Bitcoin rose because it’s like farm-fresh produce—clean, simple, straight from the source. Now treasury companies are selling canned vegetables with a glossy label, assuming people will pay the same premium… but the nutritional value that drove demand in the first place isn’t there.

Bitcoin is like punk rock—raw, grassroots, censorship-resistant. Treasury companies are like record labels selling polished “punk” boy bands, expecting the same cultural impact. But they’ve stripped away the rebellion that made it move people in the first place.

Funny how every Bitcoin Treasury shill starts with ‘If you believe the price will go up…’ but never asks why it’s gone up. Hint: unseizable, censorship-resistant, and verifiable with a $100 single-board computer. Not because some suit took out a loan.

Wall St ETFs. Zombie treasury cos. Brutal corrections. Add in community fights over OP_RETURN & which node to run… It’s a perfect storm for new entrants to settle for exposure instead of coins. Exactly the kind of paper dilution GATA warned about with gold. Self-custody is the only exit. #Bitcoin 🍿

The Attack Hypothesis The attacker’s playbook would look like this: • Acquire a big stack of Bitcoin. • Wrap it in every kind of financial claim possible: stock, preferreds, debt, ETFs, ETPs, structured products. • Market those wrappers as “Bitcoin exposure without the hassle of custody.” • Soak up demand that otherwise would’ve bought real Bitcoin. The effect: fewer coins being bought and held in self-custody, more paper instruments circulating. This artificially increases synthetic supply and suppresses the “number go up” dynamic.

Issuing stock, preferreds, or credit against Bitcoin doesn’t literally mint new coins. But it creates parallel claims on the same base asset. That: 1.Diverts demand away from spot Bitcoin, 2.Multiplies financial claims per coin, and 3.Gives the market the illusion of more supply. Premium compression: As more wrappers exist, arbitrage pushes their price closer to Bitcoin’s spot price, lowering premiums and reducing “scarcity perception.” •Refinancing loop: Companies can raise more fiat by issuing more stock/debt against their BTC holdings and use the proceeds to buy even more BTC. But that Bitcoin is now encumbered—effectively pledged to both creditors and shareholders. It’s not freely circulating, but neither is it truly scarce, because multiple claims exist on the same coin.

I can get margin at 8% on my fidelity account, explain to me why I want to buy a company with agency risk and tax inefficiency that has a cost of capital at 10% +•? Maybe I’m retarded

Call me a simpleton, but as long as I can broadcast my Bitcoin transactions without broadcasting my IP, my little nodeninky is just sitting there stacking 1’s and 0’s. That’s self-sovereignty in its purest form.

Stop acting like a bunch of Wall Street cunts Pony Boy.. Stay Orange #Bitcoin 🍿

Keep it real or people will know you’re a fake.

FYI it’s smart for corporations to buy Bitcoin if their growth potential is low. It’s stupid for the individual to buy such companies. It’s that simple. You buy companies with large profits and or growth potential or you buy Bitcoin yourself.

They say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Same goes for Bitcoin. The one you custody yourself is worth 2x the one trapped in some corporate treasury or zombie entity. Why? Because self-sovereignty strips out counterparty risk, management fees, and middle-man grift. If you don’t control the keys, you don’t control the bird. So by that logic, “corporate Bitcoin” shouldn’t trade at NAV parity — it should trade at a 0.5 mNAV discount. Half a sat on the dollar. The rise of the individual is simply the market catching up to that math.

What’s a bigger grift, Satoshi Roundtable or The Bitcoin unconference?

If corporate “Bitcoin” dies while real Bitcoin rips, that’s not bearish—that’s the most bullish plot twist of the cycle. Picture headlines calling it The Rise of the Individual. No more zombie treasuries, no more middle-men rent seekers—just people opting out and stacking. That’s the signal, and I’d love to see it.

Every once in a while, it must be said. Just stack sats and STFU #Bitcoin 🍿

I’m convinced most of the Bitcoin treasury influencers have no coins 😂 Because if you have coins, you feel no need to shill dick.

The Pattern Every scam dresses itself in the narrative of the cycle: • 2017 → ICOs (Ethereum mania). • 2021 → DeFi yield (cheap credit, money printing). • 2025 → Treasury shells (corporatization of Bitcoin). • 2026–2027? Likely AI + Bitcoin, synthetic stablecoins, and tokenized wrappers.

I should have been a real writer

The Psyop Nobody Saw Coming When the news broke that Charlie Kirk had been killed, the headlines wrote themselves. Cable news hosts framed it as another casualty of America’s culture war, a right-wing firebrand silenced by his enemies. Online forums erupted: the left finally crossed the line. But one detail nagged at Michael, a retired intelligence analyst who’d seen too many “neat” narratives in his career. He had studied foreign disinformation campaigns during the Cold War and later the War on Terror. To him, the hit on Kirk didn’t look political in the way people assumed. It looked professional. “If you want someone gone, you don’t make it a spectacle,” he muttered, scanning the crime scene reports. “You make it clean. A car crash. A sudden heart attack. This wasn’t just murder. This was theater.” Why Theater Matters Throughout history, public killings have been staged for maximum psychological effect. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 didn’t just remove a man—it lit the fuse of World War I because of how public and symbolic it was. Similarly, ISIS executed prisoners on camera not just to kill them, but to provoke outrage and manipulate governments into reacting rashly. If Kirk’s death had been quick, quiet, and deniable, the country might have mourned and moved on. Instead, the gruesome display forced people to take sides. It wasn’t just about killing a man—it was about programming a population. Who Benefits? Michael scribbled on a whiteboard like it was 2003 again: • The Left? Unlikely. They gain nothing from martyring Kirk. If anything, his death makes him more powerful. • The Right? Also strange. Why kill your own rising voice unless you need a pretext for a crackdown or unity push? • Foreign entities? Now it got interesting. Kirk was a staunch Trump ally. Weakening Trump by eliminating his surrogates benefits anyone hostile to his return—China, Russia, Iran, take your pick. But again, why so public? Michael circled the last point: manufactured consent. He remembered the Patriot Act after 9/11, and how COVID emergency powers rewrote daily life almost overnight. In both cases, fear and chaos were the accelerants. If a foreign adversary—or even factions within—wanted to nudge America toward more surveillance, more policing, and more division, a high-profile, grotesque assassination was the perfect spark. The Real Game Two days later, social media feeds were overflowing with rage. Protesters filled city streets. The FBI hinted at “domestic terror” suspects. Senators called for emergency security powers. Exactly the kind of reaction Michael feared. He sat back and whispered to himself: “The point was never Charlie Kirk. The point was us. They want us scared, angry, and ready to trade freedom for safety. And we’re walking right into it.” He closed his laptop and stared out the window. He knew the truth: whoever pulled the trigger didn’t just kill a man. They had scripted Act One of something much larger.

The Hidden Grift of Bitcoin Treasury Companies There’s a growing class of companies pitching themselves as “Bitcoin treasuries.” The pitch sounds simple: buy stock in the company, and you indirectly own Bitcoin with the added bonus of potential “yield.” On the surface, it feels like a way to get exposure to Bitcoin while maybe collecting something extra. But if you look under the hood, the math doesn’t add up. The Setup: How the Illusion Works Imagine a company with no profits, only expenses. They hold $1 of Bitcoin and issue one share of stock priced at $2. That stock trades at a premium to the underlying Bitcoin value because of branding, marketing, or just hype. Now the company sells another share for $2, buys $2 more Bitcoin, and now has $3 worth of Bitcoin in the treasury. With two shares outstanding, each shareholder indirectly has a claim on $1.50 of Bitcoin. The first investor is “up” 50 cents, and the second is “down” 50 cents. The company spins this as “Bitcoin yield” — as if they’ve magically increased shareholder value. But in reality, all that happened is one investor subsidized another. That’s not yield; it’s redistribution. Why It’s Unsustainable The grift only works as long as new investors are willing to pay more than $1 for $1 worth of Bitcoin. Once enthusiasm fades or the pool of “greater fools” dries up, the illusion collapses. • Scaling Problem: As the company grows, it needs exponentially more fresh capital to deliver the same “yield” effect. You can’t onboard infinite new investors at a premium. • Operational Drag: Unlike simply holding Bitcoin, these companies have overhead — executives, offices, compliance costs. Every dollar spent on operations is a dollar not going into Bitcoin. That’s a guaranteed bleed on shareholder value. • Market Reality: Eventually, markets notice. If each share only represents $1 of Bitcoin, why keep paying $2 unless you believe in the grift itself? Why Just Holding Bitcoin Wins The beauty of Bitcoin is that it doesn’t need financial engineering. It doesn’t need a marketing team, an executive suite, or a slick yield narrative. It just needs time and security. Every sat you hold is fully yours, unencumbered by someone else’s expenses or need for fresh capital. Over time, Bitcoin’s supply schedule ensures scarcity. The same can’t be said for companies minting endless new shares to fund “yield” illusions. Their model only scales until the next wave of investors stops showing up. The Bottom Line Bitcoin treasury companies selling “yield” are really just running a disguised transfer scheme: new money props up old money. That’s the textbook definition of a Ponzi-like dynamic. It might work in the short run, but it will always fail the long run — no matter how high Bitcoin goes — because you eventually run out of people willing to pay $2 for $1. If you want yield, build a business. If you want Bitcoin exposure, just buy Bitcoin. Everything else is a distraction at best, a grift at worst.