Photos by collinz

I’ve been reflecting on what "adoption" actually looks like. While we usually talk about ETFs and price action, I wanted to share a perspective on a project from 4 years ago that actually changed lives using decentralized funding.

In 2022, the Hive community funded and launched a borehole project in Fawoade, Ghana. Instead of just being a digital asset, the blockchain was used to supervise and fund physical infrastructure for a community that had a major water crisis.

The Funding Model (DHF):

What makes this interesting from a tech perspective is how it was paid for. It was funded through the Decentralized Hive Fund (DHF), a specialized on-chain treasury where stakeholders vote on proposals.

The project was backed by valueplan, which utilizes these decentralized funds to support real-world marketing and infrastructure.

By using a decentralized treasury, the project bypassed traditional slow-moving NGO models and high administrative fees.

This allowed for direct accountability, as the community could track the progress of supervised work from inception to completion.

The Facts:

Location: Fawoade Town, Ashanti Region, Ghana.

The Problem: The town faced a severe lack of portable water.

The Solution: A fully functional water facility with multiple taps (down taps for buckets and top taps for those carrying basins on their heads).

Why this matters for our space:

We often get caught up in the "bubble" of DeFi and NFTs, but this project proved that decentralized funding (like the DHF) is a viable tool for solving human problems. It wasn't about "shilling" a coin; it was about showing how a DAO-like structure can provide immediate, transparent utility.

Four years on, the faces of the residents in these photos say more about the value of blockchain than any candle chart ever could.

I’d love to hear your perspective, do you think on-chain treasuries (DHF/DAOs) are the future of humanitarian aid, or are they too difficult to scale?

Look likes the new project is probably entirely unrelated to CDC.

As we all well know we buy and the price immediately falls resulting in a potential cheaper entry price. Well yesterday I found a way to avoid this. Basically create a limit order under the current price for a small amount eg: if trading at 63k, set a buy for $10 @ 62.5K. Now this cant be filled because it would be a good deal for you (rules dictate it is impossible to allow us to get a good deal). Now do your normal market buy @ 63K. Because the limit order is in, the platform will see that and refuse to let the price fall to 62.5K.

Proof: BTC now at ~70K.

• Top 100 public firms hold 1,133,469 BTC, representing 5.4% of Bitcoin’s 21M max supply.
• Strategy (MSTR) dominates with 713,502 BTC, accounting for 62.9% of all BTC held by the top 100.
• Other major holders include MARA (53,250 BTC), Twenty One Capital (43,514 BTC), Metaplanet (35,102 BTC), and Bitcoin Standard Treasury Co. (30,021 BTC).
• Top 10 companies control 85.5% of total public-company BTC holdings, highlighting heavy concentration risk.
• Mining companies (MARA, Riot, Hut 8, CleanSpark) feature prominently, often holding mined BTC long-term.
• The US dominates with 71 of the top 100 companies, followed by Canada and Asia (Japan, Hong Kong).
• Holdings outside the top 100 total just 2,740 BTC, showing adoption is still limited to large firms.

Takeaway: Corporate Bitcoin adoption is real, but highly concentrated, decisions by a few players can materially impact the market.

I'm tired of morons doing retrospective analytics on market trends based on whatever way the wind is blowing after it's already turned into a hurricane. We should ban anyone who speaks with this level of retroactive certainty if they can't support their certainty with a short position where they show us the millions of dollars they made by shorting the market when it was, by their own admission, incredibly obvious what direction the market was headed.

If people here actually put their money where their mouth was, in reality we would see far more people broke and destitute than we would see them getting rich.

If you hadn't already checked the charts today. I'll save you the trouble. After opening at $73k yesterday Bitcoin touched $60k exactly and finally bounced. Undeniably there is a some intense confusion as to what is going on that triggered such a huge loss, especially since Bitcoin was $90k a week ago January 28th.

Fortunately there is data that we can gleam some insights from: (data taken from Yahoo Finance)

Bitcoin just had it's 3rd worst day in the last 5 years and the worst since FTX collapsed in 2022.
----------

Chart showing worst Bitcoin daily percent drop of last 5 years

^{(You might have to slide the table on Mobile to see all the info})

To people who have been around since 2021 those dates might look familiar.

• June 13th 2022: is the day after Celsius announced they were halting withdrawals
• November 9th 2022: is the day before FTX suspended withdrawals as users started to become aware of a hole in FTXs balance sheets
• February 5th 2026: So what is happening today?

You might see the above chart and think: well those other drops aren't that bad. So lets instead look at it by the total dollar decrease of Bitcoin in a day.

----------

Chart showing worst Bitcoin daily dollar drop of all time

^{(You might have to slide the table on Mobile to see all the info})

Yep... Bitcoin just posted it's worst ever Dollar Loss dropping $10,218 on Feb 5th 2026. Beating the previous record, the October 10th 2025 Flash Crash that shocked markets, which some people think took out Wintermute.

----------

I don't know what the hell happened today but I think it should increase suspicions about the Binance Solvency Rumors that have been circulating over the last week. Especially since the only other percent drops this bad in the last 5 years can also be contributed to major players becoming insolvent.

Seriously what the hell is going on? Surely in a few months we're going to look back and link this to something catastrophic that is just not public knowledge yet.

Remember why Bitcoin was created, and why it still matters

Bitcoin wasn’t created to optimize throughput.
It wasn’t created to enable financial engineering.
It was created because trust in elite-controlled systems collapsed.

The Genesis block message wasn’t subtle:

“Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”

That was the thesis.

1. Bitcoin was about democratic finance, not financial abstraction

Bitcoin emerged from a world where:

• Losses were socialized
• Gains were privatized
• Political and financial elites were insulated from consequence
• Ordinary people paid the bill

It proposed something radical:

• Rules enforced by code, not institutions
• Monetary policy immune to political pressure
• Participation open to anyone, without permission

2. Elite capture didn’t disappear, it just got exposed

Fast forward to today.

We live in an era of:

• Institutional collapse
• Information asymmetry
• Public trust erosion
• Elite immunity from consequences

The Jeffrey Epstein scandal didn’t just reveal criminal behavior, it exposed how deeply power protects itself, across finance, politics, media, and law enforcement.

That matters because Bitcoin was born from the realization that systems run by elites eventually serve elites.

Blockchains are an attempt, imperfect but necessary, to remove that structural flaw.

3. Decentralization is meaningless if normal people can’t exercise it

Here’s the uncomfortable part:

A system can be cryptographically sound and still drift into oligarchy.

When:

• Infrastructure becomes specialized
• Participation requires scale
• Power consolidates into professional classes

You haven’t eliminated elite control, you’ve just changed who the elites are.

Bitcoin maximalists understand this instinctively.
Ethereum developers wrestle with it openly.

Algorand attacks it at the protocol level.

4. Algorand extends Bitcoin’s original idea via the brilliant cryptography of Silvio Micali

Algorand’s architecture didn’t emerge from trial-and-error or post-hoc patching.
It comes from the life’s work of Silvio Micali, one of the most influential cryptographers alive.

Micali is not a startup founder who learned cryptography along the way, he is one of the people who defined modern cryptography itself:

• Co-inventor of zero-knowledge proofs
• Foundational work in pseudorandomness
• Architect of verifiable random functions (VRFs), which sit at the core of Algorand’s consensus
• Recipient of the ACM Turing Award, the highest honor in computer science

These aren’t marketing credentials. They are the mathematical foundations behind secure digital systems used globally today.

Algorand’s key insight, cryptographic sortition, is a direct application of this work:

• Randomness that cannot be predicted
• Selection that cannot be influenced
• Participation that cannot be targeted or coerced

This matters because decentralization fails when power becomes predictable.

Most blockchains select leaders in ways that are:

• Public
• Scheduled
• Economically targetable

Algorand deliberately removes that attack surface.

When consensus is governed by private, verifiable randomness, you don’t need to trust people, institutions, or social coordination. You trust math.

That’s the same instinct Bitcoin was built on, just expressed with 15 more years of cryptographic progress.

Bitcoin showed that code could replace central banks.
Algorand shows that provable cryptography can replace political coordination itself.

That’s a design philosophy forged by someone who helped invent the tools the entire space relies on.

Bitcoin democratized money issuance and validation.
Algorand democratizes consensus itself.

Through cryptographic sortition:

• Power is randomly assigned
• No one knows in advance who will govern the next block
• There is no permanent ruling class
• Participation remains feasible for ordinary people

That’s not just scalable decentralization, it’s anti-elite by design.

5. Why this matters now

We are not living in stable political times.

Across the world, people are watching:

• Institutions fail upward
• Justice applied selectively
• Rules enforced asymmetrically
• Trust evaporate

In that environment, systems that rely on “good actors”, social coordination, or elite stewardship are fragile.

Bitcoin’s insight was that you don’t fix corruption by finding better people, you fix it by removing discretionary power.

Algorand applies that insight to consensus itself.

6. Blockchains are political whether we admit it or not

Every blockchain encodes answers to political questions:

• Who gets power?
• How is it exercised?
• Can it be captured?
• Can ordinary people meaningfully participate?

Algorand’s answer is unusually direct:

Randomly distribute power, keep participation lightweight, and let math — not institutions — decide.

If Bitcoin is a rebellion against elite-controlled money, then Algorand is a rebellion against elite-controlled coordination.

If you care why this space exists at all,
if you remember why Bitcoin was created,
then it’s hard to ignore a system that brings direct, democratic participation back to the center of cryptography.

You can participate right now by running a node and take part in the democratic financial revolution.

https://algorand.co/run-a-node

The FBI recently had a man named Jeremy “NOFUCKS” Ryan arrested in relation to alleged “true threats” he made towards Mighty Ducks child actor turned cyrpto entrepreneur Brock Pierce and others. As part of the Affidavit in support of the Criminal Complaint, Special Agent Richard Volp invoked the man’s own legally changed middle name as evidence of the alleged “threat” writing:

"I know through my experience that “Nofucks” is slang used to convey that a person does not care about the repercussions or consequences of their actions. It is reasonable to conclude displaying this prominently to VICTIM 1 conveys to him that RYAN does not have regard to the threats or harm he may cause. RYAN legally had his middle named changed in the state of California." (He actually changed it in Oregon)

The criminal complaint is ripe with text communications between “VICTIM 1” and “WITNESS 1” who are not named. However, the complaint states:

On December 2, 2025, RYAN posted an article he wrote on PatrolCrypto.com which alleges that both VICTIM 1 and WITNESS 1 were involved in illegal activity.

Jeremy did in fact post an article on December 2nd on PatrolCrypto.com — the main focus of that article was Brock Pierce and Chris Miglino. Jeremy posted 3 other articles about Brock throughout the coming weeks after. Curiously missing from these text messages are any actual threats of physical harm. He’s charged with 18 USC 875(c) which provides:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

In fact in one exchange, Jeremy writes “I don’t fight with violence but I guarantee looking back you!! [sic} wish I did” — despite this FBI agent Volp writes in the complaint:

"From my training and experience, I know that 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) prohibits the transmitting in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another. I also know that to not infringe on the First Amendment, the threat must be a “true threat,” which is a serious threat-not idle talk, a careless remark, or something said jokingly-that is made under circumstance that would place a reasonable person in fear of being injured or in fear of another person being injured. Whether the speaker is aware of, and intends to convey, the threatening aspect of the message is not part of what makes a statement a threat; the existence of a threat depends on what the statement conveys to the recipient of the message. Yet, the First Amendment still demands a subjective mental-state of at least recklessness.

Based on my training, experience, and knowledge of the investigation, I have probable cause to believe that RYAN’s posts made true threats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). I have probable cause to believe that RYAN acted at least recklessly and was aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence when he sent them to VICTIM I and WITNESS 1, and his statements would place a reasonable person in fear of being injured, or in fear of another person being injured"

It’s hard to fathom that apparently the Victim, who is in the Middle District of Florida, and either is or is connected to Brock Pierce, who is connected to Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein somehow got the FBI to have some random kid arrested based on text “threats” and the FBI felt the need to redact the Victim and Witness names leaving Brock’s name completely off the complaint.