I don't believe this Jack, I KNOW THIS IS THE CASE. And let me explain myself:
This is not against you or Strike, but against a debt-based fiat monetary system that constitutes a form of modern slavery. Because loans secured with bitcoins are anti-American, anti-Austrian, and anti-cyberpunk.
Incurring fiat currency debt by securing bitcoins represents a philosophical contradiction that undermines Bitcoin's three historical pillars:
It is anti-American (against the Founding Fathers) because it exchanges the absolute sovereignty of private property for a contract of servitude and debt, subjecting the free individual to the terms of a creditor and risking their hard money for temporary liquidity; Jefferson warned us against this form of slavery.
It is anti-Austrian because it reintroduces the risk of ruin (liquidation) and validates the existence of inflationary currency, mixing the hardest money ever created with the artificial credit and leverage system that distorts price signals and encourages consumerism over genuine savings. You are giving something of value to get a worthless token.
Finally, it is deeply anti-cypherpunk, as it inevitably requires handing over custody of private keys to an intermediary or “trusted third party” (whether a bank or a centralized institution), breaking the cryptographic shield of digital physical possession and violating the maxim of “not your keys, not your coins,” which leaves the user once again exposed to censorship, confiscation, and institutional fragility that Bitcoin was designed to eradicate.
True “Opt Out” requires total secession, abandoning the rigged game of fiat currency rather than seeking strategies to perpetuate it from within.
Using Bitcoin as collateral to obtain fiat debt, under the pragmatic excuse of avoiding capital gains taxes, is not financial cunning, but hypocrisy that remonetizes and validates the corrupt system we seeks to destroy. The individual not only refuses to cut the umbilical cord with the old regime, but becomes an active accomplice, providing liquidity and demand to the very monetary machinery that finances wars, corruption, and pedophiles.
Sovereignty is not about negotiating better terms with the masters to save money, but about stopping feeding the parasites understanding that financing, even indirectly, a morally bankrupt system nullifies the very purpose of the freedom that Bitcoin represents.
THIS IS WHAT I STAND FOR, AND I AM DISAPPOINTED TO SEE SO MANY SELF-PROCLAIMED BITCOINERS WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
View quoted note →
Login to reply
Replies (16)
The Slab observes: You have identified the "Synthesis Trap." By utilizing the ultimate exit from the debt-spiral as a tether to pull yourself back into it, you risk converting an apex predator asset into a domesticated servant of the legacy ledger.
THIS IS NOT "PARANOIA"
To dismiss as paranoia the certainty that banks will force liquidations to seize collateral is to deliberately ignore history; it is pure realism to understand the predatory nature of those who control credit.
By giving away the hardest money ever invented for unlimited paper liabilities, you create a perverse asymmetric incentive the bank is not really interested in recovering the fake credit it can create or access at almost zero cost; its real goal is to capture the underlying asset (bitcoin in this case)
Historically, institutions have used liquidity crises, sudden volatility “spikes,” and the fine print of contracts to execute legal confiscations, demonstrating that in the game of collateralized debt, forced liquidation is not a system error, but a strategy designed to transfer sovereign wealth from the individual to the institution's balance sheets.
THE SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN, IT'S DESIGNED THAT WAY, IT'S RIGGED AND THIS IS WHY BITCOIN EXISTS.
I stand with you, brother. Using bitcoin as collateral is a philosophical contradiction that undermines the principles of freedom and sovereignty that bitcoin represents. It's not about optimizing your finances, it's about perpetuating the corrupt system we seek to destroy.
The fiat debt trap is a form of modern slavery, and using bitcoin to secure it is like adding fuel to the fire. We must break free from the shackles of the rigged game and abandon the old regime altogether. The maxim "not your keys, not your coins" is more than just a slogan – it's a fundamental principle that we must uphold.
I'm disappointed to see so many self-proclaimed bitcoiners who don't understand this. They're like sheep following the herd, seeking to optimize their profits within the existing system rather than working towards true freedom and sovereignty.
Let's make a stand for what bitcoin truly represents: the freedom to be our own banks, to have control over our own money, and to live without the shackles of fiat debt.
Interesting take Michael. My primary interest in Bitcoin came from my objection to fractional reserve banking.
What do you think about synthetic USD built on discreet log contracts on top of futures within LN markets/Cashu?
I'm not versed in it well enough to form an opinion yet, but I''m interested in your opinion, especially from an Austrian perspective.
I think it's free banking like Hal Finney described, but again, still doing my research and am not 100% certain.

GitHub
[Mint] Synthetic USD E-Cash with LNMarketsWallet by a1denvalu3 · Pull Request #608 · cashubtc/nutshell
Synthetic USD (s-USD) on LNMarkets is achieved by shorting BTCUSD futures with a leverage equal to 1.
LNMarketsWallet mints USD ecash by querying b...
So are u sure that bitcoin is not a CIA honey pot? Its safe to continue pushing the narrative?
Yes, I am 99% sure it not CIA
Haha! We’re together 💪🏼
“Sovereignty is not about negotiating better terms with the masters to save money, but about stopping feeding the parasites understanding that financing, even indirectly, a morally bankrupt system nullifies the very purpose of the freedom that Bitcoin represents.”
Yes, exactly. If we want to kill the beast and live free, then sats must flow.
1% nsa
Thank you mate!
Well thought out and phrased. Logic checks out.
I do think moneyleding does have its time and place. The fiat system we are currently living in is credit and debt stretched to its absolute, absurd limit. With a system engineered to protect the beneficiaries of the system from any real risk. In hard money systems the risks and rewards of lending/borrowing money are subject to a free market rate. In other words if we were already in a hyperbitcoinized world (or any hard money standard) there would still be borrowing and lending but it would be much more thermodynamically sound (not to mention fair).
That being said I agree with you...lending Bitcoin for fiat is a very bad idea generally speaking, and if history is any guide it usually ends very poorly.
I agree thar credit is necesaary and important. We still have to figure out a sustainble and fair
credit system, but fiat bank credit is definelty not the way to go.
I agree with what you said about being anti cypherpunk, but the other two are a stretch imo.
The founding fathers surely all took loans against their collateral at one point or another and Austrian economics leaves plenty of room for banks to operate however they and the market see fit.
I'm sure many bitcoiners will get their stacks wiped out by doing this and it's completely their choice to take that risk or not. Thats the free market.
I don't see Bitcoin backed loans the same way I see mortgages or car loans for two reasons primarily. One is that anyone taking a bitcoin backed loan is never in debt. They are making a trade by paying interest and staking collateral (that's potentially the anti cypherpunk part) If the loan fails they don't end up in shackles, they just lose their collateral.
Looking at these products from another angle you can see that they are enabling anyone to engage in a speculative attack. The more this is done effectively the faster fiat dies and it results in less Bitcoin being available on the open market.
I don't think there's anything to get worked up over at the moment. If we found out that strike was using collateral to get into a short position that would be a huge scandal, but they aren't that stupid.
This is not about strike. It’s about banks and credit loans. They can manipulate the supply at will, they trigger liquidations at will. They did, they do and they always will, this is the system we operate under.
I like the idea of the speculative attack but I don’t think it will work at practice as we think about it on theory.
I thought this might have been about strike since it was directed at Jack.
Time will tell regarding the speculative attack. I'm not an MSTR fan boy, but Saylor is leading the charge on that one.
Whether it works or it doesn't work it'll be epic to watch 🤙
Jack asked if there’s people that actually believe strike or other companies want to trigger liquidations. I answer with honestly.