And I don't know, maybe we have another 10 years, maybe another 20 years, maybe we've another two years. I have no idea. But if we just look at it objectively, it's like the only logical assumption one can make is that this political regime and this political monetary system eventually has to reset to what its true value is, along with every other monetary system in the past. It's as objectively obvious as saying our technology has to eventually become outdated to new technology. And it's like, it's not bold. That's not, you know, people keep saying I'm bold, that I'm this and that the other. And I appreciate the compliments, but the reality is I'm not really that bold. It's like it should be obvious that at some point in the future, things will change. And when they change, the thing that exists today inherently cannot coexist with the thing of the future. And so if we have that assumption that it's essentially obvious, the US dollar has to continue to decline until the moment where the floor basically falls out is every other monetary open system has in the past, you know, what's our base case assumption? Well we could be optimistic and that's wonderful, but it makes a lot more sense to be realistic. And I think the only realistic scenario here is that we will have some sort of major conflict. You know, we had World War II, 1945 ended with the atomic bomb that was a major, you know, technological shift obviously in war. And then of course, the Bretton Woods agreement in 44 that helped establish the Sarah. And so we were in this beautiful post World War II boom, where we've had this monetary era of this peaceful post World War II era. But it seems to me, and especially now, you know, people are freaking out about Ukraine and everything of that sort, but the reality is Ukraine is not the beginning of it. These wars have been escalating, especially in the developing world. And I'm terrified that they're only going to continue. They're only going to continue and they're only going to probably continue to get worse as populations continue to grow. And as technology continues to threaten the incumbents of the previous technological era, and as resources are allocated, reallocated between political jurisdictions. I mean, what is war? War is the collapse of rules and a given political system or a couple of political systems. And eventually those resources have to be reallocated, you know, in a form of work network to the political system that wins and has more guns at the end of the day. And so if we view that as the problem for our era, that we are in a problem, what is our problem? Our problem is that the US dollar is in decline. We know this. Our problem is that technology is threatening the bureaucrats and the technologists of yesterday with the future of tomorrow. And that's a good thing. But the reality is creative destruction has destruction. And so when you face people that have a decreasing probability of survival in the future and you give them an increasing incentive to lash out against that probability violently, the probability of war only goes up. And now this time we have nukes and a horrible variety of other weapons. And so I really, you know, again, when people say I'm bold, particularly things will change and likewise people sometimes say I'm on doomsday over saying that World War III is probably inevitable if we go down this path. I don't really think it's absurd. It's like we've had war for thousands of years. I think to magically assume that, you know, this, that we're in the first globalized period since World War II, I think to magically assume that just because we're global now means we have no more war. And that's the extent of our reasoning. I don't think that makes a lot of sense. And so if that's the only path we have in this world view, the only option I can think of is well, what if there's a different path? Well, there's a different world view. Now this is what Tesla envisioned in 1900 and this is what Jason Lowry with his 400 page thesis just put out. And one of the reasons he's one of my favorite Bitcoiners, even though he's arguably the most controversial person in Bitcoin right now, no matter what you think of as a sense of personality or character or whatever, that's irrelevant to the point. The point is his entire message is that we are probably heading towards some sort of event where nation states and companies and people need to exert a brute force physical cost on each other. And that can either be kinetic in form of mass, AKA guns and bullets and nukes, or that can be energy, AKA the dominant proof of work time chain, the dominant protocol. And that's Bitcoin. And so why my bullish Bitcoin? Well, I would say it's because the only optimistic scenario I can think of either we're heading towards some sort of major calamity, a global crisis where tens of millions, hundreds of people might perish either directly or indirectly or Bitcoin survives. And so it's fine to understand Bitcoin yet and it's fine if you think it might fail, but I think if we're going to continue, we're going to assume that the 21st century is going to be right. I think we have to assume that Bitcoin has to survive. And the exciting thing for me is that it appears ridiculously likely that it's going to survive. And I spend a lot of time trying to find ways it could die because I went to eliminate those probabilities as fast as I can so that it can survive. And it's exciting that the more I look, the less weaknesses I see and the less weak points I see. So it makes me very optimistic, not just for Bitcoin,

but also

for the future and the millions of people that need

us.