Loading summary
Transcript118 lines
- [00:00]
A
Good morning, everyone. I hope you can hear me. Was that the strangest music that we've ever heard on this site? I think it was pretty, pretty ridiculous. You know, before we get started in this, I think it's, it's actually funny that I was an observer, front row seat to something that everyone in the market was talking about, which I can't believe has become such a big deal, which is the, the, the, the fight between Larry and Mike on macro Monday yesterday. Just from my perspective, I think it's really serious. It's very, it's pretty obvious that it's important to get contrary views and to air them. And yeah, Mike talked over Larry, and Larry tried to talk over Mike. And Mike's comment is something that I personally find dumb. I found it dumb for the last two years listening to him. Namely that bitcoin isn't. It doesn't have a supply cap because you can infinitely create other cryptos. But it is important to. And people inside the crypto bubble need to understand that normal investors often don't understand and use the word bitcoin and crypto interchangeably. So it is incumbent upon everyone in the crypto space to tell people exactly and explain exactly what the differences are. And frankly, I'm not sure that we all agree on what the differences are, other than the fact that there are differences. So, you know, just, you know, for example, you know, Lou, you're a bitcoiner for the most part, but you host some. A very popular meetup series called Crypto Mondays and you've been spending your time on education. I think the point, particularly when you get to these bare market kind of bottoming, in my opinion, but bare market doldrums, it's very important to educate people on what it is the hell we're talking about. And I think that the fact that so many analysts and so many people actually make that mistake is relevant. And while I don't like the notion of being unable to talk to one another, I think it is an important point. I mean, Lou, you get involved with those. Not to put you on the spot, but am I crazy? Do you think that everyone in the universe understands the differences between bitcoin and all the other tokens that are out there?
- [02:09]
B
Obviously not, but to some degree, this does not become a mass market thing until people don't have to understand the difference. Right? This is all just, you know, none of us understand how an iPhone works, but we all get massive value from it every day.
- [02:27]
A
Right? And you know, I think that's true. But the problem I mean, you know, Gary often says this, you know, that we're our own worst enemies. You know, the problem is when we talk about bitcoin as hard money is verifiable and all the various characteristics that it has, and a couple of kids in their dorm room can go on pump fun and create a token and pump it up to millions of dollars, then suck the most of it out of the ecosystem and rug pull. Everybody who paid people hear that and they say, oh look, this bitcoin is a scam because look what this is. Well, obviously it's not bitcoin, but that is an issue and I think it's actually a real one. And we hear more of this cool crap at bottoms than we do obviously at tops. But even in the middle, it just, it, it tends to be, you know, when you see the Atlantic and the New York Times and the Financial Times trotting out people who have been saying bitcoin is worthless since it was under a thousand bucks, you, you kind of understand it. So I do think that it, that it's relevant. I mean, curious. Anybody else care or think that there's a PR problem here?
- [03:34]
B
I actually, yeah, I'll say one more thing. Yeah, I don't know. There's my all time favorite epic TED Talk is John Wooden, who was the coach of the UCLA Bruins, arguably the greatest coach in US sports history. And he had a great line which is, you know, your, your reputation is what people think of you. Your character is what you are. If you focus on your character, the rest of it takes care of itself. You know, bitcoin has been doing the same exact thing for 15 years. I was just at a dinner last week with a bunch of people, wealthy people in New York, around the bitcoin Pompeiano's bitcoin conference. And these were people interested in learning. And half of them, when they made comments, they said, well, I know it could go to zero. No, it can't. It can't go to zero. It's going to do the same thing it's been doing for 15 years and every day more people are seeing. It doesn't mean the price goes up every day. But what it certainly means is the price goes way up every five, ten years.
- [04:34]
A
Yeah, well, I mean, I'm not sure I agree. I think that anything can fade into the dustbin of history. But I'd say the, the odds are, are quite stacked against bitcoin going to zero.
- [04:47]
B
Well, right. Nobody starts off talking about Microsoft saying, well, Microsoft could go to zero. Yes, it can. Go to zero. Everything can go to zero. You're right. But to spend time talking about it is a total waste of time.
- [04:58]
A
Absolutely. 100%. And that is. But the thing that no one seems to want to understand is there's one logical chasm, we'll call it, in the minds of people that I think it's really only in people who are over. Well, younger than me, but over 40, is there are people out there who believe, for whatever reason, that nothing truly virtual can have value, that everything for value has to be physical. Which of course is completely insane when you consider the fact that dollars are virtual. Yeah, there's some paper, but who uses it anymore? I mean. I mean, I carry cash with me because I'm a dinosaur, but, you know, I think that it's. It is.
- [05:43]
C
It is.
- [05:44]
A
There are people in. Peter Schiff is a classic. At the end of the day, if you start arguing with him, it always boils down to the same thing. Well, nothing virtual can have value because there's not. You can't touch it, feel it, and hold it. And I think pretty much every single person on this panel thinks that that's just an insane statement. So, I mean, but. But that's quite literally a big deal. I mean, you know, here. Here we are. I don't know.
- [06:08]
B
Do you even think that he believes it? I don't think he believes it. I think he's just.
- [06:12]
A
Yeah, I think.
- [06:12]
D
I think.
- [06:13]
A
I think he has raised. Resurrected his career after the failure of his bank on being an agent provocateur against Bitcoin, and it has given him the ability to raise money and. And do things and. And that's fine. I mean, I don't know him well, Scott, you know him, so you. You can make that. That guess. Are you up here behind the mic, Scott?
- [06:32]
E
Yeah, I'm here.
- [06:33]
B
Can you hear me?
- [06:34]
A
Yeah, we can hear you. Cool.
- [06:36]
E
I. Yeah, I mean, specifically about Chiff. I think it's a mix. I think he knows where his butt. His bread is buttered as far as engagement and just easily triggers us as much as he sees fit. But I do believe that he does at least have a core belief in gold superiority to bitcoin. But, yeah, I mean, he's a. He's actually a pretty nice guy. And if you, you know, you get him in. In person, he laughs about it. It's not like. It's not like if you're sitting for a drink with Peter Schiff, he starts screaming at you about how bitcoin is tulips. Hey, it's Very much a Persona.
- [07:12]
A
You had to bring that one up. I mean, you missed my intro.
- [07:15]
E
But how did I. Yeah, what did I miss?
- [07:18]
A
Nothing. I just, you know, it's just, it's amazing. I mean, the fact that you were. Had to talk about Macro Monday again this morning with, with the arch guys. There have been a ton, a ton of posts. I mean, I don't know, all I'll say is you and I are aligned on one key thing, which is if you don't have controversy, if you only have people who agree, you don't, you can't critically think and your own ideas will get stale.
- [07:41]
E
Yeah, I mean, the constant, like, comments that, you know, people aren't going to watch the show anymore and I'm not coming back till McGlone leaves. I casually say bye.
- [07:52]
A
Exactly.
- [07:54]
E
Sorry. You know, I also, it blows my mind, you know, people take things so out of context they don't watch the whole thing. But the show is literally called Macro Monday. And the major point of contention seems to be that we have a quote, macro guy on the show.
- [08:08]
A
Yeah, exactly. It's just, it's absurd. But, you know, look, we're at this cycle now. We're at this period of time where pretty much everyone see the despondency in the, the, the, it's like, it's, it's hard to say it every single day, but people look at, at, at what's going on in the crypto markets and, and so many people are making the statement that over if the next few days, if we don't see prices change narrative of something that's been building for, well, you know, 17 years is dying.
- [08:43]
E
And nobody, nobody who's playing in size thinks that, by the way.
- [08:46]
A
Oh, I'm aware, I'm aware. It's all the crypto, it's all the, the we keep calling crypto Twitter, whatever. It's, it, it's the, the ecosystem inside a community of people. You know, I posted a tongue in cheek, you know, quote this morning that, you know, Leila Halpern decided to post, I mean, just a completely unserious version of, you know, video, basically talking about how bitcoin is crashing. And I'm like, I personally, when I, my first reaction with this is, thank God she wasn't pumping it because she was pumping it. No one would take it seriously. So, you know, it's like, it's, it's crazy the kind of world that we're in right now where, where there's so many people are looking at the narrative as being driven by what the price is doing. Meanwhile, you know, the price has been stuck. You know, it. We. We hit what. We hit 59, you know, on this move. And we've been in the mid-60s ever since. You know, it. It's not doing anything. I mean, it is correlated a little bit more to silver like I thought it would be. But other than that, we haven't seen much anyway. We're talking a lot. Who else has as strong opinions on the dichotomy in terms of the fact that we are at extreme fear? Everyone. All the narratives are negative, and yet the price is sitting here. And it seems like the entire crypto community believes it's going to crash down lower. Okay, Carlo, you had your hand up first, then, Jamie.
- [10:09]
F
Yeah.
- [10:10]
G
I think tensions across the board are high, as we have seen in some of the spaces and in some of the conversations that are being had. One of the things that I think is really driving it and intensifying it is this Epstein stuff, because it has broken down trust in so many institutions, and people are starting to question why they pay taxes, why they support a fiat system that is run by these, you know, corrupt individuals. And it certainly makes the conversation about bitcoin very front and center. But, you know, I think part of the thing we have to balance here, too, is that we are not ready to jump to a full bitcoin standard because people still have businesses to run, and they still need to get paid in the available form of exchange. And it's not gold, and it's not bitcoin. It's still fiat. And I advocate that it'll probably be stablecoins in the future because it empowers consumers to send and receive money faster for lower fees. It enables businesses to avoid those merchant fees that are drained out of what consumers pay them. And that frees up capital to do what you want, which is if you believe it's bitcoin or if you believe it's gold, to hedge again against all this uncertainty. But I think we're getting to the point now where people are really becoming a little bit tribal in what they are advocates for and very, very reluctant to hear criticism, as we've seen over the last few days, in some of the reactions. Look, I think it's great to have passion. We all bring passion. But it's also very important to see all sides of the equation. You can't just get lost in the weeds of your team, let's say, without seeing the value of the other side and that we kind of have a need to have a balance Here.
- [12:18]
A
Can I ask a question, Carlo? Because there's a narrative that I've now read from three different people, all of whom have very large followings. That person. I think it's absurd, but it doesn't matter. I'm just curious what you think, which is that stablecoins effectively are anti Bitcoin because they are going to extend the life of the fiat system.
- [12:43]
G
Yeah, I'm actually grappling with that. And while I understand the underlying concern, Scott, you had that interview with Giancarlo where he talked about it being a legislated workaround, essentially and a surveillance mechanism for the government. And you know, it's kind of a backdoor cbdc, which, by the way, we were supposed to have an anti CBDC bill. I'd love to know where that is in Congress. But I'm hearing a lot of this as well. And I think we got to slow down here for a second and understand that we have to play in the current financial infrastructure that exists. And we can do that at the same time as respecting where we think the financial infrastructure is going to evolve, too. But I still think you need to give consumers the reality on the street, which is if I go full Bitcoin standard, I'm going to completely shrink the pool of potential customers who I can barter with and exchange goods and services. I have to accept a form of exchange, a monetary form of exchange that's widely accepted and used by people. And I understand that there's a concern about what's happening now with governments and lack of trust in institutions. And I mean, I've heard it called pedo money. I mean, it is alarming what we're seeing and what's going on right now. And we're probably coming up on that fourth turning that everyone talks about. But digital dollars are not going away. I mean, it's either. You accept the direction that your money is going and you position yourself in a way that you can benefit from it, but also be mindful of the dangers of it. It can be to a certain extent a poison pill. Stablecoins can be a backdoor to cbdc. They can be shut down, they can be monitored. I get all of that, but it doesn't change the fact that the law is on the books and that's where the entire financial system is moving. So be mindful of it, be aware of the risks. But turning it off and ignoring it, I don't think is going to work for the average consumer and the average small business owner who still needs to pay the damn bills.
- [15:10]
A
Sorry Jamie, you had your hand. Up next. Yeah.
- [15:13]
H
Hey guys, I appreciate it. You know, I, I definitely think, I mean fear and greed is like 13 right now. It's definitely a different sentiment from last cycle fear levels but those are more largely related to the Terra Luna, the Celsius three arrows ftx. And we've had much more bullish news legislatively this year within crypto. And I agree with Carlo that I think the fear might be more likely tied to government trust and macro events, you know, causing uncertainty from, you know, other than bitcoin and crypto related concerns. You know, I mean sentiment in our discussions and spaces and stuff, it's, it's less focused on price. I actually see a lot of experienced investors in this space looking forward to discount opportunities and buying lower as opposed to fears of last cycle where they were worried how low it was going to go. I think that's kind of shifted and I think what I'm hearing largely in our discussions is more about time. How long is this going to last? That's my concern is that will people stick with it, get bored if it's an extended downtrend? And that's something that we try to talk with people about, get the feel what they're thinking and just offer some opinions back and forth about how to manage that possible extended downtrend.
- [16:43]
A
Tony?
- [16:45]
I
Hey Dave, can you hear me?
- [16:47]
A
Yep.
- [16:47]
I
Oh, thank you. Having some issues with this app this morning. But to add to what Carlo was saying, I've had multiple conversations with Chris Giancarlo over the years and he did flag that stablecoins do present the same risks as CBDCs. And to his point, the anti CBDC bill that was supposed to be put into the defense spending bill, it did.
- [17:09]
E
Not make it there.
- [17:10]
I
And it seems it's kind of lost in limbo right now and no one's pushing it, no one's pushing it to be added to the Clarity Act. So that is something we have to keep monitoring. But to Carlo's point, I don't think governments are going to give up control of fiat and the fiat currency system that easily. And in a digital format it's probably going to give them some more power to do things and program money in a different way. And there's some draconian aspects to that, but it's not going away. And I think part of the ecosystem, the crypto ecosystem or digital asset ecosystem will be a big part of it will be stablecoins. Bitcoin will exist. And our hope is that as the future generation, which is more Digital focused. As they learn about blockchain tech and stablecoins, they gravitate more to bitcoin over time. But no way stablecoins are going away.
- [18:04]
A
Oops, sorry. So, Matt Hogan, I see you're here today. I started this by, by making a statement that you're probably have had to deal with more times than anybody on the panel, maybe all of us combined, which is the understanding of bitcoin as an asset specifically and how it is different than a lot of the other crap that's in the crypto ecosystem, particularly the pump fund stuff, all the stuff that people read about in terms of hacks and rug pulls, etc. I'm curious, you know, I don't think it's very hard to understand, but I'm curious, you know, what's your experience in terms of educating investors and where, where kind of the state of play is with the, the financial advisors that you deal with?
- [18:45]
F
Yeah, great question and sorry that I was late joining the space. I was in a meeting with an advisor. The answer is that the sort of two levels, the, the bad, the worst level of that, and I think it's a very real risk is most people actually just won't talk to you about it. So there's a huge number of people who just lump everything crypto together and won't take the time to dig in underneath the surface. If you get a chance to dig in underneath the surface, then it's relatively easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. And it's also relatively easy on bitcoin specifically to make a very strong case for valuation. And those cases are more difficult once you go beyond that. So I think the biggest worry to me is not like when you get in a room with an advisor, can you explain to them that there are good things and bad things in crypto? You can definitely do that and they'll play along. What I experience is very real is I think a lot of people are just like crypto.
- [19:44]
B
No.
- [19:45]
F
Because of some of those scams and rugs and all the negative stuff in there. If that, that makes sense.
- [19:56]
A
Perfect sense. I mean it. And, and I think that when you get to these, you know, I don't know, call it whatever you want to call it, Naders, you know, you know, down, down markets, depressed times, whatever that feels like impossible. And you know, at, at, you know, when, when you're at all time highs and feels like you're every, you know, every Uber driver, every clerk in a, in a store, people that you pass on the street, if they, if in my Case if I happen to be wearing something that has some crypto symbol on or my. I wear a ring that has bitcoin on it, I get, I can always tell if I'm playing poker and we're at. At top mark, you know, and the market is doing well, everyone always gravitates to the ring and starts a conversation about bitcoin. Today you could probably wear a bitcoin tattoo in the middle of your forehead and no one would talk to you about it.
- [20:47]
F
I think that's right. For what it's worth, you know, people are sometimes confused by the level of tribalism in crypto and why, you know, one group hates another and another hates another. It's exactly for this reason that it is, it is true that the, the best parts of crypto get catch the shade of the worst parts of crypto. That's just an objective truth in the market. And yeah, it can, it can be tiring. Look, ultimately it won't keep the price down, but it can delay where it goes in the interim.
- [21:21]
A
Yeah, no doubt, no doubt. I mean, I just, I'm just curious, you know, what do you make. Sorry, is there somebody else?
- [21:28]
E
No, no, I didn't mean to interrupt you. My mic just didn't work. Go ahead.
- [21:30]
A
Yeah, no, I was just gonna ask. I mean, you know, we've seen the flood of articles recently, you know, but on two topics, one specific on the, on quantum and, and, and we've talked about that. If we have experts, then I would engage in a conversation about it. But more or less, the idea that Nick Carter pushed, which is the bitcoin development community needs to address it and not ignore it, which I think is fair. But that's been stretched to by a bunch of other commentators to, oh, well, bitcoin's going to die, so why would you want to invest in something that's going to die? And I'm curious, how do you deal with that? I mean, then you get the Atlantic and the New York Times and the FT saying it's worth zero. I mean, you know, you hear this stuff. I'm curious. I mean, it seems to. These things come out of the woodwork every time when we're at a bottom or about to be at a bottom.
- [22:26]
F
They definitely do. And they take so long to rebut, even though you have good arguments. And we've seen this through for fud for years. I mean, how long ago was it that people were still worried whether tether was just a Ponzi scheme because of one paper that two guys in Texas Published a long time ago. You know, I've probably spent, I don't know, a thousand hours talking to people about Tether because of that one article. So even something like, like Quantum, I agree that, you know, Nick was in the right for pushing it out there, and the community has listened and is taking important steps, and that is all for the best. But yeah, for sure, we're going to be fighting Quantum Flood for the next two or three years, actually, long after the issue is even put to bed in the bitcoin community, because it sticks in people's minds. And I said this earlier on a podcast. Someone asked me, is Quantum really preventing advisors from allocating? And the answer is yes. And, and the reason is the way they invest is there's an investment committee of like, six people, and they talk about crypto, and then one of them raises their hands and says, what about quantum risk? And if the answer is longer than, like, two seconds, it just gets tabled into the next meeting. So it, it is a real thing, is weighing on the market, and it will weigh on the market longer than it should in my perspective. But, yeah, that's just the reality.
- [24:01]
A
Hey, Tony, Is that.
- [24:03]
E
Yeah, Dave, I was gonna ask. I mean, it's not like Matt and I don't talk every week, so I probably know the answer, but you kind of say how people are still conflating them and the best parts answer for the worst parts. I would say, though, we do get new, bearish narratives like Quantum. But isn't generally the trajectory of that in the right direction? I mean, each year that gets better, even though there's worse arguments against it and easier to explain for.
- [24:29]
F
For sure. And, and the, the, the, the sort of starting point of people is much more positive than it was in the past, and I do think we'll get that. You know, you have Quantum on one side, you have Larry Fink on the other, and that's a much better situation than we were with Tether, where you had, you know, tetherfud on one side and then, you know, basically no reliable institutions that people knew and trusted on the other side of the equation. So it, it is getting better. And there are also more people telling the story and, and there are lots more positive narratives. So, yeah, you're, you're right about that. I'm not, I'm not dour about it, but I, I do think it's weighing on the market, for what it's worth. I think it's going to be one of the catalysts that draws us out of the bear. Market is people accepting that Bitcoin is now taking Nick Carter seriously and is taking steps. I think it's almost turning into a positive catalyst, but that process will take some time.
- [25:25]
A
Jamie.
- [25:27]
H
Yeah, so we actually had Hunter Beast on space this last week and he's one of the authors of the VIP360. He offers some interesting context regarding Quantum and the way he spoke about. He said he was hoping that It's. It's a Y2K event that we come to approaching it and it ends up being nothing. He noted that, you know, it's not provably close, but experts have been wrong in history. And he gave the example of the Wright brothers where a month before they achieved flight that experts said it wasn't achievable. And so it's at least worth preparing for because, you know, we may think we're not close now, but, you know, a Q Day event could come and we would. There would be some risk to some of those wallets if we weren't find a solution now. And then, you know, obviously there's the Willy Woo tweets and you guys did a piece on it as well, you know, and you know, that whole sentiment regarding unless a solution is presented that potentially that's getting priced in, that's kind of where it's impacting bitcoin price now and moving forward. So that's. It is something I think should be addressed, is being addressed and is definitely a real sentiment, regardless if it's, you know, something that's actually something you have to worry about.
- [27:00]
E
Dave, do you see any hands? Because mine all went blank.
- [27:03]
A
This space was downloaded via spacesdown. Com Visit to download your spaces today.
- [27:10]
E
I want to just.
- [27:11]
A
Sorry, sorry, my button was. The app was frozen. Sorry.
- [27:15]
E
I think, by the way, that Carlo made like the. I think the most important point earlier and it's something I've seen across the board, which is that people are so highly emotionally charged since the Epstein files were released.
- [27:27]
A
Yep.
- [27:29]
E
I think it has changed the narrative. He's right on. Effectively, everything I tweeted about it, right. That like any Monaco of. Or like any shred of belief that I had left, which was naive probably in the first place, but it's gone. Like it just.
- [27:44]
A
I mean it is a very. It. It's funny because Carl is an attorney and so he knows perfectly well that if you're the. If you are actively trying to make a case against people, the worst possible thing you could do would be to leak out all the information that you're using to build said case. Right. So we understand that that is true. Doesn't change the fact that we were dumped because there was a campaign promise and then a congressional bill that became a law with a veto proof majority that said you have to release this information. We released information where the one thing they redacted was not the victims, which you could have understood them redacting, but the recipients and senders of emails to and fro Epstein. And that was, I mean, honestly, if you set out to try to anger, I mean, the American people and cause a firestorm, that would have been the plan. So it's sort of like they knew that if you were going to, you know, pick up a stick and whack a hornet's nest, you know, it was done on purpose. I mean, there's you. Either that or you couldn't be that stupid, right? I mean, is there anybody here who thinks differently about that? I mean, it seems like you can believe that people are dumb, but to think that that action where every single one of the elites that interacted with Epstein via email for the most part, was covered up, wasn't going to trigger every single person on both sides of the aisle to say, this is, this is it feels like that to me now. You know, I know that I'm always looking one level deep and I'm always, you know, conspiracy theorist in a sense, because after all, trust no one but verify. You know, that's sort of kind of our, our way of looking at it. But it feels like that's what they did. And I, I can't explain it for any reason other than the question that I asked in the article I wrote last weekend, which is, well, because if we did release that, then it would cause panic. Well, it, I mean, you know, capitalism, when people talk about what are the benefits of free markets, One of them, arguably one of the most important ones, is what they call creative destruction. I mean, things that need to be destroyed or should be torn down or replaced or fixed need to happen. And it doesn't happen if you don't get transparency. So within that now we have a world where as many people in crypto didn't trust governments before. Who trusts them now? Anybody? I mean, it's like impossible. I mean, we all know that we've all kind of. No is the wrong word. We've all assumed, because it's been a tale as old as time, that if you're rich, you're going to be above the law to a certain point. I mean, every once in a while they'll throw people like Harvey Weinstein to the wolves. I'm not saying he didn't deserve it, because it strongly seems like he did. But for every one Harvey Weinstein who ends up behind bars, there's probably a dozen. Redacted. Redacted, Redacted. And. And. And yet the one community which is unredacted, which was, you know, which came out in the files we were talking about, is the bitcoin community, which is literally the antithesis of what would enable that in the first place. So I. I just find the whole thing crazy. I mean, Matt, you've written about this and you're giving a lot of the emojis. I mean, what do you think?
- [31:07]
J
Oh, yeah, man. I took. I took arrows yesterday like a settler moving out west off the McGlone piece I. I put in the article. Why? He might be wrong. I don't think enough people read that far into it, but if I can just.
- [31:18]
D
Really quick.
- [31:19]
J
And I gotta. I gotta jump to a meeting here, guys. But I just want to maybe give you three reasons why I'm still bullish on bitcoin. I still think that we get market clarity and structure this year. I think we get fed rate cuts, and I think the agentic wallets and AI are three narratives to give me a strong bull case for the end of 2026. I'd love your thoughts on that. And then I gotta jump here in about 10 minutes, guys.
- [31:39]
B
Thank you.
- [31:44]
E
I say we go to the panel on that if anybody has thoughts.
- [31:50]
A
Yeah, I hate jumping in, but I know you don't think we're going to get the Clarity act passed. Right, Scott?
- [31:56]
E
It seems like there's a little bit of momentum now, but once again, I mean, do I trust. And it's not. I. I just think that the press releases are sound bites.
- [32:08]
A
You know, we're gonna get it.
- [32:09]
E
It's coming soon. How long do you. I mean, you know, fool me once, maybe it'll happen. I'll be pleasantly surprised. And after talking once again to Giancarlo the other day, even if it does happen, I think it'll probably be awful.
- [32:21]
A
Yeah. And I think that's, well, awful for certain things and not so for others.
- [32:25]
E
Yes, crypto. That's what he said. And he's the closest person I know to it.
- [32:29]
A
Well, when you say crypto, what does he mean? He mean bitcoin.
- [32:32]
E
So, first of all, he believes. And having, once again, being very close to it, advising people, his take is the first person I'd heard say the genius act is very bad for privacy and that it basically locks in the Bank Surveillance act for stablecoins and that we now on the stablecoin front have both government surveillance and private company surveillance. And it's probably worse than a CBDC which would have just had government surveillance. So that was a pretty hot take. But then he says if we get the Clarity act, listen, anything that passes in government, you know that both sides should be unhappy if there's a compromise. Right. He just thinks that naturally the entity that will be less happy will be the crypto industry and certainly not the powerful bank lobby and the politicians. So you know, when I think maybe I'm not sure if that means I align with no bills better than bad bill like Brian Armstrong has said. I just think there is no such thing as really a good bill.
- [33:29]
A
And so I mean at the risk of, of, of a 15 minute Bruce diatribe which I will probably agree with about 80% of, I'll give Mike very quick take. I think that the likelihood is you get some regulatory umbrella one way or another that allows for tokenization to move forward, that allows gives the banks enough of an advantage but invites a few players like Coinbase, Kraken and Robin Hood into the club and shuts out other startups from that club as, as most regulations do. And it's always a soft shut shutout. It's not a block, it's just the regulatory costs are high, etc. Etc. The net result of which will be very good for the number go up for Bitcoin and bad for the privacy and ability to transact version of bitcoin. Meaning that I think that there's too many institutional interests, whether it's BlackRock or the Trump family or JP Morgan frankly that want to see Bitcoin go up in price because they can do a better job and more monetizing it than gold. Even that will happen. I think that competing financial systems are going to get set back because it always is. They fight, fight, fight against things that disrupt their business. So defi is extremely important long term in my opinion, but is going to get pushed. That's sort of my, you know, base case. Which is why I, I keep saying that I think that bitcoin is bottoming here. Do I think this necessarily good for the human race? I'm not making that comment, I'm just stating what I think is as opposed to what I think should be. Oh come on, that had to have no, but nobody cares. Jamie, is that an old hand or is that a new hand?
- [35:20]
H
Oh no, no, that's an old hand, shadow hand.
- [35:23]
A
The Old shadow hand. Nobody has any opinions on this.
- [35:27]
E
Ye old shadow hand.
- [35:28]
A
Come on. Okay, well, Bruce, I teed you up. I mean, I know what you think in terms of regulation, but I guess you were at the Satoshi Roundtable, you know, not all that long ago. I mean, what are, what are, what were the folks there talking about in terms of what's going on in the US or our heads up our asses? You know, what are you guys thinking?
- [35:46]
C
Yeah, I mean, I was glad to see regulation wasn't a big topic. And I was also. It was, it was a lot of focus on bitcoin. You know, sometimes it drifts into, you know, other. Other types of projects or something. I think it, you know, sometimes bear market roundtables people have said are the best because it's more signal to noise and more people kind of head down building. So there's a lot of like, you know, bitcoin was the biggest topic. AI was the second biggest topic. We didn't have a lot of, you know, the regulatory people are usually, you know, grifters who can't produce. You have makers and takers in the world. You have the people that take and they can't do anything or make anything or build anything. So they either become regulators or they become, you know, think tank type people or they go and work for big firms trying to push regulation. You know, that's the main people interested in regulation, you know, rent seekers. And so they're not, you know, not that interesting. And they thrive in a, in a, in a bull market because it's sloshy, silly fiat money that. That enables their grift in a. In a bear market, you need more pedal to the metal, like actual results. People that build. So, yeah, I mean, there wasn't as much talk. I mean, usually we have several regulatory panels. There was, there's very. Probably the least actually, now that I'm thinking, you know, I don't have the, the board memorized of what the topics were. Roundtable is like an unconference. So people put the topics organically. You know, the attendees are basically all speakers and everybody decides, you know, on the first day kind of what the topics are. But yeah, I mean, you know, bitcoin was the biggest topic, I think. I mean, I, I'm not a fan of clarity. I think genius was bad. I'm glad to hear that Giancarlo said that. I. There's a funny clip of me going pretty hard on him in a, in a panel that we were on when he was being pro CBDC and I was like, I said I was, I kind of got fired up and I'm like, well, can you get, you know, why don't you guarantee right now that that'll never be used against people? Because at the time he was like, pro cbdc. And then they've just pivoted, as some people alluded to earlier, they've just pivoted from CBDCs. They knew that that was totally untenable because it's, it's just an absolute path to tyranny. So they were smart, they gave up on that and said, all right, we'll just get our tyranny another way. We'll just regulate the heck out of stable coins and have a wolf in sheep's clothing. And you know, just same as they did with social media in the, under the US Constitution, it's extremely difficult to censor. So what they did is they just figured out ways to pressure the private industry. So in some ways you can have even more tyranny through the stable coins. And I think that a lot of the, the legislation that we've had, I mean, it's all pushed by, you know, pinheads and, and tyrant fans who don't understand liberty or freedom. And most of these bills are, are just, you know, some of the dumbest people in the world, you know, who, who push these bills. Like there's, there's almost nobody who understands liberty. And most of these think tanks and, you know, all these, you know, working groups, you just look at the bios of the people. It's a bunch of statist, bootlicking commie authoritarians who've never produced anything in their life. And the reason that they want to be on this board is, oh, I'm on the crypto regulatory advisory board so that they can put something on their LinkedIn and try and grift for a better position. You know, they're not people that, that actually understand the world or understand human freedom or understand this technology. And then you have, you know, so, and they're, they're kind of the, the better of the, of the two. They're the, the, you know, what Milton Friedman would call the well meaning do gooders. And then the special interests are the, you know, the banks and the establishment powers who, you know, as Scott mentioned with this Epstein thing, it's all tied together because these people are the most evil flipping people in the world. I mean, they're demons. You know, it's the most evil people in the world trying to drive things. And they got these well meaning pinheads who are sitting There doing their bidding and like, oh, I can't have freedom. Oh, we're gonna, yeah, you gotta check this in, you know, and, and people get fooled for it. You know, even, even things that, that are well received in our industry, like Lomas Gillibrand, you know, has 30 pages of new, you know, you need this board and that board and a new, a new committee and a new this that you've got to go and approve stuff. It's a bunch of anti freedom nonsense. You know, none of this, none of this is legitimate. It's all absolute evil. It has no place in a civilized society. None of it. It should all be scrapped. All should be burned to the ground. And, and maybe if we continue going down this, this utterly stupid and evil demonic path of fiat, then eventually it'll just collapse and hopefully we'll, you know, bitcoin will rise and we'll all win. Maybe. I don't know.
- [40:31]
E
Having so much problem with my mic, Matt. I saw a hand, but I'm not sure if it was a previous or, or new.
- [40:40]
J
No, I think that's a ghosted hand there, Scott.
- [40:43]
E
It is so hard to moderate a conversation on this panel, on this platform.
- [40:49]
A
It's painful. It's painful. I mean, look, you know, the evil of the, it comes down to there's, there's two expressions that I would say. One, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And we know that's true. We know that people who believe they're above the law will do really horrible shit. And I don't care who those people are. I mean, it's just, there's just a lot of horrible in this world and there's, there's no way of looking at it. We may all disagree on who, but I think we can agree on what the other is. The sad reality is, and the, the expression that has been, that is really at the root of a lot of what we're facing today is, I guess I, I heard George Stephanopoulos say it, but I mean, it's, it's been the expression that people have used for thousands of years, which is don't let a good crisis go to waste. And so, you know, we had nine, 11, which was a human tragedy for sure in a sense. I think in a historical sense. The fact that it created the Patriot act and all the crap around it, the response and then the Gulf War, all of that, the reaction was worse. And we can see that throughout history, the reaction to all this really horrible crap is generally the reaction is the cure is worse than the disease. And so with with bitcoin, there are people who think, well, it'll be a better financial system. And that's probably true. In fact, almost certainly true. But I don't see how you get there if there's. There's two ways of getting there. One is burn it all down and we go to Mad Max and we have a fourth turning, yada, yada, yada. The other is it gets adopted by the financial system. And the question is, does it improve things? And that's really the question. Right. You know, I've been writing about that a lot lately and a lot of people here are talking about it. But what our audience care about, sad, but our audience cares about number go up or number go down. That's what people care about. They care about, you know, how do you invest to protect yourself? And really, you know, that's not where, you know, there's a lot of people who are gold bugs and saying gold is going to go to 10, 20, $30,000 an ounce. Well, I don't view those any differently than people talking about bitcoin going to 10, 20, $30 million a coin. And it is different than bitcoin going to a million dollars because bitcoin in a million dollars is basically just replacing gold or at least getting Paris passu with gold. But that's the world, right? And so we have to try to reconcile those two things. I mean, that's my thought of the day. Don't know if anybody cares. I mean, I just don't think that anything has changed since yesterday. You know, here we are, where are we? You know, right. Every time I glance over. It doesn't matter.
- [43:26]
E
Everything has changed since yesterday.
- [43:29]
A
I mean, it. Bitcoin between 66 something and 68 something every day for the last, you know, since basically since, you know, we had the, the wick down and then the, the quote, recovery back up and, and it's, it's it here. You want to try talking about it? Okay, we got a new person. So, hey, Joe, you just joined the panel and you're never at a loss for words. What are you thinking about all this stuff?
- [43:55]
D
Well, I mean, let's go back to clarity for a moment. Okay. This is classic the legislative dilemma that we can all agree on the why, but then we dispute the how.
- [44:06]
I
Right.
- [44:06]
D
Everybody's for change in general, but they're against it with respect to the specifics. And you have coalitions breaking apart, you have lobbyists, you know, at odds with one another, protecting, particularly some that carry more favor and influence than others, that this is nothing New the question I think anybody in the space realistically asks, and I think the framing of like a good bill is a bad bill is better than no bill is completely wrong in my opinion for a couple reasons. Number one, you're assuming that the current enforcement regime, which is more laissez faire, is going to be around forever. And we know that that is not the case. We know that we can easily get a more draconian hostile regulatory agency head in there that can completely change the game, especially if the Democrats come back to power and you know, they ride a populist wave. So to me, I'm very nervous about that and I think that it's a tragedy that we can't get at least some version of this across, even if it's a version that has to go back and fix problems that are there. Obviously I'm very sensitive to the financial surveillance aspects of it and all that. I think those are issues with the bill. You know, the Democrats scheming here to focus on the issues of the president being able to profit off the meme coin and using that as a political narrative for stronger ethics and conflicts rules. I think that is politically very savvy. Although it shouldn't be something that relax the whole bill. And then you know, the non custodial wallet software stuff. I think you can even in the text of the bill is currently drafted, I think there are strong arguments against that if you actually go through and look at the text and that's what some of the proponents of it have argued. So to me it's very unfortunate. You want a law, you don't want the continued regulation by enforcement, you don't want continuing to push developers abroad. I think it's bad for the industry as a whole. And I understand Bruce's persistent argument and I'm sympathetic largely to it about how you shouldn't have to ask some what did he say pinhead for a, for a ticket to do, you know, innovation and development. I totally get that. But you know, this is the real world and we have to make sacrifices and you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And overall some good, some bill is better than no bill. It really is. And for a variety of reasons that take the, I think discretion out of the regulator's hands. So I just came up to offer that opinion because I didn't hear it being offered. And I definitely think that people should consider what it means that we're not going to get any serious clarity act or variation of it through in this under this Presidency because it's looking increasingly likely that the midterms are gone.
- [46:41]
E
Yeah, I think clarity is like a sub 10%. But like sub 10% could pass, but I think sub 10%.
- [46:49]
A
I mean, I think the market is certainly pricing nothing, which is why. And I actually think that something's going to get done. I don't think I'm going to love what's going to get done, but I think something's going to get done for a simple reason. The Democrats want to get a win on the ethics side. And frankly, you know, Trump is very transactional and there's no more money to be made on meme coins. And so banning elected officials from, or, you know, post election from being able to launch a meme coin is essentially. Yeah, it's giving them a rhetorical win, but it's nothing. At the same time, the Democrats are scared of $200 million going 100% against their candidates and taking and doing to these midterms what the, the stupidity that the Republicans did over abortion messaging did to the last midterms.
- [47:39]
E
Yeah, but Dave, right now. Oh, sorry, I thought you were done.
- [47:41]
A
No, it is done. I mean, I think that I was gonna say.
- [47:43]
E
But right now, I don't know that there's like, I don't know if public perception and we, and I'm not saying this, I'm saying this from a 30, 000 foot view. I don't know if public perception of clarity acts. Failure to pass. Is that it's because of the Democrats. Actually right now people are screaming that it's because of Brian Armstrong and Coinbase. I'm not, by the way.
- [48:06]
A
You know, he's gonna cave. He's gonna, he cares about that. The only part of the Clarity act that was of the draft that that caused him to have a shitstorm. And I, I literally talked about this with a couple of fairly, you know, in the know, people was, it's the yield.
- [48:21]
D
It's the yield.
- [48:22]
A
No, no, it's not the yield. Yeah, you can get around that. The yield is. Is. Is what the. Is that. That's the one that everyone's yelling about. Because that's the weakest argument from the banks. It's the one that politically is bad. The one that he was arguing about that that caused the, the absolute shitstorm was the one that was, and it would never survive into the final bill, but it was in a draft was stopping taking away the discretion of the SEC to write rules for digital securities. That. That was, that was the issue. I mean, it's funny because people don't.
- [48:53]
D
His own team proposed that. What are you talking about?
- [48:56]
A
That, that, that, that they did not propose get. Taking away Atkins SEC from having the ability to rewrite security rules to be different for digital versus non so transfer agents and all that stuff. I mean it, no, if he did, then that, then his team is foolish. And I'll say it directly. I, I, I, I don't and I know, and I know people there. I'm just saying that would be foolish. I mean taking away discretion for the sec.
- [49:24]
D
Hold on. He just spoke three days ago. Okay. And his, his decision to try to, you know, influence the narrative and I'm quoting from the article because I, because I thought I'm. He, he's saying the potent. This is what he chose to talk about. The potential ban on crypto rewards would make the everything exchange more profitable, he said, talking about his own exchange. But however, this ban, if it went into law would make, would put us at a substantial disadvantage to the banks. Customers should get rewards and it's better for the US to keep regulated stablecoins competitive global.
- [49:53]
A
I know that.
- [49:53]
D
So, so why is he choosing to, to have oxygen consumed with that?
- [49:58]
A
Because that is a, because that is an incredibly powerful narrative. He's right, he's 100% right in what he's saying there. It's, you go public with something, you want to be able to go public with things that are very clear that have, that makes it, that paints your opponent into being apologists for the banks. That's what he wants to do. It's a very smart rhetorical strategy because it's accurate. But this bill is incredibly complex. That's all I'm trying to say is the rewards. Look, how do I phrase it this way? You know how money market funds were effectively shelved and people still have demand deposits? The reason is because if you buy a money market fund on a brokerage platform and you need to move money into a demand deposit so that you could pay your bills, it takes over a day and it used to take two or three days. You agree with that, right, Joe?
- [50:52]
D
Yes.
- [50:52]
A
Right. So now in a, in a world with stablecoins with faster Rails, if you can have a tokenized money market fund, B UIDL from BlackRock or the Benji from Franklin Templeton or whatever, or something else, you know, something that Coinbase offers or creates or works with. And so you could have money there and you can within minutes move it into a demand deposit so that you can pay your bills on the same platform. Is that going to be any different than rewards and stablecoins, other than the fact that the rewards and stable coins will pay less than those things. From a consumer point of view.
- [51:28]
D
From a consumer perspective, not. It's not, but that's not really the issue. The issue is, from a business model perspective, for certain entities, it's a massive world of difference. It's not about what.
- [51:38]
A
It's about the who 100%. So if you're so it. So the rhetorical frame, what I'm just saying is it's brilliant to frame it as, as, oh, you're hurting the consumer. But you and I have basically just come quickly to the agreement that what it's really about is different business models in competition. Right now, given the fact that we got there within 30 seconds, you. Do you really think that that's going to be the thing that's going to stop this act from going forward? That's all I'm saying. I mean, when the doors are closed and they finally get around to it, I don't think that's going to be the big deal.
- [52:13]
D
I don't follow the logic because the lobbyists that are railing against this arguably curry more favor and power on the Hill than the crypto lobby, of course, the banking lobby. So I don't understand why it wouldn't stop. Because the bank, they're out there, they're saying this is going to lead to deposit flight and massive losses for the banking system, which puts, which they will always drum, you know, hit the drum of systemic risk.
- [52:36]
A
I totally hear you, but the truth is these people aren't stupid. And if what they end up with is an environment where they could have offered. Because if you look who underwrites most of the rewards programs in America? It's the banks and the incumbent credit card companies. Right? They're going to quickly figure out that they're better off in a world where, where they can offer rewards than a world where everyone is pushed towards digitized money market funds that can immediately be moved into payment accounts, which will cause exactly the same pathology they're worried about. I think they're not. They're going to figure that out. That, that, that's my opinion. I, I just don't believe they're stupid now. Maybe I'm wrong. We will see. We'll find out in the next six months.
- [53:20]
D
But what is the stupidity? The stupidity is that their, their proprietary advantage, their competitive advantage gets undermined.
- [53:27]
F
That's the.
- [53:28]
D
And, and from your standpoint, you're saying, you seem like that you don't think that's an issue.
- [53:32]
A
It's a huge issue for them. I just think that it's, I'm just saying, let me, let me phrase it this way. I'm saying that giving in on rewards where they have to compete with Coinbase and Kraken and Robinhood is a hell of a lot better than ending up with a bill that bans rewards but encourages, develop, encourages all the platforms, including their own, to offer instantaneous money movements between interest bearing accounts and non interest bearing accounts. Which is exactly what the technology is destined to do and will do inevitably. That's what I'm saying.
- [54:07]
D
Yeah, but if that technology, which we agree is superior, I think there's, we're in complete agreement on that. If it's superior. But it is hamstrung from a public policy standpoint to not be able to economically compete with interest based money markets. That's the best scenario for the banks because in that scenario they trap capital and they still can experiment legally with the, the stable coins. But they, they, they have all the money. Right? Why do you rob a bank? Because the bank has all the money. They, they don't lose the money. It's just now we're offering stable coins in addition to our interest bearing, yield bearing accounts. So to me that's like the best scenario. I don't see why that's a negative.
- [54:44]
A
Okay, well, we'll, we'll see if it, we'll see how it happens. I mean, I don't want to, to go down the, I mean go down the rabbit hole in another space, but the point being that there's too much economic interest in order and, and, and political interest to not have the Democrat. The Democrats do not want to be painted as the 100% Anti Crypto army going into the midterms because it's a wedge issue that could screw them when you know, they don't want to snatch Vic defeat from the jaws of victory like the Republicans damn near did in the last midterms. So I mean there is precedent here. They're not dumb. And so you'll get something. But I think you're right, it won't be what we like, but you'll get something. That, that's my, my bet. I could be wrong.
- [55:26]
D
Well, they show 6040 right now. Just check the recent poly market. So it's a little better than a coin flip. Something gets done.
- [55:33]
A
Okay, well, yeah, and, and I think the mark, I think the crypto market is pricing it at, at 1090. But. So that is another reason why I hate to say it, but you know, I think we. We're bottoming here, but, you know, that's besides the point anyway. I think we've beaten this one to death.
- [55:51]
E
Yeah. Perfect timing. I think it's time to exit the building and run it back tomorrow. So, everybody, thank you for joining. Dave, thanks for doing all the heavy lifting, and thanks to everybody on the panel. I think that everybody humbly should follow them because they're here for a reason, because we love them and we value their opinion. So give everybody on stage a follow, and we'll see you guys tomorrow. Thank you, everybody. Have a great day.