Thread Reader helps you read and share Twitter threads easily!
I'm @ThreadReaderApp a Twitter bot here to help you read threads more easily. To trigger me, you just have to reply to (or quote) any tweet of the thread you want to unroll and mention me with the "unroll" keyword and I'll send you a link back on Twitter 😀
— Thread Reader App (@threadreaderapp) November 25, 2017
X thread is series of posts by the same author connected with a line!
From any post in the thread, mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll
Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us easily!
Practice here first or read more on our help page!
Recent
A thread
1. See Maduro/Code Pink marching
1. See Maduro/Code Pink marching
2. See their banners
3. See Code Pink select the target, at the navy yard
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.
@michaeldweiss 1).
„For @realDonaldTrump, what matters is getting a deal, not the fine print. But for Ukrainians, the devil is in the details. Their fears that Russia drafted large swathes of the document unbeknown to them were proved right.
„For @realDonaldTrump, what matters is getting a deal, not the fine print. But for Ukrainians, the devil is in the details. Their fears that Russia drafted large swathes of the document unbeknown to them were proved right.
@michaeldweiss @realDonaldTrump 2).
The document still bears the hallmarks of a direct translation from Russian with oddly formulated sentences.
The measures would force Ukraine to cede large chunks of land, reduce the size of its military and forbid it from ever joining @NATO.
The document still bears the hallmarks of a direct translation from Russian with oddly formulated sentences.
The measures would force Ukraine to cede large chunks of land, reduce the size of its military and forbid it from ever joining @NATO.
@michaeldweiss @realDonaldTrump @NATO 3).
The plan would also reestablish economic ties between Russia and the US, the world’s largest economy.”
Nov. 23, 2025
@Bloomberg (@business) archive.ph/auswm
The plan would also reestablish economic ties between Russia and the US, the world’s largest economy.”
Nov. 23, 2025
@Bloomberg (@business) archive.ph/auswm
The pile of lies is stunning.
First, no crimes at 1/6. Second, wrong to investigate. Third, unusual to get toll records of people instigators called. Fourth, wrong to suspend notice while investigation ongoing. thehill.com/opinion/congre…
First, no crimes at 1/6. Second, wrong to investigate. Third, unusual to get toll records of people instigators called. Fourth, wrong to suspend notice while investigation ongoing. thehill.com/opinion/congre…
Cherry on top: vote yourself $500k as victim of nothing wrong.
Bear in mind, Boasberg is huge MAGA target over his MAGA DOJ contempt investigation. They will stop at nothing to stop his hearing.
This grubby self-dealing feeds the frenzy by making the judge’s perfectly legal conduct illegal after the fact.
This grubby self-dealing feeds the frenzy by making the judge’s perfectly legal conduct illegal after the fact.
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺
When Trump tries to sell Ukraine to Moscow, Americans hit the streets. ‘Ukraine is not for sale’ — and neither is U.S. foreign policy.
When Trump tries to sell Ukraine to Moscow, Americans hit the streets. ‘Ukraine is not for sale’ — and neither is U.S. foreign policy.
The US and Russia weren’t “mediating” — they were drafting a settlement without Ukraine or Europe.
Bloomberg confirms the plan was shaped in private talks involving Trump allies and Putin’s envoy Dmitriev.
A U.S.–Russia blueprint, handed to Kyiv as a fait accompli.
No transparency. No allies. No guarantees. Just pressure.
Bloomberg confirms the plan was shaped in private talks involving Trump allies and Putin’s envoy Dmitriev.
A U.S.–Russia blueprint, handed to Kyiv as a fait accompli.
No transparency. No allies. No guarantees. Just pressure.
Press: Bloomberg bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
GIRLS LOVE TO HATE THEMSELVES
A big mystery is why women have so doggedly resisted even the best efforts to correct the false "thinner is better" 20th-century beauty standard. Why do they cling to beliefs that hurt them and everyone else too? Well, I have an explanation...👇
A big mystery is why women have so doggedly resisted even the best efforts to correct the false "thinner is better" 20th-century beauty standard. Why do they cling to beliefs that hurt them and everyone else too? Well, I have an explanation...👇
I'm not going to make this thread too long, but let's just review a little beauty history to start.
In the entirety of world history there are NO EXAMPLES of a "thinner is better" beauty standard prior to 1920. None! We explain this in great detail in Episode 2 of the DISPELLING BEAUTY LIES podcast.
@michaeldweiss 1).
„The administration has zigzagged repeatedly on aiding Ukraine or pressuring it to reach a deal with Moscow. @realDonaldTrump has previously mused about sending cruise missiles to Kyiv and predicted it might regain all the territory Russian forces occupy.
„The administration has zigzagged repeatedly on aiding Ukraine or pressuring it to reach a deal with Moscow. @realDonaldTrump has previously mused about sending cruise missiles to Kyiv and predicted it might regain all the territory Russian forces occupy.
@michaeldweiss @realDonaldTrump 2).
But Trump’s ultimatum to Ukraine signals a sharp turn by the administration to try to force through a deal on a short timeline.
But Trump’s ultimatum to Ukraine signals a sharp turn by the administration to try to force through a deal on a short timeline.
@michaeldweiss @realDonaldTrump 3).
Disclosure of the administration blueprint, drafted in secret by Ukraine envoy @SteveWitkoff (@SEPeaceMissions) in consultation with Kremlin confidant @kadmitriev, has roiled the trans-Atlantic relationship and sparked a flurry of diplomatic efforts to reshape it.”
Disclosure of the administration blueprint, drafted in secret by Ukraine envoy @SteveWitkoff (@SEPeaceMissions) in consultation with Kremlin confidant @kadmitriev, has roiled the trans-Atlantic relationship and sparked a flurry of diplomatic efforts to reshape it.”
SitRep - 23/11/25 - US-Ukraine talks in Geneva
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Following Trump's 28-point 'peace' plan, US, European and Ukrainian delegations met in Geneva to discuss the plan, and adjust it.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
An overview of the daily events in Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Following Trump's 28-point 'peace' plan, US, European and Ukrainian delegations met in Geneva to discuss the plan, and adjust it.
REPOST=appreciated
1/X
Missed the latest SitRep?
As usual we start with Russian losses
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺
Bloomberg: Trump’s “peace plan” was secretly written in Miami by Witkoff, Putin’s envoy Dmitriev, & Jared Kushner.
This is how Moscow hijacked U.S. policy.
Bigger than Watergate.
🧵1/26
Bloomberg: Trump’s “peace plan” was secretly written in Miami by Witkoff, Putin’s envoy Dmitriev, & Jared Kushner.
This is how Moscow hijacked U.S. policy.
Bigger than Watergate.
🧵1/26
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺
Bloomberg confirms: Ukraine is being pressured by a compromised White House to accept a deal effectively written by Russia — the 28-point plan was drafted in Miami. Rubio was blindsided, Trump approved it at the last minute, & Vance took control in Washington.
2/26
Bloomberg confirms: Ukraine is being pressured by a compromised White House to accept a deal effectively written by Russia — the 28-point plan was drafted in Miami. Rubio was blindsided, Trump approved it at the last minute, & Vance took control in Washington.
2/26
🇺🇦🇺🇸🇪🇺🇷🇺
The Guardian found native Russian wording — & Rubio confirmed the draft was crafted with Putin’s envoy before backpedaling.
Senators King, Rounds & Shaheen say Rubio told them the 28-point plan is “the Russians’ wish list” given to Ukraine/Europe to create panic
3/26
The Guardian found native Russian wording — & Rubio confirmed the draft was crafted with Putin’s envoy before backpedaling.
Senators King, Rounds & Shaheen say Rubio told them the 28-point plan is “the Russians’ wish list” given to Ukraine/Europe to create panic
3/26
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…
Death’s Twist
In the deafening silence after a fatal crash, Mayla Hays lingers—her body broken on the cold operating table, but her essence alive, weightless, defying the flatline’s wail. Hovering like a ghost in the sterile haze, she drifts through rippling…
In the deafening silence after a fatal crash, Mayla Hays lingers—her body broken on the cold operating table, but her essence alive, weightless, defying the flatline’s wail. Hovering like a ghost in the sterile haze, she drifts through rippling…
walls and flickering lights, desperate to console her grieving family: a mother’s shattered sobs, a brother’s furious pace, a cousin’s fiery sermon on eternal damnation that fractures their fragile bond. But heaven and hell? Mere illusions shattered by a beckoning
silhouette in the astral veil.
Enter Anaya, the ancient spirit guide with bronze skin etched by eons, whispering truths that unravel Mayla’s Baptist upbringing: No judgment day trumpet, no lakes of sulfur—just a boundless continuation of consciousness, vibrant planes breathing
Enter Anaya, the ancient spirit guide with bronze skin etched by eons, whispering truths that unravel Mayla’s Baptist upbringing: No judgment day trumpet, no lakes of sulfur—just a boundless continuation of consciousness, vibrant planes breathing
AI isn’t going to “kill” Shopify.
But it will compress its moat unless the company pivots faster and deeper than investors expect.
This isn’t bearish.
It’s structural.
Every platform shift reshuffles the winners.
But it will compress its moat unless the company pivots faster and deeper than investors expect.
This isn’t bearish.
It’s structural.
Every platform shift reshuffles the winners.
Shopify’s first S-curve was built on:
– storefront creation
– workflows + templates
– merchant tools
– payments + checkout
– logistics integrations
AI is turning many of these into commodities.
Instant stores.
Instant ads.
Instant SEO.
Instant emails.
Instant everything.
When creation becomes free, the value shifts.
– storefront creation
– workflows + templates
– merchant tools
– payments + checkout
– logistics integrations
AI is turning many of these into commodities.
Instant stores.
Instant ads.
Instant SEO.
Instant emails.
Instant everything.
When creation becomes free, the value shifts.
Value migrates from tools → to distribution.
This is why TikTok Shop, Instagram, Temu, Shein, and even Amazon are leaning hard into AI-driven storefronts:
AI lets platforms collapse the entire seller journey into a single click.
That’s real competition for Shopify’s core.
This is why TikTok Shop, Instagram, Temu, Shein, and even Amazon are leaning hard into AI-driven storefronts:
AI lets platforms collapse the entire seller journey into a single click.
That’s real competition for Shopify’s core.
