Carney called out Trump’s global bullying and said middle powers need to help each other more and plan a future that has no trust in the USA. BTC aside, this a great and courageous message. No government will willingly give up their fiat levers.

I am skeptical of anything praised by the Kremlin when it comes to the national security of a democracy.

I think it is an ongoing historical travesty how the USA is dealing with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Ultimately, if the U.S. became a closed, authoritarian economy, Bitcoin would likely become a high-value "exit ramp" for the wealthy and a survival tool for the public—potentially reaching astronomical valuations in dollar terms, though the "dollar" itself might be worth much less at that point. Predicting the price of Bitcoin in a scenario involving extreme centralization of executive power—or a "fascist dictatorship"—is a dive into the ultimate tension of the "Digital Gold" thesis. Economically, Bitcoin reacts more to instability and monetary policy than to any specific political "ism." Here is how such a seismic shift in U.S. governance would likely pull the levers of the crypto market. 1. The "Flight to Safety" (Bull Case) If the U.S. government were to move toward an authoritarian model, the primary economic byproduct is usually a loss of institutional trust. As of early 2026, we are already seeing a "vaporizing of trust" (as some analysts call it) due to erratic trade policies and tariff threats, which has pushed gold past $5,000 an ounce. • Currency Debasement: Dictatorships often fund themselves by printing money or pressuring the central bank (the Fed) to keep rates low regardless of inflation. If the USD were to be weaponized or devalued, Bitcoin’s fixed supply (21 million) would likely make it a magnet for capital flight. • The "Censorship Resistance" Premium: In a regime where bank accounts can be frozen for political dissent, an asset that exists outside the traditional banking system becomes a necessity rather than a speculation. This would likely drive a massive "black market" or "gray market" premium for BTC. 2. The "FDR Scenario" (Bear Case) The biggest threat to Bitcoin in an authoritarian U.S. is not the market, but the Executive Order. • Seizure & Bans: Just as FDR issued Executive Order 6102 in 1933 to criminalize the possession of gold, a highly centralized administration could move to "nationalize" Bitcoin. • Strategic Reserve vs. Private Ownership: While the current administration has floated the idea of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, an authoritarian shift might involve the government wanting all the Bitcoin. They could mandate that all private holdings be moved to government-monitored "custodial" wallets, effectively killing the "not your keys, not your coins" ethos and crashing the price in regulated markets. 3. Current 2026 Market Dynamics To ground this hypothetical in current reality: The market is already jittery. • The "Sell America" Trade: We are currently seeing investors diversify away from U.S. assets (equities and Treasuries) toward commodities and international havens. • Fed Independence: With Chair Jerome Powell’s term ending in May 2026 and reports of political pressure on the Fed, any move that signals the end of the central bank's autonomy would likely be a "rocket fuel" moment for Bitcoin's price—at least until the regulatory "hammer" drops.

Strong Matrix overtones, rightfully so. Have any bitcoiners spent time engaging Rutger Bregman and the moral ambition advocates seemingly working to improve the world but with a veil of disdain for BTC, apparently ignoring obvious synergies?

Political finance laws vary wildly across the globe, ranging from "wild west" scenarios with zero oversight to hyper-regulated systems where even small private donations are banned. Based on data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) and the Regulation of Political Finance Indicator (RoPFI), here is an overview of countries ordered from least to most restrictive. 1. Minimal or No Restrictions In these countries, there are virtually no limits on who can donate or how much they can give. The philosophy here is generally that political spending is a form of free speech or that the market should dictate political viability. * The Caribbean (e.g., Bahamas, Barbados): Often cited as some of the least regulated regions in the world. Many of these nations have no limits on private donations and no requirements for public disclosure of donors. * Switzerland: Historically very permissive. While new transparency rules were introduced in 2023, there are still no federal limits on the amount an individual or corporation can donate to a party. * Germany: Often surprising to many, Germany has no upper limit on the amount a donor can give to a political party. However, it is more "regulated" than the Caribbean because it requires strict public disclosure for large donations (over €10,000). 2. Low to Moderate Restrictions These countries allow significant private money but impose specific "guardrails," such as transparency requirements or bans on certain types of donors (like foreign entities). * United States: A unique case. While there are strict limits on direct donations to a candidate's campaign (e.g., $3,300 per election), the Citizens United ruling allows unlimited spending through "Super PACs," placing it on the less-restrictive end of the global spectrum for "outside" money. * United Kingdom: There are no limits on how much an individual or organization can donate to a political party. However, the UK has strict spending limits during election periods, which indirectly limits the impact of massive donations. * Australia: Similar to the UK, there are few limits on donation amounts at the federal level, though some states (like New South Wales) have implemented much stricter caps. 3. High Restrictions (The Regulated Middle) Most modern democracies fall into this category. They typically cap the amount individuals can give and often ban corporate or trade union donations entirely. * Canada: Very restrictive compared to its neighbor. Corporate and union donations are completely banned. Only individuals can donate, and the amount is strictly capped (roughly $1,725 CAD per year to a party). * Brazil: In 2015, the Supreme Court banned corporate donations to political campaigns. Now, campaigns are largely funded through a massive public "Election Fund" and small individual contributions. * Japan: Bans corporate donations to individual candidates (though they can still give to political parties under certain conditions) and maintains strict limits on individual contributions to prevent "money politics." 4. Most Restrictive (State-Funded or Membership-Only) In these countries, private influence is heavily suppressed in favor of state control or extreme individual limits. * France: One of the most restrictive systems in the West. Corporate donations are strictly prohibited. Individual donations are capped at €4,600 per election. To compensate, the state provides heavy public subsidies and strictly limits what candidates can spend. * Bhutan: According to IDEA, Bhutan is among the most restrictive; only individual party members are permitted to contribute, and there are rigorous caps to ensure no single person can exert undue influence. * Sierra Leone / Guinea-Bissau: These nations have some of the most "de jure" restrictive laws, often limiting donations strictly to registered voters or party members, effectively banning all outside or institutional financial influence.