@NewsAsset & @TheBlockRunner asked the only question that matters. If Bitcoin goes to $200–300T, who pays the army? Halvings cut the subsidy. Fees don’t cover it. ethereum:0x249130f5e2dd4cf278180c0df8273f3592ad1247 is the second paycheck. Same block. Same miner. ~$31M cap vs ~$10B security spend. Not a meme. The gap is the trade. piped.video/watch?v=G4_wUAMp… ethereum:0x249130f5e2dd4cf278180c0df8273f3592ad1247

BlackRock flagged Bitcoin miners as a risk factor in IBIT's 10-K. The filing says lower block rewards "could result in less of an incentive for miners," which puts network security in question. Every halving cuts the subsidy that pays for Bitcoin's security. The operators still running afterward are the ones whose power costs work at the smaller reward, so hashrate ends up wherever energy is cheap and reliable. An IBIT share tracks the price of Bitcoin and adds nothing to the hashrate protecting it. A hosted miner adds hashrate and sends the Bitcoin it produces to a wallet its owner controls. We run 4+ EH/s across 9 owned Iowa sites at 95%+ uptime, on power rates we locked in before the last halving. BlackRock's lawyers are asking who keeps hashing when the reward shrinks again. We've planned the business around that question since 2021.

This is one of the greatest misunderstandings in Bitcoin. Block subsidies getting cut in half every four years does NOT mean that there are "lower block rewards." Nominally, yes, the rewards are halved every four years. But value-wise, which is the critical factor, the rewards increase over time. For example: 50 BTC was mined every Bitcoin block until November 28, 2012. When that last 50-BTC block was mined, the market value of 50 BTC was $619. On November 28th, the Bitcoin subsidy halved from 50 BTC to 25 BTC. That's less, right? The incentive is lower, right? That's a security problem, right? Watch. 25 BTC was mined every block from November 28, 2012 to July 9, 2016. When that last 25-BTC block was mined, the market value of 25 BTC was $16,274. 50 BTC in 2012: $619 25 BTC in 2016: $16,274 The value of the "lower" block reward in 2016 was greater than the "higher" block reward in 2012. The same pattern has repeated every Bitcoin halving cycle: 50 BTC in 2012: $619 25 BTC in 2016: $16,274 12.5 BTC in 2020: $107,522 6.25 BTC in 2024: $406,215 Stop looking at nominal value. Focus on market value. There is no incentive problem. There is no security problem. Do not let fiat institutions tell you otherwise.

Two different questions about Bitcoin and NAT. Which is worth more in total? Bitcoin, by a mile. Of every $1 held, how much reaches miners each year? Bitcoin: ~0.8¢. NAT: ~5.2¢. Per dollar held, $DMT-NAT is about six times more efficient at paying for Bitcoin's security.

There is a reason @prismassets is listed #1 on this list. No other project has positioned itself within the Robinhood ecosystem as effectively for the coming RWA explosion. Robinhood Chain’s first real market formed around one asset class: Stock Tokens. Issuance was solved. The next problem was liquidity. Uniswap became the public AMM. @rialto_xyz became the execution layer with tighter spreads, institutional liquidity, aggregation, and APIs. That stack made NVDA, GME, and other Stock Tokens actually functional for onchain developers. But it mostly serves assets Robinhood issued. The much larger RWA market including treasuries, real estate, private credit, gold, third-party equities, art, royalties, and new originations still needs its own discovery, verification, issuance, and liquidity infrastructure. That’s the gap Prism is filling. Prism is cataloging and vetting 2,500+ third-party RWAs, building an RWA-specific DEX for markets vanilla AMMs struggle to serve, routing liquidity, and adding a launchpad for entirely new assets. To put it more simply. Uniswap + Rialto built the trading stack for Stock Tokens. Prism is attempting to build it for everything else. If these assets begin trading, attracting liquidity, being used as collateral, and launching on Robinhood Chain, Prism sits directly in the fee path through swaps, routing, listings, and origination. It’s not a matter of if non-stock RWA metas emerge on Robinhood Chain. It’s a matter of when. And when they do, not being positioned in the chain’s #1 all-encompassing RWA market infrastructure layer will look like a major misstep, IMO. I was there during the early days of NFTs in 2019–2020, when almost nobody cared about them. It’s actually around the same time we started @TheBlockRunner. I watched OpenSea recognize the opportunity early and spend years quietly building the market rails for an asset class that would eventually explode. That early conviction and execution turned a tiny startup with a ~$2M seed round into a $13B monster in just a few years. Guess what Prism's current market cap is? Sitting at around 2M. This is about the time when you should begin feeling butterfly's in your gut. That is what opportunity feels like. I’m convinced I’m watching a similar pattern play out again with Prism and RWAs on Robinhood Chain. The major difference? OpenSea built one of the most important marketplaces of the NFT cycle, but users had no direct way to own the upside of that infrastructure as the market grew (wen airdrop). robinhood:0x20024e485c0b22b42855589700721b28320a7777 already has a token and is positioning it with flywheel mechanics designed to benefit from the growth of the ecosystem it’s building infrastructure for. If RWAs on Robinhood Chain evolve anything like NFTs did, the biggest opportunity may not be predicting which individual assets win. It may be owning the rails they all have to travel through. People have been asking what is my #1 conviction play of this cycle, this may be it.