₿itcoin Cartoons

Today's #bitcoin cartoon: #140 Exit the Rat Race. It's the biggest cartoon to date @ 30"x40"! Inspired by the greats @MarcusConnorNH, @cryptograffiti and @LuchoPoletti for their stunning, large format works! Not sure what to do with it yet...may show it off @pacificbitcoin.

@saylor @BorisJohnson Now do @SocialSecurity

@BorisJohnson Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi requires a central operator promising returns and paying early investors with funds from later ones. Bitcoin has no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand.

I've long suspected Bitcoin is a giant Ponzi scheme and now I'm hearing tales of woe that make me fear I'm right. mol.im/a/15643681

@Innerdevcrypto It feels so off putting because this icky financialization is what they call a ponzi. Wheras, when banks do it, (10:1, 20:1, 100:1 levered) it's called monetary policy.

Just so i have said it publicly on here: I think the whole Michael Saylor bitcoin adventure will end up with the biggest blow up we have seen in the history of crypto. My analysis of his strategy does not find a mistake, but i base this on my intuition, something just feels very off about this Or he will end up with almost all of the bitcoin, which is just as bad Either way, no happy ending to this story in my opinion Hope i am wrong on this, but when i see yield promises of 11.5% combined with CT en masse saying bitcoin will moon again...all my intuitive alarm-bells go off

Could @Starcloud_ really be mining #bitcoin in space in 2026!? @SoloSatoshi and @skot9000 ....maybe there's a #bitaxe collaboration here! Mentioned at 20:15 youtube.com/watch?v=Xyvaev…

@timevalueofbtc Black swan indeed x.com/i/grok/share/e…

OIL UP 63% IN MARCH BLACK SWAN

Just listened to "No More" by @Disturbed. Follow the lyrics...It's as relevant as ever. "Endless destruction will make sure their pockets are lined." WOW. youtu.be/eQji1bEXwc0?si…

"No more middlemen with the power to pull the plug." If Fedwire never required a middleman...what's the need for bitcoin?

@DirtyCoinDoc Hey, Hey! We're looking forward to watching this. Please check your telegram message from me. Thanks!!

Special screening tomorrow in Arizona!

Join us Tuesday for a showing of @DirtyCoinDoc, the award-winning bitcoin doc by @alanamediavilla challenging conventional wisdom about mining's environmental impact & exploring how mining is driving global energy infra improvements 🏆 Best Documentary: Puerto Rico Film Festival

@cryptosmiff @chamath Yes. People need to be more productive.

@chamath Wait so 3 dudes left and 50% of the wealth is gone ? Hilarious you are pointing out the problem

Unfortunate update as of today: More calls from friends. The total wealth that has left California is now $1T. We had $2T of billionaire wealth just a few weeks ago. Now, 50% of that wealth has left - taking their income tax revenue, sales tax revenue, real estate tax revenue and all their staffs (and their salaries and income taxes) with them. In other words, by starting this ill conceived attempt at an asset tax, the California budget deficit will explode. And we still don’t know if the tax will even make the ballot. California billionaires were reliable tax payers - 13.3% every year. They were the sheep you could shear forever. Now California will lose this revenue source FOREVER. Unless this ballot initiative is pulled, we will not stop the billionaire exodus. With no rich people left in California, the middle class will have to foot the bill.

Exact same footage. Exact same situation. Two absolutely 100% opposite interpretations. This is the clearest demonstration yet that we no longer live in the same reality.

I wonder if anyone at Merrill Lynch has seen my self-directed retirement account, which is 100% allocated to $MSTR, and thought what an absolute degenerate I must be.

@JoinCrowdHealth Crowdhealth's crowd is quickly becoming a Health Assurance provider.

They told us: “This will never work.” “People will never leave insurance.” "The medical industrial complex is too powerful." Meanwhile… This happened. Thousands of families choosing freedom over fear. Community over corporations. Cash prices over chaos. Humans over algorithms. ...and the Crowd is just getting started.

@alewin @JoinCrowdHealth My guess is people dropping their health insurance which typically starts / renews at the start of the year.

@JoinCrowdHealth big congrats! Curious... can you guys identify anything specific that caused the spike?

@LeadingReport You mean people paid MORE than their fair share?

BREAKING: Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent has said that 2026 will have the largest tax refund year in history, per Fox.

@LukeGromen @jackmallers @sunny051488 @Honors_btc @ZachSawatz3599 @alexstanczyk @StephenM Is it just me or does this chart show #bitcoin up 4.99% versus gold? It's not just me.

@jackmallers @sunny051488 @Honors_btc @ZachSawatz3599 @alexstanczyk @StephenM Jan 4 2021 to Jan 1 2026, BTC down slightly (flat) v. gold. AFAICT, this would be the first 5 year period ever in BTC's lifetime that this happened, & it is not clear to me why it did.

For decades, the structure of US society, by intent and design, was remade to redistribute wealth, resources, property and opportunity from Americans to non-Americans. These looted assets were then used to finance the Democrat Party and all its subsidiary schemes and structures.

@DavidBranscum @GovTimWalz At least the rug has a cat on it. 🤣

@GovTimWalz Fyi, that rug is collecting $1.4 million/yr as a daycare for that cat.

Happy Caturday.

@SGBarbour @BitcoinPierre @BitPaine Sounds safe. Sounds effective.

@BitcoinPierre @BitPaine We should all proactively vaccinate our nodes against Quantum19

this is a good article. quantum is an existential tail risk, and you can debate the probability of a tail risk all you want (does it really matter if it’s 0.1% or 1% or 10%?) without denying that you should have a contingency plan in place.

@ylmaztlga @DocumentingBTC If you could invert the colors, then it might make more sense!

@DocumentingBTC A fun idea on the surface, but it highlights a real issue: markets already trigger enough emotional reactions without adding haptic feedback to every tick. If anything, traders need less sensory noise, not a device that lets them “feel” volatility in real time.

A new device called ‘Moodring’ integrates directly with TradingView, sending real-time haptic signals whenever the bitcoin price moves, letting the wearer feel price swings on their finger as the market updates.

Reading your points of mortgages was music to my ears. Describing the loan terms as "civilized" is a great adjective. I entertained the idea of using BTC as collateral for a loan with the big names in this space...and ultimately went with none of them. Instead, I opted to open a HELOC with a slightly lower interest rate compared to the BTC loan offerings. My main concern with all the BTC loans is the liquidation terms. Like you say, my mortgage lender isn't going to sell my 3rd bedroom if the Zestimate drops below 70% LTV. All that said, I think the only way for a BTC lending company to earn MY business is if they offer a Home Equity + Bitcoin line of credit. Lets call it a HEBLOC. Maybe this HEBLOC could have more civilized loan terms without the bitcoin liquidation risk. If I put myself in the lender's shoes, I'd be willing to offer a line of credit to someone who has a house + bitcoin. Real estate may be illiquid but it is certainly superior collateral at this time. I think real estate is a superior form of collateral because the "health" of the loan is improved and maintained by the borrower's actions (i.e. monthly payment). Contrast that with a BTC lender - you could make all your payments on time and in the full amount yet you still have liquidation risk. Dumb. If I make my mortgage payments...no liquidation. And if I miss a series of payments, the bank takes my house and it's their responsibility to sell it and recoup the loss... or I short sale the house. One last message to any BTC lender who has read this far: I want to use your service, but right now, the terms sway too far in favor of the lenders.

This post I made was in response to a specific situation yesterday where an OG with ~10K BTC sold 1K BTC. I was thinking instead of selling 1K BTC why not just take a large loan on 1-2K BTC. If Lava turns out to be the next FTX like so many are scared about, you got lots of liquidity and you still have 8000-9000 BTC. If Lava turns out to be fine, you still have your 10K BTC plus income coming in from the fiat side of Strategy. People criticizing me for recommending Lava during all this drama, but I just want to explore it a bit more. I have recently referred friends and family to use Lava, and they've all had a great experience so far - but I haven't used Lava myself yet. I'll explain why. I'm an investor in Lava, but when it came to me personally taking a large loan to upgrade my lifestyle, I went with DebiFi because I value my BTC above my shares in any company. I also am an investor in DebiFi because I want to see non-custodial lending solutions get adopted. Lava was DLCs, DebiFi was using Multisig. Lava was backed by Silicon Valley royalty with bleeding edge bitcoin tech, DebiFi was backed by Bitcoiners & Swiss Banks with tried & true multisig. Lava was trying to move fast, break things & become a massive bitcoin bellwether brand - the leader in lending to Bitcoiners to give us fair terms to allow us to borrow against our bitcoin and accelerate getting civilized lending terms. Most lending companies treat Bitcoin like "highly liquid collateral" that you can sell quickly and easily to remove risk from the lender side ... but as a Bitcoiner taking a loan, I don't want that. That's actually a horrible UX for me. I actually want civilized terms, more like a mortgage. Imagine if the bank sold off one of the rooms in your house when the housing market dipped and moved some random person in. That's the equivalent of selling a portion of your BTC collateral when there's a flash crash. That does not seem like a 'feature' that Bitcoiners want to embrace to me. Like a mortgage, as long as you're in good standing with your payments, it doesn't matter if the collateral value of your real estate asset dips below the value of your outstanding loan - you don't lose your property! Bitcoin loans should be like this as well. We should be getting favourable rates by lenders who understand the long term value of Bitcoin, since Bitcoin is the best asset. We should also be getting very flexible curing periods, like 120% LTV & weeks to months of payment grace, not 80% LTV, to allow us lots of time to be able to access our cold storage multisig setups in order to get the loan back in good standing during flash crash events. Example, if you put up 2 BTC at $100k each and took a 50% LTV loan ($100K on $200k worth of BTC) and then the price flash crashes to $65k for a few days, in most BTC loan situations, you start getting liquidated. If 3 days later the price is back to $100k, you're just shit out of luck. That's not very civilized. What I liked about Lava was they were trying to provide Bitcoin OGs and long term holders with bespoke loans with flexible terms and low rates & VIP service. What I liked about DebiFi was they were using tried-and-true multisig technology, allowing borrowers and lenders to matchmake on their platform to come up with their own terms. When it came to me personally putting my own corn at risk, I was never able to satisfy the "don't trust verify" part about Lava, even though I was a seed investor. I found my own lender who was willing to give me really amazing terms, quite civilized, and we setup my custom loan on DebiFi secured by Multisig. Lava & DebiFi were serving 2 very different markets. Now that Lava has apparently gone the custodial route, Lava & DebiFi are even more clearly separated by the users they are serving. Lava is focused more on scaling up and providing the best possible loan UX for Bitcoiners who are willing to take counterparty risk for a low rate (which we know from last cycle is a massive market.) There is some truth to the reality that you can never really be non-custodial unless you're a Bitcoin savant and super technical person. In reality, I don't know wtf the transactions said that I signed when setting up my DebiFi loan, and if it wasn't for the team at DebiFi walking me through the whole thing, I wouldn't have been able to figure it out on my own. In the end I trusted DebiFi's app, DebiFi's code and I even have to trust that the Coldcard Q was handling everything properly and signing all these transaction right. I didn't understand the multisig scheme I setup in, I trusted that it was done the way we agreed. So if you're the 0.1% type of Bitcoiner who really can read transaction data and understand exactly what you're signing and technically what's going on when you are setting up the vault, then you can 100% validate trustlessly that you're entering into the proper setup. Even IF you're that person, with a 2 of 3 or 2 of 4 multisig, the platform and the lender can collude to rug you, so you're still trusting that they won't collude. So the criticism about claims of multisig being trustless being a bit theatrical is really valid when you think about it, for most of us. The criticism of Lava was always that it was based on an oracle, and the same way that the lending platform and the lender can collude to rug you with multisig, the oracle and the platform can collude to rug you with DLCs. Lava created a solution to solve that problem, blind oracles, which was supposed to allow you to choose a neutral 3rd party as your oracle ... say Bitfinex or Blockstream or Fidelity etc. (I'm not sure they ever got that part integrated before the switch to custodial.) Now the major benefit for me of multisig, and why I decided to go DebiFi, was that it was much more battle tested than DLCs. I was really nervous putting a large amount of BTC collateral in a DLC setup. So it does make sense that Lava would want to move away from DLCs, I can 100% verify that even though I'm an investor in Lava, this was the major factor in me not taking a loan through Lava - DLCs were just too new for me to trust. I even tried to make a fallback legal agreement with Lava about how if I somehow got liquidated on the DLC through a flash crash etc, that they would not sell my BTC collateral and they'd allow me to have a bespoke multisig agreement with them directly to not liquidate my BTC and allow me to get back into good standing with my loan ... the last thing I wanted was to get liquidated on a flash crash and have to start paying cap gains taxes and lose my BTC. I have had family members test out Bitcoin lending platforms in the past like Ledn, and guess what - during flash crashes, they got liquidated. Brutal. That's why I will never use Ledn and have not recommended them for 4 or 5 years (along with their foray into ETH/crypto). Even though I'm friends with the team, and love Mauricio ... these loan arrangements that can be easily liquidated on flash crashes or early bear markets are a terrible UX for Bitcoiners. So back to the current situation with Lava. It's very strange, as a seed investor since the early days of Lava, and seeing Shehzan grow and evolve as a leader, and watch him crush it by getting very influential and principled investors, to all of a sudden see a ton of my other portfolio company founders attacking him. The truth is, when you win big, your success shows others where they've been living a lie. Shehzan raises huge money - that triggers a feeling of "why can't I raise the money" and that come out as criticism. Lava gets a $200 million credit facility - more crushing - more reactions from people who aren't winning so hard. It's just human nature, when you start hitting new levels of success, people who cheered will criticize. People who supported will want credit. So some of this criticism is just natural in Bitcoin - there's constantly drama. There's been so much drama about so many stupid things in the past 2 years it's hard to figure out what's really worth being concerned about and what's just more people projecting their insecurities or plebslop pileons. I'm Canadian, and I was raised mormon, so I see the good in everyone by default. I was impressed by Shehzan's character when I first met him years ago. I was impressed by his growth over the years, how he overcame challenging situations and won influential people to his way of thinking...all while avoiding the tempations of shitcoin money and sticking to bitcoin principles. I saw him make mistakes. I saw him learn lessons. I saw him turn down money from unprincipled investors. I saw him raise impressive sums & gain huge ground. I saw him focus and build and pivot. I saw him grow and lead a team. I saw him evolve as a leader. I saw him try to do what's best for his customers and stick to bitcoin ethos. However, I still don't really have much more insight into what's going on with Lava than anyone else on here. So, when it comes to Lava, I'm still recommending friends and family use it for their normal sized lending needs. These are average people not super techy, and they seem to have been having a great experience so far. I'm cheering Shehzan and the team on. However, when it comes to my own larger sized lending needs, I'm still unable to bring myself to risk my own personal BTC, yet. I was a victim of MtGox and lots of other scams. So I have a strong aversion to counterparty risk with my corn. I avoided all of the lending scams of the last cycle and was a loud vocal voice warning people against the risks of ponzinomics based DeFi. I saved people 10s of millions directly through my ringing the alarm bells. I don't see the same risk here with Lava. Lava is not rehypothecating, that is the biggest risk. Yes there's some valid criticism about communication and the way the pivot was rolled out, but there's nothing inherently wrong with centralized lending - so Lava is totally able to pivot to custodial and crush. There's been a strong bitcoin immune response reaction, and I'm just currently observing with great interest. Personally for my own stack, I prefer non-custodial, I want assurances that my Bitcoin is not being "put to work" or used for any other purpose. However, there's a certain portion of my BTC that I am ok with putting in with a centralized service if the team is regulated, responsible, transparent and operated with bitcoin principles by bitcoiners. Don't Trust, Verify has been my guiding principle for my Bitcoin since learning so many lessons over the years and that is what I'm currently sticking to. So, I'm currently just following this situation from the sidelines, cheering on the Lava team, while understanding some of the people who have been critical of the recent pivot.

@bitcoinarchive Maybe do what Phil Zimmerman did and physically print the code in books then distribute them worldwide.

JUST IN: 🇺🇸 U.S. government seeks maximum 5-year sentence for Samourai Wallet developers This isn’t right. Code is speech. Chilling precedent for open-source devs