I’m a licensed investment advisor who spent 366 days making one investment every single day to demonstrate community funding works as an investment strategy. I funded solar microgrids, regenerative farms, and worker co-ops. All real businesses creating real value with returns that provided a 33% cash flow return in 20 months (cashflow return = principal investment + interest + dividends).

There's something that could make all my work completely irrelevant.

Ric Edelman, one of the most influential advisors in wealth management, just won the industry's lifetime achievement award largely for his Bitcoin conviction.

BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, launched a Bitcoin ETF that's already accumulated over 800,000 BTC. That's institutional money making a generational bet.

Meanwhile, my kids use Robux (from Roblox) like it's regular money. They're already post-fiat. They don't see crypto as "alternative", they see fiat as the legacy system.

If Bitcoin becomes the global reserve asset with its current distribution, everything I'm building becomes irrelevant. You can't compete with Bitcoin wealth concentration using productive investment returns.

Bitcoin solved the debasement problem. But in doing so, it created a feudalism problem.

I'm writing this because I have two sons. Our children will inherit whatever we build. And because after three years of searching, I think I've found a way through this. I can’t do this alone.

We need collective action.

Bitcoin's 21 million coin cap creates mathematical certainty: permanent wealth concentration.

Here's what the entity-adjusted data shows when you properly account for who actually controls Bitcoin:

Fewer people than one graduating class at Ohio State, just 10,000 entities, control 5 million Bitcoin in self-custody.

But that's only what we can see on-chain. Add in US institutional holdings like government seizures, public company treasuries like MicroStrategy, Bitcoin ETFs and that elite group controls 7.6 million BTC.

Now here's the kicker. Between 2-4 million Bitcoin are permanently lost. Keys thrown away, hard drives in landfills, passwords forgotten. That reduces the effective circulating supply to just 15.8-17.5 million coins.

Do the math: A population smaller than Key West, Florida, a tiny island, controls nearly half of all Bitcoin that can actually move.

Meanwhile, 96% of the world owns none at all.

Let that sink in. Only 106 million people globally, 4% of the world's population, own any Bitcoin. And within that already tiny group, concentration is extreme.

With a Gini of 0.47, Bitcoin wealth concentration is worse than America's and heading toward Brazilian levels, where the richest and poorest occupy completely separate economic worlds.

If Bitcoin becomes the reserve asset with this concentration:

I'm not speculating here. This is what network effects + fixed supply + first-mover advantage mathematically creates.

Here's what kills me as someone building productive investment infrastructure:

Bitcoin rewards hoarding over productivity.

Why fund a business with 10-12% returns when holding Bitcoin might appreciate 25%+ annually? Capital sits idle in speculation instead of funding innovation, infrastructure, and businesses that create actual value.

Austrian economists understood that sound money should facilitate productive economic activity, not become an object of speculation. Bitcoin's current model does the opposite.

My community funding work, crowd investing in regenerative agriculture, local manufacturing, community solar becomes irrelevant if the monetary layer rewards speculation over production.
Returns that look great in fiat terms get arbitraged away when Bitcoin appreciates just for existing.

Why would rational actors fund businesses when hoarding Bitcoin offers better risk-adjusted returns?

You can't build a productive economy on top of a feudal base layer. The foundation determines what's possible above it.

I had to be intellectually honest about what Bitcoin got right. Because it did solve something critically important.

The fiat monetary system has a fatal flaw, infinite money creation with no accountability.

Here's how it actually works and it's worse than most people realize.

When you deposit $100, your bank doesn't just lend out your $100. Since 2020, with zero reserves required, banks create NEW money to lend while your deposit stays on the books. That borrower deposits it elsewhere. That bank creates more new money. The same $100 deposit multiplies into $500, $1,000, even more through the system.

And that's just the banks. The Federal Reserve creates money directly, $4 trillion printed after 2008, another $5 trillion during COVID. Not borrowed. Not backed by anything. Just... created.

Every dollar in existence is either someone's debt or was conjured into being by central banks. The system requires perpetual growth just to service existing obligations. It punishes savers through inflation while rewarding those with access to cheap credit and assets that inflate faster than currency devalues.

Bitcoin was a genuine answer to this. A fixed supply of 21 million coins. No central authority. No inflation. Sound money enforced by mathematics rather than political promises.

For the first time in modern history, we had a monetary system that couldn't be debased by banks or manipulated by central banks. No one could create more Bitcoin through lending. No authority could inflate it away.

This was revolutionary. This mattered.

But sound money with extreme concentration is just a different kind of broken.

After three years of exploring alternatives, I kept hitting the same wall.

I didn't explore alone. I tested these ideas on social media, engaging with Bitcoin supporters. I'd point out the concentration. They'd counter with divisibility, Satoshis, market forces.

Eventually, I'd ask, “What happens when people born 50 years from now can't mine Bitcoin and can only buy from early holders?”

"Oh well. That's just how it works."

Personally, I don't want to live in a first-come, everyone-for-themselves world.

I want systems where mutual benefit is the foundation.

Here's what I learned from those conversations. Every monetary system faces fundamental constraints.

You can have any two, but not all three:

Bitcoin chose #1 and #3: Sound money with no governance. The cost? Permanent feudalism locked in by early-adopter advantage and network effects.

Fiat chose #2 and #3 (theoretically): Democratic access with governance. The cost? Infinite money creation through bank lending and central bank policy.

Fair distribution tokens (like Worldcoin) choose #1 and #2: Sound money with equal access. The cost? Requires centralized identity verification that can be captured or abused.

This isn't about which system is "better." It's about recognizing that every path has tradeoffs and those tradeoffs have consequences that will shape our children's futures.

I explored every common response:

"Fair Launch Cryptocurrencies"

I looked at these hoping they'd solve concentration. They don't. Every "fair launch" still creates early adopter advantages, just faster. The first 10,000 participants still dominate. Network effects still concentrate wealth. You've just compressed the timeline.

"Stablecoins Solve This"

Stablecoins are pegged to the fiat currencies that crypto is supposedly replacing. If Bitcoin becomes the reserve asset, what are stablecoins pegged to? USDC and USDT don't solve monetary layer fairness, they're just digital dollars with extra steps.

"UBI Funded by Bitcoin Holders"

This asks concentrated wealth holders to voluntarily redistribute from their appreciating asset. Show me any historical example where this happened at meaningful scale without external pressure. Bitcoin's incentive structure actively works against it. Why would someone holding an appreciating asset fund redistribution when they can just... hold?

"The Market Will Fix This"

Every historical example of network effect assets shows concentration INCREASES over time, not decreases:

The "market forces" argument assumes competition can emerge. But if Bitcoin becomes THE reserve asset with massive network effects, competition becomes structurally impossible. You'd need to convince billions of people to switch simultaneously and switch to what?

"Layer 2 Solutions"
​​​
​Lightning Network, sidechains, and other L2s don't solve base layer wealth concentration. They're payment rails built on top of a feudal foundation. Doesn't matter how efficient your payment system is if a tiny elite controls the underlying asset.
​
When you map these paths, they all lead to dead ends.

We're in a narrow historical moment where alternatives are still possible:

Institutional Adoption Is Accelerating RIGHT NOW:

This is the generational wealth bet being made at this very moment.

The Next Generation Is Already Post-Fiat.

My kids use Robux as naturally as I used dollars. Fortnite V-Bucks, Minecraft coins, they get digital scarcity intuitively. They don't need to be convinced that digital money works. They're already living it.

Network Effects Are Strengthening Daily:

The 5-10 Year Timeline

In 5 years: Bitcoin either solidifies as the reserve asset or credible alternatives emerge.

In 10 years: This conversation becomes academic. Feudalism is either locked in or prevented.

Political resistance will come when wealth inequality becomes obvious to the next generation. But by then, network effects may make switching prohibitively expensive.

Better to build alternatives now than react to backlash later.

That's why I'm writing this now.

After three years of hitting walls, I realized I was asking the wrong question.
​
​Not: "How do we create a better cryptocurrency?"

​Not: "How do we fix Bitcoin?"

​But: "How do natural systems solve identity, distribution, and governance?"
​
In past articles I’ve written, I’ve demonstrated that the economy is a natural system and it should function like one. With distributed intelligence, self-organization, feedback loops, and resilience through diversity rather than control through centralization.
​
​​Nature has been solving these exact problems for billions of years. Why wasn't I learning from that?

Here's what I'm proposing: A two-phase monetary transition that learns from Bitcoin's innovations but doesn't inherit its feudalism.

Phase 1: The Conversion Event

​When Bitcoin reaches reserve asset status, when institutional adoption makes it THE dominant store of value, a conversion window opens for 24 months.
​
During this window, anyone with Bitcoin can exchange up to 10 BTC for NewCoin (it’s a working title) at a 1:1 rate.

What happens to Bitcoin above 10 BTC? It stays as Bitcoin. The holder can keep it, sell it, or donate it but the conversion cap ensures that Bitcoin's concentration doesn't transfer to NewCoin.

Optionally, holders can choose to convert more than 10 BTC as a donation directly to NewCoin's public treasury, which funds infrastructure, research, and public goods. Some may choose this for philanthropic reasons or legacy, but it's entirely voluntary.​

After the 24 month window Bitcoin doesn't get vaulted as backing. It doesn't become collateral. It simply becomes obsolete, like when Europe switched to the Euro. The network moves forward. Bitcoin becomes a footnote in monetary history or is a collectible.

Phase 2: NewCoin Operates With Different Rules

NewCoin has a population-responsive supply. Every adult human, whether you owned Bitcoin or not, gets the same claim of one NewCoin when they reach maturity. Supply grows approximately 1-2% annually, matching global population growth.

This creates mild, predictable inflation. Just enough to make hoarding underperform productive investment (your 10-12% business returns can compete), but not enough to cause runaway debasement.

But here's the critical innovation: Identity verification happens through collective intelligence, not central authority.

When someone claims their token, 1,000 random existing token holders review the claim. They vote independently, can't see each other's votes, can't coordinate. Whether they approve OR reject the claim, they earn compensation (one token split 1,000 ways = 0.001 each).

No approval bias. Same payment either way. But network effects create accuracy:

Your self-interest = accurate reviews = healthy network.

The system starts with a temporary NGO that distributes the first 1-10 million tokens and establishes the infrastructure. But here's what makes this different from every other crypto project: The NGO must dissolve.

Predetermined triggers written into the founding documents:

Whichever comes first. No extensions. No exceptions. The final act is burning all administrative keys and formally dissolving. The scaffolding comes down. The system stands on its own.

Because in natural systems, pioneer species either create the conditions for succession or they don't but they never become permanent. If this approach doesn't work, others will try different paths. Evolution doesn't stop at one failed experiment. Neither should we.

Accepting Bitcoin's feudalism or fiat's debasement, isn't inevitable. It's just the path we're on if nobody builds alternatives.

Now let me show you why I believe this can actually work and why nature has already proven these principles for billions of years.

Natural systems have specific characteristics that human-designed systems lack:

Let me show you five principles from nature that solve our impossible triangle:

How Nature Does It:

After a forest fire, pioneer species like fireweed colonize first. They're hardy, fast-growing, and create conditions for more diverse life. Eventually a mature forest emerges with complex interdependencies. And here's the key: the pioneer species disappear, they're no longer needed. The mature forest is self-sustaining.

You can't start with a climax ecosystem. You need pioneers. But pioneers must yield to the mature system. The system must be designed to outgrow its origins.

Application to Money:

​We need a dissolvable NGO to bootstrap the system:

When predetermined triggers are met (10 million verified + 95% accuracy + sunset date), the NGO formally dissolves. Like scaffolding on a building, essential during construction, removed when the building can stand on its own.

How Nature Does It:

Your immune system doesn't have a "central commander" deciding what's a threat. Millions of cells independently sense, communicate, and coordinate. No single cell has the full picture. But collectively, they're smarter and faster than any centralized authority could be.

Ant colonies with no central ant. Forests with mycelial networks sharing resources. Markets with price signals aggregating information. Distributed intelligence outperforms central control at scale.

Application to Money:

​No central identity authority. Instead:

How Nature Does It:

Bees don't pollinate flowers out of altruism. They're getting nectar. Flowers don't feed bees out of charity. They're getting pollinated. Enlightened individual self-interest = collective system health.

This is symbiosis, when organisms benefit from each other's success. The system works because everyone's individual optimization contributes to the whole.

Application to Money:

Token holders verify identities because:

Self-interest = accurate reviews = healthy network = valuable tokens.

How Nature Does It:

Predators don't need a rulebook. If they overhunt, prey becomes scarce, predators starve, prey recovers, balance returns. The system self-regulates through consequences, not commands.

There's no "Department of Predator Management" deciding quotas. The feedback loops are built into the system itself.

Application to Money:

How Nature Does It:

Ecosystems are not fixed, they are dynamic. A forest adjusts to changes in rainfall, temperature, or available nutrients. When an external shock (like a climate shift) occurs, the system's simple, interconnected rules allow it to persist by finding a new equilibrium rather than collapsing.

The underlying rules of the ecosystem remain constant, even as surface conditions change.

Application to Money:

This addresses the inflation concern directly. The supply isn't designed to inflate forever, it's designed to match demographic reality.​

✅ Fair Distribution

Conversion cap prevents concentration: Anyone can exchange up to 10 BTC for NewCoin at a 1:1 rate. The cap ensures Bitcoin's wealth concentration doesn't transfer to the new system.

Early Bitcoin adopters are rewarded, not punished: Anyone who took the technical risk of early Bitcoin adoption has a max 11x position which gives them 11x the probability of being selected as reviewers in the collective intelligence system, allowing them to earn more NewCoin over time through active participation.

They earned a multiplicative advantage through contribution, not exponential through speculation

Population-responsive supply: Every adult can claim one token at maturity. Supply grows ~1-2% annually with population.

Future generations get equal access: Unlike Bitcoin where being early means you own the system, this is like citizenship, everyone gets one, regardless of when you're born.

No permanent early-adopter advantage. The system is designed to be fair across generations.

✅ Productive Investment

Supply grows 1-2% with population (mild, predictable inflation).

Hoarding underperforms productive returns: Why hold cash that inflates 1-2% when you can invest in businesses returning 10-12%?

Capital flows toward value creation instead of sitting idle in speculation.

Money becomes a tool for building things, not a thing to hoard in a vault.

The arbitrage problem is solved, productive investments can compete with holding the currency.

✅ Decentralized Governance

NGO dissolves (no permanent central authority).

Collective intelligence self-regulates through economic alignment and random selection.

Constitutional rules protect core principles (these can't be changed, even by majority vote).

Like the laws of physics: Gravity doesn't need a government to enforce it. The rules just... are. They're built into the system itself.

The window is closing. In 5-10 years, Bitcoin's network effects will make this conversation academic. The choice will be made, either Bitcoin's feudalism locks in, or we build something better.

I'm choosing to build. Not because I have all the answers, but because I have two sons who will inherit whatever we create.

And because after three years of exploration, I've found a framework that might actually work. A framework inspired by how nature has solved these exact problems for billions of years.

But I can't build it alone. And neither can you.

Let's figure this out while there's still time.
​