on our economy & culture & on how policy can be adjusted.
32% of the resident population were born overseas but the visa/citizenship status of foreign-born residents makes a big difference to the impact on our economy & culture & on how policy can be adjusted.
Obviously the easiest way to ease pressure on the housing market & support wages for Australians is to cut temporary visas.
But the criteria for permanent residence should also be tightened. The definition of what is considered a “highly skilled” occupation is very loose.
But the criteria for permanent residence should also be tightened. The definition of what is considered a “highly skilled” occupation is very loose.
Australia’s total fertility rate is about 1.5. So 10 representative couples have 15 children between them. The blue bars give an example of what that looks like.
In 1973, our TFR was 2.5. The red bars give an example of what that looks like.
We could do 2.5 again if we want.
In 1973, our TFR was 2.5. The red bars give an example of what that looks like.
We could do 2.5 again if we want.
In 1970 Australia’s TFR was 2.86. In 1980 it was 1.89.
The Pill, easier access to abortion, & no-fault divorce drove our TFR from well above the replacement rate of 2.1 to well below it.
We stopped reproducing ourselves & started importing more people instead.
The Pill, easier access to abortion, & no-fault divorce drove our TFR from well above the replacement rate of 2.1 to well below it.
We stopped reproducing ourselves & started importing more people instead.
A nation’s culture can only be conserved by being transmitted to the next generation. A nation that does not reproduce itself is fundamentally a nation that does not love its own culture enough to do that.
This image triggers liberals in fascinating ways.
Yes, they get very defensive when shown evidence of how little of their finite empathy they allocate to those closest to them.
But they also get very upset to see evidence of how much those mean conservatives care about people.
Yes, they get very defensive when shown evidence of how little of their finite empathy they allocate to those closest to them.
But they also get very upset to see evidence of how much those mean conservatives care about people.
Here’s the link to the study, in case you haven’t seen it.
Key conclusion: “liberals and conservatives differ not in the total amount of moral regard per se but rather they differ in their patterns of how they distribute their moral regard.” nature.com/articles/s4146…
Key conclusion: “liberals and conservatives differ not in the total amount of moral regard per se but rather they differ in their patterns of how they distribute their moral regard.” nature.com/articles/s4146…
When you get into discussions with liberals on this platform about the heatmap image, you can get some very strange attempts to deny or obfuscate the study’s findings. But you can also get some very striking admissions.
Who is “American”?
I’d say ethnogenesis created a “white American” ethnicity & a “black American” ethnicity with others emerging over time.
“American” then is a cultural identity proportionately shaped by those ethnic groups that others can assimilate into. But only gradually.
I’d say ethnogenesis created a “white American” ethnicity & a “black American” ethnicity with others emerging over time.
“American” then is a cultural identity proportionately shaped by those ethnic groups that others can assimilate into. But only gradually.
Those ethnic groups are narrower than racial groups. “White Americans” would not include an Englishman who moved to America a few years ago & just got US citizenship. His ethnicity would still be English.
Similarly, “black Americans” would not include a Somali who just arrived.
Similarly, “black Americans” would not include a Somali who just arrived.
Basically, there has been a process on the North American continent since 1600 that has taken people from a mix of previous ethnicities & , via admixture, created some distinct new ethnicities within broader racial categories that can properly be described as “American”.
Because of Tasmania’s small population, a small patriotic party could - in theory - grab 8 senate seats over two election cycles with as few as 210,000 votes in each election.
All it would take is a VERY popular Tasmanian at the top of the ticket.
How about the Punter Party?
All it would take is a VERY popular Tasmanian at the top of the ticket.
How about the Punter Party?
Could Ricky Ponting grab 58% of the Tasmanian vote & seize the balance of power in the senate?
I don’t know. But there does seem to be a strong case to be made for small parties devoting a lot of effort to convincing Tasmanians to support them.
Or am I missing something?
I don’t know. But there does seem to be a strong case to be made for small parties devoting a lot of effort to convincing Tasmanians to support them.
Or am I missing something?
Lee Hanson fell well short of winning a seat this year, but it doesn’t take many Tasmanians to send Jacqui Lambie to Canberra.
Would be great if Tassie could show the way for how a small party can win voters away from the uniparty.
Would be great if Tassie could show the way for how a small party can win voters away from the uniparty.
Step 1:
Run down the number of temporary visas to a reasonable level & then maintain at this level.
Step 2:
Set annual issuance of permanent visas at one-third of prior year’s natural increase (births minus deaths).
Result:
Natural increase makes up 75% of population growth.
Run down the number of temporary visas to a reasonable level & then maintain at this level.
Step 2:
Set annual issuance of permanent visas at one-third of prior year’s natural increase (births minus deaths).
Result:
Natural increase makes up 75% of population growth.
Right now we have the split the other way, with natural increase only about 20-30% of our population growth.
That guarantees cultural fragmentation & weaker social cohesion. A nation of strangers.
We should be making most of the new people here ourselves, not importing them.
That guarantees cultural fragmentation & weaker social cohesion. A nation of strangers.
We should be making most of the new people here ourselves, not importing them.
This would obviously reduce population growth & headline GDP growth.
But productivity & per capita GDP growth would likely increase, if we are smart.
It would also make housing much more affordable & boost real wages.
But productivity & per capita GDP growth would likely increase, if we are smart.
It would also make housing much more affordable & boost real wages.
It's easy to forget just how huge & profound the increase in the world population has been.
People turning 100 this year were born in a world with about 2 billion people. That doubled to about 4 billion when they were 50 & has now doubled again to just over 8 billion.
People turning 100 this year were born in a world with about 2 billion people. That doubled to about 4 billion when they were 50 & has now doubled again to just over 8 billion.
Data here. Source is Grok, so usual caveats apply. But looks plausible to me.
Huge increases for both sub-Saharan Africa & India since 1975, largely reflecting the impact of vaccines, antibiotics & high-yield crops.
Slower Chinese growth driven by one-child policy.
Huge increases for both sub-Saharan Africa & India since 1975, largely reflecting the impact of vaccines, antibiotics & high-yield crops.
Slower Chinese growth driven by one-child policy.
Despite the world wars, the white population nearly doubled from 1900 to 1975. But then we really took to the Pill & have added only an extra 129 million since.
We were never going to match the huge growth seen elsewhere (r v K etc.), but there certainly should be more of us.
We were never going to match the huge growth seen elsewhere (r v K etc.), but there certainly should be more of us.
This is the most egregious example I’ve personally encountered, but it reflects a mindset common among national socialists who claim to be“nationalists”.
They are ideologues, not nationalists. They have solidarity only for those of their nation who also share their ideology.
They are ideologues, not nationalists. They have solidarity only for those of their nation who also share their ideology.
These people consider their compatriots to be enemies & traitors to their nation if they do not accept their ideology. Several of them fantasise about the violence they would inflict on their compatriots if they could do so.
Their loyalty is to their ideology, not their nation.
Their loyalty is to their ideology, not their nation.
On this platform I see what national socialists think about their compatriots who disagree with them. They see opposition as treason.
If they had their way, their compatriots would be slaves who would be too fearful to resist their masters.
And they call that “patriotism”.
If they had their way, their compatriots would be slaves who would be too fearful to resist their masters.
And they call that “patriotism”.
Mass migration poses an existential threat to Western civilization and undermines the stability of key American allies.
Today the State Department instructed U.S. embassies to report on the human rights implications and public safety impacts of mass migration.
Today the State Department instructed U.S. embassies to report on the human rights implications and public safety impacts of mass migration.
Mass migration is a human rights concern. Western nations have endured crime waves, terror attacks, sexual assaults, and the displacement of communities.
U.S. officials will urge governments to take bold action and defend citizens against the threats posed by mass migration.
U.S. officials will urge governments to take bold action and defend citizens against the threats posed by mass migration.
Officials will also report policies that punish citizens who object to continued mass migration and document crimes and human rights abuses committed by people of a migration background.
These issues have plagued citizens of Western nations for years:
These issues have plagued citizens of Western nations for years:
I have been to Ukraine every year since 2011. I warned that war was coming in late 2021 and early 2021 and when it came I warned that Ukraine could not hope to win a protracted conflict. No doubt busy people cannot read all that I write, but here are the key pieces. 1/10
"Putin’s Ukrainian War Is About Making Vladimir Great Again. Current conditions are ideal for a Russian invasion, but the historical inspiration is more tsarist than soviet." (Jan. 2, 2022) 2/10 bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
"The Fates of Ukraine and Putin Turn on 7 Forces of History. Does Russia grind out victory? Can sanctions stop that? Might Putin go nuclear? Is China for war or peace? The past offers clues, but no certain answers."
(March 9, 2022) 3/10 bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
(March 9, 2022) 3/10 bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
Sorry, this is a long one and I’m too tired to format
Below is a sharpened, expanded, activist-research–grade rebuttal written in the same analytical, confident tone as the Tether narrative I just produced. It keeps your voice, strengthens the logic, adds structural clarity, and exposes the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the linked article without slipping into hostility or straw-manning.
⸻
Rebuttal: A Clearer, More Honest Assessment of Bitcoin and the Author’s Claims
To my surprise, I found myself disagreeing with most of the author’s fundamental assertions—not because the concerns are wholly illegitimate, but because the argument relies on stylistic maneuvering and selective framing rather than a fair, technically grounded examination of how Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems actually work.
The author leans heavily on poetic prose, imprecise analogies, and oddly chosen proper nouns for concepts that have widely understood equivalents. This isn’t accidental. It’s rhetorical scaffolding designed to guide the reader toward a predetermined worldview rather than illuminate the mechanics of Bitcoin or the broader crypto ecosystem.
And that’s the core issue: technology is not inherently moral or immoral. Most systems humans build—financial systems included—are simply tools. Their outcomes depend on human behavior, implementation, and incentives. Good tools can be abused. Flawed tools can produce good outcomes. Dismissing an entire class of monetary technology because individuals have misused it is as unserious as blaming the printing press for propaganda.
⸻
1. Bitcoin’s Supply Is Not a Keyboard Shortcut
One of the article’s most misleading claims is presented as a rhetorical flourish:
“If they wanted to change Bitcoin’s 21 million coin finite supply, they could do it with the click of a keyboard. Try doing that with gold.”
This statement is technically true but structurally deceptive.
Yes, someone can propose a change to Bitcoin’s supply cap “with a click.”
But that is not the same thing as actually changing it.
Changing Bitcoin’s issuance schedule would require:
•A consensus of node operators,
•A majority of mining power,
•A majority of economic nodes (exchanges, custodians, wallets), and
•User acceptance of the new chain.
You can type the change into a keyboard.
You cannot make the world adopt it.
This distinction is enormous—and entirely omitted.
In practice, changing Bitcoin’s supply cap is harder than altering gold supply because Bitcoin’s rules are mathematically enforced and socially entrenched, whereas gold supply is governed by geology, mining, geopolitics, and future discoveries.
⸻
2. Crypto Supply Manipulation: Only Half the Story
The author suggests that crypto supply manipulation is trivial.
That’s false.
Most mainstream chains include burn-only dead wallets—public, provably unspendable addresses that function like black holes. Tokens sent there are permanently removed from circulation and cannot be retrieved. This creates irreversible deflation, not inflation.
To increase the supply beyond the original contract range?
Impossible.
The code that defines maximum coin supply is:
•public,
•auditable,
•deterministic,
•and secured by thousands of globally distributed nodes.
By contrast:
•Gold supply can increase through mining.
•Gold supply can increase through newly accessible deposits.
•Gold supply can increase through asteroid mining or advances in extraction chemistry.
•And gold supply can always be seized, centralized, or withheld.
Even the author’s example backfires: losing gold in an ocean trench doesn’t change supply, but it absolutely affects accessible supply—the only supply that matters economically. Losing crypto to a burn address is functionally identical.
Below is a sharpened, expanded, activist-research–grade rebuttal written in the same analytical, confident tone as the Tether narrative I just produced. It keeps your voice, strengthens the logic, adds structural clarity, and exposes the rhetorical sleight-of-hand in the linked article without slipping into hostility or straw-manning.
⸻
Rebuttal: A Clearer, More Honest Assessment of Bitcoin and the Author’s Claims
To my surprise, I found myself disagreeing with most of the author’s fundamental assertions—not because the concerns are wholly illegitimate, but because the argument relies on stylistic maneuvering and selective framing rather than a fair, technically grounded examination of how Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems actually work.
The author leans heavily on poetic prose, imprecise analogies, and oddly chosen proper nouns for concepts that have widely understood equivalents. This isn’t accidental. It’s rhetorical scaffolding designed to guide the reader toward a predetermined worldview rather than illuminate the mechanics of Bitcoin or the broader crypto ecosystem.
And that’s the core issue: technology is not inherently moral or immoral. Most systems humans build—financial systems included—are simply tools. Their outcomes depend on human behavior, implementation, and incentives. Good tools can be abused. Flawed tools can produce good outcomes. Dismissing an entire class of monetary technology because individuals have misused it is as unserious as blaming the printing press for propaganda.
⸻
1. Bitcoin’s Supply Is Not a Keyboard Shortcut
One of the article’s most misleading claims is presented as a rhetorical flourish:
“If they wanted to change Bitcoin’s 21 million coin finite supply, they could do it with the click of a keyboard. Try doing that with gold.”
This statement is technically true but structurally deceptive.
Yes, someone can propose a change to Bitcoin’s supply cap “with a click.”
But that is not the same thing as actually changing it.
Changing Bitcoin’s issuance schedule would require:
•A consensus of node operators,
•A majority of mining power,
•A majority of economic nodes (exchanges, custodians, wallets), and
•User acceptance of the new chain.
You can type the change into a keyboard.
You cannot make the world adopt it.
This distinction is enormous—and entirely omitted.
In practice, changing Bitcoin’s supply cap is harder than altering gold supply because Bitcoin’s rules are mathematically enforced and socially entrenched, whereas gold supply is governed by geology, mining, geopolitics, and future discoveries.
⸻
2. Crypto Supply Manipulation: Only Half the Story
The author suggests that crypto supply manipulation is trivial.
That’s false.
Most mainstream chains include burn-only dead wallets—public, provably unspendable addresses that function like black holes. Tokens sent there are permanently removed from circulation and cannot be retrieved. This creates irreversible deflation, not inflation.
To increase the supply beyond the original contract range?
Impossible.
The code that defines maximum coin supply is:
•public,
•auditable,
•deterministic,
•and secured by thousands of globally distributed nodes.
By contrast:
•Gold supply can increase through mining.
•Gold supply can increase through newly accessible deposits.
•Gold supply can increase through asteroid mining or advances in extraction chemistry.
•And gold supply can always be seized, centralized, or withheld.
Even the author’s example backfires: losing gold in an ocean trench doesn’t change supply, but it absolutely affects accessible supply—the only supply that matters economically. Losing crypto to a burn address is functionally identical.
⸻
3. The Human Factor Is the Real Failure Mode, Not the Blockchain
One of the author’s recurring sleights is blaming Bitcoin for what are fundamentally human failures:
•Scams
•Rug pulls
•Exchange insolvencies
•False audits
•Phishing
•Smart-contract bugs
•Overleveraged custodians
These have nothing to do with the integrity of Bitcoin’s base layer or Ethereum’s protocol. They are failures of:
•governance,
•greed,
•inexperience,
•and regulatory arbitrage.
Every technological frontier experiences this.
The early Internet was a Wild West of fraud, identity theft, broken encryption, and unsecured systems. Nobody argued the TCP/IP protocol was evil.
The same logic applies here.
⸻
4. Misrepresenting Decentralization as Hippie Utopia
The article paints decentralization as a 1960s digital Kumbaya circle where nobody is in charge and everyone sings around the campfire doing equal work. This caricature has no relationship to what decentralization actually means in practice.
For many of us, decentralization is not about collectivism or utopianism. It is about agency.
Decentralization means:
•The ability to evaluate protocols individually
•The ability to reject systems with unacceptable trade-offs
•The freedom to choose competing networks
•The inability of a single government or corporation to unilaterally alter the rules
•Permissionless innovation
It is the opposite of a centralized “one-size-fits-all” model where a small number of institutions determine monetary outcomes for billions of people.
The author substitutes a soft, emotional cartoon for a real definition because the real definition undermines his thesis.
⸻
5. The Real Threats to Crypto Are Not Technical — They Are Institutional
If anything threatens the integrity of the crypto markets today, it is not decentralization.
It’s the exact opposite:
•Government-imposed ETFs enabling rapid rehypothecation
•CFTC- and SEC-enabled shorting of underlying digital commodities through synthetic structures
•Corporate capture of stablecoins to tokenize U.S. debt
•Concentration of miners and custodians
•Wall Street intermediaries reintroducing counterparty risk
These are the same problems that plague traditional finance.
They come from the old system, not the new one.
Crypto is not undermining itself—legacy institutions are importing their failure modes into it.
When the author warns about “vile means,” he’s pointing in the wrong direction.
⸻
6. Bitcoin Isn’t Perfect — But the Critique Needs to Be Honest
None of this means today’s crypto markets are the model we should adopt globally. They aren’t. If I were tasked with architecting a new global settlement layer, today’s ecosystem would not be my final draft.
But to conflate:
•human misuse,
•corporate greed,
•exchange fraud,
•or legacy financial infiltration
…with Bitcoin’s protocol design or crypto’s value proposition is simply inaccurate.
Technology evolves.
Users adapt.
Market structures shift.
The author’s narrative freezes Bitcoin in its most chaotic early form and universalizes its worst actors as representative of the entire asset class.
That’s not analysis.
That’s editorial myth-making.
⸻
A more honest assessment acknowledges both sides:
•Yes, crypto has serious problems.
•No, those problems do not originate from Bitcoin’s protocol.
•Yes, governments and corporations are introducing systemic risk.
•No, decentralization is not a fantasy—it is a countermeasure.
•Yes, supply immutability is real.
•No, it cannot be overridden “with a keyboard.”
If the goal is understanding rather than storytelling, we should evaluate Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems based on their actual structural properties, not based on the poetic anxieties or ideological preferences of any single author.
3. The Human Factor Is the Real Failure Mode, Not the Blockchain
One of the author’s recurring sleights is blaming Bitcoin for what are fundamentally human failures:
•Scams
•Rug pulls
•Exchange insolvencies
•False audits
•Phishing
•Smart-contract bugs
•Overleveraged custodians
These have nothing to do with the integrity of Bitcoin’s base layer or Ethereum’s protocol. They are failures of:
•governance,
•greed,
•inexperience,
•and regulatory arbitrage.
Every technological frontier experiences this.
The early Internet was a Wild West of fraud, identity theft, broken encryption, and unsecured systems. Nobody argued the TCP/IP protocol was evil.
The same logic applies here.
⸻
4. Misrepresenting Decentralization as Hippie Utopia
The article paints decentralization as a 1960s digital Kumbaya circle where nobody is in charge and everyone sings around the campfire doing equal work. This caricature has no relationship to what decentralization actually means in practice.
For many of us, decentralization is not about collectivism or utopianism. It is about agency.
Decentralization means:
•The ability to evaluate protocols individually
•The ability to reject systems with unacceptable trade-offs
•The freedom to choose competing networks
•The inability of a single government or corporation to unilaterally alter the rules
•Permissionless innovation
It is the opposite of a centralized “one-size-fits-all” model where a small number of institutions determine monetary outcomes for billions of people.
The author substitutes a soft, emotional cartoon for a real definition because the real definition undermines his thesis.
⸻
5. The Real Threats to Crypto Are Not Technical — They Are Institutional
If anything threatens the integrity of the crypto markets today, it is not decentralization.
It’s the exact opposite:
•Government-imposed ETFs enabling rapid rehypothecation
•CFTC- and SEC-enabled shorting of underlying digital commodities through synthetic structures
•Corporate capture of stablecoins to tokenize U.S. debt
•Concentration of miners and custodians
•Wall Street intermediaries reintroducing counterparty risk
These are the same problems that plague traditional finance.
They come from the old system, not the new one.
Crypto is not undermining itself—legacy institutions are importing their failure modes into it.
When the author warns about “vile means,” he’s pointing in the wrong direction.
⸻
6. Bitcoin Isn’t Perfect — But the Critique Needs to Be Honest
None of this means today’s crypto markets are the model we should adopt globally. They aren’t. If I were tasked with architecting a new global settlement layer, today’s ecosystem would not be my final draft.
But to conflate:
•human misuse,
•corporate greed,
•exchange fraud,
•or legacy financial infiltration
…with Bitcoin’s protocol design or crypto’s value proposition is simply inaccurate.
Technology evolves.
Users adapt.
Market structures shift.
The author’s narrative freezes Bitcoin in its most chaotic early form and universalizes its worst actors as representative of the entire asset class.
That’s not analysis.
That’s editorial myth-making.
⸻
A more honest assessment acknowledges both sides:
•Yes, crypto has serious problems.
•No, those problems do not originate from Bitcoin’s protocol.
•Yes, governments and corporations are introducing systemic risk.
•No, decentralization is not a fantasy—it is a countermeasure.
•Yes, supply immutability is real.
•No, it cannot be overridden “with a keyboard.”
If the goal is understanding rather than storytelling, we should evaluate Bitcoin and modern cryptographic systems based on their actual structural properties, not based on the poetic anxieties or ideological preferences of any single author.
To tie this rant up, this is essentially my TLDR
7. Bitcoin Isn’t the Final Form — It’s the First Prototype
None of this means Bitcoin is the pinnacle of monetary technology or that its current design will solve every structural problem in global markets. Even the most committed Bitcoin supporters will quietly acknowledge that the base protocol is limited by design: slow block times, constrained throughput, scripting restrictions, and a hard-coded monetary schedule that cannot flex with real-world micro-pricing forever.
Some people see that hard cap and say:
“Perfect. This is the new ultimate reserve asset.”
Maybe, in part, they’re right. A credibly finite, globally recognized digital bearer asset has a powerful role to play as a long-term store of value or settlement collateral. But even there, the story isn’t clean.
With a fixed supply and ongoing inflation of fiat units around it, there comes a point—not in some distant sci-fi future, but in a reasonably foreseeable one—where the smallest atomic unit of Bitcoin (a satoshi) becomes too valuable to function as everyday money. When 1 sat can’t even buy you a stick of gum, you haven’t “failed,” but you have shifted Bitcoin’s role away from daily medium of exchange and toward pure reserve collateral.
That’s why we already see:
•Layer 2s (Lightning, rollups, channel-based systems)
•Layer 3s and sidechains
•Off-chain ramps and synthetic instruments
These are not just “add-ons”; they’re admissions that Bitcoin’s base layer is a conservative settlement engine, not a universal payments fabric. That’s fine—as long as we’re honest about it and design the rest of the stack accordingly.
My own obsession isn’t with worshipping Bitcoin as an endpoint.
It’s with designing structures that make cheating structurally impossible.
If you change the rails in a way that removes the mechanical possibility of:
•rehypothecated collateral,
•phantom shares,
•naked shorts that never settle,
•“locates” that exist only on paper,
…then the “opportunity risk” for bad actors goes to zero. There is nothing to exploit. That’s not utopian; that’s just good market plumbing. Everyone but the criminal hedge funds and their enablers should want exactly that.
This is why I’m fixated on organizing real-world assets using hybrid token standards—specifically things like DN-404 / ERC-20 / ERC-721 structures. I’m not going to dive deep into the on-chain engineering here; if you’re curious, I’ve probably written about it elsewhere or you can go down that rabbit hole yourself.
Short version:
•ERC-20 side tracks the fungible, tradable “share” or unit.
•ERC-721 side anchors each unit to a discrete, provable, non-fungible real-world claim.
•DN-404-style logic binds the two so that every trade, borrow, or lend operation is transparently linked to a specific, verifiable asset on a public ledger.
In principle, that design eliminates the structural room for rehypothecated, naked short selling.
You can’t “sell what doesn’t exist,” because every unit traces back to a specific, unique claim that the chain itself enforces. All trader and dealer behavior lives on a publicly inspectable ledger, not in dark pools, internal books, or opaque prime brokerage spreadsheets.
That’s how you migrate markets back toward real capitalism: actual supply, actual demand, actual collateral—no ghost inventory, no infinite synthetic dilution masquerading as price discovery. Bitcoin was the opening move that proved digital scarcity is possible. The next phase is building systems and token standards that make market abuse structurally nonviable, not just morally discouraged.
7. Bitcoin Isn’t the Final Form — It’s the First Prototype
None of this means Bitcoin is the pinnacle of monetary technology or that its current design will solve every structural problem in global markets. Even the most committed Bitcoin supporters will quietly acknowledge that the base protocol is limited by design: slow block times, constrained throughput, scripting restrictions, and a hard-coded monetary schedule that cannot flex with real-world micro-pricing forever.
Some people see that hard cap and say:
“Perfect. This is the new ultimate reserve asset.”
Maybe, in part, they’re right. A credibly finite, globally recognized digital bearer asset has a powerful role to play as a long-term store of value or settlement collateral. But even there, the story isn’t clean.
With a fixed supply and ongoing inflation of fiat units around it, there comes a point—not in some distant sci-fi future, but in a reasonably foreseeable one—where the smallest atomic unit of Bitcoin (a satoshi) becomes too valuable to function as everyday money. When 1 sat can’t even buy you a stick of gum, you haven’t “failed,” but you have shifted Bitcoin’s role away from daily medium of exchange and toward pure reserve collateral.
That’s why we already see:
•Layer 2s (Lightning, rollups, channel-based systems)
•Layer 3s and sidechains
•Off-chain ramps and synthetic instruments
These are not just “add-ons”; they’re admissions that Bitcoin’s base layer is a conservative settlement engine, not a universal payments fabric. That’s fine—as long as we’re honest about it and design the rest of the stack accordingly.
My own obsession isn’t with worshipping Bitcoin as an endpoint.
It’s with designing structures that make cheating structurally impossible.
If you change the rails in a way that removes the mechanical possibility of:
•rehypothecated collateral,
•phantom shares,
•naked shorts that never settle,
•“locates” that exist only on paper,
…then the “opportunity risk” for bad actors goes to zero. There is nothing to exploit. That’s not utopian; that’s just good market plumbing. Everyone but the criminal hedge funds and their enablers should want exactly that.
This is why I’m fixated on organizing real-world assets using hybrid token standards—specifically things like DN-404 / ERC-20 / ERC-721 structures. I’m not going to dive deep into the on-chain engineering here; if you’re curious, I’ve probably written about it elsewhere or you can go down that rabbit hole yourself.
Short version:
•ERC-20 side tracks the fungible, tradable “share” or unit.
•ERC-721 side anchors each unit to a discrete, provable, non-fungible real-world claim.
•DN-404-style logic binds the two so that every trade, borrow, or lend operation is transparently linked to a specific, verifiable asset on a public ledger.
In principle, that design eliminates the structural room for rehypothecated, naked short selling.
You can’t “sell what doesn’t exist,” because every unit traces back to a specific, unique claim that the chain itself enforces. All trader and dealer behavior lives on a publicly inspectable ledger, not in dark pools, internal books, or opaque prime brokerage spreadsheets.
That’s how you migrate markets back toward real capitalism: actual supply, actual demand, actual collateral—no ghost inventory, no infinite synthetic dilution masquerading as price discovery. Bitcoin was the opening move that proved digital scarcity is possible. The next phase is building systems and token standards that make market abuse structurally nonviable, not just morally discouraged.