You know, you’ll find me an AI skeptic on a lot of the boldest claims. Here’s one I almost never see: for those who are curious, epistemically honest, and self-aware, AI is a godsend of a learning tool. Over the last 48-72 hours, I’ve been doing a real deep-dive on the private credit crisis portion of the tripartite economic crisis scenario from my latest article, here.

AI Isn’t Taking Your Job. The Crash Might.

The real employment threat isn't automation from AI, it's what happens when the bubble meets private credit collapse and supply shock.

(I’m due for an update on that topic, and overdue on much more across my Substack.) A hypothetical—Viewed from 2030, what would we have expected to see in 2025-2026? (Assuming a private credit crisis, AI bubble collapse, and simultaneous supply and demand destruction (Iran War +) crashes the economy in 2026-2027.) Is that present? What’s nuanced? Where is there countervailing evidence or sentiment? What are the mechanics, triggers, transmission systems, etc.? And wow, am I deep down the rabbit hole. Now, I follow the macroeconomics and finance news as I can, and try to keep track of the analysts on FinTwit. This is threading those needles into a highly coherent tapestry. All while learning/exercising: • Structured finance and credit markets literacy • Systemic risk analysis • Source criticism and epistemics applied to financial data • Political economy of financial regulation • Interdisciplinary synthesis That’s usually reserved to formalized university or accredited learning vehicles. The fact I can design my own course and subject—so long as I’m vigilant about confirmation bias, check the sources, and produce original theses and critiques—is genuinely revolutionary for learning.

Controversial take: For those that want to explain to others the problems with fiat currency, don’t start with Bitcoin. I know it’s tempting to give “the solution” first, but it’s confusing and triggers an instant mental “immune response.” Start with fiat currency vs. sound money. Most people don’t realize what either of those terms mean in principle or in practice. In fact, I’d go as far as to say most people have never even heard the terms. Con: This is totally new to them, so they don’t know the background. Pro: This is totally new to them, so it doesn’t map onto preexisting biases. Explain how money used to be backed by gold, how we got off of that, and what that means. Explain how money is no longer backed by assets. Then explain how money can effectively be created “out of thin air.” Tie that to inflation and debt. Take your time. Be patient. This is all new to them. And now it’s starting to gel. You may even get the question: “Wait, so, money can just be created out of thin air, and that causes inflation? How does anyone save, then?” Now you can start to talk about Bitcoin. Explain it as sound money—because it is one. Explain its benefits. Explain it as a new, not-yet-fully adopted money system. Patience. Let them argue and question it. Give calm answers. This is how you reach people who dismiss this as a fad, a gimmick, or a Ponzi scheme. If fiat is all you know—which is most people—and you think money must be backed by a centralized institution with authority to be money, then yeah. Bitcoin sounds pretty fad-like, gimmicky, and Ponzi scheme–like. It doesn’t help that bad actors have used it, either (even though bad actors have used Dollars, Euros, and whatever else, too), or that there are genuine scam cryptocurrencies out there. It all looks the same to people who don’t know the difference. It’s almost a problem of being too aware of a complex thing—it’s so known to you, you don’t necessarily remember what it was like to not understand this and be learning about it. My guess is it took some time. It took curiosity. That’s what you need to engender in others for them to want to understand. Curiosity. And then they need time to develop understanding. If you don’t think this works—I’m here because of exactly that process. Curiosity. Time. Patience. Asking questions. Seeking answers. I didn’t get Bitcoin because of the blockchain technology, or out of a desire to speculate, or out of a distrust in other currencies per se. It all looked like *just* a digital fandom and technological nerdiness. I did it once I understood enough to know *why* it was a good investment. Because I now understood what sound money and fiat currency were, and why Bitcoin is a sound money. It made logical sense. I could see how it would help me. I could defend that decision. If Bitcoin is going to be *the* sound money in the future, it needs more adoption *as* a sound money. It only makes sense that it needs to be explained that way to people in terms they already understand from a perspective they already agree with. They need to be able to be curious about it, not defensive about it. And you can help with that. Stay curious and stack sats, y’all.