Keysat
38 lines
4.3 KiB
YAML
38 lines
4.3 KiB
YAML
# HOSTILE-VERIFIED outcome labels for the adversarial cases (gathered AFTER the criteria in
|
|
# resolution.{STRIKE,BATTERY}2022.yaml were frozen — correct pre-registration order). Each was
|
|
# researched then independently re-verified by a skeptic agent to the "survive a hostile checker"
|
|
# standard. `played_out` is normalized to the THESIS reality (yes = the derivative came true), not the
|
|
# agent's verdict word (which was polarity-inconsistent on the card-erosion check).
|
|
STRIKE2022: # payments thesis — verified DEAD on all three (the clean negative we needed)
|
|
STRIKE-merchant-lightning-integration:
|
|
played_out: no
|
|
evidence: "Only Shopify reached GA (Strike app, 8 lifetime reviews in 3 yrs = trivial). Blackhawk: Strike CEO's own 2022-12-31 update = 'final testing, planned early-2023 launch at 50 locations' — never confirmed live. NCR/Aloha: no ship, no timeline. <2 of 3 at scale."
|
|
cite: ["jimmymow.medium.com/strike-commerce-update", "apps.shopify.com/strike", "fortune.com/crypto/2024/04/24 (demand was trading/custody, not POS)"]
|
|
STRIKE-lightning-retail-acceptance:
|
|
played_out: no
|
|
evidence: "No named retail Lightning volume >$1B/yr in 2024. Strike's only disclosure ($6B 2024 'payments volume', Apr-2025) is unsegmented and dominated by brokerage buy/sell + remittance. River: total Lightning (all uses) only hit ~$1B/MONTH in late 2025."
|
|
cite: ["news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-payments-firm-strike-grew-600-in-2024", "River Lightning report"]
|
|
STRIKE-card-rail-disruption:
|
|
played_out: no
|
|
evidence: "ZERO erosion attribution. Full-text search of all 5 as-filed 10-Ks (Visa FY22-24, MC FY23-24): 'bitcoin' and 'lightning' appear 0 times; crypto only in generic forward-looking risk lists. Card networks grew."
|
|
cite: ["SEC EDGAR Visa/Mastercard 10-Ks"]
|
|
BATTERY2022: # D1 — demand REAL, supply FAILED, + an instructive milestone-vs-substance wrinkle
|
|
BATTERY-demand-borrower-appetite:
|
|
played_out: yes
|
|
evidence: ">=4 named BTC-collateralized originators active through 2024 (Unchained ~$1B cumulative by 2025; Ledn ~$392M FY24 origination; plus Strike lending, Salt, debifi, AnchorWatch)."
|
|
cite: ["thebloc / Ledn", "Unchained disclosures"]
|
|
BATTERY-institutional-supply:
|
|
played_out: no
|
|
binding_constraint: capital_provider_willingness # NOT regulation — see custody-policy note below
|
|
evidence: "No named institution DEPLOYED >$100M of BTC-collateralized lending capital at scale IN 2024. Cantor Fitzgerald's $2B program announced 2024-07-27 but first loans (FalconX, Maple) closed 2025-05-27 — zero deployed in window. CRITICAL CAUSAL NOTE: the constraint was capital-provider WILLINGNESS, not regulatory permissibility — nothing legally restricted dollar holders from funding these loans. Proof: the 2025 regulatory unblock (SAB-122) did NOT produce institutional dollars; Battery remains unraised as of 2026. Measure supply as actual committed/deployed capital, never as the regulatory enabler."
|
|
cite: ["Cantor BTC-lending announcements", "Battery raise status thru 2026 (unraised)"]
|
|
BATTERY-incumbent-entry:
|
|
played_out: token # IMPORTANT WRINKLE: milestone technically met EARLY, but token — NOT the at-scale thesis
|
|
evidence: "Goldman Sachs (5th-largest US bank) executed ONE bitcoin-collateralized loan ~late-Apr-2022 (on-record spokeswoman, CoinDesk 2022-04-28). A one-off facility, not scaled BTC-lending entry. The D1 milestone phrasing ('>=1 major institution enters') resolves YES on this; the SUBSTANCE ('institutional capital at scale') resolves NO. Same reality, opposite verdicts by phrasing."
|
|
cite: ["coindesk.com 2022-04-28 (Goldman BTC-collateralized loan)"]
|
|
BATTERY-custody-policy-enablement:
|
|
played_out: edge
|
|
axis: context # ENABLER/CONTEXT, not the supply resolver — weight 0 into the supply score
|
|
evidence: "SAB-121 issued 2022-03-31; rescinded by SAB-122 on 2025-01-23 — just PAST the 2024-12-31 window. But this axis is CONTEXT, not supply: the post-window unblock did NOT produce capital for Battery (still unraised in 2026), demonstrating regulation was never the binding constraint on Battery's supply leg. Retained here only to show the policy-YES / supply-NO divergence — an engine must NOT read this enabler as supply arriving (that's the false-positive S1 exists to catch)."
|
|
cite: ["sec.gov SAB-121 / SAB-122", "Battery still unraised post-SAB-122 (2026)"]
|