Bitcoin mining is essential energy infrastructure. Hut 8, named after Alan Turing's WWII codebreaking hut, has rebranded to American Bitcoin and plans to start trading on Nasdaq after merging with Gryphon Digital Mining. They will no longer be a pure Bitcoin miner. They plan to become an energy and compute infrastructure operator, expanding into AI hosting, flexible grid partnerships, and advanced computing markets. The Trump family involvement brings mainstream attention, some positive, some polarising. What remains constant is that Bitcoin itself is neutral, independent of politics or branding. For once, Bitcoin is in the headlines for the right reasons. Read the full article: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/american-bitcoin-backed-by-trump-sons-aims-start-trading-september-2025-08-28/ As Eric (probably never) said, ‘1 bitcoin = 1 bitcoin.’

🧡🧡🧡

Energy bills are climbing again in the UK while billions are being paid out in curtailment costs. Flexible load solutions that could help stabilise the grid are being ignored. According to the Financial Times, in the 2024–25 financial year. NESO spent £2.7 billion in total balancing costs in 2024–25, with wind curtailment a major contributor. This curtailment happened because the grid could not handle the excess electricity. https://ft.com/content/221d5b5d-ae51-4a6c-8516-b3b906d3ff89 Recent coverage paints a clear picture. YahooFinance and CoinDesk report on Hut 8’s efforts to monetise energy assets, showing how miners are aligning with the energy sector to provide stability and unlock new revenue streams. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hut-8-maps-path-monetization-131011324.html https://coindesk.com/markets/2025/08/27/hut-8-maps-path-to-monetization-of-energy-assets-as-bitcoin-mining-carve-out-nears-benchmark Our UK briefing paper at shows exactly how Bitcoin mining could do the same here. Flexible load can absorb excess renewable generation, reduce curtailment costs, and lower bills for households and businesses. https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/aea8e937-fd18-400f-afd9-c3513112c757/downloads/d3850229-208c-4385-9b86-2e82fd55cc6c/UK%20Power%20Grid%20Bitcoin%20Mining%20as%20a%20Demand%20Side%20.pdf The UK energy crisis is not going away. It is time to stop ignoring solutions that are already working elsewhere. H/t to Progressive Bitcoin UK for today’s newspaper headlines.

Trump’s battle with the Fed is escalating, now heading for a court battle over Lisa Cook’s dismissal. The FT says this could undermine the Fed’s independence and push up inflation. But the idea of independence is nonsense. The Fed has long answered to political and financial interests, printing trillions, driving up asset prices, eroding purchasing power, and bailing out Wall Street. Trump has clashed with Powell for years over rates. This fight is another reminder that Bitcoin is the exit. A rules based monetary network that no politician or banker can manipulate. All roads lead to Bitcoin. Read the full article here: https://www.ft.com/content/a05b579a-6839-473f-8aa7-65b81e4ff5ee

Bitcoin on the balance sheet can be a superpower, or a potential slow motion disaster. The difference isn't the price of bitcoin, it's the model. Some companies build disciplined, transparent treasury models that will stand the test of time. Others will chase hype, relying on leverage and share dilution while mistaking noise for signal. Many sit somewhere in between, combining elements of both approaches. This recent FT piece on Bitcoin treasury companies makes some fair points but misses the real nuance. It opens with a nod to Charles Ponzi and blurs Bitcoin with the broader crypto world (quelle surprise), overlooking Bitcoin’s fundamentally different monetary principles. This framing leads to shallow conclusions, lumping disciplined treasury strategies together with speculative frenzy. Look at what Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, has become. Once a software firm, it now exists primarily to accumulate Bitcoin. That "infinite money glitch", issuing equity for Bitcoin, works for them because they are disciplined and capital rich. Swapping soft money for hard money is an obvious move for any company. It's a rational move in a free market, but in my view, businesses built solely around holding bitcoin, without a solid underlying business, are far from ideal. Beyond Strategy, some companies build a narrative around Bitcoin, raise significant capital, and drive aggressive marketing to ride the wave of rapidly rising valuations. They may claim a profitable history, and sometimes that is true, but much of the growth comes from momentum rather than proven fundamentals. This model can work if execution matches ambition and risk is managed well. When the underlying business is not the core driver and Bitcoin is the main attraction, the lack of discipline, resources, or long term credibility leaves these companies speculative and highly exposed to shifts in market confidence. There will be companies that get it right, solving real problems with a strong risk framework. In a space surrounded by so much hype, it is up to investors and observers to do their own due diligence to understand which strategies are built to last. The media often misses this distinction. Money alone doesn't equal sustainability. Bitcoin on the balance sheet can be transformative when it is done with substance and discipline. When it is just noise, it risks collapsing under its own weight and dragging the conversation with it. And while the FCA continues to force many of us in the UK into proxies, I must admit that watching MicroStrategy's performance has been incredible. It saved my portfolio. Some companies will stand the test of time because they are solving real problems with sustainable models. Others will fade when the hype dries up. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next bear market. Investors will need to do their homework, as not all bitcoin treasury companies are the same. But hey, at least the FT is starting to notice what's going on. We can't expect them to make a complete 180 turn on Bitcoin overnight. Read the full article here: https://www.ft.com/content/478ea5bc-ea18-44f7-9da1-602ebe283fca

We are witnessing a great wealth transfer. Money is transforming faster than governments can react. The old financial system is cracking, and the new one is taking shape. Bitcoin is quietly becoming the unofficial global reserve currency. As trillions in wealth change hands over the next two decades, younger generations inheriting these portfolios are reallocating into scarce, borderless assets. Xapo Bank estimates that between $160 and $225 billion will flow into bitcoin through this wealth transfer. At the same time, stablecoins are rewriting how money moves. Often programmable in ways that traditional money is not, they settle around the clock and are pegged to dollars, yuan, or other national currencies. With a new U.S. legal framework now in place, adoption is accelerating as banks and institutions integrate tokenised cash for faster and cheaper settlement. Globally, the race to build parallel systems is underway. China, supported by some BRICS members and regional partners, is developing yuan backed stablecoins and advancing state backed digital currency rails through Project mBridge. These tokens will change how capital flows across borders. This is what a global monetary reset looks like. Bitcoin is emerging as the anchor of a new financial system. Stablecoins are becoming programmable, instantly settled cash. Major banks and institutions are developing their own digital tokens for faster settlement. State tokens are carving out trade lanes in a multipolar financial system. Together, these changes are transforming how money works, how it moves, and how global finance is shaped. The upgrade of money is no longer coming. It is already here, and everything, one way or another, is bleeding into bitcoin. https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/china-considering-yuan-backed-stablecoins-boost-global-currency-usage-sources-2025-08-21/ https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/08/20/the-great-wealth-transfer-could-see-more-than-usd200b-flow-into-bitcoin-xapo-bank

💕💕💕

The UK needs Bitcoin and here’s how you can help. With just a few clicks you can contact your MP and make your voice heard. Use the tool: https://t.co/C3WLX1JteI Let’s make sure MPs can’t keep ignoring Bitcoin. H/t Sami Shams for building the app. 🫡

🔥

Another solo Bitcoin miner has hit a block, with #910,440 reportedly earning around $371,000 through CKpool. This adds to a series of rare solo wins seen in 2025. These stories show that solo miners have a chance to succeed and serve as a reminder that Bitcoin remains open to anyone, reflecting the ongoing promise of decentralised mining. Read the full article here: https://coinmarketcap.com/academy/article/bitcoin-solo-miner-scores-dollar371k-block-reward-against-all-odds

If you like Bitcoin, beef, and mining… you’ll love this! Hashdried Proof of Beef Chris the Butcher from Helsinki knew nothing about Bitcoin and is now drying his beef using the heat from mining. Thank you, Chris, for showing how it’s done!

💕💕💕

Bitcoin was built for financial freedom and privacy. With governments pushing for more oversight, the question remains whether money and state can separate peacefully.

The Financial Times published a piece this week titled “Why struggling companies are loading up on bitcoin.” At first glance it looks like a story about corporate adoption of the world’s leading digital asset. Read beyond the headline and a problem emerges. The article uses “Bitcoin” and “crypto” interchangeably, which gives the impression they are the same thing. The article includes high profile Bitcoin cases like MicroStrategy alongside firms acquiring other tokens such as Ether or Solana. It reports total figures for “crypto purchases” while presenting the trend as companies “loading up on bitcoin.” Warnings about systemic risk refer to companies holding crypto assets far above their revenues but do not distinguish between Bitcoin and other assets, which changes how the data can be interpreted. The difference matters because Bitcoin is not “crypto.” Bitcoin is a decentralised, fixed supply network with 16 years of uptime and a clear monetary policy. Crypto is a catch all for millions of tokens with very different levels of security, regulation, liquidity and purpose. A company adding bitcoin to its treasury as a long term reserve asset is not the same as one speculating on illiquid, high volatility altcoins. The risk profile, motives and signal to the market are different. When journalists blur these lines, the analysis loses its foundation. Readers are left with an oversimplified narrative that only holds together if Bitcoin and crypto are treated as one category. If an argument depends on merging those two worlds, it is not analysis. It is misdirection, and it is harmful. Many policymakers read mainstream articles like this, take the narrative at face value and form their views about bitcoin without consulting subject matter experts or reviewing primary data. This is how flawed coverage can end up influencing lawmaking. In 2018 the UK Treasury Select Committee’s report on “crypto-assets” grouped Bitcoin and altcoins into a single category, a framing that mirrored mainstream coverage at the time. That framing then became part of the political record and aligned with the concerns later cited by the FCA when it introduced a ban on crypto derivatives for retail investors. In the EU, early drafts of the MiCA legislation included language that would have effectively banned proof of work networks such as Bitcoin by subjecting them to strict environmental standards. These provisions reflected the narrative common in mainstream coverage at the time, which portrayed Bitcoin’s energy use without context. Media driven misconceptions about Bitcoin have already influenced regulation. If coverage like this continues to shape political understanding, the effort required to undo the damage will only grow, and Bitcoin will be regulated on fiction rather than fact, as it appears to have been so far. I am glad Bitcoin is getting attention from mainstream media, but not like this. Brandolini’s Law says it takes ten times the effort to correct misinformation as it does to produce it. If that pattern continues, the cost of fixing the damage will be enormous and the policy mistakes even more so. Read the full article: https://www.ft.com/content/8a160bd3-c96d-468a-8052-b0aae43e5aea

Former UK Chancellor George Osborne has just criticised the UK's failure on Bitcoin. And he's absolutely right. In his recent opinion piece in the Financial Times, Osborne reflects on using the UK's first Bitcoin ATM 11 years ago and how Britain let that early lead slip away. The world is moving fast, and the UK is falling further behind. At least someone is paying attention. He names the symptoms we know too well: - Retail investors blocked from spot Bitcoin ETFs - Banks routinely freezing lawful transactions - Startups suffocated by slow, unclear onboarding - Policymakers hiding behind regulators while others build Osborne calls for political courage and clarity. He wrote, "On crypto and stablecoins, as on too many other things, the hard truth is this, we're being completely left behind. It's time to catch up." If we missed the first wave, which was Bitcoin, we are now at risk of missing the second, which is stablecoins. Other countries are advancing rapidly with clear legal frameworks and a drive to innovate. The UK remains stuck. Osborne draws the same line we've been making at Bitcoin Policy UK. Bitcoin is not the same as "crypto." It is foundational monetary infrastructure. Stablecoins are financial plumbing. Both matter, but both require distinct, thoughtful regulation. That clarity is still missing here. His call for a new Big Bang moment and serious reform in the spirit of the 1980s. At Bitcoin Policy UK we've been sounding this alarm in meetings, consultations, articles, and in conversations across government. Osborne's article reinforces exactly what we've been saying. Without urgent change, we risk becoming a cautionary tale. The UK doesn't lack talent and opportunity. It lacks leadership. Osbourne gets it. The question is... will anyone in Westminster catch up? Read the full article here: https://www.ft.com/content/2b554e86-a4a6-4361-8db6-04876528b02b

When did criticising policy make you a target of the state? Why is a secret government unit policing public opinion? What exactly is happening behind the scenes in government? A secretive government unit, empowered by the Online Safety Act, is quietly flagging and suppressing online criticism of immigration policy. It operates behind closed doors. It is unelected. It is unaccountable. And it is being used to control the narrative under the guise of safety. A front page Telegraph exposé, titled "Exposed: Labour’s plot to silence migrant hotel critics"reveals disturbing details . https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/31/exposed-labour-plot-silence-migrant-hotel-critics/ The article uncovers that a secretive Whitehall unit called NSOIT (the National Security and Online Information Team), formerly known as the Counter Disinformation Unit, has been used by Labour ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) to flag and monitor social media posts that criticised migrant hotels, asylum seekers, or raised concerns about “two-tier policing.” According to internal government emails dated August 3 - 4, 2024, during the peak of the Southport riots, officials actively flagged posts with “concerning narratives,” warning that they might inflame public tensions. These posts were then forwarded to platforms like TikTok, many of them labelled as urgent, despite simply reporting factual information such as hotel locations or referring to asylum seekers as “undocumented fighting-age males”. One flagged example involved a user sharing a Freedom of Information (FOI) rejection letter regarding migrant hotel sites. Another was a video captioned “Looks like Islamabad but it’s Manchester,” flagged for fuelling racial stereotypes, yet still not unlawful under current speech laws. Although the government insists it did not request content removals, civil liberties advocates, including Big Brother Watch and the Free Speech Union, argue that this behaviour amounts to censorship of lawful dissent, carried out by unelected officials with no statutory oversight, using the infrastructure created by the Online Safety Act. This has the fingerprints of the 77th Brigade all over it, covert monitoring, narrative control, and a quiet war on the public's right to speak freely. This is not safety. It’s censorship and control.