I try to stay cheerful and constructive most days. But today I have a bone to pick with the community. A friendly bone, but a bone nonetheless. As advocates and issuers of digital credit, we do our customers a tragic disservice by expressing the dividends on preferred equities primarily as percentages. Why? Think about what happened this summer. Amidst cascading liquidations, we saw confused, scared holders of $STRC and $SATA who misunderstood how those stocks' dividends are computed. That's not so much an ignorance problem on their part — though that is a component — but rather a marketing and communications problem on ours. If I tell you that a preferred stock pays a 12% dividend, it's not immediately clear whether that's 12% of a constant number (the "stated amount," or par value) or 12% of a moving number (the market price). The truth, as we all know, is the former. But to people unfamiliar with fixed-income conventions, that can sound almost too good to be true. This isn't theoretical for me. My dad misunderstood this concept. Multiple times. And his reaction unmistakably confirmed that it sounded too good to be true. "How??" he asked in disbelief. Regular folks simply don't have the experience that would make this intuitive or obvious. Some of you may be tempted to think that this misunderstanding was due to generational differences. ("Oh those old folks! Bless their hearts.") My girlfriend — who is half my dad's age, regularly uses the Robinhood app, and is generally the quintessential educated millennial — had the same misunderstanding. This issue does not discriminate by age. It discriminates by domain-specific knowledge. This is why, as many of you may have noticed, I generally try to talk about digital credit dividends in a way that is precise and unambiguous. Instead of saying "12%" I'll say "$12 per share". $12 per share is easy to understand, and it implicitly conveys the distinction between the dividend amount and the effective yield. If you understand that the share price can move, and you understand that the dividend per share does not change until the issuer changes it, you've already cleared one of the biggest conceptual hurdles. The real tragic comedy in all of this is that the percentage is calculated from a fixed amount ($100), and therefore there's no need for the ambiguity in the first place. The reference amount doesn't move, so why use a percentage as part of the first-impression handshake? I ask everyone to thoughtfully consider, in the context of digital credit — which is already a completely new concept to many — whether the conversational familiarity of percentages is worth the risk of misunderstanding by our audience. If you're speaking to a fellow expert who understands what you mean by "12%," the risk is tiny. But if you're writing content that may be picked up and read by people who aren't experts, the risk, in my opinion, is much higher. And the failure mode is silent. We don't get immediate feedback when someone misinterprets the number. We may never even know it happened. I know that almost all of us (bears and FUDsters excluded) are trying our best to educate others in good faith. I'm grateful to be a part of this community, and I appreciate the dialogue and feedback I've received and continue to receive from so many of you. That is all. Thanks for your time today. 🧡 $STRC $SATA $SATS

Today I call upon the blockchain industry to calmly begin planning for "bunker mode". My personal recommendation is to set in motion a controlled mass migration of assets to fresh addresses, i.e. addresses whose pubkeys remain hidden behind a hash. Holders, starting with large and sophisticated ones, should consider moving the bulk of their funds to addresses that have never signed a transaction. And when they do sign one, they should also move remaining funds to a new address (possibly generated from the same seed phrase). Don't rush. While I believe there is cause for action a rushed migration would do more harm than good. Don't panic either. Moving assets to protected addresses is a simple, preventative step which does not require new cryptography or new wallets. IMO it is now reasonable to brace for the possibility that ECDSA breaks before qday, in the worst case in months not years. By "break" I mean fast private key recovery (e.g. in one week) on available hardware (e.g. a large GPU cluster). Recent days have been humbling for human mathematical intuition. Long-held, unquestioned hypotheses have fallen. This includes the n log(n) bound for integer multiplication and the 3SUM conjecture. In hindsight, May's unexpected disproof of the Erdős unit distance conjecture was our warning shot. Yesterday's OpenAI drop made it clear that mathematical superintelligence is upon us. They say there are weeks where decades happen. We are about to live through weeks where centuries of mathematical progress happen. Could our magic 64-byte ECDSA signatures be too good to be true? Was it just security through obscurity all this time? Elliptic curves feel especially vulnerable to superintelligence. Curves carry rich structure, with room for fancy tricks like Schoof, Frobenius, pairings. (By contrast, hashes are designed to minimise algebraic structure.) Separately, as Ewin Tang can attest, an efficient quantum algorithm sometimes foreshadows an efficient classical one. We should be open to the possibility of a classical counterpart to Shor that breaks elliptic curves and RSA at once. Also noteworthy is the striking under-representation of cryptographic breakthroughs among the 722 mathematical results OpenAI published. I've witnessed first-hand the US government censoring academic quantum cryptanalysis results. Backroom interventionism is my base case. I urge large, sophisticated actors to lead by example. Project11's "risq list" (bitcoin-risq-list.projecteleven[.]com) is a great tracker of exposed BTC pubkeys. Binance, Bitbank, Robinhood, Bitfinex, and Tether have an opportunity to harden their cold storage. Next month I'll address institutions in London in a live Q&A (forum.ethereuminstitutional[.]org/london-2026). Again, please do not rush. Wallets holding under 50 BTC enjoy partial cover from "Satoshi's shield", i.e. his 20K exposed addresses that hold 50 BTC each. Load-bearing signers like oracles and L2 security councils should consider rotating ECDSA pubkeys with every signed message and/or multi-signing with a hash-based schemes like SPHINCS. Exiting bunker mode safely will require post-AI cryptography. My inclination is to go all-in on hash-based cryptography and avoid structured mathematical assumptions entirely, whether from curves, lattices, or isogenies. A single battle-tested hash (e.g. from the SHA or BLAKE families) yields plausible post-AI security. The Ethereum roadmap on strawmap[.]org fully embraces hash-based cryptography with end-to-end formal verification as a response to the quantum threat. Those timelines must now be revisited and accelerated in light of mathematical superintelligence. I'll be pushing for maximum defensive acceleration.

How Bitcoin is created, I forget.

I just signed an executive order permanently declaring Artificial Intelligence “Artificial Intelligence” in California. You’re welcome, America.

Important open letter from @millervalue to @MSCI_Inc regarding its new "operating assets" test, clearly reverse-engineered to exclude digital asset treasury companies from its indices. Worth a read. millervalue.com/what-belongs…

Just a reminder that every single pleb who has been dollar cost averaging #bitcoin is now in profit no matter when they first started DCA'ing. Every single one of them!

BREAKING: Anthropic has quietly set up a "wet lab" in the Bay Area as it pushes Claude to conduct real-world biology experiments. — Reuters

Bitcoin is an open, global reserve asset with absolute scarcity. The Investor Guide explores Bitcoin’s monetary properties, investment case, market structure, portfolio role, custody and risks. $BTC strategy.com/bitcoin/brief