He says Bitcoin is the only feasible alternative when inside repressive regimes. But then it sounds like he believes Bitcoin can somehow be used as a source of inspiration for something better (with his art analogy).

He says Bitcoin is a small leaky lifeboat, that cannot support our current standards of living. Yet doesn’t state how that’s possible to maintain going forward, on the existing system or any other.

He is angry at the system. Yet he never proposes a viable alternative, besides talking about a fantasy of perfect politics and each country “growing” their way out of the debt.

He says that banks are NOT insolvent. Yet they are all running on a fractional reserve system which is inherently insolvent. If they were all solvent and able to pay depositors, why would withdrawing savings de-stabilise the system? Come on Ben.

He thinks the Fed saved the world in 2009. But he hates the permanence of their actions today, describing their actions as pathetic. You either save the current system in perpetuity (and distort financial reality further, with ever-growing influence) or you don’t. The choice is binary. 1 or 0.

He thinks the Fed has done an awful job at keeping rates too low, but believes that offering much higher interest rates on Bitcoin collateral (on a BTC standard) is a bad idea because it would slow access to credit (despite acknowledging that there’s definitely an excess of credit today).

He says the dollar losing 95% of its purchasing power is bullshit, when it’s a fact. It has done just that since 1930.

He thinks a Bitcoin standard leads to a more centralised government controlled society, but doesn’t consider how the existing power structures can sustain themselves in such a system.

He needs to stop flip-flopping, and think how this end game really can play out. Not how it would in some Disney movie.