Bitcoin 2025: Can Freedom Replace the Nation-State?

Introduction by Nick Sasaki

Welcome to Bitcoin 2025—the most consequential gathering of digital freedom fighters, policy architects, and financial innovators on the planet.

Over the next five conversations, we’re not just talking about Bitcoin. We’re questioning the very structures that shaped the 20th century—central banks, government trust, monetary control—and asking whether they still serve us in a world where truth is programmable and value can move without borders.

Can Bitcoin offer sovereignty without the state?
Can AI and blockchain co-author a world built on both intelligence and integrity?
What happens when freedom isn't a right given by a flag, but a protocol written in code?

To help us navigate these urgent questions, we’re joined by the architects of this new world:

• Sitting leaders like Vice President JD Vance,

• Crypto warriors like Michael Saylor and Jack Mallers,

• U.S. lawmakers like Senator Cynthia Lummis,

• Freedom symbols like Ross Ulbricht,

• And emerging digital stewards like David Sacks, Paolo Ardoino, and Bo Hines.

This isn’t just a debate. It’s a blueprint.
A roadmap from the world we inherited… to the one we must now build.

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event.)

Topic 1: The Future of Sovereignty — Can Bitcoin Replace the Nation-State?

Moderator: Nick Sasaki
Speakers:

• JD Vance – Vice President of the United States
• Michael Saylor – Executive Chairman, MicroStrategy
• Ross Ulbricht – Freedom Fighter (represented via public writings)
• Cynthia Lummis – U.S. Senator
• Jack Mallers – Founder and CEO of Strike

Nick Sasaki:

Let’s begin with a foundational question:
As Bitcoin decentralizes money and bypasses central banks, is it undermining the sovereignty of governments—or offering a new form of it?

Michael Saylor:
Bitcoin doesn’t undermine sovereignty—it reinvents it. We’ve had political sovereignty without monetary discipline for decades. Now, Bitcoin offers the first global, incorruptible ledger. It’s not a replacement of the nation-state—it’s a rescue package. Governments that align with Bitcoin become stronger through fiscal responsibility and digital credibility.

Cynthia Lummis:
I see it more as a dual path. Bitcoin challenges the monopoly governments have over currency, yes—but that’s not inherently a threat. It's an opportunity. The U.S. can remain sovereign with Bitcoin if we regulate wisely and avoid overreach. It’s like the printing press—those who embraced it led the future.

Ross Ulbricht (statement):
True sovereignty begins with individual freedom. Bitcoin is a tool of voluntary exchange, free from coercion. It doesn’t destroy the state—it reveals which institutions serve people, and which suppress them. If a state fears financial freedom, it’s not sovereign—it’s parasitic.

JD Vance:
Let’s not get carried away. As Vice President, my job is to protect the integrity of our institutions. I’m intrigued by Bitcoin’s potential, but a complete decoupling from fiat currency risks instability. Sovereignty is about trust and order—Bitcoin is still young on both fronts.

Jack Mallers:
The people have always been more sovereign than their governments admit. Bitcoin just gives them the rails. I’ve watched kids in Argentina protect their families' savings with Bitcoin while their government collapsed. That's sovereignty—permissionless, borderless, and real.

Nick Sasaki:

Fascinating. Let me ask this next:
If Bitcoin continues to grow as a global reserve asset, could it replace traditional military and economic influence as the primary measure of power between nations?

Ross Ulbricht (statement):
When the power to inflate money disappears, so does the incentive for war. Bitcoin disarms empires not by force, but by math. A world with sound money is a world where peace is profitable.

Michael Saylor:
Global influence will shift from nuclear weapons to nodes. In the future, nations will be judged by their hash rate, economic transparency, and Bitcoin holdings. The country with the most Bitcoin will not need to control others—it will attract them.

Cynthia Lummis:
Economic power and military power are intertwined, no doubt. But Bitcoin can rebalance this. Imagine foreign aid without strings, international alliances built on transparency, not leverage. It’s not the end of geopolitics—it’s the start of a healthier version.

Jack Mallers:
We’ve built the world’s most honest network—and we did it without permission. In a Bitcoin world, influence isn’t about tanks or treaties. It’s about value creation, open source development, and network consensus. That’s the new diplomacy.

JD Vance:
There are limits to this view. Strategic power isn’t going away anytime soon. Bitcoin may become part of national reserves, but it won’t replace the need for defense or international alliances. Technology isn’t morality—it’s a tool. We still need leadership to use it wisely.

Nick Sasaki:

Thank you. One final question:
What happens if citizens begin to trust Bitcoin more than their governments? Is that the end of democratic accountability—or the beginning of a new kind of civic power?

Cynthia Lummis:
This is the heart of the issue. We must not fear informed citizens. If people demand transparency and sound money, the government must evolve. Bitcoin doesn’t kill democracy—it demands a better version of it.

JD Vance:
Accountability comes from dialogue and trust, not from abandoning institutions. I worry that too much faith in code alone could lead to societal fragmentation. We need to ensure Bitcoin doesn’t become a refuge from responsibility.

Jack Mallers:
People already trust Bitcoin more than their banks in some countries. That’s not rebellion—it’s survival. The state should ask why citizens lost trust in the first place. Bitcoin doesn’t erode trust—it exposes where it’s been violated.

Michael Saylor:
Trust is earned. When fiat systems betray citizens through inflation and surveillance, Bitcoin steps in—not as a replacement for democracy, but as a foundation. You can’t build free societies on broken money. Bitcoin is civic armor.

Ross Ulbricht (statement):
If governments want loyalty, they must respect freedom. If they jail those who build tools of peace, like Bitcoin, they expose their own insecurity. Bitcoin isn’t a threat to order—it’s a litmus test of liberty.

Nick Sasaki:

What we heard today wasn’t just a debate about money—it was a debate about the soul of sovereignty. Whether Bitcoin replaces the state or reforms it, one thing is clear: power is shifting—from institutions to individuals, from control to code. The question now is: will we resist that shift, or rise with it?

Topic 2: U.S. Power vs. Crypto Freedom — Can Regulation Coexist with Innovation?

Moderator: Nick Sasaki
Speakers:

• David Sacks – White House A.I. & Crypto Czar
• Cynthia Lummis – U.S. Senator
• Bo Hines – Executive Director, President’s Council on Digital Assets
• Vlad Tenev – Robinhood Chairman and CEO
• Jack Mallers – Founder and CEO of Strike

Nick Sasaki:

Let’s begin with a tough one:
Can the U.S. government truly support innovation in crypto while still enforcing meaningful regulation—or is that a contradiction in terms?

Cynthia Lummis:
It’s not a contradiction—it’s a calibration. Regulation isn’t the enemy. Bad regulation is. We need frameworks that protect consumers without choking builders. I’m fighting in Congress to pass bills that treat crypto like the internet in the ‘90s—something to nurture, not fear.

David Sacks:
From the White House perspective, I’ll say this: innovation and compliance don’t have to be opposites. But we can’t pretend crypto hasn’t invited scams. Our job is to separate honest innovation from financial entropy. If we succeed, the U.S. leads this revolution. If we fail, someone else will.

Jack Mallers:
I don’t need perfect regulation. I just need clarity. Most of us in the space are ready to comply—if the rules are fair, clear, and consistently enforced. But right now? It’s chaos. You can’t build skyscrapers on sand.

Vlad Tenev:
Exactly. Robinhood went from a startup to a public company while navigating legacy finance and crypto. It’s not impossible to do both. But when rules are vague, it punishes the transparent and empowers the reckless. We need guidance, not guardianship.

Bo Hines:
That’s why the President’s Council is creating a roadmap for digital assets. We’re listening to innovators, not lecturing them. The U.S. can be the safest, most exciting place to build crypto products—but only if we get ahead of the curve, not buried under it.

Nick Sasaki:

Excellent. Now a second challenge:
If regulators move too fast—or too slow—what do we risk? Mass exodus of talent? Another FTX-level collapse? Or worse?

David Sacks:
Speed kills if it’s blind. Slowness kills if it’s timid. We’ve already seen what happens when regulators fall asleep. But we’ve also seen overreaction push talent offshore. Balance isn’t just nice—it’s necessary. We’re threading a policy needle in real time.

Jack Mallers:
You lose the next Google. That’s what’s at stake. If I have to move my team to El Salvador or Switzerland to ship product, I will. But I’d rather do it here. If America wants the next wave of tech jobs, it needs to stop treating us like enemies.

Bo Hines:
We’re building a system that encourages domestic innovation and global responsibility. I don’t want to wake up one day and realize the best minds in crypto are building tools for autocracies just because we made it too hard for them here.

Cynthia Lummis:
We’re already seeing a chilling effect. Startups are afraid to launch. Investors are hesitant. That’s tragic. But here’s the good news: smart policy can reverse it. Congress is slow, but it’s listening. And many of us are pushing for clarity before it’s too late.

Vlad Tenev:
Look, we don’t want another collapse—nobody does. But panic regulation is no better than no regulation. It takes humility and agility to govern something as fast-moving as crypto. We need technologists in the room, not just lawyers.

Nick Sasaki:

Final question for today:
What would a “gold standard” of crypto regulation actually look like in the U.S.? Describe the ideal system.

Bo Hines:
The gold standard is simple: Protect consumers. Encourage innovation. Be technology-agnostic. Let developers register easily, get feedback fast, and iterate without fear. Think FAA for finance—not TSA.

Jack Mallers:
Let Bitcoin be Bitcoin. Don’t treat it like a stock, or a bond, or a bank. It’s money—just better. Create new categories if you must, but don’t try to force a square peg into a round hole.

Vlad Tenev:
A single, unified regulatory body with deep tech fluency. Not a turf war between agencies. We need clarity on what’s legal, transparency on how enforcement works, and a fast-lane for compliant innovation. Speed + trust = progress.

Cynthia Lummis:
My vision: A bipartisan digital asset framework, backed by real education, not fear. Let’s protect the public, yes—but let’s also empower them. America should be the best place to use, own, and build with crypto—not the most confusing.

David Sacks:
We need a regulatory model as dynamic as the technology itself. Modular, responsive, globally competitive. One that treats founders like future partners, not future criminals. If we get this right, we don’t just protect freedom—we export it.

Nick Sasaki:

Today’s conversation makes one thing clear: regulation is not the enemy of crypto—it’s the architect of its future. But if we want a world where innovation thrives in the light, we have to stop treating builders like outlaws. The future isn’t regulated or free—it’s both, if we’re wise enough to build it that way.

Topic 3: Bitcoin & AI — Allies in a Post-Trust Economy?

Moderator: Nick Sasaki
Speakers:

• David Sacks – White House A.I. & Crypto Czar
• Michael Saylor – Executive Chairman, MicroStrategy
• Vlad Tenev – Chairman & CEO, Robinhood
• Paolo Ardoino – CEO, Tether
• Bo Hines – Executive Director, President’s Council on Digital Assets

Nick Sasaki:

Let’s begin with a big question:
As artificial intelligence grows in power and influence, can Bitcoin’s transparency and immutability serve as a counterbalance to the potential chaos AI might cause in a post-truth world?

Michael Saylor:
Absolutely. AI distorts perception. Bitcoin preserves it. AI can synthesize billions of lies; Bitcoin can’t lie once. We need a digital foundation grounded in truth—and Bitcoin is that anchor. It's the thermodynamic center of digital integrity.

David Sacks:
We’re entering a paradox: AI generates infinite content, while Bitcoin validates scarce value. If we don’t ground AI’s intelligence in objective systems like Bitcoin, we risk hallucinating civilization. Truth needs timestamps. Blockchain gives us that.

Bo Hines:
As we develop AI frameworks for government, Bitcoin’s transparency model is a blueprint. Immutable ledgers could be essential for AI accountability. Think of it: a world where machine decisions are not just explained, but publicly verifiable. That’s power with ethics.

Vlad Tenev:
We already see deepfakes, synthetic data, AI-generated markets. If Bitcoin—or blockchain more broadly—can certify the origins of information, it becomes a filter for trust. We’re not trying to stop AI—we’re trying to ground it.

Paolo Ardoino:
AI is probabilistic. Bitcoin is deterministic. Marrying the two might be the only way to build systems that are both adaptive and honest. Imagine AI running on rails that can’t be bribed, paused, or faked. That’s a future we need.

Nick Sasaki:

Fascinating. Now let’s flip the lens:
Can AI improve Bitcoin infrastructure, security, or accessibility—or does it risk corrupting it?

Paolo Ardoino:
AI will radically enhance blockchain usability—faster KYC, smarter smart contracts, predictive risk models. But it must operate within hardened parameters. The protocol must remain sacred. No GPT should ever rewrite Bitcoin Core.

David Sacks:
We’re experimenting with AI agents auditing smart contract code for vulnerabilities—instantly. That’s a game-changer for security. But we also need to ensure those agents are accountable. Hence, again, the role of blockchain to anchor trust.

Vlad Tenev:
Robinhood is testing AI to enhance user onboarding and detect market manipulation. AI doesn’t have to sit above crypto—it can sit with it, acting as a dynamic co-pilot. The danger is when AI gets between the user and the truth.

Michael Saylor:
AI is a tool. If it’s trained on garbage, it produces garbage at scale. But paired with Bitcoin, it becomes a force multiplier for order and clarity. Imagine AI wallets that know your intent, your values, and your security profile—yet execute everything on-chain, transparently.

Bo Hines:
We’re looking at AI not just as an interface but as an interpreter. Many people fear crypto because they don’t understand it. What if AI could become your financial translator, walking you through your rights, risks, and resources—backed by the clarity of Bitcoin?

Nick Sasaki:

Here’s the final—and perhaps most urgent—question:
In a world where AI can manipulate elections, economies, and even emotions, will Bitcoin be humanity’s firewall—or will it be overwhelmed like everything else?

Michael Saylor:
Bitcoin is incorruptible because it costs energy to lie in its system. AI can lie cheaply. That tension defines the next decade. Bitcoin is not a firewall—it’s a foundation. If we don’t build on it, we risk building castles on clouds.

Bo Hines:
I’m optimistic. The same way the Constitution was written to constrain power, Bitcoin’s code constrains digital abuse. In a world of infinite persuasion, fixed rules matter more than ever. That’s why we’re embedding these ideas into federal AI oversight.

Vlad Tenev:
It’s not either/or—it’s both. Bitcoin protects value, and AI shapes narrative. The future is about interlocks: cryptographic proof with intelligent adaptability. That’s the only way to fight synthetic chaos.

Paolo Ardoino:
Think of Bitcoin as the immune system. It doesn’t stop every attack, but it strengthens the organism. As AI floods the world, we need systems that don’t just resist corruption—they learn from it, transparently. Blockchain makes that possible.

David Sacks:
I’ll close with this: AI creates velocity. Bitcoin creates gravity. Without both, we either drift into delusion or collapse from inertia. But together—if designed properly—we might just balance innovation and truth.

Nick Sasaki:

Today we stood at the intersection of the fastest mind and the firmest ledger. AI and Bitcoin might seem worlds apart—but in a world that’s melting under too much information, their union might be the balance we need. Wisdom and honesty—built not on hope, but on code.

Topic 4: The New Bretton Woods — Can Bitcoin Anchor a Post-Dollar World?

Moderator: Nick Sasaki
Speakers:

• JD Vance – Vice President of the United States
• Michael Saylor – Executive Chairman, MicroStrategy
• Adam Back – Co-founder & CEO, Blockstream
• Paolo Ardoino – CEO, Tether
• Cynthia Lummis – U.S. Senator

Nick Sasaki:

Let’s start with the big one:
In a world of rising inflation and eroding trust in fiat, is Bitcoin capable of serving as a new global reserve asset—like gold once was under the Bretton Woods system?

Michael Saylor:
We’re watching the dollar debase in real-time. Bitcoin is digital gold with none of the limitations. It settles globally, instantly, and transparently. Yes, it can anchor a post-dollar system—if leaders have the courage to stop playing the inflation game and embrace monetary integrity.

Adam Back:
Absolutely. That’s what we envisioned back in the cypherpunk days. Bitcoin is neutral, borderless, apolitical. It doesn’t belong to any government—and that’s exactly why it could stabilize an unstable world. Bretton Woods 2.0 won’t be written in Versailles—it’ll be written in code.

Cynthia Lummis:
Bitcoin could become a parallel reserve, especially for countries tired of dollar hegemony. The U.S. shouldn’t fight it—we should prepare for it. I’m advocating legislation that allows us to hold digital assets at the treasury level. This is not science fiction. It’s strategic readiness.

Paolo Ardoino:
From the stablecoin perspective, Bitcoin is already a reference asset. Many of our large clients use it as a base layer of confidence. If central banks continue to erode credibility, markets will migrate toward a transparent, fixed-supply asset. And they’re doing it already.

JD Vance:
I’ll be blunt—America benefits from the dollar’s status. But I’m not blind. The world is de-dollarizing. We need to prepare for a future where Bitcoin is part of the reserve basket. Better to be early and proactive than reactive and defensive.

Nick Sasaki:

Next:
If Bitcoin becomes a global standard, how does that affect U.S. monetary policy, debt strategy, and influence abroad?

Adam Back:
It forces honesty. If you can’t print your way out of debt, you manage your balance sheet like a responsible adult. That may sound scary to some, but it’s actually the healthiest outcome. Bitcoin is a monetary intervention—for governments.

JD Vance:
There would be serious adjustments, no doubt. But we should remember: restraint builds strength. If Bitcoin pressures us to spend wisely and stabilize our fiscal policies, that’s not a weakness—it’s a wake-up call. We shouldn’t fear hard money. We should learn from it.

Paolo Ardoino:
It would shrink the arbitrary power of monetary authorities. That’s a good thing. The world’s economy runs on trust, and that trust is being eroded. Bitcoin creates discipline. It’s the first reserve asset not backed by war, but by consensus.

Michael Saylor:
It would reset global influence. The U.S. can either own Bitcoin’s narrative or lose it to those who understand it better. This isn’t just about economics—it’s about moral credibility. A country that defends digital property gains digital allies.

Cynthia Lummis:
We’d have to stop thinking in four-year election cycles. Bitcoin is long-termist. It rewards vision over manipulation. That’s a cultural shift for Washington—but one I believe we’re capable of making.

Nick Sasaki:

Final question:
If a country were to fully adopt Bitcoin as its reserve base, what advantages—or dangers—might it face compared to one that clings to fiat dominance?

Paolo Ardoino:
The biggest advantage? Trust. The market rewards transparency and stability. The danger? Volatility and external pressure. But those are short-term frictions. In the long run, the countries that adopt Bitcoin early will attract capital, talent, and geopolitical leverage.

Cynthia Lummis:
They’d face skepticism, yes. But they’d also become a haven for innovation. Look at El Salvador—it’s bumpy, but it’s bold. The U.S. doesn’t have to go all in right away—but we must be ready to pivot if the rest of the world moves.

Adam Back:
They’d gain monetary sovereignty. No IMF strings, no inflation tax, no SWIFT chokepoints. But they’d also be targeted—financially and politically. That’s why Bitcoin needs global adoption to truly protect those who use it.

JD Vance:
You gain freedom, but you lose control. As someone responsible for the world’s most powerful economy, I can’t ignore the risks. But I also can’t ignore the direction of history. The smarter play is to incorporate Bitcoin gradually—so we lead the transformation, not fear it.

Michael Saylor:
The bold win. Bitcoin is like adopting electricity in the 1900s. Early adopters may stumble—but they also spark revolutions. In 20 years, countries without Bitcoin reserves will be like countries without internet: irrelevant.

Nick Sasaki:

This isn’t just about economics—it’s about identity. The dollar dominated the 20th century, but what if Bitcoin shapes the 21st? If so, the future of prosperity won’t be printed. It will be mined—earned through transparency, not trust. And that changes everything.

Topic 5: Digital Justice — What Does Freedom Look Like in a Crypto-First Future?

Moderator: Nick Sasaki
Speakers:

• Ross Ulbricht – Freedom Fighter (statement via writings)
• Jack Mallers – Founder and CEO of Strike
• Cynthia Lummis – U.S. Senator
• JD Vance – Vice President of the United States
• Michael Saylor – Executive Chairman, MicroStrategy

Nick Sasaki:

Let’s begin with a question that many fear to ask:
In a crypto-first future, where financial systems are permissionless and decentralized, what happens to justice, law enforcement, and societal order?

Jack Mallers:
Bitcoin doesn’t remove law—it removes arbitrary law. It’s the difference between gravity and favoritism. With Bitcoin, no one can confiscate your money without your consent. That’s not chaos—it’s consent-based civilization. But sure, the justice system will have to evolve alongside it.

Cynthia Lummis:
Law still matters. But it must respect autonomy. Just like the First Amendment didn’t abolish defamation laws, Bitcoin won’t abolish fraud enforcement—it just raises the bar for government overreach. Justice in a crypto world must be accountable and proportionate.

Ross Ulbricht (statement):
If the price of freedom is surveillance and imprisonment, then it isn’t freedom at all. Bitcoin restores balance. It allows peaceful people to live without fear of arbitrary seizure. True justice isn’t about controlling people—it’s about trusting them.

Michael Saylor:
Justice will shift from centralized control to distributed truth. In the old world, trust was enforced with badges and guns. In the new world, trust is coded. That’s not lawless—that’s flawless. Bitcoin doesn’t destroy order. It redefines it.

JD Vance:
As someone tasked with upholding law and order, I respect the ethos behind Bitcoin. But I also worry: can we pursue criminals when we can’t freeze assets? We need tools that protect both liberty and accountability. Otherwise, we risk financial anarchy disguised as freedom.

Nick Sasaki:

Next question:
What does it mean to be “free” in a Bitcoin world? Is financial sovereignty enough—or does it require cultural and legal change too?

Michael Saylor:
Financial sovereignty is step one. But Bitcoin teaches deeper lessons—responsibility, foresight, discipline. A truly free society isn’t just untaxed—it’s unmanipulated. That starts with money, but ends in mindset. Bitcoin is a teacher as much as a tool.

Cynthia Lummis:
Freedom is layered. Bitcoin gives you control over your wallet. But we must also secure freedom of expression, privacy, and mobility. Financial sovereignty must not become an island. It must integrate with a legal system that serves—not controls.

Ross Ulbricht (statement):
You are not free if your government can silence you, jail you, or bankrupt you without trial. Bitcoin gives you the tools—but culture gives you the courage. We must teach people that true liberty starts within. Then we defend it—block by block.

JD Vance:
I believe in personal liberty. But we can’t pretend Bitcoin solves all injustices. What about racial inequality? What about education or healthcare access? Bitcoin is a step—but not the summit. We need holistic reform—cultural, economic, and spiritual.

Jack Mallers:
Freedom is knowing no one can cancel your existence with a keystroke. I’ve seen it firsthand—people kicked out of banks for being inconvenient. Bitcoin is freedom because it doesn’t ask who you are. It just works. But yes, it’s part of a bigger movement. A freer world must be built on many rails.

Nick Sasaki:

Last question for our series:
Ross Ulbricht’s imprisonment has become symbolic in the Bitcoin world. In a society built on decentralized values, how do we balance justice with mercy—and punishment with redemption?

JD Vance:
It’s a hard case. As Vice President, I respect due process—but I also believe in proportionality. Life sentences for non-violent digital offenses raise serious moral questions. If we want people to believe in our system, we must make sure it deserves their belief.

Michael Saylor:
Ross Ulbricht is a prism—he shows us how fragile freedom becomes under bad incentives. Bitcoin can’t rewrite the past, but it can inspire a new form of justice: open, accountable, and redemptive. If we value truth, we must also value mercy.

Ross Ulbricht (statement):
I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for clarity. I built something I believed would free people. I accept responsibility for mistakes—but I hope society one day sees the difference between harm and heresy. True justice listens. And forgives.

Cynthia Lummis:
We must not fear mercy. Justice should be strong—but never cruel. Ross’s case is a mirror for lawmakers. Do we legislate out of fear—or wisdom? The Bitcoin movement must not only build a new system—but also model a better form of justice.

Jack Mallers:
This isn’t about one man. It’s about the future we’re building. If a coder can get double life in prison while bankers walk free after collapsing economies, something is deeply broken. Ross reminds us what we’re fighting for—freedom that includes forgiveness.

Nick Sasaki:

Justice is more than laws. It’s how a society treats its visionaries, its rebels, and its mistakes. In this crypto-first world, freedom must not become another buzzword—it must become the blueprint. One built with empathy, encoded with truth, and open to redemption.

Final Conclusion by Nick Sasaki

What we’ve witnessed across these five dialogues isn’t merely a defense of Bitcoin—it’s a revelation of a deeper truth:

The future doesn’t belong to those who cling to control.
It belongs to those who code in trust, transact in transparency, and lead without fear.

In a world where:

• Governments print without pause,

• AI bends perception,

• And justice is confused with punishment...

Bitcoin stands still.
Immutable. Permissionless. Unapologetically neutral.

Whether it becomes a reserve currency, a pillar of justice, or simply a lifeboat in turbulent times, one thing is clear:

The question is no longer “Can Bitcoin survive the state?”
The question is: Can the state survive without Bitcoin?

From sovereignty to regulation, from AI’s rise to a digital Bretton Woods, and finally to the raw cry for justice in the case of Ross Ulbricht—each conversation has pulled back the curtain on a world in transition.

And as that world unfolds, may we remember:
True power is not control—it’s accountability.
True freedom is not chaos—it’s clarity.
And the systems that endure will be the ones built on both.

This is Nick Sasaki, and these were the Imaginary Talks at Bitcoin 2025.
Stay sovereign. Stay free. And above all, stay tuned.
The revolution isn't coming.
It's already mined.

Short Bios:

JD Vance
Vice President of the United States. Former venture capitalist and author of Hillbilly Elegy, Vance is known for advocating economic nationalism and tech policy reform.

Ross Ulbricht
Imprisoned founder of Silk Road, a pioneering darknet marketplace. He has become a controversial symbol for privacy, crypto-libertarianism, and digital justice.

Michael Saylor
Executive Chairman of MicroStrategy and one of the most prominent Bitcoin advocates in the corporate world. Known for turning MicroStrategy into a Bitcoin treasury powerhouse.

Cynthia Lummis
U.S. Senator from Wyoming. One of the most outspoken pro-Bitcoin legislators in Congress, championing favorable digital asset policy.

David Sacks
White House A.I. and Crypto Czar. Tech entrepreneur and investor (PayPal Mafia), now advising federal crypto and AI frameworks.

Bo Hines
Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Asset. A bridge between political strategy and emerging blockchain regulation.

Vlad Tenev
Chairman and CEO of Robinhood. Known for democratizing finance through commission-free trading, now expanding into crypto integration.

Adam Back
Co-founder and CEO of Blockstream. A legendary cypherpunk and creator of Hashcash, which directly inspired Bitcoin’s proof-of-work.

Jack Mallers
Founder and CEO of Strike. Lightning Network innovator focused on global remittance, open finance, and bringing Bitcoin to the mainstream.

Paolo Ardoino
CEO of Tether. Leads the world’s largest stablecoin, anchoring liquidity and playing a central role in crypto’s financial infrastructure.