Programmable money: is it automation or constraint? Programmability is often described as a straightforward functional improvement. It enables automatic payments, conditional execution and error reduction. In this narrative, programmable money appears to be a natural extension of digital contracts. The problem lies not in what it promises, but in what it tends to confuse. In technical terms, programmability refers to the ability to associate logical instructions with payment execution. It is essential to distinguish between two conceptually different levels. 1. Payment automation: an action is performed when an external condition is met. 2. Conditioning of value use: the monetary unit itself incorporates rules about where, when, and how it can be used. This distinction is often overlooked, but it is central. Automation concerns how you pay. Conditioning concerns whether you can pay. In the former case, the currency remains neutral with respect to purpose. In the second case, however, it becomes an instrument of embedded policy. The question is not one of intentions, but of architecture: once the constraint is technically possible, its application becomes an administrative choice rather than a structural limitation. Abstract examples help to clarify this. An automatic subscription payment is an example of automation. A sum that can only be spent on certain categories of goods is a form of conditioning. Both solutions are technically feasible. The difference is that the latter changes the nature of money, transforming it from a general means of payment into a means of payment for a specific purpose. This is where the concept of 'policy drift' comes in. Rules that are introduced for limited purposes tend to expand over time. This is not due to abuse, but rather due to the internal consistency of the system. If a function is useful in one context, it makes sense to extend its use to other contexts. Ultimately, what starts as an exception can become the operational norm. In the context of CBDCs, programmability is not an accessory. It is a potential property of the infrastructure. Even if it is not initially activated, its presence alters the balance between rules and discretion. The phrase 'it depends on how you use it' loses its analytical power; what matters is what the system enables you to do, rather than what it promises not to do. Some digital monetary systems adopt the opposite logic: the rules are public and rigid, and cannot be changed on a case-by-case basis. As a distributed cryptoasset, Bitcoin does not incorporate intended uses. It does not distinguish between purposes, identities or contexts. It is not programmable in the sense of conditioning. However, it is verifiable in terms of compliance with rules. The difference is not between good or bad technology. Rather, it is between automation that facilitates and constraints that guide. #automation #vs #comditioning #cbdc #bitcoin #verify #digital #monetary

Why are CBDCs being created? Stated objectives and real incentives. CBDCs are often presented as a response to obvious needs, such as the desire for more efficient payments, greater financial inclusion and more resilient systems. These are legitimate and largely verifiable objectives. However, when monetary reform is presented as purely technical, it is important to consider the incentives that make it attractive to the institutions designing it. The stated objectives are well known. Financial inclusion aims to reduce barriers to accessing payment services. Resilience concerns maintaining business continuity in the event of shocks. Efficiency promises lower costs and faster regulations. Competition aims to rebalance power in payment markets that are dominated by a few private operators. Taken individually, these objectives are consistent with the public mandate of central banks. However, alongside these, there are less explicit incentives. Reduced cash usage is a recurring consequence of highly digitised systems. Cash is costly to manage, hard to track, and restricts certain forms of control. From an institutional perspective, the progressive marginalisation of cash appears to be a rational outcome, even when this is not formally declared as an objective. Furthermore, in a context of increasing digitisation of private payments, monetary authorities risk losing operational relevance. CBDCs also address the need to maintain a central role in the monetary infrastructure, thereby preserving the capacity for intervention and coordination. This does not imply coercive intent, but rather reflects a structural incentive: those who govern the currency also tend to govern its technological evolution. In short, they are afraid of becoming obsolete. This brings us to a key concept: the structural trade-off. Every increase in efficiency necessitates a certain level of standardisation. However, every standardisation reduces the variety of options available. In the case of money, more integrated and centrally coordinated solutions can improve system functionality, but at the cost of less operational freedom for individuals. This tension is not moral, but systemic. Efficiency and autonomy do not always go hand in hand. One often advances at the expense of the other. CBDCs make this tension more visible because they move money from the level of the instrument to that of a fully digital infrastructure, where rules can be applied immediately and uniformly. Monetary systems that do not depend on a central authority operate according to a different logic in this scenario. Bitcoin, as a social good, was not created to optimise institutional efficiency, but rather to enable economic activity to continue without prior authorisation. It does not compete with the stated objectives of CBDCs. It operates on a different level: that of constraints. Every monetary system reflects the incentives of its designers. Understanding these incentives does not imply judgement, but rather recognition of their effects over time. #obsolete #monetary #system #bitcoin #cbdc #goal #inclusion

What is a CBDC really: definition and boundaries In public debate, CBDCs are often described as 'digital government money'. The expression is intuitive but conceptually inaccurate. Without a rigorous definition, the discussion quickly descends into misunderstanding. Clarifying the boundaries is not about taking a position, but about speaking the same language. A Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is, in technical terms, a central bank liability issued in digital form, accessible to different entities depending on the chosen architecture. This is the fundamental distinguishing feature. It is not a private cryptocurrency, it is not a bank deposit, it is not a simple payment application. To understand the difference, we need to distinguish between four forms of money that coexist today. 1. Cash is a liability of the central bank, anonymous, bearer-based and usable offline. 2. Bank money is a liability of commercial banks, based on credit relationships, regulated but not directly guaranteed by the central bank. 3. Reserves are liabilities of the central bank accessible only to intermediaries. 4. CBDC introduces a new combination: liabilities of the central bank, but in digital form and potentially accessible to the public. Within this general definition, there are several taxonomies, which are often confused with each other. CBDCs can be retail (intended for citizens and businesses) or wholesale (reserved for intermediaries). They can be account-based (based on the identification of the holder) or token-based (based on the possession of a digital unit). Finally, they can be direct (managed directly by the central bank) or intermediated (with commercial banks playing an operational role). These distinctions are not just technical details. Every architectural decision has different implications for privacy, resilience, governance and financial structure. This is why it is essential to distinguish between three analytical levels. 1. The technical facts, which define what a CBDC is. 2. The possible architectures, which address how it can be implemented. 3. Political interpretations concerning how it could be used. Mixing up these levels leads to two errors: naive optimism and a priori rejection. In both cases, the central point is lost: a CBDC is not a single technology, but rather a family of institutional solutions that redefine the relationship between money, the state, and its citizens. In this conceptual space, there are also systems that are not the liability of any central authority and that operate according to public, verifiable rules. Bitcoin falls into this category as both a distributed cryptoasset and a social good, not because it is 'digital', but because it structurally separates value from the issuer and transfer from authorisation. Before asking whether a CBDC is 'good' or 'bad', we need to know precisely what it is. Without clear boundaries, even judgement becomes opaque. #cbdc #technology #privacy #central #bank #digital #currency #bitcoin

The illusion of technological neutrality. We tend to view every innovation in payments as a simple technical improvement. Faster, more convenient, more efficient. It's a reassuring insight. And it is, almost always, incomplete. When a technology ceases to be an optional tool and becomes shared infrastructure, it is no longer neutral. It begins to organise behaviours, times, possibilities. Not because it 'wants' to, but because it structures. Strictly speaking, a tool is used by an individual for a specific purpose. Infrastructure, on the other hand, coordinates multiple individuals over time, establishing common constraints. A system of rules emerges when that infrastructure defines what is possible, permitted, and excluded. The transition is qualitative, not quantitative. And it does not depend on intention, but on adoption. Currency falls squarely into this category. It is not just a medium of exchange. It is an institution that organises economic relations over time. It determines how we save, how we transfer value, how we access exchange. In this sense, currency is always power organised over time: it coordinates expectations, disciplines behaviour, makes some actions easier and others more expensive or impossible. When a monetary technology changes form, it is not just 'how we pay' that changes. The boundaries of economic action change. History shows this repeatedly: the transition from metal to paper, from paper to bank credit, from credit to full digitalisation. Each leap has introduced new possibilities, but also new structural constraints. Ignoring them does not eliminate them. CBDCs sit precisely at this point of friction. They are not simply an update of payment channels. They introduce a new, potentially permanent monetary architecture that operates at the level of social infrastructure. For this reason, they cannot be evaluated solely in terms of operational efficiency or technological innovation. The central issue is neither the speed of transfer nor the reduction of costs. Rather, it is the type of system that emerges when money becomes natively digital, integrated and adjustable. This is where technological neutrality becomes irrelevant. Not by ideological choice, but by structural effect. In this context, alternative infrastructures emerge that separate rules from control, value from identity, and use from authorisation. Bitcoin was not created to replace a currency; rather, it was designed as a social asset based on verifiable, distributed rules that cannot be altered at will. It does not promise results. It sets boundaries. Every monetary infrastructure defines what is possible, even before what is legal. Over time, what is possible becomes normal. #illusion #technology #neutrality #cbdc #bitcoin #innovation #money #ideology #choise

When the code remains intact but the perspective changes. There is a misconception that reassures many: as long as the code does not change, nothing can really change. It is a convenient idea. But it is also incomplete. Because technologies do not only exist in protocols. They exist in the way they are interpreted, described and used. And above all: in the way they are made socially acceptable. Bitcoin, from this point of view, is no exception. We tend to think that technical neutrality coincides with moral neutrality. That an infrastructure, if formally correct, is also ethically unassailable. But morality does not reside in software. It resides in the social context that surrounds it. The code establishes what is possible. Culture establishes what is legitimate. Bitcoin can function perfectly even if its narrative changes radically. And this is where the real problem arises. The risk is not technical corruption. It is the ethical normalisation of foreign logics. Bitcoin was created as an infrastructure: open, verifiable, impersonal, indifferent to status. But it can be progressively portrayed as: a tool for tax optimisation, geopolitical leverage, a strategic state asset, 'responsible' infrastructure only if mediated by elites. In this shift, Bitcoin ceases to be a social good and becomes a resource to be administered. It is not banned. It is reinterpreted. The difference is subtle, but decisive. The most profound social change is this: Bitcoin has shifted from being a tool for individual autonomy to becoming infrastructure managed on behalf of individuals. When Bitcoin is primarily framed as a financial product, a complex technology for experts and a potentially dangerous tool to be monitored, The implicit message is clear: it is not for everyone; it is for those who know how to use it 'correctly'. This gives rise to a new form of delegation. Not technical, but moral. The individual is no longer responsible. They are protected. When protection replaces responsibility, freedom becomes a concession. At a geopolitical level, this change is even more evident. Bitcoin is no longer just seen as neutral infrastructure, a distributed network and a global protocol. Instead, it is now considered a lever of international pressure, a potential strategic reserve, a tool of competition between states and an object of selective regulation. In this scenario, the question is no longer whether Bitcoin should exist, but who legitimises its use. Who can safeguard it? Who can broker it? Who can claim it is 'safe'? The risk is not direct control. It is symbolic fencing. Bitcoin continues to function. Blocks are still being produced. Consensus continues to emerge. However, its social significance could be rendered meaningless. There is no need to shut it down. It is enough to render it compatible with everything it sought to distinguish itself from. The code resists. Culture does not, unless it is safeguarded. Bitcoin does not change when the software changes. It changes when we stop asking ourselves what its purpose really is. The technology survives. Responsibility only survives if it is chosen. Choose. Choose. Choose. #choose #bitcoin #responsability #software #network #change #social #function #controll #freedom #perspective #code

When money comes in through the side door. There is a recurring idea, almost like a reassuring formula: 'Bitcoin cannot be influenced by anyone.' This is true. However, the wrong question is not whether the code can be bent, but whether what grows around the code remains intact. Infrastructures operate according to rules. Societies, on the other hand, operate according to balances. Jeffrey Epstein was not a system error. He was a consistent product of a system that understands the value of access, relationships and doors left ajar. It is not his criminal biography that makes him relevant to this story, but his role as a bridge financier, facilitator and intermediary between worlds that officially should not touch but always have in practice. Epstein did not purchase technology. He bought legitimacy. At a time when Bitcoin was experiencing a period of institutional fragility — the Bitcoin Foundation crisis, regulatory uncertainty and the need for software development continuity — the centre of gravity shifted towards places that promised stability, prestige and protection: The university. The academy. Recognised knowledge: MIT. The Digital Currency Initiative. Not out of corruption, but out of necessity. But out of necessity. Every nascent system encounters a vacuum sooner or later. And every vacuum attracts capital, relationships and influence. The emails published in recent months do not reveal a technical conspiracy. They reveal a more subtle and common narrative: the normalisation of power within a space designed to be independent of it. Those emails are not verdicts. They are raw documents. However, raw documents have a dangerous characteristic: they do not lie or explain; they simply show. They reveal discreet funding. They reveal informal conversations. They reveal a familiarity that, while not surprising, should make us reflect. Bitcoin, as a network and as software, has not been touched. It couldn't be. No email changes the distributed consensus, no donation rewrites the rules, no elite changes the maths. But Bitcoin doesn't just live in code. It lives in the way it is talked about, hosted, institutionalised, made acceptable. And that's where the problem shifts. The emails do not talk about bugs. They talk about frames. They talk about how a social good can begin to be treated as a political object. About how a technology designed to function without identity is slowly being inserted into networks of reputation, influence, lobbying. Not to destroy it, but to make it compatible with existing logic. The risk is not the manipulation of the protocol. The risk is cultural domestication. When Bitcoin enters the corridors of power, it does not lose its technical properties. It loses something more fragile: its foreignness. It becomes a topic, a tool, a lever. It is discussed as a strategic asset, as infrastructure to be governed, as a geopolitical variable. All legitimate. All understandable. All dangerously human. Something doesn't add up, yes. Not because 'Bitcoin has been controlled', but because the same mechanisms that have always shaped institutions, narratives and systems of power have begun to revolve around it too. The emails published are not all there is. There are others. This is just the tip of the iceberg. But the point is not what will emerge, but what is already evident: no technology, however neutral, is immune to the social context in which it is absorbed. The code resists. The networks work. But collective responsibility does not, unless it is safeguarded. #epstein #jeffry #bitcoin #mit #dvi #joi #ioto #manipulation #nsa #cia #email #usa #congress #jmail

While the price screams, technology advances silently. The word 'volatility' is often used as if it were a moral judgement, an intrinsic flaw that separates the reliable from the unreliable. However, volatility does not describe an emotion; it describes a measure. It is the variation in returns over time. However, without specifying what it is in relation to, over what period and in what context, it is meaningless. If we view Bitcoin without fear or ideology, we can see that its fluctuations are neither mysterious nor an absolute flaw. They are an expression of a growing technology. In the early years of any innovation, there are sudden movements due to little liquidity, information and players. Then time does its work. The data show a clear trend: Bitcoin's volatility decreases as the network grows, and as market depth, infrastructure, user numbers and, above all, knowledge increase. This is the natural progression of any network technology. Volatility is not a mystical entity. It is the result of information, expectations and human behaviour. It also reflects the underlying asset: the pound sterling has political and credit-related underlying assets, while Bitcoin has energy- and cryptography-related underlying assets. These are two different worlds with two different forms of stability and two different ways of measuring risk. Claiming that Bitcoin is 'too volatile' without providing a point of reference is akin to saying that the sea is 'too rough' without specifying your location and the time of year. The idea that Bitcoin is seven times more volatile than equities belongs to the past. Today, the gap is narrowing, and in some periods it is comparable to that of certain innovative technology sectors. Like any living process, volatility changes over time. It changes with us. Bitcoin is a social asset currently in its growth phase. Its volatility is not a negative thing, but a sign that a global network based on distributed energy and verification is establishing itself in the world of economics. The noise is decreasing, the structure is strengthening and the technology is advancing. We fear what we do not understand. However, when concepts are restored to their true meaning, fear gives way to reason. Always. #volatility #price #bitcoin #value #correlation #technology #network #progress #innovation #ideology

I just published Gold as a Financial and Geopolitical Asset. Medium:

Medium

Gold as a Financial and Geopolitical Asset.

Analysis of gold as a financial-geopolitical asset from 1971–2025, examining returns, volatility, systemic crises, portfolio implications.

#medium #post #analisys #gold #instability #systemic #correlation #story #returns #annual #inflation

Quantum computing and Bitcoin: moving beyond fear. Quantum computers will hack Bitcoin. This statement is intended to frighten, not explain. Quantum technology does exist, but not in the way that sensationalist headlines suggest. Real quantum computers are fragile, noisy and unstable prototypes. They work with qubits that lose information in microseconds and require substantial error correction. Breaking the cryptographic signatures used by Bitcoin would require millions of reliable physical qubits. Currently, there is not a single perfectly stable logical qubit. There is no real mathematical threat. Even if such a machine were to exist one day, Bitcoin would not be the first target. Strategic technologies are used first where they really matter: Intelligence, military communications, diplomacy, banking systems and critical infrastructure, for example. Hacking Bitcoin would reveal to the world a weapon capable of changing the geopolitical balance. This would make no sense. Furthermore, Bitcoin is not as exposed as people believe. Addresses do not display the public key. Only UTXOs that have already been spent reveal it, and then only for a very limited time. The network can update its cryptographic primitives, and a BIP path for post-quantum signatures already exists. Bitcoin is a living protocol that can evolve when needed. Compromising a UTXO would require time, silence, and significant computing power. None of these are realistically possible today. Fear arises where there is a lack of knowledge. Quantum computing is fascinating, but it is far from being an 'almighty machine'. Bitcoin, meanwhile, is a social asset built on verifiable and updatable rules. Don't you worry, child. #quantum #computing #hack #math #utxo #dontworry #behappy #bitcoin

Hi Nostr community!👋🏼 I've just published my first report on Medium - check it out! CME Group Outage: Operational Risk and the Fragility of Modern Market Infrastructure. https://medium.com/@jacopograziuso/cme-group-outage-operational-risk-and-the-fragility-of-modern-market-infrastructure-253a4adb150f #medium #nostr #community #risk #fragility #market #infrastructure #outage #cme #group #report #new #first

There are historical bugs in Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core is the distributed software that verifies the protocol rules. Analysing the bugs that have been fixed can help us to understand how the network has grown stronger over the years. 1) 184 billion overflow (2010): An error in the checks generated a block containing 184 billion bitcoins, which exceeds the 21 million limit. The community intervened within a few hours, invalidating the block and providing an immediate update. Monetary integrity was restored. 2) Programme blockage caused by an instruction (2010): Some scripts could cause the node to crash. This instruction was disabled in version 0.3.5. Reduction of the attack surface. 3) Risk of divergent chains (2012): A flaw in the block structure could create incompatible versions of the blockchain. A quick fix was implemented and the network was re-composed. 4) Node privacy (2013): A vulnerability allowed IP addresses to be linked to Bitcoin addresses. Patches were distributed between January and February 2013. Privacy requires ongoing maintenance. 5) Risk of double spending and inflation (2018): A fundamental input check was accidentally removed by a change. There were no attacks on the main network and an immediate patch was applied. 6) Counter exhaustion (2025): Suboptimal address management could block the node in the long run. Switch to 64-bit counters in recent versions. All bugs have been fixed without causing any permanent issues. Thanks to open source software, independent checks and timely updates, the network has shown resilience. Updating the node is a shared responsibility. #bugs #bitcoin #core #software #opensource #issues #network

Disintermediation is a new model of relationship between individuals and finance. In the traditional system, almost every transaction goes through an intermediary, such as banks, clearing houses, payment circuits or money transfer companies. However, Bitcoin demonstrates that it is possible to transfer value globally without intermediaries, operating instead according to a peer-to-peer model as defined in the 2008 white paper. This involves: 1. Direct international payments: no SWIFT or correspondent banks required, with reduced costs. 2. Individual savings: wealth is no longer dependent on the operations of a central institution. 3. Reduction in transaction costs and settlement times. 4. Greater resilience: fewer centralised points of failure. 5. Global access to services, even in areas where the banking system does not reach. The BIS and the IMF recognise that this disintermediation raises questions of financial stability, particularly in emerging markets. However, they also acknowledge that Bitcoin's innovations are already influencing monetary policies and payment architecture, prompting many countries to consider CBDCs (unfortunately, providing another means of control). Bitcoin has indeed introduced a new principle: the ability to transfer value without a central authority. All other digital innovations in finance are a response to this discovery. Understanding disintermediation is key to understanding the future of finance. #disintermediation #distributed #bitcoin #finance #controll #system

Economic freedom and resistance to censorship: when Bitcoin becomes part of the civil infrastructure. In many countries, controlling money is a means of exercising power. Freezing accounts, blocking donations, limiting withdrawals and imposing currency restrictions are tools typically used by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent and opposition. Bitcoin introduces a decisive technical feature: resistance to censorship. A valid transaction cannot be blocked, cancelled, or prevented by a central authority. This creates a space for economic freedom where none existed before. Gladstein's studies (HRF, 2025) document concrete cases: - Nigeria, during the #EndSARS protests, activists' accounts were frozen, but donations resumed thanks to Bitcoin and BTCPay Server. - Russia, Hong Kong and Belarus: independent media outlets and dissidents used Bitcoin to receive funds after being 'debanked'. - Ukraine, 2022: over $200 million was quickly received when banking channels were blocked or unstable. In all these scenarios, Bitcoin does not replace politics, but it does protect the economic capacity to act. It ensures operational continuity for NGOs, journalists, civic associations, and individuals under authoritarian pressure. Freedom is not abstract; it exists when you can act. #freedom #free #bitcoin #resistance #censor #civil #money #bank

Financial inclusion: Using Bitcoin as social infrastructure in unbanked countries. Today, over 1.4 billion adults do not have a bank account. This is due to a variety of structural causes, including high costs, missing documents, distance from branches, distrust of institutions, political instability and, above all, the inconvenience of traditional banking. Bitcoin offers an alternative: an open, global infrastructure. All you need to access the network is a smartphone. There are no status requirements, geographical barriers or accounts to open. This enables 'bottom-up' financial inclusion. Data shows that 16 of the top 20 countries for the adoption of alternatives to state currencies are emerging economies. In sub-Saharan Africa, usage grew by 52% in one year, with over 8% of transactions being for amounts under $10,000 — indicating everyday, non-speculative use. Nigeria is a prime example: around 36% of adults are unbanked, yet the country is a world leader in Bitcoin adoption via peer-to-peer. For many citizens, Bitcoin is the only effective means of accessing tools such as savings, remittances and international payments. However, it is not a universal solution; digital infrastructure, financial literacy and complementary policies are also required. However, as noted in reports by the World Bank and the IMF, Bitcoin has introduced a new standard of accessibility, capable of including even those who have never had access to the formal system. True inclusion comes when barriers are reduced, not when intermediaries are added. #financial #inclusion #unbanked #infrastructure #countries #bitcoin #social #good #asset #account #network

From monopoly of trust to distributed trust: a cultural shift in the way we think about money. The traditional financial system is based on hierarchical trust; we rely on banks, central banks, and the state. This is a 'vertical' model in which a few institutions hold a monopoly on public trust. Bitcoin overturns this paradigm. The network operates according to mathematical rules and distributed verification, with each node independently checking the validity of transactions. Users do not have to trust the other party, but rather the cryptographic protocol. This is why we talk about a 'trustless' system: not because trust disappears, but because it is redistributed horizontally. Some studies define this phenomenon as 'trustless trust': a new social model in which guarantees come from a set of publicly verifiable software rules rather than a central authority. This raises an essential question: What does it mean to trust code rather than institutions? International institutions remind us that traditional trust remains a fundamental public good. At the same time, Bitcoin's popularity shows that distributed digital trust is already an operational reality, particularly in countries where financial institutions are not trusted. Understanding how trust works is key to understanding how our freedoms work. #freedom #trust #institution #bitcoin #trustless #model #public #financial #system #money

Individual monetary sovereignty occurs when individuals regain ownership of their assets. In many economies, managing money requires trust in intermediaries, such as banks, which are guaranteed by the central bank. However, there are limits on withdrawals and funds can be frozen in extraordinary situations. This model is based on an implicit assumption. control of money is not really in the hands of individuals. Bitcoin introduces a different paradigm. Since 2009, individuals who hold their private keys have been able to store and transfer value independently of banks, governments and payment systems. The protocol defines a fixed, known and verifiable supply that cannot be expanded at will, thereby reducing the risk of devaluation induced by expansionary monetary policies. This operational sovereignty is crucial in times of crisis: hyperinflation in Lebanon and Venezuela, currency restrictions in Nigeria and recurring devaluations in emerging markets have prompted millions of people to choose Bitcoin over traditional currencies to protect their purchasing power. According to the Human Rights Foundation, over 87% of the world's population lives in countries with unstable currencies. For many of these people, Bitcoin is not a speculative investment, but a means of achieving economic self-determination. Of course, self-custody entails responsibility for key management, cyber risk and short-term volatility. However, the principle remains: for the first time, individuals can hold wealth without asking anyone's permission. Awareness is the first step towards economic freedom. #freedom #economic #bitcoin #awarness #monetary #selfcustody #firststep

All we see is the canopy. The important things live beneath the ground. Of Bitcoin, only the surface is visible: users, adoption, freedom and price. While these are the easiest signs to observe, they do not represent the essence of the phenomenon. Beneath the surface lies a much larger system comprising a web of rules, incentives, energy, security and distributed cooperation, which makes this social asset possible. This is a system that does not demand attention or claim to be understood; it only asks to function, like any mature infrastructure. The average user does not need to know what lies at its roots. If everyone had to understand it thoroughly, it would never be adopted: it would be reserved for a few technicians. Mass adoption occurs when complexity ceases to be visible. When the tool becomes normal, everyday and natural: a gesture, not a lesson. Bitcoin will follow the same path as the technologies that have changed society: it will first be difficult, then be mediated by simple tools, and finally become invisible. A social good becomes accessible not when everyone studies it, but when anyone can use it without thinking about it. But what about the price? The price is an indicator of technological evolution, not the focus of the discussion. It is not secondary; it is tertiary. Those who are only looking for profits are not looking for Bitcoin; they are looking for something else. Bitcoin is a social asset offering autonomy, continuity, and an economic voice, even when everything else stops. The strength of the roots can be seen. The strength of the roots can be felt. It is in these invisible roots that the technology's true maturity lies. #bitcoin #system #technology #network #social #adoption #invisible #autonomy #continuity #infrastructure #freedom

Mass adoption will come when Bitcoin becomes invisible. A common misconception surrounding the mass adoption of Bitcoin is that everyone must understand it in order to use it. In reality, however, no technology has ever achieved global diffusion thanks to its users' technical understanding. Nobody knows how POS terminals, payment cards, or the protocols that govern the internet work. Yet we use them every day. Internal complexity has never stopped innovation; only the perception of complexity does. According to innovation diffusion models, mass adoption occurs when a technology aligns with existing habits, requires minimal cognitive effort, and integrates with existing infrastructure. Bitcoin will be no exception. Adoption will not occur when everyone understands it, but when it is no longer necessary to do so. All technologies become mainstream when they stop demanding attention. The camera was once a niche tool, but when it was integrated into the smartphone, it became universal. Users did not learn photography; they simply used a familiar interface. The path for Bitcoin will be similar. The distributed network will continue to function as an energy-digital infrastructure, but end users will only interact with simple tools, such as secure apps and intuitive wallets, and features integrated into the services they already use. When a social asset becomes invisible, it becomes accessible to all. Real adoption occurs when the experience is immediate rather than when technical knowledge increases. Invisible integration has a significant social impact in that it enables people to use a social asset that guarantees economic autonomy, privacy and resilience without requiring specialist skills. For families, this means being able to send, receive or store value with ease. For businesses, it means reducing transaction costs, accessing new customers, and operating with fewer constraints. Mistaking use for technical understanding is a mistake of perspective. Much of the infrastructure supporting the modern economy is opaque to users, but this does not limit its effectiveness; rather, it encourages adoption. Bitcoin will be widely adopted when it is perceived as a digital norm integrated into everyday life. #massadoption #mass #adoption #payment #internet #network #social #asset #invisible

Scarcity as a social good. Scarcity generates conflict. Wars, crises, and economic history teach us this. However, there is a form of scarcity that reduces conflict. It is called Bitcoin. Every vital system functions thanks to limits. Energy is finite, time is irreversible, and attention is limited. Without scarcity, there is no value, and without value, there is no choice. This is where economics comes in: the art of allocating what is scarce. Bitcoin did not invent scarcity; it simply made it measurable, shareable, and verifiable. The 21 million formula is more than just a technical limit. It is a pact of fairness that no one can violate, not even those who created it. No decrees, trust, or mediators are needed, only energy and time. In this sense, Bitcoin is a social convention based on physics, not politics. It functions as long as there is a connection, electricity, and a willingness to cooperate. Bitcoin is the first economic infrastructure that does not discriminate based on income, passport, or consent. When issuance is fixed, each unit becomes a portion of shared time. Every individual, anywhere in the world, has the same rules and opportunities to participate. There are no "strong" or "weak" currencies; there is only each person's time converted into verifiable value. This is the essence of social good: Not an object, but a condition of equality. Bitcoin is often accused of "consuming energy." Bitcoin is often accused of "consuming energy." However, energy is not wasted if it generates order. Each joule used for network security prevents the costs associated with corruption, inflation, and censorship. In the long run, this encourages energy efficiency because only those who produce clean energy can compete. stable energy sources can compete. Thus, what appears to be "consumption" becomes a form of natural selection that favors sustainability. In a world of constant change, predictability is a rare commodity. Knowing that the rules will be the same tomorrow means having the ability to build. Bitcoin does not promise salvation; rather, it promises consistency over time. This consistency is a form of freedom. Anyone can verify it; no one can alter it. It is an economic and moral experiment. It transforms blind trust into verifiable trust. Bitcoin is not just technology, finance, or speculation. It is a social experiment based on the principle that order comes from limits, not power. Programmed scarcity does not impoverish; it educates. It restores human time to its natural weight, which is responsibility. Freedom is not the absence of rules; it is the knowledge of one's own limits. #social #good #asset #bitcoin #formula #physics #politics #energy #electricity #currency #consum #efficiency #sustainability #experiment #order #responsability #scarcity #knowledge

From Formula to Scarcity: Stock-to-Flow. Bitcoin is scarce. This phrase is often repeated but rarely explained. In economics, scarcity is not an opinion; it is a numerical ratio. Every material or digital asset has two fundamental quantities: Stock: The quantity already in existence. Flow is the quantity added each year. The ratio of the two, stock-to-flow, defines the monetary hardness of an asset. The higher the ratio, the more resistant the asset is to inflation; that is, it is difficult to expand its total quantity. In the case of Bitcoin, monetary inflation is defined as "flow over stock." Therefore, the stock-to-flow ratio is the inverse of inflation. It's a simple yet powerful relationship: What is fragility (inflation) for currencies becomes robustness (scarcity) for Bitcoin. Each halving event cuts the "flow," or the annual creation of new bitcoins, in half. The "stock," on the other hand, continues to increase until it reaches the limit of 21 million. The result is a stock-to-flow ratio that grows in a deterministic manner over time. Between 2012 and 2016, Bitcoin inflation was 12.5%, and the stock-to-flow ratio was 8. Today, inflation is 0.83%, and the stock-to-flow ratio is 120. With the next halving in 2028, inflation will fall to 0.4%, and the stock-to-flow ratio will be 250. This relationship between inflation and Bitcoin's stock-to-flow ratio will persist until 2140, when inflation will reach zero and the stock-to-flow ratio will become virtually infinite. Currently, Bitcoin surpasses gold in monetary hardness; gold has a stock-to-flow ratio of around 60–70, whereas Bitcoin is already over 120. At the current rate, it would take 120 years to double the stock of Bitcoin. Scarcity is not a privilege; it is a form of equality. In a system where issuance is equal for all, no one can "inflate" the time or labor of others. Stock-to-flow does not measure price; rather, it measures the fairness of economic time. The higher the stock-to-flow ratio, the more wealth retains its value over time. Every bitcoin is created with the same amount of energy and follows the same rules. This distinguishes it from any currency created by decree. In 2019, an analyst known as PlanB popularized a model correlating Bitcoin's stock-to-flow ratio with its market value. The model is now criticized and, in part, outdated. It does not predict price; rather, it describes the consistency of the scarcity mechanism. Bitcoin is valuable not because it costs money, but because it retains its value over time. Each block added is a unit of order against the entropy of the global economic system. Stock-to-flow is not just a technical indicator. It is a numerical measure of programmed trust. The more it grows, the harder the network is to manipulate. In Bitcoin, scarcity is not a flaw in the code but rather its most human function. Once the quantity can no longer grow, the responsibility to use it well increases. #stocktoflow #scarcity #stock #flow #inflation #halving #gold #planb #technical #quantity #responsability