D (4:08)

Hey guys. Yeah, I, I agree. And Mateo, about your. If that was Amateo speaking. Yeah, Carlo, excuse me. About the December and. Micro strategy has been a derivative of, of bitcoin. He's done a credible job of creating a, a very value supported preferred layer, but he doesn't have a marketing team. Wall street is, I think surrounding him with curiosity but not support. So I, I just don't think he has that machine to sell it. Tomer, as far as you know, why it's still below that nine, nine level. That, that's my, that's my first take. And then the second one is what Dave was beaten up. I forgot who. Oh, he was beating up Luke Roman. Not jumping in on, you know, dumping bitcoin and saying, you know, it's done for the next year and all that, the selling and the gamma trade. I've tried to look at it. If anyone has Any, any certainty on this, it makes sense, but it just doesn't last that long. So I'll say that microstrategy is the third most important thing. The first most is discovering whether or not the paper bitcoin narrative is alive and well and suppressing or strangling volume and sucking premium out of the market for OGs, et cetera. That's the second one. And the first one is back to Wednesday's Fed man. I spend a lot of time looking at it and no matter who goes in there, they're going to be running this economy hot into midterms and they are absorbing T bills. They may go beyond the three year limit if mortgages don't come in. And I am way conservative as far as saying anything constructive on bitcoin because we all know it's a matter of when. And so when I say within three months or six months, I don't take it lightly. The Fed is in service of the treasury and they took a very active step that got very little cover besides from the bitcoin folks. That's all I got.

A (6:27)

Douglas?

E (6:29)

Yeah, I think that microstrategy and I'm long it when we look at it really it's just a call option on bitcoin and what we're paying away really is just time decay right now and that when there's no volatility it's not moving higher, then the prices starts to drop off. But I think that when it comes to demand for the preferreds, I think that that's going to change somewhat when the rating agencies acknowledge the fact that strategy put together this dollar cash reserve and I think that that's very important and that should microstrategy get like an investment grade rating then that opens it up now to pension funds and other large companies that can really start to unload it on their balance sheet. So I think that once again it's really, it's just a patience game and we're paying away time decay I guess right now. And it hurts. But we all believe that bitcoin is going to go a heck of a lot higher over time. You just have to hold onto the position or add to the position and be patient.

A (7:27)

Matteo. Yeah.

F (7:30)

Hey Scott. Hey everybody. So, I mean I kind of look at this one. Unbelievable that they're just coming up with another almost billion dollars in this current state of affairs to keep acquiring bitcoin. This point has been hammered quite a bit, but we're looking at a cost basis on this additional whopping 10,645 Bitcoin of 92,000. I think Scott, you've sort of mentioned this before and it's just anyone who's looking at this today is seeing that the average in price acquisition, it's just top blasting again and again, no matter market conditions. And I think that that alone probably just continues to raise questions around MicroStrategy's strategy of almost taking a FOMO approach at every price level. Obviously long term outlook, he's banking to be right and that the idea is that this really doesn't matter from a 5 to 10 to $20,000 price difference. But I think it matters to other people when they look at this and just say why is there a better average cost when, when these levels are pretty obvious to everyone.

A (9:02)

Interestingly, I'm not sure it's his execution that I would question. I mean I just think that's always been his strategy. But I think where you're definitely right is that the treasury companies that followed him all came in and top blasted because he was doing it right. He set the precedent that you get cash, you buy the bitcoin, you don't trade, you just get as much bitcoin as humanly possible. And we were left with a bunch of treasury companies buying in the 110s-125 region with every penny they had and ability to ever buy the dip, which no individual.

B (9:37)

Isn'T it indicative of the fact that his purchases tend to be higher than what the average price across the week looks like, suggesting that the market's rather thin and to get a billion dollars in, you got to be buying at the top regardless of, regardless of where it's at, of what we see the prices as. And, and that there just isn't, that there's a lot less volume at the lower prices, otherwise he'd be picking it up at a lower price.

A (10:06)

That, that's red meat for Dave, the king of execution. So.

G (10:09)

Right on.

B (10:09)

Okay, tell us Dave.

G (10:11)

I mean I've never met Michael Saylor. If I, if, if I had one piece of advice to him, it would be fire whoever is responsible for his trading strategy because it's God awful. And you know, it has been God awful and it's not about top blasting or all this stuff. It just basically if you execute your, if you're going to be buying over the course of a week what he's doing, and it's obvious what he's doing, he's doing it in a much more compressed time period. And so if you, if you look at seven days of bitcoin trading, I mean, there were over the course of the week, there were one period, it got up to 94,000 there. Basically, you could see he did his buying almost certainly on the 9th and the 10th, when he would be an average price of the 9th and 10th, if, in fact, since he's going to announce it on Sunday, he did it over five days and did what we call use something like coin routes, time weighted average price over a five day period and did so using some of our better analytics in order to, you know, we call our automated mode, which uses, you know, fairly intelligent, you know, mechanisms for, you know, aggression. It would trade in line with the full week's average. And so if Monday was the low point on the week, yeah, okay, fine, you're going to be buying above it. If Monday is middle of the range, it'd be right there. And if Monday is above where it was the previous week, well, then you're doing okay. What he's doing is he's picking one or two days, trading in a compressed cycle, probably still using the same algorithms that he was using five years ago. And the truth is the algorithms that are five years old are what you would expect in terms of performance. So, I mean, I don't know, you talk to him. I'd be happy to provide some execution consulting to Mr. Saylor. But I do think the important point is he doesn't give a shit because what he cares about is in the long term. I mean, he should because it would increase his Bitcoin yield and so he should care about this, but he doesn't. So as a shareholder, it annoys me because I am a shareholder, because I do think that it is an implied option. And I do believe digital credit is going to be a very big deal. And I do believe that they will be able to earn income from their Bitcoin when the rules change, et cetera. So that's my point on microstrategy. I know it's red meat, Scott, but, you know, it is what it is.

A (12:51)

Yeah, I think maybe. I think that's one of the huge topics of conversation. And the other, I guess, is how he continues to raise enough money to do this in the current situation.

G (13:03)

Well, I mean, look, let's be blunt. The only narratives that are being used there were three narratives. You know, when the last time we started approaching 80,000 on Bitcoin, the three narratives were quantum microstrategy is going to get delisted and have to sell all their bitcoin and the four year cycle is over and everyone should Just retire, take their bats, their balls, their toys, go home, leave the playground, and come back in 12 to 18 months. Where are we today? Well, the first one is Borderline has gotten to borderline silly status. And we could talk about Quantum. I think we should see if we can get some significant experts here. But at the end of the day, I think that that is dramatically overblown. The microstrategy narrative is gone. I mean, it literally gone. I mean, you know, there's no way he's going to sell Bitcoin. He's buying it, for Christ's sakes. And the only thing that is interesting is msci, but the fact that NASDAQ isn't changing it. MSCI has a real problem. And we can talk about why they have a real problem. Because if they, in fact, at the bot, at a local bottom, take microstrategy out of the index, let's say it pukes a little bit further, and then bitcoin rallies. They're going to dramatically underperform all the other global indices. And that is a big problem for index providers. They'd be taking. Generally, they want to take less risk. When they put this in, when they did the October thing and they put it into their status, nobody really thought about it very much. They started thinking about as it got closer. But it's a very big deal, and we'll see what the indices do. I still suspect they're going to do it, but it's a big risk for them. We'll see. But if you think about from a narrative point of view, there's no reason to believe that Bitcoin's going to break through the support that seems to be in the low 80s. But we'll see. I personally think that we're in a trading range. I've been saying that for a while. We're going to stay there.

A (15:06)

Yeah.

G (15:07)

Can I pivot for a second?

A (15:08)

Did anybody.

G (15:09)

Because I'm late. Did anyone.

A (15:10)

We've only talked strategy so far.

G (15:12)

Okay. So, you know, I want to come back to Mark. Is Marco still up here? I don't see him anymore.

A (15:18)

I see him. Yeah.

G (15:21)

He was talking about running it hot. I mean, I think exhibit A for that was Kevin Hassett on Face the Nation talking about how he believes the US budget deficit is going to drop 600 billion in. In. In 2026. And there's only one mathematically possible way that could happen, and that's if the economy dramatically grows more than people expect and therefore enhances tax receipts and, and tariff receipts. That's the only way. And this is the guy who is 75% likely on polymarket. Is that still true? Let's see. Let's, let's, let's go Fed. I'm in here. So let's do this in real time. Who will dominate as Kevin has. Oh no, it's down. Okay, so now he's down to 47% and Kevin Warsh is at 43%. I don't know that he's very different, but if you're talking about someone who's very senior in the administration, it seems very clear that what their strategy is going to be because there's not one thing is certain with the big beautiful bill. Spending is not coming down right. Am I getting this wrong, Mark?

D (16:24)

No, you're not getting it wrong. And it hasn't even really kicked in yet till, till next quarter. And that's a part, you know, we all love. Bitcoin wanted to go higher, so I really checked my drunk, you know, drunk head state to see if I'm drinking too much from the cooler. And again, I did a really deep dive. I'm gonna hit a hit send on a sub stack after this call and I did a lineup of Wash vs. Hazard and just doesn't matter. They, they have seemingly different approaches, but they're both going to be supporting spending and absorbing debt at the front end. And that's just the way it's going to be for through midterms and beyond. So yeah, Dave, I agree with you. I got to look at that. I heard about that $600 billion drop and the CNN's jaw dropped just as far. I heard when he said that they're also recategorizing some of the student loan debt, I think, and some other things to get that number down. So there's, there's, there's all that stuff going on. It's hot. So that's the biggest thing is it's going to be hot. And I think we're all looking low at like these near term dynamics. And Trump and Bessant have a big plan that involves deregulation, unshackling and letting it run and hopefully it trickle down, you know, disciples of Reagan. And I do think that's the broader 2026 play. And it's going to be volatile as fuck. I think in the marketplace.

A (17:49)

Does having looked at the FOMC last week and how much contention there was around a simple 25 bip cut and when you even dig in beyond the voting members, there was obviously dissension, there was disagreement about how much the cut should be. And then if you go to the non voting members, you know, the bank ads, it was basically split. So is there an argument to be made that even if we get one of the Kevins, which we will, and we get a effectively Trump puppet in there who just wants to lower rates, that there could actually be enough dissension in the rakes that they're not able to do exactly what they want?

D (18:25)

And so Scott, your, your question is we, we are going to get a Kevin, which has to be a headline somewhere. Someone please make that meme. We're going to get a Kevin and the Kevin will either advance the mission or they'll do it in reaction to a failure somewhere. But it's going to happen. There's, you know, fiscal dominance. It's going to happen. And I don't know if that was answering your question. It was more about a 25 hike. It's either going to happen with hazard at the outset or with war in arrears after a, in reaction to some sort of failure.

A (19:01)

That makes sense. I think, you know, we've just defaulted and I default to this, by the way. So I'm just playing devil's advocate. We've defaulted to Trump, gets what he wants, Fed can continues to cut extreme lightning, you know, and if there's enough pushback from the other voting members, is there a way that could get blocked? Does anybody think that there's a world where Trump doesn't get what he wants from the next Fed chair?

G (19:28)

No, I' ma tell you, I see your hand up, so why don't you sit, you talk.

D (19:33)

Yeah.

F (19:33)

Absolutely not. I mean this is, I think Trump's going to get his way one way or the other. But I think that there's a lot of people who expect what Trump getting his way is going to mean for markets and that it's just going to rain liquidity from the skies. And I don't know if we're going to completely see that. I mean we already see some of the QE initial onset bubble burst because what the Fed is doing now is buying back debt and backstopping banks which are there to issue more debt. So it looks like what we're seeing right now is a continued to cover the debt and the debt that's really propping up so much of AI and the entire sector. I think that the timing is getting pretty auspicious for things starting to break pretty well going into this Fed chair replacement. So even if rates do get cut, I don't know that the reaction can be as predictable as everyone's assuming.

G (20:40)

Yeah, I think there's a couple of stories that are worth talking about on this. I don't know if people saw, I mean, buried in the middle of the Luke Roman switching to selling Bitcoin, which I called a perfect capitulation moment and pretty clear of what's going on today feels like capitulation selling. But we'll see is his theory, which is I think sort of where you're getting at Amateo. So I'm going to pull on the string a bit, which is that AI companies, the big infrastructure ones, the hyperscalers are borrowing shit tons of money to build and that is sucking all the liquidity into that away from other stuff. Now, James Lavish on our show this morning basically said, well that might very well be true, but the banks are creating that and the Fed is enabling that. And so it's in addition, it's not taking money from individuals, it's taking investment dollars. And so that's a major thing that's happening next year. And the other major thing that's happening next year that I pointed out is there's some of the biggest IPOs probably 2026 is setting up if the market doesn't crash. And these things all go through as arguably maybe the largest, probably almost certainly the largest IPO in terms of dollars of market cap of companies going public ever with anthropic XAI, SpaceX and potentially OpenAI all going live. So all of that, that does compete for investment dollars. So there's that going on. But that's obviously in the future.

F (22:17)

Future.

G (22:18)

But you know, but there's a lot going on.

A (22:25)

And the thing I'm having Mike issues not trying to leave you with awkward dead space.

G (22:30)

No, no, that's okay. I just, I'm trying not, I don't, I don't want to talk over people if there's anybody else's stuff to say.

F (22:35)

But I think that Dave, I mean based on your, your that information and I really agree with that sentiment, I don't necessarily think it's like pulling money out of people, but it is ballooning the debt. How do you perceive the risks sort of mounting from this unbelievable debt vehicle being used to scale out Capex and that frankly, while AI is completely taking off, the actual profit has no the ratio of actual money and income being generated compared to the debt being utilized to invest in the infra, the hardware, the warehouses, the scalability. I mean do you feel like that's something that they can just prop onwards and we'll see how it goes or do you feel like this risk is getting really top heavy?

G (23:33)

I actually think that it is the most bullish thing that could possibly happen, which is companies that are going to ipo, they're going to have. That are going to end up with in all likelihood, assuming the IPOs go well, with lots of capital, with a lot of stability. Yeah, the, you know, anthropic. I don't know about anthropic in particular. You know, OpenAI for sure has already told us they're not going to be profitable for three years. But all the suppliers, so the power, the data centers, potentially even SpaceX if you put, you know, if you listen to. Was it Jordy Visser was talking about data centers in space and not in a crazy way because it does make sense. You're going to see all sorts of stuff. But the supply chains for all of these companies is a large part of the growing economy and people. Everyone always focuses just on the consumer app and say, well, the consumer app is not going to make enough money in the beginning, that's true. But if you look at the Internet bubble and this is the last time we saw anything on this scale, what you saw was yes, the Internet, every company that had a website, so many of them went crazy. But along the way all the infrastructure companies, those also overbuilt too. They did, no question about it. But there was a massive explosion in creation of fiber optics and by the way, Corning, one of those companies, it was, you know, Corning was one of them in the Internet bubble is starting to react now because they're.

B (25:04)

This space was downloaded via spacesdown.com visit.

G (25:07)

To download your spaces today. Their infrastructure is absolutely necessary for the AI build out and you can go through a lot of this stuff now. Why am I talking about this? Well, because as the AI build out goes on and as this the compute and power start getting built, then all of a sudden a lot of the promise that people look at in the crypto world for where crypto could be native payments for inside of use of AI and you could get agentic AI and agent using crypto Rails all of a sudden start to become real. But it doesn't become real until after the infrastructure gets to that level. So I'm kind of looking at the second order effect. Yes, I think that I'm not talking about. Of all those, of all those IPOs, the one I'm most interested in is SpaceX because I think that they have the least amount of competition and the potential highest margin to be able to make money But I think that the infrastructure, suppliers and the entire supply chain and a lot of the crypto plays that are going to be alongside of this all start to get developed as this money starts to enter the system. And I think that from a crypto town hall perspective, is what we should care about. That makes sense, Mateo, because I don't know if I'm being clear here.

F (26:18)

Yeah, yeah, no, I mean, and I, I Definitely agree on SpaceX. The thing that I'm thinking here and that I'm tracking is, I mean, AI makes everything move faster. The actual trend and velocity of this is just unbelievable. But with that, I think that there's a delay between all of the infrastructure, hardware costs, costs, the actual software catching up, everyone being able to build everything, this stuff gaining traction. And I think that we're in a little bit of a gap here. I think we're in a gap between all of the promised investments that are coming in the actual time it takes to build out these things and get them established, and the revenue that can be generated from them. And I think that we're sort of seeing that that's coinciding with the macro outlook. And I think what I'm sort of expecting is to see some pain before some gain, essentially, and that this is going to take some time for these things to really develop. And that is going to also separate the wheat from the chaff here. And it's actually needed. It's going to cleanse crypto, it's going to cleanse AI and it's going to be a little bit of a reset. But on the outset of it, we got to move beyond a high velocity slop into real value, making progress with AI on screening cancers and preventing Alzheimer's and actually having pure real breakthroughs. And I think we're going to get there and I think that the pain is going to be much faster than previous cycles that we've seen with the dot com bubble, et cetera. But I think that when you combine the debt, the macro outlook and the time it takes for these things to get done and for the manufacturing to really kick in and get off on the ground, that's how I look towards this. Mark, I'm curious your response on that.

D (28:19)

Yeah, as you guys might mention, my partner on my podcast is an AI researcher, former quant guy from Choose Figma. And so for the last year I've been adopting a lot of his practices and learning through him. And we deal with a lot of entrepreneurs. What they can accomplish and create on these platforms is pretty credible. And they're getting looks from established asset managers looking to replace legacy systems. On the research, more on the. More on the research and strategy side, sort of. Yeah, I would say not, not trade execution, not what Dave does for a living. And I think that the enterprise systems that you're talking about will take a long time. But you said it's moving fast. It is. The AI machine is moving fast. And that does two things. It'll either break certain employment logjams or it'll reinforce them as people wait, as they've done, to see who they need to employ to adopt. So I think it's bad to worse on the employment front. And the bad is just a delay. And the worst means people are cutting and then folding in five agents for every person they hire. That's not there yet. And I'd love anyone's insight into whether they see firms adopting that. But I don't think people have really done an AI strategy yet at the sort of Fortune 100 level yet that resulted in job losses.

A (29:50)

Yeah, there's so much debate as to whether that's happened or not, but I think we know it will. Dave, you were jumping in. Go ahead.

G (29:57)

Yeah, I mean, I can't speak to the Fortune to the top firms because I'm not talking to them. I know they're using AI to augment and do certain things, but you know, if you're not, if you're a software business and you're not using AI, then you're falling behind. So, I mean, I don't know, I think it's much bigger than people think. The other point that I think matters, and I am far from an expert on this, but you know, there's a lot of talk that the new generation of chips that are just coming out from Nvidia are a quantum leap, like an order of magnitude more powerful. And you will see significantly increased utility and models for everything from self driving to code generation to whatever. And that's the kind of thing that's, you know, that, that's the reason that iron was because they secured that, you know, early. And yeah, they're, they've been falling over the last few days. But, you know, that's, that's fine. It's really a question of what's going to happen as this stuff ramps up in the, in the first quarter. And there's a lot, there's a lot going on there. I would recommend listening. Jordy Visser did a really good podcast this weekend and he talked about, in that he gives a bunch of other sources. I listened to Two or three. That's one of the things I tend to list this on fast speed. But the other thing you can use AI for is summarize podcasts and ask IT questions. And so you can actually interactively take what's an hour podcast and break it down into 15, 20 minutes and actually get most of the time detail out of it. So I think a lot of people are doing that in terms of getting information because it just works so well.

D (31:50)

Yeah. And Dave, following up on what you said about the use of it, if we're just using it as a. People using it as a powerful browser, you know, prompt response, prompt response. That is, you know, so Q2, 20, 25, and I was guilty of that recently, again, by hanging out with people at higher pay grade than me on a tech stack basis. They're not only using sort of, you know, the MCPS and these agentic processes, but they also have, on the, on the research and content side, a layering. They have these. You can train so you can have second and third level outputs that will edit for you based on certain criteria. So that slop gets tightened up. It has a certain voice, it knows you. So the, so the tweaking on this is, is really improving. But it involves a series of different AI programs to get it done. So it is complex and I think it does take a team to run. Eventually.

G (33:00)

I see Amateo's hand up. I think Scott had.

F (33:02)

Yeah, yeah. Oh, did he have to jump?

G (33:05)

Yeah, it looks that way.

F (33:07)

Okay. Yeah, I, I just wanted to like, if anyone's really curious to try this for themselves, I reckon I recommend that they go to Manus. I just spent all weekend with some friends who've been really trying to hack this thing. It's Manus IM and essentially it's a multi agent LLM tool. Give it a try. Put in some pretty clever prompts in terms of actual task execution you would like to see it do and watch the agents put something together in real time. It'll blow your mind. It's pretty incredible. We are seeing the actual AI and agentic applications taking many step functions forward. And I know that we end up talking a lot about. Can you still hear me, Dave? I think I have a call coming up.

G (33:58)

I hear you. Yeah. By the way, spell Manus for those who want to type it in. I tried and I spelled it wrong. I guess. Anteo has a call.

F (34:10)

I got a call. Can you hear me now?

G (34:11)

Yeah, we can hear you. Yeah. By the way. So people who want to try it can actually put it in.

F (34:20)

Say it again, Dave, you spell the.

G (34:22)

Site that you were saying?

F (34:23)

Oh yeah, yes, absolutely. M a n u s.im it can literally build websites, build developer apps on the fly, just give you all sorts of really, really cool tools. There's a lot of other tools that execute in very similar ways, but this is a really user friendly one where you can test what it's like to deploy a whole fleet of agents that can automate tasks for you and return an output that's really dynamic, visual and compelling. And I think the thing that makes me most excited about the AI tooling is not just how it affects the stock market and the Mag 7, et cetera, but is like the actual rise of entrepreneurship that is accelerating. And that's probably the thing that I'm most bullish on when it comes to the. Of course there's the picks and shovels order effects on that. But like the actual humans using these tools, not the giant corporations firing them and replacing them with these tools is the thing that I think is most exciting and I'm betting on big.

G (35:33)

Yeah, I mean I just signed in by the way, is that using Gemini under the COVID covers, because I see Nano Banana Pro is part of that.

F (35:42)

So it's a multi model tool. So if you get a pro account you can actually select Grok Gemini Claude and then it plugs in with a variety of plugins as well as being able to select whatever primary LLM you would like to utilize. You can test different ones for different use cases.

G (36:02)

Okay, well that's interesting. Well that's a good plug because it, yeah, look, this stuff is moving pretty quickly, you know, but whatever. So it's the other narrative. Just because we, you know, we don't have that much more time. But that I wanted to get to today is there was a narrative that started circling over the weekend on Ethereum and Bitcoin. Ethereum in particular being the Wall street token, which is where it is and I think Ethereum flirting with it sits below now it's slightly above the 3,3000 level this morning is kind of important. You know, Bitcoin, the 87, 000 level is important. I'm curious that anybody here have, you know, what are the, what are the current thoughts on, you know, where the value is going to be and you know, where the, where the money flows are. Because you know, I, I know what I think but you know, I, I've been pretty outspoken. I'm just, I'm just curious. I mean Carlo, you're, you know, you care a lot about Defi. I mean, I don't know if you're up here, but are you behind the microphone? Yeah.

C (37:01)

Look, I think they're spot on in their prediction because the institutions are telling the public exactly what chain they prefer when it comes to tokenizing real world assets and tokenizing securities. It's the battle tested chain. It's interesting to see how chains ascend into prominence. We saw a recent report that Solana Stablecoin activity is going through the roof. And a lot of people dismiss these alts as, you know, we're gonna. Their. Their time has passed. I disagree. I just think the institutions are telling us exactly where these tokens are going to be utilized and how they're going to be deployed and to ignore that. I think you do that at your own demise.

G (37:45)

Yeah, it's, it's. It's weird to think that, that most of the crypto community, most of the people who used to listen to this show and the ones who still do, are all morose and feeling they're in crypto winter when there's so much actual light at the end of the tunnels being seen in so many different places. I mean, I don't know, am I the only one who feels that way? But it feels, it feels positively morose out there and yet awful what's happening, Just awful.

D (38:14)

It feels horror. It feels. It's so funny, Dave. It feels awful out there. And I don't know if it's because we are looking at all pro cyclical market data that's negative and not accounting for things like, you know, having a judge route decision, that August 29, 2023 decision that was the unshackling of the Bitcoin ETF that no one believed until it happened, but we seem to be getting those at least once or twice a week now.

G (38:48)

Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Did you talk this morning about the OCC granting bank charters to Ripple and a whole bunch of others, you know, trust bank charters?

D (38:58)

Yeah. No, we didn't. Yeah.

G (39:00)

I mean, these are big deals. I mean, you know, and Carlo, in your real world, you're a lawyer. I mean, it seems to me that the legal risk for entrepreneurs in this space has decreased by so much. So much that the New York Times, you know, probably at the prodding of Elizabeth Warren and her cohort in the Democratic Party, are publishing, you know, really bad articles about how crypto enforcement is down. You know, it's just. I don't know if anyone read that article, but it was really bad. You know, I, It's. It's almost inconceivable that someone would try to defend the Gensler SEC by claiming that the Atkins SEC is doing a bad job in policing crypto.

D (39:43)

Look, the.

C (39:43)

The OCC approving five charters all in one announcement is pretty massive. It, it indicates that OCC and Treasury are fully committed to seeing stablecoin adoption. And I think one of them actually got. I think these are all tentative. I think there's still some more steps that need to be followed. But I think Bitco got full adoption in an OCC letter. And this is just further solidifying that we're getting the thing that drove us crazy and made us pull our hair out under the last administration, which was lack of regulatory clarity. And you know, the more I think about it, I think it was intentional. I think it was intentional tactic to mire this entire sector in a lack of clarity to discourage institutions from jumping in. And the more signs we're seeing that that is changing, the more we're seeing press releases from institutions. I mean, JP Morgan is now allowing people to borrow against Bitcoin. Who would have ever thought that would have been possible under Biden's administration?

G (40:48)

Yeah, I mean, it is so clear. It is so clear. But I just can't reconcile the two things. I mean, the one thing I said this morning on Scott's show, which I'm curious what people think about, is that when you look at the way the price action has been, and we kind of know, I mean, Jeff park did it, wrote a paper which I think is, is spot on, that there has been, I mean, we know that over the summer when it was between 100 and 120 or whatever it was, we know there was a lot of, of OG selling, you know, at least 400, maybe 500,000 coins sold, which is part of distribution. But he made the point that there's a lot of call signs, sellers. And when you get call sellers, it creates two things and it has the potential for a third. The two things it creates is it suppresses volatility and does. And it's certainly it, you know, it kind of reinforces trading ranges. So when you get, you know, toward the top end of the trading range, as long as it's, as long as there, there's incentive to defend that trading range on the part of market makers. And they will tend to do that. And unless there's a lot of buying follow through, it doesn't go anywhere. And as a result, we've seen what we've seen. But the flip side to that is the longer this goes on. The more people have sold calls, the more market makers or short calls, what they do, just to be specific, is they sell in this particular case bitcoin at some delta, not 100%, but as the price approaches the call, they have to either, they have to hedge that and if it goes through it, then they're forced to turn around and start buying back because now they're short and there's no, there's no, there's no there there. Depending on what they've done with their hedges and how it's done, the words that are used in the community is gamma and gamma squeezes. And we are far from that. Right? We. In a morose environment, you don't have that. What you need to understand, and people do need to understand is whenever this morose crypto winter cyclical downdraft ends, 18 months from now, two months from now, I don't know which, there's a lot of potential firepower to that. If buying takes us through certain key levels where a lot of people who have sold calls are going to need to buy back in. Now, some won't, some are just like selling the call as a way of selling, but others will. And that, that does matter. So I'm curious, any of the option traders out there, what's happening, I mean Tomer, you know, what's going on in the community, anybody worrying about this or thinking about this or it's just, everybody is just so, oh my God, we're going lower again. And nothing else.

B (43:34)

I mean, I, I don't really know in depth, but I, I, I, I would say maybe a little bit to add to that. On the flip side, I think a lot of the OGs that sold, if the price comes back down enough, are going to buy, are going to start buying back in. And we, we actually saw this in the, I guess the 2017-2020 cycle when Bitcoin topped at 20,000, then fell down to 5,000. There were a lot of OGs who were selling at 20,000 at that time too, because I couldn't believe, oh my God, this thing I bought for under a buck is worth $20,000. And I remember a number of them getting a lot of FOMO when bitcoin fell back down to 5,000. So that was a lot more volatility than going from 125 to 80 or so. But at some point there's been a lot, there's been a lot of money taken off the table and what's, what's a bitcoin OG going to do with a billion dollars other than buy back some bitcoin?

G (44:28)

Yeah, that I think that I've seen a lot of people's thesis is that the net that will be the catalyst for the next bull cycle. But I think all the four year cycle people believe that that's, you know, doesn't start for another year to two years. I mean, I personally think that these notion of artificial time cycles are, is silly, especially for lots of reasons. But you know, that's just, that's just my opinion. I mean, I guess we'll see. I think global liquidity matters. I think Mark and I are firmly of the opinion, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, Mark, that when the fiscal stimulus from the big beautiful bill starts kicking in at the same time that growth starts accelerating, that some of that money is going to end up in bitcoin and Ethereum and other places in the crypto world, but that until the cycle of depression is broken, you're not going to see anything. You sell rallies and when the day comes when you're not selling rallies anymore, that's an important day and you're not going to know it. It's going to be three weeks. You're going to know it in retrospect, you're going to look back through three weeks or so and say, oh, wait a minute, I guess we should have been doing that. Is that how you look at it, Mark?

D (45:33)

Yeah, and I'll, I'll joke and say that you'll know it when I start selling tops because that's when it's going to break out. That's why I'm sitting on my freaking hands, because I know I'll do it the wrong time. And, and you're right, it is. It's not going to happen until it happens and we're in a moribund state right here. You know, for, for a number of reasons. And one is I think the Fed had to get their, their plumbing set to take on the increasing number of T bills that are only 20% of issuance, not near the 35 that we saw, you know, a few decades ago. And I think we're going to hit that 35 to 40% of issuance being T bills, which is why, Carlo, ramp up your stablecoin machine, because that's part of the game.

G (46:24)

Yeah, Carlo, get going. Come on.

C (46:25)

Oh man, I'm so ready, gang.

G (46:30)

I mean, it's just funny. I mean, I just keep thinking that we've been hearing this narrative now for weeks and bitcoin's been Trading in the mid, basically pivoting around the mid-80s to 90 now for quite some time and, you know, get a lot of leverage. The one point that I thought that was probably most interesting this weekend and there were a lot of them, was I think it was a bitcoin account. I think it may have been Marilyn Hodl who talked about, watch what people are saying. When you see Larry Fink and others who are saying bitcoin's going where it's going. And we all know what he thinks that the thing it needs to clear is it needs to move away from the leverage traders, driving the price towards the actual investors driving the price. And I think that we are in the late stages of seeing leverage not being the key. But we'll see. I mean, you know, we saw October 10th. It didn't look like there was a lot of leverage, but obviously 5 billion in Bitcoin leverage got wiped out and another 14 billion in other leverage wiped out. So, you know, it's. There's still a lot of leverage in the, in the ecosystem. It's just different kinds of. And I guess we'll find out. I mean, one of the other things that people are looking at. I don't know if you've talked about gold and silver, but, you know, silver, everyone was two days ago or three days ago when silver went from 64 down to 60 or $64 plus to 61, everyone's saying, okay, silver rally's over. Time to come back out. Bitcoin's going to go up. Well, no, silver today is pushing towards 64 again. And I think that a lot of the speculative juices are flowing there. I see a new speaker, someone who's there, and I don't, I don't know, I'm curious. You're raising your hand. You have something on that point.

F (48:23)

What?

G (48:23)

Why don't you do like the, like the actual good thing and tell people, like, they should just buy the S&P 500? Well, I mean, that's what most people do. I mean, most people do buy the S P 500. They, you know, that's what they. That's what people do. And no, that's not what people do. That's what 15 of people do. The rest of them put their money in like, like Solana coins or do due dual.com gambling or, or stake.com gambling on slot machines.

C (49:00)

They're.

B (49:03)

That's what 85% of people do.

G (49:05)

And 15 do the S P. No, 95, I reckon. Yeah, I think, I think you better.

B (49:11)

Do some more research.

G (49:13)

No. 95% of will put all of their liquid into slot machines on a.

A (49:23)

I.

G (49:24)

Can'T listen to that. Particularly on the S and P, when the single largest financial product over the last several years are zero day options on the S and P. Just people should know that. I mean, people don't know that. Or if you're not in the market, but you're not just buying the S and P, people are gambling on it. People gamble. It's why prediction markets are as big as they are.

D (49:44)

Totally. Dave and that guy, I don't know what his point was, but you know, we talk about markets here and about investment side and industry, but that, that part about gambling is a huge issue with, you know, youth, especially, you know, young men, whatever, 18 to 35. It's, it's a disaster. So, you know. Yes, but that's not what we're talking about here. It is a huge issue.

G (50:09)

Yeah, I mean, look it, I personally think that there's way too much gambling. We've all heard, you know, in, in the crypto space, I, you know, talking about Solana coins in the same breath. Well, Solana coins is different than Solana. I mean, you know, pump dot fun. What is it? 98 and a half percent of the people who played in pump dot fund lost most of their money or all their money or pretty close to it. I mean, you know, it's, it's their lottery tickets. And so crypto is lottery tickets. Stocks have lottery tickets, lottery tickets are lottery tickets. You know, people play them. But from an investment point of view, we're talking about an asset class that is not a trivial asset class anymore. But you know, with a market cap of somewhere in the 3 trillion range for all of crypto, it's meaningful and there's still a lot of crap there and there's still a lot of potential there. And that's what we're trying to talk about is what's the potential? Right?

D (51:06)

Yeah, yeah. I mean, and then, you know, you want to talk about gambling, it's not just on Solana. You got the Manning brothers supporting fanduel as what, you know, as what they do during Thanksgiving dinner. So it's a broader issue than just here.

G (51:21)

It's true.

F (51:22)

You have, you have podcasts that talk about addiction recovery that are sponsored by DraftKings. I mean, it's like an unbelievable environment that we're in with gambling. But I think to your point, Dave, crypto and blockchain and bitcoin, these are emerging asset classes. And with it, there's a Lot of gambling, there's a lot of fraud, there's a lot of scams. But we're also working very hard to try to build and find the actual value of the future within this emerging asset class. Because there is something very sizable here. And it's very different to be in a space where we explore discovering that value, the utility behind it, and where it will accrue versus other spaces that are just like, dejetting and hopping into these things. Right. Like, the space isn't for the gambling narrative. It's to actually explore finding value in an emerging asset class, which is sometimes really hard to do.

G (52:20)

Yep, it is. And we've talked about this a million times. We talk about this hundreds of times. That value is based upon the perception of what the token holders will have a part of and what the token economics are vis a vis what the potential value is. And we keep seeing this all over the place. That's why we worry about. The reason I care about regulatory clarity more than any other reason is to eliminate the bullshit. So that if you are in control of a token project and you want to give your token holders a stake in revenues of the protocol or, you know, whatever, that you're not worrying about being sued for it. And down the line, I mean, you know, to me, that's the biggest deal. So, you know, stable coins, we can use that. But the real, real unlock with stablecoins is when you can get platforms that will allow you to trade in and out of any of these assets or equities or anything else for that matter, on the same platform as you do your payments. Right. Carla. Sorry if I put you on the spot. You never know.

C (53:22)

Not at all. Not at all. I was in the middle of writing down something. Yeah, look, I've said it, and I'm very firm on this. And I know that Mark knows I'm kind of on the sidelines waiting for this to really, really catch massive adoption. But all of this that's happening in stablecoins is the precursor to. To tokenization of assets, because you have to have the plumbing in place to be able to go back to fiat. And if you're going to tokenize everything on blockchains, then you have to have an off ramp that is blockchain driven to make this a seamless process. And that's why this is a big threat to banks. And that's why banks are feverishly trying to figure out. And look, they have a very good thing in the product line. JP Morgan and their JPM token, this notion of tokenized deposits is here to stay because it solves for the one thing stablecoins can't do, which is they cannot directly pay yield and the issuers are not allowed to act as banks. So all these SEC charters, they're great. They give them access to Skinny Fed and all these things, but they'll never be full fledged banks. And that's why banks are not going to go away. But they're certainly going to have to dramatically reduce their fees to stay relevant and they're going to need to integrate digital dollars or they're going to fall behind.

G (54:46)

Yep. Well, I think that's probably a good place to end it. Unless somebody else has last thoughts. You know, it will be. We'll come back. Well, I won't be here tomorrow morning because I have a. I have a conflict. But you know, I guess we'll see whether this is, as James Wynn calls it, the beginning of a Black Monday or even Mike McGlone even said that he thinks we could see a stage stock market and full asset crash within this week. So, you know, we'll see. There's. There seems to be a lot of fear and concern out there and I think that it's important just to keep your, your head level, stay away from overdoing leverage and make sure that you understand interdiscipline in your thesis. And at that point you'll be okay. I mean, I, I guess, yeah. Well, I think. Is there any. Given the fact we're at. We're at 11:18, I think we'll end it there. Unless somebody else has something else to say.

C (55:34)

Great show, Dave.

G (55:37)

Anybody else? Okay, cool. Well, thanks guys. Once again Scott will be back here tomorrow morning. I am going to be in a stupid. Well, never mind. It's just a hearing that I am. I have to be at for the day. Starting at 9am I'll be locked in a room so I won't be able to do very much. If I'm lucky I'll get some time free. Maybe I can listen, but that's probably the best I can do anyway. Take care everyone. Stay safe out there.

B (56:22)

This space was downloaded via spacesdown.com visit.

G (56:26)

To download your spaces today.