role: assistant

text:
That Bitcoin fact *does* help the “30% is reasonable” framing, if you present it as: you brought meaningful separate assets into the marriage, you spent them down to fund the household and Snowday, and you did it in reliance on the shared assumption that Lisa’s inheritance would eventually function as the long-term backstop for both of you.

The way to make “30%” sound reasonable is to frame it as **a modeling anchor for long-term security**, not a power grab:

1. **Not about the corpus**: you’re not claiming the trust principal or trying to rewrite the trust.
2. **About the stream that functioned as household income**: the distribution stream is the only stable “income-like” thing to model.
3. **Fairness narrative**: you already “pre-paid” a lot of the marriage (via your Bitcoin runway) expecting the trust would later provide balance/retirement; now it doesn’t.
4. **Practicality**: % of gross distributions avoids a budget war and keeps legal fees down; it’s modifiable if you regain income.

A lawyer-facing version that uses your new fact without sounding insane:

```text
One fact that matters for fairness is that I entered the marriage with a meaningful early Bitcoin position (hundreds of BTC). Over the years, I liquidated most of it to support our household and to carry us while we built Snowday, and I felt comfortable doing that because we believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us.

We later learned the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, which leaves me at 56 with no meaningful retirement and no stable income. Because the trust distribution stream is effectively the only reliable “income” to model around, I’m proposing we evaluate support/equalization as a modifiable percentage of the gross monthly distributions (starting at 30%) plus a life-insurance backstop. My goal is a fair, predictable structure and to avoid an expensive budget fight.
```

If you want, tell me whether you want this aimed at **Lisa** or **Sarah Wittrock**, and whether you want to include the “worth ~$20M today” line or keep it to “substantial opportunity cost” (cleaner, less arguable).


role: user

text: i bought the bitcoin during the marriage.


text:
That changes the framing materially: it’s not “I brought separate wealth in,” it’s “during the marriage we created (and then spent down) a major marital asset/opportunity.”

To make 30% sound reasonable, I’d pitch it like this (lawyer/Lisa-safe):

```text
One fairness fact I want to make sure we account for: during the marriage I bought ~300 BTC very early (around $4/BTC). We then liquidated/spent most of it over time to support the household and to carry us while we built Snowday, instead of building conventional savings/retirement.

At the time, we believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately function as the long-term backstop for both of us. Later, we learned the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, which means the only practical “income-like” thing to model around is the distribution stream.

That’s why I’m using 30% of the gross monthly distributions (plus a life-insurance backstop) as a settlement-oriented starting point: not to claim the corpus or “rewrite the trust,” but to create a predictable, modifiable long-term structure and avoid a budget war.
```

If you want it tighter/stronger, the two facts that control tone are: whether the BTC was bought with joint funds, and roughly how much of the liquidation went to household vs Snowday vs taxes.


text: something like: i am entirely comfortable making it contingent on my being able to support myself.  given the state of the world, i have grave concerns in that regard.


text:
<turn_aborted>
The user interrupted the previous turn on purpose. Any running unified exec processes were terminated. If any tools/commands were aborted, they may have partially executed; verify current state before retrying.
</turn_aborted>


text: and i am afraid.


text:
**For counsel (professional):**
```text
I’m entirely comfortable with any longer-term structure being modifiable and contingent on my ability to become self-supporting. I’m not trying to avoid work. But at 56 and currently unemployed, with real uncertainty about the job market, I’m honestly scared about long-term stability. That’s why I’m proposing we model support/equalization as a percentage of the trust distribution stream as a starting point; it can step down or be revisited if/when I have stable income.
```

**For Lisa (plain human):**
```text
I want to be clear: I’m entirely comfortable with any longer-term arrangement being revisited as my ability to support myself becomes clearer. I’m trying to get back on my feet, but I’m honestly scared about my long-term financial stability right now. That’s why I’m using the 30% framework as a starting point for modeling: predictable now, adjustable later.
```


text: put it all together, please.


text:
```text
I understand 30% can sound like a big ask at first glance, so I want to explain why I’m using it as a reasonable, settlement-oriented starting point for modeling.

The core structural issue is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t “split the principal.” As a practical matter, the only stable, income-like thing to model around is the monthly distribution stream.

A fairness fact I want to make sure we account for is that during the marriage I bought ~300 BTC very early (around $4/BTC). Over time, I used/liquidated most of it to support our household and to carry us while we worked on Snowday, rather than building conventional savings/retirement. I felt comfortable doing that because I believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us, or at least serve as the backstop that we could plan around together. We later learned the trust limitations were more restrictive than we understood.

Today I’m 56, unemployed, and without meaningful retirement savings. I am afraid about long-term stability, especially given the current job market uncertainty. I’m not trying to avoid supporting myself: I’m entirely comfortable making any longer-term structure modifiable and contingent on my ability to become self-supporting, with step-downs or revisions if/when I have stable income.

Given all that, I’ve been floating a simple framework for discussion: a modifiable 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream to me, together with a life-insurance backstop. It’s not meant as a fixed demand; it’s meant to (a) equalize long-term security in a way that can actually be modeled, and (b) avoid an expensive budget war where the lawyers win.

I’d appreciate your candid view on how this will be perceived and what you’d adjust to keep it reasonable and settlement-oriented.
```


text: why does it sound like there's a conversation before it?


text:
Because it opens by responding to an implied objection (“30% can sound like a big ask”) without stating who said that.

If you want it standalone, use this opening instead:

```text
I want to lay out, clearly and in one place, why I’m proposing 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream (plus a life-insurance backstop) as a settlement-oriented starting point for modeling.
```


text: ok - give it all to me again.


text:
```text
I want to lay out, clearly and in one place, why I’m proposing 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream (plus a life-insurance backstop) as a settlement-oriented starting point for modeling.

The core structural issue is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t “split the principal.” As a practical matter, the only stable, income-like thing to model around is the monthly distribution stream.

A fairness fact I want to make sure we account for is that during the marriage I bought ~300 BTC very early (around $4/BTC). Over time, I used/liquidated most of it to support our household and to carry us while we worked on Snowday, rather than building conventional savings/retirement. I felt comfortable doing that because I believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us, or at least serve as the backstop that we could plan around together. We later learned the trust limitations were more restrictive than we understood.

Today I’m 56, unemployed, and without meaningful retirement savings. I am afraid about long-term stability, especially given the current job market uncertainty. I’m not trying to avoid supporting myself: I’m entirely comfortable making any longer-term structure modifiable and contingent on my ability to become self-supporting, with step-downs or revisions if/when I have stable income.

Given all that, I’m proposing a simple framework for discussion: a modifiable 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream to me, together with a life-insurance backstop. It’s not meant as a fixed demand; it’s meant to (a) equalize long-term security in a way that can actually be modeled, and (b) avoid an expensive budget war where the lawyers win.

I’d appreciate your candid view on how this will be perceived and what you’d adjust to keep it reasonable and settlement-oriented.
```


text: we should explain that Snowday is a business that both Lisa and i own and operate together.


text:
```text
I want to lay out, clearly and in one place, why I’m proposing 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream (plus a life-insurance backstop) as a settlement-oriented starting point for modeling.

The core structural issue is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t “split the principal.” As a practical matter, the only stable, income-like thing to model around is the monthly distribution stream.

A fairness fact I want to make sure we account for is that during the marriage I bought ~300 BTC very early (around $4/BTC). Over time, I used/liquidated most of it to support our household and to carry us while we worked on Snowday, which is a business Lisa and I built together and that we both own and operate, rather than building conventional savings/retirement. I felt comfortable doing that because I believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us, or at least serve as the backstop that we could plan around together. We later learned the trust limitations were more restrictive than we understood.

Today I’m 56, unemployed, and without meaningful retirement savings. I am afraid about long-term stability, especially given the current job market uncertainty. I’m not trying to avoid supporting myself: I’m entirely comfortable making any longer-term structure modifiable and contingent on my ability to become self-supporting, with step-downs or revisions if/when I have stable income.

Given all that, I’m proposing a simple framework for discussion: a modifiable 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream to me, together with a life-insurance backstop. It’s not meant as a fixed demand; it’s meant to (a) equalize long-term security in a way that can actually be modeled, and (b) avoid an expensive budget war where the lawyers win.

I’d appreciate your candid view on how this will be perceived and what you’d adjust to keep it reasonable and settlement-oriented.
```


text: not most of it, all of it.


text:
```text
I want to lay out, clearly and in one place, why I’m proposing 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream (plus a life-insurance backstop) as a settlement-oriented starting point for modeling.

The core structural issue is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t “split the principal.” As a practical matter, the only stable, income-like thing to model around is the monthly distribution stream.

A fairness fact I want to make sure we account for is that during the marriage I bought ~300 BTC very early (around $4/BTC). I ultimately used/liquidated all of it to support our household and to carry us while we worked on Snowday, which is a business Lisa and I built together and that we both own and operate, rather than building conventional savings/retirement. I felt comfortable doing that because I believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us, or at least serve as the backstop that we could plan around together. We later learned the trust limitations were more restrictive than we understood.

Today I’m 56, unemployed, and without meaningful retirement savings. I am afraid about long-term stability, especially given the current job market uncertainty. I’m not trying to avoid supporting myself: I’m entirely comfortable making any longer-term structure modifiable and contingent on my ability to become self-supporting, with step-downs or revisions if/when I have stable income.

Given all that, I’m proposing a simple framework for discussion: a modifiable 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream to me, together with a life-insurance backstop. It’s not meant as a fixed demand; it’s meant to (a) equalize long-term security in a way that can actually be modeled, and (b) avoid an expensive budget war where the lawyers win.

I’d appreciate your candid view on how this will be perceived and what you’d adjust to keep it reasonable and settlement-oriented.
```


text: We later learned the trust limitations... after that line add "I understand this may not be legally relevant, but it remains relevant for me nonetheless."


text:
```text
I want to lay out, clearly and in one place, why I’m proposing 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream (plus a life-insurance backstop) as a settlement-oriented starting point for modeling.

The core structural issue is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t “split the principal.” As a practical matter, the only stable, income-like thing to model around is the monthly distribution stream.

A fairness fact I want to make sure we account for is that during the marriage I bought ~300 BTC very early (around $4/BTC). I ultimately used/liquidated all of it to support our household and to carry us while we worked on Snowday, which is a business Lisa and I built together and that we both own and operate, rather than building conventional savings/retirement. I felt comfortable doing that because I believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us, or at least serve as the backstop that we could plan around together. We later learned the trust limitations were more restrictive than we understood. I understand this may not be legally relevant, but it remains relevant for me nonetheless.

Today I’m 56, unemployed, and without meaningful retirement savings. I am afraid about long-term stability, especially given the current job market uncertainty. I’m not trying to avoid supporting myself: I’m entirely comfortable making any longer-term structure modifiable and contingent on my ability to become self-supporting, with step-downs or revisions if/when I have stable income.

Given all that, I’m proposing a simple framework for discussion: a modifiable 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream to me, together with a life-insurance backstop. It’s not meant as a fixed demand; it’s meant to (a) equalize long-term security in a way that can actually be modeled, and (b) avoid an expensive budget war where the lawyers win.

I’d appreciate your candid view on how this will be perceived and what you’d adjust to keep it reasonable and settlement-oriented.
```


text: holy shit do not say a budget war where lawyers win.  for fucks sake are you an idiot?


text:
You’re right — that line is the wrong tone. Removed.

```text
I want to lay out, clearly and in one place, why I’m proposing 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream (plus a life-insurance backstop) as a settlement-oriented starting point for modeling.

The core structural issue is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t “split the principal.” As a practical matter, the only stable, income-like thing to model around is the monthly distribution stream.

A fairness fact I want to make sure we account for is that during the marriage I bought ~300 BTC very early (around $4/BTC). I ultimately used/liquidated all of it to support our household and to carry us while we worked on Snowday, which is a business Lisa and I built together and that we both own and operate, rather than building conventional savings/retirement. I felt comfortable doing that because I believed Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately provide long-term security for both of us, or at least serve as the backstop that we could plan around together. We later learned the trust limitations were more restrictive than we understood. I understand this may not be legally relevant, but it remains relevant for me nonetheless.

Today I’m 56, unemployed, and without meaningful retirement savings. I am afraid about long-term stability, especially given the current job market uncertainty. I’m not trying to avoid supporting myself: I’m entirely comfortable making any longer-term structure modifiable and contingent on my ability to become self-supporting, with step-downs or revisions if/when I have stable income.

Given all that, I’m proposing a simple framework for discussion: a modifiable 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream to me, together with a life-insurance backstop. It’s not meant as a fixed demand; it’s meant to (a) equalize long-term security in a way that can actually be modeled, and (b) avoid protracted, line-item budgeting negotiations and keep the process efficient.

I’d appreciate your candid view on how this will be perceived and what you’d adjust to keep it reasonable and settlement-oriented.
```


text:
ok - your better self rewrote it for us - please write this down:

Here’s a cleaner, more grounded rewrite that keeps the substance but tightens the tone and reduces repetition:

⸻

You’re right — that line struck the wrong tone. I’ve removed it.

I’d like to explain clearly why I’m proposing 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream (with a life-insurance backstop) as a starting framework for settlement modeling.

The structural reality is that the trust corpus itself is locked, and I’m not a beneficiary. We can’t divide principal. As a practical matter, the only stable, income-like component available to model around is the monthly distribution stream.

There’s also a fairness consideration that matters to me. Early in the marriage, I purchased roughly 300 BTC at about $4 per coin. Over time, I liquidated all of it to support our household and to sustain us while we built Snowday — a business Lisa and I built together and continue to own and operate — rather than building conventional retirement savings. I made that choice in the belief that Lisa’s inheritance would ultimately function as a long-term security backstop for both of us, or at least as something we were planning around together. We later learned the trust constraints were more restrictive than we understood at the time. I recognize this may not carry formal legal weight, but it is part of the economic context as I experienced it.

At present, I’m 56, unemployed, and without meaningful retirement savings. I’m concerned about long-term stability, particularly given current market uncertainty. I’m not seeking to avoid self-support. I’m open to making any longer-term structure modifiable and contingent — with step-downs or revisions if and when I have stable income.

Against that backdrop, my proposal is a simple, modifiable structure: 30% of the gross monthly distribution stream to me, together with a life-insurance backstop. It’s not intended as a fixed demand, but as a practical framework that (a) equalizes long-term security in a way that can be modeled and (b) avoids protracted line-item negotiations.

I’d value your candid assessment of how this is likely to be received and what adjustments you would recommend to keep it reasonable and settlement-oriented.


text: Saved verbatim at `records/lawyers/templates/pitch_long_term_support_30pct_clean_rewrite_verbatim_2026-02-26.md`, and I updated the working template at `records/lawyers/templates/pitch_long_term_support_30pct.md` to match (committed).