Only a Fed would call out another Fed. Typical behavior. 😉 View quoted note →

Started mapping out Nostr users and their connections. Realized everyone here is either… A fed. A fed pretending not to be a fed. A fed pretending to be a fed pretending not to be a fed. Actually just a fed #FedStr

Authenticity is rare because pretending is easier.

Bitcoin holders are stewards of a powerful tool. The real measure isn’t what we accumulate, but what we pass forward and how we use what’s in our hands to create value that outlasts us.

Your children will be formed by someone. If it’s not primarily you, then by default it’s everyone else. That’s not a delegation you can afford to make unconsciously.

If your success didn’t bother anyone, it wouldn’t be success. Pressure only forms when something is actually moving.

GM ☀️☕️ Every morning brings a fresh set of opportunities. Most people sleep through them or scroll past them. The difference between where you are and where you want to be often comes down to recognizing these moments and acting on them.

Seriously….Would you be on Nostr if Bitcoin / Zaps didn’t exist? Or did Bitcoin teach you to care about sovereignty first, and everything else followed? Is the social layer downstream from the monetary innovation, or the other way around? How many people do you want to answer this question? That’s up to you. Follow up post coming…

All adoption is mutual recognition. The question contains its own answer. View quoted note →

One of the most underappreciated aspects of Nostr is the quality of disagreement that occurs here. Setting aside technical debates like knot versus Core (which themselves demonstrate how substantive discussion can happen), what strikes me most is the absence of personal destruction as a rhetorical strategy. On legacy platforms, disagreement has become synonymous with character assassination. The algorithm rewards outrage, the architecture encourages pile ons, and the incentive structure makes demolishing your opponent more valuable than understanding their position. Every debate becomes a referendum on someone’s worth as a human being rather than an examination of ideas. Nostr offers something different, not because its users are inherently more virtuous, but because the protocol itself removes many of the perverse incentives that corrupt discourse elsewhere. There are no engagement metrics to maximize, no algorithmic amplification of controversy, no central authority to appeal to for the suppression of dissent. You can mute, you can block, but you cannot mobilize a platform against someone. This creates space for intellectual honesty. People can be wrong without being evil. Arguments can be heated without being personal. The goal becomes persuasion or mutual understanding rather than social annihilation. The test of any communication medium is not whether everyone agrees, but whether disagreement can occur without degrading into tribal warfare. By that measure, Nostr is passing a test that centralized social media has catastrophically failed. This alone makes it worth being here