A cryptocurrency user with significant holdings in both Bitcoin and Ethereum faces a practical constraint: Rabby Wallet, despite its sophisticated interface for transaction review and token approvals, cannot manage Bitcoin directly. The wallet’s architecture is optimized entirely for the Ethereum Virtual Machine and compatible networks—Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon, BNB Smart Chain, and Avalanche—but it has no native support for Bitcoin’s UTXO model or the independent security assumptions that Bitcoin requires. For someone holding meaningful quantities of both assets, this limitation means maintaining separate wallet applications, managing multiple recovery phrases, and coordinating security practices across incompatible systems.

The technical reason is straightforward: Bitcoin and Ethereum evolved along different paths. Ethereum uses an account-based model where a single private key generates a deterministic address and controls a sequence of transactions. Bitcoin uses a UTXO (unspent transaction output) system where each discrete piece of bitcoin is tracked independently, and transaction construction requires different logic, fee estimation, and privacy considerations. A wallet designed to excel at one cannot simply add the other without fundamental architectural changes. Understanding why Rabby cannot bridge this gap—and what realistic alternatives exist for users who need both—is essential before committing to a multi-asset custody strategy.

Why Rabby is optimized for Ethereum, not Bitcoin

Rabby Wallet is a self-custodial wallet designed from the ground up for the Ethereum ecosystem and its EVM-compatible derivatives. The distinction matters because EVM networks share a common instruction set, address format, and transaction model. A private key that controls assets on Ethereum can also control identical addresses on Polygon, Arbitrum, or Base without modification. The wallet can standardize transaction simulation, human-readable transaction details, and token approval review across all these networks simultaneously because they implement the same underlying mechanics.

Bitcoin operates under entirely different assumptions. Its UTXO model requires the wallet to track discrete outputs, manage coin selection, calculate fees based on transaction size rather than gas limits, and handle address types—P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH, and taproot—that have no equivalent in the EVM world. A Bitcoin transaction must account for input selection to minimize fees or maximize privacy, fee rates that fluctuate independently of Ethereum’s gas market, and a different recovery phrase derivation standard (BIP44 versus EIP-2612). The transaction construction logic is fundamentally incompatible.

Rabby’s strength lies in its depth within the EVM ecosystem. The transaction simulation feature parses smart contract interactions, displays what will be executed before the user signs, and surfaces approval risks in human-readable form. This is exceptionally valuable for users engaging with decentralized exchanges, lending applications, bridges, and NFT marketplaces on Ethereum and compatible networks. The same simulation logic cannot apply to Bitcoin because Bitcoin does not use smart contracts in the same sense; a Bitcoin transaction is a simple transfer of UTXO ownership, and the complexity lies in coin selection and fee estimation rather than contract state changes.

The wallet is available across Chrome, Brave, Edge, iOS, and Android, with an open-source codebase published on GitHub under the RabbyHub organization. This accessibility and transparency are assets for users concerned about custodial risks, but they apply only to EVM assets. Bitcoin holders who download Rabby from sites.google.com/mywalletcryptous.com/rabby-wallet-download-official/ or any other source will not find a Bitcoin option within the application. The wallet was built to solve specific problems in the Ethereum ecosystem and has not been extended into Bitcoin’s distinct architecture.

The fundamental incompatibility between UTXO and account models

The difference between Bitcoin’s UTXO model and Ethereum’s account model is not merely cosmetic. It determines how a wallet must handle keys, addresses, transactions, and privacy. In Ethereum, an address is derived from a private key and can receive multiple payments without losing privacy or creating security complications. The account tracks a nonce (transaction counter) and balance, and each outgoing transaction increments the nonce. The wallet interface can show total balance at a glance, and transfers are straightforward: specify a recipient and amount, and the chain will process it.

Bitcoin uses a completely different approach. A “balance” is actually a collection of discrete UTXOs, each tied to a previous transaction output. When a user spends bitcoin, the wallet must select which UTXOs to combine as inputs, determine how much to send to the recipient, calculate change back to itself, and set an appropriate fee based on the total size of the resulting transaction in bytes. Two transactions with identical amounts may have vastly different fees if one requires combining many small UTXOs while the other consolidates larger ones. This coin selection problem has no parallel in the EVM world, where gas is calculated by execution complexity rather than transaction serialization size.

Address reuse also carries different weight. In Ethereum, reusing an address for multiple payments is not ideal for privacy, but it causes no cryptographic weakness. In Bitcoin, spending from an address that has received multiple payments can link those payments together on the public ledger, making address reuse a documented privacy liability. Best practices for Bitcoin involve generating a new address for each expected payment, yet many users fail to do so, and the wallet must facilitate this workflow without creating friction or confusion.

These architectural differences mean that adding Bitcoin to an EVM-focused wallet is not a matter of checking another box. The wallet would need to implement separate key derivation, transaction construction, fee estimation, coin selection algorithms, and address management logic. The transaction simulation that makes Rabby valuable for Ethereum would have no equivalent for Bitcoin. Rather than integrate Bitcoin half-heartedly, the developers have correctly chosen to focus on EVM excellence—and users requiring Bitcoin support should use a dedicated Bitcoin wallet or a multi-chain solution designed from inception to handle both models.

What Bitcoin-capable wallets actually do differently

Wallets that support both Bitcoin and EVM assets implement two separate signing engines, not a unified one. A wallet such as BlueWallet, Sparrow, Ledger Live, or Trezor Suite does not somehow “convert” Bitcoin logic into an account-based model. Instead, it maintains parallel codebases for Bitcoin and for Ethereum, with different key derivation paths, transaction builders, and fee estimators. When a user imports a recovery phrase, the wallet derives different child keys for each network using the appropriate BIP standard, keeping them segregated at the protocol level.

The trade-off is complexity. A Bitcoin-capable wallet is heavier to maintain because changes to Bitcoin’s fee market, script formats, or consensus rules require specific updates to the Bitcoin component. Similarly, Ethereum upgrades may require separate updates to the EVM component. Users must understand that Bitcoin addresses derived from a recovery phrase look different from Ethereum addresses and that sending a transaction to the wrong network is irreversible. The interface must make this explicit rather than hiding it behind a unified “send” button.

Hardware wallet integrations illustrate another constraint. Rabby supports hardware wallets—devices such as Ledger or Trezor—for signing Ethereum transactions without exposing the private key to the computer. Hardware wallets themselves often do support both Bitcoin and Ethereum, but the connection between Rabby and a hardware device is EVM-only. If a user connects a Ledger to Rabby, the wallet can sign Ethereum transactions using the hardware device’s Bitcoin-capable key material, but Rabby will not route those requests to the Bitcoin signing path. The user would need a separate application—such as Ledger Live or Trezor Suite—to access the Bitcoin portion of the same device.

This limitation is not a flaw in Rabby’s design; it is a logical boundary. The wallet has chosen depth in its specialty rather than breadth across incompatible systems. For users who demand both Bitcoin and Ethereum support from a single application, the better candidates are dedicated multi-coin wallets, even if they offer less transaction simulation or approval review in the Ethereum context than Rabby provides.

Practical scenarios where Rabby and Bitcoin create friction

Consider a user who holds Bitcoin as a long-term store of value and Ethereum-based assets including stablecoins, governance tokens, and NFTs. If that user adopts Rabby for Ethereum, they now maintain two separate recovery phrases: one for the Rabby wallet and one for their Bitcoin wallet. Both must be backed up, protected, and restored correctly in case of loss. The recovery process for Rabby is straightforward—it uses standard EVM derivation—but Bitcoin’s recovery depends on the wallet’s implementation. Some Bitcoin wallets use BIP32 with different version bytes, others use Bech32, and still others may use legacy formats. Mixing recovery phrases between wallets leads to assets that cannot be recovered.

Swapping between Bitcoin and Ethereum assets compounds the problem. If the user wishes to convert Bitcoin to Ethereum-based USDC, the transaction requires moving Bitcoin to a cryptocurrency exchange, converting to USDC, and then receiving it into Rabby. Each step introduces counterparty risk and potential regulatory reporting obligations. An exchange withdrawal to Rabby can be tracked more easily than a private peer-to-peer transaction would be. Alternatively, the user could use a decentralized bridge or atomic swap, but these introduce their own slippage, fees, and execution risks. Rabby cannot simplify this process because it has no Bitcoin component to work from.

Fee coordination also becomes fragmented. Ethereum gas fees fluctuate independently of Bitcoin transaction fees. A user might delay an Ethereum transaction because gas is expensive, while Bitcoin fees are reasonable, or vice versa. Without a unified application, there is no natural place to coordinate these decisions. The user must switch between applications, check fee rates separately, and reason about costs in isolation. For someone managing both assets actively, this workflow repetition creates friction and increases the chance of mistakes.

NFT bridging and cross-chain operations introduce another layer. Some NFT projects exist on both Ethereum and other EVM networks, and Rabby can help track them across Polygon or Arbitrum. But if an NFT has been ported to Bitcoin via protocols such as Stacks or Sovryn, Rabby has no visibility. The user would again need a separate application. This is not Rabby’s responsibility—NFTs on Bitcoin are still experimental and relatively rare—but it illustrates how a single-chain wallet can create blind spots.

The realistic options for Bitcoin and Ethereum holders

The most straightforward approach is to use specialized wallets for each ecosystem. Rabby remains the best choice for Ethereum and EVM chains: its transaction simulation, approval review, and interface design excel in that context. For Bitcoin, options include BlueWallet for mobile-first users seeking simplicity, Sparrow for desktop users who want coin control and advanced privacy features, or Ledger Live and Trezor Suite for those using hardware wallets. This “best of breed” approach sacrifices the convenience of a single application for superior functionality in each domain.

A second option is to use a multi-chain hardware wallet alongside dedicated software wallets. A Ledger or Trezor device can store both Bitcoin and Ethereum keys derived from a single recovery phrase, while software wallets such as Ledger Live or Trezor Suite handle both networks. This reduces the number of recovery phrases to manage—one seed phrase generates both Bitcoin and Ethereum addresses—while keeping the software flexible. The hardware device handles signing, and the software handles transaction construction and broadcast. Rabby can be used with the same hardware device for Ethereum transactions if desired, further reducing private key exposure to the computer.

A third option, less common but viable, is to use a wallet engine library such as web3.js or ethers.js to build a custom application that bridges Rabby’s EVM interface with a Bitcoin library such as bitcoinjs-lib. This is only practical for technically sophisticated users, as it requires understanding how to derive keys, construct transactions, and handle security correctly. For most users, this approach introduces more risk than it eliminates because custom implementations are more likely to contain bugs or security oversights than established wallet applications.

Some users consolidate assets through a single exchange account, treating it as a temporary custodial hub. Bitcoin is deposited to the exchange, converted to USDC or another stablecoin, and withdrawn to Rabby. This centralizes custody risk during the holding phase—the exchange now controls the assets—but it simplifies the transaction flow. The trade-off is not trivial: exchanges face regulatory scrutiny, account freezes, bankruptcy risk, and insider threats. For long-term asset security, this approach is inferior to self-custody, even with the friction of managing separate wallets.

Why Bitcoin-native wallets demand different security practices

Bitcoin wallets often encourage or require more explicit user decisions than Ethereum wallets do, and this is not a limitation—it is a feature. When spending bitcoin, users typically see a coin selection interface showing which UTXOs are being spent, what the change address will be, and the transaction fee in satoshis per byte. This transparency prevents the common mistake of accidentally overpaying fees through ignorance. Ethereum transactions show gas estimates, but users are less likely to understand what those numbers mean or how to evaluate them critically.

Address reuse is another area where Bitcoin wallets must be more assertive. Some Bitcoin wallets will refuse to generate a new payment to an address that has already received funds, forcing the user to create a fresh address or acknowledge the privacy trade-off explicitly. Ethereum wallets rarely impose such friction because address reuse is less of a cryptographic issue. Rabby will happily send tokens to an address that has been used hundreds of times, because the EVM’s account model does not penalize this.

Recovery procedures also differ. An Ethereum recovery from a 12-word seed phrase is fairly universal—the BIP39 standard is widely adopted—but Bitcoin wallets sometimes use proprietary derivation paths or version byte schemes that are not compatible with other wallets. A recovery phrase from BlueWallet may not work in Electrum without specifying the correct derivation path, and neither may work in Sparrow without additional configuration. This is not a flaw in those wallets; it reflects Bitcoin’s longer history and the diversity of valid implementations. Users must match the wallet to the backup method or risk irreversible loss.

For these reasons, a user moving Bitcoin into a non-native wallet—one not designed specifically for Bitcoin—is accepting higher execution risk. If Rabby attempted to add Bitcoin support, it would necessarily simplify these security boundaries or risk overwhelming users with unfamiliar concepts. The developers have wisely chosen to remain specialist in the EVM domain rather than dilute that focus with half-measures that could introduce subtle vulnerabilities.

Evaluating multi-chain solutions realistically

The ecosystem includes some wallets that claim to support both Bitcoin and Ethereum. Examples include Trust Wallet, MetaMask with third-party integrations, and some community forks. Before adopting any of these, users should verify that Bitcoin support is genuinely native and not merely a bridge or exchange integration. A wallet that can only access Bitcoin through an embedded exchange is not truly multi-chain; it is a single-chain wallet with a built-in swap feature. The exchange remains the custodian during the conversion, and the same counterparty risks apply.

Native Bitcoin support means the wallet can construct Bitcoin transactions directly, manage UTXO selection, derive Bitcoin addresses from the recovery phrase, and broadcast transactions to the Bitcoin network without an intermediary. Trust Wallet, for instance, does support Bitcoin natively, though its transaction simulation and approval interface are less sophisticated for Bitcoin than they would be for Ethereum. MetaMask has added limited Bitcoin support in recent versions, but it is primarily designed for Ethereum and EVM networks.

The trade-off is always the same: a wallet that does many things well typically does fewer things excellently. Rabby excels because it focuses. A user comparing Rabby against a multi-chain alternative should ask which asset type they interact with most frequently and whether the multi-chain wallet’s handling of that asset is adequate. For someone who trades regularly on Ethereum DEXes and approves token contracts, Rabby’s transaction simulation is invaluable and likely worth the burden of maintaining a separate Bitcoin wallet. For someone who holds Bitcoin primarily and dabbles in Ethereum, a simpler multi-chain wallet might be preferable despite Rabby’s shortcomings.

The path forward: Accept the limitation or embrace the segregation

The most durable strategy is to accept that Rabby Wallet is an excellent tool for managing Ethereum and EVM-compatible assets, and that Bitcoin requires a separate solution. This is not a deficiency in Rabby; it reflects the incompatible technical requirements of the two ecosystems. Rather than forcing Rabby to become mediocre at two tasks, it is better to use the best tool for each job. Manage Ethereum assets in Rabby, manage Bitcoin in Sparrow or BlueWallet, and use a hardware wallet such as Ledger or Trezor if the value justifies the additional security.

The segregation discipline has an unexpected benefit: it reduces cognitive overload and the risk of mistakes. A user who maintains separate wallets for separate chains is less likely to accidentally send Bitcoin to an Ethereum address or confuse fee rates between networks. The additional backup and recovery burden is significant, but it is explicit and manageable. The security surface of each wallet is narrower and easier to audit. And if one wallet is compromised or lost, the damage is contained to one asset type rather than affecting the entire portfolio.

For users who absolutely require a single recovery phrase backing all assets, a hardware wallet is the pragmatic choice. A Ledger or Trezor device stores one seed phrase that generates both Bitcoin and Ethereum addresses simultaneously, reducing the backup burden to one critical phrase. The software layer—whether Ledger Live, Trezor Suite, Rabby, or specialized wallets—can be reinstalled or changed without affecting the underlying assets. This approach respects the technical boundaries between Bitcoin and Ethereum while minimizing key management complexity.

A bitcoin wallet does not store bitcoin. The network stores the transaction history; the wallet protects and uses the private keys that authorize changes to that history. This counterintuitive distinction explains why a small hardware device can materially improve security while still failing to protect a careless owner. The strongest device cannot rescue a seed phrase photographed on a phone, a fraudulent transaction approved on a familiar-looking screen, or a recovery process that no one has tested.

Consider a US user who buys bitcoin for long-term savings but also wants occasional access to decentralized applications, or dApps. The user needs more than a device that stays disconnected from the internet. They need a system that separates signing authority from everyday browsing, makes transaction details visible, and remains usable when a computer is lost or replaced. That is the real case behind the debate over Bitcoin wallets, Ledger Live, and a Ledger hardware wallet: security is a chain of controls, not a product label.

What a hardware wallet actually changes

A private key is a secret that can authorize a cryptocurrency transaction. In a software wallet, that secret may be held on a phone or computer that regularly connects to websites, downloads files, and runs many other applications. A hardware wallet is designed to generate and retain the key in a dedicated device, so the key is not ordinarily exposed to the operating system of the connected computer.

This creates an important boundary. The computer can propose a transaction, but the hardware device is intended to perform the critical signing operation. In practical terms, a malicious website or compromised laptop may try to manipulate the request, yet it should not automatically obtain the private key. The user must still review and approve the transaction on the device. This is a form of compartmentalization: one environment handles communication, while another protects authorization.

That separation reduces some attack paths, especially remote attempts to extract keys from a general-purpose computer. It does not eliminate phishing, physical theft, malicious software, fraudulent addresses, or mistakes. Nor does it make every interaction with a dApp safe. If a user approves a harmful transaction after failing to understand what is displayed, the hardware wallet may be functioning exactly as designed. It protects the signing secret; it does not replace judgment.

The phrase “cold storage” is therefore useful but incomplete. Keeping keys offline can reduce exposure, but security also depends on the recovery phrase, the device’s supply chain, firmware procedures, PIN protection, address verification, and the user’s ability to distinguish a legitimate prompt from a deceptive one. The recovery phrase is particularly important because it is an alternative route to the same funds. Anyone who obtains it may be able to recreate the wallet without possessing the original device.

A case study in ordinary failure

Imagine that Alex, a US investor, purchases a hardware wallet and installs the companion Ledger Live software. Alex writes the recovery phrase on paper, stores it in a desk drawer, and connects the device to a laptop. Months later, Alex receives an urgent message claiming that an account must be “re-synchronized” and that the recovery phrase is needed to prevent loss of funds.

The message is the failure point, not necessarily the device. A legitimate wallet workflow should not require a user to reveal a recovery phrase to a website, support agent, or computer application. The phrase is for restoring control under controlled conditions, not for routine account access. This is one of the most persistent myths in cryptocurrency security: people often treat the wallet’s brand or interface as the source of safety, when the most valuable credential remains under the user’s physical control.

A second failure could occur without any phishing. Alex visits a dApp and sees a transaction request that appears routine. The request may authorize a token transfer, grant an allowance to another contract, or interact with an unfamiliar contract whose behavior is difficult for a non-specialist to interpret. The device can show the information available to it, but not every economic consequence is obvious from a short screen. Hardware confirmation is a powerful checkpoint, yet the checkpoint is only useful when the user knows what is being confirmed.

This case reveals two different security questions. The first is confidentiality: can an attacker obtain the private key? The second is integrity: can the user be persuaded to authorize an unwanted action? Hardware wallets are particularly strong against some forms of key extraction. They are less decisive against social engineering and confusing application design. Treating these as separate problems produces a more accurate risk assessment.

Ledger Live as a control surface, not a vault

Wallet software has an awkward but necessary role. It connects the user to network information, account balances, transaction construction, portfolio views, and sometimes Web3 services. The hardware device provides a protected signing boundary, while the application provides context and communication. Neither layer should be mistaken for the other.

Recent project messaging emphasizes pairing a Ledger crypto wallet with the Ledger Wallet app to manage crypto, track a portfolio, and access dApps and Web3 services. The practical implication is convenience with a wider security surface. More functionality can make a system easier to use, but every additional integration creates more opportunities for confusing permissions, malicious links, software bugs, or mistaken assumptions about what a transaction does.

For readers evaluating a ledger wallet, the useful question is not simply whether the device is “secure.” Ask which threat it is meant to reduce, which decisions remain yours, and how the system behaves when something goes wrong. A wallet app may help organize accounts and present transaction information, but the recovery phrase, device approval, and final interpretation of a request remain central responsibilities.

There is also a usability trade-off. A system that requires repeated verification may feel slower than a software wallet, particularly for small or frequent transactions. That friction is not automatically a defect. In security engineering, a deliberate pause can be valuable because it creates a chance to detect an unexpected address or amount. At the same time, excessive friction can encourage users to rush, disable safeguards, or move funds into a less protected environment. Good security is partly an exercise in designing controls that people will actually use.

Myths that deserve replacement

Myth: A hardware wallet makes bitcoin anonymous

A hardware wallet protects keys; it does not erase the public nature of a blockchain. Bitcoin transactions can be analyzed through addresses, timing, amounts, and links to exchanges or other services. Privacy depends on broader operational choices, and those choices can be complex. Key protection and transaction privacy are related concerns, but they are not the same feature.

Myth: The device must be connected for bitcoin to exist

The device is used to authorize transactions, not to hold coins in the ordinary physical sense. If the device is lost but the recovery information remains available and secure, the wallet can generally be restored on a compatible replacement or another supported wallet. This resilience is also a risk: the recovery phrase is effectively a portable backup of control and must be protected accordingly.

Myth: “Offline” means risk-free

Offline key storage reduces online exposure, but it does not prevent an owner from entering a seed phrase into a fake website, approving a malicious contract, buying a tampered device, or losing the backup. Physical security matters too. A thief who finds the device may face PIN protections, while a thief who finds the recovery phrase may bypass the device entirely.

Myth: A familiar app makes every dApp trustworthy

An interface can improve navigation without guaranteeing the behavior of every external service it connects to. Web3 transactions may involve contracts, permissions, and assets that are difficult to inspect. Users should treat each approval as an authorization decision, not as a routine pop-up. If the economic meaning is unclear, postponing the transaction is rational security behavior.

A practical decision framework for US users

Before moving meaningful funds, separate the process into four questions. First, where is the signing key generated and retained? Second, how is the recovery phrase created, recorded, and protected from both digital exposure and physical discovery? Third, what information will appear on the trusted device before approval? Fourth, what is the plan if the device, computer, phone, or account becomes unavailable?

Test the recovery plan with a small amount before relying on it for substantial savings. Confirm that the written backup is readable, that the device can be restored through the expected process, and that the restored account shows the correct addresses. Do not experiment with a valuable balance. A recovery procedure that exists only in theory is not a reliable backup.

Use a separate mental model for long-term holdings and active Web3 activity. Long-term bitcoin storage may justify fewer transactions, limited connectivity, and a carefully protected backup. Frequent dApp use creates a different risk profile because the user encounters more contracts and permission requests. Some users may reasonably keep only a limited working balance for experimentation while isolating larger holdings from routine interaction. The exact allocation is personal, but the principle is general: exposure should reflect activity.

For a US user, account recovery and tax records can add practical complexity. A wallet may display balances, but it does not necessarily provide a complete, authoritative record of cost basis or every tax-relevant event. Maintaining independent records of purchases, transfers, and dispositions can prevent a security system from becoming an accounting blind spot. Security is not only about preventing theft; it is also about preserving the information needed to manage assets responsibly.

What to watch as wallet systems evolve

The next meaningful improvements are likely to be judged less by slogans about offline storage and more by how clearly systems communicate authorization. Watch for better transaction previews, clearer warnings about permissions, stronger recovery workflows, and interfaces that distinguish a simple payment from a complex contract interaction. These developments could reduce mistakes if they make the user’s decision easier to understand rather than merely adding more alerts.

The unresolved issue is interpretability. A device can verify an address or amount, but a smart contract may encode consequences that are not easy to summarize on a small screen. If wallets become gateways to more dApps and Web3 services, the security challenge will shift partly from “Can the key be stolen?” to “Can the user understand what the key is authorizing?” That is a conditional scenario, not a prediction of a particular product outcome, but it follows directly from expanding functionality.

The durable lesson is simple and less glamorous than a product claim. A bitcoin wallet is a system for controlling authorization. Hardware can place the private key behind a stronger boundary; companion software can make the system usable; the owner must still protect the recovery path and evaluate each approval. The safest setup is therefore not the one with the most features. It is the one whose boundaries the user understands well enough to act carefully when the interface, message, or market becomes confusing.

Ultimo grito penúltimo ato
animo fato, aproximo, lato, arrimo.
Sensu cimo strictu vulgata – eu rato:
bibliotecas tive, narro a travessão:
– travessia.
– o fim da televisão.
– As serifas e as sem serifas também amam.

Comprimo escolas animalizo o que animo
desoprimo dí­zimo e: tropeço enquanto esgrimo
o Q estimo o exí­mio && exprimo: Hino!

cântico?
oní­rico ato eco!
cientí­fico sono vigí­lia?
cáustico é o que complico!

?
!
?
!

justifico um vendaval acidental
com um milhão de milharais:
Pipoca Cinema post pois
Publico
Imito
Mito e minto
E depois:

– Repito o primeiro grito.

Gramático não é crí­tico literário
Cientista cantando no chuveiro
Quebrei um pé de verso epilético
Salivei hidrofobia pro coveiro

Antes que enterrem a resposta
Antes que repitam a proposta:

pós-punk schizopukemetalmatema da catexia
continuam guardados os timbres da nova era
numa caixa de supresas e tosqueiras
pretérito imperfeito: o gato mia ( Schrí¶dinger meio sem jeito )
no bar beatnik da minha tia;

Sinfonia;;

+ Metalingüistica? Suspiram.
Rompendo a Aeorta da Lingüiça
Salive cantando o tropeço no defunto:
O dito cujo trancou a Porta da preguiça;

E vomitou versinhos púberes para ogros cantarem:

”
Jacaré do Barigüi
Sem Coração
Engoliu o Sagüi
Arrotou Canção

Empalados os Pôneis do meu amigo
Empacados na cachaça Comigo

Jacaré do Barigüi
Latindo í  plenos pulmões
Rio Ivo transbordado no centro
Blindou os palcos dos teus porões

Nas Masmorras:
Um grito de Gol
Sodoma e Gomorra
Grite essa porra:

– De onde vem os bebês?!! Pra que sangrar todo Mês?!!
“

Revolta no teu hinário
ExuNoiseTudo no teu Armário
Pracinhas heróis na Praça
PsychoCarnaval da Zumbizada

Missionários Jogam dominó
Baralho em troca de cigarros
Expedicionários – Espermadulários

Em cima do tanque
O pior ex-panque
Surfando a Bomba
A Fábrica aponta

Olhando teus quadros
Pensando Abstrato
Perhapiness, nova edição
do porta-retratos

Errando uma letra do sobrenome no registro;
Dito e feito: Matamos Gutemberg, mas ontem eu nem a vi.
Thomas Edison registrou a lâmpada
mas nas entrelinhas
A idéia será tua
exclusivamente
uma parceria
com a minha tia

Gol! De quem?

Seca o Olho
Segue o Seco
Uma lágrima réptil
Sim, Tio Barnabé – o labirinto.

Chulé!

– Falanges de Estanho –
(glerm soares / lucida sans)

Ela pediu para tatuar-lhe o punho esquerdo
com ferro de solda modificado
não vacilei e fui desenhando
as falanges dos 4 dedos

Em cada junta um trí­tono
E nem de tuba, nem de pí­fano
tal rugido poderia
gritar os timbres da nova era (nem mesmo a solidão solipsista, fera)

ainda espera?

E desta nova quimera
O grito curava até o japão
Beijávamos cada chão
Como se fosse nosso solo

ossídíÃ?â?í¹íí¯ ou opílíÇsuí± ‘líossíd Ã?â? Hí¥ oí íí¯íí¹Ã?Ÿuí±íW op Ã?â?¢Ã?â?¢Ã?â?¢oí±í¹áuí±q op oí±í¹édí¯í± o opuíÃ?â?uíqsíp íÇí¹odsuíí¹ÇílíÇ op íí±Ã?â?uêí±Ã?â? âË?â?¬ :ípípí±líÃ?â?ol oãu íí¯n í±nbâË?â?¬
|
Caminhando pela rua em uma viagem pela cidade-motor do atlântico leste, Non Ducor Duco, |
na desconvergência por 3 linhas do metrô e suas diferenças na divisão social do trabalho |
eu sinto uma palpitação, um sopro, arritmia e penso novamente nos limites de todos discursos, |
a falência múltipla de todos os orgãos… |
Mas insisto numa escrita radical que há dias me perturba a gênese deste rabisco aqui. |
|
O deslocamento da não-localidade e a tentativa axiomática pela invenção do século 22, |
que passa por aqui em direção dos nossos cinquentenários de vida &/ou obra, septuagenários acentos e filas, nonagenária quase conquista |
até a possibilidade de convencer e conhecer a existência do anti-câncer, |
o delí­rio in vitro do outro eu-você, do backup cerebral. |
|
Tudo aquilo que nos policí­a as moléculas e a respiração—————-ââ?¬â?¹————————–ââ?¬â?¹————————–ââ?¬â?¹————————–ââ?¬â?¹——————-
|
Antes do sopro eu imaginava este rabisco como uma espécie de [corda~] em ressonância
Ressonância com tudo aquilo que é desesperadamente negado pelo misticismo, pela superstição
e pelas cosmogonias analfabetas neste idioma e distantes da latinidade deste alfabeto.
Uma espécie de liturgia: a forma sinfônica em colisão com mantras monofônicos, de uma simetria impossí­vel mas contorno tangí­vel
num cálculo de fórmulas coladas escritas em pulsos cortados por esta topologia
hypercubica, hyperbólica bólide, tragicamente hypercartesiana

este Léxico amadiçoado pelos colonizados não-excomungados prestes a serem queimados na testa
com a marca do mais assimétrico triscaedecágono

pelas cruzadas rumo ao iluminismo cego de um gluon-foton
Biosfera 3.x
Ressuscitando aqueles desenhos fotorealistas de anatomia:
homens corteses, suas batinas e bisturis.
E da mais afiada Navalha agora o corte,
um corte no fí­gado de Prometeu ou de um g)Ã?Ë?Ã?â?ºú qualquer Trimegisto de Corvo e Nanquim
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ââ?¬â?¹;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ââ?¬â?¹;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ââ?¬â?¹;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ââ?¬â?¹;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;ââ?¬â?¹;;;;;;;;;;; a talha hipocrática:

Post scriptum, o boneco de lama que surge da matemática porvir
o objeto e seu problema funcionalista, estruturalista, pósitron progressista
versus o elétron inutensí­lio,
explodindo em cacos de frascos de remédios genéricos numa esteira
a carregar o vidro aqui recomposto
em imagens de um pretérito acerca
até o girar alienado da rosca e
a fechar tais frascos.

Mãos proletárias,
precariado cognitivo.

Marca da besta estampada num microchip processador microcontrolador Imperador do Binário Anno Domini.
í¿Laboratórios?
í¿
í¿
Você tenta me convencer de que despreocupadamente investiga algo sobre a possibilidade da “grande invenção” aspasaspasaspas
uma meta-elegia do velho e ressuscitado zumbi-liceu-agora-ágora,
donde sábios diletantes despreocupadamente salvam o mundo e criam estoicamente seus semi-deuses
, ou as vezes por acidente algum apocalipse,
mas quando não,
acidentalmente criam 12 a 12 mil trabalhos heróicos para tal precariado semi-algo.
Calculando música das esferas do moto-contí­nuo do Motor Non ducor Duco
Mimetizando cores de uniformes
trágica borda de invenção da Pólis sem a expulsão platônica de sua classe.
Arrancam-lhe os órgãos e espalham pelo bico de 12 mil abutres, grous, tucanos, águias-carecas e papagaios verdes
ursos e onças a nadar numa geleira que flutua do írtico a íntartica,
adaptados ao hyperaquecimento,
hypercubo,
hypercésio,
hyper-ultimo-elemento-da-tââ?¬â?¹abela periódica, Teu nome em vão, Ununoctium.

Diabulous in Musica onde não mais há uma onipresente liturgia,
teus chips tua mpusica, tuas cordas tua música,
o diapasão dos teus tambores,
ou refrões de seus hinos-lar
– Migrando Sistemas – Abraço do Bando –
mas a fresta do corte anti-hipocrático Cirurgia
o desespero além da clí­nica, o corte honesto e melhor possí­vel
a arrancar-lhe os apêndices e amí­gdalas,

Amigadalectomia – cicatriz motriz

Enquanto você ritualí­sticamente
corta
copia
e cola
Bulas prontas a negar os escribas com sua fé inabalável numa Natura além desses sintagmas…

…Uma inclusão digital impossí­vel na Quarkcracia pós-orientalista
trama-se nas entranhas de uma Marte colonizada por terráqueos
entre bravas plantas e animais pioneiros,
Matematização sensí­vel das topologias tangí­veis
de um ábaco que agora e por aqui codamos.

A além bastardo do Anti-édipo sem órgãos com Elektra haplóide pós-corpo . O século 22 com você e seu bicentenário clone curando-se de todo Ununoctium.
O anti-herói de uma nova tipografia
sintaxe de novos alfabetos e sistemas numéricos
O anti-Heródoto H.
Duas pontes H (eu-você) e 1 O bem grande no meio.
Borbulhando.
Respire.
2 O.
buraco.
ponte.
Sinapse em carbono.
ossídíÃ?â?í¹íí¯ ou opílíÇsuí± ‘líossíd Ã?â? Hí¥ oí íí¯íí¹Ã?Ÿuí±íW op Ã?â?¢Ã?â?¢Ã?â?¢oí±í¹áuí±q op oí±í¹édí¯í± o opuíÃ?â?uíqsíp íÇí¹odsuíí¹ÇílíÇ op íí±Ã?â?uêí±Ã?â? âË?â?¬ :ípípí±líÃ?â?ol oãu íí¯n í±nbâË?â?¬

vejam, isso é sensí­vel tentativas isso aqui é o mais baixo ní­vel onde você pode trabalhar com rede. leia isso como se fosse poesia. eu quero. I. manga, escola, árvore. de madeira. máquina de ensinar música. mecatrônica factí­vel. mão do macaco.

você acredita como tomás de aquino, nessa memória dele resolver mexer o braço, ou pela internet
então aí­ volta a coisa do cobaia do maravilhoso – sabe tudo sendo mapeado. Falo do meu jogo. ouve os outros. assinala aqui o espectro esmiuçando radiofrequências em que se concentrou. Protocolo. gateway. ressonância. relacionamentos. costurar acho que duas dessas coisas era isso – e não maniqueí­smo – a tua gritaria ou não eu quero que você fale da minha escuta. da outra escuta. ou se me chamam eu vou ouvir o espaço no qual vocẽs estão concentrads. protocolar. ressonancia. interpessoal. e daí­ que como memória ram ele está pensando uma duas dessas coisas – parar
e há
continua.

uma amostragem mí­nima pode ser instanciada várias vezes. corpo é diferente de objeto, corpo é uma instância. não dá pra saber. isso interessa. vou criar mais um. crie outra. posso voltar um pouco? este é um objeto que nós fizemos. e aqui outros fragmentos que derivaram de uma memória do felipe (..) e aqui: metasampler.,
dois aqui
vou criar mais dois.

85
89
outros artigos investidos e
um tempo para aquela identidade objeto
corrigir alguns dos ruí­dos de acordo com seu ambiente
lastrear cada zero dolar ele te diz qual a equivalência entre este este aquele

pacote do realejo pela rede
alerta ruí­do
consonante
linha aut:onoma
rede arredores
ajuste harmônicos
a tinta
o portão da casa

x gestos calcule

fique cansado

é que vocês já tão no level 42
grau maçonico
trigésimo terceiro da escala escocesa

te enganar
no máximo 127 que é o midi

fine
eu vou de zero a um
eu flutuo

se vocês dizem
eu acredito

CARTA DO CONSELHO MUNICIPAL DE CULTURA DE LONDRINA

No Diário oficial da União, de 29 de julho de 2010, o Conselho Nacional de Polí­tica Cultural – CNPC informou que os estados de Minas Gerais, Rondônia e Paraná estarão excluí­dos do Sistema Nacional de Cultura pelo fato de não possuí­rem um Fundo Estadual de Cultura e um Conselho Estadual de Cultura.
Isto significa que as populações desses estados não terão acesso a projetos financiados com recursos federais. Por exemplo: os grandes festivais do Paraná, que existem há muitos anos, poderão ficar sem esses investimentos inviabilizando a realização dos mesmos.
O fator mais grave desta exclusão se dá pela PEC 150/2003, emenda constitucional a ser aprovada ainda este ano pelo Congresso, que determina um piso mí­nimo do orçamento da Cultura de 2% para a União, 1,5% para os Estados, e 1% para os Municí­pios, e deste dinheiro da União 25% será disponibilizado aos Estados e 25% aos Municí­pios, ou seja, o Paraná e todas as suas cidades ficarão desfalcados tanto no seu desenvolvimento cultural e social, como também econômico. E, portanto, O CNPC recomenda que se crie um conselho estadual através de uma conferência para este fim.
No caso do Paraná, em 2009, foi realizada a II Conferência Estadual de Cultura na cidade de Campo Mourão. O evento reuniu representantes de diversas cidades do estado. Para se ter uma idéia, a Conferência de Londrina teve duração de três dias para se conseguir dar conta da demanda proposta pelos representantes dos segmentos culturais, enquanto que a Conferência Estadual disponibilizou apenas um dia para este fim e, ainda assim, utilizou parte deste tempo para apresentações culturais e ví­deos institucionais atrasando o iní­cio do evento, reduzindo ainda mais o tempo disponí­vel. A leitura do regimento da conferência não foi realizada e os debates não tiveram representantes do Governo do Estado para dirigir a mesa, sendo necessário que os delegados culturais se apresentassem como voluntários para isso.
Os resultados da Conferência Estadual de Cultura foram a votação das propostas do Estado do Paraná e a escolha dos delegados para a Conferência Nacional de Cultura. O que no ano passado era importante, hoje se tornou imprescindí­vel para o Paraná: a criação de um Conselho Estadual de Cultura e de um fundo para a fomentação de projetos culturais. Diante do exposto, solicitamos que a Secretaria do Estado de Cultura, em caráter de urgência, tome as providências necessárias para que o processo cultural do Paraná não fique í  margem do sistema nacional.

O Abaixo Assinado poderá ser impresso para o recolhimento do maior número de assinaturas possí­veis.
http://www.funcart.art.br/2010/Abaixo%20Assinado%20Implementa%E7%E3o%20Conselho%20Estadual.pdf
Favor entregar na Secretaria da Cultura na Rua Pio XII, 56 – 3342-2362

———————————————————————-

UM PUXÃO DE ORELHAS DO MINISTÉRIO DA CULTURA PARA O
PARANí

Depois de muito falar e questionar sobre a ausência de um CONSELHO ESTADUAL DE CULTURA no estado do Paraná, estou agora com muita tristeza começando a perceber as primeiras consequencias práticas desta atitude negligente dos gestores público de nosso Estado.

Vejam abaixo a publicação no Diário Oficial da União datada de 29 de julho de 2010 onde de certa forma o Conselho Nacional de Polí­tica Cultural – CNPC faz um alerta para tres estados brasileiros, que até o momento não tomaram nenhuma providencia para que fossem instalados seus respectivos CONSELHOS DE CULTURA, entre eles o Paraná.

Pois bem. Esta ausência de um Conselho faz com que o Paraná não cumpra com suas obrigações perante as novas exigências do Sistema Nacional de Cultura (SNC) e desta forma o estado estaria alijado de todos os programas e benefí­cios concedidos aos entes integrantes do Sistema. Em outras palavras, uma vez excluido do Sistema Nacional de Cultura, o Paraná e consequentemente todos os entes públicos (prefeituras e demais organismos públicos paranaense) e privados (artistas, produtores e entidades do terceiro setor) não mais poderão receber recursos através do Fundo Nacional de Cultura (FNC), instrumento que alimenta peraticamente todos os editais propostos e mantidos pelo MinC, ou de programas como o Mais Cultura ou o Programa Cultura Viva, programa este que cria entre outras coisas os chamados Pontos de Cultura.

Cabe lembrar aqui, que se realmente isto vier a se consolidar (O Paraná ser excluí­do do SNC por não cumprimento de suas obrigações) os Pontos de Cultura e os projetos hoje em andamento aqui no estado estarão correndo o risco de não mais receber recursos federais ou terem seus convênios prorrogados.

Lembro que o Sistema Nacional de Cultura (SNC) é um instrumento de Polí­tica de Estado e não mais de Polí­ticas de Governo, o que significa dizer que uma vez aprovado no Congresso Nacional o Plano Nacional de Cultura (marco legal do Sistema Nacional de Cultura) não será mais o governo do partido A ou do partido B que tomará esta decisão ou terá poder de reverter todo este processo. A legislação uma vez aprovada, e a expectativa é de que o Plano Nacional de Cultura esteja aprovado nos próximos meses, não haverá outra alternativa para nós paranaenses a não ser sentar e chorar.
Sem Conselho de Cultura, sem recursos Federais para a Cultura.

Marcelo Miguel
Produtor Cultural e Poeta
Editor do Jornal Quixote
www.quixoteart.com.br

——————————————————————

Transcrição do Diário oficial da União de 29 de julho de 2010

Ministério da Cultura
GABINETE DO MINISTRO
RECOMENDAÇÃO No- 7, DE 23 DE JUNHO DE 2010
Recomenda a instalação de conselhos de culturanos estados de Minas Gerais, Paraná e Rondônia.
O CONSELHO NACIONAL DE POLíTICA CULTURAL – CNPC, reunido
em Sessão Ordinária, nos dias 22 e 23 de junho de 2010, e no uso das competências que lhe são conferidas pelo Decreto nú 5.520, de 24 de agosto de 2005, alterado pelo Decreto nú 6.973/2009, tendo em vista o disposto em seu Regimento Interno, aprovado pela Portaria nú 28, de 19 de março de 2010, e: Considerando o esforço nacional efetuado no sentido de construir uma polí­tica nacional de cultura com ampla participação popular, e que a não
participação dos estados de Minas Gerais, Paraná e Rondônia este processo exclui quase 20% da população brasileira do debate sobre a implementação do Sistema Nacional de Cultura e das deliberações da II Conferência Nacional de Cultura; e Considerando que a consolidação do Fundo Nacional de Cultura
exigirá, para repasse de recursos federais, a constituição dos conselhos
nas esferas estaduais e municipais, além da constituição dos respectivos fundos, o que torna ainda mais grave a ausência destes três estados neste processo, excluindo suas populações do acesso a projetos financiados por recursos federais; Recomenda aos governos dos estados de Minas Gerais, Paraná e Rondônia, os únicos três estados da federação brasileira a ainda não terem instituí­do e instalado conselhos estaduais de polí­tica cultural, que
tomem providências no sentido de constituí­rem seus conselhos estaduais; e Recomenda que a instalação e implantação destes conselhos seja resultado de processos democráticos de participação popular, estabelecidos em conferências que devem ser convocadas para este fim.

JOÃO LUIZ SILVA FERREIRA
Presidente do Conselho Nacional de Polí­tica Cultural
GUSTAVO VIDIGAL
Secretário-Geral do Conselho Nacional de Polí­tica Cultural