Elon Musk nominated for 2025 Nobel Peace Prize

A group of investors, led by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, recently made a staggering $97.4 billion bid to acquire the nonprofit entity that controls OpenAI. However, the offer was swiftly rejected, highlighting the firm’s governance structure, which prevents any single individual or entity from seizing control.

Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI alongside Sam Altman, played a pivotal role in establishing the organization in 2015 as a nonprofit dedicated to the ethical development of artificial intelligence. However, he parted ways with the company in 2019, citing strategic disagreements. Since then, Musk has become one of OpenAI’s most vocal critics, accusing the company of straying from its original nonprofit mission by forming a for-profit subsidiary and partnering closely with Microsoft.

In recent years, OpenAI has shifted towards a hybrid structure, allowing it to secure billions in investment while maintaining a nonprofit oversight board. This transformation has fueled Musk’s concerns, leading him to file multiple legal complaints alleging that OpenAI is prioritizing commercial interests over public benefit. He claims that the company’s close ties with Microsoft could concentrate AI power in corporate hands, contradicting its original ethos of making AI advancements freely accessible to all.

The rejected bid underscores the ongoing tensions between Musk and OpenAI’s leadership. While the company remains committed to its current governance model, the debate over AI’s future—whether it should be controlled by open research initiatives or corporate giants—continues to shape the industry’s landscape. With AI technologies rapidly evolving, the conflict between profit motives and public responsibility is likely to remain a central issue in the years to come.

I first discovered Bitcoin in 2012 while studying at UT Austin. With interests in Austrian economics and open-source software, I was captivated by bitcoin as the intersection of both. I became an early thought leader, co-founding the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute to house foundational writings and cypherpunk philosophy.

Throughout my roles at BitPay, Kraken, and most recently Riot Platforms (RIOT), my work has spanned bitcoin infrastructure and advocacy. At Riot, I led responses to environmental criticisms, including a viral parody video that put the critics on the defensive and reframed the debate around mining and value creation.

Now, with The Bitcoin Bond Company, I am taking on the next frontier: unlocking bitcoin for fixed-income investors.

Unlike Michael Saylor’s long-only strategy, I want to build bankruptcy-remote, bitcoin-only structures with clear life-cycles and risk-tranching. The idea is to make Bitcoin more palatable to traditional credit allocators.

My goal? Acquire $1 trillion in bitcoin over the next 21 years — market conditions permitting.

On the price cycle, I believe the four-year halving model is losing relevance for price prediction purposes. Bitcoin’s CAGR is now tied to interest rates, noting its shift toward becoming a global macro asset. Higher Fed rates pull capital out of Bitcoin — that’s what slows adoption.

While education remains a major hurdle, I’m optimistic. Ten years ago, this idea was laughed off. Today, Bitcoin-backed credit products are inevitable.

At Consensus 2025, I am focused on accelerating that education, especially among institutions looking to diversify beyond real estate and equities.

I am also clear-eyed about the risks and hurdles in bitcoin adoption. The biggest challenge is education. Most investors have never seen a fixed-income product backed purely by bitcoin. They’re used to real estate or corporate debt — this is a new asset class for them.

When asked about concerns like low transaction fees or empty blocks in 2025, I pushed back. People worry about low fees, but that assumes a static system. If there’s ever an attack or censorship, fees skyrocket — and miners spin up. It’s anti-fragile by design.

Ultimately, my pitch is simple: Bitcoin is no longer a fringe experiment. It’s a core monetary technology — and it’s time the credit markets caught up.

Buckle up, because Elon Musk—billionaire innovator, Trump’s trusted advisor, and arguably the most influential man alive at this moment—just detonated a bombshell.

He’s not just calling out the U.S. government for mishandling COVID-19—he’s outright accusing them of funding its very creation, igniting a global catastrophe that claimed millions of lives.

And this isn’t just some conspiracy theory from an internet nobody. This is Musk—Tesla, SpaceX, the guy with the President’s ear—someone who doesn’t just stir the pot, but reshapes reality itself.

If he’s right, this isn’t just scandalous—it’s world-shattering. The notion that Washington bankrolls a virus that turned life upside down should have us all in shock, demanding answers.

We’re talking mass graves, economic devastation, and a tidal wave of grief—potentially traced back to government-funded research. This isn’t just another controversy; it’s the kind of revelation that makes Watergate look like child’s play.

So why is the world ignoring this completely? Musk has lit the fuse—why hasn’t the world exploded?