Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie Violet Ward
npub1hwgw...03sg
Journalist
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie yesterday
Andy Burnham is scrapping the Labour government’s digital ID scheme as one of his first acts as prime minister. The policy was never included in Labour’s 2024 manifesto. Despite this, Keir Starmer announced it last September as a tool to combat illegal migration, following strong encouragement from Tony Blair and former Conservative leader William Hague. Blair has been the persistent driving force behind this undemocratic push for two decades. As prime minister he tried to introduce national ID cards through the Identity Cards Act 2006. Billions were spent before the scheme was abandoned in 2010. His Tony Blair Institute then continued lobbying heavily for digital ID, publishing reports and recommendations that helped shape the Starmer government’s plans. The public response was overwhelming. Nearly three million people signed a petition opposing the scheme, while a four hour parliamentary debate saw MPs from across the political spectrum warn that it threatened privacy, civil liberties and the principle of public consent. The government was eventually forced to drop the compulsory element for workers, but it continued trying to advance the broader digital ID infrastructure under a softer, rebranded model. That disregard for manifesto commitments, parliamentary concern and enormous public resistance was deeply troubling. Burnham is now ending the programme, with hundreds of millions of pounds in projected annual costs redirected towards cost-of-living support rather than another expensive, centralised state project. That money will not solve the cost-of-living crisis, and whether families feel any meaningful benefit remains to be seen. Even so, choosing immediate help for ordinary people over a controversial national identity system is a major and very welcome decision. Tony Blair has pushed this idea relentlessly for years, despite repeated rejection from the public. This is a victory, but I would not assume the battle is over. Why do I suspect digital ID will return under another name? image
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie 3 days ago
El Salvador’s government has the power to tap phones and read private messages without a warrant, while branding itself as the ultimate Bitcoin freedom project. The reality is that self-censorship has become normal for anyone who dares question the government. Chivo collected biometric data from millions of Salvadorans, creating a national honeypot. More than 80% of the population’s private information was later reportedly leaked onto the dark web, including facial images, addresses and dates of birth. Chivo denies that the leak came from its systems. Top-down narratives sold as sovereign and decentralised can erode the very principles they claim to champion. When a government wraps mass surveillance in the Bitcoin flag, it becomes more dangerous by borrowing the language of freedom to disguise control. Joe’s latest video asks the questions much of the space refuses to confront. Awesome work @Joe Nakamoto. Full video here:
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie 4 days ago
A GoFundMe campaign raised more than £55,000 for a Gazan family trying to escape the war. Most of the money raised never reached them. Banking rules and sanctions prevent direct payouts in Gaza, so the funds had to go through an intermediary. When that arrangement collapsed, the family was left without the support raised for them. Bitcoin platforms like Agora and Geyser send funds directly to recipients’ own wallets, using community verification instead of giving control to a single intermediary. Read how these tools are helping people in crisis. My latest piece in Forbes featuring @Soapbox @Geyser @Lyudmyla Kozlovska @npub1zhqc...h0dw @Femi Longe .
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie 6 days ago
When governments shut down your communications or a platform debanks you, what’s your backup plan? Listening to activists at the Oslo Freedom Forum describing surveillance, censorship and financial exclusion, one thing stood out. For nearly every problem they raised, builders were already working on solutions. It became the opening to my talk at @BTC Prague. In this clip, I explain why CBDCs may not arrive in the form people expect and why stablecoins can carry many of the same risks. Full video, article and practical tools linked below. Freedom depends on having money that no government, bank or platform can switch off. Bitcoin gives us that option.
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie 1 week ago
What you can build in a week now is actually insane. I’ve prompt built a website and I’m blown away by what was possible. Everything I’ve done across Bitcoin, policy and journalism is now in one place. If you have time I would appreciate some feedback. What works? What doesn’t? What did I miss? Constructive criticism very welcome! Full website: Link also in bio! #ProofOfWork #Bitcoin
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie 2 weeks ago
If it’s not “for the children,” it’s “national security.” FATF’s new roadmap calls for greater use of large datasets, real-time information sharing and closer cooperation between tech, telecoms and finance to tackle fraud. Traditional finance already collects vast amounts of identity and transaction data and serious financial crime continues at scale. The same approach is now being extended further, linking identity and financial activity across more systems. This turns law-abiding citizens into targets for both increased surveillance and physical attacks. My latest in Forbes.
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie 2 weeks ago
Global regulators built the FATF Travel Rule for a banking system still full of illicit finance. Now they are imposing the same surveillance architecture on Bitcoin. The rule was created by G7 countries through an unelected body in France. It was sold as a way to stop money laundering by forcing information to travel with every transaction. Decades later, the UN still estimates money laundering at 2 - 5% of global GDP. The model has failed in TradFi. Regulators now want to apply that same framework to Bitcoin, which is an open, auditable ledger with a completely different risk profile. Chainalysis’ 2026 Crypto Crime Report shows stablecoins accounted for 84% of illicit transaction volume in 2025, while Bitcoin is still being pulled into a surveillance regime designed for banks and centralised intermediaries and a financial system struggling to stop illicit finance at scale. https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2026-crypto-crime-report-introduction/ The Travel Rule forces firms to collect, hold and transmit personal information about the people behind transactions. This creates databases that link identity, transaction history and asset ownership in ways that expose ordinary users to hacks, targeting and physical security risks. FATF has updated it’s recommendations as part of a global push for payment transparency. As a result it is being expanded, embedded and normalised. This solves nothing but creates unprecedented harm by forcing more personal financial data to be collected, stored and shared. This clip is from the @You’re The Voice podcast with @Efrat Fenigson and Ben Samocha at Bitcoin Vegas last year. The warning has only grown more urgent. Bitcoin does not need TradFi’s failed surveillance architecture wrapped around it.
Susie Violet Ward's avatar
Susie 3 weeks ago
Jeremy Grantham’s latest CNBC comments are a perfect example of what happens when traditional finance tries to judge Bitcoin using an old framework. Had these comments been about crypto, I would have nodded along. Much of that market has proved to be speculative and altcoin season is not coming back. This was not a discussion about the crypto casino. He was speaking in front of a Bitcoin chart, while the segment drifted between 'crypto' and Bitcoin as though they were the same thing, which tells you how little precision sat behind the critique. Bitcoin deserves a more serious discussion than recycled talking points about crooks, dividends and supermarket payments. He called it a 'useless speculative mechanism' and said it would 'dwindle away' over decades, 'not with a bang but a whimper.' He asked why people do not use it to buy dinner or pay at the supermarket. Then came the line: “What it does is allows crooks to move money around without leaving a trace.” That is not dismissive… it’s wrong. It is not a stock, a company, or a bond. It does not have earnings, dividends, cash flow, a management team, or a board of directors, because it was not designed to be valued like those things. It is a decentralised monetary network with: - no CEO - no central bank - no political control - no bailouts - no off switch - a fixed 21 million supply that cannot be inflated on demand. The 'without leaving a trace' claim really misunderstands the system. Bitcoin is a public ledger and every base layer transaction is recorded. It is far more traceable than cash, which is why law enforcement, analytics firms and exchanges have spent years building tools around that transparency. The 'people don’t buy dinner with it' argument is also wrong and lazy. Gold is not judged by how often it is used at the supermarket. Bitcoin allows people to store and transfer value across borders, outside a system suffering from inflation, surveillance, debanking, capital controls and political discretion. Then there is proof of work, which Grantham dismissed as 'proof of unnecessary work.' That 'work' is what secures the network. It is what makes Bitcoin expensive to attack, impossible to rewrite and different from the thousands of tokens that can be changed, paused, printed or controlled by insiders. That is a stock market framework being applied to an open monetary protocol. Bitcoin has already survived bans, crashes, exchange failures, media attacks, regulatory assaults, energy panic, criminality narratives and repeated predictions of its death. That is not dwindling away. Grantham is not watching Bitcoin disappear, he is watching the old framework fail to explain it. So if the price worries you, remember what this actually is... A 17 year old monetary network separating money from state and challenging some of the oldest assumptions in finance. We are still early! Full article: