Bitcoin funding

Simon Dixon posits that Bitcoin is currently under a coordinated, systemic attack by the "Proof of Weapons" network—his term for the Financial Industrial Complex (FIC), which includes banks, regulators, intelligence agencies, and media.

The central thesis is that the FIC does not intend to destroy Bitcoin, but to vassalize it. The goal is to move Bitcoin from a sovereign, self-custody asset into "corporate wrappers" (ETFs, public companies, stablecoins) that allow the establishment to control the price, manipulate volatility, and ultimately enforce a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) agenda.

1. Unmasking the Epstein Bitcoin Theory

Dixon addresses recent media reports linking Jeffrey Epstein to the funding of Bitcoin Core developers.

• The Facts: Dixon acknowledges that Jeffrey Epstein did facilitate funding to the MIT Media Lab (via Joi Ito), which houses the Digital Currency Initiative (DCI). The DCI, in turn, provided funding to several key Bitcoin developers after the collapse of the Bitcoin Foundation in 2015.
• The Narrative Attack: This is a "moral contamination" vector. The FIC uses verifiable facts (Epstein funded MIT) to create a "guilt by association" narrative to scare retail investors into selling.
• The Technical Reality: Dixon argues that Bitcoin’s code is not compromised. Because Bitcoin is open-source and relies on consensus among thousands of independent nodes and miners, no single donor can insert a "backdoor."
• The CIA/Origins Context: Dixon references his previous research into whether the CIA created Bitcoin. He concludes that even if intelligence agencies or compromised figures (like Epstein or the mob) were involved in its early funding or origins, the moment the code went open-source, they lost control. The network is secured by transparency, not the morality of its early funders.

2. The Vassalization of MicroStrategy (MSTR)

Dixon provides a critical analysis of MicroStrategy, arguing that while Michael Saylor preaches Bitcoin sovereignty, his company has become a tool for the FIC to centralize and manipulate Bitcoin.

• The Financial Trap: MSTR is a "finite player" in an "infinite game." The company holds ~650,000 BTC but has only ~$54M in cash against ~$700M in annual financial obligations. To service this debt, MSTR must constantly raise more capital (debt/equity) or sell Bitcoin.
• The "Kill Shot": Dixon details a coordinated squeeze by Wall Street:
  1. Index Exclusion: MSCI and S&P threaten to exclude companies holding crypto from major indices, cutting off passive investment flows to MSTR.
  2. Margin Hikes: JP Morgan raised margin requirements on MSTR to 95%, making it impossible for hedge funds to leverage the stock.
  3. Competing Products: Simultaneously, banks like JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley launched their own "Structured Notes" linked to Bitcoin ETFs.
• The Outcome: This forces capital to migrate from MSTR (a rogue corporate entity) to bank-issued derivatives (controlled products). If MSTR faces a liquidity crisis, the FIC can force them to liquidate Bitcoin, allowing Wall Street to buy the dip and further centralize ownership.

3. Tether, Stablecoins, and the "Gateway Drug" Theory

Dixon argues that the ultimate goal of the FIC is not a "Honeypot" (seizing Bitcoin via a backdoor) but a "Gateway Drug" strategy to transition the world to CBDCs.

• Tether’s Integration: Tether is no longer a renegade outsider; it is now the 17th largest holder of US Treasuries. It has been vassalized by Cantor Fitzgerald (led by Howard Lutnick, a Trump administration appointee), which custodies Tether’s assets.
• The "Genius Act" & Banking: New regulations (like the Genius Act) are designed to push stablecoin issuers to become banks. This merges stablecoins with the Federal Reserve system, effectively creating a private-sector CBDC.
• The Risk: By holding Bitcoin-backed stablecoins or trusting vassalized entities like Tether, the crypto ecosystem becomes dependent on the US Treasury market. If the bond market crashes (as with Silicon Valley Bank), stablecoins can de-peg, forcing the liquidation of their Bitcoin reserves and crashing the market.

4. The History of "Compromised" Influencers

Dixon reviews the history of Bitcoin to show that attack vectors often come through compromised individuals within the ecosystem. He suggests these figures are often blackmailed or incentivized to push agendas that hurt Bitcoin's decentralization:

• Roger Ver & Craig Wright: Used to push the "Big Block" civil war (Bitcoin Cash/BSV) to centralize mining in China.
• Barry Silbert (DCG): Historically tried to force corporate changes on Bitcoin (SegWit2x) and is now promoting Zcash (a privacy coin with a trusted setup) at the exact moment Bitcoin is being attacked via the Epstein narrative.
• Brock Pierce: An early investor with connections to the Epstein network and the founding of Tether, highlighting the long-standing intersection of Hollywood, intelligence, and crypto.

Conclusion: The Solution is Self-Custody

Dixon concludes that the only way to win the "infinite game" is to opt out of the financial layers being built on top of Bitcoin.

• Reject Wrappers: Investing in Bitcoin ETFs, MSTR stock, or "Bitcoin banks" gives power to the FIC (BlackRock, Vanguard, JP Morgan). These entities use your capital to manipulate the price and lobby for control.
• Avoid Leverage: "Bitcoin-backed loans" (like those offered by Strike/Cantor Fitzgerald) are dangerous. They subject users to margin calls and rehypothecation, often resulting in the loss of the underlying asset.
• True Resistance: The only defense against the "Proof of Weapons" network is holding Bitcoin in cold storage. By refusing to let third parties custody your keys, you remove the collateral the FIC needs to play their leverage games.

Summary Logic: The establishment cannot kill Bitcoin, so they are trying to become its landlord. They use moral panic (Epstein), financial engineering (MSTR squeeze), and regulatory capture (Tether/Cantor) to force users into their system. The counter-move is absolute financial sovereignty via self-custody.