A hundred years is a long time. You're kind of assuming we've not been wiped out by then. A helpful way to think about it is to focus on what you can control - smaller scale. You don't need a mass awakening to take care of yourself and your family. Of course, you sometimes have to take the NPCs into account as their actions may affect you, but there's always a way to win, you just have to design your own defaults and believe in yourself unconditionally.

Why Gold has been allowed to run (incentive-based analysis) As of September 23rd 2025, Gold has risen 42.5% YTD and 49.74% on the 1 year. Gold's market cap is $25.5T, so it is by far the largest asset by market cap in the world. Letting gold run while containing Bitcoin fits the State's incentives. Gold can satisfy the public's "store-of-value" impulse without granting a parallel, censorship-resistant payments rail; it trades in surveilled, gate-kept markets (London OTC/COMEX, custodian oligopolies). Central banks themselves are heavy buyers, and its price can be influenced via regulated derivatives and custody choke-points. Bitcoin, by contrast, threatens monetary sovereignty if it spreads as money. 1) Gold as a Controlled safety valve - Let savers vent inflation/sovereignty anxiety into the least threatening SoV (store of value). Gold is surveilled at on/off-ramps, heavy, slow, taxable, and easy to ring-fence (customs, export rules, windfall taxes). Every dollar that flees to gold is a dollar not pressuring Bitcoin-as-MoE (medium of exchange) or moving into parallel rails. 2) Balance-sheet relief (without headline QE). - A higher reference price quietly recapitalizes sovereigns and Central Banks that carry gold at legacy/statutory marks. It strengthens reserve ratios and collateral narratives without Congress/parliament votes. 3) Collateral & settlement optionality. - When duration supply and term premium wobble, a higher, steadier gold price broadens acceptable collateral in cross-border finance while keeping the USD system central. 4) Narrative management: "We tolerate sound money". - A visible gold bull market signals tolerance for a "traditional hedge", undercutting the story that authorities crush every escape hatch. It buys legitimacy while more programmable rails (stablecoins/CBDCs) normalize. 5) Diversion & crowding-out. - A strong gold tape soaks risk appetite that might otherwise chase Bitcoin self-custody. Retail and many institutions will choose the IRA/ETF-friendly, audit-simple, reputation-safe shiny rock. And the main points here really are - Gold absorbs social inflation angst into a non-transactional hedge and supports Central Banks' reserves without explicit bailouts. At the same time, Bitcoin has to be kept in a vol-managed corridor while programmable money rails get public buy-in. Letting gold run is rational if you want a nonthreatening pressure valve that: 1) stabilizes balance sheets, 2) placates reserve managers, 3) siphons speculative and hedging demand away from a grassroots MoE (Bitcoin), 4) and keeps the public believing "sound money is allowed". I'm not really interested in buying gold other than on large dips on plumbing-driven drains. Even then, I'd buy very little in relation to my NW. There is a lot of speculation and hopium in regards to the possibility of gold getting revalued higher (e.g. to $10K/oz) but I find this very unlikely. - As of now, the US allegedly holds ~261.5M oz of gold. - It is valued at $42.22/oz while the current price sits at $3,777.25/oz. - So the US could mark it to market. E.g. the ECB/Eurosystem already marks gold to market. - However, it largely does nothing, so it signals fragility if framed as "repairing the sovereign balance sheet". So timing skews to recession/credit stress or a political inflection. The odds of revaluing gold to $6K-$10K/oz I find extremely unlikely. A dramatic reprice screams monetary regime shift, risking USD confidence and imported inflation - not what policymakers want absent a crisis. It is also a limited debt cure. It improves optics (equity) but doesn't cancel nominal liabilities unless you monetize the gain, which is politically charged and inflationary. 1) What a Gold revaluation actually does (accounting) - The U.S. holds ~261.5M oz of gold (allegedly). - At $42.22/oz it sits on the books at ~$11B. - If you mark it to, say, $6,000/oz, it becomes ~$1.57T; at $10,000/oz, ~$2.62T. - The difference (to $2.62T) is an accounting gain - it boosts the government's equity/revaluation reserve. - But, this does not by itself retire any Treasury debt. The nominal debt still exists in full. 2) Why it’s a "limited debt cure" - Even at $10k/oz (~$2.6T total value), that's well under 10% of the federal debt stock (~$38T). - So, revaluation improves optics (the government looks "richer" on paper), but it's not a balance-sheet nuke that cancels most liabilities. 3) When (and only when) it helps cash and debt for real To actually pay down debt, the gain must be monetized - i.e., turned into spendable dollars that can retire Treasuries: - Sell some gold and use the proceeds to redeem debt; or - Pledge/issue new gold certificates to the Fed, which credits Treasury's account (new base money), then use that cash to retire debt. Either path creates/introduces dollars, which brings us to the inflation part. 4) Why it's "politically charged and inflationary" - Politically charged: It's an explicit, visible devaluation signal - a regime move that concedes the dollar buys less gold than the statute implies. It picks winners/losers (gold holders vs. cash/bond holders). - Inflationary risk: Monetizing the revaluation (Fed credit or gold sales used for spending/redemptions) expands the money base unless the Fed fully sterilizes it. If not sterilized - it will push inflation or force offsetting tightening elsewhere. What I mean by "the Fed fully sterilizing it": - "Sterilize" here means: if the Fed (or Treasury via the Fed) creates new base money by monetizing the gold revaluation, the Fed then drains or neutralizes that same amount so the monetary base doesn't rise. Balance sheet example (with a random number - $500B) 1) Monetization step: Treasury gives the Fed higher-value gold certificates; the Fed credits Treasury's account +$500B. The Banking system reserves rise +$500B when that money is paid out. 2) Sterilization step: Fed sells $500B of Treasuries (or uses $500B RRP). Buyers pay with reserves -> reserves −$500B. Net change in the monetary base ≈ 0. Based on my research, I expect financial repression (sticky inflation of 3-4% - headline CPI equivalent, not real -) in the US over the next 24 months, not hyperinflation nor systemic collapse. Market signaling of repricing Gold much higher Such a re-pegging/repricing can re-anchor expectations about currency, commodities, and policy - potentially lifting risk premia and term premiums in bonds. Of course, precedent exists. The 1934 reprice to $35 transferred gains to the Treasury. The legal/administrative muscle memory is there, however, the regime and tools today are different. The new fiat era is headed toward stablecoins/CBDCs with 137 countries and currency unions (98% of global GDP) developing CBDCs right now. So, I find the revaluation hopium of gold bugs unlikely because: - Revaluation alone = mostly an accounting lift (stronger "equity"), no automatic debt reduction. - True debt relief requires monetization, which is politically sensitive and will be inflationary. - Even aggressive revaluation only chips at the debt stock, so it's not a silver bullet.

Just judging by the rising ETF/treasury share, buying Bitcoin is about getting rich for most people. Of course, the getting rich part is more difficult without the possibility of sovereignty. For me and you, it's about the possibility of having control over your money, but for most it's about price exposure. Gold for most, permissionless money for few. You've articulated the problem - governments know too well, while the vast majority of the people don't know anything.

Only the propaganda penetrates the brain, the swab doesn't.

Of course, the only solution is for people to decide to stop respecting a system that robs them blind. You don't free yourself from slavery by following the rules your slave master imposed on you.

CBDCs are the collapse for whatever little sovereignty most people have left. For the system, CBDCs are a new beginning. Programmable money = Programmable populations, so you will see more NPCs than ever before.

Yeah, Argentina is a very interesting case for sure - an endless supply of scammer politicians, even more so than elsewhere. Do most people still pay taxes there?

So you didn't address any of the arguments in the posts and are coming out with more diversion and wishful thinking logical fallacies. Do you know for how long people have been calling for a hyperinflation type scenario? Maybe it will happen in Nigeria or Zimbabwe, but the US dollar system is about to get reset with stablecoins/CBDCs. Either way, good luck.

Retail demand increasingly matters less and less in a Paperized, Post-ETF environment. Post-ETF: CME futures + ETF creations/redemptions + dealer gamma do the heavy lifting. Now, advisors/RIAs/401k money -> systematic DCA, less forced selling, but more correlation to real yields/tech. If retail wants more volatility, they will chase penny Bitcoin treasury stocks or will lever up in other ways. For retail to matter more, people have to start self-custodying and stop buying paper products (especially ones that don't provide proof of reserves) and I don't see that happening any time soon.

You basically didn't read the post and the quoted post or didn't understand them. When are you expecting the next few trillion of dollars to convert to Bitcoin? Make sure to tell them to market buy spot BTC so they can move the price. None of the assumptions assume that everyone is a day trader and long term Bitcoin adoption is near zero. The post literally states that it assumes increased Paperization - custodial/ETF/futures share of float. So you didn't read or understand the post, and you definitely didn't read or understand the quoted post: In regards to your gold comment, you can try to read and understand this post and the quoted post:

My Bitcoin Price Prediction model for the next 5 years Needless to say - not financial advice, no one knows what's going to happen, many assumptions are made. The model assumes a "contained Bitcoin" regime - paperized SoV, MoE throttled, volatility damped, price never too cheap (to avoid a self-custody revolt), never too high (to avoid escape velocity). The price map (next 5 years, USD) Assumptions the Controllers enforce - Paperization floor: ETFs/custodians/futures absorb flows; self-custody grows slowly. - MoE friction: KYC wallet defaults, tax micro-frictions, merchant rails favor stablecoins. - Volatility clamp: derivatives depth + inventory warehousing + weekend-liquidity "hunts" cap blow-offs. - Don't trigger a bank-run: price suppression is subtle - a rising channel with disciplined ceilings. Year-by-year corridor (spot, end-of-year "most likely" ± range) 1) Year 1: $95k–$150k (modal: $120k). Realized vol ~ 45–55%. Draw-downs −25–35%; spikes fail in low-liquidity windows. 2) Year 2: $110k–$185k (modal: $145k). Vol 40–50%. Two policy/ETF "clarity" squeezes; tops sold into via basis/arbitrage. 3) Year 3: $120k–$210k (modal: $165k). Vol 35–45%. MoE rhetoric cools; stablecoins/CBDC pilots win merchant share. Bitcoin acts like digital gold beta. 4) Year 4: $115k–$230k (modal: $175k). Vol 30–40%. A "shock" dip (−35%) gets rapid policy patch; rebound restores the channel. 5) Year 5: $130k–$260k (modal: $190k). Vol 28–38%. New wrappers (pensions/401k feeders) add grind-up flows; blow-offs still capped. Cycle statistics under containment 1) Up-years: +15–35% (median ~+22%) 2) Down-years: −15–30% (one in 4–5 years) 3) Peak draw-downs: typically −30–40% (vs −70–85% in pre-ETF era) 4) Ceiling discipline: rallies fade into policy events (ETF inflow PR, "regulatory clarity", CBDC pilots). 5) Floor defense: sharp downdrafts arrested by ETF creations/rebalancing/basis trades; price not allowed to linger <~$90–100k for long (to avoid self-custody panic). Why the clamp works 1) Paper share rises -> realized volatility mechanically falls (inventory + option overwrites). 2) Futures/ETF basis control -> suppresses reflexive squeezes. 3) Perimeter frictions (tax, Acceptable Use Policy, KYC wallets) -> keeps MoE niche; "number go up" is paced, not explosive. How to exploit if you are a trader (only spot is covered in this post, not options) 1) Buy fear / sell clarity. - Buy when: weekend liquidation cascades, policy FUD, ETF outflow headlines, net-liquidity drains (TGA rebuild + coupon heavy), and price tags −25–35% from recent highs. - Sell when: "regulatory clarity", index inclusion rumors (e.g. MSTR), big inflow PR, or "institutional adoption" headlines into multi-month resistance. 2) Watch the Paperization Ratio (PR): custodial/ETF/futures share of float. - Paperization Ratio up -> reduce expectation of parabolic rallies. - Paperization Ratio down suddenly (custody scares, PoR memes) -> add to self-custody. 3) Respect weekend micro-structure: - Anticipate stop hunts in thin books. Place stink bids 5–12% below Friday's close; fade Monday reversion. 4) Stay away from levered long ETFs except for intraday events (they decay in capped corridors). - Do not buy and hold Bitcoin leveraged ETFs across months (containment + volatility-crush = decay). Red-flag signals (corridor breaks) 1) Sustained self-custody surge (mempool fee spikes + exchange outflows + wallets trending) while ETF premiums go negative. 2) Hard perimeter tighten (OS/app-store bans for non-KYC wallets, bank de-risking of mining/pools). 3) Major custody incident (hacks, sanctions on a top custodian) -> corridor upside (panic rotation to self-custody) or downside (convertibility doubts). 4) Macro liquidity shock (MOVE > 150 + Net Liquidity −$150B/4w) -> temporary −35–45% draw-down even in containment. What to ignore 1) "Mass adoption tomorrow" MoE narratives (flows will be steered to stablecoins/CBDC). 2) "Bitcoin to $1M in two years" (under current constraints - implausible). 3) Levered products held across months (containment + volatility-crush = decay). The Controllers' optimal Bitcoin path is a rising, volatility-capped channel: roughly $95k -> $190k median over five years, −30–40% max draw-downs, blow-offs sold, floors defended. More context:

Had to go from 95% net worth invested in Bitcoin -> 15% about 2 weeks ago. A lot of the confidence I had, vanished, once I stopped listening to podcasts with Bitcoin authority figures and started to research on my own. The reason I made the move is that I am pretty sure Bitcoin is going to become Gold. Based on my research, the masses embracing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange over stablecoins/CBDCs is a very remote probability. This doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not going to go up in fiat terms of course. I still think there are massive fiat gains to be made in Bitcoin. I'll be a buyer on draw-downs of 45-55% from ATH, and seller during "clarity" (e.g. policy, liquidity, etc.) spikes. For me, Bitcoin went from being Hope to being a hedge against "The Great Taking" type scenario and a niche, permissionless MoE. If you are unfamiliar with the book "The Great Taking": - The book describes what Webb calls "The Great Taking" - a systematic, global seizure of all collateralized assets through legal, technological, and financial mechanisms. In other words, you don't own the stuff in your brokerage account. - This is enabled by the laws in every country in the World (they were changed recently to allow for this global seizure type scenario). Of course, if this happens, then Bitcoin and Gold get revalued much higher overnight. Based on my research, the Controllers changed the laws for an edge case, this is not the base case type scenario. If I have a reason to believe that the odds of Bitcoin as a mass MoE increase over time, I will scale back into it. For now, Bitcoin is a dissident MoE, a Store of Value, and a "Great Taking" scenario type hedge, and I don't see this changing for the better any time soon. More context on the post-ETF era: More context on how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption: More context on how governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin: More context on what OG Bitcoiners don't understand:

Yeah, it's just habit for some people I know. They likely don't even enjoy it but are just used to it.

When you see people gathering to protest their government in the streets, you already know they've lost. Public outrage without alternative defaults and direction is content for the Controllers, not counter-power. If the plebs had direction and alternative defaults, then they wouldn't have to protest in the streets. E.g. if they executed a mass tax revolt + adopting Bitcoin as MoE, they wouldn't have to beg for government officials who despise them to pay attention.

Sure as AI models get better and better, people will unknowingly communicate more and more with bots. If I had to guess most of the bot networks on social media at the moment are government-run. I was mainly referring to networking with well-connected, government-linked individuals if your goal is access to information, permits, subsidies, etc.

I've been researching mainstream financial media and this might shock you but they lie a lot. However, they don't just randomly lie, so I want to know what do they lie about and why do they lie about those things. And I am not claiming that they all knowingly lie. Maybe some of the hotter chicks were hired based on looks and the mental capacity isn't fully there, so they just read words. What mainstream financial media is for: 1) Set the Overton Window for finance - Define what's "responsible investing" vs "reckless". - Normalize benchmarks (S&P, 60/40 - Stocks/Bonds), risk models (Value at Risk), and vocabulary ("transitory", "soft landing"). The outcome is that allocators mainly hug the benchmarks, as dissent results in career risk. The State mainly wants you to buy paper (bonds) and stocks of state-embedded companies. If you are going to buy Bitcoin, make sure to buy the ETF. The State-embedded companies are usually the largest companies in the world, so they get a massive passive bid from just being a large part of indices. 2) Consent engineering for policy - Testing how the plebs react to rate paths, liquidity tools, bailouts, bans. - Leak to star reporters -> watch market response -> finalize decision (shout-out to your boy Nick Timiraos). - Outcome: policies feel "inevitable" before they’re announced. 3) Volatility steering - Calm tape with reassuring chatter when liquidity is fragile. - Amplify fear during desired de-risking (tightening campaigns, sector rotations). - Outcome: realized volatility is herded into corridors that suit balance-sheet objectives. 4) Crisis choreography - Sequence: leak -> panic panel -> "adults in the room" segment -> facility explainer -> victory lap. - Outcome: short, intense crises that justify new rails while avoiding systemic spirals. - Crisis + suddenly collegial tone + veteran "adults in the room" -> policy floor coming; scale into quality growth and compliance rails. 5) Flow direction (retail & advisors) - "What to buy now" = funnel to preferred wrappers (ETFs, model portfolios). - Push yield tourists into safe supply (bills/coupons) when Treasury needs buyers. - Outcome: funding the state at scale with media as distribution. 6) Narrative gating (what doesn't exist) - Under-cover state-embedded software, identity/provenance, surveillance rails - until ownership has rotated into strong hands. - Over-cover shiny but non-governable "AI toys" (losers). - Outcome: delay smart adoption; buy time for incumbents and policy-aligned vendors. 7) Humiliation/discipline rituals - Public beatings of "irresponsible" shorts/longs at turning points. - Showcase a sacrificial villain to make the crowd internalize the rules. - Outcome: self-censorship; fewer fights against desired trend. 8) Benchmark maintenance - Obsess over index membership and mega-caps -> keep flows concentrated and predictable. - Outcome: liquidity gravity well that's easy to support/withdraw as a macro lever. 9) Plausible deniability & controlled opposition - Host contrarians who argue the losing side poorly or too early -> inoculate the audience. - Outcome: "we platform all views", but timing neutralizes them. 10) Data embargo choreography - Selective pre-briefs to prepare "explainers" that appear seconds after prints. - Outcome: defined interpretation before independent analysis can spread (narrative control). 11) Sector rotation theater - Theme weeks: "AI Infrastructure", "Onshoring", "Defense Supercycle", then "Profit Taking". - Outcome: guide flows into policy-target sectors on schedule. 12) Memory-hole management - Quietly retire bad predictions; loudly memorialize hits. - Outcome: durable credibility despite directional steering. 13) Guest-booking as throttle - They book volatility dampeners (calm, establishment macro) when funding is fragile (preserve stability); - Then they book flamethrowers when they need risk-off (they use the plebs as exit liquidity). 14) Graphic choices - Green heat-maps are used for targeted sectors, doom tickers for unwanted trades. 15) "Explainer" packages: - Pre-canned animations that make complex rails (stablecoins/CBDC, C2PA) sound like pure convenience and safety. 16) Reputational veto - Tag disfavored assets with "controversial", "unproven", "regulatory risk", even when opposite is true. 17) Image–tone mismatches - Scary voice-over paired with green boards (or vice versa) to create felt urgency despite data. So, you should treat TV as policy I/O, not information. Mainstream financial media is the flow router: it sets acceptable ideas, choreographs crisis arcs, and nudges liquidity into the rails the system needs. If you are a trader, the edge is not to "opt out", but to read the cadence: buy the policy-aligned names during fear messaging, and front-run the standards they're quietly normalizing. Another interesting thing mainstream financial media does is: - they often create a rivalry between 2 companies where there isn't any rivalry. This helps fight monopoly optics. This is often done when there is close to 0 overlap between companies - e.g. Palantir vs Salesforce. This is a completely fake rivalry designed to make Salesforce be the release valve for Palantir monopoly optics. - Procurement optics: agencies want to show "we evaluated multiple platforms". Salesforce's brand makes that easy. - Monopoly optics for PLTR: pointing to other "AI platforms" (CRM, cloud AI) diffuses monopoly narratives. - Budget politics: "We're not locked in; look, we have Salesforce for the front office". It lowers scrutiny on the real control stack. In other words, Salesforce is not a direct competitor to Palantir's mission software, but it makes it a politically convenient counterweight in slides. Nothing is random in financial markets, not even short selling.