The calmer you are, the clearer you think.

Throughout history, people have always turned to two key stores of wealth - gold (and arguably silver) and real estate. So naturally, if you’re concerned about the devaluation of paper currency, you might ask: Why not just buy real estate and hold onto it? But the truth is - it’s not a great idea. Real estate is more sensitive to interest rates than to inflation. In environments where inflation runs high but rates are rising, real estate often loses value in real terms. On top of that, it’s a fixed, immovable asset - making it one of the easiest assets to tax. Local governments can raise property taxes whenever they need revenue, and you can’t exactly move the asset to a more favorable jurisdiction. It also lacks portability. Unlike Bitcoin, you can’t move real estate across borders - or even across state lines. In that sense, it’s not an effective hedge or a truly sovereign store of value.

At some point in the next 3 years people will realize that they have more to fear by not embracing bitcoin than by embracing bitcoin.

Bitcoin is ultimately portable capital.

At this point, it’s almost inevitable that socialism will rise as AI displaces jobs and deepens the imbalance between labor and capital.

There’s no point in going on strike without first forming a union. Going on strike without organization is just self-inflicted martyrdom. Bitcoin is the union. Bitcoin is how people are going on strike against central banking, which is at the root of many of today’s problems.

Real estate's $370T value hides $132T-$203T speculative premium from fiat debasement. Bitcoin will collapse this, making homes utility-based again.

Unpopular opinion: Michael Saylor has created more value for more individuals than almost anyone else. Yes, people often point to figures like Jeff Bezos or Jensen Huang who’ve created massive value through innovation, jobs, and shareholder returns. But Saylor’s impact is different - he didn’t just build a product, he educated millions. He helped countless people understand Bitcoin, its importance, and its role as digital property. And more importantly, he gave them the conviction to act on that understanding. He stood for belief, for property rights, and for individual sovereignty. Unlike many others, he didn’t promote a security - he championed a form of property that’s censorship resistant, accessible to anyone with an internet connection, across any jurisdiction. I know it’s not a mainstream view, but I genuinely believe he’ll be remembered as one of the greatest educators of our time. In the next 10 years, his influence will be undeniable. There is no second best.

The biggest innovation of this century is the creation of digital scarcity - Bitcoin. It allows people to move their assets from the physical world to the blockchain, eliminating friction, bypassing governance structures, and removing bureaucratic barriers. It’s incredibly powerful. People often underestimate or don’t fully grasp its significance today, but looking back, I believe it will be seen as a breakthrough on par with the abolition of slavery or the fall of communism. That’s the scale of impact we’re talking about.

Allocating to Bitcoin isn’t speculative. Not allocating to Bitcoin is speculative.

The 21st century belongs to the internet. Bitcoin is the lubricant that keeps it moving.