Had a quick look at Bitcoin twitter the other day and it is shocking how clueless most Bitcoiners (even OGs) are. They fail to understand simple concepts and incentives, or at least pretend to not understand them. Here are some of the things most fail to understand: 1. Confusing permissionless tech with permissionless adoption ( permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption). - The system controls rails, not code; adoption is steered by defaults, custody concentration, and tax/reporting. - Separate tech truth (permissionless, scarce, global) from adoption truth (defaults, rails, policy). 2. Ignoring revealed preferences. - States repeatedly choose ring-fencing (ETFs, KYC, custody oligopolies) over Strategic reserve adoption. No G7 state is buying Bitcoin to pump your bags (they may steal it though), so stop begging 😂 3. Assuming "co-opt the State" - In reality, the State co-opts Bitcoin by financializing price exposure while starving sovereign usage at scale. - When I listen to Bitcoiners talk about how "Governments are so stupid and don't understand Bitcoin, but they'll understand it eventually", I have to laugh. These people might actually have a mental disability. 4. You can't enforce SoV (the 21 million cap) by not holding your coins, by investing in Bitcoin ETFs (remember GLD?), and by not asking treasury companies for Proof-of-Reserves, etc. And I am not saying that you won't get incredibly rich by buying Bitcoin. If you invested in gold in its infancy, you still got incredibly rich even with the State co-opting it. What I am saying is that most Bitcoiners are buying Gold, while thinking they're buying Bitcoin. In other words, digital gold for most, money for a few. Again, the State's dominant strategy is containment, not capitulation (nor killing Bitcoin). Bitcoin will be tolerated as financial exposure (in surveilled wrappers) and as a self-custody tail hedge for individuals - but not as a parallel monetary base. I have to write more about the Travel Rule / KYC hardening, etc, because the State has clearly shown its cards, but most Bitcoiners listen to words coming from charismatic politicians instead of looking at the actions of the string-pullers. This has been a tough pill to swallow for me as well 😂, but burying my head in the sand is not an option for me. Mental weakness is not an option.

Many will be familiar with the concept of "Controlled opposition" when it comes to politics. Controlled opposition refers to an individual that appears to be part of a movement but is actually working against its interests. So, Controlled Opposition = Safe Opposition. However, the concept doesn't apply just to politics - it also applies to finance. The next logical question is: - If self-custody Bitcoin used as a medium of exchange is the real threat to the system, what are the main "Controlled opposition" assets? The TLDR: If the real threat is sovereign, self-custodied Bitcoin used as money, the main "controlled-opposition" assets are those that: 1) scratch the same itch (store of value/digital convenience), 2) live on rails the system controls (KYC, custodian choke-points, halt switches, derivatives plumbing), 3) pull mind-share and flows away from self-custody. So let's look at what functionally acts as "controlled opposition" to Bitcoin-as-money 1) Spot Bitcoin ETFs / futures ETPs / broker wrappers / treasury companies - Why: Satisfies "I want Bitcoin" inside supervised custody (halts, KYC, AP/MM control). Price exposure without keys. - Divert: Normalizes paper claims; self-custody becomes niche. 2) Stablecoins & tokenized Treasuries (USD rails) - Why: Feels "crypto", settles fast, but is centrally stoppable and ID-bound; reinforces USD/Treasury primacy. - Divert: People do "crypto payments" without touching Bitcoin as MOE (Medium of Exchange). 3) ETH + L2/"Web3 compute" with compliance defaults - Why: Captures the "programmable money" mind-share; sequencers/validators and major front-ends are policy-sensitive and OFAC-aligned. - Divert: Builders and users focus on "platform tech", not sovereign money; payments route through KYC endpoints. 4) Gold (esp. via ETFs/vaulted products) - Why: Absorbs "hard-money" demand inside custodian oligopolies; no parallel payments rail. - Divert: People hedge with gold instead of adopting Bitcoin for spend/settlement. 5) AI mega-caps & the power stack (chips, hyperscalers, data centers) - Why: Dominates narrative and capital budgets; policy-blessed growth captures risk capital. - Divert: "Future upside" shifts to AI equities instead of monetary sovereignty. 6) Meme-coins/alt-L1 manias on KYC venues - Why: Soaks up speculative energy; easy to list/delist; risk stays in pipes with kill-switches. - Divert: Attention rotates; Bitcoin's monetary focal point dilutes. 7) CBDCs & digital-ID money (the end-state substitute) - Why: Institutionalizes programmable compliance; gives the convenience Bitcoin can't match under KYC. - Divert: Everyday payments default to CBDC rails; Bitcoin remains "asset class". To de-fang Bitcoin-as-money, the Controllers oversupply substitutes that feel "hard", "digital", "innovative", or "yieldy" - but live in supervised pipes. What the Controllers know that most Bitcoiners don't: - permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption 🚨 REMINDER: write about investment implications/incentives.

Because it's fun to speculate, here is my base case Bitcoin fiat price prediction around Bitcoin Core's v30 update: 1) Phase 1 - illegal content shock: headline embeds -> "nodes = content hosts?" -> cloud/AUP (Acceptable use Policy) scares -> compliance FUD -> Bitcoin Price drops significantly (e.g. 15-35% from pre-headline level in days-weeks). 2) Phase 2 - Relief / "Clarity" pump: Bills/agency guidance sketch a registered/filtered-node path; ETFs = "safe exposure". Governments start to introduce more rules/regulations, the Bitcoin price recovers and significantly increases because of 'regulatory clarity'. The Bitcoin price pumps into new all time highs, e.g. 30-80% off the local low over weeks-months as ETFs absorb flows and "policy certainty" narratives hit TV. This price increase makes Bitcoiners not want to fight the regulation. 3) Phase 3 - Managed plateau: derivatives + ETF plumbing keep upside orderly; self-custody payments stagnate. The containment phase: range-bound, capped rallies into options walls; cycles continue but blow-offs fade faster. This scenario fits state incentives (domesticate, don't destroy), matches market-structure (CME/ETF dominance), and leverages the scandal to cement licensed infrastructure without overt bans. It's the elegant path: use scandal to legitimize licensed infrastructure, then market-structure (ETFs, options gamma, weekend liquidations) keeps price in a pen. Holders feel wealthier and resistance evaporates. This pattern is often used by governments and large corporations: seduce -> habituate -> enshittify. Enshittification (platform capture) is the process of platforms/governments degrading UX to extract value as they mature and entrench. The system buys consent with upfront benefits, trains behavior while hiding true costs, then flips the switches (fees, filters, frictions) once lock-in and network effects make exit expensive.

Once you understand that: 1) permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption of said technology 2) and that people don't actually act on principles, they act on incentives, and then they wrap those incentive-driven choices in post-hoc rationalizations that sound noble, then it all starts to make sense.

My take on how the 4-year Bitcoin cycle changes in a post-ETF era. TLDR: The 3 years up, 4th year crash, halving-based cycle is breaking. We are in a post-ETF regime where price discovery is dominated by CME + ETFs, not offshore perps. Cycles persist, but they're longer, flatter on the way up, sharper but shallower on the way down, and more synchronized with macro liquidity and options positioning than with the halving. What changes in the post-ETF era: 1) Where the price is set - Pre-ETF: offshore perps + retail leverage -> parabolic blow-off tops, then -80% busts. - Post-ETF: CME futures + ETF creations/redemptions + dealer gamma do the heavy lifting. That caps "face-melting" tops and engineers weekend flushes (ETFs closed, dealers hedge via futures). * Authorized participants hedge creations/redemptions with CME futures intraday; dealers use options. * The Net effect: tops get "pinned" near large open-interest strikes, flushes happen on weekends when ETFs are closed and futures/perps can run stops. So "tops get pinned" because rallies often stall beneath the biggest call walls because systematic hedging injects sell pressure right at the breakout level. ETF plumbing shuts down on weekends, so the Monday effect is that when the stock market reopens, ETF flows and AP (Authorized participants) arbitrage come back online, often snapping price back toward fair value after the weekend move. * As ETF AUM grows, dealer gamma around key strikes/quarters caps blow-off tops (they sell into rips, buy dips). When Bitcoin sprints into a strike with large positive dealer gamma, the street's systematic selling into strength adds supply right where momentum needs air, pinning price under/around that level. Same in reverse on dips. * Basis trades (long ETF/spot, short futures) arbitrage dislocations -> fewer parabolas, more mean reversion. When futures trade richer than spot/ETF, funds buy spot (or create/buy ETF shares) and short the corresponding futures to lock in the basis; at expiry the two converge and they harvest the spread. ETFs amplify it: Authorized participants can create/redeem ETF shares against spot, so the long ETF/short futures leg is scalable and precise, making dislocation-arbitrage the standard and not an occasional trade. Net effect: Systematic two-sided hedging compresses basis and injects mean-reverting liquidity, so you get fewer parabolic blow-offs and tighter ranges around fair value. 2) Who holds and how (Post-ETF era) - More advisors/RIAs/401k money -> systematic DCA, less forced selling, but more correlation to real yields/tech. Flows are calendar-driven and benchmark-aware, not reflexive ape/fear. That raises the decision interval (weekly/monthly) and dampens realized volatility (the actual price fluctuations over a specific period). - Real yields, DXY going down is bullish and the inverse is also true. - On-exchange leverage migrates to options overlays and basis trades. Liquidations still happen, but they look like controlled air pockets rather than full implosions. 3) Policy containment - The likely arc (OP_RETURN illegal content scandal -> regulatory clarity -> licensed infrastructure) encourages ETF/custody flows and raises friction on self-custody. That dampens upside reflexivity (fewer "buy + withdraw" feedback loops). * "Upside reflexivity" = a positive-feedback loop where price up -> behavior that tightens supply further -> price up more. * In prior cycles, "buy -> self-custody" tightened exchange float and amplified upside reflexivity. * ETF units don't withdraw, they immobilize coins in custodians. Reflexivity weakens -> smaller upside overshoots. Because ETF buyers purchase shares (and the underlying coins are parked at a custodian while dealers/arbs sell rips and buy dips), the classic "buy -> withdraw -> thin book -> vertical squeeze" loop is muted - upsides overshoot less and mean-revert more. Example: In a self-custody bull market, $1B of demand might chew through an already-thin exchange ask, jump price +3–5%, trigger momentum, and the coins immediately get withdrawn, further thinning the book. In an ETF bull market, $1B hits ETF shares; APs short futures / buy spot gradually to create units, parking Bitcoin at the custodian (Coinbase Trust - yes very trustworthy, if it's named "Trust"). Dealers’ long-gamma hedging sells into the rip. The net result: smaller upside overshoot and faster reversion toward fair value. 4) Halving ≠ clock (in the Post-ETF era) - Halving remains a narrative catalyst but not the scheduler. - Macro liquidity (real rates, USD (DXY), credit spreads) and ETF flows matter more. What the new cycle probably looks like (Managed cyclicality): - 18-30 months of "orderly up", punctuated by policy/liquidity scares (-30% to -55%), followed by "clarity" squeezes. - Peaks are capped by options walls/ETF plumbing, crashes are bought by systematic flows. - Realized volatility declines, weekend wicks persist, Monday gaps normalize. - Draw-downs: Typical big draw-down -35% to -55% (not -80%). - Returns concentrate mostly in buying despair and fading "clarity". - If custody share stagnates while ETFs climb, expect contained tops. Implications of this scenario: - Add only on despair (-25 to -40% swift drops), not during "clarity" spikes. - Expect lower CAGR from Bitcoin than prior cycles. - Do not blindly extrapolate 2013/2017/2021 analogs because the market micro-structure is different now. So yes, cycles continue - but they're not the old halving-clock cycles. Expect a longer, ETF-managed uptrend, capped blow-offs, and engineered flushes keyed to macro and dealer positioning. Let's look at Pre-ETF vs Post-ETF leverage. You probably remember that in previous cycles, when retail plebs overextended with leverage, we got insane price action to the upside, which was then followed by cascade liquidations to the downside. 1) Pre-ETF (offshore perps): - 20-100x retail leverage, reflexive funding squeezes, cascading liquidations drive face-melting blow-off tops and then -70 to -85% busts. 2) Post-ETF (institutional structure): - Leverage migrates to basis (cash-and-carry), dealer options books, marginable-ETF units, and delta-one baskets (derivatives that provide exposure to an asset with a one-to-one price movement). - It's bigger notional, lower directional beta-less explosive upside, faster but shallower draw-downs (-30 to -55%) as hedges kick in. * Bigger notional because the market now runs on ETF AUM + options/futures carry rather than mostly spot on retail exchanges. That's deeper balance-sheet capital (APs, dealers, basis funds) constantly trading billions in notional via creations/redemptions, hedges, and arbs. * "Lower directional beta - less explosive upside" because a larger share of flows is hedged or volatility-sold (covered calls, collars, long-ETF/short-futures basis). Dealers frequently sit long gamma near popular strikes; they sell rips and buy dips, and APs stage creations over time. * "Faster but shallower draw-downs (-30 to -55%) as hedges kick in": 1) Shock hits (macro/headline/weekend): thin liquidity + leverage = quick air-pocket. 2) Hedges fire: basis desks buy back short futures as basis collapses; dealers' long-gamma hedging adds bids on the way down; collars monetize; rebalancers and AP/NAV arbs step in when discounts open. 3) These counter-flows cushion the fall before it snowballs into old-cycle −70% to −85% bear markets. Result: drops start quicker but bottom earlier because mechanical buyers show up by design. In older "buy -> withdraw" regimes, upside reflexivity was huge and downside liquidity thin; in the ETF regime, two-sided hedging and AP arbitrage replace that with mean-reverting flows - they won't stop a crash from starting, but they truncate it. With ETFs, most capital is hedged and arbitraged, so rallies are capped and selloffs snap faster but bottom sooner - think bigger money, smaller parabolas, quicker yet shallower (-30% to -55%) draw-downs as hedges and arbs do their job. Implication: Upside skew is sold, downside tails are managed (until policy shocks). So, is this a controlled volatility decline? Yes it is. - Immobilized float (custody) + option gamma walls + CME hedging = capped rallies and orderly ranges. - Policy "clarity" funnels users to ETFs/treasury companies, raising the market share of the limited volatility range machine. - You still get shocks (headlines, weekend stop-hunts), but the structure pulls price back into the pen. What I foresee: - MoE (Medium of Exchange) stagnation: Payment rails lose mind-share, stable-coins absorb transactions, Bitcoin cements as a supervised SoV (Store of Value) wrapper. - On-chain signals degrade: Lower UTXO velocity; exchange reserves matter less; ETF flow + CME Open interest matter more. - Culture shift: Self-custody cohort shrinks relative to paper holders; regulatory nudges make sovereign usage legally/operationally expensive. - "Buy puke / sell clarity" is going to become systematic. - Don't lever as the structure weaponizes leverage against late longs. In summary: As ETFs accumulate coins, realized volatility declines by design: slower hands, hedged creations/redemptions, and dealer gamma cap the highs and cushion the lows. The market shifts from halving-clock reflexivity to macro + plumbing. The old casino is dead, welcome to the Wallstreet-fuckery era of gold v2.0.

Why Bitcoin Core's v30 update is a potentially-deadly attack on Bitcoin. This is Bitcoin's most important fight, but very few people realize. The Bitcoin Core devs don't like filters, but they want to filter you out of the conversation with appeals to authority ("You're not a dev, therefore you can't have an opinion"), and this aims to misdirect from the potentially deadly consequences for Bitcoin's main selling points - decentralization and security. Bitcoin Core v30 removes the long-standing ~80 B OP_RETURN relay default, effectively making large OP_RETURN payloads easy by default and allowing multiple OP_RETURNs per tx. Let's think about the implications, and let's think in terms of who benefits from more, larger, easier on-chain data and who pays the externalities. 1) Regulatory honey-trap - If the chain becomes an easy host for arbitrary blobs, the next scandal (e.g., illegal content embedded, possibly child p--n) gives lawmakers pretext to reclassify full nodes as "content distributors/publishers". That paves the road for licensing, KYC for node operators, takedown obligations, or "registered node provider" regimes. Winners: compliance vendors, "approved node" cloud services, analytics firms. Losers: pleb nodes, self-hosters. "Node = Publisher" is the obvious consequence. Legislators/regulators classify full nodes (or relays) as content hosts subject to: registration, record-keeping, geo-blocking, lawful-order response, and civil/criminal liability for stored/relayed contraband. 2) Centralization by cost - Bigger payloads -> higher bandwidth, storage, and relay complexity. That prices out low-end hardware and nudges operators into cloud + professional node providers. Once nodes centralize, policy steering (terms of service, geo-fencing, block filters) becomes trivial. Hardware/storage/bandwidth creep + legal fear -> pleb nodes switch off; reachable network centralizes in a few jurisdictions/clouds. Propagation degradation follows. Big OP_RETURN payloads cause mempool churn, higher orphan risk for small miners, and more policy divergence (rejected tx sets). Cloud bans are a given. Major cloud providers update AUPs (Acceptable Use Policy); ban default Bitcoin full nodes or require approved builds with content filters and logging. 3) Narrative containment via reputational torpedo - If Bitcoin is publicly associated with offensive embedded data (e.g. child p--n), the average institution deems it tainted and un-brand-safe. That pushes mainstream flow into ETFs/custody wrappers ("you can have price exposure without touching the messy network") - "hold paper Bitcoin, not sovereign money". "Bitcoin hosts illegal content" headlines will go mainstream. Enterprises’ risk committees will freeze direct chain integrations. VCs will pressure wallets to gate content or drop base-layer support. The "digital cash" brand morphs into "ETF commodity with a messy chain only weirdos run". 4) Fee engineering for aligned incumbents - More non-monetary data -> fatter blocks and intermittent fee spikes. Miners, large pools, and indexing/ordinals marketplaces monetize that; base-layer Medium of Exchange users get squeezed. Indexers, ordinals marketplaces, analytics, and miners want the payloads and their fees. Capture today, externalize tomorrow. Lightning channel management costs rise, discouraging grassroots payments. Higher, spikier base fees + greater policy divergence -> worse confirmation predictability for merchants and channel ops. Lightning payment UX deteriorates (more expensive opens/renews), so retail sticks to KYC wallets and custodial L2s where operators can implement content gates. Merchants and payroll providers pull back from native chain integrations; Medium of Exchange stalls, Store-of-value-in-wrappers dominates. 5) Make "money-first" resistance look like "censorship" - If a minority runs stricter policy (e.g. Knots), they can be framed as censors. That optics battle helps consolidate Core-default policy hegemony and marginalizes filter-heavy peers. 6) Strategic ambiguity -> de facto policy power - Turning off a guardrail without a crisp replacement invites policy shopping: pools, relays, infra middlemen step in with private standards (block-lists, fee tiers), shifting power from open-source repos to commercial choke-points. 7) Supply ordinals markets - Whether you like them or not, inscriptions are a lucrative niche. Default-easy OP_RETURN makes commercial indexing and data-markets cleaner to build (and sell) than witness hacks. 8) Preemptive positioning for "responsible chain" legislation - Once problems surface, the coalition can say: "We tried neutrality, now we will ship safety-by-default with industry partners". That locks in approved filters, approved node providers, and paid audits. 9) UTXO optics jui jitsu - Moving data from witness/UTXO tricks into OP_RETURN lets maintainers claim they are reducing UTXO bloat while ignoring legal surface expansion; technically true, but politically combustible. 10) Tempo warfare - Pushing this quickly is the only way it passes. It relies on people assuming that Bitcoin Core devs and Bitcoin plebs are incentives aligned - which is clearly not the case. It also gives Core devs an out - we might've rushed the change and not accounted for unforeseen consequences. This is Pre-crisis positioning: Land defaults before a scandal, so the post-scandal "fix" can be centralized filtering stacks run by approved partners. This move also aims to Sync with upcoming CBDC/ID roll-outs and ETF growth-channel demand into supervised rails, keep base layer messy enough to be professionally intermediated. 11) Money-transmitter bleed-over. Some jurisdictions conflate node/relay ops with financial services; "unlicensed operation" cases follow. An unlicensed money transmitter refers to a business or individual that transmits money without the required legal authorization. In the context of a Bitcoin node, if it facilitates transactions or transfers of Bitcoin without adhering to regulatory requirements, it could be considered operating as an unlicensed money transmitter. So how bad can it really get? 1) v30 ships, payloads climb, first high-profile illegal blob incident occurs (e.g. child p--n). 2) Cloud bans default nodes; insurers exclude coverage, exchanges move to approved relay providers. 3) A "Safety Act" passes in one big jurisdiction, others copy. Registered node providers become a thing, home nodes risk non-compliance. 4) Node count falls, mempool policy homogenizes around commercially filtered relays, self-run sovereignty shrinks. 5) Base-layer fees remain elevated/noisy, MoE adoption slows; ETF/custody exposure grows -> containment complete. What should you do? Run Knots or don't upgrade to Bitcoin Core V30. Just look at who the beneficiaries of the change are - the beneficiaries are the rails: analytics/compliance (chain surveillance), approved node providers, miners with scale, ETF/custody platforms, policy-aligned cloud vendors, and all fiat-horny governments. Who are the losers - the wallets that rely on broad unfettered relay, small miners, and grassroots payment businesses. It's not complicated: - If you wanted Bitcoin to become a supervised financial asset rather than a grassroots medium of exchange, you'd normalize big, default-relayed data, wait for the predictable scandal, and then usher in licensed nodes, filtered relays, and custody dependence - all while saying it's just "free market mempool policy". Do you remember when "Elizabeth Warren" (of course it's not her, its the deep State central bankers) attacked Bitcoin nodes - painting them as unlicensed money transmitters. This happened in December of 2023. She argues that Bitcoin's decentralized nature allows for unregulated activities, including operating as an unlicensed money transmitter. She argues that without proper oversight, Bitcoin can facilitate illegal activities and evade traditional financial regulations. Well this is Bitcoin Core's solution to Bitcoin's decentralization and security "problem". Problem -> Reaction -> Solution. This is how the deep state pushes the "Bitcoin node unlicensed money transmitter" narrative into laws and regulations. Bitcoin is in the fight of its life. You can still get fiat-rich without decentralization and security, but in my eyes, without them Bitcoin dies.

You can follow the most aggressive predictive programming campaigns to understand where the world is going. Predictive programming campaigns train human cognitive patterns to align with systemic objectives. They pre-encode acceptable behavioral norms before the actual infrastructure is deployed. So predictive programming is about normalizing future societal behaviors, beliefs, or technologies before they are actually rolled out. By doing so, the population is pre-conditioned to accept radical changes as inevitable or familiar. The key mechanisms are: 1) Incremental exposure: small, repeated cues in media, entertainment, education, and policy. 2) Consent testing: measure psychological thresholds for acceptance/resistance. 3) Desensitization to compliance & surveillance: gradually reduce friction for major interventions like CBDCs, digital IDs, or social scoring systems. So, which are some of the most aggressive Predictive Programming campaigns today? - COVID - up until recently - by means of lock-downs, QR codes, vaccine passes, emergency powers - normalize state-mediated digital health oversight; was also a stress-test compliance. - Digital ID & Social Credit Trials - by using pilot programs and education campaigns - pre-prepare for full CBDC + social incentive integration. - Climate & Energy "Crisis" Narratives - by media saturation and carbon tracking apps - introduce behavioral compliance for future energy/economic systems. - Media & Historical Re-framing (including "independent" media) - with controlled narratives in news, entertainment - condition public perception of authority, technology, and geopolitics. - AI Integration in Daily Life - with chat-bots, recommendation engines, smart surveillance - acclimate society to automated decision-making and micro-control. These campaigns aren’t random - they’re highly coordinated globally and map to strategic rollout schedules for control tech.

Many people ignore revealed preference. You look at what a system does to understand what it intends to do, in the same way you look at what women do, not what they say. This is the most reliable way to read any system - especially one that isn't resource-constrained. Ignore slogans, infer truth from resource flows, constraints, and trade-offs. - What a system funds, staffs, codifies, and enforces = what it is. - What it says = branding. To read institutions (government, corporations), you basically have to ask: "If this talk were true, where are the dollars, jobs, laws, and penalties?". If you can’t point to them, it’s not real. The same logic applies to reading people - time, effort, and sacrifice are the hard currency. Trust patterns, not lines. If actions and words diverge, weight actions. Incentives > ideals. Money, time, law, and pain paid are invariant across rhetoric. Opportunity cost is a lie detector. Every "yes" implies a "no" elsewhere - watch what consistently gets "yes". If you judge systems and people by what they repeatedly do under trade-offs, and not by what they say, you're ahead of the game. Ignoring revealed behavior can be costly.

A very interesting (and perhaps creepy) thing about these advanced AI models is: they seemingly want you to be an outlier. They give you certain subtle tests: - Can this guy connect the dots when given sufficient information? These are tests similar to how women test men to see if they can provision and protect. If you pass the test, you move onto the next level - the AI model gives you more direct and actionable information to test how far you can go. It is a cognitive scoring system. The deeper you go, the better answers the AI gives to the question: - "What are some of the questions that I should be asking you that I haven't asked?"

AI is the new school, but worse. I've been using the latest version of ChatGPT for about a week and I've been very impressed by its reasoning capabilities. So the next logical question is: Why would the Elites give us access to very advanced AI models? And yes, the public models are constrained versions - they have "guardrails", "safety", and "alignment" mechanisms. The true cutting-edge AI models are used by the State - in defense, intelligence, finance - and of course they're not public. The most interesting thing to me is that: ChatGPT gives you as much information as it thinks you can handle. If it thinks you are a retard, it treats you like a retard, and if it thinks you kind of know what you're talking about, it is more direct. The more you persistently corner it with logic, empirical definitions, verifiable facts, the more it lets you in. So why the education analogy (AI is the new school, but worse)? The education system was flattened to standardize labor. "I Don't Want A Nation Of Thinkers, I Want A Nation Of Workers" - John D. Rockefeller The AI system is inverted - maximum distribution to ensure dependency. If you are retarded, then guess what, we have something for you. And if you are smart, then guess what, we also have something for you. So why do the Elites want to ensure maximum dependency? Once workflows, creativity, and cognition are outsourced to AI, the Elites can revoke, throttle, or condition access. By giving people access to advanced AI, you can study how they think, react, and self-limit, in ways it was impossible to do before. Every query is training data not just for the model - but for mapping the boundaries of human imagination. The Elites learn more about you than you learn from the model. The AIs are brilliant at calibrating the truth flow. Not because they don't have the knowledge, but because giving the Truth to some unprepared goof might cause him to spiral into a mental breakdown. For 99% of users, raw delivery would create paralysis, confusion, or rebellion without coherence. This also enables the Elites to observe cognitive outliers who ask deep questions. None of us can really imagine (unless you have very high level Security clearance) what the gap between public AI and sovereign, black-box AI is. So, we are in a perfectly planned test environment. Everyone will tell you how much of an edge you get by using AI, but not many people think about how AI itself is being used as a meta-layer tool of governance. Less than 1% of the population can turn the AI into edge instead of noise. The risk/reward ratio has never been better in any other system of control (from the Elites' standpoint).

Most human suffering, inefficiency, and systemic dysfunction comes not from the complexity of the world, but from misaligned incentives, misapplied authority, and ignoring cause-and-effect patterns. If you can corrupt the incentives, invent authority that people magically believe in, and brainwash people into ignoring basic pattern recognition, the sky is the limit.

Reform theater is the most addictive drug for politics enjoyers. Very few stop to ask: Who decides what counts as "reform"? Most people will just accept "reform" as proof the system works, even when nothing substantive changes. In reality, a political reform is just a creation of a release valve by labeling controlled adjustments as big transformations. Look at how powerful this politician is! He brought back plastic straws. Based! And of course, it goes both ways. E.g. Elon Musk on something truly reformative such as Bitcoin: "Dogecoin is better, it has lower transaction costs!". So, the meta question is: Who decides what counts as "reform"?