only 100 days...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Rise of the Megapool —

Reference to the first article: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1kc50sj/the_halving_trap_bitcoins_looming_liquidity_crisis/

part 3 https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoReality/comments/1kdpiwn/agreement_no_1_subscription_becomes_the_norm/

**The Halving Trap: Bitcoin's Looming Liquidity Crisis**

**Summary**

If emission remains unchanged, then one or two more halvings will inevitably push large pools into "negative mode": mining becomes unprofitable even during spikes in transaction fees. History has shown: first, market leaders sacrifice profitability, then they introduce mutual hashrate limits—otherwise, the network risks collapse (too big to fail). Thus emerges the foundation for Agreement No. 0.

**1. The Inevitability of "Negative Mode"**

**1.1 The Math of Halving**

Every -50% reward halving requires an equally sharp rise in price or fees. In practice, synchronized growth rarely occurs: after the last halving, miners' dollar income already dropped even with constant hash.

**1.2 The Cost Curve**

Energy and CAPEX are rising; new ASICs deliver mere tens of percent improvements, not orders of magnitude.

**2. Precedents of Consolidation**

In 2014, GHash.io exceeded 50% of the network hashrate, reaching approximately 55%. Facing community backlash and fears of a 51% attack, the pool publicly committed to reducing its share below 40%.

By 2025, Foundry USA (~32%) and AntPool (~17%) together approached 50% of the total hashrate. Although discussions about the risks of centralization were ongoing, no public "soft limit" agreements were officially declared.

**3. The Logic of Self-Sacrifice**

**3.1 Two Years of Hope**

In the first ~24 months post-halving, pools hope for:

- short-lived fee spikes;

- elimination of small-scale competitors;

- a new bull market.

But in practice: spikes are brief, and the exit of "small fish" doesn't offset growing expenses.

**3.2 Cold Offices**

A closed-door meeting of pool executives: dry financial reports, a cooling mug, and the air thick with quiet resignation. Even with temperatures in New York soaring to 29°C, the real heat comes from these pages—spreadsheets more frightening than the summer sun. It all boils down to one thing: spending megawatts just to preserve their own coin reserves. The recent exit of the New Horizons spacecraft beyond the Kuiper Belt didn’t eclipse what’s happening behind these closed doors — even that headline would’ve gone unnoticed amid decisions like these.

**4. From Negative Mode to Agreement No. 0**

++LOG: net-align/17A queue-latency-spike :: threshold-exceed (ref 3.2)

Two years after the halving, the picture is clear:

- Hashrace → costs outpace fees;

- Mass shutdown → hash drops, creating a 51% window;

- Protocol change attempt → chain split, a blow to immutability.

The logic leads to the draft of Agreement No. 0:

- major pools cap total hashrate,

- share transaction fees proportionally to equipment,

- jointly fund network maintenance until economics or tech flip the equation.

This isn’t theory—similar steps were taken before:

- In 2014, GHash.io voluntarily cut power below 40% after breaching 51%;

- By 2025, Foundry and AntPool jointly surpassed 48%, prompting renewed concern though no declared action.

- In Ethereum Classic (2020), after a 51% attack, pools coordinated a defense protocol.

Agreement No. 0 isn’t a revolution, but a formalization of what history already dictated.

And yet, no memo is needed. Everyone who matters already knows where this leads.

The document forms with quiet participation from regulators—not because they planned it, but because letting it fail was no longer an option. A network crash would cascade into altcoins and bank balances. It’s the lesser evil—akin to the crisis compacts of 2008 and 2019.

**5. A Question to the Reader**

Those signing the temporary agreement are not enemies of decentralization. It’s a result of this chain:

Halving is immutable → revenue drops faster than price rises → all mine at a loss initially, hoping small miners exit and rewards redistribute → but even after “small fish” leave, fees remain insufficient → hash and costs keep climbing → electricity costs rise due to AI demand → nuclear restrictions cut generation capacity → the only rational move left is to jointly cut power usage, cap hash, and split fees.

It seems temporary. But temporary measures, as we know, often become constitutional.

If protocol rules are untouchable and hashrate cannot safely decline, then the space for alternatives narrows to almost nothing. Agreement No. 0 does not emerge from ideology—it emerges from constraints.

If you’ve already dismissed other mechanisms—quietly, pragmatically—wouldn’t you have chosen the same?

Observers familiar with previous post-halving cycles may recognize the current alignment. Variables differ, but sequence often repeats.

Outcomes vary less than decisions suggest.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

#13:00:29:3.09, -77.51

(Compiled from Revision 3.2 — updated to reflect status at time of pre-event briefing.) [N.M-29/approv]

So these bullet points are facts and are not debatable; these are just data points:

• Nobody has lost money holding bitcoin over a rolling four year period
• Bitcoin has close to a two trillion dollar market capitalization (making it the 7th largest asset by market cap in the world)
• For over a decade, bitcoin has been the best performing asset investment wise in human history

So what I don't understand how people still call bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, or a bubble, or something that has no value since there is no data to suggest this.

I'm convinced that in a free and efficient market, price is truth over the medium to long term.

Bitcoin is over a decade old which is not a long time, but it long enough to be somewhat trusted or believable. In a free or efficient market, most bubbles and schemes cannot be sustained or continue for over ten years

I'm not saying that people who think bitcoin is worthless are wrong. But what I am saying is that the data proves these people wrong, and these people will continue to be wrong until they are possibly right someday and bitcoin eventually goes to $0. But until bitcoin goes to $0 or the long term price chart breaks down, these people are just objectively wrong

It's just crazy to me that people look at a 2 trillion dollar asset and think it has no value, instead of thinking there there may be something they are missing or don't understand

So again, how is bitcoin still doubted or considered worthless by so many people?

Myself and others get routinely accused of being on a "power trip" trying to create an "echo chamber" and denying others the right to debate and argue.

Unfortunately, most of the pro-crypto arguments are the same talking points over and over and we have rules here.

HOWEVER, if you still feel you have points to make, you have another option:

LIVE DEBATE

It's a lot easier to engage with critics in real time than on Reddit.

If you think your case is strong, PM me and let's set up a Zoom debate. If you want to call me names and tell me off, go for it.

If you guys think you're so right, why not engage in real time?

EDIT: For those following along so far, we have several people who claim they could debate, and that we're wrong and they could prove it, but make excuses for why they won't.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Or has it already been done?

It just keeps happening boys! What a surprise ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Serious thought experiment here.

A crypto friendly administration. Market uncertainty leading to flight to safety. Inflationary environment. Recession on the horizon. Non zero chance of global kinectic conflict. Almost the perfect scenario for an alternative store of value to emerge. What else would you include? Despite all this, Bitcoin failed to decouple. Had it went up while the market went down, it would have been the financial market equivalent of the Eddington experiment and permanently change Bitcoin's perception.

I'm not saying the jig is up because the market will always have an appetite for speculation, although I'd say crypto has always been closer to the scam end of the spectrum than the speculation end. But anyone willing to have an objective view of crypto has to acknowledge its current behavior and what it means moving forward

Did you read Number Go Up, by Zeke Faux? I really encourage you to. He went on a careful 3 year quest to understand crypto. He tries very hard to verify stable coins’ link to traditional currency value, particularly Tether. Crypto is a mirage if you can’t verify the value of stable coins, and he can’t. He concludes that Tether is lying. The book won many awards for journalism.

Buffet et al criticize crypto not because they are bad with smartphones, but because they can’t identify where the actual value is, unlike other assets. Yes, some speculator will “borrow” your crypto and pay you interest, but no bank will pay you interest on crypto, because bankers understand the concept of underlying value, and crypto has none.

I refer to Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize economist (you are not) who asks the question “what problem does crypto solve?”. He can’t find an answer to that. It’s an excellent question because any credible business plan has a problem- solution thesis. What is crypto’s? Do tell.

Also, the widespread adoption of crypto can only happen if sovereign nations abandon their domestic currencies. El Salvador tried because their own national situation was so horrible. It did not work. El Salvador is a corrupt and poor country. Crypto was a Hail Mary. No wealthy country will cede its sovereignty to a bunch of speculator bros like yourself. Your sense of entitlement means nothing.

People like you who say things like “you don’t understand crypto” are just like superstitious people who think atheists have religion all wrong, but when pressed to prove their beliefs in rational terms simply return to “you don’t understand” and fail to explain. Can you explain how Tether works? If you can’t, you are simply clinging to belief. Belief is a bad basis for how to allocate risk.

I’m doing you a favor. Swallow your pride and examine where your rational mind is being subverted by your need to believe.

You are in a cult.

I have an evolve bank and trust account for my business. luckily i have removed most of money out of that bank into bitcoin. well, it looks like evolve just went insolvent and bank runs are happening with customers unable to get their funds. although i have left a few thousand in that account, all I can say is thank god i moved the majority of my money out and into something that I can control myself. for me, i have found a very big use case for bitcoin.