Not sure how you came to this conclusion. The entire note is about the Coordination tax which is less about S₀ Bitcoin (the protocol) and more about S₁ Policy (relay/mempool defaults, mining templates, wallet behaviors), and S₂ Perimeter (banks, clouds, app stores, ISPs, payment networks, tax law, PR). I've explained how Security: S₀ is math; S₁/S₂ are sociotechnical. Tax: recurring human + legal + distribution cost to keep S₁/S₂ aligned with S₀’s ideals. Attacker asymmetry: One cheap perimeter tweak (Acceptable Use Policy line, bank heuristic, pool template) can shift millions. Defenders must hold all fronts, all the time. > missing is a sense of agency and possibility. It's all very boxed in, and gives a fatal and nihilistic impression. This is literally a quote from the note: "Ultimately, as you said, there is no perfect solution, which is why I am more inclined to focus more on the things I can control (being more self-sufficient, trying to stay outside the system) and less on competing with adversaries with infinite resources." So how is being more self-sufficient and focusing on what you can control nihilistic? You say that I've "let myself be convinced that Bitcoin is a bad idea by AI", basically implying I'm stupid and my research is flawed without having addressed a single argument. Maybe you're just too mentally weak to be objective. Maybe you just can't handle the truth. If your whole identity relies on Bitcoin becoming what you want it to be, maybe you should reflect.