Portfolio managers have hard/soft rules that not very many investors understand. If you understand them, you can exploit them. The hard rules are good to know, but I'm not going to focus on them right now because I find the soft rules more interesting. Soft rules aren't in law (as opposed to hard rules), but they run the show. - Career risk & closet indexing: stray too far from benchmark -> firing risk. - Draw-down limits: internal (e.g., −8% month / −15% quarter trigger size cuts). - Quarter/half "optics": window dressing (dump losers, own benchmark mega-caps into print). - Model/committee discipline: committees won't approve "weird" theses (e.g., my thesis - "technocracy substrate"); position sizes muted even when edge is real. - Capacity & liquidity: if daily turnover can't absorb a 3–5x Average Daily Volume exit, Portfolio Manager sizes down. - Reputational veto: "Surveillance/governance winners" may be under-owned because investor relations can't say the quiet part. Big platforms prefer scale and low headline risk - true alpha gets under-allocated. - Incentive comp geometry: annual bonus is tied to relative performance so it hurts to be early/contrarian. - Organizational inertia: new ideas need risk sign-offs; slow ≈ "no". Then, there's also the reality around what turns Portfolio Managers into forced-sellers. - Volatility & Value at Risk gating (When Value at Risk spikes, risk parity / levered macro funds de-risk mechanically. - When realized/implied volatility jumps, Value at Risk rockets even with flat prices. - Value at Risk (VaR) is a financial metric that estimates the potential loss in value of a portfolio over a specified time period, given normal market conditions. - Due to Value at Risk gating, mispricings widen precisely when upside improves. - Use Value at Risk events (policy panics, hearings, short bans, fee spikes) to buy state-embedded compounders. - Value at Risk events push Portfolio Managers to sell what they actually like (liquid compounders) to fund outflows - precisely when the expected value is best. - Use forced-seller windows to scale in. - After the facility/standard arrives, policy synchronization lifts the same names - then the Portfolio Managers come in, the indexers (S&P, QQQ, etc.) add, and the entry looks "obvious". - Policy Synchronization is when the same rules start to appear across allied countries which usually means to front-run spend on identity/compliance. In other words, front-run standards harmonization. Do not think that markets are free. Markets are efficient to constraints. Learn the constraints (hard + soft), anticipate the forced flows, and be the one entity in the stack that doesn't have to sell. Mispricings persist because Portfolio Managers optimize career/mandate constraints, not truth. This point: - "Reputational veto: "Surveillance/governance winners" may be under-owned because investor relations can't say the quiet part." is very significant and needs to be explored further. It basically means that Conspiracy = asymmetry.

One likely way governments will nudge institutions away from Bitcoin payments and toward CBDC/stablecoin rails is by marketing them as "Quantum-Safe". Of course, most big institutions don't really need that big of a nudge because they are subsidiaries of the government, so it's just optics. The media will push just enough fear to slow institutional Bitcoin commitments. Governments might even try to "scare" Bitcoin treasuries and retail plebs into buying Larry Fink's "Quantum-Safe" Bitcoin ETF. The "post-quantum panic" FUD might lead to interesting price action depending on the success of the campaign because it gets technical relatively quickly and most people/institutions will blindly appeal to authority (refer to the government).

"Public support" is just a way to lower enforcement costs. When enforcement tech gets better and cheaper, the system can afford less consent. This is why governments have put strong emphasis on improving enforcement tech, especially in recent years. Because improved enforcement tech = consent substitution.

It's interesting to see that most people still don't know why politicians are elected (selected). This artificial left/right divide on social media and people clamoring for Civil War seems so fake but there probably are a couple million low IQ individuals who are going to get got. The TLDR is that politicians don't get selected to make your life better, they get selected to preserve the system that robs and enslaves you. So their priority stack is: 1) Survival of the System (Base Layer) - The system itself must survive - continuity of the State, currency, command structure. Without survival, no other priority exists. 2) Control - The ability to shape, limit, and direct population behavior. Survival without control is fragile. Control extends survival indefinitely. Think - CBDCs, biometric ID, surveillance, media steering, internet choke-points. 3) Growth - The expansion of productive capacity and innovation inside the controlled frame. Growth supplies legitimacy and rewards insiders; it is the carrot to balance the stick of control. Think - Tech acceleration (AI, biotech, space), financial markets as growth engines. 4) Stability - Maintenance of societal calm, avoidance of revolts or chaos. Stability prevents resource diversion into repression. Think - Welfare programs, bread-and-circus entertainment, debt forbearance, stimulus. 5) Comfort (Top Layer, Optional) - Distribution of surplus comfort to keep populations docile. Comfort is expendable. It gets cut the moment survival/control require it. Think - Consumer gadgets, fast food, streaming, TikTok-level dopamine. So in summary, Comfort and Stability are sacrificed for Survival/Control. The public thinks politics is about "comfort & ideals". In reality, it's about survival/control (of the system). The left/right divide is fake and most (if not all) of the high level politicians have contempt for their constituents.

I am now a certified by ChatGPT financial advisor 😂 It has completely blown my mind how useful it is (if used correctly). Once shit goes down, the Controllers are probably killing me first, but until then ChatGPT has helped me improve my processes a lot.

I have been refining my investment thesis lately and I recently noticed something very interesting: The UK functions as a consent test-bed for the Controllers. Here are just some of the reasons why that is: - The British people are very demoralized by immigration. - Parliamentary sovereignty + fast lawmaking. No codified constitution or entrenched bill of rights. A determined government can push sweeping powers through quickly (often via statutory instruments). That's ideal for "pilot first, normalize later". - Five Eyes anchor (intelligence alliance consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Deep intel alignment with the US (GCHQ/NSA) makes the UK a natural lab for surveillance, data access and lawful-intercept standards that can be exported to allies. - Centralized services = rich datasets. A single-payer NHS and national ID rails (tax, benefits, driving) create national-scale platforms to trial data fusion. - Standards culture. NCSC (National Cyber Security Centre), Home Office and Ofcom issue codes/permits that become de facto standards other jurisdictions copy. Ofcom = government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, internet, telecommunications and postal industries. - Policing doctrine. Long tradition of public-order management + broad "prevent disorder" mandates makes protest-control innovations easy to trial. - Media + public pragmatism. UK political culture tolerates "security first if oversight exists". That lowers resistance to "temporary" exceptional measures. I am not going to go into the concrete moves that expand state/Platform control in the UK, I only care about the pattern for its investment implications. These moves normalize pre-emptive control. Detect -> Decide -> Act cycles are pushed closer to the individual device/ID layer (client-side scanning, ID-linked wallets, Live Facial Recognition, Serious Disruption Prevention Orders, etc). Once normalized in the UK, similar provisions echo into Five Eyes rule-books and vendor standards. Once you get the Signal that the UK pilot is "succeeding": other Five Eyes transpose near-copy legislation; UK vendors gain ATO-like (Authorization to Operate) approvals abroad; Ofcom rulings cited in EU/US filings. Ofcom = government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, internet, telecommunications and postal industries. In other words, the Controllers test consent on the British people because they are considered easy prey. If the consent test goes as expected, normalization follows, and then laws/regulations get implemented into Five Eyes. If it doesn't go as expected, then the Controllers take a step back because if you can't do it in the UK, you certainly ain't doing it in the US.

Real winners understand that "Ethics" in modern systems is mostly a governance interface - a mix of law, enforcement capacity, and social-license optics. They don't handicap themselves, they exploit rules, write rules, or route around rules - without crossing felonies that let the system delete them. Of course, if you are deeply-embedded into the System (e.g. Peter Thiel, Sam Altman), there are no rules for you, as long as your actions are aligned with the System, but that's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is that even insignificant plebs who understand the system can abuse it. My main points: - Law/Policy: Defines what's prosecutable vs. tolerated. (Not "right/wrong", but state capacity and priorities). - Budget: What gets enforced depends on resourcing (regulators/prosecutors headcount, program dollars). - Winners don't ask "How do I be more moral?" They ask: What's enforceable? What grants access? What reduces attack surface while preserving leverage? - "Morality" is an instrument. It's used to manufacture consent, pad moats (compliance you can't meet but rivals can), and pre-justify power. "Morality" is often weaponized to keep others compliant. - Run too hot and enforcement crushes you (they have the cops, platforms, banks). You want to take advantage of the system, you never want to hand the system a lawful pretext to erase you. Once you study Natural Law, you understand how silly these human-made laws are (more context:

Odysee

Mark Passio - Natural Law Seminar FULL Version

Mark Passio - Natural Law Seminar FULL Version

).

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.