I quote-posted it with a fairly unambiguous response:

Graham's experience deserves a little context. He sold three properties and repaid their mortgages, including loans as cheap as 2.875%. He described feeling relieved afterward, even while acknowledging the financial case for keeping cheap debt. Selling rental properties also removes the work and obligations that come with owning them, so his experience involves more than paying off a loan while keeping the same house.

My preference is to keep mortgage debt, assuming rates remain at historical norms or lower, because it lets me hold more liquid assets that I expect to grow faster than the cost of borrowing. Having those assets available gives me peace of mind.

I've written about that before in Peace of Mind, but my second quote-post put two people through the comparison: Paydown Paul and Investing Ian.

They buy the same house, take the same mortgage, and commit the same amount every month. One becomes mortgage-free much sooner. The other keeps investing.

Let's follow their money, including what happens when the investment returns disappoint or life interrupts their income.

🏠 Two houses, one choice

Paul and Ian each buy a $500,000 house with 20% down. That leaves a $400,000 mortgage, fixed for 30 years at 7%, with a monthly principal-and-interest payment of $2,661.21.

That's close to the 6.76% national average reported for a 30-year fixed mortgage on September 10. We're keeping 7% so the example follows my original post.

A mortgage can make buying possible years before you could save the entire purchase price. Whether to buy now or wait, and whether to buy or rent at all, are separate questions. Paul and Ian have already decided to own.

Each has another $1,000 available every month. Paul sends his to principal. Ian invests his in the S&P 500, assuming a 10% annual return with dividends reinvested.

Paul pays off his mortgage in 14 years and 7 months. From then on, he invests the entire freed payment plus the extra $1,000—about $3,661 a month. He also invests the unused portion of his budget in the final payoff month.

Ian keeps making his scheduled mortgage payment and investing $1,000 a month for all 30 years.

Both commit the same $3,661.21 each month to their mortgage and investments. Taxes, insurance, and maintenance are additional household expenses shared by both; paying off the mortgage doesn't eliminate them.

Once Paul pays off his mortgage, he invests $3,661 a month to Ian’s $1,000. Can those larger contributions make up for almost fifteen years of missed compounding?

Read more

How much bitcoin do I need to retire?

Mitch is 26 and wants to retire at 40. He expects to spend $100,000 a year, so the traditional 25x rule puts his retirement target at $2.5 million. Bitcoin was $73,525 when we recorded the episode. At that price, he would need about 34 BTC to retire immediately.

He has roughly 15 years, though. My rule of three assumes bitcoin grows at 25% a year, which works out to roughly tripling every five years. Apply that rule across three five-year periods and the target falls from 34 BTC to about 1.25 BTC.

Running that calculation gives Mitch a savings target, but it doesn't tell him what happens if bitcoin falls 50% the month after he leaves his job.

Could he cut spending? Could he earn some consulting income without returning to full-time work? Does he own other liquid investments he could sell first? If he borrowed against his bitcoin, could he add collateral or repay part of the loan?

📉 Down, not done

Bitcoin had four declines greater than 50% between 2014 and 2024. The three largest averaged roughly 80%, and three of the four took nearly three years to recover.

You can still retire on bitcoin, but you need enough room to live through those declines without dumping too much of your stack at the bottom.

Traditional retirement research calls this sequence-of-returns risk. Poor returns early in retirement do more damage because withdrawals remove assets before they have a chance to recover. CFA Institute research found that bad early returns can shorten how long retirement savings last, while flexible withdrawals and additional income improve the odds.

Bitcoin's volatility makes the effect easier to see. If the price gets cut in half, the same $100,000 withdrawal costs twice as much bitcoin. The dollars pay one year of expenses either way, but the larger sale leaves fewer sats to participate in the recovery.

Picture the drop happening immediately after you retire. Could you postpone a big trip, spend less for a year, sell stocks instead, or pick up a consulting project? You have room to wait when you've built flexibility into your approach. If your only choices are selling bitcoin at the bottom or returning to a full-time job, you retired too early.

Long-term compounding can repair a brutal opening drawdown, but first you have to get through it with enough bitcoin left.

🧱 The bunker tax

Mitch suggested keeping two years of expenses in cash or Treasury bills so he wouldn't have to sell bitcoin during a downturn. At his spending level, that means pulling $200,000 out of bitcoin, stocks, or other assets he expects to compound.

I generally wouldn't do that.

Read more

You can't time the market. Even when bitcoin is making new highs, you never know whether it will ever see that price again. DCA works because it gets you out of the easy-to-footgun prediction business. You choose an amount, buy on a schedule, and go about living your life.

That was the case I made in Your Cost Basis Is Not the Chart. But we've been in a bear market for a year now, which begs the question: if you're already buying every week, should you buy more when bitcoin is 20%, 30%, or 50% below its high?

A DCA ladder does exactly that. But can buying more aggressively during drawdowns help you stack more bitcoin with the same amount of money—and get you to financial independence faster?

⚙️ Introducing the DCA ladder

Most people approach DCA as a static purchase: the same amount on the same schedule, regardless of what's happening in the market. It's simple and straightforward.

But what if you could keep that discipline while buying more during drawdowns and less during rallies? The goal would be to stack more bitcoin at a lower cost basis.

Start with a $100 weekly DCA. A ladder keeps that as the baseline, then pairs deeper drawdowns with larger purchase amounts. Each threshold is a rung on the ladder.

When bitcoin makes a new all-time high (ATH), the ladder's reference point moves up with it.

One possible ladder looks like this:

Suppose the prior ATH is $100,000. A Friday price of $95,000 is a 5% drawdown, so the purchase stays at $100. At $85,000, the 15% drawdown activates the $125 rung. At $75,000, the 25% drawdown activates the $150 rung.

As bitcoin recovers, the purchase steps back down through the shallower rungs. The normal $100 purchase remains the floor, and $400 is the ceiling.

You can choose a different baseline, set different rungs, and cap the largest purchase at an amount that fits your plan and capability. The idea is to stack more aggressively as bitcoin falls and less so as it rises.

📊 How the ladder performed

Bitcoin's price history gives us a way to ask two questions: how much more bitcoin would this ladder have accumulated, and would that have improved the return on the dollars invested? Using the ladder above, I compared it with a flat $100 weekly DCA across 80 four-year periods.

The first period began on the first Friday of January 2016. Each new period began one month later, through August 2022, and included 209 Friday purchases. The periods overlap, representing 80 different starting dates.

The ladder accumulated more bitcoin in all 80 periods. Depending on the starting date, it finished with 126% to 267% more bitcoin than the flat DCA. The median increase was 212%.

The flat strategy contributed $20,900 in every period: 209 Fridays multiplied by $100. The ladder contributed between $49,150 and $64,600, with a median contribution of $61,825. Depending on the period, bitcoin was at least 10% below its ATH on 74% to 89% of the purchase dates, so the ladder invested more than $100 on those Fridays.

That means the ladder required an additional $28,250 to $43,700 over four years. The money has to come from somewhere—additional savings, cash held for drawdowns, or dollars that otherwise would have gone into another investment. Across these periods, the ladder required an average contribution of roughly $235 to $309 per week.

Of course, investing more money buys more bitcoin. But the larger stack doesn't tell us whether the ladder earned a better return on each dollar. Its additional purchases happened below the ATH, but not necessarily below the prices captured by flat DCA earlier in the period.

To find out whether the ladder bought more bitcoin per dollar—not merely more bitcoin—we need to give both strategies the same amount of cash.

⚖️ Same dollars, different timing

To make that comparison, I ran the same 80 historical periods again with one change: both the flat DCA and the ladder received exactly $50,000 over the same 209 Fridays. The exact budget isn't important. What matters is that both strategies had the same amount of money to work with.

For the flat DCA, that meant investing $239.23 every Friday. The ladder was less straightforward because using the literal $100-to-$400 purchase amounts would once again require more cash. Instead, I preserved the relationship among the rungs and scaled the 209 purchases so they added up to the same $50,000. A purchase during a 50% drawdown still received four times the weight of a baseline purchase, while a purchase during a 20% drawdown received one and a half times the weight.

This comparison only works in hindsight. After each four-year period, I adjusted the ladder purchases so they added up to exactly $50,000. You couldn't know those exact amounts in advance because you wouldn't know how many drawdowns bitcoin would experience. The test asks one simple question: with the same $50,000, did the ladder buy more bitcoin?

The ladder accumulated more bitcoin in 64 of the 80 periods. Its median advantage was 14.7%, with results ranging from 24.3% less bitcoin to 30.7% more bitcoin than flat DCA.

Removing the extra-cash advantage changed the result from 80 wins to 64. This is the apples-to-apples answer: the ladder's timing improved the outcome in most of the historical periods, but not all of them.

That leaves an obvious question: what happened in the 16 periods when the ladder underperformed?

🚀 When flat DCA won

All 16 losing windows began between February 2016 and May 2017. Every one started before or during bitcoin's run from hundreds of dollars to nearly $20,000, followed by a bear market that never returned to the earlier price range.

Bitcoin can go much farther than you think, much faster than you think, and never look back. Look at the chart over the years. Eventually, there is a price bitcoin never revisits.

The worst result began on November 4, 2016. Both strategies received the same $50,000 and made their final purchase on October 30, 2020. The ladder accumulated 24.3% less bitcoin.

By December 15, 2017, the flat strategy had already deployed 28.2% of its budget. The ladder had deployed only 11.8% because bitcoin spent most of the run-up near new highs, where the baseline rung received the least weight.

The ladder eventually made larger purchases during the drawdowns that followed. Those prices were cheap relative to the 2017 peak, but they were still far above many of the prices captured by flat DCA in 2016 and early 2017.

The ladder waited for a dip. Bitcoin dipped, but not far enough to revisit the prices the ladder had passed up.

That failure is a good example of why my bias remains to buy as much as you can, as fast as you can. Laddering can fail badly during runaway price action. Even when bitcoin is making new highs, you never know whether it will ever see that price again.

🔄 Keep the total contribution fixed

The equal-cash test tells us that the timing rule often helped historically, but its scaled purchase amounts can only be calculated after the four-year window ends. That makes it useful for comparing strategies, not for deciding how much to buy next Friday.

To make the idea usable, the ladder needs to fit within a contribution amount you already know you can sustain. Reaching the deepest rung of the literal bitcoin ladder requires four times the normal contribution during a 50% drawdown.

Another approach is to keep the total investment constant and change the mix of new contributions. Consider someone who invests $400 per week across bitcoin and stocks, with a normal split of $200 to BTC and $200 to SPY.

Instead of increasing the $400 total during a bitcoin drawdown, the next contribution can shift toward bitcoin. This version uses a simpler ladder: $200 BTC and $200 SPY when bitcoin is less than 10% below its high, $250/$150 at a 10% drawdown, $300/$100 at 20%, and $400/$0 at 30% or deeper.

This rule beat a fixed $200/$200 contribution in all 80 windows. Once again, however, the headline result reflects more than timing. Depending on the window, the ladder directed 80.3% to 91.1% of all contribution dollars to bitcoin. When bitcoin outperforms SPY, a strategy that buys much more bitcoin should finish ahead.

The cleaner comparison gave the flat schedule the ladder's exact total BTC dollars and exact total SPY dollars in each window, then spread those dollars evenly across all 209 Fridays. The asset mix was now identical. Only the timing changed.

Under that equal-mix comparison, the ladder won 68 of 80 windows, with a median advantage of 4.9%. The results ranged from a 10.8% loss to a 9.2% gain.

All 12 losses began between June 2016 and May 2017. The fixed-total approach solves the funding problem and the timing rule still helped in most windows, but it can't solve the risk of buying less bitcoin before runaway price appreciation.

🧭 A ladder is a plan, not a prediction

Taken together, the ladder bought more bitcoin per dollar in most of these historical periods. But the 2017 losses show the cost of waiting for drawdowns when bitcoin runs away. If bitcoin is part of how you expect to reach financial independence, accumulating more of it with the same contribution capacity moves you closer to that goal. Flat DCA, increased as your capacity grows, still has the lowest cognitive load.

A ladder adds a rule to your baseline DCA: when bitcoin falls a specific distance from its prior high, the next contribution changes. The goal isn't to predict the bottom. It is to decide whether you can use drawdowns to accumulate more bitcoin without increasing the total amount you have available to invest.

Whether that works for your plan depends on your total contribution capacity, near-term liquidity needs, and what those dollars would otherwise buy. If you fund the ladder by changing the contribution mix, it also depends on how far you're willing to shift new money away from other assets.

The value of the ladder is making those decisions before the drawdown arrives. You don't have to decide how much to buy while the price is falling and everyone has a new prediction.

🛠️ Put the rule into the FIRE BTC Compass

The DCA Ladder Planner in the FIRE BTC Compass is a way to put a plan for increasing your DCA during bitcoin pullbacks into place. You decide how to approach the drawdown before it happens, lay out the plan, and then have a much easier time implementing it and seeing the effects.

The Planner lets you choose the recurring baseline, the drawdown that activates each larger purchase, and the maximum purchase you're willing to make. It shows the prior bitcoin high it is using, the current drawdown from that high, and the purchase your rule calls for today. As bitcoin recovers, the planned amount steps back down.

The plan and financial values stay in your local browser. The Planner is guidance only: it doesn't connect to an exchange or execute purchases for you.

The personalized DCA Ladder Planner is included with Compass Pro for paid FIRE BTC subscribers. Open the Planner, or use the current Compass Pro Unlock if you still need access.

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading!

Until next time,

Trey ✌️

This page is the durable home for your unlock code. Paid subscribers: continue below for the current code, when it expires, and exactly how to turn Pro on.

Calculators: https://calc.firebtc.io

Your numbers stay in your browser. We don’t store your finances on FIRE BTC servers.

Read more

I knew my two kids were too old to qualify for the one-time $1,000 federal contribution, so I assumed there was no point in opening accounts for them. Then I started hearing about private donors putting money into accounts for older children, employers offering contributions, and supposedly great tax advantages.

If someone wants to put free money in an investment account for my kids, I might as well take it.

But once I started digging into the rules, I realized that most of the conversation around Trump Accounts blends together two very different decisions:

1. Should you open a Trump Account for your child?

2. Should you fund it with your own money?

The answer to the first question may depend on where you live, when your child was born, and whether an employer or private donor is offering money. The second requires comparing the account with options families already have.

And after making those comparisons, I'm not convinced Trump Accounts live up to the hype.

🧾 What a Trump Account Actually Does

A Trump Account is a tax-deferred investment account owned by a child. A parent or another authorized adult manages it while the child is a minor.

When Trump Accounts were announced, one of the headline features was that the federal government would seed each eligible child's account with $1,000. But that offer applies only to U.S. citizens born from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2028.

Eligibility to open an account is broader. Any child who is under 18 and has a valid Social Security number can generally have a Trump Account. That means my kids can have accounts even though they won't receive the $1,000 government contribution.

Before the child turns 18:

• Ordinary contributions are limited to $5,000 in 2026.

• The child doesn't need earned income.

• The money is invested in approved low-cost U.S. stock index funds.

• Withdrawals are generally prohibited.

At launch, contributions go into State Street's SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 ETF. Treasury has selected four other broad U.S. index funds that parents will eventually be able to choose among. You can see the current investment lineup here.

The lockup is a real benefit if you want to protect a long compounding horizon. It is also a real limitation. You can't take the money out for tuition, a medical bill, or a family emergency before 18. After the growth period ends, the account generally follows traditional IRA rules, and the child gains control.

🇺🇸 The Best Case for Trump Accounts

The strongest case for these accounts is bigger than a $1,000 government deposit.

Supporters describe them as a way to create a broader ownership society. Every child can begin with personally titled capital, see the money invested in American companies, and potentially spend nearly two decades watching it compound before entering the workforce.

One account also creates a common destination for family, employer, government, and philanthropic contributions. For families that wouldn't otherwise open an investment account, reducing that initial friction could make a difference.

There is an educational case too. A real balance gives a parent something concrete to point to when explaining index funds, dividends, market declines, and compound growth. Treasury has even added financial-education modules to the app.

I like all of those goals. We should talk to our kids about how investing works and help them build some muscles around saving, ownership, and compounding.

The question is whether this particular account creates those outcomes—or merely creates the appearance that the work has been done.

🎁 Where the Free Money Actually Comes From

There are three places to look before deciding whether to contribute anything yourself.

The federal government

Children born from 2025 through 2028 who meet the citizenship and Social Security number requirements can receive the one-time $1,000 federal contribution. Parents can start the process by filing IRS Form 4547.

Older children can still have accounts. They just don't get this particular deposit.

Philanthropists

Michael and Susan Dell committed $6.25 billion to provide $250 to as many as 25 million older children. Eligibility generally covers children age 10 and under who missed the federal seed and live in qualifying ZIP codes with median income no more than $150,000. Only the first 25 million eligible accounts that are activated receive the gift.

You can enter your child's birth year and ZIP code in the public Dell eligibility checker. The tool also asks you to confirm that the child has a valid Social Security number.

There are narrower state programs too. Ray and Barbara Dalio committed $75 million to provide $250 to approximately 300,000 qualifying children in Connecticut. Brad Gerstner committed $250 for qualifying children under five in Indiana.

These programs don't all use the same age, location, or income rules. An announcement is not the same thing as money appearing in the account, so confirm the actual deposit after activation.

Employers

An employer can contribute up to $2,500 per employee per year across the Trump Accounts of the employee and their dependents. The employer contribution is excluded from the employee's current gross income, although it counts toward the child's ordinary $5,000 annual limit.

Treasury issued detailed employer-program guidance on August 11 and says more than 50 companies have committed to participate. It also says employees may be able to direct pretax salary through a cafeteria plan into a dependent's account. But the official account administrator currently says employer contributions are still coming soon.

In other words, don't assume your company offers the benefit because its name appeared in an announcement. Ask HR for the written terms, including the contribution amount, which children qualify, and when the program becomes operational.

Outside money can justify opening the account even if you never make a personal contribution.

Claiming free money is easy to justify. But the harder question is whether you should contribute your own money once the account is open. Below, I'll compare its tax treatment with a 529, custodial Roth IRA, and brokerage account—and explain why I don't think “tax-advantaged” automatically makes it the best choice.

Read more

It is natural for that instinct to carry over into investing. When a plan feels slow, doing something feels more responsible than sitting still.

But once your FIRE plan is working, changing it every time you feel restless can do more harm than good. The hardest part about being in bitcoin is often sitting tight, continuing to accumulate, and letting time do the work.

The recent Coldcard security advisory is an obvious exception: when a real custody problem appears, you fix it. The harder cases are the ones where nothing is broken, but waiting has become uncomfortable.

🎢 Fighting FOMO

There are two market environments where I have to fight the urge to do something in order to gain more beta than I am getting from my current strategy, which is buying and holding bitcoin in large amounts over a long period of time.

In a bull market, when bitcoin is ripping, there is always some related opportunity where other people seem to be outperforming bitcoin. In the last bull market, the main examples were bitcoin treasury companies, MSTR options, ETF options, and leverage. It looks like everybody else is making an absolute killing. You are doing well, too, but it feels like you could build wealth even faster if you made one of those other moves.

When bitcoin is down or has been down for a while, the temptation is different. I look outside bitcoin and see the trade that now appears obvious in hindsight. Recently, that has been AI and chip stocks. It is very difficult to sit on your hands, stick to your plan, and continue to accumulate while another part of the market is moving without you.

James Check calls that second experience time pain: the boredom and opportunity cost of watching other assets rise while yours doesn't. Time pain can make patience look like ignorance. Maybe the plan is no longer working. Maybe the world changed and you missed it. Maybe rotating now is the only way to catch up.

Read more

But I'd always wanted a pair of really nice dress shoes. This past year, I spent around $800 on a pair of Ferragamos.

They're beautiful. I love them, and I only wear them on special occasions. They're also something I never would have purchased before because I was focused on saving and they weren't something I actually needed.

Even after I knew I could afford them, spending that much on shoes felt a little wasteful. There was sticker shock. I had spent years developing the muscle and way of thinking required to save and accumulate toward financial independence. Buying the shoes required me to jostle patterns of brain synapses that had been firing in one direction and get them to move in a different direction.

The purchase helped me flex a muscle I hadn't spent nearly as much time developing: using the money once I had enough.

That transition doesn't get as much attention in the FIRE movement. We learn how to increase our savings rate, calculate our FIRE number, invest the difference, and build the compounding engine. But when the engine is doing most of the work and another dollar of savings is no longer materially changing the future, it can still be difficult to give ourselves permission to use the money.

The purpose of financial independence is to create a life where you can choose how to spend your days, what projects you work on, what work fulfills you, and who receives your limited time. If the habits that helped you build financial independence prevent you from ever using that freedom, what was all the saving for?

🔄 The Saving Muscle Doesn't Switch Off

Financial independence isn't necessarily about retiring from all work. It's about removing the pressure and burden of needing to work to sustain yourself and fund the lifestyle choices you'd like to make.

You only live once, right? YOLO.

Financial independence gives you the freedom, flexibility, and optionality to spend that limited time working on things that are important to you, being with people who are important to you, and seeing and doing things you're interested in.

The alternative is constantly trying to keep up, keep the wheels turning, and make ends meet without the ability to reach beyond that.

Saving is how you create the option to step off that treadmill. But the habits that make saving possible don't disappear the moment your portfolio crosses a threshold you've set for yourself.

Spending money on something you otherwise wouldn't have bought can still feel wasteful. A new recurring expense can create sticker shock. Doubt starts creeping in: If I'm going to spend more, that's going to put more pressure on my portfolio. Do I really have enough not to run out of money the way I've been planning for?

Those feelings become even stronger when you start thinking about doing away with your income source at the same time.

I've never been in a position where I've totally lost my income and had to fund my lifestyle through my portfolio. I believe I would be fully comfortable doing it, but it would still be a different kind of situation.

It feels awkward, weird, and insecure when you no longer have income because you're used to having it. This is the difficult transition FIRE practitioners eventually have to make. Traditional retirees face the same problem when they stop receiving a paycheck and begin living from their savings.

The answer isn't to ignore that feeling. It's to ground your permission to spend in a plan you understand.

Read more

Recently, I asked the Lexus dealer whether they could refinance it at a lower rate. He told me my best bet was probably a local credit union, which might be able to cut roughly two percentage points from the rate.

I didn't really believe that was going to be the case. But after hearing it was possible, I figured, why not make a phone call?

The credit union came back at 4.39%.

The process was almost comically easy. I submitted an application, went through a quick credit check, agreed to the terms online, and signed through DocuSign. It was finished within 48 hours, with no upfront or out-of-pocket cost.

My payment dropped from about $1,435 to $1,178 per month.

That gives me another $257 every month to buy bitcoin. But the refinance also reset the 49 months remaining on my old loan to a new 60-month term. I lowered the payment by extending the loan for almost another year.

Whether that is a good trade depends on what happens to the $257, what the two loans cost in total, and what the cash could earn if it remains invested.

That is where this becomes more interesting than a story about finding a cheaper car loan. It is a concrete example of how I think about debt, compounding, and using the fiat financial system to build more freedom.

🥋 Debt-Free Isn't Free

There are trade-offs to everything.

A lot of people claim that all debt is bad and that everyone should become completely debt-free as quickly as possible. It is true that eliminating debt reduces the amount you need to spend every month to service it. That can lower stress and reduce the portfolio required to support your lifestyle.

But paying off debt has an opportunity cost too.

If you use cash to eliminate a fixed-rate loan, that cash cannot also remain invested in stocks, bitcoin, or another productive asset. When the cost of the debt is substantially below the expected return of the asset you would otherwise own, paying down the debt first can leave you much less wealthy later in life.

My father has always been strongly opposed to debt. In my view, he has left a lot of money on the table by not carrying a mortgage, financing cars, or using the fiat financial system as a tailwind.

Some people would still prefer the emotional comfort of owing nothing. That is a valid personal preference. It just is not the same thing as optimizing for maximum long-term wealth.

My comfort with carrying certain kinds of debt comes from tracking my finances closely and building a liquid asset base that could extinguish those debts if necessary. Since 2019, I've used the same spreadsheet—and, more recently, the FIRE BTC Compass—to follow my income, spending, savings rate, and asset base in detail.

That asset base could pay off every outstanding debt immediately and still leave a lot left over. Keeping the debt is a deliberate choice because paying it off would shrink the compounding engine I've already built.

In Speculative Attack, I called this Aikido Finance: understanding the forces inside a credit-based fiat system and redirecting them to your advantage.

The debt I prefer is fixed-rate, affordable, long-term, and priced below the expected return of the liquid assets I can buy instead. As the money supply and nominal economy expand, the fixed liability becomes easier to carry in real terms while the asset has more time to compound.

This is not a rule that all debt is good. Credit-card debt used to fund consumption is different from a fixed-rate loan that preserves investable capital. Margin debt and bitcoin-backed loans are different too because a volatile asset can trigger liquidation at exactly the wrong time.

The structure decides whether debt creates optionality or fragility.

🧮 A Look At The Loans

Here are the two loans using the intentionally rounded figures from my example:

The required payment fell by $257, or about 18%.

But a lower payment is not the same thing as a lower total cost.

If I kept the original loan, the remaining 49 payments would total about $70,315. The new loan calls for 60 payments totaling about $70,680.

During the first 49 months, the refinance leaves $12,593 more in my hands. Then it adds 11 payments totaling $12,958 after the original loan would have been gone.

The difference is only about $365 of additional scheduled payments.

This refinance is not a giant nominal-cost saving. It is a timing and optionality trade.

I bought an extra year on the financing and lowered the amount I am required to pay now. The lower required payment gives me a choice every month. I could preserve the cash, send more to principal, or invest it.

My choice is already made.

The extra $257 will go toward buying bitcoin.

Read more

The bitcoin thesis has seemingly never been stronger, something I wrote about in Bitcoin is Ded, Long Live Bitcoin. But the price has been lagging, and it feels like we're enduring a bear market while everything else around us is ripping.

A dominant narrative, which I think makes a lot of sense, is that the AI trade is absorbing a large amount of capital. Money is going into these companies and the infrastructure being built around them, which is driving investment higher and supporting their stock prices while bitcoin is left fighting for attention and liquidity.

This doesn't make me doubt the thesis for bitcoin, but it's understandable that it would generate frustration and feelings of FOMO. In hindsight, selling bitcoin and aping into AI stocks would have been the better trade over this recent stretch. Most of us didn't do that, and watching it happen from the outside isn't fun.

The frustration creates a more consequential risk. If you're building toward financial independence with bitcoin, years of AI outperformance can persuade you to abandon a sound plan and chase a trade you don't understand at exactly the wrong time.

But there is another reason this comparison has been on my mind. I use AI tools every day, and I am more convinced than ever that AI will transform the economy. At the same time, I think it's perfectly possible that many of the investments being made in AI today will produce terrible returns.

Those views fit together once you separate the success of a technology from the returns earned by the companies, projects, and securities financing its buildout. Readers looking for an AI stock pick or an exact date for the bust won't find one here. The useful question is whether AI outperformance should change your FIRE plan.

The railroad boom of the 19th century gives us a way to answer that question. It shows how a transformative technology can survive an investment bust, how the same process may eventually benefit bitcoin, and how to decide which capital protects your FIRE timeline before speculative AI exposure becomes an option.

🧰 The Technology Is Real

I wrote in Dropout Economics that AI is bigger than the iPhone and that the barrier to building has collapsed. That's absolutely still my view, and every day that I work with AI tools strengthens that conviction.

These tools are transformative in the way knowledge workers can do things and what they can build. I've been able to build more, do more, and write more as a result of having them at my disposal.

The iPhone gave everyone a computer in their pocket. AI gives everyone a team in their pocket: a developer, a designer, a researcher, and a strategist. You bring the creativity, the judgment, and the domain knowledge. AI brings the execution speed.

We're also starting to get a much clearer view of how AI will be integrated into the way people work, whether it's individuals, small businesses, large corporations, or governments. Most people haven't experienced this yet. They're still using ChatGPT as a fancy search engine that's giving them better results, but they aren't yet experiencing the transformation in the way they work and interact with the digital and physical worlds.

That is coming in the very not-so-distant future. Growth may move through peaks and plateaus as people absorb new tools, but I don't think demand for AI is going anywhere but up over time. More people and organizations are going to use more intelligence and more compute as these tools become useful across more parts of the economy.

That still doesn't mean the insane valuations that a lot of AI companies have garnered on the market will be sustained, or that every data center and power project under construction will earn an attractive return.

🚂 The Technology Was Real Then, Too

Financial historian Liaquat Ahamed's new book, 1873, tells the story of a previous infrastructure boom that was every bit as transformative to its era.

The expansion of the global bond market in the 1850s and 1860s channeled enormous pools of savings into railroads, ports, undersea cables, sovereign borrowers, and other infrastructure. Much of this investment was rational at first. Railroads compressed distance, connected markets, made it cheaper to move goods and people, and became essential to the growth of the United States.

They also attracted a frenzy of speculation, overinvestment, and wasteful borrowing.

Railroad companies had to spend heavily before the demand for a new route was known. Each company wanted to connect the next market, own the best path, and become the dominant network. When too many companies made the same calculation, construction moved ahead of demand and returns began to fall.

Federal Reserve History describes how European investors began selling American railroad bonds in 1873, which lowered prices and cut off financing. Without enough cash to fund operations or refinance debts, railroad companies failed or defaulted, and Jay Cooke & Co., the merchant bank heavily invested in the Northern Pacific Railway, went bankrupt. The New York Stock Exchange closed for ten days, and at least 100 banks failed across the country.

The financial damage didn't make the railroads useless. The infrastructure survived, changed hands, was recapitalized, and eventually supported decades of economic growth. But the investors who financed the wrong railroad, at the wrong price, with the wrong balance sheet could still lose most or all of their money.

A real technology or infrastructure boom can produce bad returns. Capital can be pointed in the right general direction but at the wrong time, or it can be pointed toward the wrong things at the margin.

If AI is as transformative as I believe it is, the investment question becomes how much infrastructure the eventual demand can support, how quickly revenue can catch up, and how much of that future has already been pulled forward into today's spending and valuations.

For a bitcoin investor working toward FIRE, correctly identifying the winning technology still doesn't tell you which security to own, what price to pay, or how much of your plan to risk.

Read more

You can see it during a World Cup.

A ticket before the matchup is set has one price. After your country advances, it has another, even though the stadium didn't change, the seat didn't get more comfortable, and the field is the same size with the same rules.

What changed was attention, and attention has a way of turning ordinary things into expensive things.

I don't want to turn soccer into some forced investing metaphor, but the World Cup makes a basic financial reality hard to miss. For a few weeks, the world cares about the same limited set of things at the same time. A hotel room near a stadium becomes scarce inventory in the middle of a global event. A flight into a host city becomes the thing that gets you there before kickoff. A restaurant table, rideshare, jersey, parking spot, or short-term rental can all get pulled into the same pricing machine.

The World Cup is fun because everyone cares at once. That's also what makes it expensive.

When attention concentrates on something scarce, prices move. The people who prepared early have options. The people who wait until the story is obvious pay what I'll call the crowd price.

Once you see that, you start seeing it beyond soccer: travel, housing, careers, stocks, cities, and bitcoin.

🎟️ The World Cup Turns Attention Into Money

The World Cup is about soccer, obviously. Goals, upsets, bad calls, national anthems, flags, heartbreak, and people pretending they aren't emotionally devastated by a group of 24-year-olds kicking a ball around for 90 minutes.

Underneath the tournament, though, another market is running.

Somewhere, a family is looking at the same ticket they considered two weeks earlier. Their team has advanced, and the price no longer feels theoretical. They aren't only deciding whether to watch a match. They're deciding whether the match is worth the flight, the hotel, the transportation headache, the time off work, and the four-person multiplier that comes with bringing the kids.

A global event can turn ordinary city inventory into event inventory. The hotel room doesn't become bigger, the restaurant doesn't become better, and the stadium seat doesn't become more comfortable. More people just want access at the same time.

That is the mechanism: attention concentrates, scarcity becomes visible, urgency rises, and prices adjust. Sometimes prices spike once a matchup is set, then fall back when demand isn't as deep as the initial emotion suggested. Other matchups stay expensive because the fan bases are larger, wealthier, closer, more passionate, or some combination of all four.

The market is pricing the object, but it is also pricing urgency, convenience, emotion, identity, and the number of other people who suddenly care.

✅ Certainty Is Expensive

For England-Mexico at the Azteca, the Financial Times reported that resale prices rose by about a third in three days, with some listings as high as $36,000. Mexico had advanced, the matchup was set, and fans suddenly knew this was their shot to see the national team play a knockout game at home.

It's easy to look at prices like that and think fans are acting irrationally. And maybe some are.

But most of us do some version of this all the time. We wait until something feels obvious, whether that's a team advancing, a neighborhood becoming popular, a career path getting validated, or an asset class finally receiving institutional approval. Then, once the decision feels safer, we complain that the price has moved.

"Obvious" usually means the crowd has arrived.

Before the matchup is set, you are buying uncertainty; afterward, you are buying certainty. Certainty feels better, but it costs more because everyone else can see the same thing.

This is one of the more useful personal finance lessons to internalize. By the time a decision feels safe, you may already be paying for that safety.

Early isn't always right. Plenty of obscure things stay obscure forever. Plenty of cheap assets deserve to be cheap. Plenty of "once in a lifetime" opportunities are just expensive mistakes.

But when something is genuinely scarce, genuinely useful, and genuinely misunderstood, waiting for the crowd to validate it can cost a lot.

This is basically the FIRE problem.

You save, invest, reduce expenses, and build flexibility before any of those things feel urgent. If you wait until you hate your job, have no savings, and need an escape plan immediately, your options shrink. If you build your plan years earlier, when everything still feels fine, you have choices.

Financial independence is built before it feels urgent.

Time is the early buyer's advantage, and emotion is the late buyer's tax.

🧾 The Ticket Is Only The First Price

I'm not arguing against spending money on experiences.

A World Cup trip with your family might be worth every penny. There are memories I would gladly pay for, even if the FIRE BTC Compass would call the trip a worse financial tradeoff. Money isn't only for maximizing a net worth number. It is for buying time, freedom, and experiences with people you love.

If we're going to spend money on those experiences, though, we should understand what we're buying.

Whether something is "worth it" can't be answered in the abstract. It depends on the person, the budget, the family, and the memory being purchased. For one person, it might be a reckless credit-card swipe. For someone else, it might be the trip they have dreamed about their entire life. For a family, it might be one of the few memories their kids talk about forever.

Personal finance is personal, but the mechanics still matter.

Once you buy the ticket, the decision expands. You probably need the flight, the hotel, transportation, food, drinks, parking, merchandise, taxes, tips, time off work, and maybe childcare. If you are traveling internationally, add exchange rates, foreign transaction fees, and the general confusion of paying for things in a system you don't normally use.

The first purchase creates a second, third, and fourth purchase.

This happens everywhere. Your mortgage payment isn't the full cost of your house because houses come with taxes, insurance, maintenance, furniture, utilities, and repairs that show up at the least convenient time. Your car payment isn't the full cost of your car. The tuition bill isn't the full cost of college. The vacation package isn't the full cost of the vacation.

The sticker price gets you in the door, but the real cost follows you inside.

FIRE people spend so much time thinking about intentional spending because every dollar has two lives. It can buy something today, or it can buy flexibility tomorrow.

Sometimes spending the money today is the right call. You should just know when that's what you're doing.

🏙️ Host Cities Have A Balance Sheet Too

The same logic applies at the city level.

Host cities aren't just stages for the tournament.

They get attention, visitors, hotel bookings, restaurant traffic, tax revenue, and a chance to show themselves to the world. A global event can bring people into a city who may never have visited otherwise. Restaurants can have great weeks. Hotels can fill rooms. Some small businesses can get more visibility than they could buy through normal advertising.

But there is another side of the ledger.

Big events bring security costs, transportation pressure, traffic, crowd control, public services, political risk, and disruption for the people who live there. Some businesses benefit, while others lose normal customers who avoid the area completely. Workers may get temporary income without any lasting change in their financial lives. Taxpayers may absorb costs that are hard to connect directly to the event.

A lot of money can move around without everyone being better off.

We confuse activity with progress all the time. High income can hide a weak balance sheet, high net worth can sit in assets you can't easily spend, a booming market can leave your own plan unchanged, and a busy life can still be pointed in the wrong direction.

The better questions are: who pays, who benefits, who holds the risk, and what remains when the crowd leaves?

A city hosting the World Cup has to ask whether the long-term benefit is worth the short-term cost. A family buying tickets has to ask a smaller version of the same question. An investor buying an asset after everyone else discovers it has to ask it too.

🌍 Travel Reprices Assumptions

There is another part of the World Cup that has been on display.

The World Cup moves money, but it also moves people.

People cross borders, exchange currencies, compare prices, see new cities, eat different food, use different transportation systems, and interact with people they had mostly understood through headlines, stereotypes, or social media clips.

Most of us are comfortable in our local environment, so we start treating it as normal. Your country's housing market, salaries, taxes, healthcare system, retirement system, energy prices, and money can become the baseline simply because they are the system you live inside every day.

Travel gives you something to compare against.

A European visitor to the U.S. might discover a more complicated version of America than the one they expected. The roads, cars, and meal portions are huge, air conditioning is everywhere and actually works, people might be friendlier than expected, suburban houses can feel enormous, and gas can look cheap relative to Europe. Salaries can look high, tipping can feel strange, and the sheer size of the country can be hard to understand until you are inside it.

Travel confirms some assumptions and reprices others.

You don't really understand your own system until you compare it with another one. A $100,000 salary means something different in Atlanta than it does in London. A mortgage means something different in the U.S. than in a country where rates reset more often or have shorter tenors. Gas prices mean something different in Texas than in Germany. Retirement planning means something different in America than in a country with a larger public pension system.

The World Cup forces this comparison at scale.

Most of us also live inside one monetary system and measure everything in dollars, euros, pounds, pesos, or whatever currency we grew up using.

Bitcoin forces a different comparison. It asks what money looks like if the supply schedule can't be changed, if custody doesn't require permission, and if saving doesn't mean accepting guaranteed dilution over time.

Travel makes it easier to see that your local assumptions aren't universal. Bitcoin does the same thing with money.

🟠 The Crowd Discovers Scarcity Late

A World Cup ticket and bitcoin are obviously different things.

A ticket is consumed, while bitcoin is a monetary network. But the pattern rhymes in one important way.

Something scarce can exist long before the crowd understands why it matters.

The World Cup final is scarce because there are only so many seats in the stadium, nearby hotel rooms, and convenient flights. That scarcity didn't appear when fans started caring. Fans discovered it, and the market adjusted around that discovery.

The same is true with bitcoin. Its scarcity has always been there, but the market keeps repricing it as awareness, trust, infrastructure, access, and practical use improve.

If you wait for everyone to turn their attention to something scarce, you get emotional comfort. You also pay a higher price to participate.

Being early isn't automatically good. Being early to the wrong thing is just another way to lose money. But being late to the right thing has a cost too.

🧭 The Personal Finance Lesson

Once you understand the crowd price, you start noticing it anywhere attention, scarcity, and emotion overlap.

A neighborhood gets discovered, and the same house suddenly costs more. A skill becomes fashionable, and the people who learned it early already have leverage. An asset becomes acceptable to institutions, and the price reflects a new layer of demand. A city becomes the place everyone wants to visit, and the trip that used to be easy becomes a luxury itinerary.

The question changes from "Is everyone else doing this?" to "What will this cost me once everyone else is doing this?"

The best financial decisions often look unnecessary when you make them. Saving money before you need it looks overly cautious. Buying insurance before disaster strikes feels like a drag. Learning a valuable skill before your job is threatened can seem like overkill. Taking bitcoin seriously before your friends understand it can feel lonely.

But freedom is usually built while it still feels optional. By the time it feels mandatory, you are already late.

⏳ Before The Crowd Shows Up

So the practical question is simple:

Where are you waiting for the crowd to validate something you already suspect is true?

It might be your savings rate, your spending habits, your career, your business idea, your health, your family priorities, or the way you think about bitcoin before the next layer of the world decides it is obvious.

I don't know the answer for you.

But I do think the question is worth asking:

Am I waiting because I need more information, or because I want the emotional safety of being late with everyone else?

The crowd price isn't just what you pay for a ticket. It is what you pay for waiting until the decision feels safe.

Whether we're talking about a World Cup match, a house, a career move, or bitcoin, that safety is usually most expensive right after everyone else discovers it too.

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading!

Until next time,

Trey ✌️

Bitcoin feels dead in the way that it always feels dead during stretches like this. The price is weak, $30k suddenly feels possible again, stocks are ripping, and AI has sucked almost all of the attention out of the room. In the most boomer-worded critique of all time, Jeremy Grantham recently claimed bitcoin "shouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit".

But blocks are still coming. The supply cap is still there. People are still buying, selling, holding, spending, securing, and arguing about bitcoin every hour of every day.

Bitcoin's long-term thesis is intact and seemingly strong than ever, so why does it look so weak right now?

The short answer is that it is complicated and nobody knows for sure. Bitcoin's price reflects liquidity conditions, the market's understanding of the need for sovereign digital money, and the competition for attention from every other asset class people can allocate capital to.

In hindsight, selling all of your bitcoin in 2024 and aping into AI stocks would have been the right trade, but as FIRE practitioners, that is a different game than the one we are playing.

We are trying to save into assets that compound over long periods and help us reach financial independence without needing to become professional investors. I still think bitcoin is a better asset than stocks for that purpose, but that doesn't mean the road is easy.

The way I stay oriented in periods like this is pretty simple. I ask three questions: will fiat money continue to be debased over time, will the world continue becoming more digital from here, and is bitcoin's supply still fixed at 21 million BTC forever?

If the answer to those three questions is yes, the thesis is still intact.

🩸 The Feeling Is Familiar

One reason bitcoin bear markets are so hard to interpret is that the feeling in the moment always seems unique.

In 2018, bitcoin went from around $20k to $3,500, and it felt horrible. The memory of that period fades with time, but anyone who lived through it remembers the mood. It wasn't obvious at the time that it would become one of the great accumulation opportunities in bitcoin's history.

The 2022 bear market was objectively more painful from a drawdown standpoint. Bitcoin fell hard, major companies blew up, and the whole space felt radioactive for a while. It also offered a ridiculously good opportunity to increase your stack at much lower prices if you took advantage of it.

I did.

The same feelings are back now. Everyone and everything around you can make it feel like bitcoin is dead or dying, even though the absolute price level would have sounded absurdly bullish in prior cycles.

Sam Callahan's tweet resonated with me. We were here when bitcoin bottomed at $3,000, we were here when bitcoin bottomed at $15,000, and now we are here around $60,000. Maybe this is the bottom, maybe it isn't, and nobody knows.

But the floor keeps rising over a long period of time.

Bitcoin bear markets always feel darkest before dawn. The hard part is that dawn usually takes longer than anyone wants.

💸 Will Fiat Continue To Be Debased?

This is the first question because it is the foundation of the savings-asset thesis.

If fiat money were suddenly fixed, if governments stopped running large deficits, if central banks stopped expanding balance sheets every time the system cracked, and if dollars reliably preserved purchasing power over long periods, bitcoin's case would be weaker.

We don't live in that world.

Read more

And up until last week, this trade was crushing it. Strategy's "digital credit" had been very quiet, while it just kept churning out cash flow each month. Cash flow that I've been promptly turning into cold, hard BTC.

Then all hell broke loose, and STRC traded as low as $82.53 on Friday.

That is a pretty ugly mark when the instrument is designed to trade around $100. It closed last week just under $89, bounced back above $90 on Monday, and then rolled over again. As I am updating this on Wednesday, it is trading around $84.54.

The Strategy doomers started running victory laps, and its proponents were on their heels a bit, rationalizing and searching for a plausible explanation.

I get why both sides reacted that way. A move into the low $80s looks like something broke. And if you own it or believe in the Strategy capital markets machine, the instinct is to explain why it didn't.

My read is more boring, and more useful: Friday looked like a leverage flush, but the failed bounce since then means the market is still repricing the risk. A lot of people are learning the difference between owning a volatile income instrument and financing that instrument in a way that can force you to sell.

Matt Cole put it another way: this looked like a liquidation event, not a credit event.

My trade has survived so far because the debt structure gives it time.

When I originally wrote about this, I was clear that this was a small position in my portfolio and just a very small experiment. That is still true. I also used borrowed money, but I didn't use margin debt. I used a HELOC, which means the loan isn't tied to the daily price of STRC.

That difference mattered last week.

So where do things stand, and what do I plan to do next? Let's find out...

🧾 Where The Trade Stands

In the original article, I broke down the details of my trade using a $50,000 example with my actual economics:

• $50,000 borrowed against a HELOC

• 5% promotional interest rate at the start

• STRC bought at $97.69

• 511 shares

• Return-of-capital dividends reducing cost basis over time

• $1,151 of HELOC interest through that initial period

I also need to correct one thing from that original article.

I wrote that the purchase price was $94.13, but that was actually the adjusted cost basis my broker was showing me at the time. Because STRC dividends are paid as return of capital, they reduce cost basis instead of showing up as taxable income right away. My original purchase price was $97.69.

That changes the return calculation, and two other things changed too.

First, the promotional HELOC rate ended. In the original article, I explained that my HELOC would adjust to Prime + 23 basis points. With Prime at 6.75%, that puts the borrowing rate at 6.98%.

Second, STRC got hit hard.

At $84.54, the 511-share example is worth about $43,200. The original purchase amount was about $49,920, and the position has received about $3,758 of return-of-capital distributions from October through May.

But the position has also kept paying.

At the current 11.5% dividend rate, STRC pays $11.50 per year on its $100 par value. That works out to about $0.958 per share per month, or about $490 per month on 511 shares.

So the updated $50,000 example starts with the original purchase amount, adds the actual return-of-capital distributions paid from October through May, and then subtracts the HELOC interest cost:

Read more

How much bitcoin do I actually need? The meme answer is always more, and I get it. More bitcoin is better than less bitcoin, and if the question is just "how much scarce money would I like to own?" then the answer can stay open-ended forever.

But FIRE doesn't work that way. Financial independence requires a target because your life has expenses. Your mortgage, groceries, insurance, taxes, travel, healthcare, and family obligations have to be funded by something. If bitcoin is supposed to buy back your time, it eventually has to connect to the life you want it to fund.

I wrote the original Goalseek piece as a way to turn that question into a usable BTC stacking target. Start with your expenses, apply a bitcoin withdrawal lens, divide by the BTC price, and adjust for how many years bitcoin has to compound before you need it.

That framework was useful, but it was still a written framework. You had to bring your own numbers, run the rough calculation, and think through what your stocks, cash, income, and retirement timeline did to the answer.

That is why Compass Pro starts with Goalseek.

The FIRE BTC Compass already knows the numbers you add for your expenses, assets, bitcoin stack, income, savings, and assumptions. Goalseek takes those local inputs and turns them into the next question: what BTC stack do you need, when does your current pace get you there, and what would have to change if you want to stop working sooner?

🧭 Why the Compass needed a Pro layer

When I first built the Compass, the job was pretty simple: give FIRE BTC readers a place to put their numbers and see where they stood.

That is still the free product.

The free Compass helps you add your expenses, track your assets and liabilities, set assumptions, see your FIRE level, compare a traditional FIRE target to a bitcoin-adjusted target, and save progress snapshots over time. I want that to stay useful because those are the basic inputs of a bitcoin retirement plan.

If someone enters their financial life into the Compass, the first thing they deserve is clarity. They should be able to see what their annual expenses are, what their liquid portfolio looks like, how much of it sits in bitcoin, and how close they are to the next level of financial independence.

Compass Pro begins after that.

The paid layer is for the part of planning where your current numbers start turning into implications. If your free Compass view says you are 42% of the way to your bitcoin-adjusted FIRE target, the next question is more useful than the percentage itself.

What would need to happen from here?

That is the boundary I want to preserve. Free Compass answers where you are now. Compass Pro answers what your numbers suggest you could do next.

🧾 The Compass has become more than a calculator

The Compass started as a calculator because that was the cleanest way to make the FIRE BTC framework usable.

Traditional FIRE gives you a simple baseline: annual expenses multiplied by 25. Bitcoin changes the asset side of that equation, so the first version of the Compass let you compare a traditional FIRE target against a bitcoin-adjusted target using your own expenses, portfolio, and bitcoin allocation.

Then the tool kept expanding because the reader questions kept getting better.

Power Law mode came from the need to model bitcoin growth with something more flexible than a flat annual percentage. I still think a flat BTC CAGR is useful for a first pass, but a decelerating growth model can help you see a different planning envelope. The point isn't to pretend any price model knows the future. It is to see how your FIRE date moves under different bitcoin growth assumptions.

The Bear Market Stress Test came from the other side of the same problem. A plan built around bitcoin has to respect drawdowns, sequence risk, and withdrawal order. If your plan only works when bitcoin goes up in a straight line, it isn't a plan I would trust. The stress test lets you see what happens when the bear market arrives at the worst time and your portfolio has to fund expenses anyway.

My Finances was the next major step. Expenses, income, assets, liabilities, snapshots, and balance-sheet inputs belong in a top-level workspace because those numbers are the source of truth for the rest of the app.

That changed the shape of the Compass. It stopped being only a calculator and started becoming a private planning workspace.

Compass Pro is the next step in that progression. The app has enough local data to do more than show a current FIRE level. It can start answering the planning questions that come after the inputs are clear.

🎯 What Goalseek answers

Goalseek is the first Pro feature because it answers the most common bitcoin retirement question in a way that depends on your actual numbers.

The original Goalseek article used a clean back-of-the-envelope formula. If you spend $100,000 per year and use an 8% bitcoin withdrawal lens, the dollar target is $1.25 million. Divide that by the BTC price, then adjust for how many years bitcoin has to compound before you need it.

That mental model is still useful. It gives you a rough BTC target instead of a vague desire to stack forever.

The Compass version can go further because it has more context.

It can look at your annual expenses from My Finances, your current bitcoin holdings, your non-bitcoin FIRE assets, your current annual savings, your BTC growth assumption, your stock growth assumption, and your withdrawal assumptions. Then it can ask a more specific question:

What BTC stack do you need by the first year bitcoin has to fund your expenses?

That is different from asking how much bitcoin you would need if bitcoin had to fund all of retirement starting today.

Most people aren't sitting on a pure bitcoin balance sheet with no other assets, no income, no savings rate, and no time left. They have brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, cash, maybe a house, maybe debt, and hopefully some annual savings that can keep turning into sats while they are still working.

Goalseek tries to make that visible.

It shows the BTC target, the amount still left to stack, and the year your current stacking pace is projected to reach the goal. Then it shows what would be required if you wanted to shorten the timeline.

That last part matters because the practical question usually isn't "can I retire at some distant point if everything goes fine?"

The question is closer to: if I want two or three years of my life back, how much extra bitcoin would I need to stack, and how hard would I have to push?

🛤️ Why your other assets change the BTC target

The biggest difference between the old Goalseek article and Compass Pro Goalseek is the bridge.

If you own stocks, cash, bonds, STRC, rental income, or any other non-bitcoin FIRE assets, those assets can fund the first years of retirement while bitcoin stays untouched. That is the same bitcoin-last idea I have written about before: spend the lower-upside assets first when it makes sense, and give the highest-upside asset more time to compound.

That changes the BTC target because bitcoin may not have to fund expenses immediately.

Suppose you want to stop working in ten years. If your non-bitcoin FIRE assets can cover the first few retirement years, bitcoin may have more than ten years to compound before it has to pay a bill. It has the remaining work years, plus the bridge years funded by the rest of your portfolio.

That is why a mixed-asset household needs more than a BTC-only shortcut.

The Compass Pro version models that sequence. It estimates the working and stacking period, the non-bitcoin bridge period, and the bitcoin-funded period after that. Then it compares your current stack and expected future stacking against the BTC target for that first bitcoin-funded year.

This still isn't a guarantee. It uses growth rates, withdrawal assumptions, and simplified planning logic. Taxes, account access rules, healthcare costs, family changes, and ugly market timing can all change the answer.

But the point of a planning tool is to make the question concrete enough that you can react to it.

If Goalseek says your current pace reaches the BTC target in nine years, you can decide whether that is good enough. If it says you would need an extra 1.0425 BTC to stop three years sooner, that gives you something useful to evaluate. You can stack harder, cut expenses, increase income, change the timeline, or accept the current path.

That is a much better conversation than staring at your stack and wondering whether it is enough.

🔒 Why the unlock works this way

Compass Pro uses a paid-subscriber unlock code because the Compass is built around a privacy promise.

Your financial inputs stay in your browser.

The Compass stores your expenses, assets, bitcoin stack, liabilities, income, assumptions, snapshots, and saved local data on your own device through browser storage. FIRE BTC doesn't have a server-side financial profile for you. I don't want one.

That creates a slightly different paid-access model.

Instead of making you create an account inside the Compass, log in, and attach your financial inputs to a server-side user profile, the current Pro unlock is local. Paid FIRE BTC subscribers get an unlock code from the paid section of this post. You can type it into the Compass, or open the unlock link, and the browser stores your Pro access locally for the current unlock period.

The tradeoff is that you may need to unlock again if you clear browser data, switch browsers, or use a new device. The code will also refresh periodically so paid access can stay tied to the paid subscriber benefit.

I am fine with that tradeoff for the first version.

The important part is that unlocking Compass Pro doesn't upload your financial data. It unlocks local planning tools in the same browser where your Compass data already lives.

🚀 Compass Pro is live for paid subscribers

Compass Pro starts with Goalseek because it is the cleanest paid feature to launch first.

It takes the FIRE BTC retirement question readers already care about and connects it to the numbers they already keep in the Compass. It shows the bitcoin target, the projected goal year, and the shorter-timeline gap without asking FIRE BTC to store your financial life on a server.

Free Compass is still the place to understand where you are.

Compass Pro is where the app starts helping you think through what happens next.

If you are already a paid subscriber, your Compass Pro activation instructions are below.

If you are reading the free preview and want to use Goalseek, upgrade to paid, then come back to this page for the unlock link and code.

Read more

I've gotten this question a few times now.

The standard answer is usually some version of "delay if you can." Claiming at 62 gives you a smaller check. Waiting until 70 gives you a bigger one. So the traditional planning conversation turns into a breakeven calculation: how long do you need to live before the larger age-70 check makes up for the eight years of payments you skipped?

That's a useful calculation, but I don't think it answers the full question for a financially independent bitcoiner.

If Social Security is income you need to keep the lights on, the claiming decision is mostly about guaranteed cash flow. But if you already have enough portfolio assets to retire, the age-62 check is more than a smaller government benefit. It's cash flow you can control eight years earlier. It can buy bitcoin, or it can let your existing bitcoin and stocks stay untouched while they keep compounding.

So I want to compare two different things. The normal advice compares checks. I want to compare balance sheets.

🏦 The Normal Breakeven

Before we get into the bitcoin angle, it is worth dealing with the standard Social Security argument.

People have been saying for a long time that Social Security will be gone before they ever get to claim it. I don't buy that. Social Security is too embedded in the American psyche, and too politically important, to simply vanish.

That said, the funding problem isn't imaginary.

According to the 2025 Social Security Trustees summary, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivor benefits, is projected to pay full scheduled benefits until 2033. After that, 77% of scheduled OASI benefits would be payable at reserve depletion. The combined OASI and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds are projected to deplete in 2034, with 81% of scheduled benefits payable at that time.

In other words, "Social Security will go bankrupt" is too sloppy. The more accurate concern is that future checks may have less purchasing power than people expect. That matters, but it's a different argument than saying the benefit goes to zero.

For now, let's use the current claiming rules.

For someone born in 1960 or later, full retirement age is 67. The SSA early retirement table says a $1,000 full-retirement-age benefit would be reduced to $700 at age 62. The SSA delayed retirement credit table says people born in 1943 or later earn delayed credits of 8% per year after full retirement age, up to age 70.

That gives us a simple comparison:

The age-70 check is about 77% larger than the age-62 check. Annualized over the eight years from 62 to 70, that works out to roughly 7.4% per year before cost-of-living adjustments (COLA).

One detail matters here: the delayed credits stop at 70. After that, the age-70 check can still receive cost-of-living adjustments, but it doesn't keep compounding at 8% a year. The age-70 check is larger, but once both people are claiming, it stops pulling away because of delayed-retirement credits.

That sounds pretty good. A guaranteed 7.4% annual increase in a government benefit is nothing to sneeze at.

But there is a cost.

If you wait until 70, you give up eight years of checks. In this example, claiming at 62 gives you $700/month for 96 months:

$700 x 96 = $67,200

After age 70, the difference between the early check and the delayed check is $540/month:

$1,240 - $700 = $540

So the basic breakeven is:

$67,200 / $540 = 124.4 months

That's a little more than 10 years after age 70. In the simple nominal-dollar version, you need to live a little past 80 before the larger delayed check catches up to the eight years of skipped age-62 checks.

That's the conventional breakeven. It's useful, but it leaves out the most important part for a FIRE household.

It treats the skipped age-62 checks as if they simply vanish.

Read more

Then Strategy sold 32 BTC.

The internet lost its mind for a minute.

The headline sounds bigger than the transaction. Strategy didn't sell a meaningful portion of its bitcoin stack. It sold 32 BTC during the May 26-31 period, according to its June 1, 2026 8-K.

As of May 31, Strategy still held 843,706 BTC.

Before the sale, it held 843,738 BTC. So the sale was 32 / 843,738, or 0.003793%.

In plain English, Strategy sold roughly one bitcoin for every 26,367 bitcoin it held before the sale.

I spent a larger share of my personal stack buying a burger, fries, and a bitcoin shake at Steak n Shake this past weekend.

So no, this wasn't Saylor panic-selling bitcoin.

The better read is that Strategy was showing the market something.

🧮 The sale was tiny, and that is the point

The filing says Strategy sold 32 BTC for an aggregate sale price of $2.5 million, at an average sale price of $77,135 after fees and expenses.

The same filing says the proceeds from the bitcoin sales are expected to be used to fund distributions on preferred stock.

Strategy didn't sell enough bitcoin to fund the full preferred dividend bill. Based on the June 30 dividend declaration and the $15.5 billion of preferred stock notional outstanding as of May 25, the obligation was roughly $200 million-plus. The $2.5 million raised by selling bitcoin was about 1% of the total.

Strategy also sold 801,994 shares of MSTR through its ATM program during the same May 26-31 window, raising $128.3 million. And as of May 31, the company had a $900 million USD reserve.

Those numbers make the point pretty clearly. Strategy wasn't selling bitcoin because it was short of cash for the May dividend. It was showing rating agencies, credit investors, large institutions, and index decision-makers that the bitcoin stack can be sold for cash to support STRC and the other preferred instruments, and that management is willing to do that when it's the cleanest funding source.

For those audiences, Strategy's capital structure depends on the market believing the company has multiple ways to fund the preferred dividends, including selling bitcoin if necessary.

💵 STRC changed the meaning of never sell

Strategy's preferreds aren't a side project anymore.

STRC is the instrument Strategy has been pushing hardest. I wrote about STRC in more detail when I bought it with borrowed money, but the short version is that Strategy created a monthly preferred-stock cash-flow product backed by the economics of its bitcoin-heavy balance sheet.

Phong Le explained the basic mechanism in an April 7 Coin Stories episode with Natalie Brunell. STRC is designed to pay monthly, and when Natalie asked where the yield comes from, Phong described the usual backend as issuing MSTR common into the market and using the proceeds to pay the dividend, as long as that issuance is accretive.

That is one option for funding the dividend.

Strategy can also issue more debt or preferred equity when capital markets are favorable. It can use its USD reserve. It may be able to borrow against the bitcoin. And now it has shown, in the smallest possible size, that it can sell some bitcoin too.

The 32 BTC sale didn't fund the whole dividend bill. It funded about 1% of it. But it showed that selling bitcoin is on the menu.

Financial markets need to see that if Strategy wants to build a credit stack on top of bitcoin.

🎯 Saylor already told us STRC is the priority

This shouldn't be surprising if you have listened to Saylor and Phong talk about STRC.

In a separate May 19 live Q&A with Natalie Brunell, later included in a Strategy SEC filing, Natalie asked whether the $100 STRC peg is a legal obligation or an aspirational target.

Saylor said Strategy has no legal obligation under the security itself to maintain that level, but stabilizing STRC around $100 is still the company's number one business objective. He pointed to the steps Strategy had already taken: raising the dividend multiple times, raising capital, buying bitcoin, creating a U.S. dollar reserve, buying back debt senior to STRC, and proposing more frequent dividends.

From that perspective, the 32 BTC sale fits.

STRC stability is central to the capital markets machine Strategy is building. If the company wants STRC and the other preferreds to be taken seriously, it has to show that preferred dividends can be funded in more than one way.

I see the sale as a public reminder that "never sell your bitcoin" is useful shorthand, not a complete financial policy.

I wrote about this in Issue #77, Sell Stocks First, Let Bitcoin Breathe: Strategy had already said it would consider selling bitcoin when doing so was advantageous to the company. Last week, it actually sold 32 BTC.

🧾 A FIRE portfolio is supposed to fund expenses

The Strategy example is interesting because it is corporate, technical, and full of capital markets language.

But the household version is pretty simple.

Read more

Very few have an exit plan.

That sounds strange at first because many of us already view bitcoin as the exit plan. It's the off-ramp from a corrupt fiat financial system. So from that perspective, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "exiting" bitcoin and going back to fiat.

It also sounds strange because bitcoiners are usually pretty good at thinking long term. We understand that bitcoin rewards patience. We understand why saving in a scarce asset matters. We understand why the dollar loses purchasing power over time, why self-custody matters, and why counterparty risk isn't just a theoretical concern.

I agree with that. I'm not talking about selling bitcoin so you can return to the system you were trying to leave.

I'm talking about the plan for how your bitcoin funds your life. I've written before about the opportunity cost fallacy of spending bitcoin, but this is a different question: how does your stack eventually turn into time, freedom, and the ability to stop depending on a paycheck?

Answering that requires a structured response to the most practical question in personal finance:

How do you know when you have "enough" bitcoin?

Yes, yes, you can never have enough bitcoin. Of course, that's directionally right, and as memes go, I agree with it. More bitcoin is always better than less bitcoin.

But in reality, you can have enough bitcoin if you plan on using it to fund your life.

Money is a tool. We save and collect money as a way to improve our lives, take care of our families, buy the things we need and want, travel, create comfort, and open up choices that weren't available to us before. Bitcoin is no different in that regard except that it's a better tool.

If bitcoin is supposed to fund part of your future lifestyle, then it needs to connect to your expenses, your time horizon, your other assets, your withdrawal order, and the life you're trying to build.

Otherwise, you're just stacking forever with no clear idea of what the stack is supposed to do for you.

🧮 FIRE gives the stack a purpose

The basic FIRE framework starts with one simple question:

How much does your life cost?

From there, the traditional FIRE approach uses the 4% rule. If you need $100,000 per year to cover your expenses, the conventional answer is that you need roughly $2.5 million invested. The inverse of a 4% withdrawal rate is 25x expenses. I covered the basic framework in FIRE Fundamentals, and it's still the right starting point for this discussion.

For every $40,000 of annual expenses, you need about $1 million saved and invested.

That rule comes from withdrawal-rate research like the Trinity-style studies, which looked at historical stock and bond returns and asked how much a retiree could withdraw each year without running out of money over a 30-year period.

The 4% rule is a useful guidepost, not to be treated like a law of physics. It's a planning framework based on historical returns, historical volatility, and a set of assumptions about how a portfolio behaves over time.

Once you add bitcoin to the portfolio, you have to revisit those assumptions.

That is why I built the FIRE BTC Compass: to help you track your journey to financial independence with bitcoin as part of your plan.

Read more

I want to know what their life costs.

That answer is less fun than "one bitcoin," "6.15 bitcoin," or whatever clean round-number target is circulating that week (0.1 BTC sound familiar?), but it's the only way to turn the question into something useful.

Those numbers can give you motivation to save, but a savings goal isn't the same thing as a retirement plan. Retirement is a coverage problem: can your accessible portfolio fund your expenses for as long as you need it to?

Bitcoin can change the asset side of the equation because it has a different return profile than stocks, bonds, and cash. The plan may need to account for greater upside potential, bigger drawdowns, and withdrawal sequencing. But none of that replaces the basic retirement test: your portfolio still has to pay the bills.

Two bitcoin means something very different if your annual spending is $50,000 than it does if your annual spending is $200,000. The same stack can be a huge head start for one household and nowhere close for another.

That's why a useful answer starts with three inputs:

1. Annual expenses: what your life costs each year.

2. Liquid investment portfolio value: the assets you can use to fund retirement.

3. Time horizon: when you want the bitcoin to help fund retirement.

Once those are clear, the bitcoin retirement question becomes much more practical.

🧾 Input 1: Annual Expenses

Before bitcoin enters the conversation, the first input is simple: what does your life cost?

Expenses determine the burden your portfolio has to carry. Spend $80,000 a year, and a traditional 25x baseline points to roughly $2 million. Spend $150,000, and it points to $3.75 million.

That 25x shortcut comes from withdrawal-rate research like the Trinity-style studies, which tested how stock and bond portfolios held up across long withdrawal periods. The simplified version became the 4% rule.

Those numbers aren't sacred. Morningstar's 2025 retirement income research is a reminder that the right withdrawal rate depends on market conditions, retirement length, withdrawal method, and asset allocation. Even inside traditional portfolios, a single percentage is a starting assumption, not a law of nature.

Every version of retirement math starts with the same basic question: how much capital is required to support your withdrawals? If annual spending is a guess, the BTC target is a guess too.

The spending number doesn't have to be perfect. Start with current annual expenses, make reasonable retirement adjustments, and separate fixed needs from flexible wants.

Once you have a good idea of your annual expenses, you can calculate how much you need to save to fund them over the years.

💧 Input 2: Liquid Investment Portfolio Value

The second input is your liquid investment portfolio value.

That's different from net worth.

Net worth tells you what you own after subtracting debt. It's useful, but it can make a household look much closer to retirement than it really is. A $2 million net worth with $1.5 million tied up in home equity may only include a $500,000 liquid portfolio.

Funding retirement means having liquidity: cash, taxable investments, bitcoin in cold storage outside a retirement wrapper, and other investment assets that can be sold relatively quickly. Home equity or equity tied up in other real estate doesn't work for this purpose because it isn't accessible for paying your bills.

Retirement accounts are important and provide a lot of advantages when it comes to tax-sheltered growth, but there are access rules that must be taken into account, especially if you're working towards early retirement. Someone retiring at 60 can lean on retirement accounts much more directly than someone trying to retire at 35 or 45. If you need to fund twenty years before retirement accounts become easy to access, you need taxable investments, cash, accessible bitcoin, Roth contributions you can withdraw, or other spendable assets to cover that period.

Net worth can become a vanity metric, especially when you're planning for retirement. What matters is how much of your wealth is accessible to fund the life you want to live across decades of retirement.

⏳ Input 3: Time Horizon

The third input is when you want to retire.

If you want bitcoin to fund retirement today, the required stack is much larger because the bitcoin has no time left to compound. If you're 5, 10, or 15 years away, the target can fall quickly because the bitcoin you already own, and the bitcoin you keep stacking, has more time to grow.

This is the point I was making in Goalseek. First, estimate the dollar amount your bitcoin needs to cover. Then divide by the bitcoin price to get a today number. After that, apply the rule of three: for every five years of runway, the bitcoin target can fall by roughly two-thirds if bitcoin compounds at the conservative rate I used in that piece.

That doesn't mean the future is guaranteed. It means the answer to "how much bitcoin do I need?" changes dramatically depending on whether you need the bitcoin now or years from now.

🧱 Same Net Worth, Different Bitcoin Target

Take three households with the same $2 million net worth.

Household A has $1.2 million of home equity, $800,000 of liquid investments, $100,000 of annual expenses, and wants to retire as soon as possible.

Read more

That question matters, because the whole idea of financial independence depends on building a savings portfolio large enough to cover your expenses without relying on a paycheck. The 4% rule, the Trinity Study, and most retirement calculators are all trying to solve that problem in one form or another.

But once you own more than one asset, there is a second question underneath the withdrawal rate:

Which asset pays the bill?

For someone who owns only stocks, the answer is simple. Stocks get sold. For someone who owns only bitcoin, the answer is also simple. Bitcoin gets sold, borrowed against, or replaced with some other source of income.

The question becomes more interesting for the household most FIRE BTC readers probably recognize: a mix of cash, taxable stocks, retirement accounts, maybe some bonds or T-bills, home equity, and bitcoin.

If you already own that kind of mixed portfolio, then withdrawal order deserves more attention than it usually gets. The assets are not interchangeable, and a blended withdrawal assumption can force you to sell the asset you most wanted to preserve before you have decided whether something weaker should go first.

🧭 The withdrawal rate is only half the question

A withdrawal rate tells you how much money leaves your portfolio each year. A withdrawal order tells you which asset pays for groceries, property taxes, health insurance, travel, and everything else that makes up your life.

Traditional planning often treats the portfolio like one blended pile, and there's no real consideration as to which assets should be sold when to fund your expenses. Other versions focus on account sequencing, where taxable accounts are tapped first, tax-deferred accounts come next, and Roth accounts are saved for last. Fidelity describes that traditional sequence, while also noting that proportional withdrawals can sometimes smooth taxes and improve lifetime results.

That is a reasonable starting point for conventional retirement planning, but it's solving for a different type of investor.

The traditional model is built around diversified financial assets that are supposed to work together as one portfolio. A bitcoin-heavy FIRE plan starts from a different premise. If you believe bitcoin is the strongest long-term savings technology in your portfolio, with superior asymmetry, stronger scarcity, and sovereignty benefits that stocks and bonds don't provide, then treating bitcoin like just another sleeve creates a mismatch.

You bought bitcoin because you want it to compound for a long time. Selling it proportionally every year may be tidy, but it can work against the reason you owned it in the first place.

This doesn't mean stocks are bad, or that everyone should hold stocks just to create a runway for bitcoin. I don't think about it that way. If you already have a blended portfolio, though, your taxable stock portfolio may have a very useful job: it can buy time before bitcoin needs to be sold.

🧺 What counts as spendable runway?

Net worth and runway are not the same thing.

Your home equity may make you wealthy on paper, but it doesn't pay next year's grocery bill unless you sell the house, refinance it, or borrow against it. A large 401(k) balance can be valuable, but if you are retiring at 45, access rules matter. A brokerage account, cash reserve, and bitcoin in cold storage all sit on the same household balance sheet, but they don't play the same role.

For a FIRE BTC withdrawal plan, I would think about the hierarchy roughly like this.

Cash is first. It is the weakest long-term savings asset, but it is useful for near-term liquidity. I try to hold as little cash as practical, because dollars are engineered to lose value over time, but some amount of cash keeps normal life from turning into a forced liquidation event.

Bonds, T-bills, and short-duration fixed income come next if you own them. Personally, I wouldn't own bonds. They look like return-free risk to me. But if someone already has them, they belong ahead of stocks and bitcoin in the sell order.

Taxable stocks and index funds are probably the main non-bitcoin runway for many FIRE BTC households. If bitcoin is your highest-conviction savings asset, they can be used as a buffer to let bitcoin remain untouched for longer.

Retirement accounts need separate treatment because there are specific rules around accessing that money. Bitcoin can also be held inside retirement vehicles, including something like the Unchained Bitcoin IRA, and the same logic still applies. A bitcoin position inside a retirement wrapper is still bitcoin. You shouldn't blindly sell the strongest asset first just because it sits in a different account.

Real estate equity is usually not spendable runway by default. It is wealth, but it is not liquid unless you borrow against it or sell it for cash.

Bitcoin is the last planned sale asset. That doesn't mean it is never sold. It means that if bitcoin is the long-duration compounding engine and sovereignty asset, it should usually get the longest runway available.

It really boils down to this: sell the weakest assets first, and give bitcoin the longest runway possible.

📊 Same portfolio, different sell order

The cleanest way to see the impact is to compare two retirees with the same starting portfolio, same spending, same returns, and different withdrawal orders.

This is the stress test I ran:

• Starting portfolio: $1,000,000 in taxable stocks and 10 BTC.

• Starting bitcoin price: $100,000, so the total portfolio begins at $2,000,000.

• Spending: $80,000 in year one, rising 3% per year with inflation.

• Withdrawal timing: spending comes out at the beginning of each year, before that year's investment returns.

• Bitcoin path: down 50% in year one, down another 30% in year two, then up 25% per year after that.

• Stock path: down 20% in year one, then up 7% per year after that.

This is not a forecast. It is a deliberately simple stress test designed to isolate one question: what changes when the retiree sells assets in a different order?

Read more

But by the end, it was.

That tells you something about this question. It sounds simple, and it is exactly the kind of question that makes for a good conference panel title: how much bitcoin do you actually need to retire?

But the reason people kept filtering into the room was not because they expected four people on stage to hand them a magic number. They came because almost everyone who is serious about bitcoin eventually asks some version of this question. Maybe they ask it directly, maybe they ask it through a spreadsheet, or maybe they ask it every time bitcoin rips higher and their retirement date suddenly feels a little less theoretical.

The internet seemed to have the same reaction. From what I can tell, this panel has been one of the strongest Bitcoin 2026 uploads on YouTube, even outperforming panels with much bigger names. That doesn't surprise me. The bitcoin + retirement question has pull because it sits right at the intersection of money, time, risk, and freedom.

And, as a little bonus, Peter Schiff even showed up in the comments with some choice words.

I don't want to overdo the Schiff thing, but come on. The guy took time out of his day to watch a bitcoin retirement planning panel and leave a comment. Bitcoiners live rent-free in Peter Schiff's head.

🎥 The Panel

Here is the full conversation:

The panel title was click-friendly, but the conversation itself was not cheap. We took the question seriously without pretending there is one universal BTC number that works for every person, every age, every spending level, and every balance sheet.

At one point, I gave the inside-baseball joke answer: 6.15 BTC. If you were around for the old American HODL meme, you know. If you weren't, don't worry about it. The better answer came right after that, because the useful question is bigger than “how much bitcoin?” in isolation.

The useful question is what expenses you need to cover, how much liquid capital you already have, how much of that capital sits in bitcoin, and what your plan can survive when the market stops cooperating.

That is less meme-able, but it is a much better retirement plan.

🔢 The Question Everybody Wants Answered

A single BTC number feels clean because it compresses a messy life into one target.

That is why traditional FIRE latched onto the 25x rule. If you spend $100,000 a year, multiply by 25, and your retirement number is $2.5 million. It is clean, easy, and useful.

I still think that framework matters. The Trinity study gave the FIRE movement a practical starting point by asking what withdrawal rate survived a 30-year retirement across different historical stock and bond markets. The common version became the 4% rule: if your portfolio can support a 4% withdrawal rate, then you need roughly 25 times your annual expenses to retire.

But bitcoin changes the asset side of that equation.

A portfolio of stocks, bonds, cash, and bitcoin should not be modeled exactly like a plain stock-and-bond portfolio. Bitcoin has a different return profile, different drawdowns, different custody considerations, different tax consequences, and a completely different psychological effect on how people save.

The answer still starts with expenses. But once bitcoin enters the plan, the retirement number becomes less of a single target and more of a framework.

🧱 Six Takeaways From the Panel

I think the panel can be boiled down to six useful points.

1. The wrong number is zero. Shawn made this point well. Bitcoin doesn't have to be 100% of the plan for every person, but ignoring it completely is getting harder to defend if your goal is long-term purchasing power and financial independence. A zero allocation is still an allocation decision.

2. The 25x rule is a starting point, not scripture. Annual expenses multiplied by 25 is a good baseline because it ties your retirement target to your spending, which is where every serious FIRE plan should begin. But the rule was built around traditional assets, and your asset mix matters.

3. Bitcoin may deserve a different withdrawal lens. On stage, I talked about applying an 8% withdrawal lens to the bitcoin portion of a portfolio. That should not be read as “spend 8% forever and everything will be fine.” The better use is a different planning assumption for the bitcoin sleeve, especially if you are modeling it separately and giving it time to compound.

4. Saving in bitcoin changes behavior. This point can get underrated because everyone wants to debate CAGR. Bitcoin gives people a savings asset they want to hold. That can change spending behavior, increase savings rates, and turn accumulation into something more durable than a brokerage account balance that gets mentally earmarked for the next purchase.

5. The Stacking Sprint is the practical bridge. I wrote about the Stacking Sprint as a way to frontload four years of intentional accumulation. The idea is simple: compress the hard savings effort into a focused window, build the bitcoin position early, and let your balance sheet start doing work your income used to do.

6. Flexibility matters when volatility shows up. Bitcoin drawdowns happen, and a FIRE plan that assumes nothing can flex is too brittle. You can cut spending temporarily, consult, work part time, move, borrow carefully, or change withdrawal order. People are more adaptable than retirement calculators.

If you want to play with your own assumptions, the FIRE BTC Compass is at calc.firebtc.io. Put in your expenses, assets, and bitcoin allocation, then see how the retirement number moves.

The panel landed on the honest answer: there is no magic number, but zero is probably the wrong one.

But a 25-minute panel with four people on stage is just not long enough to get into all the nuance this question deserves. Just when it felt like we were getting into the good stuff, we ran out of time.

So for paid subscribers, I want to dig into the planning layer: how to turn that idea into an actual FIRE plan around your expenses, your liquid assets, bitcoin volatility, and the tradeoffs between selling, borrowing, and earning.

Read more

That number stuck with me because it points to a choice many people drift into instead of making deliberately. They keep working because work still feels responsible, their portfolio could always be a little larger, and "one more year" sounds like the safe thing to do.

But after 60, one more year isn't just another year of income. It's another year of good health, another year of flexibility, another year of weekday mornings that could have belonged to you, and another year spent waiting for a level of certainty retirement planning will never give you.

If you're over 60 and still working because you think you need to, I want to help you look at your decision more clearly. Run it through three filters: your numbers, your health, and your actual portfolio. Don't let a generic rule of thumb, or the vague feeling that more is always safer, make it for you.

I also recorded a YouTube video on this same idea, walking through why "one more year" after 60 can be more expensive than it looks. If you prefer to watch, or want to share it with someone who's wrestling with the decision, you can check it out here:

🧮 One more year

The conventional advice is simple: work longer, save more, build a bigger margin of safety, and retire when it feels safe. Sometimes that advice is right.

After 60, though, the extra paycheck has to be weighed against the healthier years you're giving up.

Say you're 62, you spend around $80,000 a year, and you're thinking about working two more years for extra padding. On the surface, that sounds obvious. You get two more years of income, two more years of saving, and two fewer years of withdrawals.

However, the benefit from those extra years may be smaller than it looks. You may be earning at a higher tax rate than you'll face in retirement. You may be giving up lower-income years that could have been useful for Roth conversions or capital gains planning. Depending on your income and timing, you may also create Medicare premium ripple effects that don't show up when you only compare two more paychecks against two fewer years of withdrawals.

More importantly, the extra retirement income bought by those working years may be modest relative to the time you gave up. A lot of people look at the total portfolio balance and assume working longer paid off. The better question is what those specific years bought you.

If the answer is a slightly higher monthly withdrawal, a fatter buffer, and some psychological comfort, fine. But name what you're paying for it: fewer healthy years, fewer flexible mornings, and less time to enjoy the life you built. At some point, the extra paycheck isn't buying more freedom. It's buying reassurance, and you're paying for it with time you can't get back.

One more year also has a funny way of rolling forward. Markets feel shaky, inflation sticks around, maybe your bonus is coming, and there's always another reason to give work one more lap around the track. Then one becomes two, two becomes five, and suddenly you're in your late sixties still trying to buy certainty from a world that doesn't sell it.

The money side matters, obviously. But it isn't the whole story.

❤️‍🩹 Your early 60s aren't your early 70s

When people talk about retirement, they usually reduce it to a portfolio question: do you have enough, what withdrawal rate can you support, and how much cushion do you need?

Those are the right questions, but they're incomplete. Time, health, and energy belong in the retirement decision too.

Your early 60s are different from your early 70s. That should change the way you think about work. Those may be the years when you can still travel hard, walk 18 holes, hike without making the whole day about your knee, get on the floor with your grandkids, or take a long trip and enjoy it instead of recovering from it.

Health doesn't decline in a neat line. Sometimes it changes gradually, and sometimes it changes all at once. That uncertainty is exactly why the retirement decision can't be measured only by your ending portfolio balance.

The TIME piece on the New York Life survey points to a specific kind of regret. People weren't looking back and wishing they had spent more time at work. They wished they had taken more of those flexible, energetic years while they still had them.

Some people retire too early and create problems for themselves. I don't want to hand-wave that away. But financially responsible people often make the opposite mistake: they keep optimizing for safety after the biggest benefits of waiting are already behind them.

People are also more adaptable on the spending side than they think. If you retire a bit earlier than what feels financially optimal, you can make adjustments: trim spending for a while, push a purchase out, pick up some consulting, or change your travel plans. You can respond to a budget problem. What you can't do is get back lost years of good health.

Retiring a bit earlier than your retirement projection says is perfect can create a manageable downside. Retiring too late can create a permanent one.

📐 The 25x ruler may not fit your portfolio

If the 25x rule is too blunt for your portfolio, you may be staying at work longer than you need to.

Most retirement planning starts with the 4% rule. Take your annual spending, multiply by 25, and you have a rough retirement number. Spend $80,000 a year, and the simple version says you need about $2 million. Spend $100,000, and it says you need about $2.5 million.

That framework traces back to work like the Trinity study, which looked at historical stock and bond returns and asked a practical question: what withdrawal rate would have survived a 30-year retirement across different market periods?

For a traditional portfolio, 25x is a useful starting point. But it was built around traditional assets and traditional assumptions. Bitcoin is much more widely owned than it used to be, but plenty of people still run retirement projections as if bitcoin either doesn't count or has to be treated exactly like every other asset in their portfolio.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it.

Bitcoin has had a completely different return profile than stocks and bonds over its short-ish history. That doesn't mean I assume it compounds at insane rates forever. I don't. In my own planning, I use much more conservative long-term assumptions than bitcoin's historical CAGR.

But if part of your portfolio behaves differently, your retirement assumptions should at least make room for that difference.

That's why I built the FIRE BTC Compass in the first place. It lets you run your retirement number with your actual asset mix instead of forcing everything through a generic 60/40 lens.

Read more