Introducing Bitwater: the water heater element that mines Bitcoin. It screws into the electric tank you already have. Physically decentralized mining that runs no matter what 🧵 Heat water. Mine Bitcoin. Same tank.

Last month, we demonstrated high-rate alchemy: turning mercury into real, stable gold, beating CERN’s record by a factor of 10. Last week, we enriched isotopes in the world’s most powerful plasma centrifuge, beating the Soviet record that stood for 40 years. Now, we’re building a fusion reactor in San Francisco to achieve record power density.

megachurch worship pastor Carl Lentz and his wife just wrote a book about recovering from marital betrayal and he talks about how after the affair he would leave his phone on FaceTime all night long when he traveled for work and stopped wearing his contacts when he would go to the gym so he couldn't see other women. if this is ever my marriage, shoot me with a gun.

Δεν υπάρχει αυτό που γίνεται σήμερα 😂😂😂

Turns out the future does have flying cars

🚨 $OPEN has just launched a new product: Opendoor Own Only available in North Carolina

Welcome HomeView

Problems happen the industry gets stronger

A clear case is not decoration. It lets you inspect a COLDCARD for a component swap or implant. The tamper-evident bag, anti-phishing words, dual Secure Elements and verified firmware add independent checks. That’s defense in depth. coldcard.com/docs/physical-n…

🚨BREAKING: Tom Lee says BitMine will "STOP" buying ETH at 5% "hard cap." "We only need to get another 100,000 ETH to get to 5%," Lee said on stage at Token2049. Lee called 5% BitMine’s “hard cap,” saying it optimizes shareholder value.

#Metaplanet: one post to sum it all Over the past 24 hours I've posted a string of thoughts on Metaplanet's Q3 bitcoin sale and buyback. I've had time to digest it, so here it is in one place. And I've tagged the stakeholders at the end. The context In Q3 Metaplanet sold 10,000 BTC at an average ¥12.47M and bought 11,000 back at ¥13.63M, 9.3% higher. Against simply holding, the round trip on the 10,000 cost about ¥11.6bn (~$73M) before fees. The stated reasons are a US tax loss, worth a possible ~$97M deferred tax asset that isn't yet recognized, and showing rating agencies the company will sell BTC to meet obligations. No further details were given. Taking the reasons at face value 1. Tax. US wash-sale rules don't apply to bitcoin, so a sale and a rebuy a few days apart books the same loss. Advisers may want some market exposure between the two legs so the trade has economic substance, and a few days covers that. Three weeks out of the market and a re-entry 9% higher is not necessary. 2. Liquidity. Strategy is the obvious reference. It holds ~4.2% of all bitcoin against ~$22B of converts and preferreds, and S&P's stated objection to its credit is the mismatch between bitcoin assets and dollar obligations. Between late May and early August it sold 6,948 BTC across five weekly 8-Ks, about 0.8% of its stack, each disclosed within days with the use of proceeds. In contrast, Metaplanet holds ~0.2% of all bitcoin and has no listed preferreds. It sold 23% of its stack in one quarter and told shareholders after the quarter ended. If they are saying the truth, then tell us which rating agency asked for that? None of it adds up. I'm calling bullshit. I can smell it. It's not even good bullshit - which I at least would have acknowledged. It's an intellectually lazy cover up and an insult to our intelligence. What the chain and the price tape show - Aug 21 to Sep 1: exactly 10,000.0 BTC left Metaplanet wallets for a single Coinbase Prime deposit address, in odd-sized lots. ¥12.47M sits inside BTC/JPY's range for that window. - The same 12 days, 10,000 BTC came back to new Metaplanet wallets from Coinbase Prime in round lots of 675 to 1,000. Net change across the window: zero. - ¥13.63M was only reachable Sep 21 to 23. Even at the late-August high, a rebuy then would put the 11,000 BTC average near ¥13.1M, so the coins that came back in August can't be the disclosed repurchase. - Sep 28 to 30: 12 tranches went to Coinbase Prime and came back within 13 to 88 minutes, plus a net +1,000 BTC on Sep 30. That's quarter-end movement, not the trades. On Aug 12 Simon wrote: "No bitcoin was sold, and our holdings remain 43,000 BTC. All of our addresses are published, which is why the transfers were observable in real time." That was an accurate statement at the time. Nine days later, 10,000 BTC started moving from those published addresses to Coinbase Prime. The sale was disclosed on Oct 5. x.com/gerovich/status/208767… The scenario that actually makes sense 1. BTC ran from ~$64k to ~$80k between Aug 19 and the Aug 28 monthly expiry, up 24% in nine days. Short calls on roughly 4,000 to 5,000 BTC struck at $68k to $70k would have lost about $50M on that move. 2. Selling 10,000 BTC raised ~$790M, far more than a $50M loss needs. It was used as collateral for cash-secured puts, written to earn the call loss back in September. 3. BTC rallied from mid-September, the puts expire or close without assignment, and Q3 options revenue lands at ¥848M (~$5.4M), down 51% from Q2, despite having added $235M in debt which would have been plenty of collateral to generate a very healthy income in Q3. 4. Sep 21 to 23: 11,000 BTC rebought at ~$86k, roughly $950M against $790M received. The ~$160M difference was funded from a either the credit facility top up or a new BTC-collateralized debt source. What this doesn't explain is the 10,000 BTC sitting in Metaplanet's wallets for the three weeks the company says it had sold them. The backdrop The trades fall in the weeks when executive compensation was under the most public pressure, and the questions raised then are still open. - 10th series: the Aug 18 notice lists holders by category (CEO 276,000 units, two executive officers 141,000, two employees 42,000). It doesn't name the officers - this should be standard disclosure. - MMXX: three consecutive securities reports said the CEO indirectly holds a majority of its voting rights. His Sep 6 statement says he is a significant but non-majority shareholder of its parent. I'm taking them at their word, but can't imagine it was just a typo. MMXX has lent tens of millions of Metaplanet shares to EVO, at a fee withheld "at MMXX's request". The issue is not so much with the owners of MMXX profiting from this arrangement, but the governance around the potential conflicts of interest here. For instance, did Simon have a say in the related board resolutions? If Simon and Dylan are running the derivatives book, what was their emotional state during the timing of this trade? They gambled on a quarter of the stack, and lost money for shareholders in the process. Were they mentally and emotionally fit to make such a decision at that time? Questions for management 1. The date, size and price of every sale and repurchase, and how long the proceeds sat in cash. If that's too much to ask, then the monthly P&L for the options book in Q3 - that would settle it. 2. Which rating agency asked for a demonstrated sale, and why the rebuy waited three weeks. 3. What the 10,000 BTC that returned to the published wallets between Aug 21 and Sep 1 were. 4. Any bitcoin borrowed or lent at Sep 30. 5. Why a sale of 23% of the treasury wasn't disclosed when it happened, when every movement that affects the long term treasury bucket is? Is that not in your opinion a a significant asset sale that should require timely disclosure? 6. Name the 10th-series holders, and put the remaining units to a shareholder vote, while participants abstain. 7. Also put the continuation of the advisory board members, and especially David Bailey to a shareholder vote. It's money down the drain and I suspect shareholders would agree. 8. Publish the MMXX Capital cap table, who approved the related board resolutions, and the fee MMXX earns lending shares to EVO. My position I hold Metaplanet shares and will sell them over the coming week. The more I weigh what management has done against what it has said, the less I trust its disclosures, and that now outweighs the upside I see in the business. There are other vehicles to express that upside, where I don't have to constantly second guess where I'm being deceived. And while some people may feel I have been too harsh lately, I actually think I've been too soft and biased towards them, because of my stake. Holding pulled my thinking toward finding reasons to believe them, and without a position I can write about the company with no stake in the answer. My size won't move the market, and I wish everyone reading this good fortune and success. @gerovich @DylanLeClair @Shinpei3350 $MPJPY $MTPLF $DN3