The demise of the US dollar is inevitable. a debt ceiling simply delays it a little. If we didn't have alternatives like Bitcoin, I would be concerned and lose sleep over this. But nah, I'm sleeping well tonight.

Who knows? And yes, you're right. It's likely to keep everyone entertained and at the edge of their seat.

I want an audiobook!

Corporations lobby governments to put in place regulations which prevent true free markets and solidify their gains. If you're talking specifically about corporations here, then corporations only care about profit and securing future profits So they find a way to ring fence their business by government regulation.

Sufficient links. So the financial action task force, and by now I hope everyone here knows what that is, recently dictated to my government that it has to maintain a centralized database of the beneficial ownership information of all entities with sufficient links to the jurisdiction. Oh, and this isn't just my jurisdiction. This is yours too. This is what your government is currently working on. Anyways, aside from the fact that there will be a centralized database of who owns every trust, corporation, business, holding company - any legal vehicle, We are now, as a jurisdiction, scratching our heads, wondering what the hell the term sufficient links means. Does anyone with a bank account in a local bank have sufficient links? How about real estate? If you own a house in my country, do you have a sufficient link to my jurisdiction? What if you do a large amount of business in my country? Do you have sufficient links? What we're trying to determine here is who should be included in that centralized database of beneficial ownership information. Beneficial ownership really means who the fuck really owns an entity. It strips down the anonymity of artificial entities like trust or corporations. That's how the FATF works. It puts in place requirements that countries have to follow, but it doesn't define them or clearly outline what the terms mean. So now every country in the world is scratching its head trying to figure out who should be included in the centralized database or who has sufficient links to the jurisdiction. What does this mean for you? Well, depending on how jurisdictions interpret the term, it could mean that if you do any kind of business in a country, your name and the fact that you did this business will be recorded in a centralized database. If you were to ask me why this is being put in place I would suggest that this is a first step in a centralized database of all assets and who owns them within a certain country. You have to start by knowing who owns the companies and the trusts and the legal vehicles and then you identify what assets they hold. Great fun. Hooray for centralization.

A daddy cares about you. So, no really the right expression.

Lovely news before bed. Will sleep soundly tonight.

You mean, global government, right? Of course you do.

KYC completely destroys due process instead of treating you as innocent until proven guilty, KYC assumes Every dollar is the proceed of a crime and you have the capacity to demonstrate the absence of criminality.

What is CARF I've had the... pleasure of working on this project lately. The crypto asset reporting framework is set to go live in 2026, and jurisdictions will be required to report for the first time in early 2027. What will they be reporting? Well... Under this framework, every single entity that does crypto or bitcoin transactions on behalf of third parties will be required to maintain a full record of its users' transactions, volume, asset types, identity, tax, residence, and address. So, are you using an exchange to buy your Bitcoin or do some trading? The entirety of that trade volume and information will be sent to your country of tax residency. This is of course to ensure that countries are able to tax capital gains and other type of revenue from crypto transactions, including Bitcoin. A lot of people might feel right now that bitcoin purchases and sales isn't really enforced when it comes to taxation. That's because jurisdictions are waiting for the CARF framework to be live in 2026. Come 2027, when all of that data is finally sent to jurisdictions, countries will finally start enforcing heavy taxation on all crypto and Bitcoin transfers and purchases. A lot of people might be asking if the United States is part of the agreement. Well, according to the website, the United States is a signatory jurisdiction. There are 120 other jurisdictions who are going to do this and will comply with this new global standard. Bottom line, more fuckery from the global standard setting bodies means that every time you use a KYC exchange or any kind of KYC third party, a record will be kept of what you are doing and with what. How about that for a honey pot? This is all Caused by the OECD, the most evil and conniving global standard setting body. The global standard setting body responsible for anti-money laundering, global minimum tax or pillar two KYC and basically the entire capture of the world's financial infrastructure. Have a great day!

The Adversarial Relationship. I have drafted over 20 pieces of legislation. Legislation or laws are incredibly tricky to structure. A law will be scrutinized by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. Every word, every definition, every provision will be analyzed and any gap will be found. When a government does a law, it's usually because it wants to implement something. Say it wants to implement X. It will then spend one or two years carefully drafting a law that will implement X. This means having a policy advisor draft the policy, the policy will then be reviewed, the policy will then be translated into drafting instructions, which will then be acted on by a team of legislative drafters. It's a lot of work, so the government must really want to implement X, right? The thing is, members of the private sector typically don't want x, because x will incur a cost or some kind of effort in order to comply with. So members of the private sector will scrutinize and analyze every single word, every single meaning of the law, to see if there's a way of avoiding X. A good example of this is a new tax law or some kind of climate requirement. The thing is, no definition can be airtight and no law can be so complete as to have no gaps. So gaps will be found and members of the private sector will take advantage of those gaps. It's just a fact of creating legislation. What does this do? Well, this leads to a game of cat and mouse, or whack-a-mole, or trying to catch a slippery fish in water. Between the government who wants to implement X and the private sector who wants to avoid X. This then leads to an adversarial relationship between the government and the private sector. Every single suggestion that the private sector sends our way, we look at it with doubt and skepticism. Civil servants, especially those doing policy, are trained over the years to see the private sector as a tricky, conniving Law avoiding entity. There's a lot more to this discussion, of course, because this adversarial relationship impacts every relation and interaction between the private sector and government. More on this tomorrow.

The calm before the storm. I think people, especially those in the United States, are quite optimistic now about the way things are progressing. The United States left the WHO and people now have platforms like X to "speak freely" (We all know here that's bullshit). But working inside the government, I see things differently. I see laws passing still, and other laws which were passed by prior administrations not being repealed. Times like this, when everything appears to be silent and quiet and progressing the "right direction", are the times used by governments to implement and put in place legislation that will be used in the future to shackle us and further remove our ability to be free. We've all heard about those individuals in the United Kingdom who are being arrested simply for posting on social media. Well, few people know that the laws used to arrest these people are laws that were initially passed in the late 1990s! For covid, The laws that were used and the emergency powers that were given were first introduced by legislation that were all passed in the early 2000s... 20 years ago. In the early 2000s, nobody could predict that the world would be locked down and all the rights taken away because of a pandemic. Yet, 20 years ago, is when they passed the legislation that enabled all of this. same for the United Kingdom example. The late 90s, we barely had an internet! Yet laws were passed at the time which are now used to arrest people for posting on social media. There is such a thing as the quiet before the storm. When major political upheavals and events are on no one's radar is when governments around the world pass legislation unanimously, which will be used in the future during "emergencies". Think about what laws are being passed now, especially in the US with this big beautiful bill. Laws that centralize the regulation of artificial intelligence. The laws that are passed now during times of peace and quiet should be our first red flags to what is coming. We are living, my friends. In a time when things may appear quiet and hopeful. Yet this is when we must be the most vigilant, as our guards are down. We are no longer on high alert. And that's when we are the most vulnerable.

Hidden allies My entire legislative department had a meeting about sanctions last week. There were about 60 senior level government individuals in the room all talking and trying to find ways to more efficaciously seize assets and implement sanctions and ensure that sanctions are implemented by banks and other financial institutions in the jurisdiction. The key takeaway here is that nobody asked what due process there was to prevent sanctions from being used as a political tool... in other words, using sanctions to supress political opponents or people who a government doesn't like, at a whim. All this, of course, without any kind of proper due process. A big surprise was that one of the individuals in the room did say that " One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter". This was a pleasant revelation - even if those in theroom were eager mindless zealots, a few like me and him hold pur tongues and are silent witnesses to the establishment of a global control grid.

Introducing a new "inside the government thread" where I will be chronicling any kind of day-to-day observations I find interesting at my work. For those who don't know me, I'm a civil servant that works for a large financial center. I do policy and legislation and so I'm faced with implementing global standards on a day-to-day basis. I'm always open to do podcasts, but unfortunately, I just don't have the contacts in that space. So I'm just going to chronicle things I see here.

Imagine the irony of the same president bringing about COVID-19 and World War III. especially a president who proclaims to be for the people in anti-war. Sometimes I think the whole peace thing is a load of bullshit. President Trump could have simply said no more weapons, but instead he's supplying more weapons and probably enabling other countries behind the scenes.