WallStreetTechnologist, exGoldman Sachs. Scientific method over ideology. Answering your rhetorical questions since 2014. u/1254 $digitsu

Japan
Financial markets always teeter on the precipice of collapse and volatility. But that is to be expected when you have a free market system that optimizes to maximize. Once a free market has maximized and stabilized at any given point of agreement (price) given the thousands of factors and variables that has led the market to settle on a given point, any removal or disturbance in the inputs will make it topple. That is expected. What is also to be expected is that things will settle out somewhere else. Stability will come eventually. What never happens is continual volatility or continual up or down. Once you understand this you will understand why BTC model (always going up) is DOA. And those who try to convince you otherwise (like MSTR) are just trying to sucker you in to keep the pump going on a bit longer so they can exit first.
4
1
29
26,535
Super important. Once all three recognized as digital commodities finally the race for utility value will be open market determined not hype and marketing budget determined.
I want to provide an update for the BSV community regarding the current US regulatory landscape and how it applies to BSV. The CLARITY Act failed to get a vote in the Senate. This happened in spite of a bill that had passed the House in a bipartisan manner, and after more than a year of debate in the Senate. However - this doesn't mean the conversation is over. It means the rulebook is now being written by the CFTC and the SEC, and both agencies have already made it clear they intend to move forward with or without Congress, and are expected to draw heavily on the CLARITY Act as a framework for their rulemaking. I want to share where BSV stands in all of this, because we've been in the room with both. At the CFTC, we covered the full picture, financial use cases included. But what they latched onto was the data utility side: blockchain as infrastructure for data at scale. And they were genuinely excited, because this was new messaging for them. Ninety-nine percent of the industry lobbying them isn't talking about that. That positioning is a winning one, and it's helping regulators and legislators understand there's far more to this technology than what they've been told. Why is this message so new to them? Because the industry has spent over a decade pushing bad narratives, and nearly all of them trace back to one assumption: that these systems don't scale. Every workaround, every "digital gold" story, every excuse for why blockchain can't do real work comes from that mistake. We walked in with a different message: Bitcoin always scaled. It was designed to from day one in 2009. BSV is just proving it to the world. At the SEC, we addressed one of the biggest misconceptions in the CLARITY Act: the idea that a blockchain's maturity can be measured by how decentralized its governance is. Decentralization was treated as a coefficient for maturity. That gets it backwards. There's a fundamental confusion here between decentralized governance and distributed systems. Bitcoin was never meant to be governed by committee. It's a distributed network with defined rules. What actually matters is a locked protocol. When the protocol is set in stone, anyone can build on top of it without worrying that the rules will change underneath them. That's what enables unbounded innovation. That's why the Association maintains the Network Access Rules and protects the original protocol. The result is maximum "decentralization" where it actually counts: in innovation and application building, not in protocol politics. We also reinforced something I've said many times: BSV is the restoration of the original Bitcoin protocol. We are rooted in Bitcoin's history. That matters more than ever. In March, the SEC and CFTC issued joint guidance recognizing BTC and BCH as digital commodities. Our meeting was an education, and they were highly receptive to it. They left understanding why BSV shares the very same fundamental principles the agencies are looking for in a digital commodity, because BSV is that protocol, restored. The rules are being written right now. We intend to make sure they're written with the original Bitcoin in mind: the scalable one, the regulation-friendly one.
4
36
718
Start with the question that polite discussion usually avoids. If a protocol cannot be changed by its creator, by me, by you, or by anyone else, then who is threatened by it? If VSP provides fixed rules upon which anyone may build, transact and compete without seeking permission, then opposition to it is not merely technical. It is institutional. Who benefits from mutable rules? Who profits from remaining the indispensable middleman? Who prefers a system in which developers, custodians, exchanges, committees and fashionable little priesthoods can decide what users may do next? The existing order is sustained by people whose power depends upon uncertainty, permission and intervention. Fixed rules are dangerous to them because fixed rules prevent them from selling influence over tomorrow. That is the real meaning of decentralisation. It is not running a home node and congratulating oneself for possessing a copy of the ledger. A spectator does not become sovereign merely by owning binoculars. Decentralisation means being able to build, transact, innovate and compete without answering to a committee, a maintainer, a corporation or a self-appointed guardian of the protocol. It means no one can rewrite the rules to favour friends, punish rivals or preserve an obsolete business model. A system is not decentralised because everyone may watch. It is decentralised because no one may command.
4
27
93
4,304
Jerry David Chan retweeted
Think about the inversion for a moment. I am the one who has been villainised for defending the individual—for insisting that Bitcoin must have a fixed protocol so that no developer, corporation, exchange or foundation can seize control of it. I put tens of millions of my own family’s money into that fight. I threw everything at building the technology, restoring the protocol and releasing the tools. I dealt with compromised systems, intrusions, litigation and years of organised public hostility. Then look at what stood against me. COPA was backed by interests connected to Meta, Jack Dorsey, Coinbase and some of the largest corporate players in the world—organisations collectively representing trillions of dollars in capital and influence. Yet many of you convinced yourselves that they represented the small individual, while I represented centralised control. Think about that. I argued for rules that even I could not change. They defended a system directed by a small group of developers and supported by exchanges, custodians and corporate infrastructure. I argued that anyone should be able to build, compete and accept payment. They supported restrictions that pushed ordinary users back towards middlemen. You were told that concentrated corporate power was decentralisation, while the person demanding a protocol beyond anyone’s control was the villain. If you genuinely care about the small individual, stop repeating the branding and examine the structure of power.
32
141
368
14,283
75 years later China has PROVEN that capitalism wins. It started communist socialist and prospered only when it went full capitalist. I think if Canada hates US so much and their brand of capitalism (gov lite) then they should embrace China’s version of capitalism (gov heavy). But make no mistake China is communist only in name. Perhaps the name (the ideal) was the only thing about Marx’s theory that actually had value. The dream that is useful only as a dream to give those at the bottom of the society hope. For while American capitalism gives the dream so that those at the bottom have a PURPOSE, Japanese capitalism’s dream is one that instills a sense of DUTY and HONOR in work, the dream that worked for the psyche of 1.6billion Chinese peasants is that big brother will take care of you. Whatever version of capitalism you subscribe to, take a minute to marvel at how well the system has worked for all the people of earth. Compared to the feudalism of the past or the failed experiments such as North Korea, pre-1980s China etc
3
305
Next up in the Less-talk More-Build pipeline! Konareef.ai Build secure AI workflows that are traceable, accountable, trustable! Backed by blockchain technology and ready for the agentic economy Build the new economy. Now looking for private beta testers.
1
2
6
667
The age of the bucket shops is coming to a close. Wright was right. Just wrong about the when. (8years late)
Important Notice After a careful evaluation of the Company's operating conditions, market environment, and future strategic direction, BitMart has made the difficult decision to commence an orderly wind-down of its trading platform operations. We deeply regret having to make this decision. Key dates: • Jul 26, 2026, 01:30 UTC: New registrations, deposits, and new trading orders will begin to be suspended. • Aug 26, 2026, 01:00 UTC: All trading services will be discontinued. • Jan 31, 2027, 15:59 UTC: Platform operations will officially cease. Withdrawal services will remain available. We strongly encourage all users to close positions, complete KYC (if needed), and withdraw assets as early as possible. Please read the full announcement for important timelines and instructions: 🔗 bitmart.zendesk.com/hc/en-us… Thank you for your trust and support over the years. ❤️
2
4
29
1,310
How many projects are you working on concurrently? If you aren’t working on 5-6 projects at once now that we have the AI tools we do then you are underperforming and will likely be replaced by someone who is. Find a master. Be an apprentice. Or find another profession.
3
3
631
Remember this? I do. TechLead Scammed You With Million Token (as a millionaire) piped.video/pLrRt8R9zRA?si=stRc… via @YouTube Let's remember who the F**Kers of the crypto-FOMO scammer phase were. Time to purge these people from the industry.
1
1
6
757
Jerry David Chan retweeted
Replying to @PacArtCollect
Read the white paper
1
1
223
HOT TAKE: what is wrong with this picture? If someone who is obviously male, tells you to that they pronouns are He/They -- he comes across as a pretentious douchebag. (and rightly so) If someone who is obviously female, tells you that zhey goes by zhey/her, you would think zhey are just virtue signalling. But if in either of the previous cases, if they male person had pink hair, or the female had a nose ring and black lipstick, it would be socially acceptable to give such pronouns specifications because they look queer "enough" to warrant them. What determines queer-enough? Must you look queer to choose your pronouns? If I choose my pronouns to me "Lord Master Zee", am I being cynical and callous or are you the listener just being insensitive of my gender rights?
1
2
155
Fundamental breakdown of political alignments: Far right: Ultra conservative individualists who believe that personal rights are earned and not necessarily granted. They believe the world is broken due to the leftists. Won’t change things on their own but if mobilized under a common cause will fight fanatically for it. Conservatives: Believe that the current political and economic systems are mostly working and therefore will be cautious and resist change unless very clearly justified. Believe and will defend individual rights over those of a hypothetical greater good. Look inward rather than outward. Liberals: Believe that the current economic and political systems are mostly broken and therefore push constantly for change choosing to error on the side of any change is better than no change and willing to accept that some changes may result in a regression of rights and personal liberties, betting on the fact that net of all changes overall will result in a net good. They see issue and problems with all systems currently in existence and seek to change them, except for the null hypothesis which is that the conservatives vs liberal dichotomy is a positive factor in avoiding dictatorship and authoritarianism. Far left: Same as liberal except that they do not accept the null hypothesis and will actively campaign to take down and neutralize the establishment, including conservative or dissenting voices, whether individually or as a mobilized group movement. They look outward and constantly believe it is their duty to change people and convert them to actively support their cause. Believe in the hypothetical greater good overriding individual rights as long as they can rationalize it to themselves. Socialists: Liberals who in addition believe that the good judgment of those put in power and the power vested in them are better trusted and override individual rights and liberties so long as the greater good is served. Believe that individuals should be forced to give up something so that the greater good can be served. Capitalists: Those who believe that capital itself (and its constructs such as companies) can rise to balance that of elected governments with the fundamental thesis that raising and growing capital is a costly signal of skill and competence to counterbalance the political system of the popularity contest Communists Believe fully in the wisdom of those elected or placed in power over those who are governed, so long as it can be conveyed in a way which can seen as for the greater good of the people. Capital itself has no power as state controls power. Only the populist political system controls power. In order to remove the power of capital strict controls over the economy and individual rights are required. Facists: Similar to communism with the only difference being they employ a form of crony capitalism and have a much larger focus on expansionism and nationalism. Individual rights fair better than in communism.
122
Verifying my developer account on BSV Radar. Code: BSV-MCAG #BSVRadar
1
4
231
Some key differences that make BSV original Satoshi’s bitcoin and why developers can build more on it. claude.ai/share/c2acd7ce-9f7…
2
13
429
Jerry David Chan retweeted
Does the Christian catechism require loyalty to Benjamin Netanyahu? Apparently it does, as Carrie Prejean Boller learned the hard way. (0:00) Trump's Religious Liberty Commission (14:53) Who Is Paula White? (23:42) The Dark Phone Call Carrie Received (28:24) Are Christians Required to Support Benjamin Netanyahu? (30:01) What Is Replacement Theology? (32:13) Was Carrie’s Ousting in Preparation for the Iran War? (43:18) Carrie's Strange Meeting With Dan Patrick and Paula White (52:01) What Happened in the Hearing? (1:00:04) Is Anti-Zionism the Same as Anti-Semitism? (1:05:28) The Attacks on Carrie by Other Commissioners (1:13:22) Why You're Not Allowed to Talk About Gaza (1:17:12) Carrie's Feud With Seth Dillon (1:27:16) Why Aren't Carrie's Colleagues Defending Her? (1:38:56) Why Aren't Catholic Leaders Speaking Out?
2,945
5,724
24,579
3,095,156