hodler

1 Apr 2026, 20:00

Strategic Move: Tether Executive Takes Helm of Pro-Crypto Super PAC Ahead of Critical Midterm Elections

BitcoinWorld Strategic Move: Tether Executive Takes Helm of Pro-Crypto Super PAC Ahead of Critical Midterm Elections In a significant development for cryptocurrency political influence, Jesse Spiro, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Tether, has accepted a pivotal leadership role at The Fellowship, a pro-crypto Super PAC. This strategic appointment, reported by journalist Eleanor Terrett, signals a major escalation in the digital asset industry’s political engagement as the United States approaches crucial midterm elections. Consequently, the crypto sector demonstrates its commitment to shaping regulatory frameworks through direct political action. Tether Executive Assumes Leadership of Crypto Super PAC Jesse Spiro now leads The Fellowship, a political action committee dedicated to supporting cryptocurrency-friendly candidates. Significantly, Spiro brings extensive regulatory expertise from his tenure at Tether, the world’s largest stablecoin issuer. Additionally, his background includes roles at PayPal and blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis. Therefore, his appointment represents a calculated move by crypto interests to leverage regulatory knowledge for political gain. The cryptocurrency industry faces increasing regulatory scrutiny globally. Meanwhile, stablecoins like Tether’s USDT play crucial roles in digital asset markets. Furthermore, political decisions directly impact blockchain innovation and adoption. As a result, industry leaders recognize the necessity of political participation. Subsequently, The Fellowship plans to release its first candidate endorsements soon. Political Strategy and Midterm Election Impact The timing of this leadership change holds particular importance. Specifically, the United States midterm elections will determine control of Congress. Moreover, numerous congressional committees oversee financial technology and digital asset regulations. Consequently, cryptocurrency organizations seek to influence these critical races. For instance, The Fellowship will begin deploying election funds to support selected candidates. Super PACs, or independent expenditure-only committees, operate under specific campaign finance rules. Importantly, they can raise unlimited funds from corporations, individuals, and unions. However, they cannot coordinate directly with candidate campaigns. Nevertheless, they can spend independently to advocate for candidates or issues. Below is a comparison of traditional and crypto-focused political action: Traditional Industry PACs Crypto-Focused Super PACs Often represent banking or energy sectors Represent blockchain and digital asset firms Focus on established regulatory frameworks Navigate emerging technology regulations Typically support incumbent candidates May support challengers with crypto expertise Utilize conventional lobbying methods Combine digital advocacy with traditional outreach Expert Analysis of Regulatory Implications Industry observers note several important implications from this appointment. First, cryptocurrency companies increasingly recognize political engagement as essential for survival. Second, regulatory experts like Spiro provide valuable insight into compliance requirements. Third, stablecoin issuers face particular scrutiny from financial regulators. Therefore, Tether’s involvement signals the stablecoin sector’s political maturation. Previously, cryptocurrency political efforts remained somewhat fragmented. However, recent initiatives show increasing coordination. For example, the Blockchain Association and Coinbase’s advocacy efforts complement Super PAC activities. Meanwhile, regulatory clarity remains elusive for many digital assets. Consequently, political solutions become more attractive to industry participants. Background and Context of Crypto Political Action The cryptocurrency industry’s political evolution follows a recognizable pattern. Initially, most efforts focused on educational outreach to policymakers. Subsequently, companies established government relations teams. Meanwhile, industry associations formed to coordinate messaging. Recently, however, direct political contributions and endorsements have increased substantially. Several factors drive this political engagement acceleration: Regulatory uncertainty creates business challenges for crypto firms Global competition pushes for favorable domestic policies Mainstream adoption increases political relevance of digital assets Technological innovation outpaces existing regulatory frameworks Furthermore, the stablecoin sector faces particular regulatory attention. Specifically, Tether’s USDT maintains the largest market capitalization among stablecoins. Moreover, policymakers express concerns about reserve backing and systemic risk. Therefore, Tether’s regulatory executive leading a Super PAC demonstrates strategic positioning. Future Outlook for Cryptocurrency Political Influence The Fellowship’s activities will likely influence upcoming electoral outcomes. Additionally, other crypto Super PACs may emerge following this model. Meanwhile, traditional financial industry PACs will probably respond with increased opposition spending. Consequently, cryptocurrency regulation may become a more prominent campaign issue. Political analysts identify several potential developments. First, cryptocurrency issues may feature in candidate debates and platforms. Second, voter education efforts could increase regarding blockchain technology. Third, regulatory proposals may receive more nuanced consideration. Finally, bipartisan support for sensible crypto regulation might develop. Conclusion The appointment of Tether executive Jesse Spiro to lead The Fellowship Super PAC represents a milestone in cryptocurrency political engagement. This strategic move signals the industry’s commitment to influencing regulatory outcomes through direct political action. As midterm elections approach, cryptocurrency interests will deploy resources to support favorable candidates. Ultimately, this development reflects the digital asset sector’s maturation and recognition of political reality. FAQs Q1: What is a Super PAC and how does it differ from a traditional PAC? A Super PAC, or independent expenditure-only committee, can raise unlimited funds but cannot coordinate directly with candidate campaigns. Traditional PACs have contribution limits but can donate directly to candidates. Q2: Why is Tether involved in political activities through a Super PAC? As the largest stablecoin issuer, Tether faces significant regulatory scrutiny. Political engagement helps shape favorable regulatory frameworks and ensures industry representation in policy discussions. Q3: What expertise does Jesse Spiro bring to this political role? Spiro has extensive regulatory experience from positions at Tether, PayPal, and Chainalysis. This background provides valuable insight into financial technology regulation and compliance requirements. Q4: How might this Super PAC influence cryptocurrency regulation? By supporting candidates who understand blockchain technology, the Super PAC can help elect officials more likely to develop sensible, innovation-friendly regulatory approaches. Q5: Are other cryptocurrency companies involved in similar political efforts? Yes, numerous crypto firms participate in political advocacy through trade associations, lobbying, and individual contributions, though Super PAC involvement represents a more direct approach. This post Strategic Move: Tether Executive Takes Helm of Pro-Crypto Super PAC Ahead of Critical Midterm Elections first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

1 Apr 2026, 19:00

Meta’s Natural Gas Gamble: AI Data Center Power Demand Rivals South Dakota’s Entire Grid

BitcoinWorld Meta’s Natural Gas Gamble: AI Data Center Power Demand Rivals South Dakota’s Entire Grid In a move highlighting the staggering energy demands of artificial intelligence, Meta has committed to building ten natural gas power plants in Louisiana to fuel its massive Hyperion AI data center, a project whose electricity appetite will rival the entire state of South Dakota. This substantial fossil fuel investment, announced last week, tests the company’s longstanding climate commitments and underscores a critical tension between technological advancement and environmental sustainability. The decision arrives as data centers globally expand rapidly to support AI computation, placing unprecedented strain on power grids and forcing difficult choices about energy sources. Meta’s Natural Gas Power Plants for AI Data Center Meta’s Hyperion data center represents a $27 billion investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure. Consequently, the company recently confirmed plans to fund seven new natural gas-fired power plants in Louisiana. This commitment adds to three plants previously announced. Together, these ten facilities will generate approximately 7.5 gigawatts of electricity. For context, this output slightly exceeds the total generating capacity of South Dakota. The scale is unprecedented for a single corporate project. Data centers have historically consumed significant power. However, AI training and inference require exponentially more computational resources. This demand translates directly into higher energy consumption. Meta’s project exemplifies this industry-wide trend. Tech companies frequently promote renewable energy investments. Meta, for instance, has secured long-term agreements for solar, wind, and nuclear power. The company even effectively purchased output from a nuclear plant for two decades. Therefore, the pivot toward natural gas raises immediate questions. Industry analysts often describe natural gas as a “bridge fuel.” This concept suggests using gas temporarily while renewable technology and storage solutions mature. Meta likely employs this reasoning internally. Yet, critics argue this bridge has extended for decades. Meanwhile, renewable energy and battery storage costs have plummeted. Simultaneously, natural gas turbine prices have increased significantly. The Climate Impact of Data Center Energy Consumption The environmental consequences of Meta’s decision are substantial. Based on Department of Energy data and standard emission factors, the ten Louisiana plants could release an estimated 12.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. This figure represents a 50% increase over Meta’s entire corporate carbon footprint for 2024. Importantly, this calculation only accounts for direct combustion emissions. It excludes methane leaks from the natural gas supply chain. Methane is the primary component of natural gas. It possesses a global warming potential approximately 84 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Even minimal leakage rates can negate natural gas’s climate advantages over coal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates leakage rates from production and pipelines near 3%. At this level, the climate impact of gas power can surpass that of coal-fired generation. Meta’s latest sustainability report does not mention methane or natural gas. The report also omits discussion of supply chain emissions. This omission is notable given the fuel’s impending role in the company’s energy portfolio. The following table compares key energy sources for data centers: Energy Source Typical CO2e (g/kWh) Pros for Data Centers Cons for Data Centers Natural Gas ~490 Dispatchable, high capacity High emissions, price volatility Solar PV ~40 Low cost, scalable Intermittent, requires land Wind ~11 Very low emissions, cost-effective Intermittent, location-dependent Nuclear ~12 Zero-carbon, baseload power High capital cost, long lead time Meta may pursue carbon removal credits to offset these new emissions. The company maintains a public goal of reaching net-zero emissions across its value chain. However, offsetting millions of tons annually presents a significant challenge. It also requires rigorous accounting for methane leaks. Independent verification will be crucial for credibility. Expert Analysis on the Bridge Fuel Debate Energy economists note that the “bridge fuel” argument faces mounting skepticism. Renewable energy costs have fallen dramatically in the past decade. Solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of new electricity in most markets. Battery storage costs have also decreased by over 80% since 2010. These trends enable higher grid penetration of renewables. Conversely, natural gas prices exhibit volatility due to geopolitical factors and production constraints. This volatility introduces financial risk for long-term infrastructure projects. Grid reliability remains a primary concern for data center operators. AI workloads require constant, uninterrupted power. Natural gas plants provide dispatchable generation that can ramp up quickly. This reliability is currently difficult to match with renewables alone at this scale without massive storage investments. However, experts point to advancements in grid management and storage technology. They suggest hybrid systems combining renewables, storage, and smaller, flexible gas units could offer a lower-emission path. Meta’s all-in commitment to large-scale gas plants appears to favor immediate capacity over emerging solutions. Industry Context and Future Implications Meta’s situation is not unique. The entire tech sector faces similar dilemmas. AI development is accelerating globally. Training large language models requires thousands of specialized processors running for weeks. This process consumes gigawatt-hours of electricity. Consequently, companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are also expanding their data center footprints rapidly. Many have also announced new gas power investments or extended reliance on existing fossil fuel grids. The collective impact on global emissions could be substantial. Regulatory pressure is increasing simultaneously. The European Union has implemented strict reporting requirements for data center energy use. Several U.S. states are considering similar legislation. Investors are also scrutinizing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors more closely. Meta’s decision could influence its ESG ratings. This influence might affect capital costs and investor relations. The company must balance these pressures against the competitive need for AI capability. Potential solutions exist on the horizon. Advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), promise carbon-free baseload power. However, commercial deployment remains years away. Enhanced geothermal systems offer another promising avenue. These technologies could eventually provide the reliable, clean power that AI data centers require. In the interim, companies must make pragmatic choices. Meta’s Louisiana project highlights the current lack of perfect solutions. Conclusion Meta’s commitment to ten natural gas power plants for its Hyperion AI data center underscores a pivotal moment. The energy demands of advanced artificial intelligence now rival the consumption of entire U.S. states. While natural gas offers immediate, reliable capacity, its climate impact is significant and compounded by methane leakage. This move tests Meta’s climate pledges and reflects a broader industry struggle. Technology companies must navigate the tension between rapid innovation and environmental responsibility. The path forward will likely require a combination of cleaner baseload power, breakthrough storage, and greater energy efficiency in computing itself. How Meta and its peers manage this balance will significantly influence both the future of AI and global climate progress. FAQs Q1: How much power will Meta’s new natural gas plants generate? The ten planned plants in Louisiana will have a combined capacity of roughly 7.5 gigawatts. This output is slightly more than the entire electricity generating capacity of the state of South Dakota. Q2: Why is Meta using natural gas instead of renewables for this data center? Natural gas plants provide dispatchable, reliable power that can run continuously, which is critical for AI data centers requiring uninterrupted operation. While Meta uses renewables elsewhere, the scale and reliability needs of the Hyperion facility currently favor gas for baseload power, though this decision is controversial given climate goals. Q3: What is the climate impact of these power plants? Based on standard calculations, the plants could emit approximately 12.4 million metric tons of CO2 annually from combustion. This figure does not include potent methane leaks from the gas supply chain, which could significantly increase the total climate impact. Q4: Does this conflict with Meta’s sustainability goals? Yes, it presents a clear challenge. The projected emissions from these plants alone would increase Meta’s corporate carbon footprint by about 50% compared to 2024 levels. The company will likely need to rely heavily on carbon offsets or removal credits to reconcile this with its net-zero pledge. Q5: Is this trend unique to Meta, or are other tech companies doing the same? This is an industry-wide challenge. The massive energy demands of AI are pushing many technology firms, including Google, Microsoft, and Amazon, to secure large-scale, reliable power, often leading to increased investments in fossil-fuel-based generation or prolonged reliance on carbon-intensive grids. This post Meta’s Natural Gas Gamble: AI Data Center Power Demand Rivals South Dakota’s Entire Grid first appeared on BitcoinWorld .

1 Apr 2026, 15:05

Multi-Billionaire CEO Drops XRP Army Truth Bomb

In the fast-moving world of cryptocurrency, technology alone does not define success. Community strength, narrative control, and sustained conviction often shape how an asset survives volatility and regulatory pressure. Few digital assets demonstrate this dynamic as clearly as XRP, where a deeply engaged global community continues to influence both perception and momentum. Crypto influencer JackTheRippler spotlighted a notable remark from Sal Gilbertie, CEO of Teucrium , drawing attention to the unique force behind XRP’s staying power. His statement underscored a reality that many market participants already recognize but rarely articulate so directly. The Rise of the XRP Army Gilbertie described the XRP community as “an army,” emphasizing their willingness to stand firm and defend the asset . This characterization reflects years of coordinated engagement from XRP holders who actively shape discussions across social platforms. BREAKING: Multi-Billionaire and CEO of Teucrium – Sal Gilbert says: “The #XRP community is an army and they are willing to go into a battle.” pic.twitter.com/B6tdCsUNfn — JackTheRippler © (@RippleXrpie) March 31, 2026 The XRP Army does not operate as a passive investor base. Its members consistently respond to criticism, amplify developments, and promote XRP’s use cases. This level of participation has transformed the community into a powerful narrative engine that keeps XRP relevant even during market downturns. Resilience Through Regulatory Pressure The strength of this community became most visible during Ripple’s legal battle with U.S. regulators . While uncertainty weighed heavily on the asset, XRP supporters maintained a strong presence and continued to advocate for its legitimacy. They sustained conversations, challenged opposing viewpoints, and reinforced confidence in XRP’s long-term potential. This persistent engagement helped XRP maintain visibility and market interest during one of the most challenging periods in its history. Institutional Recognition of Community Influence Gilbertie’s statement signals a broader shift in how institutional leaders view retail-driven ecosystems. He acknowledged that community conviction can shape market narratives and influence adoption trends. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 Traditional finance once underestimated the power of decentralized communities. Today, industry leaders increasingly recognize that engaged user bases can drive awareness, liquidity, and even strategic positioning within the crypto market. Utility Meets Collective Conviction While community strength plays a critical role, XRP’s foundation still rests on its utility . The XRP Ledger enables fast, low-cost cross-border transactions, offering a practical solution to inefficiencies in traditional banking systems. This combination of real-world functionality and strong community backing creates a unique dynamic. The technology provides purpose, while the community amplifies its relevance. Together, they reinforce XRP’s position in a competitive and rapidly evolving market. Gilbertie’s observation ultimately captures more than sentiment. It reflects a structural advantage that continues to differentiate XRP. As the digital asset space matures, the interplay between utility and community will remain essential, and XRP stands as one of the clearest examples of that balance in action. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on Twitter , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post Multi-Billionaire CEO Drops XRP Army Truth Bomb appeared first on Times Tabloid .

1 Apr 2026, 14:16

Former SWIFT CEO Lays Out How Ripple and SWIFT Could Work Together

SWIFT and Ripple: How Blockchain Could Revolutionize Cross-Border Payments A resurfaced industry newsletter is reigniting debate over one of the most talked-about “what ifs” in global finance pertaining to the collaboration between SWIFT and Ripple. Crypto researcher SMQKE highlights former SWIFT CEO Gottfried Leibbrandt’s practical blueprint for Ripple and SWIFT to coexist, emphasizing collaboration over competition. At the core of Leibbrandt’s vision is a clear division of labor. SWIFT, with its vast network of over 11,000 financial institutions, would continue doing what it does best: securely transmitting payment instructions and sensitive financial data across borders. Think of it as the communication backbone, reliable, trusted, and deeply embedded in the global banking system. Ripple, on the other hand, would handle what SWIFT has historically struggled with entailing the fast and efficient settlement of funds. Using blockchain-based infrastructure and its digital asset XRP, Ripple could enable near-instant transfers of value between banks, reducing the delays and costs tied to traditional correspondent banking. SWIFT & Ripple: A Hybrid Model Poised to Transform Global Payments Leibbrandt highlighted that this hybrid model could emulate SWIFT’s MT103 system, sending payment instructions first and settling later, but with far faster, fully transparent settlements. SMQKE believes that this goes beyond theory. Notably, Ripple’s Interledger Protocol (ILP) links disparate payment networks, while its compatibility with ISO 20022, the global financial messaging standard, underscores that seamless integration between legacy systems and blockchain is not just feasible, but inevitable. Meanwhile, SWIFT is actively exploring blockchain, partnering with SG-FORGE to create distributed ledger solutions for cross-border payments. With SG-FORGE also leveraging the XRP Ledger, this collaboration hints at a subtle bridge between traditional banking networks and crypto infrastructure. SWIFT has already tried blockchain solutions from Ripple and Stellar, showing that technical integration is feasible. The bigger challenge now is timing. Regulatory clarity remains the key barrier, Leibbrandt noted that SWIFT would consider adopting XRP once frameworks are more defined, leaving institutions to navigate the delicate balance between innovation and compliance. Why does this matter? Well, everything might be falling into place touching on a trusted messaging network, a blockchain-powered settlement layer, and a protocol built to link them. Together, they could transform global payments, marrying SWIFT’s reach with Ripple’s speed. Conclusion A SWIFT-Ripple collaboration could transform global payments. By pairing SWIFT’s trusted messaging network with Ripple’s blockchain-powered settlement via XRP and the Interledger Protocol, cross-border transfers could become faster, cheaper, and more transparent. Regulatory clarity remains the main challenge, but the convergence of technology, standards, and institutional support points to a new era where legacy systems and blockchain innovation seamlessly move money with unprecedented efficiency

1 Apr 2026, 11:33

Researcher: Ripple (XRP) Can Connect to Any of SWIFT’s 11,000 Customers via This Means

A post by crypto researcher SMQKE has highlighted a documented partnership involving Ripple and Finastra, emphasizing its potential implications for global banking connectivity. The post highlights the possibility that Ripple could connect to institutions linked to SWIFT through Finastra’s service bureau infrastructure. According to the material shared, SMQKE stated in the X post that “Ripple can connect to any of SWIFT’s 11,000 customers through Finastra Service Bureau,” reinforcing the scale of the opportunity. The claim is supported by excerpts from official statements tied to the partnership, which outline how the collaboration is designed to extend Ripple’s reach within the traditional financial system . RIPPLE CAN CONNECT TO ANY OF SWIFT’S 11,000 CUSTOMERS THROUGH FINASTRA SERVICE BUREAU “RippleNet already has 200 financial institutions connected, but that is tiny compared to the 11,000 that use SWIFT. The deal could benefit both Finastra's and Ripple's existing… https://t.co/CJnj1wuY0i pic.twitter.com/Nyf4UjJb2E — SMQKE (@SMQKEDQG) March 30, 2026 Partnership Details and Institutional Reach The attached documentation includes a statement from Marcus Treacher, who explained that Finastra already works with a majority of the world’s leading banks. He noted that the partnership would enable Ripple to expand both its reach and the range of solutions it gives its partners, while also increasing the footprint of RippleNet. Treacher added that the integration would allow customers to transact directly with one another, indicating a focus on improving efficiency in cross-border payments. The document further clarifies the scale difference between existing networks. RippleNet is described as having approximately 200 connected financial institutions, while SWIFT serves around 11,000. This comparison suggests that integration with Finastra’s infrastructure could provide indirect access to a significantly larger network of banks. The partnership is also framed as mutually beneficial. The material states that both Finastra’s and Ripple’s existing clients could benefit from the arrangement, particularly in expanded connectivity and improved transaction capabilities. Industry Perspective on Adoption Additional commentary referenced in the X discussion provides a more measured perspective. An X user, Valarie M, noted that while Finastra may create a pathway into SWIFT-connected institutions, actual usage will depend on adoption. The comment emphasizes that access alone does not guarantee participation, noting adoption rates as the key factor to monitor. This view aligns with broader industry considerations, in which technological integration often requires institutional willingness before meaningful usage occurs. While infrastructure can enable connectivity, financial institutions must still decide to implement and utilize the services in practice. We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025 Focus on Cross-Border Payment Efficiency The documentation also includes remarks from Riteesh Singh, who highlighted the practical benefits of the collaboration. He stated that working with a company like Ripple, which leverages blockchain technology for fast and reliable cross-border payments , could be particularly valuable in regions where correspondent banking costs remain high. Overall, SMQKE’s post presents the partnership as a significant structural development with the potential to expand Ripple’s integration into the global banking system. However, as noted in the accompanying commentary, the extent of its real-world impact will depend on how widely financial institutions adopt the solutions made available through this collaboration. Disclaimer : This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. Follow us on X , Facebook , Telegram , and Google News The post Researcher: Ripple (XRP) Can Connect to Any of SWIFT’s 11,000 Customers via This Means appeared first on Times Tabloid .

1 Apr 2026, 08:55

Here’s what Satoshi wrote about quantum AI threats to Bitcoin in 2010

The mounting fears that leaps in quantum computing could fundamentally break Bitcoin ( BTC ) grew once more on March 31, 2026, when Google (NASDAQ: GOOGL ) published a landmark whitepaper on the topic. Indeed, the document – author in cooperation with Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN ), the Stanford Institute for Blockchain Research, and the Ethereum Foundation as collaborators – showcased that the danger the new technology could uncover a private key using a public key is credible and one of the co-authors, Justin Drake, even opined on X that the event might come as soon as 2032 . Today is a monumentous day for quantum computing and cryptography. Two breakthrough papers just landed (links in next tweet). Both papers improve Shor's algorithm, infamous for cracking RSA and elliptic curve cryptography. The two results compound, optimising separate layers of… — Justin Drake (@drakefjustin) March 31, 2026 Still, combing through one of the oldest and largest relevant forums, Bitcointalk , reveals that Satoshi Nakamoto not only thought about the possibility but apparently wasn’t particularly worried about quantum computing. What Satoshi Nakamoto thought about quantum computing and Bitcoin Specifically, replying to the topic titled ‘Major Meltdown,’ Satoshi noted that as long as the breakthrough does not arrive completely unexpectedly and development takes some time, Bitcoin could find ways of adapting to the new risk: True, if it happened suddenly. If it happens gradually, we can still transition to something stronger. When you run the upgraded software for the first time, it would re-sign all your money with the new stronger signature algorithm. (by creating a transaction sending the money to yourself with the stronger sig) Unfortunately for modern BTC investors and enthusiasts, the topic was closed without extending beyond its first page, and Satoshi did not offer a more detailed proposal on the changes that could theoretically be implemented. Nonetheless, it demonstrated that the father of modern cryptocurrency did not perceive technology such as quantum computing and artificial intelligence ( AI ) as existential threats, though it does implicitly show that Bitcoin’s custodians must not become complacent. Bitcoin price shows no investor reaction to quantum AI whitepaper Elsewhere, Bitcoin price performance indicates that the majority of investors are still not particularly worried about the mounting dangers of quantum AI. At press time on April 1, BTC is changing hands at $68,726 after a daily rebound of 2.28%. Additionally, the world’s premier cryptocurrency appears driven by downward momentum gained by the decline from the October all-time high, and external factors, among which the Iran war has emerged as arguably the most important. This setup is also evident in the fact that, despite the latest rebound and the lack of a major reaction to Google’s latest quantum AI whitepaper, Bitcoin experienced its worst start to a year since 2018 in the first quarter of 2026. Bitcoin price YTD chart. Source: Finbold Specifically, BTC retraced 21.48% since the start of the year and almost 45% from its late 2025 all-time high. Featured image via Shutterstock The post Here’s what Satoshi wrote about quantum AI threats to Bitcoin in 2010 appeared first on Finbold .