I met an American in Lisbon last year. He had been out of the United States for six years. Worked remotely, paid taxes in Portugal, lived disciplined in a small house with views over the Tagus. He said he had stepped out of the system.

He hadn’t stepped out of anything.

Every year, while drinking coffee in Alfama, he filed IRS forms with the American government. Every Portuguese bank account he opened was reported automatically to Washington via FATCA. Every European UCITS he considered investing in was destroyed by PFIC taxation. And the day he died, before his children inherited a single cent, the IRS would go first.

The United States is not a country. It is a fiscal capture network with a blue passport.

Only two countries in the world tax by citizenship rather than residence: the United States and Eritrea. That is the entire list. It means an American born in Boston who moves to Tokyo at twenty-two and dies there at eighty-nine pays the IRS his entire adult life on everything he produces, saves, or invests. It doesn’t matter where he lives. It doesn’t matter who he pays local taxes to. Washington follows him like a permanent second mortgage.

And here is the trap almost no one sees: citizenship is inherited.

If you have a child on American soil, that child is American forever. If they spend the next seventy years in another jurisdiction, they remain American. Their bank accounts get reported to the IRS. Their investments, if they are foreign funds, are PFICs. Their worldwide estate at death will be taxed by the federal Estate Tax of the United States.

The father who thinks he escaped the system passes the chain to his children without knowing it.

Percentages are what turn a theoretical principle into a clear vision. Let’s translate every scenario into real numbers, because that’s where the system stops being an abstraction.

Scenario 1 — American resident and dying in the United States, estate of 20 million dollars.

The federal Estate Tax exemption covers approximately fourteen million per person; above that, progressive rates climbing to a 40% marginal bracket. And this calculation ignores everything that estate contributed to the Treasury during sixty years of federal and state income tax on returns.

• Federal Estate Tax at death: ~2.1 million dollars

• State Estate Tax in NY, MA, OR: up to 10–16% additional depending on state, thresholds starting at 1 million

• Effective income tax on capital gains during life: 30–37% federal plus state

• Effective income tax on ordinary dividends during life: up to 40%

• Gross estate reaching the heir at federal succession: ~89%

• Net compounded wealth versus a neutral system over 60 years: erosion of 30% to 50%

Scenario 2 — American expatriate in a no-income-tax jurisdiction (Dubai, Monaco, Bahamas), estate of 20 million.

Read more

A few days ago I argued about this with a friend (I wrote about it). He’s convinced buying is the only sane move. I tried to explain why the numbers, when you actually look at them, don’t always agree.

He didn’t buy it.

Then over lunch I told my father-in-law I was considering renting a bigger place with Elena instead of buying another property. The reply came without thinking.

“But son, renting is throwing money away. Yours, at least, is savings.”

I nodded. But that sentence is where the problem starts. It contains a mistake. An expensive one.

Rent is money that leaves and never comes back. True. What almost nobody calculates is that buying a home also has a portion of money that leaves and never comes back. And in most major-city markets, that portion is bigger than the equivalent rent.

Canadian portfolio manager Ben Felix put numbers on that invisible portion. He called it the 5% Rule.

The formula is offensively simple. Take the value of the house. Multiply by 5%. Divide by 12. That’s your monthly unrecoverable cost of ownership. If you can rent the same place for less, renting is the rational call.

A $500,000 home: $25,000 a year, $2,083 a month break-even. In Madrid, Lisbon, Berlin, Austin, most rent for considerably less. The rule, blunt as a Canadian winter, says: rent.

The 5% breaks into three parts. 1% maintenance. 1% taxes, insurance, fees. The third tranche is where everyone stumbles: 3% cost of capital, interest plus the opportunity cost of your down payment.

That last component is the one that hurts. If you put $100,000 down, those $100,000 are not in equities, not in gold, not in Bitcoin, not generating yield. They are sitting as collateral for a loan whose only purpose is to buy you a roof. The historical gap between residential real estate (~1.3% real annual return since 1900) and global equities (~5.2%) is not a footnote. It is the actual price of ownership.

The 5% Rule offends people the first time they hear it because it exposes a lie we’ve swallowed for decades.

A primary residence is not an investment.

It’s an expense. An expense that sometimes carries an investment component. But the heart of the operation is to live in it, not to compound. Confusing the two is what keeps households convinced their net worth is growing when, in fact, it’s just living somewhere more expensive.

Ricardo Salinas Pliego, Mexico’s third-richest man at $13.4B, has been saying it on every podcast he sits on, without a filter: “A house is the worst investment of all. The damn house is an expense, and that’s how you should see it. If you want security, sell the damn house, rent it, and buy yourself Bitcoin.”

He always adds the line that does the most damage: “It’s not your house. It’s the bank’s.”

There’s a structural angle every asymmetric investor should see. Between 2008 and 2010, US home prices fell more than 20% from peak. Rents barely moved, the national median dropped around 2%, with 5–8% declines in the worst-hit metros like Las Vegas and Phoenix. Owners were trapped in negative equity, paying down mortgages on assets that had cratered. Renters had options. They could renegotiate, downgrade, upgrade, or simply walk. In most jurisdictions, annual rent hikes are capped at inflation. The downside is bounded. The upside (moving when prices crack) is real.

That asymmetry is invisible on a balance sheet and enormous in a life.

Renting isn’t throwing money away. Renting is buying optionality.

The classic case for buying, forced savings, is honest. The mortgage chains you to a bank for thirty years so you don’t blow your salary. Fine. But then the asset isn’t the house. The asset is the discipline the house imposes. And that discipline can be bought directly, by routing capital to your portfolio every month before you see it.

For anyone who already understands Buy-Borrow-Die, the math hides something more uncomfortable. Every dollar locked in your primary residence is a dollar that doesn’t generate cashflow, can’t be elastically collateralized, and only monetizes by selling. A well-built portfolio works for you every month. A house, at best, shelters you.

Your portfolio works. Your house shelters.

Both are legitimate. They are not the same thing. And whoever understands Buy-Borrow-Die (and actually wants to be free) can build the life where the portfolio carries the weight and the roof is just a roof. Owned or rented, paid off or leveraged, the question stops being identity and becomes design. Freedom is available to anyone who decides the math matters more than the story.

The 5% Rule doesn’t tell you what to do. It tells you the cost of not having thought.

There’s an exercise I run from time to time, usually when some headline reminds me that the world isn’t quite what I thought it was at twenty.

I take a blank sheet of paper. I list, one by one, every single thing I own. And next to each one, I write the name of whoever holds the key.

The brokerage shares. The broker holds the key. Above the broker, a central custodian. Above the custodian, the regulator. Above the regulator, a state.

The apartment. The land registry holds the key, along with the jurisdiction where the property sits, and a tax or an expropriation that can change without warning.

Mutual funds. Pension plans. ETFs. Each one has a custodian. Each custodian has a state. Each state has a bad day when it needs liquidity.

The bank accounts. The keys aren’t yours. They belong to an interbank system that, in March 2013, in Cyprus, decided to seize 47.5% of every deposit over one hundred thousand euros to prop up its failing banks. They called it a bail-in. It’s in the manuals. They approved it over a weekend.

And at the end of the exercise, looking down at the list, you arrive at an uncomfortable conclusion.

You don’t own property. You hold claims on things that other people custody for you.

Then the logical question creeps in. What if I leave?

What if I change residency, find a friendly jurisdiction, put everything under a company in Singapore or the UAE. Do I break free?

No. Your assets don’t move with you. The only thing that moves is your body.

Read more

Huxley publishes Brave New World in 1932. He imagines a planet where nobody suffers because nobody remembers what suffering was. Soma to erase discomfort. Hedonic sex on schedule. Vacations distributed like medication. Castes biologically engineered so that the Epsilons feel grateful for scrubbing floors.

People are happy because they no longer know they could want anything else.

You read it in high school and it sounded like science fiction.

Look around.

Nobody in the West starves anymore. The “average poor” in any European capital carries in his pocket a smartphone with more compute than the Pentagon had in 1995. He flies to Cancún financed in installments. He has Netflix, Disney+, Spotify, Uber Eats, and a consumer loan approved in thirty seconds straight from his screen. He lives better (materially) than a nineteenth-century noble.

And the system tells him every day that he is free.

We’re heading toward abundance. Toward a world where everyone will have everything. Artificial intelligence is going to collapse the marginal cost of practically any cognitive service. Solar (and sooner or later, fusion) will collapse the cost of electricity. 3D printing and robotics will collapse the cost of manufacturing physical things. It’s a question of when, not if.

Then you ask the obvious question.

If everyone is going to have an iPhone, vacations, and a hot meal, why the hell are you still reading this newsletter? Why build a portfolio at all? Why fight with tax filings, holding company structures, margin loans, scarce-asset allocation?

Because between today’s world and the world of total abundance there is a bridge. And that bridge lasts decades. And on that bridge, the one we’re crossing right now, the gap between those who own assets and those who don’t is going to be the most brutal in human history.

This isn’t a metaphor. The in-between is where life is actually lived.

When consumption flattens, the only axis left is ownership. And almost nobody sees that.

The masses will have access to everything. And they will own nothing. Subscriptions. Rentals. Leasing. Streaming. Cloud. Cars on subscription. Homes on subscription. Digital identity on subscription. The new feudalism doesn’t demand land: it demands bandwidth, attention, and a recurring charge on your card. The medieval serf paid tithes to his lord. The twenty-first-century serf pays fourteen subscriptions to companies listed in New York.

They will tell him he is free. They will show him ads where people smile in airports. They will raise his credit limit every Christmas. They will sell him that success is the latest Apple gadget, the latest trip to Bali, the latest plate photographed in Lisbon.

Soma, 2026 edition.

Saylor sees it. Taleb sees it. Naval sees it. When everything can be replicated at zero marginal cost: content, code, even physical objects, the only premium left is on what cannot be replicated. What cannot be printed. What cannot be diluted. What cannot be manufactured by political decree or technological breakthrough.

There are only three certainties on that list. Three structural facts that will remain scarce for centuries. Maybe a fourth (the most interesting one) but I’ll get to that in a moment.

One. Land. Adjusted for demographic pressure and zoning, there is roughly the same amount of well-located habitable land as a hundred years ago. Every year there are more of us. Nobody is manufacturing more central Madrid, more Amalfi coast, more Manhattan. Well-located land is the only form of property that survives every political system (from monarchy to communism) because it cannot be confiscated without exposing the regime that does it.

Two. Gold. Five thousand years working as a store of value across every human civilization. Unalterable, indestructible, beyond the reach of any central bank. It takes billions of years to form in the cores of exploding stars. There is no technological shortcut to manufacturing it. That’s why central banks are buying it at record pace. Not out of tradition. Because they know.

Three. Bitcoin. The first genuinely neutral monetary network. Twenty-one million units. Period. No decree, no bailout, no print button, no central bank that can dilute you. It is the only form of absolute digital property that exists. When material abundance arrives, Bitcoin will be the gold of a civilization that no longer operates with atoms.

And then there’s the fourth. The one almost nobody names.

Your sovereignty.

Your capacity not to participate. Not to be connected. Not to consume the content that pushes you to feel what they want you to feel. To live off the yield of your own assets instead of the paycheck that disciplines you. Not to need the system’s approval to decide what you do with your own time.

In a world where the system will want you plugged in twenty-four hours a day, entertaining you, selling to you, measuring you, conditioning you, the final luxury will be unplugging. Living from your own capital. Making decisions the algorithm hasn’t predicted. Holding a horizon of decades while everyone else thinks in two-week paychecks.

That’s not bought. That’s built. Slowly, over years, through discipline, through scarce assets, through your own cashflow.

That’s why this newsletter is not about getting rich. That’s the cheap marketing for the ones who will be Epsilons in the happy world to come, the ones who will sprint toward the next bonus, the next car on subscription, the next series on streaming, until one day they realize they’ve spent thirty years renting everything.

This newsletter is about not being that one.

It’s about crossing the bridge with your head intact. About using the in-between phasem, where asymmetry will be the most violent in history, to build a portfolio in assets no technologist, no politician, and no artificial intelligence can dilute.

Land. Gold. Bitcoin. And the sovereignty built on top of the three.

The rest is noise.

While Huxley was writing the novel, most of his contemporaries were worried about the next dance. Your job, right now, is not to be that contemporary.

Last week I watched a podcast interview with a guy named Juan Faro. People know him as a Spanish ex-cop turned influencer who spent years raffling luxury cars (Ferraris, Lamborghinis) for ten euros a ticket. He was arrested. Thrown into pre-trial detention. All his accounts blocked. Passport confiscated. Almost everything he owned was seized.

He spent 101 days in a cell. No conviction. No trial. No firm charges. Classified as a “flight risk,” partly because he was planning to move his tax residence to Dubai, something thousands of people do legally every year.

He walked out free. They gave him his things back. The presumption of innocence, intact on paper. His life, no longer.

His particular case has shadows. Dinners with people on police records for drug trafficking, which he himself acknowledges. I’m not here to judge the man, defend him, or turn him into a martyr. What interests me about his story is not Juan Faro.

It’s what his story exposes about what you and I, with extraordinary li…

Read more

I said no.

And I told him why, because it felt important. I’m increasingly convinced that the question almost everyone asks when they talk about investing is the wrong question. It’s not whether the next winner will be Nvidia or Tesla. It’s not which sector to rotate into. It’s not when the institutional money flows in.

It’s something else. Simpler. More uncomfortable.

When and how did you get the capital?

That question (the one almost nobody asks) accounts for 90% of the outcome of your financial life. Stock picking is noise. The real melody runs underneath. And it has a name, described by an Irish economist in the 18th century and buried by modern academic finance because it doesn’t generate fees.

The Cantillon effect.

The idea isn’t complicated. When new money is created and it’s created constantly, not as an exception but as a structural mechanism of the system, it doesn’t land evenly across the economy. It enters at the top. Through commercial banks. Through collateral holders. Through asset owners.

Then, much later, it filters downward. To consumers. To wage earners. To savers in checking accounts.

And by the time it reaches the bottom, the assets have already moved up.

The one at the top buys assets at pre-dilution prices. The one at the bottom buys the same assets at post-dilution prices. Both did what the textbook said. But one entered before the inflation and the other entered after.

It’s not picking. It’s positioning.

This is what an index fund doesn’t solve for you. An index fund solves the question of which assets to hold. It doesn’t solve the question of when to hold them. And in a system designed to dilute, the when is everything.

Let’s look at the numbers. Charts persuade. Numbers nail it down.

Two people. Same starting point: 100,000 euros today. Same conviction in the long term. Same asset mix, a serious blend of global equity, gold, and Bitcoin that we’ll assume returns 12% nominal annually. Same discipline.

The only difference is the architecture they choose to deploy that capital through.

Person A: Cantillon Level 2 (dynamic 50% LTV):

• Day 1: invests her 100,000€ at 12%

• Day 1: borrows another 100,000€ against her assets at 3% and invests it. Initial portfolio: 200,000€. Initial debt: 100,000€. Initial LTV: 50%

• Each year, as her assets grow, she rebalances: draws additional debt to keep LTV constant at 50% and reinvests it

• Mechanically, her equity compounds at 21% annually (12% on 2× assets minus 3% on 1× debt)

• Net worth at 30 years: ~30.4 million euros (gross assets ~60.9M, outstanding debt ~30.4M, debt being paid back in increasingly diluted money)

Person B: the disciplined saver:

• Day 1: invests her 100,000€ at 12%

• Saves and invests 333€/month over 30 years (another 100,000€ contributed across time, entering the market gradually)

• Net worth at 30 years: ~4.16 million euros

Same return. Same asset. Same own capital deployed: 100,000€ each on day 1, plus another 100,000€ over the 30 years. Person A isn’t richer at the start. She just understood earlier that the system rewards capital that is already working, not capital being slowly fed in.

Difference at the end: 26 million euros. Roughly 7×.

This model is idealized, sustained 50% LTV requires real discipline, real liquidity buffers, and the stomach for drawdowns that in the real world can trigger margin calls if your structure is sloppy. But the principle stands. The architecture itself is what compounds. And there, in those 26 million, sits the Cantillon effect applied to your life. Not to a country. Not to an abstract social class. To you, the individual, deciding how to organize your balance sheet today.

Read more

A month ago I went on a trip with some friends. One of them, someone I love deeply, had been chasing an apartment for weeks. He’d made an offer. The seller asked him to raise it by 5% or the deal was off.

He raised it.

The topic came up over dinner. I asked, without any intent to argue: “Do you really think this is better than investing and paying rent?” He answered what everyone in this country answers: “With a mortgage, you’re paying yourself.”

I nodded. I let it go. There are moments when pushing back is just an elegant way of trying to be right at someone else’s expense. And this friend doesn’t deserve that.

But the question stayed with me.

Two days later, scrolling, I came across a post from Knight Frank’s Wealth Report 2026. The question was simple: what does one million dollars buy you in the world’s prime cities?

In Monaco, 16 m². In Hong Kong, 23. In Geneva, 28. In London, 33. In New York, 34. In Paris, 37. In Madrid, 75. In Lisbon, 80.

A million dollars. To lock a family inside a b…

Read more

The other day I listened to a podcast with the founder of the world’s second-largest real estate tokenization company.

A full hour on how a building in Madrid, an apartment in Miami or a retail space in Lisbon can live on a blockchain. Fractionalized. Liquid. Transferable in seconds. No notary, no registry, no friction.

I closed the episode thinking exactly what I thought the first time I opened ChatGPT back in 2022.

This is another revolution.

And I remembered a line from Larry Fink, the man who manages over ten trillion dollars, saying, plainly, that every asset in the world will eventually be tokenized. Not some. All of them.

The curious part is that most people still think digital is somehow less real than physical. That tokenizing is, in some way, diluting. That an asset on a blockchain is more fragile than one written on paper and filed at a registry. That Bitcoin can’t be worth anything because you can’t touch it.

And this is where the whole argument collapses.

Because if you look at …

Read more

There are theories taught in class. Theories quoted on podcasts. And theories that, for whatever reason, stay buried under layers of noise while the entire world lives them every single day.

The Cantillon Effect is the most forgotten of them all.

I wrote about it some time ago from a practical angle: whoever receives the money first buys cheaper, whoever receives it last buys the inflation. Simple. Almost childlike in its logic. But I came back to it because I stumbled on a recent Sandmark report that puts the numbers on the table, and the numbers are so violent that it’s hard to understand how we’re still having conversations about dividends and sector rotation without addressing this first.

Between 1990 and 2026, the U.S. M2 money supply rose from $3.18 trillion to over $22.4 trillion. A 604% increase. Over the same period, the net worth of the top 0.1% of households went from $1.7 trillion to $24.87 trillion. A 1,363% increase. The bottom 50% rose 507%, from $0.7 to $4.25 trillion. You don’t need to be a quant. The slope is the slope. Those closest to the tap captured a disproportionate fraction of everything that came out of it.

And there’s a data point people tend to skip: in 2022, 93% of U.S. equity market value belonged to the top 10%. It’s not that the market hasn’t gone up. It’s that when it goes up, it goes up for them.

This is where the typical portfolio conversation becomes absurd. Most retail investors are obsessed with picking the right ticker. The winning sector. Whether the S&P will beat MSCI World this year or if China will rebound. But the return you get from picking well inside conventional financial assets is marginal compared to the return you get from standing at the beginning of the flow of new money, instead of at the end of it.

The Cantillon Effect is not an academic curiosity. It is the architecture of modern wealth inequality.

Let’s do the numerical exercise nobody wants to do.

Imagine two investors. Both hold 200,000 euros in Bitcoin today. Bitcoin at, let’s say, 100,000 dollars.

Investor A: follows the classic playbook. Keeps his two bitcoins. Adds to the market as he saves from his salary. Collects dividends from a parallel 100,000 euro equity portfolio paying 4% net, roughly 4,000 euros a year. Lives quietly.

Investor B: borrows against his bitcoins. 100,000 euros at 6% annual interest against his collateral. With that money he buys another bitcoin. He now holds three bitcoins instead of two. The loan interest costs him 6,000 euros a year, but he services it with a rolling credit line or cashflow from other sources. He never sells. He never pays tax.

Ten years later, let’s assume Bitcoin quadruples. Conservative for anyone who understands the thesis.

Investor A holds two bitcoins worth 800,000 euros, plus the dividend portfolio. He has collected 40,000 euros in dividends over the decade, of which, after tax, he has kept roughly 30,000. Total net worth: around 930,000 euros.

Investor B holds three bitcoins worth 1.2 million. His accumulated debt with capitalized interest is around 180,000 euros. Net worth: over one million. And more importantly: zero taxable events. Zero sales. Zero rotation. The principal remains intact and keeps compounding.

The difference between the two is not the asset. It’s the speed at which they got positioned. Investor B advanced capital that A never had the discipline or the access to advance. He bought earlier. He bought more. And while A was collecting 4,000 euros a year for groceries, B was building a position four times larger in absolute terms with the same initial collateral base.

That is the Cantillon Effect at household scale. You don’t need to be a central bank to operate it. You just need solid collateral and a lender willing to accept it.

The problem with most retail portfolios is that they’re designed not to lose, not to advance. The dividend makes you feel you’re winning while the leveraged buyer next to you is multiplying. The indexed ETF gives you the comfort of not making decisions while the system rewards precisely those who make them with conviction. Tax optimization inside a retirement account saves you a few basis points while the one who never sold saved himself the entire taxable event.

And here’s the uncomfortable part: the system is not going to change. The monetary tap will stay open as long as there’s sovereign debt to refinance, which is to say forever within any living investor’s horizon. The question is not whether the Cantillon Effect will keep existing. The question is which side of it you’re going to be on every time they open the floodgates.

The vast majority of retail investors will stay on the wrong side. Not from lack of information, but from lack of structure. You need collateral to borrow. You need an asset the system recognizes as solid. And you need to accept, emotionally, that well-structured debt against an appreciating asset is the most powerful tool available to an individual.

What separates Investor A from Investor B is not the initial capital. It’s the understanding that collecting dividends for the grocery run is not the goal. It’s a consolation.

The goal is to stand closer to the tap. Always.

Now our portfolio…

Read more

There is a pattern that repeats throughout history with an almost irritating precision. The century doesn’t matter. The technology doesn’t matter. The language in which power speaks doesn’t matter.

Whoever controls the route, wins.

Always.

When Philip II sent his galleons loaded with American silver, it wasn’t the gold that made Spain the dominant power of the sixteenth century. It was that no one else could cross those routes without permission. The distribution channel was the Atlantic Ocean, and Spain held the keys. Later, the British understood the game better than anyone.

Read more

We’ve spent years talking about what to buy.

Bitcoin when nobody wanted to hear about Bitcoin. Gold when the “safe haven” narrative had become a joke. STRC when the market still didn’t understand what Strategy was. We’ve debated allocations, timing, correlations, portfolio structures.

But there’s something we almost never talk about.

Not how to earn more. How to lose less of what you’ve already earned.

Most investors spend years building a solid portfolio, watch it grow, and then hand the government between 19% and 28% of every euro they realize. They accept it. As if it were part of the deal. As if there were no alternative.

There is an alternative.

And it’s not tax evasion. It’s not some offshore structure. It doesn’t require lawyers, Maltese companies, or Swiss accounts. It’s completely legal. It’s available to any individual investor. And in some countries there’s a specific window for crypto assets that the vast majority of investors have no idea exists.

Today I’m going to tell you exactly what it is. How it works. And how to execute it without making the mistakes that render it useless.

If you hold a portfolio with meaningful gains, what comes next could save you thousands of euros on your next tax return. In larger portfolios, we’re talking tens of thousands.

Read more

This morning I woke up with a thought I couldn’t shake.

It came from a podcast I listened to yesterday.

One of those that lights a fire inside you.

They were talking about taxes and international structures.

How to build the perfect system to multiply wealth.

The guest was a guy who had moved from Spain to Dubai with his family.

Today, he’s sitting on an eight-figure portfolio and owns several buildings.

Obviously, when you hear that, you get a little turned on.

And you think:

“Fuck, I should be doing this right now. Even the dumbest guys are making money.”

Then my brain kicks into gear, like it does many days:

• How could I set this up in the smartest way?

• Is my home country gonna come after me if I leave?

• Does this even make sense?

But I always circle back to the same core question.

What’s the real difference between Dubai and Spain? Why do people get rich there and struggle here?

I played around with ChatGPT to run a quick comparison.

It told me exactly what I already suspected.

Yes, salaries there ar…

Read more

I promise not to talk about Saylor again for a long time

On June 21st I wrote that Saylor should buy back his own preferreds.

MicroStrategy was in terrible shape. Bitcoin at lows. STRC had dropped to the low 70s, 30% below par. The peg, broken. And I published this article saying that if Saylor started buying back that paper, the trade would be brutally accretive for investors.

This Monday, Strategy published a PDF I’ve read line by line all week. And there it is, in black and white: a preferred buyback program, with STRC as the priority.

Not that he listened to me. It was simply the obvious move. When the market sells you your own perpetual debt at 70 cents, there is no easier capital decision on earth.

Let’s go through the levers. The framework has five, and each one fits in a sentence.

First: a USD reserve of $2.55 billion that can only be used to pay dividends and interest, with a mandatory minimum of twelve months of coverage. The message to the market: coupons get paid no matter what Bitcoin does.

Second: the STRC dividend rises to 12% and gets reviewed every month. It’s a thermostat. The stated goal is for STRC to trade between 99 and 100. If it cools off, turn up the heat.

Third and fourth: one billion to buy back preferreds and another billion to buy back MSTR whenever it trades below intrinsic value.

Fifth: authorization to sell up to $1.25 billion in Bitcoin to fund all of the above.

Five levers, one idea: moving from one-way issuance to two-way capital management.

And here is the arbitrage almost nobody sees.

STRC is an infinite promise. Fiat paper: $100 of face value and a coupon forever, issuable in whatever quantity the market will absorb. Bitcoin is the opposite: 21 million and not one more.

For five years the trade ran in one direction only: issue infinite to buy finite. What Saylor announced on Monday is that the trade now works both ways.

Run the simple math. If your paper trades at 75, buying it back generates 25 instant dollars per unit and permanently retires a 12% coupon on 100. That’s extinguishing a perpetual obligation while paying yourself an effective 16% yield. No market risk. No counterparty. There isn’t a bond on the planet that offers his treasury that.

And if he sells some Bitcoin to do it, he isn’t betraying the thesis. He’s selling finite expensive relative to his own paper to retire infinite cheap. When the paper returns to par, he issues again and rebuilds the Bitcoin. Buy low, sell high, using his own instruments as the counterparty.

This has been done before. And we know how it ends.

Henry Singleton, Teledyne (I read about this story in the Outsiders book). In the 1960s he issued wildly expensive stock, at 40 and 50 times earnings, to buy companies. When the market collapsed in the 70s and his stock fell to a single-digit P/E, he reversed the flow: between 1972 and 1984 he bought back 90% of his own shares. The result: over 20% compounded annually for two decades, and Buffett calling him the best capital allocator in American business history. Singleton had no magic product. He had a calculator and zero emotional attachment to the direction of the trade.

Saylor just put himself in that position. Issuer when his paper is expensive. Buyer when it’s cheap. With a cushion of 25 months of dividends that means he never sells out of obligation, only out of opportunity.

If you hold STRC, the company is now the buyer of last resort of its own paper. If you hold MSTR, every buyback below par is Bitcoin yield without issuing a single share.

And for us, the lesson never changes: the best returns don’t come from predicting the market, but from having the liquidity and the cold blood to arbitrage other people’s pricing errors. Even when the mispriced paper is your own.

Now our portfolio…

Read more

A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend. An entrepreneur, well-positioned, with real assets. He was telling me enthusiastically how he had taken out a loan backed by his portfolio to buy a second property. He didn’t want to sell. He didn’t want to pay taxes. The logic was clean: asset as collateral, cheap debt, inflation erodes the liability over time.

I listened. Then I asked him one thing.

What if inflation doesn’t come back?

He went quiet.

That question is uncomfortable because it touches the invisible assumption holding the entire Buy Borrow Die strategy together: that money always loses value over time. That debt, in real terms, erodes on its own. That time works for the borrower.

It’s been true for fifty years. But it’s not a law of nature.

It’s a consequence of monetary design. And that design is being challenged by something central banks don’t control: technology.

Jeff Booth laid it out with brutal clarity in The Price of Tomorrow. His central argument is simple and disturbing: …

Read more

A few months ago I published something that generated more reactions than anything else I’ve ever written.

I called it infinite money. And I know that sounds like a YouTube thumbnail. But I kept it, because technically it’s the closest thing to the truth I’ve found in years of looking for structures that actually work.

It’s not magic. It’s not reckless leverage. It’s not a scheme.

It’s a strategy that has existed for decades, used quietly by institutional managers, that most retail investors will never know about because nobody has an incentive to explain it to them.

Many of you read it. Few fully understood it. And one of you left a comment so good it deserves an entire article in response.

The question was this:

“Fantastic article, Carlos. Arbitrage-type strategies are my favorites, but I wasn’t familiar with this one. Could you give a concrete example with expiration dates, strike prices, and costs? How many times a year do you need to set it up? Is there a risk of one leg being executed and the box being dismantled? And could this work with 50,000€ just to generate regular cash flow?”

Perfect questions. But before answering them, I needed something more than theory.

So I implemented it myself. Three months. Real portfolio. Real money.

Today I’m telling you exactly what happened.

Read more

Last year I was sitting in a conference room with the operations director of a mid-sized manufacturing company. He was explaining, with visible pride, how they had just renegotiated the collective agreement. Three years of stability. Good terms. A happy workforce.

I asked if he knew what a Boston Dynamics Atlas robot cost in production.

He didn’t.

I told him. $320,000. Annual maintenance: $9,500. Works 24 hours. Doesn’t rest. Doesn’t get sick. Doesn’t negotiate. And learns across the network: when one unit optimizes a movement in Georgia, every other unit knows it in real time.

He looked at me like I’d told him the sun rises in the west.

There is a moment in economic history when resistance to automation drops to zero. Not when the robot is better than the human. When the robot is cheaper than the human. Those are two different thresholds. The first was crossed decades ago. The second was just crossed now.

Hyundai has announced 30,000 humanoid units per year by 2028 in its “Software Defined Factories.” This is not a pilot program. Not a demo for investors. It is a statement of intent about the structure of industrial employment as we know it

McKinsey estimates 400 million displaced workers by 2030.

But here is the problem with every conversation this generates: people focus on the job. On whether they’ll have employment. On whether AI will steal their position. On how to train for new skills. On which sectors will survive.

That is the wrong debate. And while you’re stuck there, the real theft is happening in silence.

Because what nobody tells you is this: the robot doesn’t steal your job all at once. The fiat money sitting in your bank account steals the work you already did, slowly, every single day, without making a sound.

Think about it coldly.

You have €50,000 saved. It sits in a current account, maybe a deposit paying 2.5%. You feel like you’re being prudent. Responsible. That you’re building security.

Meanwhile, the eurozone monetary base has grown 400% since 2008. The real accumulated inflation, not the official CPI, but the one you feel at the supermarket, in rent, in energy, erodes that capital year after year. You don’t see the movement. But it’s happening. It’s so slow and so constant that your brain normalizes it.

Fiat is the oldest robot in the system. And it has been doing its job for decades.

The difference between Boston Dynamics’ Atlas and the central bank is this: Hyundai’s robot at least produces something. The monetary machine only redistributes what already exists, from those who save to those who owe, from those who work to those who own assets.

This is why mass automation is not going to destroy the world. It is going to destroy the world of those who don’t understand where real capital lives.

When 400 million manufacturing jobs disappear, there will be two kinds of people. Those who lost their income and had their wealth sitting in a bank. And those who lost their income but had their wealth in assets that cannot be printed.

Read more

I almost never write about the news.

Most of it adds nothing that will still matter a year from now, and this newsletter is about thinking in decades, not headlines. But today I’m making an exception. Because someone is giving us a live lesson in financial engineering, and I want you to see it before the noise buries it.

This week, STRC, designed to orbit $100, collapsed. It closed near $89. It touched $83 intraday. A 17% move in an instrument they sold as stable. The Sharpe ratio everyone bragged about, gone.

The headlines say “death spiral.” I see the opposite: a textbook opportunity waiting to be executed.

Let’s run the numbers.

Strategy holds a cash reserve of around $1.1 billion, built to cover dividends and debt. Suppose it spends half ($600 million) buying back STRC in the market at $85, the average price during this week of weakness.

It buys roughly 7 million shares. It retires $705 million of par value. Discount captured on entry: $105 million.

This is where the order is everything.

If you raise the dividend first, the price returns to $100 and you lose the cheap-buyback window. If you buy back first and raise the dividend after, which is what’s going to happen, you capture the discount and then push the price to par. The 7 million shares you bought at $85 are now worth $100. Locked-in gain: $105 million. And the higher coupon is paid on an already-shrunken stack.

Strategy draws it as a rocket gaining engines. Sell MSTR, sell STRC, sell BTC: each lever, a way to push more Bitcoin per share. What I want you to see is that he holds the two elements this game requires, an infinitely liquid, finite asset (Bitcoin) and an instrument whose price he himself steers through the dividend. That combination is something almost no one in public markets has.

And here’s the close of the loop, the step that actually ends in Bitcoin.

When STRC trades back above par, the ATM program reactivates. Strategy can re-issue the shares it bought back at $85, now at $100. It recovers the $600 million plus the spread. That $105 million difference, bought cheap, re-issued at par, is fresh cash. At a Bitcoin price of $63,000, that’s roughly 1,660 BTC. Accumulated, literally, from arbitraging his own paper.

Buy your own paper cheap when the market panics. Lift the price with the lever you control. Re-issue at par when confidence returns. Turn the spread into Bitcoin.

That’s the full game. And he can run it every time the market hands him a drop.

It isn’t magic. It’s owning two perfectly complementary assets, one scarce and liquid, the other with a steerable price and the discipline to move capital between them at the exact moment. Bitcoin is the anchor. STRC is the instrument. The levers are his.

One warning, because I hate posturing: spending $600 million of the reserve in the middle of a confidence crisis isn’t free. That reserve is also the visible signal that Strategy can pay. Pull the lever too early and you spook the market instead of calming it. Timing here isn’t a detail. It’s the whole thing.

That’s why this isn’t for everyone.

Both MSTR and STRC are extraordinarily efficient ways to articulate one of the largest Bitcoin treasuries in the world, 846,842 coins, 4% of all the supply that will ever exist. But they’re instruments for someone who understands exactly which engine is firing and why. Enter without understanding the mechanism, and you enter late, when the Sharpe looks like magic. And you exit even later, selling the bottom, convinced the ship is crashing when it’s only switching engines.

So don’t criticize Saylor this week. Study him.

While everyone watches the price, he’s playing with the levers.

And that difference, understanding the mechanism when others only understand the price, is the only arbitrage that truly matters.

Now our portfolio…

📈 Asymmetric Finance Portfolio

Read more

Last week I received a message from a subscriber. He told me he had read my analysis, agreed with everything, and still hadn’t moved anything in his portfolio.

I asked him why.

His answer: “I don’t know, I was waiting to see what happened.”

That is exactly the problem. And it’s the problem that will cost more money in the next crash than any analytical error ever will.

Most investors are going to lose significant money in the next correction. Not because they picked wrong. Not because they lacked information. But because when the moment to act arrives, they won’t be able to. Their minds will be too saturated, too scattered, too loud to execute what they already know they should do.

The most underrated asset in finance isn’t a screener. It isn’t a factor model or a macro framework or even a great allocation strategy. It’s mental clarity. And almost nobody talks about it, because it’s not something you can sell.

There is a specific type of investor who consistently outperforms across a full c…

Read more

The other day I told you about one of the books that blew my mind recently.

Today, I’m going to show you how you can use its ideas to make a lot of money.

No overcomplication. No hustle.

Just thinking like an outsider.

Like a real investor.

Let’s dive in.

This book profiles some of the greatest CEOs in history.

Not the usual suspects. Not the Forbes cover guys with motivational quotes.

No.

The ones who took normal companies and turned them into true baggers. 10x. 20x. 50x.

And they didn’t follow the playbook.

They followed a principle: capital allocation is the highest leverage point in any business.

And whether you’re a CEO, a solo founder, or just investing your own money, the same rules apply.

1. Cash flow is king.

These CEOs ignored reported earnings. They focused on real cash flow. The kind that actually hits the account and gives you choices.

Because that’s what lets you reinvest, repurchase, acquire, or distribute.

As a company, it’s easy to offset interest payments with dividends, that’s your core economic activity.

But as an individual? Almost impossible.

That’s why I prefer to generate my own flow.

On demand. Using decentralized protocols.

So I create liquidity without selling, without taxes, without waiting on anyone.

2. When the market hates what you own, buy more.

One of these CEOs bought back more than 90% of his company.

Because he knew the market was wrong.

And he acted before buybacks became trendy.

I do the same.

Bitcoin at 16k? I buy.

Gold gets smashed? I buy.

If I own something that’s clearly worth more than what it’s priced at, I don’t need to go shopping elsewhere.

3. Forget marble offices. Buy freedom instead.

I love this one. None of these CEOs built flashy HQs.

Why? Because high fixed costs bleed your returns.

They leak out in silence.

There’s something way more valuable: freedom.

Choosing when to work, who to work with, and what to focus on.

And you only get that when your burn rate is low.

Sure, it has downsides. But it’s worth it.

4. Think different. Always.

We’ve said it before: you don’t need overpriced subscriptions or magical products.

No one knows what the market will do next.

It repositions itself.

So the goal isn’t to guess direction.

It’s to hold uncorrelated assets and build an asymmetric portfolio that can take hits and still strike.

5. Simple structures. Decentralized control.

These CEOs didn’t bottleneck decisions. They empowered operators.

Things moved fast.

And that’s what I aim for too.

Modular design, distributed intelligence, speed.

Your system should run without you.

And when you show up, it’s to refine, not to babysit.

6. No plan survives first contact.

Muhammad Ali said it best: everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

You can plan all you want, but when the market drops…

Only one thing matters: are you ready to act?

My rule is simple: when prices crash, I buy.

Whether that’s today, in a year, or in two.

That discipline compounds.

7. Wait. And strike hard.

One CEO waited over a decade before making a move.

Not because he was scared because nothing was priced right.

That patience is lethal.

I’ll happily sit still for a year if it means going big when everyone else freezes.

That’s how you make the 10x.

8. Use debt, but make it work for you.

These leaders didn’t use leverage to show off.

They used it to buy productive assets, ones that spit more cash than they cost to finance.

I do the same.

Only when I know the asset produces reliable flow.

Plus, interest payments reduce taxes.

Better to pay interest than capital gains, if the numbers work.

9. Taxes: the quiet battlefield.

Malone had a full in-house tax team. They met every month.

Not because he was greedy, but because he knew every dollar not paid in tax could be reinvested.

I do the same.

Don’t sell. Borrow.

Don’t realize gains. Optimize.

We’ve talked about this plenty in the newsletter, with three or four smart moves, you can reduce your tax bill by 30% and double your real return.

10. Use your assets as leverage.

As a retail investor, you can’t issue shares. But Michael Saylor can, and he’s done it repeatedly.

Bitcoin surges, stock price follows, he issues new shares, and buys more BTC or undervalued assets.

I do the closest thing:

When my assets are at all-time highs, I go to the bank.

They lend more.

And I use that to buy what’s cheap and forgotten.

11. One napkin. One clear idea.

This one hits hard.

Most of these legends could explain their strategy with a sketch on a napkin.

No slides. No stories.

Same here.

Cash flow, margin, liquidity, optionality.

If I can’t explain the logic in one sentence, I don’t own it.

12. Contrarian isn’t optional. It’s foundational.

Buffett said it: be fearful when others are greedy, greedy when others are fearful.

It’s not a quote. It’s a system.

It’s not about being brave.

It’s about being prepared.

If you have flow, if you have margin, if you have liquidity… you can be contrarian without sweating.

And the crowd becomes your edge.

13. When the world panics, you act.

After Lehman, Buffett deployed over $80 billion.

And more than $15 billion in the first 25 days.

That’s the play.

Be liquid. Have targets. Be ready.

And when the system breaks, go in hard.

No permission needed.

None of this is theory.

It’s what I try to apply every single day.

And what you can use (no matter your size) to stop playing defense and start building real financial freedom.

The kind that doesn’t rely on luck.

The kind that doesn’t require being right all the time.

The kind that comes from thinking like an outsider.

And living like an owner.

Now our portfolio…

📈 Asymmetric Finance Portfolio

Read more

A few weeks ago I published a piece saying I wanted to sell all my stocks.

I got criticized for it.

“But everything’s at all-time highs.”

Exactly. When are you supposed to sell, at the lows? Of course you exit at the highs. And the longer this lasts, the worse the day it ends.

But that’s not the point. Today I want to make one clarification. I’m not going to teach you anything new. I just want us all on the same page.

Let me start with the obvious: I don’t recommend buying stocks.

The moment you buy one, you’re already losing. You pay the spread. And the day you sell, the taxman takes 25% of the gain in the best case. You worked, you were right, and you still hand over a quarter of what you made. By design.

And here’s something almost nobody stops to consider: when you pick an index, you’re rejecting every other one.

Choosing the S&P 500 is not the “neutral,” “passive” option they sold you. It’s a bet. A concentrated one, on large U.S. companies, that you made without thinking. You didn’t cho…

Read more