Macro Policy, Tokenization and Bitcoin
We Consult and Discuss Macro Policy, Tokenization and Bitcoin
Trump Policy
The Strategic Imperative of Greenland
Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, has re-emerged as a focal point of U.S. strategic interest under the Trump Administration. This paper examines the multifaceted reasons behind this renewed focus, including its geopolitical positioning, military significance, economic potential, and role in countering great power rivalry. Drawing parallels to historical precedents like Manifest Destiny and the Cuban Missile Crisis, it explores whether U.S. ambitions reflect a modern expansionist ethos or a pragmatic response to contemporary threats. The analysis concludes that Greenland’s strategic importance—spanning missile defense, Arctic shipping routes, and rare earth mineral deposits—justifies the Trump Administration’s concern, and that U.S. management offers superior security and economic benefits compared to Danish oversight.
Trump Policy
A Game of Chicken: Reciprocal Tariffs
The Trump Administration’s reciprocal tariff policy, set to expand on April 2, 2025, represents a strategic escalation in U.S. trade policy, framed as a game of chicken with global trading partners. This paper argues that the administration perceives other nations as exploiting the U.S. consumer through asymmetric tariffs and shirking defense contributions under the U.S. security umbrella. Leveraging the dominance of U.S. global defense, the dollar, and capital market liquidity, the policy aims to compel compliance, minimizing foreign investment outflows from U.S. markets. Through economic analysis, historical precedent, and geopolitical considerations, we conclude that the U.S. holds the upper hand and will not yield first, securing its economic and strategic objective.
Trump Policy
NATO's Founding Principles Under Siege
A Nine-Year Deviation and the U.S. Commitment Dilemma (2016-2025)
In September 2016, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reaffirmed the alliance’s founding principles—Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Media, Independence of the Judiciary, and Protection of Minorities—as the bedrock of NATO’s mission, rooted in the 1949 Washington Treaty. These values underpinned collective defense (Article 5) and distinguished NATO from authoritarian threats, notably Russia after its 2014 Crimea annexation. The alliance stood united, with democratic norms and military commitment reinforcing its purpose.
Nine years later, by March 8, 2025, NATO’s landscape has shifted. The Ukraine conflict (escalated 2022) exposed disparities: Baltic states bolstered defenses and upheld freedoms, while others drifted—Turkey toward authoritarianism, Spain toward fiscal apathy. Sanctions evasion, notably $35–40 billion in Russian energy trade (2024), undermines NATO’s stance, with Turkey ($27–32 billion) and Eurozone members like Italy ($8–10 billion) prominent. Defense spending gaps ($54 billion NATO-wide, $37 billion Eurozone) highlight free riders. This article scores each of NATO’s 32 members (1–10 per principle, total out of 50) to assess deviation since 2016, focusing on events and sanctions adherence. It asks: Are NATO’s principles intact? Should the U.S. defend stragglers under Article 5, or has the alliance strayed too far from its 1949 ethos to justify continued membership?
TRUMP POLICY
Budget-Neutral Strategies for Acquiring Additional Bitcoin
Mechanisms for the U.S. Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Under the March 2025 Executive Order
President Donald Trump’s Executive Order of March 6, 2025, established a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve using 200,000 seized Bitcoin ($17–18 billion) and tasked the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce with developing “budget-neutral strategies” to acquire additional Bitcoin without taxpayer costs. This paper proposes four mechanisms: (1) expanding criminal and civil forfeiture, (2) accepting Bitcoin for federal fees and penalties, (3) leveraging the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) with in-kind trades, and (4) issuing crypto-linked securities offset by reserve assets. Each ensures no net fiscal burden, aligning with the order’s mandate. Feasibility, legal constraints, and economic impacts are assessed, suggesting a multi-pronged approach could grow the reserve to 500,000 Bitcoin by 2030, enhancing U.S. crypto leadership.
European research
The Ukraine Conflict and the EUR/USD
Divisions Among Common Currency Members and the Risk of Collapse
This paper investigates whether the Ukraine conflict could destabilize the Euro, the common currency of 20 European nations, by exposing divisions in military stance, defense spending, and democratic integrity. Using a 50-point scoring system—free speech, judicial independence, elections, NATO defense spending, and energy trade with Russia—it groups Eurozone countries by willingness for boots on the ground, adherence to NATO’s 2% GDP target, and democratic strength, alongside economic and energy factors. France (40/50) favors intervention, while Italy (35/50) and Spain (39/50) hesitate, with only 6 of 19 NATO members meeting spending goals. Democratic laggards (e.g., Slovakia, 34/50) and $8–10 billion in Russian energy imports (2024) strain unity. The Euro’s resilience, bolstered by Germany (45/50), faces a $37 billion spending gap and conflict-induced economic risks, suggesting a potential breaking point if Ukraine falters.
Trump Policy
Trump's Rejection of Globalization
Competitive Nationalism, Efficiency, and Industry Winners
This paper argues that President Donald Trump seeks to dismantle 40 years of globalization, which he perceives as a flawed construct of shared prosperity that enables free riders—nations and entities benefiting without equitable contribution. In its place, Trump champions a competitive framework among nations and U.S. states, aiming to eradicate inefficiencies and reduce taxpayer burdens through protectionism, deregulation, and localized rivalry. This shift, rooted in his business-oriented worldview, prioritizes self-reliance and merit-based performance over multilateral interdependence. The paper examines this transition, its theoretical basis, and its practical manifestations through policy examples, then identifies industries—domestic manufacturing, fossil fuels, defense, agriculture, construction, and regional finance—as primary beneficiaries. Evidence from trade policies, state competition, and economic data supports this analysis, with implications for U.S. and global economic structure.
Trump Policy
Trump's Ukraine Strategy as a Wake-Up Call for NATO
Reassessing Alliance Commitment Through Historical and Contemporary Drift
This paper posits that former President Donald Trump’s policies toward Ukraine, particularly evident in its 2025 wartime posture, reflect a strategic effort to reawaken NATO to its foundational mission of collective defense. Far from signaling U.S. withdrawal, NATO members themselves have drifted from the alliance’s original purpose, as demonstrated by declining defense spending since 1949 and uneven democratic standards today. Leveraging Ukraine’s resilience as a foil, Trump’s approach underscores NATO’s internal disparities. This study analyzes 32 NATO countries, plus Ukraine and Russia, rated on free speech, judicial independence, electoral integrity, and defense spending, alongside a historical review of NATO’s spending trends, revealing a persistent shift away from early Cold War commitments and positioning Ukraine as a catalyst for renewal.
European Research
The USA is Not Abandoning NATO.
Note Europe's Drift from NATO's Principles of Freedom and Persistent Energy Trade with Russia
This paper challenges the narrative that the United States is abandoning Ukraine and NATO, arguing instead that Europe’s drift from NATO’s foundational principles—collective defense and democratic freedom—coupled with ongoing energy purchases from Russia, constitutes the real betrayal. Historical defense spending declines from 6%–7% of GDP (1950s) to 2.7%–2.8% (2025), alongside democratic erosion in nations like Turkey and Hungary, and Europe’s $35–40 billion in Russian energy imports (2024), undermine NATO’s mission and Ukraine’s war effort. A novel scoring system (50-point maximum) across 32 NATO countries, Ukraine, and Russia—assessing free speech, judiciary, elections, defense spending, and energy trade—reveals the U.S. (46/50) and Ukraine (38/50) as exemplars, while Europe’s median (40/50) masks outliers like Turkey (16/50). Europe’s dual payments—funding Russia’s war machine while aiding Ukraine—highlight this hypocrisy, not U.S. retreat.
"Old Men, New Money" Podcast
Skye Meta Experience:
Subscribe to Our SUBSTACK INTERVIEWS AND BLOG
Thought Pieces
.png/:/cr=t:27.27%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:45.45%25/rs=w:515,h:234,cg:true)