CipherWill.sats 🟧

Excellent explanation! $DMT-NAT is the most frictionless solution to Bitcoin’s declining security budget. Another angle of approach is NAT tokenized the security of Bitcoin in the same way Tether tokenized the dollar. Since security is a measure of the cost of attack, which is a measure of miner revenue, NAT delivers revenue directly to miners to increase the cost of attack and therefore security of the network. Tokenization allows speculators to decide: What is Bitcoin’s security worth?

What bear market? We've been bagging banger calls left and right over the last couple of months So much so that I told grok to analyze our channel and report how much value we've been putting out there to our audience Turns out we've been cooking pretty hard Most crypto content creators in the game are completely asleep at the wheel Telling their viewers that the market doesn't return until Bitcoin clears 100k again 👇is proof that when the masses fade, that's when opportunities are made Keep following us, and you will be among the first to discover the next 100-1000x opportunities in crypto Onward, Block Runners 🫡

Bitcoin’s biggest threat may not be quantum computers. It may be the math everyone keeps avoiding. Every four years, the subsidy paying miners is cut in half. The assumption is that transaction fees will eventually replace it. But what happens if users refuse to pay higher fees, miners keep leaving for AI, and Bitcoin’s security budget continues shrinking? In TBR #324, we unpack the problem Bitcoin’s loudest defenders rarely discuss, why miners remain divided, and the market-driven second subsidy that could change the equation. 👇 Making The NAT Documentary | Bitcoin Security Consortium Reaction | Robinhood Season | TBR #324 This week it's just us, no interview, and we finally get to unpack what came out of three straight weeks of guests. @iambroots, @rarity_garden, and the @QntmExpeditions miners all circled the same gravity well: Bitcoin, @natgmi, and the question almost nobody in the West wants to sit with. What actually pays for Bitcoin's security once the block subsidy keeps getting cut in half? We start with the miners themselves. Quantum Expeditions is turning stranded natural gas into electricity and pointing it at Bitcoin, which is genuinely clever, but it doesn't change the underlying math. Miners are competing for the same shrinking reward, and when a rival shuts down, you inherit their share of an industry that is contracting, not growing. That's the part that gets waved off. Ask a miner about the declining security budget and the reflex answer is that it's not an issue, which usually means the napkin math Hasn't. Been. Done. From there we get into @saylor's new Bitcoin security consortium and its fifteen million in commitments. It's aimed almost entirely at the quantum threat, because that's the fear investors keep asking about, while the slower and more certain problem sits untouched. We read the tweet laying out why the declining security budget deserves the same urgency, why over forty thousand people and a majority of global hash power are already backing a market-driven second subsidy, and why the loudest proposals like BIP 110 get all the attention while something with real miner adoption gets ignored. Then we turn into something we didn't fully plan. We talk about Zeitgeist, the film that rewired how a lot of people saw money back in 2007, and why the West seems to need a story before it will accept a number. You can be completely right about the math and still lose the room if you can't make the exponential feel real. Maybe the honest move isn't another debate. Maybe it's a documentary that ends with an actual call to action instead of leaving people rattled with nowhere to go. Underneath all of it is the case for ethereum:0x249130f5e2dd4cf278180c0df8273f3592ad1247. Bitcoin does one thing well, it converts energy into security, and the only thing funding that conversion today is a subsidy that decays every four years. A market-driven second subsidy that doesn't decay is the least invasive fix on the table. No code change, no new behavior, just buy it if you think Bitcoin's security is worth defending. That's the whole pitch, and it's the same instruction Bitcoiners have handed people for fifteen years. We close on where this goes next. $NAT is coming up on three years, and the thing that keeps our attention is simple: it refuses to die when almost everything from that era already has. That's the Lindy signal we look for. Add a rebuilt Vibe Studio on @natdotfun NAT.FUN and a plan to support @RobinhoodCrypto's chain, and the quiet part of the cycle starts to feel like the setup, not the ending. The market gets its noisiest right before it decides what actually mattered, and we'd rather be early to the boring stretch than loud at the top.

Another Bitcoin miner closes its doors. Store of value narrative is eroding as miners disappear. If $60k is the bottom, that’s 4x from the last bottom, yet it’s still not enough. Why? Because miner revenue keeps getting cut in half. What industry survives when every 4 years revenues are cut in half over night? None. There is no scenario where this is sustainable if you do nothing. Bitcoin fails without ethereum:0x249130f5e2dd4cf278180c0df8273f3592ad1247

Hashrate is not a measure of security, the cost of attack is a measure of security, which is also equal to miner revenue. The cost to produce a higher hashrate declines due to deflationary technology where things get faster cheaper over time. This is why the computer in our pockets are 100,000x more powerful and 10,000x cheaper compared to the computer used to land on the moon. The output of Proof⁠-⁠of⁠-⁠Work network isn’t hashrate, it’s economic cost. Miner revenue is on the decline due to halvings and exponential growth of the value of Bitcoin is not sustainable. This is why we see many capable miners pivot to AI HPC.

ethereum:0x249130f5e2dd4cf278180c0df8273f3592ad1247 is literally programmed to win due to Bitcoin's declining security budget.

Crypto has spent years trying to onboard the next 100 million users. @RobinhoodCrypto already has them. If they're serious about crypto, this cycle could look very different. 👇 Is Robinhood Chain The Next Big Crypto 1000x Opportunity?! BIGGER THAN SOLANA! @Robinhood season is here, and the whole timeline is fixated on the same thing. A publicly traded company with 27 million funded accounts just launched its own Ethereum layer two, pitched as an AI-native chain built to bring real-world assets on-chain. When something that big enters crypto, the question we always ask is not whether the launch looks impressive. It is what comes after it. We have watched this movie before. @avax , @SonicLabs, @Aptos, @SuiNetwork, @arbitrum, @base. Every new chain arrives with the same opening act, an early meme coin runner that captures attention and gives a community something to rally around. Base had Brett. Ordinals had Ordi. The runner is never the real story. The real story is the following act, the ecosystem of protocols, launchpads, and primitives that either grows around the chain or never shows up at all. On Robinhood Chain, the runner is cash-cat:native, and its lore is almost too good to script. Before Robinhood was Robinhood, the founders nearly named the company Cashcat. Years later someone revived that forgotten origin as a token, Vlad acknowledged that the chain works great for memes, and the beacon was lit. Cashcat ran from a few million to a reported 250 million dollar market cap on little more than a nod and a story. Underneath the memes, we walked through what the rest of the chain actually looks like right now. Tokenized stocks climbing past 60,000 holders, which is the genuine differentiator Robinhood brings that @coinbase and @base cannot match as easily. We also looked at the other side of it, a slick AI project called Nerve that cooked up a billion dollar comparison on its landing page, ran to eight million, and then went straight back to zero. That is the permissionless reality. Smoke, mirrors, and a ten second landing page are enough to make people lock in. Then there is @Noxa_Fi, the launchpad that out-earned @Pumpfun with 2.8 million in daily fees, only to go dark for a couple days in the middle of peak volume while the team reportedly argued over splitting the money. The opportunity did not disappear, it just moved to whoever was willing to keep shipping. We counted more than twenty launchpads already fighting for the same prize, which is attention and liquidity, and only one of them needs to produce the next hundred million dollar runner to win the race. What we keep coming back to is that a new chain does not change human behavior, it just gives it a new venue. The primitives arrive, the runners pump, the rugs follow, and the attention rotates the moment something louder appears somewhere else. Robinhood has real advantages here, normie access and millions of users already inside the app, but access alone has never been the thing that keeps people on chain. The interesting question is not whether Robinhood Chain survives. It is whether retail, watching rugs happen in real time, still decides a hundred x in three days is worth the walk through the minefield. History suggests they will, and that tells you almost everything about where we still are in this cycle.

He watched $100K melt to $28K during the run home. Then he did the opposite of what you'd do.