Controversial take: For those that want to explain to others the problems with fiat currency, don’t start with Bitcoin. I know it’s tempting to give “the solution” first, but it’s confusing and triggers an instant mental “immune response.” Start with fiat currency vs. sound money. Most people don’t realize what either of those terms mean in principle or in practice. In fact, I’d go as far as to say most people have never even heard the terms. Con: This is totally new to them, so they don’t know the background. Pro: This is totally new to them, so it doesn’t map onto preexisting biases. Explain how money used to be backed by gold, how we got off of that, and what that means. Explain how money is no longer backed by assets. Then explain how money can effectively be created “out of thin air.” Tie that to inflation and debt. Take your time. Be patient. This is all new to them. And now it’s starting to gel. You may even get the question: “Wait, so, money can just be created out of thin air, and that causes inflation? How does anyone save, then?” Now you can start to talk about Bitcoin. Explain it as sound money—because it is one. Explain its benefits. Explain it as a new, not-yet-fully adopted money system. Patience. Let them argue and question it. Give calm answers. This is how you reach people who dismiss this as a fad, a gimmick, or a Ponzi scheme. If fiat is all you know—which is most people—and you think money must be backed by a centralized institution with authority to be money, then yeah. Bitcoin sounds pretty fad-like, gimmicky, and Ponzi scheme–like. It doesn’t help that bad actors have used it, either (even though bad actors have used Dollars, Euros, and whatever else, too), or that there are genuine scam cryptocurrencies out there. It all looks the same to people who don’t know the difference. It’s almost a problem of being too aware of a complex thing—it’s so known to you, you don’t necessarily remember what it was like to not understand this and be learning about it. My guess is it took some time. It took curiosity. That’s what you need to engender in others for them to want to understand. Curiosity. And then they need time to develop understanding. If you don’t think this works—I’m here because of exactly that process. Curiosity. Time. Patience. Asking questions. Seeking answers. I didn’t get Bitcoin because of the blockchain technology, or out of a desire to speculate, or out of a distrust in other currencies per se. It all looked like *just* a digital fandom and technological nerdiness. I did it once I understood enough to know *why* it was a good investment. Because I now understood what sound money and fiat currency were, and why Bitcoin is a sound money. It made logical sense. I could see how it would help me. I could defend that decision. If Bitcoin is going to be *the* sound money in the future, it needs more adoption *as* a sound money. It only makes sense that it needs to be explained that way to people in terms they already understand from a perspective they already agree with. They need to be able to be curious about it, not defensive about it. And you can help with that. Stay curious and stack sats, y’all.

Sound money is institutional honesty—what things actually cost.

Just wrote a full 38-page dissent memo on democracy, representation, and institutional realism for a pro-democracy / reform group, with counterproposals. Some early takeaways from the process and early discussion: - Citizens’ Assemblies are good for showing a snapshot of public sentiment, but can’t replace deliberative policymaking in a republic; - Especially in today’s America, any findings and/or policies from even a fully unbiased and good faith Citizens Assembly (and any supporting policy commission) will be polarizing, because enactment relies on existing legislative and executive, and therefore electoral incentive structures; - Because of this, elected officials—both “good” and “bad” ones—are incentivized to make decisions that appeal to the base that can get them elected, anyway. - As a result, the findings and any policy recommendations—whether good representations and solutions or not—instead become a new argumentative cudgel for politicians and parties to argue against each other. - Citizens’ Assemblies are, however, crucial tools for a public to rewrite the incentive structures behind elections and social choice by demonstrating preference in expressing that choice. The key is then to approach that assembly with a coalition of good faith actors, incentive- and institutional-level problems, and get feedback on a better system. In essence, good intentions that don’t address incentives and decision-making flows can do more harm than good. What do you think?

Thoroughly enjoyed this article—and especially loved this passage.

Wrote a thing. Come check it out and tell me what you think and where you think I’m wrong—or right. “If the state can fund coercive capacity without visible cost, it will expand it. If cost is visible, it must justify it. […] How can you expect a polity to tell the truth about its governance if it cannot tell the truth about its finances?”

Sound Money could Mean Better and More Trusted Law Enforcement

Sound money principles in a democracy can restrain funding and appropriations to intentional, explicit, and transparent expansions and uses of law ...

Just got done with Dave Walker’s “America in 2040: Still a Superpower?” A really good and authoritative read on America’s fiscal future, oversight challenges, and an inside perspective on reform efforts. Below is a link to the author’s webpage for the book.

America in 2040 – David Walker

A few takeaways: - Durably reforming and improving fiscal policy (and governance, generally) requires careful needle-threading and broad-based popular support built on common understanding in good faith; - When presented with the actual problem sets (including in fiscal terms), Americans are not only willing, but eager to undertake hardship to achieve sound governance and a better future; and - The existing ‘tools’ to course correct from within the oversight, Congressional, and civil service have become tangled up in political quagmire such that solving through small d democratic or small r republican methods individually seems unlikely—a combined approach seems necessary.

Curious what the Nostr community thinks: What is one principle or value you think America promises that it doesn’t fulfill (or fulfill well), and why? What’s important about that to you? How do you think we can or should recover that?

Hello, world.