(or: thanks for the Berlusconi-style promo)

One of the funniest things about the internet is how people manage to feel personally attacked… without being named.

You write a market analysis with scenarios, ranges, probabilities.
No certainties.
No “sell now”.
No “this is the truth”.

And somewhere out there, someone goes:

“This is about me.”

Not because you tagged them.
Not because you quoted them.
But because they recognized the pattern.

This article is not about trolling, who’s right, or whether pigs can fly. It is about observing causal behavior: how people react, deny, attack, or reinforce narratives when confronted with structural patterns. That behavior is observable, repeatable, and narratively valuable. It is the same raw material used to generate tension, conflict, and consequence in simulation systems. TCW only exposes part of that logic as a prototype; NI2S operates at a deeper level. The analysis is not about being right, but about understanding how systems — and the people inside them — behave over time.

A bit of context (no drama, I promise)

While working on a broader analysis about validators as balancing elements, I included a section on Bitcoin moving averages. Simple stuff: recurring patterns, ranges X and Y, scenarios A, B, or C.

Probabilities. Not prophecies.

That analysis was shared in a close project circle. Because, surprise: besides TCW and NI2S, Bitcoin interests individual humans too. Shocking, I know.

At the same time, there exists a rather scruffy draft website (this one) and a fairly rough whitepaper (my words), where a section titled “Algorithmic Stabilization” lives.
Yes, the title is clickbait.
No, it’s not Terra Luna.
Yes, reading helps.

For reference, the document in question is publicly available here:
👉 https://arw.gitbook.io/tcw-whitepaper/technologies/solana-network/sustainable-economy/hayek-money

What he doesn’t seem to understand (or he simply didn’t bother to read it) is that the tokens are not meant to be sold; they exist as structural elements, not as exit liquidity.

Then the magic happened

I kept explaining the analysis in a certain channel’s chat.
Calmly.
Politely.
With numbers and alternatives.

Fun detail: I was blocked.
No one could see my messages… except one person.

And suddenly, videos started appearing:

• Same numbers as our analysis (slightly time-shifted, because math moves).
• Strong insistence that “it cannot go down structurally”.
• Jabs at people who “don’t even own Bitcoin”.
• A surprisingly emotional rant about algorithmic stabilization.

At that point, I laughed.

Because yes, I have many crypto accounts.
And yes, I only have losses.
Because I never put real money in. A few euros, over-leveraged, purely recreational. That’s not “saving in Bitcoin”, that’s playing poker with fake chips.

Also, the company crypto is handled by an accountant, not by my inner degen.

The cherry on top?
Thay youtuber, as a serious promoter with exchange access, he could literally check my zero activity.

But when narratives get shaky, villains become necessary.

For full transparency (and zero resentment)

This is the video I’m referring to. No cuts, no added commentary, and absolutely no issue giving it views and likes — also, follow him, he’s a good source of information for crypto topics in general:

👉 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWjdilu89jY

…and then he absolutely roasts me. 🤷‍♂️😅 Watch it. Decide for yourself.

So why do I feel addressed?

Simple:

• The numbers match.
• The order of arguments matches.
• The denials respond exactly to the scenarios presented.
• The tone gets angrier as the pattern remains valid.

You didn’t name me.
You found me.

Epilogue

So honestly: thank you.

Thank you for the Berlusconi-style advertising.
The kind that tries to dismiss and ends up amplifying.

I’ll keep doing analysis with scenarios, not dogma.
I’ll keep writing imperfect papers until they’re good.
And I’ll keep believing that understanding systems is more interesting than defending narratives.

See you on the charts.
Or better yet: in the fundamentals.