Today, KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) announced it has secured a $20 million bitcoin-backed credit facility from Coinbase Credit, Inc., a subsidiary of Coinbase Global (NASDAQ: COIN).
The deal sets up a multi-draw loan facility worth up to $20 million, which KULR can access starting on the effective date. The funding will support KULR’s strategic Bitcoin accumulation goals.
“This marks KULR’s first bitcoin-backed credit facility, giving us access to non-dilutive capital at a competitive financing rate,” said the CEO of KULR Michael Mo. “It reflects our commitment to diversifying our funding sources as we continue to execute on long-term growth strategies to drive shareholder value.”
In 2024, KULR chose Coinbase Prime to handle the storage and management of its Bitcoin assets, including custody, USDC, and self-custodial wallet services. Currently, Coinbase Prime is also the platform of choice for eight of the ten largest public companies holding Bitcoin.
This latest move builds on KULR’s Bitcoin-focused financial strategy. On June 9, the company entered a Controlled Equity Offering Sales Agreement with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC, allowing it to sell up to $300 million of its common stock in an at-the-market (ATM) offering to further support its Bitcoin treasury reserve.
Under the agreement, Cantor Fitzgerald will act as the sole sales agent, using commercially reasonable efforts to sell shares at market prices. The offering will be made under an existing shelf registration and may occur from time to time based on market conditions and company discretion.
“We view our bitcoin holdings as long term holdings and expect to continue to accumulate bitcoin,” added KULR. “We have not set any specific target for the amount of bitcoin we seek to hold, and we will continue to monitor market conditions in determining whether to engage in additional bitcoin purchases.”
On July 3, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed to end an appeal that crypto advocacy group Coin Center made to OFAC regarding the Ethereum-based mixing service Tornado Cash.
The dismissal of this case officially ends Coin Center’s challenging OFAC’s decision to include Tornado Cash on its sanctions list.
Peter Van Valkenburgh, executive director at Coin Center commented on X earlier today that the government did not want to continue to defend an interpretation of sanctions laws that seemed too broad.
This is the official end to our court battle over the statutory authority behind the TC sanctions. The government was not interested in moving forward and defending their dangerously overbroad interpretation of sanctions laws.
Thank you again to our co-plaintiffs:…
— Peter Van Valkenburgh (@valkenburgh) July 7, 2025
Despite the fact that this appeal has been dropped and Tornado Cash is no longer on the OFAC sanctions list, the creators of the technology are still on facing criminal charges.
Tornado Cash co-founder and developer Roman Storm is scheduled to appear in federal court in the Southern District of New York on Monday, July 14, 2025.
To resolve any confusion, my criminal trial, led by the SDNY, is scheduled for July 14, 2025 https://t.co/C8nIVeyuEe
Storm is currently facing money laundering and sanctions violations charges, though, he has affirmed that he didn’t profit from illicit transactions that were made through the Tornado Cash service.
In September of this year, Storm’s lawyers submitted a motion to dismiss the charges, stating that Tornado Cash did not meet the definition of a money transmitter under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) because the technology does not take control of user funds (i.e., private keys). The court denied the motion, though, stating that the BSA’s scope does not require that the technology take control of user funds.
Roman Semenov, the third Tornado Cash co-founder, has been at large and wanted by the FBI since August 2023. The U.S. Department of Justice plans to bring Semenov up on the same charges as Storm.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Tornado-Cash-Trial-CQWAuI.webp6281200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-07 22:45:032025-07-07 22:45:03U.S. Court Brings Coin Center’s Tornado Cash Appeal To A Close
Today, CleanSpark, Inc. (Nasdaq: CLSK) announced it mined 685 bitcoin in June 2025, generating over $61 million in revenue from 578 BTC sold at an average price of $105,860. This surpassed the month’s volume weighted average price (VWAP) by $446.
Introducing $CLSK‘s June Bitcoin mining update as of June 30, 2025:
*Bitcoin produced in June: 685 *Operational hashrate: 50.0 EH/s **First Bitcoin miner to achieve milestone entirely through fully self-operated infrastructure **9.6% month-over-month increase *Average… pic.twitter.com/cJsQ50rAcB
“Our initial strategies went live, and we are seeing positive proof of concept results in our actively managed spot sales program and derivative overlay,” stated the CFO of CleanSpark Gary A. Vecchiarelli. “June resulted in an average sale price of $105,860 per bitcoin net of customary fees, which is $446 above VWAP for the same period, not including the premiums received from derivative transactions. While these strategies are still evolving, I’m proud of the institutional-grade discipline and performance our treasury team is already demonstrating.”
CleanSpark now operates 241,227 mining units and holds a bitcoin treasury of 12,608 BTC. This ranks the company seventh among all publicly traded companies worldwide in bitcoin holdings. Every bitcoin in its treasury has been mined internally.
“We achieved our mid-year target of reaching 50 EH/s of operational hashrate, becoming the first Bitcoin miner to do so entirely through fully self-operated infrastructure,” said the CEO and President of CleanSpark Zach Bradford. “This represents a 9.6% month-over-month increase which further improved our fleet’s energy efficiency to 16.15 J/Th.”
The company also announced that it has secured an additional 179 megawatts of power capacity. This will support more than 10 EH/s of future hashrate as part of CleanSpark’s continued infrastructure expansion across four states. Currently, the company utilizes 808 megawatts out of 987 megawatts under contract.
“Corporations around the globe are embracing the value of a Bitcoin-enhanced balance sheet,” Bradford added. “In fact, corporate Bitcoin acquisitions have outpaced ETF net inflows for the third consecutive quarter. At CleanSpark, we’ve been strategically positioned for this moment from the beginning. Rather than acquiring bitcoin on the open market, we invested in geographically diverse data center infrastructure backed by low-cost energy, enabling us to produce bitcoin at costs well below market price.”
“I want to express my gratitude to our team, especially our COO Scott Garrison and CTO Taylor Monnig, for their grit and leadership,” Bradford commented. “With the talent, infrastructure and power contracts in place, CleanSpark is well-positioned to continue scaling.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/CleanSpark-Announces-Bitcoin-Mining-Results-From-June-2025-2oa9f6.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-07 21:56:432025-07-07 21:56:43CleanSpark Announces Mining 685 Bitcoin Worth Over $74 Million In June
Today, Nakiki SE (ISIN: DE000WNDL300) announced plans to fully adopt a Bitcoin treasury strategy, aiming to become Germany’s first publicly listed company to pursue a Bitcoin only treasury reserve asset business plan, similar to Michael Saylor’s Strategy.
JUST IN: Nakiki SE is planning to become the first German listed company with a pure #Bitcoin treasury strategy pic.twitter.com/BY6P64fd8m
The company will propose a name change and a revised business purpose at its annual general meeting in the second half of 2025. Nakiki SE is also in discussions with key investors to raise capital through share issuances to fund its Bitcoin acquisition.
“The course for building a Bitcoin portfolio was set today following discussions with potential investors, placing banks, and Bitcoin experts,” the announcement stated.
Nakiki SE’s announcement follows a growing trend among German companies embracing Bitcoin as a treasury asset. One notable example is Evertz Pharma GmbH, a private company focusing on premium natural cosmetics, which made headlines earlier this year by becoming the first private German company to announce it has implemented a strategic Bitcoin reserve.
It is important to note that Bitcoin Group SE is also another publicly traded company in Germany that holds BTC on its balance sheet, but is not actively running the same Bitcoin treasury strategy that Michael Saylor’s Strategy has made popular. This is where Nakiki SE is attempting to differentiate itself by becoming the first publicly traded company in the country to solely focus on this new business strategy.
“Our mission is to promote natural beauty on a scientific foundation,” said the managing Director of Evertz Pharma GmbH Dominik Evertz. “The same future-focused mindset shapes our financial strategy: Bitcoin, as a scarce and globally tradable asset, complements our reserves and strengthens the long-term resilience of our company.”
The adoption of Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset has dramatically increased over the course of the last year, expanding globally. To date, there are 256 companies and other entities with Bitcoin in their balance sheets.
Strategy’s Bitcoin strategy has been one of the most influential examples in the corporate world. As seen in the latest market metrics, the company holds over 597,000 BTC, with a Bitcoin NAV of $64.7 billion and a 1 year return of 210%. Their long term conviction in Bitcoin and public transparency have served as a blueprint for companies like Nakiki SE and Evertz Pharma. As more firms explore alternatives to traditional reserves, Strategy’s model continues to reinforce Bitcoin’s position as a strategic asset on the balance sheet.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Nakiki-SE-to-Become-First-German-Public-Company-With-E28098Pure-Bitcoin-Treasury-Strategy-fjPBz1.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-07 20:11:202025-07-07 20:11:20Nakiki SE to Become First German Public Company With ‘Pure’ Bitcoin Treasury Strategy
Half a year has passed since the publishing of my initial report on the company then-named MicroStrategy, now simply Strategy. Other than a name change, the company has since then broadened the arsenal of its financial products, accumulated more bitcoin, and fueled a wide array of companies copying Michael Saylor’s playbook. There seem to be bitcoin treasury companies everywhere.
Due for an update, we will now investigate whether or not these bitcoin treasury companies’ operations are in line with the predictions made in the initial report, and yet again attempt to conclude where all this is eventually going.
A Cause for Alarm
In December last year, the company seemed near invincible: With its bitcoin yield KPI accumulating at a mind-boggling annual rate of above 60%, optimism reigned. It was no wonder then that most of the arguments carefully laid out in the report released at that time were either ridiculed, ignored, or met with snarling challenges to sell the shares short. The share price, denominated either in dollar or bitcoin, is at time of writing flat compared to those days and so far offers little in terms of vindication.
Tragically few understood or even reached the most important conclusion of my December report, which concerns the source of the bitcoin yield. We will therefore iterate what’s wrong with the company’s metric, and why this should be a cause of alarm for any serious investor.
The bitcoin yield — the increase in bitcoin per share — reaching old shareholders comes from the pockets of new shareholders. The new shareholders, many of them buying shares in the hope of getting a high bitcoin yield themselves, provide the bitcoin yield either directly by buying Strategy common shares created in the company’s world-record sized ATM (“at the market”) offerings or indirectly by buying the shares borrowed (and then sold) by delta neutral hedge funds that simultaneously hold the company’s convertible bonds. This is the Ponzi part of company operations — publicly boasting a bitcoin yield far higher than any conventional yield, while obfuscating the fact that the yield stems, not from the sale of company goods or services, but from the new investors themselves. They are the yield, and the harvesting of their hard-earned money will continue as long as they willingly provide it. The size of the harvest is in proportion to the size of the confusion, here measured as the premium of common shares over company net assets. This premium is nurtured by complicated but inviting company narratives, promises, and financial products.
Because the word “Ponzi” has been thrown Bitcoiners’ way for over a decade, they have become accustomed — and rightly so — to simply disregard such critiques altogether. But just because a company within the Bitcoin sector intentionally or inadvertently has constructed a Ponzi scheme, that does not obviously mean that bitcoin itself is a Ponzi. The two assets are separate. During metallic monetary standards of the past, Ponzi schemes existed, but that does not mean the precious metals themselves ever were, or are, such schemes. When I make this claim of Strategy in its current form, I mean it from the point of definition, not from tiresome hyperbole.
The Accumulation Continues
Before drawing any further conclusions, it is first time to pick up where we left off in the initial report, and map relevant company decisions made over the last six months. Strategy announced on December 9 that approximately 21,550 bitcoin had been acquired for about $2.1 billion (average price: approximately $98,783 per bitcoin). This purchase was conducted with proceeds from the ATM outlined in the famous 21/21 Plan initiated earlier the same year. Just a few days later, over 15,000 more bitcoin were purchased, also through the ATM offering, and a few days after that announcement, about 5,000 more were purchased.
The end of 2024 saw the company requesting from its shareholders an amendment to increase the number of authorized shares of class A common stock from 330,000,000 shares to 10,330,000,000 shares — in other words, a 30x. The number of authorized shares of preferred stock was to be increased from 5,000,000 shares to 1,005,000,000 shares — a 200x. All this, though not the same as stating the full amount to actually be issued, was done to give the company more liberty in future financial operations as the 21/21 Plan quickly ran its course. By also focusing on preferred stock, another variant of funding could now be pursued. The full year ended with about 446,000 bitcoin owned by Strategy, and with a company bitcoin yield of 74.3%.
Perpetual Strike Preferred Stock
The new year started with an 8-K filing stating that Strategy was now ready to seek the new funding through preferred stock. The new instrument, as the name implies, was to be senior to the company’s common shares, meaning the owners of the preferred shares had a stronger claim on any future cash flows. Initially, a $2 billion raise was the stated goal. While the new instrument was being prepared, 450,000 bitcoin had been accumulated by January 12. At the end of the month, all 2027 convertible bonds were called on to be redeemed for newly issued shares, as the conversion price was now below the market price of the shares. Any Strategy convertible bond far “in the money” becomes unappealing to the largest buyers of such instruments — the gamma-trading, delta neutral hedge funds — who prefer early conversion followed by new convertible bond issuance over holding the old bonds until maturity.
On January 25, 2025, the company finally filed its prospectus for Strike perpetual preferred stock ($STRK), and about a week later, 7.3 million Strike shares were issued with 8% cumulative dividends on the liquidation preference of $100 per share. In practice, this meant a $2 per share quarterly dividend in perpetuity, or until the shares are converted to Strategy shares in case the price of the latter reaches $1,000. Conversion was defined at the ratio 10:1, meaning 10 Strike shares must be converted for every new Strategy share. In other words, the instrument is akin to a dividend-paying perpetual call option on Strategy common shares. If deemed necessary, Strategy can pay the dividends in the form of its own common shares. On February 10, about 7,600 bitcoin were purchased with the proceeds from the Strike issuance as well as from conventional ATM offering of common shares.
On February 21, Strategy issued $2 billion worth of convertible bonds maturing March 1, 2030, with a conversion price of about $433 per share, representing a conversion premium of about 35%. About 20,000 bitcoin could quickly be purchased with the proceeds. Shortly thereafter, a new prospectus was published, enabling the company to issue up to $21 billion worth of Strike perpetual preferred stock, meaning the already ambitious 21/21 Plan of last year now seemed to morph into something even more massive.
Perpetual Strife and Stride Preferred Stock
As soon as the company had publicly announced its ambitious expansion of its funding plan, yet another instrument was announced; Strife ($STRF), a perpetual preferred stock similar to Strike, was to go live with 5 million shares. It was to offer 10% annual dividends in cash — paid quarterly — instead of 8% in cash or common shares. Strife, unlike Strike, had no equity conversion feature, but was senior to both common shares and Strike. Any dividend delay was to be compensated by higher future dividends, with a maximum of 18% total annual dividend rate. At time of issuance, the initial plan of issuing 5 million shares seems to have been increased to 8.5 million shares, raising over $700 million. With ATM activity for the common shares as well as for Strike, Strategy could finally announce in March that the company held over 500,000 bitcoin. April saw mostly regular common share ATM activities, until that type of funding was all but depleted. Strike ATM activity continued as well, but due to what was likely low liquidity, the dollar amount raised was negligible. With the proceeds, Strategy’s total bitcoin position climbed above 550,000 bitcoin.
On May 1, Strategy announced the intention of launching another $21 billion common share ATM offering. This announcement came very shortly after the ATM arm of the initial 21/21 Plan had been exhausted, and fully vindicated the logic outlined in the previous report as well as on X. As any premium to net assets creates an arbitrage for the company, management is bound to continue to print new shares overvalued relative to underlying bitcoin assets in order to capture it. Issuance started almost immediately, and more bitcoin could be accumulated.
As the fixed income arm of the initial 21/21 Plan already had been extended with the new preferred stock in mind, investors now faced a massive 42/42 Plan, meaning a maximum of $42 billion in common share issuance and $42 billion in fixed income security issuance. May also saw the SEC filing of a new $2.1 billion ATM offering for the Strife perpetual preferred stock instrument. At the end of the month, all three ATM offerings were printing shares for the acquisition of new bitcoin. In the beginning of June, yet another instrument was announced: Stride ($STRD), a perpetual preferred stock asset similar to Strike and Strife, was soon to launch. It was to offer 10% optional, noncumulative dividends in cash, had no equity conversion feature, and was junior to every other instrument except the common shares. A little less than 12 million shares worth about $1 billion were initially issued, paving the way for about 10,000 more bitcoin for the company coffers.
A Dazzling Mosaic of Bitcoin Treasury Companies
With the STRK, STRD, and STRF products launched, and Strategy’s 21/21 Plan in full swing, the full picture of what has been going on in the last six months should be clearer. I pointed out in the initial report that the main rationale behind the convertible bonds was not, despite the claims of the company, to offer bitcoin exposure to a section of the market in need and want of such. The buyers of the bonds were almost all of them delta neutral hedge funds, and, being simultaneously short Strategy shares, they never had any actual bitcoin exposure. It was all a ruse. The true reason that Strategy offered these securities to lenders was that it gave retail investors an impression of financial innovation targeting a multitrillion-dollar industry, as well as facilitating further bitcoin accumulation without equity dilution. And as the investors bid on the common shares, so did the price discrepancy to net assets and the opportunity of risk-free bitcoin yield grow in proportion. The greater the economic confusion, coupled with Michael Saylor’s way with words and vivid analogies, the larger the company’s arbitrage opportunity.
By issuing three different perpetual preferred stock securities over the last six months, in addition to the various convertible bonds already in place, these complicated financial products could now create an appearance of financial innovation, thus spurring further bidding on the common shares.
At the time of writing, the common shares trade near double that of net assets, which is a great feat by company management, given the large size and activity of the common share ATM offerings. It means Strategy can continue to buy about two bitcoin for the price of one in a risk-free fashion.
In 2024, the company could enjoy tailwinds originating from the popular “reflexivity flywheel” theory, where it was argued that the more bitcoin the company purchased, the more its shares would increase in value, resulting in the opportunity to buy even more bitcoin. In 2025, this self-referential stupidity morphed slightly to a “torque” narrative, manifesting itself as official company depictions of fixed income cogwheels rotating the core that is the common shares, with bitcoin yield produced from the machinery as a result. Exactly from where, or how, the yield was created, few investors seemed to be asking themselves, and instead the made-up dynamic was mindlessly celebrated.
Preferred shares are financial assets, and not subject to the laws of physics. Being an engineer, it is not surprising that Saylor should come up with all these fallacious analogies so that bitcoin yield would appear to stem from what can only be viewed as financial alchemy. But since there are no actual company revenues to speak of, no actual banking (the company borrows, but does not lend), the bitcoin yield must in the end stem from the earlier outlined Ponzi element of the company’s business model; retail investors are dazzled by carefully curated narratives, causing them to bid up the price of common shares enough for the bitcoin yield opportunity to materialize. Whatever bitcoin yield originating from the various debt instruments cannot yet be considered settled as debt must eventually be paid off. Only the bitcoin yield stemming from common share ATM offerings is immediate and final — a true profit.
A Bubble of Bitcoin Treasury Companies
Oblivious or not to the fact that narratives can’t influence reality forever, the massively successful bitcoin yield concept of Strategy has spread like a wildfire among management teams of smaller companies all over the world. CEOs have seen how Strategy insiders, by continuously dumping shares on the retail investors currently chasing the shares, have become immensely rich, and so have started copying the playbook. The constant Strategy insider selling can be verified by looking at the numerous Form 144 filings.
Many of these companies have successfully pulled this off, already enriching management and old shareholders at the expense of new ones. But it must all end at one point, and many of these companies, grasping in desperation at the bold, new strategy of becoming bitcoin treasury companies (due to the conventional main business struggling or even failing) will be the first that are compelled to sell their bitcoin assets to pay creditors when things take a turn for the worse. Michael Saylor himself once admitted that he was desperate before stumbling over bitcoin.
Metaplanet was once known as Red Planet Japan and struggled mightily to be profitable in Japan’s budget hotel sector.
Before Méliuz SA desperately adopted a bitcoin acquisition strategy, it had undergone a 100:1 reverse split.
Vanadi Coffee SA drifted ever closer to bankruptcy, managing five cafes and a bakery in Spain’s Alicante region, but its pivot to a bitcoin strategy now seems to have performed miracles for its share price.
The notorious meme stock company Trump Media & Technology, with no revenue to speak of, is now pursuing billions of dollars in funding for the purpose of creating a bitcoin treasury company in order to rescue a share price trading at all-time lows.
Bluebird Mining Ventures Ltd, also in desperation, I would imagine — at least if the share price is any indicator — just recently decided to sell any gold it managed to mine in order to fund bitcoin purchases for its treasury; the shares are at time of writing up almost 500% in a month.
H100 Group, a small and until recently struggling Swedish biotech company, has, at the time of writing returned, to its investors about 1,500% in a month on news that Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, is funding the company through some type of convertible bonds, for the pursuit of a bitcoin treasury strategy.
The list could go on and on, but I think the point is made; it is not Microsoft, Apple, or Nvidia that are becoming bitcoin treasury companies, but failing companies with nothing to lose. Jesse Myers, a Strategy supporter and a direct influence on Michael Saylor’s bitcoin valuation modeling, admitted that,
“[…] with MicroStrategy, Metaplanet and Gamestop, they are all zombie companies. They all had […] a reason to take a serious look in the mirror and say, we can’t keep doing the strategy that we’ve… the path we’ve been on. We have to radically reinvent our approach to delivering shareholder value.”
All these desperate companies have looked at Michael Saylor and Strategy and believe they have found a clear path to riches. By copying the financial alchemy themselves, they are now all involved in a great transfer of wealth as the bitcoin treasury company bubble runs its course.
When the Mosaic Breaks
Though part of the impressive company mosaic, Strike, Strife, and Stride are all senior to equity. The same is true for the convertible bonds, not all of them are currently “in the money.” Future free cash flow will always have to reach holders of these instruments before whatever is left can go to owners of the common shares. In good times, this is obviously not a problem due to the rather low debt ratio of the company; in bad times, the value of all company assets decline considerably while debt obligations remain — like tall, looming threats to any new creditor. Due to a phenomenon sometimes referred to as debt overhang, any new creditor will be hesitant to lend for the purpose of paying off other debt obligations. What started as an enchanting collection of narratives and exaggerations morphs into something turning on its creator.
This is all exacerbated by the fact that a prolonged bitcoin bear market will cause further sell pressure on the asset by the many bitcoin treasury companies then in distress. The more popular Strategy’s playbook becomes, in other words, the deeper the future bitcoin crash, likely wiping out much of the equity of most companies having pursued such a strategy to the bitter end.
In summary: Michael Saylor likes bitcoin. He, like all of us, prefers more bitcoin to less bitcoin. It is then extremely naive to think that he will let company management pass on what is by definition an arbitrage. When common shares trade at a premium to net assets, the company can create risk-free profits for its old shareholders by transferring wealth from the buyers of newly issued shares. This will continue in the form of ever-larger common share ATM offerings alongside new, obfuscating ”innovative products”, despite protests and mutterings about equity dilution. Evidence of this claim is my prediction made in March, coming true in the form of a new $21 billion ATM offering barely one and a half months later. If Strategy does not act on this arbitrage, all the copy-cats will capture it instead as they attempt to increase their bitcoin treasury in an equally risk-free manner. In the frantic scramble to create and expand all these arbitrage opportunities, companies will take on debt in various forms, and danger abounds.
During the next bitcoin bear market, the Strategy share price will reach — and then break below — net assets per share, inflicting large bitcoin-denominated losses on anyone buying at today’s premium. The best action a Strategy investor can take today is doing exactly what the company and its insiders are all doing: Sell the shares!
Bitcoin is no longer the main strategy of this company, nor of any of the now multiplying bitcoin treasury companies; you are.
This is an edited version ofthe article posted on the author’s Medium page. A fuller assessment is featured in the next Bitcoin Magazine Print issue —be sure to get your subscription now.
BM Big Readsare weekly, in-depth articles on some current topic relevant to Bitcoin and Bitcoiners. Ifyou have a submission you think fits the model, feel free to reach out at editor[at]bitcoinmagazine.com.
Global liquidity has long been one of the cornerstone indicators used to assess macroeconomic conditions, and particularly when forecasting Bitcoin’s price trajectory. As liquidity increases, so does the capital available to flow into risk-on assets, such as Bitcoin. However, in this evolving market landscape, a more responsive and perhaps even more accurate metric has emerged, one that not only correlates highly with BTC price action but is also specific to the ecosystem.
Global M2
Let’s begin with the Global M2 vs BTC chart. This has been one of the most shared and analyzed charts on Bitcoin Magazine Pro throughout the current bull cycle, and for good reason. The M2 supply encompasses all physical currency and near-money assets in an economy. When aggregated globally across major economies, it paints a clear picture of fiscal stimulus and central bank behavior.
Figure 1: The Global M2 vs BTC chart has established itself as a key forecasting metric.View Live Chart
Historically, major expansions in M2, especially those driven by money printing and fiscal interventions, have coincided with explosive Bitcoin rallies. The 2020 bull run was a textbook example. Trillions in stimulus flooded global economies, and Bitcoin surged from the low thousands to over $60,000. A similar pattern occurred in 2016-2017, and conversely, periods like 2018-2019 and 2022 saw M2 contraction aligning with BTC bear markets.
A Stronger Correlation
However, while the raw M2 chart is compelling, viewing Global M2 vs BTC Year-on-Year provides a more actionable view. Governments tend to always print money, so the base M2 supply nearly always trends upward. But the rate of acceleration or deceleration tells a different story. When the year-over-year growth rate of M2 is rising, Bitcoin tends to rally. When it’s falling or negative, Bitcoin typically struggles. This trend, despite short-term noise, highlights the deep connection between fiat liquidity expansion and Bitcoin’s bullishness.
Figure 2: Switching to the Global M2 vs BTC YoY chart reveals a stronger correlation between these two metrics.View Live Chart
But there’s a caveat: M2 data is slow. It takes time to collect, update, and reflect across economies. And the impact of increased liquidity doesn’t hit Bitcoin immediately. Initially, new liquidity flows into safer assets like bonds and gold, then equities, and only later into higher volatility, speculative assets like BTC. This lag is crucial for timing strategies. We can add a delay onto this data, but the point remains.
Stablecoins
To address this latency, we pivot to a more timely and crypto-native metric: stablecoin liquidity. Comparing BTC to the supply of major stablecoins (USDT, USDC, DAI, etc.) reveals an even stronger correlation than with M2.
Figure 3: Historically, changes in stablecoin liquidity have coincided with Bitcoin cycles.
Now, just tracking the raw value of stablecoin supply offers some value, but to truly gain an edge, we examine the rate of change, particularly over a 28-day (monthly) rolling basis. This change in supply is highly indicative of short-term liquidity trends. When the rate turns positive, it often marks the beginning of new BTC accumulation phases. When it turns sharply negative, it aligns with local tops and retracements.
Figure 4: Plotting the stablecoin supply rate of change shows how liquidity trends tightly align with BTC price action.
Looking back at the tail end of 2024, as stablecoin growth spiked, BTC surged from prolonged consolidation into new highs. Similarly, the major 30% drawdown earlier this year was preceded by a steep negative turn in stablecoin supply growth. These moves were tracked to the day by this metric. Even more recent rebounds in stablecoin supply are starting to show early signs of a potential bounce in BTC price, suggesting renewed inflows into the crypto markets.
Figure 5: In the past, the indicator triggered by the liquidity rate crossing above zero has been a reliable buy signal.
The value of this data isn’t new. Crypto veterans will remember Tether Printer accounts on Twitter dating back to 2017, watching every USDT mint as a signal for Bitcoin pumps. The difference now is we can measure this more precisely, in real-time, and with the added nuance of rate-of-change analysis. What makes this even more powerful is the intracycle and even intraday tracking capabilities. Unlike the Global M2 chart, which updates infrequently, stablecoin liquidity data can be tracked live and used on short timeframes, and when tracking for positive shifts in this change, it can provide great accumulation opportunities.
Conclusion
While Global M2 growth aligns with long-term Bitcoin trends, the stablecoin rate-of-change metric provides clarity for intra-cycle positioning. It deserves a spot in every analyst’s toolkit. Using a simple strategy, such as looking for crossovers above zero in the 28-day rate of change for accumulation, and considering scaling out when extreme spikes occur, has worked remarkably well and will likely continue to do so.
For more deep-dive research, technical indicators, real-time market alerts, and access to expert analysis, visit BitcoinMagazinePro.com.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Why-Liquidity-Matters-More-Than-Ever-For-Bitcoin-FcMU8h.jpg7201280Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-04 13:42:002025-07-04 13:42:00Why Liquidity Matters More Than Ever For Bitcoin
Today, Senator Lummis unveiled a bill that would enable U.S. citizens to spend up to $300 worth of bitcoin on goods and services, with a yearly cap of $5,000, without having to pay capital gains taxes on the transactions.
The proposed legislation also stipulates that the threshold for spending will be adjusted for inflation starting in 2026.
In the wake of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo not putting Senator Lummis’ amendment up for a vote in the marathon amendment session for the OBBB that occurred earlier this week, Senator Lummis said she would continue to work on legislation regarding tax reform around bitcoin spending.
The bill she released this morning was evidence of her remaining true to her word — which should be acknowledged and appreciated.
However, the details around the de minimis exemptions regarding bitcoin spending were met with some justifiable critique.
And Nick Anthony, Policy Analyst at the CATO Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, proposed an alternative to spending thresholds for purchases:
While I’m happy to see the threshold will be adjusted for inflation, the $300 transaction cap and $5,000 annual spending cap are disapointing.
It would be better to drop both caps while maintaining that qualifying purchases are those for goods and services. https://t.co/MO6J7ZNwna
Personally, I can live with certain spending caps, but I feel they should be substantially larger.
I’d like to see the de minimis exemption applied to transactions valued at up to $600 (the original level Lummis proposed for the amendment to the OBBB) and for the yearly threshold to be closer to $25,000.
Now, certain John Lennon lyrics may come to mind as I put the notion of spending up to $25,000 worth of bitcoin per year without being taxed on it out there into the universe:
“You may say I’m a dreamer…”
But that line warrants finishing when considering that a number of other prominent voices in the Bitcoin space have also spoken up to ask that the provisions in the bill regarding bitcoin spending be more substantial:
“…but I’m not the only one.”
So, if you agree with where we’re coming from, perhaps some of you will join us in politely raising your voices to request that Senator Lummis consider increasing the spending thresholds in the bill — while also expressing your gratitude for Senator Lummis’ dedication to crafting and advancing legislation that treats bitcoin as a medium of exchange.
This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Senator-Lummis-at-Bitcoin-2025-oUhYEB.webp6281200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-03 20:53:572025-07-03 20:53:57Senator Lummis’ New Bill Enables Tax-Exempt Bitcoin Spending — But Thresholds Are Too Low
Today, U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has introduced a comprehensive digital asset tax legislation that could significantly boost the use of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies by cutting the bureaucratic red tape, modernising outdated tax rules, and supporting Bitcoin and crypto innovation.
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 3, 2025
“In order to maintain our competitive edge, we must change our tax code to embrace our digital economy, not burden digital asset users,” said Lummis. “This groundbreaking legislation is fully paid-for, cuts through the bureaucratic red tape and establishes common-sense rules that reflect how digital technologies function in the real world. We cannot allow our archaic tax policies to stifle American innovation, and my legislation ensures Americans can participate in the digital economy without inadvertent tax violations.”
The proposal introduces a de minimis exemption that would exclude small digital asset gains or losses from taxation, with a limit of $300 per transaction and $5,000 annually, and an inflation adjustment beginning in 2026.
The bill ensures Bitcoin and other crypto lending is not taxed as a sale, aligning it with traditional securities lending and improving capital efficiency. It also applies the 30-day wash sale rule to digital assets, closing a loophole and promoting tax fairness across asset classes.
The bill allows digital asset dealers and traders to elect mark-to-market tax treatment, aligning Bitcoin and other crypto with existing rules for securities and commodities. This allows a more accurate income recognition based on fair market value, eliminating arbitrary discrimination based on asset type.
It also defers taxation on mining and staking until the assets are sold, reducing the burden of being taxed on unrealized income. In addition, the bill removes appraisal requirements for charitable donations of actively traded digital assets, making it easier to contribute to Bitcoin and crypto nonprofits and treating it like publicly traded stock.
“The legislation is estimated by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation to generate approximately $600 million in net revenue during the 2025-2034 budget window,” stated the press release.
Senator Lummis emphasized the importance of public input in shaping a fair and forward looking approach to Bitcoin and the broader digital asset economy. “I welcome public comments on this legislation as we seek to get this package to the President’s desk,” she said.
Today, Riot Platforms, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIOT) reported the production of 450 Bitcoin in June 2025, a 12% decrease from May but a 76% increase year-over-year. The company also saw a surge in power credits, totalling $5.6 million, more than double from the previous month.
Riot Announces June 2025 Production and Operations Updates.
Riot mined 450 #bitcoin in June, increasing total bitcoin holdings to 19,273. The Company had a deployed hash rate of 35.5 EH/s and an all-in power cost of 3.4¢/kWh.
— Riot Platforms, Inc. (@RiotPlatforms) July 3, 2025
Riot sold 397 Bitcoin for $41.7 million, representing a 21% decrease in volume and a 19% decline in proceeds from May, but at a higher average price per coin ($105,071). The company ended the month holding 19,273 Bitcoin, more than double the amount held in June 2024.
The average operating hash rate decreased 5% month-over-month to 29.8 EH/s, but remains 162% higher than a year ago. Fleet efficiency held steady at 21.2 J/TH, an 18% improvement over the prior year.
“Riot mined 450 bitcoin in June, which also represented the start of ERCOT’s Four Coincident Peak (“4CP”) program,” stated the CEO of Riot, Jason Les. “Riot’s power strategy, which includes economic curtailment and voluntary participation in the 4CP and other demand response programs, significantly contributes to grid stability while enhancing Riot’s competitive positioning.”
June’s performance follows a similar April, in which Riot produced 463 Bitcoin, sold 475 Bitcoin for $38.8 million at an average price of $81,731, and completed a major acquisition. The company acquired all tangible assets of Rhodium at its Rockdale Facility, including 125 MW of power capacity.
“April was a significant month for Riot as we closed on the acquisition of all of the tangible assets of Rhodium at our Rockdale Facility, including 125 MW of power capacity, and mutually ended all outstanding litigation,” said Les. “This transaction ends the hosting agreement with our last hosting client and marks the complete exit of Riot from the bitcoin mining hosting business.”
H100 Group AB announced it has purchased an additional 47.33 Bitcoin as part of its Bitcoin Treasury Strategy, bringing its total BTC holdings to 247.54 BTC.
The acquisition, valued at SEK 48,999,597, was executed at an average price of SEK 1,035,126 per BTC. This latest move expands H100’s position in Bitcoin as a reserve asset, reinforcing the company’s confidence in Bitcoin long term.
This purchase follows just two weeks after H100 received 144.8 BTC as part of the proceeds from the first four tranches of a convertible loan agreement. That inflow had already pushed the company’s Bitcoin balance to 169.2 BTC, prior to this new transaction.
The convertible loan structure is part of a broader SEK 750 million funding initiative led by the CEO of Blockstream Adam Back, giving H100 the ability to receive settlement in either cash or Bitcoin. This flexibility complements the company’s strategic focus on building a Bitcoin-denominated treasury.
Back’s participation includes a SEK 150 million investment in Tranche 6, offered at a 33% premium to market. The structure allows H100 to onboard capital efficiently without the need for traditional rights issues or immediate equity dilution.
“Unexpectedly, given the strong reception, Tranches 1-4 became in-the-money rapidly,” Back said. “I was expecting [H100] would convert them over time as they reached in-the-money status.”
H100’s Bitcoin treasury initiative began in May, when it became the first publicly listed health-tech company in Sweden to adopt Bitcoin as a reserve asset. The initial 4.39 BTC purchase, valued at 5 million NOK, signaled an important move to incorporate Bitcoin as a long term hedge and financial asset.
“This addition to H100’s Bitcoin Treasury Strategy follows an increasing number of tech-oriented growth companies holding Bitcoin on their balance sheet,” said the CEO of H100 Group Sander Andersen. “And I believe the values of individual sovereignty highly present in the Bitcoin community aligns well with, and will appeal to, the customers and communities we are building the H100 platform for.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/H100-Group-Increases-Bitcoin-Holdings-With-New-Bitcoin-Purchase-qJ5Vmc.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-02 19:38:192025-07-02 19:38:19H100 Group Increases Bitcoin Holdings With New Bitcoin Purchase
The explosive growth of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and digital finance has transformed electric industry operations. Forward-thinking miners and utilities can leverage these technological shifts to build generation capacity and create more resilient electrical grids.
DATA CENTER LANDSCAPE
Data centers locate where speed of energization, connectivity, and operational costs align favorably, but speed of energization remains a significant challenge. North American data center leasing vacancy rates are below 2% in 2024, down from over 10% in 2018. End-users now pre-lease capacity years in advance as new generation is slow to energize.
Unlike traditional load growth that materializes gradually over years, data centers demand immediate energy solutions. This creates a difficult position for some electric utilities with typical new generation planning—build when demand is reliably certain to arrive.
New electricity generation projects can require 2-7 years development time, while major data center deployment has compressed requirements of 18-24 months. Some utilities fund new generation ahead of need, but that typically leads to subsidizing projects until new load arrives, increasing costs for existing customers.
UNTAPPED OPPORTUNITIES
Many are already aware of bitcoin mining’s value proposition of demand management, excess energy conversion (flared gas, etc.) and remote energy resource access.
Demand Management: Mining operations can be curtailed during peak demand periods more easily than traditional loads, serving as valuable demand response resources necessary for grid balancing, particularly useful when variable generation resources are connected to the grid.
Wasted Energy Conversion: Companies take energy that would have otherwise been wasted—such as flared gas at oil production facilities—and convert it to electricity for bitcoin mining operations.
Stranded Asset Utilization: Similar to wasted energy conversion, mining operations can monetize remote generation resources that would otherwise be underutilized due to transmission constraints, internet connectivity, or economic conditions.
What I am writing about is an overlooked opportunity: Bitcoin mining’s unique load profile provides value through the ability to build new resources ahead of need, avoiding subsidization by existing customers, and allowing distributed transmission construction compatible with data center growth.
BUILD-AHEAD TO OVERCOME TIMING MISMATCHES
Strategic deployment of bitcoin mining as partners in new generation construction transforms build-ahead economics—mining operations create load from facility energization. When public utilities build new generation and partner with mining operations, they can create new revenue upon energization. This has multiple benefits:
Project load certainty for funding
Increased energy availability for new load
Subsidization avoidance
Reduced grid congestion
Utilities that plan for new generation today can factor in partnerships with bitcoin mining companies, even if other loads are not on the horizon, and can scale mining operations to fit new generation size. Miners take bitcoin price and mining difficulty risk in exchange for long-term beneficial electricity rates. This provides the utility with sufficient load certainty to fund construction projects that would have otherwise not been available, and gives miners access to long-term funding for business expansion.
More new generation when energy production growth is a national competitive interest benefits everyone.
Additionally, by building generation for just-in-time miner loads, subsidization of new generation by existing utility customers becomes a thing of the past. As power purchase agreements end and new load arrives to the region, energy transitions to other long-term off-takers.
Additionally, as new load arrives, transmission infrastructure is built to suit, again, not requiring subsidization of arriving loads by existing ratepayers. Infrastructure can be built as needed, where needed, resulting in more geographically dispersed load points and reducing grid congestion.
THE PARTNERSHIP ADVANTAGE
A partnership between electric utilities and bitcoin mining companies opens value within utility service territories with abundant small to medium untapped generation resources by energizing resources now, at a time when tapping new resources is dearly needed.
New generation projects that partner with mining companies provide revenue at energization, tapping unused resources, leading to lower system-wide rates and ensuring local ratepayers benefit directly from local resources, creating jobs and new business opportunities.
Electricity’s value far exceeds its cost per kilowatt-hour, and partnerships forged between bitcoin mining companies and electric utilities provide an amazing chance to build power plant capacity that will fuel local business, strengthen communities and power entire nations.
This is a guest post by David Plotz. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Power-Grid-and-Mining-jGemu3.webp6301200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-02 19:00:212025-07-02 19:00:21Bitcoin Mining Has Huge Role In Energy Production Expansion
BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) is now generating more annual fee revenue than its signature tracker of the S&P 500 Index, according to a Bloomberg report.
JUST IN: World’s largest asset manager BlackRock’s #Bitcoin ETF drives more revenue than its S&P 500 fund — Bloomberg pic.twitter.com/7rT4gWXTgl
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 2, 2025
Despite being only 18 months old, the $75 billion iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) has drawn consistent inflows from investors. With a 0.25% fee, it now generates an estimated $187.2 million in annual revenue, surpassing the $187.1 million earned by BlackRock’s $624 billion S&P 500 ETF (IVV), which charges just 0.03%.
“IBIT overtaking IVV in annual fee revenue is reflective of both the surging investor demand for Bitcoin and the significant fee compression in core equity exposure,” said the President at NovaDius Wealth Management Nate Geraci. “Although spot Bitcoin ETFs are priced very competitively, IBIT is proof that investors are willing to pay up for exposures they view as truly additive to their portfolios.”
According to Bloomberg data, the surge has been driven by investor demand with IBIT attracting $52 billion of the $54 billion that has flowed into spot Bitcoin ETFs since they began trading in January 2024. It now holds over 55% of the category’s total assets and has seen outflows in only one month.
“It’s an indication of how much pent-up demand there was for investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin as part of their overall portfolio without having to open a separate account somewhere else,” said the co-founder of Bespoke Investment Group Paul Hickey. “It also illustrates the leadership of Bitcoin in the crypto space where it’s perceived utility as a store of value has essentially left the others in its dust.”
The 25-year-old IVV remains a traditional equity tracking, ranking as the third-largest ETF among more than 4,300 U.S. funds. The swift rise of Bitcoin ETFs reflects a regulatory shift that opened the door to broader adoption. This change has sparked a surge of capital from hedge funds, pensions and banks. As a result, IBIT now ranks among the top 20 most traded ETFs in the market.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/BlackRocks-Bitcoin-ETF-Drives-More-Revenue-Than-Its-SP-500-Fund-1-4eIrk0.png6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-07-02 17:01:212025-07-02 17:01:21BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF Drives More Revenue Than Its S&P 500 Fund
Today, Spark has announced a new integration with Wallet of Satoshi, one of the largest Bitcoin Lightning Network (LN) wallets, to bring users a “truly self-custodial Lightning experience,” in beta, according to a press release sent to Bitcoin Magazine.
“From the start, Spark felt like the missing piece,” stated Wallet of Satoshi. “It gave us the foundation to explore self-custody seriously – abstracting away the complex parts of self-custody so we could stay focused on user experience.”
Being self-custodial, this will allow customers to have full control over their Bitcoin. In November 2024, Wallet of Satoshi removed its app from the U.S. Apple and Google app stores because of unspecified reasons, although likely due to an unfavorable regulatory environment cracking down on Lightning wallets at the time. But now that the regulatory landscape has changed in the U.S., Wallet of Satoshi stated this integration will unlock the ability to re-enter and serve the U.S. market.
Wallet of Satoshi also faced limitations when developing its self-custodial Lightning wallet, such as liquidity requirements, node complexity, and channel management costs, making it difficult to build a truly self-custodial LN wallet — but now, Spark has provided them a solution.
“We built Spark specifically to solve this exact problem,” the company stated. “Spark abstracts away all the complexity for wallets looking to implement Lightning. You don’t need to spin up channels, worry about routing, pre-fund liquidity, or even think about managing nodes. Creating a Lightning wallet on Spark takes just 6 lines of code.”
Spark stated that it will continue building out new features as the product evolves, and those interested in joining the beta can leave a comment on their X post requesting to join.
On May 22, Breez and Spark partnered to launch a new implementation of the Breez SDK, built on Spark’s Bitcoin-native Layer 2 infrastructure. The SDK supports LNURL, Lightning addresses, real-time mobile notifications, and includes bindings for all major programming languages and frameworks. The collaboration gave developers tools to add Bitcoin payment features to apps used for monetization social apps, cross-border remittances, and in-game currencies.
A day earlier, Spark also partnered with Magic Eden to improve Bitcoin trading by addressing issues like slow transaction times, high fees, and poor user experience. The integration introduced a native settlement system aimed at making transactions faster and more cost-effective, without using bridges or synthetic assets.
Design platform Figma revealed in a new SEC filing that it owns $70 million in Bitcoin ETFs and was approved to buy $30 million more.
JUST IN: Design app giant Figma revealed it owns almost $70 million in Bitcoin ETFs and was approved to buy $30 million more in BTC pic.twitter.com/Us5F0HMw82
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 1, 2025
The disclosure came as part of Figma’s S-1 filing, released alongside its bid to go public. Figma held $78.8 million in a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) as of December 31, 2024, categorized as a Level 1 asset. As of March 31, 2025, the value declined to $69.5 million, which included in its $1.54 billion total of cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities.
“We have an investment in a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund,” said the filing document. “The fair value of this investment was $69.5 million as of March 31, 2025. Changes in the fair value of this exchange-traded fund are impacted by the volatility of Bitcoin and changes in general economic conditions, among other factors.”
“On March 3, 2024, the Board of Directors approved an investment of $55.0 million into a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (“ETF”) investment fund operated by Bitwise, Inc,” stated the file. “The investment is classified as an equity security within marketable securities for the periods presented.”
On May 8, 2025, the company’s board approved an additional $30 million investment in Bitcoin. Following the approval, Figma purchased $30 million worth of the stablecoin USDC with plans to convert it into Bitcoin at a later date.
The filing notes the ETF’s volatility, but also states no credit losses have been recorded on the asset. Figma reported $23.8 million in unrealized gains from equity investments for the year ending December 31, 2024, and $0.3 million for Q1 2024. However, it recognized $9.3 million in unrealized losses for Q1 2025. Interest income from cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities totaled $63.7 million in 2024 and $15.5 million in Q1 2025.
DDC Enterprise Limited (NYSE: DDC) has officially closed its $528 million financing deal to expand its corporate Bitcoin strategy. The funding, led by Anson Funds with participation from Animoca Brands, Kenetic Capital, and others, is one of the largest Bitcoin-focused capital raises by a NYSE-listed company.
JUST IN: Publicly traded DDC Enterprise closes $528 million financing to advance its #Bitcoin treasury strategy.
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 1, 2025
“This maximum aggregate $528 million capital commitment marks a watershed moment for DDC,” said Norma Chu, Founder, Chairwoman, and CEO of DDC. “With premier institutions such as Anson Funds, Animoca Brands, and Kenetic Capital backing our vision, we believe we have unprecedented capacity to execute our mission of building one of the world’s most valuable corporate Bitcoin treasuries and becoming a top global Bitcoin holder.”
The financing includes three key components:
$26 million PIPE investment from digital asset investors, also converting debt to equity to strengthen DDC’s balance sheet.
$25 million in convertible notes from Anson Funds, with an additional $275 million committed for future tranches.
$2 million private placement and a $200 million equity line of credit from Anson Funds to give DDC ongoing capital flexibility.
Maxim Group LLC acted as exclusive financial advisor on the deal. According to the company, proceeds will be used specifically to acquire more Bitcoin.
This move secures DDC’s aggressive pivot into the Bitcoin space, while still operating its food business, including brands like DayDayCook, Nona Lim, and Yai’s Thai. Bitcoin is now a core reserve asset for the firm.
“DDC Enterprise is strongly positioned as the definitive publicly-traded vehicle for concentrated Bitcoin exposure and value creation,” Chu added. “My focus will be on growing our BTC treasury and delivering attractive BTC yield consistently for our shareholders.”
This announcement follows DDC’s earlier update in June where the company confirmed its intent to raise $528 million through three separate securities purchase agreements. At the time, Chu called it “a defining moment” and said the investment was “a strong mandate” for global Bitcoin accumulation.
Germany’s largest savings bank financial group, known as the Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe, have announced their plan to offer Bitcoin and other crypto trading services to private customers. The move comes after years of hesitation over digital assets risk and volatility.
“We should offer customers the opportunity to trade cryptocurrencies at the Sparkassen as well,” said Matthias Dießl, President of the Sparkassen, in an interview with Bloomberg that was translated into English.
According to the German Savings Banks and Giro Association (DSGV), the Sparkassen will provide reliable access to a regulated crypto offering through their mobile app, with technical support from DekaBank, the investment arm owned by the savings banks. The service will allow self-directed investors to trade cryptocurrencies and is expected to launch in the summer of 2026.
According to the report, DekaBank confirmed that the platform is currently under development and is expected to be made available within the next year. The goal is to allow Sparkassen clients to engage with Bitcoin and the crypto market in a secure and regulated environment.
Around three years ago, Sparkassen committees advised against offering Bitcoin and crypto trading for private customers, pointing to concerns like fraud, lack of investor protection, and the volatility of the market. However, market momentum and growing customer interest in Bitcoin have prompted a change.
“The Volks and Raiffeisenbanken, under the leadership of DZ Bank, plan to launch a crypto offering for private customers in the coming days,” stated the document, which was translated into English.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/German-Bank-Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe-Plans-to-Offer-Bitcoin-For-Private-Customers-38yWsf.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-30 19:51:482025-06-30 19:51:48German Bank Sparkassen-Finanzgruppe Plans to Offer Bitcoin For Private Customers
Year-to-date, bitcoin returns are flat — at negative 0.4%. This is far from bitcoin’s returns in 2024 at +121% and its compound annual growth rate of 98.60% over the last 13 years.
After hitting an all-time high of $109,000 on January 20, 2025, Bitcoin price suffered a severe drop three months later: During the worldwide tariff fright on April 9, bitcoin dropped as low as $76,000. At the time of writing, it’s trading at around $106,000 — about 6% below its ATH milestone.
Given the intensity of turmoil that President Trump’s trade war caused, it appears that it is now exceedingly unlikely for bitcoin to ever reach the deep, discounted levels of its less mature self. At the same time, is it likely for bitcoin price to exceed the $112,000 all-time high, or will it again topple under sell-off pressure?
To attempt to answer that, let’s examine which factors are coming into play a year after Bitcoin’s halving.
Are Bitcoin Fundamentals Still Sound?
The fourth Bitcoin halving last April slashed miner block rewards from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. Consequently, it lowered Bitcoin’s inflation rate to 0.83%, which is significantly lower even than the Federal Reserve’s target inflation rate of 2%.
As always, Bitcoin’s fundamentals can be summed up in simple terms:
Mass democracy requires escalating government spending and social programs to fortify people’s reliance and allegiance. Consequently, government spending ignites steep budget deficits, totaling almost $2 trillion in 2024.
Massive budget deficits spur the central bank into action, devaluing the dollar. After all, if the quantity of dollars outpaces the quantity of real assets, those assets will be priced higher. Over time, people start looking for an exit route to safeguard wealth.
The more voting there is, the worse the problem gets. This necessitates technological solutions outside electoral politics in which public opinion is engineered via centralized information distribution nodes.
Bitcoin is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this need. Although Bitcoin is digital, making it fit for the modern age, its proof-of-work mechanism ties it to physical assets — machines and energy.
Combined with the programmed scarcity of 21 million bitcoin, alongside the decentralization of Bitcoin’s computing network, this makes Bitcoin a relatively safe asymmetric bet against a debt-based monetary system.
In a hypothetical scenario, if the Federal Reserve permanently halts all money supply machinations, the U.S. government would have to rely on investors buying bonds to cover its deficits. But as we’ve seen during the reciprocal tariffs fiasco, the bond market responds to fundamentals.
For this reason, the Treasury’s operations would have to become sound. However, the stability of the dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, relies on both domestic spending for social programs and military hegemony spending.
In other words, it is difficult to picture a world in which it is possible for the government to become fiscally sound. Therefore, its reliance on the Federal Reserve to devalue the dollar has to be maintained as a matter of course.
Obstacles in the Way of Bitcoin Fundamentals
Now that we understand the nature of the beast, it is easy to see why bitcoin managed to attract so much capital over the years, with the notable drawdown exceptions in 2018 and 2022:
Bitcoin’s annualized returns between 2015 and 2025. Image credit: StatMuse
Simply put, the Bitcoin network exists to capture capital flows from a system that relies on monetary debasement. From this starting framework, it is then easy to see what would get in the way of capturing those inflows:
Is it feasible to scale the education of the populace on Bitcoin’s fundamentals, i.e., central banking and monetary theory?
How high is the cognitive ceiling that curtails the scaling of educational efforts?
Is the institutional sanctification of Bitcoin sufficient to offset the cognitive ceiling?
Are fiat-to-bitcoin rails sufficiently convenient to accept capital inflows?
Worldwide, fiat-to-BTC conversion is theoretically possible for 76% of the world’s population (~6 billion), as this is the number of people with bank accounts. However, this percentage drastically goes down when one accounts for nations that debanked cryptocurrencies, partially or fully. Whether it’s due to worries about cloud security of certain platforms, as well as the still-glaring lack of strong regulatory frameworks.
Furthermore, one has to account for the culture of saving and investing itself. It is clear that Americans have the most developed investing culture, with 62% of adults having exposure to the stock market. And as of 2023, the FDIC reported that 96% of U.S. households are banked.
Of course, the U.S. stock market mirrors U.S. hegemony and the U.S. dollar as reserve currency, meaning that its stock market routinely outperforms global equities. When accounting for all these factors, it is then not surprising to see that, out of ~6 billion banked people globally, up to 130.4 million individuals received exposure to bitcoin — a trifle (0.002%) of the banked population.
Nonetheless, 21 million is itself a tiny figure compared to 6 billion, rendering retail participation moot. And early 2024 and 2025 were exceptionally fortifying for Bitcoin fundamentals.
In January 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a series of spot-traded ETFs. Not only did this place bitcoin alongside stocks for capital inflows, but bitcoin was institutionally sanctified.
This pivotal milestone made it more difficult for mainstream media to paint bitcoin as illegitimate. Likewise, the heads of large financial institutions initiated a sharp turnaround, as evidenced by Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock.
On top of bitcoin’s institutionalization via ETFs in 2024, President Trump’s administration not only canceled Operation Choke Point 2.0, but moved to form a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. Given that public opinion is an artifact of mainstream media, it is now less relevant what the public knows about Bitcoin but rather how Bitcoin is framed.
Altogether, Bitcoin is now more nestled within the system than ever before. This translates into less friction for fiat-to-BTC inflows. Historically, global M2 money supply correlates highly with Bitcoin price, now poised for another jump.
Ultimately, bitcoin lacks the complexity of quarterly earnings reports. In a culture accustomed to stock investing, this simplicity may attract greater inflows as investors seek refuge from dollar devaluation.
Post-Halving Performance Failure in 2024/2025
Following each halving, bitcoin’s gains tend to fall within a 12-month period. The third halving was an exception due to unprecedented global monetary stimulus combined with low interest rates.
1st halving in 2012: BTC price up 7,000% over 12 months.
2nd halving in 2016: BTC price up 291% over 12 months.
3rd halving in 2020: BTC price up 541% over 12 months.
4th halving in 2024: BTC price up 43% over 12 months.
During that post-2020 period of cheap money we also saw a crypto boom, tied to overleveraged crypto platforms such as BlockFi, FTX, Celsius, Voyager Digital and others. When the Federal Reserve reversed course in March 2022 and started rapidly rising interest rates, the central bank triggered a cascade of crypto bankruptcies.
In turn, the remaining retail turned to degen gambling known as memecoin trading — a trend that only widened the gulf between bitcoin and altcoins, pushing bitcoin dominance to 64%, amplifying the importance of trading rooms, where focused bitcoin discussions have replaced the fragmented noise of altcoin hype.
Nonetheless, crypto debanking, crypto bankruptcies and fraudulent memecoins left a mark. According to Kaiko research figures, Bitcoin’s fourth halving period now tracks for the worst performance.
At the same time, Bitcoin miners are acting as if this is a temporary performance lapse. Reminder: With lower BTC block rewards and unchanged price, miners receive less value for the same computing power exerted and associated costs.
For this reason, miners count on the BTC price to go up to compensate for the loss. And if some miners succumb to economic pressure, they exit the network and reduce Bitcoin’s network total hashrate.
However, over a one-year period, Bitcoin’s hashrate has gone steadily up, having reached an all-time high in April. This suggests a couple of scenarios:
If many miners get squeezed out from the lack of prolonged BTC price performance, this will exert a sell-off pressure. Is this likely to be accompanied by dip-buyers is anyone’s guess, but Bitcoin’s institutional maturity and lack of structural vulnerability suggest the dip will be bought up.
Consequently, if Bitcoin’s mining difficulty is lowered from the exit of inefficient miners, remaining miners will gain greater profitability. This process has unfolded many times.
If macro conditions, such as global money supply, push BTC price higher in the second half of 2025, there is no sell-off pressure; the BTC price rapidly skyrockets.
In either scenario, bitcoin’s unique fundamentals enter the calculus to keep the BTC price up over the long term. In a way, as retail participation slumps, this is more likely to prevent major sell-off pressures. After all, funds and publicly traded companies are focused on long-term trajectories and fundamentals, not on short-term expenditures for consumption needs.
In the end, bitcoin’s steadily rising hashrate and institutional maturity underscore its resilience. Any sell-off pressures are likely to be absorbed by long-term investors to sustain upward price momentum.
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve.
Bitcoin treasury companies are all the rage, these days.
There’s a story, likelyapocryphal, of Albert Einstein working at the Swiss Patent Office in the early 1900s and examining devices claiming to be perpetual motion machines. “We know they don’t work,” Einstein is supposed to have quipped. “The fun part is working out why they don’t work.”
Financial machines of perpetual motion don’t work either, but financialhistory, my specialty, is littered with people trying: Usually, the elaborate attempts have to blow up before we can see them for what they were. From the South Sea Company directors trying to bubble away Britain’s government debt in 1720 to the shitcoiners and scammers of 2017 (and again in 2022) dreaming of perpetual crypto riches, there’s always another schmuck thinking this time is different.
When the now-forgotten Sam Bankman-Fried, on Bloomberg’s Odd Lots in April 2022, infamously analogized yield farming to an empty black box of crypto changing hands at ever-higher prices, Matt Levine restated his description thus: “You’re just like, well, I’m in the Ponzi business and it’s pretty good.”
…to which SBF answered yes — completely serious and without hesitation. Yes, I’m peddling Ponzis and business is good.
Oh, how memories fade. Fast-forward a mere three years and we made the Ponzi business great again. Bitcoin 2025 saw announcement after announcement by bitcoin treasury companies launching one daring and aggressive financial engineering attempt after another.
Supposedly, the way bitcoin reaches the heavens or even the plebian masses now is not a mass exodus from financial institutions and a fulfillment of a dreamy cypherpunkdestiny, but through heavily speculative, ridiculously complicated financial plays that turn equities and fixed-income securities into funding pools for buying bitcoin.
Bitcoin treasury companies — of which David Bailey, the owner of Bitcoin Magazine, is peddling one, NAKA, and UTXO Management, another sister company of Bitcoin Magazine, is heavily invested in several others, hashtag disclaimers everywhere — are this cycle’s FTX, led by more eloquent, sophisticated and better-looking Bankman-Frieds, and trading in much larger volumes than the convicted felon now serving 25 years in prison ever could have dreamed of.
For how can a bitcoin, wrapped in a corporate charter, suddenly be worth double, triple, or ten times the most liquid, observable and obviously indisputable price on the planet?
What extreme value-added transformation does our orange coin undergo the moment you take it under your financially leveraged wings and promise to issue debt, preferred stock, and equity against it — in “waves of credit bubbles,” we hear the ghost of Satoshi faintly whisper.
Bitcoin treasury companies are hardly what Satoshi had in mind when he created a new electronic cash system to make third-party, financial middlemen obsolete. In sixteen short years, we turned Satoshi’s great discovery into the very thing he tried to exit.
OK, fine; these things are growing and stock prices are forward-looking. OK, fine; there’s plenty of regulatory arbitrage to overcome. I’m not blind to what is: I can see the prices paid and the money raised as well as the next observer. And I’m happy to accept that marketprices know something I don’t — but it comes with a nasty feeling that Bitcoin analyst James Check, recently joining the doubters, is right:
“I suspect many (arguably most) Treasury Companies will suffer the same fate as the shitcoin complex in the fullness of time. A few will survive, but most are probably destined to under-perform spot Bitcoin.”
In an interview a few weeks ago, Jeff Walton of the MSTR True North podcast, a show dedicated to exploring and explaining the bitcoin treasury strategy of, well, Strategy, had this to say:
BRITISH HODL: “So, how are the dividends that [Strategy is] paying out funded?” Walton: “They could, theoretically, ATM any of these instruments to pay the dividend of any of the [other] instruments… It’s effectively like re-financing your debt.”
That, my friends, is the definition of a Ponzi. If the thing you’re advancing depends for its ever-increasing valuation on new money coming in to pay off the old money… yeah, you’re in the Ponzi business. Let’s hope it’s good. (As Emil Sandstedt, whose gigantum “Rise and Future Fall of MicroStrategy” is mandatory reading, says: “You create the arbitrage from where the Bitcoin yield flows.”)
This is not to single out Walton, specifically — god knows he has suffered enough at the hands of Madam Tooth in the pretty embarrassing FT Film documentary on Saylor earlier this year. (Besides, I’ve spent dozens of hours listening to Walton walk me through the intricacies of these Strategy products, so I owe him much gratitude.)
There’s a moment in said FT documentary where Saylor rhetorically exclaims, “Michael, you’re a financial engineer. Yes, I am!”
And to be fair, most of us, if given a money-printing machine in the form of privileged access to the capital markets and mNAV>1, would do precisely what Saylor et al. are doing: As David Bailey says, “If you can sell a dollar for more than a dollar, you do that trade all day long.”
(Dylan LeClair: “What do investors want? They want more bitcoin. What do we do at Metaplanet? We give them more bitcoin!” June 27, Bitcoin 2025)
That’s not the mysterious bit. The truly remarkable aspect is why Wall Street capital, the most arbitrage-hungry and greedy profit-seekers on the planet, are willing to buy bitcoin at between $183,000 and $2 million a coin when it’s wrapped in a corporate charter — but only $102,000 for the real deal.
And even if the equity->bitcoin->at-the-market (preferred) equity issuance-> more bitcoin funnel worked — an infinite flywheel — with the next treasury company having a higher “torque” than the previous, why would any bagholder, sorry, “investor,” hold the stock? Just dump it on another unsuspecting victim and move on to the next recently announced scheme that some famous Bitcoiner just joined the board of.
If in 1720 they could bubble some government debt, we, in 2025, can bubble some convertible corporate debt and sprinkle some bitcoin-backed corporate stock all over the financial place. Perhaps this time is different: Maybe these aggressively financed, financial alchemy-peddling entities tripping over themselves to issue debt to investors won’t blow up. Maybe this is the final speculative attack, putting an end to fiat money.
If I’m wrong, and the “capital pump to accelerate the flow of capital from bonds to bitcoin” accelerates hyperbitcoinization, I’ll be the first to celebrate. In the meantime, I implore you, beloved financial engineers of the world, to please explain to me — preferably like I’m five — why all these shrewd shenanigans won’t simply implode.
Perpetual motion machines, financial or otherwise, don’t work. Why is thisone any different?
This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Today, Former President Donald Trump has voiced strong support for Bitcoin and the broader crypto industry, calling it a vital American asset that the US must continue to dominate.
JUST IN: President Donald Trump said Bitcoin “takes a lot of pressure off the dollar and it’s a great thing for our country.” pic.twitter.com/vjbGGhrHm9
“So I became a fan of crypto, and to me it’s an industry,” Trump said. “I view it as an industry and I’m president and if we didn’t have it, China would or somebody else would, but most likely China.”
Trump emphasized the economic resilience and strategic importance of Bitcoin, pointing out its relative strength during recent market downturns.
“In fact, when the stock market went down recently, crypto and Bitcoin and all of that went down much less than anybody else as a group,” he stated. “And we’ve created a very powerful industry and that’s much more important than anything that we invest in.”
The former president talked about his personal involvement with Bitcoin before launching his 2024 presidential campaign. “I got involved with it a couple of years ago and before this, before the second term, I got involved, before I decided to run… I was in Bitcoin then, not knowing if I was going to do it a third time,” he emphasized, referring to his decision to run again.
Trump also suggested that Bitcoin is becoming more mainstream. “It’s the jobs that it produces and I noticed more and more you paying Bitcoin. I mean, people are saying it takes a lot of pressure off the dollar. And it’s a great thing for our country, so I don’t care about investing, you know.”
He concluded by asserting that under his leadership, the US has built a critical industry in Bitcoin and crypto. “I have kids and they invest in different things. They do believe in it, but I’m president and what I did do there is build an industry that’s very important and you know if we didn’t have a China would,” Trump said.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Bitcoin-Takes-a-Lot-of-Pressure-Off-The-Dollar-Says-Donald-Trump-XNcVtX.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-27 19:31:542025-06-27 19:31:54Bitcoin Takes a Lot of Pressure Off The Dollar, Says Donald Trump
As we can see, the only nations that were able to resist IMF pressure were El Salvador, prior to gaining an IMF loan, and Bhutan which does not have an IMF loan.
Each country with an IMF loan who has adopted, or attempted to adopt Bitcoin at a nation-state level has been successfully thwarted, or largely thwarted by the IMF.
How is it that the IMF has been so successful in preventing global nation state adoption, with the exception of Bhutan, and why do they aggressively move to prevent it?
In this detailed report we do a deep-dive into each of the three nations where the IMF has successfully pushed back against Bitcoin adoption, and the signs that it is likely to be successful achieving the same result with Pakistan.
In the last section of this report, we look at the IMFs five reasons to fear Bitcoin, and how Bitcoin is still thriving from a grassroots level despite top-down Bitcoin abandonment, or partial abandonment, by various nation states.
1. Central African Republic: When Colonial Money Met Digital Hope
The Central African Republic (CAR) uses the CFA franc. The CFA isn’t just currency—it’s a geopolitical chain, backed by France and governed by the Bank of Central African States (BEAC). Of its 14 member nations, the 6 Central African nations (including CAR) must still deposit 50% of foreign reserves in Paris.
This control over reserves fosters economic dependency, while establishing export markets for French goods at favorable terms. In 1994 for example, the CFA was devalued by half, a policy that was influenced by Western pressure, particularly from the IMF. This caused the cost of imports to leap, leading to exporters (mainly EU based) being able to procure resources from CFA nations at half the cost. Locally the impact was devastating, leading to wage freezes, layoffs, and widespread social unrest across CFA countries.
When the Central African Republic (CAR) announced in 2022 it was adopting Bitcoin as legal tender, BEAC and its regulatory arm COBAC immediately voided the law, citing violations of the CEMAC Treaty; The treaty which established the economic and monetary community of Central Africa. This wasn’t bureaucracy—it was a warning shot from the monetary guardians ofla Françafrique.
Why it mattered: To this day, CAR’s economy relies heavily on IMF bailouts. With $1.7Billion in external debt (61% of GDP), defying BEAC meant risking financial isolation.
The IMF’s Silent Campaign
The IMF moved fast. Within two weeks (May 4, 2022), it publicly condemned CAR’s “risky experiment,” citing legal contradictions with CEMAC’s crypto ban. The move raised “major legal, transparency, and economic policy challenges,” the IMF said, that were similar to the concerns the IMF raised about El Salvador’s Bitcoin adoption: risks to financial stability, consumer protection, and fiscal liabilities. (For context, none of those risks materialized in El Salvador).
But their real weapon was leverage. As CAR’s largest creditor, the IMF tied its new Extended Credit Facility (ECF)—a $191M lifeline—to policy compliance.
The Timeline That Tells All
This table traces the IMF’s shadow campaign:
Key to scuttling CAR’s Bitcoin ambitions was ensuring that the Sango project — a blockchain-hub initiative from the CAR government to sell “e-residency” and citizenship for $60K in Bitcoin — did not proceed.
The Sango Project – coincidence or collusion?
In July 2022, CAR launched the Sango Project. It aimed to raise $2.5B (100% of GDP).
It failed catastrophically. By January 2023, only $2M (0.2% of target) was raised. While IMF reports cite “Technical obstacles with 10% internet penetration” as the reason for the failure, our analysis shows a different picture. Two factors scuttled the project.
Investor flight
A CAR Supreme Court ruling formally blocked the Sango project
However, on closer examination, both of these factors hint at IMF involvement.
Let’s take a closer look at the evidence.
Investor Flight
The IMF’s role in this investor flight is circumstantial but compelling. On May 4, 2022, the IMF expressed concerns about CAR’s bitcoin adoption, stating it raised major legal, transparency, and economic policy challenges. This statement, made before the Sango Project launch, highlighted risks to financial stability and regional economic integration, potentially deterring investors. Further, in July 2022, during a staff visit for the Staff-Monitored Program (SMP) review, the IMF noted “economic downturns due to rising food and fuel prices”, which could have compounded investor caution. Reports also mention that the IMF and COBAC warned of inherent risks in CAR’s crypto move, adding to the skepticism.
The timing of these IMF statements aligns with the observed investor flight, suggesting that their cautionary stance may have influenced perceptions. While circumstantial, the sequence of events suggests IMF influence as a respected financial institution in the investor community likely played a role in investor flight.
Supreme Court Ruling
On the surface, the Supreme Court ruling looks like an independent event, until we dig beneath the surface and find big question-marks over the independence of CAR’s judiciary, a country that itself ranks 149/180 on its Corruption Perception Index (extremely low).
As mentioned, one week after CAR announced its Bitcoin strategy, the IMF reported “concerns”, including risks to financial stability, transparency, anti-money laundering efforts, and challenges in managing macroeconomic policies due to the volatility. (Bloomberg, 4 May, 2022)
On 29 Aug 2022, 117 days later, the Supreme Court of CAR ruled that the Sango project was illegal. For context, the Supreme Court which forms part of CAR’s judiciary is described by international transparency bodies such as Gan Integrity as one of the most corrupt institutions in the country, with evidence pointing to inefficiency, political interference, and likely influence from bribes or political pressure.
The Sango project’s collapse became the IMF’s Exhibit A: “Proof Bitcoin can’t work in fragile economies.” But the reality was, the IMF’s consistent expression of “concerns” created the environment where the project was structurally undermined in advance, so that this conclusion became possible.
5,200 miles away, in the small nation of Bhutan we see the stark contrast of the successful Bitcoin rollout that was possible without IMF’s “involvement”.
The Unspoken Conclusion: Bitcoin’s Resilience Beyond Borders
CAR’s reversal wasn’t about Bitcoin’s viability. It was about raw power. The IMF weaponized regional banking unions (CEMAC), starved CAR of capital, and leveraged a $191M loan to extinguish the threat of financial sovereignty. When the Sango Project struggled—the trap snapped shut.
Yet this defeat reveals Bitcoin’s enduring power. Notice what the IMF didn’t destroy:
The pattern is clear: Where grassroots adoption takes root—Bitcoin survives. But for countries announcing top-down Bitcoin manifestos who have large IMF loans, all 4 have met with crushing levels of resistance: El Salvador, CAR, Argentina and now Pakistan.
CAR’s outstanding $115.1 million IMF loan balance made it vulnerable to heavy IMF pressure. In nations without IMF loans such as Bhutan, Bitcoin slips through the IMF’s grip. Every peer-to-peer payment, every Lightning transaction, erodes the old system’s foundations.
The IMF won the CAR round. But the global fight for financial sovereignty is just beginning.
If CAR was thwarted in its Bitcoin plans, Argentina never made it to the start line. Precampaign rhetoric from President Milei suggested big things were in store for Bitcoin. Yet nothing materialized. Was this just a politician’s rhetoric fizzling out post-election, or was something else at play? This section pulls back the lid on what really happened to Argentina’s aborted Bitcoin aspirations.
Understanding how Bitcoin adoption is going, is like assessing whether a rocket is going to reach escape velocity: we must look at both the thrust and drag factors.
My intention is that this newsletter is the place where we can objectively assess not only the positive top-down and grass-roots adoption stories (thrust), but also the strong oppositional forces to adoption (drag) that seldom get discussed, let alone analyzed either on Bitcoin Twitter, or at Bitcoin conferences. One major drag has been environmental FUD, but there is an arguably even bigger one: major institutions that can use their existing debt-entrapment of nations as leverage to prevent Bitcoin adoption.
I’m an optimist: I believe Bitcoin will win: it is so clearly a better solution to the broken money legacy system we currently have. But I’m also a realist: I think most people underestimate the strength of entrenched forces which oppose Bitcoin.
When I was running my tech company, we encountered the same thing. Our technology was 10x better, faster and more cost effective than the legacy system we eventually replaced. But they didn’t relinquish their incumbent monopoly easily!
What happened in Argentina?
When libertarian Javier Milei was elected Argentina’s president in November 2023, many Bitcoin advocates cheered. Here was a leader who called central bankers “scammers,” vowed to abolish Argentina’s central bank (BCRA), and praised Bitcoin as “the natural reaction against Central Bank scammers.” The case became a litmus test for whether Bitcoin could gain mainstream acceptance through government adoption rather than grassroots growth.
Source: Coinsprout. 14 Aug 2023
Yet eighteen months into his presidency, Milei’s Bitcoin vision remains unfulfilled. The reason? A $45 billion leash held by the International Monetary Fund.
The IMF’s Bitcoin Veto in Argentina
The constraints had already been put in place by the time of Milei’s election. On 3 March, 2022, Argentina’s previous government signed a $45 billion IMF bailout agreement. In the weeks following, details emerged that the agreement had contained an unusual clause: a requirement to “discourage cryptocurrency use.” This wasn’t a suggestion—it was a loan condition documented in the IMF’s Letter of Intent, citing concerns about “financial disintermediation.”
The immediate effect:
Argentina’s central bank banned financial institutions from crypto transactions (BCRA Communication A 7506, May 2022)
The policy remains enforced under Milei, despite his pro-Bitcoin rhetoric
Milei’s Pivot
After taking office, Milei: Slashed inflation from 25% monthly to under 5% (May 2024) Lifted currency controls (April 2025) Secured a new $20 billion IMF deal (April 2025)
But his manifesto’s flagship proposals—Bitcoin adoption and abolition of BCRA (Argentina’s Central Bank) — are conspicuously absent. The math explains why: Argentina owes the IMF more than any other nation, giving the Fund unparalleled leverage.
Yet there’s irony in Argentina’s case: while the IMF blocks official Bitcoin adoption, Argentinians are embracing Bitcoin anyway. Cryptocurrency ownership grew by 116.5% between 2023-2024 in South America.
Across the region, Argentina has the highest ownership rates, at 18.9%, a figure almost 3 times the global average, and which has surged as citizens hedge against high annual inflation of 47.3% (April 2025) — a quiet rebellion the IMF can’t control.
.
What Comes Next?
All eyes are on the October 2025 mid-term elections. If Milei gains legislative support, he may test the IMF’s red lines. But for now, the lesson is clear: when nations borrow from the IMF, their monetary sovereignty comes with strings attached.
Key Takeaways
The IMF’s 2022 loan explicitly tied Argentina’s bailout to anti-crypto policies
Milei has prioritized economic stabilization over Bitcoin advocacy, to maintain IMF support
Parallels exist in El Salvador, CAR and now Pakistan revealing a consistent IMF playbook
Argentinians are circumventing restrictions through grassroots Bitcoin adoption
3. El Salvador: A partial IMF-victory
When El Salvador made Bitcoin legal tender in 2021, it wasn’t just adopting a cryptocurrency—it was declaring financial independence. President Nayib Bukele framed it as a rebellion against dollar dominance and a lifeline for the unbanked. Three years later, that rebellion hit a $1.4 billion roadblock: the IMF.
The Price of the Bailout
To secure its 2024 loan, El Salvador agreed to dismantle key pillars of its Bitcoin policy. The conditions reveal a systematic unwinding:
Voluntary Acceptance Only Businesses are no longer required to accept Bitcoin (2021 mandate repealed). source
Public Sector Ban Government entities prohibited from Bitcoin transactions or debt issuance. This includes bans on tokenized instruments tied to Bitcoin. source
Bitcoin Accumulation Freeze All government purchases halted (6,000+ BTC reserve now frozen) Full audit of holdings (Chivo wallet, Bitcoin Office) by March 2025. source
Trust Fund Liquidation Fidebitcoin (conversion fund) to be dissolved with audited transparency. source
Chivo Wallet Phaseout The $30 incentive program winds down after surveys showed most users traded BTC for USD. source
Tax Payment Rollback USD becomes the sole option for taxes, eliminating Bitcoin’s utility as sovereign payment. source
Bukele’s Calculated Retreat
El Salvador’s compliance makes fiscal sense:
The loan stabilizes debt (84% of GDP) as bond payments loom
Dollarization remains intact (USD still primary currency)
Yet the backtrack is striking given Bukele’s 2021 rhetoric. The Chivo wallet’s low uptake likely made concessions easier.
What’s Left of the Experiment?
The IMF hasn’t killed Bitcoin in El Salvador—just official adoption. Grassroots use persists:
Bitcoin Beach (local circular economy) still operates, in fact thrives
Tourism draws increasing numbers of Bitcoin enthusiasts
But without state support, Bitcoin’s role potentially shrinks to a niche tool rather than a monetary revolution, at least in the short term.
The Road Ahead
Two scenarios emerge:
Slow Fade: Bitcoin becomes a tourist curiosity as IMF conditions take full effect
Shadow Revival: Private sector keeps it alive despite government retreat
One thing’s clear: when the IMF writes the checks, it also writes the rules.
Key Takeaways
IMF loan forced El Salvador to reverse 6 key Bitcoin policies
Precedent set for other nations seeking IMF support
Grassroots Bitcoin use may outlast government involvement
El Salvador made a lot of Bitcoin concessions. While arguably this doesn’t hurt El Salvador much, it sends a strong message to other LATAM nations such as Ecuador and Guatemala who were watching El Salvador and thinking of copying their playbook (until they checked the size of the IMF loan they had). So on net balance it was a partial IMF win, a partial El Salvador win.
4. Bhutan: the IMF-free success story
We are now 2 years into Bhutan’s Bitcoin experiment.
That means we now have some good data on how it has affected the economy.
The IMF warned that nations embracing Bitcoin would destabilize their economy, be less effective at attracting foreign direct investment, and endanger their decarbonizing and environmental initiatives. It specifically voiced concerns over Bhutan’s “lack of transparency” with crypto-adoption.
What does the data say?
1. The bitcoin reserves have directly addressed pressing fiscal needs. “In June 2023, Bhutan allocated $72 million from its holdings to finance a 50% salary increase for civil servants”
2. Bhutan was able to “use Bitcoin reserves to avert a crisis as foreign currency reserves dwindled to $689 million”
3. Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay in an interview said that bitcoin also “supports free healthcare and environmental projects”
4. Tobgay also said their Bitcoin reserves helped in “stabilizing [the nation’s] $3.5 billion economy”
5. Independent analysts have now said that “this model could attract foreign investment, particularly for nations with untapped renewable resources”
Considering how the IMF analysis was not just wrong, but roughly 180° off target, it begs the question, were the IMF’s predictions ever based on data?
5. Five reasons the IMF may fear Bitcoin
“Get all your friends, libertarians, democrats, republicans, get everyone to buy Bitcoin – and then it becomes democratized.” encouraged John Perkins ~ Bitcoin 2025
What if the IMF’s greatest fear isn’t inflation… but Bitcoin, and can Bitcoin Break the IMF/World Bank Debt Grip?
During my recent conversation with John Perkins (Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), something clicked. Alex Gladstein previously and brutally exposed how IMF “structural adjustments” did not eliminate poverty, but in fact enriched creditor nations. Perkins layered this with his own first-hand accounts.
Perkins laid bare to me how the Global South is trapped in a cycle of debt—one designed to keep wealth flowing West. But here’s the twist: Bitcoin is already dismantling the playbook in five key ways.
1. Reducing Remittance Costs to Loosen the Debt Noose
Chris Collins’ Sculpture symbolically captures the debt noose
Remittances—money sent home by migrant workers—often make up a significant part of developing nations’ GDP. Traditional intermediaries such as Western Union charge fees as high as 5–10%. This acts as a hidden tax that drains foreign reserves. For countries like El Salvador or Nigeria, every remittance dollar that doesn’t flow into the country is a dollar their central bank must store to stabilize their currencies. Often this store of US dollars is provided by the IMF.
1. Bitcoin Changes the Game
With Lightning, fees drop to almost zero, and transactions settle in seconds. In 2021, El Salvador’s president Bukele optimistically predicted that bitcoin could save $400 Million in remittance payments. The reality has been there’s little evidence remittance payments using bitcoin have reached anywhere near that threshold. However the potential is clear: more remittances in bitcoin leads to higher dollar reserves, which leads to less need for IMF loans.
Little wonder the IMF mentioned Bitcoin 221 times in their 2025 loan conditions for El Salvador. They’d like to remain a relevant lender.
Bitcoin isn’t just cheaper for remittances—it bypasses the dollar system entirely. In Nigeria, where the naira struggles, families now hold BTC as a harder asset than local currency. No need for central banks to burn through dollar reserves. No desperate IMF bailouts.
The numbers speak for themselves: • Pakistan loses $1.8 billion yearly on remittance fees—Bitcoin could save most of that • El Salvador already saves $4M+ annually with just 1.1% Bitcoin remittance adoption
Adoption isn’t universal yet—only 12% of Salvadorans use Bitcoin regularly, while over 5% of Nigeria’s remittances flow through crypto. But the trend is clear: every Bitcoin transfer weakens the debt dependency cycle.
The IMF sees the threat. The question is: how fast will this silent revolution spread?”
Remittances totaled almost $21 billion in 2024, representing over 4% of Nigeria’s GDP
2. Evading Sanctions and Trade Barriers
Oil-rich Iran, Venezuela and Russia have had restricted USD access due to US sanctions in 1979, 2017 and 2022 respectively, resulting in the export of vastly fewer barrels per day of oil in each case.
Whether we agree with the ideologies of these nations or not, Bitcoin breaks this cycle. Iran already evades sanctions by using Bitcoin as a way to effectively “export oil”, whereas Venezuela has used Bitcoin to pay for imports, evading sanctions.
Iran is also able to bypass sanctions by monetizing its energy exports through mining. This avoids the IMF’s “reform-for-cash” ultimatums while keeping economies running.
The petrodollar’s grip weakens as Russia and Iran pioneer Bitcoin oil deals.
Another nation that has used Bitcoin to avoid the economic hardship caused by sanctions is Afghanistan, where humanitarian aid flows through using Bitcoin. NGOs like Code to Inspire bypassed Taliban banking freezes, and Digital Citizen Fund have used Bitcoin to deliver aid post-Taliban takeover, preventing families from starving.
Afghanistan’s “Code to Inspire” NGO uses Bitcoin donations, which cannot be intercepted by the Taliban, to train women to write software.
Though Bitcoin’s share of sanctioned trade is small—under 2% for Iran and Venezuela’s oil exports—the trend is growing.
Sanctions are a critical tool for geopolitical leverage, often supported by the IMF and World Bank through their alignment with major economies like the U.S. Sanctioned nations using Bitcoin reduces IMF control over financial flows while simultaneously threatening U.S. dollar dominance.
3. Using Bitcoin as a Nation State Inflation Shield
When nations like Argentina face hyperinflation, they borrow USD from the IMF to bolster currency reserves and stabilize their currency, only to face austerity or the enforced sale of strategic assets at a low price when repayments falter. Bitcoin offers a way out by acting as a global, non-inflatable currency that operates independently of government oversight, and which appreciates in value.
El Salvador’s experiment shows how Bitcoin can reduce dollar dependency. By holding BTC, nations can hedge against currency collapse without IMF loans. If Argentina had allocated just 1% of its reserves to Bitcoin in 2018, it could’ve offset the peso’s 90%+ devaluation that year, sidestepping an IMF bailout. Bitcoin’s neutrality also means no single entity can impose conditions, unlike IMF loans that demand privatization or unpopular reforms.
Bitcoin doesn’t have debt-leverage or a long history of the IMF to draw on when encouraging adoption. However, due to the Lindy Effect (see chart below), each passing year Bitcoin becomes a more viable alternative.
Lindy Effect: The longer something has been successful, the more likely it is to continue being successful. Bitcoin’s longevity strengthens its potential to disrupt
4. Bitcoin Mining: Turning Energy into Debt-Free Wealth
Many developing nations are energy-rich but debt-poor, trapped by IMF loans for infrastructure like dams or power plants. These loans demand cheap energy exports or resource concessions when defaults hit. Bitcoin mining flips this script by turning stranded energy—like flared gas or overflow hydro—into liquid wealth without middlemen or transport costs.
Paraguay’s earning $50 million yearly from hydro-powered mining, covering 5% of its trade deficit. Ethiopia made $55 million in 10 months. Bhutan’s the standout: with 1.1 billion in Bitcoin (36% of its $3.02 billion GDP), its hydro-powered mining could produce $1.25 billion annually by mid-2025, servicing its $403 million World Bank and $527 million ADB debts without austerity or privatization. Unlike IMF loans, mined Bitcoin appreciates in value and can be used as collateral for non-IMF borrowing. This model—monetizing energy without surrendering assets—scares the IMF, as it cuts their leverage over the energy sector.
Bhutan’s Prime Minister, Tshering Tobgay, calls Bitcoin a “strategic choice to prevent brain drain”
5. Grassroots Bitcoin Economies: Power from the Ground Up
Bitcoin is not just for nations—it’s for communities. In places like El Salvador’s Bitcoin Beach or South Africa’s Bitcoin Ekasi, locals already use BTC for daily transactions, savings, and community projects like schools or clinics. These circular economies, often sparked by philanthropy, aim for self-sufficiency. In Argentina, where inflation often tops 100%, 21% of people used crypto by 2021 to protect wealth. If scaled up, these models could reduce reliance on national debt-funded programs, which is of course the last thing the IMF want.
Hermann Vivier, founder of Bitcoin Ekasi, says his community was inspired by El Salvador’s Bitcoin Beach to replicate their Bitcoin circular economy in S.Africa
Conclusion
By fostering local resilience, Bitcoin undermines the IMF’s “crisis leverage”. Thriving communities don’t need bailouts, so the IMF can’t demand privatization in exchange for loans. In Africa, projects like Gridless Energy’s – which has already brought 28,000 rural Africans out of energy poverty using renewable microgrids tied to Bitcoin mining – cut the need for IMF-backed mega-projects. If thousands of towns adopt this, dollar shortages would matter less, and trade could bypass USD systems.
While the IMF occasionally engages in spreading misinformation about Bitcoin energy consumption and environmental impact as a way to obstruct adoption, its preferred and much more powerful tool is simply to use the financial leverage it has over IMF-indebted nations to “strongly encourage” compliance with its Bitcoinless vision of the future.
The IMF fought Bitcoin adoption in El Salvador, CAR, and Argentina. Now they are fighting Pakistan’s intention to mine Bitcoin as a Nation State. Scaling these grassroots efforts is likely to force the IMF’s hand to crack down more and more transparently.
Above: Children from South Africa’s poorest villages learn to surf via the Bitcoin Ekasi township project
Grassroots Bitcoin economies empower communities to thrive without IMF bailouts. And people-power is needed to find new innovative ways to overcome the IMF’s counterpunch.
This is a guest post by Daniel Batten. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/IMF-Blocking-Bitcoin-Adoption-QBzZ0H.jpg8321472Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-27 15:56:582025-06-27 15:56:58How The IMF Prevents Global Bitcoin Adoption (And Why They Do It)
Lnfi Network, a DeFi platform on Bitcoin’s Lightning Network, has integrated the RGB Protocol, enabling scalable, programmable assets on Bitcoin. Announced alongside RGB’s mainnet launch, this allows developers and users to trade and manage RGB-based assets using Lnfi’s infrastructure.
Darius, co-founder of Lnfi Network, described the platform as “next-gen peer-to-peer financial infrastructure built to empower Bitcoin-native assets that can be settled on Lightning.” Operational on mainnet since late 2023, Lnfi processes $20-30 million in daily trading volume on its orderbook exchange, he said.
RGB, developed by the LNP/BP Standards Association, uses off-chain smart contracts compatible with Lightning, supporting complex financial apps without burdening Bitcoin’s blockchain. “RGB gives developers the power of off-chain smart contracts,” said Maxim Orlovsky, RGB lead engineer. Lnfi supports Lightning-compatible standards like Taproot Assets, RGB, Lrc20, and Ark, catering to traders, node operators, miners, and venture firms, per Darius.
Lnfi leverages Nostr, a decentralized protocol, to enhance transparency and decentralize the orderbook, a common bottleneck in atomic swap exchanges. Every user action — deposits, withdrawals or orders — is sent as an encrypted Nostr event. “Nostr’s encryption and transparency prevent order tampering or front-running,” Darius stated. Orders are processed by Lnfi’s Nostr client, matched or posted to a decentralized order book across relays, ensuring scalability and reliability with two relays currently operational, he added. This setup prevents manipulative liquidations, as “every trade is collateralized” and trackable, unlike centralized exchanges where fake liquidity can distort markets, Darius explained.
The integration aligns with RGB’s momentum, boosted by Tether’s planned USD₮ issuance on the protocol, which handles over 80% of stablecoin volume with $150 billion in circulation. “This gives RGB projects tools for real-world use, like high-volume trading,” said Luke, Lnfi co-founder. Lnfi’s work is supported by UTXO Management, CMS Holdings and Wolf NYC (NYDIG), per Darius.
For self-custody trading, Lnfi plans to implement settlements within Lightning channels and via the Ark Protocol, using off-chain transactions for instant finality, Darius noted. Visit lnfi.network for more info.
Bitcoin Magazine is wholly owned by BTC Inc., which operates UTXO Management, a regulated capital allocator focused on the digital assets industry. UTXO invests in a variety of Bitcoin businesses, and maintains significant holdings in digital assets.
Tahini’s Restaurants, a Canadian fast-casual restaurant chain specializing in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cuisine, integrated bitcoin into its business in 2020 and has been refining its strategy ever since. Today Bitcoin makes up over 70% of their reserves and has made a critical difference in their expansion to 62 restaurants in just over a decade.
“We just kept putting more and more money into bitcoin.” Omar Hamam, CEO and co-founder of Tahini’s, told Bitcoin Magazine. Omar and his brother Aly Hamam founded the company in 2012, starting with one restaurant in London, Ontario. Tahini’s has since grown to 62 restaurants across the country, their expansion amplified by their adoption of an early bitcoin treasury strategy, partially inspired by Michael Saylor in 2020. The bold move gave them a pool of capital with which they could compete with the giants of the fast-casual food industry.
As a small company that started in London Ontario Canada we operate 4 corporate locations and 3 Franshise locations about to open up in Ontario. We just converted our entire cash reserves that were originally used as savings into #Bitcoin Time for thread
“We’re competing with McDonald’s, and Chipotle,” said Omar, adding, “All these companies have more money than 100 Tahini’s. So, to have an advantage like that, where we have a treasury and a balance sheet strategy that puts us in a comfortable place financially, that lets us preserve our wealth over time and space … it was the best decision we’ve ever made for our business.”
The company has implemented multiple innovative strategies throughout its journey, including the deployment of Bitcoin ATMs to many of their franchises, a new media strategy that, according to Aly, has netted them “three billion views over the last five years across all social media platforms,” including a YouTube channel with over 3.2 million subscribers and, of course, their bitcoin treasury strategy.
Aly’s Fascination with Bitcoin Post-COVID, Influenced by Egyptian Currency Devaluation
Aly Hamam was the main driver behind the restaurant’s bitcoin strategy. Shaped by his family’s experiences with the Egyptian pound’s aggressive devaluations over the past 20 years, the catastrophic consequences of runaway inflation were deeply personal to him, an experience that set him up well to discover bitcoin during the March 2020 market crash. “So, I came from Egypt, and over the last two decades, I’ve seen the Egyptian pound drop probably 85% or something like that. And I’ve seen our family struggle. I’ve seen my parents struggle. My parents had money sitting in Egypt over that time. I’ve seen their life savings get wiped away. Sometimes with Egypt, it happens like flash crashes. So, the government will come in and can just devalue the currency within a month, 50%,” Aly recalled.
When the COVID-19 market panic happened in March of 2020, the price of bitcoin went from a high of $10,000 to as low as $4,000 in weeks. “I bought a little bit as a gimmick and because it was just down so much, I was like, yeah, I might as well buy it. … The more I studied, I fell down the rabbit hole hard. Over the next few months, I just kept buying more and more and more, and you know those first three months when you discover bitcoin, it’s just like a never-ending consuming over every aspect of your life, listening to podcasts, reading books, and just buying more and more and more,” Aly explained.
After the crash, Bitcoin bounced back up to around $10,000, where it consolidated for months as governments throughout the world prepared their COVID-19 response and unleashed trillions of newly printed dollars into the global economy. Interest rates in the U.S. dropped to zero, and COVID-19 support checks started to flow to anyone in Canada who filled out a form. Omar recalled that “the government was just literally printing money nonstop. And it wasn’t just the Canadian government. It was every single government out there that was doing it. So, we knew there was going to be an inflation problem.” The Bitcoin halving was also taking place right around that time, an additional fundamental force that arguably led to one of the most impressive bull runs in its history.
This was the same era when Michael Saylor famously entered the industry and became the most famous Bitcoin bull to date. However, Saylor’s many speeches and documents on how to structure a corporate bitcoin strategy and how to convince the board of directors or other business partners were just starting to hit the podcast circuit, and the bitcoin treasury playbook was still in its infancy.
Once Aly was “100% in,” he started orange-pilling his family. “So, I started orange-pilling my business partners, my brother, my cousin, and they started buying it personally.” Personally they all started buying Bitcoin in small amounts, but using the company’s reserves was a far more difficult process, Aly explained that “it wasn’t quick. It was a back-and-forth where I wanted us to put the company money into bitcoin, and they were kind of on the edge. ‘That’s a crazy idea.’ ‘This’ and ‘that,’ and then we just kept going back and forth, back and forth until Michael Saylor announced that first buy. I had already set up like all the accounts and all of that was just ready to go. So, when Michael Saylor bought that first batch of bitcoin, that was what pushed us all over the cliff. And a week later, we put whatever money the company had into bitcoin.”
Acquisition Price, DCA Strategy, and Persistence Through Bear Markets
Tahini’s bitcoin investment strategy differs from today’s public companies, which issue stock (and other financial instruments) to buy bitcoin and add to their reserves. As a private company that started accumulating bitcoin before the ETF in the U.S. was approved, Tahini’s took a simpler approach: buy as much as reasonably possible each month, forever. According to Omar, today bitcoin represents over 70% of the company’s reserves.
While their timing was excellent, having started to buy bitcoin for their treasury at around $10,000, the strategy known as “dollar-cost averaging” works very well regardless of price, even in a bear market. Have a look at this DCA calculation, for example.
If you started putting $1,000 into bitcoin every two weeks at the top of the 2021 bull market — at nearly $70,000 per coin — every time you made a purchase at a lower price after that, you would be lowering your average purchase price. The result is that on the way out of the bear market — in this example, above roughly $30,000 — you would be at break-even and would be perfectly positioned for the upcoming bull market. The only requirement is having a long-term investment mindset.
“You buy every month, every single month. Ups and downs. I know it sounds too simple, but actually, this is the only way to do it. Right. You just buy, don’t try to outsmart the system, in my opinion, unless you’re really good at this. Put a number aside every single month, and it just pans out. And if you think about it, if you look at the last four years, you would have made more than 2-30x your investment,” Omar explained. He added that, “I have this conversation with a lot of people. Friends, family, everybody. And I always tell them, listen, just start somewhere. Don’t put a big amount and see how it works out for you. Right. So, let’s say you put a thousand dollars and watch it as a number that’s not going to be too bad if anything happens to it. See, if let’s say next year, this 1,000 becomes 1,200 or 1,500. Now imagine if you had 100,000 or imagine if you had a million, right? What would have happened to that amount?”
While there are no hard rules about the optimal frequency of the DCA strategy in Bitcoin, be it for individuals or corporations, Tahini’s opted for monthly purchases, as it made sense given their accounting processes. “Every month, we have a P&L. Every month, we see our profit and losses. And we decide at the end of the month, okay, we’re gonna put this much aside,” Omar explained.
When it comes to amounts, Omar explained that they do not invest a fixed or percentage-based amount. “It’s also about, are we investing this month back in the business? Are we not? What are our expenses like? Do we have any big payments? So, you know, sometimes you have all these expenses at the end of the year. So, you have your month highs and lows and so on, but the key is to stay consistent in putting money in. How much is what you have to decide every month.”
To Sell or to Mortgage Your Bitcoin?
When it comes to monetizing their Bitcoin Tahini’s has opted for the simple strategy. When the time is right, and the business opportunity demands it, they sell some Bitcoin and buy it back later, as per their standard DCA strategy, and integrate the capital gains tax into their accounting flow. Omar explained that, “When it comes time to reinvest, you know, you always need money. So, let’s say you want to do a huge marketing campaign as a franchise, right? You need to dip into those savings. And when you have money, you have power. The more money you have, the more you can be free to make the right decision for the company instead of just doing what you can afford.”
Challenges with Accepting Bitcoin Payments and POS Integration
As one of the first steps in their Bitcoin integration, Tahini’s explored the possibility of accepting bitcoin as payment at their restaurants; however, a series of challenges arose that forced them to pivot. Many of these challenges remain for businesses throughout the world and involve the entrenched, closed-source and walled-garden models of popular payment processing systems.
“A lot of these point-of-sale system companies, they do their own payment processing, and they just don’t have the capability to accept Bitcoin in their system,” Omar explained about the world of merchant-grade POS. Many of these systems are closed-source with very restrictive APIs that the Bitcoin economy cannot easily integrate into, a moat that has been an issue for bitcoin payment adoption since its inception.
However, the friction to merchant adoption is deeper than just a POS moat; the feature list merchants need to stay competitive is very complex, and most Bitcoin payment systems today are still lagging behind:
“The POS system is not just about the payment. It’s also about how they build menus in the background. The POS system gives you reports. It gives you an analysis of what you sold, when you sold it, what these stores are doing, what time of the day they’re busy, what time of the day they’re not busy, how to ask for whatever you’re ordering. It’s very complicated, right? So, the payment is just the last piece of the puzzle. So, when we choose a POS system, it’s not just about the payment system. It’s also about their functionality and how good they are as a system.”
To top it off, POS systems that integrate bitcoin would also have to support fiat currencies for them to be viable to normal merchants today, raising the barrier to entry and competition much further.
As a result, Tahini’s did the next best thing: They added Bitcoin ATMs to 10 of their restaurants in partnership with Bitcoin Well, a Canadian Bitcoin ATM company, opting to take in all profits from the machines in Bitcoin and allocating it to isolated accounts for each restaurant. Though Aly reports that these ATMs were only bringing in about $250 CAD a month, since 2021, these “sats flows” — as some people in the industry are calling them — add up, and with the price of bitcoin rising, each of those restaurants now has over $40,000 of bitcoin per corresponding restaurant, a very significant balance.
Nevertheless, Omar is optimistic that these barriers will fall, as interest in bitcoin payments is stronger than ever. “I think bitcoin is really growing at a rapid pace, and it’s being adopted now by a lot of companies, and people are learning more and more about Bitcoin, and they’re becoming much more aware about Bitcoin. So, I think it’s just a matter of time.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/tahini-bitcoin-2020-treasury-playbook-hieABE.webp6301200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-26 17:59:352025-06-26 17:59:35Tahini’s Bitcoin Treasury: How a Family Chain Outsmarted Inflation
Today, Coinbase Derivatives has announced the launch of US Perpetual-Style Futures on July 21. These new futures contracts are designed to offer US traders a domestic, regulated alternative to the popular perpetual futures widely used on offshore platforms.
“We are excited to announce the upcoming launch of US Perpetual-Style Futures on Coinbase Derivatives Exchange, designed to mirror the functionality of global perpetual futures while adhering to US regulatory standards. Internationally, perpetual futures have become the dominant crypto derivatives product, representing upwards of 90% of total crypto trading activity in some reports,” stated the company.
The initial launch will include nano Bitcoin Perpetual-Style Futures (0.01 BTC) and nano Ether Perpetual-Style Futures (0.10 ETH) contracts. These contracts will have five-year expirations, trade 24/7, and include a funding rate mechanism designed to keep futures prices closely aligned with spot market prices. Funding will accrue hourly and be settled twice daily during designated cash adjustment periods.
Currently, many US based traders access perpetual futures through offshore platforms, which may involve regulatory, custody, and counterparty risks. The new contracts aim to eliminate those risks by offering a domestic and compliant alternative.
Coinbase states that these products are intended to provide regulated exposure to the Bitcoin and crypto market with flexibility in position sizing and capital efficiency. More details on trading access through partner platforms are expected to be shared ahead of the launch.
“We’re incredibly proud to bring perpetual-style futures to the US – a transformative milestone that will represent the beginning of a new era in US market access, efficiency, and innovation,” the company stated.
On June 20, Coinbase obtained the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) license from Luxembourg’s financial regulator, enabling it to operate across all 27 EU member states under a unified framework. The license allows Coinbase to serve approximately 450 million Europeans under a single regulatory framework, replacing separate licenses previously held in Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain.
“This milestone marks a significant step and enables us to operate under a unified, regulated crypto environment in one of the largest economic regions in the world, while solidifying Coinbase’s position as a global leader in regulatory compliance and innovation,” stated Daniel Seifert.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Coinbase-to-Launch-US-Nano-Bitcoin-Perpetual-Style-Futures-In-July-u5wnIu.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-26 16:35:022025-06-26 16:35:02Coinbase to Launch US Nano Bitcoin Perpetual-Style Futures In July
Metaplanet Inc., widely recognized as Japan’s leading Bitcoin treasury company, has announced today the acquisition of an additional 1,234 Bitcoin, bringing its total holdings to 12,345 BTC. The purchase was valued at ¥19.27 billion at an average price of ¥15.6 million per Bitcoin.
Metaplanet has acquired 1,234 BTC for ~$132.7 million at ~$107,557 per bitcoin and has achieved BTC Yield of 315% YTD 2025. As of 6/26/2025, we hold 12,345 $BTC acquired for ~$1.20 billion at ~$97,036 per bitcoin. $MTPLFpic.twitter.com/vsnbCLGjZB
This acquisition is part of the company’s newly launched “555 Million Plan,” a strategy targeting the accumulation of 210,000 BTC by the end of 2027, equivalent to 1% of Bitcoin’s total supply. The initiative replaces the earlier “21 Million Plan,” which had aimed for 21,000 BTC by 2026.
BTC Yield, the company’s proprietary key performance indicator (KPI) tracking Bitcoin per fully diluted share, has continued to rise. It jumped from 41.7% in Q3 2024 to 112.2% quarter-to-date. This increase reflects a BTC Gain of 4,538 and a corresponding hypothetical BTC ¥ Gain of ¥71.2 billion, highlighting the effectiveness of the company’s capital allocation strategy.
Capital markets activity has played a central role in funding these purchases. Since January 2025, Metaplanet has executed a series of zero-coupon, non-interest-bearing bond issuances, raising more than ¥90 billion and USD 121 million. All issuances have been redeemed early, using proceeds from stock acquisition rights exercised under the now fully completed “210 Million Plan.”
“On June 25, 2025, the Company completed the early redemption and full repayment of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Series of zero-coupon, non-interest-bearing Ordinary Bonds issued to EVO FUND,” the company stated in the press release.
As of June 26, 2025, Metaplanet has expanded its issued common shares to over 654.7 million. This growing share base reflects the company’s strategy of using equity financing to convert capital directly into Bitcoin, reinforcing its commitment to becoming a long-term institutional holder of Bitcoin.
Today, the U.S. Senate Banking’s Subcommittee on Digital Assets hosted a hearing entitled “Exploring Bipartisan Legislative Framework for Digital Assets Market Structure” in which the panelists implored Congress to pass digital asset legislation soon.
(Spoiler alert: The word “Bitcoin” didn’t come up once in the hearing. With that said, Bitcoin would be subject to some of the crypto regulation discussed in the hearing. Hence, it’s important as a Bitcoin enthusiast to understand what was said.)
The hearing took place in the wake of Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Bill Hagerty (R-TN) and Senate Banking Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) issuing principles for digital asset market structure this morning. (See the full list of principles here.)
Senator Lummis presided over the event and initiated it by touching on some of the aforementioned principles, while also facetiously adding that now that the Senate has voted on the GENIUS Act, the U.S. is in the process of joining the 21st century financially.
The senator was joined by Senators Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Bernie Moreno (R-OH), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Dave McCormack (R-PA), and the panel of witnesses including:
Sarah Hammer,Executive Director at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School
Greg Xethalis, General Counsel at Multicoin Capital and Board Member of the Blockchain Association and the DeFi Education Fund
Ryan VanGrack, Vice President of Legal at Coinbase
The Honorable Rostin Behnam, Distinguished Fellow at the Psaros Center for Financial Markets & Policy, Georgetown University, and Former Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Combatting Illicit Activity in the Crypto Space
In the first round of questions from Senator Lummis, both Behnam and Hammer stressed the importance of combatting illicit activity involving digital assets via clear anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing rules, though neither went into detail on what this might look like.
When Senator Lummis asked Hammer what country the U.S. should take note of when it comes to its anti-terrorist financing regulation for crypto, Hammer cited Singapore.
Before getting off of the topic of combatting illicit crypto activity, Behnam claimed that the longer Congress waits to pass comprehensive market structure legislation, the more space it gives to unsavory actors to operate.
“Bad actors will gravitate toward areas that are unregulated,” said Behnam.
Consumer Protection for Crypto Investors
Senator Hagerty, the primary sponsor of the GENIUS Act, which recently passed in the Senate, praised the bipartisan efforts in the legislative process around digital assets, alluding to the notion that he’d like to see his colleagues keep up the momentum.
And on the topic of bipartisanship, the one Democratic senator present at the hearing, Senator Alsobrooks, seemed optimistic about the potential of crypto but also concerned about setting up the proper guardrails for investors.
She asked Behnam which of consumer protection elements were essential for crypto investors.
Behnam cited “bankruptcy protection” as the most important element of consumer protection.
“Customer assets must be fully segregated so that there’s no question in the event of a bankruptcy that assets will be returned to customers,” said Behnam.
The Price of Failing to Legislate on Crypto in the U.S.
Toward the latter part of the hearing, Senator Moreno asked the panelists how much time the U.S. has to pass crypto regulation as well as what the price of failing to do so might be.
Xethalis responded by saying “we have to act now,” before sharing what he felt were the two biggest potential costs of the U.S. not acting soon are.
He claimed that the first cost is that other jurisdictions may enact more onerous rules for crypto, which could cause friction if adopted globally. He cited Europe’s enacting strict rules for internet commerce decades back as precedent for this.
Xethalis then argued that the second cost is economic. He said that the United States is behind in both 5G development and silicon chip manufacturing and stressed that he doesn’t want to see the same happen with crypto.
A Call for Bipartisanship
Senator Lummis closed the hearing by imploring her fellow senators as well as the panelists to engage in bipartisan discussions and to work across the aisle, as she has done with Senator Gillibrand.
She noted that it seems that some Democrats have been reluctant to engage in the legislative process around crypto because President Trump’s family is involved in the industry, adding that crypto is bigger than the president’s family’s involvement and that Democrats should acknowledge this.
Today, Lightning Labs has announced it has released Taproot Assets v0.6, an update to the first multi-asset Lightning protocol on Bitcoin mainnet. The update improves how stablecoins can be minted, sent, and received over the Bitcoin Lightning Network.
We’re excited to release Taproot Assets v0.6 to make Lightning a decentralized FX layer for stablecoins on bitcoin.
With larger, more reliable transactions, we’re one step closer to trillions of dollars flowing on Lightning.
“We are incredibly grateful to the bitcoin and Lightning developer community for their support in providing feedback on the protocol, testing early versions of the software, and building the initial products for end users,” the company said. “We are continually impressed by the level of building and excitement from developers pushing Taproot Assets adoption forward.”
Since the last release, Lightning Labs CEO Elizabeth Stark and Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino announced that Tether is bringing USDT to Bitcoin, with support for both on-chain transactions and the Lightning Network.
The release includes changes aimed at simplifying asset issuance and usage. Developers can now use the “–new_grouped_asset” option when minting to allow assets to share a “group_key” identifier. This ensures that tranches of the same asset remain interchangeable. Each batch still has a separate “asset_id,” but using a shared “group_key” simplifies handling for stablecoins with multiple tranches.
“Previously, when using Taproot Assets on Lightning, developers and users had to use the asset_id to fund channels, send, and receive payments,” stated the announcement. “With assets like stablecoins where there are multiple tranches, this asset_id-based workflow became cumbersome for developers to juggle. So, in the latest release, developers can now use the group_key identifier for all Lightning flows including funding a channel, paying an invoice, and receiving payments.”
The update also includes changes to the Request for Quote (RFQ) protocol. The software now handles “group_key” identifiers and lets users agree on time-limited price quotes with edge nodes using the existing BOLT 11 invoice format.
“As mentioned above, the Request for Quote (RFQ) functionality allows for the receiver of the payment to ask the node providing liquidity on Taproot Assets for a time-limited price quote between the relevant asset and bitcoin,” mentioned the announcement. “These edge nodes provide a critical service by converting assets to and from bitcoin at the edges of the network, enabling Taproot Assets on Lightning to act as a decentralized foreign exchange network.”
In previous releases, versions used a single edge node path for payments. The update allows receivers to use up to 20 inbound Taproot Assets channels, increasing routing options and supporting larger transactions.
This is big
Previously, when sending a payment, there was only one route to the recipient. If it failed, the payment failed.
Now, recipients can open up to 20 routes (or “channels”) to receive money, making payments much more reliable, especially for large amounts. … https://t.co/NbEl7VKglX
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Lightning-Labs-Releases-Taproot-Assets-v0.6-With-Updates-to-Stablecoin-Support-On-Bitcoin-ztvBwN.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-24 17:36:222025-06-24 17:36:22Lightning Labs Releases Taproot Assets v0.6 With Updates to Stablecoin Support On Bitcoin
Republican senators have released principles to guide digital asset market structure legislation, marking a significant step toward regulatory clarity that could benefit Bitcoin and the broader crypto industry. Senate Banking Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC), along with Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Bill Hagerty (R-TN), announced the framework balancing innovation with consumer protection.
The principles address regulatory uncertainty that has plagued Bitcoin and digital assets, emphasizing clear jurisdictional boundaries between agencies and modernized oversight approaches for digital assets.
NEW: @SenatorTimScott, @SenLummis, @SenThomTillis, & @SenatorHagerty unveiled principles for digital asset market structure legislation. These will guide bipartisan efforts to bring regulatory clarity, foster innovation, & protect investors.
— U.S. Senate Banking Committee GOP (@BankingGOP) June 24, 2025
“Since taking over as Chairman, I’ve led a new approach to digital assets regulation,” said Chairman Scott. “These principles will serve as an important baseline for negotiations on this bill, and I’m hopeful my colleagues will put politics aside and provide long-overdue clarity for digital asset regulation.”
The framework covers six key areas, beginning with clearly defining Bitcoin and other digital assets’ legal status. The senators propose establishing statutory distinctions between digital asset securities and commodities, providing industry participants predictability.
Senator Lummis, a vocal Bitcoin advocate, emphasized America’s competitive position: “While the European Union and Singapore have established clear regulations, the U.S. continues to sit on the sidelines while the digital asset industry seeks greener pastures. That changes today.”
The principles call for clear regulatory jurisdiction allocation, preventing any single regulator from gaining comprehensive authority over digital assets. The framework aims to distinguish between centralized firms, decentralized protocols like Bitcoin’s network, and non-custodial software platforms.
Importantly, the proposed legislation aims to preserve Bitcoin self-custody rights and recognize the blockchain technology powering Bitcoin for non-financial purposes shouldn’t face financial product regulations.
The framework modernizes regulations through new SEC exemptions for digital asset fundraising and tailored compliance pathways that could benefit Bitcoin-related businesses. It recognizes tokenization as infrastructure evolution.
Consumer protection remains prioritized with this market structure, seeing centralized Bitcoin exchanges and intermediaries subject to registration and risk management requirements, including capital standards and custody protections for Bitcoin holdings.
Senator Hagerty noted regulatory uncertainty’s impact on Bitcoin innovation: “A lack of clear regulatory authority has forced digital asset innovation beyond our borders. By working towards a reasonable framework, we can bolster our nation’s economy and protect consumers.”
The release of these market structure principles comes on the heels of significant legislative momentum for digital assets, including the recent Senate passage of the GENIUS Act— stablecoin legislation that Senator Hagerty co-authored alongside Chairman Scott and Senator Lummis. As Senator Hagerty noted after the GENIUS Act’s passage, “the United States is one step closer to becoming the crypto capital of the world,” and these new market structure principles represent the next crucial step in that journey.
Pro-digital assets. Pro-innovation. Pro-America.
These market structure principles will guide legislation to make the U.S. the crypto capital of the world. pic.twitter.com/UQki5meTcc
Sequans Communications, a France-based developer of 5G and IoT semiconductor technology, has announced a move into Bitcoin with a new treasury initiative backed by a $384 million private placement.
Swan Bitcoin is excited to advise Sequans (NYSE: SQNS) on its Bitcoin accumulation strategy and to manage the execution of our plans. We look forward to sharing more in a few weeks. https://t.co/iPZ3nOEz5r
— Cory Klippsten Swan.com (@coryklippsten) June 23, 2025
The funding includes $195 million in equity securities and $189 million in convertible secured notes. Sequans plans to allocate this capital toward building a Bitcoin position alongside its core IoT operations.
“Our Bitcoin treasury strategy reflects our strong conviction in Bitcoin as a premier asset and a compelling long-term investment,” said Georges Karam, CEO of Sequans. “We believe Bitcoin’s unique characteristics will enhance our financial resilience and deliver significant value to our shareholders.”
To guide its treasury strategy, Sequans is partnering with Swan Bitcoin, a U.S.-based firm specializing in Bitcoin custody, institutional liquidity, and investment strategy. Swan will help the company navigate the operational and security aspects of Bitcoin acquisition and storage.
During the new initiative, Karam emphasized that Sequans remains committed to its primary mission. “We continue to support our customers with a robust 4G and 5G product roadmap, delivering innovative solutions to meet evolving IoT application needs and ensuring a seamless transition from 4G to 5G,” he said.
Sequans will issue over 1.39 billion ordinary shares and warrants in the equity offering and additional warrants tied to the debt placement. The offering is expected to close by July 1, pending shareholder approval at a June 30 meeting.
Placement agents include Northland Capital Markets, B. Riley Securities, and Yorkville Securities. Legal counsel includes Lowenstein Sandler LLP (U.S.) and ARCHERS (France) for Sequans, and Goodwin Procter LLP for the agents.
The move aligns Sequans with a growing trend of public companies leveraging Bitcoin as a treasury asset—a strategy popularized by firms like Strategy and Semler Scientific. Sequans currently holds a market cap of around $40 million. Its shares dropped 12% to $1.62 in Monday trading following the announcement.
Today, The Blockchain Group (ALTBG), listed on Euronext Growth Paris and recognized as Europe’s first Bitcoin Treasury Company, has announced the acquisition of 75 additional bitcoins for approximately €6.9 million. The purchase brings the company’s total bitcoin holdings to 1,728 BTC, currently valued at around €155.8 million.
The Blockchain Group confirms the acquisition of 75 BTC for ~€6.9 million, the holding of a total of 1,728 BTC, and a BTC Yield of 1,231.7% YTD
The acquisition was funded through the final completion of a €7.2 million capital increase, carried out via the Company’s wholly-owned Luxembourg subsidiary. The funding came entirely from TOBAM managed funds through an “ATM-type” equity program announced on June 17, 2025, with shares priced at an average of €4.49 each.
The press release stated, “the Company also announced its decision to carry out, making use of the delegation of authority granted to him by the Board of Directors on June 11, 2025, itself acting under the 12th resolution approved by the General Meeting of Shareholders on June 10, 2025, a capital increase for a total amount of €7,191,143.60, through the issuance of 1,603,306 new ordinary shares at an average subscription price of €4.49 per share.”
This follows the conversion of all OCA A-01 Tranche 1 bonds held by TOBAM, which were turned into 1,838,235 new ALTBG shares at a subscription price of €0.544 per share, a 30% premium over the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) preceding the Board meeting of March 4, 2025.
“The Company confirms today the final conversion of all 1,000,000 OCA Tranche 1 by TOBAM, resulting in the issuance of 1,838,235 new ordinary shares of the Company, at a subscription price of €0.544 per share,” stated the press release.
The Company reports a BTC Yield of 1,231.7% year-to-date, with a BTC Gain of 492.7 BTC and a BTC gain of €45.2 million YTD. For the current quarter alone, BTC Yield stands at 64.5%, with 399.6 BTC gained.
Earlier this month, the company also acquired 182 BTC for approximately €17 million, raising its BTC total to 1,653 BTC at that time. The purchases were funded through convertible bond issuances totaling over €18 million, subscribed by investors including UTXO Management, Moonlight Capital, and TOBAM.
The transactions were executed via Swissquote Bank Europe and Banque Delubac, with secure custody provided by Swiss digital asset infrastructure firm Taurus. Additional funding came from the conversion of 2.98 million share warrants, raising a further €1.6 million.
DigiAsia Corp, a leading Southeast Asian Fintech-as-a-Service platform, has signed an indicative term sheet for up to $3 million in non-recourse debt financing to kickstart its Bitcoin treasury acquisition strategy. The funding comes from High West Capital Partners and is expected to close within 45 days.
JUST IN: DigiAsia Corp $FAAS will use $3 million in non-recourse debt financing for initial #bitcoin purchase. They hope to raise up to $100 million in capital for their Bitcoin Treasury Strategy. pic.twitter.com/Dfdhvn4Jyt
The $3 million facility represents the first phase of DigiAsia’s ambitious $100 million Bitcoin treasury program, originally announced in May 2025. The non-recourse debt structure allows the company to begin accumulating Bitcoin without diluting existing shareholders’ equity positions.
DigiAsia plans to complement this initial funding with a separate $100 million equity raise dedicated exclusively to purchasing Bitcoin. The company is working with placement agent D. Boral Capital to engage institutional investors seeking exposure to blockchain-aligned treasury strategies through regulated public markets.
“This facility reflects disciplined execution and early momentum toward our digital asset reserve vision,” said Prashant Gokarn, Co-CEO of DigiAsia Corp. “We view Bitcoin as a long-term strategic asset and are committed to building a yield-optimized, institutionally compliant treasury that enhances our balance sheet strength.”
DigiAsia expects to begin Bitcoin purchases in the third quarter of 2025, with plans to provide regular updates on treasury operations and custody architecture. The company’s modular B2B2X API platform already supports crypto-compatible infrastructure, positioning it to integrate Bitcoin holdings into its financial technology system.
The announcement comes as corporate Bitcoin adoption continues expanding globally, with companies increasingly viewing the digital asset as a hedge against inflation and currency debasement. DigiAsia’s regulated status as a NASDAQ-listed entity provides institutional investors with traditional market access to Bitcoin treasury exposure.
DigiAsia’s Bitcoin treasury initiative builds on its existing fintech operations, which deliver AI-enhanced financial services bridging traditional and digital economies across its geographic footprint.
Today, the government of Norway announced its plans to introduce a temporary ban on establishing new Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining data centres.
The government concluded that it was better to redirect electricity to other industries and economic sectors and that it would be better for the national interest.
“The Labour Party government has a clear intention to limit the mining of cryptocurrency in Norway as much as possible,” said the Minister for Digitalization and Public Administration Karianne Tung.
The ruling Labour Party has attributed the upcoming ban to the excessive electricity consumption by power-intensive Bitcoin and crypto mining operations, which it says offer little benefit to the broader economy.
“Cryptocurrency mining is very power-intensive and generates little in the way of jobs and income for the local community,” she added.
“A temporary ban could be introduced during the autumn of 2025,” according to the government.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/NBX-Acquires-Bitcoin-Becomes-First-Public-Bitcoin-Treasury-Company-in-Norway-nLhvs2.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-20 20:00:182025-06-20 20:00:18Norway Plans to Temporarily Ban New Bitcoin & Crypto Mining Centers to Conserve Energy
For as long as bitcoin has existed, self-custody–the ability to transact with and hold your own wealth without the need for a third party intermediary like a bank or other financial institution–has been central to the offer.
For some, self custody is a firmly-held belief in the right to “be your own bank.” For others, it’s a practical step taken to safeguard a valuable asset that can be–and has been–lost to exchange hacks, mismanagement, or FTX-style collapse. A bit like keeping a safe full of cash at home, if there’s a run on the “bank,” your coins are immune.
And while the “how” of self custody has changed forms throughout bitcoin’s history, today’s de facto industry standard for recovery–the seed phrase–often leaves users at a (sometimes enormous) loss when things go wrong.
A Distinction Without A Difference
In the early days of bitcoin, there was only self custody. At the risk of oversimplying, self custody meant managing private key material–a string of 64 random characters that gave whoever held it access to the underlying bitcoin. Tools for managing private keys were pretty limited: memorize them or write them down and store them somewhere safe. But put just one character out of place, and oops, your key doesn’t work. Even if you do everything right, there’s still the very real possibility of loss–to theft, accident, or disaster.
Seed phrases meant to make private keys easier to manage. Instead of securing long strings of random characters, Bitcoin Improvement Proposal-39 (BIP-39) let a handful of simple words essentially stand in for a private key. As long as you have the right sequence of words, you’ll always get the same private key and have access to your funds.
While it is definitely easier to deal with a few common words than a long string of characters, the risk of loss through human error, theft, or disaster is essentially the same with a seed phrase as it ever was with private keys. For anyone who has lost a backup when they really needed it, it’s a distinction without a difference. When it’s gone, it’s gone, and there’s no getting it back.
Moving Beyond Stone Age Security For Space Age Assets
Somewhere along the way, the whole idea of self-custody became synonymous with seed phrases in a lot of people’s minds. But self custody isn’t an object; it’s a capability. And seed phrases are a lot more liability than they are capability.
Sure, a seed phrase lets you regenerate your keys or easily move your funds to another wallet, but it lets anyone who sees it even briefly do that, too. It’s a nuclear option–one that grants anyone who holds it access to its entire payload. That’s why most people who use them are forced to rely on pretty archaic security measures to protect them: bury them, use book ciphers, distribute copies and bury those, stamp them on increasingly heat-resistant alloys, and so on.
But the idea that the height of security for digital cash could be anything close to burying a coffee can in the backyard borders on the absurd. That’s stone age security for a space age asset. And the idea that most people’s only recovery tool is something they themselves can pretty easily lose begs the question: if you can lose it easily, is it even a recovery tool at all?
Managing a seed phrase might be better than dealing with private key material, but it still isn’t good–not for security or safety, not for user experience, and ultimately not for bitcoin’s growth and widespread adoption.
The Future Of Money Should Work Like The Future Of Money
Bitcoin itself began as, and is intended to be, electronic cash. It is ultimately software, meant to run to be used. For too many people, securing it has become a source of great anxiety and practical difficulty. There’s a better way.
The future of money should feel like and work like and ultimately be secured like the future of money, not money’s long ago past. It should open up new capabilities, inspire confidence, be intuitive and even pleasant to use–and you shouldn’t lose access to your coins just because you make a typo or lose a slip of paper.
Even hardcore, self-sovereign bitcoiners will admit: seed phrases are a pain. They’re a clunky stopgap and were never meant to be the end game for an ostensibly digital currency. We should stop treating them like they’re the defining characteristic of self custody.
This is a guest post by Max Guise. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
In a wide-ranging conversation, Bitcoin Magazine Pro’s lead analyst Matt Crosby sat down with on-chain cycle expert Rational Root to explore the pressing question on many investors’ minds: Are Bitcoin’s historic four-year cycles still intact, or is institutional adoption fundamentally altering Bitcoin’s long-established rhythm?
The discussion dives into on-chain metrics, ETF flows, market psychology, and corporate accumulation—all central to understanding whether Bitcoin’s next big move is delayed, dampened, or still ahead.
On-Chain Market Position: Not Overheated Yet
According to Rational Root, the Bitcoin market is far from cycle exhaustion.
“We’re only like 0.25… standard deviations above the short-term cost basis… the previous cycle top… we reached four standard deviations above…”
This key metric—the average acquisition price of recent market entrants—serves as a proxy for overheated conditions. Root argues this mild positioning suggests we are still in bullish territory.
Structured Climb vs. Parabolic Hype
Root pointed out that the current cycle is forming a much more stable structure compared to past ones:
“We’ve seen two of those spikes with both the ETF approval and the election… a structured channel is forming… since 2023… we’ve been kind of moving up.”
Matt Crosby noted that the more orderly trend could be a byproduct of institutions, suggesting this may be a new phase for Bitcoin that suppresses extreme volatility in both directions.
ETF Flows: The New Whale
Rational Root has closely tracked the massive demand from ETFs:
“Just ETFs alone are already like 3.5x… we also still have a lot of other sources of demand… stacking happening in the Bitcoin treasury companies…”
This inflow is significantly more than the current daily issuance of 450 BTC. The ETF demand, combined with corporate treasuries and long-term holders, has fundamentally shifted Bitcoin’s supply dynamics.
Human Psychology Still Dominates
Despite the rise of institutional players, Root remains grounded in behavioral patterns:
“People were talking about lengthening/shortening cycles… every cycle… we’ve been talking about that in all previous cycles… it wasn’t different.”
He reiterated that Bitcoin’s cycles remain driven by collective psychology—greed, fear, and FOMO. So far, data from the current cycle appears to rhyme closely with those from 2017 and 2021.
Entering the Euphoria Phase?
Referencing his well-known Bitcoin Spiral Chart, Root noted:
“We’re actually really approaching that thrill and euphoria phase… it’s very exciting… the next six months are not going to be boring.”
Historically, this phase precedes market peaks, though Root was careful not to offer timing guarantees, citing the potential for institutional influence to stretch out the cycle.
Bitcoin Treasury Companies: Cheat Code or Risk?
On the rise of Bitcoin treasury companies like MicroStrategy, MetaPlanet, and the Blockchain Group, Root shared:
“It’s really… a bet on fiat money to go down and Bitcoin to go up… fundamentally it’s sustainable.”
He highlighted the strategic use of debt by these firms, leveraging fiat debasement to accumulate Bitcoin. He also addressed prior skepticism stemming from the 2022 cycle failures (e.g., Celsius, BlockFi), but now views the current players as fundamentally sound.
Price Projections and Cycle Timing
Pressed for a forecast, Rational Root said:
“I’ve always said… between 140 and 240… I don’t think we’re going to cross like a half a million Bitcoin this cycle.”
He cited macro risks and the potential for extended consolidation but reiterated that, so far, the current cycle remains within historically normal boundaries.
Are We Entering a New Era?
While both Root and Crosby acknowledge the changing nature of Bitcoin’s market participants, they agree that the foundational cycle mechanics still apply—for now.
“If everything starts flashing red… probably not a bad opportunity to maybe lock in a little bit of profit.” — Matt Crosby
Root added:
“Definitely check out Bitcoin Magazine Pro… I definitely treat you as a colleague… it’s the Bitcoin journey that we’re after.”
Final Word
Bitcoin’s market structure is evolving—but not radically. While institutional demand, passive flows, and corporate accumulation are reshaping behavior, the cycle’s emotional core remains familiar. Investors should prepare for continued upside, but also stay vigilant for signs of overextension.
For more deep-dive research, technical indicators, real-time market alerts, and access to a growing community of analysts, visit BitcoinMagazinePro.com.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Is-the-4-Year-Bitcoin-Cycle-Over-Rational-Root-Explains-te5csZ.jpg7201280Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-20 19:28:272025-06-20 19:28:27Is the 4-Year Bitcoin Cycle Over? Rational Root Explains Why This Time Might Not Be Different
Semler Scientific, the second U.S. publicly traded company to adopt Bitcoin as its primary treasury reserve asset, has appointed Joe Burnett as Director of Bitcoin Strategy while announcing a Bitcoin accumulation plan. The healthcare technology company targets holding 10,000 Bitcoin by year end 2025, 42,000 by 2026, and 105,000 by 2027.
$SMLR appoints Joe Burnett @IIICapital as Director of Bitcoin Strategy. Announces three-year plan to own 105,000 #Bitcoins by Year-End 2027. So fired up to have Joe on board to help with this exciting new chapter in Semler’s $BTC mission.
The announcement comes as Semler continues expanding its Bitcoin holdings. The company recently acquired 185 Bitcoin between May 23 and June 3 for $20 million, bringing total holdings to 4,449 BTC worth approximately $446.2 million at current prices.
“We are excited to have Joe join our Bitcoin strategy team and help drive our three-year-plan to own 105,000 Bitcoins,” said Eric Semler, chairman of Semler Scientific. “Joe is an analytical thought leader on Bitcoin and Bitcoin treasury companies. His expertise will be instrumental as we pursue our Bitcoin treasury strategy and aim to deliver long-term value to our stockholders.”
Since adopting its Bitcoin Standard in May 2024, Semler has “achieved approximately 287% BTC Yield and a $177 million BTC $ Gain through June 3, 2025,” Semler noted. The company currently reports a year-to-date BTC Yield of 26.7%.
As former director of market research at Unchained, Burnett contributed to helping institutional Bitcoin adoption by providing collaborative custody solutions. He previously served as head analyst at Blockware Solutions, helping launch one of the largest Bitcoin mining platforms in the United States.
“We are witnessing the global monetization of Bitcoin as a superior form of money,” said Burnett. “The trend to adopt Bitcoin as part of corporate treasury is clearly accelerating. Semler Scientific, as the 2nd U.S. public company to adopt the Bitcoin Standard, has been at the forefront of this movement.”
Semler’s Bitcoin strategy involves using proceeds from equity and debt financings plus operational cash flows. Since launching its market offering program in April 2025, the company has raised approximately $136.2 million through stock sales.
The company has acquired 4,449 Bitcoin for $410.0 million at an average price of $92,158 per Bitcoin. “We continue to accretively grow our Bitcoin arsenal using operating cash flow and proceeds from debt and equity financings,” Semler stated.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Semler-Scientific-Appoints-Joe-Burnett-as-Director-of-Bitcoin-Strategy-Targets-105000-BTC-by-2027-EHcnt4.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-19 22:00:492025-06-19 22:00:49Semler Scientific Appoints Joe Burnett as Director of Bitcoin Strategy, Targets 105,000 BTC by 2027
President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday evening regarding recent Senate legislation, stating the U.S. will “show the World how to WIN with Digital Assets like never before.” The post came following the Senate’s passage of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act by a 68-30 vote.
“The Senate just passed an incredible Bill that is going to make America the UNDISPUTED Leader in Digital Assets,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “Nobody will do it better, it is pure GENIUS! Digital Assets are the future, and our Nation is going to own it. We are talking about MASSIVE Investment, and Big Innovation.”
The president continued: “The House will hopefully move LIGHTNING FAST, and pass a ‘clean’ GENIUS Act. Get it to my desk, ASAP — NO DELAYS, NO ADD ONS.”
— Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) June 19, 2025
White House AI & Crypto Czar David Sacks responded to the legislation’s passage, stating: “The U.S. Senate has passed the GENIUS Act — landmark stablecoin legislation that provides regulatory clarity, enhances consumer protection, and extends U.S. dollar dominance online. Thanks to President Trump for his leadership on crypto & Senator Hagerty for authoring the bill.”
The administration has been articulating its digital asset strategy through high-profile appearances and policy statements. Vice President JD Vance addressed the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, declaring: “What we’ve done in the Trump administration in digital asset policy is only the beginning. Crypto finally has a champion and an ally in the White House.”
JUST IN: Vice President JD Vance said they’re going to fire every regulator like Gary Gensler. pic.twitter.com/awHYMEMQAg
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) May 28, 2025
White House Executive Director Bo Hines reinforced this message at the Bitcoin conference as well, stating, “We are well on our way to becoming the Bitcoin superpower of the world. This is something that is not partisan. This is a revolution in our financial system.” Hines specifically addressed Bitcoin’s importance: “Bitcoin is truly the golden standard…This is an asset that we should be harnessing on behalf of the American people. We want as much as we can possibly get.”
JUST IN: President Trump’s Executive Director said “Bitcoin is the golden standard.”
“We’re not gonna sell any Bitcoin that we possible have in the US government, period.” pic.twitter.com/F6Dv2nUk9b
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) May 27, 2025
The GENIUS Act would establish the first comprehensive federal framework for fiat-backed stablecoins, requiring 1:1 dollar backed reserves, monthly disclosures, regular audits, and clear federal or state licensing.
The legislation now moves to the House, where Trump’s public pressure for swift passage without amendments could prove decisive.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/President-Trump-Says-22We-Are-Going-to-Show-the-World-How-to-WIN-with-Digital-Assets-Like-Never-Before22-OjnTBk.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-19 15:45:242025-06-19 15:45:24President Donald Trump: America Will Show The World How To Win With Digital Assets Like Never Before
A version of this newsletter was originally published on lynalden.com.
This newsletter issue analyzes three common misconceptions about the US federal debt and deficits.
The ongoing nature of the deficits has several investment implications, but along the way it’s important to not get distracted by things that don’t add up.
Fiscal Debt and Deficits 101
Before I jump into the misconceptions, it’s useful to quickly remind what the debt and deficits are, specifically.
-In most years, the US federal government spends more than it receives in tax revenue. That difference is the annual deficit. We can see the deficit over time here, both in nominal terms and as a percentage of GDP:
-As the US federal government runs deficits over years and decades, they add up to the total outstanding debt. That’s the stock of debt that the US federal government owes to lenders, which they pay interest on. When some of their bonds mature, they issue new ones to help pay back the old ones.
A couple of weeks ago at a conference in Las Vegas, I gave a keynote talk about the US fiscal debt situation (available here), which serves as an easy 20-minute summary of the situation.
My view for a while, as outlined in that talk and for years now, is that US fiscal deficits will be quite large for the foreseeable future. I’ve discussed that in numerous pieces and formats, but my September 2024 newsletter was the most detailed breakdown of it, along with Sam Callahan’s January 2025 report.
Misconception 1) We Owe it to Ourselves
A common phrase, popularized by Paul Krugman and others, is that “we owe the debt to ourselves”. Proponents of Modern Monetary Theory often make similar statements, e.g. saying that the cumulative debt outstanding is mainly just a tally of surpluses that have been given to the private sector.
The unsaid implications from this is that the debt isn’t a big deal. Another potential implication is that maybe we could selectively default on portions of it, since it’s just “owed to ourselves”. Let’s examine those two parts separately.
Who It’s Owed To
The federal government owes money to US Treasury security holders. That includes entities in foreign countries, includes US institutions, and includes US individuals. And of course, those entities have specific amounts of treasuries. The government of Japan, for example, is owed a lot more dollars than me, even though we both own treasuries.
If you, me, and eight other people go out to dinner in a big 10-person group, we owe a bill at the end. If we all ate different amounts of food, then we likely don’t have the same liabilities here. The cost generally has to be split in fair ways.
Now in practice for that dinner example, it’s not a big deal because dinner groups are usually friendly with each other, and people are willing to graciously cover others in that group. But in a country of 340 million people living within 130 million different households, it’s no small matter. If you divide $36 trillion in federal debt by 130 million households, you get $277,000 per household in federal debt debt. Do you consider that your household’s fair share? If not, how do we tally that up?
Put another way, if you have $1 million worth of treasuries in your retirement account, and I have $100,000 worth of treasuries in my retirement account, yet both of us are taxpayers, then while in some sense “we owe it to ourselves”, it’s certainly not in equal measure.
In other words, the numbers and proportions do matter. Bondholders expect (often incorrectly) that their bonds will retain purchasing power. Taxpayers expect (again often incorrectly) their government to maintain sound fundamentals in its currency and taxing and spending. That seems obvious, but sometimes needs to be clarified anyway.
We have a shared ledger, and we have a division of powers about how that ledger is managed. Those rules can change over time, but the overall reliability of that ledger is why the world uses it.
Can We Selectively Default?
Individuals, businesses, and countries that owe debt denominated in units that they cannot print (e.g. gold ounces or someone else’s currency) can indeed default if they lack sufficient cashflows or assets to cover their liabilities. However, developed country governments, whose debt is usually denominated in their own currency that they can print, rarely default nominally. The far easier path for them is to print money and debase the debt away relative to the country’s economic output and scarcer assets.
Myself and many others would argue that a major currency devaluation is a type of default. In that sense, the US government defaulted on bondholders in the 1930s by devaluating the dollar vs gold, and then again in the 1970s by decoupling the dollar from gold entirely. The 2020-2021 period was also a type of default, in the sense that the broad money supply increased by 40% in a rapid period of time, and bondholders had their worst bear market in over a century, with greatly decreased purchasing power relative to virtually every other asset.
But technically, a country could also default nominally, even if it doesn’t have to. Rather than spreading the pain out with debasement to all bondholders and currency holders, they could instead just default on unfriendly entities, or entities that are in a position to withstand it, thus sparing currency holders broadly, and the bondholders that were not defaulted on. That’s a serious possibility worth considering in such a geopolitically strained world.
And so the real question is: are there certain entities for which defaulting has limited consequences?
There are some entities that have very large and obvious consequences if they are defaulted on:
-If the government defaults on retirees, or the asset managers holding treasuries on behalf of retirees, then it would impair their ability to support themselves after a lifetime of work, and we’d see seniors in the streets in protest.
-If the government defaults on insurance companies, then it impairs their ability to pay out insurance claims, thus hurting American citizens in a similarly bad way.
-If the government defaults on banks, it’ll render them insolvent, and consumer bank deposits won’t be fully backed by assets.
And of course, most of those entities (the ones that survive) would refuse to ever buy a treasury again.
That leaves some lower-hanging fruit. Are there some entities that the government could default on, which might hurt less and not be as existential as those options? The possibilities are generally foreigners and the Fed, so let’s analyze those separately.
Analysis: Defaulting on Foreigners
Foreign entities hold about $9 trillion in US treasuries currently, out of $36 trillion in debt outstanding. So, about a quarter of it.
And of that $9 trillion, about $4 trillion is held by sovereign entities and $5 trillion is held by foreign private entities.
The prospect for defaulting on specific foreign entities certainly jumped higher in recent years. In the past, the US froze sovereign assets of Iran and Afghanistan, but those were considered small and extreme enough to not count as any sort of “real” default. However, in 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine, the US and its allies in Europe and elsewhere froze Russian reserves totaling over $300 billion. A freeze isn’t quite the same as a default (it depends on the ultimate fate of the assets), but it’s pretty close to one.
Since that time, foreign central banks have become pretty big gold buyers. Gold represents an asset that they can custody themselves, and thus is protected against default and confiscation, while also being hard to debase.
The vast majority of foreign-held US debt is held within friendly countries and allies. These are countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, and so forth. Some of them like Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Ireland are haven areas where plenty of institutions set up shop and hold Treasuries. So, some of these foreign holders are actually US-based entities that are incorporated in those types of places.
China has less than $800 billion in treasuries now, which is only about 5 months worth of US deficit spending. They’re near the top of the potential “selective default” risk spectrum, and they’re aware of it.
If the US were to default at a large scale on these types of entities, it would greatly impair the ability for the US to convince foreign entities to hold their treasuries for a long time. The freezing of Russian reserves already sent a signal that countries responded to, but in that instance they had the cover of a literal invasion. Defaulting on debt held by non-aggressive nations would be seen as a clear and obvious default.
So, this isn’t a particularly viable option overall, although there are certain pockets where it’s not out of the realm of possibility.
Analysis: Defaulting on the Fed
The other option is that the Treasury could default on the treasuries that the US Federal Reserve holds. That’s a little over $4 trillion currently. After all, that’s the closest version of “we owe it to ourselves” right?
There are major problems with that, too.
The Fed, like any bank, has assets and liabilities. Their primary liabilities are 1) physical currency and 2) bank reserves owed to commercial banks. Their primary assets are 1) treasuries and 2) mortgage-backed securities. Their assets pay them interest, and they pay interest on bank reserves in order to set an interest rate floor and slow down banks’ incentive to lend and create more broad money.
Currently, the Fed is sitting on major unrealized losses (hundreds of billions) and is paying out more interest than they receive each week. If they were a normal bank, they’d experience a bank run and be shut down. But because they’re the central bank, nobody can do a bank run on them, so they can operate at a loss for a very long time. They’ve racked up over $230 billion in cumulative net interest losses over the past three years:
If the Treasury were to totally default on the Fed, it would render them massively insolvent on a realized basis (they’d have trillions more in liabilities than in assets), but as the central bank they’d still be able to avoid a bank run. Their weekly net interest losses would be even greater, because they’d have lost most of their interest income at that point (since they’d only have their mortgage backed securities).
The main problem with this approach is that it would impair any notion of central bank independence. The central bank is supposed to be mostly separate from the executive branch, and so for example the President can’t cut interest rates before an election and raise interest rates afterward, and do shenanigans like that. The President and Congress put the Fed’s board of governors in place with long terms of service, but then from there the Fed has its own budget, is generally supposed to run profitably, and support itself. A defaulted-on Fed is an unprofitable Fed, and with major negative equity. That’s a Fed that is no longer independent, and doesn’t even have the illusion of being independent.
One potential way to mitigate this is to eliminate the Fed’s interest payments to commercial banks on their bank reserves. However, that interest is there for a reason. It is part of how the Fed sets an interest rate floor in an ample-reserves environment. Congress could pass legislation that 1) forces banks to hold a certain percentage of their assets in reserves and 2) eliminates the Fed’s ability to pay them interest on those reserves. That would push more of the problem toward commercial banks.
That last option is one of the more viable paths, with contained consequences. Bank investors (rather than depositors) would be impaired, and the Fed’s ability to influence interest rates and bank lending volumes would be impaired, but it wouldn’t be an overnight disaster. However, the Fed only holds about two years’ worth of federal deficits, or about 12% of total federal debt outstanding, so that somewhat extreme financial repression scenario would just be a bandage for the problem.
In short, we do not owe the debt to ourselves. The federal government owes it to specific entities, domestic and international, who would be impaired in consequential ways if defaulted on, and many of those ways would ricochet back into hurting both the federal government and US taxpayers.
Misconception 2) People Have Been Saying This for Decades
Another common thing you’ll hear about the debt and deficit is that people have been calling it a problem for decades, and it has been fine enough. The implication from this view is that the debt and deficit are not a big deal, and those that say it’s a big deal end up prematurely “calling wolf” over and over again and can be safely ignored.
Like many misconceptions, there is a grain of truth here.
As I’ve pointed out before, the “peak zeitgeist” for the idea that the federal debt and deficit is a problem was back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The famous “debt clock” was put up in New York in the late 1980s, and Ross Perot ran the most successful independent presidential campaign in modern history (19% of the popular vote) largely on the topic of debt and deficits. This was back when interest rates were very high, and so interest expense was a big share of GDP:
People who called for the debt to spiral out of control back then were indeed wrong. Things were fine for decades. Two main things happened that allowed that to be the case. The first is that the opening of China in the 1980s and the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s were very deflationary forces for the world. Massive amounts of eastern labor and resources were able to connect with western capital, and bring a ton of new supply of everything to the world. The second is that, partially because of this, interest rates were able to keep heading lower, which made interest expense on the growing total stock of debt more manageable in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s.
So yes, if someone was talking about the debt being an imminent problem 35 years ago and is still talking about it today, I can see why someone would choose to just kind of tune them out.
However, people should not fall too far in the other direction, and assume that since it didn’t matter in this period of time, that it won’t matter ever. That would be a fallacy.
Multiple trend changes happened in the late 2010s. Interest rates hit zero and since then are no longer in a structural downtrend. Baby Boomers started retiring, leading to the Social Security trust reaching peak levels and entering drawdown mode, and globalization reached a potential peak, with thirty years of western capital and eastern labor/resources connecting together being largely finished (and now potentially reversing slightly around the margins).
Some trend changes, visualized:
We’re not at the point where the debt or deficits are going to cause a massive train wreck any time soon. However, we are well into the era where the deficits do matter and have consequences.
For six years now, after seeing the opening stages of some of these trend changes, I’ve been emphasizing fiscal spending as an increasingly big portion of macroeconomics and investment decisions in modern times. It has been my primary “north star” when trying to navigate this rather hectic macro environment over the years.
Taking the debt and deficit seriously since these trend changes began occurring has been a good way to 1) not be surprised by some of the things that have happened and 2) run a portfolio more successfully than a typical 60/40 stock/bond portfolio.
-My 2019 article “Are We in a Bond Bubble?” was the prologue. My conclusion was that yes, we’re likely in a bond bubble, that the combo of fiscal spending and central bank debt monetization can be a lot more impactful and inflationary than people seem to believe, and that such a thing is likely coming in the next downturn. In early 2020 I wrote “The Subtle Risks of Treasury Bonds” which warned about severe debasement. Bonds went on to have their worst bear market in over a century in the 5-6 years since those pieces.
-During the depths of the disinflationary shock in March 2020, I wrote “Why This is Unlike the Great Depression” which emphasized how massive fiscal stimulus (i.e. deficits) was starting, and would likely get us back to nominal stock highs faster than people think, albeit at the likely cost of high inflation.
-For the rest of 2020, I followed it up with a series of articles such as “QE, MMT, and Inflation/Deflation”, “A Century of Fiscal and Monetary Policy” and “Banks, QE, and Money-Printing” which explored why the huge combo of fiscal stimulus and central bank support would be significantly different than the bank recapitalization QE of 2008/2009. In short, the thesis was that this was more like inflationary 1940s war finance than deflationary 1930s private debt deleveraging, thus a position of equities and hard monies would be better than bonds. As a bond bear, I spent a lot of time debating bond bulls on this subject.
-By spring 2021, stocks had already jumped a ton and price inflation indeed began to break out. My May 2021 newsletter “Fiscal-Driven Inflation” described and projected the issue further.
-The year 2022 was the one year where I got quite cautious around the idea of fiscal consolidation and potential recession, as price inflation reached its peak and pandemic-era fiscal stimulus wore off. My January 2022 newsletter “The Capital Sponge” was one of my early framings of the scene. Most of 2022 was indeed a bad year for broad asset prices and the economy slowed considerably, but by most metrics a recession was avoided due to what started happening later in the year.
-By late 2022 and particularly by early 2023, fiscal deficits were expanding again, in significant part due to ballooning interest expense on the public debt amid the rapid increase in interest rates. The Treasury General Account was draining liquidity back into the banking system, the Treasury Department shifted toward excess T-bill issuance which was a pro-liquidity move to pull money out of the reverse repo facility and back into the banking system, and overall it was “game on” again in terms of deficit expansion. My July 2023 newsletter was called “Fiscal Dominance” and focused on this topic.
-By October 2023, federal fiscal year 2023 was in the books (which runs from October 2022 through September 2023) with a new nominal deficit increase, and I started my “nothing stops this train” meme about the subject (originally from the show Breaking Bad but in this context referring to US fiscal deficits) with this tweet:
I keep highlighting it, because it gets the point across effectively:
My point here is that we are now firmly in an era where the total stock of debt and ongoing federal deficits have real impact. Depending on whether you’re on the receiving side of those deficits or not, you might feel those deficits have more positive or negative impacts, but nonetheless they have impacts. Those impacts are able to be measured and reasoned about, and thus have economic and investment implications.
Misconception 3) The Dollar Will Collapse Soon
The prior two misconceptions countered the broad idea that the debt doesn’t matter.
This third one is a bit different because it counters the notion that things are going to blow up tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year.
People that claim things will blow up soon tend to fall into one of two camps. The first camp is that they benefit from sensationalism, clicks, and so forth. The second camp is that they genuinely misunderstand the situation. Many people in the second camp don’t do a lot of analysis on foreign markets to see truly how much it takes for a sovereign bond market to blow up.
The US is running 7% of GDP deficits, more or less. As I’ve argued numerous times, that’s mostly structural and very hard to meaningfully reduce now or for the next decade. However, it’s not 70% of GDP deficits. Magnitude matters.
There are some important metrics to quantify here.
-The federal government has a bit over $36 trillion in debt. To put that in context, US households collectively have $180 trillion in assets, or $160 trillion in net worth after liabilities (mostly mortgages) are subtracted. However, since we do not “owe it to ourselves”, this is somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison, but it’s helpful for putting large numbers into context.
-The US monetary base is about $6 trillion. There is over $120 trillion worth of dollar-denominated loans and bonds outstanding in total (public and private, domestic and international, excluding derivatives). In the foreign sector alone, there is about $18 trillion worth of dollar-denominated debt, which is 3x as much as there are base dollars in existence.
What this means is that there is an incredibly large amount of inflexible demand for dollars domestically and throughout the world. Everyone who owes dollars, needs dollars.
When a country like Turkey or Argentina hyperinflates or nearly-so, it’s in a context where practically nobody outside of their country needs their lira or pesos. There’s no entrenched demand for their currency. And so, if their currency becomes undesirable for any reason (usually due to rapid money supply growth), it’s very easy to just repudiate it and send its value to Hades.
The same is not true for the dollar. All of that $18 trillion in foreign-owed debt represents inflexible demand for dollars. Most of that is not owed to the US (the US is a net debtor nation), but the foreigners do not “owe that debt to themselves” either. Countless specific entities around the world contractually owe countless other specific entities around the world a certain number of dollars by a certain date in time, and thus need to constantly try to get their hands on dollars.
The fact that they collectively owe more dollars than there are base dollars in existence is important. That’s why the monetary base can double, triple, or more, and not be outright hyperinflationary. It’s still a small increase relative to how much contractual demand there is for dollars. When outstanding debt greatly exceeds the number of base units, it takes a ton of printing of base units to render that base unit worthless.
In other words, people severely underestimate how much money supply growth the United States can experience before it would result in a true dollar crisis. It’s not hard to create politically problematic levels of inflation or other issues, but creating a true crisis is another story.
Think of the debt and deficit as being a dial, not a switch. Many people ask “when will it matter?” as though it’s a light switch where it goes from not a problem to a catastrophe. But the answer is that it’s usually a dial. It already matters now. We’re already running things hot. The Fed’s ability to modulate the growth of total new credit is already impaired, thus putting them into a state of fiscal dominance. But the rest of that dial has a lot of room to turn before it truly reaches the end.
That’s why I use the phrase “nothing stops this train”. The deficits are more intractable than the bulls think, meaning it’s very improbable that the US federal government is going to get them under control any time soon. But on the other hand, it’s not as imminent as bears think; it is unlikely to cause an outright dollar crisis any time soon. It’s a very long slow motion train wreck. A dial gradually being turned more and more.
Sure, we can have mini-crises, similar to the 2022 UK Gilt Crisis. And when they happen, a few hundred billion dollars can generally put out the fire at the cost of debasement.
Suppose that bond yields break out to the point of rendering banks insolvent or the Treasury market acutely illiquid. The Fed can step in with QE or yield suppression. Yes, that comes with the cost of potential price inflation and has implications for asset prices, but no, it’s not hyperinflationary in this context.
In the long arc of time, yes the dollar will face major problems. But nothing indicates catastrophic issues in the near-term unless we rip ourselves apart socially and politically (which would be a separate matter than the numbers, and thus is outside of the scope of this article).
Here is some more context. The US had 82% cumulative broad money supply growth over the past decade. Egypt had 638% broad money supply growth during that same time period. And the Egyptian pound underperformed the dollar by approximately that ratio; a decade ago a US dollar was worth a bit under 8 Egyptian pounds, and today it’s worth a bit over 50 Egyptian pounds. Egyptians dealt with double-digit price inflation for most years in this decade.
I spend part of each year living in Egypt. Things haven’t been easy there. They have recurring energy shortages and economic stagnation. But life goes on. Even that level of currency debasement was not enough to give them an outright crisis, especially with entities like the IMF around to keep them mostly on the tracks toward ever-more debt and debasement.
Imagine how much it would take to put the dollar into that situation, let alone a worse situation, when keeping in mind how much inflexible demand there is for dollars. When people think the dollar is going to collapse soon, I generally assume they haven’t traveled much and/or haven’t studied other currencies. Things can go a lot further than people think and still be semi-functional.
For some more figures, China had 145% broad money supply growth over the past decade. Brazil had 131%. India had 183%.
Put another way, the dollar is not going to jump straight from a developed market currency to a collapsed one. Along the way, it has to go through “developing market syndrome”. Foreign demand for the dollar may weaken over time. Ongoing budget deficits and an increasingly captured Fed may result in gradually accelerating money supply growth and financial repression. Our structural trade deficit provides us with a currency vulnerability that countries with structural trade surpluses don’t have. But we’re starting from a developed market base with an entrenched global network effect, and as things get worse, our currency could resemble the currency of a developing market in many ways. It could look more like Brazil’s currency, then Egypt’s, then Turkey’s, over quite a long timeframe. It doesn’t jump from being the US dollar to the Venezuelan bolivar in the course of a year or even five years, short of something like a nuclear strike or a civil war.
Putting this all together, the spiraling US debt and deficit situation does indeed have increasingly real consequences, both in the present and forward into the future. It’s not ignorable like the “everything is fine” camp would have you believe, nor is it as imminently catastrophic as the sensationalist side would have you believe. It’s most likely an intractable issue that is going to be with us as a background factor to deal with for quite a long time, and investors and economists need to take that into account if they’re going to make accurate calls.
Final Thoughts: Bitcoin Checkup
According to most indicators that I track, I continue to view bitcoin as likely having higher to go in this cycle before the supply/demand balance becomes exhausted and has a big shake-out.
Bitcoin has certainly come a long way. On the surface, $103,000 would perhaps even seem expensive. I publicly recommended it at under $10k in 2020, and haven’t let up since. Shouldn’t I take profits at this point? Over five years later and up tremendously?
While I do rebalance in my model portfolios, I don’t sell any of my cold-storage bitcoin, which represents the bulk of my position. One reason for that is because even at this seemingly high price level, the whole Bitcoin network is barely worth more than $2 trillion.
This is in a world of about $1 quadrillion worth of assets across all asset classes. Gold is estimated to be worth about $20 trillion, or 2% of estimated assets. Bitcoin is a tenth of that, or around 0.2% of assets. As the network effect continues to grow, and as the resilience of the technology continues to be tested in a variety of ways, I think it has a lot further to grow as long as it avoids certain tail risk outcomes that would impair its actual functioning.
In prior cycles, bitcoin had big blow-off tops in terms of market value relative to on-chain cost basis. This current cycle has been more gradual so far, which makes sense given that it’s a larger and more liquid asset now. Periods of mild overexuberance have been met by six-month consolidations to let off some steam, and then it would grind up to the next level.
As total credit in the US and global system continues to grow over the next five or ten years, scarce assets at reasonable valuations are likely to continue to be worthwhile things to own. This can include high-quality equities, real estate in non-bubbly markets, precious metals, and bitcoin.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/FRED-chart-XNcQzT.png450688Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-19 15:36:532025-06-19 15:36:533 Misconceptions About US Debt
Fidelity Digital Assets released a new report that reveals that for the first time in history, more bitcoin is entering “ancient supply,” which refers to coins that have remained unmoved for 10 years or more, than are being mined.
As of June 8, 17% of all bitcoin falls into the category of “ancient supply”—meaning these coins have not moved in a decade or more. What could this mean for scarcity, market dynamics, and investors’ conviction? Find our team’s thoughts: https://t.co/EALzrfS92cpic.twitter.com/Ckm3MylTLY
— Fidelity Digital Assets (@DigitalAssets) June 18, 2025
As of June 8, an average of 566 BTC per day is crossing the 10 year threshold, while only 450 BTC is being issued daily following the 2024 halving. 3
“The share of ancient supply also tends to increase each day, with daily decreases observed less than 3% of the time,” the report says. “In contrast, that number increases to 13% when the threshold is lowered to bitcoin holders of five years or more.”
Bitcoin’s ancient supply has grown since January 1, 2019, when Satoshi Nakamoto became the first 10 year holder. Today, over 3.4 million BTC fall into this category, worth more than $360 billion. Around 1/3 is believed to belong to Nakamoto.
Despite their rising value, long-term holders are not cashing out. Ancient supply makes up over 17 percent of all bitcoin, and that share continues to grow.
Since the 2024 halving, the number of coins entering ancient supply has consistently outpaced the number of new coins being mined, according to the report. This shift highlights growing long-term conviction among holders and reflects a broader tightening of bitcoin’s liquid supply.
Following the 2024 U.S. election, ancient supply declined on 10% of days, which is nearly four times higher than the historical average. Movement among the holders was even more pronounced, with daily declines occurring 39% of the time.
To better track this trend, Fidelity uses a metric called the ancient supply HODL rate. It measures how many coins are entering the 10 year category each day, adjusted for new issuance. This rate turned positive in April 2024 and has remained that way, reinforcing the long-term supply shift.
Looking ahead, Fidelity Digital Assets projections that ancient supply could reach 20 percent of total bitcoin by 2028 and 25 percent by 2034. If public companies holding at least 1,000 BTC are included, it could reach 30 percent by 2035.
As of June 8, 27 public companies hold more than 800,000 BTC combined, according to the report. This growing institutional presence may further tighten supply and increase the influence of long-term holders over time.
Bitcoin’s use of elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), which is essential for generating key pairs and validating digital signatures, has drawn the attention of a nonpracticing entity (NPE), more commonly known as a patent troll. In May 2025, Malikie Innovations Ltd., a troll that acquired thousands of patents from BlackBerry’s portfolio, filed lawsuits against major mining firms Core Scientific (CORZ) and Marathon Digital Holdings (MARA). (Some considered MARA an original patent troll itself and thus have expressed schadenfreude at the current attacks.) Malikie claims that routine Bitcoin operations (like verifying transactions with ECC-based signatures) infringe on several ECC-related patents originally developed by Certicom (later owned by BlackBerry). The patents cover techniques for accelerated digital signature verification, finite field math optimizations and other ECC improvements.
Malikie’s lawsuits, in Texas’ Eastern District against CORZ and Western District against MARA, demand damages for past infringement and an injunction against further use of the patented methods. In essence, Malikie seeks to impose a licensing regime on Bitcoin’s core cryptographic functions, a move that could set a dangerous precedent for the entire industry. If Malikie succeeds, virtually anyone running Bitcoin software (miners, node operators and potentially even wallet providers) could be exposed to patent liability. This threat has galvanized the Bitcoin and open source communities to explore every available defensive tool. In this preparatory briefing, we examine:
Historical legal strategies used to fend off troll lawsuits.
The mechanics, costs and effectiveness of Inter Partes Review (IPR) in challenging software/crypto patents.
Community-led responses (EFF, Linux Foundation, COPA, etc.) that help defendants by funding prior-art searches or legal defenses.
The potential ramifications for Bitcoin mining if Malikie’s claims prevail, drawing parallels from other industries.
1. Historical Strategies Against NPE Patent Lawsuits
Over the past two decades, tech companies and industries have developed several tactics to combat patent trolls. Key strategies include challenging patent validity, shifting lawsuits to favorable venues via declaratory judgment actions, leveraging recent case law to dismiss abstract patents and simply refusing to settle in order to deter trolls.
While not all strategies will apply to these cases, for completeness I’ll outline these approaches:
Rigorous Invalidity Challenges (Prior Art – §102/103): The most direct way to neutralize a troll’s patent is to demonstrate that the patent should never have been granted in the first place because earlier technology already taught the same invention. Defendants search for prior art — such as earlier publications, academic papers, standards (RFCs) or open source code — that predate the patent’s priority date and disclose the claimed invention. If a single prior art reference embodies every element of a patent claim, the claim is “anticipated” (invalid for lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. §102). If no one reference is complete but a combination of references would have been obvious to a skilled person, the claim is invalid for obviousness (§103). In the Malikie cases, for example, Bitcoiners have been called to urgently collect publications from before January 18, 2005 (the priority date of one asserted patent, U.S. 8,788,827), and before December 31, 2001 (for U.S. 7,372,960). to prove the patented ECC techniques were already known. The Bitcoin community has noted that Hal Finney and others actively tracked ECC patents and even delayed certain optimizations in Bitcoin until patents expired — for instance, the famed “GLV endomorphism” speedup was only added to Bitcoin Core after its patent lapsed (and caution on the GLV issue was taken by developers, which Malikie itself acknowledged in its complaint — paragraphs 20 and 21 of the MARA complaint, for instance). Unearthing such prior art may not only win the case at hand but invalidate the patent for everyone.
Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Proceedings: Beyond raising invalidity in court, since 2012 defendants have relied on IPR at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a powerful forum to knock out bad patents. IPR is an administrative trial within the U.S. Patent Office where challengers can present prior patents or publications to show a granted patent is invalid. We detail IPR’s mechanics in Section 2, but historically it has been a favored tool against NPEs because of its high success rate (around 70%+ of patents see claims canceled when reviewed) and lower burden of proof (“preponderance of the evidence,” 51%, rather than the “clear and convincing,” 75%, standard in court). Companies sued by trolls often file IPR petitions early and then move to stay (or pause) the litigation pending the PTAB’s decision — a stay which many courts grant once an IPR is instituted, given the likelihood that the patent may be invalidated. Notably, in the landmark Personal Audio “podcasting patent” case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an IPR that successfully invalidated a troll’s patent on podcast distribution, even as the troll was suing podcasters in East Texas. That IPR, funded by over a thousand small donations from the community, culminated in the Patent Office canceling all claims of the patent in 2015, a result later affirmed on appeal. This victory protected not just the sued targets (like comedian Adam Carolla) but all podcasters going forward. Similarly, the best path for the Bitcoin ecosystem may be to file IPR (or the related Post-Grant Review) against Malikie’s ECC patents, leveraging the mountain of cryptography literature from the 1990s and early 2000s to demonstrate that Bitcoin’s use of ECC was not novel to Malikie’s assignors.
Declaratory Judgment (DJ) Actions: Another defensive tactic is to preempt the troll by filing a declaratory judgment lawsuit in a preferred court, seeking a ruling that your product does not infringe or that the patent is invalid. Under U.S. law, a company that feels threatened by a patent (e.g., it received a demand letter or sees peers being sued) can sometimes sue first if it can show a substantial controversy. The goal is to avoid being haled into the NPE’s chosen venue (historically, the Eastern District of Texas was favored by trolls) and instead litigate in a more neutral or defendant-friendly forum. For instance, when notorious troll Lodsys threatened dozens of small app developers over in-app purchase patents, one strategy (supported indirectly by Apple and Google) was to seek declaratory rulings outside of East Texas to undermine the troll’s jurisdiction. In practice, DJ actions can prompt a faster resolution or even settlement on better terms. However, the patent owner must have made a concrete infringement assertion to establish the requisite “case or controversy.” In Malikie’s situation, if other Bitcoin companies (exchanges, wallet providers, smaller miners) suspect they are next in line, those companies could file a declaratory suit in a jurisdiction of their choice. This would flip the script, making Malikie the defendant and potentially consolidating the fight in a forum less favorable to NPEs.
Motions to Dismiss Under Alice (35 U.S.C. §101): Since the 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision, many software patents have been invalidated early in litigation for claiming unpatentable abstract ideas. Courts now examine whether a patent is directed to a fundamental abstract idea (like a mathematical formula) without an “inventive concept.” Defendants often file Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, arguing the patent is invalid on its face under §101. While cryptographic algorithms can be viewed as mathematical computations (a classic abstract idea), success with an Alice motion depends on how the patent claims are drafted. If the claims merely cover a generalized math formula or the concept of using ECC on a computer, a judge could void them as abstract. Indeed, some defendants have beaten trolls this way, sparing the cost of trial. In Malikie’s case, their patents seem to cover specific techniques to speed up ECC computations (like endomorphisms, modular reduction optimizations, etc.) — arguably “technical improvements” in cryptography rather than a naked abstract idea. That may make an Alice challenge less straightforward, but it remains an option to explore. At minimum, raising a §101 defense preserves it for later and signals to the court that the patents’ validity is dubious on multiple grounds.
“Never Settle” and Fight to Verdict: An aggressive strategy some companies have taken is simply to refuse settlement and force the troll to prove its case in court, even if that means an expensive trial. The rationale is that paying off a troll invites more lawsuits (marking you an easy mark), whereas a courtroom victory not only ends that case but deters future attacks. Newegg pioneered this approach in the tech sector: Confronted by a series of patent trolls in the early 2010s, Newegg adopted a policy of zero settlements. In one famous instance, Newegg fought Soverain Software, which claimed to own the online shopping cart, all the way through appeal — and won a Federal Circuit ruling invalidating the patent, freeing the entire e-commerce industry from that threat. Similarly, Cloudflare, a web services company, was sued by an NPE called Sable Networks and refused to settle even as others paid licenses. Cloudflare not only went to trial (winning a defense verdict) but also launched “Project Jengo,” a crowdsourced prior-art hunt offering cash bounties to the public for any prior art that could invalidate any patent in Sable’s portfolio. This aggressive counterattack led to a remarkable outcome: Sable not only lost in court, it eventually paid Cloudflare to end the case and agreed to surrender its patents to the public domain. The message was clear: Trolls who pick a fight with determined defendants risk losing their entire arsenal. Of course, this approach requires deep pockets and high risk tolerance. Patent litigation costs can easily reach millions of dollars, and as patent attorney Bill Fowler notes, “there is no patent small claims court” — even relatively small infringement cases demand costly expert witnesses and extensive discovery. Thus, while fighting to the bitter end can yield industry-wide benefits, it’s often only viable for larger companies or those with community funding support.
Joint Defense and Industry Coalitions: When a patent troll sues multiple companies over the same patent, defendants often form a joint defense group to pool resources. They can share prior art research, coordinate legal strategy and file unified motions (where appropriate) to avoid duplication. Some industries have gone further by creating defensive coalitions: For example, the Linux Foundation’s OIN (Open Invention Network) is a consortium where members cross-license patents and collaboratively defend against attacks on Linux/open source systems. In 2019, when an NPE sued the GNOME Foundation (a nonprofit open source project) over a photo management patent, OIN and others rallied to GNOME’s aid, providing legal counsel and digging up prior art to invalidate the troll’s patent. This unified front not only helped GNOME achieve a successful outcome (the troll Rothschild Patent Imaging was eventually stripped of all rights), but also sent a warning to other trolls targeting open source projects. We are seeing a similar spirit of coalition in the Bitcoin realm: Community leaders are calling to “engage EFF, the Linux Foundation, [and] the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund to help fund or support,” a coordinated defense against Malikie. By combining efforts — from current and past core developers providing technical evidence that Bitcoin deliberately avoids patented methods to nonprofits bringing legal expertise — the industry can strengthen each defendant’s case.
In summary, industries hit by patent trolls have developed a toolkit of responses: invalidate the patent if possible (via prior art in court or PTAB review), challenge the troll’s chosen battlefield (through declaratory suits or venue fights), leverage legal precedent (Alice motions) to knock out weak claims early and stand together to share costs and knowledge. These strategies have repeatedly blunted NPE campaigns in the past and are directly relevant to the Malikie litigation.
2. Inter Partes Review: Mechanics, Costs and Effectiveness in Tech Cases
One of the most potent weapons against questionable patents is the Inter Partes Review process. Created by the America Invents Act of 2011, IPR allows anyone (usually a sued defendant, but it could be any interested party) to challenge a granted patent’s validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Here’s how IPR works and why it has become a go-to defense, especially for software and cryptography-related patents:
Mechanics of IPR: To initiate an IPR, a petitioner files a detailed petition to the PTAB (an administrative tribunal of specialized patent judges), laying out how the patent claims are invalid in light of prior patents or printed publications. Notably, IPR can only use prior patents or printed publications (no live testimony or other evidence), making it a focused prior-art battle. The petition must be filed within 1 year of being sued for infringement (if applicable) and it typically targets the most critical claims the troll is asserting. The patent owner gets a chance to file a preliminary response. The PTAB then decides whether the challenger has shown a “reasonable likelihood” of prevailing on at least one claim. If yes, the Board “institutes” the IPR, and from that point a one-year trial clock starts (extendable by six months for good cause). During this trial phase, both sides submit briefs, expert declarations and sometimes oral hearings. Finally, the PTAB issues a Final Written Decision determining which claims are invalid, usually on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Lower Cost and Faster Timeline: IPRs were designed to be faster and cheaper than courtroom litigation. A typical IPR from start to finish lasts about 18 months, compared to multiyear court litigation. The cost, while not trivial, is often an order of magnitude lower than fighting a full jury trial. Filing fees for an IPR (for up to 20 claims) are around $20,000-$30,000, and legal fees can be a few hundred thousand dollars. In contrast, defending a patent case through trial can cost several million dollars. This cost difference is why even mid-sized companies or start-ups have been able to mount IPR challenges, sometimes with support from outside organizations. For example, EFF’s Save Podcasting campaign raised about $80,000 from the public specifically to fund the IPR against Personal Audio’s podcast patent. In the crypto space, the newly formed Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) or the Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund might similarly bankroll an IPR to protect open source developers and businesses from Malikie’s claims. The relatively manageable cost makes IPR an attractive collective effort: Multiple parties who fear they could be next can split the bill for a single IPR that knocks out the threat for all.
Effectiveness and Success Rates: IPR has proven highly effective at invalidating questionable software and tech patents. Since its inception, statistics show that a large percentage of instituted IPRs result in patent claims being canceled. Recent data (2023-2024) indicate petitioners succeed in invalidating some or all challenged claims about 70-80% of the time when the IPR reaches a final decision. This is partly because patents that make it to IPR are often the “low-hanging fruit,” those that likely should not have been granted over the prior art in the first place. The PTAB judges also tend to be technically skilled and less swayed by rhetoric than a lay jury, focusing strictly on the patentability issues. Given Bitcoin’s academic roots (Bitcoin’s white paper itself cited prior works, and ECC has decades of literature), the odds are favorable that a well-prepared IPR could uncover prior art that the original patent examiners missed. At this point it is useful to note that the vast majority of patents receive primary merits examination by only a single USPTO employee. In Malikie’s case, their patents stem from the early 2000s; already, researchers are pointing to early cryptography conferences and NIST publications that might anticipate those “innovations.” If such references are presented to the PTAB, there’s a strong chance the PTAB would agree that the patent should not have been issued and cancel the relevant claims.
IPR vs. Court Litigation — Key Differences: A major reason defendants prefer IPR is the lower burden of proof. In an IPR, invalidity needs to be shown by a preponderance of evidence (just >50% convinced). But in a district court trial, a patent is presumed valid by statute (35 U.S.C. §282) and a challenger must provide clear and convincing evidence (a higher standard, often analogized to >70%) to get a jury or judge to void it. This disparity means that even if you have solid prior art, a jury might still side with the patent holder in close cases, whereas the PTAB would likely invalidate the claims under the more lenient standard. Additionally, juries (especially in Texas, at least historically…) are generally reluctant to invalidate patents, perhaps due to a layperson’s deference to an issued government patent. The PTAB has no such reluctance and was nicknamed a “patent death squad” by some patent owners because of how many patents it struck down in the early years. That being said, it’s worth noting some recent policy shifts: The current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office leadership has made instituting IPRs a bit harder, aiming to curb some challenges in favor of patent owners (a “pro-patent stance”). Discretionary denials of IPR (for instance, if a parallel court case is well underway) have increased. Bill Fowler’s commentary in June 2025 noted that Commerce Secretary Lutnick instituted policies to tighten IPR institution practices, prompting some challengers to consider the older ex parte reexamination process as an alternative. Ex parte reexam is another Patent Office proceeding to reconsider a patent’s validity (with no strict one-year time bar), though the challenger doesn’t get to participate after filing the request. Some defendants pursue both routes: file an IPR (if not time-barred) for a fast, adversarial trial, and simultaneously file an ex parte reexam as a backup to keep the pressure on the patent even if the IPR is denied or the challenger later settles.
Costs in Context: While $300,000 or more for an IPR is not pocket change, it is often a fraction of the potential damages at stake or the cost of continued litigation. Malikie, for example, is reportedly seeking up to six years of back royalties from the miners (CORZ is not subject to this, due to its Chapter 11 Bankruptcy). If those royalties were, hypothetically, $50 million, spending a few hundred thousand on an IPR to eliminate that liability (or to gain leverage to settle for a nuisance amount) is a wise investment. However, smaller startups or open source projects could probably not afford it alone, which is why industry groups step in. We’ve seen crowdfunding and pooled funding make IPRs possible: Beyond EFF’s podcast patent IPR, there was also Unified Patents, an organization (calling itself “The Anti-Troll”) that files IPRs to protect sectors from trolls. Unified often operates by collecting annual dues from member companies and then challenging patents that threaten those companies’ industries, at no extra cost to the individual members. In fact, in late 2024 COPA (the Crypto Open Patent Alliance) announced a partnership with Unified Patents to launch a “Blockchain Zone” dedicated to challenging NPE-held blockchain and crypto-related patents. This means that if patents like Malikie’s pose a serious threat, Unified Patents could file IPR petitions on its own initiative, funded by the broader alliance, which would save individual defendants money. Unified boasts that it never pays trolls and only invalidates their patents, thus removing the incentive for future attacks. In COPA’s view, this proactive use of IPRs and other challenges is essential because an estimated 58% of all U.S. patent litigation in the crypto/blockchain sector comes from NPEs, a staggering figure that highlights how critical patent defenses are for the crypto community.
Outcome of IPR — What Then? If an IPR is successful, the claims are invalidated (once appeals are exhausted), meaning Malikie or other trolls can no longer assert those claims against anyone. This benefit is industry-wide: Unlike a settlement or win in one lawsuit, which only affects the parties, an IPR win knocks the patent out of the system. If the IPR fails (e.g., PTAB finds the claims valid over the presented prior art), the litigation in court still proceeds, but the defendant loses the ability to reuse those same prior art arguments at trial (IPR estoppel applies to any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised). Even so, defendants often take the shot at IPR because a win is so decisive, the burden of proof is much lower and the forum is more educated on these issues. In high-stakes cases, defendants might pursue both IPR and traditional invalidity defenses in parallel (raising different prior art in each to avoid estoppel overlap). And if an IPR petition is denied at the institution stage — which can happen for procedural reasons or insufficient showing — the defendant isn’t estopped at all, and they can still litigate validity in court as if the IPR was never filed. Thus, filing an IPR is usually a no-brainer defense in modern patent litigation, and it is very likely Core Scientific and Marathon (or an allied group like COPA/Unified) will prepare IPR petitions on the ECC patents Malikie is asserting.
In sum, IPR has reshaped the patent troll battlefield by giving defendants a powerful, efficient way to invalidate patents outside the uncertainties of a jury trial. Especially for software and cryptographic patents, where a rich background of academic prior art exists, the IPR process tilts the playing field back toward technology innovators and away from shell companies exploiting older patents.
3. Community-Led Responses and Industry Support Networks
Beyond the formal legal tools, an equally important aspect of fighting patent trolls is the mobilization of the community and industry support structures. In many NPE showdowns, collective action and public interest initiatives have made the difference between a lone defendant being coerced into settlement and a unified front that quashes the troll’s campaign. Here we explore how open source communities, advocacy groups and industry alliances contribute to defending against patent trolls:
Crowdsourced Prior Art Searches: The global developer and academic community can be an invaluable resource for finding prior art, especially for patents in niche technical fields. Patent trolls count on the fact that individual defendants might not have the time or expertise to dig up obscure conference papers or decades-old source code. But when a call to action is issued, experts worldwide often volunteer leads. The EFF has a long history of organizing these efforts. In the Personal Audio case, EFF put out a public request for any evidence of pre-1996 podcast-like technology. Submissions poured in, including old Usenet postings and early Internet Radio projects, which helped form the basis of EFF’s successful IPR. Similarly, in 2017 Cloudflare’s Project Jengo offered cash bounties for prior art on all of a troll’s patents, not just the one asserted, flipping the script to put the troll on the defensive. I personally called for such a scorched-earth approach and believe that such a vigorous response is not only warranted but necessary. In the Bitcoin context, we’re already seeing this approach: Bitcoin developers and enthusiasts are actively hunting for prior art that predates Malikie’s patents. By pooling such knowledge on forums or via organized initiatives (perhaps a “Bitcoin Prior Art Repository” for ECC and other core technologies), the community can bolster the invalidity case. Dan Sanchez explicitly issued a call to arms for builders and researchers to unite and “delete these [patent] claims” by compiling prior art, emphasizing that “if you are a builder of any kind, you are at risk!” This kind of rallying cry is reminiscent of open source communities in the past, for instance, when the GIF image format’s patent threatened open web use, developers created patent-free alternatives (PNG) and shared work-arounds until the patent expired. It’s a combination of defensive documentation and morale-building, showing trolls that the community won’t be easy prey.
The Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund: In January 2022, a Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund was announced by Jack Dorsey and others, initially to help Bitcoin Core developers facing frivolous lawsuits (like Craig Wright’s claims). While its primary focus was on defending open-source devs from harassment and liability, the fund could extend to patent issues if needed. Its mandate is to financially support legal defense for Bitcoin ecosystem participants who cannot afford it. Patent battles definitely fit that description for smaller companies and individual devs. These community-funded efforts create a safety net: They ensure that a smaller Bitcoin mining operation or wallet startup hit by a patent suit isn’t left to choose between bankrupting itself in litigation or paying an unjust licensing fee. Instead, they can get backing to mount a proper defense.
COPA (Crypto Open Patent Alliance): COPA deserves special attention. Formed in 2020 by fintech and crypto firms (with Block, Coinbase and others as founding members), COPA’s mission is twofold: encourage members to pledge not to offensively assert their own crypto-related patents (to prevent an arms race) and actively challenge patents that threaten the community. COPA has already taken on a high-profile fight by suing Craig “Faketoshi” Wright over the Bitcoin white paper copyright/patent claims (and won a U.K. court ruling that Wright’s assertions were false). In the patent troll sphere, COPA’s partnership with Unified Patents led to the creation of the aforementioned Blockchain Zone, explicitly targeting NPE-held patents in blockchain. COPA’s chief counsel has stated that “patent trolls must be stopped so the community can continue to build,” and that COPA will provide “pass-through protection at no cost” to its members. This implies that if a COPA member (say a smaller Bitcoin company) is sued, COPA and Unified might handle the IPR or even the litigation, effectively shielding the member. Malikie’s broad net, with the implication that no Bitcoin infrastructure company is safe, is precisely the scenario COPA was created for. We can expect COPA to rally its member companies (over 300 of them as of late 2024) to share prior art and perhaps file collective amicus briefs or petitions. They might even engage in licensing negotiations as a bloc, though given COPA’s stance, they’re more likely to fight than pay.
Public Awareness and Stigma: Community response isn’t only behind the scenes. There’s also value in controlling the narrative. Patent trolls often operate in the shadows, pressuring targets quietly to sign licenses. Publicly calling them out can undermine their strategy. We see Bitcoin media outlets and influencers doing just that: referring to Malikie plainly as a patent troll, and framing the lawsuits as an attack on the Bitcoin network rather than a legitimate claim. This narrative puts moral pressure on Malikie; if they push too hard, they risk a backlash or even legislative attention. It’s happened before: When an NPE started sending mass demands to small businesses for using Wi-Fi (the infamous Innovatio case), it garnered negative press and eventually, the major Wi-Fi equipment makers stepped in to defend their customers. In another case, the state of Vermont sued the MPJH Scanner Troll for violating consumer protection laws by sending misleading demand letters to local businesses. Other states, such as North Carolina, have passed strong anti-troll legislation that has been upheld in court. In the crypto world, portraying Malikie’s campaign as an existential threat to innovation can rally lawmakers or regulators to scrutinize the situation. We already see experts noting that if Malikie truly enforced its patents broadly, “it might undermine the security of the Bitcoin network” — a dire consequence that no regulator or politician would want to be responsible for. While patent law is federal, there’s precedent for the FTC investigating patent trolls for anticompetitive behavior if they abuse a dominant patent in bad faith. Community outcry can prompt such oversight.
In summary, the defense against patent trolls is not just legal filings, but also community solidarity and resource-sharing. From EFF’s legal battles and COPA’s patent pool, to crowdsourced prior art and joint defense groups, these collective efforts ensure that even those without deep pockets have a fighting chance. The Bitcoin community, much like the open source software community before it, is leveraging these tools: engaging nonprofits, coordinating through alliances like COPA, and tapping the wisdom of the crowd. This multipronged community response can significantly tilt the balance against Malikie’s assertions.
4. Ramifications for Bitcoin and Parallels in Other Industries
What happens if, despite all defenses, a patent troll like Malikie succeeds in court? The implications for the Bitcoin industry, especially smaller players, could be profound, and analogous scenarios in other industries provide cautionary tales. Here we consider the potential fallout and compare it to past outcomes in tech sectors:
Financial Strain and Market Exit: The most immediate impact would be financial. If Malikie were to prevail and secure a judgment or licensing agreement, miners and possibly other Bitcoin companies would face ongoing royalties (or a hefty one-time payout). Patent damages can include up to six years of back royalties (the statutory limit for past infringement), which for large-scale miners could mean tens of millions of dollars. As attorney Aaron Brogan noted, a win could even risk pushing defendants like Core Scientific or Marathon into bankruptcy (or back into bankruptcy in CORZ’s case) given the sums involved. For smaller and mid-size miners, the prospect is grim: Many operate on thin profit margins tied to the BTC price and energy costs. An additional “patent tax” could make their business unsustainable, forcing them to shut down or relocate to jurisdictions where U.S. patent law can’t reach them. In Bitcoin, a few well-capitalized miners might weather the fees, but independent miners could be priced out, further centralizing the U.S. mining ecosystem — ironically contributing to the opposite of Bitcoin’s decentralization ethos.
Precedent for More Lawsuits: A successful assertion by Malikie would set a precedent and embolden further litigation. Malikie itself could go down the list of targets: other public mining companies, mining pool operators, hardware manufacturers (if any of the patent claims cover aspects of mining devices or wallets, as Malikie’s complaint suggests). Moreover, other patent trolls might dust off old cryptography patents in adjacent areas (hash algorithms, networking protocols in blockchain, etc.) seeing that the Bitcoin industry is “open for business” to patent licensing. This has happened in industries like semiconductors and smartphones; one troll’s big win triggered a “gold rush” by others holding similar patents. For example, after NPEs successfully extracted settlements from some small mobile app developers, a wave of new demand letters hit the market targeting every popular app. The cost of legal defense creates a vicious cycle: Even meritless claims can cause companies to settle to avoid litigation expenses, and those settlement dollars then fund the troll to sue the next target. If Malikie proves profitable, it could lead to a long-running drag on the Bitcoin sector, where innovation slows because companies must allocate budget to patent licensing or lawsuits instead of development.
Future Safeguards: Looking forward, success against Malikie could also spur the Bitcoin community to adopt more systematic safeguards. This might include deeper participation in organizations like COPA. It could also lead to patent insurance products for miners or developers, and increased lobbying for patent law changes (for example, raising the bar for patent eligibility of pure software, or fee-shifting to penalize trolls). The outcome of these cases could even influence how protocol upgrades are approached. There might be a push to more thoroughly vet any BIPs for patent risks and document alternatives or get explicit patent grants from inventors (somewhat similar to how the IETF requires disclosure of patents on proposed standards). In a sense, the Bitcoin ecosystem may mature in its IP awareness, much as the Linux community did after early legal scares.
Conclusion
The clash between Malikie Innovations and Bitcoin miners exemplifies a classic conflict between open innovation and legacy fiat intellectual property rights. History shows that industries can fend off patent trolls by using every available legal tool, from IPRs at the PTAB to robust invalidity defenses in court and by banding together through community-driven initiatives. U.S. law provides mechanisms like declaratory judgments, prior-art based invalidity challenges and the Alice test for abstract ideas to defend against overly broad or old patents repurposed by NPEs. The Bitcoin community, much like the open source software community before it, is now mobilizing these defenses.
If there is a silver lining, it’s that such challenges often rally the community to emerge stronger: Weak patents get knocked out, collaboration intensifies, and a clear message is sent to would-be trolls that this ecosystem is not an easy target. Cases in parallel industries, from podcasting to Wi-Fi to Linux, demonstrate that a determined defense can not only defeat the immediate threat but also set precedents that discourage future suits. On the flip side, complacency or capitulation could impose a tax on innovation and dent the growth of Bitcoin technology in the crucial years ahead.
Ultimately, the fight against Malikie will likely hinge on demonstrating that Bitcoin’s cryptographic methods were neither novel nor proprietary to any one company, but rather stemmed from decades of public research and collaborative development. By clearly articulating that story in court, in the Patent Office and in the court of public opinion, the defendants and their allies can not only protect their own operations but also preserve the freedom to build and use Bitcoin for everyone. As Paul Grewal, chief legal counsel for COPA member Coinbase, said, “Patent trolls are barriers in the path of innovation… They must be stopped so that the community can continue to do the important business of building the crypto-economy.”
The coming together of miners, developers, legal advocates and industry groups in this case will be crucial in determining whether that vision holds true.
This is a guest post by Colin Crossman. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Singapore-based Bitcoin mining firm Bitdeer Technologies Group has launched a $330 million convertible notes offering, aiming to strengthen its mining operations, develop ASIC rigs, and scale its AI infrastructure.
The notes, due in 2031, carry an annual interest rate of 4.875% and may be converted into Bitdeer Class A shares at a 25% premium to the current stock price of $11.84, placing the conversion price at approximately $15.88 per share.
The offering is targeted at qualified institutional buyers under Rule 144A of the Securities Act. If investors exercise an option to buy more within 13 days, the offering could reach $375 million.
This is Bitdeer’s third convertible notes raise. Previously, the company secured $150 million in August and $360 million in November last year. According to Bitdeer, the offering is expected to close on June 23, 2025.
Net proceeds are expected to total roughly $319.6 million. Around $129.6 million will go toward a zero-strike call option, with $36.1 million allocated for concurrent note exchanges. The remaining funds will support datacenter expansion, new ASIC rig development, and general corporate needs.
Bitdeer is also conducting a note exchange, offering cash and equity to holders of its 8.50% convertible notes due 2029. That transaction includes approximately $36.1 million in cash and 8.1 million shares, exchanged for $75.7 million in outstanding notes.
This announcement follows Bitdeer’s recent growth. As previously reported, the company mined 196 BTC in May (worth over $21 million) and expanded its self mining hashrate to 13.6 EH/s. New SEALMINER rigs were deployed across sites in Texas, Norway, and Bhutan, and its AI cloud platform, powered by large language models, officially launched.
“In May 2025, we continued to deploy our SEALMINER mining rigs to our sites in Texas, U.S., Norway, and Bhutan, bringing Bitdeer’s self-mining hashrate to 13.6 EH/s,” said Matt Kong, Chief Business Officer at Bitdeer.
Bitdeer also raised capital from Tether in 2024 and secured $40 million from a debt facility with Matrix Finance in May. Both Bitdeer and Matrix are led by Jihan Wu, co-founder of Bitmain.
With its market cap now exceeding $2.3 billion, Bitdeer continues to invest in scaling its infrastructure and technology as competition in Bitcoin mining and AI computing intensifies.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/BITDEER-EXPANDS-BITCOIN-MINING-EcXliU.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-18 17:05:502025-06-18 17:05:50Bitdeer Raises $330M to Expand Bitcoin Mining and AI Operations
The bipartisan legislation was introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty and co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cynthia Lummis. It passed under the official title “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins of 2025.”
The United States Senate has passed the GENIUS Act
“Today, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate passed its first piece of major legislation this Congress with my bill—the GENIUS Act,” said Senator Hagerty. “With GENIUS, the United States is one step closer to becoming the crypto capital of the world.”
The GENIUS Act tightly regulates payment stablecoins, requiring 1:1 dollar-backed reserves, monthly disclosures, audits, and clear federal or state licensing. It prohibits algorithmic coins and places strict limitations on rehypothecation and commingling of reserves. Importantly, the bill also amends existing securities laws to explicitly state that compliant stablecoins are not securities—freeing them from SEC jurisdiction.
While the bill is aimed at stablecoins, Bitcoin proponents see it as a foundational win.
Stablecoins act as bridges into Bitcoin, enabling on-ramps, easier settlements, and institutional access. By legitimizing stablecoin infrastructure, the U.S. is indirectly reinforcing the rails on which Bitcoin operates.
And as the financial system modernizes, trusted access points like dollar-backed tokens could play a role in onboarding new Bitcoin users—especially in international markets and corporate treasuries.
“The U.S. Senate has passed the GENIUS Act — landmark stablecoin legislation that provides regulatory clarity, enhances consumer protection, and extends U.S. dollar dominance online,” said President Donald Trump’s AI & Crypto Czar David Sacks. “Thanks to President Trump for his leadership on crypto & Senator Hagerty for authoring the bill.”
The passage of the GENIUS Act may be the clearest signal yet that the U.S. is preparing for a stablecoin and Bitcoin-powered future.
Spanish bank BBVA is now advising its wealthy clients to invest up to 7% of their portfolios in crypto and Bitcoin, showing how traditional banks are starting to see the potential of Bitcoin.
JUST IN: Spain’s second largest bank BBVA is telling wealthy clients to invest in Bitcoin — Reuters pic.twitter.com/i2Pqg85uSk
“With private customers, since September last year, we started advising on Bitcoin,” said Philippe Meyer, head of digital & blockchain solutions at BBVA Switzerland, during the DigiAssets conference in London. “The riskier profile, we allow up to 7% of portfolios in crypto.”
The bank’s private wealth division is currently recommending clients allocate 3% to 7% of their portfolio to Bitcoin and crypto, depending on their individual appetite. While many private banks have offered to execute Bitcoin or crypto trades upon request, it remains rare for a global financial institution to formally advise clients to buy. BBVA is currently recommending allocations specifically in Bitcoin.
Meyer emphasized that even a modest allocation to Bitcoin can have a meaningful impact on portfolio returns, “If you look at a balanced portfolio, if you introduce 3%, you already boost the performance,” he said. “At 3%, you are not taking a huge risk.”
BBVA began executing Bitcoin purchases for its clients in 2021, but Meyer said this is the first time it is formally advising allocations. In June 2021, the bank launched Bitcoin trading and custody services through its Swiss subsidiary for private clients. “With this innovative offer, BBVA positions itself as a benchmark institution in the adoption of blockchain technology,” said BBVA Switzerland CEO Alfonso Gómez at the time.
BREAKING: Spain’s BBVA is opening #Bitcoin trading and custody to all private banking clients in Switzerland. pic.twitter.com/2ppfs34g6F
BBVA’s interest in digital currency goes back even further. As early as 2015, the bank made it clear that it viewed Bitcoin and blockchain technology as more than just a passing trend. In a statement that now seems increasingly prescient, BBVA said “institutions that understand Bitcoin and digital currencies will lead the new monetary system,” highlighting its belief that early adopters would gain a strategic advantage.
This early support set BBVA apart from many of its peers, as few major banks were willing to publicly engage with Bitcoin at the time.
What began as interest in blockchain technology has turned into direct investment guidance, now culminating in BBVA formally advising wealthy clients to allocate up to 7% of their portfolios into Bitcoin, a clear sign the bank sees it as a long term part of its future.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/BBVA-6CSesM.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-17 18:18:292025-06-17 18:18:29BBVA Tells Wealthy Clients to Invest Up to 7% in Bitcoin
Ukraine has introduced a bill that would give its central bank the legal right to hold Bitcoin and other assets as part of its national reserves. The draft law, submitted to the Verkhovna Rada on June 10, 2025, proposes updates to existing legislation to include “virtual assets” in the foreign exchange and gold reserves of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU).
This doesn’t mean Ukraine is officially adding Bitcoin to its balance sheet just yet, but it would give the central bank the green light to do so in the future.
One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Member of Parliament Yaroslav Zhelezniak, emphasized that the legislation is about granting permission, not making it a requirement. “Whether and to what extent they actually do so,” he said, “is up to the institution itself.”
Zhelezniak recently discussed with Binance’s regional head Kyrylo Khomiakov, that he believes Bitcoin could help Ukraine strengthen its economic position and contribute to long term digital innovation.
The timing of the bill is vital as Ukraine has been under enormous financial pressure since Russia’s invasion in 2022. Inflation remains high, the hryvnia has lost significant value, and the country is heavily reliant on international aid and loans. The NBU has managed to hold roughly $44.5 billion in reserves, mostly in U.S. dollars and government securities, but its room to maneuver is limited.
Back in 2022, the Ukrainian government was actively raising donations for the war effort through Bitcoin. They had an official wallet set up for donations, and their politicians were publicly tweeting out the addresses asking for support. On the first day alone, Ukraine’s official Bitcoin wallet raised over $3.5 million. By leaning into Bitcoin during their time of crisis, the government showed their belief and commitment in it, and this new bill shows that that commitment has not faded.
NEW Ukraine government #Bitcoin wallet raises OVER $3.5 MILLION in 1st day of donations
If this bill is adopted, it could position Ukraine as one of the first countries to give its central bank the legal ability to hold Bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Ukraine-BTC-kQ4c7z.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-17 17:09:292025-06-17 17:09:29Ukraine Introduces Bill to Allow Bitcoin in National Reserves
H100 Group, Swedish health-tech firm, has received 144.8 BTC as part of a settlement tied to its convertible loan agreement, according to a company press release issued Monday. With this latest transaction, the Stockholm-based firm now holds a total of 169.2 BTC on its balance sheet.
H100 Group Receives 144.8 BTC as Partial Settlement Under Convertible Loan Framework. Now holds 169.2 BTC. pic.twitter.com/MAW044iXkG
The 144.8 BTC was transferred as a part of the first four segments of H100’s loan agreement, which has been well received by investors thus far. H100 said in the release, “H100 Group AB (‘H100 Group’ or the ‘Company’) has today received 144.8 BTC as part of the proceeds from Tranches 1 through 4 under its previously announced convertible loan agreements.”
This follows recent reporting that Blockstream CEO Adam Back committed to lead a 750 million kronor (~$79 million) funding initiative for H100, anchored by a 150 million-krona injection in Tranche 6. The loan, structured for speed and cost-efficiency, was priced at 6.38 kronor per share—a 33% premium to market—showing investor confidence.
The loan structure includes settlement flexibility—either in cash or Bitcoin—which allows counterparties to opt for BTC delivery, reducing fiat friction and lining up with the firm’s long-term treasury outlook.
“Unexpectedly, given the strong reception, Tranches 1-4 became in-the-money rapidly,” Back told CoinDesk. “I was expecting [H100] would convert them over time as they reached in-the-money status.”
This funding approach allows H100 to bypass traditional rights issues while onboarding capital in a flexible manner. Tranches 7 and 8 are on deck, with room for size increases depending on market appetite.
This also reflects H100’s evolving financial strategy. While the company’s core operations remain focused on AI-driven health and longevity services, its growing Bitcoin position is reshaping how capital is raised, stored, and deployed. As of now, the company’s BTC holdings stand at 169.2 BTC—up from just 24.41 BTC prior to this latest tranche execution.
H100’s stock jumped 22% on Monday in response to the developments.
As the firm continues negotiations for future tranches and explores adoption of BTC as a financial backbone, it positions itself uniquely at the intersection of health tech and decentralized finance.
Trump Media & Technology Group has filed a registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to launch the Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF, B.T.
The ETF will directly hold Bitcoin and Ether, with an initial allocation of 75% Bitcoin and 25% Ether. Shares of the fund will be offered to investors to track the performance of these assets and are expected to trade on NYSE Arca once approved.
JUST IN: Registration statement for Trump Media’s Bitcoin Treasury deal was declared effective by the SEC pic.twitter.com/PFyy44qXxH
Crypto.com has been selected as the exclusive custodian, prime execution agent, staking, and liquidity provider for the ETF. Yorkville America Digital, LLC is the sponsor of the fund.
According to the company’s announcement, “The launch of the Truth Social Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF is pending effectiveness of the Registration Statement as well as approval of a Form 19b-4 filing with the SEC.”
The fund is structured as a Nevada business trust. Shares will be issued and redeemed in blocks of 10,000 by authorized participants, with cash used for creation and redemption. The ETF may offer in-kind transactions in the future, pending additional regulatory approval.
Trump Media acknowledged, “A registration statement relating to the Shares has been filed with the SEC but has not yet become effective. The Shares may not be sold, nor may offers to buy be accepted, prior to the time the registration statement becomes effective.”
The ETF is not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, which typically governs mutual funds and traditional ETFs by imposing rules on investor protections, disclosures, and fund operations. Because the ETF holds Bitcoin and Ether directly rather than securities, it qualifies as a grantor trust and is exempt from these requirements.
The ETF filing also reflects Trump Media’s strategy to establish a presence in the digital asset space beyond social media and streaming. With the development of its financial services arm, Truth.Fi, the company is clearly positioning itself to compete in the growing digital asset space.
If approved, the Truth Social ETF would give investors a direct, regulated path into both Bitcoin and Ether through one fund. As Trump Media expands its presence in financial services, the move signals a clear intention to compete in the space.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Trump-Media-Files-to-Launch-Bitcoin-and-Ethereum-ETF-OoqnSq.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-16 17:47:522025-06-16 17:47:52Trump Media Files to Launch Bitcoin and Ethereum ETF
Pakistan’s Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb and State Minister of Crypto Bilal Bin Saqib, held a conversation recently with the Executive Chairman and CEO of Strategy, Michael Saylor, about Bitcoin and its potential role in Pakistan’s economy.
BREAKING: Pakistan’s Finance Minister and State Minister on Crypto Bilal just talked with Michael Saylor about #Bitcoin
Saylor highlighted the critical role of trust and leadership in attracting global capital, citing his own journey of turning a $400 million investment into a $40 billion market backed position through Bitcoin.
“Today, I will stay in touch with Bilal,” he said. “Pakistan has many brilliant people and a lot of people to do business with you. My company had less than $400 million to invest, but the markets gave me $40 billion because they trust us. And so the most important thing is leadership, intellectual leadership and that they trust you.”
Saylor further emphasized that trust and clarity of vision are what drive global capital flows.
“If the world trusts you and they hear your words, and you speak particularly, the capital and the capability will flow to Pakistan,” said Saylor. “It’s there, it wants to find a home and that’s what happened with our company. Our success is because we were clear and committed. And once the market decides who the leader is. They get behind the leader and they send their money to you. And I think they’d do it to Pakistan too. You have the most important thing, which is you have a commitment and a will and clarity here. So, I look forward to working with you.”
The new stance is a stark change for Pakistan, which had previously banned Bitcoin trading in 2018. On March 20, Bilal Bin Saqib told Bloomberg that Pakistan was planning to legalize Bitcoin and try to implement a regulatory framework to attract investors.
“Pakistan is done sitting on the sidelines,” said Saqib. “We want to attract international investment because Pakistan is a low-cost, high-growth market with 60% of the population under 30… Trump is making crypto a national priority, and every country, including Pakistan, will have to follow suit.”
During the 2025 Bitcoin Conference in Las Vegas, Saqib announced that Pakistan was creating a strategic Bitcoin reserve.
“Today, I will announce that the Pakistan government is setting up their own government led Bitcoin strategic reserve… and this wallet, the national Bitcoin wallet,” said Saqib. “It’s not for speculation or hype. We will be holding this Bitcoin and we will never ever sell them.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Michael-Saylor-and-Pakistans-Crypto-Minister-Bilal-Talk-Bitcoin-and-Global-Investment-qYkfPL.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-16 17:29:532025-06-16 17:29:53Michael Saylor and Pakistan’s Crypto Minister Bilal Talk Bitcoin and Global Investment
Statechains are an original second layer protocol originally developed by Ruben Somsen in 2018, depending on the eltoo (or LN Symmetry) proposal. In 2021 a variation of the original proposal, Mercury, was built by CommerceBlock. In 2024, a further iteration of the original Mercury scheme was built, Mercury Layer.
The Statechain protocol is a bit more complicated to discuss compared to other systems such as Ark or Lightning because of the range of variations that are possible between the original proposed design, the two that have been actually implemented, and other possible designs that have been loosely proposed.
Like Ark, Statechains depend on a centralized coordinating server in order to function. Unlike Ark, they have a slightly different trust model than a vUTXO in an Ark batch. They depend on the coordinating server to delete previously generated shares of a private key in order to remain trustless, but as long as the server follows the defined protocol and does so, they provide a strong security guarantee.
The general idea of a Statechain is to be able to transfer ownership of an entire UTXO between different users off-chain, facilitated by the coordinator. There is no requirement for receiving liquidity like Lightning, or the coordinator server to provide any liquidity like Ark.
To begin, we will look at the original protocol proposed by Ruben Somsen.
The Original Statechain
Statechains are effectively a pre-signed transaction allowing the current owner of the Statechain to unilaterally withdraw on-chain whenever they want, and a history signed messages cryptographically proving that past owners and the receivers they sent the Statechain to approved those transfers.
The original design was built on eltoo using ANYPREVOUT, but the current plans on how to enable the same functionality make use of CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (a high level explanation of this is at the end of the CHECKSIGFROMSTACK article). The basic idea is a script enabling a pre-signed transaction to spend any UTXO that has that script and locks the appropriate amount of bitcoin, rather than being tied to spending a single specific UTXO.
In the protocol, a user wishing to deposit their coins to a Statechain approaches a coordinator server and goes through a deposit protocol. The depositing user, Bob, generates a key that will be uniquely owned by him, but also a second “transitory” key that will eventually be shared (more on this soon). They then craft a deposit transaction locking their coin to a multisig requiring the coordinator’s key and the transitory key to sign.
Using this multisig, Bob and the coordinator sign a transaction that spends that coin and creates a UTXO that can either be spent by any other transaction signed by the transitory key and the coordinator’s key using LN Symmetry, or Bob’s unique key after a timelock. Bob can now fund the multisig with the appropriate amount, and the Statechain has been created.
To transfer a Statechain to Charlie, Bob must go through a multistep process. First, Bob signs a message with his unique private key that attests to the fact he is going to transfer the Statechain to Charlie. Charlie must also sign a message attesting to the fact that he has received the Statechain from Bob. Finally, the coordinator server must sign a new transaction allowing Charlie to unilaterally claim the Statechain on-chain before Bob sends Charlie a copy of the transitory key.
All of this is made atomic using adapter signatures. These are signatures that are modified in such a way using a random piece of data that renders them invalid, but can be made valid again once the holder of the signature receives that piece of information. All of the messages, and the new pre-signed transaction are signed with adapter signatures, and atomically made valid at the same time through the release of the adapter data.
Holders of a Statechain must trust that the coordinator server never conspires with a previous owner to sign an immediate closure of the Statechain and steal funds from the current owner, but the chain of pre-signed messages can prove that a coordinator has participated in theft if they were to do so. If a past owner attempts to use their pre-signed transaction to steal the funds, the timelock on the spend path using only their key allows the current owner to submit their pre-signed transaction and correctly claim the funds on chain.
Mercury and Mercury Layer
The original Statechain architecture requires a softfork in order to function. CommerceBlock designed their variant of Statechains to function without a softfork, but in order to do so tradeoffs were made in terms of functionality.
The basic idea is the same as the original design, all users hold a pre-signed transaction that allows them to claim their funds unilaterally, and the coordinator server still plays a role in facilitating off-chain transfers that requires them to be trusted to behave honestly. The two major differences are how those transactions are signed, and the structure of the pre-signed transaction users are given.
Where the signing is concerned, there is no longer a transitory private key that is passed from user to user. Instead of this, a multiparty-computation protocol (MPC) is used so that the original owner and the coordinator server are able to collaboratively generate partial pieces of a private key without either of them ever possessing the full key. This key is used to sign the pre-signed transactions. The MPC protocol allows the current owner and coordinator to engage in a second protocol with a third party, the receiver of a transfer, to regenerate different pieces that add up to the same private key. In both the Mercury and Mercury Layer protocol, after completing a transfer an honest coordinator server deletes the key material corresponding to the previous owner. As long as this is done, it is no longer possible for the coordinator to sign a transaction with a previous owner, as the new piece of key material they have is not compatible with the piece any previous owner might still have. This is actually a stronger guarantee, as long as the coordinator is honest, than the original proposal.
The pre-signed transaction structure for Mercury and Mercury Layer can’t use LN Symmetry, as this is not possible without a softfork. In lieu of this, CommerceBlock opted to use decrementing timelocks. The original owner’s pre-signed transaction is timelocked using nLocktime to a time far out in the future from the point of the Statechain’s creation. As each subsequent user receives the Statechain during a transfer, the nLocktime value of their transaction is some pre-determined length of time shorter than the previous owner. This guarantees that a previous owner is incapable of even trying to submit their transaction on-chain before the current owner can, but it also means that eventually at some point the current owner must close their Statechain on-chain before previous owners’ transactions start becoming valid.
The major difference between Mercury and Mercury Layer is how these transactions are signed. In the case of Mercury, the coordinator server simply sees the transaction proposed, verifies it, and then signs it. Mercury Layer uses a blind-signing protocol, meaning that they do not actually see any details of the transaction they are signing. This necessitates the server tracking Statechains using anonymized records on the server, and a special authorization key of the current owner so that they can be sure they are only signing valid transfers.
Synergy With Other Layers
Statechains can synergize with other Layer 2s that are based on pre-signed transactions. For instance, part of the original proposal suggested a combination of Statechains and Lightning Channels. Because both are simply pre-signed transactions, it is possible to actually nest a Lightning channel on top of a Statechain. This simply requires the current owner’s unilateral exit key to be a multisig, and the creation of the pre-signed transactions spending that output into a Lightning channel. This allows Lightning channels to be opened and closed entirely off-chain.
In a similar fashion, it is possible to nest a Statechain on top of a vUTXO in an Ark batch. This simply requires the pre-signed transactions necessary for a Statechain to be constructed, spending the vUTXO output.
Wrapping Up
Statechains are not entirely trustless, but they are a very trust minimized scheme that is very liquidity efficient and allows freely transferring UTXOs off-chain between any users willing to accept the trust model of Statechains.
While the original proposal has yet to be built, the two implementations designed by CommerceBlock have been completely implemented. Both failed to achieve anything more than marginal use in the real world. Whether this is due to users being unwilling to accept the trust model involved, or simply a failure in marketing or awareness is something that cannot be fully ascertained.
Regardless, given that there are two full implementations and designs for a more flexible variation should LN Symmetry ever become possible on Bitcoin, this an option that will always be here. The nice thing about open source software is that it will always be there regardless of whether people use it now, should they choose to in the future.
Pakistan’s relationship with Bitcoin has been marked by inconsistency and confusion over the past few years. Initially, the country outright banned bitcoin trading in 2018, citing concerns over fraud, money laundering and lack of regulation. However, over time, their stance softened and regulators began exploring the technology behind Bitcoin with courts even questioning the legality of the ban. Eventually, citizens were allowed to hold bitcoin, though trading remained murky and unregulated. This back-and-forth approach has created a confusing environment, where Bitcoin exists in a legal gray area. It is technically allowed, yet not fully embraced or regulated, reflecting the state’s struggle to balance innovation with control.
PAKISTAN TO ESTABLISH NATIONAL STRATEGIC #BITCOIN RESERVE
Honored to have had the Pakistan Minister Bilal Bin Saqib at the Bitcoin Conference pic.twitter.com/7WunP5fuZm
— The Bitcoin Conference (@TheBitcoinConf) May 29, 2025
This muddled relationship with Bitcoin seems to have turned a corner in recent weeks as Bilal Bin Saqib, head of the Pakistan Crypto Council, at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas announced that the country is moving to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve. Furthermore, he announced the allocation of 2,000 megawatts of excess energy to Bitcoin mining and high-performance computer data centers. The Ministry of Finance has also commissioned the establishment of an entirely new agency to oversee digital asset regulation which could lead to a less opaque legal framework around bitcoin ownership and usage in everyday transactions.
Critics have argued that this is merely an attempt by Pakistan to cozy up to Trump in the aftermath of the recent skirmish with India. After all, Saqib did state that Pakistan was inspired by the Trump administration when he spoke at the recent Las Vegas Bitcoin conference. Others have asserted that Pakistan is merely seeking to build resistance to possible sanctions in the future over its support for terrorist groups. I believe that such a geopolitically focused critique overlooks a deeper economic reality that has been staring Pakistan in the face for many years.
I wrote an article for a Pakistani newspaper about a year ago in which I argued that the country is uniquely situated, in economic terms, to take advantage of Bitcoin and unlock the benefits that come with adoption. Pakistan suffers from rampant inflation, stagnant capital formation, depleted foreign reserves, an inefficient bureaucracy and an overreliance on remittances from abroad. These systemic issues have eroded citizens’ faith in traditional financial systems, leaving many Pakistanis disillusioned and seeking alternative means to safeguard their wealth and economic autonomy.
Thus, nurturing a culture of Bitcoin adoption could go a long way toward alleviating much of these economic ills and empowering citizens to take control of their financial future. By earning and trading a form of currency that is deflationary in nature, Pakistanis can protect themselves from the downsides of the macroeconomic trends that have decimated the living standards of this once proud nation. Bitcoin adoption could transform the country’s lively remittance sector, with receivers keeping more of the money they are sent. It could also emancipate people from the inefficient banking system that is such a drain on the people. Permissionless transactions could also empower the beleaguered minorities who often struggle to achieve financial freedom.
The announcement of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, as well as promises to introduce pro-Bitcoin regulation and a mining strategy, are steps in the right direction. They show that the mood is shifting and the country is starting to take a serious look at the only real digital currency in town. These steps also point to a much broader, global shift in attitudes toward Bitcoin — especially in nations where hyperinflation is a daily reality and the banking system struggles to meet citizens’ needs.
However, real change will only come when Pakistan fully legalizes bitcoin as a digital currency and takes steps toward mass adoption. Only then will ordinary Pakistani citizens be free to trade with people from all over the world without the need to rely on the local banking system. Only then will financial autonomy become an achievable goal for those living far away from the big cities where banks are based. Only then will women be free to earn, store and transact in a digital currency that is resistant to cultural barriers.
Creating a national strategic reserve merely signals that a nation believes in bitcoin as an asset with the potential to offer a reliable return. It does not signal that a nation has adopted the digital currency as a means to overcome the obstacles imposed by fiat. Strategic national reserves also hoard bitcoin and bring it too close to the state, even though the digital currency was designed to be a hedge against state-controlled money. As such, a reserve does not unlock the true potential of bitcoin to act as a buffer against domestic inflation, currency devaluation and a cumbersome banking system.
A strategic Bitcoin reserve is a step in the right direction for Pakistan, as it would be for any nation that suffers from hyperinflation. But only mass adoption will truly unlock the immense potential Bitcoin can offer to a nation such as Pakistan and we have a long way to go before that becomes a reality.
In my view, strategic reserves are not what bitcoin is all about, but let’s hope this is merely the first step in a long and prosperous journey toward orange-pilling a nation.
As I step onto the plane leaving Gardermoen Airport in Oslo, Norway, the weight and warmth of the past week settles into my chest.
The Oslo Freedom Forum is not a conference. It’s not a summit. It’s something harder to name and even harder to describe — a convergence of courage, truth and defiance that burns through the noise of the modern world and gives you no choice but to listen, feel and act.
For the second time, I leave this city more convinced than ever that something unstoppable is rising. That amid the censorship, surveillance and state repression spreading across the globe, there is a countervailing force rooted in humanity, accelerated by technology and led by those who’ve already paid the price for speaking out.
The Forum doesn’t trade in empty optimism. It delivers a different kind of hope, forged from lived experience and stitched together by people who have been in the dark and still choose to see the light. A hope borne from the stories of individuals who have lived through the worst an authoritarian regime can do and still choose to fight for the freedom of others. The experiences shared were hard. At times, devastating. But they weren’t offered for pity. They were calls to action.
Just days after she was abducted, blindfolded, tortured, and sexually assaulted in a Tanzanian prison cell,Agather Atuhaire stood in front of a crowd of strangers and told her story.
Her voice did not tremble.
The Ugandan journalist and lawyer had traveled to Tanzania in solidarity with fellow East African dissidents, only to be disappeared in a black van alongside Kenyan activist Boniface Mwangi.
And yet, against all odds, she came back. Not just to her home in Uganda, but also to the stage in Oslo, where she spoke calmly and clearly about what it means to tell the truth under a dictatorship.
Her presentation, “The Digital Free Speech Crackdown in Uganda,” laid bare the authoritarian playbook: social media blackouts, propaganda campaigns, surveillance of journalists and the slow financial asphyxiation of independent media. When the government doesn’t like a story, it simply blocks the platform or website. When a journalist digs too deep, they disappear for a while. Or forever. Atuhaire painted a picture many struggle to even imagine.
And yet, after everything, she didn’t just recount these struggles. She looked out at the crowd and thanked the open source builders and contributors who write code and create tools that make it possible for activists like her to speak, move money and organize under regimes that want them silenced, or worse.
(Ugandan journalist and lawyer, Agather Atuhaire, speaks during the Freedom Tech track at the 2025 Oslo Freedom Forum.)
From Iran, independent Bitcoin educatorZiya Sadr reminded us that financial privacy is not a luxury but a necessary lifeline for those facing the financial repression by oppressive rulers. Sadr’s detainment during the 2022 Women, Life, Freedom movement following the murder of Mahsa Amini by the Iranian regime is a testament to that. Without financial privacy, activists’ actions, connections and finances are exposed to a regime equipped with widespread financial controls and a sophisticated, restrictive internet firewall that rivals even China’s.
The result is one of the most repressive digital environments in the world. And if that wasn’t enough, the Iranian rial currency has lost more than 80% of its value in just a few years.
Against this backdrop, Iranians are using bitcoin as undebasable savings, and to buy digital services like VPNs in order to access the open internet. But even that act, just reaching the outside world, requires a level of privacy most of us take for granted.
In his presentation, “Securing Lifelines: The Bitcoin Privacy Imperative,” Sadr shared that many Iranians turn to Bitcoin Coinjoins, a privacy technique that breaks the link between Bitcoin transaction inputs. Coinjoins preserve user transaction privacy and, more importantly, shield Iranians from the surveillance and retaliation of a regime who punishes anyone trying to access information beyond its tightly controlled digital spaces. The use of Coinjoins is becoming more difficult as global legal pressure mounts against open source developers, and in the aftermath of the Samourai developer arrests, privacy protocols like Whirlpool are unworkable.
Today, Sadr is learning more about additional Bitcoin privacy tools, including Paykoin, a privacy method that allows two users to contribute an input to a Bitcoin transaction. Payjoin breaks common chain analysis heuristics and conceals the sender and receiver of a transaction as well as the payment amount. Then there is ecash, a form of digital cash backed by Bitcoin that enables very private, everyday payments with the custodial trade-off of trusting mints (entities that issue and redeem ecash tokens) to store user funds.
The continued development of these protocols is crucial for Iranians, who live under a government that not only tracks and surveils digital behavior, but also imposes automatic fines on women for violating hijab rules and manipulates currency exchange rates to profit off citizens’ savings. For millions in Iran, bitcoin offers a last line of defense against a collapsing currency, intrusive surveillance and total financial repression.
(Independent Iranian Bitcoin educator, Ziya Sadr, speaks during the Freedom Tech track at the Oslo Freedom Forum.)
Venezuelan opposition leaderLeopoldo López took the stage at the 2025 Oslo Freedom Forum not as a politician, but as a witness to what happens when a state turns its institutions into further tendrils of its repression machine.
After Nicolás Maduro stole Venezuela’s 2024 elections, López watched thousands of his fellow people — activists, students, journalists, opposition members and lawyers — get arrested, disappeared or forced into exile. The regime blocked access to social media, revoked passports, criminalized dissent and used the financial system as a means of controlling the population.
Amid this digital repression and Venezuela’s 162% inflation rate, López sees bitcoin (decentralized money) and Nostr (decentralized social media) as lifelines. When dictators shut down the internet or freeze your bank account, alternatives that are open source, decentralized, uncensorable and accessible become more important than ever for the survival of democracy and freedom.
“Decentralized resistance is the convergence of people, Bitcoin, Nostr, and AI.
People, it’s about the center and the end of what we are doing.
Brave women and men who sacrifice their freedom, who take risks, who are willing to fight for other people.
If it’s not about people, technology wouldn’t be something worth fighting for.
Bitcoin is freedom money. It’s decentralized, nobody controls it, nobody can stop it, it can move around without borders.”
(Venezuelan Opposition Leader Leopoldo López during the Freedom Tech track at the 2025 Oslo Freedom Forum.)
For decades, Paraguay’s greatest natural resource, hydroelectric power, has flowed out of the country through international contracts, fueling development in neighboring countries like Brazil and Argentina while one in four Paraguayans remained trapped in poverty. Paraguay’s Itaipu Dam, one of the largest in the world, has long symbolized this paradox: a river of energy diverted away from the very people who need it most.
In a landmark move, they secured Paraguay’s first 100-megawatt power purchase agreement, marking the beginning of a bold experiment to reclaim that energy for the people of Paraguay. Instead of selling it off to foreign powers, they use it to mine Bitcoin — and the proceeds go to Paraguay’s youth.
(Itaipu dam, Paraguay)
Out of the heat of humming ASICs and the roar of the Itaipu turbines rises Penguin Academy, a free software development school that equips young Paraguayans with coding, development and technical skills. Over 10,000 students have applied, including 800 women; more than 3,000 have already graduated. And over 85% of the graduates from their Code Pro program now work in the tech industry.
What was once wasted or exported is now being transformed into freedom and a future. Through bitcoin, Paraguay’s stranded energy is finding its way home.
Rushan Abbas is a Uyghur activist who has spent years raising the alarm about the Chinese Communist Party’s campaign to erase her people. During the Freedom Tech track, she spoke not just as a human rights advocate but as a sister whose sibling, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, was abducted by the CCP in 2018 and hasn’t been heard from since. Her voice was calm, but her words were heavy.
Abbas described a region turned into a digital and physical prison. The Uyghur homeland, East Turkistan, has been intentionally transformed into one of the world’s most sophisticated police states, where mass surveillance, facial recognition systems, police checkpoints, asset seizure, arranged marriage, sterilization and forced labor are used not just to control the Uyghur population, but to suppress them out of existence.
As Rushan describes it: “Break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections, and break their origins.”
Rushan made clear that monetary control is central to the CCP’s strategy. Uyghurs have their assets and bank accounts frozen, their land seized and their homes stolen. They are stripped of any ability to save, transact or build generational wealth, and are forced into government-run labor schemes under the guise of “poverty alleviation.”
Rushan reminds us that what’s happening to the Uyghurs is not abstract. It’s a targeted, systematic erasure carried out with weaponized technology and financial repression. Her sister’s disappearance is one of millions of silenced lives, but she refuses to let it be forgotten. In Oslo, Rushan stood not just as a witness, but her words served as a warning: When a government can monitor every transaction, surveil every citizen and control every movement, it doesn’t just repress but entirely dismantles the foundations of a people’s identity, autonomy and future.
(Uyghur activist Rushan Abbas speaks during the Freedom Tech track at the 2025 Oslo Freedom Forum.)
For these reasons and more, you don’t leave the Oslo Freedom Forum feeling defeated. You leave reminded that truth is more powerful than propaganda, that code can protect life and that resistance isn’t just possible — it’s already happening.
And if you’re fortunate enough to live in a place where speaking freely or moving money isn’t a life-risking act, you’re reminded of the privilege that comes with that freedom and the responsibility you have to stand with those who are still fighting for it.
This year, I felt a noticeable pulse of momentum around freedom tech. As we saw above, human rights defenders and dissidents didn’t just talk about the repression they endured. They emphasized the optimism about the tools that help them peacefully fight back: Bitcoin, Nostr, privacy tools, open source AI models, uncensorable VPNs — tools that work in the shadows, beneath firewalls, around embargoes and beyond borders. Tools that build a parallel system, where the right to transact, communicate, organize and resist cannot be revoked at the press of a button.
These are the instruments keeping movements alive, getting money to dissidents and protecting voices at risk. And behind every tool is a quiet builder, a pseudonymous contributor or an open source developer who may never take the stage but is just as much a part of the story.
The Oslo Freedom Forum is not just a gathering of voices. It’s a frontline, a place where the future is crafted by those who refuse to give in. And what emerges from that convergence is a simple, undeniable truth: Authoritarianism adapts, but so do we. With Bitcoin, with open source tools, with decentralized networks, with unstoppable courage.
At 30,000 feet, well above the noise and borders they try to enforce, one thing is clear: No authoritarian regime, no matter how brutal or well funded, has ever succeeded in stamping out the human desire to be free. The Oslo Freedom Forum is proof of that. And if you’re paying attention, it’s also a glimpse into what comes next.
This isn’t the end. It’s just the beginning of the next chapter. One written not by the powerful, but by the free.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Oslo-Freedom-Forum-GKP7HB.webp6301200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-13 18:20:202025-06-13 18:20:20The 30,000-Foot View of the Oslo Freedom Forum
“Bitcoin has become a macro asset,” said Novogratz. “And some of the great things is most people have it on their screens next to gold and silver and the S&P. And you think back ten years ago when people thought we were crazy. And now it’s an institutionalized macro asset… It’s just becoming institutionalized.”
He emphasized that Bitcoin is no longer a fringe investment but part of the mainstream financial landscape. He pointed out that its volatility is now seen as normal compared to traditional assets.
“We are in a dollar bear market. For the last 15 years, American exceptionalism was the story. Europeans were widely overweight and Asians widely overweight the US stock and we have an administration that wants a weaker dollar. They are pretty clear about it,” he said. “Even in the way Trump negotiates. And you can argue if it’s successful or not successful, but by telling Canada they want to be the 51st state, and telling people that they come here to kiss his rear end, it doesn’t engender people to say, ‘Oh, I want to buy more dollars.’”
According to Novogratz, this global shift is pushing investors toward assets outside the dollar, including Bitcoin.
“I think most macro funds are having a great year,” he stated. “They’re short the dollar, they’re long the euro, they’re long the yen, they’re long Aussie, they’re long a basket of currencies. Well, Bitcoin, gold, silver, platinum, they all fall into that same category as something that’s not the dollar.”
He also pointed to Bitcoin’s fixed supply as a key factor behind its growing value.
“There is no more Bitcoin,” he said. “What’s unique about Bitcoin as an asset is it was created with 21 million coins total. Period. End of story. There’ll never be more than that. But not all of those have been mined, is my point. Not most of them. Lots of them have been lost. There have been more Bitcoins lost than will be mined for the rest of eternity.”
Novogratz believes the wave of institutional involvement, including firms like BlackRock, is cementing Bitcoin’s role as a savings asset.
“The bull case becomes that over time… gold slowly gets replaced by Bitcoin. And so if you look at gold’s market cap and Bitcoin market cap, Bitcoin has a long way to go. Right? 10x. And so that [is] $1,000,000 a Bitcoin just to be where gold is.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Bitcoin-Will-Replace-Gold-And-Go-To-1000000-Says-Galaxy-Digital-CEO-Mike-Novogratz-3CJqu5.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-12 21:59:142025-06-12 21:59:14Bitcoin Will Replace Gold And Go To $1,000,000, Says Galaxy Digital CEO Mike Novogratz
Coinbase is launching its first-ever branded credit card in partnership with American Express, set to roll out this fall. Called the Coinbase One Card, it will be available only to U.S. members of Coinbase One, the platform’s monthly subscription service. The card will offer 2% to 4% back in Bitcoin on everyday purchases, along with access to American Express perks.
JUST IN: Coinbase launches credit card allowing users to earn up to 4% bitcoin back on every purchase pic.twitter.com/d6pdNZV4pi
This is a first-of-its-kind product for Coinbase, which previously only offered a prepaid debit card with Visa in 2020.
“We see real potential in the combination of Coinbase and crypto with the powerful backing of American Express, and what the card offers is an excellent mix of what customers are looking for right now,” said Will Stredwick, head of American Express global network services, during the Coinbase State of Crypto Summit in New York.
The card is part of a larger push by Coinbase to expand its subscription-based services. Coinbase One costs $29.99/month and includes zero trading fees, higher staking rewards, and customer support perks. The company also announced a cheaper version—Coinbase Basic—for $4.99/month or $49.99/year, which includes fewer features.
Coinbase’s subscription business is growing fast. It brought in $698.1 million in Q1 2025, compared to $1.26 billion in trading revenue. According to William Blair analyst Andrew Jeffrey, this kind of recurring revenue is a big reason why long-term investors are sticking with the stock.
Launched in 2023, Coinbase One now has over a million members. The company has been steadily growing its ecosystem with products like its Base developer platform and a self-custody wallet.
The company has long positioned Bitcoin at the center of its strategy—offering BTC custody services to institutions, supporting Bitcoin ETFs, integrating Bitcoin rewards into its products, and actively advocating for Bitcoin-friendly regulation in Washington. Coinbase also supports Bitcoin development directly through funding grants and engineering support. As the largest publicly traded crypto exchange in the U.S., Coinbase continues to frame Bitcoin not just as an asset, but as the foundation of its long-term vision.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Coinbase-BTC-Credit-Card-FTDPBz.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-12 20:04:592025-06-12 20:04:59Coinbase Announces Bitcoin Rewards Credit Card, Offering up to 4% BTC Back on Everything
Today, The Blockchain Group (ALTBG), listed on Euronext Growth Paris and recognized as Europe’s first Bitcoin Treasury Company, announced it has raised around €9.7 million through a mix of equity and convertible bond issuances. This move is part of their continued push to build out their Bitcoin Treasury Company strategy.
The Blockchain Group announces an equity and convertible bond issuance for a total amount of ~€9.7M to pursue its Bitcoin Treasury Company strategy
The funding comes from multiple sources and was carried out through their wholly-owned Luxembourg subsidiary, “The Blockchain Group Luxembourg SA.” A major portion, about €6 million, was raised through a convertible bond issuance to TOBAM, with bonds priced at €6.24 per share. That price reflects a 30 percent premium over ALTBG’s closing price on June 9, 2025.
Ludovic Chechin-Laurans also came in with around €2.4 million, subscribing in BTC at a conversion price of about €0.7072 per share. This was part of a deal originally set up back in March 2025. If the stock price climbs 30 percent above that level, to around €0.919 over 20 consecutive trading days, he’ll have the option to convert into up to 3.4 million new ALTBG shares.
Adam Back also finalized his conversion of all OCA Tranche 1 bonds into 14.9 million ALTBG shares and subscribed to an additional 2.1 million shares for €1.16 million at €0.544 per share.
“The Company recalls that Adam Back notified The Blockchain Group of his intention to convert all OCA Tranche 1 he holds, in accordance with the terms of the OCA Issuance Agreement entered into on March 4, 2025, the details of which were disclosed in a press release dated March 6, 2025, and which the Company now confirms has been definitively completed,” stated the press release.
TOBAM did the same, converting 1 million Tranche 1 bonds into 1.84 million shares and subscribing to 262,605 new shares for €0.14 million.
“Given the recent high volatility in the Company’s share price observed since the signing of the OCA Issuance Agreement, the conversion price of €0.544 reflects a discount of 89.52% compared to the closing price on June 12, 2025,” the press release added.
“These operations could allow for the potential acquisition of ~80 BTC, bringing the Company’s total potential holdings to ~1,611 BTC, including the proceeds from the potential completion of remaining operations announced in the press release dated May 26, 2025,” said the press release.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Frances-The-Blockchain-Group-Secures-E9.7-Million-More-For-Its-Bitcoin-Treasury-Strategy-SYxI0M.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-12 19:22:582025-06-12 19:22:58France’s The Blockchain Group Secures €9.7 Million More For Its Bitcoin Treasury Strategy
Today, F Street, an alternative investment and private lending firm, announced it has begun adding Bitcoin to its corporate treasury, with a goal of accumulating $10 million in BTC.
JUST IN: Investment firm F Street announced it’s buying Bitcoin daily using business proceeds for its treasury reserves
The company began daily BTC purchases on June 9, using business proceeds and treasury funds. This move is part of a broader strategy to strengthen F Street’s capital base and support its real estate lending and investment operations.
“Bitcoin offers a compelling hedge against inflation and dollar debasement,” said the Chief Operating Officer of F Street Mike Doney. “Incorporating it into our treasury is a strategic step to preserve and grow value for our investors and our business interests.”
In line with its commitment to transparency, F Street also plans to establish a public proof of reserves so that stakeholders can independently verify the custody of its Bitcoin assets. The firm aims to build a meaningful BTC position that supports its long term vision of a capital framework.
F Street’s move comes at a time when institutional interest in Bitcoin is experiencing a notable surge, and many prominent voices in the financial world are starting to support it. Billionaire investor Paul Tudor Jones, speaking today in an interview with Bloomberg, named Bitcoin as a critical part of what he considers the ideal portfolio against inflation.
“What would an ideal portfolio be… But it would be some kind of combination of probably gold, vol adjusted, Bitcoin, gold, stocks,” Jones said. “That’s probably your best portfolio to fight inflation. Vol adjusted because the vol of Bitcoin obviously is five times that of gold, so you’re going to do it in different ways.”
Adding to the momentum, the Head of Digital Assets of BlackRock Robert Mitchnick explained two days ago what’s really driving the surge in demand for Bitcoin ETFs.
“It’s a lot of things coming together. Out of the gate was retail and investor demand…” said Mitchnick. “Now, more recently, we’ve seen just steady progress of more wealth advisor adoption, more institutional adoption. It’s been a mix of people who it’s the first time that they’ve invested in anything in the crypto space. And then on the other hand, you have lots of people who’ve been invested in Bitcoin for a long time and they’re taking advantage of the ETP wrapper.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/F-Street-Announced-Goal-Of-Accumulating-10-Million-In-Bitcoin-UBf222.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-11 20:42:232025-06-11 20:42:23F Street Announced Goal Of Accumulating $10 Million In Bitcoin
Bitdeer Technologies Group, a global leader in Bitcoin mining and infrastructure, has released its unaudited operational update for May 2025, highlighting robust expansion in hashrate capacity, ongoing infrastructure development, and an entrance into AI services.
$BTDR May 2025 Production & Operations Highlights:
Increased self-mining hashrate to 13.6 EH/s with #SEALMINER deployments. 9 EH/s SEALMINER A2s have been manufactured, with 2.9 EH/s shipped to external customers, including 1.6 EH/s sold and shipped in May. SEALMINER… pic.twitter.com/wX66hahd2F
“In May 2025, we continued to deploy our SEALMINER mining rigs to our sites in Texas, U.S., Norway, and Bhutan, bringing Bitdeer’s self-mining hashrate to 13.6 EH/s at the end of the month of May,” said Matt Kong, Chief Business Officer at Bitdeer. “Looking forward, we remain on track to deliver over 40 EH/s of self-mining capacity by October 2025. Further, in May, we sold and shipped approximately 1.6 EH/s of our SEALMINER A2s to external customers. Our A3 Series will also be released and available for pre-order very soon”
Bitdeer self-mined 196 BTC in May—an 18.1% increase from April—due to the expanded deployment of SEALMINER A1 and A2 units. A total of 9 EH/s in SEALMINER A2s have been manufactured, with 2.9 EH/s shipped to customers and 1.6 EH/s sold in May alone.
SEALMINER A3s, which are currently undergoing machine-level testing with positive results, will become available for pre-order in June. Additionally, development of the next-generation A4 SEALMINER chip is progressing, targeting an efficiency of 5 J/TH by Q4 2025.
Bitdeer also announced the launch of its AI Cloud service, powered by over 10 advanced large language models (LLMs), including LLaMA, DeepSeek, and Qwen variants. The infrastructure is designed for strong inference demand, representing a key move into the HPC/AI sector.
Infrastructure developments include the ongoing energization of the 175 MW Tydal, Norway site—expected to be fully energized by June—and continued progress at the 221 MW Massillon, Ohio site, targeting completion in the second half of 2025. The company also energized 132 MW at its Jigmeling, Bhutan site, with another 368 MW coming online by Q3.
Financially, Bitdeer secured $50 million in cash proceeds during May after Tether exercised warrants from a 2024 private placement.
With a global capacity of 2,690 MW and expanding operations across North America, Europe, and Asia, Bitdeer continues to assert its role as both a top-tier Bitcoin mining operator and a high-performance computing pioneer.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Bitdeer-9t1SUI.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-11 19:34:452025-06-11 19:34:45Bitdeer Mined 196 Bitcoin Worth Over $21 Million In May
“It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet’s nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.”
This message was posted by Satoshi Nakamoto to BitcoinTalk on December 11, 2010. A couple of months later, in February 2011, the Silk Road marketplace was launched, and only a couple months after — on April 23, 2011 — Satoshi posted his last message.
In October 2013, Ross Ulbricht was captured by the FBI and the Silk Road fell — only to be replaced by a thousand more copycat marketplace sites. The rest is Bitcoin history.
Ross Ulbricht chose to center his Bitcoin 2025 keynote speech around an experience he had clearing wasp nests in a cabin in the woods. Wearing a suit and tie, recalling growing “magic mushrooms” to kickstart activity on Silk Road, Ross held the attention of the main stage audience of over 8,000 at Bitcoin 2025 Las Vegas in the Venetian Expo. I was sitting in one of the best seats in the house: side stage with his mother Lyn and three other supporters of Ross.
Freedom. Decentralization. Unity.
After over 4,100 days in federal custody and many months in special housing units (solitary confinement), Ross boiled it down to these three words to summarize his first message to the community.
Freedom. Decentralization. Unity.
Following a “21 ways to hack the fiat system” keynote from Michael Saylor, Ross’ three ways to move forward were refreshingly simple.
You would have thought Ross had been speaking in front of thousands of people for years, seeing how calm and commanding he was on the Nakamoto stage.
Lyn Ulbricht called me a few days after the speech, as I was driving a U-Haul truck full of the art gallery contents across the country, including Ross’ auction items which altogether fetched well over 10 BTC for his fresh start. She mentioned that seeing Ross on that stage giving that incredible speech gave her closure for the whole experience of fighting for her son’s freedom.
I have been fortunate to get to know Lyn Ulbricht over the past few years, helping her plan for our conferences. Hearing her say that this conference gave her some closure to that awful chapter of her life was a moment I’ll never forget. She was his number one supporter during his 11 years serving a double-life sentence. She fought relentlessly to raise awareness for her son’s situation, and now she has begun a new chapter doing similar work with MACS, Mothers Against Cruel Sentencing.
MACS is a nonprofit that is effectively the continuation of the Free Ross mission. Lyn says she feels a calling from God to continue fighting for other “crypto prisoners” and people who are being unjustly punished for their crimes, a violation of the Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution.
She launched MACS at the fourth annual Women of Bitcoin Brunch at Bitcoin 2025, in front of an audience of over 300 of the most influential women at the conference.
Later during the event, in the same room, Ross used the same stage to address a smaller crowd of supporters for his official luncheon.
This luncheon, held before his speech, is where Justin Sun famously gifted Ross “The Banana,” handing over a duct-taped, real banana in an elaborately designed white shadowbox fit to display in a museum.
I was also in the luncheon room when the banana transaction happened, as event staff. The piece, Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan, was a conceptual art statement, I explained to the two men sitting next to me. Like Ross himself at the time, these men were confused. (The original art installation, a banana duct-taped to the wall, was purchased — and eaten — by Justin Sun in November last year.)
Knowing the significance of this banana, I assumed at the time that Justin Sun was officially giving his edition #2 of Comedian to Ross, as a $6.2 million donation. It wasn’t until my phone call with Lyn Ulbricht days later that she brought up the banana and its questionable provenance that I began to ask: Did Sun really give Ross the banana?
On this call, Lyn mentioned that they had a relative who worked at Sotheby’s, the auctioneer of Justin’s edition of Comedian. This was an obvious first step toward understanding the banana exchange.
Ross himself emailed me shortly after saying, “Lyn tells me you are looking into what happened with me and Justin Sun. Strike Force Nanner are arriving tomorrow with the box Sun gave me, so I’ll let you know if that turns up anything useful.”
And later, “My Sotheby’s connection says: Just spoke with one of the people who worked directly with the artist during the sale. To truly own the piece you have to have the document from the artist; because that is where the ‘value’ lies, they wouldn’t even share images of it for fear of someone making a counterfeit. He’s going to have a think about whether or not what you have has any value, but Justin still owns the ‘real’ banana which is probably why he’s given you vague answers. So, unless he gives me the document (certificate of authenticity), I don’t have anything that would be valued at auction (probably). Oh well.”
I assured him that I thought his banana was still very valuable. Even if this was truly just a 1/1 print of the banana. Until Sun gives Ross the COA, Ross isn’t really the owner the banana; still, a historic event occurred. Sun transferred some sort of magic-decentalized-banana-powers to Ross when he transferred that banana taped to a frame.
The mere existence of Strike Force Nanner, an armored vehicle transporting the banana to Ross, should be enough to signal the provenance transfer of something valuable.
So whether or not Sotheby’s thinks an official transaction occurred, I think Ross has a rare power to duct-tape bananas to walls now and call it something. Sun will just have to send the COA to Ross later in order to seal the peel.
Until then, I extend an open invite to Ross, as the Artist In Residence at Bitcoin Magazine, to help him make and sell prints of his print of the banana. Then maybe the banana can be even more decentralized!
Avant-garde bananas aside, the experience of Bitcoin 2025 Las Vegas was unlike any other conference that we’ve thrown, and I can say that having been a part of all six thus far. The key difference this year was Ross’ freedom.
The vibes were beyond bullish in Vegas, which usually means the top is in. But this time it really seems different.
We should pay attention when Michael Saylor gives us his 21-step cheat sheet for the infinite money glitch, and how he plans to leverage the existing financial institutions to accumulate as much bitcoin as he possibly can. This could be a regulatory trap.
We should definitely pay attention when the sitting vice president, JD Vance, tells the conference audience that they’re going to use stablecoins to strengthen the dollar, referring to the new Genius Bill. This is probably the backdoor for CBDCs.
But most importantly: After over 11 years in federal hell, we should pay attention to Ross Ulbricht as he becomes the leader that this space really needs right now.
Today, the Executive Chairman and CEO of Strategy Michael Saylor commented on the company’s aggressive Bitcoin-based strategy in a recent interview at Bloomberg, emphasizing that Bitcoin is not going to zero, it is going to $1 million.
“I think we’re in a digital gold rush and you’ve got ten years to acquire all your bitcoin before there’s no bitcoin left for you,” Saylor said. “The competition is a virtuous competition.”
JUST IN: Michael Saylor said the bear market is not coming back and Bitcoin is going to $1 million
Saylor also said that Bitcoin is not going to have bear markets anymore and the price is going to $1 million per coin.
“Winter is not coming back,” commented Sayor. “We are past that phase. If Bitcoin is not going to zero, it is going to $1 million. The President of the United States is determined. He supports Bitcoin, the cabinet supports Bitcoin, Scott Bessent supports Bitcoin, Paul Atkins is shown himself to be an enthusiastic believer of Bitcoin and digital assets… Bitcoin has gotten through its riskiest period.”
He also pointed out that international firms are rapidly entering the space.
“Metaplanet is the hottest company in Japan right now, they went from $10 million to a $1 billion market cap to a $5 billion market cap. They’re going to raise billions of dollars. They’re going to pull the liquidity out of the Japanese market. So they’ll be raising capital in Tokyo and the Tokyo Stock Exchange… It’s not competitive. It’s cooperative.”
Strategy’s approach is far from traditional. The company is not just buying and holding Bitcoin; it is building financial instruments around it, which Saylor believes sets them apart.
“Our company has a very particular business model,” he stated. “It’s to issue Bitcoin-backed credit instruments like Bitcoin-backed bonds and especially Bitcoin-backed preferred stocks. We’re the only company in the world that’s ever been able to issue a preferred stock backed by Bitcoin. We’ve done three of them in the past five months.”
Rather than viewing Bitcoin treasury holdings or ETFs as competitors, Saylor explained that Strategy is targeting a different segment of the market entirely.
“We’re not competing against the Bitcoin treasury companies. We’re competing against ETFs like PFF that have portafolios of preferred stocks or corporate bond portfolios that are trading as ETFs in the public market, and the way we compete is we offer 400 basis points more yield on an instrument that is much more heavily collateralized and more transparent… That’s $100 trillion or more of capital in those markets,” explained Saylor.
He emphasized that Strategy’s Bitcoin balance sheet gives it a unique edge, giving the company the ability to design unique financial products.
“Our advantage is that we’re 100% Bitcoin… It’s impossible to issue Bitcoin-backed convertible preferred and Bitcoin-backed fixed preferred unless you’re willing to make 100% of your balance sheet Bitcoin.”
“I’m not really worried about competition from JPMorgan or Berkshire Hathaway,” concluded Saylor. “I would love for them to enter the Bitcoin space, buy up a bunch of Bitcoin. When they do it, they’ll be paying $1,000,000 a Bitcoin. The price will go to the moon.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Michael-Saylor-The-Bear-Market-Is-Not-Coming-Back-And-Bitcoin-Is-Going-To-1-Million-7KemsL.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-10 21:03:292025-06-10 21:03:29Michael Saylor: The Bear Market Is Not Coming Back And Bitcoin Is Going To $1 Million
Led by Bitwise’s Head of Alpha Strategies Jeff Park, IGME is the latest addition to Bitwise’s rapidly expanding suite of option income ETFs. The actively managed fund is designed to generate income through a covered call strategy while offering investors exposure to GameStop, a company that has transformed from mall retailer to a key player in the digital asset conversation.
“IGME is the first covered call strategy built around GameStop, a stock whose historic volatility and growth potential make it a strong fit for this approach,” said Park. “With IGME, investors now have access to an option income ETF based on an equity that sits at the intersection of retail investor popularity, a traditional revenue-generating business, and digital asset adoption.”
GameStop recently disclosed that it holds 4,710 Bitcoin, worth over $500 million at the time of purchase, positioning it among the growing list of public companies making Bitcoin a core treasury component. As of March 31, 2025, over 79 public companies hold a collective $57 billion in Bitcoin—a 159% increase from the previous year, according to Bitcoin Asset Management.
IGME follows the launch of Bitwise’s other option income ETFs, including IMST (Strategy), ICOI (Coinbase), and IMRA (Marathon Digital Holdings). These ETFs aim to deliver monthly income through synthetic covered call strategies that leverage options rather than direct equity holdings.
“At Bitwise, our mission is to help investors gain access to the full range of opportunities emerging in crypto,” said Bitwise CEO Hunter Horsley. “We’re excited to add IGME to our suite of option income ETFs to help investors capitalize on the volatility of companies in the space.”
IGME plans to announce its first monthly distribution on July 24 and carries an expense ratio of 0.98%.
What is an economic node? To understand that, you need to first conceptually understand how a user interacts with the Bitcoin network in the first place.
Bitcoin is a database, and a network to facilitate the updating and synchronization of updates to that database, used for the primary purpose of people transacting bitcoin (entries in the database).
The primary concern of a user making use of Bitcoin for this purpose is the validity of the transactions sent to them, i.e. is the money they have received valid in the sense that when they go forward in the future to spend it somewhere else that other people will also widely accept it as valid. If that is not the case, then it is useless as money.
This is the purpose of a node, to verify these transactions. In order to do so, your node must have a complete set of all the existing coins (Unspent Transaction Outputs, or UTXOs) in order to check every proposed transaction against. When a transaction is broadcast, your node verifies that the coins it is spending are in this “UTXO set”, meaning that they have not been spent yet. When that transaction is confirmed in a block, those individual UTXOs are then removed from the UTXO set, and the new ones created by that transaction are added.
In order to compute that UTXO set in the first place, a node must parse through the entire historical record of all past transactions contained in the blockchain, going through the process of adding each newly mined UTXO to the set, and removing/adding all the consumed and newly created UTXOs processed in each individual block.
Without doing this, there is no way to be certain that the current UTXO set stored in your node is actually accurate and valid (in the future Zero Knowledge Proofs could obviate the need for this by replacing the historical blockchain with a succinct cryptographic proof that any given UTXO set is valid for a specific blockheight).
Your node is simply an agent for you as an economic actor, in the sense of automated AI agents that many LLM advocates speak about. It is an autonomous program acting on your behalf in a certain context, in this case guaranteeing the validity of bitcoin transactions to ensure that when you are the recipient of one, the chain of transactions that created the coin spent to you is valid.
An economic node is simply a node that is actually being used by someone engaging in economic activity to ensure the validity of the coins they are receiving.
Why is that so important? Why do only these nodes matter?
Think about what makes Bitcoin function in the first place: people running the same consensus rules. The only reason there is a coherent singular Bitcoin network is because everyone is running the same consensus rules, when miners produce blocks, every individual node arrives at the same conclusion as to whether or not it is valid. Every individual node will follow whatever is the blockchain composed of valid blocks that has the most proof-of-work attached to it.
There is only a singular coherent Bitcoin network because each individual actor chooses to enforce the same set of consensus rules against blocks that miners produce. It is purely voluntary association, voluntary subjugation of oneself to a certain set of consensus rules.
So to illustrate the point, let’s imagine three different scenarios of nodes deviating from the existing set of rules.
In the first scenario, imagine a few major exchanges like Kraken, Coinbase, etc. all alter their consensus rules from the rest of the network (softfork vs. hardfork are a distraction from the point, so we are going to ignore the distinction here). These nodes represent the economic platforms where bitcoin is traded, and its price established in fiat terms. Nodes running conflicting rules from them, or making transactions that will not be recognized as valid by their nodes to be more specific, now cannot engage in that market.
Those exchanges’ nodes will not recognize user deposits as valid, and as such they will not be able to deposit coins and participate in those marketplaces. Other nodes can band together, but they cannot capture the economic power of those exchanges. Ultimately, short of the value of the coin created by the ruleset they are enforcing crashing to nothing, other nodes on the network will have no choice but to adopt their ruleset in order to interact with them. Otherwise the exchanges will simply ignore and honor honor deposits their nodes consider invalid.
In the second scenario, let’s imagine a group of much smaller businesses and users that regularly receive transactions. Maybe all of them together amount to the economic activity of a single exchange like Coinbase. These users choosing to alter their consensus rules is not as inescapable as a number of large exchanges in concert, but it is still significant.
Here, other users can still access marketplaces like exchanges to ensure that bitcoin is being priced by the market. The majority of the network will still accept everyone else’s coins in receipt for goods, or as deposits to trade on marketplaces. But they still represent a sizable portion of economic activity withdrawing from the rest of the network. This is leverage they can use.
Even as a minority of the network, the likelihood is extremely high that there are significant levels of economic activity crossing between this minority of nodes and the rest of the network. This is not a clear case of leaving the rest of the network no option but to adopt the new rules, but it definitely creates pressure for large portions of the network who interact across that “gap.”
From there the more users that choose to cross the gap because of who they economically interact with, that pressure grows larger for the rest of the remaining network.
In the last scenario, let’s imagine a group of nodes representing a small set of users generating very little or no economic activity at all. These users choose to alter their ruleset. They receive almost no payments, they represent a rounding error in terms of economic value on the network.
They’re irrelevant to the rest of the network. Large businesses, exchanges, other economic actors, they will not care if a handful of people stop patronizing them or sending them bitcoin for different reasons. This set of nodes altering their consensus rules doesn’t matter. They create no pressure or opportunity cost that matters for the rest of the network.
An economic node’s influence on the overall consensus of the Bitcoin network is proportional to the amount of economic activity involving that node/its owner.
A node that is not being used for this purpose is completely irrelevant to the consensus rules of the Bitcoin network at large. It creates no economic pressure, imposes no opportunity cost, on the rest of the network when it alters its consensus rules. It is indistinguishable from a participant in a sybil attack.
There might be other reasons to run a node besides verifying your own transactions, such as direct access to blockchain data for research or analysis purposes, but ultimately that node is irrelevant to consensus.
This dynamic is why Bitcoin cannot be sybil attacked. It’s why some malicious actor can spin up a million nodes on Amazon Web Services running different consensus rules, and it will have zero effect on the actual Bitcoin network.
Your node doesn’t matter, unless you use it. So use it.
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/BitcoinEconomicNOdes-JzUPuF.webp6301200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-10 20:33:432025-06-10 20:33:43Economic Bitcoin Nodes: Why You Need To Use Your Node For It To Matter
Today, the Head of Digital Assets of BlackRock Robert Mitchnick, at the Bloomberg ETF IQ, talked about what’s really driving the surge in Bitcoin ETFs.
“It’s a lot of things coming together. Out of the gate was retail and investor demand…” said Mitchnick. “Now, more recently, we’ve seen just steady progress of more wealth advisor adoption, more institutional adoption. It’s been a mix of people who it’s the first time that they’ve invested in anything in the crypto space. And then on the other hand, you have lots of people who’ve been invested in Bitcoin for a long time and they’re taking advantage of the ETP wrapper.”
JUST IN: $11.5 trillion BlackRock’s Robert Mitchnick said wealth advisor adoption of Bitcoin is “very early” pic.twitter.com/UqiarMWEvV
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) June 9, 2025
When it comes to institutional adoption, Mitchnick says we’re still early. ETF approvals usually take years, but some firms are fast-tracking the process.
“We’ve seen that fast tracked by a number of firms, and we talk about fast tracking,” stated Mitchnick. “We’re talking about, you know, quarters, not months. And slowly but surely, you’ve seen, I think, an acceleration, particularly in the last couple of months of more notable firms lowering barriers, granting approvals to their advisors to use these.”
Bitcoin’s volatility has declined recently, making it more appealing for institutions seeking diversification. However, it remains volatile, but its risk and return profile differs from traditional assets.
“There’s no question it’s relatively novel technology,” Mitchnick commented. “Even though the volatility has come down, it’s still volatile, but at the same time its risk and return drivers are markedly different from most of the rest of the assets in a traditional portfolio, and that’s important. And so when institutions are looking at this, they’re heavily focused on that correlation and whether it’s zero or even in some periods negative, because then the portfolio construction case is very compelling to them.”
About a dozen Bitcoin ETFs currently compete in the market, and demand remains strong.
“Well, a lot of them have been, you know, very successful, too,” stated Mitchnick. “Obviously, it has been the leader in the category by a fair margin. But there’s been such demand that, you know, it’s been exciting and there’s lots of products in the space and that’s a good thing.”
KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) announced it has entered into a Controlled Equity Offering Sales Agreement with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. and Craig-Hallum Capital Group LLC, enabling the company to sell up to $300 million of its common stock in an at-the-market (ATM) offering to support its Bitcoin treasury reserve.
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) June 9, 2025
Under the agreement, Cantor Fitzgerald will act as the sole sales agent, using commercially reasonable efforts to sell shares at market prices. The offering will be made under an existing shelf registration and may occur from time to time based on market conditions and company discretion.
As of June 6, 2025, KULR’s common stock was trading at $1.18 per share. The total number of shares issued under the agreement will not exceed the company’s authorized but unissued shares, after accounting for shares already reserved or committed.
“Our common stock is listed and traded on the NYSE American LLC under the symbol ‘KULR,’” stated the filing.
KULR will pay the sales agents a commission of up to 3.0% of the gross sales proceeds. The agents are considered underwriters under the Securities Act of 1933, and KULR has agreed to indemnify them against certain liabilities.
“Our business and an investment in our common stock involve significant risks,” stated the filing. “These risks are described under the caption “Risk Factors” beginning on page S-6 of this prospectus supplement, and the risk factors incorporated by reference into this prospectus supplement and the accompanying base prospectus.”
KULR started adopting bitcoin as their primary treasury reserve asset in December 2024. Their strategy focuses on acquiring and holding bitcoin by using cash flows that exceed working capital requirements, issuing equity debt securities or raising more capital to purchase more Bitcoin.
“We view our bitcoin holdings as long term holdings and expect to continue to accumulate bitcoin,” mentioned the filing on page S-2. “We have not set any specific target for the amount of bitcoin we seek to hold, and we will continue to monitor market conditions in determining whether to engage in additional bitcoin purchases. This overall strategy also contemplates that we may periodically sell bitcoin for general corporate purposes or in connection with strategies that generate tax benefits in accordance with applicable law, enter into additional capital raising transactions, including those that could be collateralized by our bitcoin holdings, and consider pursuing strategies to create income streams or otherwise generate funds using our bitcoin holdings.”
https://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/KULR-Technology-Group-Announces-300-Million-ATM-Offering-To-Invest-in-Their-Bitcoin-Treasury-1Td6pg.jpg6291200Bitcoin Developerhttps://bitcoindevelopers.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/loho_hor_1-300x108.pngBitcoin Developer2025-06-09 18:27:112025-06-09 18:27:11KULR Technology Group Announces $300 Million ATM Offering To Invest in Their Bitcoin Treasury
BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) has officially made history. The Bitcoin ETF surged past $70 billion in assets under management (AUM), reaching the milestone in just 341 trading days. This achievement makes IBIT the fastest ETF to ever hit that threshold.
JUST IN: BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF becomes the fastest ETF in history to surpass $70 billion AUM pic.twitter.com/kZkXhjEvq0
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) June 9, 2025
To put that into perspective, the previous record-holder—SPDR Gold Shares (GLD)—took 1,691 days to reach the same milestone. “5x faster than the old record held by GLD of 1,691 days,” Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas wrote in a post on X. Other ETFs like VOO (1,701 days), IEFA (1,773 days), and IEMG (2,063 days) also lag far behind IBIT’s rapid growth.
The explosive rise in IBIT’s AUM coincides with Bitcoin’s continued rally. At the time of reporting, Bitcoin (BTC) is trading above $108,000, up more than 2.06%, and sitting just under 4% below its all-time high of nearly $112,000 set last month.
BlackRock’s accumulation strategy has placed it at the forefront of institutional Bitcoin investment. According to blockchain analytics firm Arkham Intelligence, the firm now holds over 663,000 bitcoin—more than Michael Saylor’s MicroStrategy, which famously owns 582,000 BTC.
The price surge and ETF milestone reflect a broader institutional embrace of Bitcoin as a legitimate and increasingly preferred asset class. The record breaking pace of IBIT’s growth underscores the demand from investors looking for regulated exposure to Bitcoin through traditional financial products.
The chart clearly visualizes the disparity in ETF adoption timelines, with IBIT’s steep, vertical ascent dramatically outpacing its peers in the race to $70 billion. It’s a testament to the accelerating pace at which capital is flowing into Bitcoin markets.
As Bitcoin continues to hold just below its peak, and institutional products like IBIT grow at unprecedented speeds, all eyes are on what comes next—not just for Bitcoin, but for the legacy financial industry now being reshaped by it.
(@rstormsf) 
JUST IN: 
Nakiki SE is planning to become the first German listed company with a pure 
Loved this deep dive into bitcoin price dynamics? 
Slashed inflation from 25% monthly to under 5% (May 2024)
(@coinbase) 
(@lightning) 
Swan.com (@coryklippsten) 
The Blockchain Group confirms the acquisition of 75 BTC for ~€6.9 million, the holding of a total of 1,728 BTC, and a BTC Yield of 1,231.7% YTD
DigiAsia Corp 
Spain’s second largest bank BBVA is telling wealthy clients to invest in Bitcoin — Reuters 
Ukraine government 
Pakistan’s Finance Minister and State Minister on Crypto Bilal just talked with Michael Saylor about 
Increased self-mining hashrate to 13.6 EH/s with 
9 EH/s SEALMINER A2s have been manufactured, with 2.9 EH/s shipped to external customers, including 1.6 EH/s sold and shipped in May.
SEALMINER… 
Social Media