The Bank of Canada has recently cut its benchmark interest rate by 50 basis points to 3.75%, marking its largest rate change in over four years. This decision aims to stimulate economic activity in a sluggish environment by lowering borrowing costs for consumers and businesses.

🇺🇸🤝 A Visa anunciou uma parceria com a Agência dos Estados Unidos para o Desenvolvimento Internacional (USAID) para melhorar o acesso a sistemas governamentais digitais abertos, seguros e inclusivos ao redor do mundo. #BTC #Bitcoin #Freedom #bitcoin The recent partnership between Visa and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to enhance access to open, secure, and inclusive digital government systems worldwide raises significant concerns for those who advocate for a world free from state control and corporate influence. This collaboration serves as a stark reminder of the entangled relationship between government and corporate entities, which ultimately undermines individual freedom and autonomy. At its core, this partnership exemplifies the continuing expansion of state power. While the initiative claims to promote inclusivity and security, it fundamentally perpetuates the notion that government systems, no matter how ostensibly improved, remain vehicles for coercion. True progress cannot be achieved through enhancements to state-run systems; rather, it must come from dismantling those systems entirely. Instead of looking to the government for solutions, individuals should focus on decentralized alternatives that empower them to operate independently. One of the most troubling aspects of this collaboration is the potential for increased surveillance. While the partnership promotes enhanced security in digital government systems, such security measures often come at the expense of individual privacy. Governments have a history of using security as a justification for expanding their surveillance capabilities, thereby infringing on the very freedoms that advocates of individual liberty cherish. In contrast, Bitcoin and other decentralized technologies allow individuals to engage in secure transactions while maintaining their privacy, free from state scrutiny. The alliance between Visa and USAID also underscores the problematic nature of crony capitalism. By collaborating with government agencies, corporations like Visa position themselves as key players in the establishment of public policy, often prioritizing their own interests over the needs of individuals. This partnership reinforces the idea that the government and corporations work hand in hand to maintain the status quo, stifling innovation and individual empowerment. Rather than relying on such partnerships, the future should focus on fostering decentralized networks like Bitcoin, which eliminate the need for intermediaries and empower individuals to take control of their financial lives. For those who advocate for a free and voluntary society, the path forward lies in embracing decentralization. Instead of seeking improvements to state-sanctioned systems, individuals must champion alternatives that remove the state from the equation altogether. Bitcoin represents a revolutionary shift in how we conceive of money and value exchange, offering a decentralized currency that allows for voluntary interactions free from government manipulation. In a world increasingly dominated by state control and corporate interests, the future should prioritize individual liberty and the power of voluntary association over any form of centralized authority. Visa’s partnership with USAID serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges facing advocates of freedom and autonomy in an increasingly interconnected world. Rather than seeking to improve government systems, we must focus on dismantling them and promoting decentralized alternatives that empower individuals. The time has come to challenge the status quo and embrace a future where individuals can thrive without the interference of the state or the influence of corporate giants. Only then can we create a society that truly values freedom, privacy, and individual choice.

📈 #Bitcoin agora controla mais de 57% do mercado de criptomoedas, seu maior nível desde março de 2021. CoinMarketCap Enquanto isso, o domínio do #ETH caiu para 13,5%, o menor nível desde o mesmo período. The recent increase in Bitcoin's (BTC) dominance to over 57% of the cryptocurrency market, the highest level since March 2021, warrants a critical examination. While this surge may seem like a positive sign for Bitcoin advocates, it’s essential to consider the underlying nuances and implications of this shift. Firstly, this rising dominance may reflect a market in search of security amidst volatility. However, this quest for a "safe haven" indicates a broader distrust in other cryptocurrencies and the crypto ecosystem as a whole. If investors are moving away from altcoins in favor of Bitcoin, it raises questions about the overall health of the cryptocurrency market. An overreliance on BTC can be problematic, placing a disproportionate amount of risk on a single currency, especially in an environment where innovation and diversification are often hailed as essential for growth. Moreover, the decline of Ethereum’s (ETH) dominance to 13.5% is alarming and could signal serious issues within the platform. This decrease is not just a matter of numbers; it suggests that ETH may be losing its relevance as a viable alternative to Bitcoin. The lack of progress on scalability and high transaction fees is becoming a burden, and Ethereum's inability to maintain its dominance could indicate a loss of confidence that may be difficult to reverse. The competition from other smart contract platforms is intensifying, and ETH might be falling behind. Another critical aspect to consider is the market dynamics that Bitcoin’s increasing dominance can create. A rise in BTC's dominance may lead to a vicious cycle of disinvestment in altcoins, potentially stifling innovation in the cryptocurrency space. If investors focus solely on BTC, startups and altcoin projects may struggle to attract funding and development, limiting the technological advancement crucial for the sector's evolution. Finally, elevating BTC to the forefront of the market can create an illusion of stability, but this confidence can be misleading. High Bitcoin dominance does not guarantee that it is free from risks. BTC's volatility is an undeniable reality, and the notion that it can function as a safe asset is problematic. When the "safe haven" narrative fails, what remains is a market that can collapse rapidly. In summary, while the growing dominance of Bitcoin may be interpreted as a sign of strength, it is vital to look beyond the numbers and consider the broader implications of this dynamic. The excessive dependence on BTC and the fragility of the altcoin ecosystem should not be underestimated. The health of the cryptocurrency market relies on a healthy diversity of assets and innovations, rather than a return to centralization around a single asset, no matter how dominant it may be.

📈 #BTC agora controla mais de 57% do mercado de criptomoedas, seu maior nível desde março de 2021. CoinMarketCap Enquanto isso, o domínio do #ETH caiu para 13,5%, o menor nível desde o mesmo período. The recent increase in Bitcoin's (BTC) dominance to over 57% of the cryptocurrency market, the highest level since March 2021, warrants a critical examination. While this surge may seem like a positive sign for Bitcoin advocates, it’s essential to consider the underlying nuances and implications of this shift. Firstly, this rising dominance may reflect a market in search of security amidst volatility. However, this quest for a "safe haven" indicates a broader distrust in other cryptocurrencies and the crypto ecosystem as a whole. If investors are moving away from altcoins in favor of Bitcoin, it raises questions about the overall health of the cryptocurrency market. An overreliance on BTC can be problematic, placing a disproportionate amount of risk on a single currency, especially in an environment where innovation and diversification are often hailed as essential for growth. Moreover, the decline of Ethereum’s (ETH) dominance to 13.5% is alarming and could signal serious issues within the platform. This decrease is not just a matter of numbers; it suggests that ETH may be losing its relevance as a viable alternative to Bitcoin. The lack of progress on scalability and high transaction fees is becoming a burden, and Ethereum's inability to maintain its dominance could indicate a loss of confidence that may be difficult to reverse. The competition from other smart contract platforms is intensifying, and ETH might be falling behind. Another critical aspect to consider is the market dynamics that Bitcoin’s increasing dominance can create. A rise in BTC's dominance may lead to a vicious cycle of disinvestment in altcoins, potentially stifling innovation in the cryptocurrency space. If investors focus solely on BTC, startups and altcoin projects may struggle to attract funding and development, limiting the technological advancement crucial for the sector's evolution. Finally, elevating BTC to the forefront of the market can create an illusion of stability, but this confidence can be misleading. High Bitcoin dominance does not guarantee that it is free from risks. BTC's volatility is an undeniable reality, and the notion that it can function as a safe asset is problematic. When the "safe haven" narrative fails, what remains is a market that can collapse rapidly. In summary, while the growing dominance of Bitcoin may be interpreted as a sign of strength, it is vital to look beyond the numbers and consider the broader implications of this dynamic. The excessive dependence on BTC and the fragility of the altcoin ecosystem should not be underestimated. The health of the cryptocurrency market relies on a healthy diversity of assets and innovations, rather than a return to centralization around a single asset, no matter how dominant it may be.

🚨 A Kraken planeja lançar seu próprio blockchain no ano que vem. The decision by Kraken to launch its own blockchain in 2025 should be critically examined, as it could have both positive and negative implications. Firstly, this initiative might be seen as Kraken's attempt to differentiate itself in a saturated market of exchanges and cryptocurrency platforms. However, the need for a proprietary blockchain raises questions about the real motivations behind this decision. The competition in this space is fierce, and many have argued that there is an excess of blockchains lacking a clear value proposition. Is Kraken merely trying to ride the wave of innovation, or does it truly have a sustainable and differentiated vision? Additionally, building a new blockchain presents significant challenges regarding security and scalability. History is filled with blockchains that failed to meet expectations and ultimately became obsolete or ineffective. Kraken will need to ensure that its new network is robust, secure, and capable of handling user demand. Otherwise, what should be a technological advancement could turn into a major failure. Another critical point to consider is centralization. As an exchange, Kraken has always operated under a more centralized model, and the creation of a proprietary blockchain may perpetuate this structure. If the new network does not adopt a truly decentralized governance model, it could simply replicate the problems that the cryptocurrency sector has been trying to overcome — such as a lack of transparency and the concentration of power. Users, who have shown skepticism towards platforms that do not fulfill decentralization promises, may view this change as a disguised attempt at control. Furthermore, the potential impact of a new native token, if launched alongside the blockchain, deserves attention. Tokens are often used as tools to inflate the value of exchanges and attract investors, but the question remains: what will be the true utility of this token within the new network? If there is no clear use case, there is a risk of creating yet another speculative “coin” that does not add real value to the ecosystem. In summary, while the idea of a proprietary blockchain may seem promising at first glance, it is essential to question the motivations, execution, and long-term implications of this initiative. Success will depend on Kraken's ability to build a network that not only stands out technically but also upholds the principles of decentralization and transparency that the crypto movement initially promised. Otherwise, what could be an innovation will turn into yet another chapter of unfulfilled promises in a space already saturated with frustrated expectations.

🚨 A Kraken planeja lançar seu próprio blockchain no ano que vem. The decision by Kraken to launch its own blockchain in 2025 should be critically examined, as it could have both positive and negative implications. Firstly, this initiative might be seen as Kraken's attempt to differentiate itself in a saturated market of exchanges and cryptocurrency platforms. However, the need for a proprietary blockchain raises questions about the real motivations behind this decision. The competition in this space is fierce, and many have argued that there is an excess of blockchains lacking a clear value proposition. Is Kraken merely trying to ride the wave of innovation, or does it truly have a sustainable and differentiated vision? Additionally, building a new blockchain presents significant challenges regarding security and scalability. History is filled with blockchains that failed to meet expectations and ultimately became obsolete or ineffective. Kraken will need to ensure that its new network is robust, secure, and capable of handling user demand. Otherwise, what should be a technological advancement could turn into a major failure. Another critical point to consider is centralization. As an exchange, Kraken has always operated under a more centralized model, and the creation of a proprietary blockchain may perpetuate this structure. If the new network does not adopt a truly decentralized governance model, it could simply replicate the problems that the cryptocurrency sector has been trying to overcome — such as a lack of transparency and the concentration of power. Users, who have shown skepticism towards platforms that do not fulfill decentralization promises, may view this change as a disguised attempt at control. Furthermore, the potential impact of a new native token, if launched alongside the blockchain, deserves attention. Tokens are often used as tools to inflate the value of exchanges and attract investors, but the question remains: what will be the true utility of this token within the new network? If there is no clear use case, there is a risk of creating yet another speculative “coin” that does not add real value to the ecosystem. In summary, while the idea of a proprietary blockchain may seem promising at first glance, it is essential to question the motivations, execution, and long-term implications of this initiative. Success will depend on Kraken's ability to build a network that not only stands out technically but also upholds the principles of decentralization and transparency that the crypto movement initially promised. Otherwise, what could be an innovation will turn into yet another chapter of unfulfilled promises in a space already saturated with frustrated expectations.

I dropped silver nitrate on my hand, now I have a black stain.

🚨 Blackrock compra 4800 #Bitcoin oq é equivalente a $315m

BREAKING: Denmark becomes the first country in the world to tax unrealized capital gains on crypto, starting January 1, 2026. The tax on unrealized capital gains is 42%. This will affect not only crypto acquired from that date but also crypto obtained as far back as the genesis block of Bitcoin in January 2009.

**The Flawed Logic Behind Denmark’s Tax on Unrealized Cryptocurrency Gains** Denmark's recent decision to tax unrealized capital gains on cryptocurrencies, starting January 1, 2026, marks a worrying precedent in the global approach to regulating digital assets. With a tax rate of 42% that will retroactively apply to crypto holdings going back as far as Bitcoin’s inception in 2009, this decision is deeply flawed and raises significant concerns about fairness, practicality, and the potential long-term damage to both investors and the broader economy. At its core, the idea of taxing unrealized gains is fundamentally unjust. In a traditional sense, taxes on capital gains are only triggered when an investor sells an asset and actually profits. This policy targets hypothetical gains that may never be realized, as cryptocurrencies, particularly Bitcoin, are notoriously volatile. What may appear as a substantial increase in value one day could disappear the next, leaving investors with hefty tax bills for wealth that has evaporated. Taxing such “paper gains” disregards the risk that investors take when holding volatile assets like crypto, unfairly punishing them for temporary fluctuations in market prices. Moreover, the retroactive nature of this tax is especially problematic. By reaching back to 2009, Denmark is imposing a burden on early adopters and long-term holders who could not have predicted this extreme policy when they first entered the market. It undermines trust in the stability and fairness of the tax system, signaling that governments may change the rules after the fact to suit their revenue needs. This erodes investor confidence, not just in cryptocurrencies but in broader financial policies, as it creates an environment of unpredictability and retrospective punishment. This policy also has enormous practical challenges. How will the government accurately track and calculate gains for assets that have changed hands countless times over the past 15 years? Cryptocurrencies are decentralized, and many transactions take place across international borders, often through platforms that do not report to Danish authorities. The pseudonymous nature of many cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin adds another layer of complexity to tracing ownership and value over such an extended period. Implementing this tax would require massive surveillance and cooperation from exchanges, which may not be feasible, or even legal, in some jurisdictions. The economic consequences of this tax are equally concerning. Denmark risks driving away innovation and investment by treating cryptocurrencies in such an aggressive manner. Investors are likely to seek out more crypto-friendly countries, moving their assets to jurisdictions with clearer and more favorable tax regimes. The global nature of cryptocurrency means capital flight could be swift and significant, ultimately costing Denmark far more in lost investment than it stands to gain in taxes. Entrepreneurs and developers in the blockchain space, already cautious of heavy regulation, may be deterred from basing operations in Denmark, leading to a potential “brain drain” as talent moves elsewhere. Beyond that, this policy could create a wave of forced selling, where investors are pushed to liquidate their crypto holdings simply to meet their tax obligations. Such an outcome would trigger massive downward pressure on crypto markets, causing value to plummet and hurting not only Danish investors but the global market as a whole. This artificial selling pressure could lead to sharp declines in crypto prices, undermining the very gains that Denmark seeks to tax. While governments are understandably eager to regulate the cryptocurrency space, this policy is far too heavy-handed and short-sighted. There are legitimate reasons to introduce measures to ensure that crypto profits are taxed fairly, but taxing unrealized gains represents an overreach that risks doing more harm than good. Instead of retroactively taxing investors on theoretical profits, Denmark could focus on taxing realized gains at the point of sale or develop targeted regulations that address the legitimate concerns of tax evasion and financial crime without stifling innovation or driving away capital. In conclusion, Denmark’s decision to tax unrealized cryptocurrency gains is not just a policy mistake—it’s a strategic blunder that could harm its economy and global standing. It undermines the principles of fairness in taxation, creates practical enforcement nightmares, and threatens to drive both investors and innovators out of the country. As the world watches this experiment unfold, it should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when governments prioritize short-term revenue over long-term economic growth and fairness.

BRICS, Bitcoin, and the Futility of Control in the Age of CBDCs As the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) assert themselves on the global financial stage, a new battleground has emerged: the future of money itself. One of the most significant moves within this bloc has been the push for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), state-controlled digital currencies that aim to modernize financial systems. India, for instance, has gone as far as considering an outright ban on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, citing the slow adoption of its own CBDC as a key motivator. But here’s the harsh truth: attempts to control or ban Bitcoin in favor of CBDCs are shortsighted, if not entirely futile. Bitcoin: A Decentralized Revolution The very essence of Bitcoin is decentralization. It was created to operate outside the grip of any government, bank, or central authority. Unlike CBDCs, which centralize financial power into the hands of state institutions, Bitcoin offers a way for people to regain control over their finances, free from the potential surveillance and manipulation that come with centralized digital currencies. By trying to ban or heavily regulate Bitcoin, BRICS nations are fundamentally misunderstanding its appeal. Bitcoin isn’t just another digital asset—it’s a financial system designed to resist the kind of control that CBDCs inherently represent. CBDCs: A Power Grab Disguised as Progress CBDCs, on the surface, promise modernization: faster transactions, lower fees, and better transparency. But beneath this polished veneer lies a much darker reality—an unprecedented level of financial surveillance. Every CBDC transaction can be tracked, monitored, or even blocked by the issuing government. In the wrong hands, a CBDC becomes a tool for economic censorship, where governments can control how, when, and where you spend your money. It’s ironic, really. BRICS nations, particularly China and India, are pushing for CBDCs to free themselves from Western financial dominance—namely, the U.S. dollar. Yet, at the same time, they’re imposing a similar financial hegemony on their own citizens, offering a “progressive” solution that strips people of financial autonomy and privacy. The Struggle for Control BRICS countries are seeking to solidify their control over their financial systems at a time when Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies offer an alternative that undermines state dominance. India’s potential ban on cryptocurrencies is just one example of this power struggle. But what these governments fail to recognize is that Bitcoin’s decentralized design makes it nearly impossible to fully ban or control. The more pressure governments apply, the more resilient these decentralized networks become. CBDCs, in contrast, represent everything Bitcoin was created to avoid—centralized power, surveillance, and the ability of governments to meddle with personal financial decisions. By pushing CBDCs while trying to ban Bitcoin, BRICS nations are revealing their true intention: not to modernize finance for the benefit of the people, but to retain control over it. The Hypocrisy of BRICS This dynamic is rife with hypocrisy. BRICS countries have long advocated for a multipolar world where no single power holds all the cards, criticizing the dominance of Western financial institutions like the IMF or the U.S. dollar. Yet, they are quick to impose their own brand of control over their domestic economies through CBDCs, trying to stifle any competition—like Bitcoin—that challenges their authority. Bitcoin represents a direct threat to this control, not because it undermines national currencies in the traditional sense, but because it offers something CBDCs never can: true financial freedom. With Bitcoin, there are no central authorities dictating how you can use your funds. There’s no surveillance, no risk of having your assets frozen because you’ve crossed some arbitrary government line. This kind of freedom is precisely why so many governments, particularly within BRICS, are uncomfortable with Bitcoin’s rise. A Futile Effort History has shown that technological revolutions are rarely stopped by government decree. From the printing press to the internet, each new innovation faced resistance from entrenched powers, only to emerge stronger in the end. Bitcoin is no different. Attempts to ban it or control it will likely push it into underground markets, but they won’t stop its growth. As BRICS nations pour resources into promoting CBDCs and suppressing Bitcoin, they may find themselves on the wrong side of history. Rather than fighting a losing battle, these countries should be exploring ways to integrate decentralized finance into their broader economic strategies. By allowing Bitcoin and CBDCs to coexist, they could harness the strengths of both—offering citizens the freedom of financial choice while maintaining some level of oversight where necessary. The Path Forward In conclusion, the BRICS bloc’s attempts to control Bitcoin by promoting CBDCs is a misguided effort that fails to recognize the fundamental appeal of decentralized finance. While CBDCs offer some benefits, their centralized nature makes them inherently restrictive and vulnerable to government overreach. Bitcoin, on the other hand, represents the financial freedom that many within these nations crave—freedom that no government can easily take away. As the world continues to evolve, BRICS nations would do well to rethink their stance on cryptocurrencies. Instead of trying to dominate through CBDCs while suppressing Bitcoin, they should embrace the innovation that decentralized currencies bring to the table. In the end, the future of money may well be a hybrid system, where both CBDCs and cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have a role to play. But one thing is certain: Bitcoin is not going anywhere, no matter how much governments try to stop it.

GBTC - Grayscale Bitcoin Trust * Previous Holdings: 220,821.3 BTC * Current Holdings: 220,794.2 BTC * Change: -27.1 BTC (-0.01%) IBIT - iShares Bitcoin Trust (Blackrock) * Previous Holdings: 386,614.8 BTC * Current Holdings: 391,484.1 BTC * Change: +4,869.3 BTC (+1.26%) FBTC - Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund * Previous Holdings: 184,874.7 BTC * Current Holdings: 184,962.1 BTC * Change: +87.4 BTC (+0.05%) BITB - Bitwise Bitcoin ETF * Previous Holdings: 41,799.1 BTC * Current Holdings: 41,472.3 BTC * Change: -326.8 BTC (-0.78%)

🇮🇪 The Irish Crime Bureau is facing a major roadblock in accessing a staggering $378 million worth of #Bitcoin that was 'seized' back in 2020. The catch? They don’t have the private keys needed to unlock the funds! 😅 Despite their efforts, without these cryptographic keys, the Bitcoin remains completely out of reach, adding another layer of complexity to law enforcement's handling of digital assets. This situation highlights one of the unique challenges of dealing with cryptocurrencies—if you don’t have the keys, you don’t have the coins! 🔐💸

The Indian government is reportedly considering a full BAN on cryptocurrencies and stablecoins 🚫💰. The main reason behind this move is the slow adoption of the Central Bank Digital Currency (#CBDC) 💸📉. Officials are concerned that the popularity of decentralized digital assets is hindering the CBDC’s rollout, as it competes directly with these alternative forms of currency. By implementing this ban, the government aims to push for wider use of the official digital currency, strengthening its control over the financial system while discouraging reliance on private digital assets.

From left to right: 🇪🇹 Autocracy - Abiy Ahmed, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity; 🇪🇬 Autocracy - Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, holds almost absolute power in Egypt, dominating the legislative and judiciary since 2014; 🇿🇦 Democracy with flaws - Cyril Ramaphosa is the leader of the party that has controlled the country for the last 30 years; 🇨🇳 Communist dictatorship - Xi Jinping, leader of the party for the 3rd time, was elevated by the party to the level of Mao Zedong; 🇷🇺 Autocracy - Vladimir Putin has controlled Russia's destinies since the year 2000 and recently changed the constitution to continue controlling the country until 2036; 🇮🇳 Flawed democracy - Narendra Modi, in power since 2014, accused of deteriorating Indian democratic institutions, hindering the emergence of opposition movements and increasing corruption; 🇸🇦 Authoritarian Regime (absolutist monarchy) - Mohammed bin Salman, accused of brutally persecuting any type of opposition and violating human rights, especially those of women; 🇮🇷 Dictatorship - Extremist Islamic regime led by a supreme leader, the Ayatollah, who persecutes any type of opposition, violating human rights, especially women's, and financing and arming terrorist groups in the Middle East. 🇧🇷 And within this group, our Brazil. At this BRICS summit, the dictatorships of Cuba and Belarus promise to be announced as new members, reinforcing the autocratic and dictatorial character of the members of the group in which Brazil is included.

🗞🚨 US spot bitcoin ETFs shift to negative flows after 7 days of inflows Arkham Intelligence. 🗞⚡️ Tesla is still in possession of its #Bitcoin💰 as it recently transferred #BTC to new wallets, as reported by Arkham Intelligence. 🗞🚨 🇮🇳 Indian Regulators Consider Banning #Bitcoin💰 and #Ether💰 to Focus on Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) 🗞🚨 Nigerian government drops charges against Binance executive - BBG

A tsunami of printed money is coming and will push $BTC to 6 figures

🇦🇷 Milei will dissolve Argentina's current tax collection agency, AFIP, and replace it with a "simpler, more efficient, less costly and less bureaucratic structure"