This failing The New York Times hit piece on David is one of those moments when I know enough to see the media narrative is bogus I can confidently say both David Sacks and Joe Lonsdale have reduced their own wealth to take unpopular positions to fix the country — as matters of duty.

Best take so far on David Sacks. I’m not nearly as famous as the people David hangs around with, but he gives me time nearly every time I ask for it. Every time I have talked with him, he has been balanced, he is above board, beyond reproach and a true patriot. David doesn’t need

David Sacks is the perfect example of what’s awesome about America. The New York Times is the perfect example of what’s wrong with America.

This is indeed a frequent trope used against anyone competent who wants to serve. “Oh she has experience in that area — it’s a conflict!” is a frequent leftist smear against many people who gave up security and millions of dollars for constant attacks and petty bureaucratic BS.

Agreed. There is a concerted effort by the bureaucratic class to paint success and experience as a sign of corruption. Instead, it’s the exact opposite. Success and experience in the free market only comes from repeatedly expressed and easily measured good judgement.

In David Sacks we have a highly successful, tech-savvy, value creation-focused leader with great many proven talents advising our policy-setting leaders -- for free. No need for NYT to thank him, but trying to frame up a conspiracy where there isn't one... is just in poor taste.

David Sacks really understands AI and cares about the US leading in innovation. I am grateful we have him.

Deeply grateful to have David Sacks in his role. He's very thoughtful on AI and has deep integrity and resilience. Technology is a strength of this country, and we need more Americans like David helping the US lead in innovation. 🇺🇸

David didn’t need this role. He didn’t need the headaches, the divestitures, or the attacks. He stepped in because he didn’t want the US to fall behind on AI or digital assets, and he did it completely above board. If the NYT had its way, government advisers would all be

x.com/i/article/1996…

Long read but well worth it to understand the argument for inclusion.

Steve Hanke RETARDED BOOMER

Everyone seems to be concerned about things they don’t need to be concerned about. You don’t need to worry about quantum computers killing #Bitcoin. Worry about QC cracking your nuclear launch codes. You don’t need to worry about the composition of Tether’s reserves. They

Strategy has submitted its response to MSCI’s consultation on digital asset treasury companies. Index standards should be neutral, consistent, and reflective of global market evolution. Read our letter and share your support: strategy.com/msci

Our thoughts on digital credit and response to MSCI. Restricting passive index investment in $BTC today would be like restricting investment in oil and oil rigs in the 1900s, spectrum and cell towers in the 1980s, or compute and data centers in the 2000s.

🤣

Boris Johnson Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi requires a central operator promising returns and paying early investors with funds from later ones. Bitcoin has no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand.

Read the full report: fidelitydigitalassets.com/research-and-i…

Yes

Wow