Critic T

[Piers Morgan @piersmorgan]

Seems a good moment to re-post Rocky’s iconic speech about resilience: 👇👇

[Unofficial Trump on X @trump_repost]

Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World's Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately. At some point, hopefully in the near future, China will realize that the days of ripping off the U.S.A., and other Countries, is no longer sustainable or acceptable. Conversely, and based on the fact that more than 75 Countries have called Representatives of the United States, including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, and the USTR, to negotiate a solution to the subjects being discussed relative to Trade, Trade Barriers, Tariffs, Currency Manipulation, and Non Monetary Tariffs, and that these Countries have not, at my strong suggestion, retaliated in any way, shape, or form against the United States, I have authorized a 90 day PAUSE, and a substantially lowered Reciprocal Tariff during this period, of 10%, also effective immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

[Shay Boloor @StockSavvyShay]

MY OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

The frustrating part is that I was on board for a reset. Truly. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve written about it in this very feed. I understood the need for a detox. For decades, the U.S. economy played the part of the rich guy at the table -- picking up the check for a global order that no longer worked in our favor. We hollowed out our industrial base. We enabled unfair trade imbalances under the illusion of diplomacy. We subsidized demand for cheap imports while outsourcing the hard questions about how our domestic workforce would adapt.

Eventually, that had to stop. It was unsustainable -- financially, politically, and morally. We couldn’t keep pretending that a consumption-led economy held together by zero-interest rates and global fragility was a long-term solution. I wanted a rebalancing. I welcomed the idea of a harder, smarter America-first policy that pushed for fair treatment, reciprocal agreements, and a real industrial strategy rooted in technological superiority, national security, and capital formation. That would’ve been leadership.

But that’s not what this is.

What you’ve rolled out isn’t detox -- it’s whiplash. This isn’t strategic decoupling. It’s scattershot retaliation dressed up as reform. There’s no roadmap. No operational playbook. No clear articulation of where this ends or what the metrics of success even are. It’s not an attempt to responsibly unwind America’s role as the global shock absorber -- it’s a brute-force attempt to disorder the existing system with no viable alternative in place.

You can’t replace a fragile supply chain with chaos and call it resilience. You can’t build American industry by torching the scaffolding that underpins capital flows, labor mobility, and global coordination -- especially when the U.S. itself no longer has the domestic capacity to meet its own industrial needs. You talk about bringing jobs home, but the U.S. doesn’t have the labor force, permitting structure, or wage flexibility to stand up full-scale manufacturing at speed. And now -- after years of deportation policies and underinvestment in vocational training -- you’ve made the labor gap even wider.

Capital isn’t going to rush to fill that void just because you raised tariffs. It’s going to wait. It’s going to sit on the sidelines and preserve optionality. Because right now, no CEO can confidently model a five-year capex plan. No board can greenlight supply chain onshoring when they don’t know whether a tariff rate will double next quarter based on your Twitter account or some arbitrary trade deficit formula.

That’s the issue. This wasn’t rolled out as part of a comprehensive American renewal strategy. It wasn’t coordinated with the Fed. It wasn’t communicated clearly to Treasury. It wasn’t backed by a labor reskilling program or any form of public-private manufacturing incentive beyond empty slogans. It was dropped like a bomb -- seemingly designed more to shock than to build.

And in the absence of credible structure, capital is retreating -- not realigning.

I was ready to endure the pain of a thoughtful, structured reset. Most long-term investors were. We’ve lived through tightening cycles. We understood that globalization, as it stood, had reached a breaking point. But this isn’t a correction of imbalances. This is a rupture without scaffolding.

What you’ve created isn’t reindustrialization. It’s an intentional sabotage of capital planning. No executive is going to build a factory with four-year political horizon risk, a floating tariff regime, and no labor certainty. No investor is going to fund expansion in a market where the basic cost of imports can change weekly based on what country has a current account surplus that week. The system you’ve launched isn’t designed for certainty. It’s designed for control.

And the irony is -- we’re not even punishing bad actors. We’re punishing everyone. Allies. Poor countries. Longstanding partners. Israel gets slapped with 17% tariffs while dismantling their own to support American imports. Vietnam gets hit with 46% because it’s become too productive. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries on Earth, faces a 50% tariff because it doesn’t buy enough U.S. goods -- as if that were a sign of unfairness rather than poverty. It’s incoherent. It’s cruel. And it undermines any claim to moral high ground.

You say this is about protecting American workers. But no worker is helped by policy so erratic that no employer wants to hire. No consumer is helped when import costs rise and domestic capacity doesn’t exist to replace them. No investor is helped when the cost of capital spikes in the face of weaponized uncertainty.

This is not a plan to make America stronger. It’s a gamble that markets and allies will blink first. It’s brinkmanship with no floor.

And the most maddening part? There was a path. A real one. A version of this policy that could’ve worked -- not in headlines or soundbites, but in practice. A path that applied pressure with purpose, that aligned economic force with long-term national interest, that sent a clear message to adversaries and partners alike without destabilizing global commerce or blindsiding capital allocators.

You could’ve gone after China -- hard -- and had the backing of nearly every serious investor and strategist on the Street. Not just because of trade deficits or currency suppression, but because China has been actively undermining our economy and our people. I would’ve supported a four-year plan to end all dependence on Chinese manufacturing unless they stopped stealing American IP (DeepSeek). No more games. Make it explicit: if they don’t comply, we’ll back Taiwanese independence and bring the entire global semiconductor economy with us. No ambiguity. No half-threats. As I see it, China is at war with us -- and our policy should reflect that.

With the EU, you could’ve played it clean. Match auto tariffs percent-for-percent. That’s fair. And then leave the rest alone -- especially goods and services. We run a huge surplus on services with the EU. It props up some of our biggest competitive advantages -- enterprise software, consulting, cloud, defense tech, streaming, media IP. Tariffing the EU outside of autos would be like shooting your own foot for balance. We’re not in a trade war with Europe. We're in a competition for global enterprise dominance -- and right now, the U.S. is winning.

That’s what real strength would’ve looked like. That’s what an America-first trade doctrine could’ve achieved. You’d be rebuilding the system from the inside out -- not just throwing bricks through the windows and calling it a redesign.

Investors would’ve backed it. CEOs would’ve planned around it. Global partners would’ve respected it -- even if they didn’t like it. And capital would’ve flowed toward American resilience instead of retreating from American unpredictability.

But instead of that, you went with chaos. And now, confidence is shattered. Not because the numbers are bad -- but because no one knows what the numbers mean anymore.

That’s the cost of burning down the rules without building new ones.

So no, this is not the detox we needed. It’s not strategic decoupling. It’s not a path to renewal. It’s a slow, loud dismantling of the very foundation that has allowed American capital, innovation, and enterprise to dominate for decades. And it didn’t have to be this way.

But now we’re here. And the market is reacting accordingly -- not to the fundamentals, but to the sense that the future may no longer be modelable. That’s not a trade. That’s an exit.

I don’t want this post to be hyper-political. This isn’t about red or blue. It’s not about the 2024 election cycle. It’s not about ideology. It’s about strategy. It’s about execution.

It’s about understanding that when you're the United States -- when you sit at the helm of the global economic engine -- every policy you roll out reverberates through capital markets, supply chains, boardrooms, and governments. Words become signals. Signals become pricing. Pricing becomes pain -- or progress.

And I hope -- for the sake of the markets, for the sake of businesses trying to plan, and for the future we’re all investing into -- that it’s not too late to recalibrate.

Because we don’t need more noise.

We need a plan.

[Critic T @lamaikk]

Most important point:
•The Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce are authorized to develop budget-neutral strategies for acquiring additional bitcoin, provided that those strategies impose no incremental costs on American taxpayers.

Possibility: use tariff revenue and sell some gold. No new taxes needed. Tariffs already flow in; gold sits idle. Logically, we trade old value for a modern asset

[David Sacks @davidsacks47]

FACT SHEET: PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP ESTABLISHES THE STRATEGIC BITCOIN RESERVE AND U.S. DIGITAL ASSET STOCKPILE
March 6, 2025

https://t.co/Jn2pzMKqIm

[Critic T @lamaikk]

When Will It Become Law? My Guess

The 89th Texas Legislative Session runs from January 14 to May 26, 2025 (unless extended by special session). Here’s a timeline based on typical legislative pace, SB 21’s momentum, and political factors:

House Process (March–April 2025):
•Committee review and vote could take 2–4 weeks (mid-March to early April), assuming priority status accelerates it. The House, with a Republican majority (86-64), is likely receptive, especially with pro-crypto figures like Representative Giovanni Capriglione (author of HB 1598) in play.
•Floor debate and vote might occur by mid-April if fast-tracked, or early May if delayed by amendments or budget debates.
Governor’s Desk (April–May 2025):
•If the House passes it by mid-April, it could reach Abbott by late April. With a 10-day window (excluding Sundays), he’d need to act by early May. If it’s May, the deadline shifts to late May or post-session (20 days if after adjournment).
Effective Date:
•If SB 21 includes an emergency clause and gets two-thirds support (likely, given the Senate’s 25-5 vote and probable House alignment), it could take effect immediately upon signing—potentially late April or early May 2025.
•Without an emergency clause, it defaults to September 1, 2025, though proponents might push for June or July 1 to start sooner.

My Guess: Assuming no major roadblocks (e.g., budget disputes or Democratic filibusters in the House), and given Abbott’s enthusiasm and the bill’s bipartisan Senate support (9-0 in committee), I’d estimate SB 21 becomes law by early May 2025, effective immediately if the emergency clause holds. A more cautious timeline, factoring in amendments or delays, points to late May 2025, effective September 1. Posts on X suggest optimism for a rapid House vote, aligning with the May timeframe.

In short, the next step is House review, and I’d bet on it becoming law by May 2025, with implementation starting shortly after—possibly with Bitcoin purchases by summer if funding flows quickly.

[Bitcoin Archive @BitcoinArchive]

HISTORY: 🇺🇸 The exact moment Texas passed the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve legislation SB 21 in the Senate.

Texas is the 8th biggest economy in the world.

This would be like Italy, France, or India establishing a Bitcoin Reserve.

[Not Jerome Powell @alifarhat79]

Me watching a 15 year old kid make $25 million on Trump coin while I wake up at 6am to go to work

[naiive @naiivememe]

Me seeing a crypto guy made $2M from $150 overnight in Trump coin while I wake up at 5am to go to work

[Critic T @lamaikk]

中國正在討論將 TikTok 美國業務出售給馬斯克作為一種可能的選項。

據知情人士透露，中國官員強烈希望 TikTok 繼續由字節跳動擁有，但如果美國最高法���支持禁令，當局正評估應急方案，其中包括讓馬斯克收購 TikTok 在美國的業務。馬斯克此前投入超過 2.5 億美元支持特朗普連任，並被視為共和黨政府未來提升效率的重要角色。這樣的高調交易或對中美雙方都具有一定吸引力。
By Bloomberg News

#TikTok #ElonMusk

[Critic T @lamaikk]

馬斯克：Optimus 機器人三年內或可達 50 萬台

「我��的 Optimus 機器人是世界上最先進的人形機器人。

我們計劃今年生產數千台，在特斯拉工廠進行測試，然後明年擴展到 50,000 至 100,000 台，三年內達到 500,000 台。

或許我們應該以羅馬軍團來形容它們——每個軍團由 5,000 台機器人組成。」

[Critic T @lamaikk]

#NewProfilePic

[Critic T @lamaikk]

截至2025年1月9日，美國司法部（DOJ）已獲法院批准，準備出售從暗網市場 Silk Road 沒收的約69,370枚比特幣，市值約為65億美元。(https://t.co/BOFkmSHrk3)

為了準備出售，司法部已將部分資產轉移到 Coinbase Prime，一個加密貨幣交易平台。具體而言，於2024年12月，大約19,800枚比特幣（當時市值接近20億美元）被轉移到一個新地址，隨後存入 Coinbase Prime。這表明政府正在為出售作準備，或已經出售了一部分資產。(https://t.co/I0sV90Psks)

然而，目前尚無公開信息證實這些比特幣的交易已完成。司法部通常不會提前公開交易的確切時間，以防止市場操縱並確保交易的安全性。

需要注意的是，司法部過往曾透過公開拍賣的形式出售被沒收的比特幣。例如，在2014年，美國法警局曾拍賣了約30,000枚從 Silk Road 沒收的比特幣。(https://t.co/29sfF9WE7E)

由於此次涉及的比特幣數量龐大，司法部可能會選擇分批出售資產，以減少對市場的影響。市場參與者應密切關注司法部的官方公告以及區塊鏈交易更新，以獲得相關資產狀況的最新消息。

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

The evil knuckleheads picked the wrong vehicle for a terrorist attack. Cybertruck actually contained the explosion and directed the blast upwards.

Not even the glass doors of the lobby were broken.

[Chamath Palihapitiya @chamath]

This is pathetically bad. Canadians opted towards warm, fuzzy DEI nonsense. Look at how the international community voted economically as a result.

This is an important lesson for the rest of us to learn.

Socialist, virtue signaling is a quick way to shut yourself off from capital. Given enough time, this will eventually run your economy onto the rocks.

California, especially, needs to pay close attention.

[Tesla @Tesla]

Your kids will probably never have to learn to drive

[Codie Sanchez @Codie_Sanchez]

My husband said four words to me that made my worldview flip on never missing a chance to see a loved one: “Measure in times, not years.”

We were debating whether to go home and see our family for Thanksgiving and my husband said…

If your parents are 65, it’s not 20 or 30 years you might have with them, it’s maybe 20 or 30 visits you get with them.

One in four Americans don’t live in the same hometown as their family. How would you change your decisions if you’d only get to see your loved ones for 20 or 30 more days?

You’d change everything to be with them, wouldn’t you? Same if it was six months. And yet when those days are separated by years we let them slide through our fingers.

Next time don’t count the years, remember the days… and treasure them.

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

On July 3, 2002, $MSTR stock fell to an all-time low of $0.42. Yesterday, it closed at $421.88.

Never. Never. Never give up.

[Michael Saylor @saylor]

MicroStrategy is powered by its #Bitcoin treasury operations. We sell volatility through our ATM offerings, strip BTC risk, volatility, and performance from our fixed-income securities, and transfer that performance to our $MSTR equity holders.

[Critic T @lamaikk]

@MikeTyson You are our inspiration! God bless you! Real life Rocky.