R3N 1

Most privacy narratives in crypto are still theoretical. Arcium's isn't. It's running. @Arcium is a confidential computing network built natively on Solana, using multiparty computation to let developers run computations on encrypted data without exposing it, not to the network, not to node operators, not even to Arcium itself. The pitch is an encrypted supercomputer, and it's live on mainnet alpha rather than a whitepaper promise. What's actually built out spans confidential DeFi (dark pools and sealed bid auctions on fully hidden order flow), confidential transfers through C-SPL, a confidential SPL token standard, and confidential applications for teams building on Solana. Several ecosystem projects are already listed running production compute through it. The token, $ARX , is already live rather than a future catalyst. It covers network fees, staking to secure MPC nodes, stake weighted job scheduling, and on chain governance with lockup weighted voting. What's coming rather than shipped: Blackthorn, their confidential AI product, running inference and training over data that stays encrypted end to end. Labeled coming soon, worth flagging since it's the more ambitious half of the roadmap and not yet live. Backing includes NVIDIA Inception, Coinbase Ventures, Jump Crypto, and Solana, per their own disclosures. Credibility signal, not a guarantee. My honest take: confidential compute is clearly a real category. The open question is whether $ARX demand scales with actual usage of dark pools, confidential transfers, and eventually Blackthorn, or whether adoption lags the infrastructure the way it often does in this space. What I'm watching: real transaction volume through C-SPL and confidential DeFi, and what Blackthorn looks like once it ships. #BTC Price Analysis# #Altcoin Season# #Meme Alpha#

Bitcoin's climbed back toward $79.4K since mid August, and the coin dormancy data underneath that move is quieter than you'd expect for a recovery this size. Exchange Inflow CDD adds an age component to exchange inflows. A high reading suggests coins held dormant for a meaningful stretch are moving onto exchanges, though it can also just mean a large batch of relatively young coins moved at once, so it's not a perfectly clean read on its own. Looking back across this cycle, the chart shows several sharp spikes in this metric, clustered mostly through late 2025 into early 2026, which lines up with what you'd expect from distribution waves as long term holders took profit or de risked into weakness. What stands out to me now is the contrast. Price has recovered meaningfully off the 2026 lows, yet the 7 day SMA on this metric has stayed muted through that entire climb. If this recovery were being met with old coins waking up to sell into strength, you'd expect to see that show up here, and right now it isn't showing up. My honest read: this looks like long term holders sitting still rather than distributing into the bounce. That's a genuinely constructive signal if it holds, since it suggests the coins with the most conviction aren't treating $79K as an exit. I'd push back on reading too much into it though. Quiet dormancy data doesn't guarantee anything about what happens next, it just tells you what hasn't happened yet, and this indicator has spiked hard and fast before without much warning. What I'm watching: whether this stays muted as price pushes higher, or whether a spike shows up the moment this recovery starts testing levels where long dormant coins would actually be sitting on serious profit. #BTC Price Analysis# $BTC #Altcoin Season#

$33.3M a day flowing into Binance in aggregate stablecoin netflow sounds like fresh capital showing up. It isn't, and the breakdown underneath makes that clear. USDC on Ethereum drove the headline number, averaging +$25.1M/day, up 330% versus the quarterly baseline. USDT on Tron ran the opposite direction, negative $12.1M/day, a swing of roughly 1,373% versus the prior month. Not two independent trends. Liquidity moving off one rail and onto another. The issuance data settles the question. Tron side USDT mint count and minted supply both printed zero for the week, down 100% versus both 30 and 90 day averages, while burns fell 84%. The contract isn't expanding or contracting. It's idle. Its Binance reserve slipped 14.8% week over week to $1.22B. USDC tells a busier but similarly net neutral story: $988.8M/day minted against $982.6M/day burned, heavy churn producing only 4.9% supply growth. Where this gets interesting is concentration. All stable exchange supply ratio on Binance sits at 0.3009, effectively matching its six month high of 0.3046. $USDT on Ethereum's ratio reached 0.4282 against a 0.4088 six month mean. $USDC 's climbed 17.6% over thirty days to 0.1086, with its Binance reserve up 19.9% to $5.52B, though that build happened earlier in the window since weekly netflow decelerated 88.2%. My read: dry powder is sitting closer to Binance's order book than it has in six months, but it got there by migrating between chains, not new capital entering the system. Elevated exchange side ratios without supply growth have historically preceded either deployment into spot bids or a stall if issuance stays flat. What I'm watching: whether Tron side minting resumes, since that would be the cleaner signal this is new capital rather than the same capital changing addresses. #BTC Price Analysis# #Altcoin Season#

$9.07B. That's the record now sitting on the books for short-term holder whales, the paper gains held by large wallets that bought within the last several months. Highest print in a dataset running back to 2016. (Assuming $BTC here, since that's what this metric typically tracks.) It eased to $7.51B by Sep 5 as price ticked down slightly, and even that pullback still ranks among the five highest readings on record, all five from just the past two weeks. Not one spike. A cluster of record prints in a tight window. Here's the tension I keep coming back to. The same cost basis structure that makes this rally look real is also what makes it fragile right now. STH whales bought recently, at higher prices, and they're sitting on a genuinely large unrealized gain relative to their own history. That's constructive when it holds, since recent buyers underwater would be a much worse signal. But unrealized profit at record scale is also exposure. This cohort is historically the fastest to take profit the moment it's available, precisely because the gains are fresh and conviction hasn't been tested by a real drawdown yet. My honest read: I don't think this data alone tells you which way it breaks. It's genuinely two sided. A strong floor built on real recent accumulation, sitting directly beneath the exact incentive structure that could undermine that floor if price stalls out. The record itself isn't the signal. What happens to it next is. What I'm watching: whether that unrealized profit figure keeps compressing on further price softness, which would suggest STH whales are starting to lock in gains, or whether it holds near these levels, suggesting the cohort is content to sit through a shakeout rather than sell into it. #BTC Price Analysis# #Macro Insights#

$320M just left Blockstream's Liquid Network federation wallet, and the people who took it are negotiating its return in public — on-chain messages, then a move to encrypted channels. That's not how a normal exploit plays out. What's confirmed: roughly 4,000 BTC, about 95% of the ~4,200 BTC federation reserve backing L-BTC, was drained on Sep 6 via a validation flaw in Elements, the open-source software running the Liquid sidechain. No keys were compromised. SideSwap says a customer sent 4,000 L-BTC to its peg-out service at 14:05 UTC, and the federation paid out roughly 3,996 real BTC 23 minutes later — the peg-out mechanism did exactly what it's built to do, it just trusted L-BTC that was never actually backed. Liquid disabled bridge nodes and paused the sidechain within hours; exchanges suspended L-BTC deposits and withdrawals. USDT and other Liquid-issued assets were reportedly unaffected. Bitcoin's base layer was never touched — this is a sidechain problem, not a Bitcoin problem. The unusual part: an OP_RETURN message called the actor a "whitehat" and invited contact. Blockstream responded on-chain, and talks reportedly moved to encrypted channels, with the actor saying they'd return most of the funds once the bug is patched network-wide. As of Sep 7, Blockstream says bridge nodes are patched — which is the exact condition the attacker set for returning the money. Personally, I'm skeptical. Ledger's CTO Charles Guillemet made the obvious point publicly: legitimate white hats don't usually drain hundreds of millions as their opening move, and he drew the comparison to Ronin and Euler. Counterpoint — the funds have reportedly sat untouched since the drain, which is at least consistent with the story, not proof of it. What I'm watching now: the patch condition has been met, so the next move is theirs. If the $BTC doesn't come back soon, "return it after the fix" was never intent — it was leverage. #BTC Price Analysis# #Altcoin Season#

Zero outflows against roughly 260,000 XRP inflowing to Binance in the 100K-1M whale bracket. On a headline basis, that's the kind of number that gets flagged bearish immediately, and on its own, it's a fair mild negative. Coins moving toward an exchange in that size range is the setup for potential short-term selling. But the more useful context is the trend behind that single reading, not the reading itself. Both inflow and outflow volume in this bracket have been notably quiet since July compared to the larger spikes seen earlier in the year. Worth sitting with — this isn't whales suddenly waking up to distribute, it's one inflow print inside an otherwise sleepy stretch. My read: that changes the weight I'd put on it. A 260K inflow during active distribution would concern me more than the same number showing up in a quiet period. Worth noting the Aroon indicator reportedly still favors the short-term uptrend — up line elevated, down line low, which sits a bit in tension with a bearish inflow read. I'd flag that as exactly the kind of mixed signal that shouldn't get resolved by picking whichever indicator confirms your bias. Where this actually needs more data before it means anything: a single day's net inflow doesn't establish a pattern. If inflows keep climbing over consecutive sessions, the selling-pressure case gets real. If outflows start exceeding inflows instead, that flips toward whales moving $XRP to cold storage, more constructive for price. For now I'd call this neutral to mildly negative rather than a signal worth acting on — the number matters less than what happens over the next few sessions, alongside BTC's direction and any XRP-specific news. What I'm watching: whether this inflow print is a one-off or the start of a run.

$DIAM is showing an interesting setup here.

Price is currently around $0.005628 after facing a sharp rejection from the $0.0065 area.
The sell-off puts the focus on whether DIAM can stabilize around these levels and attract fresh buying pressure.

Meanwhile, $BTC remains an important piece of the bigger picture. If Bitcoin maintains its strength, altcoins could have more room to recover, but DIAM still needs to show its own strength.

I’ll be watching the reaction from here, especially volume and any attempt to reclaim the levels lost during the drop.
$DIAM stays on the radar. 📈
@Diam #DIAM #BTC #Altcoins #Crypto

$BTC experienced its sharpest deleveraging since 2023

After a cycle largely dominated by futures volumes, Bitcoin has just gone through its sharpest deleveraging phase since 2023.

This showed up as a marked decline in Binance's Open Interest, which dropped below its 180-day average, highlighting both the strength and the speed of the move.

This is a necessary phase for Bitcoin. Through the correction, the market forces the closure or liquidation of positions that had become too heavy. Whether short or long, it was during this cycle that Bitcoin saw the largest liquidation events in its history.

Despite this, Binance's Open Interest remains relatively elevated at $9.6B, compared to a 180-day average of $8.3B, representing roughly 37% of Bitcoin's total Open Interest. That's a higher level than the one seen during May's recovery, which had itself helped drive BTC back up to $82 000.

While this correction phase was tough on traders, they already appear to be back, a sign that's naturally fueling Bitcoin's bullish rebound. Still, it's worth keeping an eye on because a market carrying too much leverage eventually triggers new, brutal deleveraging episodes.
#BTC Price Analysis# #Macro Insights#

$ETH buyers are finally making some noise.

Binance’s Taker Buy-Sell Ratio just pushed above 1.1 while ETH sits around $2.4K.

That tells me aggressive buyers are stepping in, but I’m not calling a breakout yet.

If ETH can keep the ratio above 1 and price starts pushing higher with volume, then yeah… I’ll start taking the buyers seriously.

For now, I’m watching.
#BTC Price Analysis# #Macro Insights#

$115M+ a month at the end of 2024. A rounding error by September this year. That's the actual headline buried under the AI framing. Two years of token sale data, sorted by category, and the story isn't which sector won — it's that the whole mechanism cooled off hard. Whatever was fueling those Nov-Jan '24 bars (roughly 90-115+ combined) simply isn't there anymore. By mid-2026 the monthly totals are a fraction of that, and by September they're barely visible on the same axis. Now, the AI claim going around this chart — that it's "topped" every month for two years. I get why it looks that way; the AI segment shows up near the top of the stack in almost every bar across the whole range. But top-of-stack isn't the same as biggest-by-size in a stacked bar chart — the plotting order groups categories, it doesn't rank them. So I'd hold off calling AI the definitive leader every single month without the raw per-category numbers behind it. What I can say honestly is that AI-labeled sales look unusually persistent — present and visible through a period where most other categories either shrank a lot or vanished from view entirely. That persistence is the actual interesting data point, in my opinion. Not "AI wins," but "AI held on while the category that used to dominate this chart (whatever was driving Dec '24's spike) basically disappeared." Missing piece I'd want before treating this as settled: exact dollar figures by category, month over month — because right now this reads as a strong visual impression, not a confirmed ranking. #BTC Price Analysis# #Altcoin Season# $HYPE

BTC's derivatives data and its miner data are telling two slightly different stories right now, and that's worth sitting with before picking a side. The clean part first: exchange netflow has stayed negative for two straight days — roughly -6,275 $BTC on Sep 4 and -1,142 BTC on Sep 5. Funding flipped from positive (0.0043) to negative (-0.0008), and open interest slid from about $27.53B on Sep 3 to $25.70B on Sep 5. Read together, that's leveraged longs getting flushed out while coins are leaving exchanges rather than piling up for sale. That combination usually reads as de-risking, not distribution. Where it gets murkier is the Miners' Position Index. The written data pegs MPI near neutral at -0.036 on Sep 4, suggesting no unusual miner selling. But the chart itself shows something sharper — a visible MPI spike into the 2.5+ range right around this same period, in similar territory to the spike that preceded February's drop from roughly $100K to $65K. That's not a small discrepancy. Personally, I'd want it reconciled before leaning hard on "miners aren't selling" — either the neutral reading is a single-day snapshot that misses the spike either side of it, or the two are measuring slightly different windows. I'm flagging it, not smoothing it over. If the outflow-and-cooling-leverage read holds and the MPI spike is noise, this looks like a genuinely healthy cooldown at $79.6K, not an overheated move. If the spike is real signal, the setup starts to resemble the pattern that preceded the last leg down. What I'm watching: whether outflows persist, funding stabilizes near neutral rather than diving further negative, and whether that MPI spike gets confirmed by tomorrow's data or fades as an outlier. #BTC Price Analysis# #Bitcoin Price Prediction: What is Bitcoins next move?#

ZEC just printed one of the sharper weekly candles I've seen from it in a while — market cap ripping from the low-$14B range to a fresh high near $17.05B. XRP, meanwhile, snapped out of a multi-month grind near $85B and spiked back toward the $100B mark before settling around $88.75B. Two very different charts, same underlying question: is this actual altseason, or two isolated moves that happen to land in the same week? Looking at XRP's structure first — this isn't a fresh breakout, it's a bounce inside a much larger downtrend. The 2025 peak sat well above $200B market cap, and price has been carving lower highs since. This week's candle recovers some ground, but it's happening from a compressed base after months of bleed. My read: this looks more like a relief rally testing prior support-turned-resistance than a trend reversal — though I'd want to see it hold above the recent range before calling it more than that. ZEC's move is a different animal. That's a near-vertical breakout out of consolidation, not a bounce off a downtrend. Personally, this is the more convincing chart of the two — it's showing genuine demand rather than mean reversion. The risk here is the obvious one with any parabolic weekly candle: moves this steep tend to get a large chunk of themselves back before they consolidate into a real base. Where I'd push back on the "altseason kicking off" framing: two tokens breaking out isn't breadth. Altseason calls need confirmation across a wider basket, not just the names that happen to be trending that week. What I'm watching: whether XRP can actually reclaim and hold above $100B, and whether $ZEC 's breakout gets retested and defended rather than immediately faded. #BTC Price Analysis# $XRP

I think the RWA narrative here is real but overstated in this exact snapshot. Robinhood Chain's RWA active market cap sits around $172M with tens of thousands of holders on tokenized stocks, that's not nothing.

But a meaningful chunk of that stock-token volume is reportedly tied to meme-stock pairs, which blurs the line between real RWA adoption and speculation wearing an RWA wrapper.

Where I'd push back on the bullish framing: flipping ETH on revenue during a token-launch frenzy day is a snapshot, not a trend. The real test is whether this holds once the Pons-style launch mania cools off.

What I'm watching: whether the revenue composition shifts toward actual RWA/stock-token flow over the coming weeks, or quietly reverts once the memecoin wave passes.
#BTC Price Analysis# $ETH #ROBINHOOD

Strategy and BitMine are putting roughly $500M into $BTC and $ETH while the market is pulling back.
That’s worth paying attention to.

Strategy continues to build its Bitcoin treasury, while BitMine is aggressively accumulating ETH as part of its own long-term strategy.

But their buying doesn't mean BTC or ETH can't fall further.

These companies aren't trading the next 4H candle. Their thesis is measured in years, not days.
That's the key difference.

When prices fall, short-term traders see risk.
Long-term treasury companies can see an opportunity to increase their exposure at lower prices.
The bigger signal would be whether this accumulation continues even if market weakness persists.

If institutional treasury demand keeps growing while sentiment remains cautious, today's pullback could eventually look like another accumulation phase.
Are Strategy and BitMine early… or are they buying too soon? 👀
#BTC Price Analysis# #Macro Insights# #Meme Alpha#

Bitcoin ran from $63K to $81.5K in two weeks, and on-chain data underneath tells a shakier story than price implies. NRPL hit two major peaks, ~$1.7B on August 21 and $1.6B on August 24, among the largest readings this year outside the Jan-Feb crash. No comparable spike followed, but the days after stayed positive at $400-650M daily. The pressure never cleared, it just shifted from acute to chronic. Coinbase Premium is the clearest demand tell. It briefly flipped positive August 26-27, hinting real US spot buying was back, but couldn't hold above zero before fading. Fresh demand tried to show up and didn't stick. Funding staying elevated here is worth worrying about. Rates hit a yearly extreme of 0.0225 mid-August, normally a sign of conviction. Paired with fading spot demand and heavy profit-taking, elevated funding looks more like exposed leverage than confidence, historically the setup that accelerates downside once support breaks. SOPR confirms a handoff between cohorts, but a shrinking one. It spiked 0.78 to 1.45 between August 19-22 as long-term holders led distribution, dropped to 0.94-0.98 as short-term holders took over near the second peak, then rebounded above 1.1 by August 29-31 even though $BTC only reached $78.5K, short of $80K. Last year's rally to $120K saw this ratio spike above 2, touching 2.8. A much smaller move now is producing near-record realized profit, meaning the low-cost supply pool sitting on the sidelines is large, and tolerance for absorbing it is thinner than it looks. The real question is which breaks first, fading spot demand or persistent profit-taking. Balance leans toward the latter. Watch Coinbase Premium and whether SOPR keeps climbing while price stalls. $XRP #BNBChain# #BTC Price Analysis#

I have used STONfi as my primary DeFi interface on TON for long enough now that I can see patterns in my own behavior that weren't visible when I was moving between platforms constantly. The first pattern is how much decision quality improves when the interface is familiar. When I know exactly where to find the pool APR versus the farm APR, where to check the 24-hour volume, where the price impact figure appears before confirmation — I spend that cognitive load on the analysis rather than on navigation. The interface stops being a thing I'm figuring out and becomes a tool I'm using. The second pattern is how the fee structure shapes what I'm willing to do. On TON through STONfi a swap costs approximately $0.06 to $0.13. This is low enough that I execute small adjustments that I wouldn't bother with on a chain where each transaction costs $3 to $8. The frequency of small corrections to positions is higher. The tendency to let a position run past its optimal point because rebalancing has a meaningful transaction cost is lower. Near-zero fees change behavior in ways I didn't fully anticipate. The third pattern is about the farming digest rhythm. Reading the pool board weekly as a consistent habit rather than checking it reactively when something catches my attention produces better decisions than reactive checking does. I see the changes week over week rather than just the current state. TONG/GRAM appearing one week with near-zero volume tells me something specific. STORM/GRAM maintaining consistent TVL across multiple weeks without deadline pressure tells me something different. The pattern is only visible if I'm checking consistently rather than occasionally. Consistency with one platform compounds in ways that switching between platforms doesn't. The familiarity, the fee-adjusted behavior, the weekly rhythm — these are the quiet advantages of staying in one place long enough to understand it properly. Explore @ston_fi → https://app.ston.fi/swap $XRP $ETH

Polymarket has $68.16 million wagered on the September 16 Fed decision. The crowd is split almost exactly in half. 25 basis points increase at 52%. No change at 48%. A rate cut isn't meaningfully priced at all, the decrease options sit under 1% collectively. This market isn't pricing easing. It's debating whether the Fed hikes or holds. That's a meaningfully more hawkish backdrop than the "Fed pauses, risk assets rally" narrative that circulated after the July hold. The 52/48 split sitting this close to even odds this near the decision date means genuine data-dependency rather than settled conviction. When a prediction market is this tight this close to resolution it's telling you the incoming data between now and September 16, CPI, jobs, oil prices, has real power to move the outcome rather than confirming what's already decided. The small panel detail worth noting: 50 basis points decrease at 0.3 cents. A $5 position wins $1,583 if an aggressive cut materializes. That's what near-zero-probability tail exposure looks like in a prediction market,cheap lottery-ticket positioning on an outcome nobody expects but a few people are willing to pay almost nothing to cover. What this means practically: if the 52% hike scenario settles, tighter policy landing against fresh risk-on positioning in $BTC , $ETH , and DeFi is a real headwind. The July FOMC hold rally assumed the pause would persist. A September hike would revise that assumption sharply. For stablecoin farming positions on STONfi the macro read cuts both ways. A hike makes stablecoin yield more attractive relative to volatile asset exposure. A hold sustains the risk-on environment where DeFi capital inflows continue. Either scenario has a positioning implication worth thinking through before September 16. The 52/48 split is telling you not to assume either outcome is settled. Watch the data between now and then. Try Predict → https://t.me/ipredict/app

$ANSEM is a real reminder of how detached these meme narratives can get from anything resembling a project, and the supply concentration is the part worth actually reading before touching it. An anonymous developer created it in mid-June and airdropped roughly 60-65% of the total billion-token supply directly to Ansem's own wallet, a well known Solana trader with close to a million followers, without his involvement in building it. He didn't launch it, but he embraced it afterward and pledged to route his Pump.fun creator fees back to holders as airdrops. That single move, one influencer publicly adopting a coin he didn't create, is what took it from microcap to nearly 20,000% in a week, hitting an all time high near $0.121 on June 29 and single-handedly pulling Pump.fun 's overall activity out of a months-long slump. The mechanics behind that pump are worth being clear-eyed about. This has no product, no roadmap, no identifiable team beyond the anonymous creator, and its price moves almost entirely on attention. When Ansem posts about it, volume spikes. When he goes quiet, it fades. That's the entire demand model in one sentence. The concentration is the real risk sitting underneath the attention story. One wallet linked to Ansem was holding around 604 million tokens, over 60% of total supply, as of the last check. Liquidity is thin relative to the market cap it's traded at, meaning even moderately sized orders can move price sharply in either direction, and there are multiple copycat tokens using the same ANSEM name circulating, so verifying the actual contract address before doing anything is non-negotiable, not optional advice. Worth flagging too, this specific link goes to an Elfa AI insight page that didn't render its actual content for me, likely a JS-heavy interface, so I can't confirm what that particular analysis said. Everything above comes from independently verified reporting on the token itself, not that specific page.

Schiff's latest round is worth unpacking because it's actually three separate claims stacked together, and they don't all hold up the same way. The trigger was a comparison from crypto analyst Quinten Francois, pointing out gold's market is roughly 20 times bitcoin's size, equities about 100 times larger, real estate over 250 times larger, implicitly framing bitcoin as having room to grow into those categories. Schiff's response was blunt: bitcoin isn't a real asset, so its value has no relationship to gold, equities, or real estate at all. That's a definitional claim, not really an argument, it asserts bitcoin doesn't belong in the comparison rather than explaining why the market cap ratio itself is meaningless. His inflation hedge argument is more substantive. He's said directly he doesn't think bitcoin is an inflation hedge, and that people who believe otherwise are wrong, pointing investors toward gold and silver instead. That's a testable position, bitcoin's correlation with inflation prints has genuinely been inconsistent historically, unlike gold's longer track record in that role. Reasonable people disagree here, it's not a fringe take even among bitcoin holders. Harder to take at face value is his response to being asked about missing bitcoin's run. He said he's been better off not owning it over five years, and called holders who didn't sell the ones who left money on the table, an argument that only works if you already assume the price eventually goes to zero. Otherwise not selling an appreciating asset isn't leaving money on the table, it's the position working. He's also arguing AI is a threat to bitcoin rather than a complementary trend, the opposite of how some bitcoin proponents frame it. Worth noting, though the article doesn't lay out his reasoning in detail. #BTC Price Analysis# $BTC $XRP #Macro Insights#

Schiff's latest round is worth unpacking because it's actually three separate claims stacked together, and they don't all hold up the same way. The trigger was a comparison from crypto analyst Quinten Francois, pointing out gold's market is roughly 20 times bitcoin's size, equities about 100 times larger, real estate over 250 times larger, implicitly framing bitcoin as having room to grow into those categories. Schiff's response was blunt: bitcoin isn't a real asset, so its value has no relationship to gold, equities, or real estate at all. That's a definitional claim, not really an argument, it asserts #Bitcoin doesn't belong in the comparison rather than explaining why the market cap ratio itself is meaningless. His inflation hedge argument is more substantive and worth taking seriously on its own terms. He's said directly he doesn't think bitcoin is an inflation hedge and that people who believe otherwise are wrong, pointing investors toward gold and silver instead. That's a real, testable position, bitcoin's correlation with inflation prints has genuinely been inconsistent historically, unlike gold's longer track record in that specific role. Reasonable people disagree on this, and it's not a fringe take even among people who like bitcoin. Where it gets harder to take at face value is his response to being asked about missing bitcoin's run. He said he's been better off not owning it over the last five years, and called holders who didn't sell the ones who left money on the table, an argument that only works if you already assume the price eventually goes to zero, otherwise not selling an appreciating asset isn't leaving money on the table, it's the position working. He's also arguing AI is a threat to bitcoin rather than a complementary trend, the opposite of how some bitcoin proponents have tried to frame the relationship. Worth noting as another claim in the piece, though the article doesn't lay out his reasoning for it in any detail worth repeating here.