Did Epstein Fund Bitcoin? | This Week in Bitcoin (| #BitcoinHardTalk Ep.108 (Part 1)

Hey hey hey Bitcoin wealth builders.

Simon Dixon here and welcome to episode 108 of Bitcoin hard talk and we got a bit of a special one for you today. There has

been a fullblown attack from the proof of weapons network on peaceful proof of work and we're going to unmask all the evil players all the people that may not

be what they seem to be so that you can understand how to analyze this. Now,

this isn't about character assassinations.

This isn't about anything else other than understanding the systemic nature of how the proof of weapons network uses their weapons. They weaponize

their weapons. They weaponize technology. They weaponize media. They

technology. They weaponize media. They

primarily weaponize financial weapons and mass destruction. And they also weaponize military. And we're going to

weaponize military. And we're going to be going through all the tools today to understand the different operations. But

the overarching theme of what we're going to be covering today is we are going to be unmasking the Epstein Bitcoin theory. So there was

an attack to try and associate Bitcoin with Jeffrey Epstein. And as with all things, we take a nuanced approach.

We're not here to do propaganda. We're

here to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as I see it.

And we're going to be going through and I'm going to be sharing stories from the early days of Bitcoin and the early characters of Bitcoin that in fact did have a connection with Jeffrey Epstein.

And we need to be honest about this because in order to combat what they are throwing, the reality of the way they do this is there is 95% truth and then they

forget the 5% in there that completely changes the reality of it. So, we're

going to be covering all of that and I'm going to be sharing stories today that I've never shared from the early days of Bitcoin. And in unmasking the Bitcoin

Bitcoin. And in unmasking the Bitcoin theory, of course, we're going to turn this into the Jeffrey Epstein Bitcoin theory. We're going to turn this into an

theory. We're going to turn this into an educational experience. So, we're also

educational experience. So, we're also going to be going through the JP Morgan links. If you're a long-term listener, a

links. If you're a long-term listener, a Bitcoin hard talk, no surprise there. We

have unearthed many of those. and also

of course the Trump leverage game that's happening right now so that you can stop subscribing to these stupid narratives of Democrats versus Republicans and

fully fully understand what's happening at the level that they don't want you to see. So without further ado, let's jump

see. So without further ado, let's jump straight into the first section. I'll

cover all three that we're going to be doing. We'll be covering this week in

doing. We'll be covering this week in Bitcoin, which is answering the question, did Jeffrey Epstein fund Bitcoin and were there attack vectors that we should be aware of with the

Bitcoin core developers? We're going to be answering that question in part two.

We're going to be covering this week in macro. And what I want you to understand

macro. And what I want you to understand is the framework by which the proof of weapons network weaponizes these blackmail operations and criminal

networks like Jeffrey Epstein in order to influence the macro market and create manipulation and vasilization of public companies using both the equity and debt

capital markets with some live case studies in what happened this week that I covered last week but the updates since in terms of strategy JP Morgan and the other financial weapons of mass

destruction that are under current operations to vasilize those companies in order to fear you into selling your Bitcoin. In part three, we're going to

Bitcoin. In part three, we're going to be doing this week in geopolitics. And

this way, I'm going to be going through everything that has happened with the email leaks, um the previous operations.

We're going to go through Trump's history, his connections to the network so that we can understand what it actually means, and the geopolitical

implications that I've been covering a lot. So, without further ado, let's jump

lot. So, without further ado, let's jump straight into this week in Bitcoin. Did

Jeffrey Epstein fund Bitcoin? Now, what

I want to do is do a little bit of a recap. So, remember, we went through in

recap. So, remember, we went through in previous episodes all these different attack vectors. So, Bitcoin is always

attack vectors. So, Bitcoin is always under a state of state of attack and we saw three of the operations that we have been covering in previous episodes, but

we got to see them live this week. So,

the first attack um was the big reveal.

There was media that was weaponized in order to demonstrate some connections between some of the core developers in Bitcoin core while simultaneously

weaponizing other nodes in the proof of weapons network that are wolfing sheep's closing like Barry Silbert in order to do a PR campaign for Zcash simultaneously. We'll go through that

simultaneously. We'll go through that and the stories that nobody knows. There

was also a second attack this week and that was a fullblown vasilization strategy on strategy micro strategy MSTR and the financial weapons of mass

destruction that have been constructed around it in order to push Sailor into full submission while it looks like he's taking on the establishment JP Morgan

and there was a massive PR campaign with some of the other nodes that may not know whose agenda they're serving. We're

going to go through that everything that happened since last week. Attack vector

3 was a further vasilization of uh Tether. Now that doesn't require much

Tether. Now that doesn't require much vasilization because obviously it is connected deeply to the fiat currency proof of weapons network and providing much of the financial weapons of mass

destruction backing it um in order to roll over the debt cycle in the US through fiscal dominance. Um, but we're going to be going through all of those

and highlighting them so that you can see through all the narrative, all the [ __ ] that's being put out there and just have the understanding of what's really

happening. So, as a reminder, Bitcoin is

happening. So, as a reminder, Bitcoin is always under a constant state of attack.

What is Bitcoin? You got to understand it in order to not see through the, you know, to get see through the noise and the narrative. So, what is Bitcoin?

the narrative. So, what is Bitcoin?

Firstly, it is opensource code. That

means anybody that wants to look at the code can look at the code and everybody does look at the code. And if you want to improve the code, you put forward Bitcoin improvement proposals. And there

is a network of developers as well as competing developers as we go into this chaotic open-source boardroom where we debate the future of Bitcoin. Now, just

because developers want to want to change something, you still got to get buy in from the miners. Now, the miners are the ones that are adding blocks to

the blockchain. We package up all the

the blockchain. We package up all the transactions every 10 minutes. And

because we don't want any central bank or any bank in the middle, the miners agree and reach consensus um and they solve these mass problems. one that

solves the problem fastest gets a block reward plus a bunch of transaction fees that subsidize the network and that network is now the the largest

distributed superco computer in the world. Now they can signal whether they

world. Now they can signal whether they agree with changes in the code and when they do a signal out there it has to reach a certain activation point. Once

it hits a certain activation point, they then have to actually run the code, but then at the same time, they're just simply adding blocks to the blockchain.

Now, if you run your own self-custody Bitcoin, you can also run a node. And

miners also run nodes, but anybody can run a node. The last time we were in a major Bitcoin war was the block war debate. In the block war debate, it was

debate. In the block war debate, it was determined that if you make the blocks too large in order to reduce the transaction fees, um then you might end

up with only rich people being able to run those nodes. On the flip side, if you have higher fees with smaller blocks, then you can have more people running those nodes. Now, there are

things like SPV software, various other things. I don't want to get geeky

things. I don't want to get geeky because I want you to understand the highlevel game theory.

But those nodes, the more nodes we have, the more of a resistance we have against the miners. The miners are investing

the miners. The miners are investing significant capital. So the miners are

significant capital. So the miners are always subjected to receiving capital and when they receive capital that subjects them to the whims of their shareholders in those companies. There

are private companies, large ones like Tether and there are public companies. a

lot of those in um uh Texas that are public on the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ.

And then there are state sovereigns that are also mining. Um and all of these different actors make up the total hash power. The hash power is what secures

power. The hash power is what secures the network. that makes it impossible

the network. that makes it impossible for any central bank, sovereign state, bank or any actor to take down the network because these miners are

distributed all around the world. You

know, we used to have about 60% of the hash power in China. About 40% of that moved over to America through these public companies. 20% remained there. Uh

public companies. 20% remained there. Uh

we have about 11% in Russia, six, you know, two to six% um in Iran and various other countries. you have a lot across

other countries. you have a lot across um Europe, across uh the global south, across Africa, across Central and South America um and it is distributed across

Asia as well in order to ensure that no one country centralizes too much of that Bitcoin. Now the largest player used to

Bitcoin. Now the largest player used to be China. Now it's America and we need

be China. Now it's America and we need to keep an eye of that because the proof of weapons network is hosted the host country is the United States of America

via the US stock market um and Black Rockck State Street and Vanguard and the asset managers that pull together all of the American pension money endowment

funds and various other funds. So what

is the the nodes? or they can essentially process transactions. And if

they don't want to process transactions because they believe, for example, a bunch of companies are getting together and colluding to work with the developers and the miners, then we have

something called a user activated soft.

And this was the resistance that was used against the miners during the block war debate because the developers couldn't agree with the miners. And so a lot of venture capitalists were

colluding via Barry Silbert and other people that were investing in all the Bitcoin mining companies and trying to enforce changes across it. So that is

what Bitcoin is. With that in mind, you know that there are no back doors, but there are choke points and we need to understand those choke points because

those choke points are always under attack. But it is the largest and most

attack. But it is the largest and most distributed supercomputer and the most distributed uh supercomputer that we have in the world and it's the best that

we have. Nothing else in the crypto

we have. Nothing else in the crypto market competes with it. It's all an iteration of a premine shitcoin connected with somebody else with Silicon Valley funding and various other

51% attack vectors because it doesn't have enough hash power or it's got proof of stake which means that whoever accumulates the most coins can govern the network or it's a fork of Bitcoin

where a few players funded the mining operation and they're centralized in some deep state dark actors. Um, and I'm going to be going through some of the history of that so that you can

understand it. Now, what I want to do

understand it. Now, what I want to do very quickly is a quick reminder. Uh,

this is best understood if you have already watched my big three-hour marathon that I did on whether the CIA created Bitcoin. Now, just to bring you

created Bitcoin. Now, just to bring you up to speed, I created a fiveinut whiteboard AI summary of that threehour marathon. And I'm gonna play that for

marathon. And I'm gonna play that for you right now. Just in case you don't have time to go back and watch it, I would love for you to go back and watch it. You can go to simonixon.com.

it. You can go to simonixon.com.

Um, or you can go to Bitcoin Hard Talk on Apple Podcast or Spotify. Um, or you can go to YouTube, type in Simon Dixon CIA, and you'll find that video over there. Uh, but what I'm going to do

there. Uh, but what I'm going to do quickly is I'm going to share my screen and make sure we are all on the same page because we're going to build upon that understanding. our understanding of

that understanding. our understanding of what Bitcoin is and how it's constantly under attack so that you can make better decisions. And then I'm going to go

decisions. And then I'm going to go through some stories of the Jeffrey Epstein side, where it was funded, what it is funded, what the attack vectors

are, and some stories that you may never have heard from my early early days of investing in many of the companies in this sector. So, let's jump right in

this sector. So, let's jump right in with the first video.

And this is going to be about five minutes uh whiteboard summary of the CIA video.

>> All right. So, today we're diving into a theory that's been absolutely blowing up the crypto space. It comes from a nearly 3-hour long podcast episode hosted by the one and only Simon Dixon, a true

Bitcoin OG on his show Bitcoin Hard Talk. Yeah. So, just a little while ago

Talk. Yeah. So, just a little while ago on October 24th, 2025, this massive episode dropped and it went viral almost immediately and it was all about trying

to answer a question that just keeps coming up. Specifically, this one wild

coming up. Specifically, this one wild theory about who really created Bitcoin.

And when I say wild, I mean we're talking about a story that pulls in international spies, the mob. I mean,

it's a real rabbit hole. And the

original episode, it clocked in at just under 3 hours. 2 hours and 54 minutes to be exact. I mean, who has that kind of

be exact. I mean, who has that kind of time? Well, that's where we come in. We

time? Well, that's where we come in. We

watch the whole thing so you don't have to. We're going to break down that

to. We're going to break down that entire sprawling theory for you in just 5 minutes. So, you ready? Here's the

5 minutes. So, you ready? Here's the

TLDDR. Let's get into it. So, the whole reason this became a huge deal is because of comments just like this one.

You hear people, even pretty big names, saying things like, "I won't buy Bitcoin because I believe it was created by the CIA." And look, when you hear that, it

CIA." And look, when you hear that, it kind of makes you nervous, right? So,

Simon Dixon's podcast really set out to investigate, is there any fire behind all this smoke? Okay, let's get into the first clue. And believe it or not, the

first clue. And believe it or not, the theory starts with the name itself. So,

the podcast brings up this idea from a guy named Richard Warner. He [snorts]

points out that in Japanese you say the family name first. So it would be Nakamoto Satoshi. And if you break that

Nakamoto Satoshi. And if you break that down, Nakamoto can translate to center origin and Satoshi that can mean intelligence. So you put them together

intelligence. So you put them together and what do you get? Central

intelligence. Kind of spooky, right? So

the question is, was this some kind of clever wink and a nod from an intelligence agency? A clue left behind

intelligence agency? A clue left behind just hiding in plain sight for anyone who bothered to look? Okay, but that leads to the next big question, the motive. I mean, why on earth would a

motive. I mean, why on earth would a government agency create a decentralized currency? It seems totally

currency? It seems totally counterintuitive. Well, the podcast

counterintuitive. Well, the podcast dives into two pretty compelling and honestly kind of chilling potential reasons. First, there's the gateway drug

reasons. First, there's the gateway drug theory. The idea is that Bitcoin was

theory. The idea is that Bitcoin was just a trial balloon. You know, a way to get us all comfortable with the idea of digital money before they roll out their own stuff. central bank digital

own stuff. central bank digital currencies or CBDC's which they would totally control. The second theory is

totally control. The second theory is well it's a lot darker. It's the

honeypot theory that Bitcoin was designed to get everyone to pour their money into it only for the creators to flip a switch on a secret back door and seize it all. But here's where the story

gets really, really weird. Just when you think it's all about spies and government agencies, the podcast takes a massive left turn. It suggests a deeper,

darker origin story that doesn't start with the CIA. It starts with the mob.

Yeah, you heard that right. The theory

centers on this one guy, Meer Lansky. If

you don't know the name, he was basically the financial genius for the criminal underworld. An absolute savant

criminal underworld. An absolute savant when it came to moving money and building systems. And the secret history they lay out is just incredible. The

theory goes that by the 1960s, Lansky's network had pretty much compromised the entire Federal Reserve. The famous Nixon shock in 71 when the US went off the gold standard. The podcast alleges that

gold standard. The podcast alleges that was a direct response, a desperate move to wrestle back control. And in

retaliation, Lansky's network supposedly funded the very first private digital currency, something called Digiash. So,

okay, let's pause there. If that was the original plan, a private centralized digital currency controlled by the shadow network, then how in the world did we end up with the public

decentralized Bitcoin that we all know today? What happened? Well, this is the

today? What happened? Well, this is the crucial plot twist. The theory is that the project's code went open source. The

moment that happened, the original creators completely lost control. And a

whole new generation of cryptographers and privacy advocates, the cipher punks, they jumped on it and took over. And

this crazy chain of events, from mob money to these cipher punk idealists, is what leads the podcast to its final suspect for who Satoshi really was. A

man named Len Sassimon. He was a brilliant cryptographer, a key figure in that early cippherpunk movement, and a passionate advocate for internet privacy. And when you look at the tale

privacy. And when you look at the tale of the tape, it's pretty compelling.

Satoshi's very academic writing style, it lines up perfectly with Sassimon, who was a PhD student. Satoshi posting at weird hours for the US, but normal for Europe, and using British spellings.

Well, Sassimon was an American living in Belgium. But here's the kicker, the

Belgium. But here's the kicker, the potential smoking gun. His PhD

supervisor was David Sham, the guy who founded Digiash.

I mean, it's a pretty compelling case, right? But this is where the podcast

right? But this is where the podcast wraps up by asking what might be the most important question of all, even if any of this is true. Does it actually matter? Because here's the thing. The

matter? Because here's the thing. The

crucial point is that whatever the original plan might have been, you know, a centralized closed source system with a secret backdoor, that's not what Bitcoin became. The moment it went open

Bitcoin became. The moment it went open source, it morphed into the complete opposite of that. Decentralized, open

source, no backdoor possible, controlled by no one. And this quote from Mark Yusco, who was on the podcast, really hits the nail on the head. He says, "The beauty of the system is that it is

anonymous. One guy can't show up and

anonymous. One guy can't show up and change that." Basically, the way Bitcoin

change that." Basically, the way Bitcoin is designed makes the creator's identity and whatever their original plan was almost completely irrelevant. And that's

really Bitcoin's core defense, right?

The code is open- source. You, me,

anyone can go look at it right now. The

network is spread out all over the world on thousands of computers. There's no

single point of failure. You can't just shut down a headquarters or lean on a CEO. To change anything major, you need

CEO. To change anything major, you need to get the majority of users to agree.

Good luck with that. Which brings us to the final question, the one to really chew on. This whole origin story is a

chew on. This whole origin story is a fascinating rabbit hole for sure. Spies,

mobsters, brilliant cryptographers. But

at the end of the day, in a system that's built on transparent open code that's controlled by no one, does the ghost in the machine really change anything at all?

>> And of course, the answer is uh no. Um

so that was from uh what I did in that podcast is I went through a bunch of different videos and theories. Um and

that was with uh Uncle Jack. Um many

people asked if we could do a podcast together. I think it would be worth

together. I think it would be worth doing that at some point. let me know in the comments section whether you'd like to actually um see that as well. But I

wanted to just lay that foundation to make sure that this is not manipulated because many people just don't understand how Bitcoin works and think that there's some kind of back door or

something like that because now we're going to go through many of the attacks that we saw this week. And my

overarching theory um is uh and by the way when we talk about Len there um I think other people are involved as well so you might want to watch the whole episode to get my full thoughts on that

as well. Um but I want you to make sure

as well. Um but I want you to make sure that there are my overarching theory here is that it is the gateway drug theory rather than the honeypot. And the

gateway drug theory means that this was a mechanism and there was a resistance to open source it in order to get people used to transacting online and then

transition to the stable coin central bank digital currency standard that we're on. Which is why I preach and try

we're on. Which is why I preach and try and help people understand whose part of the network whose agenda are different players on. because when

you're listening to people, you may not know and they may not know who they're actually working for because these are all covert operations as well. So let's

have a look at some of the attacks and how I interpret them from a proof of weapons network and from my belief that they are trying to get you into the gateway drug of stable coins and central

bank digital currencies and centralizing Bitcoin into Wall Street and financial industrial complex rappers. So, Attack

Vector One, um, it [clears throat] was posted that Jeffrey Epstein, uh, was funding Bitcoin core developers. And so,

I want to go through the history that many people may not know of how Bitcoin developers were funded. So, obviously,

you had the very very beginning and you had the group that were involved with Satoshi Nakamoto. We gave some theories

Satoshi Nakamoto. We gave some theories of who they are, many of whom are no longer with us today. uh whether it be the Halines and the others that we covered as well. You can go back to that

video. But anyway, they bootstrapped the

video. But anyway, they bootstrapped the network, they open sourced the network, and they were the first to mine it. What

that means is that they fare with anyone else. They were the first to know. They

else. They were the first to know. They

launched it on the uh the Cipher Punk mailing list and said anyone can mine it once it was built in January 2009. The

the the white paper was released in 2008.

Um and uh then there was you know the the network was there. People could fire up their laptop and they could mine some Bitcoin. People used to receive for very

Bitcoin. People used to receive for very little electricity and just by having a laptop with CPU power 50 bitcoin per 10

every 10 minutes in order to um bootstrap the network and uh then more and more people would start mining and the more and more people that were mining then you ended up where it's more

difficult to mine. And so therefore the early bitcoins were mined by the first miners on the network or from their laptop. And then eventually it went to

laptop. And then eventually it went to graphics cards and GPUs. And then

eventually China and uh various other companies across Europe and China uh created the first A6 which are specialist mining equipment that could

mine faster than any other CPU or GPU.

Um but uh one of the you know where were the developers actually funded? Well

originally it was just a bunch of people that would pull their money together.

They would have a Bitcoin wallet address and people could contribute Bitcoin and uh some of the early developers would just be funded through donations and

contributions. Now when I joined round

contributions. Now when I joined round about 2011 after writing the first published book in 2010 that was launched

um later um I spoke at the first Bitcoin conference and Max Kaiser a journalist on uh RT and myself um invested in a

company called Bitay. And now Bitay started to use some of its funding because it was trying to create like a PayPal or Bitcoin where you could accept Bitcoin then you would receive fiat

currency to make it easy for merchants.

Um it started allocating some of its revenue to some of the early developers.

And so this became corporate interest.

Now why would somebody do that? Why

would a company do that? Well, they

obviously have an agenda because as you take on investors, you work for your shareholders. And as you become a more

shareholders. And as you become a more professional company, you have a board of executives rather than just one entrepreneur. And then you have a board

entrepreneur. And then you have a board that's normally from your shareholders and that gives oversight to the executives. And the board works and

executives. And the board works and represents the shareholders. And so the shareholders then could manipulate or influence where they wanted Bitcoin

development to go because the money was coming from essentially the shareholders value. And so that's a problem. And so

value. And so that's a problem. And so

the next idea was that there would be a foundation and a foundation was set up called the Bitcoin Foundation. Um and

this was basically funded um and one of their first missions was to work with kind of PR issues uh but also to fund developers. Now this was more of a

developers. Now this was more of a decentralized group of interested companies. And so you had early

companies. And so you had early companies that would be interested in supporting Bitcoin. And so rather than

supporting Bitcoin. And so rather than just one company like Bitay, you would have multiple companies that would all contribute to a foundation. Um and then the foundation would have a governance

document and a mission statement. But

the Bitcoiners really started to go and and unearth many of the members that were part of the Bitcoin Foundation. So

it then became more decentralized. So

originally it was the creators, then it was corporations, now it was a foundation. And who was a member of some

foundation. And who was a member of some of those foundations? Well, one of them in order to follow the money and understand that Bitcoin has always been

under attack, you can start to look at what happened to some of those early members. One of them, and again, I'll

members. One of them, and again, I'll just share you stories from my perspective of being around many of these characters in the early days and investing in many of the companies to

try and support the industry. As the

value of Bitcoin grew, I would share it out around the ecosystem to fund developers, fund companies, and try and turn this into something. One of them

was a guy called Charlie Shrem. Now,

Charlie Shrem was later arrested after joining the Bitcoin Foundation. He

created a company called Bit Instant.

Um, if you type in my name, Charlie Shrem, you'll see me on some of his podcasts from uh back in the day. Uh but

he was arrested on his way to Bitcoin Miami conference because through his company that was connected to an exchange called Mount Gaus um you were

able to take some of those funds and use them in some of the dark web marketplaces that people were using them. The most famous at the time was

them. The most famous at the time was called Silk Road. And so when you are a centralized company, you have to comply with anti-moneylaundering regulations,

KYC regulations, bank secrecy act, and all sorts of stuff. You can no longer be a missionary player. You have to submit to what you have to do as a fiduciary

duty to your shareholders. Now, Bitcoin

regulations, was it money? Wasn't it

money? One of the early court cases was a guy called Trendan Shavers who created a Ponzi scheme and it was determined through his um lawyer. I think he was

represented by a guy called Jason Cyber if I remember correctly. Um and he got it where it was determined in court that Bitcoin is money. So now we knew that

Bitcoin was money as classified in court via a Ponzi scheme and it had nothing to do with Bitcoin. It was a Ponzi scheme of somebody that used Bitcoin in order

to try and draw in investors, started paying those investors from future returns. Um, and therefore we had the

returns. Um, and therefore we had the classic definition. Now he went to

classic definition. Now he went to prison. Uh, Charlie Shrem uh got

prison. Uh, Charlie Shrem uh got determined that you have to actually have a money transmitter license. So now

these companies have to bow down to the agenda, but Bitcoin still remains Bitcoin because there's no door to knock on. There's no executive to arrest.

on. There's no executive to arrest.

There's nobody to blackmail. There's no

one to engage in this. So, you start looking at the attack vectors.

Now, Charlie Shrem was put down in prison for engaging in what he pleaded guilty to money laundering because people used his platform in order to

purchase, you know, use uh purchase drugs on the dark website via an exchange called Mount Gaus. Now, Mount

Gaus had a member on the Bitcoin Foundation that was a French guy that lived in Japan called Mark Capellis.

Now, Mark Capellis, he bought Mount Gaus. He didn't create Mount Gaus and he

Gaus. He didn't create Mount Gaus and he bought it and it was missing when he purchased it 80,000 Bitcoin. Now, he

didn't know when he purchased the exchange that it was missing 80,000 Bitcoin. And so he later went back to

Bitcoin. And so he later went back to the person that he purchased it from and said, "Where is the 80,000 Bitcoin that we owe to our customers?" Because what happens when you create an exchange? You

create fractional reserve Bitcoin. You

create paper representatives. People

that thought they had Bitcoin on Mount Gaus in fact had an IOU, which is a centralized database. Now the underlying

centralized database. Now the underlying bitcoin you cannot fractionally reserve but once you put it in an exchange you create paper bitcoin. So who did Mark

Capellis buy this exchange from? Well he

bought it from a guy called Jeb Maleb.

Who's Jeb Maleb? He was the creator of a token called XRP who essentially took that token and sold it to a bunch of

companies or a company that was part of the banking network. And so the bank started creating competition to Swift and ended up with approximately 60% of

this XRP token in a company called Ripple Labs. Full disclosure, I was

Ripple Labs. Full disclosure, I was investing in fintech at the time and Ripple Labs was one of the companies I later invested in. Um over time I didn't, you know, I didn't want to

support the banking system. Um and so whenever I can exit those shares, I exit those shares. I've been cleansing myself

those shares. I've been cleansing myself off these shares because I want to remain independent. I don't want to have

remain independent. I don't want to have to bow down to a shareholders agenda.

But obviously the shareholders can influence the companies when you understand corporate governance. Who

else was um involved in that network? A

guy called John Matonis. So look at this right now. You had an attack vector on

right now. You had an attack vector on money laundering regulations. uh you had an attack vector on also with via John

Matonis. Now John Matonis what did he do

Matonis. Now John Matonis what did he do later? Well later uh although he was

later? Well later uh although he was part of the Bitcoin Foundation and the chairman of the foundation he brought somebody into our community and whether

he brought him in or whether he was fooled or whether he was blackmailed or whatever I don't know. All I know is I'm following the incentives. Well, he later

brought somebody to the community that claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto. His name

was Dr. Craig Wright. And so what did they end up creating shortly after? A

hard fork and a different version of Bitcoin. So this led us to the block war

Bitcoin. So this led us to the block war debates because essentially um Craig Wright was a SCOP that was injected into the ecosystem

in order to create alternative versions.

Now he created a hard fork in partnership with some of the miners in China uh called Bitcoin Cash. And so um by partnering with these Chinese miners

who had created the AS6 and they were using their ASIC machines in order to mine Bitcoin faster than the GPUs and CPUs. Um you ended up with an attack

CPUs. Um you ended up with an attack vector where people and some of the early developers, a guy like Mike Hearn had a hissy fit saying Bitcoin is too

centralized in China. He sold all of his Bitcoin I think at about $100 or so saying that the pro project has failed because of this. And so then the miners

colluded and they started to say well you know we don't want what the developers are doing. The developers um you know we want them to increase the block size you know we want to work with

various companies and you had this decentralized uh boardroom debate. Um, I remember when I was at Hong Kong, when the Hong Kong agreement was signed between the miners

and the developers and the road map was set, but just because it was signed in a shadowy boardroom, it became out in public. It went onto the forums and

public. It went onto the forums and everyone started to debate it and people started to say, "We don't want the future of Bitcoin to be determined between the miners and the core developers and a bunch of influential

venture capitalists." And so, they

venture capitalists." And so, they didn't get their way. Um, but there was an attack vector sent in called Dr. Craig Wright who pretended he was Bitcoin uh creator. He pretended he was

Satoshi Nakamoto and he got one of the core developers that had previously met with the CIA and but when Satoshi Nakamoto left the project in order to

endorse him and say, "I saw that he controlled the Satoshi wallet keys."

Turned out that he didn't control the Satoshi wallet keys. In fact, Gavin Andre, one of the developers that ended up joining with Bitcoin Cash um with the

Chinese miners as well, um ended up leaving development. Um and there was a

leaving development. Um and there was a whole story around control of the GitHub repo, which is the you know the de the

the the open-source developer community where all the code is hosted. Now, one

of the early investors when I was investing in many of the companies, Blockchain.com, later Coinbase, ShapeShift, various others with early Bitcoiners as well, um, Circle, which

later launched USDC, all of these companies started as Bitcoin companies, but because they were under a corporate rapper, they needed to maximize

shareholder value and receive VC funding. So the VCs in Silicon Valley

funding. So the VCs in Silicon Valley were able to influence. When I was investing, it was just us Bitcoiners that were on a mission to take on the banks and make sure that it remains

decentralized. So now via these

decentralized. So now via these companies, what happens? All of these companies maximizing shareholder returns would launch shitcoins, get into stable

coins, go into all sorts of other stuff in order to maximize the revenue for those corporate entities. Now it

supports the growth of Bitcoin but people need to be aware of the attack vectors. Now one of the influential

vectors. Now one of the influential investors at the time was a guy called Roger Ve. He was at the time the biggest

Roger Ve. He was at the time the biggest investor um and uh you know myself and bank to the future investing in many of the different companies uh but he was

again an early supporter of Bitcoin cash. Now what I am saying here is that

cash. Now what I am saying here is that many times you don't know what a corporate agenda is doing and you don't

know what these people are connected and affiliated with and half the time they don't know who they're working for. Now

what happened with Roger Ve recently? He

was arrested in Spain for what was called tax evasion. And that tax evasion from the early days of Bitcoin was because he put some Bitcoin in a

corporate rapper and maybe that was held over Roger Ve. I don't know. I'm not

making any accusations. I'm just saying that there is constant attacks under this network which is why we created the

mantra in Bitcoin. Don't trust verify.

because we don't want any central point of failure like all the other crypto projects that can be cojacked hi you know hijacked can be taken over and all

these different things.

So what happened to uh Gavin Andre? Well

he went and met with the CIA. The CIA

had wanted a meeting in terms of what is Bitcoin. He was handed the project by

Bitcoin. He was handed the project by Satoshi Nakamoto and as soon as he found out that Gavin Andre went to the CIA, Satoshi Nakamoto left the project. Um,

and at the same time it was utilized on Wikileaks by Julian Assange because Wikileaks was being attacked and taken down by the banking system, Visa,

Mastercard, Bank of America. What is the financial choke points that happen here?

That's what they're doing right now.

They're taking people that had bank, you know, that are involved in the community and saying, "We'll take out your bank account." What happens next? They're

account." What happens next? They're

partnering with other players that are compromised into the proof of weapons network. All of these attack vectors

network. All of these attack vectors constantly happen. And so it was Gavin

constantly happen. And so it was Gavin Andre and Craig Wright with Roger Ve that supported Bitcoin Cash, which was the next attack and a hard fork. Now

later they attacked Bitcoin Cash and went into Bitcoin SV and then we add you know different other players like Calvinire who has a very bad background

but was also investing in a ginormous mining farm um and became probably the only miner for Bitcoin SV and they both went through 51% attacks because nothing

had the hash power like uh Bitcoin did as well. Now, another controversial

as well. Now, another controversial character that was part of the Bitcoin Foundation. So, you had all these people

Foundation. So, you had all these people was Brock Pierce. Now, Brock Pierce um he basically I remember I was at a conference um where was it? I can't even

remember. I think it was Mexico or maybe

remember. I think it was Mexico or maybe it was um one of Bruce Fenton's early conference Satoshi roundtable and I remember he was uh zonked out telling me

for hours and hours and hours why he knew that Craig Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto and tried to persuade me and bring me onto that. Now he was investing

in a lot of the companies. At this point I was you know uh I was deciding that the more and more investments you make the more and more people try and

compromise you into these attack vectors. Now I'm not saying anything

vectors. Now I'm not saying anything about um you know Brock Pierce. This is

all public information, but if you look up on the internet Brock Pierce, you'll notice that there were allegations and settlements around sexual crimes. He was

somebody that was involved in Silicon Valley. He created a video streaming

Valley. He created a video streaming site. Um, he was a child actor involved

site. Um, he was a child actor involved in the Hollywood industry. Um, and later it turned out that he actually on the public record met with Jeffrey Epstein.

And this is what was revealed in some of these allegations as well. So you know how these things work. They want, and I'm going to cover this in the macro and

geopolitical section, the idea of these sexual blackmail networks is to compromise everybody that they can try and influence. And so whether it

and influence. And so whether it happened, whether it's not, that's not my, you know, that's not my thing to judge here. My joke here is that you can

judge here. My joke here is that you can see the attack vectors around everybody that was involved because there was a very deliberate strategy to try and

attack some of these people and get them in the network. Now, what did Brock Pierce do? Well, he was investing in the

Pierce do? Well, he was investing in the industry. He created a venture capital

industry. He created a venture capital fund um with partners called Blockchain Capital that was trying to acquire all the different companies in the industry.

He also invested um and in a project uh that later turned into Tether. Um and he sold that project to Bitfinex. And

Bitfinex was one of the exchanges that came from um one of the the big hacked exchanges. Uh God, I forget the name of

exchanges. Uh God, I forget the name of the exchanges now. Um Bit

I've forgotten the name of it now. It

will come back to me later. Um well

anyway they bought the code and later they launched the project tether. Now

Tether was called something else when it was originally purchased if I remember correctly true USD or something like that. Um but it was a way of getting

that. Um but it was a way of getting money between all these different exchanges so you could arbitrage. Now

what have we got here? Brock Pierce

created what later became Tether. Tether

was sold to Bitfinex.

Stable coins were invented as a mechanism. Remember what I said, the

mechanism. Remember what I said, the original theory, gateway drug theory.

And what is stable coins now? It's the

precursor and the privatized version of a central bank digital currency. Again,

I'm not saying that all these people were coordinated. I am saying that there

were coordinated. I am saying that there are operations to compromise different parts of the ecosystem. Now, what

happened with Bitfinex? It was

weaponized by the se the CFTC. A bunch

of money was seized in the banking sector which removed those reserves.

They ended up having to um and there was an attack on the exchange.

19,000 bitcoins uh were hacked from that exchange via these covert operations.

Now, I was one of the people that had um became a shareholder in Bitfinex because we put together a recovery plan that meant that Bitfinex didn't need to go

into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And so, we pulled together all the people that were going to lose all their money and the lawyers would have stolen all their money like they did for Celsius,

BlockFi, FTX, all the others. and

instead we gave them a a Bitcoin token that represented the claim that made them a shareholder in Bitfinex. I became

one of those shareholders. We ended up owning 40% of the company. Um and the com the it recovered and it didn't need to go into chapter 11. But the goal of

that hack was to send Bitfinex into chapter 11 at the same time as having these other things that happened. So you

had the weaponization of regulators, the weaponization of banks and financial censorship. Um and you had covert

censorship. Um and you had covert hacking operations. Um I don't want to

hacking operations. Um I don't want to go too deep into that. But after all of these controversies around the members of Bitcoin Foundation, you had arrests,

you had all these people that were compromised, you had Brock Pier, all these other things. Um the Bitcoin Foundation was completely demoralized

distinguish you know it completely the the community had enough of it and so it stopped funding the Bitcoin core developers.

What did they do? They wanted to exert a handover of how to fund these different developers as the project now was about 2015 and we were get we were turning

into a multi-billion dollar project at this time. So in 2015, MIT the college

this time. So in 2015, MIT the college um basically funded um some of the Bitcoin developers via a subset

um called digital currency institute or something I think it was called um and uh they launched a side project. So MIT

had an innovation lab as it were um with these NOS's and different networks and then they funded a project called DCI digital currency I think it was initiative um maybe people in the

comments can say whether I got this right it's been a while uh this was 10 years ago um and so the Bitcoin developers were had MIT funding that

went into DCI and DCI took a subset of their funding and started supporting ing some of the Bitcoin core developers.

Now, you see why it's very important for us to have this open-source code with a a network of developers with computing implementations. I'm going into the

implementations. I'm going into the basics. There were more stories with

basics. There were more stories with computing implementations as well. Um,

but what is it that it was released recently? It was released old news. What

recently? It was released old news. What

was that old news? that MIT had some funding from Jeffrey Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein started commenting around 2017

on crypto and started speaking with various other influential uh people in the Trump administration

um around you know um supporting uh crypto and tax legislation. So MIT

launched DCI. DCI funded some of the Bitcoin core developers. Um and then we had the next phase of funding these developers. Others would raise finance,

developers. Others would raise finance, put up a Bitcoin QR code and people could contribute to the developers where they wanted some of the Bitcoin

improvement proposals to go through. Now

what happened after that? Well, a

company that was founded by Adam Bach who was mentioned in the white paper and was a part of the cipher punk movement.

He then raised a bunch of money and created a corporate rapper and that corporate rapper was a company called Blockstream. Um, and that company called

Blockstream. Um, and that company called Blockstream brought with it a bunch of the developers and they used the Bitcoin treasury strategy, the same one we were

using at Bank of the Future because we didn't get any Silicon Valley money because we held Bitcoin on our balance sheet and we didn't um go public or do any of the things that the other

companies did because we held Bitcoin on our balance sheet and we didn't do what sale doing where you raise money from corporate debt investors. and

institutional investors so that they can then determine the future of the strategy of the company. Um, and so Blockstream uh basically funded a bunch

of Bitcoin mining uh Bitcoin developers, but it raised finance from a bunch of other types of investors who were some of their investors. One of them was

Blockchain Capital. Blockchain Capital

Blockchain Capital. Blockchain Capital was part of Brock Pierce's network to invest. One of the others was Bitfinex.

invest. One of the others was Bitfinex.

Another one was a company called Axa Ventures. And then people start to look

Ventures. And then people start to look at, well, who are Axa Ventures? So you

can start looking through the history and you'll realize that one of the CEOs of um uh AXA was uh Hen Dcastres um

who's basically a member of a Bilderberg group um and many others that would meet and so you had a company that was in the

midst of the block war debate and we had people tried to take it over determine the influence of the code but the decentralized nature of the network meant that even when the users didn't

like it, the node operators were able to run a threat of a user activated soft fork. I remember the day it actually got

fork. I remember the day it actually got activated, which was a different, you know, an upgrade in the code to increase the block size without needing a hard fork. I don't want to get geeky into it.

fork. I don't want to get geeky into it.

It was called segregated witness. and

Barry Silbert who was from Digital Currency Group, the one that went into you know um uh you know basically created Grayscale and all the other

things that created the recent crash in 2021. I don't want to go too deep into

2021. I don't want to go too deep into that. Um yeah, Barry Silbert um at

that. Um yeah, Barry Silbert um at Digital Currency Group tried to consolidate all the companies in order to get a block size increase plus the

the addition to the code and that was the big block war. Um and uh anyway um so you can look through that then many people were saying we don't want Blockstream to be funding core

developers. So some of those developers

developers. So some of those developers went away from Blockstream. You had Luke Dash Jr. various others um and they started to invest and build their own

initiatives. So what we're saying here

initiatives. So what we're saying here is that this is always under attack and the point the the point of Bitcoin is we

have this open-source boardroom where we expose all these things. Now what was the next attack vector? Well, Caner

Fitzgerald can Fitzgerald created by Howard Lutnik as deep state as it gets.

Um, and what would he do? He would go along. He's now in the Trump

along. He's now in the Trump administration as the commerce secret secretary. Um, and he would solve

secretary. Um, and he would solve Tether's issue. he would start to back

Tether's issue. he would start to back it by treasuries, become influential into the Biden administration and the Trump administration

um and allow Tether to custody its backing of its stable coin which is US treasuries and now become the 17th largest lender to the US government. So

now it's strategically important as we are in this fiscal dominance stage and the debt is being rolled over. Now what

else did Caner Fitzgerald do? Well, they

started going out to as many influential people in Bitcoin and say, "Hey, why don't we create a Bitcoin treasury company? Why don't we also allow for

company? Why don't we also allow for Bitcoin back loans? Why don't we issue mine some fiat currency?" Because

they're connected into the Federal Reserve primary dealer network and they buy these bonds and they're a buyer of last resort while influencing policy to push rates down. at the moment in the

Trump administration. But anyway, prior

Trump administration. But anyway, prior to that, he would go around and try and take as many companies public, create all these different Bitcoin treasury companies, and he'd go to Adam back and

say, "Right, you're now vaselized into the Blockstream network. Why don't you start promoting stable coins or why don't you start creating Bitcoin

treasury companies?" And so Adam Back,

treasury companies?" And so Adam Back, originally a cipher punk, is now promoting shares in a company with

questionable shareholders, launching or promoting the stable coins and also launching Bitcoin treasury companies.

And so this is the process of vasilization that I always talk about.

The financial industrial complex uses their financial weapons of mass destruction in order to bring people into that governance structure where you

are no longer sovereign, which is what Bitcoin was here to create. It was here to create the ability for you to own your own money, spend your own money, and have a network that can't be

printed. No derivatives printing, no

printed. No derivatives printing, no stock printing, no crypto printing, no stable coin printing, uh no uh you know bond printing, no dollar printing, no

fiat printing. But everyone gets

fiat printing. But everyone gets vaselized through this financial industrial complex. So Adam B created a

industrial complex. So Adam B created a Bitcoin treasury company. Um Luke Dash Jr. created recently a competing implementation

of um of you know software that can be run on nodes called Bitcoin knots and it creates a resistance and so we have those open-source boardroom deate

debates as well and we have constant attack constant attack constant attack just like this and I'm only entering into a small part of the history of what

got us here to the point where we are this $2.3 trillion network backed by the most amount of hash power, the largest distributed supercomput with attack

after attack after attack. And so what is Bitcoin? I remind you open-source

is Bitcoin? I remind you open-source code on a distributed supercomput where transactions are processed on anybody

that wants to run a node and users can resist through user activated soft forks. And one of those resistance, as I

forks. And one of those resistance, as I said, came when we needed to resist against Barry Silbert that tried to create SegWit 2X. And what did he do? He

invested in a company called Zcash. and

Zcash, which was using zero knowledge proof technology that was mainly innovated at Tel Aviv University that relied upon six developers, one of them

a Bitcoin developer um called Peter Todd that recently was accused of being Satoshi in a documentary, another attack vector. Now that Peter Todd, we had to

vector. Now that Peter Todd, we had to rely upon him destroying his key in Zcash. And there was a centralized

Zcash. And there was a centralized company that was launched alongside Zcash that charged a tax on all the different Zcash that were mined into a

centralized company. That centralized

centralized company. That centralized company now needs to deal with regulators. And so and it relied upon

regulators. And so and it relied upon code. It may have changed later. I

code. It may have changed later. I

didn't continue to follow the project but you had to rely upon a promise from Peter Todd and other people uh that you need that the keys the original keys

were destroyed in a network where there is zero knowledge transactions but you can't even check them on the blockchain h so what happened recently we had an

attack the attack was let's push Zcash Barry Silbert goes on TV the network of ETFs that wrap wrap around Zcash were launched. uh you had that centralized

launched. uh you had that centralized company that has to go through the compliance and everyone goes on TV and says Zcash is the future at the same time as connecting Bitcoin to Jeffrey

Epstein giving halftruths so that people would sell their Bitcoin while simultaneously launching a second attack at the same time by the financial

industrial complex through their new tool which is called Strategy.

strategy MSTR that everybody says is the one that's bringing all this new adoption into Bitcoin is creating a Wall Street rapper that centralizes as much

Bitcoin as possible. And because he is very very good at pitching what Bitcoin is and saying how fiat currency is going to zero and that Bitcoin goes up and

therefore what should you do? Borrow

fiat currency to buy Bitcoin. And once

you have that Bitcoin, use it as collateral and borrow against it again.

And if you don't have access to that credit, I'll create a company that gets as much Bitcoin as possible. Issue is

that issues debt and therefore I can just do it for you and you can buy my shares. And through this mechanism, the

shares. And through this mechanism, the more that I borrow, the more shares I sell, the more subservient it becomes to the financial industrial complex. And so

through this mechanism, there is approximately 650,000 bitcoins, which is about 3% of the supply in a public company. That public

company has shareholders. And so you have a vehicle that looks like a resistance but is actually giving more and more power to the proof of weapons

network and the financial industrial complex. So what how are we doing at

complex. So what how are we doing at strategy? Well, it owns 650,000 Bitcoin.

strategy? Well, it owns 650,000 Bitcoin.

It has $54 million of cash and it has committed to $700 million of annual obligations which means that it doesn't

have enough cash to pay its obligations on the products that it recently launched and it has promises to corporate debt investors to hedge fund

operators like Jain Street to its shareholders like Vanguard and the longerterm investors the equity investors as well as the debt investors. And so

all of these different financial weapons of mass destruction are used in order to make Michael Sailor via its corporate entity strategy submit to its

shareholders and its debt holders. That

is how these things work. And so you cannot pay those liabilities now that these additional debt instruments and preference shares and dividend paying

instruments have created. And so how do you pay that? Well, one way of paying it is raising additional debt or equity through the debt capital markets or the

equity capital markets. What does that mean? Now when Michael Sailor or

mean? Now when Michael Sailor or Strategy announces that they've done a fund raise, it sells out very quickly.

Do you think that's because they're reaching out to all these retail investors and these retail investors are gobbling up this project? No. It is

purchased by the financial industrial complex and now it has full capture of this tool. Why would they want that tool

this tool. Why would they want that tool to go bust? Because they have created the perfect tool for manipulating the short-term price of Bitcoin in its

financial industrial complex alongside other tools. And if you can get it to

other tools. And if you can get it to have not enough cash to pay its debt liabilities, that is exactly what the IMF was created for. That's exactly what

it was created for. So what's the second way that they could pay that additional liability? Well, they could increase

liability? Well, they could increase revenue. So what did Strategy do? It

revenue. So what did Strategy do? It

leaked out that it's going to start paying yield and it would create a Bitcoin bank. And so what is a Bitcoin

Bitcoin bank. And so what is a Bitcoin bank? Well, under the Trump

bank? Well, under the Trump administration, Sailor was pitching that there should be the way you get Bitcoin adoption is by having banks adopt Bitcoin so that they can lever up those

balance sheets. And therefore, we had

balance sheets. And therefore, we had the changes so that banks can now create paper Bitcoin. And that was a part of

paper Bitcoin. And that was a part of Michael Sailor's pitch of how to get Bitcoin adoption to the next level. So

now we have equity capital markets, debt capital markets, full vasilization, and an business plan that is saying, and I'm not sure exactly what's going to

happen, that they want to be a Bitcoinbacked bank, i.e. financial

weapons of mass destruction. For those

of you that are old enough to remember long-term capital management, it's getting closer and closer. What did that get? It got a government bailout because

get? It got a government bailout because it was too big to fail. So you socialize the losses, privatize the gains. Now

people are speculating on whether this is going to be a government strategy.

How did the government strategy work out during the 2008 global financial crisis?

They hired BlackRock in order to determine which companies go down and gave everything to Jeffrey Epstein's banker JP Morgan took out Jeffrey

Epstein's operation like Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns or ones that he was working for previously when he created

this fake persona of being a uh wealthy financier when he was an intelligence op. Um, and they gave the the ETF

op. Um, and they gave the the ETF department of Barclays to BlackRock using BlackRock's advisory service at the Federal Reserve by printing money,

making the taxpayer pay for it and creating financial weapons of mass destruction. And so, did it go to the

destruction. And so, did it go to the government? No. It went to the banksters

government? No. It went to the banksters that were creating the mortgage back securities and the collateralized debt obligation and the credit default swaps.

But what were the credit default swaps?

They were meant to be the insurance for the system. But who owns the credit

the system. But who owns the credit default swaps? Black Rockck's pension

default swaps? Black Rockck's pension funds and various other constructs of the financial industrial complex. And so

rather than pensioners taking the hit, they used their political lobbying to own uh you know to own the uh ETF department of Barclay's Eyesshares that

gave them all these board seats in the financial industrial complex that they have right now and they did it with your money through money printing because

they are too big to fail. And so that's the second way that they can meet those obligations in the future. It is a tool for the financial industrial complex to

centralize as much Bitcoin as possible.

The more Bitcoin it gets in that rapper, the more vasilized it is into the financial industrial complex and people are falling for it. What else could you

do? Well, the third way of making up for

do? Well, the third way of making up for those additional obligations is selling Bitcoin. So, that's beautiful, isn't it?

Bitcoin. So, that's beautiful, isn't it?

So, what did they pivot? They pivoted

the terms and conditions saying that it was possible to sell Bitcoin to meet these obligations. What does that do?

these obligations. What does that do?

That creates the ability to utilize paper derivatives, options, financial weapons of mass destruction on strategy shares in order to crash the price so

that when you want Bitcoin to be sold, you can sell some of that Bitcoin. um

which does what essentially Terra Luna did back in the 2021 2022 days for any of you that were around that back then.

And you now have a mechanism for short-term manipulating the price of Bitcoin via a vehicle that is pushing

out a narrative that they're taking on JP Morgan. They're taking on the banks.

JP Morgan. They're taking on the banks.

This is vasilization 101 textbook financial weapons a mass destruction full subserviency to the

financial industrial complex that Satoshi Nakamoto in his original block in 2009 where it was mined into the

block banks on the brink of financial disaster because of the 2008 financial crisis while Israel was invading Gaza On

the front page of that newspaper, it was mined into the block to remind us that this is a resistance

against the 2008 global financial crisis with an opensource code in order to resist against the money printers, the

stock printers, the derivative printers, the bond printers, the crypto printers, the stable coin printers.

And so strategy is a full-blown financial industrial complex, financial weapon of mass destruction to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible so that it

is fully submitted to those that are investing in those products. And those

investors get to print the money to do it in the first place and can socialize the losses and privatize the gains. And if they want to wipe it out, crash the price of Bitcoin, send it into Chapter 11, and

buy all that Bitcoin on the cheap. You

think that there's a plan to back the dollar by Bitcoin? Who's in charge? You

think the government's in charge? The

lobbies are in charge. The lobbies own the Federal Reserve. They're the

shareholders of the Fed. They own the government. They own Senate. They own

government. They own Senate. They own

Congress. Through the

military-industrial complex in the deep state, they can blackmail judicial.

That's what Jeffrey Epstein was about.

Their whole mechanism is for control.

Recognize that we are in a battle for self-custody versus control. That is the battle that we are in. And people don't

recognize it because they're investing in the ones that are constructing the things that give more power to the financial industrial complex. How do

they do it? where they use passive investment funds from your pension. You

contribute to your insurance premiums. You contribute to your pension every single month. You put that in BlackRock

single month. You put that in BlackRock Bitcoin ETF that gives more power to BlackRock.

And then you also end up investing in strategy for tax deferred um income via some of these products as well.

And what are they threatening him with right now? inclusion or exclusion from

right now? inclusion or exclusion from the NASDAQ 100 index or the S&P 500 index because no financial market is

connected to reality.

It is just connected to the ability to receive money from the money printer and get access to these flows of index fund

capital that forces buying which is why BlackRock took over Bark's eyesshares in the first place. And when they want to do that, they can use their derivatives

market, which they're launching more and more products, their structured project mo product market, their hedge funds, their control over media in order to

push out narratives, their control of social media, and all the other financial weapons of mass destruction that the entire Bitcoin community that

isn't switched on was engaging in thinking that they were winning when they were giving giving more power to the very same attack vector. Hopefully,

Bitcoin hard talk investors um and people understand these attack vectors because they follow the money, not the narrative, they don't listen to the politicians. What else did we have

politicians. What else did we have today? Attack vector 3. Well, you know,

today? Attack vector 3. Well, you know, the attack vector was if Tether isn't vasilized enough, it um basically is now

the largest Bitcoin private miner in the world. Now, that's good. It creates a

world. Now, that's good. It creates a resistance against the public miners that are all going public because they're not vasilized because they're

funded actually by Bitcoin because they use the US government debt to buy Bitcoin with their yield. But the stable coin through Tether creates an attack

vector because you can have the run on the bank that happened to Silicon Valley Bank and happened to USD Circle previously. How do you resist against

previously. How do you resist against this? Now remember, they did an attack

this? Now remember, they did an attack on uh Bitfinex, which is the sister company of Tether. That was 119,000

Bitcoin attack. I became a shareholder,

Bitcoin attack. I became a shareholder, as I said, by supporting the victims of that hack. Um, and where are those

that hack. Um, and where are those bitcoins right now? Well, they belong to the shareholders and the victims. But what is the US government doing? They're

confiscating it and they're part of the US Bitcoin strategic reserves. And what

happened as soon as the Trump administration came through? Well, we

ended up with Genius Act to support stable coins and the person that worked under the PayPal mafia. remember um

Palunteer that's doing all these these military-industrial complex AI weapons through Peter Thiel and Elon Musk that's getting all of the data for our social

credit score also had David Saxs who was part of the PayPal mafia as well and he brought in Bo Hines Bo Hines um joins Tether and leaves the White House right

after creating Genius Act. What did

Genius Act do? Well, it basically helped JP Morgan create a covert central bank digital currency, calling it a stable coin because they slipped into the

Genius Act that if you have a banking license, you can use your reserves at the Fed to back the stable coin. And

there are over $3 trillion of reserves.

What else did it do? It said you can compete with other stable coins and pay yield on your stable coin. So you can become a collateralized debt obligation

and then you can pay that yield out to the investor but only if you have a banking license. And then they create

banking license. And then they create legislation saying you can hold bank on your balance sheet and that can become part of your asset base in a fiat

currency fractional reserve system. And

so you have stable coin issuers are now applying to become banks. One of the companies I invested in was Coinbase and Circle. They were originally Bitcoin

Circle. They were originally Bitcoin companies. Now, because they were

companies. Now, because they were subservant to shareholders, they became a shitcoin casino and then they launched stable coins and then they needed to maximize shareholder value. They took on

all the Silicon Valley money. The PayPal

mafias all came in and now they're a public company. And in that public

public company. And in that public company, they're now applying to become a bank. You see the strategy? This is

a bank. You see the strategy? This is

how the complex works. And so what happened? What happens uh in the Genius

happened? What happens uh in the Genius Act? It said, "Well, pretending we're

Act? It said, "Well, pretending we're not going to have a central bank digital currency, but we don't want people using coin joins, which is how you anonymize

private wallets when you hold them in self-custody." And we will take out the

self-custody." And we will take out the developers that created a coin join wallet called Samurai Wallet. Um, and

they're going down for five years right now. And not much has been talked about

now. And not much has been talked about that. There's no pardon there. They

that. There's no pardon there. They

pardoned Ross Albbright because they wanted to confiscate the Bitcoin like they confiscated the Bitfinex Bitcoin like they just confiscated the Bitcoin from the scam uh the victims of the scam

in Cambodia that China's trying to return to victims and America said they're on our balance sheet. They're

our strategic reserves rather than return them to victims. So the confiscation strategy is what they are using. But who controls the Treasury?

using. But who controls the Treasury?

The banks through the bank lobby. So, it

ain't going to be make America great again. It ain't going to be saving the

again. It ain't going to be saving the dollar because what do the banks want?

We'll cover that more in the macro and geopolitical section. What else did they

geopolitical section. What else did they put in the Genius Act? Well, they want to discourage the use of unique wallets via hardware wallets which are constructed where every time you make a

transaction, it creates a new wallet so that you can only be seen for one transaction in this pseudonmous network.

They want to make sure that doesn't happen within America.

Um, so what is really happening here? Is

this the Trump administration ushering in the strategy of the financial industrial complex and the

proof of weapons network that want to have stable coins owned by private corporate interests like JP Morgan and other players that they can bring into

the network by taking them public in order to use a gateway drug onto what they're going to be launching in Europe.

Europe and everywhere else a central bank digital currency to vaselize those governments up to the private network via stable coins integrated into Elon

Musk's social credit score and Palanteer surveillance state that they got $500 billion of Stargate capital in order to

create and plug into Oracle to get that data and that's what is happening right now.

So they get to buy US treasury yield.

They get to buy Bitcoin with that. And

who is the player that is ushering in all these Bitcoin treasury companies and all these borrow against your Bitcoin?

Well, of course, it is Caner Fitzgerald.

Caner Fitzgerald who launched a Bitcoin treasury company with a Bitcoiner that got upset that I was talking about this, Jack Malers. And what did his company do

Jack Malers. And what did his company do once he took the funding, once he did the partnership? Well, he launched

the partnership? Well, he launched borrow against your Bitcoin and so you can now put your Bitcoin in custody, borrow against it via strike and if the

price gets manipulated down, you get margin called and lose your Bitcoin while they're mining fiat currency via these network of financial institutions that are lending the money, which means

that those organizations are subordinate to their shareholders and their debt holders And so now you get more and more Bitcoin back loans.

You get Caner Fitzgerald custodying all of the US treasuries behind these stable coins. And what comes out afterwards

coins. And what comes out afterwards this week? Attack Vector 3. The S&P.

this week? Attack Vector 3. The S&P.

Yes, our friends at the S&P. Yes, the

ones that were rating AAA ratings on the mortgage back securities and collateralized debt obligations during the 2008 financial crisis, which of

course are independent actors, even though some of these credit rating agencies via various ones that were weaponized are owned by Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. And so what did they do?

They downgraded Tether in order to vaselize it into submission before we go to the next phase of the stable coin

strategy. So now Tether is now being

strategy. So now Tether is now being graded with S&P and it was graded as weak saying that they had excess

reserves held in gold and Bitcoin while they are engaging in market manipulation through strategy whilst vaselizing Jack

Malers into the network. And again

nothing of this is about personality.

This is structural financial weapons of mass destruction that everyone was promoting this week except for the Bitcoin hard talk listeners that knew a

mile off what was happening. And so now they can crash the bond market in order to trigger mass withdrawals just like they did when Operation Chokepoint 2.0

took out Silicon Valley Bank. when uh

Bill Aman came on spaces and said we want the government to bail out the banks after Peter Thiel yes Peter Thiel came on spaces telling all his portfolio

companies to withdraw money from Silicon Valley Bank and Silicon Valley Bank and Signature and Silvergate um and uh uh Cross Tower or whatever the other ones

were can't quite remember now were all vaselized into the network and rolled up into JP Morgan and various other put

into submission by crashing the bond market in order to and what who had a bank account at Silicon Valley Bank.

Circle did and so the DEG happened where circle's price deps from the dollar based upon how much money was at Silicon

Valley Bank. Now later the uh the FDIC

Valley Bank. Now later the uh the FDIC came in, owned the bank, took over, gave it to their bodies and then said, "Okay, we'll guarantee the money paid for by

the tax power payer and money printing."

And the Federal Reserve constructed another financial weapon of mass destruction in order to uh take I think they issued about $650 billion in order

to save the system. But banks in credit Swiss and Morgan Stanley and Switzerland ended up merging and they uh managed to use a debt instrument in order to

socialize the losses and privatize the gain as well. So what do they want to do? What when you dump a stable coin?

do? What when you dump a stable coin?

What did we learn from Terra Luna? Well,

it becomes a weapon of mass destruction when you back it by Bitcoin because then you have to sell the Bitcoin to meet the liabilities because those US treasuries are meant to be held to maturity. And if

they're selling at a discount, that's how you took out Silicon Valley Bank.

You sell it at a discount. Now you can no longer meet withdrawal demand. When

you need to meet withdrawal demand, you sell some of your Bitcoin and you go through the cascading liquidation cycle of all the people that were borrowing against their Bitcoin where they get

margin called and who ends up with all the bitcoin in those treasury companies uh that uh essentially if you want go into chapter 11 the lawyers spend them

and give them to their VCs and all their buddy network.

So, what else did Strategy announce?

More products. It's going to be offering yields. And it said that it's going to

yields. And it said that it's going to become a bank just like Barry Silbert did with Genesis when it had its original Bitcoin kind of trust company

different that deped from the price of Bitcoin and started trading at a 50% discount to Bitcoin when before it was a premium. And all those companies that

premium. And all those companies that were offering yield, where did they get their yield? They got it from the

their yield? They got it from the discount and premium to that public company uh GBTC uh you know um that Barry Silbert

created and then they use that to pay yield by arbitrageing these financial weapons of mass destruction.

When Terral Luna was taken out that created cascading liquidations they are constructing the exact same playbook at the socialize the losses and privatize

the gain network.

Um, and they were offering, you know who was offering those Bitcoin back loans at the time? BlockFi, Celsius, and all the

the time? BlockFi, Celsius, and all the others. I've been to them many, many

others. I've been to them many, many times. Vasilization

times. Vasilization 101. Three attack vectors. This is

101. Three attack vectors. This is

financial industrial complex 101 taught to you by somebody that used to work in investment banking, has seen it all, been there, done it. Um, and it's

nothing personal as I said. So please

don't take this personal. It is

systemic. It is submission. It is

blackmail networks. It is financial weapons of mass destruction because first they try and groom you by allowing you to go public or allowing you to take

some Silicon Valley money. Then they

fund you and your growth and you become subordinate them because you need the capital and they lever you up. And then

if you don't comply, they blackmail you and they weaponize all sorts of things.

Whether it be media, whether it be access to financial weapons, uh whether it be sex blackmail operations. This is

what I was trying to explain. And so

what I want to do right now is I created a nice AI summary that goes through two of those attack vectors, goes through the timeline so that you can recognize

what's happening right in front of you right now um uh based you know upon uh this uh using strategy

um and using Jeffrey Epstein and his connection to funding [snorts] Bitcoin core developers.

so you can see how the network works.

Right.

>> Welcome back to the deep dive. Today we

are uh strapping in for what is really a high velocity two-part investigation.

>> A really big one.

>> Yeah. We're looking at Bitcoin's relationship with the, you know, the established global power structure.

>> And we're looking both backwards and forward.

>> Exactly. We're going backward into the deep and frankly murky past of Bitcoin core funding. And then we're jumping

core funding. And then we're jumping right into the present >> to what looks like a very coordinated institutional pressure campaign >> against Micro Strategy or MSTR.

Now, our sources for this deep dive are powerful. They're provocative. We're

powerful. They're provocative. We're

unpacking a detailed analysis from Simon Dixon.

>> He's a veteran investor, a real Bitcoin OG.

>> His report covers the geopolitical and financial angles.

>> And we're also using the synthesis from Bitcoin University to help tie it all together. Our mission as always is to

together. Our mission as always is to pull out the verified facts, >> right? The grounded structural

>> right? The grounded structural implications from what can be, you know, very sensational and complex narratives.

>> So what really stands out here?

>> I think it's how seamlessly these two things connect, the history and the present day. It just highlights this

present day. It just highlights this constant fundamental tension.

>> That tension between what exactly?

>> On one side you have Bitcoin. It's an

infinite decentralized asset. It's

designed to be immune to capture >> by a nation or a corporation.

>> Exactly. And on the other side, you have this powerful centralized financial industrial complex, the FIC, >> and its goal.

>> It's always seeking to either manage or co-opt or just neutralize any force that it can't outright crush. This is that story in action.

>> Okay, so let's unpack that past claim first because it involves some verifiable details that are um frankly pretty shocking.

>> It's a lot to take in.

>> It senders on new emails. These were

released by the House Oversight Committee and they detailed Jeffrey Epstein's involvement with MIT.

>> Right. So what are the documented facts here? What was his actual financial role

here? What was his actual financial role when it comes to MIT's digital currency initiative, the DCI?

>> Well, the connection point, the main one is Jiito.

>> He was the director of the MIT Media Lab at the time.

>> Yes. And the emails confirm that Epstein assisted Ido in funding the media lab.

>> And this is the crucial part. The Media

Lab was the institutional home of the digital currency initiative >> whose stated goal, and this is documented, was to provide stable and sustainable funding for long-term

Bitcoin core developers.

>> So, this wasn't just some, you know, general funding that went into a big pot.

>> Not at all. The source outlines a very specific moment. This is in 2015, right

specific moment. This is in 2015, right after the Bitcoin Foundation collapsed, >> which was its own big controversy.

>> Exactly. And it created a huge vacuum.

>> Right. And we have the email, the email from Ido to Epstein. The title is digital currency initiative.

>> And what does it say?

>> Ido explains how, you know, after the foundation went bankrupt, all these different organizations were scrambling to take control of the developers.

>> The developers who were suddenly orphaned financially, >> right? And Ido's team, they secured

>> right? And Ido's team, they secured gifts really quickly. He credits this fast movement for getting developers like Vladimir, Gavin, and Corey to join the media lab.

>> And he called it what? He called it a big win for us. And the email closes with this simple but uh very telling line to Epstein. It says, "Use gift

funds to underwrite this which allowed us to move quickly and win this round.

Thanks."

>> Wow. Thanks. That confirms a deeply unsettling connection.

>> And there's more. We know an Epstein associate, Leon Black, was a major donor to the Media Lab.

>> And Epstein helped arrange that donation.

>> He did. And this happened even though MIT had its own explicit policies about you know reputational risk for large anonymous donations.

>> They specifically said their comfort level was below 5 million a year.

>> Exactly. So this puts Epstein right in the room orchestrating the money flow to the very institution that then secured foundational Bitcoin talent.

>> And we know Epstein was interested in the space himself.

>> Oh, absolutely. That's proven. He

discussed Bitcoin with people like Brock Pierce way back in 2015. Yeah. He

publicly praised it in 2017 >> and he even discussed crypto tax and regulation with political actors, right?

Like Steve Bannon.

>> Yes. In 2018. So the interest was clearly there.

>> Okay. So this brings us to the pivotal question from the analysis. Given this

compromised source of funding, did it actually work? Did this arrangement

actually work? Did this arrangement succeed in compromising Bitcoin's integrity, the protocol, the roadmap?

>> And this is where we have to be surgically precise. We have to separate

surgically precise. We have to separate the verifiable evidence from the you know the powerful narrative that grew out of it.

>> Okay. So let's start with what is proven.

>> What is proven is the funding pipeline.

Epstein facilitated money to the MIT media lab >> which housed the DCI >> which then funded Bitcoin core developers. That is a fact. And we also

developers. That is a fact. And we also know that the DCI later pivoted.

>> Pivoted to what?

>> They started working on highly sensitive CBDC pilots specifically project Hamilton and project Cedar. So that

creates a direct line, at least narratively, from Epstein to Bitcoin core to statebacked digital currency.

>> That's the pipeline narrative. It's

incredibly compelling.

>> But what about the compromise itself, the actual code?

>> That's the key. What is not proven, and the sources are very clear on this, is that Epstein or anyone directing him ever shaped Bitcoin's protocol.

>> So no influence on the block size debates, for example.

>> No, there is zero published evidence of direct technical influence on the code itself. None.

itself. None.

>> So if the code wasn't compromised, why did this narrative become so explosive?

Why is it so persistent?

>> I think it's the moral contamination.

It's a vector. It merges three facts that are all true.

>> Okay, what are they?

>> One, X funded the institution. Two, the

institution funded the developers.

Three, that same institution later worked on the very anti-thesis of Bitcoin central bank digital currencies.

And that overlap just creates this this perfect story, >> a perfect conspiracy narrative. It's a

guilty by association story that suggests the intent was always to co-opt the technology, even if the actual technical capture never happened. The

reputational damage alone is the story.

>> All right, let's shift gears, moving from a historical contamination to what feels like current financial warfare.

>> A very different battlefield. Let's

transition to the drama focused on Micro Strategy, MSTR, and these powerful institutions like JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley.

>> Simon Dixon's analysis here suggests a highly aggressive coordinated institutional strategy is underway like right now.

>> And he calls it a structural attack. So

what's the central pressure point?

>> The pressure point is an MSCI consultation. It was announced on

consultation. It was announced on October 10th, 2025. And Msei, for anyone who doesn't know, they provide the critical global indices that all the big funds track.

>> Exactly. And they announced they are considering removing companies that hold 50% or more of their assets in digital commodities, >> which is I mean that is a direct shot at Micro Strategy.

>> It's the clearest possible target.

>> So what happens if they actually lose that index eligibility?

>> It's a disaster for them. Losing that

means losing mandated institutional passive investment flows, >> pension funds, ETFs that track the index, >> all of them. They're forced to sell. It

creates a massive overhang on the stock and huge reputational damage.

>> And the sources frame the timeline that follows this announcement as what do they call it? An alleged kill shot.

>> A kill shot. Yeah. Executed by

institutions over several months.

>> Okay, let's unpack that alleged timeline. When did the strategic

timeline. When did the strategic pressure really begin?

>> Well, it started long before the index news, Ashley. Back in May of 2025, you

news, Ashley. Back in May of 2025, you have the notorious short seller Jim Chanos publicly announce his position >> which was >> long Bitcoin short MSTR. [snorts] And

this was a very calculated move.

>> How so?

>> It's designed to sew strategic doubt.

The message is >> the asset is good, but the corporate rapper holding it is bad.

>> Okay, so that sets the narrative. Then

what?

>> Then in July 2025, we see the real financial pressure start. JPM implements

a firmwide margin hike on MSTR shares.

>> And it was a big one, >> huge. They moved the required collateral

>> huge. They moved the required collateral from 50% to a really punitive 95%.

>> A 95% margin requirement. I mean, that makes the stock virtually untradable for any leveraged fund.

>> It instantly drains liquidity. It puts

immense pressure on any large speculators holding MSTR. You're

squeezing the market months in advance.

>> And then things really started to accelerate around the MSEI news itself, >> right? So in August 2025, JPM was

>> right? So in August 2025, JPM was already releasing documents for structured products linked to Black Rockck's spot Bitcoin ETF, Ibelis.

>> So let me get this straight. You're

setting the house on fire with the index risk. You're blocking the exits with the

risk. You're blocking the exits with the 95% margin hike, >> right?

>> And at the same time, you're opening a new expensive hotel across the street, which is the IBIT structured notes.

>> That's a perfect analogy. And the

coordination gets even tighter. Just 4

days after that October 10th Msei note, >> what happens?

>> Morgan Stanley, which is the former parent company of Msei, files for its own IBITL linked security.

>> So the timeline suggests one arm is creating the fear, the D-listing risk, and the other arm is swiftly preparing the bank's own proprietary exit vehicle.

>> The bank controlled structured notes.

Yes.

>> And according to the sources, this is where it all culminates. The killshot

allegedly happens on November 20th. On

that single day, November 20th, JPM took two very specific actions at the same time.

>> Okay.

>> First, they published the prospectus they needed to sell their IBITLink structured note. And second, they

structured note. And second, they resurrected the 42-day old MSEI note.

>> And they didn't just resurrect it.

>> No, they specifically highlighted the delisting risk to MSTR in their press materials. Yeah.

materials. Yeah.

>> The timing is it's not random.

>> But let's play devil's advocate for a second. Are we sure this isn't just

second. Are we sure this isn't just shrewd business, you know, reacting to clear market signals?

>> That's the essential question for impartiality right?

>> JPM and Morgan Stanley, they're always optimizing products. Is this truly

optimizing products. Is this truly manipulation or is it just hyperaggressive, sophisticated market timing?

>> The analysis argues it's the simultaneous nature of the events.

Launching your own product on the exact same day you were screaming about your competitor's risk >> that crosses a line.

>> It crosses the line into what looks like engineered capital migration. The

institutional pattern is clear. Use

index fear to discredit a company like MSTR >> and then launch your own proprietary bank products, these IBIT notes, to capture the capital that's now fleeing.

>> Exactly. It's about engineering a migration of capital from a vehicle the FIC can't fully control, which is FSDR, into derivative products the FIC does control, the bank notes.

>> This alleged manipulation then brings us directly to Simon Dixon's core structural analysis.

>> It does. It's all about the tension between the infinite nature of Bitcoin and the finite nature of MSTR as a corporate proxy.

>> Right? And that structural analysis is really the foundation of the sources.

>> It is the financial industrial complex controls corporations not always by managing their day-to-day operations, >> but by controlling their strategy.

>> Yes. Specifically through index structures, through credit windows, and crucially through debt, through their debt covenants. And this is what Dixon

debt covenants. And this is what Dixon calls vasilization.

>> Vasilization. Yes. It implies a forced dependency on the system.

>> So how does MSTR structure specifically make it a vassel >> because MSTR is the finite vehicle. It

has to operate on quarterly earnings. It

has rigid debt maturities. It needs

regular refinancing.

>> It's playing by Wall Street's rules.

>> It has to. Bitcoin on the other hand is the infinite game. It has no maturity date, no counterparty risk, no refinancing schedules. And when you look

refinancing schedules. And when you look at MSTR's balance sheet, that vulnerability is just laid bare >> completely. The structural asymmetry is

>> completely. The structural asymmetry is shocking. They have about $54 million in

shocking. They have about $54 million in cash versus $700 million in annual financial obligations.

>> 700 million in obligations against 54 million in cash. That is a massive structural shortfall.

>> It forces their hand.

>> It absolutely forces them into one of two paths to service that debt, >> right? either they sell Bitcoin, which

>> right? either they sell Bitcoin, which would be market suicide for them, >> or they raise more capital.

>> And every single time they raise more capital, they just increase their dependency on the FIC, >> whether it's through more debt covenants that restrict what they can do or more index dependence to make sure they have liquidity.

>> So the core thesis here is that MSTR is structurally unable to defeat the system because it's completely reliant on the systems tools to even function.

>> So the FIC doesn't actually benefit from MSTR collapsing entirely.

>> No, not at They benefit most when MSTR stays alive, but as this highly leveraged proxy, >> a proxy that allows the FIC to influence short-term Bitcoin market dynamics. They

can create forced selling conditions, for example, using that finite vehicle.

>> That's the strategic endgame.

>> It is. Bitcoin itself cannot be disciplined or manipulated by fiat forces. But the corporate rapper that's

forces. But the corporate rapper that's holding billions of dollars of Bitcoin, that can be disciplined.

>> And that's why the conflict is so asymmetrical. The FIC just needs MSTR to

asymmetrical. The FIC just needs MSTR to exist as this instrument of short-term influence and as a capital migration vehicle.

>> And if we look for attempts at resistance, even those just reveal how deep this institutional web goes.

>> The sources bring up a great example, the case of Jack Mer as the CEO of Strike.

>> He got debanked by JP Morgan, >> right? But then who did he partner with?

>> right? But then who did he partner with?

Cantra Fitzgerald and Howard Lutnik.

>> And Lutnik is described in the sources as Epstein's neighbor for 20 years. and

a figure who is, you know, deeply involved in those deep state institutional connections.

>> And this raises a profoundly important point. Caner Fitzgerald also serves as

point. Caner Fitzgerald also serves as the main custodian for all of Tether's vast holdings of US treasuries.

>> So the analysis suggests that trying to fight the financial industrial complex by using corporate rappers or by just switching partners from JPM to Caner Fitzgerald.

>> That is not true resistance. Yeah,

>> it's just switching which highly centralized interconnected institutional partner you happen to be dependent upon.

>> Which brings us all the way back to you, the listener. If all these corporate

the listener. If all these corporate proxies are potentially vulnerable to this vasilization, what is the real form of resistance?

What's available to the individual who's trying to get out of this finite game?

>> Well, the final synthesis, I think, is just clarity on what the battlefield actually is.

>> Okay. While the short-term market will always be pressured by the FIC using these finite vehicles like MSTR, the long-term multi-year trajectory of Bitcoin is ultimately unmanipulable.

>> The fiat markets, the central banks, they can only create short-term volatility and noise.

>> That's it.

>> So, this structural reality, it recalibrates the entire battle. The real

fight is not institutional versus institutional. No, it is, as Simon Dixon

institutional. No, it is, as Simon Dixon outlines in his analysis, derivative money, stock, crypto, and bond printers versus Bitcoin and self-custody.

>> We don't beat the FIC by investing in their products or by using their systems proxies.

>> You beat it by exiting the finite game entirely.

>> Absolutely. The FIC thrives on manipulating these finite games, games that have maturity dates and counterparty risks. Bitcoin rewards the

counterparty risks. Bitcoin rewards the infinite game players, >> those who prioritize structural independence. So, I guess that leaves a

independence. So, I guess that leaves a provocative closing thought for you to explore.

>> Did your >> if your goal is to win the long-term infinite game is your most effective strategy just to exit the finite game entirely, >> meaning you prioritize self-custody of your assets

>> and you actively avoid all of these Wall Street rappers, whether that's MSCR shares or structured notes or any other form of institutional dependence. Is

that the only real way to win? what is

commonly known, what is publicly known.

Um, and uh, hopefully you can understand the whole purpose of this was to help people recognize that we had an attack

trying to connect Jeffrey Epstein to Bitcoin core development. And anyone

that doesn't understand this stuff will think that EP, you know, Bitcoin of Jeffrey Epstein at the same time as a coordinated attack on PE from people

that have historically attacked Bitcoin like Barry Selbert who's a long-term investor and will willingly buy back as much Bitcoin as it can get on the cheap

in order to put as much fear, uncertainty, and doubt around Bitcoin while pushing Zcash because they want you to sell your Bitcoin. And they

weaponized just this week alone what I've been warning people about about for a long long time now. They weaponized

strategy. They weaponized Tether. They

weaponized Bitcoin back loans via strike and the financial industrial complex.

They want to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible. Um, stable coins are the

as possible. Um, stable coins are the gateway drug to central bank digital currencies. So, right in the beginning

currencies. So, right in the beginning of this, we talked about the connections between CIA and Bitcoin. We said that the resistance was that it became open

source and therefore there was no backdoor to it. But what did it become?

It either became a honeypot, which is what most people are fearing. They're

thinking it's going to suddenly swipe your Bitcoin, that there's a back door.

That's the uneducated analysis. The

reality is is Bitcoin is a gateway drug to stable coins and central bank digital currencies. And the people that you are

currencies. And the people that you are uh potentially idolizing right now are the ones that are being utilized knowingly or unknowingly by the

financial industrial complex in order to get you into that gateway drug. which

means that it's easy. What is the solution here? You fight back with

solution here? You fight back with Bitcoin in self-custody. You boycott

Bitcoin ETFs so that you don't empower Black Rockck and the other Fick players.

You boycott Bitcoin treasury companies and uh you boycott Bitcoin back loans so that you don't get subjected to the margin calls. Um you don't use Bitcoin

margin calls. Um you don't use Bitcoin leverage in so that you don't actually have any Bitcoin. you have just a financial weapon of mass destruction instead.

And you'll sit back and relax as a long-term investor, owning more Bitcoin this month than the previous month, aligning with the people that want your Bitcoin, getting it on the cheap when

they do these manipulative short-term strategies because you're never going to outrade the financial industrial complex, but you can certainly invest in

order to win. And that simplifies your life to focus on the more important things in