Cedar Falls Planning & Zoning Commission: March 25, 2026 – Bitcoin Mining, Zoning, CFU Power Plant.

Posted on by
Reply

Separating the Issues in the Cedar Falls Mining Debate

After reviewing the Planning & Zoning meeting from March 25th, 2026 where Bitcoin minnig, Zoning and a new CFU powerplant wer dicussed, it’s clear that several different issues were being discussed at the same time. When those get mixed together, it becomes difficult to evaluate the project clearly.

I think it helps to separate the discussion into four distinct categories.

1. Zoning & Land Use

This is the most important and most durable question.

Concerns about noise, building type (containers vs. permanent structures), water systems, and proximity to neighborhoods all fall into this category. These are not Bitcoin-specific issues — they apply to any industrial use.

If the concern is that this site should not be rezoned from light industrial to heavy industrial, that’s a legitimate argument. It sets precedent and affects long-term land use decisions for the city.

2. Power Plant

There are also concerns tied to the new power plant itself — environmental impact, scale, and whether it should be built at all.

That’s a separate policy decision.

If the concern is emissions or the role of a peaker plant, those questions should be addressed directly:

  • When does the plant run?
  • What is the cost of running it versus buying power from the grid?
  • How often is it expected to operate?

Those are important questions, but they are not inherently tied to Bitcoin mining.

3. Governance & Process

Some of the strongest concerns raised were about process and oversight.

The city, CFU, and the applicant are closely connected, which raises reasonable questions:

  • Is there sufficient independent review?
  • Has there been a third-party analysis of costs, noise, and environmental impact?

These are solvable issues:

  • Independent studies
  • Clear contract structures
  • Ongoing monitoring and transparency

4. Utility Economics (Where Bitcoin Actually Enters the Picture)

Only at this stage does Bitcoin mining itself become relevant.

CFU described miners as an interruptible load:

  • They consume electricity when it is cheap and abundant
  • They shut off when prices spike or the grid is stressed

This matters because utilities buy electricity at varying prices. If a flexible customer uses low-cost energy and avoids high-cost periods, it can reduce the utility’s average cost of power.

As one CFU representative explained, this dynamic lowers the average cost of power by reducing the need to purchase expensive electricity during peak periods.

That doesn’t guarantee lower bills, but it does suggest that mining — when structured correctly — is not inherently a cost burden and may improve system efficiency.

A Simple Test

One question that helps clarify the discussion:

If this facility were in a fully enclosed building, met all noise standards, and used a closed-loop system — would there still be strong opposition?

If the answer is yes, then the issue may not be the impacts themselves, but the perception of Bitcoin.

Closing Thought

There are legitimate concerns in this discussion, particularly around zoning, noise, and long-term planning. But many of the arguments raised in the meeting were not aligned with how the system was actually described.

If this decision is going to be made well, it should be grounded in:

  • land use
  • infrastructure planning
  • contract design
  • and measurable impacts

Not generalized assumptions about Bitcoin.

Link to the Cedar Falls Planning & Zoning Commission: March 25, 2026 where bitcoin mining, zoning and he new powerplant are discussed.

I also use the below link

YouVideoToText

to generate a transcript. You can then investigate the transcipt with ChatGPT or other LLM’s.

I have also already generated that PDF if you just want to download it yourself.

transcript Cedar Falls Planning &Zoning Commission March 25, 2026Download

I Reached Out to the Iowa Environmental Council About Bitcoin Mining

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a growing conversation happening right now—globally and locally—around Bitcoin mining, energy use, and its impact on communities.

In Iowa, that conversation is no longer theoretical. It’s showing up in public meetings, local zoning discussions, and policy conversations that will shape how towns like Cedar Falls think about energy, infrastructure, and economic development.

Recently, the Iowa Environmental Council published a fact sheet outlining concerns about crypto mining. Documents like this matter. They don’t just inform—they influence how people think, how decisions get made, and how communities respond.

That’s exactly why I decided to reach out.

Not to argue. Not to dismiss concerns. But to do something that feels increasingly rare: slow down, look at the actual data, and ask whether the full picture is being represented.

The IEC states that its work is informed by science and data—and that it listens, learns, and adapts. I take that seriously. So my goal with this email is simple:

To add context where it’s missing.
To challenge assumptions where they may be incomplete.
And to contribute real-world examples—especially from how utilities actually operate—that don’t always make it into high-level summaries.

This isn’t about defending Bitcoin uncritically. It’s about making sure the conversation around it is grounded in how the system actually works—not just how it’s often portrayed.

Below is the note I sent to these people who work there

iecmail@iaenvironment.org, daniel@iaenvironment.org, fowle@iaenvironment.org, green@iaenvironment.org, howe@iaenvironment.org, oster@iaenvironment.org

Hello

Dear Iowa Environmental Council,

I recently reviewed your 2024 crypto mining fact sheet and wanted to share a response to several of the points raised.

On your website, you note that your work is informed by science, data, and stories, and that sometimes you educate and lead; other times, you learn and follow. You also emphasize the importance of listening to others.

I appreciate that framing. My goal in writing is in that same spirit—to contribute additional data, context, and real-world examples that may help strengthen and refine the analysis.

Given the ongoing discussions around crypto mining—both globally and here in Iowa—it is especially important that widely shared materials like this are as accurate and complete as possible. Incomplete or incorrect assumptions can shape public understanding in ways that lead to misinformed conclusions or policy decisions.

This is a complex and evolving topic, and it benefits from incorporating how these systems function in practice, particularly at the utility level.

Below are a few specific responses to points raised in the fact sheet:

1. Electricity Consumption and Grid Strain
It is true that bitcoin mining is energy-intensive. However, the characterization of mining as a constant strain on the grid is incomplete.

Unlike most industrial loads, mining is highly interruptible. Operators can shut down within minutes during periods of high demand, allowing them to function as a flexible demand response resource rather than a fixed burden.

This dynamic was acknowledged at a recent Cedar Falls Utilities discussion, where a utility representative explained that flexible loads like bitcoin mining can lower the average cost of electricity procurement. By consuming power during low-cost periods (when supply is abundant) and curtailing during peak demand, miners can improve overall system efficiency and reduce costs for consumers.

In other words, when structured properly, mining does not simply add demand—it can help smooth demand and reduce price volatility.

2. Energy Sources and Emissions
The fact sheet suggests that increased electricity demand from mining leads to greater fossil fuel use and associated emissions. This reflects a simplified, static view of grid behavior.

Globally, bitcoin mining is estimated to have one of the highest shares of renewable energy usage of any major industry. For example:

  • The Bitcoin Mining Council has estimated the global mining industry’s sustainable energy mix at ~50–60% in recent reports
  • A 2023 analysis from the University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance found a substantial and growing share of mining powered by renewables, particularly hydro, wind, and curtailed energy sources
  • Mining operations are frequently located where energy is stranded, excess, or otherwise underutilized, including wind-heavy regions like parts of the Midwest

Links for reference:

Additionally, mining is economically incentivized to seek out the lowest-cost electricity, which often corresponds to periods of excess renewable generation (e.g., high wind output in Iowa). During periods of high demand—when fossil generation is more likely to set the marginal price—miners can and do curtail usage.

This behavior contrasts with traditional industrial loads, which typically operate continuously regardless of grid conditions.

3. Air Pollution and Public Health
The fact sheet links mining activity to increased air pollution and health risks. However, this conclusion depends heavily on the assumption that mining drives additional fossil fuel generation.

If mining primarily consumes excess or curtailed renewable energy and reduces load during peak fossil generation periods, its net contribution to emissions can be materially different from the scenario described.

As a result, the environmental impact of mining is not uniform—it depends on how it interacts with the grid. Treating all mining load as equivalent to constant fossil-driven demand risks overstating its impact.

4. Noise Concerns
The concern around noise is valid and important at the local level.

However, noise is not unique to crypto mining and is commonly addressed through standard regulatory approaches such as setback requirements, sound limits, and site-specific mitigation measures. These tools are already used effectively for other industrial and agricultural operations.

5. Water Use
The fact sheet raises concerns about water consumption. While some mining facilities use water-based cooling, many modern operations rely on air cooling or closed-loop immersion systems that require minimal ongoing water use.

Water impact varies significantly depending on facility design and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than assumed to be uniformly high.

Additional Context: Grid Stability, Emissions, and Renewable Development

Because the fact sheet focuses primarily on potential harms, I believe it is also important to include emerging evidence on how bitcoin mining can interact positively with energy systems when deployed in certain ways.

Grid Stability
Bitcoin mining is one of the few large-scale loads that is both flexible and location-agnostic. It can absorb excess generation during periods of oversupply and curtail quickly when demand rises.

This flexibility directly addresses a known challenge with modern grids: balancing intermittent renewable generation with real-time demand. By acting as a controllable load, mining can help stabilize grid operations rather than simply adding to peak demand.

Emissions Reduction (Methane and Wasted Energy Use)
Bitcoin mining is increasingly being used to capture and utilize energy that would otherwise be wasted.

In particular, methane venting and flaring from oil production and landfills represents a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Mining can convert this otherwise-released methane into electricity and then into economic value—reducing net emissions in the process.

Support for Renewable Energy Development
Renewable energy projects often face economic challenges due to intermittency, transmission constraints, and periods of oversupply.

Bitcoin mining can act as a “buyer of last resort” for excess or stranded energy—particularly in early project phases or in regions where transmission capacity is limited.

Research has shown that integrating mining into renewable projects can improve project economics, increase revenue, and help bring new solar, wind, and hydro capacity online that might not otherwise be financially viable.

In summary, while the concerns raised in the fact sheet are important, several rely on assumptions that do not fully reflect how bitcoin mining operates in practice—particularly its ability to act as a flexible, price-responsive load that can align with periods of excess energy supply.

I appreciate your work on this topic and hope these additional perspectives are helpful in developing a more complete picture.

Sincerely,
Axel Hoogland

http://www.MyWheelLife.com

Bitcoin Is Good for the World—In Ways Most People Haven’t Considered

Posted on by
Reply

Bitcoin Is Good for the World. Here’s the Case Most People Miss.

The typical Bitcoin conversation goes like this: someone brings it up, someone else calls it a scam or an environmental disaster, and the conversation collapses into noise before anything interesting gets said. What gets lost in all that noise is that Bitcoin is quietly doing things that genuinely matter — things that have nothing to do with the price chart. Specifically:

  • What Bitcoin mining is doing to stabilize the power grid
  • What it’s doing to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
  • What Bitcoin is doing to subsidize the creation of green energy assets (solar, wind, hydro)
  • What it’s doing for people living under governments that would rather they had no financial options at all

The Grid Problem Nobody Talks About

Here’s something that doesn’t get enough attention: the modern electric grid has a flexibility problem. Renewable energy sources like wind and solar are intermittent by nature. The wind doesn’t blow on command. The sun doesn’t shine at peak demand. So grids end up with these awkward mismatches — too much power when nobody needs it, not enough when everyone does.

The traditional fix involves “peaker plants” — gas-burning facilities that sit idle most of the time and fire up when demand spikes. They’re expensive to build and costly to run.

Bitcoin miners are different.

Unlike most industrial loads, they can scale down quickly when the grid is stressed and ramp back up when surplus power returns. That makes them one of the few large energy buyers that can absorb excess power without demanding constant priority from the grid.

A Duke University Nicholas Institute report found that the U.S. grid could accommodate 76 gigawatts of flexible load — roughly 10% of peak demand — with expected annual curtailment of just 0.25%.
👉 https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/rethinking-load-growth.pdf

That matters because electricity demand in the U.S. is rising again, driven by AI data centers, manufacturing, and electrification. Traditional data centers require continuous power and add stress at exactly the wrong times.

Bitcoin mining is the opposite.

It soaks up energy when the grid has too much and steps back when the grid needs relief.

It doesn’t just consume electricity — it makes the system more flexible.

And this isn’t just theoretical.

At a recent city council discussion in Cedar Falls, Iowa, the local utility (CFU) explained that their Bitcoin mining partner actually helps lower electricity costs for residents.

Their reasoning was simple:

  • The miner uses excess power when it’s cheap
  • It shuts down when power is expensive
  • That reduces the utility’s need to buy high-cost electricity

As one CFU representative put it during the meeting (timestamp 2:05:57):

“That lowers the average cost of power because we’re buying a lot less.”

👉 https://youtu.be/JcxxYyh2FoI?t=7508

That’s the part most people miss.

It’s not true that Bitcoin miners automatically raise electricity prices.

It depends entirely on how the contracts are structured.

In Cedar Falls, the utility itself is saying the opposite:

👉 The miner helps lower average costs for residents.

That’s not a theory.

That’s happening in practice.

The Methane Story Is Even More Interesting

If you’ve heard that Bitcoin is bad for the environment, you’ve probably heard the energy consumption number. What you likely haven’t heard is what Bitcoin mining can do with one of the most potent greenhouse gases on the planet: methane.

When oil is drilled, natural gas often comes up with it. In places where there’s no pipeline infrastructure nearby, operators may vent it or flare it. Both are bad outcomes. Methane has a much stronger warming effect than CO₂, and imperfect flaring leaves a meaningful share unburned.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy acknowledged this directly in a 2022 report:
👉 https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf

Bitcoin mining offers a third option: put that gas to work.

Companies such as Crusoe deploy systems that use otherwise-wasted gas to generate electricity on site.

One widely cited analysis estimated that:

➡️ 9,482 tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions can be reduced per megawatt per year

👉 https://dergigi.com/assets/files/2022-09-03-arcane-research-how-bitcoin-mining-can-transform-the-energy-industry.pdf

Peer-reviewed research has also shown Bitcoin mining can help finance methane mitigation at landfills:
👉 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624029652

Instead of releasing methane, it gets destroyed — and turned into useful energy.

Bitcoin doesn’t just use energy — it can clean up wasted energy.

Bitcoin Is Quietly Funding the Green Energy Build-Out

This is the angle that almost never makes it into mainstream coverage, and it’s arguably the most important one for long-term climate outcomes.

Building a renewable energy project is expensive and financially risky. One of the toughest windows is the period after the project is capable of generating electricity but before it is fully interconnected and earning reliable revenue from the grid.

During that phase:

  • Energy is being produced
  • But there may be no reliable buyer

That’s a problem.

A Cornell-led study published in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering found that Bitcoin mining can materially improve project economics during this phase. In Texas alone:

  • 32 planned renewable projects
  • Could generate $47 million in additional profit
  • By using Bitcoin mining before grid integration

👉 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.3c05445

It also works after grid connection.

In parts of Texas, electricity prices can go negative.

Why?

  • Too much power
  • Not enough transmission
  • Not enough local demand

When that happens, producers may be forced to:

👉 Sell electricity at a loss
👉 Or shut down production

One West Texas solar plant had to sell 10.1% of its energy at a loss because of this.

Bitcoin mining changes that.

Instead of dumping excess energy into an oversupplied market, the plant can redirect that power into mining — creating a buyer of last resort and a price floor for surplus energy.

In that case, adding Bitcoin mining increased total site revenue by 3.7%.

👉 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/theres-no-catch-bitcoin-mining-200335729.html

Bitcoin turns stranded energy into revenue.

And that makes more projects viable.

Money as a Tool of Oppression

Most people in the developed world think of money as a neutral tool. But in many countries, financial systems are instruments of surveillance and control.

That’s why the Human Rights Foundation has spent years supporting Bitcoin tools and education for activists, journalists, and dissidents:
👉 https://hrf.org/program/financial-freedom/bitcoin-development-fund/

Bitcoin allows people to:

  • Receive money
  • Send money
  • Store savings

Without needing permission.

In 2026, HRF announced a new round of funding supporting projects helping billions of people living under authoritarian regimes:
👉 https://hrf.org/latest/hrfs-bitcoin-development-fund-announces-support-for-26-projects-worldwide/

Not as speculation.

As survival.

The Part Most People Miss

People tend to look at Bitcoin through their own lens.

They interpret it based on what they already understand — their background, their assumptions, their biases.

Some see a speculative asset.
Some see an environmental topic.
Some see a political idea.
Some see a technological curiosity.

But that lens often misses what’s actually happening.

Bitcoin is creating a new kind of demand for energy — one that is flexible, location-agnostic, and always willing to buy excess supply.

At the same time, it’s creating a form of money that doesn’t rely on permission.

Those two things don’t seem connected at first.

But they are.

And together, they’re quietly improving how energy is used, how infrastructure gets built, and how people access financial systems.

That story doesn’t show up in the price.

But Bitcoin is slowly improving the world — one miner and one transaction at a time.

Bitcoin Is Honest Money. Prove Me Wrong.

Posted on by
Reply

👉 View the full immersive version of this essay

₿
← MyWheelLife.com
Essay · Money · Philosophy

Bitcoin Is Honest Money.
Prove Me Wrong.

By Axel Hoogland

Every serious objection to Bitcoin has already been thought through — and answered. This is a challenge to critics to find one that hasn’t.

2026  ·  A challenge to skeptics  ·  Not financial advice

“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work.”

— Satoshi Nakamoto, 2009

What Is Honest Money?

Money, at its core, is a technology for storing and transferring value across time and space. For thousands of years humans have searched for a form of money that couldn’t be corrupted — that couldn’t be debased by kings, inflated away by central banks, or confiscated by governments with printing presses and good intentions.

Gold came closest. Fixed supply. Scarce. No one could create more by decree. But gold has real problems — it’s heavy, hard to divide, difficult to verify, and nearly impossible to transmit across borders without trusting intermediaries. The very institutions gold was meant to protect us from ended up holding it for us. And once they held it, they printed paper on top of it. And once they printed paper, they removed the gold backing entirely.

This is not conspiracy theory. This is history. It happened in 1971. The dollar has lost over 98% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

Bitcoin is the first monetary technology in human history that combines the scarcity of gold with the transmissibility of the internet — and does so without requiring trust in any institution, government, or person. That is what makes it honest money. The rules are in the code. The code is public. No one can change the supply schedule. No one can freeze your coins without your keys. No one can print more.

Fixed supply of 21 million coins. Predictable issuance schedule. Decentralized — no single point of control or failure. Permissionless — no one can deny you access. Censorship resistant — no one can stop a valid transaction. Verifiable — anyone can audit the entire system.

Bitcoin as Money: The State of Adoption Argument

Critics love to point out that Bitcoin fails the three classical tests of money: store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account. They’re not entirely wrong — yet. But this critique completely ignores that every monetary technology in history went through an adoption curve where these properties emerged gradually.

The dollar wasn’t always trusted. Gold wasn’t always liquid. The internet wasn’t always fast. Pointing at Bitcoin’s current limitations as though they’re permanent is like critiquing the iPhone in 2007 for not having an app store.

The sequence of monetary adoption is predictable and Bitcoin is following it precisely:

Stage 1 — Collectible / Speculation

Early adopters buy it because they believe others will value it later. This is where Bitcoin spent most of its early years. It still has some of this character today but has largely moved beyond it.

Stage 2 — Store of Value

Institutions, sovereigns, and sophisticated investors hold it as a hedge against currency debasement. This is where Bitcoin is now. BlackRock’s ETF alone holds over $86 billion. Strategy holds over 762,000 coins — more than 3% of the entire supply. Nation states are building reserves.

Stage 3 — Medium of Exchange

As volatility dampens with deeper liquidity and wider adoption, transacting in Bitcoin becomes practical. Layer 2 solutions like Lightning Network are already enabling this. As the price stabilizes at higher levels, the incentive to spend rather than hold increases.

Stage 4 — Unit of Account

Prices denominated in satoshis. This is the final stage and the most distant — but not implausible in a world where Bitcoin has achieved reserve asset status globally.

21M Maximum Supply. Ever.
3-4M Estimated Lost Forever
762K Coins Held by Strategy
$170B US Spot ETF Assets

Bitcoin as Philosophy

Bitcoin is not just a financial instrument. It is a philosophical statement — arguably the most important one made in the field of money since Bretton Woods.

Distrust of institutions is not paranoia. The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated that the institutions entrusted with the monetary system could be catastrophically wrong, spectacularly rewarded for failure, and bailed out with money created from nothing. The genesis block was not subtle about this. Satoshi embedded a newspaper headline about bank bailouts directly into Bitcoin’s first block.

Sovereignty over your own wealth is a human right. The ability to hold value that cannot be confiscated, frozen, or inflated away without your consent is not a radical idea. It is the natural extension of property rights. Bitcoin makes that right technologically enforceable for the first time in history.

Scarcity is not the enemy of prosperity. The dominant monetary philosophy of the 20th century held that money supply should be managed. Bitcoin rejects this entirely. Its scarcity is not a bug but the central feature. Scarcity is what gives money its meaning as a store of value across time.

Rules over rulers. Perhaps the deepest philosophical claim Bitcoin makes is that mathematical rules enforced by cryptography are more trustworthy than any human institution. Not because humans are evil — but because humans are fallible, corruptible, and mortal. Code, once deployed and sufficiently decentralized, is not.

The Environmental Argument — Already Answered

Bitcoin uses an enormous amount of energy. This is true. What critics leave out is what kind of energy, and what Bitcoin does with it.

Bitcoin miners are uniquely flexible electricity consumers — they can be switched on and off instantly, making them ideal buyers of stranded and curtailed renewable energy that would otherwise be wasted. Wind farms and solar arrays frequently produce more power than grids can absorb. Bitcoin absorbs the excess, making previously uneconomic renewable projects viable.

More compellingly: Bitcoin miners are increasingly deployed to combust methane — the gas vented from oil wells and landfills that would otherwise enter the atmosphere directly. Methane is roughly 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20-year period. Using it to mine Bitcoin converts it to CO2, dramatically reducing net emissions. This is not spin. It is chemistry and thermodynamics.

The environmental argument against Bitcoin is a legacy talking point that has not kept pace with how mining has actually evolved. The narrative persists not because it is accurate but because it is politically useful to those with incentives to undermine Bitcoin’s legitimacy.

The Objections — And Why They’ve Been Answered

What follows is an honest accounting of the most serious objections to Bitcoin, and the responses that Bitcoin thinkers have developed over 17 years of adversarial scrutiny. These are the actual strongest arguments — tested against people who have spent careers trying to find the fatal flaw.

Objection: Quantum Computing Will Break Bitcoin’s Cryptography

A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could theoretically derive private keys from public keys, compromising holdings.

Quantum computing is an existential threat to every cryptographic system on earth — every bank, every government database, every secure communication. Bitcoin is actually among the more adaptable systems since it can hard fork to quantum-resistant algorithms, which already exist and are being standardized. This objection proves too much — if quantum breaks Bitcoin, it breaks everything.
Objection: Transaction Fees Can’t Sustain Miner Security After Halvings

Block rewards halve every four years until ~2140. At zero issuance, miners must be compensated by fees alone. If fees are insufficient, hash rate drops and the network becomes vulnerable.

This objection ignores the difficulty adjustment — one of Bitcoin’s most elegant mechanisms. If hash rate drops, difficulty adjusts down, making mining profitable again at a new equilibrium. At $1 million per coin, even tiny fees in BTC terms are substantial in dollar terms. The security budget concern disappears at scale.
Objection: A Superior Competitor Will Replace Bitcoin

Technology has network effects that shift. Something better could emerge and Bitcoin could become MySpace.

This analogy fundamentally misunderstands monetary network effects. MySpace lost to Facebook because Facebook was more useful in ways users could immediately feel. Monetary network effects are far stickier — the value of money IS the network. Gold held its monetary premium for 5,000 years. Bitcoin may have crossed a similar threshold.
Objection: Governments Will Ban It

Sovereign monetary authorities will not permit a parallel monetary system to challenge their control.

China has “banned” Bitcoin multiple times. It still trades in China. Bans on information and mathematics don’t work. More importantly, the US regulatory posture has reversed dramatically. Spot ETFs are approved. SAB 121 has been rescinded. Institutional banks can now custody digital assets. The world’s largest capital market is opening, not closing.
Objection: Bitcoin Is Too Volatile To Be Money

Something that drops 70% in a year cannot function as a reliable store of value.

Volatility is a function of market depth and adoption, not an intrinsic property of Bitcoin. Every asset becomes less volatile as liquidity deepens. Gold was volatile when its market was thin. Bitcoin’s volatility has been declining measurably each cycle as institutional participation deepens. This objection describes the present state and projects it as permanent — a logical error.

The Real Challenge

After seventeen years of adversarial scrutiny by some of the sharpest minds in cryptography, economics, and computer science — every major objection to Bitcoin has been examined and answered.

The honest answer to “what could derail Bitcoin?” is the unknown unknown — the thing no one has thought of yet. That’s intellectually serious. That’s the right answer.

The challenge to skeptics is simple: find a serious objection that the Bitcoin community hasn’t already examined in depth and answered.

Even Fidelity — one of the world’s largest asset managers — has concluded that ignoring Bitcoin is no longer a prudent approach. The burden of proof has shifted. It is no longer on Bitcoin advocates to justify owning it — it is on skeptics to justify owning zero.

Most people who try to find a fatal flaw end up owning Bitcoin instead.

The Structural Buying Pressure Nobody Is Talking About

Beyond the philosophical and technical case, there is a mechanical reality forming in markets that deserves attention. Fidelity’s 2026 research finds that Bitcoin has delivered the highest risk-adjusted returns of any asset class over both five and ten year horizons — and that even a 1-3% allocation has historically produced meaningful portfolio improvements.

Companies like Strategy have pioneered a model where corporate balance sheets treat Bitcoin as a primary treasury reserve asset, funding ongoing purchases through equity and non-margin debt instruments. Strategy alone holds over 762,000 coins — more than 3.6% of the total supply — and has structured its balance sheet specifically to avoid any forced liquidation scenario. This is a one-way accumulation machine.

This is happening simultaneously with the halving-driven supply reduction — the programmatic 50% reduction in new Bitcoin issuance that occurs every four years. Less new supply entering the market. More institutional demand absorbing existing supply. ETFs holding billions on behalf of pension funds, endowments, and retail investors who will never touch a private key.

These forces compound. They do not reverse without a fundamental change in the thesis — and the thesis has only gotten stronger with time.

The Honest Remaining Risks

Intellectual honesty requires acknowledging what is genuinely uncertain.

The unknown unknown. Bitcoin could fail in ways no one has conceived. This is true of any system. It is taken seriously precisely because it cannot be dismissed — but also cannot be acted upon. You cannot hedge against what you cannot imagine.

A catastrophic BIP. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal process is the mechanism by which protocol changes are proposed and adopted. Conservative governance makes bad changes unlikely — but not impossible. The community’s demonstrated ability to resist even well-intentioned changes (the block size wars) suggests this risk is managed, not eliminated.

Partial success. The most likely “disappointing” outcome is not failure but incomplete success — Bitcoin becomes a globally recognized store of value held by institutions and sovereigns, reaching prices that would have seemed absurd a decade ago, but never fully displacing fiat as the unit of account for everyday life. This would be an extraordinary outcome for holders while representing a partial failure of the original vision.

Conclusion: The Game Theory of Honest Money

You don’t have to believe Bitcoin will succeed to understand why it might.

A small number of people who deeply understand the monetary system, the history of currency debasement, and the technical properties of Bitcoin will continue to accumulate. Their accumulation drives price. Rising price attracts attention. Attention drives adoption. Adoption deepens liquidity. Deeper liquidity dampens volatility. Dampened volatility enables broader use as money. Broader use as money drives further adoption.

The masses don’t need to understand sound money theory for this to play out. They never do. They didn’t understand TCP/IP to use the internet. They didn’t understand double-entry bookkeeping to trust banks. They will not need to understand elliptic curve cryptography to hold Bitcoin.

History doesn’t require universal understanding to move in a direction. It requires enough people who understand to make it inevitable for everyone else.

The question is not whether Bitcoin is perfect. No monetary system is. The question is whether it is more honest than what we have — and whether honest money, once available, can ultimately lose to dishonest money in a world where information moves freely.

If you’ve found a flaw the Bitcoin community hasn’t already answered, the world is listening.

This essay represents the author’s analysis and philosophical perspective. It is not financial advice. Bitcoin is a volatile asset. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Do your own research. Hold your own keys.

By Axel Hoogland

MyWheelLife.com

Bitcoin Is Honest Money · 2026  ·  Not your keys · Not your coins

bitcoin_honest_money_wordpress (2).html

Bitcoin Maps and a Simple Observation

Posted on by
Reply

I opened the Bitcoin map inside Cash App today.

Then I opened https://btcmap.org.

Both maps showed the same thing.

A large number of businesses.

Restaurants, shops, and local services spread across the city.

For a long time, the common assumption has been that Bitcoin is mostly held, not used.

But when you look at these maps, that assumption becomes harder to maintain.

These are not theoretical use cases.

They are physical businesses that have made the decision to accept Bitcoin as a form of payment.

What Happens When a Business Accepts Bitcoin

When a business enables Bitcoin payments, something else happens at the same time.

It gets listed.

On Cash App, it appears on the local Bitcoin map.
On BTC Map, it becomes part of a global directory.

In both cases, the business becomes easier to find.

A Different Type of Customer

Most marketing is broad.

Businesses advertise and hope the right customer eventually sees it.

These maps work differently.

Someone opening a Bitcoin map is already looking for a place to spend.

That is a narrower and more specific type of demand.

The business is not trying to attract attention.

It is being surfaced directly to someone who is already interested.

A Small but Growing Effect

Each individual business making this decision is not a major event.

But the pattern is noticeable.

A few businesses appear.
Then a cluster forms.
Then an area becomes dense.

That pattern shows up on both maps.

Larger Businesses Are Starting to Participate

This is not limited to small or experimental businesses.

Steak ‘n Shake now accepts Bitcoin.

That does not mean universal adoption is imminent.

But it does suggest that accepting Bitcoin is moving from the edge toward something more normal.

Why Early Adoption Matters

There is a practical advantage to being early.

When fewer businesses are listed:

  • Each one is more visible
  • Each one stands out more clearly

As more businesses adopt, that visibility becomes more diluted.

This is true for most discovery platforms.

A Simple Takeaway

Bitcoin adoption is often discussed in abstract terms.

But these maps show something more concrete.

Businesses are choosing to accept it.
And when they do, they become easier to find.

That is a small change at the individual level.

But repeated many times, it starts to look like a system forming.

Final Thought

You do not need to assume that Bitcoin will replace existing systems to notice what is happening.

You can simply open a map and observe:

Businesses are adopting it.

And the ones that do it earlier are easier to see.

$200K vs $1.2M: A SATA + STRC Thought Experiment on Reaching F.I.R.E.

Posted on by
Reply

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:

  1. Hold STRC through its ex-dividend date (~15th)
  2. After the ex-date passes, sell and move into SATA
  3. Hold SATA through its ex-dividend date (~28th)
  4. 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:

StrategyCapital 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:

InvestmentYieldAnnual Income
$200,00024.25%$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# sharesDate PurchasedDate SoldPurchase Price Sell Priceprice appreciationDividend DateDividend
SATA103-16-264-1-26$97.2297.89+$0.67

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.

Calling MSTR a Ponzi Scheme Shows a Fundamental Misunderstanding of Finance

Posted on by
Reply

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:

  1. Investors are promised returns
  2. Those returns are not generated by real economic activity
  3. Early investors are paid using money from new investors
  4. 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:

  1. Borrow Japanese yen at extremely low interest rates
  2. Convert yen into higher-yielding assets (often U.S. dollars)
  3. 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.

Let’s Win Iowa, Zach Wahls — A Moderate Voter’s Letter

Posted on by
1

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.

Letter to Senator and Congressperson about current Administration (Trump) Actions

Posted on by
Reply

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.

if you are in Iowa here are your State Senators – https://www.senate.gov/states/IA/intro.htm

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.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City, State]
[ZIP Code]

Email To Congressperson Regarding Epstein Files

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Thank you for your time and service.