Fitz

Free Banking Engineer

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

How do strangers, agents, communities, or businesses create spendable obligations between each other without needing a bank, card network, PayPal, Stripe, or centralized balance sheet to decide who is allowed to issue value and who must accept it?

[Alex Chepurnoy @chepurnoy]

Ergo blockchain is critical element in building p2p money issuance and unstoppable trust minimized p2p economic interactions

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

It converts vulnerability into dependency, and dependency into power for administrators.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

The far-left is the politics of turning human vulnerability into institutional power.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

The far-left is the politics of turning human vulnerability into institutional power.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

Maturing is realizing the real thing to conserve is the Anglosphere, and far left is trying is to make its scared safeguards look like oppression, and also make centralized control look like compassion.

common law,
free speech,
due process,
property rights,
markets,
limited government, and equal citizenship.

That is the whole fight.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

True

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

@ToKTeacher It’s immigrant-founder ambition with Anglosphere trust.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

Their “contribution” is moralizing against the people who do build.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

What do AOC, Sanders, Mamdani, and Warren have in common?

No record of creating positive-sum productive value.

No companies. No products. No technologies. No jobs at scale. No new capability given to the world.

Yet they moralize against the people who actually build.

That’s the rot: non-builders convincing America that builders are the villains.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

What do AOC, Sanders, Mamdani, and Warren have in common?

No record of creating positive-sum productive value.

No companies. No products. No technologies. No jobs at scale. No new capability given to the world.

Yet they moralize against the people who actually build.

That’s the rot: non-builders convincing America that builders are the villains.

[Engineer Girlfriend @enggirlfriend]

i realized something recently

bernie sanders and AOC have damaged the fabric of america immensely but we rarely talk about it

bernie/AOC have vilified successful businessmen & women. calling CEOs like elon musk, bezos, zuck evil. yes these people have shortcomings - but they are also truly self made, come from normal/humble backgrounds. with hard work they created trillions in economic value. isn’t that a fundamental part of what america is about? the land of opportunity?

in the 2000s when i was in elementary school, bill gates and steve jobs were viewed as role models. our teachers taught us about how much they achieved + given to society. these CEOs were actually respected and i believe this culture brought up a generation of ambitious hard working americans

now, kids are being taught that working hard and becoming a billionaire is evil. we’re essentially telling them to have victim mindset and stay poor

i know bernie/AOC & crew are never going to take responsibility. i can’t even tell if they realize what they’re doing

[Visegrád 24 @visegrad24]

In his final moments, Henry Nowak told police officers nine times “I can’t breathe” and four times that he had been stabbed.

In response police officer dragged him across the gravel, handcuffed and read him his rights.

It was the last thing Henry heard before he died.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

I love this

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

We need it i’m sick and tired of Death!

[gautam @gautaminvests]

"Biotechnology is about to have a renaissance driven by AI" - Dario Amodei

[J Schmeezy @JSchmeezy]

@RaminNasibov

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

@drgurner @JTLonsdale @jawwwn_ @jaltma @precigenetic It seems like the archaic view is giving animal suffering veto power over the human search for cures.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

@On3 @SenTedCruz @AndyAriOn3 Ted, no one cares.

Write a bill that brings back late-2000s football.

Abolish the “defenseless player” era.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

@dipanshuhappy I think that’s a great idea! I was also just thinking about our talks in Brooklyn.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

Gold, Bitcoin, and stablecoins can settle obligations, but Riegel was asking the deeper question:

who has the authority to create credit in the first place?

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

I agree. Gold or Bitcoin can absolutely serve as collateral or settlement layers for private credit systems.

What I’m pushing back against is the idea that the settlement asset is the monetary system itself.

Riegel’s insight is that money originates in exchange, credit, and acceptance, not in the commodity alone.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

I agree. Gold or Bitcoin can absolutely serve as collateral or settlement layers for private credit systems.

What I’m pushing back against is the idea that the settlement asset is the monetary system itself.

Riegel’s insight is that money originates in exchange, credit, and acceptance, not in the commodity alone.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

Mises vs. Riegel is a hidden battleground over the nature of monetary progress.

On the surface, it looks like a debate about gold.

It is not.

It is a debate about how monetary systems should deal with human error.

Mises wanted money disciplined by something outside human discretion, ultimately gold.

The fear is simple: if humans can issue money freely, they will abuse it.

So the monetary system needs a hard external constraint.

Riegel saw the problem differently.

He did not think money was a thing that needed to be discovered in the ground.

He thought money was a technology of exchange.

More specifically, money was a system of accounting between productive people who trade with one another.

That changes everything.

If money is a thing, then the question is: what thing should anchor it?

Gold? Silver? Bitcoin? State paper?

But if money is a technology of exchange, the question becomes much deeper:

What system best enables people to create credit, test trust, settle obligations, detect error, and correct failure?

That is where Riegel becomes much more interesting.

Mises wanted to prevent monetary error by tying money to scarcity.

Riegel wanted monetary error to be exposed by the market.

Bad credit should fail.

Bad issuers should lose acceptance.

Bad monetary experiments should die locally.

Better systems should spread.

That is a very different model of progress.

Through a Popperian lens, Riegel looks more future-facing.

Progress does not come from finding one final perfect anchor.

It comes from building systems that can generate variation, expose mistakes, survive criticism, and improve.

Gold is a constraint.

Private credit is a design space.

The future of finance is not one perfect money.

It is many competing systems of trust, credit, settlement, and obligation.

Not monetary nostalgia.

Monetary discovery.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

Mises wanted monetary error prevented by scarcity.

Riegel wanted monetary error corrected by exchange.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

Mises vs. Riegel is a hidden battleground over the nature of monetary progress.

On the surface, it looks like a debate about gold.

It is not.

It is a debate about how monetary systems should deal with human error.

Mises wanted money disciplined by something outside human discretion, ultimately gold.

The fear is simple: if humans can issue money freely, they will abuse it.

So the monetary system needs a hard external constraint.

Riegel saw the problem differently.

He did not think money was a thing that needed to be discovered in the ground.

He thought money was a technology of exchange.

More specifically, money was a system of accounting between productive people who trade with one another.

That changes everything.

If money is a thing, then the question is: what thing should anchor it?

Gold? Silver? Bitcoin? State paper?

But if money is a technology of exchange, the question becomes much deeper:

What system best enables people to create credit, test trust, settle obligations, detect error, and correct failure?

That is where Riegel becomes much more interesting.

Mises wanted to prevent monetary error by tying money to scarcity.

Riegel wanted monetary error to be exposed by the market.

Bad credit should fail.

Bad issuers should lose acceptance.

Bad monetary experiments should die locally.

Better systems should spread.

That is a very different model of progress.

Through a Popperian lens, Riegel looks more future-facing.

Progress does not come from finding one final perfect anchor.

It comes from building systems that can generate variation, expose mistakes, survive criticism, and improve.

Gold is a constraint.

Private credit is a design space.

The future of finance is not one perfect money.

It is many competing systems of trust, credit, settlement, and obligation.

Not monetary nostalgia.

Monetary discovery.

[Fitz @Fitz_Doud]

@Apottly @TheNBACentel SGA keeps his legs soft and sinks his butt back on landing to slide safely, protecting his ankles and knees from a defender’s foot instead of planting hard.