Been thinking a lot lately about how we actually talk about introducing people to Bitcoin. The term 'orange-pill' gets thrown around constantly, but I'm not sure we're always clear on what it actually means or whether we're doing it right.

Here's the thing: when someone says they 'orange-pilled' their friend or family member, what did that really accomplish? Did they convince them to buy? Did they just plant a seed of curiosity? Did they explain why the current monetary system is broken? Or all of the above? The more I've reflected on this, the more I realize different people mean totally different things by it.

What strikes me most is that we often skip a crucial step. Most people won't care about Bitcoin as a solution if they don't even understand the problem. And honestly, most people are so overwhelmed just getting by that they have zero interest in hearing about monetary policy failures. They're just trying to survive.

I came across Michael Saylor's take on this recently and it really resonated. His whole approach is about meeting people where they are. He talks about how we have limited time with people, so we need to ask: what's the highest good we can actually bring to this conversation? For Saylor, it's educating people that Bitcoin is the greatest monetary technology ever created, and it can improve their lives. But here's the key part he emphasizes: you have to speak their language. You have to use metaphors they understand. You have to appeal to their actual values, not the values you think they should have.

That's the real orange-pill moment, if you ask me. Not forcing it, but actually listening first.

My own approach mirrors this but maybe goes a step further. I try to understand what's actually bothering the person. What are their pain points? A retiree worried about inflation needs a completely different conversation than a millennial locked out of real estate. Bitcoin has so many facets that appeal to different people, yet I see a lot of folks using this one-size-fits-all pitch. That's either naive or arrogant, and honestly it just turns people off.

Here's something that catches people off guard: I'll sometimes tell wealthy people, 'You probably don't need Bitcoin.' It disarms them instantly. Makes them curious instead of defensive. Getting someone to actually consider Bitcoin usually requires real trust first. You have to genuinely care about their wellbeing, not whether they buy.

I watched this play out recently at a Bitcoin meetup. A young mom was frustrated that her lawyer sister didn't get it, even after she'd pushed the topic repeatedly. My advice was simple: stop trying to orange-pill her right now. Just love your sister as she is. Bitcoin is patient. It will wait for her to see the brilliance when she's ready.

That's the thing everyone misses. We talk constantly about low time preference, then we get irritated and angry when people don't immediately see what we see. Low time preference means thinking in years and decades, not days. Our frustration usually just comes from our own fear or immaturity.

Understanding Bitcoin is actually a two-step process. First, people need to recognize the problems and unfairness in the current system. That's your starting point. You don't try to sell the solution before they even admit there's a problem. Second, only after they grasp how broken things are will they actually be interested in an alternative.

So here's my real call to action: educate people, don't attack them. Set a goal for how many people you'll help this year. Most people who need to learn about money aren't on Twitter anyway. And remember, Bitcoin has infinite patience. Start acting like that's true too. When you orange-pill someone properly, it's not about winning an argument. It's about building a relationship stronger than it was before the conversation started.