Most people think AI requires technical skills they don't have. It doesn't. It requires the skills you've spent your entire career building — you just don't have a name for them yet. Last week, I published a book about it. No prompt engineering tips. No tool tutorials. A thinking framework for professionals who want AI to compound what they already know. Live now: amazon.com/dp/B0GSPKS4K9 Read the introduction for free: asymmetricderisking.substack…

Since we’re talking about distribution/payment frequency. I completely overlooked that $DCAP intends to pay weekly. Their cash drag approaches zero if both of their holdings pay daily. Interesting.

Just received my first box of Digital Real Estate 📙 A few friends who pre-ordered the book have told me that their copies haven’t arrived yet, while some who ordered through Amazon have already received theirs. Those orders appear to be arriving faster, pre-orders should reach you within the next 7–10 business days. I am looking forward to the Bitcoin Treasuries Conference on Monday and celebrating the book release at PubKey on Tuesday! ⚡

The inaugural Midwest Bitcoin Summit is officially in the books. Thank you to every speaker, sponsor, builder, volunteer, and Bitcoiner who made history with us in Columbus. This was Year One. We’re just getting started. 🧡

It's a wrap, @MWBTCSummit was amazing! An inaugural conference at the bottom of a bear? What a resounding success by any and every measure!!! @AndrewTilmann 👏👏👏 Looking forward to next year! The only thing that could top the amazing venue and schedule was the amazing bitcoiners!!! My personal highlights: Humbled to share the stage with @NeilJacobs @StacingSats @Bcuz21 @coin_vigilante @ChewFUgum Witnessing how @ABCundrstandBTC explains bitcoin to precoiners through a Bitcoin Treasure Hunt @chodl @tiffany_varty @JumpOutGirls with @RedTailHawk19 @OGBringFacts Chatting with @1basemoney about bitcoin in the Baltics and how Tallinn was a part of my bitcoin origin story @theothermjordan always enjoy the based, not just bitcoin convos, convos @HodlTarantula "WHAT?" AND ESPECIALLY ... reconnecting with or meeting bitcoiners IRL for the first time: @PaulaBTCEdge @ProofOfMoney @TsellyAndFrens @dotkrueger @bensig @bitcoinerliz @AdamSimecka @leemurdock @sesi_the_man @SeedSigner @sboyle @lindeymagee @Georgecostos @theDAHTcom @CincoDoggos @bitbybitbullish @RothenbergBrian @michelleweekley @ColeStuart177 @Andrew_J_Howard @GLord75 @ScottLindberg93 @MitchMatchMusic @DecoyWalletApp @KrisAltairtech @bitcoinbenjiii @LindsayNFaust @marsspitsbarz @HumbleWarrior @deathandbitcoin @MiKeThEwReNcH8 ... and the many others I missed or couldn't find on X Until next time, keep calm, bitcoin on

Bitcoin is changing everything we know about real estate. But how? Join us for the release of @leonwankum's new book Digital Real Estate, where he answers exactly that. Come and celebrate the release! 🗓️ Tuesday, 9/29 🕢 7:30 PM 📍 PUBKEY NYC RSVP: luma.com/pubkey-euq1

NYC Book Release Party 📙 We’re celebrating the release of Digital Real Estate at @PubKey on September 29. I first met the PubKey crew before I had even started thinking about writing the book, and before PubKey existed. Since then, they’ve been part of the journey, while PubKey has established itself as an important hub for global Bitcoin culture. I am more than happy to celebrate the release there. I’m looking forward to seeing many familiar faces, and hopefully some new ones too! If you’re in New York, come join us. Doors open at 7:30 PM.

The thing people don’t understand about $MSTR is…. Every measly $100 that Bitcoin goes up Strategy gains $85,000,000 in equity

Just two days after Digital Real Estate became available on Amazon, I’m already receiving the first pictures from friends holding the book. This one is from a friend in Germany, and apparently the book is already traveling. ✈️ Very surreal to see it out in the world.

Worth watching the video to see what’s now here

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead. You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement. I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible. But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want. Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well. So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it. If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.

Metaplanet: some thoughts. Sorry in advance for a long post. I have spent the past few days watching the discussions and analysis around the Metaplanet situation and trying to form a balanced opinion. The sequencing of events has been unfortunate. Though the company’s announcement on 18 August seems to be a very solid step in the right direction, it hasn’t been broadly recognised as such: there is a bad taste around this and values are being called into question. Values are important to me, particularly fairness and integrity….and indeed, my honest first reaction to it was “why did it take a collection of angry investors to correct something that was so clearly not aligned with shareholder interests? Why did the company not proactively do this…?” The value created for management at today’s share price is in the region of $500mln: an enormous amount of money, but in seeking to be fair myself, that number is to some degree exacerbated by the success of the company in accreting a huge amount of bitcoin, not to be sniffed at: 40x on BTC Yield since the strategy began (including all extra issuances). The more I thought it over, and asked myself what I would have done in a similar position, I realised that the ‘when’ it should have been actioned, is not entirely straightforward. It is an unclear line, a line that most often is defined more clearly by an event like this (ie shareholder outcry). Simon and the team have added significant value to the company's shareholders and at least one person has pointed out that hedge funds charge a performance fee in the region of 20%... I have often thought of BTCTCs as a Hedge Fund sat on top of an ETF…. If every dilution is still accretive when including the Series 10, then, it is essentially just that; a performance fee. But on that argument, I remain unconvinced. So, I do believe the team added value and deserve to be rewarded for turning a company on the verge of bankruptcy into the fastest growing Japanese stock in 2024, but the question is: When did this go too far? When was the reward for the value provided by management “unfair”? So unfair that it became an integrity issue? And to answer that, I looked at the timeline: In 2023, shareholders voted at a shareholder meeting to approve this structure, designed in order for leadership to maintain voting rights, with warrants to be issued for dilution protection struck at the share price at the time. Fair at the time. And again, to be balanced: the company was in a terrible situation, and the Series 10s were paid stock options that holders purchased with their own money, issued when the business was carrying a going-concern footnote in its accounts. Bankruptcy was a realistic outcome at that point. Once the business changed to a BTCTC in 2024, the structure was maintained. It was not clear how much dilution would be happening in that first year and indeed it was initially a bumpy ride. Nobody had really formed a strong view about multiple to NAV, and accretive dilution was yet to be a term or indeed function that the market fully understood. 2025 saw the strategy explode with the support of massive institutional shareholders like Capital Group. Each raise inclusive of the warrants remained accretive. It’s worth perhaps noting here that while many of us had missed the anti-dilution feature embedded in the company, the institutional investors will definitely be aware of it. Towards the end of the year, many more copycat strategies emerged from nations all across the world, a small group of us even attempted it here in Switzerland with @future_hodlings, but none had fallen into the specific tax advantaged edge that Metaplanet had found in Japan combined with the NISA accounts (similar to the UK ISA that had helped MSTR gain so much traction there in the early days). Then in September Metaplanet made their move towards the US with a disastrous raise that saw any mNAV premium annihilated (still accretive though even with the Series 10). Today, after months of trying to break through the molasses of Japanese regulations to enter the pref market, Metaplanet have done what looks like a spectacular deal in the US to quickly start issuing prefs into the US market. (Note, the Japanese regulators are extremely conservative generally, more so when it comes to Bitcoin, and so when Metaplanet clears this, it will be quite a moat). So where in this timeline would it have been fair to assess the dilution protection methodology that at such a low strike warrant was really just heavy compensation for Simon and team? Maybe it would have been Summer of 2025. Obviously, prior, the company had raised billions of dollars at 5x to 7x mNAV, capturing enormous accretive value for shareholders, but now things were beginning to look problematic, the stock began a brutal drawdown in line with the market, so perhaps it wasn’t the first thing on their mind… Perhaps. Ok, so let’s say something should have been done about it in summer 2025. Since June 2025, shares issued were 700mln (including the Series 10, so around 140mln shs accrued to the company leadership). At today’s values that is an extra $220mln of value – nearly half of the $500mln total. That 140mln shs is probably the quantum that was ‘unfair’. The shares accrued prior were generous but closer to something fair: bear in mind many shares were accrued at much lower levels. To state that we should retroactively look at the value today with stock in the hundreds of yen vs where they were bought when the stock was in the tens of yen (on the verge of bankruptcy), is not fair either. The plan announced August 18, is that the adjustment mechanism that grew the Series 10 pool with every raise has now been removed, the pool is now fixed, holders are locked up for five years on any shares received on exercise, and 20% of the rights (62mln shs) are being transferred into a new long-term incentive plan for officers and employees. While it hasn’t officially been stated clearly, that would imply no new ESOP for 5 years. All shareholders fund at this point are Simon and the team's fairly modest salaries. And here is a very important consideration, in the interest of being fair (while holding others to a standard of fairness): changes of this kind at a listed company are not made on a whim. The Superplanet transaction and the Series 10 amendment landing on the same day points to a planned sequence rather than a reaction, and work of this sort typically takes months with the board and the SAR holders: the five-year lock-up and the 20% transfer into a new incentive pool will both have required holder agreement. And now, the Series 10 position cannot be monetized until August 2031, eight years after the holders paid for the options in 2023. All this happened very quickly after the flagging by some shareholders. On top of this, Simon’s statement the other day hinted that they are looking at further options to clean up this situation. I have spent a lot of time with Simon over the past few years and consider him a friend, and I believe (of course my personal opinion) that he is of good character and will likely do more to make things right. So now, for a moment, lets look forward as shareholders. Alot of people are asking me ‘should I sell Metaplanet?’ These are the facts: - The anti-dilution program for the management has been capped: the pool is fixed and no longer grows with new issuance - mNAV is ~0.8x - They are positioned to launch a US pref (the benefits to ASST of the same has seen the stock's mNAV rise to near 2x) - They are still the only BTCTC employing put underwriting as a strategy - 20% of the Series 10s have been announced to be shifted into a new incentive pool (likely no ESOP to dilute further for the next 5 years) I'm still not comfortable with the extra 78mln shares (140mln, less the 62mln now allocated to future compensation). That said, selling now, with the slate being cleansed and an embedded option that further changes may reduce dilution further thus raising BTC per share, would be an emotional move rather than a considered one. Napkin maths can help reconcile the remaining bad taste. Over eight years, the 20% incentive works out to roughly 2.5% per year (we had planned a 2% annual ESOP at Future), against BTC per share that compounded 40x in two years. With Superplanet issuing preferreds in the US as a consolidated subsidiary, and a Japan-listed preferred a plausible next step given the work the company has already described, Metaplanet has the potential for significant growth. So, I won’t be selling. In fact, when I have cash coming in, this would likely be my number one buy in the BTCTC suite (NFA). To wrap up perhaps my longest post ever, I would have preferred to see this addressed before shareholders forced the issue, but credit where it's due: the response has been fast, substantive and meaningful, implying that it was indeed being planned by management. While these moments are often painful for all involved, when the dust settles on this, shareholders are most definitely in better shape and have a management team that is incentivized, and well positioned to win.

We are aware of a security incident on @Liquid_BTC. Purported white-hat hackers have withdrawn ~4,000 BTC (~$320 million) from the Liquid Federation wallet. The @Blockstream team is working on contacting them on-chain with a signed message. What we know so far is that the funds were withdrawn via the SideSwap PAK (Peg-out Authorization Key), but that key was not compromised, nor were any others. Exchanges have been notified and have already paused (or will pause) LBTC deposits and withdrawals. Other Liquid assets such as USDT, DePix, and RWAs are unaffected by this security incident. Bridge nodes have been temporarily disabled, so no new transactions can be submitted to the network. Effectively, the Liquid sidechain is paused until this issue is resolved. Liquid wallets will be impacted, and we're sorry for any inconvenience. Federation members are actively working on resolving this so we can restore normal network activity. You can monitor the situation via @mempool's liquid.network site below: mempool.space/address/bc1qdl…

@PeterBTCAdviser is the man.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m delusional about Bitcoin. Then I remember I’m constantly trying to disprove the thesis. I keep coming back to the same conclusion: The world needs better collateral. Real estate is valuable, but it’s illiquid, local and debt-dependent. Bitcoin is liquid, global, scarce, portable and divisible. It’s increasingly looking like the answer.

I have read multiple Bitcoin “insurance policies” in the last 4 weeks from multiple jurisdictions to evaluate them for myself. None of them are true Bitcoin insurance by my definition or my expectation for when I’m buying “insurance”. Most of them fall back to relying on the tech stack if ANYTHING happens - so why I am paying for insurance? That’s okay btw - as long as you trust the tech stack - part of buying insurance/warranty for me is in-case the maker of the car has an unknown fault that resurfaces in 5 years for example. Cold Card was a tech stack issue. None of the insurance policies I’ve read would have covered that. They say “Cyber Attacks of Any Kind” are excluded. And all the providers respond to me is: but that wouldn’t have happened if you used our super fancy wiz-bang tech stack and therefore the insurance wouldn’t be needed, so therefore you’re safe. Every Bitcoin larper told me Cold Card was safe on every podcast, every clubhouse room and every Twitter. I don’t trust them anymore - forgive me - even if I love the teams. While I’m not smart enough to evaluate a tech stack - I am smart enough to evaluate insurance. This is how I think you should look at buying Insurance for your Bitcoin: 1. Assess what threat vectors you personally have. Is it a physical wrench attack, is it social engineering, is it accidental typing a wrong address, is it jurisdiction etc etc 2. Get the POLICY WORDING - not the ceo/investor larping - because you are being covered by the policy not the naive Bitcoiner excited about their tech. 3. Skip straight to the EXCLUSIONS page - this is the list of things that will EXPLICITLY not be covered in the event that the insurance is needed & decide if it’s right for you. ALL insurance to me is defined by the exclusions list & this is where you can personally decide IF what is being presented is actual insurance for what you need OR it’s illusory. NONE - ZERO - of the Bitcoin insurance policies I’ve read in multiple different jurisdictions cover ANYTHING to do with a digital wrench attack on your Bitcoin. Your Bitcoin gets stolen because something breaks on the tech stack - the insurance evaporates. NONE of the insurance policies I’ve read worldwide cover ANYTHING to do with social engineering your Bitcoin out of your hands - the insurance EVAPORATES. If however, your threat vector is a literal $5 wrench attack - they all seem reasonable at that. Which led me to wondering if the insurance underwriters even evaluated the tech security to any depth. Because if I can put a bunch of exclusions that say “cyber attack of any kind” are excluded then I can underwrite the insurance KNOWING the likelihood of that happening is very low and if anything happens to the tech - the insurance evaporates anyway. Look - these products are not good for me. Maybe they’re good for you - but from my reading NONE are covering anything to do with a tech issue or a digital wrench attack. And if I have to “TRUST” anyone - then I’m sorry - I’m trusting the $14 Trillion AUM attached to the literal money printer - not The Bitcoiners. All these Bitcoin custody guys will be looking for exits if their market is mainly retail as I said since 2024 - the big boys are here to eat their lunch - so be FULLY AWARE of what you are buying and what is NOT covered. That being said I will say again - relatively good across on actual physical wrench attacks if that is your threat vector. And do NOT trust any investor of any of these companies - as I proved to those smart enough to pay attention - NONE that I spoke to are using the product or reading the insurance policy wording before claiming “it’s Bitcoin insurance”. This will be the last I say on this as at this point I fundamentally believe that keeping Bitcoin is an IQ test but I wanted to be on the right side of history on what these products are - seemingly no one else with a platform does. And they say I’m the one that’s “paid off”. Good luck.

IMPORTANT PSA FOR ALL BITCOINERS So in spite of most influencers not saying a word about this, bitcoin just forked into two different coins. I will call them core Bitcoin and blake Bitcoin here. If you had a core Bitcoin in the past, you now also have a Blake Bitcoin also. And since the fork was not planned months ahead, there is no built in replay protection. Which means when you spend your Bitcoin on one network, there is a real danger of that coin also being sent on the other network. To protect both of your coin, you need to do your own replay protection. This is best done by sending your bitcoin to yourself in a newly created wallet with a new seed, or to your exchange on the legacy chain along with an op_return output of 90 bytes or more. This transaction will be ignored on the Blake Bitcoin chain as op_returns of more than 83 bytes are invalid on that chain. Use your favorite AI to guide you on how to best do this. Please share, quote, are retweet so every Bitcoiner knows about this. And ask yourself why your favorite influencer is not saying a word about this. Cheers

A timeline of one man's cunning inheritance tax scheme. 2008: Buy a thousand acres in Oxfordshire. Tell The Times that dodging inheritance tax is the critical thing. Scheme live. 2009 to 2018: Do absolutely nothing. A villager farms it on contract. Flawless. 2019: The villager retires. Rather than hire another one, decide to farm a thousand acres yourself, having never grown anything. Also 2019: Invite a film crew. 2020: Rain for nine weeks. Profit on a thousand acres: £144. 2021: Broadcast the £144 to the largest streaming platform on earth, thereby informing the entire planet that farmland makes nothing. 2021: Open a farm shop. Acquire a queue down a lane and the undivided attention of West Oxfordshire District Council. 2022: Restaurant refused. Enforcement notice. Six weeks to take a barn apart. 2023: Lose the appeal. Lose it again. May 2024: Accidentally get English planning law rewritten. Lawyers name it Clarkson's Clause. August 2024: Open a pub selling only British food. Sell your own sausage at 74p against 18p imported, and eat the difference on every plate. October 2024: The Chancellor caps agricultural property relief at a million. Scheme dead. November 2024: Stand on a platform in Westminster in front of thirteen thousand farmers, drawing maximum national attention to the exact tax break you were supposedly hiding behind. July 2025: Go down with TB. First calf ever born on the farm destroyed, pregnant with twins. Gate padlocked. 23 December 2025: Government retreats. The threshold goes from one million to two and a half. Five million for a couple. March 2026: Farm declared clear. July 2026: Drive four hundred miles to Scotland and buy more cows. Eighteen years. Planning law changed. Agricultural degree applications climbing. Cited in the Commons more times than most ministers manage. Half the estates that were going to be caught by the tax are no longer caught by it. He was accused of buying a farm to dodge inheritance tax, and then spent eighteen months getting the relief raised for everybody else's. Worst tax dodger in British history. Best thing to happen to British farming in fifty years.

Most Bitcoiners will bounce off Ben McKenzie’s "Everyone Is Lying to You for Money" the second they hear “crypto documentary.” Don’t. This is not a debate about whether Bitcoin is money. It’s a tour of what happened when a self-custody idea got swallowed by exchanges, celebrity tokens, leverage, and TradFi wrappers that treat “crypto” as a casino chip. McKenzie is a skeptic. He lumps a lot together. Watch it anyway. Then argue the part that matters. Bitcoin’s ethos is verify, don’t trust. Don’t hand keys to a middleman. Don’t confuse number-go-up with sound money. Don’t pretend FTX, Celsius, Super Bowl ads, and nation-state PR tours are the same thing as a bearer asset with a fixed supply. The film is useful precisely because it shows how TradFi and the industry used the word “crypto” to sell speculation while calling it freedom. That’s a conversation Bitcoiners should want, not dodge. Watch it. Disagree out loud. Separate the protocol from the carnival. everyoneislying.com/ @ben_mckenzie @gladstein @BTCsessions @nayibbukele @DavidFBailey @TheBitcoinConf

One small step for man, one giant leap for healthy tastiness! On October 5, Steak n Shake's buns will officially achieve escape velocity from the seed-oil era. The Eagle's buns have landed, and they're unapologetically drenched in pure Grade AA Wisconsin butter. Since the day man landed on the Moon, he has sought out new and ever greater challenges. The grass-fed, grass-finished Steakburger with seed-oil free buns has broken through to a new frontier. Our MAHA voyage continues! 🇺🇸🚀🍔