Loading summary
Transcript128 lines
- [00:00]
A
Well, good morning, everyone. For those who care, since, since crypto markets don't seem to be very interesting to people during the middle of the summer. But whatever, we're here, so we may as well talk about it. We're seeing a very interesting dichotomy going on. And as the market kind of, you know, trades in these incredibly narrow ranges and, you know, from my perspective, it. I've been saying the same thing, so I don't really have a whole lot to add other than the fact that it feels like we've bottomed. It feels like there's this notion of smart money buying when others are selling and not really much happening. All I'll say is it's now three weeks since strategy has bought a bitcoin. Actually they've sold during that three weeks and they're raising cash and feels like a pretty good contrary indicator to me in terms of what's actually happening. So curious, you know, what, what people are thinking. But I will say that some of the most thoughtful bears, when I say bears, that's really not, not a right appellation. Some of the most thoughtful traders who sold the top and were bearish and calling for significantly lower are changing their tune. And they're changing it for basically the reason that if everybody expects bitcoin to bottom in September, October, it will certainly do so beforehand if in fact it's not dead. And so that's sort of where we're at. And, you know, I don't really have a whole lot to say on, on the state of the market other than to say that pretty much every other trend, every other macro thing is positive. So it's really a question of, of what's going on. And, you know, I don't want to call on people, but, you know, whether it's. We talked about last week, you know, the BIP 110 debate, which, you know, I think most investors don't really care, to be honest. I think that a lot of people are very passionate on the topic, but I don't think people terribly care. So, you know, I, I guess we, I guess we, we, we look to see it. I mean, I don't want to bring up the topic that has me the most annoyed from this morning yet, but, you know, I'll keep that one in my back pocket. Anybody care? You know, a, you know, Adam, you know, I know you laugh at, at people's, know, apathy of what's going on.
- [02:19]
B
You know, bro, everybody's on vacation, man. I mean, this is what it is. You know, I Don't know. I think, you know, there, there's kind of the more interesting conversations. I don't know if you, you saw pop on your timeline today was more about potentially banning open source. I don't know if that, it could be just rumors, but I don't know. This was the kind of open source AI getting banned. Well, or some sort of restriction on, you know, the top level open source AIs. I don't know. For me, this is the most interesting conversation happening right now because I think
- [02:52]
A
you're right and I think by the way, to call that asinine. I don't think, I think that's unfair because it's so much worse than that.
- [03:03]
B
Yeah, I mean it's the ultimate protectionism, but protectionism in such a bad way for your, your own companies and people. Right.
- [03:13]
A
It's like I made the point this morning on, on Macro Monday with Scott that people don't understand that.
- [03:20]
C
Yes.
- [03:20]
A
I mean certainly open source AI is not good for open air and anthropic, that's absolutely certain. But it's unbelievably good for the rest of the economy.
- [03:30]
B
Of course.
- [03:31]
A
I mean.
- [03:31]
B
Yeah.
- [03:32]
A
And I use an example because I know it's true. I've seen it, right. You know, coin routes. You know, Ian built a, using an open source AI, he built a customer support bot that's multilingual that has trained on that. We obviously trained it ourselves. They trained it themselves using, you know, that open source AI and their own information and the labor savings that it can, that it offers and the level of productivity that it offers compared to, you know, you know, typical, you know, support tools is massive. You could extend that throughout every single service and knowledge business.
- [04:11]
B
Of course.
- [04:12]
A
And it's you. Well, you say of course.
- [04:13]
B
No, I mean, maybe not of course because it's maybe not obvious to people who are running kind of, I don't know, traditional businesses. Right. It's not really obvious to them yet. It's obvious to me because like we're in the AI space and we run, I don't know, 20 some odd, you know, max plans from, from anthropic. Right. And you know, those 20 max plans, I mean, obviously we can afford it, but the, the, the idea that I wouldn't be able to use one, which is 1/50 of the cost, is incre. I mean, it's so asinine. It's like, and you know, people are, would just work around it. If it's open source, we just download it. Who's going to Tell us this. You know, what, are they going to lock everybody up who uses these? I mean, it's, it's, it's truly insane to even have the conversation.
- [05:00]
A
In some ways it is, but it also get. But it gives you an idea of the panic from, you know, look, who cares about this? The entire VC complex that.
- [05:11]
D
Oh, yeah.
- [05:11]
A
All the money tied up in these big private companies that they want to ipo. Yeah. And by the way, if you don't think that there are lots of politicians, both in the administration and in Congress, who aren't involved here, then you're not paying attention. I mean, it's, it's the most obvious downside of how bought and paid for our politicians writ large are. And this, this spans party, by the way. This is a, this is bipartisan.
- [05:41]
B
Absolutely.
- [05:42]
A
They're all this way.
- [05:43]
B
I mean, I give Dario credit. He's. He spun an amazing tale. Like he, he really has done this incredible fear, created a really fantastic narrative around fear and how incredible his product is at the same time. Right. That honestly, it's been like this master class in, in storytelling. Both sides, right? Oh, my God. It's basically, it's AGI. It's, you know, this is the most powerful thing in the history of the world. We need to regulate it immediately to create the moat. You know, it's like it's, it's such a fantastic narrative he's spun.
- [06:24]
E
Except for.
- [06:24]
A
Here's the problem with that, Adam. And I think, you know, this is. If it truly were AGI, the regulations wouldn't work.
- [06:31]
B
It's not going to work anyway.
- [06:32]
D
Right.
- [06:34]
A
But I mean, I mean, if Skynet,
- [06:36]
C
you know, guys, what's getting there?
- [06:37]
A
And the regulation's not going to stop it.
- [06:41]
C
Do you know what? I thought last week would happen that I don't think got covered very much and I think was very telling. You know, we've been being told now for months and months and months and months and months that there's this massive shortage of compute and every big company is building massive data centers and needs more compute. Needs more compute. Needs more compute. And then last week, Meta announced that they were selling 10 billion of compute to anthropic. Why does Meta have 10 billion extra of computer? Unless they suddenly realize that they're going to need a lot less compute than they're.
- [07:19]
A
Well, the Meta situation's a bit. It's interesting. I mean, they spent a lot building out compute for the Metaverse that turned out to be complete. A complete waste. And they also tried building their own ships.
- [07:31]
C
Yeah, but That's a tiny percentage of what's needed. A minuscule.
- [07:35]
A
But they're. They basically. That's more of an outsourced leaseback deal they. Than anything else. That's fairly typical.
- [07:42]
C
But. But how do they have extra compute if everybody is so short of compute, right? We've been hearing everybody's so short of compute, everybody needs more compute, and now all of a sudden Meta has all this extra.
- [07:54]
B
Well, everybody who doesn't have compute needs compute. I think it's more. More along that lines, but yeah, no, it doesn't.
- [08:00]
C
No, Meta doesn't need compute. Meta one of the most. If literally.
- [08:04]
B
No, no, no. The ones who don't own companies in the world own the computer, need the compute, right?
- [08:11]
C
Well, Anthropic owns plenty of compute, right?
- [08:15]
A
Well, they lease it, but yeah, I mean, but now think.
- [08:19]
C
But the bottom line is Meta does not need compute.
- [08:22]
A
Lay it out over.
- [08:23]
C
Meta has extra compute that they don't need that they thought that they did need. Why don't they need the compute they thought they. They need?
- [08:30]
A
Because they weren't using it as well.
- [08:31]
C
I think that's a question. We don't know the answer.
- [08:33]
A
Oh, I mean, that's true. I mean, I mean, one would think. But the logical is because they don't do it as well as the companies that they're leasing it to. And so they're going to lease it back. Right. You know, depending on what they're using it for. I mean, look, the thing about compute, the thing about everything about it is there's an iron law of economics and that's at play here, is it will continue to get more and more efficient and get more and more competitive. The real limiting factor isn't compute per se. It's access to power and the ability to get that power into compute. I mean, I assume that, that.
- [09:12]
C
Well, those are the same things, right? You don't get compute without power and you can't.
- [09:17]
A
Yeah, well, yeah, so, yeah, I mean, it's. It's sort of true, but not, not really.
- [09:23]
C
But apparently Met has got all the power it needs, right? It's somewhere.
- [09:26]
A
I mean, yes, I'd be interested to see. Look, the market has certainly taken that to heart. I mean, most of these companies involved in this have been cut in half from their highs. It's more than 50% off their highs. Quite a few of them. The infrastructure plays, so we'll see. I think it's more of a secular thing, but I think that when you said nobody noticed, I would say that anyone who's an investor in Name that hyperscale and name that infrastructure. They noticed it.
- [09:55]
B
Yeah. I mean, when that Kimming model came out, I think I was listening to a pod. Somebody said, you know, if, if Anthropic was a publicly traded company at the time, it would have lost, you know, 30 of its value. Right. Because, I mean, yes, people, it's hard to switch, right, but it's not impossible to switch. It's, I would, I would argue actually, like, you know, using something like, I don't know, QuickBooks or, you know, some sort of like, you know, SAS product is harder to switch than, than an AI model. And when you're paying $50, whatever per million tokens with Anthropic, if somebody's going to give it to me for, if an open source gets it to me for 50 cents, like, eventually everybody's going to switch. Like, people are not. There will be ways to switch that are, you know, just easier, faster. And I just. Dario, everybody knows this. Like, I mean, yes, people will stay with the, the, with the American models for now because there's kind of this gray zone. And hooking up an open, open source model is maybe difficult to some degree, but it's not difficult. It's not a difficult decision when it's, you know, that many X's cheaper. I just think it's.
- [11:16]
F
Yeah.
- [11:16]
B
I don't know, it just, it seems like these, these big companies are, are real, really in trouble. And the, the quickest way to prevent that from happening is to create artificial moats by government. I mean, it's just this has been obvious now for like six months at least. And I don't know how it plays out in the end, but it would certainly be bad for America and Americans if this, this went through in any way, in my view.
- [11:44]
A
Yeah, I mean, look, I made the point this morning. I'm curious what you think about this, Adam, which is that regulation aside, let's just assume that this fever dream doesn't actually get traction and can't pass. Right? Because it's really, you know, it would be difficult for it to do. So. Look, our Congress can't get anything done. So, you know, if they can't get clarity done, which makes so much sense even to most the privately, to the Democrats as much as the Republicans, if they can't get that done, doing something so obviously anti American as banning industries and creating a monopoly. I mean, look, they've done that before, but they did it in health care and they did it surreptitiously. They knew what they were doing. But most people who voted for it didn't. The trend toward better and better and faster and cheaper open source models is, is very bullish for a lot of companies, but it's also likely to accelerate the development of the agentic economy and more and more agents and more and more service industries will use it, thereby necessitating the use of crypto based Rails for commerce and probably savings investing finance as well as that. I'm curious, I mean, do you think I'm out of my mind by saying that?
- [13:00]
B
I don't know. You know, I think most, most of what we've seen over the last year is that the idea of what I would call like public blockchains has basically been killed. Like any real company has created their own blockchains to, to run their stuff. So I, I think it's definitely gone that way. I think the thesis has not played out as native crypto people would have hoped. Not to say we haven't had tremendous traction and movement, but still, when, when the choice between, you know, hosting my stuff on Ethereum or building my own blockchain has come up, companies have chose their own blockchain or, or, and not,
- [13:48]
C
not all of them. Robin Hood.
- [13:49]
B
Yeah, dude. How much, how much is it? What I'm saying is no value has gone to Ethereum other than awareness.
- [13:58]
F
Great.
- [13:58]
B
Everybody's aware that it's built on Arbitrum and it's on Ethereum. Great. How much fees have passed to Ethereum?
- [14:05]
C
Yeah, people were saying the same thing about Facebook as they give it away for years. Oh, Facebook will never make money. Nobody will ever pay for Facebook. And you know, it's a trillion dollar company if you have users, if people
- [14:15]
A
love what you make.
- [14:17]
B
Hold on a second, hold on a second. What are you talking about? What do you mean? Wait, I thought you were talking about like games and stuff built on Facebook
- [14:24]
C
that eventually all I'm talking about Facebook itself, Facebook itself did not monetize for years. So saying that Ethereum hasn't monetized, therefore it doesn't have value in my mind is not a relevant argument.
- [14:39]
B
You're comparing a social network and people on a social network.
- [14:42]
C
I'm comparing monetary network.
- [14:45]
B
What do you mean, what are you talking about?
- [14:47]
C
I'm comparing activity. If you have users using your product, name me something that's gotten to billions of users that have.
- [14:56]
B
Well, there aren't billions of users on Ethereum. There aren't even, I mean, I can't even see that. Say there are hundreds of thousands of users on Ethereum. Show me the Transactions that tell me there are billions of users on Ethereum.
- [15:06]
C
No. How many transactions does Robinhood have?
- [15:08]
B
Yeah, but dude, that's what I'm saying. It's not on. There's no, nothing is being pushed to Ethereum as far as fees or anything. The total fees. I saw it the other day was
- [15:16]
C
like, again, again, I'm, I agree with you, there is no fees. But saying that because today there are no fees, there will never be any fees is, I think, not relevant. I think that's a silly argument. You want to give it away for free. You want people to use it, you want to maximize people using it before you start charging them to use it.
- [15:37]
B
Well, I don't disagree. Is that the plan for Ethereum? Is that the plan?
- [15:42]
C
I think the plan for Ethereum is
- [15:44]
A
to get people to use then, then that play.
- [15:46]
C
And I think they're doing a great job.
- [15:47]
B
Why would they ever. Why would we. More people, would they be moving away from the L2 strategy then? I mean, I would, I wouldn't. When they were making no fees and pushing the L2s, I was like, this is actually a great. I thought it was brilliant. So I agree with you in that strategy. Why not do more of this? Why not worry zero about fees? Just get everybody building and then you can rack up fees, then you can move fees once everybody's on top of. But it seems like Ethereum has gone away from that strategy over the last six months. And by that I mean Vitalik specifically has gone away from that strategy.
- [16:25]
C
Yeah, I think that we saw that the adoptions of the L2s probably weren't what they thought it did. Look, obviously Ethereum is still evolving. It's super, super early in all of this, but I think clearly they've got a very substantial lead and it feels like the lead is getting bigger every day.
- [16:46]
F
Wow.
- [16:47]
B
I don't know.
- [16:48]
E
I don't know.
- [16:49]
B
Yeah, I'm a big, I have, I'm a big ETH holder. It's probably my biggest crypto holding. But I don't know, at some point I look for like real users, meaning users of the actual chain. And I'd be much more bullish on Solana in that sort of case where I actually know people who use it. ETH is just so lightly used in for everyday like use cases and L2 aside, like is Coinbase has Coin. Coinbase, which is the biggest winner in L2. Like who's using Coinbase? I mean, it's, it's so, so lightly used. I just, I don't know. I'm, I'm more bearish on it. I just, I don't get the, it doesn't pass the vibe check for me.
- [17:32]
A
Well, here's the thing, and I'll be a little bit contrary here, but let's understand how investing actually works. How do markets actually work? And one of the things we know about markets is they're narrative driven and they're cyclical. They go up, they go down. When you're at a point, I've been the first person, I probably back a year ago on this show, I would tell people that I can't believe that we have a market with so many assets that clearly have no fricking value at all being worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. And I've been saying that for a long time and by the way, I still think that's true. I think there's a lot of crap out there. But to not understand that people will value things based on narratives for decades, not just years, is just mistaking. So now understand that and then ask yourself the question, what happens when the cycle changes and people start looking for investments and looking for narratives? If Ethereum is being used by all of these people, as Lou talks about and, and, and it's not just Ethereum. There's, there's a bunch of other things going on. You mentioned Salana. There's, you know, there's a zcash narrative, there's. Look, there's narratives all over the crypto space that are all in the doldrums. They are all nowhere. What happens when bitcoin goes on a bull run and starts pulling everything with it? And I do think that will happen by the way. Yes, I do, I hope want to see the, the crap not move. Yeah. Do I think that every zombie coin is going to go back to all time highs? Absolutely not. I think quite a few of them never will. But that said, do I think that a lot of these things can catch a bid and that AI and open source AI in particular is going to be talked about as one of the reasons and the notion of agents using various crypto, you know, Rails and, and use cases to do their business is going to be relevant? Yeah, I do. Mostly because. Do, do I think it'll necessarily mean value to the holder? No, it won't. But you have to understand that's catches a bit. I mean you. That's just a thought. Brian.
- [19:48]
D
Hey, morning everyone. Yeah, I was just going to say on the point on Ethereum, I think that some of the move away from the rollup Centric roadmap has been due to L2s being in a better position to capture value. I do think, like the phrase has been used, that L2s are parasitic to eth value capture. I think like, my understanding of where Vitalik is coming at it from is that L2 interoperability has proven tougher than originally thought, which is fragmenting liquidity and state. And then I do think that L2s have been much slower to move to further stages of decentralization, like having decentralized sequencers. So I think that Vitalik's original vision of this rollup centric roadmap hasn't actually come to fruition. And then I think like the meta conversation that we're talking about is, are L1 blockchains going the way of TCP IP, which is just a protocol that's free, or are they more like Microsoft Windows where you can obviously extract a lot of rent and capture a lot of value? I think the true answer is it's too early to tell. No one really knows. My personal opinion is I actually do think they will be worth a lot. I think that there are massive, massive network effects when you've got a big user base, you attract more developers and you have more applications, which then feeds on itself to attract more folks. I think we're not fully there yet on the privacy side, but I think this will make state more valuable and interoperability a lot harder when you can't just have like cross chain transactions quite as easily. And so I do think like, generally as these are used more and more and we're so early, you actually need the gas token in order to pay for your transaction. So as there's more activity, there's more demand for the token. The token should rise. So as kind of how I look at it. Thought I'd share that.
- [21:41]
B
Wait, are we, are we getting bullish on Ethereum again? God damn, you guys are starting to make me a little bullish, man.
- [21:48]
D
I'm all in. I'm with you on Solana. Yeah, I think Ethereum obviously is the most well known. It was the first to do it. I do think they're constrained by their original design decisions and they can't really change that at the L1, otherwise it would impact backwards compatibility, hence the L2 roadmap. And then I'm with you. I think that Solana is basically the first second generation smart contract blockchain. So it had a massive step up in performance, but it's also been around since 2020 to have all these really great Network effects. So I'm with you there.
- [22:27]
B
Yeah, I mean, for me it's, it's. And being that we're, we're also building on Solana, I mean, we're building on Ethereum too, but I just see the traction is so much more on Solana. Just real users, real people doing real things. I just don't, you know, I know a lot of people still on eth, I know a lot of, you know, developers on eth, but I don't see nearly the use cases and people actually using the chain in the same way that I see on Solana.
- [22:56]
A
Yeah, but I mean, whether it's one or the other, the, the, the assets themselves are incredibly highly correlated and are going to stay that way for quite a while. So it really, it's funny, you know, we will talk about it and debate it. I'm more on the Solana side than the ETH side from an asset point of view for exactly that reason. But the truth is it doesn't matter. You know, days when one of them is moving significantly, the other is generally tied to it. I mean, the correlations are just ridiculously high among most of the. Basically not just among them, but among a bunch of the rest of crypto. In fact, the correlation to Bitcoin is crazy high. The only asset in crypto that may be slightly uncorrelated is Ecash. And even there, there is correlation. It's just not as much as it's just less because it has been more idiosyncratic. But we put the title about Bitcoin holders in here. I'd like to pivot back to that for a second because it is fascinating that here we have the third straight week where MicroStrategy announced no Bitcoin buys and it's still holding and doing relatively well. Not, you know, plumbing the depths. And I've seen more of the thoughtful, I don't want to call them bears. But people who turned bearish at, you know, you know, above 100,000 and have, are starting to become, are now flipping and saying, okay, wait a minute, you know, we're, the cycle is getting much closer to the end than not. I mean, there have been a few people in that, that, that, you know, some big accounts on X, someones that I actually, and some people who I actually respect, you know, are saying the same thing, which is the same that I've been saying for, for two months, which is that the 60,000 level feels like it's a bottoming process. And I use the word process because it's not Immediate, you know, but it definitely feels like this and, and I laughed and I see Mike down a grain of salt in the audience. I mean you can certainly request to come up. I be happy to have you. But it feels like one of the great, you know, contrary indicators is Sailor has been pretty good over time at being. At selling the top, I think. What? Or buying the top. Excuse me. I think that he's selling the bottom here. Not really selling, but he's doing it for a reason. I don't think it's intentional, but it feels like that. I mean Brian, is that an old hand or a new hand? I can't tell on this app.
- [25:24]
D
Oh, old old hand.
- [25:26]
A
Okay. I mean since you're here, what are your thoughts on Bitcoin at these levels? I mean obviously it's, it's low Vol. It's obvious sitting around here, but it's been not, it's been definitely not doing what a lot of, a lot of the, the popular narrative claimed it would do. Or do you think it's just the calm before the storm?
- [25:46]
D
Yeah, I agree. Feels to me like we've bottomed. Obviously we were hit with so many different negative catalysts that kind of all came at once at took it 50% off its all time highs when all these other assets were at or near their all time highs. I do think that AI continues to steal all the attention and all the capital. I do think that something else negative could always come up. But it's really hard for me to think of something that is an idiosyncratic risk that, you know, may come to fruition. I do think like we're probably going to just continue to bounce sideways unless we get a catalyst. I think that the Clarity act could be that. I still put quite low odds on it, but I do think that there's a chance one because a lot of folks that are very plugged into dc, like Kristen Smith, the Solana Policy Institute thinks that we're well positioned to pass it in number two because I do think it's in the best interest of the country. So Clarity act could be that catalyst. The other thing that I'm watching out is can we get this new source of flows? I think that the ETFs when they came about the spot ETFs in the US were obviously brought in massive amounts of new money. And in my mind was the big reason why BTC went from 35k when BlackRock filed all the way to 70k, you know, after several months of good flows. And I think like we need Another massive source of demand. The only thing that I can think of that will be even bigger than what we had would be government buying. And the US keeps talking about they were going to put out an announcement on a US strategic bitcoin reserve. I don't know why it hasn't come out. I don't know why. You know, maybe that is not no longer an option. But I think like if for some reason we can get that and you know, the administration certainly has a financial incentive to push that through, I think that that could actually be exactly what we need and start this international war for bitcoin. So my view is kind of, kind of sideways moving with the macro and equity markets unless we can get one of these big positive catalysts to come through.
- [27:55]
A
So I'm going to go to Jamie and Lou, but I do want to debunk a couple things. You said the bitcoin market is so small relative to global capital flows that this notion that there's no potential money that could come into it is just nonsense sense. I mean, it really is tiny and it doesn't take much in terms of capital allocators out there. Whether those are RIA flows or fund flows, it doesn't matter. I mean there's just Bitcoin is tiny. And so if we had Matt Hogan from Bitwise on, he would tell you it wouldn't take very much. The ability for flows to overwhelm and surge the market higher is very real and it doesn't take governments to do it. Now, governments aren't going to do it until the accounting rules change. And as David pointed out this morning on Scott's show Gold, it wasn't even treated from an accounting point of view the way that people would want it to be as a financial asset as opposed to just something you central banks hold until 2019. So expecting Bitcoin to be approved by both FASB and Basel is small. But that said, anyway, I saw Jamie and then Lou.
- [29:08]
C
Yeah.
- [29:09]
F
Hey, Dave, how's it going, man? So, yeah, I agree on a lot of the points you were talking about with bitcoin. I mean, we got, you know, about 10 weeks left if we're looking at the site for the cycle theory FOMO kicking. Right. And I think it's possible that investors are will likely try to front run that cycle theory. You know, I'm probably 80, 20. Either the bottoms in or the downside benefit that you can gain relative to the upside. The risk reward doesn't add up. So, you know, I'm interested to see what's going to happen over this next, you know, couple months. But as far as the mstr, you know them selling today, I was looking at the 8K, they're at about 3.2 billion. They have about 800 million of obligations that are due to the end of the year. And then next year, you know, they have about a billion dollar converts due on top of the 1.7 of obligations. So you know, this selling is going to continue and they're going to have to continue to increase their USD reserves because in 2028 they have about almost 5 billion of converts that have puts potential. So I think this is going to continue and you know, whether they're going to balance selling, you know, issuing more shares and doing some more dilution or they're going to sell some more bitcoin, hopefully as the price goes up, it'll sell less bitcoin. But this is going to have to continue just based on their, their, their yearly obligations. I think it's bullish though and, and I do think that we've seen some movement with Ethereum relative to Bitcoin breaking out of a trend. And so hopefully this is a midcycle correction and, and some more acceleration will happen. Last cycle Ethereum led and then Bitcoin followed to new all time highs. So that's, that's kind of how I see the markets right now. To add to the conversation, I'm curious what you think, Lou.
- [31:08]
C
Yeah, I was just going to mention, you know that, yeah, sorry about that. I just wanted to mention that I hosted a webinar on strategy last Thursday with three of the smartest bitcoin analysts around and yeah, it was highly informative. You can watch the replay if you go to my Twitter you can see I've posted the replay of it and seven highlights. And the most interesting thing that came out of it in my mind is Lance Fatanza, who's the TD Cowan analyst, who's strategy's main banker. When he values strategy, he looks at their digital credit business which he thinks is going to generate 8 billion next year in the next 12 months. And he values it at four times that revenue. And so about a quarter of the value that he sees in strategy today is a digital credit business on top of right now it's trading at a 1 NAV 1.0 MNAP. So yeah, I'm becoming, you know, the more I learn about strategy, the more bullish I become on it.
- [32:18]
A
And I think that people don't understand, you know, what that entails. Right. You know, it's like the, I made the point that my reason for holding some strategy in my portfolio is the bet that at some point Bitcoin will be treated not just Bitcoin, but just that assets more universally. But Bitcoin in particular will be treated as pristine collateral based on its liquidity and haircut at its. Based on its liquidity and volatility. That opens up an enormous source of potential revenue in business for all the companies that are in that space that actually know what they're doing, that have a critical mass. If you don't have a critical mass, it doesn't help you. And these digital asset treasury companies that are just basic me toos and wannabes will all basically collapse under the weight of their management structure if they're paying, you know, if you're paying your management team a lot of money to do nothing, eventually you're going to lose. And, and I think that's what, what we've seen. But to me that's the kicker. That could be years from now. I don't know when it will be. But it is important because I don't think that, that. I think that when MicroStrategy was trading at A3M navigation, that was in my mind, that was why at a 1, it's by definition not being priced at all. So there's a call option embedded there that I don't think is being valued. And that's quite interesting from a bitcoin perspective, I think. I mean, Mike, I see, I see you up here.
- [33:53]
E
Yeah, so, so I'm trying to. That this is. I want to say something that's insightful and makes sense. I, I think that the, the beatings will continue until the morale improves. And what do I mean by, what do I mean by that? Look, look, look, if you're, if you're an MSTR shareholder and I'm a large MSTR shareholder, the stock was over $400. It peaked at 457 in July of last year. One year. So you're, you're down 75%. So, so there's many people that calculate, including myself, all kinds of metrics here. Do I think that it's great that they increase the USD reserve? Absolutely. I think that's the reason why STRC was so successful. I think they're at the point right now of trying not to do any more harm to the MSTR stock price. And for the shareholders, what I would say to them, again, like myself, is that they have. There's two things. We need a big buyer of mstr.
- [34:55]
A
Why.
- [34:56]
E
Why did I always like mstr? Because I knew they'd be a big buyer of bitcoin. I, I think they're, you know, for lack of a better idea, I think they're the, they are the biggest buyer of bitcoin. So when somebody says, you know, the, the guy from that was speaking about we need something to change. Yeah, we need to get back to an strc way watch party where it's at $100 per share and they could buy Bitcoin or it's MSTR. They acquired whatever MSTR shares was used to acquire whatever about 160,000 bitcoin for the year. And they've doubled their bitcoin per share over the past two years. They're the, the biggest buyer that we're aware of of bitcoin. And so that's why am I rooting for them? Sure. But I think that that's where these guys have to have to fix this and I think they're going to be more thoughtful. I, I would point to people to watch the two latest videos from Fong, the CEO of Strategy, saying that they, they did something that most companies don't do. They, they, he basically said, you know, in retrospect, cash balance sheet was more important than we thought. That's what he said. So I mean, Dave, that's where we stand with this. I can, we can do more analysis or I can do more analysis of what this all means. But if the stock price doesn't go up for MSTR and strc, we're kind of in a holding pattern. That's, that's a takeaway. I think this is a good thing, what they did, acquiring more cash. But until, until the stock prices go up and that's probably largely dependent upon bitcoin, let's say going to 70,000. I think that's where we stay.
- [36:34]
A
Brian's that a new hand?
- [36:37]
D
It is. So my thought, the whole reason to own mstr, any treasury company is to get more crypto per share. Last I calculated it, since MicroStrategy first bought Bitcoin in August 2020, it increased BTC per share at a 65% CAGR. Historically they had only really done this when they were trading at a premium. So when you trade above 1 times on Mnav, you can monetize that for shareholders by issuing equity, which by definition is accretive to crypto per share. I think that what we saw recently was a repurchase authorization which tells you that they are able and willing to actually monetize a discount now. So if they trade below one, you can play that multiple the other way and you can repurchase your stock to increase your bitcoin per share even in a bear market. Now fully agree, you need good risk management. So if BTC falls significantly instead of stays there for a long time, there is risk. I think you're also taking risk around the multiple. So say you buy it at two times and the multiple falls to one time, obviously like there's that risk there. But I think over a long period of time they've demonstrated the ability to increase bitcoin per share. And as long as you believe there'll be good stewards of risk management, then I think you will end up being better off buying MSTR than you would be just buying the underlying bitcoin yourself.
- [38:03]
E
Okay, so
- [38:06]
A
go for it.
- [38:06]
E
Yeah, yeah. So, so agreed on most of your points. And by the way, I'm not trying to challenge you. I, I don't want to be taken that I'm being argumentative at all. So, so please take it with this. I think the part where the bitcoin treasury space missed things is that they had to be proportional to what strategy was doing. And that's where you get M Nav led people astray. And a good example for this is that you can have two companies with the same MNAV and the amount of bitcoin that they own can be off by a factor of 20 or 30x. And that was one of the big mistakes. And I will take a shot at Jack Maller's here. When he asked that question a month ago, he's like, wait A second, there's two MVAVs and M Nav can go down while bitcoin per share goes up. Now you just can't say that as a CEO in a public, in a public forum. You just can't. And I think that's part of the problem. They all looked at M Nav thinking, well, M Nav is two things. It's a capital formation metric. If I sell expensive shares, meaning the M Nav is high, it's highly accretive on a per share basis. But in terms of capital stewardship, not particularly good. If you buy a stock at 2m NAV and it drops to 1m NAV. But Bitcoin continued to go up and that happened for strategy in 2025. And so people are like, wait a second. Bitcoin per share went up in all the scenarios, yet the M Nav went down. And that was the source of Jack's question. And I think that was problematic. So we have a bunch of problematic things happen Strategy has the, there's like two exceptions, but strategy has the most Bitcoin per share, 200,000 sats per share. Right. There are other companies with sub 1,000 sats per share, so it's off by a factor of 200x on a per share basis. And if you get a stock that trades below $10 and then below a dollar in the U.S. that is, it kind of screws things up from a public markets perspective. And I think people miss that whole part. So what I'm saying to you, what you just said, is that if you look at M Nav, whether it's EVM NAV or equity M Nav, both of them need to go in the right direction, which is up. And your bitcoin per share can continue to go up and yet the stock can still go down. And I, and like I said, the biggest validation was Jack Mer saying, I don't get it. And I think that's the part where investors are like, this is screwed up. How is it they bought, they've almost doubled their bitcoin per share for strategy and yet the Stock is 1/5 of where it was in October of 24. Does that make sense, what I'm saying?
- [40:54]
A
Well, sorry, go ahead, Brian.
- [40:57]
D
Oh, sorry. I was just going to say it totally does. I think generally what we've seen is in a bull market, you've not only seen the value of their treasury rise because underlying cryptocurrency price is rising, but you also generally see multiple expansion. So you kind of get this double whammy. I'd actually argue there's three ways to win, because when they're seeing multiple expansion, they can do more and more accretive equity issuance to increase that Bitcoin per share even more. I think in a down market you see exactly the opposite. So I think that that's completely fair. The value of the treasury falls, you see multiple compression, and then it makes it harder for them to do accretive issuance. I think those things don't always prove true over any one single period. So that might be what you're referencing. To me, the bigger issue with MicroStrategy that I don't think the market might not fully appreciate yet is I don't think that all accretion is created equal. So when you issue equity, when you trade at a premium, by definition you increase Bitcoin per share. This, in my mind, is the highest quality accretion. You have no additional financial obligations to any of the equity holders. When you move down to issuing preferred equity, yes, this increases your bitcoin per share, but in my mind it's lower quality because now you have all these pref dividend payments. You can obviously choose not to pay them, but then you're kind of shut out of the capital markets also has this negative feedback loop which, you know, underlying BTC falls, then people question the ability for you to actually pay that preferred dividend. And so they're going to demand a higher yield. And then your dividend obligations go up if you increase that, if you try to make this thing trade at par. And then the lowest quality form of accretion is if you issue debt because obviously that will increase your bitcoin per share, but it comes with obligations that you have to pay that interest in principal back when it's due. And so to me, if I had any critique of MicroStrategy, and I'm a massive fan, their sailors, the godfather of this industry, but it would just be that I do think that they've moved down that accretion quality curve, if you will, by moving into press.
- [43:06]
E
So, so that's a good point. And, and thank you for this conversation because there's relatively few people that I can have this level of conversation with. So, and I agree largely with what you just said. I think this brings into an interesting dynamic. Their, their current net, their current net leverage is 6%. So as they increase cash, their net leverage goes down. When looking at the pure debt, which is the converts. And then the amplification part is we're talking about the prefs. And I think this is the part from their website that's hard for people to realize is that if you were to go look at the credit page, their BTC break even is 3.24%. And that's calculated based upon taking the total BTC reserve. And by the way, I'm not, I don't remember all these numbers. I just go look at the website as I'm talking. So they have $54 billion in a BTC reserve and then they say the BTC break even to pay all the press is only 3.24%. So I think where a lot of people miss this, they're like, hey, if we issue prefs at 10 to 12%, Bitcoin has to grow at 10 to 12% in order for us to service that pre dividend obligation. But what strategy says is, no, no, no, no, we only need three and a quarter percent on a 50, you know, $54 billion Bitcoin stack. And those two numbers are, are a mismatch in Somebody's head. So I get that you. You understand this, but most people are like, this doesn't make sense at all because it's the value of the total bitcoin stack. So does that make sense, what I'm saying, the mismatch that most people think of with this.
- [44:45]
D
Yeah, I totally get what you're saying.
- [44:48]
E
The next thing that I said this was, this was my theory. I want to get your takeaway on this, was that when they paid off the convert, they picked the highest convert, the 672. That was in 2029. I think the second order effect of why that was problematic, they looked at it that, hey, it's trading at a discount. We can wipe out 50% of it. It was a $3 billion conversion and they said, we can buy it at a discount. And it was the highest one. So it's the most accretive because it's the highest conversion price. I think that also signaled to the market that they don't think they're going to hit 672A share in 2029. And on a 4050 volume stock, or actually, let me be more precise, sorry, implied volatility of almost 90%, they really need the stock to be at 900 to $1,000 in 2029. So that way it would convert fully with shares instead of cash. So do you think the market punched them when they bought back that convert? Not because it wasn't a good use of the cash, was because. Because they were also signaling the loss, not having confidence that they would be at $900 a share in 2029. That's one of my theories.
- [45:57]
D
Yeah. So that crossed my mind as well. I mean, it basically thought it was probably their best use of cash for increasing BTC per share. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it wasn't like that. That material. So obviously, maybe that was a little disappointing to me. The biggest reason why they got hit that day that they announced it was they touched the cash reserve. Like, my sense was like, that was supposed to be there to support STRC dividend payments. And then obviously they used a whole big chunk of that to buy back the converts. And so I think that that was unexpected. And so that to me was like the big reason why they got hit, but maybe a bit of both.
- [46:40]
E
Yeah. So. And Dave, just chime in anytime. So, Brian, from your view, let's assume Strategy sold about 15,000 bitcoin for about a billion dollars in cash. And I ran the buyback scenario on MSTR are assume they buy back between 90 and $100. That would be Bitcoin. That would actually increase bitcoin per share. Even though they sold. Even though they sold Bitcoin. That's counterintuitive to probably almost 99% of people's thought process because you acquired bitcoin at a high M nav, you, you run the ATM in reverse right? Now, do you think that that would have a. Let's say they, let's say they did sell a bit billion dollars worth of bitcoin, which is only, like I said, 15,000 Bitcoin. Do you think that not a billion dollars. Sorry, sorry. It would be 150,000 bitcoin. No, it would be 15,000. From that perspective, do you think that it would help the stock price more once they start buying back? Like, do you think the announcement itself would help more than just the, the signal for that? Or do you think they actually have to buy it and that's only what would be reflected in the stock price?
- [47:54]
D
It's a good question. I'm not too sure. I'd have to think about it. And another thing I've been thinking a lot about is almost by definition the way that they've been working is a recipe to buy pie. And what I mean by that is can raise the most money when they're trading at the highest multiple. They trade at the highest multiple when we're at the tops of the bar bull market. And so, you know, I think they trade it two or three times when bitcoin is at its all time high. And then that's why Saylor tends to. And then they just put the money in the market. So I think it is a fair question, like would you rather raise at two times when BTC is at 125 or would you rather raise at one time when BTC is at, you know, 60? I kind of think it gets you to the same exact place. It's just, you know, it's not showing up in increase in BTC per share and it's showing up in appreciation of your bitcoin. And so I think we've had all these truths in the treasury space that no one would ever dare violate. Like we will never sell a bitcoin. I think that there's also something to be said for like, you know, could they actually sell below one times? I wouldn't put it past them to maybe at some point eventually do this. I think like if you're paying, you know, low to mid teens on strc, maybe you would be better off just issuing at a Slight discount to one time and calling that your cost of capital. And if BTC appreciates, you know, faster, maybe you're better off. I think it, I don't know. So many thoughts. It depends on your benchmark too. If your benchmark is BTC, then you should be solely focused on on BTC per share. If your benchmark is S&P 500 and you really do think bitcoin is going to throttle, like maybe you're better off just issuing at one times or slightly below and getting as much of it as you can. So I don't know. A lot lot to think about.
- [49:56]
E
I. I think. And again, thank you, Brian. I think, I think the, the interesting takeaway from this is that it became so much more complex specifically this year from what it did in previous years was that Q1 and Q2 of 2026, Q1 was the second best quarter for Bitcoin accumulation in nominal numbers and Q2, 2026 was the third best just in rank out of 25 quarters. Q4 of 2024 was almost double whatever. It's about 160,000 Bitcoin I believe in one quarter. But it was the most accretive because it was acquired for the most part above a 2.5m nav and hitting at a 3m nav. So that was the most. Not only in the nominal numbers was it the biggest by far, but it was also the best from an accretion perspective on bitcoin per share because it traded at a high mnav. Now, at bitcoin low, people are like, you should buy bitcoin when it's low. But as you correctly said, we have a low M nav and it's like would you rather acquire twice as would you rather acquire the same bitcoin at A, at a 2M nav when the price of bitcoin is twice as high, or at a 1M nav when the price is low? I think the most important takeaway that they have proven is that if bitcoin's in a bear market, if it's 50% off, the all time high strategy still has complete access to the capital markets. $3.2 billion in cash that they acquired. In fact, because they used one and a half billion, they would really be at. If they just hadn't bought back the converts, they would have whatever $4.7 billion in cash. So I think their access to the capital markets in a bear market has been proven that that exists. And I think this is where we are right now, is that they have this Massive optionality. But the stock price for both MSTR and STRC has to go up. And I think how they slice that right now, that's, that's what I was saying in the beginning is kind of like now, hey, let's not do any harm. We have to, we have to get these bolt. What's the best way to do it? And I think that that is,
- [52:03]
C
I
- [52:04]
E
think there's, which would you prioritize or do? 5050 on str strc vs mstr? I don't know if there's a, there's a, an answer that's easy to come to. I think it's really hard to do that right now. And so for you, if you were running strategy, would you prioritize STRC over MSTR and buybacks?
- [52:23]
D
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with you. It's gotten much more complicated. It was pretty simple before. I think like finger in the air. They kind of only used to issue equity when they were trading at 1.6 of NAV or above and obviously then started to trade below that. I think they flooded the convert market so they couldn't issue just straight up converts. And I think they had to figure something else out which is why they moved to prefs. And I think like they were just essentially making a simple bet. Like it's obviously more nuanced than this, but the BTC appreciates more than the dividend payment on the prefs. That was probably a good trade and they obviously believe that to be true. But yeah, I mean I kind of think like now I don't want to say they're stuck, but they kind of have to continue to try to push SCRC back to par or at least tell everybody that they are. Because I think they need to maintain access to the capital markets. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled back on it a bit here. I don't know that you want to just continue to issue as much as you can just because they do come with those dividend, not obligations but dividend payments. Yeah, they probably should be.
- [53:39]
A
I mean I, I, I, I want to, I want to disagree with that because I don't think they should manage. I think that them positioning STRC as a bank account and claiming it was like stable was a, a classic mistake. Maybe not quite as bad as opening a two front war, but pretty damn bad because it's not what the product is. I think that bitcoin goes to 90,000 strc will be trading at par, full stop. They don't, they won't have to do a damn thing. And I think that their mistake when, when you talked about the converts was completely misunderstanding the impact on the market psychology of bitcoin, of their actions and, and what it could do. And if bitcoin, because people forget bitcoin was in the middle of a rat, of a, of a, what others would call a bear market rally when they did it. And it allowed for people to create the death spiral narrative and push the whole damn thing down. And it was very badly timed, you know, not understanding market psychology, everything. Bitcoin prices is the only thing that really matters for a lot of this stuff. And you know why? Why do I say that? Well, because the last three weeks it's insanely bullish that all of the bitcoin doom loop narratives have not happened and that bitcoin has continued to grind higher without them buying any. And that to me matters and it matters a lot. And if you're listening to this show and you want to understand why do I think bitcoin bottomed at around 60 and why do I think that the price is higher? Well, because the buyers is not strategy. And when strategy was the only buyer and it was moving higher or staying there, people were predicting and said, well look, we would have already seen the bottom of the four year cycle, you know, way lower like in the 40 thousands if STRC hadn't pumped so many billions of dollars into bitcoin. And that may very well be true. That may very well be true. But it is pretty clear that there are other buyers out there and that the market is not being only supported by them. And I think the strategy continued to make that. Now as far as the what else could they do to increase bitcoin per share? I mean, frankly, there are lots of things they could do that they haven't done yet. And they have some pretty smart people there who understand the option markets. But just to put it in perspective, I mean they could sell puts and they have the stack to do it. They have the cash support to do it. And by doing so then they grow their cash at the same time as being able to buy bitcoin cheaper as opposed to only buying it when to it comes goes higher. There's lots of different ways they could structure option products to use that market given their bitcoin holding that they're not doing. I don't have Mike, I'm not like you. I don't talk to them. So I don't know what they're doing. But I can tell you that they have come nowhere close to Exhausting capital structures. And if you want to understand who is the. Why do I say this with absolute certainty? It, it's the, the, the company that may be the single most sophisticated in the use of derivatives in the entire world. You know, in, in the, in the capital markets is Berkshire Hathaway. And I don't think many people under, appreciate or understand that, that they've used their cash and they've used their stock positions over the years extremely well with derivative products to augment their income. I would be stunned if strategy doesn't move in that direction. And so, yes, there are many things they can do that they haven't done yet and the markets are creating the opportunity for them to do so. So people who fall asleep on it and don't think that critical mass matters, they literally miss that. And a lot of the Bitcoin treasury companies may have had that as an idea, but they haven't and they don't have the critical mass to do it. So it is worth understanding that I
- [57:38]
D
always thought they'd be very well served to turn the treasury into this productive asset. And I also think it would be accretive to the multiple in addition to throwing off a bunch of cash, like whether it's using derivatives or something else. You know, Tom Lee from Bitmind immersions out there saying that they make a 3% native staking yield on Ethereum, slap a 20 times multiple on it, you can kind of triangulate it and add it to the nav. They should trade at 16. I don't think you should trade at, you know, based on something that investors can get themselves. But I do think that if you can generate some alpha on top of that, and in the Bitcoin space, the alpha is zero or the native yield is zero. So that's not true.
- [58:20]
A
I, I want to make it very clear there are. Bitcoin as pristine collateral has the potential to generate the same yield that Ethereum does through staking. And, and I'm happy to explain that privately to anybody who cares who has a stake of Bitcoin. But because there's, there's demand for collateral that doesn't cost as much as, I mean that, that is half the expense as it is to borrow dollars, for example. And as long as you properly haircut it in risk management, there are lots of things you, you can do with it. So it's not because Bitcoin's not gold, Bitcoin, you don't have to pay men with guns to verify it and hold it. I mean, Bitcoin can be used intelligently as collateral. Not the way that Celsius was doing it back in the day, because that was crazy. But there is demand for it and it's not a zero asset. It should never be looked at as a zero asset. And if you're holding it as a zero asset, then you, you have opportunity cost around it. And so that is something that's important. And as I said that that requires. It's a much more sophisticated conversation. But it is something that anybody who is running Bitcoin treasurer as a lump of Bitcoin and wants to figure that out, happy to have that conversation.
- [59:41]
E
So I'm going to put this up in the nest in a second. So I think, I think one of the more interesting things is that. And by the way, the last time I spoke to anybody at Strategy was at the bitcoin conference. So I haven't spoken to anybody unless publicly they comment on my post or I comment on what they're saying and they write back, whether it's C.J. or Rohan. But for the most part, one of the things that Fong said, and I find this to be the most interesting part, is that they were kind of blindsided. So on May 11, strategy stock was at. It was basically that day it had hit a high of. High of 197. So it was closing at 200 a share. Basically, the stock price has been halved since May 11th. And we're really not that far away from that. We're 10 weeks away and from when that happened. So I like to say, like back in the old days and they didn't have. And, and on that day, on May 11, Bitcoin was, was hit a high of 82,000. So people are like, oh, wow, this, it looks like, you know, the bear market is not going to drop more. Looks like we have this in control. STRC is phenomenally successful. And then, and then for something, something happened on. I'll have to go figure out what happened. Something happened on June 1st, specifically on June 1st, where Bitcoin had then already lost $12,000 and it was a low of 70,000. And then it bottomed out on June 6th and it went down to 59,000. And so again, this is history. But the interesting part was that Fong said they didn't have visibility into bitcoin dropping from 82,000 down to 60,000. And I think pretty much, I think most of the market didn't have that visibility. And I think what's interesting is that they said that they didn't have that. So arguably the biggest buyer of bitcoin did not have that visibility to that happening because then they said, well, he basically said if we knew that bitcoin was going to drop from 82,000 to 59,000, we would not have done the $1.4 billion repurchase of the convert. That's basically what Fong said last week. And I think that if people are like, wow, I wish you hung out in circles with people that own a lot of bitcoin because you'll kind of know what's going to happen. I think the takeaway from what I just said is you could be the biggest public buyer of bitcoin by far and not know that the price of bitcoin could drop in whatever 30% in a matter of a week or two. I think that's the part I'm trying to say. From May 11 to June 6 is, is three weeks and Bitcoin drops by 30%. And they didn't have insight to that. It's not critical of them. It's just saying that it kind of like, it seems like it's very hard to predict what will happen in a very short period of time.
- [62:41]
A
And, and my, my point was that when they did the converts, they were, it was very badly timed from the market and they completely missed how important. And I don't know how they missed that actually because of how relevant it was, but how important. Having the cash reserve to pay 18 months to 2 years of STRC dividends. I don't know how they missed that because the market really did care about that and that was pretty obvious. And the knock on effect of so many people believing that bitcoin's price was dependent upon STRC continuing to accumulate or at least not reversing is a big deal. And so that's, that's what happened. And you know, it is, it is always concerning when there's that much, that much of a, of an asset is dependent upon this other thing and these other people. You know, it's key, man. Risk, it's whatever you want to call it. That's why I think the last three weeks has been so important because it kind of proves that bitcoin is not dependent on strategy. Right? And that, that's why I think it is relevant. But you know, I guess we'll see. I mean we're, that we keep in this summer doldrum stuff. I mean, you know, we're still pushing back up against 65 again and it's like, well, whatever. I mean, you know, these, this, this is a bottoming process. This takes time and so very little would surprise me.
- [64:01]
E
Yeah, so, so I'll say this about, about bitcoin. So I bought in at sub $2,000 like 1936, I think was, was my initial buying in 2017 and then went almost at 20,000, then dropped down to sub 4,000. And this is the weird thing is that it's always moving the goal posts. And so at the 2021 high was it never broke 70,000. It was at 16. So we're, we're just a shade below the 2021 highs. And it's hard to be. It's like, well, you bought this asset and it goes and then it drops back to the previous a little bit below the previous all time, all time high four years ago. And then it runs up. I think, I think the highs haven't been as high as we'd like to see. We saw a lot of diminishing returns on that. But the lows seem to be hovering around the previous all time high. So what I would say to people that if you're, you're new to this, what I would say is at some point in the future we will retake the all time high again. It should go way above that. And then if it drops down to 126,000, will be on a call like this, you'll probably be on with somebody else and be saying, oh God, you know, Bitcoin's down at 115,000. It's, it's below the previous all time high. When are we going to get out of this mess? And I think that's the part where, you know, this is my, my third real bitcoin winter. And you're like, I'm like, oh, I'm bummed about the price. But then the reality is why am I bummed? It continues to go up and up into the right and it, you know, as long as it goes, it doesn't drop significantly below the previous all time highs from the previous cycle. I, I think that that's the trend going forward. The only question is how high does it go when we hit the all time highs. I think that's the part where everybody kind of missed in the last cycle in 2025. And, and the other thing that I'll say, if you look at the charts, it appears in each cycle it gets front run the, the, the 2020.
- [66:04]
A
Well, the smart money looks to be front running it today.
- [66:06]
E
Yeah, that's the way it looks. And the other thing is that, you know, people are like, you know, it's A four year cycle dead. You know, this is the first cycle where we had the spot Bitcoin ETFs came out whatever January of 2024 where we retook the all time high before having people like, what do you just, would you just say? I'm like, well, because of, you know, when they launched the spot Bitcoin ETFs were to get approved. We got notice of that sometime around October, November because grayscale was winning the lawsuit against the sec. And then we saw this, all these listings for spot Bitcoin ETFs coming out specifically with, with BlackRock. And then they went live in January. So we had this frenzy in January 2024 before the having that we retook the, the all time high. So if somebody that. That's where I say this front running continues. So if somebody said, well we can't hit an all time high before the next having. I'm like, you could just look at 2024. It's not that long ago. And, and it did happen. So.
- [67:08]
A
Yeah, well, we'll, we'll see. I mean look, we could go on and talk about this forever, but I'm going to cut it because we're at time and frankly I want to go to the gym and it is summer, so. And it's beautiful day, so I hope everyone enjoys. We'll be back, you know, presumably on Wednesday morning and we'll talk about this more and maybe there'll be some more to talk about. But it is interesting times. That's.
- [67:30]
D
We'll.
- [67:30]
A
We'll leave it at that.
- [67:34]
E
Thank you, Dave.
- [67:36]
A
Thanks all.
- [67:36]
E
Appreciate you, Dave.
- [67:37]
F
All right, have a good day, bro.
- [67:41]
D
Thank you.