Category: Crypto

Everything built on top of Bitcoin that you are aware of today is because of the primitives that Bitcoin Script supports. What do I mean by primitives? The basic components of a programming language that you can use to build actual applications to do things. No programming language was ever designed specifically for a single application, i.e. to build one program. They are designed to support basic primitives, like mathematical operations to manipulate data, or creating basic data structures to store data in a certain way, or operations to iterate through data as you manipulate it.

Basic primitives are designed in such a way that developers can decide how to use them in order to create an actual application or program. The core design of the language doesn’t necessarily focus on what people will do with it, just that the primitives of the language can’t be combined in a way that will either 1) fail to accomplish what the developer is trying to accomplish without them understanding why, or 2) accomplish what the developer is trying to do in a way that is detrimental to the end user.

No one designs a programming language thinking from the outset “Oh, we want to enable developers to do A, B, and C, but completely prevent them from doing X, Y, and Z.” (For more technical readers here, what I’m referring to here is the goal of what the developer is building, not low level technical details like how primitives are combined).

Bitcoin Script is no different than other programming languages except in one respect, what it means for a certain combination of primitives to be detrimental to end users. Bitcoin has two properties that general computer applications don’t, the blockchain and what is executed on it must be fully verified by all users running a full node, and the entire progression of the system is secured by financial incentives that must remain in balance. Other than these extra considerations, Script is like any other programming language, it should include any primitives that allow developers to build useful things for users that cannot be combined in ways that are detrimental to users.

All of the conversations around softforks to add covenants (new primitives) have devolved, at least in the public square, to ridiculous demands of what they will be used for. That is both not a possible thing to do, and also not the important thing to focus on. What will be built with Script is tangential to the risks that need to be analyzed, how things built interact with the base layer is the major risk. What costs will it impose, and how can those be constrained? (This is a huge part of the Great Script Restoration proposal from Rusty). How can those costs on the base layer skew incentives? This is a big part of the risk of MEV.

These questions can be analyzed without focusing obsessively over every possible thing that can be built with a primitive. Primitives can be constrained at the base layer in terms of verification cost and complexity. Most importantly, in terms of incentives, what new primitives enable can be compared with things that are already possible to build today. If new primitives simply improve the trust model for end users of systems that can already be built that have an influence on the system incentives, without materially worsening the influence they have on those incentives, then there is no real new risk introduced.

These conversations need to start focusing on what really matters, new functionality versus end user harm. They have derailed almost completely, again in the public square, not technical circles, into arguments over whether end users should be allowed to do things or not. That is not the conversation that matters. What matters is providing valuable functionality to end users without creating detrimental consequences.

People need to focus on the primitives, and not the wild geese they hear in the distance. 

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Fidelity Investments’ Director of Global Macro, Jurrien Timmer, continues to provide insightful frameworks for understanding Bitcoin’s valuation and growth. In a recent update, Timmer shared his take on Bitcoin’s adoption and value trajectories, illustrated by detailed charts that reflect both historical trends and hypothetical scenarios.

Timmer’s models aim to simplify Bitcoin’s complex growth dynamics, bridging the gap between network adoption and valuation. “While the supply is known, the demand is not,” he stated, emphasizing the critical role of adoption curves and macroeconomic variables such as real rates and monetary policy.

Adoption Curves: Slowing But Consistent Growth

Despite a slowdown in Bitcoin’s network growth, as measured by the number of wallets with a non-zero balance, Timmer noted that the trend still aligns with the steep power curve shown in his updated adoption chart. While the internet adoption curve has a gentler slope, Bitcoin’s adoption trajectory remains steeper, signifying its rapid but maturing growth.

Importantly, Timmer highlighted a key limitation in the measurement of wallet growth: the understated wallet/address count due to Bitcoin ETFs, which consolidate holdings into just a few wallets. “It’s very likely that the wallet/address count is understated,” he said, pointing out that ETFs obscure the broader distribution of Bitcoin adoption.

Monetary Policy Meets Adoption Dynamics

Building on his previous models, Timmer added a new layer to his valuation framework by incorporating money supply growth alongside real interest rates. The updated charts compare two hypothetical paths for Bitcoin’s valuation: one driven by adoption curves and real rates, and another that includes monetary inflation as a factor.

“Again, these are not predictions,” Timmer clarified, “but merely attempts at visualizing the use case on the basis of adoption, real rates, and monetary inflation.” This layered approach underscores how external macroeconomic forces, like monetary policy, could influence Bitcoin’s adoption and valuation.

Why This Matters

Timmer’s updated models reinforce Bitcoin’s position as a maturing financial asset. By combining historical S-curves, Metcalfe’s Law, and macroeconomic factors, he offers a comprehensive view of Bitcoin’s unique blend of network utility and monetary features. His work highlights the importance of adoption in driving Bitcoin’s value, while also demonstrating how real-world monetary conditions could shape its future.

For Bitcoin proponents and skeptics alike, Timmer’s insights serve as a valuable framework for understanding the asset’s dual nature as both a network and a form of money. The inclusion of monetary inflation in his models further underscores Bitcoin’s potential as a hedge against fiat currency debasement.

The Road Ahead

As Bitcoin continues to evolve, Timmer’s models provide a critical lens for tracking its development. Whether it’s the flattening of the adoption curve or the interplay between monetary policy and valuation, his analysis underscores the asset’s growing complexity—and its enduring relevance in the financial world.

For investors, analysts, and enthusiasts, these insights are a reminder of Bitcoin’s transformative potential, even as its growth curve matures.

Introduction

The security of Bitcoin, and other blockchains, such as Liquid, hinges on the use of digital signatures algorithms such as ECDSA and Schnorr signatures. A C library called libsecp256k1, named after the elliptic curve that the library operates on, is used by both Bitcoin Core and Liquid, to provide these digital signature algorithms. These algorithms make use of a mathematical computation called a modular inverse, which is a relatively expensive component of the computation.

In “Fast constant-time gcd computation and modular inversion,” Daniel J. Bernstein and Bo-Yin Yang develop a new modular inversion algorithm. In 2021, this algorithm, referred to as “safegcd,” was implemented for libsecp256k1 by Peter Dettman. As part of the vetting process for this novel algorithm, Blockstream Research was the first to complete a formal verification of the algorithm’s design by using the Coq proof assistant to formally verify that the algorithm does indeed terminate with the correct modular inverse result on 256-bit inputs.

The Gap between Algorithm and Implementation

The formalization effort in 2021 only showed that the algorithm designed by Bernstein and Yang works correctly. However, using that algorithm in libsecp256k1 requires implementing the mathematical description of the safegcd algorithm within the C programming language. For example, the mathematical description of the algorithm performs matrix multiplication of vectors that can be as wide as 256 bit signed integers, however the C programming language will only natively provide integers up to 64 bits (or 128 bits with some language extensions).

Implementing the safegcd algorithm requires programming the matrix multiplication and other computations using C’s 64 bit integers. Additionally, many other optimizations have been added to make the implementation fast. In the end, there are four separate implementations of the safegcd algorithm in libsecp256k1: two constant time algorithms for signature generation, one optimized for 32-bit systems and one optimized for 64-bit systems, and two variable time algorithms for signature verification, again one for 32-bit systems and one for 64-bit systems.

Verifiable C

In order to verify the C code correctly implements the safegcd algorithm, all the implementation details must be checked. We use Verifiable C, part of the Verified Software Toolchain for reasoning about C code using the Coq theorem prover.

Verification proceeds by specifying preconditions and postconditions using separation logic for every function undergoing verification. Separation logic is a logic specialized for reasoning about subroutines, memory allocations, concurrency and more.

Once each function is given a specification, verification proceeds by starting from a function’s precondition, and establishing a new invariant after each statement in the body of the function, until finally establishing the post condition at the end of the function body or the end of each return statement. Most of the formalization effort is spent “between” the lines of code, using the invariants to translate the raw operations of each C expression into higher level statements about what the data structures being manipulated represent mathematically. For example, what the C language regards as an array of 64-bit integers may actually be a representation of a 256-bit integer.

The end result is a formal proof, verified by the Coq proof assistant, that libsecp256k1’s 64-bit variable time implementation of the safegcd modular inverse algorithm is functionally correct.

Limitations of the Verification

There are some limitations to the functional correctness proof. The separation logic used in Verifiable C implements what is known as partial correctness. That means it only proves the C code returns with the correct result if it returns, but it doesn’t prove termination itself. We mitigate this limitation by using our previous Coq proof of the bounds on the safegcd algorithm to prove that the loop counter value of the main loop in fact never exceeds 11 iterations.

Another issue is that the C language itself has no formal specification. Instead the Verifiable C project uses the CompCert compiler project to provide a formal specification of a C language. This guarantees that when a verified C program is compiled with the CompCert compiler, the resulting assembly code will meet its specification (subject to the above limitation). However this doesn’t guarantee that the code generated by GCC, clang, or any other compiler will necessarily work. For example, C compilers are allowed to have different evaluation orders for arguments within a function call. And even if the C language had a formal specification any compiler that isn’t itself formally verified could still miscompile programs. This does occur in practice.

Lastly, Verifiable C doesn’t support passing structures, returning structures or assigning structures. While in libsecp256k1, structures are always passed by pointer (which is allowed in Verifiable C), there are a few occasions where structure assignment is used. For the modular inverse correctness proof, there were 3 assignments that had to be replaced by a specialized function call that performs the structure assignment field by field.

Summary

Blockstream Research has formally verified the correctness of libsecp256k1’s modular inverse function. This work provides further evidence that verification of C code is possible in practice. Using a general purpose proof assistant allows us to verify software built upon complex mathematical arguments.

Nothing prevents the rest of the functions implemented in libsecp256k1 from being verified as well. Thus it is possible for libsecp256k1 to obtain the highest possible software correctness guarantees.

This is a guest post by Russell O’Connor and Andrew Poelstra. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Follow Nikolaus On X Here

Bitcoin and open-source companies are some of the most exciting and innovative companies out there today. There are a handful of companies I personally think are going to exponentially grow as bitcoin increases in price and becomes a more established asset class, and if investing in them was available to non-accredited bitcoiners like me, it would be a no-brainer.

But today, that may have just changed. Timestamp, a new platform that allows accredited and nonaccredited investors to invest in Bitcoin and open-source companies, has officially launched. Timestamp promises users they can invest in Bitcoin companies with “low investment minimums” where users can review offerings, connect directly with the founders of these companies, and explore curated opportunities. Sounds pretty cool!

The idea of making investing in Bitcoin and open-source companies more accessible to plebs really interests me, and I feel that many other Bitcoiners would agree. After working in this industry for a few years, I’ve definitely noticed that finding funding to support open-source companies and projects can be pretty difficult. But a platform that allows a lot more people to join in on investing in and supporting these companies could really be a game changer.

At launch, users can now invest in the first batch of Bitcoin companies on the platform:

CASCDR — a suite of AI services payable in Bitcoin

Jippi — a gamified education app that helps Bitcoin beginners learn and earn

Lightning Bounties — a Github-integrated platform that rewards software developers with Bitcoin for their contributions

Shopstr — a global, decentralized marketplace built on Nostr

Sovereign — a wallet built for the Bitcoin standard

I’ll definitely be paying attention to what other companies are added to this platform in the future, and I think you should too.

Over three years ago, I asked Timestamp’s founder and CEO, Dr. Arman Meguerian, to speak with me on stage at the Bitcoin 2021 Conference in Miami, and he joined me for a great conversation on Bitcoin maximalism with a few other great Bitcoiners. I am really excited and happy to see him launch this company after building it quietly through the bear market these last couple years, and looking forward to seeing all they achieve!

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Newmarket Capital recently closed the first investment deal for its new Battery Finance loan strategy, which enables borrowers to incorporate bitcoin into long-term financing structures as collateral.

On November 7, 2024, Newmarket Capital, an institutional capital manager and Registered Investment Adviser completed a refinancing for the Bank Street Court apartment in Old City, Philadelphia, PA. The loan was collateralized by both the building and approximately 20 bitcoin.

Newmarket Capital CEO Andrew Hohns is excited about not only setting his company’s new strategy in motion but the symbolism in the deal.

“It’s a building that is located less than half a block away from the first bank of the United States,” Hohns told Bitcoin Magazine. “Philadelphia has had a lot of firsts and innovations over the years, and we’re proud to contribute another one to the list.”

How The Battery Finance Strategy Works

Battery Finance enables bitcoin to be used as 10% to 30% of the collateral for loans alongside traditional assets. To bring this new strategy to life, Newmarket Capital partnered with Ten 31 to establish Battery Finance, a majority-owned subsidiary of Newmarket Capital that utilizes bitcoin in financing structures.

Unlike other lending companies that let clients borrow against bitcoin with a risk of liquidation in the event that bitcoin’s price drops below a certain threshold, Newmarket Capital removes the risk and offers loan structures without a mark-to-market trigger.

“As lenders, we are constructive on the long-term value of bitcoin and comfortable recognizing bitcoin as collateral without mark-to-market risk,” said Hohns.

“We achieve this by incorporating bitcoin as a component of a broader collateral package alongside traditionally financeable assets. In this way, we have improved our downside through the introduction of bitcoin, an uncorrelated element — an asset that has had such a strong history of appreciation over time — in the collateral package.”

Deals that employ this strategy can be structured differently. In some cases, a borrower can use bitcoin they’re already holding as collateral for a loan, while, in other cases, Newmarket Capital and the borrower purchase bitcoin as part of the loan’s structure. The latter is how the loan for the Bank Street Court building was structured.

“It’s a $16.5 million building, and we offered the building owner a $12.5 million loan,” explained Hohns.

“The use of proceeds was to pay off the existing financing, which was $9 million, to provide them with approximately two million dollars of CapEx for certain improvements to the property they wanted to make,” he added.

“With the remaining $1.5 million dollars, we purchased just shy of twenty bitcoin as part of our combined collateral package.”

(At the time of writing, that bitcoin had already appreciated 30% in value since it was purchased for the loan.)

Unlike traditional loans which often lock borrowers in with prepayment penalties or a make-

whole, the Bank Street Court financing can be paid off at any time with no penalty. To allow for this outcome, the borrower and the lender align to share appreciation on the upside from the bitcoin over the life of the loan.

The longer the loan is outstanding, the greater the share of bitcoin appreciation that vests for the borrower, incentivizing borrowers to take a long term view on the bitcoin.

Although the loan can be repaid at any time and the building released, the earliest that the bitcoin can be wound down is four years, in line with bitcoin’s four year rhythm. The loan carries a single digit interest rate and has a maturity of 10 years.

Bringing Forward Bitcoin’s Value

Hohns, a Bitcoiner himself, understands that other Bitcoiners have a low time preference, that they prioritize future economic well-being over more immediate gratification. However, he acknowledges that there are limits to this approach, which is why Newmarket Capital created the Battery Finance strategy.

“The lowest time preference is not feasible for humans, because we have a finite life,” he said.

“There’s a point where we want to accomplish things with our lives. We want to grow our business or start a new business or just do the things that we all have passion for, like opening up a MakerSpace or a brewery or a bookstore — whatever the case might be. If you’re just HODLing the Bitcoin, you’re deferring those dreams,” he added.

“By offering this financing tool, we can essentially serve as a mechanism to transform those time preferences, to bring forward the appreciation of the bitcoin by offering a significant amount of financing to accomplish whatever the real world goals borrowers have.”

Target Borrowers

Battery Finance is currently focused on working with borrowers who are interested in acquiring or refinancing commercial properties.

“For the time being, we’re inviting interest around loans that are, generally speaking, $10 million to $30 million dollars, which include 10% to 30% percent bitcoin with 70% to 90% percent traditionally-financeable income-producing assets,” explained Hohns.

“This is a tool for both asset owners that want to redenominate some of the equity in their

existing portfolio into bitcoin and its also a tool for Bitcoiners who want to obtain stable long-term financing supported in part by their bitcoin to acquire assets in the real world. This way, they can generate income and accomplish their goals while remaining invested in bitcoin.”

In time, Battery Finance plans to service a broader range of customers.

“We see broad applicability for this lending structure, including, over time, to people that are at different phases of their Bitcoin savings journeys,” said Hohns. “I hope that these kinds of products will develop into solutions that enable people to do things like finance a house or automobile with their bitcoin.”

Jason Lowery’s Softwar “thesis” is a complete joke. It is a mix of incoherent, and subtly so, argumentation about cybersecurity and a repackaging of old topics of discussion that were thoroughly explored a decade before Jason Lowery became a name that anyone was familiar with in this space.

First let’s look at the nation state mining “defensive weaponry” nonsense. Nation states being incentivized to mine, or support mining in their jurisdictions, is not some novel idea of Jason’s. It is a widely discussed dynamic going as far back as 2011-2013. Essentially every Bitcoiner since that time period who has been involved enough in this space to study and discuss where things were going in the long term has considered the dynamic of nations getting involved with mining if Bitcoin was actually successful in its growth long term.

If Bitcoin ever became geopolitically relevant at a global scale, nation states were always going to take an interest in the mining sector. Nation states have an involvement in regulating all major commodities and their production, from gold to oil and natural gas. This is not some novel thesis or notion, it is common sense that was obvious to every random nerd who was in this space over a decade ago.

The aspect of Bitcoin securing data however is patently absurd and incoherent. Bitcoin does not “secure” data. It can timestamp data, but that is not a magic guarantee of security. It does nothing whatsoever to protect data from exfiltration (being accessed by unauthorized people and copied), nor does it guarantee integrity or accuracy. All data on the blockchain is publicly accessible to anyone running a node. The idea of Bitcoin being useful for controlling access to information is just absurd. By its very nature any data put on Bitcoin is accessible by literally anyone. That is the entire bedrock it is based on, everything being open and transparent so that it can be verified.

So let’s talk about paywalls, APIs, and nonsense gibberish like “digital energy.” Lowery’s next big jump is that charging in bitcoin for API calls somehow improves security. This is complete nonsense. Restricting access to an API is done for two reasons, 1) to manage resource use and stop them from being wasted, or 2) to only allow specific individuals you have authorized to access the API. Bitcoin can help with the former slightly, but does nothing whatsoever to help with the latter.

Even monetizing an API with bitcoin doesn’t really help resource management protecting against DoS attacks. People can still send packets to your machine without a payment. Those packets still have to be diverted or managed by traditional DoS systems, which typically work by blackholing packets, or redirecting them away from your system. Bitcoin payments do nothing to get rid of the need to do such things.

A money that anyone can get their hands on does nothing to restrict access to a system to only specific people that you want to access that system. Cryptography does that. Passwords do that. Technologies that already exist completely independently of, and have no need for, Bitcoin. Not to mention that even with such systems properly implemented, the hardware and software on the system being secured is ultimately what secures that system. People don’t fail to breach a server because “Bitcoin is protecting it,” they fail because the security systems on that server are properly implemented.

Bitcoin, and even proper cryptography without Bitcoin, does nothing to keep a system secure when implementations are done incorrectly or flaws exist in those systems. That is the root of cybersecurity, and Bitcoin does absolutely nothing to change it. It does not help hardware be free from flaws, or security software be free from bugs. This entire aspect of his “thesis” is totally incoherent gibberish, that makes no logical sense at all. It’s a con to sucker in people who do not understand these things and build a reputation by hiding incoherence and incompetence behind clueless people cheerleading.

And the whole “Bitcoin will stop wars” nonsense because nation states will compete with mining against each other? Laughable. Bitcoin mining will not change the geopolitical competition over agricultural lands, natural resources, tactical military positions, or anything that nation states go to war over. It is pure delusion.

Jason Lowery does not have a “thesis”, he has a pile of incoherent garbage taped together around a single observation that an uncountable number of Bitcoiners had a decade before he ever entered this space. It’s a complete joke, and anyone buying it demonstrates they have zero critical thinking skills or familiarity with the relevant subject matter.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Follow Kristyna on X.

As a PR professional with over a decade of experience, I’ve witnessed firsthand the changing landscape of media. And let’s be honest: the claim that “legacy media is dead” feels more like a provocative headline than an accurate assessment. Sure, the traditional media model is shifting—especially in the wake of recent U.S. elections, where public trust in established outlets saw a noticeable decline. People are seeking alternative narratives and digging deeper to uncover the truth.

Take this data point from Pew Research Center: “About one-in-five Americans—including 37% of adults under 30—say they regularly get news from influencers on social media.” This is not just a rejection of legacy media but a rejection of traditional gatekeepers perceived as increasingly out of touch with their audience’s needs.

But to declare the death of the media is an oversimplification. What we’re witnessing isn’t an end but a transformation. The media is evolving to meet the demands of an audience hungry for something new. Transparency has become the cornerstone of this evolution. People want to know who is behind the editorial decisions, who owns the media they consume, and how that ownership influences the content. The old adage “he who pays the piper calls the tune” rings truer than ever.

This isn’t a bad thing. Transparency can help rebuild trust in an era when skepticism toward corporate and political affiliations is at an all-time high.

Let’s face it: true objectivity in journalism is a myth. Journalists are human, and with that comes inherent subjectivity. Even the decision about what to cover reflects “selection bias.” For example, legacy media outlets often write about Bitcoin businesses only when the cryptocurrency’s price is soaring or plummeting, perpetuating a volatile narrative that aligns with click-driven news cycles. This framing can overshadow the steady, transformative developments in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

Once a story angle is chosen, journalists frequently seek sources to fit that narrative. That’s not to say journalists don’t strive for balance, but every choice—from framing to language—carries subjectivity. And that’s okay, as long as we’re honest about it. The audience deserves transparency over the illusion of neutrality.

The media landscape is also diversifying, and specialized outlets are emerging to serve specific audiences. These platforms are experimenting with new business models and building stronger connections with their readers, who feel seen and heard. We’re also witnessing a shift from passive consumption to active engagement, with audiences supporting independent creators, subscribing to premium content, or directly funding investigative journalism.

A prime example of this shift is the rise of long-form, unscripted conversations on platforms like The Joe Rogan Experience. A candid, hours-long conversation with a guest often achieves what a pre-recorded, heavily orchestrated interview on ABC cannot: authenticity. This format allows us to see public figures, including political candidates, as they truly are—unscripted, human, and occasionally flawed. It serves a vital purpose by showcasing the raw, unfiltered side of individuals, rather than relying on rehearsed phrases and carefully crafted talking points. In a world craving transparency, these platforms resonate because they prioritize authenticity over polish.

This brings us to an essential question: does the traditional view of legacy media still hold up for global reporting or investigative journalism? Historically, legacy outlets have been considered the bedrock of these fields. However, investigative journalists in specific niches—such as healthcare or technology—are often independent. Global news often breaks on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) before legacy editorial teams have a chance to react. The speed, reach, and flexibility of new media channels are reshaping how we approach “big” stories.

To understand how this shift might play out, consider WikiLeaks. When traditional financial institutions blocked donations to the organization, Bitcoin provided a lifeline. Its decentralized nature allowed people worldwide to fund WikiLeaks without intermediaries. This example illustrates how Bitcoin and blockchain technology can support investigative journalism, particularly in scenarios where traditional funding methods are compromised.

Looking ahead, we could see audiences paying directly for investigative work, particularly for stories with global impact. A more decentralized funding model could enable journalists to report freely without fearing repercussions from advertisers, governments, or financial institutions.

Bitcoin has the potential to help build a more trustworthy media ecosystem. Its transparency—every transaction recorded and immutable—could verify the authenticity of content, combat misinformation, and support independent creators. By decentralizing power, Bitcoin removes reliance on traditional gatekeepers and empowers audiences to directly support journalism they trust, fostering self-sovereign investigative journalism free from monetary influence and truly serving its audience.

But this is only the beginning. It’s not just about Bitcoin; it’s about rethinking how media is produced, funded, and consumed. The responsibility also lies with us as consumers. By researching our sources, verifying information, and thinking critically about what we share, we play a direct role in shaping the media landscape.

Now imagine tools that can be built with responsible AI. It has the potential to revolutionize media literacy and trust by acting as a “Bullshit Meter” that validates facts, detects bias, and uncovers hidden influences of ownership and sponsorship. Through tools like fact-checking algorithms, sentiment analysis, misinformation networks, and content mapping, AI can empower consumers to critically evaluate the media they consume. By integrating these capabilities into user-friendly platforms—such as browser extensions or educational tools—AI can make transparency and accountability more accessible than ever. While challenges like AI bias and industry resistance remain, leveraging this technology could fundamentally reshape how we produce, consume, and trust media in an era defined by skepticism and misinformation.

The future of media isn’t about clinging to old models or dismissing them outright. It’s about transformation. It’s about a media that reflects the values of transparency, independence, and truth. And it’s up to us, as both professionals and consumers, to support this evolution—one piece, one platform, one choice at a time.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Follow Aaron on Nostr or X.

As I’ve explained previously, I don’t think Donald Trump actually gives a damn about Bitcoin; at best, he’s a shitcoiner who wants in on the scam. Having said that, it is fair to say that Trump adopted a pro-crypto stance during his campaign. And indeed, his promise at Bitcoin 2024 to fire Gary Gensler on “day one” of his presidency seems to have already resulted in the SEC chairman announcing his resignation.

An optimistic scenario (as for example suggested by Trey Walsh) is one in which the Democrats now (also) adopt Bitcoin as part of their party platform. But given how many other seemingly neutral topics get unnecessarily politicized (the COVID vaccines are perhaps the best recent example of this), I wouldn’t be surprised to see the opposite happen.

As the upcoming Trump administration is gearing up to establish a regulatory landscape facilitating full-on anything-goes multicoinery, and with Gary Gensler gone, we could well see the most atrocious scam coins proliferate and soar— before they inevitably implode. And as people over the next four years get rug pulled, dumped on, and otherwise defrauded, I could also easily imagine a political response from the other side of the aisle that fails to recognize the distinction between Bitcoin and the World Liberty Financials of the world altogether. They could turn against all of cryptocurrency even more than they already have— Bitcoin not excluded.

Of course, this is all speculation; I have no crystal ball here. But in a few years from now, bitcoiners might find themselves in between polarized positions from both major American political parties. Nocoiners to the left of me, shitcoiners to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Bitcoin’s recent price action has been nothing short of exhilarating, but beyond the market buzz lies a wealth of on-chain data offering deeper insights. By analyzing metrics that gauge network activity, investor sentiment, and the BTC market cycles, we can gain a clearer picture of Bitcoin’s current position and potential trajectory.

Plenty Of Upside Remaining

The MVRV Z-Score compares Bitcoin’s market cap, or price multiplied by circulating supply, with its realized cap, which is the average price at which all BTC were last transacted. Historically, this metric signals overheated markets when it enters the red zone, while the green zone suggests widespread losses and potential undervaluation.

Figure 1: MVRV Z-Score still at comparatively low values.

View Live Chart 🔍

Currently, despite Bitcoin’s rise to new all-time highs, the Z-score remains in neutral territory. Previous bull runs saw Z-scores reach highs of 7 to 10, far beyond the current level of around 3. If history repeats, this indicates significant room for further price growth.

Miner Profitability

The Puell Multiple evaluates miner profitability by comparing their daily USD-denominated revenue to their previous one-year moving average. Post-halving, miners’ earnings dropped by 50%, which led to a multi-month period of decreased earnings as the BTC price consolidated for most of 2024.

Figure 2: Puell Multiple reclaiming 1.00 has previously signified the start of bullish price action.

View Live Chart 🔍

Yet even now, as Bitcoin has skyrocketed to new highs, the multiple indicates only a 30% increase in profitability relative to historical averages. This suggests that we are still in the early to middle stages of the bull market, and when comparing the patterns in the data we look like we have the potential for explosive growth akin to 2016 and 2020. With a post-halving reset, consolidation, and a finally a reclaim of the 1.00 multiple level signifying the exponential phase of price action.

Measuring Market Sentiment

The Net Unrealized Profit and Loss (NUPL) metric quantifies the network’s overall profitability, mapping sentiment across phases like optimism, belief, and euphoria. Similar to the MVRV Z-Score as it is derived from realized value or investor cost-basis, it looks at the current estimated profit or losses for all holders.

Figure 3: NUPL is still at lower values than our previous ATH set in March 2024.

View Live Chart 🔍

Presently, Bitcoin remains in the ‘Belief’ zone, far from ‘Euphoria’ or ‘Greed’. This aligns with other data suggesting there is ample room for price appreciation before reaching market saturation. Especially considering this metric is still at lower levels than this metric reached earlier this year in March when we set out previous all-time high.

Long-Term Holder Trends

The percentage of Bitcoin held for over a year, represented by the 1+ Year HODL Wave, remains exceptionally high at around 64%, which is still higher than at any other point in Bitcoin history prior to this cycle. Prior price peaks in 2017 and 2021 saw these values fall to 40% and 53%, respectively as long-term holders began to realize profits. If something similar were to occur during this cycle, then we still have millions of bitcoin to be transferred to new market participants.

Figure 4: 1+ Year HODL Wave is still higher than any previous cycle highs.

View Live Chart 🔍

So far, only around 800,000 BTC has been transferred from the Long Term Holder Supply to newer market participants during this cycle. In past cycles, up to 2–4 million BTC changed hands, highlighting that long-term holders have yet to cash out fully. This indicates a relatively nascent phase of the current bull run.

Figure 5: Long Term Holder Supply is still considerably higher than previous cycles.

View Live Chart 🔍

Tracking “Smart Money”

The Coin Days Destroyed metric weighs transactions by the holding duration of coins, emphasizing whale activity. We can then multiply that value by the BTC price at that point in time to see the Value Days Destroyed (VDD) Multiple. This gives us a clear insight into whether the largest and smartest BTC holders are beginning to realize profits in their positions.

Figure 6: The VDD metric indicates the largest and most experienced holders aren’t selling.

View Live Chart 🔍

Current levels remain far from the red zones typically seen during market tops. This means whales and “smart money” are not yet offloading significant portions of their holdings and are still awaiting higher prices before beginning to realize substantial profits.

Conclusion

Despite the rally, on-chain metrics overwhelmingly suggest that Bitcoin is far from overheated. Long-term holders remain largely steadfast, and indicators like the MVRV Z-score, NUPL, and Puell Multiple all highlight room for growth. That said, some profit-taking and new market participants signal a transition into the mid to late-cycle phase, which could potentially be sustained for most of 2025.

For investors, the key takeaway is to remain data-driven. Emotional decisions fueled by FOMO and euphoria can be costly. Instead, follow the underlying data fueling Bitcoin and use tools like the metrics discussed above to guide your own investing and analysis.

For a more in-depth look into this topic, check out a recent YouTube video here: What’s Happening On-chain: Bitcoin Update

Follow Nikolaus On X Here

What an enormous day it has been today.

Gary Gensler officially announced that he is stepping down from his position as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and minutes later, Reuters reported that Donald Trump’s “crypto council” is expected to “establish Trump’s promised bitcoin reserve.” A bitcoin reserve, that would see the United States purchase 200,000 bitcoin per year, for five years until it has bought 1,000,000 bitcoin. 

Image via Julian Fahrer

Right after both of those, Bitcoin continued its upward momentum and broke $99,000, with $100,000 feeling like it can happen at any second now.

It is hard to contain my bullishness thinking about the United States purchasing 200,000 BTC per year. They essentially have to compete with everyone else in the world who is also accumulating bitcoin and attempting to front run them. There are only 21 million bitcoin and that is a LOT of demand.

To put this into context, so far this year the US spot bitcoin ETFs have accumulated a combined total of over 1 million BTC. At the time of launch the price was ~$44,000 and now bitcoin is practically at $100,000. And that’s all ETFs combined. Imagine what will happen when just one entity wants to buy a total of 1 million coins, having to compete with everyone else accumulating large amounts as well?

I mean MicroStrategy literally just completed another $3 BILLION raise to buy more bitcoin, and will continue raising until it purchases $42 billion more in bitcoin. The United States are most likely going to be purchasing their coins (if this legislation is officially signed into law) at very high prices. The demand is insane and only rising in the foreseeable future.

With two months left to go until Trump officially takes office, it remains to be seen if this bill becomes law, but at the moment things are looking really good. As Senator Cynthia Lummis stated, “This is our Louisiana Purchase moment!” and would be an absolutely historic moment for Bitcoin, Bitcoiners, and the future financial dominance of the United States of America.

This is the solution.

This is the answer.

This is our Louisiana Purchase moment!#Bitcoin2024 pic.twitter.com/RNEiLaB16U

— Senator Cynthia Lummis (@SenLummis) July 27, 2024

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.