AP 🟠 retweeted
Saying there’s no reason to buy Bitcoin because anyone can create a cryptocurrency is like saying there’s no reason to learn English because anyone can invent a language.
AP 🟠 retweeted
Britain 🇬🇧 hates success. Here's some ways they'll penalise you if you start doing well:
Earn £80k - lose Child Benefit. That's £1410 per year for first child, £933 for every other child 👶
Earn £100k - lose 30hrs Free Childcare, worth around £8k per year per child
Earn £100k - lose Tax-Free Childcare benefit, worth £2k per year per child
Earn £125k - lose your Personal Allowance, worth £5000 in England, £5625 in Scotland 💷
Earn £360k - lose almost all your pension allowance 🧓, worth £22,500 🏴 or £24,000 🏴
Die and leave an estate 🏡 worth more than £2.35mm - you lose the right to leave £500k behind IHT free, and instead 40% IHT is taxed from £325k. Cost to you, £70,000
Want a nice car 🚙? If you pay more than £40k for it, you'll owe an extra £440/yr road tax for 5 years.
Want a second home to enjoy? That'll cost you an extra 5% stamp duty in 🏴 or 8% extra in 🏴, on the full purchase price, on top of normal stamp duty. Oh, and depending on your area, you could pay up to 6x council tax on it.
Earn £50k and lose part of your Personal Savings Allowance (PSA, tax free interest) - cost to you, £200.
Earn £125k and lose all your PSA, cost to you, £450
Want your kids well educated? Well now you owe VAT on private school fees. Cost to *ME*, £7k per year
Like to fly in comfort? To take a business class flight instead of economy will cost you £284 in extra tax per person for a return flight ✈️
Ever get the feeling they hate you?
Nothing to see here. Just the treasury secretary of the USA quoting satoshi in a statement about legislation….
Probably nothing.
More than a year ago, the House passed the Clarity Act.
There’s been progress since — thousands of hours of bipartisan negotiations took place at the staff and Member levels. The Senate Committees on Banking and Agriculture advanced their respective titles. And Senate Republicans produced a floor-ready product that, as I type this, is waiting for a vote.
It’s disappointing — but not surprising — that Senate Democrats are choosing politics on the cusp of a major victory for American leadership. Find another instance in history where Congress, when given the choice, opted to push an industry out of the United States rather than smartly regulate it. American Exceptionalism was once a bipartisan goal; if Clarity fails, I have serious doubts.
These same Democrats — many of whom have taken millions of dollars from the crypto industry — proclaim that Clarity lacks safeguards for consumers and falls short in countering illicit finance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Titles II and III materially uplift regulatory and compliance obligations for digital asset intermediaries, placing them on similar footing with traditional financial institutions. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act — which Washington lobbyists have spun up as a boogeyman for certain groups of prosecutors and law enforcement — does nothing other than codify longstanding Treasury Department policy that’s remained consistent across Administrations: non-custodial builders and developers are not, and have never been, subject to registration obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act. And at this point, major law enforcement trades that once opposed the bill, including the Fraternal Order of Police, have now endorsed it.
The Senate needs to vote NOW on this landmark legislation. The truth is that Senate Democrats are afraid to advance the Clarity Act as they fear Senator Warren and the “Anti-Crypto Army” she once promised to build. In the days ahead, Leader Thune will put this theory to the test. Will Senate Democrats be on the side of American Exceptionalism, or will they opt to cede American leadership of a global industry for fear of the bespectacled squirrel’s Left flank?
America will lead or America won’t. It’s not more complicated than that. I believe Satoshi once said it best:
“If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry.”
Prediction:
In 10 years we'll look back and realise the biggest impact of AI wasn't productivity.
It was changing what society expects from workers.
Agree?
Which group is more likely to struggle over the next decade?:
A) People who refuse to use AI
B) People who rely on AI for everything
Most people don't need to learn coding. They need to learn how systems work. Skill death is real.
Agree or disagree?
If you're not using AI daily in your job by the end of 2026, what do you think happens next?
Genuine question.
I've spent the last year in conversations with large enterprises about AI.
The biggest surprise: Almost nobody is worried about the technology.
They're worried about people.
Why do you think that is?
Unpopular opinion:
Most companies don't need an AI strategy.
They need 500 employees using AI every day.
Which matters more:
Strategy or behaviour?
Is the age old seven streams of income still a valid theory? As things become more automated and centralised over time how does that affect diversification?
Answer (IMO) - diversification is a lie.
