One of the few things that excites me about AI videos is realistic, well-made simulations. E.g. imagine a realistic simulation of a world without Central Banks. Imagine a realistic simulation of a world in which the slaves organize a tax revolt and reject fiat slavery. We live in such a weird world that most people will never be able to break the programming unless they can visualize the problem and the solution. Basically all financial analysts track liquidity cycles, but none of them analyze why liquidity is cyclical (at least openly). Allegedly Thomas Jefferson did: - “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation then by deflation the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” Richard Werner made a documentary (and wrote a book) about this ( Princes of the Yen -

Odysee

Princes of the Yen - The Hidden Power of Central Banks_fixed 2014

View on Odysee: Princes of the Yen - The Hidden Power of Central Banks_fixed 2014

), however, it didn't do a very good job of explicitly stating the problem and didn't identify the solution. The Problem: the Central Banks of all countries (that matter) coordinate liquidity. They cause inflation waves or crises to discipline leverage, herd behavior, migrate usage onto programmable rails, and re-select winners — without the blow-back of permanent financial repression. The only Solution: a mass tax revolt and rejection of fiat slavery. The only way this type of coordination (that you also saw during Covid) works is if we live under a One World Government. https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated Are we going to be able to create some of these realistic AI simulations and get any type of distribution? There will probably be a very small time window.

Bitcoin Core's attack on Bitcoin's user base is fascinating. As a programmer, one of the first things you'll learn is to create useful abstractions and not leak implementation details onto your user base. This is crucial if most of your user base is non-technical. TL;DR - What happens when implementation details leak to a non-technical crowd When core developers narrate mempool policy, witness discounts, inscription paths, version bits, OP_RETURN limits, and soft-fork mechanics to a mostly non-technical user base, governance "leaks" without ceding control. Users inherit responsibility (anxiety, vigilance costs) but not power (they don't run code audits, write policy clients, or operate pools). In a low Gross Consent Product world, this leak is useful to the Controllers and intermediaries because it: - Expands the social attack surface (narratives, panic, brigading) while concentrating technical leverage (maintainers, pools, relay policy, app-store distribution). - Raises the "cost of being sovereign" (time, knowledge, operational burden), pushing the median user toward paperization (ETFs, custodians, on-ramp wallets). - Creates manufactured "consent cycles" — public comment drama around esoterica (v30 defaults, policy limits) that legitimize changes after the audience tires out. Leaking implementation details to the masses doesn't democratize Bitcoin; it socializes worry and privatizes control. In a low Gross Consent Product regime, that's a feature: it nudges users toward policy-safe defaults while maintaining the narrative of openness. Expect rising paper share, falling realized volatility, steerable settlement via pools/relays, and Medium-of-Exchange throttled in favor of stablecoins/CBDCs. It goes much deeper and I'll cover this in more detail later.

The new "OpenAI is asking the government for a bailout" narrative is hilarious. This of course implies that OpenAI is not the government. Well, OpenAI is actually the government. https://controlplanecapital.com/p/public-facing-elites-using-myth-making

I wrote on article on whether Bitcoin is decentralized and secure or is allowed to look decentralized and secure. Feel free to debunk it.

Is Bitcoin decentralized & secure or is it allowed to look that way

Bitcoin is permissionless in code but permissioned in practice by choke-points that governments and large intermediaries either directly control or...

TL;DR Bitcoin is permissionless in code but permissioned in practice by choke-points that governments and large intermediaries either directly control or can cheaply coerce. It’s allowed to look decentralized/secure so long as it functions primarily as a supervised store of value and speculative asset, not a mass medium of exchange outside compliance rails. Bitcoin’s design is decentralized in protocol, but the real-world control surface has shifted into layers above consensus: pools, clouds, app stores, and custody perimeters. These are the quiet levers that steer usage without changing the code.

The question that sent me down the rabbit hole a few months ago: - Is Bitcoin decentralized and secure, or is it allowed to look decentralized and secure? TL;DR Bitcoin is permissionless in code but permissioned in practice by choke-points that governments and large intermediaries either directly control or can cheaply coerce. It's allowed to look decentralized/secure so long as it functions primarily as a supervised store of value and speculative asset, not a mass medium of exchange outside compliance rails.

Something interesting to Game Theory. What would happen in the unlikely scenario that the plebs try to un-capture Bitcoin now that it's so entrenched into the financial system. It's a bit late in the game for it to get the full Monero treatment. Assume a materially higher Bitcoin Community Vigilance & Coordination (CVC): client diversity rises, mempool policy hardens, mining/pool governance decentralizes, anti-paperization/Proof-of-Reserve norms spread, and the community routes around choke points. Things that would be interesting to cover: - What "Operation Un-Capture" looks like in practice - Likely state/industry reaction - Likely outcomes - Price/vol & adoption dynamics - What would work for the plebs (and what backfires) My quick read is that the most likely outcome is a two-tier Bitcoin. - Tier 1 (Compliant BTC): ETF/custodial flows, payment gateways, regulated L2s. Clean UTXO sets fetch slight premium, fast merchant acceptance, low frictions — but full surveillance. - Tier 2 (Sovereign BTC): self-custody, privacy-hardened clients, peer channels; on/off-ramp friction rises, spreads widen, but actual censorship resistance improves.

Most of Bitcoin's success rides on the Community: Suggested Improvements If you consume Bitcoin content, most of what's discussed are protocol-level truths. However, based on my research, Bitcoin's survival and adoption depend on whether its most committed users can detect, coordinate, and counter inevitable policy, market, and social attacks. The Drivers of Success - TL;DR - Community Vigilance and Coordination (CVC): 50% How quickly and effectively the core community mobilizes around threats — through client diversity, mempool policy control, mining/pool governance, anti-paperization norms, Proof-of-Reserves (PoR) culture, and censorship-resistance operations. - Policy-Perimeter Exposure (PPE): 25% The network’s exposure to choke-points such as app stores, banks, cloud providers, internet service providers, custodians, and exchanges — and its ability to route around them. - Economic and Game-Theory Design (EGT): 15% The soundness of incentive structures: fee and issuance security budgets, validator or miner incentives, and containment of Maximal Extractable Value (MEV). - Protocol and Infrastructure Quality (PIQ): 10% The technical foundation: client maturity, developer tooling, code audits, and use of formal verification methods. I've written about this and suggested improvements here: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/most-of-bitcoins-success-rides-on

Bitcoin's development process has been broken for a long time and Bitcoin's developers have failed the community. Developers have to start treating Bitcoin's users as stakeholders, not an audience they have contempt for. I wrote the first Bitcoin Development Governance Proposal (BDGP-1). This is a rough draft. If someone wants to work on it further/take the idea and write a better proposal, feel free to. https://controlplanecapital.com/p/bitcoin-development-governance-proposal

How Bitcoin's developers have failed the community This will not be a technical post, I can eventually write one on the specifics of how Bitcoin's developers have weakened Bitcoin’s sovereign / monetary (MoE) use. In this post, I'll cover the predictable chaos that developer have caused. 99% of users should have never had to know what OP_RETURN is — and the fact they do means Bitcoin's developers have failed the community. The fact that non-technical users have had to learn about these details is a massive failure on the part of the developers. Now you have users taking sides on a soft-fork debate purely based on their blind faith in influencers without understanding the technicalities. When UX abstraction fails, politics invades the base layer: - Money that requires protocol literacy isn't money yet. If non-technical holders must parse mempool policy, witness discounts, inscription hacks, or soft-fork signaling to judge existential risk, you've leaked governance from experts to the masses without giving them power — just anxiety. - Abstraction debt. Bitcoin's developers are no longer shipping "safe defaults". That created a vacuum where influencers do protocol comms, and users pick tribes by vibes. - Legitimacy hazard. The minute regulars think "the rules can shift under me", your store-of-value narrative becomes contingent on whoever writes/merges code, not on time. That's a reputational tax that compounds. In the Bitcoin ecosystem (developers, miners/pools, exchanges/custodians, state/regulators), no actor with power is optimizing for "simple, sovereign Medium-of-Exchange for the masses". They optimize for revenue, deniability, and policy compatibility. All of this chaos and retail anxiety caused by developers will lead more people to ETFs/custody adoption and will lessen self-custody and MoE use. If node policy changes keep enabling more and easier illegal payloads, pressure lands on runners/miners first. Captured developers is the most asymmetric attack vector - it hits sovereign users hardest, while leaving institutional wrappers unaffected. Developers have to start treating Bitcoin's users as stakeholders, not an audience they have contempt for. The only way out of this is for the users to start working on a rough draft of constraints that should be imposed on the developers. I might write a very rough version eventually.