For years, the standard framework for retirement income has been the 4% rule.
The idea is simple: if you want $48,500 per year of spending, you would typically need roughly:
$48,500 × 25 = $1,212,500
In other words, about $1.2 million invested in a diversified portfolio to sustainably withdraw that income.
But recently I came across an interesting thought experiment involving two relatively new preferred securities.
Before diving into the math, it’s important to note that these securities ultimately sit within financial structures connected to Bitcoin, so they carry some exposure to the long-term success of Bitcoin itself. More on that later.
Two High-Yield Preferred Securities
Two securities caught my attention:
Strategy Series C Preferred (STRC) – currently yielding about 11.5%
Strive Asset Management Preferred (SATA) – currently yielding about 12.75%
Both are preferred securities issued by companies building financial products around Bitcoin treasury strategies.
An interesting feature is their dividend timing.
STRC has an ex-dividend date around the 15th of the month
SATA has an ex-dividend date around the 28th of the month
The actual cash payment arrives roughly 15 days later, but what matters for dividend eligibility is simply holding the shares on the ex-dividend date.
After that date passes, an investor can sell the shares and still receive the dividend.
The Rotation Idea
Because the ex-dividend dates occur at different times of the month, a strategy some investors discuss is rotating between the two securities:
Hold STRC through its ex-dividend date (~15th)
After the ex-date passes, sell and move into SATA
Hold SATA through its ex-dividend date (~28th)
Then rotate back to STRC and repeat
In theory, this rotation attempts to capture both dividend streams each month.
The Yield Math
Using approximate yields:
SATA: 12.75% STRC: 11.5%
Combined:
12.75% + 11.5% = 24.25%
If an investor pays roughly 24% tax on the income:
24.25% × 0.76 ≈ 18.4% after tax
That’d give this investor $18,400 per a year income on $100k or $36,400 per a year on $200k.
The Early Retirement Thought Experiment
Suppose an early retired investor allocated $200,000 to this strategy.
At a 24.25% gross yield, the income would be:
$200,000 × 0.2425 = $48,500 per year
Under the traditional 4% rule, producing that same income would require:
$48,500 × 25 = $1,212,500
So the comparison looks like this:
Strategy
Capital Required
Traditional 4% rule
~$1.2 million
Preferred rotation idea
~$200,000
That’s roughly a 6× difference in required capital.
Even More Interesting for Early Retirees
For some early retirees who structure their income carefully, qualified dividend income can fall within the 0% federal tax bracket.
In that scenario, the full 24.25% yield could theoretically flow through without federal income tax.
Using the same $200,000 example:
Investment
Yield
Annual Income
$200,000
24.25%
$48,500
That level of income could cover a meaningful portion of living expenses for many households.
The Bitcoin Connection
It’s important to understand what ultimately sits underneath these securities.
Both STRC and SATA are part of financial structures built around companies holding significant amounts of Bitcoin on their balance sheets.
At the base of these preferred securities is therefore some degree of Bitcoin risk.
If Bitcoin were to fail as an asset class entirely, the underlying business models supporting these preferreds would likely fail as well.
However, if Bitcoin continues to grow and remain valuable over time, these structures should continue to function as designed.
It is also possible that as demand for these types of securities increases, the dividend yields could gradually decline. Markets tend to compress yields when large numbers of investors compete for the same income-producing assets.
So the yields discussed above should be viewed as the current state of the market, not necessarily a permanent condition.
Finally there is company risk. Strive (ASST) issues SATA and Strategy (MSTR) issues STRC. Either company could fail for some generic business reason and that woudl also be a risk, just like any business.
Final Thoughts
For decades, the 4% rule has been a useful guideline for thinking about retirement income.
But financial markets are constantly evolving, and new structures occasionally appear that change the math in interesting ways.
This rotation idea may or may not prove durable over the long run. But it highlights how emerging financial instruments—especially those tied to Bitcoin treasury strategies—are beginning to create entirely new types of income assets.
And sometimes, when you run the numbers, it’s worth pausing and asking:
Could the future of income investing look different than the past?
As of 3-16-2026 I started an account to do this specifically. I will share the results in a few months or at the end of the year to see how it’s gone and if anything has changed since I started this experiment.
All prices in the below table are per share. multiple the # shares x any price to get the total amount. I started with 10x $97.22 = $972.20 and a purchase of 10 shares of SATA.
Stock
# shares
Date Purchased
Date Sold
Purchase Price
Sell Price
price appreciation
Dividend
SATA
10
3-16-26
$97.22
This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.
Understanding Ponzi schemes, Bitcoin carry trades, and how new financial instruments are evolving
Recently there has been a wave of posts online claiming that MicroStrategy and securities like STRC are “Ponzi schemes.”
That claim misunderstands both what a Ponzi scheme actually is and how these instruments work.
Before labeling something a Ponzi scheme, it helps to start with a clear definition.
What Is a Ponzi Scheme?
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment structure where:
Investors are promised returns
Those returns are not generated by real economic activity
Early investors are paid using money from new investors
The scheme collapses once new inflows stop
The defining characteristics are:
No real underlying asset
No productive activity generating returns
Fabricated account statements or hidden losses
Mathematical collapse once new money stops coming in
The most famous example is Bernie Madoff, who fabricated account balances while paying existing investors with money from new clients.
If there is no real asset and no real economic activity, you may be looking at a Ponzi scheme.
An Interesting Contrast: Social Security
Ironically, one of the closest structures many Americans participate in that resembles a Ponzi-style payment system is **Social Security Administration’s Social Security program.
Social Security works by:
taxing current workers
using those taxes to pay current retirees
There is no large invested pool backing the system. Instead, it relies on a continuous stream of new contributors to fund previous participants.
Government projections show the trust funds are expected to become depleted within the next decade, after which benefits would have to be reduced or taxes increased to maintain payouts.
This is not fraud — it is a demographic funding system created by law — but it illustrates an important point:
Money flowing from new participants to previous participants does not automatically make something a Ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi scheme specifically requires deception and fake returns.
Now let’s look at MicroStrategy.
What MicroStrategy Actually Does
MicroStrategy is a publicly traded company that:
issues equity and debt securities
uses the proceeds to purchase Bitcoin
holds that Bitcoin on its balance sheet
The underlying asset is Bitcoin, which is publicly verifiable on the blockchain.
Investors buying MicroStrategy securities know exactly what they are purchasing.
Nothing is hidden. Nothing is fabricated. The underlying asset exists and can be independently verified.
You may disagree with the strategy.
But it clearly does not meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
What STRC Actually Is
STRC is a preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy that pays a monthly dividend currently around 11.5% annually.
The capital raised from selling STRC is used to purchase additional Bitcoin.
Conceptually, the structure resembles a carry trade.
A Bitcoin Carry Trade
For decades global investors used the Yen carry trade.
The strategy worked like this:
Borrow Japanese yen at extremely low interest rates
Convert yen into higher-yielding assets (often U.S. dollars)
Capture the yield difference
STRC works in a somewhat similar way — but with Bitcoin.
Instead of:
Yen → USD
The structure is effectively:
USD → Bitcoin
Investors provide capital and earn roughly 11.5% yield, while MicroStrategy accumulates Bitcoin.
What the Market Has Actually Shown
STRC began trading in July 2025.
Around August 2025, Bitcoin traded near $120,000.
Since then Bitcoin has experienced significant price volatility.
Yet STRC has generally continued trading near its $100 reference price.
That doesn’t prove the structure will work forever.
But it does show something important:
So far, the instrument has functioned roughly as designed.
Financial markets tend to expose broken structures quickly.
The Lindy Effect
There is a concept known as the Lindy effect.
The Lindy effect suggests:
The longer something survives, the longer it is likely to continue surviving.
We see this with technologies, institutions, and financial instruments.
Gold has survived thousands of years. Stock markets have survived more than a century. Bitcoin itself has now survived multiple boom-bust cycles.
Each month that STRC:
maintains its price near $100
pays its dividend
continues operating normally
…the probability that the structure works increases slightly.
What Are the Real Risks?
None of this means STRC or MicroStrategy are risk-free.
But the risks are often misunderstood.
The real risks are tail risks — low-probability but high-impact events.
For example:
1. Catastrophic failure of Bitcoin
If Bitcoin were somehow fundamentally broken — a critical cryptographic flaw, catastrophic protocol failure, or a coordinated global ban that destroyed liquidity — the entire thesis behind MicroStrategy’s balance sheet would be undermined.
2. Corporate catastrophe unrelated to Bitcoin
Another possibility would be some major event affecting the company itself:
fraud inside the company
regulatory disaster
management misconduct
or some unforeseen corporate collapse
These risks exist for every public company.
3. Extreme financial system disruption
In a severe financial crisis, credit markets can temporarily freeze. Any company that relies on capital markets — including MicroStrategy — could be affected.
Risk Is Not Fraud
The irony in many of these debates is that the word “Ponzi” often gets used as a general insult for anything people don’t understand.
Real Ponzi schemes involve deception, fake assets, and fabricated returns.
MicroStrategy and STRC involve transparent securities backed by a publicly verifiable asset.
Whether someone believes in Bitcoin or not, the structure is visible to everyone.
In fact, one of the broader trends of the past decade has been the opposite of a Ponzi scheme: systems where the underlying asset is more transparent than ever before.
Bitcoin’s supply is public. Bitcoin’s transactions are public. Bitcoin’s monetary policy is fixed.
Financial instruments like STRC are simply new ways that traditional capital markets are interacting with that asset.
You may think the strategy is aggressive. You may think the trade will fail.
But the difference between risk and fraud still matters.
And confusing the two only makes it harder to understand what is actually happening in financial markets today.
Yesterday, I attended a talk by Zach Wahls at the Octopus in Cedar Falls. Zach is running for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat, and many people will recognize him from the speech about his family that first brought him into national politics.
I went in as a persuadable voter — not looking to cheer or jeer, but trying to understand how Democrats plan to win competitive general elections in places like Iowa. I agree with Zach on some important issues, especially his opposition to members of Congress trading individual stocks and his support for term limits. Those positions signal seriousness about institutional integrity, and they’re part of why I’m paying attention.
At the same time, I left with unresolved questions about strategy, coalition-building, and whether the Democratic Party is learning the right lessons from recent losses. The letter below is something I decided to write — and share publicly — because I suspect many moderate voters are wrestling with similar thoughts but don’t often articulate them clearly.
This isn’t an attack, and it isn’t an endorsement. It’s a good-faith attempt to ask whether the path Democrats are on is actually capable of winning broad support — and whether candidates inside the party see the same risks that voters outside its core increasingly do.
What follows is the letter I wrote to Zach after the event.
Zach,
I appreciated you taking the time to speak yesterday at the Octopus in Cedar Falls. I also want to say up front that this note is coming from a place of genuine engagement, not opposition. I’m thinking seriously about this race and about what it will actually take to win it.
As I listened, I kept coming back to a concern I’ve had for a while — one I’ve written about privately — which is some version of: what got us here may not get us there.
Before your presentation even began, a moment stood out to me. Right when you walked in, a question was posed from the back of the room asking why Democrats don’t simply double down on “Democratic things.” I understand the instinct behind that question, but to me it highlights a deeper strategic tension. You’re in a real conundrum: you need to demonstrate to primary voters that you’re Democrat enough, while also maintaining enough appeal to win people who don’t already identify with the party.
I was sitting right next to the person who asked that question, and I immediately asked the opposite — why Democrats don’t spend more time appealing to a broader coalition. I understand there wasn’t time to fully respond, but that exchange stuck with me because it captures a real strategic tension in this race.
That connects to a broader issue I see among moderate voters like myself. Even when intentions are good, the perception of cultural overreach — often grouped under labels like “wokeness” or DEI maximalism — has become a real barrier for a lot of people in the middle.
I do think it’s fair to say that some parts of your story and political origins are perceived as culturally radical by a meaningful share of voters — regardless of intent. Your family background and the speech that launched you into politics are powerful and authentic, but they also place you squarely inside a set of cultural debates that many moderate voters experience as polarizing. That doesn’t negate your message, but it does raise the bar on how deliberately you have to signal openness, restraint, and pluralism to people outside the Democratic base.
One book I’d genuinely recommend, if you haven’t read it, is What’s Our Problem? by Tim Urban. He’s not a radical-right figure, and the book isn’t a polemic. But he does a good job explaining why a growing number of people perceive illiberal pressure from the left — especially in cultural and institutional spaces — as a larger threat than they expected. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, I think it’s useful for understanding how that perception forms outside typical political bubbles.
Related to that, I think moderation and clarity in a few areas could meaningfully expand the Democratic coalition: credible immigration enforcement, a more serious posture toward persistent deficits, and cultural signaling that reassures voters you’re focused on governing a pluralistic society rather than enforcing ideological conformity.
I also want to be clear about areas where I strongly agree with you. Your opposition to stock picking by members of Congress and your support for term limits both genuinely resonated with me, and they’re part of why I’m taking your candidacy seriously. Those positions signal seriousness about institutional integrity, not just partisan alignment.
One final observation: while attacking Trump aligns with Democratic talking points, it hasn’t proven to be a compelling affirmative case for persuadable voters in the middle. Democrats need to seriously reckon with the fact that the party has now lost two presidential elections to Trump — arguably one of the weakest general-election candidates in modern history. In both cases, the losses weren’t just about Trump’s strength, but about Democrats running candidates selected through processes that many voters experienced as undemocratic or disconnected from broad enthusiasm. Hillary Clinton emerged from a system dominated by superdelegates when a more populist alternative clearly resonated, and Kamala Harris was ultimately elevated without a competitive primary despite widespread unpopularity. I hope this is something you can see clearly from within the party — and that you’re actively working to fix rather than repeat it.
I say all of this as a 37-year-old moderate who doesn’t feel firmly claimed by either party and who is still very much listening. I want to understand how you see the coalition that actually gets you to 50%+1 in Iowa — and how you plan to persuade people who aren’t already convinced.
Thanks again for taking the time to speak and for engaging with people who are thinking through these questions rather than cheering reflexively.
I don’t know if writing politicians really works. I’ve written a lot of letters over the years and almost always get canned, meaningless responses.
But what else are we supposed to do?
Apparently marching in the streets now risks people being shot by federal agents. Silence clearly isn’t working either. So at a minimum, I’m encouraging people to email their Senators and Congressperson and force this onto the record.
You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. You can copy the message below, add your name and ZIP code, and send it. Even if it feels futile, it still matters — because the alternative is doing nothing while this keeps escalating.
Dear Senator [Last Name] / Representative [Last Name],
I am writing as your constituent to express my deep concern and outrage over the recent fatal shooting of a Minneapolis resident by a federal immigration agent as part of the ongoing enforcement operation in that city. Recent incidents — including the deaths of Alex Pretti on January 24 and Renée Good earlier this month — have sparked national protests and raised serious questions about the use of force by federal agents. In the case of Ms. Good, the Hennepin County Medical Examiner has formally ruled her death a homicide resulting from multiple gunshot wounds by law enforcement, intensifying public concern about transparency and accountability in these operations. (opb)
These events are not isolated. They reflect an escalation in federal enforcement tactics that threaten public safety, undermine community trust, and may violate civil rights — especially when independent investigations are limited or delayed.
Americans are sick of watching President Trump break the law with impunity while Congress shrugs. We are sick of federal agents using lethal force in domestic enforcement operations with little transparency and no meaningful accountability. We are sick of investigations that stall, reports that are hidden, and responsibility that is endlessly deferred.
This administration has shown repeated contempt for the rule of law — from January 6 and the subsequent release and pardoning of those convicted for their role in it, to the sweeping use of pardons for numerous other convicted criminals, to ignoring court rulings, abusing executive authority, and politicizing federal agencies. Trump ran on transparency, yet the Epstein files remain unreleased, stonewalled, and unexplained. The public was promised truth. Instead, we got silence.
What makes this even more disturbing is that the President now openly attacks members of his own party when they show independence or principle. Representative Thomas Massie — a Republican with a long, consistent conservative voting record — has been publicly targeted simply for dissent. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has shown strong past support for him, has been attacked when she deviates even slightly. This is not leadership. It is intimidation.
The same pattern extends to the Federal Reserve. President Trump is now threatening Jerome Powell — the Fed Chair he himself appointed — for failing to bend monetary policy to his political demands. Undermining the independence of the Federal Reserve is dangerous, destabilizing, and reckless.
At the same time, the President openly threatens U.S. allies — including absurd and dangerous rhetoric about invading Greenland — behavior that would have been unthinkable from any previous administration. This is not strength. It is instability, and it damages U.S. credibility and national security.
Congress was not elected to be a spectator. Your oath is to the Constitution, not to a man.
I expect you to:
Demand a full, independent investigation into the Minneapolis ICE shootings and related use-of-force incidents
Hold public hearings on ICE and DHS enforcement practices
Push for immediate transparency and release of the Epstein files
Reassert congressional authority against executive overreach and intimidation
Defend the independence of institutions like the Federal Reserve
Publicly reject threats of aggression toward U.S. allies
Silence and inaction are choices — and voters are watching. I expect you to act.
Sent this to my Congress Representative Ashley Hinson- I hope she does the right thing.
I am writing as a concerned constituent to urge you to support the Epstein Files Transparency Act, led by Rep. Thomas Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna. This bipartisan bill would require the Department of Justice to release all unclassified records related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, while protecting victims’ identities. Congress has already reached the 218-signature threshold to force a vote, and the American people overwhelmingly want transparency.
Here’s why this matters:
Past Promises: High-profile figures in the Trump administration—including Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and JD Vance—publicly pledged to release these files when President Biden was in office. They even held meetings and photo ops promising transparency. Why have those promises evaporated now?
The Hoax Narrative Doesn’t Add Up: If this is all a “Democratic hoax,” as President Trump now claims, why is Ghislaine Maxwell serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking minors? Her conviction was based on evidence of a real criminal conspiracy, not political theater.
Gaslighting the Public: President Trump is actively discouraging Republicans from supporting transparency, calling the effort a “trap” and a “hoax.” If there’s nothing to hide, why fight so hard to keep these files secret?
Please do not deflect by asking “why didn’t the Democrats release it when they were in power.” That is gaslighting. You NOW have the power to release the files and do the right thing. Be on the right side of history.
This is not about partisanship—it’s about justice and accountability. Survivors deserve answers, and the public deserves to know the truth about who enabled Epstein’s crimes. Shielding powerful individuals from embarrassment is not a valid reason to withhold information.
Please vote YES on the Epstein Files Transparency Act and stand on the side of transparency, justice, and the rule of law.
Why Americans Deserve Better — and Why Bitcoin May Be the Only Way Out
President Trump recently proposed a $2,000 payment to every American, excluding “high-income individuals.” The idea sounds generous, but it’s also a symptom of a much deeper disease: a government that spends money it doesn’t have—causing inflation in the process and actually hurting the very people who receive the payment.
The Math Behind the Madness
In 2024 alone, the U.S. government ran a $1.8 trillion deficit. Let’s put that in perspective:
There are 128 million households in the United States.
There are 340 million individuals.
If we divided that $1.8 trillion evenly, that’s $14,000 per household or $5,294 per person.
So when politicians talk about sending you a one-time $2,000 check, remember — they’re already spending about 2.5 times that amount per personevery single year. If the government simply stopped wasting and borrowing, you’d already be thousands of dollars richer annually — without a single new program or “stimulus.”
That’s money our government already spent—above and beyond the taxes you and I pay. It wasn’t earned. It was created out of thin air by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Every time that happens, the dollars in your wallet become worth a little less. That’s why groceries, cars, and homes cost more every year, no matter how hard you work.
The Mirage of the 50-Year Mortgage
Now the U.S. housing authorities are exploring 50-year mortgages, following the path of Japan and even some European countries. Japan went so far as to experiment with 100-year mortgages, often passed from parents to children. Did that make homes more affordable? No—it made them more expensive.
When you stretch the loan term, monthly payments drop slightly, but total debt rises massively. Sellers raise prices to match what buyers can “afford” on paper. The result: higher prices, higher leverage, and lifelong debt servitude.
The 50-year mortgage is not a solution. It’s an illusion. It’s another way to avoid facing the real issue: our monetary system rewards debt and punishes saving.
Where Does the Money Go?
When we spend $1.8 trillion more than we take in, where does it all go?
To foreign wars and endless “operations” that rarely make Americans safer.
To subsidies and bailouts for politically favored industries.
To bloated bureaucracies that exist to perpetuate themselves.
To interest payments on the national debt—now one of the largest single line items in the federal budget.
Meanwhile, our manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, first to Mexico and China, now to Vietnam and India. Communities that once built real wealth are hollowed out. Young people drown in debt while imported goods fill our stores. The average American is left with higher prices, lower stability, and fewer ways to build lasting capital.
Why does this keep happening? It’s not just bad policy — it’s baked into the structure of the global financial system. Because the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, foreign countries must hold dollars to trade internationally. That means America must constantly send dollars abroad — through trade deficits and offshored production — to supply the world with liquidity.
This is known as the Triffin Dilemma: to maintain the dollar’s global dominance, the U.S. has to export jobs, import goods, and print money. It’s a system that benefits global finance, not the American worker.
A Balanced Budget Is Not Just Accounting — It’s Freedom
If the U.S. government lived within its means, you’d instantly gain purchasing power. Prices would stabilize, wages would go further, and the value of your savings would stop eroding. You wouldn’t need a $2,000 stimulus check—because your dollar would already be strong.
The truth is simple: either we live within our means voluntarily, or reality will force us to.
Now, to be fair, we probably can’t slash spending overnight without causing serious shock to the economy. But we don’t have to. What if we simply froze federal spending at 2025 levels and let tax revenue grow naturally with the economy? Within a few short years, the budget would balance itself—no chaos, no default, just discipline.
That’s not austerity. That’s responsibility. And it’s the only peaceful way to restore faith in the dollar while keeping it as the world’s reserve currency. The other option—the one emerging whether Washington likes it or not—is Bitcoin.
Bitcoin and the End of Fiat Illusion
“I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop.” — F.A. Hayek
Some believe there’s only one peaceful way out of this cycle: a return to sound money—money that cannot be printed at will.
That’s what Bitcoin represents. It’s not a speculative token or a tech fad—it’s a monetary rebellion against endless inflation, debt-based growth, and political manipulation of money. In a Bitcoin world, politicians can’t quietly steal your savings through inflation. They must tax you honestly or spend less.
Even some in government see this potential. Senator Cynthia Lummis has proposed that the United States create a strategic Bitcoin reserve, allowing America to hold a real, non-inflationary asset on its balance sheet. That move alone could begin rebuilding trust in the U.S. financial system—and might be the only peaceful way out of this mess.
My Message to Congress
If you truly want to help Americans:
Stop using debt as a crutch for broken policy.
Reject gimmicks like 50-year mortgages that only inflate prices.
Commit to a balanced budget and an honest monetary system.
Bring back real production, not financial engineering.
End foreign interventions that waste our treasure and divide the world.
Support sound money legislation like Senator Lummis’ Bitcoin reserve proposal.
Let the American worker, saver, and builder rise again—on a foundation of real value, not printed promises.
My Message to Every American
Don’t wait for Washington to fix this. I urge you to learn about the problems with fiat money—how inflation quietly steals your time, labor, and savings—and to understand why Bitcoin solves these problems at their root.
The path forward is clear: either reform the dollar through fiscal discipline, or transition to a world built on honest, decentralized money. The choice is ours—but the clock is ticking.
Send This Letter to Your Representatives
If this message resonates with you, copy the following text and send it to your senators and congressperson. You can find their contact info at https://www.congress.gov/members.
Subject: Support Fiscal Responsibility and Sound Money
Dear Senator/Representative,
I’m writing to express my concern about the growing national debt, inflation, and the policies that continue to devalue the U.S. dollar. In 2024, the federal deficit was $1.8 trillion—equal to roughly $14,000 per household. Instead of one-time stimulus checks, we need a long-term commitment to balanced budgets and sound money.
Please support policies that:
Freeze federal spending at 2025 levels until tax revenue naturally balances the budget.
End inflationary monetary expansion that hurts working Americans.
Reject 50-year mortgages and other short-term “fixes” that only inflate asset prices.
Support legislation like Senator Cynthia Lummis’s proposal for a Bitcoin strategic reserve, ensuring the United States has a sound, non-inflationary store of value.
Fiscal responsibility and sound money aren’t partisan issues—they’re American values.
Big idea: Spain found a mountain of silver in Bolivia, spent like crazy, stopped building real industries—and the bill came due. The same thing is happening today, just with money printers instead of mines.
1) The mountain
In 1545, Spanish explorers struck the richest silver deposit in history: Cerro Rico, “the rich mountain,” in what’s now Bolivia. A city called Potosí exploded out of the rock. At its height, it was larger than London or Paris. For two centuries, roughly two-thirds of the world’s silver came from that one mountain. Spain looked unstoppable.
2) Easy money, hard problems
So much silver poured into Europe that prices began rising year after year. For nearly a thousand years, prices in Europe had been flat. Then suddenly, everything—from bread to rent—started costing more. Historians call it the Price Revolution.
Spain thought it was getting richer. In reality, its silver was just buying less and less.
3) The addiction loop
Spain borrowed against future silver shipments, funded endless wars, and built palaces to show off its power. Sound familiar? Borrowing against your future is exactly what modern governments do when they run deficits every single year—financing today’s comfort with tomorrow’s labor and taxes. And those “endless wars”? Spain fought them across Europe. The U.S. fights them across the globe. Different century, same playbook.
4) “Free” silver, “free” money
The silver was basically free to Spain—mined with forced labor that cost almost nothing. That “free” flow of money metal fueled reckless spending and inflation.
Today, printing money is even freer. No mines, no ships, no workers—just a digital entry at the central bank. But the result is the same: more money chasing the same goods, rising prices, and wealth concentrating in financial assets instead of productive work.
5) The wage spiral
When silver poured into Spain, mining and trade paid far more than farming or manufacturing. Workers chased the high wages, and everyone else demanded raises to keep up. That wage inflation pushed up local costs across the board.
It soon became cheaper to buy foreign goods than to make them at home. English and Dutch craftsmen could undersell Spanish products even after shipping them across the sea. Local factories and farms couldn’t compete. Spain’s economy drifted from production to consumption—spending instead of building.
You can see the same thing happening today. Money printing and easy credit inflate salaries in finance, tech, and government while driving up housing, energy, and labor costs everywhere else. Manufacturing can’t keep up, so we import the difference. The result? A strong currency, cheap goods, and a shrinking middle class.
6) The next chapter — Japan
What if the next Spain isn’t America yet—but Japan? As this interview with macro analyst Roberto Rios explains, Japan is further down the same path: zero interest rates, quantitative easing, and government debt so large that the central bank must choose between saving its currency or saving its bond market.
For decades, Japan has printed money to prop up its financial system, even buying stocks outright to keep prices from falling. That free liquidity created an illusion of stability—until inflation returned and the yen began collapsing. Now Japan faces the impossible choice every over-leveraged empire eventually faces: protect the currency and crash the system, or print the money and destroy the currency.
It’s the same dilemma America is approaching, just delayed by our global reserve-currency privilege. The “free silver” of the 1500s became “free paper” in the 1900s and “free digital dollars” in the 2000s. The pattern never changed—only the technology did.
7) The simple lesson
Resources aren’t wealth. Printing money isn’t wealth. Making things is wealth. When prosperity feels “free,” it’s usually borrowed from the future.
8) Today’s echo
Easy credit. Quantitative easing. Deficit spending. Each promises painless prosperity—more liquidity, more growth, no trade-offs. But it’s the same story Spain wrote 500 years ago: short-term abundance, long-term decay.
Spain’s “free” silver built an empire that rotted from within. Japan’s “free” money is imploding quietly. And America’s “free” dollar is next in line—just with better branding and digital ink instead of metal.
9) Bitcoin and the Dollar Endgame
What if Japan’s collapsing bond market isn’t just a regional crisis but a preview of America’s financial future?
In the Bitcoin for Millennials episode, host Bram talks with macro analyst Roberto Rios (“Peruvian Bool”), who has been tracking this “dollar endgame” for years. While most people fixate on Bitcoin’s short-term price swings, Rios zooms out to the structural problem: every central bank is trapped between saving its currency or saving its bond market. Japan is simply the first to hit the wall.
He calls this dynamic financial gravity—the idea that once debt and money creation expand far enough, gravity pulls everything toward a neutral asset that can’t be printed.
Rios’s core argument:
The global monetary system has reached a point where debt can never shrink; it can only be monetized.
Central banks will print until confidence breaks.
When trust in both sides of the fiat balance sheet—bonds and currencies—collapses, capital will flee into something outside the system entirely.
That’s where Bitcoin enters the picture.
While central banks and institutions still view gold as the “neutral” reserve, Rios argues Bitcoin is the superior version of gold:
Borderless and digital—no vaults, shipping, or intermediaries.
Immune to political capture or forced demand (“fiat” in the literal let-there-be sense).
As he puts it, the Japanese bond crisis could actually trigger the biggest Bitcoin bull run ever. Once Japan’s carry trade unwinds and the yen weakens further, global liquidity shocks will push central banks to print again—reviving the same inflation loop that began with Spain’s silver. Each cycle of monetary rescue drives more people to seek an exit from the system itself.
From silver to paper to code: Spain’s “free” silver created Europe’s first inflation. Japan’s “free” money is collapsing under its own weight. Bitcoin is the gravity well everything eventually falls into.
Members of Congress have long faced accusations of trading on insider information — buying and selling stocks in companies they help regulate. It’s a bipartisan problem: Republicans and Democrats alike have profited from privileged access and timing the rest of the public could never match.
That’s not just bad optics — it’s corruption. It undermines faith in both the markets and the integrity of government.
To highlight how deep this problem goes, I’ve started an experiment tracking three ETFs:
NANC — the Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF, built around stocks traded by Democratic lawmakers.
GOP — the Unusual Whales Subversive Republican Trading ETF, reflecting trades made by Republican lawmakers.
SPY — the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust, serving as a neutral market benchmark.
My goal isn’t to glorify these funds — it’s to show in real numbers how political trading compares to the broad market, and to call out why this system needs reform.
Policy Context
This issue connects directly to Senator Josh Hawley’s proposal to ban individual stock trading by members of Congress. His bill wouldn’t ban investing altogether — lawmakers could still own broad mutual funds or ETFs, just not trade individual stocks that might be affected by their votes.
That distinction matters. It allows long-term wealth building without the appearance or reality of insider trading. 📎 Read Hawley’s bill here
Performance Snapshot (Feb 10 2023 → Oct 27 2025)
Symbol
ETF Name
Description
Starting Price*
Current Price
Total Return
NANC
Unusual Whales Subversive Democratic Trading ETF
Tracks stocks favored by Democratic members of Congress
$24.69
$46.15
+86.9%
GOP
Unusual Whales Subversive Republican Trading ETF
Tracks stocks favored by Republican members of Congress
$24.96
$37.20
+49.0%
SPY
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
Baseline for overall U.S. market
$408
$685
+67.9%
*Starting prices from Google Finance (Feb 10 2023, ETF inception date). Current prices as of Oct 27 2025.
The Takeaway
Both “political ETFs” have gained since launch, but that doesn’t justify congressional trading. When lawmakers can personally profit from decisions they influence, public trust erodes — no matter how well the market performs.
This experiment is my small way to expose how close politics and profit have become — and to advocate for a system where leadership means stewardship, not stock tips.
Earlier in 2024, I read a local article about Washington’s senior senator proudly announcing how much federal money she had brought home to the state. Her list ran dozens of pages — hundreds of millions in Congressionally Directed Spending, better known as earmarks.
She’s not alone. Nearly every senator submits earmark requests, which you can browse on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s official list. Each item sounds worthy enough: a wastewater upgrade, a community arts incubator, a “therapeutic court.” But taken together, these line items add up fast.
According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Congress approved 8,098 earmark projects costing $14.6 billion in FY 2024—about the same as FY 2023—and still under one percent of total discretionary spending. In context, that’s roughly 0.2 percent of total federal outlays.
It’s easy to shrug and say, “So what? That’s peanuts in a $6.8 trillion budget.” But the issue isn’t the size. It’s the signal.
The Round-Trip Problem
When money takes the round trip — federal tax → congressional politics → earmark → local grantee — it leaks. Every stop adds overhead, lobbying, and political friction.
If a project’s benefits are local, fund it locally. Save federal dollars for truly national needs—and make any remaining federal grants competitive and audited.
That’s not ideological; it’s basic hygiene. Less leakage, less pork, more accountability.
The GAO’s Quiet Crusade
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has spent over a decade documenting federal overlap, duplication, and inefficiency. Between 2011 and 2023, its recommendations produced about $667 billion in cumulative savings—roughly $51 billion a year.
That sounds impressive… until you set it beside annual deficits averaging $1.2 trillion over the same period. Even if every GAO fix were implemented perfectly, it would only offset a few cents of every deficit dollar. We celebrate small wins while ignoring the structural math.
Net Interest: ≈ $0.9 trillion (13%) — the fastest-growing line item in the budget
Source: Congressional Budget Office, “Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024–2034.”
All the fights over earmarks, audits, and waste reports happen inside that discretionary slice, the part Congress actually votes on each year. The other 70 percent runs on autopilot — driven by demographics, healthcare inflation, and debt.
So yes, we have a trillions problem, not a billions problem. But pretending the billions don’t matter ensures the trillions never get fixed.
The Cultural Incentive to Spend
Politicians are rewarded for bringing money home. A senator who resists earmarks looks “ineffective.” That same incentive—spend now, borrow later—is what prevents any real reform on the mandatory side.
If Congress can’t resist handing out $14 billion in earmarks to score headlines, how will it ever take on the hard reforms that actually matter?
The Real Problem
The problem isn’t that earmarks alone bankrupt the country — they don’t. The problem is that they reveal a mindset: Washington still rewards politicians for spending, not stewardship.
Every senator gets praised for what they bring home, not for what they turn down. That’s the same mindset that makes real entitlement reform politically impossible and deficit reduction unthinkable.
Earmarks aren’t bankrupting the U.S., but they show why the U.S. can’t stop bankrupting itself.
Until that incentive changes — in Congress, in media, and among voters — the numbers will keep getting bigger, and the excuses will too.
MyWheelLife.com 