Whales move, and the herd follows. I find Bitcoin whale activity interesting, but it’s clear that many of their moves, especially large sell offs, are designed to manipulate the market. I choose not to play that game. I don’t have the capital to move markets, and reacting to those who do rarely works out well. Still, people fall for it all the time. I don’t follow others; I follow my own plan. That plan is simple: take profits into Bitcoin through any productive and sustainable means available. I don’t try to time the market; I focus on time in the market. So far, that approach has brought more than just financial growth…it’s been a personal transformation. And that growth seems to be compounding, regardless of Bitcoin’s short term price.

An empty Bitcoin mempool at high prices is uncommon but not unprecedented. It usually signals low onchain activity due to market consolidation, improved scaling, or increased offchain usage. It’s not inherently good or bad, but in this case, I see it as bullish: Bitcoin is near all time highs, transactions are cheap, and confirmations are fast. A major driver is institutional adoption and the rise of Bitcoin ETFs, which have absorbed demand offchain. This keeps the network uncongested and integrates Bitcoin into traditional finance. However, this scaling comes with tradeoffs. ETFs reduce the emphasis on self custody, increase centralization risks, and drift from Bitcoin’s decentralized ethos. While they’ve broadened exposure, they haven’t fully unlocked institutional capital, and retail holders still play a key role in supply distribution. The challenge now is balance. Exposure is scaling rapidly, but true ownership, especially self custody, is lagging. Growth potential remains on both fronts: more institutional and global adoption, and better tools, education, and Layer 2 solutions to empower individual holders. Bitcoin’s future depends on managing this tradeoff: scaling access while preserving its core principles of decentralization and self sovereignty

Companies operating on some form of a Bitcoin standard seem to be growing in number faster than I can keep track of, and there’s no sign of that slowing down. It’s likely this trend continues until the number becomes too large to count. Investing in a company that holds Bitcoin is essentially a dual bet: on Bitcoin itself and on the company’s ability to execute its strategy well. This approach can offer diversification, leverage, and access through traditional markets, but it also comes with added risks, fees, and less control. Buying Bitcoin directly is simpler, cheaper, and gives you full ownership, but it lacks the potential upside that a well managed Bitcoin focused company could deliver, and you’re fully responsible for your own custody and security. Strategy is likely the strongest option for corporate Bitcoin exposure. It has the largest holdings, strong market liquidity, and a consistent, high conviction strategy, making it a good fit for someone already committed to a Bitcoin heavy approach. Other companies with smaller Bitcoin positions can be less efficient or riskier ways to gain exposure. They may still offer value if you’re looking for diversification, a bargain, or a bet on a unique business model or region, but in many cases, these firms are simply imitating the strategy without the same level of conviction or execution, making them less compelling; unless you’re chasing early momentum or non Bitcoin growth potential.

Some advocate for increasing or removing the OP_RETURN size limit to support current data storage use cases, Layer 2 solutions, and reduce dependence on less efficient methods like Taproot outputs. They argue it’s a practical response to growing demand and aligns with Bitcoin’s design, since OP_RETURN data is prunable and doesn’t add to the UTXO set. Others worry about blockchain bloat, potential security concerns, and a drift away from Bitcoin’s core use as a monetary ledger. The debate is ongoing, with no consensus yet among Bitcoin developers. It’s a bit of a catch 22: nobody wants more spam or mission creep, but people are already using Bitcoin for other purposes. Ignoring that use either leads to UTXO bloat or forces developers to find more prunable alternatives; each with trade-offs and unknown consequences. Bitcoin can run efficiently on multiple clients as long as they follow the same consensus rules and are well maintained. This supports decentralization and resilience. However, the risk of forks increases when clients diverge or aren’t well tested. Historical forks like Bitcoin Cash were mainly ideological, but poor coordination between clients can make technical disagreements worse. Bitcoin’s slow upgrade cycle and the dominance of Bitcoin Core reduce these risks, but they also limit diversity. To me, Bitcoin has always been about coordination over conflict. It encourages building rather than destroying. The debate between Knots and Core isn’t a threat…it’s innovation. Both sides have valid points. Bitcoin has always improved through trial and error. If either side spots and fixes a problem, Bitcoin benefits in the long run.

Strategy alone is acquiring Bitcoin at a rate that exceeds the pace of new issuance, effectively offsetting supply inflation and then some. Plenty of companies are now attempting similar strategies, some claiming theirs is superior. Regardless of those claims, if even a few come close to MicroStrategy’s level of success, it not only validates their approach it creates a dramatic supply demand imbalance that can only be resolved through upward price action. The success of other firms doesn’t undermine MicroStrategy; it reinforces the thesis. With over 555,000 BTC, their position isn’t just a statement…it’s a roar. In the end, capital deployed speaks louder than potential plans. Proof of work beats proof of intent. The only way to surpass Strategy is to outstack or outhodl them, but anyone who tries only drives demand higher benefiting Strategy in the process. The name of the game is bitcoin accumulation, so the same logic applies to any individual or institution holding Bitcoin.

So thankful for this woman right here, and for all the conspiracy theorist moms out there, who have raised or are raising unapologetically toxic Bitcoin maximalists. She made me a Bitcoiner before Bitcoin even existed. Finding Bitcoin felt like finding a missing piece of who I’ve always been. And guess what she wanted for Mother’s Day? Gear to start her own conspiracy podcast. Needless to say…I’m hyped. (Excuse the hair I’m like a smooth brains mad skintest👨🏻‍🔬)

Whenever I get the chance to stack sats, I take it. I’m not concerned with how it makes others feel; my conviction in #Bitcoin is unwavering. Their reactions say more about them than they ever could about #Bitcoin. I’ll be there for the next step, not out of need, but because I choose to be. #Bitcoin is truth: unstoppable, irreversible, and inevitable.

My grandfather found a 7 leaf clover…you know what that means: 7 FIGURE #BITCOIN

Maybe you didn’t stack as many sats as you wanted during the recent dip, but if your stack is growing, you’re on the right track. I don’t care how legitimized crypto gets; nothing else comes close to challenging Bitcoin’s superiority. Onwards and upwards my friends.

The bigger exchanges get the less I trust them with my sats. The more they follow the path of banks the less funny I find it. I don’t think they are evil I just think it’s more important for my sats to be in my own hands, maybe it ought to be considered rude to leave sats with exchanges, personally I’d hate to have the temptation of that many bitcoin. It’d talk to me like the green goblin mask. As the price goes up the temptation only increases, demand isn’t stopping, and I will let you do your own math on supply.