Introduction
In 2020, the world was hit by what was described as a global pandemic. But behind the headlines, lockdowns, and panic, something far more consequential was unfolding—an engineered crisis that served as cover for a massive power shift in global finance. At the center of that shift was President Donald J. Trump, who used the chaos not just to respond to COVID-19, but to cripple the true seat of economic control in America: the Federal Reserve.
The Perfect Cover: A Manufactured Crisis
COVID-19 created the perfect storm. Fear paralyzed the public. Governments worldwide enacted sweeping emergency powers. Big Pharma cashed in with rushed vaccines. Meanwhile, trillions of dollars were created out of thin air. The average citizen saw stimulus checks and mandates. But few noticed the deeper move: the merging of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury under Trump’s watch.
The Setup: CARES Act and Treasury-Fed Fusion
Under the CARES Act, the Treasury handed over $454 billion to the Fed to support emergency lending. The Fed, in turn, leveraged this to backstop trillions in loans to corporations, states, and banks. On paper, this was economic stimulus. In reality, it marked the beginning of the Fed losing its independence. For the first time, monetary policy and fiscal policy were effectively merged—with the Treasury calling the shots.
The Kill Shot: Trump’s Quiet Coup
While the media focused on daily case counts and vaccine rollouts, Trump orchestrated a deeper war—one against the private central banking system itself. By tying the Fed's emergency powers to Treasury capital, Trump put the Fed in a chokehold. They could create money, but only with Treasury approval. That flipped over a century of monetary control.
And while many blamed Trump for his vaccine support, it’s possible he allowed Operation Warp Speed to go forward not to help Big Pharma, but to keep the public distracted while he executed the financial reset.
Aftermath: A Hollowed-Out Fed
Fast forward to 2025, and the Fed still exists—but it's a shadow of its former self. Its credibility is damaged, its independence compromised, and its tools less effective. Meanwhile, populist movements, state-level resistance to the IRS, and discussions of eliminating federal income taxes are gaining traction.
Conclusion
COVID-19 was never just a health crisis. It was a battlefield. And while many players made power grabs for control, Trump may have been the only one who used the chaos to dismantle the real engine of global control: the Federal Reserve. He didn’t just survive the deep state attack—he flipped the board.
BTC does have a special property: it is completely decentralized. That means no one controls it except for the tens of thousands of miners and nodes operators who have a vested interest in keeping it honest and sound. All other crypto , as far as I know, have a centralized control in the form of the originator and/or a tight development team. That also means that it is the scarcest form of money ever invented -- 21 million coins and that's it, ever. No other crypto can make that claim. It is the fulfillment of the "Ideal Money" and "Asymptotically Ideal Money" that John Nash wrote lecture on from 2002 to the end of his life.
I am not aware of any BTC corruption. The network has withstood all attacks over 16 years for a greater than 99% up time. Can you detail the corruption you're talking about? And why you think it is a psyop?
When did you start getting into Bitcoin? After 2017? If so then you have only ever known the subverted narrative because that was when the coup took place.
BTC is not actually decentralized how everyone thinks. The claims you made are the standard talking points of the BTC maxis because to refute them you need to understand the history of Bitcoin and the more technical aspects of what happened.
The claim that BTC is uniquely decentralized is just ignorant. I could point to dozens of other crypto projects that are arguably more decentralized than BTC, but this argument is based on the belief that non-mining nodes contribute to decentralization. Actually only miners contribute, and BTC miners are extremely centralized.
If someone wants to run their own node, there is ONE software option, Bitcoin Core, which is controlled by Blockstream, and it was demonstrated in 2015-2017 that they will not allow competition in the space. Several attempts were made to launch competing node implementations with upgrades to increase performance, but these were all torpedoed by Blockstream and the narrative that block size had to remain permanently capped at 1MB took root.
Since then, nothing has been done to increase BTC's throughput capacity unless it involves "2nd layer" solutions which move transactions off chain, where other private entities collect the fees. Blockstream's profit model depends on crippling the base layer of Bitcoin which limits the long term viability of mining. Eventually fees will have to go through the roof or mining will become so unprofitable that the long term security of the network could be threatened.
Onboarding new users to BTC is a joke these days. It used to be you could find someone who had a miner running at home and you would just trade cash with them. Fees were always under a penny so it was trivial to send $20, $10, $5, or even less. It wasn't something anyone had to be concerned with because you could rely on fees always being low. That's what made it so amazing, but Blockstream killed that, and even celebrated when blocks became full.
Now, people are ushered onto corporate platforms that are government-regulated, with KYC, to trade sats off-chain (because that's the only way to do low volume transactions) while being told it's a sure bet that it will make them rich someday, and then maxis do nothing but talk shit to everyone who doesn't agree with their position and smear the real OG bitcoiners who made it successful in the beginning.
There is a reason all the big names from the early years have moved on to other projects. BTC has become the exact thing it was meant to destroy.
Good points. You sound like a knowledgeable old timer! I'm a relative newbie, but I am off the exchanges. I have read much of what you write before. Some I've rejected, others I still need to think about. I'll bite on your decentralized crypto claim. Can you give me the name of one you think is a good example, so I can take a look?
True enough, non-mining nodes can't build on the best chain like miners, but they can vote by refusing to pass on what they perceive as illegitimate transactions, so they become a disruptive force. I think that's a valid and, to a degree, effective safeguard. Would like to quantify it, but haven't got there yet, assuming it can be done.
I agree that the dream of many early bitcoiners is no longer possible -- we're not going to be casually spending BTC daily -- but it can still serve as a store of value, and a unit of account. It won't be a direct medium of exchange, but will back whatever is. Or at least I think that's where Trump is heading.
I'm not that old, lol, but I guess in bitcoin years I am. I was getting into bitcoin around that time period where the block size war was at its peak so I got to experience it first hand. I was always firmly in the "big blocker" camp because that was just how most normal people understood the road map.
The psyop was convincing people that it was dangerous to increase the limit beyond 1MB because, the argument goes, if blocks were too big then the chain would grow too fast and storage would become a hurdle for independent node operators who wouldn't be able to afford to buy bigger and bigger hard drives. While it's true that we don't want 1TB blocks tomorrow, so there should be a limit, the "small blockers" took it a step further and insisted that it could never be increased beyond the initial limit set by Satoshi, so now we are stuck with blocks that have the capacity of a 3.5" floppy disk and that is effectively set in stone. Unless they can somehow flip and convince everyone that suddenly hard forks are a good thing.
So the result of the block size war was the hard fork that made Bitcoin Cash. It shares all the major parameters of BTC such as the hard 21 million supply cap, 10 minute blocks, and shares the same history with BTC up until August 1, 2017. Those alternative node implementations that couldn't get off the ground with BTC now operate on the BCH network. So if you want to run a BCH node, there are about 5-6 independent dev teams with various approaches and specializations. BCH has a soft block size limit of 32MB and can increase automatically according to network demand, with no upper limit.
Another one is Monero, which uses RandomX instead of SHA256 for mining. RandomX is optimized for consumer grade hardware and ASIC-resistant which means anyone can mine it without having to invest a fortune on specialized hardware.
Both Bitcoin Cash and Monero have no corporation or foundation behind them, but a pretty wide and diverse ecosystem of independent developers and entrepreneurs. There are others but those are the main ones.
Thanks. I'm familiar with the Block Size War, but only through what I've read. Arguments to be had on both sides. Thought BCH was extinct, will take a look at it and Monero.