"Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the gate: ‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods"

The more I learn about the GENIUS act the more of a shitcoin it becomes. I think we all understand it's not really about Bitcoin. But it truly is just about extending the last gasps of dollar dominance globally and propping up treasury markets. Some have tried to frame it as "a necessary step to the SBR" (as an aside, the merits of which are very debatable and I think primarily serves to pump our bags while introducing a host of attack vectors and problems - although I think it is likely inevitable at some point) or as a "Trojan horse." The problem with the Trojan horse thing is that the act now mandates 1:1 backing of stablecoins with UST or equivalent and excludes "high risk" assets (i.e. Bitcoin). That crushes Saifedean's thesis from Vegas re: tether. Al this bill does is provide a framework for tether to restructure their reserves and come back onshore and probably for circle to get in the game too. Ripple is sitting in the corner like the perfect little suckup who wants in on the action but thankfully their market cap is so small no one really cares. The anti cbdc act is charades. The dollar is already a functional cbdc. The only signal in all of this imo is the self custody/dev protections in the current CLARITY act, which functions as a bill of rights of sorts (i.e. we can do it anyway but let's enshrine this type of deal). Otherwise it is just shitcoinery all the way down. Bad news for the US government is you can't just put a shiney facade (i.e. stablecoins) over a shitty system and call it good, although I suspect they will find ways to prolong dollar dominance longer than any of us think possible.

Mullings this morning. 1. We are called to lead and in some sense disciple our wives, calling them closer to the Lord. 2. We are, ourselves, sinners. 3. It is also true that love covers a multitude of sins, it is to a man's glory to overlook an offense, and "weaker vessel" means something. 4. Threading all of those needles requires the aid of the Holy Spirit, is often times an issue of prudence, and gives rise to sanctification and grey hairs.

Bitcoin in 2025.

Heresy incoming. With all of these Bitcoin companies emerging on an almost daily basis, I think it's a good time to remember that, for an individual or family, just stacking sats is likely the best and most sovereign way forward. Definitely the most mentally stable way forward. It's an impossible and futile task for an individual to keep track of all these Bitcoin "treasury or whatever" companies and trying to pick out which one will be the best or even buy all of them - not worth the stress or return imo. However. I think what is interesting, particularly with Saylor and those trying to copycat, is that this is to some degree a natural evolution of the Bitcoin thesis. Corporate and nation state adoption is inevitable as the fiat machine continues to print the fuel feeding it's decline. That said, the anarchocapitalist view of the future is likely unrealistic and so then the question becomes of how best to manage that transition. Additionally, what these folks are catching onto is that just matching monetary supply creation (i.e. S&P) is not adequate. If they are going to be worthy of investors, they need to beat digital gold. What Saylor et al are doing is providing onramps for highly regulated capital markets to feed into the Bitcoin ecosystem. He is arbitraging the future to create product now that these institutions can participate in while making a profit and doing it in a pretty darn smart way imo. Does the individual need to participate in that? Probably best just to stack sats in cold storage. However, some might have trapped funds in tax protected accounts, and imo Bitcoin ets while providing price exposure are just a fiat fake replacement for the real thing. So, is it unreasonable to allocate a little of those funds to some of these companies as a risk-on bet on the Bitcoin thesis? I don't think so.

Boiling this down in my mind. Theonomists: God's word matters (also must be acknowledged that general equity theonomy is a confessional position, we can bicker about reconstructionists etc). Natural law: the "by good and necessary consequence" guys (completely on board as long as subservient to biblical principles and not independent from scripture). *Insert based Chad YES and/or "why not both" meme*

"Bitcoin imports the integrity of the laws of physics into the socioeconomic domain."