They all lead to Bitcoin. Different paths, same destination.

Your advisor says diversify. Bitcoin says focus. Who was right?

This was the most productive month I've had building The Bitcoin Act.

Here's what actually happened.

I built a small swipe game. You get a Bitcoin law headline, you guess if it's real or fake. I thought it would be quick.

It wasn't. The design went through six versions before it felt right. And the part I underestimated completely was the fact-checking. 100 cards, every real one traced back to a primary source. I caught two of my own mistakes doing it. That was humbling.

Then the bigger one. A free legal library for bitcoiners.

I gave myself one rule: nothing on it can go out of date. No numbers, no deadlines, no thresholds that change next year.

That rule sounds simple. It's not. A lot of what feels urgent in Bitcoin law turns out to be temporary. What's left is slower, drier, and probably more useful.

I don't know yet how much any of this will get used. That's fine.

What I learned is that I like building things that stay put. A newsletter issue is gone from the inbox in a week. A page that still works in five years is a different kind of satisfying.

Honestly, I'm proud of this month.

Everyone knows the phrase. Way fewer people actually live by it!

Fairshake committed $30 million against Sherrod Brown in Ohio.
The crypto PAC, a group that pools money to influence elections, moved just days after the Senate failed to pass sweeping digital asset legislation.

The bill was the Clarity Act, which would have set a regulatory framework for the digital asset industry at the federal level.
The Senate failed to pass it last week in a procedural vote, the first test of whether a bill even gets a full debate.

Senate Democrats said they could not vote for a bill that would allow President Donald Trump to profit personally from the crypto industry, given his millions of dollars in income from multiple digital asset forays.

A Fairshake spokesperson confirmed the $30 million figure.
The group expects to announce more midterm spend decisions in the coming days and weeks.
The New York Times called this its most aggressive move yet ahead of the November midterms.

In 2024 Fairshake spent $12 million in Ohio to back Bernie Moreno, who defeated Brown.
Brown previously chaired the Senate Banking Committee, the panel that plays a major role in advancing crypto legislation.

As chair Brown called for a crackdown on the use of cryptocurrency to fund terrorism and evade sanctions.
Starting in April crypto money began flowing to Republican Senator Jon Husted, a vocal supporter of crypto innovation who faces Brown in November.

Stand With Crypto rates Husted as strongly supports crypto, and he backed the GENIUS Act.
Fairshake also backed Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin, who voted against the Clarity Act last week.
Who should write the next digital asset rules, Brown or Husted? 👇

The Bitcoin Act is a weekly newsletter that explains legal news to Bitcoiners in plain English.
You get the bills and votes that touch your coins, without the jargon.
https://thebitcoinact.xyz

Am I the only one who still believes Bitcoin's power IS that it doesn't need permission?

The answer was: B) Filed rules with OIRA

Congress never gave Bitcoin a law. So a federal regulator started writing the rules on its own.

Its draft went to the White House last week. Nobody outside can read it yet.

Issue #83 of The Bitcoin Act covers where this is heading, and answers the question everyone keeps asking: without the CLARITY Act, what actually changes for your self-custody?

It also covers every legal and regulatory move on Bitcoin this week, in the US and worldwide.

One Senate race just drew a $30 million bet.

In one European country, crypto holders are now being kidnapped every week.

Better for Bitcoin: a law from Congress, or rules written by regulators?

Regulations come and go. Bitcoin is forever. First time?