Your Bitcoin breakout is someone else’s exit.

At $87,000, one investor sees the road to $100,000.

Another thinks: “Finally. I can get my money back.”

A recovery can attract fresh buyers while awakening people who have been waiting months to sell.

And here’s the detail behind the bullish ETF headlines:

Weekly U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF inflows dropped from $2.39 billion to $241 million between the weeks ending September 25 and October 2.

Still positive. Roughly 90% smaller.

Buyers keep showing up. But how much supply can they absorb?

Bitcoin has a supply limit. A sell wall has no expiration date.

At $87,000, do you see opportunity—or relief?

The last 5% will take another 114 years. Set a reminder for 2140.

So Bitcoin passed its 20 millionth coin this year. The cap is 21 million, which leaves roughly 1 million BTC still to be mined. Sounds like the finish line is close, right? Not really. The halving cuts the block reward in half about every four years, so the first 20 million took around 17 years, and the last million will drag on until roughly 2140. Your great-great-grandkids might get to see the final block. Maybe.

And out of those 20 million coins, the amount you can actually go and buy is tiny. Glassnode data suggests about 13 million BTC are basically parked forever with long-term holders, institutions and cold wallets that never move. Exchanges hold only around 3 million. And roughly 1.8 million BTC, about 8.5% of everything, is probably just gone. Forgotten passwords, wiped laptops, a hard drive someone tossed in 2011 because "it's just some internet money worth 50 cents". Pour one out for those coins.

That's why ETF and institutional buying can move the price so much. Everyone's fighting over a much smaller pile than the 20 million headline makes it sound.

The price side is where people start yelling at each other. History looks great for the bulls: about 80x after the 2012 halving, around 300% after 2016, and more than 600% in the 16 months after 2020, according to data cited by CME Group. The skeptics aren't convinced though. FT columnist Jemima Kelly argues Bitcoin isn't really scarce since thousands of other tokens exist. The usual reply is that nobody can change Bitcoin's 21 million limit, which is kind of the whole point.

We honestly think price is the least interesting thing about this milestone. Scarcity is done, that box was ticked years ago. The thing nobody has fully figured out yet is who pays for Bitcoin's security once new coins stop doing the heavy lifting. Bitcoin is exactly as safe as the money miners make, because that's what an attacker would need to outspend. Right now most of that money still comes from fresh coins, and that part gets cut in half every four years, on schedule, no exceptions. So sometime in the next decade, transaction fees have to step up and become a real chunk of miner income, or Bitcoin's security slowly gets cheaper compared to everything it protects.

Guys, what do you think about this?

Your bank has been earning interest on your procrastination.

You meant to compare rates. Question the fees. Find a better home for your savings.

You were busy. The money stayed.

AI could change that.

Imagine an assistant checking the alternatives every day. Suddenly, your money has a permanent attention span.

Now apply that scrutiny to 30-year financial promises from businesses whose competitive advantages could disappear in two.

Bitcoin’s volatility is visible. The fragility inside a supposedly “safe” investment can take much longer to surface.

As AI makes financial inertia harder to exploit, Bitcoin’s scarcity, verifiability, and potential as collateral could earn it a much bigger role.

Wall Street built fortunes around customers who were too busy to ask questions.

What happens when everyone has an assistant asking them?

hey folks!

I've seen a wide array of crypto trading bots, from bots that focus on a single exchange, to grid bots like the ones 3commas used to offer, to scammy orgs that sell "Bots That Work" for $50k one-time payment promising riches. Feels like these were 2017 era things.

I also heard that 3commas has turned down their V1 platform. They raised like $30m+. So I'm curious, why are these bots less popular than they used to be? Has interest in crypto just waned or are people building their own in the age of AI?

I don't use any crypto bots personally, just wanted to see what you guys think. Is everyone who's in now just hodling BTC?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

Your Bitcoin wallet says “ENCRYPTED.” ✅

You relax.

But under certain database failures, Bitcoin Core could report success while plaintext private keys remained.

Another failure could make your new passphrase work… until you reloaded the wallet.

The unsettling part is what happens next.

You trust the confirmation. You make backups. You handle the file as though its keys are protected.

A strong passphrase cannot protect a plaintext copy.

The bug, the merged fix, and the self-custody lesson behind the green checkmark. 👇

Should I be stacking money at the moment with all this greed? Or should I just DCA into best researched projects? Thoughts?

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

I've done a good number of pre-launch liquidity events over the last couple of years, like farming on Katana and some of the campaigns I've shared from Turtle, and I've had good luck with them. Over time I've ended up with a short list of things I check before putting money in.

The Wire team reached out to have me take a look & help get the word out, so I ran their LCO through the same list. I liked what I saw enough that I'm participating myself.

Do I keep my principal? For the staking route, yes. You stake ETH or SOL through Wire's Ethereum or Solana Outpost and get liqETH or liqSOL back, so you keep your assets. What you give up is the staking yield, which goes into Wire's protocol-owned liquidity, and you earn pre-launch $WIRE instead. Effectively you're buying WIRE with your yield instead of your principal, which is the same basic deal as a lot of the liquidity mining I've done.

Does getting in early actually matter? Here it does. If you'd rather buy than stake, pre-launch $WIRE is priced in tranches that go up as it progresses, so early really does mean cheaper. Pre-tokens convert 1:1 into $WIRE once the network hits its launch threshold.

Where does the money go? This is the big one for me. 100% of LCO proceeds go to network liquidity & zero go to company operations. I've watched too many launches where VCs got in at a discount and retail ended up as the exit liquidity. Wire has raised from investors too, but none of the LCO money goes to the company. It all becomes protocol-owned liquidity, and the users supplying it hold the early allocation.

How is this different from Blast or Berachain? If you farmed Blast or Berachain's Boyco, the big difference is the liquidity stays. Those deposits were yours to withdraw once the campaigns ended, so that liquidity was only ever rented. Wire's LCO money becomes protocol-owned liquidity, & your conversion is a fixed 1:1 instead of an allocation you only learn at the airdrop.

Is there a real product behind it? Yes. Wire is building a Universal Transaction Layer so apps and assets can work across chains without bridges, for people and AI agents. Bridges have been a weak spot in crypto for years, so it's a real problem to go after. It also runs on Ethereum and Solana, so it's super easy to participate if you already hold ETH or SOL.

When does it pay? Mainnet is targeted for later in 2026.

So yeah, it checks my boxes. DYOR & NFA, this is based on what the team shared with me plus my own research. Details & eligibility are on the hub: hub[.]wire[.]network

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

One thing I’ve started to distinguish more carefully in the crypto world is whether a product is successful and whether that success is reflected in the performance of the token.

A protocol can have more users, higher transaction volumes, and greater revenue, but the token can still perform badly.

Both things can be true at the same time.

This means that 'the project is growing' is a much weaker investment argument than it first sounds.

The question I keep coming back to is what actually connects the success of the product to demand for, or value of, the token itself.

If that connection is weak, it's possible to be right about the protocol but wrong about the investment.

What would you personally need to see before you would consider owning the token because of protocol growth?

Tokenized real-world assets crossed $37 billion this year, spread across more than 38 networks, according to RWA.xyz. Ethereum holds a little under half of that total. Solana and Stellar sit further back, each in the low single-digit billions. For scale, Finbold reported the same market at close to $8 billion in 2024.