Study this. Perhaps 1 in 500 commit 10% or more of their wealth into Bitcoin. Of those perhaps 3% understand the power law sufficiently. That has R2 = 0.96 explanatory power in log-log space. That is 1 in 15,000. Of that refined group perhaps 5% get the log periodicity which is the other side of the scale invariance coin. And PL + LP raises the combined R2 to 0.98. And provides better Insight into bubbles and troughs. You can be 1 in 300,000. And the understanding you develop of power law and log periodicity enhances your confidence in allocating over 10% to Bitcoin and HODLing long term. @ScientificBTC

휘발유 +42%, 디젤 +68%, 실질임금 -0.3%. 2025년 1월부터 20개월 동안의 숫자임. 같은 기간 머스크 형님의 재산은 두 배가 늘었음. 세상에는 두 종류의 사람이 있음. 월급으로 사는 사람 vs 자산으로 사는 사람. 월급으로 사는 사람은 매달 돈을 받아서 기름을 넣고 고기를 삼. 20개월 동안 기름값은 42% 올랐고 월급은 물가를 빼면 0.3% 줄었음. 같은 일을 하고 같은 돈을 받는데 살 수 있는 게 줄었음. 이 사람들은 종이 돈으로 살아감. 자산으로 사는 사람은 주식과 회사와 건물을 들고 있음. 20개월 동안 그 값은 올랐음. 머스크 재산이 두 배가 된 건 두 배 일해서가 아님. 그가 가진 게 돈이 아니라 주식이라서임. 이 사람들은 종이 돈을 안 들고 있음. 둘의 차이는 노력이 아님. 들고 있는 게 뭐냐임. 돈이 새로 찍히면 돈의 값은 내리고 돈으로 사는 것의 값은 오름. 주식과 건물은 돈으로 사는 것이라 오름. 월급은 돈 그 자체라 내림. 그래서 같은 20개월에 한쪽은 두 배가 되고 한쪽은 제자리임. 이 구조는 누가 대통령이든 같음. 월급으로 사는 사람이 이 수렁에서 빠져나오는 길은 하나뿐임. 단순히 월급을 더 받는 게 아님. 받은 월급을 돈으로 두지 않는 것임. 자산으로 사는 사람이 하는 건 그거 하나임. 그런데 자산 중에도 종류가 있음. 주식은 회사가 더 찍을 수 있고 건물은 정부가 더 지을 수 있음. 20개월 동안 발행량이 1원도 안 늘어난 자산이 하나 있음. 돈이 아무리 찍혀도 희석이 안 되는 쪽. 월급으로 사는 사람이 자산으로 사는 사람이 되는 가장 짧은 길이 거기 있음.

A note for the many people who have messaged me about working at Strive since Adam joined: the level of interest has been extraordinary and unexpected. I’m genuinely grateful, though I cannot respond individually to every message. We currently have one open role, and beyond that, no additional hires are planned. We intend to remain a small, lean team where everyone wears multiple hats and operates with high agency. Anyone hoping to join Strive will likely need to play the long game. A future role may only emerge once the fit and potential contribution have become obvious on both sides. My advice is to take one or both of two paths: produce work so excellent and visible that we cannot ignore you, or identify the Strive team members working closest to your expertise and connect with them thoughtfully. Most outreach simply describes someone’s experience. That is unlikely to distinguish you. Don’t just tell us what you have done. Show us how you think and how your work and ideas could expand what the team can achieve. Adam is a great example of both paths. This creates a naturally meritocratic process that self-selects for people so obsessed with the space that they would be doing the work whether or not a role existed. We don’t have to infer their drive or ability from a resume because they have already demonstrated both through proof of work. It may never lead to a job at Strive, but it may help the company you own or create a valuable relationship. If your goal is ultimately to work here, this is the best path because the strongest fits are earned over time, often before a role formally exists.

I was encouraged this week to see the leaders of the frontier labs agree on the need for them to slow down the pace of AI development. Given the stakes, it’s a good and necessary first step.   But I’m even more encouraged by the growing recognition that how this powerful new technology develops should be at the center of our public debate.   I’ve been watching the progress on AI for over a decade now, and one thing that’s clear to me is that the potential impact of this technology is not overhyped. It’s also moving at lightning speed – and even faster than those who are engineering it can keep up with.   I’m not an AI accelerationist who believes it will lead to some techno-utopia, and I’m not a doomer who thinks it will inevitably lead to humanity’s destruction. But whether this technology results in amazing breakthroughs in medicine, energy and education or unleashes huge economic disruptions, greater inequality, and potential catastrophe will depend on the choices that we make right now – choices that should be made not just by the companies involved, but by all of us.

Fear as a Governing Strategy “Of all base passions, fear is most accursed,” Shakespeare wrote in Henry VI, Part 1. The modern Left has made it a governing tool, create fear, then present federal power as the only remedy. The subject changes, but the method does not. First came global cooling, followed by global warming, followed by the more elastic and politically useful label of “climate change.” Every era requires an emergency, every emergency requires an expert class, and every expert class eventually demands more authority over how ordinary people live. Gas-powered automobiles became a menace to be rationed through ever-tightening fuel-economy mandates. Lawnmowers and leaf blowers became environmental villains. Refrigerants required elaborate federal controls. Power lines, pipelines, housing developments, and industrial projects became presumptively suspect, unless approved by the same regulatory bureaucracy that has spent decades making construction harder, slower, and more expensive. The pattern is not scientific inquiry. It is political opportunism wearing a lab coat. To make the system durable, the Left works to close the Overton window, objections once accepted as ordinary democratic disagreement are recast as ignorance, selfishness, or moral depravity. A debate becomes a “consensus.” A policy preference becomes “settled science.” Questioning the prescribed remedy is placed beyond respectable public discourse. The practical objective is always the same, expand the state’s power to regulate, control, condition, and sometimes prohibit private conduct. Biden-era air- and water-rulemaking often went far beyond obvious health protection, extending federal leverage over land use, energy production, property rights, and local decision-making. Now it is artificial intelligence. The public is urged to fear 2001: A Space Odyssey’s HAL 9000, or some darker machine drawn from a favorite science-fiction novel. A growing industry of activists, commentators, and Netflix documentaries turns the prospect of advanced AI into an imminent apocalypse. Indoctrination is the name of the game. The warning is no longer merely that AI may disrupt jobs, facilitate fraud, or create new security challenges. It is that AI may end humanity itself. That is an extraordinarily useful claim for those who want to centralize control over computing power, data centers, energy, model development, and speech. Fear makes almost any intervention sound responsible. It also closes the Overton window, because to dispute the premise is to be accused of gambling with civilization. Meanwhile, China is unlikely to pause its AI development because Western elites have become frightened by Hollywood scenarios. Beijing regards AI as a strategic technology, a source of military, industrial, intelligence, and economic power. If America allows alarmism to convert its technological advantage into self-imposed paralysis, it will not make the world safer. It will merely shift the frontier of AI capability toward a hostile authoritarian rival. The pattern is too consistent to be accidental. Fear is amplified, dissent is stigmatized, and the same coalition of politicians, regulators, activists, experts, media institutions, and filmmakers arrives at the same answer, more control. As Shakespeare warned, “Of all base passions, fear is most accursed.” The question is not whether America should take AI seriously. It is whether it will meet this challenge with confidence, competition, energy abundance, and technological leadership, or surrender the AI arms race to China in the name of avoiding a fictional HAL 9000.

AI DESTROYS SCARCITY, EXCEPT $BTC Humanity uses roughly 20 TW of power. The sun delivers about 170K TW to Earth. Energy isn’t fundamentally scarce. Our ability to capture, store and move it cheaply is. AI will solve the bottleneck. Better AI → better batteries, reactors, grids and materials → cheaper energy → cheaper compute → better AI. The loop compounds. 2026–2030: power scarcity 2030s: massive energy buildout 2040s: abundance spreads Cheap energy makes almost everything cheaper to produce: Compute. Water. Food. Metals. Manufacturing. Robots. Intelligence. Then the investment question changes: What can technology NOT make more abundant? New supply keeps collapsing: 450/day → 225 → 112 → 56 → 28 Maximum supply: 21M Even near-free energy cannot create more BTC. The difficulty adjustment simply rises. AI makes intelligence abundant. Energy makes matter abundant. Bitcoin remains scarce. My Thesis: The more scarcity technology destroys, the more valuable absolute scarcity becomes.

How will Bitcoin take over? Like an octopus. Some tentacles will latch of to TradFi advisor world as they massively increase ETF allocations from 0.1% on average to 1-5%. Other tentacles will penetrate into the payments world as Bitcoin gets integrated into platforms like Amazon, Etsy, Walmart. Other tentacles will grow in developing nations like Argentina, Turkey and Lebanon, as their local currencies fail and they move to self-custody BTC. Finally Bitcoin will seep into the real estate world with BTC backed morgages into the fixed income world with products like STRC and SATA. Many tentacles. One outcome.

ASST SMASHES THROUGH $28 Allow me to politely remind you that Bitcoin is still under $79,000.

The Opportunity Before Consensus A basic observation: remarkably few people have seriously considered the long-term implications of moving the global financial and banking system onto blockchain rails. Fewer still have considered what the current macroeconomic environment means for Bitcoin. And fewer again have examined where Bitcoin treasury companies fit within this emerging financial architecture. That gap is the opportunity. Markets do not wait for consensus. Price moves first. Narrative follows. Eventually, the narrative becomes consensus and by then, much of the upside has already been captured. As Warren Buffett put it, “The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient.” The principle applies especially well to transformative technological and monetary shifts: the hardest part is often not identifying the change, but maintaining conviction long enough for the market and then the broader public to recognize it.

이제는 모터에서 희토류까지 없앴네 해당분야 전문가들이 절대 못한다고 하던걸 하나씩 도장깨기 하듯이 성공 하는중 반도체도 성공시킬꺼다. 그러면 반도체 패권도 미국으로 넘어간다. 그게 한국에 무슨의미인지는 곰곰히 생각해볼 문제고...

He sleeps on factory floors. He tweets at 3 AM. He builds cars, Starlink, and rockets. A lot of people talk. He builds. The only person in the world who does this is Elon Musk.

집값을 비트코인으로 재면? 제프 부스가 자기 집으로 계산을 보여줬음. 5년 전 300비트코인이던 집이 오늘은 20비트코인, 5년 안에 1비트코인이 될 거라고. 🏠 달러로 재면 비트코인이 오르는 걸로 보이지만, 그건 잣대가 줄어드는 것임. 비트코인으로 재면 모든 것의 가격이 떨어지는 시장, 기술이 원래 만들었어야 할 자유 시장이 보임. 그래서 너무 늦었냐는 질문 자체가 달러로 잰 질문임. 속이는 시스템에서 돕는 시스템으로 시간을 옮기는 데 늦은 때는 없음.

I joined @ClaytonMorris on Redacted Invest to go deep on the macro themes I’ve been writing about: the dollar, U.S. debt, debasement, Bitcoin, where we head from here, and Strive’s victory over ESG & DEI. Enjoyed bringing these ideas to a new audience. TIMESTAMPS 0:00 The U.S. Dollar and Treasury Debt Crisis 4:05 Rising Yields and Treasury Intervention 6:05 Why Matt Wouldn’t Buy Treasury Bonds 9:32 Stanley Druckenmiller’s Warning 17:59 What Debasement Means for American Families 21:54 Did the 2008 Bailouts Break the System? 25:26 Opting Out of Bonds and Into Scarce Assets 31:52 Earn in Dollars, Save in Hard Assets 41:57 Could the U.S. Adopt a Bitcoin Standard? 43:22 Stablecoins, BRICS, and the Dollar 47:08 Strive’s Fight Against ESG and DEI 54:22 Economic Outlook for the Next Year 56:10 Bitcoin, Gold, and Silver Predictions 57:36 Closing Thoughts $ASST $SATA