Speaker 1We'll see you next time. Hey guys, welcome back to the Bitcoin Fortress podcast. This is episode 235 recorded on October 4th, 2026. We are coming to you today from Blockhite 969880, Moscow time, 1011. One hundred and seventy one sats to the dollar and fees remain beautifully boring at one, one and two sats per V-byte. The last number continues to be my one of my favorite things to report every week. Whatever drama is taking place in Washington, on Wall Street, in the Middle East, or as the Federal Reserve, or even inside the latest AI laboratory, Bitcoin just keeps producing blocks. Tick tock. Next. And this was a fascinating week because we are beginning to see several things happen at the same time that don't fit particularly well into the models most investors have been using for the past 40 years. The 10-year treasury yield climbed above 5%. The dollar remained strong. Gold got hammered. The Fed is still talking about inflation. The labor market suddenly looks considerably weaker. And Bitcoin? Well, Bitcoin mostly shrugged. Not completely. We're still well below the all-time high. This hasn't suddenly become a straight line up. But considering the macro environment, Bitcoin has been remarkably resilient. And that brings us to what I think is the theme of this week's episode. The map is changing. We've spent decades learning certain relationships. Higher yields are bad for risk assets. The Fed eventually rides to the rescue. Bonds protect you when stocks fall. Gold protects you from monetary disorder. Technology is deflationary. Labor is scarce. Intelligence is expensive. Government debt is risk-free. Maybe. But maps only work when the terrain underneath them remains roughly the same. And I'm increasingly convinced the terrain is changing. And so with that, let's get into it. First up, part one, the great macro repricing. Let's begin. Let's begin with the bond market because I think this remains the most important market in the world right now. The 10-year treasury yield pushed above 5.2% during the week, reaching levels we haven't seen in decades. Some analysts are now openly discussing the possibility of a 6% 10-year yield. 6%. Think about that. For most of the post-financial crisis era, 6% sounded almost absurd. We spent years arguing about it. We were arguing about whether the 10-year might get back to 3%. Now we're discussing 6%. And here's the important point. A 5% or 6% treasury yield doesn't stay in the treasury market. It changes everything. Mortgages, commercial real estate, corporate borrowing, private equity, startup valuations, government interest expense, stock multiples, the hurdle rate for basically every investment on the planet. The entire financial system spent decades adapting itself to cheaper and cheaper capital. Leverage worked. Duration worked. Buying the dip worked because eventually the cost of money went back down. But what happens if it doesn't? I've said before that I'm not particularly interested in owning long-duration bonds here, but I understand why buyers begin appearing as yields move higher. At some point, 5.5% or 7% will go up. At some point, 10% or 6% risk-free nominal yields become difficult for institutions to ignore. And that may eventually create its own ceiling. The cure for higher rates may simply be higher rates. But there is another side to this. The federal government is carrying roughly $40 trillion of debt. Higher rates increase the government's own interest expense, so the policy designed to fight inflation can eventually make the fiscal problem worse. That is a very strange feedback loop. And it is exactly why I think the bond market, not the stock market, is the market Bitcoiners should be watching most carefully. Normally, rapidly rising Treasury yields and a stronger dollar should be a fairly nasty combination for Bitcoin. And initially, traders certainly expected that. CoinDesk reported that bearish Bitcoin futures positioning increased. As Treasury yields climbed, even while overall leveraged exposure remained subdued. But then something interesting happened: Bitcoin didn't collapse. On September 29th, with the 10-year yield around 5.23%, Bitcoin recovered back toward $84,000, while much of the traditional market remained under pressure. Now, I'm not declaring victory here. One week does not establish a permanent decoupling. Bitcoin can absolutely still get punched in the face. I'm not saying that Bitcoin is going to stay under pressure for long. I'm just saying it's going to stay under pressure for a long period of time. I'm not saying that Bitcoin is going to get punched in the face. I'm just saying that Bitcoin is going to stay under pressure for a long period of time. I'm not saying that Bitcoin is going to stay under pressure for a long period of time. But this is exactly the kind of behavior I've been watching for. If Bitcoin is eventually going to mature from leveraged technology trade into a genuine global monetary asset, there should come a point where rising sovereign yields don't automatically mean Bitcoin must collapse. Because there are two ways yields can rise. One is because the economy is incredibly healthy. The other is because investors are demanding more compensation to lend money to a heavily indebted sovereign. Those are not the same thing. If we are gradually moving toward the second regime, Bitcoin's reaction function should eventually change. Maybe we're beginning to see hints of that. Not proof, just hints. Now compare Bitcoin's performance with gold. Gold fell roughly 4%. Gold hit a 7-week low as higher oil prices increased inflation fears and pushed expectations toward tighter monetary policy. By Friday, gold was around $4,140 an ounce and heading toward a roughly 3.4% weekly decline as the stronger dollar and elevated treasury yields continue to weigh on the metal. This isn't particularly mysterious. Gold doesn't yield anything. If you can earn north of 5% on a daily basis, that's pretty good. Again, on government paper, while the dollar is strengthening, the opportunity cost of holding gold increases. That doesn't invalidate gold. I own gold. But this is a useful reminder that even a monetary asset with thousands of years of history can struggle when real yields and the dollar move against it. And yet, Bitcoin held up comparatively well. Again, I'm not going to build a grand theory around 7 days of price action, but I am watching. It can eventually survive strong-dollar, high-rate environments better than people expect. That would be an important maturation. Gold remains a monetary asset. Bitcoin remains a monetary asset. But they don't necessarily have to respond identically to every macroeconomic input. Different rails, holders, liquidity, generations, monetary networks. The market may be learning how to price that. Then, Friday gave us another wrinkle. United States added 29,000 jobs in September, while unemployment rose to 4.2 percent. That was substantially softer than expected. And suddenly, the conversation shifted from "how aggressively will the Fed hike?" to "does the Fed actually hike at all in October?" Reuters reported that policymakers were increasingly inclined to wait before delivering another increase, although another hike later in the year remains very much unlikely. This is where things get interesting. Inflation isn't dead. Energy remains a problem. Long-term yields remain elevated. Fiscal policy remains loose. But now, employment is weakening. Welcome back to the two-handed economist. On one hand, inflation argues for tighter policy. On the other, employment argues for patience. And meanwhile, the federal government's interest bill keeps growing. There's no clean answer here. That's the point. For 15 years, investors were trained to believe the Fed could solve almost every problem by making money cheaper. And that may no longer be true. Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari said he still expects additional rate increases will ultimately be required, but he wasn't convinced the Fed needs to move again immediately. Vice Chair Philip Jefferson similarly argued for allowing more data to arrive. But he said the Fed needs to move again before the next move. "That is a subtle but meaningful change. The Fed isn't declaring victory. It's saying, 'Maybe we'll do it again.' we should see what the last hike actually did. Imagine that. Monetary policy with the lag. Who knew? But the important thing for Bitcoin is that we are entering an environment where monetary policy may become less predictable rather than more predictable. And I actually think that's healthy. Markets became addicted to forward guidance. Every syllable from the Fed became tradable. Eventually, price discovery requires uncertainty. If capital has a price again, markets have to learn how to allocate it again. And that is painful, but it may also be necessary. Part two, the Bitcoin bid returns. Now let's move directly into Bitcoin. The U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs put together a nine-day inflow streak totaling approximately $3.1 billion before finally recording about $149 million of outflows on September 30th. BlackRock's iBid alone had taken in roughly $1.6 billion during its own nine-day streak, and total cumulative net inflows into the U.S. Bitcoin ETFs remain above $57 billion since launch, with more than $100 billion in assets under management. This is important because sentiment still doesn't feel euphoric. Bitcoin remains well below last year's all-time high. Retail isn't stampeding into the market. Crypto Twitter isn't exactly throwing champagne parties. And yet billions of dollars continue finding their way into Bitcoin through regulated investment vehicles. That looks much more like accumulation than speculation. And frankly, I prefer that. I'd rather see Bitcoin grind higher while everybody complains that it isn't moving fast enough, than watch another leverage-fueled vertical move that ends with half the market getting liquidated. Boring is underrated. Believe me, I've been trying to make my own financial life incredible. I've been trying to make my own financial life incredible. I've been trying to make my own financial life increasingly boring, and it's wonderful. Bitcoin also managed something historically unusual. September finished positive again. Bitcoin gained roughly 6.4% for the month, according to The Block, making this another positive September after the month historically developed a reputation for weakness. From 2013 through 2025, September had been Bitcoin's worst average year. Bitcoin's worst average year was in the early 2000s, and it was in the early 2000s. But in 2026, now marks the fourth consecutive green September. Again, models, patterns, seasonality, four-year cycles, historic correlations, useful until they're not. Markets aren't physics. People discover patterns, trade them, arbitrage them, and eventually change them. This is one reason I'm increasingly skeptical whenever somebody tells me Bitcoin has to do something because that's what's supposed or that's what's happened in the last year. As an aside, Up-tober is another one. Up-tober, happy Up-tober. Bitcoin's gonna, you know, go to the moon this month. Not so fast. Maybe it's going to surprise us. You just never know. Now, Bitcoin has never existed at this scale before. It has never had ETFs this large before. It's never had corporate treasury vehicles like these before. It's never existed along the side an AI infrastructure boom of this magnitude, and it has never existed in a $40 trillion U.S. debt environment. Same asset, different world. Michael Saylor apparently remains Michael Saylor. Strategy purchased another 1,665 Bitcoin for approximately $142.7 million, bringing total holdings to $847 billion. Let that number sink in. 847,666 Bitcoin. More than 4% of the maximum supply that will ever exist. Strategy also repurchased roughly $151.7 million of stretch during the period. This is where strategy gets increasingly interesting to me. It is no longer simply a corporation that owns a lot of Bitcoin. It is a corporation that owns a lot of Bitcoin. Saylor is trying to build a Bitcoin-denominated capital market. Common equity, convertible instruments, preferred stock, yield products, different layers of risk wrapped around the same underlying scarce collateral. I've said before that stretch is one of the more interesting experiments in modern finance, and whether strategy ultimately succeeds or not, the experiment matters. Because Saylor is asking a fascinating question. What happens when Bitcoin becomes the collateral underneath financial products rather than merely the speculative asset inside them? That is a much bigger idea. Strategy isn't alone. Strive disclosed September 28th that it had purchased another 1,107 Bitcoin for approximately $94.5 million, bringing its holdings to $27,462 Bitcoin at that point. The average purchase price was around $85,396. So yes, some of those purchases immediately went underwater. Welcome to Bitcoin. Ask me how I know. But Strive's structure is worth watching because CEO Matt Cole has emphasized equity and preferred financing rather than putting debt directly against the Bitcoin. That's an important distinction. The 2025-26 drawdown exposed the weakness in some digital asset trade. It is a very important distinction. The 2025-26 drawdown exposed the treasury models. The problem wasn't necessarily owning Bitcoin. The problem was fragile capital structures built around Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't care when your debt matures. It doesn't care what your loan covenant says. It doesn't care what price your shareholders need next quarter. This is one of those places where the old lesson remains the best lesson. Stay solvent. The longer your time horizon, the more useful Bitcoin becomes. Part three, the rails are changing. Here's a fascinating development. Bitwise CIO Matt Haugen argued this week that the failure of the Clarity Act may paradoxically have accelerated some regulatory changes because agencies are now moving ahead through existing authority rather than waiting for Congress. He pointed specifically towards stablecoin competition, exchange rules, and SEC movement around tokenized securities. This is a very interesting argument. I still prefer legislation. Legislation is harder to reverse than executive or regulatory interpretation. We've spent enough time watching financial regulations swing back and forth depending on who occupies an office. But markets don't stop while Congress argues. The financial system is moving on chain whether politicians are ready or not. And the SEC's recent innovation exemption for tokenized stocks is a perfect example. The exemption allows certain tokenized national market system stocks to trade through permissioned, automated market-maker structures on public blockchains under defined conditions. Read that sentence again. Tokenized U.S. stocks. Automated market-makers. Public blockchains. SEC-approved experimental framework. That's not some DeFi white paper from 2021. That's American capital markets infrastructure beginning to change. The rails are moving. And this week, we received a remarkably candid explanation of why stablecoins matter. Swiss National Bank Governing Board member Petra Chudin warned that widespread stablecoin adoption would weaken monetary policy transmission. Why? Because if deposits migrate out of commercial markets, they would have to be replaced by stablecoins. Because if deposits migrate out of commercial banks and into stable coins, banks have less deposit funding. And if economic activity increasingly occurs outside the traditional banking system, central banks may have less ability to influence borrowing costs through policy rates. There it is. That's the real issue. Stable coins aren't merely faster PayPal. They alter the architecture of money. And central banks understand this. I think stable coins probably strengthen the dollar internationally in the near term. Billions of people can suddenly access dollar-denominated assets without needing a U.S. bank account. That's extraordinarily powerful. But stable coins simultaneously weaken some of the traditional institutions sitting between the dollar and its users. They strengthen the currency while potentially weakening the banking architecture. That's a very interesting tension. And Bitcoin sits one level deeper still. Stable coins ask, who gets to issue the dollar? Bitcoin asks, why does anybody get to issue the money at all? Very different questions. That brings us directly to Tether. A report produced by Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations examined 846 sanctioned or seizure-targeted crypto wallets linked to a ransomware. A report produced by Democratic staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations examined back strongly and emphasized that it has worked with u.s authorities and supported nearly 550 million dollars of iran-linked usdt freezes during 2026. this story perfectly illustrates the difference between stable coins and bitcoin tether can freeze usdt bitcoin doesn't have apollo arduino button that's not an insult to tether it's the architecture usdt is a dollar liability issued by a company bitcoin is a bearer asset governed by a decentralized network one can be extraordinarily useful for payments the other is extraordinarily useful when you specifically don't want somebody else to possess the ability to change your balance different tools different trust models understanding that distinction is going to become increasingly important as government governments discover just how powerful stablecoin rails have become the imf approved approximately 138 million dollars in additional funding for el salvador after granting waivers for missed program conditions including one related to bitcoin accumulation yes the imf and el salvador continue their strange dance el salvador documented recent additions to its bitcoin holdings as private donations rather than purchases made with public funds the imf accepted that explanation but reiterated that it expects no further public sector bitcoin accumulation beyond documented donations under the current program meanwhile the imf raised its estimate for el salvador's 2026 economic growth to four and a half percent you really can't make this stuff up the imf's position basically amounts to your economy is doing better here's another 138 million dollars also please stop doing that bitcoin thing we don't like el salvador's bitcoin experiment hasn't unfolded exactly as either its strongest advocates or harshest critics predicted reality rarely cooperates with ideological purity but one thing is undeniable a small central american country forced the international monetary fund to spend years discussing bitcoin in official documents that's remarkable by itself bitcoin went from magic internet money to an explicit condition inside sovereign lending agreements that's adoption maybe not the adoption the imf wanted but adoption nonetheless part four energy becomes the bottleneck soluna and bitdear expanded their planned bitcoin mining deployment at project kati one in texas from roughly 28 megawatts to approximately 35 megawatts the site is powered by wind generation soluna provides the site energy and operations while bitdear owns the mining equipment with the parties sharing mining revenue this might sound like a small industry story but i don't think it is because one of the biggest stories of the next decade is going to be who gets the electricity bitcoin miners ai data centers factories homes electric vehicles utilities bitcoin miners ai data centers factories homes electric vehicles utilities everybody wants electrons and unlike software electricity electricity can't simply be copied you need generation transmission transformers land permits cooling time that is exactly the point that i made in this week's essay the great repricing digital abundance increases the value of physical scarcity ai and bitcoin look like purely digital technologies when we interact with them but i think that's the point i'm going to be focusing on for this week's essay the great repricing digital abundance increases the value of physical scarcity ai and bitcoin look like purely digital technologies when we interact with them underneath them are very physical machines consuming very physical electricity the more intelligence becomes abundant the more valuable reliable energy may become natalie brunel's coin stories this week featured attorney paula pendley discussing the growing legal fights around bitcoin mining and data centers one case involved 37 texas residents who sued mara over alleged noise related health effects from a nearby mining operation the from a nearby mining operation the from a nearby mining operation the episode explores what happened when episode explores what happened when episode explores what happened when those claims reach discovery and more those claims reach discovery and more those claims reach discovery and more broadly what communities are going to do broadly what communities are going to do broadly what communities are going to do as data center infrastructure spreads as data center infrastructure spreads as data center infrastructure spreads this matters because bitcoin mining is this matters because bitcoin mining is this matters because bitcoin mining is becoming part of a much bigger becoming part of a much bigger becoming part of a much bigger much larger infrastructure argument much larger infrastructure argument much larger infrastructure argument it used to be easy politically to say it used to be easy politically to say why should we use electricity for bitcoin now the same communities are being asked to host gigantic ai data centers so what are we really debating bitcoin ai or the fact that a digital economy requires enormous physical infrastructure there are legitimate local issues noise matters transmission matters water matters electricity prices well those matter too but there's also a reality that we can't legislate away the future needs power places that build abundant energy will have choices places that don't will eventually be deciding which industries they're willing to lose part five market structure is quietly changing bitcoin dominance moved back towards 60 this week while stablecoin dominance declined suggesting investors were gradually moving capital back out onto the risk curve i'm not particularly interested in using this as an altcoin trading signal that's not what we do here but dominance tells us something useful about bitcoin's role inside the digital asset ecosystem after 17 years and thousands upon thousands of competing tokens bitcoin remains the monetary center of gravity every cycle produces the next bitcoin killer every cycle produces a new technological narrative and yet bitcoin keeps sitting there no CEO no marketing department no venture allocation no foundation deciding what to do with the treasury just blocks that's a feature not a bug finally the dollar was on pace for a fourth consecutive weekly gain against the euro supported by elevated u.s treasury yields normally this is another major bitcoin headwind strong dollar high yields hawkish fed gold falling that combination should be very ugly and we're going to see it in just a few days but we'll see what happens in a couple of weeks so we'll see what happens in a couple of weeks we're going to see it in just a couple of weeks we're going to see it in just a few weeks we're going to see it in just a couple of weeks we're going to see it in just a couple of weeks we're going to see it in just a couple of weeks next up let's take a look at the bitcoin podcast universe there was a lot of signal uh this week and interestingly much of it revolved around the same theme the architecture underneath the system is changing lynn alden joined mark moss on mark market disruptors for an episode titled nothing stops this train not even ai and as usual when lynn talks i listen her central argument is that bitcoin is going to make a big impact on the market and that's why bitcoin is going to make a big impact on the market and that's why that argument is that the fiscal that argument is that the fiscal that argument is that the fiscal trajectory remains the dominant force trajectory remains the dominant force trajectory remains the dominant force the united states continues running the united states continues running the united states continues running enormous structural deficits enormous structural deficits enormous structural deficits ai may increase productivity it may ai may increase productivity it may ai may increase productivity it may produce genuine economic growth but even produce genuine economic growth but even produce genuine economic growth but even substantial technological growth doesn't substantial technological growth doesn't substantial technological growth doesn't automatically eliminate the debt problem automatically eliminate the debt problem automatically eliminate the debt problem lynn's framing is essentially that ai can lynn's framing is essentially that ai can lynn's framing is essentially that ai can be deflationary in particular goods and be deflationary in particular goods and be deflationary in particular goods and services while scarce assets can services while scarce assets can services while scarce assets can continue repricing upward against an continue repricing upward against an continue repricing upward against an expanding monetary base expanding monetary base expanding monetary base that's an important distinction that's an important distinction that's an important distinction technology can make intelligence technology can make intelligence technology can make intelligence cheaper without making land cheaper it cheaper without making land cheaper it cheaper without making land cheaper it can make software cheaper without can make software cheaper without can make software cheaper without creating more bitcoin it can make some creating more bitcoin it can make some creating more bitcoin it can make some labor cheaper while making electricity labor cheaper while making electricity labor cheaper while making electricity more valuable again more valuable again more valuable again scarcity moves scarcity moves scarcity moves lynn also sat down with kitco for lynn also sat down with kitco for lynn also sat down with kitco for another excellent conversation another excellent conversation another excellent conversation she argued that at debt levels above 100 she argued that at debt levels above 100 she argued that at debt levels above 100 of gdp of gdp of gdp rate increases themselves can enlarge the rate increases themselves can enlarge the rate increases themselves can enlarge the fiscal deficit through higher fiscal deficit through higher fiscal deficit through higher government interest expense government interest expense government interest expense that's the paradox we've discussed that's the paradox we've discussed that's the paradox we've discussed repeatedly here repeatedly here repeatedly here the fed raises race to restrain the fed raises race to restrain the fed raises race to restrain inflation higher rates increase treasury inflation higher rates increase treasury inflation higher rates increase treasury interest expense the treasury issues interest expense the treasury issues interest expense the treasury issues more debt more debt more debt fiscal spending injects more money into fiscal spending injects more money into fiscal spending injects more money into the economy the monetary break and the the economy the monetary break and the the economy the monetary break and the fiscal accelerator begin pushing against fiscal accelerator begin pushing against fiscal accelerator begin pushing against each other each other each other lynn's conclusion is that ultimately the lynn's conclusion is that ultimately the lynn's conclusion is that ultimately the fiscal side wins fiscal side wins fiscal side wins i think that's one of the most important i think that's one of the most important i think that's one of the most important macro ideas for bitcoiners to understand macro ideas for bitcoiners to understand macro ideas for bitcoiners to understand bitcoin doesn't require hyperinflation it bitcoin doesn't require hyperinflation it bitcoin doesn't require hyperinflation it governments to continue behaving like governments to continue behaving like governments to continue behaving like governments do governments do governments do and that is a much lower bar stephen levera spoke with julian stephen levera spoke with julian stephen levera spoke with julian leiniger of rely in episode 777 bitcoin leiniger of rely in episode 777 bitcoin leiniger of rely in episode 777 bitcoin savings versus casino exchanges i love savings versus casino exchanges i love savings versus casino exchanges i love the framing. Most crypto platforms optimize for activity. Trade more, use leverage, buy another token, check the price, trade again, because activity produces fees. A Bitcoin savings business has almost the opposite incentive. Buy Bitcoin, withdraw it, go live your life. Come back later. That's much closer to how I personally think about Bitcoin. I'm still stacking every two weeks, not because I know what Bitcoin does next Tuesday. I don't. And I don't care. The whole point of low time preference saving is escaping the need to constantly predict short-term markets. Stefan's next episode with Clay Garrett from BitKey went deep into recovery and self-custody. BitKey uses a two of three design involving an app key, hardware key, and server key rather than relying on a conventional seed phrase. The episode explored recovery, cloud backup, inheritance, vendor risk, and privacy. This is exactly the kind of conversation Bitcoin needs. Self-custody maximalism sounds wonderful until somebody loses 12 words. Security isn't merely preventing somebody else from stealing your Bitcoin. Security also means preventing yourself from permanently losing access to it. There are trade-offs. I've dealt with this personally this year while reconsidering my own business. I've dealt with this personally this year while considering my own cold storage architecture after the cold card vulnerability. Perfect security doesn't exist. What matters is understanding your threat model and eliminating unnecessary single points of failure. Marty Bent spoke with Aaron Redwing on TFTC about the cold card entropy vulnerability and the broader security implications of AI. The episode expanded beyond one hardware wallet problem into AI-generated exploits, software supply chain attacks, and the increasingly complicated security environment Bitcoiners face. This is something I think more about than I used to. AI makes defenders better. It also makes attackers better. The cost of sophisticated attacks is falling, and that means sovereignty increasingly requires competence. Holding your own keys is empowering. It also makes you responsible. Bitcoin removes the trust of third parties. It doesn't remove consequences. Marty also spoke with Tommy Eastman of Nowse Research in an episode titled "Own Your Intelligence Stack." The argument is essentially the AI equivalent of self-custody. If increasingly capable AI agents know your finances, communications, documents, preferences, calendar, and behavior, who controls the agent? Who controls the model? Who controls the data? Who can turn it off? Who can inspect what it's doing? These are going to become enormous questions. I personally remain fascinated by agents, but I'm also cautious. I still haven't even turned on Siri, so I'm probably not handing an autonomous AI the keys to my financial life tomorrow. But the direction is obvious, and the Bitcoin lesson applies beautifully. Convenience is valuable. Sovereignty is valuable, too. Know what you're trading. Natalie Brunell sat down with longtime Bitcoiner Simon Dixon for a wide-ranging conversation about sovereign debt, AI, CBDCs, stablecoins, gold, and Bitcoin. The provocative question was, "What would make him sell all his Bitcoin and buy gold?" His answer essentially came down to Bitcoin losing the properties that make Bitcoin valuable: meaningful centralization of mining, development or custody to the point where the network could no longer credibly function as neutral open monetary infrastructure. I like that question, not because I expect to sell my Bitcoin for gold, but because every investor should understand what would falsify his or her investment in Bitcoin. The question is, "What would make him sell all of his Bitcoin and what would falsify his or her thesis?" I'll own it forever, no matter what happens, is an analysis. The reason I continue holding Bitcoin is because the properties that originally attracted me remain intact: fixed supply, open network, permissionless ownership, self-custody, portability, verifiability. If those things fundamentally changed, I would have to reassess. That's conviction without religion. That brings us beautifully to the end of our conversation today. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them in the comments below. I hope you enjoyed this episode of Bitcoin Fortress: Essays of the Great Repricing. This is the beginning of a new series, and I think it captures where my thinking has been moving lately. For most of my adult life, the economic world operated according to assumptions that seemed almost permanent. Interest rates eventually went lower. Government bonds were safe. Inflation remained contained. Human labor was scarce. Intelligence was expensive. Technology made things cheaper. The dollar sat underneath everything. But those assumptions are beginning to collide with each other. Capital is becoming more expensive. Intelligence is becoming cheaper. Energy is becoming more valuable. Trust is becoming harder to manufacture. Digital abundance is exploding. And underneath all of it, genuine scarcity becomes more interesting. Land, energy, privacy, authenticity, time, and bitcoin. 21 million. One of my favorite ideas in this essay is this: Abundance doesn't eliminate scarcity. It reveals it. AI can create unlimited content. It can't create another hour in your day. Governments can create another trillion dollars. They can't create another gigawatt of reliable electricity with a keystroke. AI can create a convincing picture of a gold bar. It can't create another ounce of physical gold. They can't create another ounce of physical gold. They can't create a bitcoin number 21 million and one. The essay isn't a prediction that bitcoin goes straight up. I've been around long enough to know better than that. It's an argument that absolute scarcity becomes increasingly interesting in a world becoming extraordinarily good at manufacturing abundance. And that means our old maps may not work. The map was built for a world where capital was cheap, intelligence was expensive, and digital information was relatively trustworthy. That's not the world we're entering. So maybe the answer isn't predicting exactly what comes next. Maybe the answer is building enough resilience and optionality that we don't need to. Keep some cash. Own scarce assets. Learn the new technology. Protect your privacy. Reduce unnecessary dependencies. Keep your health. Maintain strong relationships. Hold your own keys and give yourself options. That's the bitcoin fortress in a nutshell. Before we wrap up, a quick reminder that there are now five bitcoin fortress books available. Bitcoin Fortress: A Simple Guide to Bitcoin for Beginners is the place to start if you or somebody you know is still trying to understand what bitcoin actually is and why it matters. Bitcoin retirement and estate planning moves into the practical questions of integrating bitcoin into retirement planning, inheritance, and long-term wealth preservation. The Bitcoin Lifestyle moves beyond the asset itself and asks what bitcoin teaches us about saving, patience, low time preference, and living deliberately. The Architecture of Money looks at the monetary system from the macro level, how money, debt, central banking, and financial architecture evolved into the system we have today. And finally, the newest book, The Sovereign Life. This one's really the most personal book I've written. It's about bitcoin, but it's really about what bitcoin eventually taught me to value: enough, resilience, optionality, health, time, and independence. And building a life that doesn't require everything to go exactly according to plan. And this week, there's a great opportunity to pick it up. Beginning October 6th, The Sovereign Life will be part of a Kindle Countdown promotion starting at $2.99. So if you've been meaning to read it, this week is a great time. You can find all five books through the links in the show notes and in the Bitcoin Fortress newsletter. Well folks, that's going to do it for episode 235. If I had to reduce this entire week to one idea, it would be this: Pay attention when the old relationships stop working. Treasury yields above 5%, a strong dollar, gold falling, the Fed tightening, employment weakening, bitcoin holding, institutional money accumulating, AI making intelligence cheaper, energy becoming more valuable, stablecoins challenging banking rails, tokenization moving forward even while Congress stalls. These aren't separate stories. They're pieces of a changing system. Maybe the 2020s aren't simply another economic cycle. Maybe we're repricing some of the basic assumptions that governed the previous 40 years, like money, capital, labor, intelligence, energy, trust, ownership, scarcity, and time. I don't know exactly where this ends, and neither does anybody else, even though they can publish their charts that predict exactly where things are heading. And increasingly, I think pretending otherwise is where people get themselves into trouble. I'd rather build for multiple outcomes, own things that are difficult to create, own Avoid unnecessary leverage. Keep some liquidity. Learn the technology. Control what you can control. And hold a little money nobody else can print. Because the map may be changing, but the destination hasn't. Freedom, health, positivity, and sovereignty. Keep your Bitcoin fortress. And with that, I will talk to you all next week. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. © transcript Emily Beynon
PodcastTranscript AI