Fair enough, and I appreciate the clarification.
I can see why you didn’t name Armstrong directly, and I agree that listening versus believing everything are two different things. My inference wasn’t meant as an accusation, just pattern-matching based on the overlap: Europe-centric capital controls, war as a fiscal accelerant, metals vs BTC, and a defined timing window. That combination is pretty distinctive.
I’ll give the link a full listen, thanks for sharing it. I do agree that calling BTC’s trajectory as closely as he has over the past few years (especially relative to most critics) deserves attention, whether one agrees with his framing or not. Getting direction and timing approximately right matters more than purity of narrative.
The point about BTC being used as a capital-transfer valve during periods of declining government confidence (China first, potentially Europe next) is actually one of the more coherent explanations I’ve heard, especially when paired with the idea of impending controls rather than ideological adoption.
And yes, silver’s move has been meaningful. A $20 one-month rise, particularly when you’re stacking Eagles at a $4–5 premium, isn’t noise. It’s exactly the kind of behaviour you’d expect if smaller capital is front-running constraints while gold remains more institutionally managed.
No need to apologize for butting in, it is relevant. Alerts don’t fire for nothing, and even if one discounts the narrative layer, the market signals themselves are worth paying attention to. |
