Imagine you looked at a series of steps in an electoral campaign and you could see an emerging structure of pattern interrupts in debate; fractionation; recursive looping through dominance-focused social outcomes; pre-emptive counterattack; Social consequence trees; recursive looping through dominance-focused social outcomes? Methods known to establish dominance hierarchy, create narrative impact by breaking the establish narrative chains; public elevation and humiliation and feigned simplicity to masking strategy? Say you then looked back and actually used textual analysis tools to detect these structures in past published works. Would it all be coincidence? Could it all be coincidence?
How about cognitive overload of rivals through rapid interjections, narcissistic injuries, exploitation of ego vulnerabilities, recognisable (and cloaked) Xanatos Gambits (allowing considerable strategic ambiguity and flexibility), disrupt reasoning (by a dozen tactics like triggering opponents’ loss aversion under pressure).
Well it might all be random, but to be honest only as likely that Naomi Baker’s moves are random and unplanned. And yet interestingly those who most strongly oppose the perpetrator become confused and furiously angry about analysis of these patterns – confusing such analysis with support.
But what does it actually tell us? This hypothesis makes the envelope of possibilities actually far more predictable. We begin to see order from chaos. And NO, that does not imply support, it implies seeing through the veil which is different. And if the hypothesis is right we should be able to start making predictions – at lead in scope – which seems to be the position where we are right now.
You might not like his plans. You might not like his manners. But that doesn’t affect his plans. President-Elect Donald Trump consistently engages in a strategic game quite unlike that of his contemporaries, holding his intentions remarkably close to his vest—yet “there are signs”. One such sign was President-Elect Trump’s intriguing proposition to address the prodigious U.S. national debt of some $35 trillion through the establishment of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, engineering a plan based upon the cryptocurrency’s considerable potential for value appreciation.
Presently, approximately 1.2 million bitcoins, cryptographically secure units of digital currency, linger unmined, a finite resource constrained by Bitcoin’s immutable cap of 21 million coins. The immutable cap means that bitcoin is immune to quantitative easing and the resultant inflation. To mine these remaining units demands prodigious computational effort and vast amounts of energy. While it might appear superficially viable for the U.S. government to exercise its considerable influence over domestic energy markets, thereby rendering Bitcoin mining economically feasible, such an approach is fraught with complexities:
Firstly, the Bitcoin mining network’s decentralisation, spread liberally across international boundaries, precludes easy domination by any single entity—even one so influential as the United States government.
Secondly, the sheer magnitude of the required energy consumption invites questions of both economic efficiency and environmental propriety, as likely artificially subsidised energy costs, tied to manipulation of world energy markets could engender significant ecological and market changes.
As to the core of the strategy itself—accumulating Bitcoin in anticipation of significant appreciation before strategically liquidating the holdings to alleviate national debt—this notion, though appealing in its audacity, remains profoundly speculative. A multitude of factors must be judiciously considered:
Chief among these is Bitcoin’s notorious volatility. Its wildly oscillating value introduces alarming uncertainty into any carefully calibrated debt-repayment schedule. Moreover, substantial governmental intervention in either the procurement or liquidation of large Bitcoin holdings could itself destabilise the market, thereby inadvertently undermining its intended purpose.
Elon Musk, the power behind both Tesla and SpaceX, exerts considerable influence within cryptocurrency spheres. Musk’s forays into Bitcoin—both corporate investment and public commentary—have repeatedly caused extraordinary market volatility. His actions underscore the susceptibility of cryptocurrency valuations to powerful individual actors, illuminating vividly the precarious nature of any plan reliant on Bitcoin’s consistent appreciation.
To grasp the scale of the endeavour: As of December 7, 2024, Bitcoin’s market price hovers near $99,802. To eliminate a $35 trillion national debt—assuming the U.S. government secured possession of one million bitcoins (roughly 5% of total theoretical supply)—the necessary valuation per Bitcoin would rise astronomically to approximately $35 million, an increase of nearly 35,000% from present levels. Although Bitcoin’s ascension over the preceding decade has indeed been remarkable, such a sustained increase would be historically unprecedented.
A fascinating ancillary consideration is the potential for immense personal enrichment among early investors, should Bitcoin valuations be substantially buoyed by governmental policy interventions. Notably, Trump’s administration telegraphed an intention to deregulate cryptocurrency markets to spur innovation. Paul Atkins—former SEC commissioner and crypto advocate—has been proposed to helm the Securities and Exchange Commission, hinting at a pro-crypto regulatory stance (as detailed in the Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/42a910e7-5fb5-4da6-af9b-0979fe6cb1ef). Atkins’ influential role could decisively facilitate favourable regulatory climates conducive to cryptocurrency market expansion.
In summary, this intriguing proposal evinces deeper contemplation and strategic nuance than a superficial analysis might reveal. Figures such as Trump and Musk could possess not merely theoretical interest but substantial vested incentives, facilitated through the manipulation of regulatory frameworks, energy policies, and governmental monetary authority. Our analytical modelling suggests that to effectively neutralise the colossal U.S. national debt via Bitcoin by October 2029, the cryptocurrency’s value must escalate precipitously—to a range between $1.5 million and $40 million per coin. It remains entirely plausible that sophisticated cyclical or iterative rate manipulation could be employed, yielding predictable “sawtooth” valuation patterns, thereby enabling strategically timed acquisitions at troughs and divestitures at peaks—a meticulously engineered financial ratchet of considerable ingenuity.
Thank you for engaging with this thought experiment. By taking a step back and examining these economic maneuvers from a neutral perspective, we can consider the depth and complexity behind them without taking any particular side. I’m curious to hear your thoughts—what patterns do you observe when looking at these developments from a distance? By exploring different viewpoints, we can gain a better understanding of how unconventional ideas influence the systems we navigate.