Ultimately freedom tech is not enough.

To regain political freedom, we must meet authoritarian politicians in open battle, at the urn. As long as there still is urns.

If you want to understand the debt to equity difference: it is in the nature of the institution.

Equity requires knowledge, involvement, and a high level of attention.

With debt you can economise knowledge and time, it can even be used to use money of widows and orphans.

Today’s Bitcoin ETF’s are a temporary aberration. Once Bitcoin monetises and stabilises, it’s just as silly as an ETF which proposes to invest in Euro bills.

Answered under your post. Werner is right on the commercial bank layer but endorses central banks as production layer of credit money. That’s central (pun intended).

Sure, there are quite a few things to agree with Prof. Werner.

My main difference with him is not in banking, the need to limit bank loans to production not speculation, or in decentralisation of banking. In this, we roughly agree.

The contention is in the production of the money to be used in banking.
Prof. Werner wants better rules for central banking.
I want central banking abolished.

In my framework, issue "banking" is no banking matter, the types of banking must be legally separated:
1. Credit minting (~issue banking) > Commercial banking > Investment banking.
2. Credit for production must be decentralised, peer-to-peer, and subsequent credit money production (minting) must be private, denationalised.
3. Credit money must be redeemable in a self-sovereign digital commodity, the best candidate being #Bitcoin.
4. Finally, we must build an unsurmountable firewall against any nation state interference in base money and credit money production.

I‘m not sure there are only 2 options.

We can agree on the futility of Option 1. „Fighting“ an overpowering foe like the state machine is quixotic, but even Option 2 „leaving“ is only a temporary fix.

In time, they can and will come up with new creative „regulations and taxes“ to either capture free people for their vile system, or else put them in fetters or behind bars. Think Berlin Wall, think Exit Taxes. Laws against freedom tech can most certainly rob our remaining freedoms.

Ultimately, we are in a political struggle and it is only by building a better political system that we can overcome the bad one.

This is Option 3 and where I believe the true power of freedom tech comes in: Not just to enable personal freedom, but as tools to build a decentralised system of liberty.

Option 3 is perfectly possible: all dragons have one weak spot, and so has today’s fake democracy: elections.

I have a plan, but one thing after the other. First, Bitcredit Protocol to monetise Bitcoin.

I hear that wrong belief often.

But fiat money is monetised government debt, thin air.

Goods move through credit. Goods itself are proof of work. Goods back trade credit which is self liquidating upon the goods’ sale.

It is crucial to understand this.

Thanks for finding Bitcredit intriguing and from your article we seem to agree that institutional adoption is what matters now.

The most important institution at this stage of Bitcoin, more than the ETFs, are the Bitcoin Treasuries, specifically those which aim to put bitcoin to work with lightning channels and credit mints, and not just abuse the fiat flywheel, which was a temporary aberration.

And yes absolutely, Bitcoin rails need to be reliable, build a credit graph for trust, and grow the liquidity superstructure which will reliable dampen volatility to an acceptable level.

This will take time and hard work. After talking to Bitcoiners all over the world I sense that a good portion of us is willing to put in the effort.

Fiat must end.

Ok on practicalities but what’s wrong with the freedom from self-sovereignty? Crucial IMO.

Where’s Peter?