No but the incentive to write about his position could be fucked. Statist vibes.

No? Militaries are actually pretty good and developing practical technology. And I can only assume they're taking Bitcoin seriously with Lowery within it. I'm take the very un-humble stance that it has value because I consider it valuable. And I'm a very good judge of ideas.

The military isn't the state, even though the state directs the military. I think a lot of people lump them together. What Lowery did was take a standard career path for officers to conduct research on potential new military technology. And he did it on Bitcoin and produced a novel academic work for how Bitcoin is a means for anyone to have agency in cyberspace, not just administrative states or militaries, even though national security is his primary interest. Like, if only a state or military could use Bitcoin the way he describes, it would be a pretty garbage protocol. I don't think he was ever dishonest, but he is required by his position to withhold military secrets.