Trying to zap people using Primal wallet and app and it works maybe ~10% of the time. The zaps go off, then I refresh and no zap most of the time. Sometimes I get a notification: "Unable to zap, try again later." At the same time, I am able to get zapped. I guess the problem is not with me because some days it works 50-60% of the time. Are there any alternatives that are not as broken and have desktop + mobile version?

Do you know why people vote for their jailers? People say they want freedom, but they pay for comfort. When safety and convenience are offered at a discount, comfort beats ideals nearly every time. 1) Freedom is abstract; comfort and safety are immediate. - "Freedom" is distant, probabilistic, and hard to visualize. - "Comfort" is: rent paid, card works, no one yelling at you, fast apps. Most people rationally prioritize a predictable floor over abstract autonomy. 2) The ballot is pre-filtered to "which jailer", not "no jail". Anyone who threatens the underlying control stack (surveillance, compliance rails, financial chokepoints) is filtered out, neutered, or turned into a cautionary tale. So the real question on offer is: - "Which manager of the same basic machinery do you want?" People vote for their jailers because "no jailer" is not on the menu in any scalable, respectable form. 3) Fear of chaos makes the jailer look like a protector - People are more afraid of unregulated downside (crime, riots, bank failures, pandemics, unemployment, social ostracism) than of slow-creeping control. - The jailer markets themselves as the only thing standing between voters and chaos. So voters will accept more surveillance, more emergency powers, more centralized rails, if these are framed as the price for stability and normalcy. 4) "Free" perks as on-ramps to controllable rails "Free" is almost never free. It's subsidized onboarding: - Cashback, reward points, and "0 fee" wallets → get you onto rails where every transaction is logged and gateable (shout-out Square). - Faster payments, instant settlement → lock you into specific intermediaries and standards. - One-tap logins and unified IDs → collapse your identities into a single choke-point. The perk is temporary sugar. The habit and dependence are permanent. After a year: - The incentive shrinks or disappears. - Your life is now wired through the same narrow pipes the jailer can squeeze. 5) How people become defenders of their own cage Once someone's income, social life, and records live on these rails: - Exiting feels like self-harm: "I'll lose my history, my ratings, my contacts, my access". - Admitting the trade was bad means admitting "I helped build my own trap". So they resolve the dissonance by: - Insisting the controls are "necessary", "reasonable", "for everyone's safety". - Voting for whoever promises to protect and extend the rails they now depend on. 6) Treat "free" as an entry drug, not a gift Whenever something is "free", "frictionless", or "automatic", assume it's an acquisition funnel. Before accepting, explicitly list: - Who runs this rail? (state, bank, platform, ID provider) - Who can throttle, freeze, or revoke it? (regulator, compliance, risk team, opaque algorithm) - Who sees the logs, and for how long? - What happens if I'm labeled risky / non-compliant / undesirable? - Can I function without this rail once I'm used to it? If you can't name a credible exit path, you're not taking a perk. You're voting for your jailer with your future dependence.

I've been building a very advanced liquidity tracker and a few other models. It's a lot of work but it's been fun. Basically finance + logic + conspiracy theories. The type of stuff that nuked my Substack from search engines. I was getting search engine traffic up until I wrote my One World Government article 😂 ( https://controlplanecapital.com/p/rivalry-between-countries-is-curated ). Ever since I started doing a deeper dive, I've been shocked to learn how blue-pilled financial analysts are (they are incentivized to be blue-pilled). From time to time, I watch the more popular youtube analysts on 2-2.5 speed and man, they are absolutely clueless, or at least pretend to be. Even the darlings of Bitcoiners — most are absolutely clueless. Often, when they are right, they are right for the wrong reasons (assuming the stated reasons are what they believe in).

Governments love humiliation tests. A humiliation test is a small, pointless obedience drill that trains you to nod first, think later. It's not about the content. It's about proving the system can make you do or say something you know is dumb, petty, or disproportionate — and you'll do it anyway. 1) What humiliation tests buy the system A) Dominance proof: "If I can make you do something obviously unnecessary, I know you're safe for the serious stuff". B) Sorting mechanism. Humiliation tests are filters: - People who refuse: marked as "difficult", "non-compliant", "not a culture fit". - People who swallow it: marked as "safe", promotable, eligible for sensitive roles. No need for ideology diagnostics; a few small, dumb asks tell the system who will bend when it matters. C) Precedent for escalation. Once you've complied with something you privately saw as bullshit, the system has: - A precedent: "You agreed before; this is just more of the same". - A leverage point: your prior compliance can be used to shame future hesitation. 2) What it does inside your head Humiliation tests weaponize cognitive dissonance: 1. You do the thing (sign, chant, click, recite) because saying no is costly in the moment. 2. You feel the internal conflict: "That was dumb / exaggerated / dishonest". 3. To reduce that tension, your brain updates the story: - "Maybe it’s not that bad". - "Maybe they're right". - "I'm not the kind of person who just submits for no reason, so this must be reasonable". You move from "I complied under pressure" to "I basically agree" to protect your self-image. Each petty concession burns your doubt and rewrites your narrative a bit more in their favor. Humiliation tests are small, symbolic and public. Over time, the people remaining in key positions are those who've repeatedly signaled: - "I will override my own judgment and self-respect to keep my place in the system". That's what the system wanted all along. When something feels petty, compulsory, and performative, assume it's not about the surface issue. Ask: - "What larger narrative am I validating by doing this?" - "What future request does this make harder for me to refuse?" - "If I comply now, what will my next self be forced to defend, to avoid admitting I caved here?" That's the real permission you're being asked to grant.

Defaults decide outcomes. They are soft law. Most people live inside them and call it "choice". At scale, safety/ease beats sovereignty unless the latter is defaulted into UX. Opt-out vs. opt-in can 5–10x adoption with no persuasion. This is how governments and platforms steer behavior at scale. Defaults lower cognitive tax and social risk — so people call them "convenient" while locking into long-term paths (payments, news feeds, storage, wallets). He who sets the defaults: - defines what "normal" looks like, - defines what "consent" is presumed to be, - defines who has to spend effort and social capital to deviate. For most people, "My preference" = "whatever the default made least painful". Defaults are the main interface of coercion that still looks voluntary. Governments and platforms don't need to ban competitors; they just set defaults so that exiting them is slow, confusing, or socially suspicious. If you care about real agency, treat every default as a deliberate bet against you, unless proven otherwise. Assume defaults serve: - the platform's revenue, - the state's control and stability goals, - and only incidentally your convenience. Design your own personal defaults instead of accepting whatever someone selected for you. If you're not actively setting or resisting defaults, you're not "choosing", you're being routed.

Most people don't change beliefs — they change teams. The ones who build the systems know this very well. If you want to see how a person will act, you don't ask "What do you believe?" – you ask "Which team currently feeds and protects you, and which team are you trying to get into?" For anything that touches power, money, or safety, "belief" is a side effect of coalition membership under constraint. If you want to understand or change what people "believe", stop pushing more arguments into the front of the theater. Walk backstage and rewire: - who pays them, - who can punish them, - who they're performing for. The rest of the "belief journey" will mostly take care of itself. In other words — when you want someone to see the truth, change what truth pays them. Trying to "blue-pill" or "red-pill" someone while leaving their dependencies intact is mostly theater. They need a direct incentive shift: - Give them a new coalition: new job, new customers, new patronage, new audience. - Remove personal risk: legal shielding, financial runway, anonymity, alternative credentials. - Once their safety depends on a different story, their mind will "discover" that story's correctness. An audience swap almost always gets the job done. People don't speak to "reality". They speak to an audience. If you want them to change, change who's listening and who they're afraid of: - Move them from a room where accuracy = status, - To a room where dissent = exile. They will quickly learn the new speech patterns. What gets measured, gets believed. If their performance is measured on: - prediction accuracy → they'll slowly gravitate toward more truthful models. - compliance metrics → they'll "believe" compliance narratives. Switch the KPI, and watch their belief vocabulary morph to reduce their fear of being punished. Most people don't change beliefs — they change teams.

In one of Bitcoin Mechanic's videos, he said "Nothing survives the normie, and the normie is coming" Fuck dude, this is so true 😂

What made me sell most of my Bitcoin a few months ago

What made me sell most of my Bitcoin a few months ago

I am not bearish on Bitcoin's fiat-denominated price. I am bearish on Bitcoin's odds of becoming mass MoE, and I am pricing the coordination tax.

My goal with this Substack was to open-source most of my Bitcoin research and with this article, I have achieved my goal.

I rarely get surprised by anything anymore, but a while back when I started researching AI governance, it shocked me how many institutions are actually aware of where the world is moving without divulging much information. 1) How many market participants already know about the AI governance regime (rough estimates): - High-level "AI governance is coming" awareness: ~60–70% of institutions. - Deep understanding (admissibility, provenance, attestation, court-survivable artifacts): <10%. - Positioned in mispriced bottlenecks (T&D, transformers, legal-evidence tech, attestation silicon): ~5%. 2) How coordination happens without a "smoking gun" Standards + perimeters. - Standards (NGOs, fora, regulators) emit the same verbs: attest, revoke, trace, prove, rollback. - Perimeters (banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, card networks) flip Acceptable Use Policies; law becomes optional. In other words, financial institutions read the standards, and people don't. That's what's reflected in financial markets, not the media screaming "AI bubble" which is a very surface-level take. Just to give you 1 example (of many), look at EU's AI Act (

Shaping Europe’s digital future

AI Act

The AI Act is the first-ever legal framework on AI, which addresses the risks of AI and positions Europe to play a leading role globally.

) . And before you say "it's just the EU". It's not, it's also the US and the entire world. The US governance template (de facto global) is also being rolled out. - The NIST AI Risk-Management-Framework plus the Generative AI profile (NIST-AI-600-1, Jul-2024) is the check-list legal, audit, and vendor teams are implementing (regardless of DC politics). It maps controls for provenance, evaluation, and traceability. So a large share of institutions knows AI governance is coming — you see it in dated laws, Cloud Solution Provider SKUs, silicon roadmaps, enterprise console updates, and financial markets. I have to admit, it is a well-kept secret. While the plebs are busy food fighting, governments are rolling out the next regime. More context: https://controlplanecapital.com/p/why-we-arent-in-an-ai-bubble-top

The twitter thing where the Homeland Security account is being run out of Israel is so scripted, it's actually sad that so many people are falling for it. Twitter and Elon Musk are actually the government. They don't usually let things 'slip' or make silly mistakes. You can write a 5-minute test to ensure that something like this doesn't happen when rolling out these features (and they have). They want you to talk about this account being supposedly run out of Israel (which is possible, but nonconsequential) and not talk about the stealth digital ID rollout. Before you know it, they're gonna ask you to full-on KYC for reach, and every non-KYC'd account is going to get throttled into the abyss. It's not very important whether Israel is running the Homeland security account, what matters is the upcoming AI governance regime that these platforms are slowly implementing. I'll write more on what AI governance is but you're seeing the implementation of "Content provenance": - C2PA-like (Coalition for content provenance and authenticity) signing at OS/camera/browser; unsigned content rate-limited or downranked. - CDN filters: provenance + policy tags required for distribution at scale. Everyone knows how poisonous Israhell is at this point, but the coming AI governance regime is what they don't want you to talk about.

Governments love the "Honeymoon → Normalization → Harvest" playbook because the plebs always fall for it. New financial tech follows the same arc: big sweeteners at launch, normalization once everyone is on board, and then the quiet fee/tax/regulation harvest. Where Bitcoin is: We finished the honeymoon (ETFs, easy brokerage access). We're deep in normalization (more rules, fewer wild spikes). Harvest is next (nickel-and-diming self-custody; paper exposure everywhere). The incentives flip as soon as enough users are corralled. Watch for "for your safety" rules that raise the cost of running your own node.

I've got a few more Bitcoin-related topics I'd like to write about and then I'm going to be done with my Bitcoin research and focus on AI. If any influencer wants to steal my Bitcoin homework, feel free to. The odds of someone with my background spending the amount of time I've spent doing research is very close to 0. Hope we manage to address some of these issues.

I've been doing some research on the biggest mistakes we Bitcoiners made as a community — and obviously we got very complacent over time. Instead of listening to podcast hopium and alienating people with "have fun staying poor" narratives, we should've focused on game theory and patched up at least some of the holes. It was always inevitable that Bitcoin was going to get attacked, and things like having close to 100% of nodes run on a single implementation was just silly in hindsight. People are doing more harm than good when posting charts of hashrate going vertical without the context that 2 pools (Foundry and Antpool) are close to 50% of hashrate and for more than 98% of cases, pools, not miners decide which transactions get added to the blockchain. You had most of the Bitcoin community cheering price over payment share; we welcomed ETFs as victory. Paper share rose, self-custody fell. The entire community also cheered Square's surveilled "Bitcoin payments" where every payment generates identity-linked transaction data: buyer, location, device, and amount. All transactions flow through Square/Cash App's KYC/AML perimeter, meaning both sides of the payment are verified. That data fuels risk scoring, fraud models, blacklist propagation, and targeted marketing. Exactly this surveillance value is Square's enduring moat, not the 1% fee. We just got too complacent. I'd say the 5 main mistakes we Bitcoiners made are: 1. Letting arbitrary data compete with money on the base layer (witness discount abetted it). For Medium-of-Exchange you need predictable fees; underpriced junk data is a Denial-of-Service subsidy. 2. Treating privacy as an "expert mode". That guarantees surveillance wins by default. Make privacy invisible and automatic. 3. Under-investing in operational safety (backups, recovery, liquidity UX). Normal users pick custodians when scared. 4. Relying on norms over policy. In a low Gross Consent Product world, policy beats culture. If your mempool policies are naïve, adversaries will price you out. 5. Ignoring perimeter levers (app stores, banks, clouds). If you don't plan redundant routes, the other side will plan your failure. The uncomfortable truth is that Bitcoin's defense can't be "hope users pick hard mode". Defaults decide outcomes. If Bitcoin wants to be mass Medium-of-Exchange, privacy, finality, recoverability, and predictability must be invisible and automatic — and the perimeter must be treated as hostile by default. Until then, paper wrappers will dominate, regulators will "clarify", and L1 will be priced as store-of-value with supervised access, not as everyday cash. The good news: all of that is fixable — but only if it's designed, not preached.