Nostr notes by

I was hoping for an Epstein files redaction crossword puzzle in ...

2026-09-04T02:37:04Z

In reply to nevent1q…ks8p
_________________________

I was hoping for an Epstein files redaction crossword puzzle in here.

Fixed size seems fee vulnerable and why highlight your privacy ...

2026-09-04T08:37:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…yx3n
_________________________

Fixed size seems fee vulnerable and why highlight your privacy set with such a flag?

There’s been a lot of that going around as of late, ...

2026-09-04T09:23:31Z

In reply to nevent1q…t9dg
_________________________

There’s been a lot of that going around as of late, unfortunately.

Television. 📺 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-8hlEAJZdM

2026-09-04T04:18:08Z

Television. 📺
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-8hlEAJZdM

Nostr event nevent1qqsqqq82h0gdp0a8jdwvhx5h23h7pqarn407r0eknvjjanf75pav0pspx3mhxue69uhkzumfvyhxz7n6v9kk7tnwv46z7mn0wd682u36v9ekjcfwv9a85ctdduhxuet59anx77r5wfhhgq3qaeh2zw4elewy5682lxc6xnlqzjnxksq303gwu2npfaxd49vmde6qa49h5n

2026-09-04T02:59:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…q2de
_________________________

Found has element of necessity that chose doesn't, and it ...

2026-09-04T00:58:50Z

In reply to nevent1q…wpth
_________________________

Found has element of necessity that chose doesn't, and it emphasises the ugliness of the violence monopoly. They have been looking for softer names for some time

Spam in your replies? Not in @npub1car…f0dd! ...

2026-09-04T01:41:24Z

Spam in your replies?

Not in sidecar (npub1car…f0dd)!

@npub1h8n…rpev recorded it too. ...

2026-09-04T01:16:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…tzxm
_________________________

TheGuySwann (npub1h8n…rpev) recorded it too.

https://fountain.fm/episode/DsJfhL0gIuqJMeg4HSFc

Relax, it’s going to be okay. #naddr1qv…8ac9

2026-09-03T23:50:59Z

In reply to nevent1q…afsl
_________________________

Relax, it’s going to be okay.

quoting
naddr1qv…8ac9

What follows began as snippets of conversations I have been having for years, on and off, here and there. It will likely eventually be collated into a piece I have been meaning to write on “payments” as a whole. I foolishly started writing this piece years ago, not realizing that the topic is gargantuan and for every week I spend writing it I have to add two weeks to my plan. That may or may not ever come to fruition, but in the meantime, Tether announced it was issuing on Taproot Assets and suddenly everybody is interested again. This is as good a catalyst as any to carve out my “stablecoin thesis”, such as it exists, from “payments”, and put it out there for comment and feedback.

In contrast to the “Bitcoiner take” I will shortly revert to, I invite the reader to keep the following potential counterargument in mind, which might variously be termed the “shitcoiner”, “realist”, or “cynical” take, depending on your perspective: that stablecoins have clear product-market-fit. Now, as a venture capitalist and professional thinkboi focusing on companies building on Bitcoin, I obviously think that not only is Bitcoin the best money ever invented and its monetization is pretty much inevitable, but that, furthermore, there is enormous, era-defining long-term potential for a range of industries in which Bitcoin is emerging as superior technology, even aside from its role as money. But in the interest not just of steelmanning but frankly just of honesty, I would grudgingly agree with the following assessment as of the time of writing: the applications of crypto (inclusive of Bitcoin but deliberately wider) that have found product-market-fit today, and that are not speculative bets on future development and adoption, are: Bitcoin as savings technology, mining as a means of monetizing energy production, and stablecoins.

I think there are two typical Bitcoiner objections to stablecoins of significantly greater importance than all others: that you shouldn’t be supporting dollar hegemony, and that you don’t need a blockchain. I will elaborate on each of these, and for the remainder of the post will aim to produce a synthesis of three superficially contrasting (or at least not obviously related) sources of inspiration: these objections, the realisation above that stablecoins just are useful, and some commentary on technical developments in Bitcoin and the broader space that I think inform where things are likely to go. As will become clear as the argument progresses, I actually think the outcome to which I am building up is where things have to go. I think the technical and economic incentives at play make this an inevitability rather than a “choice”, per se. Given my conclusion, which I will hold back for the time being, this is a fantastically good thing, hence I am motivated to write this post at all!

Objection 1: Dollar Hegemony

I list this objection first because there isn’t a huge amount to say about it. It is clearly a normative position, and while I more or less support it personally, I don’t think that it is material to the argument I am going on to make, so I don’t want to force it on the reader. While the case for this objection is probably obvious to this audience (isn’t the point of Bitcoin to destroy central banks, not further empower them?) I should at least offer the steelman that there is a link between this and the realist observation that stablecoins are useful. The reason they are useful is because people prefer the dollar to even shitter local fiat currencies. I don’t think it is particularly fruitful to say that they shouldn’t. They do. Facts don’t care about your feelings. There is a softer bridging argument to be made here too, to the effect that stablecoins warm up their users to the concept of digital bearer (ish) assets, even though these particular assets are significantly scammier than Bitcoin. Again, I am just floating this, not telling the reader they should or shouldn’t buy into it.

All that said, there is one argument I do want to put my own weight behind, rather than just float: stablecoin issuance is a speculative attack on the institution of fractional reserve banking. A “dollar” Alice moves from JPMorgan to Tether embodies two trade-offs from Alice’s perspective: i) a somewhat opaque profile on the credit risk of the asset: the likelihood of JPMorgan ever really defaulting on deposits vs the operator risk of Tether losing full backing and/or being wrench attacked by the Federal Government and rugging its users. These risks are real but are almost entirely political. I’m skeptical it is meaningful to quantify them, but even if it is, I am not the person to try to do it. Also, more transparently to Alice, ii) far superior payment rails (for now, more on this to follow).

However, from the perspective of the fiat banking cartel, fractional reserve leverage has been squeezed. There are just as many notional dollars in circulation, but there the backing has been shifted from levered to unlevered issuers. There are gradations of relevant objections to this: while one might say, Tether’s backing comes from Treasuries, so you are directly funding US debt issuance!, this is a bit silly in the context of what other dollars one might hold. It’s not like JPMorgan is really competing with the Treasury to sell credit into the open market. Optically they are, but this is the core of the fiat scam. Via the guarantees of the Federal Reserve System, JPMorgan can sell as much unbacked credit as it wants knowing full well the difference will be printed whenever this blows up. Short-term Treasuries are also JPMorgan’s most pristine asset safeguarding its equity, so the only real difference is that Tether only holds Treasuries without wishing more leverage into existence. The realization this all builds up to is that, by necessity,

Tether is a fully reserved bank issuing fiduciary media against the only dollar-denominated asset in existence whose value (in dollar terms) can be guaranteed. Furthermore, this media arguably has superior “moneyness” to the obvious competition in the form of US commercial bank deposits by virtue of its payment rails.

That sounds pretty great when you put it that way! Of course, the second sentence immediately leads to the second objection, and lets the argument start to pick up steam …

Objection 2: You Don’t Need a Blockchain

I don’t need to explain this to this audience but to recap as briefly as I can manage: Bitcoin’s value is entirely endogenous. Every aspect of “a blockchain” that, out of context, would be an insanely inefficient or redundant modification of a “database”, in context is geared towards the sole end of enabling the stability of this endogenous value. Historically, there have been two variations of stupidity that follow a failure to grok this: i) “utility tokens”, or blockchains with native tokens for something other than money. I would recommend anybody wanting a deeper dive on the inherent nonsense of a utility token to read Only The Strong Survive, in particular Chapter 2, Crypto Is Not Decentralized, and the subsection, Everything Fights For Liquidity, and/or Green Eggs And Ham, in particular Part II, Decentralized Finance, Technically. ii) “real world assets” or, creating tokens within a blockchain’s data structure that are not intended to have endogenous value but to act as digital quasi-bearer certificates to some or other asset of value exogenous to this system. Stablecoins are in this second category.

RWA tokens definitionally have to have issuers, meaning some entity that, in the real world, custodies or physically manages both the asset and the record-keeping scheme for the asset. “The blockchain” is at best a secondary ledger to outsource ledger updates to public infrastructure such that the issuer itself doesn’t need to bother and can just “check the ledger” whenever operationally relevant. But clearly ownership cannot be enforced in an analogous way to Bitcoin, under both technical and social considerations. Technically, Bitcoin’s endogenous value means that whoever holds the keys to some or other UTXOs functionally is the owner. Somebody else claiming to be the owner is yelling at clouds. Whereas, socially, RWA issuers enter a contract with holders (whether legally or just in terms of a common-sense interpretation of the transaction) such that ownership of the asset issued against is entirely open to dispute. That somebody can point to “ownership” of the token may or may not mean anything substantive with respect to the physical reality of control of the asset, and how the issuer feels about it all.

And so, one wonders, why use a blockchain at all? Why doesn’t the issuer just run its own database (for the sake of argument with some or other signature scheme for verifying and auditing transactions) given it has the final say over issuance and redemption anyway? I hinted at an answer above: issuing on a blockchain outsources this task to public infrastructure. This is where things get interesting. While it is technically true, given the above few paragraphs, that, you don’t need a blockchain for that, you also don’t need to not use a blockchain for that. If you want to, you can.

This is clearly the case given stablecoins exist at all and have gone this route. If one gets too angry about not needing a blockchain for that, one equally risks yelling at clouds! And, in fact, one can make an even stronger argument, more so from the end users’ perspective. These products do not exist in a vacuum but rather compete with alternatives. In the case of stablecoins, the alternative is traditional fiat money, which, as stupid as RWAs on a blockchain are, is even dumber. It actually is just a database, except it’s a database that is extremely annoying to use, basically for political reasons because the industry managing these private databases form a cartel that never needs to innovate or really give a shit about its customers at all. In many, many cases, stablecoins on blockchains are dumb in the abstract, but superior to the alternative methods of holding and transacting in dollars existing in other forms. And note, this is only from Alice’s perspective of wanting to send and receive, not a rehashing of the fractional reserve argument given above. This is the essence of their product-market-fit. Yell at clouds all you like: they just are useful given the alternative usually is not Bitcoin, it’s JPMorgan’s KYC’d-up-the-wazoo 90s-era website, more than likely from an even less solvent bank.

So where does this get us? It might seem like we are back to “product-market-fit, sorry about that” with Bitcoiners yelling about feelings while everybody else makes do with their facts. However, I think we have introduced enough material to move the argument forward by incrementally incorporating the following observations, all of which I will shortly go into in more detail: i) as a consequence of making no technical sense with respect to what blockchains are for, today’s approach won’t scale; ii) as a consequence of short-termist tradeoffs around socializing costs, today’s approach creates an extremely unhealthy and arguably unnatural market dynamic in the issuer space; iii) Taproot Assets now exist and handily address both points i) and ii), and; iv) eCash is making strides that I believe will eventually replace even Taproot Assets.

To tease where all this is going, and to get the reader excited before we dive into much more detail: just as Bitcoin will eat all monetary premia, Lightning will likely eat all settlement, meaning all payments will gravitate towards routing over Lightning regardless of the denomination of the currency at the edges. Fiat payments will gravitate to stablecoins to take advantage of this; stablecoins will gravitate to TA and then to eCash, and all of this will accelerate hyperbitcoinization by “bitcoinizing” payment rails such that an eventual full transition becomes as simple as flicking a switch as to what denomination you want to receive.

I will make two important caveats before diving in that are more easily understood in light of having laid this groundwork: I am open to the idea that it won’t be just Lightning or just Taproot Assets playing the above roles. Without veering into forecasting the entire future development of Bitcoin tech, I will highlight that all that really matters here are, respectively: a true layer 2 with native hashlocks, and a token issuance scheme that enables atomic routing over such a layer 2 (or combination of such). For the sake of argument, the reader is welcome to swap in “Ark” and “RGB” for “Lightning” and “TA” both above and in all that follows. As far as I can tell, this makes no difference to the argument and is even exciting in its own right. However, for the sake of simplicity in presentation, I will stick to “Lightning” and “TA” hereafter.

1) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Won’t Scale

This is the easiest to tick off and again doesn’t require much explanation to this audience. Blockchains fundamentally don’t scale, which is why Bitcoin’s UTXO scheme is a far better design than ex-Bitcoin Crypto’s’ account-based models, even entirely out of context of all the above criticisms. This is because Bitcoin transactions can be batched across time and across users with combinations of modes of spending restrictions that provide strong economic guarantees of correct eventual net settlement, if not perpetual deferral. One could argue this is a decent (if abstrusely technical) definition of “scaling” that is almost entirely lacking in Crypto.

What we see in ex-Bitcoin crypto is so-called “layer 2s” that are nothing of the sort, forcing stablecoin schemes in these environments into one of two equally poor design choices if usage is ever to increase: fees go higher and higher, to the point of economic unviability (and well past it) as blocks fill up, or move to much more centralized environments that increasingly are just databases, and hence which lose the benefits of openness thought to be gleaned by outsourcing settlement to public infrastructure. This could be in the form of punting issuance to a bullshit “layer 2” that is a really a multisig “backing” a private execution environment (to be decentralized any daw now) or an entirely different blockchain that is just pretending even less not to be a database to begin with. In a nutshell, this is a decent bottom-up explanation as to why Tron has the highest settlement of Tether.

This also gives rise to the weirdness of “gas tokens” - assets whose utility as money is and only is in the form of a transaction fee to transact a different kind of money. These are not quite as stupid as a “utility token,” given at least they are clearly fulfilling a monetary role and hence their artificial scarcity can be justified. But they are frustrating from Bitcoiners’ and users’ perspectives alike: users would prefer to pay transaction fees on dollars in dollars, but they can’t because the value of Ether, Sol, Tron, or whatever, is the string and bubblegum that hold their boondoggles together. And Bitcoiners wish this stuff would just go away and stop distracting people, whereas this string and bubblegum is proving transiently useful.

All in all, today’s approach is fine so long as it isn’t being used much. It has product-market fit, sure, but in the unenviable circumstance that, if it really starts to take off, it will break, and even the original users will find it unusable.

2) Today’s Approach to Stablecoins Creates an Untenable Market Dynamic

Reviving the ethos of you don’t need a blockchain for that, notice the following subtlety: while the tokens representing stablecoins have value to users, that value is not native to the blockchain on which they are issued. Tether can (and routinely does) burn tokens on Ethereum and mint them on Tron, then burn on Tron and mint on Solana, and so on. So-called blockchains “go down” and nobody really cares. This makes no difference whatsoever to Tether’s own accounting, and arguably a positive difference to users given these actions track market demand. But it is detrimental to the blockchain being switched away from by stripping it of “TVL” that, it turns out, was only using it as rails: entirely exogenous value that leaves as quickly as it arrived.

One underdiscussed and underappreciated implication of the fact that no value is natively running through the blockchain itself is that, in the current scheme, both the sender and receiver of a stablecoin have to trust the same issuer. This creates an extremely powerful network effect that, in theory, makes the first-to-market likely to dominate and in practice has played out exactly as this theory would suggest: Tether has roughly 80% of the issuance, while roughly 19% goes to the political carve-out of USDC that wouldn’t exist at all were it not for government interference. Everybody else combined makes up the final 1%.

So, Tether is a full reserve bank but also has to be everybody’s bank. This is the source of a lot of the discomfort with Tether, and which feeds into the original objection around dollar hegemony, that there is an ill-defined but nonetheless uneasy feeling that Tether is slowly morphing into a CBDC. I would argue this really has nothing to do with Tether’s own behavior but rather is a consequence of the market dynamic inevitably created by the current stablecoin scheme. There is no reason to trust any other bank because nobody really wants a bank, they just want the rails. They want something that will retain a nominal dollar value long enough to spend it again. They don’t care what tech it runs on and they don’t even really care about the issuer except insofar as having some sense they won’t get rugged.

Notice this is not how fiat works. Banks can, of course, settle between each other, thus enabling their users to send money to customers of other banks. This settlement function is actually the entire point of central banks, less the money printing and general corruption enabled (we might say, this was the historical point of central banks, which have since become irredeemably corrupted by this power). This process is clunkier than stablecoins, as covered above, but the very possibility of settlement means there is no gigantic network effect to being the first commercial issuer of dollar balances. If it isn’t too triggering to this audience, one might suggest that the money printer also removes the residual concern that your balances might get rugged! (or, we might again say, you guarantee you don’t get rugged in the short term by guaranteeing you do get rugged in the long term).

This is a good point at which to introduce the unsettling observation that broader fintech is catching on to the benefits of stablecoins without any awareness whatsoever of all the limitations I am outlining here. With the likes of Stripe, Wise, Robinhood, and, post-Trump, even many US megabanks supposedly contemplating issuing stablecoins (obviously within the current scheme, not the scheme I am building up to proposing), we are forced to boggle our minds considering how on earth settlement is going to work. Are they going to settle through Ether? Well, no, because i) Ether isn’t money, it’s … to be honest, I don’t think anybody really knows what it is supposed to be, or if they once did they aren’t pretending anymore, but anyway, Stripe certainly hasn’t figured that out yet so, ii) it won’t be possible to issue them on layer 1s as soon as there is any meaningful volume, meaning they will have to route through “bullshit layer 2 wrapped Ether token that is really already a kind of stablecoin for Ether.”

The way they are going to try to fix this (anybody wanna bet?) is routing through DEXes, which is so painfully dumb you should be laughing and, if you aren’t, I would humbly suggest you don’t get just how dumb it is. What this amounts to is plugging the gap of Ether’s lack of moneyness (and wrapped Ether’s hilarious lack of moneyness) with … drum roll … unknowable technical and counterparty risk and unpredictable cost on top of reverting to just being a database. So, in other words, all of the costs of using a blockchain when you don’t strictly need to, and none of the benefits. Stripe is going to waste billions of dollars getting sandwich attacked out of some utterly vanilla FX settlement it is facilitating for clients who have even less of an idea what is going on and why North Korea now has all their money, and will eventually realize they should have skipped their shitcoin phase and gone straight to understanding Bitcoin instead …

3) Bitcoin (and Taproot Assets) Fixes This

To tie together a few loose ends, I only threw in the hilariously stupid suggestion of settling through wrapped Ether on Ether on Ether in order to tee up the entirely sensible suggestion of settling through Lightning. Again, not that this will be new to this audience, but while issuance schemes have been around on Bitcoin for a long time, the breakthrough of Taproot Assets is essentially the ability to atomically route through Lightning.

I will admit upfront that this presents a massive bootstrapping challenge relative to the ex-Bitcoin Crypto approach, and it’s not obvious to me if or how this will be overcome. I include this caveat to make it clear I am not suggesting this is a given. It may not be, it’s just beyond the scope of this post (or frankly my ability) to predict. This is a problem for Lightning Labs, Tether, and whoever else decides to step up to issue. But even highlighting this as an obvious and major concern invites us to consider an intriguing contrast: scaling TA stablecoins is hardest at the start and gets easier and easier thereafter. The more edge liquidity there is in TA stables, the less of a risk it is for incremental issuance; the more TA activity, the more attractive deploying liquidity is into Lightning proper, and vice versa. With apologies if this metaphor is even more confusing than it is helpful, one might conceive of the situation as being that there is massive inertia to bootstrap, but equally there could be positive feedback in driving the inertia to scale. Again, I have no idea, and it hasn’t happened yet in practice, but in theory it’s fun.

More importantly to this conversation, however, this is almost exactly the opposite dynamic to the current scheme on other blockchains, which is basically free to start, but gets more and more expensive the more people try to use it. One might say it antiscales (I don’t think that’s a real word, but if Taleb can do it, then I can do it too!).

Furthermore, the entire concept of “settling in Bitcoin” makes perfect sense both economically and technically: economically because Bitcoin is money, and technically because it can be locked in an HTLC and hence can enable atomic routing (i.e. because Lightning is a thing). This is clearly better than wrapped Eth on Eth on Eth or whatever, but, tantalisingly, is better than fiat too! The core message of the payments tome I may or may not one day write is (or will be) that fiat payments, while superficially efficient on the basis of centralized and hence costless ledger amendments, actually have a hidden cost in the form of interbank credit. Many readers will likely have heard me say this multiple times and in multiple settings but, contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a fiat debit. Even if styled as a debit, all fiat payments are credits and all have credit risk baked into their cost, even if that is obscured and pushed to the absolute foundational level of money printing to keep banks solvent and hence keep payment channels open.

Furthermore! this enables us to strip away the untenable market dynamic from the point above. The underappreciated and underdiscussed flip side of the drawback of the current dynamic that is effectively fixed by Taproot Assets is that there is no longer a mammoth network effect to a single issuer. Senders and receivers can trust different issuers (i.e. their own banks) because those banks can atomically settle a single payment over Lightning. This does not involve credit. It is arguably the only true debit in the world across both the relevant economic and technical criteria: it routes through money with no innate credit risk, and it does so atomically due to that money’s native properties.

Savvy readers may have picked up on a seed I planted a while back and which can now delightfully blossom:

This is what Visa was supposed to be!

Crucially, this is not what Visa is now. Visa today is pretty much the bank that is everybody’s counterparty, takes a small credit risk for the privilege, and oozes free cash flow bottlenecking global consumer payments.

But if you read both One From Many by Dee Hock (for a first person but pretty wild and extravagant take) and Electronic Value Exchange by David Stearns (for a third person, drier, but more analytical and historically contextualized take) or if you are just intimately familiar with the modern history of payments for whatever other reason, you will see that the role I just described for Lightning in an environment of unboundedly many banks issuing fiduciary media in the form of stablecoins is exactly what Dee Hock wanted to create when he envisioned Visa:

A neutral and open layer of value settlement enabling banks to create digital, interbank payment schemes for their customers at very low cost.

As it turns out, his vision was technically impossible with fiat, hence Visa, which started as a cooperative amongst member banks, was corrupted into a duopolistic for-profit rent seeker in curious parallel to the historical path of central banks …

4) eCash

To now push the argument to what I think is its inevitable conclusion, it’s worth being even more vigilant on the front of you don’t need a blockchain for that. I have argued that there is a role for a blockchain in providing a neutral settlement layer to enable true debits of stablecoins. But note this is just a fancy and/or stupid way of saying that Bitcoin is both the best money and is programmable, which we all knew anyway. The final step is realizing that, while TA is nice in terms of providing a kind of “on ramp” for global payments infrastructure as a whole to reorient around Lightning, there is some path dependence here in assuming (almost certainly correctly) that the familiarity of stablecoins as “RWA tokens on a blockchain” will be an important part of the lure.

But once that transition is complete, or is well on its way to being irreversible, we may as well come full circle and cut out tokens altogether. Again, you really don’t need a blockchain for that, and the residual appeal of better rails has been taken care of with the above massive detour through what I deem to be the inevitability of Lightning as a settlement layer. Just as USDT on Tron arguably has better moneyness than a JPMorgan balance, so a “stablecoin” as eCash has better moneyness than as a TA given it is cheaper, more private, and has more relevantly bearer properties (in other words, because it is cash). The technical detail that it can be hashlocked is really all you need to tie this all together. That means it can be atomically locked into a Lightning routed debit to the recipient of a different issuer (or “mint” in eCash lingo, but note this means the same thing as what we have been calling fully reserved banks). And the economic incentive is pretty compelling too because, for all their benefits, there is still a cost to TAs given they are issued onchain and they require asset-specific liquidity to route on Lightning. Once the rest of the tech is in place, why bother? Keep your Lightning connectivity and just become a mint.

What you get at that point is dramatically superior private database to JPMorgan with the dramatically superior public rails of Lightning. There is nothing left to desire from “a blockchain” besides what Bitcoin is fundamentally for in the first place: counterparty-risk-free value settlement.

And as a final point with a curious and pleasing echo to Dee Hock at Visa, Calle has made the point repeatedly that David Chaum’s vision for eCash, while deeply philosophical besides the technical details, was actually pretty much impossible to operate on fiat. From an eCash perspective, fiat stablecoins within the above infrastructure setup are a dramatic improvement on anything previously possible. But, of course, they are a slippery slope to Bitcoin regardless …

Objections Revisited

As a cherry on top, I think the objections I highlighted at the outset are now readily addressed – to the extent the reader believes what I am suggesting is more or less a technical and economic inevitability, that is. While, sure, I’m not particularly keen on giving the Treasury more avenues to sell its welfare-warfare shitcoin, on balance the likely development I’ve outlined is an enormous net positive: it’s going to sell these anyway so I prefer a strong economic incentive to steadily transition not only to Lightning as payment rails but eCash as fiduciary media, and to use “fintech” as a carrot to induce a slow motion bank run.

As alluded to above, once all this is in place, the final step to a Bitcoin standard becomes as simple as an individual’s decision to want Bitcoin instead of fiat. On reflection, this is arguably the easiest part! It's setting up all the tech that puts people off, so trojan-horsing them with “faster, cheaper payment rails” seems like a genius long-term strategy.

And as to “needing a blockchain” (or not), I hope that is entirely wrapped up at this point. The only blockchain you need is Bitcoin, but to the extent people are still confused by this (which I think will take decades more to fully unwind), we may as well lean into dazzling them with whatever innovation buzzwords and decentralization theatre they were going to fall for anyway before realizing they wanted Bitcoin all along.

Conclusion

Stablecoins are useful whether you like it or not. They are stupid in the abstract but it turns out fiat is even stupider, on inspection. But you don’t need a blockchain, and using one as decentralization theatre creates technical debt that is insurmountable in the long run. Blockchain-based stablecoins are doomed to a utility inversely proportional to their usage, and just to rub it in, their ill-conceived design practically creates a commercial dynamic that mandates there only ever be a single issuer.

Given they are useful, it seems natural that this tension is going to blow up at some point. It also seems worthwhile observing that Taproot Asset stablecoins have almost the inverse problem and opposite commercial dynamic: they will be most expensive to use at the outset but get cheaper and cheaper as their usage grows. Also, there is no incentive towards a monopoly issuer but rather towards as many as are willing to try to operate well and provide value to their users.

As such, we can expect any sizable growth in stablecoins to migrate to TA out of technical and economic necessity. Once this has happened - or possibly while it is happening but is clearly not going to stop - we may as well strip out the TA component and just use eCash because you really don’t need a blockchain for that at all. And once all the money is on eCash, deciding you want to denominate it in Bitcoin is the simplest on-ramp to hyperbitcoinization you can possibly imagine, given we’ve spent the previous decade or two rebuilding all payments tech around Lightning.

Or: Bitcoin fixes this. The End.

Allen, #892,125

thanks to Marco Argentieri, Lyn Alden, and Calle for comments and feedback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey4WSb-BVDQ

2026-09-03T22:22:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…kr5z
_________________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey4WSb-BVDQ

Keep Nostr weird. #nevent1q…jw7g

2026-09-03T21:42:33Z

Keep Nostr weird.

quoting
nevent1q…jw7g
Nostr feels super weird lately

I ‘member.

2026-09-03T21:41:46Z

In reply to nevent1q…aavr
_________________________

I ‘member.

Imagine economically sidelining yourself during the Fourth ...

2026-09-03T21:30:05Z

Imagine economically sidelining yourself during the Fourth Turning over something as ridiculous and impossible as preventing someone from publishing something you don’t like on a globally-distributed immutable public ledger.

Two. It was a small test of 6000 sats. Fees were just under 1500. ...

2026-09-03T20:22:58Z

In reply to nevent1q…zp0v
_________________________

Two. It was a small test of 6000 sats. Fees were just under 1500. So it isn’t super-economical, but it works.

No, more like 2 minutes.

2026-09-03T20:03:07Z

In reply to nevent1q…qu9j
_________________________

No, more like 2 minutes.

Nostr event nevent1qqszr2fpmt90q5uaswllcqahe2z6hwl8czkrmyydjqjvzhv6f8c26dgpx3mhxue69uhkzumfvyhxz7n6v9kk7tnwv46z7mn0wd682u36v9ekjcfwv9a85ctdduhxuet59anx77r5wfhhgq3qaeh2zw4elewy5682lxc6xnlqzjnxksq303gwu2npfaxd49vmde6q99dymk

2026-09-03T19:59:13Z

I just did a unilateral Spark exit, AMA.

Or Lukebucks!

2026-09-03T19:45:12Z

In reply to nevent1q…mz8h
_________________________

Or Lukebucks!

I’m a loser, baby…so why don’t you zap me?

2026-09-03T19:39:17Z

In reply to nevent1q…5cru
_________________________

I’m a loser, baby…so why don’t you zap me?

LOL, that loser is from Queens. Same as Mamdani!

2026-09-03T19:32:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…wxq9
_________________________

LOL, that loser is from Queens. Same as Mamdani!

What do you think the DB in USDB stands for?

2026-09-03T19:31:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…w9t4
_________________________

What do you think the DB in USDB stands for?

Your notes deserve a relay that keeps them. Azzamo has been ...

2026-09-03T16:21:53Z

Your notes deserve a relay that keeps them.

Azzamo has been running Nostr relays for years. Start on the free relay:
wss://nostr.azzamo.net

Azzamo Premium takes it further with wss://relay.azzamo.net, plus regional relays in the US and Asia:
• Permanent note archive, nothing gets pruned
• Permanent inbox storage for your DMs and groups
• 10GB Blossom media storage with bigger upload limits
• NIP-05 at @azzamo.network
• Much larger accepted note size
• Tor on every relay

Time-based, no lock-in. Buy a few minutes or a few years, top up whenever with Lightning or Cashu.

https://azzamo.net/premium/

#nostr #relay #azzamo #premium #GrowNostr

Correct.

2026-09-03T14:43:25Z

In reply to nevent1q…ahe2
_________________________

Correct.

#nevent1q…fnel

2026-09-03T16:09:29Z

In reply to nevent1q…lhza
_________________________

quoting nevent1q…fnel
Nostr: A place for losers. 💜⚡️🫂

note1gw0…ds8n

@nprofile…qq4h @nprofile…cr52 @nprofile…0cqk ...

2026-09-03T15:59:51Z

In reply to nevent1q…m0m0
_________________________

j (nprofile…qq4h) DrOrangePill (nprofile…cr52) faraz (nprofile…0cqk) Gaby (nprofile…md36) Dion (nprofile…dcel)

@npub1ya6…ug3q, can you confirm the details of your post on ...

2026-09-03T13:45:03Z

In reply to nevent1q…cnn9
_________________________

BitcoinNews (npub1ya6…ug3q), can you confirm the details of your post on Xitter that for whatever reason isn’t posted on Nostr yet?

https://x.com/BitcoinNewsCom/status/2095253230166917260

Currently building a new opt-in feature from @npub1jug…fc28 ...

2026-09-03T14:19:27Z

Currently building a new opt-in feature from Breez_tech (npub1jug…fc28) into ZapCooking (npub1xxd…kt7a): Stable balance.

Some of you will love it, some of you may hate it. But we’re doing this anyway, because the audience we need to #GrowNostr is not using Nostr.

Most people transact in fiat, and we are meeting them where they are. The value flows back into bitcoin, but you need to first expose them to it in a way that makes sense.

Otherwise, it’s just more of the same.

GM ☀️ PV 🖖

I hate him rationally because I have lived in New York most of my ...

2026-09-03T13:35:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…yv9s
_________________________

I hate him rationally because I have lived in New York most of my life and I’ve seen the atrocious things he has done here with my own eyes, so I think I have a better perspective than most people who only got to know him through his fake TV persona.

No, I was responding to him but replying to your message. 😁

2026-09-03T12:23:10Z

In reply to nevent1q…8ep3
_________________________

No, I was responding to him but replying to your message. 😁

Yeah, you don’t need that kind of negativity in your life.

2026-09-03T11:11:21Z

In reply to nevent1q…qahz
_________________________

Yeah, you don’t need that kind of negativity in your life.

You don’t get to tell anyone else what they are, my dude.

2026-09-03T12:19:19Z

In reply to nevent1q…39aq
_________________________

You don’t get to tell anyone else what they are, my dude.

Just the advanced features, which if you’re not using them now, ...

2026-09-03T12:17:47Z

In reply to nevent1q…xd5w
_________________________

Just the advanced features, which if you’re not using them now, you can continue to not use them and nothing will change.

GM! 🌞

2026-09-03T12:13:16Z

In reply to nevent1q…jgkf
_________________________

GM! 🌞

The neat part is nobody can tell you what to do or what you can ...

2026-09-03T12:11:52Z

In reply to nevent1q…elum
_________________________

The neat part is nobody can tell you what to do or what you can be or not be. That’s completely antithetical to what bitcoin is about.

Just the premium level. I don’t think they’re changing ...

2026-09-03T11:58:30Z

In reply to nevent1q…hkm4
_________________________

Just the premium level. I don’t think they’re changing anything for the current free tier.

Wordle but for Nostr.

2026-09-03T11:21:41Z

In reply to nevent1q…cnuv
_________________________

Wordle but for Nostr.

The new @npub1yzv…rf8q app is really slick! Thank you guys for ...

2026-09-03T11:14:40Z

The new YakiHonne (npub1yzv…rf8q) app is really slick!

Thank you guys for finally reuniting the repost and quote post actions into one button.

Breez SDK supports stablecoins and stable balance now, if that ...

2026-09-03T01:58:38Z

In reply to nevent1q…vz5d
_________________________

Breez SDK supports stablecoins and stable balance now, if that helps. Remember that Moonpay isn’t available everywhere, and requires KYC.

For the record, we both still think it’s a joke. But I’ll be ...

2026-09-03T11:05:39Z

In reply to nevent1q…a6zf
_________________________

For the record, we both still think it’s a joke. But I’ll be laughing all the way to the post office to pick up my box of fresh HODL bars.

quoting
nevent1q…tnh9
Some people think bitcoin and Monero can’t coexist, but nobody can tell you what to use. If you want maximum privacy, you’ve got a use case there. But if you want a long-term way to protect your savings against inflation, there’s really only one way to do it.

Thankfully bitcoin doesn't care

2026-09-03T07:40:01Z

In reply to nevent1q…tjvw
_________________________

Thankfully bitcoin doesn't care

Cool to see @nprofile…2wzn self signing on @nprofile…gsu4

2026-09-03T06:23:09Z

Cool to see Qlango (nprofile…2wzn) self signing on Zapstore (nprofile…gsu4)

In early 2011, I was freelancing for some bullshit ad agency ...

2026-09-03T05:00:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…c0z2
_________________________

In early 2011, I was freelancing for some bullshit ad agency churning out bullshit banner campaigns for bullshit products. I would not even hear the word bitcoin for almost two years, let alone begin to understand it was.

Anyone happen to know a cult intervention specialist? ...

2026-09-03T04:47:26Z

Anyone happen to know a cult intervention specialist?

Spam, you say…?

2026-09-03T04:35:43Z

In reply to nevent1q…5lzp
_________________________

Spam, you say…?

WORD5 #699 5/6* (Hard Mode) ⬛⬛⬛⬛🟧 🟧🟪🟧⬛⬛ ...

2026-09-03T04:31:24Z

WORD5 #699 5/6* (Hard Mode)

⬛⬛⬛⬛🟧
🟧🟪🟧⬛⬛
🟧🟪🟪⬛⬛
⬛🟪🟪⬛🟪
🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪

https://otherstuff.ai/word5/

He’s still doing this. Who does Luke think responds to these ...

2026-09-03T02:08:29Z

He’s still doing this. Who does Luke think responds to these reports? 🤣

Translation of Nodegeld (npub17r5…kx7e)’s ”spam” post:

Hahaha... I'm so glad this BIP110 thing is finally over. From the beginning, I thought you guys were completely crazy. You can't build spam protection in Bitcoin... I mean, even though I don't understand the technical details, it was kind of intuitively clear to me. All these idiots BitcoinMechanic, LukeDashjr - fork off, goodbye, bye. I'm glad you're gone... hahaha.

As of August 8, 2026, there were around 18,000 idiots worldwide running BIP110 listening nodes—including about 100 idiots in Germany. Folks, we’ve completely lost our way. We should just listen to the Einundzwanzig community and its heroes. Then everything will be fine. They’re the pros; they’ll show us the way.

No surprise... But a very sad truth (most likely to happen soon). ...

2026-09-03T01:41:09Z

In reply to nevent1q…u28r
_________________________

No surprise... But a very sad truth (most likely to happen soon). Btw, for anyone still blindly believing BTC-Tether are friends, check this article from 2025

quoting
naddr1qq…hsxx

A good question. I do not think so. I will explain below why, but first where did this question come from?

The statement that Tether is a Bitcoin company was recently made by Samson Mow in X (here) in a response to Paolo Ardoino’s initial Tweet about Tether’s $775 million investment on Rumble (here).

In response to Samson Mow's statement, I expressed my disagreement by pointing out that Tether prints USDT “out of thin air” and uses these funds to purchase US Treasuries, which in effect helps finance US debt and fund military operations.

In my opinion, a bitcoin company should not provide life support to the current broken financial system that is built on the US dollar's status as a global reserve currency, allowing a small group of Western elites to control the system and exploit it for wealth transfer.

“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.”(Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System)

I believe that the primary purpose of bitcoin is to replace the current fraudulent system, not to support it. My assessment is based on this fundamental principle, and I therefore disagree with Samson’s statement. In short, Tether does not align with bitcoin’s purpose of existence, a point to which I will return later.

First, it is necessary to clarify the logic behind my “Tether prints USDT out of thin air” statement as Samson Mow shifted the focus of conversation merely to this specific point instead of clarifying how he considers Tether as a bitcoin company in light of its actions (i.e., financing US debt and thereby funding the US war machine).

My next tweet aimed to highlight the trust concerns inherent in Proof of Stake, a concept that should be familiar to Samson Mow, where ETH holders validate transactions by staking their holdings, creating a system that relies on the implicit trustworthiness of these validators.

In response to my reasoning and explanation, Samson initially claimed that Tether is not proof of stake. Next, in a subsequent tweet where I asked for clarification on whether Tether is on the Ethereum blockchain, he acknowledged this point but introduced a new argument suggesting that Tether's situation has nothing to do with PoS. This claim is, to be frank, disconnected from reality and raises questions about Samson Mow’s true motivations.

Following my discussion with Samson Mow on X, I decided to provide further clarification on the reasoning behind my statement that "Tether prints USDT out of thin air". The underlying logic of this argument can be grasped by examining two crucial factors: Proof of Work (PoW) and debt.

Proof of Work:

A critical examination of Tether's USDT issuance requires a deeper understanding of the PoW.

When individuals exchange their dollars for USDT, they are essentially trading earned value (their time and energy) for a digital representation thereof. However, Tether's issuance of new USDT units occurs without incurring any cost or spending resources, effectively creating digital tokens that represent claims on value rather than value itself.

In stark contrast, the creation of new bitcoins is facilitated through a competitive mining, wherein miners use computational power (spend energy) to validate transactions and create new blocks, thereby earning newly minted bitcoins as a reward for their efforts. Similarly, in gold mining, the discovery of new deposits is the result of the investment of time, energy, and resources by miners. Likewise, individuals who are employees or entrepreneurs invest their time and energy to generate income or profit.

This underscores a fundamental principle: that genuine value creation typically results from tangible efforts, and resource allocations, distinguishing it from mechanisms that generate value without any corresponding expenditures.

Unlike the aforementioned examples, Tether's mechanism for creating USDT operates under a distinctly different paradigm. Tether issues USDT without expending time, energy, or resources. Instead, individuals give Tether their hard-earned money in exchange for an IOU certificate represented by USDT. This is in theory, assuming that Tether is an honest player and only mints USDT when a user transfers corresponding USD. In practice, however, there are several factors that complicate the verification of Tether's claim regarding the backing of USDT with USD.

One issue with Tether operating on Ethereum is that transactions are validated by ETH stakeholders by staking their ETH. This introduces an element of trust in third-party (validators), raising concerns in the integrity of the ledger.

Additionally, in contrast to Bitcoin's blockchain, Proof of Stake blockchains do not have a clear "chain" of hashes linking each block back to its predecessor through a computationally intensive process, since there's no mining involved in creating new blocks (as blocks are proposed by validators based on their stake), thereby preventing verification of historical transaction validity. As a result, the current state of a Proof of Stake blockchain reflects only the validators' confirmation without providing any assurance regarding its historical accuracy or integrity.

Most significantly, there exists no inherent mechanism, as far as I am aware of, preventing Tether from minting additional USDT without corresponding USD backing and transferring to an ETH address under their control and buying real assets (such as bitcoin) with it.

In my opinion, these considerations underscore significant challenges on transparency, accountability and oversight within Tether’s operations. In other words, the entire system relies on the honesty of Tether and Ethereum validators as trusted third parties, which contradicts Bitcoin's fundamental principle that eliminates the need for trusted intermediaries in transactions as described by Satoshi Nakamoto in Bitcoin White Paper. (source: bitcoin white paper)

While Bitcoin's decentralized architecture eliminates the need for intermediaries, Tether as a centralized entity controls the issuance and management of USDT and relies on ETH validators for the validity of transactions. This centralized control enables Tether & Ethereum to unilaterally freeze, blacklist, or manipulate accounts at their discretion, as evidenced by past incidents and potential future actions. Furthermore, USDT holdings are exposed to counterparty risk, as holders are only entitled to redeem their funds if Tether maintains its solvency and adheres to a 100% reserve requirement which are significant question marks as explained in previous paragraphs.

Debt:

Even if the claim that all USDT tokens are fully backed is true, it is essential to recognize that USDT is ultimately backed by fiat currency, which itself is debt —whether in the form of dollars or U.S. Treasuries. Consequently, the statement “Tether prints USDT out of thin air” is not entirely unfounded, as the creation of new USDT tokens is effectively facilitated by the issuance of new debt instruments.

How does USD come to existence? As many bitcoiners know very well, they are simply printed out of thin air by FED. This process is facilitated by the US government's issuance of debt certificates, including short-term Treasury bills and long-term Treasury bonds. The value of these debt instruments is derived from the expectation that the US government will honor its obligations by repaying the indicated amount of USD to certificate holders in the future, primarily through tax revenue collected from its citizens. In essence, these debt certificates represent IOUs and their value is contingent upon the credibility of the US government's promise to fulfill its debt obligations. The entire system relies on a collective belief in the government's creditworthiness, rather than any tangible asset backing it. Even if Tether's USDT is assumed to be backed 1-to-1 with USD, it is ultimately backed by nothing but the US government's fiat currency, which is itself created out of thin air. This highlights the tenuous nature of USDT's backing, as it is predicated on trust in the US government's ability to pay its debt.

In contrast to Bitcoin, which is decentralized money, independent of any third-party liability, holding USDT introduces multiple layers of third-party liability such as:

Trust in the integrity of the Ethereum network & in the honesty of ETH stakeholders who validate transactions and maintain the ledger.

Trust in Tether's financial stability and solvency, as well as its commitment to honoring its obligations, thereby mitigating the risk of bankruptcy or fraudulent activities.

Trust in the creditworthiness of the US government, as the value of USDT is ultimately tied to the value of US Treasury securities held by Tether.

These cumulative risks underscore the significance of third-party liability in the context of USDT ownership.

In conclusion, the statement “Tether prints USDT out of thin air” is based on the fact that USDT is minted by Tether without incurring any cost or spending resources, there is no mechanism to prove that Tether maintains 100% reserves and USDT is ultimately backed by fiat currency, which itself is debt created out of thin air by the FED. Therefore, “Tether prints USDT out of thin air” notion is not entirely unfounded and highlights the tenuous nature of USDT's backing.

Tether finances US debt and war machine by buying US Treasuries:

Having laid out the logic behind my statement that “Tether prints USDT out of thin air,” I will now move on to the main argument underlying my position: namely, that Tether is not a bitcoin company because its acquisition of US debt provides life support to a profoundly corrupt and exploitative financial system, which enables a small cabal of western elites exploit the rest of the world to further enrich themselves. The fundamental purpose of bitcoin is to replace this broken system, not to provide life support to it.

The current financial system:

erodes the purchasing power of working-class individuals through inflation

excludes a significant portion of the global population from accessing to financial services

preserves ‘the rules-based global order’ (as it is called by the West) that exploits developing nations for the benefit of a privileged few in Western countries

concentrates control in the hands of an unscrupulous banking cartel and self-proclaimed elites

At the heart of the existing financial system lies the US dollar's role as a global reserve currency that grants the US government considerable leverage to enforce its economic and geopolitical interests. By controlling USD flows, the US can impose financial sanctions on nations that refuse to comply with its rules and norms.

In instances where financial coercion proves ineffective, the US has historically resorted to alternative measures, including military intervention and covert operations, aimed at bringing disobedient countries into compliance with its policy directives. Historical records are full of examples.

[ ] In 1953, the United States and the United Kingdom collaborated to orchestrate a coup d'état in Iran, resulting in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. This action was carried out following Mossadegh's decision to nationalise Iranian oil companies, which were vital to the West's economic interests.

[ ] The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a substantial role in supporting a coup against Salvador Allende, the democratically elected President of Chile in 1970, because they were concerned that Allende's policies would lead to a shift towards socialism and potentially even communism, which was seen as a threat to US interests in the region.

[ ] Saddam Hussein's decision to transition Iraq's oil transactions from US dollars to euros was a major factor contributing to his downfall. By challenging the existing global financial system, Hussein became a threat to the global financial order and therefore paid the price with his life.

[ ] Muammar Gaddafi proposed the establishment of a gold-based currency, known as the gold dinar, intended for use in African oil transactions. This initiative aimed to create a pan-African currency independent of both the US dollar and euro, potentially undermining their influence in regional trade. The perceived threat posed by this proposal to the global financial order has been the main factor to Libya's destabilization and Gaddafi's eventual demise.

[ ] The overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected president in 2014 by a CIA orchestrated a coup d'état, with Victoria Nuland, then-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, playing a key role in the operation. The intervention was motivated by Western corporations’ desire to colonize Russia and use its resources as collateral to prolong the life of the global financial system that has become unsustainable with its current debt levels.

Those interested in understanding the mechanics of the current financial system or learning about the historical crimes committed by West against the Global South are invited to contact me directly. I can provide access to a comprehensive collection of resources that document these issues. However, due to space and time constraints, it is not feasible to elaborate on these topics in detail here.

The statement that Tether is primarily a bitcoin company is entirely unfounded since Tether provides significant support to the current financial system. The US government is currently facing challenges in financing its debt due to decreasing global confidence in its ability to repay its obligations. This is evident in the fact that China has ceased purchasing US debt, while Russia has sold off its entire holdings prior to the Special Military Operation (SMO). Furthermore, private investors are increasingly wary of investing in US debt, citing concerns over its sustainability. Currently, the UK and EU are the only entities actively buying US debt, which, along with the US, are the other two pillars of the existing global financial order. Notably, Tether has emerged as a substantial purchaser of US debt (approximately $100 billion at the time of writing), effectively serving as a vital lifeline for the prolongation of the Western colonial order.

Tether is NOT a bitcoin company. In my opinion, it is fair to say that those who claim that Tether is a bitcoin company are either lacking in critical thinking or have a financial stake that compromises their objectivity.

It is true that it helps bitcoin adoption and by providing liquidity contributes to the upward momentum of bitcoin price. I believe, it is likely that the current price of bitcoin would be significantly lower without Tether's involvement. This raises important questions about the motivations and values of those involved in the bitcoin community who claim that Tether is a bitcoin company. Can their support for Bitcoin be attributed to a sincere interest in advancing the principles of decentralization and sovereignty, or might it be influenced by self-interest and the pursuit of personal wealth? Are there other potential motivations or conflicts of interest at play?

As outlined in this article, I have concerns regarding Tether's alignment with the principles that underpin Bitcoin’s core values. My critique is not intended to be accusatory, but rather to encourage critical evaluation. I acknowledge and appreciate Tether's contribution to bitcoin ecosystem and see their investment in Rumble as a positive development for freedom of speech and recognize Samson's dedication for Bitcoin adoption. However, my appreciation for their efforts does not imply unconditional trust.

The defensive responses of some individuals within the community to my criticisms (without any reasonable counterarguments) have raised questions for me about their potential biases and motivations. While I do not aim to convince those who misinterpret my intentions, I will exercise increased suspicion when engaging with individuals who appear more focused on protecting Tether's interests than upholding the principles of Bitcoin.

In summary, I believe that Tether's role in propping up the current financial system - intentionally or not - underscores the need for skepticism and critical thinking. As global events continue to unfold with unprecedented speed and complexity, it's essential to remember: 'Don't trust, verify!'

You should add a Breez SDK integration like @nprofile…4k44 and ...

2026-09-03T01:34:05Z

In reply to nevent1q…sefq
_________________________

You should add a Breez SDK integration like Wisp (nprofile…4k44) and ZapCooking (nprofile…47c0) have.

Spot on.

2026-09-02T23:53:49Z

In reply to nevent1q…vsxm
_________________________

Spot on.

Quit now before it fucks you up in a way you can’t fix.

2026-09-02T22:28:27Z

In reply to nevent1q…0ltm
_________________________

Quit now before it fucks you up in a way you can’t fix.

Must be slop o’clock.

2026-09-02T22:07:08Z

In reply to nevent1q…m74j
_________________________

Must be slop o’clock.