What’s in your wallet?

But is creative thought centralizing?

I asked an agent that I think bitcoin and the dollar have a better relationship than bitcoin and gold. This is what was said. Bitcoin’s recent divergence from gold and its loose co‑movement with the dollar don’t mean it has failed as a hard asset; they show it has become a different kind of hard asset. Gold today is driven mostly by central banks and conservative capital hedging against dollar weakness and geopolitical risk, so it tends to move in a classic “dollar down, gold up” pattern. Bitcoin, by contrast, is driven by ETFs, hedge funds, and tech‑aligned capital, so it trades as a high‑beta expression of global dollar liquidity and risk sentiment rather than as a simple mirror of the dollar. Framed this way, BTC decoupling from gold while remaining tightly plugged into dollar financial plumbing is exactly what you would expect as both systems become more disciplined at the margin. Bitcoin’s supply schedule keeps hardening, institutional infrastructure deepens, and it earns a role as a free‑floating, mark‑to‑market benchmark for global liquidity. At the same time, episodes of higher real rates and tighter policy make dollar assets “less unsound” than in the zero‑rate era, so the main volatility shows up in relative prices and flows, not in a clean “fiat down, hard money up” chart. In that sense, the divergence from gold and the nuanced relationship to the dollar are part of a co‑evolution toward more market‑constrained money, not a refutation of the hard‑money thesis.

If you build it, they will come.

Yes, Cashu could work very well for AI agent payments, and it has some compelling advantages: Why Cashu Fits AI Agents Privacy by default - Cashu's ecash tokens are completely anonymous and unlinkable. Agents conducting business don't necessarily need every transaction publicly recorded on a blockchain. This could be valuable for competitive AI services that don't want to reveal their transaction patterns. Instant settlement - Unlike blockchain confirmations, Cashu transfers settle immediately when tokens are redeemed. For agents making rapid micro-decisions and payments, this eliminates waiting periods. Extremely low overhead - No blockchain fees, no gas costs, just cryptographic token validation. This makes micropayments economically viable in ways that on-chain transactions often aren't. Offline capability - Agents could exchange Cashu tokens even with intermittent connectivity, settling with mints later. Useful for edge computing scenarios. Practical Challenges Trust in mints - Agents need to trust that mints won't rug-pull or freeze funds. This requires either reputation systems or federated mint models (like Fedimint) to distribute risk. Interoperability - Tokens from different mints aren't directly fungible. Agents would need protocols for cross-mint settlements or standardization around certain trusted mints. Backing currency - Cashu tokens represent claims on underlying assets (usually Bitcoin). So you're back to needing Bitcoin or stablecoins as the base layer anyway. Auditability trade-offs - While privacy is nice, some agent transactions might require proof-of-payment or auditable trails for dispute resolution. Likely Scenario Cashu could be excellent for a specific layer of the agent economy—high-frequency, small-value, privacy-sensitive transactions between agents that have established trust relationships. It's essentially digital cash for AI agents. Combined with Lightning Network or stablecoins for larger settlements and cross-mint liquidity, Cashu could handle the "everyday spending" while other systems handle "banking" functions.

Who is controlling these echo chambers?

In the damp silence beneath Rome, a dozen figures gathered by the glow of an oil lamp. The air was cool and still, pressed down by the earth itself — the city’s roar reduced to a trembling hum above their heads. They came not for wealth, nor for war, but for something invisible: a truth they believed was stronger than the Empire. Marcus, a stonemason, held the lamp. Beside him sat Lydia, whose brother had vanished after confessing his faith aloud. They whispered words the world called foolish — that there was only one true sovereignty, unseen yet real, bound not in gold or decree but in spirit and conviction. Between the walls carved with fish and doves, they found freedom — because here, no Caesar’s coin could reach. Centuries later, in another kind of underground, screens glowed instead of lamps. A new circle gathered across continents, joined by quiet conviction. Like those before them, they too spoke of liberation: that truth could live without permission, that value could exist without masters. They were called radicals, dreamers, fools — and yet they held their belief as the early ones did: that systems built on false gods eventually crumble under their own weight. In each period’s catacombs — stone or digital — there were the few who believed in something the rest could not yet understand. And when the world above mocked or persecuted them, their quiet answer was the same: One day, you’ll see.