Dinarian888
News • Business • Investing & Finance
🌐Company creates “international Pix” with a fee lower than that of the card🌐
Platform allows Brazilians to pay in real, outside the country, with a lower rate than that charged on the credit card; see how it works
February 03, 2023
post photo preview

((Dinarian Note: Ripples ODL Being Used Behind The Scenes From anything to anything for a fraction of a penny.. XRP)

Launched in November 2020 by Banco Central (BC) and quickly popularized throughout Brazil, Pix started to win the world. In November 2022, exactly two years after the emergence of the instant payment and financial transfer system, Agillitas , Banco Rendimento ’s payment institution , launched Rendix, which works as a kind of “international Pix”.

The new platform, authorized by BC, made life easier for Brazilians who go abroad and, until then, were unable to make purchases through Pix outside the country. Now, all you have to do is find a store or commercial establishment that has joined Rendix to make the payment instantly, as in Brazil.

With the new system, shopkeepers issue a QR Code, through which the consumer makes the payment. One of the biggest advantages of the platform is that, instead of the 6.38% Tax on Financial Operations (IOF) on credit card purchases in foreign currency, the rate charged is only 0.38% per transfer.

Another source of relief for customers is that, unlike the exchange rates charged by cards on the day the invoice is closed, Rendix processes the exchange rate at the time of purchase. The consumer is informed at the time, with an electronic message, about the fee he is paying for that international transaction.

“The advantage for the shopkeeper is that he doesn't have any discount fees associated with this operation, he doesn't have the machine fees that we see around here. So, he is interested in offering the means of payment to the customer. Another advantage is that the shopkeeper is not tied to the limit of the consumer's card”, says the CEO of Agillitas, Henrique Capdeville, in an interview with Metrópoles .

“The consumer types in his CPF, we take this CPF from the holder and carry out some regulatory validations that are important”, explains Capdeville. “When paying, the customer opens their bank application. It can be any Brazilian bank that operates Pix. He reads the QR Code, makes the transfer and this transaction, at first, takes place in reais. This customer sends the money to Agillitas and we carry out an exchange operation whose beneficiary is the shopkeeper abroad.”

Rendix was created as an eFX (Electronic Foreign Exchange) service platform. The category encompasses payment services or international transfers operated digitally and duly regulated by BC.

“We provide the seller with a web platform, which does not require any type of integration on the merchant's side. There is no payment arrangement out there, we are not Visa or Mastercard. It's just a way for our customers to accept payment in cash in another currency, which is the real”, details Capdeville.

 

So far, according to Agillitas, around 30 commercial establishments abroad use Rendix, the majority located in Latin America. The model has been increasingly used, mainly in cities where there is a strong presence of Brazilian tourists, such as Buenos Aires and Bariloche (Argentina), Punta Del Este (Uruguay) and Ciudad Del Este (Paraguay).

There are also stores and commercial departments that already use Rendix in France, Portugal and the United States. Even in Qatar, at the end of last year, it was possible to buy products and tickets for some games and events related to the World Cup through Pix.

“Those who travel frequently to other countries know that quotations in real are not so easily found. It is always necessary to convert to a currency such as the dollar or euro to carry out transactions, even at exchange offices. With this product, we were able to expand the real as a currency for international use”, says the CEO of Agillitas.

BC wants to launch international Pix by 2025

Agillitas' initiative, in a way, is a preview of BC's own plans, which has among its projects the internationalization of Pix. According to BC’s Department of Competition and Financial Market Structure, the implementation of the “official” international Pix should take place in 2025.

According to the monetary authority, the product will begin to be developed as early as 2023, which involves everything from design to testing. The goal is to start production in the second half of 2024, still on an experimental basis, so that the launch takes place in the first half of 2025.

According to BC, the international Pix should take a few years to become a reality because it involves complex integrations between different systems and depends on the pace of implementation in each country – which is not under the control of the Brazilian monetary authority.

“Connecting domestic instant payment systems is certainly a possible path towards this end. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to harmonize regulations, technology and operations in different payment systems”, says the director of Organization of the Financial System and Resolution of the BC, Renato Gomes.

For Capdeville, from Agillitas, the emergence of the “official” international Pix will not harm Rendix. On the contrary: the platform has everything to grow even more.

“This will strengthen our business. Today, the difficulty is finding a local partner that can do the last mile of the sale. I take my client's real, convert it into dollars and find a local bank that has access to the local settlement to make the last payment line”, he explains. “When the BC creates the international Pix, it will allow Brazilian banks to enter this international settlement trail, so that there is no need to look for a partner abroad. It will only make our job easier.”

Pix around the world

In view of Pix's success in Brazil, other countries have been looking into new transfer systems and instant payments, in formats similar to the Brazilian model.

The Bank for International Settlements ( BIS ), considered “the Central Bank of Central Banks”, has been testing the Nexus platform, which will allow instant financial transfers to around 60 countries.

Euro zone countries, with the intermediation of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the BIS, in addition to Malaysia and Singapore, are already testing the Nexus. Brazil participates in the tests and development of the platform as a consultant. In the United States, the FedNow system should be launched in the first half of this year and promises to end the use of checks in the country. There are similar initiatives in China, India and Australia.

In 2022, Pix moved R$ 10.9 trillion, according to BC data. The amount corresponds to more than twice the amount recorded in 2021 (R$ 5.21 trillion). The total moved by Pix last year exceeds by more than twice the amount of payments for boletos (R$ 5,3 trillion).

In number of transactions, Pix appears in the lead with ease: 24.3 billion in 2022 alone, compared to 4.03 billion payments by boletos and 1.01 billion TEDs. In December alone, Pix users performed 2.9 billion operations. Last month, Pix had 141.6 million registered users and 550.8 million registered keys (CPFs/CNPJs, emails, mobile phone and random sequences).

Link

community logo
Join the Dinarian888 Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like

Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
🔄 Four steps from Alpha to TAO—without selling your Alpha

Forge Lending lets users use supported Bittensor Alpha positions as collateral to borrow TAO. The basic flow is supply, borrow, repay, then withdraw—while remembering that interest accrues and collateral can be liquidated if the position becomes too risky.

🔑 Key points

đŸ”č Supply Alpha collateral: Deposit eligible Alpha into its supported Forge market and enable it as collateral.

đŸ”č Borrow TAO against Alpha: Borrow within the market’s limits; your Alpha remains collateral, and interest accrues on the TAO debt.

đŸ”č Repay the TAO loan: Repay some or all of the debt, including accrued interest, to improve your account health.

đŸ”č Withdraw your Alpha collateral: Once your account remains healthy after withdrawal—typically after repaying the full loan—you can withdraw the Alpha.

🔎 Why it matters

đŸ”č Borrowing can provide access to TAO liquidity without selling your Alpha position.

đŸ”č The collateral remains exposed to market and protocol risks while the loan is open.

đŸ”č Borrowing ...

00:00:21
Just A Few Use Cases For KOMMS SN27 On Bittensor 😉

Hint: đŸ”„ sale right now 😉

https://taostats.io/subnets/27/chart

00:01:13
🧠 Macrocosmos releases IOTA Decide 4B, its first public model 🧠

Macrocosmos has released IOTA Decide 4B, an open-weight model designed to return structured probabilities for choices such as support-ticket categories, urgency levels, and eligibility checks. Its weights are available under the Apache 2.0 license.

🔑 Key points

đŸ”č Outputs structured probabilities: Developers define possible answers, and the model scores each option in a single pass.

đŸ”č Built for software decisions: Potential uses include routing requests, flagging risky activity, checking eligibility, and deciding when a case needs human review.

đŸ”č Weights are openly licensed: Developers can download, adapt, and deploy the model under Apache 2.0.

đŸ”č Training used 879,000 examples: The model is based on Qwen3.5 4B and was trained on examples labeled by people, public datasets, and synthetic data.

đŸ”č Training spanned 16 GPUs: Macrocosmos says the distributed training used RTX A4000 GPUs connected across locations through its IOTA infrastructure.

đŸ”č Benchmark results are self-reported: ...

00:00:25
🚹 Chutes is being framed as a Hyperliquid-style breakout for decentralized AI inference, with live revenue, verified GPU infrastructure, and a direct challenge to centralized cloud AI 🚹

Chutes is gaining attention as a decentralized AI inference platform that claims to combine real usage, cryptographic verification, confidential computing, and open-source infrastructure into a working production system. The thesis is simple: instead of trusting Big Tech clouds with AI workloads, users get a distributed compute layer built around verification and privacy.

🔑 Key points

đŸ”č Chutes is live in production and reportedly scaled to more than 1,170 active GPU nodes, including large numbers of Nvidia H200s and Blackwell-class hardware.

đŸ”č The platform says it has processed nearly 38 trillion tokens since launch across 53 deployed applications and more than 700,000 registered users.

đŸ”č The team reportedly cut unprofitable usage programs, reduced total token volume, and still improved revenue efficiency, with revenue per GPU rising sharply after removing subsidized traffic.

đŸ”č Chutes is using post-quantum cryptography, trusted execution environments, and Nvidia confidential ...

🚹 Chutes is being framed as a Hyperliquid-style breakout for decentralized AI inference, with live revenue, verified GPU infrastructure, and a direct challenge to centralized cloud AI 🚹
🚹 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚹

A new clash is emerging between legacy finance and crypto legislation after JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly warned that the CLARITY Act could let crypto firms offer bank-like products without bank-level oversight. The dispute is quickly turning into a larger fight over regulation, competitiveness, and who controls the future architecture of digital finance in the United States.

🔑 Key points

đŸ”č Jamie Dimon reportedly called the CLARITY Act a threat to the financial system, arguing it could allow crypto firms to offer yield-like products while avoiding the capital, reserve, and oversight burdens traditional banks face.

đŸ”č Senator Cynthia Lummis pushed back publicly, framing the issue as a global strategic race and warning that if the U.S. does not set digital asset standards, other powers will.

đŸ”č The core tension is whether the bill creates legitimate regulatory clarity or simply opens the door to regulatory arbitrage for crypto platforms operating outside the traditional banking...

🚹 JPMorgan’s criticism of the CLARITY Act is fueling a fresh power struggle over who gets to write America’s crypto rules 🚹
👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

Custom AI assistants that print money in your sleep? 🔜

The future of Crypto x AI is about to go crazy.

👉 Here’s what you need to know:

💠 'Based Agent' enables creation of custom AI agents
💠 Users set up personalized agents in < 3 minutes
💠 Equipped w/ crypto wallet and on-chain functions
💠 Capable of completing trades, swaps, and staking
💠 Integrates with Coinbase’s SDK, OpenAI, & Replit

👉 What this means for the future of Crypto:

1. Open Access: Democratized access to advanced trading
2. Automated Txns: Complex trades + streamlined on-chain activity
3. AI Dominance: Est ~80% of crypto 👉txns done by AI agents by 2025

🚹 I personally wouldn't bet against Brian Armstrong and Jesse Pollak.

👉 Coinbase just launched an AI agent for Crypto Trading

đŸ“± Hippius brings encrypted cloud storage to phones, with 10 GB free to start đŸ“±

Hippius has launched its storage app on iPhone and Android, offering automatic photo and file backup with client-side encryption. The app connects to Hippius Drive across mobile, desktop, and web, with a free 10 GB plan to get started.

🔑 Key points

đŸ”č Free storage starts at 10 GB: Users signing up with Google, Apple, or GitHub get the free tier.

đŸ”č Files encrypt before upload: Hippius says encryption happens on the phone, with the password and recovery phrase controlling access.

đŸ”č Camera backups are customizable: Users can back up automatically, choose albums, or limit uploads to Wi-Fi.

đŸ”č Mobile app includes sharing: Users can preview photos, videos, and PDFs, share files by link, and lock the app with Face ID or fingerprint.

đŸ”č Files spread across operators: Hippius says each file is split into 30 pieces across independent storage operators, with any 10 pieces enough to rebuild it.

đŸ”č Paid plans are ...

post photo preview

đŸ€– Theta EdgeCloud powers DaVinciQ’s AI debate platform

Theta Labs has partnered with Seoul-based edtech company Q&SMART to provide GPU infrastructure for DaVinciQ, an AI platform designed to help students develop critical-thinking skills through structured debate.

🔑 Key points

đŸ”č GPU infrastructure supports growth: Theta EdgeCloud will power DaVinciQ’s AI debates, scoring, and reports as the platform scales.

đŸ”č Thought maps expand topics: Each session starts with a keyword and develops it into six perspectives and 18 branches.

đŸ”č Five-round debates challenge learners: The AI asks follow-up questions, probes weak evidence, and introduces counterexamples.

đŸ”č Reports assess six skills: DaVinciQ scores cognitive skills against a rubric, cites statements behind its scores, and suggests areas to practice.

đŸ”č Perspective tracking encourages balance: The platform monitors which viewpoints learners favor and can suggest opposing perspectives.

đŸ”č Hybrid cloud-edge compute: Theta says EdgeCloud ...

đŸ“± Hippius Drive brings encrypted camera backup to iPhone and Android

Hippius Drive’s mobile app extends its encrypted storage service to iPhone and Android, with automatic photo backup, file sharing, and access to the same account used on desktop and the web.

🔑 Key points

đŸ”č Automatic camera backup: Users can choose albums and destination folders, set Wi-Fi-only transfers, and include videos—or select files manually.

đŸ”č Encryption happens on-device: Hippius says files are encrypted before upload, so storage operators receive encrypted data rather than readable originals.

đŸ”č One account across devices: Photos, videos, and documents appear alongside existing files in the user’s Hippius Drive.

đŸ”č File sharing and previews: The app supports shared links and previews for images, videos, PDFs, Office documents, and other file types.

đŸ”č Free and paid storage: Plans start with 10 GB free; paid monthly tiers begin at $4 for 500 GB and extend to 25 TB for $50.

đŸ”č Unlock password is not ...

post photo preview
🎯What’s In Your Vault? — 2026 Edition🎯

Sixteen years ago, I posed a question that appeared to be about money but was never really about money at all. What's In Your Wallet? was written at a moment when the world remained intoxicated by the illusion that a representation of value and value itself were interchangeable. The distinction seemed trivial because the machinery of modern finance operated smoothly enough to conceal it. A bank balance purchased goods. A brokerage statement could be exchanged for assets. A warehouse receipt represented commodities. A title represented property. A promise represented delivery. The system functioned, and because it functioned, few bothered to examine the assumptions upon which it rested.

Yet beneath the smooth functioning of the machine lurked a subtle substitution. Somewhere along the way we ceased valuing the thing and began valuing the description of the thing. We stopped demanding possession and settled for evidence of possession. We became comfortable owning records instead of realities, claims instead of assets, promises instead of substance. The map became more important than the territory because most people never wandered far enough from the roads to discover that the two were not the same.

Reading those observations in 2026 feels less like revisiting an old essay and more like observing a fault line that has slowly widened beneath the surface of the global financial order. What has changed is not the distinction itself. What has changed is that the institutions most responsible for maintaining the abstraction appear increasingly unwilling to trust it.

Around the world, central banks have begun bringing gold home. Not merely purchasing gold, though that is certainly occurring, but repatriating it. Bullion that once rested comfortably in the vaults of London and New York is being moved into domestic custody. Public explanations invoke geopolitical uncertainty, sanctions exposure, strategic resilience, and sovereign security. None of those explanations are incorrect. They are simply incomplete. They describe the circumstances without illuminating the realization that appears to be driving the behavior.

A gold bar in your vault is not the same thing as a claim upon a gold bar in someone else's vault. Since the Templars in Jerusalem communicating with the courts of Europe, promises are not the thing that's promised. They never were.

For decades that distinction could be ignored because confidence in the system remained sufficiently high that possession appeared unnecessary. The custodians were trusted. The networks functioned. The legal frameworks appeared durable. The infrastructure seemed permanent. Under those conditions, claims and assets could masquerade as equivalents because the distance between them was rarely tested. Yet every system eventually encounters moments when assumptions become visible. The freezing of sovereign reserves reveals that ownership and access are not identical. Financial crises reveal that liquidity and solvency are not identical. Infrastructure failures reveal that existence and availability are not identical. Again and again reality intrudes upon abstraction and reminds us that the world beneath the ledger still matters.

This is why the movement of gold deserves more attention than the declarations of economists, politicians, central bankers, or global forums. The repatriation of gold is not fundamentally a commodity story, an inflation story, or even a monetary story. It is a custody story. It is a sovereignty story. It is an acknowledgment that possession remains the final court of appeal whenever confidence begins to wobble.

The irony is difficult to miss. At precisely the moment civilization celebrates digital currencies, tokenized assets, algorithmic settlement systems, cloud-based records, and increasingly abstract forms of ownership, many of the institutions responsible for preserving national wealth appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Public narratives race toward virtuality while institutional behavior quietly migrates toward physical custody. The speeches point toward digitization while the bullion trucks point toward reality.

Perhaps nowhere does this contradiction become more visible than when contemplating the fragility of the infrastructure upon which modern finance rests. We speak confidently of balances, portfolios, reserves, pensions, derivatives, and increasingly digital assets as though they possess an existence independent of the systems that record them. Yet the entire architecture rests upon a remarkably delicate foundation of electricity, communications, computation, synchronization, and trust. We have become so accustomed to continuity that we mistake continuity for permanence.

Consider not catastrophe but interruption. Consider a Carrington-scale solar event, a successful cyberattack, a cascading grid failure, or an electromagnetic pulse. The specific mechanism matters less than the principle. The lights go out. The servers stop responding. The networks cease synchronizing. The endless choreography of verification pauses. Legal claims may survive. Contracts may survive. Accounting entries may survive. Yet the practical ability to verify, transfer, access, or exercise those claims becomes uncertain. The abstractions remain theoretically intact while becoming functionally irrelevant.

Gold occupies a peculiar place within this thought experiment because it exists outside the thought experiment. It requires no password, no network connection, no authentication server, no intermediary, and no continuous electrical infrastructure to affirm its existence. The ledger may disappear. The gold remains. Whether one views gold as a monetary asset, a strategic reserve, or simply a historical curiosity, its persistence reveals something deeper about the nature of value itself. Assets that derive their existence from the systems that record them are fundamentally different from assets that exist independently of those systems.

What fascinates me, however, is not the rhetoric surrounding the so-called Great Reset, because the phrase itself has become one of the most effective distractions of the modern era. During the COVID years, populations were conditioned into increasingly reflexive forms of polarization in which every issue was immediately translated into opposing camps, every observation became a declaration of allegiance, and every question became a test of ideological loyalty. One side treated the Great Reset as evidence of a coordinated conspiracy while the other dismissed it as evidence of irrational paranoia. Both reactions produced the same outcome. Attention became fixed upon the slogan while remaining safely distant from the structure beneath it.

History has never required a committee to produce a reset. Resets emerge whenever claims become sufficiently detached from assets, whenever promises become sufficiently detached from productive capacity, whenever leverage becomes sufficiently detached from resilience, and whenever abstractions become sufficiently detached from reality. Long before a reset acquires a name, it exists as a tension embedded within the architecture itself.

This is why the most revealing actions in history are rarely the ones announced from podiums. They are the quiet movements that occur beneath the rhetoric. While populations argue over narratives, central banks move bullion. While commentators debate ideology, nations secure custody. While attention remains fixed upon political theater, the custodians of monetary power appear to be asking an older and more fundamental question concerning what survives when confidence falters, when access becomes uncertain, and when the systems responsible for recording ownership can no longer be assumed to function exactly as they did yesterday.

History repeatedly demonstrates that major transitions rarely emerge from the causes later assigned to them. Wars, sovereign defaults, financial crises, technological disruptions, infrastructure failures, and natural disasters frequently function as explanatory narratives that make visible contradictions that had already been accumulating for decades. The triggering event receives the blame because it is easier to understand than the architecture that rendered the event consequential. Yet the architecture is always where the real story resides. The event merely exposes what was already true.

Seen from this perspective, the most important question is not whether a particular organization intends to implement a Great Reset. The more important question concerns the conditions under which resets become inevitable. Whenever claims multiply faster than assets, whenever obligations expand faster than productive capacity, whenever financial abstractions drift sufficiently far from physical realities, tensions accumulate that eventually demand reconciliation. That reconciliation may arrive through inflation, restructuring, default, crisis, technological disruption, or events conveniently attributed to forces beyond human control, but the mechanism remains secondary to the principle. Reality eventually reasserts itself because reality is the only foundation upon which any abstraction can ultimately stand.

Viewed through that lens, the repatriation of gold appears less like a financial decision than an institutional acknowledgment that the distinction between claims and assets still matters. It represents a quiet recognition that resilience and possession acquire increasing importance precisely when complexity and uncertainty begin to rise. It suggests that beneath the public narratives, beneath the political theater, and beneath the endless distractions that dominate contemporary discourse, some of the world's most consequential actors may be asking the same question that inspired an essay sixteen years ago. What do you actually possess when the systems recording possession become uncertain?

The question is not fundamentally about gold. It is not fundamentally about vaults. It is not fundamentally about central banks. It is a question about the difference between a thing and a description of a thing, between ownership and access, between claims and assets, between abstractions and realities. It is the question that emerges whenever a civilization becomes sufficiently dependent upon representations that it forgets to examine the realities those representations are intended to describe.

Sixteen years ago I asked what was in your wallet. Watching nations quietly move bullion across oceans and into sovereign custody, the question feels sharper today than it did then. Not because the answer has changed, but because the institutions themselves appear increasingly unwilling to pretend that a claim and an asset are the same thing. The distinction sounded eccentric in 2010. It sounds increasingly obvious in 2026. The most interesting question is whether the rest of us will recognize the significance of that realization before history once again forces the issue on its own terms.

Source

🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian

👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below đŸ“Č or Click Here: 

👇 Crypto Donations 👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
post photo preview
⚠90 DAYS WITHOUT THE GRID⚠
Why Governments Are Preparing for Critical Systems to Fail

MIND BEND THEORY | DOCUMENTED INVESTIGATION

The United States is preparing major military installations to continue operating if civilian infrastructure goes down. Britain is telling households to prepare for days without essential services. India is warning that an attack on the financial system can weaken a nation. And the Bank of England is asking what happens when cyber defenses fail—not if they can prevent every attack.

Individually, each development has an explanation.

Put them beside one another, however, and a larger pattern becomes visible.

Over the span of only a few weeks, governments and financial authorities in the United States, United Kingdom and India have publicly discussed preparations for disruptions involving some of the systems modern society depends upon most:

Power.

Water.

Fuel.

Communications.

Banking.

Supply chains.

This does not establish that these governments are preparing for one secret event.

There is no public evidence of a coordinated countdown, predetermined blackout date or single intelligence warning connecting them.

But there is something here that can be documented.

Governments are increasingly planning around a question that sounds very different from traditional emergency preparedness:

What happens when the systems we normally assume will be available are no longer available?

And in the United States, that question has now reached the Pentagon.

DOCUMENT 01

UNITED STATES — FORTRESS AMERICA

On September 30, 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth established a program called FORTRESS America.

The acronym stands for:

Federal Operations for Resilience, Troop Resources, Energy, Supply and Survivability.

The program addresses a vulnerability that rarely receives much public attention:

The world's most powerful military still depends extensively on civilian infrastructure.

Electric grids.

Commercial supply chains.

Communications infrastructure.

Fuel.

Foreign sources of critical materials.

FORTRESS America is intended to reduce those dependencies.

The Pentagon's own public description says the initiative is designed to ensure that major U.S. military installations generate independent power so that bases remain operational even if the civilian grid is taken down by cyberattack or sabotage.

It goes beyond electricity.

The program includes five major areas:

Energy independence

Installation hardening and cyber resilience

Supply-chain and defense-industrial-base resilience

Strategic defense reserves

Space and spectrum resilience

The Pentagon also wants deeper reserves of critical supplies so military operations can continue when ordinary supply lines are disrupted.

The underlying idea is simple:

The military should be capable of functioning even when the infrastructure surrounding it cannot.

An October 7 implementation memorandum obtained by DefenseScoop shows that the Pentagon had already begun establishing the FORTRESS America Program Office and assigning officials to implement those objectives.

Then another piece of the story emerged.

DOCUMENT 02

THE 90-DAY REQUIREMENT

On October 25, Fox News published details from additional FORTRESS America documents its reporters reviewed.

According to that reporting, major continental U.S. military installations are being prepared to sustain essential operations for at least 90 days without outside support.

The essential systems reportedly include:

Power.

Water.

Fuel.

Communications.

Think about the distinction carefully.

The Pentagon isn't telling Americans that the United States will lose electricity for 90 days.

It isn't predicting a 90-day blackout.

Military contingency planning deliberately prepares for scenarios officials hope never occur.

But preparing installations for this possibility tells us something about the scenario being considered.

The Pentagon is building resilience around the possibility that a sufficiently serious conflict or attack could interfere with the civilian systems on which military installations normally depend.

The publicly released FORTRESS material specifically discusses:

Cyberattack.

Sabotage.

Grid disruption.

Foreign supply-chain disruption.

Attacks against installations.

And prolonged military contingencies.

That makes the 90-day requirement significant—but it must be described accurately.

Mind Bend Theory verification note:

The September 30 FORTRESS America program itself is documented publicly.

The October 7 implementation memorandum has been reported and described by DefenseScoop.

The 90-day requirement, however, currently comes from documents reviewed by Fox News, rather than a primary 90-day document independently published for the public.

That distinction matters.

We follow the documents as far as they take us—and no farther.

DOCUMENT 03

UNITED KINGDOM — BE READY FOR THREE DAYS

Now cross the Atlantic.

On October 22, the British government launched its new Be Ready campaign.

This time the audience wasn't the military.

It was ordinary households.

The UK government is asking households that are able to do so to prepare to remain self-sufficient for approximately three days during an emergency.

The government specifically discusses disruptions affecting:

Power.

Water.

Phones.

Internet access.

A Parliamentary Written Statement issued the same day explicitly states:

“The updated advice calls on households to be self-sufficient for three days in the case of an emergency.”

The government recommends maintaining three days of bottled water and non-perishable food.

Its expanded preparedness guidance includes:

Approximately three litres of drinking water per person per day

Three days of non-perishable food

Battery-powered or wind-up radio

Torch and spare batteries

Charged power bank

Essential medications

First-aid supplies

Blankets and warm clothing

Important telephone numbers written down

Basic hygiene supplies

Cash

Why cash?

Because during some disruptions, electronic payment systems and ATMs may not function normally.

That creates an important connection between infrastructure and finance.

Electricity isn't isolated from banking.

Communications aren't isolated from payments.

Modern infrastructure is interconnected.

And failure can move through those connections.

DOCUMENT 04

INDIA — “WARS ARE NOT FOUGHT WITH WEAPONS ALONE”

Three days later, on October 25, another statement appeared.

This one came from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Modi was inaugurating the Reserve Bank of India's newly established Data Centre and Cybersecurity Training Institute in Bhubaneswar.

The facilities are designed to strengthen the technological foundations and cybersecurity resilience of India's financial system.

Four data centres will host mission-critical payment and settlement systems.

But Modi's explanation of why this matters went beyond ordinary cybersecurity.

His official statement says:

“Nowadays, wars are not fought with weapons alone; a nation can also be weakened by attacking its economy.”

He continued by saying India's growing economy requires its banking system to be protected against cyber looters and cyber terrorists.

That puts another critical system into the picture:

Money.

A modern economy depends on digital banking infrastructure almost as heavily as it depends on electricity and telecommunications.

Payment systems move commerce.

Banks hold liquidity.

Settlement systems move money between financial institutions.

Data centres keep those networks functioning.

Disrupt the financial infrastructure badly enough and the consequences don't remain inside banks.

They reach businesses.

Supply chains.

Payroll.

Purchasing.

Markets.

And households.

DOCUMENT 05

BANK OF ENGLAND — WHAT IF CYBER DEFENSE FAILS?

There is another document worth reading.

On June 30, Bank of England Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden delivered a speech titled:

“Agents of Change.”

The subject was artificial intelligence and financial stability.

One section deserves particular attention.

Breeden warned that advanced AI systems are becoming increasingly capable of identifying and chaining together cyber vulnerabilities.

That changes the nature of cyber risk.

AI can help defenders.

But the same capabilities can potentially increase the speed and effectiveness of attackers.

The important change in thinking comes afterward.

Preventing attacks is no longer enough.

Financial institutions must also prepare to recover after a successful attack.

Breeden raised the possibility of simultaneous disruption across multiple financial firms.

She then asked whether critical financial institutions may eventually require completely separate failover capabilities—or even the ability to rebuild compromised core systems from “bare metal.”

In October, Reuters reported that the Bank of England was pushing financial institutions further toward this type of recovery planning.

That represents a subtle but significant change in the question.

It isn't simply:

How do we stop the attack?

It's becoming:

What happens if we don't?

And:

How do we keep the system functioning afterward?

CONNECT THE DOCUMENTS

Now put the documents beside one another.

UNITED STATES

Military installations are being hardened so essential operations can continue when civilian infrastructure is disrupted.

UNITED KINGDOM

Households are being told to prepare for three days without services they normally assume will remain available.

INDIA

The prime minister publicly warns that modern conflict can weaken a country by attacking its economy and calls for stronger protection of banking infrastructure.

BANK OF ENGLAND

Financial authorities are examining recovery scenarios in which cyber defenses have already failed and multiple institutions could potentially be disrupted simultaneously.

These aren't identical programs.

They aren't even aimed at the same people.

And there is currently no public evidence demonstrating that they were coordinated.

But they share one important assumption:

CRITICAL SYSTEMS CAN FAIL.

And resilience therefore cannot begin after the failure occurs.

It has to exist beforehand.

THE SYSTEM BEHIND THE SYSTEM

This is where the story becomes bigger than individual announcements.

Modern infrastructure isn't a collection of isolated systems.

It's a network.

Consider what happens when electricity fails.

Without power, telecommunications eventually become difficult to maintain.

Without communications, electronic payments can be affected.

Fuel pumps require electricity.

Water systems depend on pumping and treatment infrastructure.

Businesses depend on payment processing.

Supply chains depend on communications, transportation and fuel.

Hospitals require electricity, communications, water, medicine and logistics simultaneously.

A serious disruption doesn't necessarily remain inside the system where it started.

It can propagate.

POWER → COMMUNICATIONS → BANKING → COMMERCE → SUPPLY CHAINS

And the dependency runs in multiple directions.

That interconnectedness is precisely why governments plan for resilience.

WHAT THIS DOES NOT PROVE

Mind Bend Theory exists to examine unusual patterns.

But a pattern isn't automatically proof of a conspiracy.

There is currently no public evidence showing that Washington, London and New Delhi are secretly preparing for the same scheduled event.

There is no verified date for a coming global blackout.

There is no public document establishing an imminent 90-day collapse of the American electrical grid.

And the Pentagon's 90-day military resilience requirement should not be interpreted as a prediction that Americans will lose electricity for 90 days.

That would go beyond the evidence.

What the evidence actually establishes is interesting enough.

Governments increasingly consider disruption of power, communications, supply chains and financial infrastructure plausible enough to justify concrete preparation.

The UK is preparing households.

The United States is hardening military infrastructure.

India is strengthening the technological backbone of its financial system.

The Bank of England is thinking about how banks recover after cyber defenses fail.

That isn't speculation.

It's in the documents.

THE QUESTION

Perhaps the most important change isn't what governments believe will happen.

It's what they're preparing to survive.

For decades, infrastructure security focused heavily on preventing failure.

The emerging model looks different:

Assume something eventually gets through.

Assume something eventually goes down.

Build the ability to continue operating anyway.

The Pentagon calls that resilience.

The UK calls it being ready.

Central banks call it operational resilience.

Different terminology.

Same fundamental question:

WHAT STILL WORKS WHEN THE SYSTEM DOESN'T?

DOCUMENT TRAIL

Read the Evidence Yourself

Mind Bend Theory strongly encourages readers to examine the original material rather than relying solely on our interpretation.

đŸ‡ș🇾 DOCUMENT 01 — FORTRESS America Establishment

September 30, 2026

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's memorandum establishes FORTRESS America as a Department of Defense resilience program.

The publicly reported memorandum establishes the program around installation resilience, independent energy, strategic reserves, supply chains and related national-defense infrastructure.

Source type: Pentagon memorandum / official announcement.

đŸ‡ș🇾 DOCUMENT 02 — FORTRESS America Implementation Memorandum

October 7, 2026

DefenseScoop obtained the memorandum from Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffey directing officials to begin operationalizing the FORTRESS America Program Office.

It identifies five foundational pillars, including energy independence, installation hardening and cyber resilience, strategic reserves and supply-chain resilience.

Source type: Pentagon memorandum obtained by DefenseScoop.

đŸ‡ș🇾 DOCUMENT 03 — 90-Day FORTRESS Requirement

October 25, 2026

Fox News reports that documents it reviewed require major continental U.S. installations to sustain essential operations for at least 90 days without outside support.

Source type: Journalistic reporting based on documents reviewed by reporters.

Important: This is not currently being presented by Mind Bend Theory as a publicly released primary 90-day Pentagon document.

🇬🇧 DOCUMENT 04 — UK Cabinet Office Be Ready Announcement

October 22, 2026

The Cabinet Office announces the three-year Be Ready campaign and describes preparation for disruption affecting power, water, phones and internet.

Source type: Official UK government publication.

🇬🇧 DOCUMENT 05 — Parliamentary Written Statement HCWS409

October 22, 2026

The UK Parliament records the government's explicit recommendation that households prepare to remain self-sufficient for three days.

Source type: Official Parliamentary record.

🇬🇧 DOCUMENT 06 — Be Ready Household Emergency Checklist

The government's practical household guidance provides recommendations for water, food, radio, lighting, medication, power banks, emergency cash and other supplies.

Source type: Official UK government preparedness guidance.

🇼🇳 DOCUMENT 07 — Prime Minister of India / RBI Cybersecurity Facilities

October 25, 2026

Official statement documenting the opening of the Reserve Bank of India's Data Centre and Cybersecurity Training Institute and Modi's warning that countries can be weakened through attacks against their economies.

Source type: Official Government of India statement.

🇬🇧 DOCUMENT 08 — “Agents of Change” — Sarah Breeden

June 30, 2026

The Bank of England deputy governor discusses rapidly advancing AI cyber capabilities, simultaneous disruption across financial institutions, separate failover infrastructure and potentially rebuilding compromised systems from bare metal.

Source type: Official Bank of England speech.

DOCUMENT 09 — Bank of England Cyber-Recovery Reporting

October 15, 2026

Reuters reports on the Bank of England's push for stronger recovery capabilities against AI-enabled cyberattacks, including bare-metal recovery.

Source type: Independent reporting.

MIND BEND THEORY

Follow the documents. Separate what they prove from what they don't.

Then ask why the preparation is happening now.

Documents attached to the investigation

FORTRESS America — Sept. 30 memorandum record
Pentagon FORTRESS America implementation memorandum — DefenseScoop
FORTRESS America 90-day documents — Fox News investigation
UK Cabinet Office — Be Ready announcement
UK Parliament — Written Statement HCWS409
India PM's Office — RBI Data Centre & Cybersecurity Training Institute
Bank of England — Sarah Breeden, “Agents of Change”
Reuters — Bank of England cyber-recovery warning

Source

🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian

👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below đŸ“Č or Click Here: 

👇 Crypto Donations 👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
September 13, 2026
post photo preview
Revolut Leak Shows the Cost of Constant ID Collection
Revolut’s mistake is the news, but the bigger problem is the growing number of companies being encouraged or required to keep copies of our most sensitive identity documents.

Online bank Revolut has revealed that it gave out sensitive personal and financial information of an undisclosed number of its customers in response to a fake government request.

The information that was handed over to an “unauthorized third party” reportedly includes names, dates of birth, occupations, addresses, phone numbers, account numbers, transaction histories (including Bitcoin), and even copies of government-issued IDs and onboarding verification selfies.

Revolut claims that derived biometric face data was not.

The company said that the data was handed over in response to an email that came from a real government agency’s domain, but was not actually sent or authorized by that agency.

The email passed several authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC) that are designed to establish the authenticity of a message’s origin and integrity, but do not verify the legitimacy of the legal request itself.

Revolut said that it complied with the request “under the reasonable belief that it was an authentic government agency request” – and only later found out that it was not.

Revolut said it later realized its mistake, blocked the email address, and reported the incident to the relevant authorities.

Revolut said that only a “limited” number of its customers were affected by the data leak, and that the company’s systems were not hacked, nor was any money stolen.

The story broke on September 11 when Revolut customers started receiving an email notice about a data leak, and the news was picked up by media outlets the following day.

Revolut notice explaining customer identity and financial data was shared after an unauthorized government email request.

The reason this is a recurring problem is that companies are keeping highly sensitive information about their customers’ identities, and sometimes even financial transactions, for a long time, and this data is then available to be disclosed to third parties – either in response to valid legal requests, or, as in the case of Revolut, fake ones.

One reason for this is know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) rules. Revolut’s current UK customer privacy notice spells it out: the company generally keeps personal data of UK customers for no more than seven years after the relationship ends, and sometimes longer – for legal reasons.

This means that even if you close your account, your identity documents don’t disappear.

And while the incident with Revolut happened in the financial sector, it’s by no means the only one that requires customers to hand over sensitive identity information. Discord, a popular chat service, said in an October 9, 2025 security update that government ID photos of approximately 70,000 users may have been exposed after a third-party customer service provider got hacked.

This was not a financial service, nor the same type of attack. But the result was similar – because the underlying business process was the same: requiring and storing sensitive identity documents. In the case of Discord, these were used to review age-related appeals.

It’s hard to do anything about a copy of your old passport, or a photo of your face, or a record of your past transactions. These can be used to identify and profile you, and can be used to carry out targeted fraud. And this can happen even if the initial disclosure didn’t result in financial loss.

The more companies are forced to collect and store such information, and the more of it they have, the more opportunities there are for this data to be leaked, either by the company itself or a third party it works with. That's what makes governments' push for more ID checks just to access ordinary parts of life so reckless.

Source

🙏To support my work, Helping to keep the signal high and the noise low:

👉 Cashapp: $thedinarian

👉 Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/thedinarian

👉 PayPal: Scan the QR code below đŸ“Č or Click Here: 

👇 Crypto Donations 👇

XRP: r9pid4yrQgs6XSFWhMZ8NkxW3gkydWNyQX
XLM: GDMJF2OCHN3NNNX4T4F6POPBTXK23GTNSNQWUMIVKESTHMQM7XDYAIZT
XDC: xdcc2C02203C4f91375889d7AfADB09E207Edf809A6

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals