Most firms in this category hide the price. The page says contact us, a representative will be in touch, the real number arrives in a quote you cannot compare against anyone else's, and somewhere inside it sits a fee of fifteen to twenty-five percent with the components buried in fine print. The genre is so consistent that a Bitcoiner can smell it from the homepage and leave before the second paragraph. We know the smell, because we are those Bitcoiners, and we leave too.
So we built the opposite. The price is on the page. The government contribution is $1,000,000 in BTC or USDT, flat across the family, with each additional applicant a marginal $999. The 21 CBI advisory fee is a flat 5%, which is $50,000, stated as a percentage and as a dollar figure so there is nothing to reverse-engineer. The advisory's value-add is separately specified at $50,000. The all-in for a single applicant is $1,050,000, published as a ladder rather than a range, so you can audit it line by line before you speak to anyone.
The number is not the point. The disclosure is.
A flat 5% is not unusually generous; it is simply legible. The reason it converts is not that it undercuts the 15-to-25% the category charges, though it does. The reason it converts is that publishing it removes the one thing a skeptical buyer cannot tolerate: the suspicion that the number changes depending on how much you appear able to pay. A posted price is a commitment. A quote is a negotiation in which the firm knows the floor and you do not. The Bitcoiner who has read the white paper several times has a finely tuned instrument for detecting that asymmetry, and the only way to disarm it is to remove it.
This is the same move Bitcoin makes with money. Cryptographic proof replaces institutional trust: you do not take the issuer's word for the supply, you verify it. The pricing page is the advisory equivalent. You do not take our word for the cost; you read the ladder, you check the arithmetic, you decide. The page that lets you verify is the page a skeptic can buy.
What honesty looks like when it costs us something.
Transparency about the price is the easy half, because the price flatters us. The harder half is the trade-offs, and we publish those at the same volume. The Freedom Passport opens 132 destinations, full Schengen plus Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong; it does not open the United States or the United Kingdom, both of which still require a visa. We write that on the program page in the same size type as the 132. There is no Spain or wider-EU fast-track bundled in; citizenship here is El Salvador's, and the European access is the visa-free travel, not a residency shortcut. And the governance risk is real: El Salvador's Bitcoin policy has already shifted once under IMF negotiation, the $1,000,000 contribution is irreversible, and we walk you through the policy timeline before you commit rather than after.
A skeptical Bitcoiner does not buy the page that hid the trade-off. He buys the page that stated it before he had to ask.
None of those admissions helps a sales funnel. Every one of them helps the reader, and that is the whole mechanism. The buyer at this price point is not looking for a program with no drawbacks, because he knows none exists at any price. He is looking for an advisor who will tell him the drawbacks unprompted, because that is the only reliable signal that the advisor will still tell him the truth after the wire clears. The trade-off, stated first, is the proof of character the figure can never be.
The provenance playbook, in public.
The same logic governs the part of the file that frightens people most. The $1,000,000 has to arrive with a complete, UTXO-level account of where it came from, and most of the anxiety around that requirement is the anxiety of not knowing what is actually being asked. So we published the answer. The source-of-funds playbook lays out what The Bitcoin Office and the DGME accept as on-chain provenance, what flags a file, and how a 2017 exchange consolidation or a self-custody gap gets reconstructed into something a compliance officer can verify without a follow-up request. It is on the open web, free to read, free to copy. A firm that intended to improvise the answer per client would never publish the method. We publish it because the method does not change, and because a reader who can see the work is a reader who can trust it.
Some of what we publish is dull on purpose. A source-of-funds reconstruction is dull. A 0% capital-gains line for foreign investors, a Non-CRS reporting posture stated honestly with the FATCA caveat for US persons intact, a cost ladder that does not move: none of it is exciting, and the flatness is the signal. Marketing copy has to be exciting because the underlying claim is thin. Technical writing is permitted to be flat because the underlying signal carries it. . . . The dullness is a feature; it is what verifiable looks like in prose.
An honest disclosure about the honesty.
One more thing, stated plainly because the piece would be dishonest without it. This essay is a marketing channel, in the strict sense that it exists to bring the right reader closer to the firm. We know that the reader who finishes a 1,000-word account of why we post the price is more likely to book a session than the reader who saw a banner. That is not a contradiction of the argument; it is the argument. Editorial works as a channel for exactly the reason a banner does not: the reader can audit it. He can find the errors, follow the figures to the program page, check the 5% against the $50,000, and decide for himself whether the firm knows what it is talking about. A banner does not permit that audit. A posted price, a stated trade-off, and a published method do. The conversion is not a trick we run on the skeptic. It is the skeptic doing the verification we invited, and arriving.
If, after reading the ladder and the trade-offs, you decide the Freedom Passport is not the right move for your situation, that is the correct outcome of the reading. Two questions decide the fit. We would rather you reach that conclusion on our page than on a call after a quote you could not compare. The skeptic who walks away informed is worth more to this firm than the buyer who was rushed, because the informed reader is the one who comes back, and the one who tells the next Bitcoiner where the math was on the page.
Adam Juchniewicz, CEO, 21 CBI
The Ledger · May 2026