Roughly $2.4T was wiped out of silver today. Bitcoin’s entire market cap is about $1.7T.

Realizing you genuinely have a few more years to accumulate assets before currency debasement and AI reshape the economy.

A quick word of caution if you are thinking about buying or selling gold or silver through Facebook Marketplace or similar platforms. Verifying authenticity, purity, and weight in a private sale is harder than it sounds. Counterfeit or plated bars and coins exist for both gold and silver, and even experienced buyers can get burned. Once money changes hands, there is usually no recourse. There are also safety and legal considerations. Meeting strangers while carrying high value assets, dealing with unclear provenance, and having no formal documentation can create issues. These range from personal security concerns to tax and reporting problems later on. Gold and silver can absolutely have a place in a portfolio. But how you buy or sell them matters just as much as what you are buying. Reputable dealers, transparent pricing, proper receipts, and secure custody exist for a reason. If a deal relies on trust instead of verification, or sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This post is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute individualized investment advice.

Conviction is almost always criticized before it’s understood.

How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity! — Psalms 133:1

$STRC and $SATA are exchange-traded, perpetual preferred securities issued by companies with Bitcoin on their balance sheets, designed to trade around a $100 par value and pay variable cash distributions. $STRC recently went ex-dividend and is already trading back near $100. $SATA reached $100 for the first time today. Sustained pricing near or above par can allow issuers to raise capital efficiently, which may be used for balance-sheet purposes, including additional Bitcoin purchases. This post is about structure and mechanics, not guarantees or recommendations.

$STRC recovered its ex-dividend adjustment within a day. 🤯

When people say Bitcoin has no real-world use, they are usually speaking from the comfort of a functioning financial system. Organizations like the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) support Bitcoin for a simple reason: access to money is a human rights issue. Around the world, including in countries experiencing currency collapse, capital controls, or political instability, individuals have lost access to bank accounts without committing crimes. Funds are frozen. Transfers are blocked. Inflation erodes savings faster than wages can keep up. In those environments, the question is not about returns or speculation. It is about whether people can preserve the value of their work, receive support from others, or move money safely when traditional systems fail or become inaccessible. Bitcoin offers a neutral alternative. It does not depend on nationality, banking relationships, or institutional permission. It allows individuals to hold and transfer value directly, which can matter profoundly when financial access is restricted or unreliable. Seen through this lens, Bitcoin is not primarily a financial product. It is infrastructure. And for many people globally, access to neutral financial infrastructure is not a luxury. It is a necessity.

There is only one actual innovation in this entire space, and it is not “blockchain.” Blockchains existed long before Bitcoin in the form of append-only ledgers, Merkle trees, hash-chained data structures, and distributed databases. Those tools were already well understood and already in use. On their own, they did not change the world or create a new monetary system. Bitcoin did. Bitcoin solved something no system before it had solved: digital money without a central issuer, administrator, or control point, operating on open rules that cannot be changed by leadership, lobbying, or emergency governance. That combination is the breakthrough. Everything else in this industry is built on top of it or imitates parts of it. Most so-called “cryptos” are centralized systems with mutable rules. Their consensus models change when it becomes inconvenient. Their monetary policies are revised. Their roadmaps are shaped by foundations, companies, or identifiable leadership. Their networks can be paused, upgraded, or redirected through social coordination. Bitcoin does not work that way. Bitcoin has no CEO, no marketing team, no foundation, no admin keys, and no governing body. There is no one to call, no one to persuade, and no one to replace. That is not a weakness. That is the entire point! Money must be stable, neutral, and resistant to capture. Bitcoin’s core rules are intentionally difficult to change, and consensus is earned slowly through voluntary economic alignment, not votes, narratives, or influence. This is why Bitcoin stands alone. If a system can be upgraded by a small group, marketed by a team, or redirected by leadership, it is not new money. It is just software with a token. Bitcoin is not competing with those systems. It is solving a different problem entirely. #BitcoinOnly.

Most people think holding cash is the safe choice. Avoiding risk entirely may introduce different risks over time. Bitcoin’s supply is fixed at 21 million, which makes it fundamentally different from currencies that can be created as needed. For educational purposes only. Not investment advice.

This message was embedded in #Bitcoin’s 666,666th block. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” — Romans 12:21

Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. — 1 John 3:13

MSCI is considering excluding companies from its indexes if digital assets make up more than half of their balance sheet. 70%+ ($3.7B) of MSCI's assets are classified as “intangible” (goodwill and other intangible assets).​ Ironic that the “intangible” digital assets being targeted are exponentially more liquid, observable, and tradeable than “goodwill and other intangible assets.” REITs hold real estate. Timber companies hold timber. Gold miners hold gold. Oil and gas companies hold oil and gas. No one calls them “funds.” They are widely accepted as operating companies. Yet 54% of MSCI Inc.’s balance sheet assets are goodwill. By that logic, should MSCI be considered a goodwill “fund”? Do you hear how absurd that sounds? 1. High asset concentration does not make a company a fund. Many operating companies are naturally asset-concentrated by design. REITs hold real estate. Timber firms hold timber. Oil and gas companies hold hydrocarbons. Gold miners hold gold. None of these are treated as investment funds or excluded from major equity indices simply because of balance sheet composition. 2. A fixed percentage threshold is arbitrary and unworkable. Using a 50% asset test tied to volatile assets creates instability. Asset values fluctuate, accounting treatments differ, and companies could move in and out of index eligibility without any change in their underlying business operations. That distorts index construction and undermines consistency. 3. This approach injects subjective policy judgments into index construction. Index providers are meant to reflect market reality neutrally, not decide which assets are acceptable to hold. Singling out Bitcoin while ignoring identical balance-sheet logic applied elsewhere breaks long-standing indexing principles and erodes confidence in benchmark neutrality. $MSTR is not a fund. It is an operating company. And balance sheet composition alone does not change that.

“Deflation is the natural state of a free market. And only #Bitcoin can measure it.” — @Jeff Booth

Bitcoin doesn’t need to become a day-to-day medium of exchange to succeed. Hal Finney understood this very early. He wrote that Bitcoin transactions might be rare, with most activity happening on higher layers or through intermediaries. Individuals would hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset, while institutions would handle payments and credit on top of it. Bitcoin, in his eyes, functioned as base-layer money, not retail payment rails. Strategy’s preferred equity products effectively treat Bitcoin as a digital reserve asset. Bitcoin sits at the base, while these credit instruments are built on top. Most users never touch the base layer, just like most people never move physical gold. People forget the credit market for gold was almost 3x larger than the market for gold itself. Lately I’ve been thinking more about the idea of true transactional digital money. A product like $STRC is about 5x overcollateralized with Bitcoin, which keeps volatility relatively low, though it isn’t perfect. It doesn’t hold a strict $100 peg well enough to be used as a true transactional asset, but it’s far more stable than holding raw Bitcoin directly. This is where I think institutions eventually come in. This part is speculative, but it’s easy to imagine Strategy offering institutions like JPMorgan or Morgan Stanley a savings-account-style product with $STRC as the underlying plumbing. $STRC currently yields around 10.75%, which gives banks plenty of margin. They take deposits, allocate into $STRC, offer customers a high-yield, zero-volatility savings account, and earn the spread. Strategy, in turn, uses those funds to buy more Bitcoin and further overcollateralize the credit instruments built on top. Digital money doesn’t need high transaction volume at the base layer. It needs credibility, scarcity, and final settlement. Bitcoin provides those properties. Everything else can scale above it. Bitcoin succeeds not by replacing Visa, but by replacing the monetary foundation those systems sit on.

#Bitcoin, #Gold, & #Silver all going parabolic is not a sign of a healthy monetary system…

We love because he first loved us. — 1 John 4:19