One of the interesting challenges and learning opportunities I’ve come across in dabbling with fiction is the process of merging narrator/author voice with character voice. Both as a reader and writer, close third-person limited is my favorite point of view method (as opposed to first person or third person omniscient) for most stories. This means the narrator only knows what the point-of-view character knows, even though it’s written in third person. But interestingly, when done closely, it also means the narration itself is colored by the character’s personality. Rather than just come across the page in dialog or in italicized literal thoughts, the rest of the narration is also basically an indirect extension of their thoughts. And so for example if a character is cynical and curses a lot, then in addition to the dialogue reflecting that, the narration also reflects that. It comes across more cynical and will curse at times. “What a shit day. Bob pulled out of his driveway and…” In contrast, if a character is upbeat and polite, the narration will feel similar. And there’s no right answer on how much to let character voice color the dialogue in third person limited, because an author can choose how close to get to the character. And readers have preferences for their favorite points of view. I like a bit of everything but like close third person limited the majority of the time. Distant third person limited has a rather consistent and detached narrator voice, despite still being limited to what the character knows. Very close third person is almost like first person, meaning the narration is basically just like that character, except all the “I/me” words are replaced with “he/she” and so forth. As a reader, a lot of this is often invisible. As a writer though, it’s interesting to 1) pick how close you want third person limited to be for your given book, and 2) be consistent with it so you don’t unintentionally zoom in or out at certain times. So it’s kind of a mindfuck because there are multiple layers to be aware of. A really interesting process to tackle.

Anyone here have thoughts on Keet? From a user perspective or a technical one? I used it a bit when it came out, then just didn't have much context to use it for a bit, and lately found myself using it a bit more again.

Some people say I should post more about bitcoin on Nostr. But you already know about bitcoin, don’t you Neo? Your real question is what you should do with it now.

I like writing since fiction more than talking about the play-by-play of potential US strategic bitcoin reserve announcements. Hence that’s where my time has been. Writing and hiring artists. I spend time thinking about 50 year tech orders, characters, and themes, and how to make artists happy and not hurt any feelings. Rather than simping about whether a handful of people are going to buy bitcoin at scale or not.

I’ve been looking at artists for my sci fi novel potential book cover, should I somehow decide to publish it. These things often need advance planning, if you get a really good artist. I don’t even know if my text is good, but assuming it is, I’m looking out 6+ months for a good artist. Luckily my business throws out enough free cash flow that I don’t care financially. I just don’t want to hurt any artists’ feelings if I don’t use their stuff. So I’m like, debating between two great artist portfolios. Part of me wanted to hire both, and then see which turns out better. But I didn’t want to hurt eithers’ feelings. I was like “maybe whichever one is not as good could be a limited edition.” I wanted to run it by my husband, but I already knew what he would say. And yet, I asked him, and he was like “Yeah, hire both obviously. Fucking hunger games thereafter. Pick the best.” Alas.

Mood.

I’m tired of the Twitter posts fanboying over nation state purchases. It’s relevant for macro and price, but I get it. Most people keep re-posting it for engagement. I only need the key articles. I don’t want to focus on that. I want the juicy stuff. I’ve focused attention here a lot lately, but in case I missed anything, I invite you to tell me what I should analyze and then broadcast on my site and on Twitter/X about privacy, tech, taxes, and so forth.

Most people reading the bitcoin reserve details today:

My husband has a scar from a machete strike that he got in the streets of Cairo as a teenager. And he won that fight. His myriad intellectual and managerial achievements in the subsequent years aside, I only accept criticisms of how he leans or poses in photos from those who can present similar levels of badassary. (I’m kind of joking, but also not really. My main point is that commenting on who leans toward who in a random photo is cringe, without knowing the context.)

People who talk about leaning in or being straight in random photos should focus on building something of value instead. If you’re happy with your life, you don’t focus on who is straight up or leaning in during a given photo. Instead, ask who can win in a debate or who can win in a fight. Not some random line.

My harshest critic is my husband. Most people can’t honestly say that, but I can. He’s always my final boss when trying to assert an idea. He’s super smart and usually comes at things from a different angle. And he’s my primary editor. He’s also the head of my website’s customer support center. Unlike my social media where I shoot from the hip and fuck around, I post detailed articles on my site only after my harshest critic gives me his feedback. And he doesn’t phrase things like a loving husband normally would. He goes over the top. He’ll literally put comments on my drafts like “This is fucking right wing trash Lyn. I know you were raised in a trailer park so I don’t expect much, but do better. Rephrase literally all of this.” That sounds abusive but it’s humorous in practice given our context when working. We’re not very politically different, but I tend to lean slightly righter than him, so that’s a common source of debate. I pull him right and he pulls me left, not as people who are far apart but who are slightly apart but both opinionated and debate over every inch. It’s on an issue by issue basis. Mostly he does those comments for humor, but partially because he wants a debate and will bring like a well-researched150 IQ argument to hold the line as I try to argue through his defenses. And I write my research for investment clients of all political views, left and right, globally, as objective as possible, and so he purposely helps keep me straight and steelmans all my arguments for clients. We debated in the early days about the vaccine in the pandemic, for example, back in 2020 and 2021. We’re still kind of debating about it now in 2025, both granting certain details to the other. But whenever I write something of substance that is controversial, I know he will read it and call me a retard, which I have to push through and turn into a publishable article. My social media posts are just me, whereas my long-form posts take time and argue through him. I often post thoughts and gather comments on Twitter/X, since a lot of tradfi financial pros are happy to discuss. Then I write a piece, and my husband looks through it. I either agree or disagree, and then publish. I get the final say, but I only publish after I’m confident after his arguments. TLDR; My summary from this whole rambling piece is that I suggest you find a close loved one who will call you a trailer park retard while challenging you on every piece you write while loving you. Few people will do that but it’s important.

I like the coin.

Sometimes, when I notice I have persistent trolls over months, I take a couple tries to reach out and talk to them. I try to directly address their issues, and ask what their problem is, or who hurt them. Like someone who is clearly a human but posts anti-Bitcoin stuff on my threads 193 times. Or who makes fun of my voice 65 times. Thus far, it has almost never worked out. They just keep going until they burn out. Their views and comments tend to be near-zero anyway. It’s a mental illness issue. And I’m not equipped to handle it. Kind of like how people throw poop in certain cities, there are people who digitally just parasitically can’t stop clutching to others negatively. I invite them to do better, hope they recover, but I increasingly learn that dealing with them rationally doesn’t work and I’m not the right one to help with that sort of mental illness.

What do you think the world will be like 50 years from now, in the 2070s? And specifically, what kind of tech do you think will surprise to the upside by that time, and become pretty dominant or ubiquitous? And what tech do you think will underperform expectations, and not exist at the scale that people now might’ve guessed would be common by then?

Some people say you should be cheerful and constructive all the time. Others say you should be more blunt and reactionary, pushing back on every imperfect detail. I like a blend of both approaches, and try to embody it. A polite revolutionary, tailored to the environment. I think we are in a moment where details matter. Send a big Lightning transaction to someone. Have an active he Nostr account. That’s all relevant.

A lot of investors would benefit from reading Stephen Mirran's November 2024 report on restructuring global trade: https://www.hudsonbaycapital.com/documents/FG/hudsonbay/research/638199_A_Users_Guide_to_Restructuring_the_Global_Trading_System.pdf He is the economist that Trump nominated to chair his Council of Economic Advisors. In that report, Mirran discusses the persistent US trade deficits, their causes, and overall it aligns quite closely with what I wrote in Chapter 13 of Broken Money: Heavy is the Head that Wears the Crown. Mirran also goes into potential solutions for it, including the risks of performing those potential solutions. Basically, behind all the headline driven stuff, that's the intellectual version of this administration's playbook. Like, the steelman argument for what they're trying to do in theory. Here's his executive summary: "The desire to reform the global trading system and put American industry on fairer ground vis-à-vis the rest of the world has been a consistent theme for President Trump for decades. We may be on the cusp of generational change in the international trade and financial systems. The root of the economic imbalances lies in persistent dollar overvaluation that prevents the balancing of international trade, and this overvaluation is driven by inelastic demand for reserve assets. As global GDP grows, it becomes increasingly burdensome for the United States to finance the provision of reserve assets and the defense umbrella, as the manufacturing and tradeable sectors bear the brunt of the costs. In this essay I attempt to catalogue some of the available tools for reshaping these systems, the tradeoffs that accompany the use of those tools, and policy options for minimizing side effects. This is not policy advocacy, but an attempt to understand the financial market consequences of potential significant changes in trade or financial policy. Tariffs provide revenue, and if offset by currency adjustments, present minimal inflationary or otherwise adverse side effects, consistent with the experience in 2018-2019. While currency offset can inhibit adjustments to trade flows, it suggests that tariffs are ultimately financed by the tariffed nation, whose real purchasing power and wealth decline, and that the revenue raised improves burden sharing for reserve asset provision. Tariffs will likely be implemented in a manner deeply intertwined with national security concerns, and I discuss a variety of possible implementation schemes. I also discuss optimal tariff rates in the context of the rest of the U.S. taxation system. Currency policy aimed at correcting the undervaluation of other nations’ currencies brings an entirely different set of tradeoffs and potential implications. Historically, the United States has pursued multilateral approaches to currency adjustments. While many analysts believe there are no tools available to unilaterally address currency misvaluation, that is not true. I describe some potential avenues for both multilateral and unilateral currency adjustment strategies, as well as means of mitigating unwanted side effects. Finally, I discuss a variety of financial market consequences of these policy tools, and possible sequencing."

The Atlanta Fed’s estimator for Q1 GDP growth, which gets updated based on various economic reports as they roll in, currently looks like a cartoon:

Currently listening:

I'm happy to confirm here, with a cryptographically signed note, that I've regained control of my Twitter/X account as of the evening of March 3rd, eastern time.