← The Wolf Of All Streets
The Wolf Of All Streets
Bitcoin Under MAJOR Pressure As Trump Tensions Peak! What Happens Next?
01:05:42
Loading summary
Transcript102 lines
- [00:01]
A
Bitcoin is under pressure again with major selling above 70,000 as Trump tensions peak. I think we can make the case that Trump tensions have peaked both from a geopolitical and macro perspective, but also with everything happening with World Liberty Financial in the crypto space. We have a lot to talk about. I've got Dave, James and Mike here to unpack it all on macro Monday. Let's go, let's do,
- [00:40]
B
Let's go.
- [00:40]
A
Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. Let's get right into it. We've got Dave, James and Mike. Good morning, gentlemen. Morning, Mike. Morning meeting. I don't, I don't even know how you guys do it, but. I think. Mike, can you hear us? Mike? I don't think Mike can hear, so good morning. Oh, now we got you. Okay, cool. Yeah, give us the morning meeting.
- [01:11]
B
Anna Wong came up with some good stuff today. She pointed out the core PC. She expects it to continue hot, mainly because of consumer software, the oil shock. She expects CPI potentially peak in May, potentially by July, around 4% ACE April. CPI is going to be strong. Gas is already up 8%. Expects core to be hot and the year over year to run 4%. But she expects it to drop like a stone by 2020. 27, likely below 3%. CPI versus PCE. PCE typically fades faster on a deflationary tilt. And then she dug into the economic effect of the war and she mentioned natural gas falling year over year. 22%. The key trigger to spill over into fertilizers, plastics. And her key point is it's one of the key things for US manufacturing to crush it versus the rest of the world. Boosting output in manufacturing is quite bullish for manufacturing. It's part of how the US is winning. This is US gas and we only export about 15 to 16% through LNG. How much is that going to go up? So part of the US manufacturer sector rebounding, the rest of the meeting wasn't that significant. No one on equities today. Ira Jersey mentioned we had tens and thirties last week. Those, those auctions that came out pretty much math, not much going on. But he did point out that 5% 30 year, it's a decent duration. Seems every time you get near there's decent buying. And what Audrey Chill Freeman, our FX strategist mentioned this. What's happening in Europe might have given the European the euro a little bit of a bid. Certainly would happen with Hungary. And then I point out, I think crude oils. Just point out some facts about crude oil. If it closes here 104 or 103. It'll be the highest year end close ever. That only compares to the last two times of 2011. 13 in the US we're at 98. And that's right when the US shale revolution started kicking in. The average cost of production is around 70 to $73 a barrel. Now it's around 55. And you know you got the nod. All the producers got the nod in the wink from the Trump administration. Oh by the way, sell forward, here's your chance. And you've seen that in a curve bringing it on. So I just pointed out that if it goes much higher from here, it's just gonna break things more and then go down eventually. And then I just tilted over Natural gas, it guided the way 2022, the high was 10 by 2024 is 1.5 and I think it's doing the same thing this year. The Highway 7 right now it's 2.7. Yeah, it's going to be bid up a little for the the January contract. But so overall this is a pretty clear sign that the key thing also I published today was just look at that Bloomberg All Energy index. It's up 45% on the year. That's great. But that got it to unchanged since 2005. It's the key thing to remember about energy prices when they go up at high velocity, they don't stay up, they break things and go back down. And then I pointed out I think we still have those enduring peaks in gold and silver and we have pretty potential oversupply in cryptocurrencies and corn and soybeans and that's Emily and bear markets. Back to you.
- [04:31]
A
I didn't hear anything about blockades, peace negotiations breaking down. Seems like those would have been the key conversation pieces.
- [04:42]
C
Markets don't care kind of mentioned that
- [04:45]
B
that much but it's. Those are no knowns that I didn't. We didn't have a strategist to really figure out what that's going to mean. But in terms of what I see in markets, the key theme or FX strategies, seems like all markets are getting a bit of war fatigue and I didn't hear any comments about that. But this is becoming us has become a little bit insulated as you see from natural gas and you see from equity prices.
- [05:11]
A
Yeah, there was a really. I don't know if you guys saw this, but it was interesting from a Morgan Stanley analyst that said the Iran oil shock is nothing like the ones that crashed markets in the past. And actually I thought that this could be an interesting conversation piece because what he pointed to is that in the previous times that we basically went into recession with oil spikes, we had expected earnings dropping massively before that happened. So it was kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back was the oil price surge. And this time is the first time when we've had an oil price surge like this where we've had consensus expected earnings rising and continuing to rise. Basically saying that companies are strong going into this oil shock, so that maybe it's different. That's not really my department, but I found it to be an interesting read.
- [05:54]
C
Well, it depends what kind of companies in the mix. I mean, you know, software companies have and, you know, basically technology companies are much less exposed. It's the consumer that's exposed. Right? Because it's going to be aggregate demand that's going to get, you know, from people having to pay for gas. But, you know, it. There's a lot of interesting geopolitical talk this weekend about the U.S. manufacturers and U.S. oil industry and how big of a boon this is to that. Now, that's not a big deal in the S and P because the US Oil industry is pretty small. But it is fascinating. The Saudi pipeline and the rapidity with which they're replacing things. There's a lot going on. It is still too early, in my opinion. I've really tried very hard not to comment on what's going on geopolitically because we don't know. I merely say, I think a lot of people who have had a lot of takes, both, you know, cheerleaders and, and, and, and haters are gonna, you know, in two or three months are gonna be scratching their heads saying, you know, I hope that what I said two or three months ago gets scrubbed from the Internet, or nobody remembers that I said it because there's a lot of stupid shit that's been said, you know, and it's just people don't really know what the hell's going on. And that that's the reality because it seems exceedingly there was zero chance of there being agreement from the delegation from Iran. But why go through with it while you go through with it? Because then if you're going to take action, you have air cover. So now the Trump administration can say, listen, they want nuke still. We're not letting them have it, and we're going to blast the living out of them. And, and that feels like what they're doing. But I think it'll be much more surgical than that. You know, they're literally Playing a game gives you a.
- [07:42]
A
Also just gives you a time to take a deep breath and reconsider.
- [07:45]
C
Right. If you look, what's fascinating is if you look at, you know, Bitcoin, S and P Silver, I leave gold out for a heartbeat because those three, those are all clearly risk assets tied to the economy one way or another at this instant in time. They're all up on the week, a weekly. Right. You know, and, and just think about what that means. That means, you know, with all of this, with the, the, the, the crap before. Because remember a week ago we were saying, oh, Tuesday is going to be Destroy Civilization day. And then we had the peace and this, that. And you look, Crude oil is down 7.8% on the weekly from that and everything else is up. So it's pretty simple. Crude oil is inverse to everything else. And Mike is right. I mean, the cost of production is way lower. This is a question of, you know, like you, you posted, like you send around Jim Bianco's thing. I mean, it's not about oil production. Oil production isn't down. It's the ability to move it. So they kind of turn the taps off until they can actually move it around because it's about a transportation bottleneck. It's the, it's a literal supply chain disruption. And that's what it is. But I want to go back to something that Mike said because it just, it drives me absolutely crazy. And the World Liberty Financial thing we're going to get there is going to actually input this notion of unlimited supply on bitcoin. It's just pathetic. It's just pathetic. It's not true. And the fact that bitcoin is so different than all the cryptos that have ownership groups or founding groups who can do stuff and put in smart contracts is becoming more and more obvious, not less and less obvious. And so if you want to say that the crypto structure is that crypto assets have problems, sure, I agree with that. If you want to say there's a oversupply of bitcoin, it's actually the opposite. The bitcoin supply situation is getting tighter and tighter because like a machine, week after week, fixed income investors are giving Saylor the ability to buy a billion dollars worth of bitcoin. They're buying more than is mined. Right? Mining used to be the supply of bitcoin. Now the supply of bitcoin is people selling what they already own. And that is a major supply difference. And that has a, especially at these levels, that has a likely decreasing amount of Supply. So it's really a question of demand now. The demand could collapse and the value could go to zero. Right? People could say, oh, Bitcoin's useless. Look, we could debate that, that I personally think is less likely than others, but it doesn't matter. This notion of supply, just, just, it just, just let's keep away from that. It's just silly. And you know, I hate re litigating it every week, Scott, but you know, the reason I mentioned it is because World Liberty Financial is, is something that we should talk about. And James can comment before we get there, but the difference between Bitcoin and VC or founder created coins out of thin air is very different. Right? James? I know, I know you, I know this is, you're muted.
- [10:55]
A
I'm muted, James.
- [10:59]
D
Yeah, I muted myself. So I don't want to re litigate it either. So look, the bottom line is JP Morgan is talking about accepting Bitcoin as collateral. You don't accept something as collateral unless you believe that has a, some sort of, of underlying value. And the only way Bitcoin has underlying values if it's, if it actually is scarce, if it, if it has limited supply like Dave is talking about, if it is actually digital gold. Because right now, you know, the, the bitcoin as a network or payments is, it's just not there yet. But Bitcoin is as a, as a settlement layer and as a, a long term asset. It is, it is there. And institutions are understanding that. You know, unfortunately retail is not fully understanding that yet, Dave. And that's what we're seeing. We're seeing the, the turnover of it and you know, it's just not sexy enough for the young people to be buying. It's trading at $71,000. And they see that and they think, well, this is not going to go up 100x. I need something that's going to go up 100x. And you know, you guys know I wrote all about that this weekend. The betting, you know, just that, that mentality and it's not anybody's fault and I'm not blaming them because they're trying to catch up and all of that. But the, the issue we have here is that institutions understand it and they're adopting it nice and deliberately and they're, they're doing it in a way that it's not, it's not causing waves all over the. Yeah, the casino, exactly. The poly marketing call sheen and everything else. You're just trying to catch up. But you know, the, the, the, the real, the reality Is, is that there? The news outlets aren't paid to talk about Bitcoin unless there's some sort of controversy. We all understand that. And right now it's just one, just one company after another is quietly integrating Bitcoin into their system. Whether it's their, whether it's, they're selling to their clients or they're creating platforms for you to use it and actually use it like you would a long term structural asset, you know, like a, a bond or like a, it's like gold holdings in, in a vault. And so that you have to realize that and you have to step back and recognize that and have patience. The, all this stuff that's going on with Trump and the, you know, the Strait of Hormuz and the struggle to, to take control of it. I mean I, I don't want to say it's noise, but the market clearly is treating it as noise, but both ways and otherwise you'd see much larger swings in the market. If we thought that this was going to really escalate into something that was catastrophic, the markets would be telling you that, but they're kind of shrugging it off to be, to be true, you know, to be truthful. I mean look at the, the futures are down what, half a percent as we're going into the open here. And oil, yeah, oil is up again. But like you said, Crude is at 103, 104, Brent is at 100, 102. So you know, it's not like this, this stuff is moving around partially just because of momentum traders though. And you have to also understand that. But the uncertainty around all this stuff is, is causing investors to just sit on the sidelines. I mean, how much cash is, is Buffett sitting on now? It's just a mind boggling number. And so not that he knows everything, but it's, it's a pretty good indication of, of what institutional investors are willing to do right now. And you know, so, but we won't re litigate the, the supply situation with bitcoin. But just to make it clear, it's very difficult to argue against the fact that it's being adopted on the institutional side. And the reality is there's a lot of confusion with retail. I've already talked to people who bought bitcoin up at 80 or 90 or $100,000 and have dumped it already because they're like, ah, this isn't what I thought it was going to be. But they have no idea what it is because they didn't really do the research on it, really understand it.
- [15:42]
A
You know, James, what I find interesting, along the lines of what you're saying.
- [15:45]
D
Yeah.
- [15:47]
A
I'm not promoting the idea of our enemies utilizing Bitcoin, but Iran made a very clear statement that while charging tolls in the Straits of Hormuz, they wanted to be paid in Bitcoin.
- [16:00]
D
Yeah. I mean, it's so that's interesting. You know, they didn't want to be paid in US Dollars. They don't want to be holding US Treasuries. We know why. We may just take them from you. So that's something to be noted. It's important development.
- [16:19]
A
Yeah. I mean, there's a trend there beyond just this immediate situation. The US dollar continues to lose market share. The US dollar now represents 46% of global FX and gold reserves, the lowest in at least 26 years. This percentage has declined 15 points since 2017. Now, I'm definitely not a dollar as global reserve currency doomer, but there's clearly a trend and incentive for foreign governments and entities to try to diminish their reliance on the United States.
- [16:48]
D
Yeah, they're looking for a way to get away from having to hold Treasuries. And it's obvious. And so that's why you saw central banks around the world buying gold. They're trying to get away from two reasons for that. And Putin is the one who said it out loud. He said there's two reasons you don't want to hold Treasuries. Number one, they can just be taken from you, they can be seized from you. And number two, they could just be inflated away, which is what we're doing. And he recognizes that. He's like, these guys are just printing money hand over fist. And so why do I want to hold something and speed that I'm gonna, I'm going to turn in for, you know, I'm going to trade in for dollars. They're going to be worth a fraction of what they were when I bought these things. Why would I do that? Well, that's a structural issue. And that right there, that's the first principle of what the Fed is trying to fight. That is what they're fighting. They're fighting the negative perceptions that are rising around the dollar. And the treasury needs the help from the Fed to fight that. It's reality. Do I think that we're going to get off a dollar system anytime soon? No, I don't. I don't think we're going to, going to get off the. But we are going to have problems of, of Issuing as many bonds as we need to at some point here. So it's not something just to just shrug off and say, oh, we've been talking about the debt forever. Yeah, well, you can keep talking about it's not going to be a problem until it really is. And I don't, I'm not calling for a, you know, an auction to fail or something like that. Not yet. But it's, it's the writing on the wall, guys. And, you know, you better own something that, that has value. And clearly there are plenty of very large players around the world that believe bitcoin is one of those things. It's obvious. It's just that, you know, they're, they're, they're doing the best they can to get as much they can before retail wakes up completely and it becomes that thing that everybody needs to own.
- [18:48]
C
I agree.
- [18:48]
A
Dave.
- [18:49]
C
Yeah, the, the thing about the Iran accepting Bitcoin is actually very important. You know, I've seen a bunch of takes, some reasonably good and some just ridiculous. The ridiculous is the notion that this will feed the anti crypto army because they'll say, oh, look, bad guys are using it, except they're not doing it under the table. They're doing it completely transparently. They're saying, listen, this is what we want to do. They're fighting with us about, they want us to agree to it. Why are they doing it? They're doing it because, unlike gold, ask someone to bring a million dollars in gold on their ship and hand it to the ship that comes alongside and collect the toll. Not very easy. Gold ETFs or gold receipts that are in vaults, you're at the mercy of whoever owns the gold receipt or the gold whatever. Whereas bitcoin, you can own it. It's an actual bearer asset. That is something that bitcoiners have been talking about for, well, all 15 years that people have been talking about Bitcoin. And now there is a country of 90 million people basically saying, yep, if we need to take an asset, we're going to take it. Now notice that is extremely important and very, very underappreciated because when you compare bitcoin to gold and Peter Schiff can talk about it until he's blue in the face, but the fact is, here's proof of a sovereign nation saying, listen, getting rid of intermediaries and having an asset without intermediaries matters. And that's a very big narrative change. And this will not be the only one that happens. Even if it's just that they signaled it It's a big deal. Because the whole point about bitcoin, and I've said this a million times on this show, actually, that's hyperbole, but I have said it hundreds of times, is that the market is pricing its likelihood of becoming digital gold at less than 5%. That's just the math. And what you're seeing is a growing group of people saying, well no, that probability should probably be somewhere where over 50% because it's already being used that way, which means it's severely underpriced. That's the thing. And that has nothing to do with technicals. This is an inflection point of using. It's like if you shorted Apple based on squiggles before the iPhone or if you shorted Amazon before they perfected just in time delivery and weren't just a book company, you got carried out. And I guarantee you, because I know people who did in not Apple, because I was too, but, but Amazon, I remember people shorting it at varying times for this exact reason and it didn't go so well. I know people who shorted Tesla before it was obvious they were going to become a robotics company. You know, a friend of mine, you know, I remember sitting with. I'll tell him his name because as a matter, Jim angel is a professor of economics at Georgetown, is a really good guy. We were sitting at a dinner in Washington a few years ago and he was talking about, you know, complaining about how his Tesla short wasn't going so well. And I said, jim, don't short narratives. Never short narratives. That's one of the things you learn in trading. I didn't learn in a trading pit. I learned it on trading desk. But shorting narratives is dangerous because they can always go farther than you think and particularly when they actually happen. So I think shorting bitcoin here is like shorting narrative, shorting a story. You don't short stories because stories either die or they continue. And most of the time they continue far longer than you expect. In this particular case, the story hasn't really caught on yet. Right. It's the smart money that's getting in. And that. That's James's point.
- [22:13]
D
So anyway, yeah, well, let's, let's just. The reality is this thing's been around for, we're going on 17 years now. And so it's not like it, you know, and it's got over a trillion dollars in it. I mean, this is not something that's just going to disappear. It's not. There are so many people who want to own as much they possibly can. You know, the thought that it's going to go to zero is, is kind of laughable. The only reason it would is because of some sort of structural change in the code or that there's an attack on, on Bitcoin in a way that we cannot fathom right now, which is obviously the quantum, you know, question that people keep bringing up. But beyond that, explain to me how there's suddenly going to be no, no demand for it. You know, it's, that's, that's absurd. So we can get off that topic. But you know, we're going to continue. This is, this is the way it's going to be for, until we have resolution out in the Middle East. This is the way it's going to be. We're, we're going to keep dancing around the, the, the issues of possible demand destruction from the price of oil feeding into the price of every single good and service out there. That's what we're gonna, that's what we're up against right now. And like Dave said, you're going to see rotations. You're going to be rotations in and out of different sectors of stocks because of it. And that produces opportunity. If you're, if you're a hedge fund, you're out there, you're trading these things, you're trading around all these sectors because it's opportunity for you. What's that one?
- [23:46]
A
This was the tweet that Dave referenced before from Jim Bianco, basically saying that there's obviously going to be demand destruction or that there should. Once again, you have, you know, governments trying to fight that demand destruction which is effectively necessary and right. That the Germans are going to cut the duties by 17% per liter for two months to cushion the impact of the war. Once again, just trying to play, you know, financial engineering with an inevitable force.
- [24:15]
C
Right.
- [24:17]
D
And that's, I mean that's, that's what we're up against now as investors. That's what we're watching.
- [24:22]
A
Impossible.
- [24:23]
D
Of course. It feeds into everything. It feeds into the long term bonds, it feeds into the, it feeds into short term treasuries. Mean two years because of the, the, as people move around the possibility or probability of there being any rate cuts, which now there's, I don't know, Mike. It looks like there's less than, than a half percent chance, it's like a 25 chance of a rate cut in by the end of the year now. Yeah, I mean we're not, we're Seeing one, one cut in Fed futures out a full year. So, you know, I mean, it's just, it, this is not, it's not something that we're, that we're, that you're, you know.
- [25:10]
A
Yeah, I mean, I would love Mike's clarity on that. You too. But I just, that is what makes no sense to me. I understand the 40 chess narratives and that we don't know everything, but if you're bullying Powell for months and months and months and everybody's handicapping what the next Fed chair will do and they're going to put someone in who's definitely going to cut and then just go ahead and create an environment where it be very hard to argue for cuts.
- [25:34]
D
Well, you've got, you've got one camp that is saying that we're going to have demand. There's going to be, you've got one camp that's saying that there's going to be layoffs from AI and, and then another camp that, and, and saying that that would be demand destruction because you have, the economy is turning down because you have layoffs and people are not going to have money to, to spend on goods and services. And then you've got another side of the camp that's saying no, it's, we're kind of rocking along here, everything's fine and we're, you know, you're gonna, you're gonna have either structural inflation because of the oil prices, energy prices, or you're, you're, you know, the, the K shaped economy is going to keep rolling here and you know, too bad if you don't own assets. The people who do are going to keep the, the economy going. Which remember stocks are not, they're not the economy. You know, I think Mike has said this a number of times and I agree the stocks are not the economy and, but what they do is, you know, it's reflective where people, things, where people think things are going for certain sectors of the economy. And that's just, that's important thing to remember. The S and P is 500 companies and they're moving around money between them. You know, in, they're, they're placing their bets on them, they're just moving them around and that's what you're seeing in the markets. You're seeing quite, quite a bit of rotation in different sectors.
- [27:04]
A
Mike, you're definitely up.
- [27:08]
B
Yeah, I'm glad we flipped back from, to the macro rather than complaining about bitcoin. So first of all, I say the opposite. When you get to 2.3 times GDP the stock market is the economy. Only two examples in history. 1929 in the US 1989, Japan. And we've never had extreme surges in volatility in gold and crude oil. With stock market volatility so low, not falling, to me, that's still my main thing. And shorting bitcoin early in the year worked out well. Dave, I'm sorry, just to correct one thing you said. I did not say. I have never said bitcoin has unlimited supply. It's part of a space. I said quickly. Cryptos have unlimited supply. Bitcoin was the first. Now there's many forks, but it is in a space with unlimited supply. As a strategist, I view that as an issue. And since ETS were launched, which we figured would potentially put in the peak, which, you know, was accelerated by Mr. Trump, the performance has been horrible. So from an initial standpoint, what you mentioned about people buying and getting out, yeah, they should be getting out. The performance just sucks and maybe you'll get better. And. And I keep saying just like, if it's not indiscriminate. But I do love how bitcoin people need to demonize people who disagree with them. But I'm not indiscriminate. I cannot be bullish copper unless I expect hot stock market going up. I cannot be bluish any metals, including gold, unless the stock market goes up. Gold right now trades over 2.3 times the volatility S&P 500. That's a classic sign you want to say thank you, what a great trade. Get out. And so I stick with my prudent short. And bitcoin, which was above 90 in the beginning here, and I moved it down to 75. So I'm sorry about having lock in a few profits, but I still think of the prudent short because if it goes down, everything goes down. It's a great evening indicator, but you can't put a level on the Bloomberg crypto index because no one watches it. So that's what I'm wanting watching is a broad index and bitcoin is just the main thing to watch. The tilt over to one thing you said that was incorrect, James, is Bitcoin's down about 3% on a day compared to Friday. Now we have one day. I mean, if you compare it to everything else on the screen, it's down about 3% from Friday. So on the day, it's really. It doesn't really matter because it was from Sunday. So my key theme remains that this year I've been Wrong. We should see a pickup in stock market volatility in this year. Commiserate what we've seen in gold last year and crude oil this year. It's a classic switch. And we still have not seen that. So I stick with prudent shorts, maybe get. Initially I had silver around 100, now down 85. We get to 85. I think it's a prudent short copper around 6. Still the same level. Bitcoin. I moved my level down to 75. Long bonds around 5%. I think that's still a buy. Haven't had any appreciation there yet. But the theme that I've been wrong on still working. You sell risk assets. When you see a market that's potentially just normalized in terms of volatility, we have not had that yet. It's been a great year for trading. Certainly if you've been trading bitcoin from the short side and from the long side. The best rallies come in bear markets. But let's just be careful with demonizing people who've had calls that have been accurate and sticking with this discipline of stops. And that's the key thing about trading in bear markets. You fully expect to get your face ripped off, expect to run through stops. And the key theme for this year is by the end of this year, if the stock market's up, yeah, bitcoin will probably be up. If the stock market's down 10%, I don't think any of us really think bitcoin will be up.
- [30:35]
C
So I want to react to that because I'm not demonizing you. I am very, being very, very laser sharp specific in my critique. In fact, almost every word you just said, I made a statement.
- [30:50]
A
It was frozen. Go ahead, Dave.
- [30:51]
C
I'm being very, very specific in my critique. I almost every single word you just said, while there are disagreements, I think they're all very rational thoughts. In fact, it's exactly. As a trader, I would be leaning on the 75 level as a short 74.75. I think if it can't get through that, it's gonna. It just proves that it can't break out of the range. I think that's absolutely right. I have no problem with that. I've said it myself. I was wrong. Early in the year, I did underestimate the quantum risk. There's no question about it. I didn't know it was going to become a big narrative and story that was going to scare people. But Scott, James and I have all talked to investors who have pulled back or done less or not bought because of quantum. So we know that happened and I understand why. My point is very specific. Not against that but about understanding the denominator. The reason gold volatility is so high is because it got insane because of the hot ball of money contract for differences magnified leverage and people went hog wild. When you had the central bank buying we had a blow off top and now it's back. Now is future volatility likely to be as high? No, of course not. But it could happen. Stock markets are inflated because corporate profits are inflated and because money is being inflated. And that's where you and I disagree. That's our more fundamental disagreement. We have two fundamental disagreements. One, I think that you have to look at the denominator and they're continuing to print everywhere around the world. Two, I think that that the. The two that I think what just happened.
- [32:30]
A
We had a glitch for some reason but I think it's all right.
- [32:32]
C
Yeah, I was going to. The second one is you and I disagree on the ultimate. What would be the bottom of a range And I make the point that in when FTX sold off you're basically calling for a bottom of the range that's 60% lower than that without which basically means a Great Depression. And in a Great Depression it could get to that level.
- [32:53]
A
Mike is calling for a Great Depression just for the record.
- [32:56]
C
Right. So if we have a Great Depression.
- [32:59]
A
Okay, sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
- [33:02]
B
Not a Great Depression but just pointing out the fact where we are and Dave, that's the key thing. I don't disagree with the big print. I agree with it. The point is we priced it for it already. That should have. Larry Lepard as I mentioned Larry should have printed. Should have published that 2019. Here's the problem. Let's put. You're putting making suggestions what to do. You're saying buy Bitcoin or whatever you want to. I want to hear what you suggest. What. So it's not talk about exactly what you think. What's the trade to do if you're investing, if you're selling any type of like treasury to buy gold right now you're doing that at a 44 year extreme gold. Extreme gold high versus treasury low. I just choose. No, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to suggest it as threatens. The risk is against you. All you need is a little flip and you're going to get your face ripped off. I just pointed out one little thing I've been Watching forever is that trade buying tlt, selling uso. I wanted to write about it a month ago because it was just flatline, it was ready to go. And I think as a trader, as an investor, you wait for an opportunity. It just gave us an opportunity to buy TLT and sell USO at an extreme discount. The last two times that happened, you got a 10x within a couple years and that was 2022. And then the time before the 2008, you wait for that dip, you buy it, you go with the fundamentals, goes up higher. But what your point is, I agree with that. The point is it's all priced in. We've got 2.3 times GDP. We have a situation now. You don't want to buy stocks. You can make investing in typically history proves you wrong. I just pointed how gold was the trade last year, but that trade's run its course. Bitcoin was the trade a couple years before that. Trades run its course. I just stick with the buy guys, stick with treasuries and pick your spots to pick out stuff that you think is expensive. I pointed all those haven't been stopped out yet. Maybe I'll get stopped out of bitcoin with profits. I'm not trading, but I'm just pointing out and it's the key theme is in baseball the theme is, you know, good inning always starts with the walk. The big theme here is nothing matters yet until that stock market makes its move. If it's up 10% in here, I'll bet everything you're talking about, like bitcoin bond yields inside will probably up. If it's down 10% on the year, everything will be down. But the thing is that might be the beginning of the next big trade.
- [35:10]
C
I mean the word that you used seven times in that statement was trade. And that's really important because I think as a trade I understand what you're saying completely. I have certain small differences, but it doesn't matter. But as trading tactically it's fine. If you're a long term investor and you're not planning on adjusting your portfolio, then I would look at things very differently. And I think that's a large part of where we're at. I mean I think that the trade of bitcoin versus the S and P, that's a trade I would want to have on as an investor for a long time, but not any leverage on it because with leverage you could get stopped out of that thing very easily. But I think over time it will do very well because there's an embedded option on Bitcoin that doesn't exist on the S and P. That's literally what I think. Does that mean you want to put all your income in that? Of course not. That'd be insane. Right? There's lots of ways you could do tactical adjustments. But I just want to keep things like you mentioned, uso. USO is an asset that if you can sell it, it's going to underperform oil. There was one point when they were first talking about Bitcoin ETFs that US, that oil, oil was up 7% over its life and the USO was down 93% because of the roll risk. It is a horrible asset. So the ability to sell that.
- [36:33]
A
Negative. Right.
- [36:33]
D
I mean, if you want a terrible asset, I agree with you.
- [36:38]
C
That's a, it's a great trade. Now, of course, you could lose money in the short run, so you got to be careful with leverage because who knows? I mean, you know, we keep talking about oil jumping at 150 or 200 based on doing exactly what Trump says he's doing. But the reason it isn't there is because no one actually believes him. They think it's a negotiating tactic. So who knows what will actually happen? I think that that's, that's an interesting question. You know, like, you know, there are, there are analysts on this platform, on various platforms making statements that we'll see how fast the market can adjust. How fast can the market adjust if the straits are effectively kept closed for the next month? I don't know the answer to that. I'm curious, you know, is it true that Saudi's been able to take 7 million barrels a day and move it out to the other side? You know, is it true that the US can ramp up production and people can send their tankers to the, to either the Gulf or New Jersey? I mean, I don't know. I don't know the answer. I'm not an oil expert. I mean, you know more about it than me. I mean, these are things that people are actually worrying about because it matters. As I said, lots going on when it comes to the stock market. The interesting question here is as long as you keep printing money and as long as corporations are at record profits, the percentage of GDP argument is scary. But the fact is, what's scary about it isn't the stock market valuation. What's scary about it is the share of GDP that's going into corporate profits as opposed to, opposed to wages, causing a K shaped economy that's going to cause massive Political upheaval. And what will the massive political upheaval bring? That's the risk. And that risk is non trivial. I agree with you. It is non trivial. And so I don't know what happens as a result of that. I mean people looking at Hungary, that's not true. The guy who won in Hungary is center right. I mean there is no, there's no leftists running there. You know, UK look at the popularity of Starmer. They're stuck with them for a bunch, for four more years I think. But you know, look at his popularity. If there was an election tomorrow it would be, it'd be the exact opposite of what happened last time. So we don't know. But there, there, there's a real shot at pitchforks and, and you know, and torches right now, you know, because people feel correctly that crap's going on and you know, before we leave, we have to talk about World Liberty. Scott.
- [39:07]
A
I was gonna say speaking of pitchforks,
- [39:09]
D
hold on a second. Before we get to World Liberty, I shared a, A let me get it. Go ahead, see it.
- [39:17]
B
Yep.
- [39:18]
D
This is, this is from Michael Howell's newsletter this weekend. It's a pretty good observation. This is, this is exactly opposite what you're talking about. Mike. I vehemently disagree. The US has not learned their lesson. They're not going to stop printing. They're still printing right now. They're literally buying Treasuries and yeah, so they're, they're buying short term T bills. It's to raise the bank reserves, you know, by, to a level where they feel like they're adequate because they need to make sure that the markets, they do not just, they don't, they, they have no dysfunction. They want to make sure that the banks have enough reserves in order to make sure there's no spike in overnight rates and that there's liquidity is, is available. And so it is absolutely ridiculous to say that they're not going to print again. They are printing, they're printing right now. They're going to keep printing. It's not going to stop. The question is are they going to print a multiple of what they printed last time in order to save the stock market like you said, or save the all markets in particularly the bond markets if there is some sort of credit issue, credit event? I mean we've all, we've talked about the, the, the private debt situation and I don't know if you guys even talk about that in your morning meeting. It sounds like you haven't touched on that too much, but that's a real risk. Is it a risk a la great financial crisis? I don't believe so, but it does have the risk, the possibility of becoming something like Long Term Capital where you've got a major player that just implodes because they have debt on their books that's worth nothing, that they're carrying at near par. That would be a problem. Would it cause contagion like the great financial crisis? I don't believe it would, but I think it could be contained. But it will con, it will require some sort of bailout for somebody. So that is a risk out there, you know. And is, are we going to have another big print? Well, I do think we're going to have one at some point. Especially if you think if, if, especially if we do have a sharp downturn in the economy, if we do have a, a drawdown in the market that causes dysfunction in the, in the credit markets and the treasury market, we're going to have a print and it's going to be multiples of what it was before.
- [41:42]
A
It's not supplied. I mean I'm showing an image here of the money supply, but I mean year over year, we're up 4.8% year over year.
- [41:52]
D
It's not going to stop. That's the most important thing for our, our listeners to understand is they must own assets. It doesn't mean that you can't trade around them like you're saying, Mike, but long term you better own assets or you're going to be left behind. You must own assets. You have to. And that is, I am not going to stop telling people to do that. I'm not going to stop. You have to own them because it's going to get worse, period. I'm not going to stop telling to do that, Mike. It's, and I cannot, you can trade around it if you want, but you better have a core holding of assets because if you're not in the market when they do print, you're going to have a V shape like you had in 2020 and be left behind. That's what people are pissed off about. That's why the pitchforks are going to come out because they feel the K shaped economy and the wage earners out there are suffering. And so you have whatever you can do, go out there and get some assets and hold on to them for a very long time because that what we just showed you, the printing on both sides, what the, on, on the, the tweet that you showed Scott and what I just showed of the treasury buying assets it's not stopping. It's going to continue. It's just a question of how wide open that fire hose is going to be.
- [43:09]
A
Yeah, Mike, respond real quick. And then I want to move on to World Liberty Financial. Go ahead.
- [43:16]
B
So bring that chart back up or you don't have to bring it up. It showed us money supply running 22.6 trillion. In China it's 50 double that. Their government spending is 300% so that's the second largest economy. And their 10 year old yield is 1.81%. Okay, let's go to the third largest economy, Japan. Their 10 year note yield's in a two handle and they're running 200% in GDP. Let's go to the fourth largest economy on the planet. Their 10 year old yield is 3% in Germany and they're starting to print. My point is the quote from Benjamin Disraeli we generally anticipate seldom occurs. You're pointing out the last big trade. Okay day because of the trade last big investment. We've had three years of 20% up years in the S&P 500. That's almost unprecedented. It's been wonderful. We've had a massive move in gold. It's been wonderful. We had a massive move in bitcoin. It's been wonderful. My point is it's all ending this year and I'm bold enough to make the risk is the wrong thing to do is to jump back on the last trade. It's a lesson you learn sometimes. You want to buy it after went up and that's why I point out as Dave says it's a trade. Well when you find out a 44 year high in the price of gold versus a basket of US treasuries. For that to keep going you got to get past one key theme. The next big test. US stock market just dropping 10%. Show me the test. Let's see the beef. Let's see how it pans out. We haven't had that for a while. I've been pointing this out for years.
- [44:42]
D
Go back to that. That quote you just said that the US gold versus Treasuries. Go back to that.
- [44:50]
B
We have a one measure. There's a. I can say it's the day. I think it was day or two after Larry LePard like got upset with me. I published the facts of. There's an index on the Bloomberg terminal. It's a Bloomberg treasury index. It tracks the whole index. It goes back to 1973. And I've taken that index for a While you divide by the price of gold and gold is the highest versus this index and 44 years. My point is that's the wrong trade. I just point out how expensive gold got last year and early this year the trade is over and now it got to 2.3 times GDP. You are pointing out a wonderful trade to be in that was the right thing to be in. And I might point out I think it's ending this year. I've put levels on it. Prove me wrong and I have been proven wrong. So far the stock market hasn't gone down. Now if it starts dropping, to me that's the trade kicking in. It's the post inflation deflation. All the lessons of history. But you're pointing out things that always happen. You get elevated on things like money printing. There's always good reasons. You have technology and then it stops. I'm pointing out the market's been talking and this is what I've been hearing and we can agree to disagree. But I want to be very careful pointed out when people say write books about overweight gold and bitcoin after they potentially peak to multi year highs. And I point out how cheap the treasury market is. Again it's a key theme is yes, I get the big print. We're all agree on that but we already got 2.3 times GDP. My point is a lot of that's been priced in. It's been the last big trade
- [46:23]
D
before
- [46:24]
A
I go on to World Liberty Financial. James, you're signed. So I, I'll let you respond. You know, we'll get there hopefully.
- [46:29]
D
Okay, we're just going around a circle. We can agree to disagree that you know the one of the problems is that this, this has not been forever. You know it's really, it really took off 50 years ago and we're starting to, we're starting to see the effects of it now that, that we, we, you know, we're not in a spot that we were in the when this began. It's a completely different world that we live in now. It's a, it, it's not the same. I'm not saying it's different this time. I'm saying it's grown into something that doesn't, that you could not recognize in 1975.
- [47:04]
C
So can I give you a stat? I just looked it up. Global money supply is up over 100 times since 1973. So depending on what one thinks the equilibrium price of gold was in 73 because that was post Nixon and it was, it was moving around. Let's Just, let's just pick the middle of the range and say it was somewhere around $70 multiplied by 100. That's where it should be. And if you ignore the fact that money supply is up by a factor of 100 on a global basis since 1973, you're looking at charts that aren't normalized and non normalized charts are problematic. Something I've said many times. I have made the statement that I think gold's equilibrium price seems to be around 5,000. So let's say it was $50.73 whatever, and that it's trading that way. And in fact, that's why when it started bouncing, dropping down below 45 to 44, I think it's going to get back up into that range and it's going to trade like bitcoin did because the hot ball of money is going to be range trading it between 4,500 and 5,000 for a while. The notion that gold, which is basically just a proxy for a percentage of the money supply, is going to fall because stocks fall, because stocks are based, because there's a recession coming that is not factored in in to earnings estimates is, I think, wrong. I mean, that correlation will break. It won't break on the first day of a fall. And 10% isn't nearly enough to do it. 30, 40% in the stock market, sure, everything will fall when that happens. And then just like in the Great Depression, homestake mining gold will outperform and bitcoin will outperform. That's what I think. I think that in fact, if you're right and we get the right crash, yes, it'll be uncomfortable to be owning things, everything.
- [48:54]
D
You're right about that as it was in March 2020. But then look at April and May.
- [48:59]
A
Right.
- [49:00]
C
You know, that's the point. It's the money supply point. Anyway, I think we do have to talk about world liberty because it is a very big deal.
- [49:05]
A
So I'm sorry, no, I'll give the very, very quick tldr. Obviously, I think to put it in context, everything's driven by Trump tweets, Trump comments, Trump actions at this point in markets anyways. But we have this push and pull between the obviously favorable regulatory and legislative environment that people were excited for that came with Trump, which I think you can just argue also was just erasing what was happening in the past. Just getting off of the Gensler and Biden White House and moving on to anything else was probably a massive positive. But we saw from the very beginning that you get the two sides of Trump, which is the grift comes with the positives. And we saw it with the. The launch of the Trump meme coin, obviously, in Melania the weekend that he was about to be inaugurated. We know that obviously retail has lost a ton of money on those. But World Liberty Financial is interesting because the Trumps pushed this as they were debanked by JP Morgan and the bankers, and therefore they're going to help people not get debanked and effectively are debanking the investors and others within this process. And now they've removed themselves entirely from the website. There is no team on the World Liberty Financial website anymore. But the controversy comes from effectively, a protocol called Dolomite, which is a lending and borrowing protocol that is run by one of the advisors to World Liberty Financial. And effectively they've taken billions of World Liberty Financial and used it as collateral on Dolomite, which is a platform for World Liberty Financial. So at the most TLDR level, they printed a whole bunch of money. Investors are still locked up, 80% of their money. There's no roadmap for those 80% to come out. We don't know if those same tokens are being lent or if they're from a separate pool, but they're being lent at a level that brings the collateral of some of these pools over to 93% loan to value, which means that if anyone wants to take any money out, they'll never be able to. Literally impossible to know just how bad that is. By the way, there's a tweet here that shows that if they were to try to sell the World Liberty financial position of 391 million, there's only 2.8 million that they could actually extract from that in their largest pool, which is Ethereum. So this is 100% money extraction one way or another, unless they pay back the entire thing. But they took World Liberty Financial, which they created much like ftx, they used it as collateral on their own platform to withdraw $150 million in USDC and USDT and USD1. And that money went to Coinbase prime, factually. And you have Justin sun, which the irony of them fighting with Justin sun, who got off from the DOJ after investing massively in World Liberty Financial, saying that he now was backdoored and it wasn't decentralized and there was a way for them to block him, and now they're saying they're going to sue Justin Sun. So basically they printed money, used it to get a loan on real money. They got Retail to participate in those same pools. Now everybody can't get their money out way they would be able to. Does that sum it up?
- [52:06]
C
Yeah, this is the, I mean this is literally the best case for what Paul Atkins and Mike Selig are talking about wanting to do and the best case for the, the wreckage caused by the Warren Gensler administration. So let's, let's be clear. I think Gensler was an evil genius. I think that his plan was to steer people into governance tokens and meme coins which provide zero value to token holders and zero protection and say have at it boys. And they did. And people walked right in and let grifters grift. Now when I say let grifters grift understand that almost everybody is self motivated in these markets. People in markets will try to extract money if they can. You know the irony of Justin sun complaining about this is that. Well, two things. First of all, one would think that he's capable of reading a GitHub repository to know that the exploit was in the smart contract. I mean this was the point that Lou Kerner made. And I'm not making fun of Lou, actually I agree with Lulu. Lou's a bright guy on crypto town hall where he said, well look, you don't need rules because anyone could go into GitHub, it's open source, and figure out that there's an exploit.
- [53:21]
A
You hear the terms and conditions on anything.
- [53:24]
C
I think that's right. And so my point has been that the obvious answer here is there's a collection of rules that need to be changed. The accredited investor rule at the sec, which basically turns retail into exit liquidity in a normal way. And the rule set that effectively allowed for governance tokens that as long as they didn't effectively pass on economic value, needs to change. And there needs to be disclosures. You need to know. There needs to be very basic things. What is a lockup, who can use it, how is there any preferential access? All of these things matter, the token economics matter and investors in these tokens didn't know. Now would that have saved them in this case? I actually think no. People were buying the Trump name.
- [54:12]
A
Everybody bought these things because they thought that the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, discounts for Trump, Melania, NFTs, World Liberty Financial, you name it. They believe that his incentive would be as the most powerful man in the world to see these assets rise in price, that he would pump their bags, they would go up and they didn't realize that Actually, he would make all of his money on the fees and using those same people who thought it would go up as exit liquidity. He didn't want it to go up. He knew how much he could make. He made that much or not.
- [54:39]
B
He, you know, it's entirely possible Donald
- [54:43]
A
Trump is like on the phone about these. I think that the team they hired, but listen, they made hundreds of millions of dollars in fees on these things without even having to own, buy or sell any of it. Right?
- [54:54]
C
So, no, you're absolutely right. People thought that he would pump their bags and I think he ignored it completely and just let his sons and the team do whatever the hell they wanted. And it's now a black mark and it is a big one because a lot of people were harmed. Now, do people care? I mean, his base, if you listen to the content. So they're like, well, whatever, we bought this, we don't care. I, I personally think that If I lose 90 on my money, I would care. I did not buy a penny of this stuff, nor would I, because I didn't buy meme coins. You know, except for a very small allocation at one point based off of somebody's recommendation that some smoking chicken fish token switcher. You know, I think I lost $300 or something. But, you know, outside of that, I don't play in that space. But it is a big deal here in terms of regulation. The actual. My working theory here is this is such a big deal that I think that the Trump administration is not going to be able to fight certain elements of rational ethics in clarity. And this could actually end up being a very good thing. That would be good, you know, because it's crazy. I mean, it's insane that you could have tokens that were, quote, legally done and people lost this amount of money with all of this being they only
- [56:19]
A
raised from accredited investors, if you remember. I'm actually remembering this now, that World Liberty Financial's whole pitch was we're doing this the right way in a compliant environment.
- [56:27]
C
That's right. Look, it's a classic example where compliance can be form over substance versus, in this case, the form doesn't really protect the substance. What we need was explicitly stopped. And this should be the strongest single argument for passing a Clarity act and letting the SEC and CFTC modernize rules that one could possibly have. Obviously, that's not going to be the first reaction, but it should be the reaction.
- [56:57]
A
I mean, Mike, Dave, you know, I mean, excuse me, Mike. James, any specific thoughts on this? I mean, I find it just it's
- [57:04]
D
so troubling on so many levels. I mean it's just, and that's, and that is to Mike's point is that's what has that, that is what scares people away from this space. This kind of nonsense.
- [57:17]
C
Yeah. Mike James. I mean this is a classic example of infinite supply. There you go in crypto.
- [57:24]
D
Classic.
- [57:24]
C
Yeah, classic where I, I find myself as long as the ultimate irony is if you, if you, you separate bitcoin from crypto and you look at crypto, Crypto has infinite supply. Yes. Because crypto most of non bitcoin crypto most tokens numerically. And I mean by when I say most, I mean north of 98% have no reason to exist other than as a method for founders to raise money. Right. And so as a result, you know. Yes. That doesn't mean there aren't some that have good reasons to exist, but they're drowned out. And so that is, and this was a very classic case of that. I mean, you know the question where does yield come from? You know, in World Liberty Financial, like what, where was the yield coming from?
- [58:12]
A
I mean if you read their, if you read their response where by the way they said to respond to the fud, which in a very chat GPT like you could tell chat like they didn't even have a lawyer read their response. Which is insane. That like you can just tell that they just flippantly responded but they basically had said all the quiet parts out loud that people are so skeptical of. We're doing this on purpose. This is the way that we create outside yields for retail. Trust us bro, like we're doing this is the whole point. We take the token and we, you know, we are on both sides of it. It allows you to earn a ton of yield. You should be happy. Thank me. I mean it's, it's insane.
- [58:47]
C
I mean.
- [58:53]
A
Go ahead, mike.
- [58:58]
B
Dave real
- [59:01]
A
go ahead.
- [59:03]
B
The macro to me is Mr. Trump's in his polls what I heard are the lowest since when right, or Nixon compared to Nixon before he got impeached. So some very nimble losing their jobs to AI. Now the energy crisis. I mean I see some combination of 9, 11 and that big pump in energy prices in 2008 that flip my switch that this is going to shut up the consumer and this is going to be the big one and all that matters. That's why it's all about the stock market. So to me this is part of that macro where it always happens. People get greedy at the wrong times and there's going to be laws against this kind of stuff in the future. But right now, to me, this is part of that consumer flip that I'm really worried about. That really triggered me way too early in 2007. But when crude oil spiked in 2008, that was your sign that did sell everything.
- [59:59]
A
I mean from a narrative perspective, this is on Bloomberg. I saw it this morning that the World Liberty Financial News was very much cracking into mainstream. And this does have the potential to be yet another like quantum confusion bitcoin situation that helps keep the price down by people who don't understand the difference. It does. You know, I like listen, you know, we, we, we when you have pro crypto president, best crypto president and then you see this thing on the other side, there's going to be plenty of people who don't bother to do their research on bitcoin or World Liberty Financial who once again just say why? Why would I touch any of it? I don't think those have long term consequences. But there's Dave showing his badge. What's it say?
- [60:42]
C
Well, the reason I'm saying it, Scott, is because I'm at a conference where there's three different panels today talking about the importance of crypto fundamental technology. That is not the importance of crypto tokens. There's one that will talk about crypto tokens a bit and they'll mention bitcoin and it's different. They'll understand whether Ethereum is going to do whatever, whatever is going to happen. The truth is that the technology and what will actually be happening inside the plumbing of Wall street, it's going to change that. Convergence is happening 100%. There's no question about is inevitable. That is absolutely not investable from the perspective of token xyz. It just isn't unless you actually know what the linkage is. And the problem with a large number of crypto tokens is exactly what James was saying to bring it right back full circle, which is people thinking they're going to get 100x or thousandx's in a week because they time it right. I mean you could try to do that. I guess you could do that in penny stocks too, but it rarely works out. The number of penny stocks that have graduated to the national market system is staggeringly low. I haven't seen the exact percentage now, but it's less than 1% and it's probably less than a hundredth of 1%.
- [61:58]
D
Well, these are the new penny stocks, let's face it.
- [62:01]
C
And penny stocks is not a way to invest it is a way to trade and speculate. There is a huge amount of those penny stocks that have hundreds or hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in value. And Mike's point that that needs to get washed out. I mean, it will get washed out. It's going to take time. The reason that it doesn't get washed out as fast as penny stocks are, companies need to file things, right? Cryptos, once they exist, like FTT, is still worth $100 million.
- [62:32]
A
There's also nobody, I've said this last week, there's nobody left to sell that's going to be there and be zombies,
- [62:38]
C
dust in people's couch cushions, I mean,
- [62:40]
A
or they were never even unlocked. I mean, 80% of these world Liberty Financial tokens are still sitting in World Liberty Financial.
- [62:48]
D
Yeah.
- [62:48]
C
So, I mean, it is investor token. It sounds like I'm agreeing with Mike's thesis because in large part I am. It's just there and my differences are on a couple of very specific ones. There are clearly reasons why you don't want to give immediate liquidity to a founder, to the public with shitty disclosures off a PowerPoint where they raise money because they do an IEO on an exchange.
- [63:15]
A
I mean, what did EOS raise? Six billion or four billion? I mean, whatever the number, build anything. They block one owned a couple hundred thousand.
- [63:23]
C
But on the other hand, you don't want to do the opposite. You don't want to make it cost $20 million to IPO.
- [63:28]
A
Right.
- [63:28]
C
And take either two years.
- [63:31]
D
Scott's point is that the vast majority of crypto is just a big white elephant now.
- [63:35]
A
Right? And here's the James to wrap that in a bow. I mean, what Dave said is, yes, he's going to go sit on a panel and we're going to build the entire new financial system on this. And I think the disconnect is all the people who believed in crypto for the last 10 years that were not just bitcoiners, probably will not benefit from that. We'll see all their tokens that they're still holding onto for dear life going to zero. While the financial system is built on our rails, that's a big problem for people who deeply believed in this and actually bought the token.
- [64:02]
C
Not all of them, Scott, but numerically the majority for sure. Yes.
- [64:07]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [64:08]
A
So that. And that's where everybody's. Right here, you know, so it's interesting once again, there's a lot of nuance in the conversation. Oh, my God. We got to 1005. Sorry, gentlemen, we ran over Dave. Mike James. Thank you guys so much. Another great conversation. Always steers in the direction we don't necessarily expect. I thought we'd be talking about blockades on blockades and triple stamping. The double stamp. And we didn't get there. But I'm sure by next week it'll be irrelevant. Anyways, thank you, guys. We'll see you next week. Bye, everyone.
- [64:54]
B
Let's go.