Wall Street Veteran: Bitcoin At $1M Will Still Be Ignored Bram Kanstein | Dave Weisburger | BFM241

Why is it that the people making the rules are always the ones that are winning the game?

In this episode, I'm joined by Dave Weissberger, a quantitative finance expert who spent 40 years

inside the biggest trading firms on Wall Street. Together, we pull back the curtain on why the

current financial plumbing is not only failing you, but is also becoming obsolete. And why Dave

believes the only way out is a fundamental rewrite of the rules. Got Bitcoin? Alright, let's dive in.

Dave Weissberger, welcome to Bitcoin for millennials. Thanks for having me.

Yeah, thanks for coming on. I heard that you lost your ex account, but recently joined ex

again. And I think that's when I came across your feed. And I have to say you have amazing

takes. And then, you know, on Bitcoin finance macro, and then I dove a bit more into your

background and realized you spent 40 years on Wall Street. And so the first thing I actually

wanted to ask you is, you know, when the average person looks at the stock market and feels like

the game is kind of rigged against them, are they crazy? Or are they right?

Well, it depends on what you mean. So there's two very different questions. There's the question of,

is are there aspects of the stock market, bond market, really the derivative markets that are

that we're being closer to the situation you have an advantage. And so there are advantages in

various places. That could be in terms of stock selection, that could be in terms of information.

I mean, like obviously Congress, they're insider trading and their track record just blows

war and buff it away. So you know that they are the ultimate insider. So insider information

clearly makes a market rigged if you want to look at it that way. Similarly, if Wall Street

has a analyst that is going to move markets and they tell their best clients first,

that could move markets. Those are the sorts of things. That's all people talk about.

What people constantly talk about is complete crap. So Michael Lewis wrote a book called Flash Boys,

which everything he said was true at some point in the early to mid 2000s, but by the time he

wrote the book, it was all not true. In fact, he picked somebody, you know, Brad Katsayama,

who was working at a firm that had the worst technology on the street. And as a result,

was getting taken advantage of by firms who had better technology, but virtually all the good firms

had good technology. And so it created a distorted picture. So when retail goes to buy a stock,

they're paying microscopic spreads and they get instantaneous liquidity for market makers. So

the game is not just not only rigged against retail. If you talk to an institutional trader

in the stock market, they will tell you the fact. The fact is the market is structure is so biased

towards small orders and against big orders that it's the opposite. The retail gets because

it's profitable to trade against them. And I'll explain why in a heartbeat if you care,

gets so much of a better deal than the institutional trader at Fidelity or Janice Capital or

Wellington or whatever. And if you talk to any of the big traders, I'll tell you that. They'll say

that they're always worried about getting a front run by retail and or by other traders. And then

the market makers who are for catering to retail can screw up markets for them, et cetera, et cetera.

So that notion that the stock market is rigged is a bunch of bullshit. There's a lot of people

who looked at what happened with GameStop, which I actually find funny because I really enjoyed.

I thought that the warning kidding is crowd outsmarted Wall Street. They didn't even conceive

of the notion of value from a community. And that GameStop had a lot of potential

if they actually monetize it. Now whether they will or not, who the hell knows, it still

happened, but they might. But they conceived of it. And so Wall Street definitely sold it down

too far. And then they crushed them by virtue of the fact that the people who shorted it didn't

know what they were doing and got themselves way too levered. And they liquidated them.

Now any good trader understands liquidation. You understand risk. And if you don't understand

risk and you're trading in that size, you deserve to go bankrupt. And that's exactly what happened

in Melvin Capital. They had no clue. But what happened there had nothing to do. People blame

Citadel. And it's funny. They said it all those all sorts of stuff. And I know these guys

were really well. I've known the person who runs Citadel Securities as a personal friend.

I know a lot of the people there. Citadel does not make money from a stock going up or down.

They don't take that risk. Citadel does have exposure if their clients go bankrupt.

But the truth is even there, the system tends to bail out the market makers. So what actually

happened was DTCC, the depository trust company, the company that basically is the underlying

underpinnings of the market of settlement. To me, they said, oh, quadrillions of dollars of

trades. I mean, this is a new model, which is basically the entity that holds the

stock. Exactly. The entire equity system is based on paper in a fault under 55 water

street where my first job on Wall Street was, believe it or not. And everything else on there

is in their systems. What they did is they called up Robin Hood and out of the blue said,

you know what? You posted this billion dollars worth of collateral whatever the number was.

You know what? It's riskier. We're going to do a margin call on your collateral posting.

And so here's what you need to do. So Robin Hood was put into a rock in a hard place. There

was nothing they could do. And people blame them all the time. And look, there are things that

Vlad did earlier, you know, years ago that I don't agree with. And maybe even the way he handled

this because he was a little bit standoffish at the time wasn't communicated very well.

But the truth is they put to use the vernacular his nuts and a vice and started to squeeze.

And it was literally nothing he could do. You know, he didn't have the capital to be able to do,

you know, and they basically held them hostage and they changed the rules on them.

But retail has this thought process that it's that it's rigged. The answer is I guess to an

extent if something really extreme happens, the powers that be will do what they did to Robin Hood,

but they're blaming the wrong people. Yeah. It's really it's really more the the banking lobby. Now

the banks do all sorts of things that are against retail, such as paying virtually no interest

on checking accounts. And then the only way you can do payments is from checking accounts,

making it take days to move from one asset to another. So there is a lot of game in the system,

but it's not in the stock market. Probably more of an answer that you were thinking about. But

it's a topic I know extremely well. Just so your audience knows, I built a company called

Two Sigma Securities that competes with Citadel. So if I wanted to say bad stuff about Citadel,

I would have all the information. I have no interest in doing so. But I also wouldn't apologize

when they did something horrible. Like, for example, Chain Street, which I'm sure you're going to ask

me about. If in fact the allegations and their allegations look damning to me about what they

did in Taraluna are true, there's no way in hell I'm going to defend those actions or anything else

that that that that's happening. So I'll leave it there. I think that's a great layup actually to

kind of like the bridge I wanted to take towards Bitcoin. You obviously spent your life

studying how money moves. You've been into this. You now say that Bitcoin is a architectural fix

to this broken system. But what does it mean? What does that mean? What is broken about the way

that we currently store and use money and where does Bitcoin come in?

Well, let's be clear. Bitcoin is a potential fix to that system. Bitcoin needs some maturation

to get there. And we can talk specifically. We'll put a pin in that for a heartbeat.

But let's just assume that all we're talking about is the base layer of money, right? The base

layer of money for a couple thousand years used to be in most places, seashells. People saw

seashells. They were pretty. You could wear them on necklaces, but they were hard to find.

It wasn't easy where they were. So it became a unit of exchange. The Indians called it

Wampum. It happened all over the world, right? In different places. There's other forms of money.

Eventually, people realized, however, the seashells were very rare. And you could find them much

way easier than you thought. And so they wanted to come up with something else. Well, what did

that was the next thing came up with? They came up with precious metals, gold and silver.

Gold and silver are predictably rare, relatively easy to verify. One way or another, gold in particular,

silver a little bit harder back in the day, but pretty easy. They were divisible. They were

portable. You could use them in commerce. People understood what they were worth. And so that

became a base layer. Now, why is there a need for a base layer? Well, without a base layer,

the government has the incentive to spend far more than they collect in taxes. And they will

spend and spend and spend. Because if you're a politician, what's the easiest way to get votes?

Give shit to people. Yes, spending other people's money. The most common example, and it's always

used as guns and butter. That's an old expression. But it's effectively, it was swords and plough

shares as well, you know, back in the day. If you look at the history of money, one of the funny

things, and I don't have coins on me right now, but if you look at a quarter or any US coin,

there's ridges on the side except for the nickel and the penny. But the quarter has ridges on the

side. It is a homage to the fact that Roman coins had ridges on the side. Why did Roman coins have

ridges on the side? Well, because the Roman government was running out of money. And so they literally

clipped the sides of the coins so that they weighed less and you had to pay, you have less gold or

silver in the coin engine. And so governments have been trying to debase their own currency

basically forever. And that's what you're seeing with regard to, that's what you're seeing with

regard to money. So why is Bitcoin a fixed system? Well, in 1971 was the culmination of a move that

started in 1913 with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Nixon closed the gold window, and we had

to because there was an idea that even though individuals could not own gold, individuals couldn't

demand other countries could. And so the US was at the Vietnam War and the Great Society, the first

big, you know, big set of welfare that was happening. And they couldn't afford it. And then

given the fact they couldn't afford it, the money was leaving. And so the money was leaving the

system and he had to close the gold window. And from that point on in 1971, the fiat error was

born. From that point on, there was no longer a single currency in the world that was backed by

anything fully. The US claimed to have a large backing in terms of Fort Knox, but they still

haven't done audit. No one really knows if they have a Fort Knox. But even if they had everything

they said they do, it's still a fraction of the total US money encirculation.

When it comes to holding Bitcoin securely, peace of mind starts with architecture. OnRyme's

multi-institution custody model distributes control access across three independent regulated

keyholders in a two of three multi-seat quorum. No single point of failure, no pooled or omnibus

exposure, just segregated client titled votes. You retain full legal ownership while OnRyme co-ordinates

security compliance and operational workflows behind the scenes. Multi-institution custody is

the foundation for everything that OnRyme builds. Sound infrastructure that distributes kind of

party risk and provides full-tolerance resilience with clear audits and institutional controls.

And now OnRyme is piloting flat predictable pricing to make best-in-class Bitcoin

custody and financial products more accessible than ever. Visit onRymeBitcoin.com to learn more

and sign up with CodeBrom.bram.com to receive $150 in Bitcoin after your first deposit.

OnRyme, strengthen many simplicity in one. When you look at what's broken in the system,

when we talk about fiat money, what you're saying and why I am a Bitcoin or at my core because I

started as an Austrian monitorist is when you continue to print money, that means that the value

of that money per unit has to keep going down. Well, when the value of the unit of money goes down,

that means the stuff you buy with that money goes up. Now, what's fascinating about this

is most economists are dumb and they basically say, well, but there hasn't been much inflation,

so that's okay. Now, I look at this and I'm trying to figure out how PhDs who you think

would be smart people can say something so incredibly stupid because you can't look at a sliver

of the stuff you value dollars in and say there's no inflation. Milton Friedman famously said,

inflation isn't always will be a monetary phenomenon. He's right, of course, but here's the

difference. You look at consumer goods, which have lots of inputs to those consumer goods,

many of which have massive deflationary impacts from technology, productivity growth, etc.

Let's look at the cost to extract the barrel of oil. Cost of extractive barrel of oil is what,

20 or 5 or 30% lower today than it was 20 years ago. And that's not even adjusted for inflation.

That's just in flat out dollars. So, adjusted for inflation is even more than that. We've just

built a much better technology. So, what do I mean? What is Weisberger talking about when he says

that the economists are stupid? Well, the answer is, you add to the picture of what you're valuing

money at assets and now look at the price of homes or look at the price of the average stock

or look at the price of an ounce of gold or look at the price of basically anything. When you

take assets into account, inflation has been raging since 1971. Yes, there's been ups and

downs in different assets, for sure, but just do the math. And if you start looking at the

correlation of assets to the devaluation of money, it's a pretty damn good correlation with lots

of wiggles, depending on what type of asset you're talking about, because stocks will do better

one one period and, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So, my point, Brent, is that inflation,

and if you look at from a policymaker point of view, policymakers look at this and they lick

their chops up until recently, policymaker said, you know, if I could push, and this is going on

for 40 years now, this is since Reagan, if it were to create inflation. And I can make people

feel wealthier by making assets go up. And the people who don't have assets make the cost of

consumer prices not go up very much or even go down, I'm a freaking hero. And so that's been

the policy of governments across the West for 40 years. And while the governments aren't that

dumb or aren't that smart, they manage to get that right. So by keeping interest rates below

market interest rate levels, they've managed to do that by encouraging, if you're in the US,

encouraging outsourcing, right? Encouraging automation beyond what would otherwise make sense.

They've managed to make this even worse and accentuate this trend. That's why people who have

houses have done so well. But what's the problem? Well, the problem is that the next generation,

the millennial generation, and in particular, the zoomer generation, are, excuse, can I curse on this

show? Of course. Yeah, they are fucked. Why? Because asset prices have been going up at the same time

as wages as a percentage of GDP have been going down. And so we get what's called the K-shape

economy. And that is a direct result of bipartisan policy going back 40 years. And every time a politician

talks about this, they ignore the fact that both parties have been behind this for 40 years. In fact,

the first politician I ever heard talk about this live was JD Vance. First one. I mean, you know,

I'm sure Trump was told to talk about it later. But JD Vance was talking about this when he wrote

Hillbilly allergy. So he recognized this problem. He's the first one. Now people crucify him for all

sorts of stuff. But the truth is he least recognized it. And so that is the fundamental issue. I don't

know if that's the answer that you were looking for. But Bitcoin, which is a provably scarce

potential store of value. And so with a, with a provably scarce store of value,

it makes it way harder to get away with just printing money and making assets go up because you'll

see it. And if you dominate everything and something that's provably scarce, the real asset won't

be going up. It'll be fatating flat. And consumer prices might go down relative to biggest

productivity, et cetera. So you could live a good life. But you can't continually pump up assets.

Yeah, continue to pump up assets has proven to be a very, very good way for the elites to make

themselves richer, relative to everybody else. And so Bitcoin as a fix for that,

it can grow into that. Now for it to have that to happen, it has to grow substantively.

But it certainly has the potential to be a fix for that. It has a potential for people to opt out

of that. But because Bitcoin, like everything else, will appreciate as money, as the money

somebody goes up. There is this with Bitcoin is right now. Bitcoin is really undervalued compared

to that succeeding. So if you believe it's going to succeed, then you want to own it with both

this because it's a chance for generational wealth. If you think it's going to fail, well,

yeah, it might drop. I don't know. It may stay a niche product, et cetera. But it's an asymmetrical

return. And that's why people are into Bitcoin. That's why I am into Bitcoin for that reason.

Yeah. I call Bitcoin an asymmetric opportunity based on publicly available information.

It's all there, but you need to figure it out. And before we go to your take on

Radalios take that we saw on the day of this recording, I do want to see if we can create

this bridge because what I find is super interesting about what you're saying is there.

It is almost like a clash of certain types of philosophies. But also there's like basic thinking.

And there's like pre-tent, wishful thinking or something. That's also in the mix in some way,

shape or form. And when you talked about the history with the Roman coins, et cetera,

the whole idea of the coin clipping was to slowly siphon away value from the individual units,

right? And in the shadows, so to say, create more units so that the people that were in charge

and were able to also abstract that, right? They had more spending power, right? They were at

the top of the pyramid and they could spend that money first on stuff that they wanted. Now,

arguably, they probably spend it on some stuff. The people also wanted just to keep the people in

check. But they also went to war. And you could say, well, that brought them more of the empire,

et cetera. But what the history is showing us is that there is a definitive end to the practice

of coin clipping or just creating money. People get fed up. I mean, look, they're going on here.

Yeah. People talk about the first one I'll mention is the cantillion effect. So the cantillion

effect says the closest, the people closest to do money capture a disproportionate share of

that new money. The second concept is inflation is a stealth tax. It's not really all that stealthy.

It's attacks. It's attacks on the average person who doesn't have the assets. So you combine those

two things. You can see what a powerful engine of modern feudalism it becomes. So apart from the

select few who build new companies and create new wealth that get into the elite system. What it

tells you is the average human is effectively being turned into serfs in a financial world.

They have more rights. I mean, you're not stuck to a particular plot of land. You don't have a

knight who could come in and rape your daughter with impunity. I mean, okay, so it's not quite as bad

as in the feudal system where the knights and the lords had absolute power. But the truth is it's

financial feudalism for sure. And it's a combination of inflation as attacks and the cantillion effect

that's causing it. The thing that Bitcoiners look at is they say, well, listen, the gold standard

failed because the gold standard is gold just really doesn't work in a modern digital economy.

And I don't want to hear the notion, well, you can tokenize gold. It's like, sure, but you still

get to trust men with guns guarding it. Exactly. And you still have to trust the fact that it's real

that has been counterfeited. And you still have to be able to move its store and et cetera verify it.

Those are things you cannot do very easily. And in fact, it doesn't scale very well. Bitcoin does.

Now, you could we get debate whether or not you could have credit layered on top of Bitcoin

or gold. And I come down pretty firmly on the point of yes, you should be able to do that for a

lot of reasons to in terms of monetary business cycles and lots of stuff. Caitlin Long likes to call

me a rough bar, a rough, Murray Rothbard, a rough partying, you know, I believe in that. That's fine.

I'll take it. I think he was fairly smart, dude. But the fact that Bitcoin has that ability,

if it gains a critical mass of acceptance, makes it singularly unique among assets. And so that's

why I am into it. But that's the answer to your question. Yeah. Well, that's where I wanted to go,

right? Because eventually it is about as long as people, and that is the majority of people,

not the people in charge, right? As long as you accept this debasement by, you know, other people

know better than you, they automatically have this control over you in a sense, right? And because

it is so obscured and abstracted away, no one ever really teaches you about this, right? Especially,

I always say, like in the Western world, you don't really notice it, right? Because money just

works, especially in the early stages of fiat money. You could just create fake productivity.

You could build stuff. It seems like you're growing. Everyone has, you know, nominally has more

money units and all these things, right? So it looks really good. But the fact that there is no

forced transparency, right? It's all a trust me, bro thing. Like I'm the politician, now listen

to me, I'm the Treasury Secretary or whatever. You know, where Bitcoin comes in, I would say,

that's why I use forced transparency. It's very, very simple. It's you either have it or you don't.

That's one and two, right? So if you would abstract, you know, create products on top of it that are

an abstraction of it, right? Like you can do the same stratify game on top of it, but not as many

layers as, as let's say in 2008, for example, like you would blow up quicker because you just,

yeah, you have the Bitcoin or you don't basically. Plus there's all these other characteristics that you

mentioned. You're, you're, you're, you're, you're, you're conflating a lot of stuff there. I mean,

we could talk, and actually one of them is extremely important to talk about is you're talking about

crypto and where it is Bitcoin, which is the difference between the banking system and fractional

reserve banking and fully reserve banking. And it's totally, which is a very big topic today,

given the stablecoin stuff and the, and what's going on with the clarity act and what that is. And

that is absolutely worth talking about. You're conflating that in a sense with what happened in 2008,

which was very badly mispriced risk based upon the asset was my God, my dog is smarter than

these bankers of Goldman Sachs. And why did I think that? I thought that because I realized that

these guys are using financial models that had not factored in a recession. Didn't understand that

if you took 20 different shopping centers in a non recessionary period, they will look the same.

They'll look the same. They'll look the same. They'll have the same risk profile, etc.

You kind of know that. And you'll look and you'll see some differences. And so they say,

well, clearly I'm diversifying this risk because maybe some tiny percentage of shopping centers

went under during that period of time that they were looking. But if you go back to a recessionary

period and then you figure out, oh my God, they really are the same. They all fail when we go into

a bad situation. And so you have this illusion of counterparty risk, not being the same. And so

you create this vehicle that is just dramatically underpricing the real risk. Now if you want to

understand what happened in 2008, it was a dramatic underpricing of the real risk. So people started

to figure this shit out and would take deals that they didn't like. And they would price it super

aggressively to the point where they made no sense. Confident, in fact, the city would swoop in

and out price them and take that crap on their balance sheet, which is why in 2008, city was

undeniably bankrupt, completely bankrupt, bailed out by the government in a variety of ways.

Never went under because they were bailed out, but they were way under underwater and all their

investments. So because of this. But but anyway, there's these two, the core of 2008 was underpricing

risk. Bitcoin never happens. Even in the case where people take out loans again, Bitcoin,

they get liquidated if they took it out. If they took out too much risk, the market's brutal.

If you take a 50% loan to value on Bitcoin and you took it out at 126, you got liquidated. Period.

Well, this is my point. This is my point, right? Like the point is with Bitcoin as this collateral,

you can try to play a classic game, but it won't, it just won't go too far because you will,

you, but the system will not have risk. There's a word for this financial system. 2008 proved it.

It's called socialized losses. So they bail out firms rather than liquidating them.

Yeah. And the net of that is the entire economy has to bail them out together.

And so that's what happened with the banks. And that's why it's actually unconscionable that

the banking lobby still has so much power because a large part of what they're doing in this

whole stablecoin debate is saying that yield and stablecoins will be bad. We'll lose deposits.

Yadiyahda, but what they're not telling you is because of the 2008 crisis, they're able to park

trillions of dollars in the Federal Reserve and earn market interest. So their, their buffer

against risk earns market interest. By the way, that market interest is, you know, what's three to

between three and four percent depending on how you want to look at it. And they're paying on

average on checking accounts, you know, what, less than half a percent. Yeah. So that is a pure

subsidy to the entire banking system. Yeah. I came out of 2008. That was the largest part of the

bail. Everyone looks at the tarp, you know, they got a billion dollars, whatever the hell they got,

a trillion dollar. It doesn't matter. These guys have been getting hundreds of billions for two

decades, almost just to keep them just to keep them keep it working, right? To keep it working.

Yeah. It's it's an almost insane amount of subsidies. It's it's it's literally so far. And yet

that's a situation. But yeah, whatever the point is, it would be all, it would be all very transparent.

You that you would see it. Today, we saw Ray Dalio in an interview talk about how Bitcoin would

never be bought by central banks, right? Because it is too transparent. It's very it's very funny,

right? Because if if you would argue that trust in a financial system is very important,

using Bitcoin as your underlying layer of value would be the highest signal of trust. I think you

you could signal. But he says, you know, it's too transparent. What are we kind of seeing here? How

do you experience, you know, seeing someone of Dalio stature in a sense that he has played this

field field game. He's good at it. He knows the bigger picture, you know, meta macro, all these

things. But he's totally wrong on this Bitcoin part. Like should it stay here or should it be transparent?

Okay, let's let's first of all, he's half wrong. Let's get this right. Yeah. If you're talking about

will the Bank of China, will the Federal Reserve, will the European Central Bank, will the Japanese

Central Bank, will they adopt Bitcoin and their balance sheet? The answer is very, very, very,

very unlikely until Bitcoin is dramatically a large asset. Right now it does not even even remotely

in the conversation. Now, that's not to say the sovereign wealth funds of of any of those countries

might not be accumulating Bitcoin because it's a really good asymmetric bet. But, you know, like the

Treasury might do it for different reasons, but not the central banks. Central banks want a

stable asset. That's the big central banks. And part of what they want is stable asset, even

what they're doing with gold, you don't know. They're all being opaque because they don't want

anybody to know what they're doing. But all central banks are not created equal. So look at Poland.

Poland wants the entire world to know that they've been the largest gold buyer.

They want the whole world to know. They want it to be clear, right? Because they want people to

know that they want their currency to be stronger. They think they're doing a really good job.

There are many central banks that have been acquiring gold that have been very, very,

very transparent about it. There are 23 sovereigns mining Bitcoin that they want the whole

world to know about it. So when Ray Daly was talking, he's talking, he does what a lot of people

of financial markets do. They focus on the largest. You know, so you talk about what's the

market structure for equities? They look at the SMP 500. They don't look at the other 14,000

stocks or the other 3000 stocks in the national market system. In the case of Ray Daly, he's talking

about the largest central banks and he's right. They're not going to adopt Bitcoin until they're

forced to, but they want to adopt Bitcoin until it's up by a factor of 10 to 15 at a minimum.

You don't look at them for the they will create the last mile. Bitcoin will go from approaching

digital gold value 10 to 15 times here to being better than gold when those central banks start

adopting it, but they won't adopt it until they're forced to because the market says,

this is important in a way to value your assets.

For my European friends that want to buy Bitcoin with ease, check out Relay. I've been a

long time fan and happy to partner up with what I think is the best Bitcoin only platform for

Europeans. They offer a super simple beginner-friendly app with no distractions and no

shitcoins. You can do a quick one-time smash-by or set-up automatic purchases when you're

stacking regularly. And here's the thing that matters most. Relay is 100% self-custody. Every set

you hold is yours. Your keys, your coins. If you want to get started, download the app via my

link below or in the description and use Code Brum that's BRAM at checkout to get 10% of your fees.

A huge shout-out to Relay for sponsoring the show. Now let's continue.

But when you look at the other central banks, the same ones that have driven gold from

less than 2,000 to over 5,000, and I'm using those numbers because you need to understand.

Gold buying from the central bank, yes, some of it is probably from China, but they're not telling

you the others is from a lot of these other smaller central banks that have been voraciously

buying gold and selling US treasuries or not buying US treasuries to replace it.

That those countries are much more likely to be willing to buy Bitcoin.

Now, the second part where he's half wrong is you can absolutely obfuscate what you're doing

with Bitcoin easier, probably cheaper than you would in gold. In gold, if you want to take

physical delivery, there are big, honking airplanes, men with lots of guns that are protecting it.

It's a lot easier for people to figure out what the hell is going on. With Bitcoin,

okay, you could buy it on exchanges. When you're buying it on exchanges, nobody knows.

Exchange has the information. You buy it in a bunch of different places. You take days,

weeks or months to siphon off 10, 15, 20, Bitcoin at a time. It's really, really easy to move

smaller amounts of Bitcoin and accumulate a stash. What's hard and why terrorists have a problem

using Bitcoin is it's really hard to sell for large amounts of dollars without it being really

clear where the Bitcoin came from. But it's really easy to take dollars and turn it into Bitcoin.

It's really hard to take Bitcoin and turn it back into dollars.

And so this notion is just just wrong. I mean, it's like, and the other point that he made is

and Shamaaf made this point, which is stupid, is Bitcoin is not fungible because you can research

what it's like. I'll ask you this question. Have you ever heard of a single human being or company

that has ever had a problem if they were a legitimate company, an investor, a hedge fund,

anything in the financial system? Ever had a problem because they bought Bitcoin on an exchange

and it turned out that Bitcoin was, quote, tainted by virtue of, you know, came from Bedwalla.

Have you ever heard of anybody having? No, but I also think two things. Like one, you can,

you know, there's stuff like coin join and you can build infinite technology on top of Bitcoin.

I think that is one and two. So you're agreeing with me? Yeah, you agree. But it's also a weird way

of saying, well, you know, it's okay that when you have dollars, you don't know if it was used

in a drug deal or whatever. Like I don't understand like the counter argument is the counter argument

is nonsense. You're reading my mind. You're reading my mind, Bram, because my response to this

asshole on on X who was trying to say this stuff was, listen, somewhere, I don't know what the number

is now. But a few years ago, it was 90% of the $100 bills in Turkey. That's how it was painted by

cocaine. And I, so I guarantee you, if I walked into my poker stash, which isn't huge because I don't,

you know, it's actually, you can use electronic now. So you don't have to do it that way.

I've walked into my poker stash and I pulled some $100 bills and got them analyzed.

My guess is I have some cocaine fragments somewhere sitting in one of my safety deposit box. It's

I guarantee it, but it doesn't matter, right? You know, it's like the fact is it doesn't matter.

This notion that Bitcoin isn't fungible is just stupid. Of course, it's fungible. It's not

an, they're not NFTs, not non fungible tokens. They can be infinitely divisible and then almost

infinitely and then brought back together. It doesn't matter. And so the entire notion of this,

this attack vector is coming from Thomas Boyd of you. It's because he's pumping Z cash, which is

we can go down that rabbit hole. I'm going to ignore it. But let's just say that this is a man

who quite literally I checked on I get rock, you know, do the analysis for me. Quite literally,

he and his company made $750 million over the last decade or more or less promoting SPACs,

special purpose acquisition companies. They were the average loss to the investors. And it was for

multiple billions of dollars for the SPACs was between 70 and 80%. So this is not someone I'm, I'm going

to listen to or that anybody should listen to in terms of his advice. The reasonable list of them,

they say he's rich. How do you get rich by scamming people? Okay, good. Great. So you're going to

listen to someone who got made his money by scamming people. That's what passes for integrity today.

Wonderful. We discussed partially, I think the risks that are just inherent and fundamental to

the current financial system. Another thing that Ray Dalio said, which is funny because he is famous

for his risk management frameworks, right? And then he cites quantum computing privacy concerns

as reasons to dismiss Bitcoin. You call that nonsense. You also spent 40 years, right? You got

it. You got to, first of all, the privacy concern is concerned about privacy is that people wouldn't

have any because it's so easily verifiable. I just told you that it's really easy to be private

about your wallets. Very easy, actually. But the theoretical risk versus actual already existing

risk in the current financial system. I don't understand how, I don't know if that's the old guard

or something like why aren't the, why are people projecting theoretical risks on something that,

you know, on the other side has just better, better characteristics than anything that already

exists, plus these existing assets and systems have fundamental flaws that Bitcoin doesn't have.

So I don't understand why they are not putting these things together.

Well, okay. So let's talk about what, so the risk framework stuff. So let's talk about the two

things you mentioned. The privacy is stupid. Let's talk about quantum. So the easiest way to think

about quantum is there's two flavors of quote, risk. There is the risk to the old wallets

that can't update because the thing that people are most worried about quantum breaking is to be

able to look at a public key and derive the private key, the hashing function that underlies that.

The easiest way to fix that is by obscuring the public key or changing or rotating the public key,

and so not reusing, etc. There's other enhanced hashing algorithms that can also do it,

but all these things can be protected. The most aggressive estimate I've seen is that 30% of

Bitcoin supply is therefore vulnerable. So that's the first piece of risk. We're going to get back

to that in a heartbeat. That is, we can all agree that if 30% of all Bitcoin that hasn't moved

became excess supply and became on the market, that that is not an existential risk to Bitcoin.

It is, however, a supply demand risk that is not insignificant, but not that big of a deal,

because, and I will talk about why, let's just talk about why now. Why do I say this?

The coins could hit the market, right? It was a crap. Yeah, I don't care.

The fact that Redalio is worried about that is stupid, and he knows better. The seven most

valuable companies in the world today all gained their value during a period of time when their

free float went from 10% to 80% or 90%. That's not going from their free folk going from

75% to 95%, because that's what Bitcoin would be done. So if Amazon can go from where it went,

or Google where the current founders or Facebook, I think Zuckerberg has well less than 10% or 15%.

The fact that 30% moving from insiders into the market didn't derail their dramatic value increase,

and as a group, that all happened. Why would anyone believe that would happen to Bitcoin?

The answer is they don't, because they don't know markets, or they exaggerate. They have this

fantasy that if all 30% came on the market, the people who spend all this money to build the

quantum computers to do it would then say, you know what? I was just kidding. I didn't want to make

any money. I'm going to dump it for zero, because I was just kidding around.

Yeah, that makes no sense. The only reason they would do so is something that could put them in

prison, right? Is if you were a quantum hack, you got a huge, you broke into a Satoshi's wallet,

and instead of selling it slowly, methodically, or on a bid to raise the billions of dollars

would be worth, I.e. not hurt the market price. You decided to tank the market by selling it all

stupidly. There's only one reason you would do that, and that's as if you put, I were able to put

a massive short positions in derivative markets. Well, if you did that, and you got caught,

you go to prison, because that's considered a market manipulation of the highest order. That

takes anything that even Ivan Bosky, or any of the various people who've done insider trading

over the years, and puts it to shame. They would get them. It doesn't matter. This is not a

security. It would be under fraud laws. They would get them. And so the notion that that's what

is the idea is just silly. When you can steal what is that amount of money and have do so legally,

and then have that amount of money and be that rich, you're going to use that wealth and you're

going to maximize the price of Bitcoin. You're not going to minimize it. So the notion's an

existential risk is just flat stupid, okay? And the magnitude of the risk is not that existential

at 30% of the flow, right? It just isn't because we've seen it. You can go back and look at the

math of all these things. You could argue if the market just buys it, it would actually be a good

thing for Bitcoin, because then it's over. There's also a very, very high likelihood this will be

prevented. That the consensus of all the people who are voting in the Bitcoin community that have

mining, nodes, et cetera, will basically say, you know what, we're going to do something. Whether

we freeze the wallets until they can be upgraded so that nothing can move and so we won't verify

any transactions. There's a lot of different ways they can handle it. So that's the first thing.

It's not an existential risk, even if the Bitcoin community stays flat-footed and divided and stupid.

But assuming that you believe that money talks and bullshit walks, then people like Coinbase,

which are funding research in the quantum and micro strategy, which is funding research in the

quantum, they will come up with forks that will be able to make it resistant, both for old wallets

and for new. Now, the other piece of it is the theory that beyond, beyond just the old wallets,

that the entire encryption thing of Bitcoin could be cracked, which is far further in the future.

That 100% certainly could be fixed, because the technology could be upgraded. And there,

the incentive to do so is sufficiently large, that honestly, I'd say the risk of finding an

asteroid that would quadruple or put a factor of 100 to our gold supply, or the fact that the

Hadron Super Collider can now create gold molecules is a bigger risk than the risk to Bitcoin. So

I find it amusing that we go there, but look, it's entirely possible that he'll be right in some

sense in a way, but in a correctable way. And I give credit to Nick Carter for being the one

who brings this stuff up, because he's right. If people put their heads in the sand and they don't

research it, they don't understand how important it is, you're not talking about it, then if something

does happen, they could create a major shock. So it's great that he's pointing this out, but the

fact is, is it is flexible? It's a solvable problem. So this notion is that central banks won't do

it. That sort of banks aren't looking at that. They're looking at the acceptance rate. Bitcoin is

way too small for central banks. Whenever I hear someone like you talk about it in this

way, I just have to smile again and just think like, oh, it's so, it's so early, right? Because I

also think the kind of like, I don't know, it's kind of like a doomer take, right? Or a very

negative take of what Dalio is taking. I just think it's boring, because like you're explaining,

there's a lot of depth behind it that you should explore before, especially in a position like

Dalio where he knows a lot of people are going to listen to him, right? You take that position.

So either he's not interested or he's not that smart, right? That thing gets away so far.

Well, he's quite smart and he is smart, but I mean, there's so much depth. He could have,

he could have made that interview so much smarter. All he would add to do is say, central banks are

not going to be the catalyst for Bitcoin. The big central banks won't touch it until it's

dramatically larger. And so we shouldn't really worry about it. And smaller central banks are

touching, but they don't matter. He could have said that. And basically said that all the

big corners who are worried about central bank adoption to be the catalyst are out of their mind.

And he'd be right, because that's true. And I like that. I think that's also. That's accurate.

But what he said was ignorant. And you know, even the smartest people are ignorant on certain

subjects. God, there are many things I'll make during the bout. Like you could ask me a quiet,

there are questions you could ask me that I would have to say, I don't know. I mean, don't ask me,

how to try, what the foundation of Shore's algorithm is, I don't know. I mean, I understand

roughly how it works, but I couldn't tell you a damn thing about it. I'm not going to describe

how public private key cryptography evolved, because it's not my expertise. My expertise is

trading markets and market structure. That's what I understand better than most. But there are

many things I understand. When you step out of your zone to actually answer questions based

about other people have told you, which is inevitable in those sorts of wide-ranging interviews,

the chance for mistakes increased. So I chalk it up to that.

If you have to explain the big idea of Bitcoin to someone who thinks it is risky or a bubble or

a Ponzi or two lips, what would be your approach or what is your approach when you when you talk to

people? Well, I've done this in video form and I last week I wrote it in article form. I've

actually answered the question. So Bitcoin right now trades like an option on its own adoption

full stop. And you can look it up. I can send you the link. I like that. I post it.

Bitcoin trades like an option. As a result, right now its volatility profile is such that it is

going to trade with high volatility and look a lot like a tech stock, it could be a risk asset.

If it gains critical mass, it will rapidly ascend to becoming digital gold. At which point

its volatility will decrease since correlations will change. The notion that people don't understand

and anybody who's ever on a quantum trading group and just so your audience understands,

I ran stat arb trading for city group and I ran two sigma securities. Meaning that I have a decade

of time building quantitative models that assess risks, etc. And if there's one thing you know about

correlations among assets and the beta magnitude of the correlation among assets is they are notoriously

unstable over time. They change. And so anyone who has this idea that Bitcoin must be tech stock,

it's like, well, it is trading like a tech stock today. And you could read through the article to

understand why, but understand that right now the market is pricing. The odds of Bitcoin becoming

digital gold or more at less than 5%. That's the truth. So that is the kind of thing. If you look at

the volatility on polymarket, if anything where there's a 95% yes, and how fast that moves,

Bitcoin is moving slowly compared to that kind of stuff. But yet that is the numbers. Those are the

numbers. Those are the numbers. And so if you believe that Bitcoin has a better than 5% chance

of becoming digital gold into the future, if you think it's 25 or 30, you're getting 6 to 1 on

your money. I don't know about you. I tend to like bets that are 6 to 1 on my money or 10 to 1 on my

money. And that's how I view Bitcoin. Now that's the sheer numbers. The why becomes really interesting.

People don't understand, you know, everyone who says, well, what about XRP or what about whatever,

Zcash? XRP was created by a company, still controlled by a company, still benefits that company.

Bitcoin was effectively created as an open source protocol. And the owner, the person who built it,

or a group of people who built it, who goes by the name Satoshi Nakamoto left their coin sitting

there, basically not benefiting from what the hell happens. So you kind of have this unique singular,

unique, the unique singular moment in financial history, where this thing that has this incredible

supply schedule, which has worked incredibly well, the mining scale and difficulty adjustment

in having and everything, is distributed very evenly among the early holders.

Is open source and anybody can own it. That dynamic's not happening anytime soon. None of the,

no other coin has that. And nor could it. Meanwhile, it's powered by the world's largest computing

network. If you look at the hash rate over the last six months, as Bitcoin has crashed,

it has not. Meaning, price has gone down, but people's willingness to back the network and mine

for Bitcoin and validate has not. What does that tell you? This is historically cheap right now.

That's the easy way to look at it. Now, if you're looking at it for the long term, the question is,

you start looking at the characteristics in a digital world between Bitcoin and gold. And you very

quickly end up saying, well, wait a minute, Bitcoin is far better for transactability, global

movement, et cetera. It is absolutely true that you're going to need layer two's on top of Bitcoin,

whether it be lightning or something else, you know, like my friend Yago's Bitcoin OS doesn't

matter because Bitcoin is slow. It's, it is slow. There's no doubt that it's slow. It's a lot

faster than gold, right? You know, Bitcoin seven transactions a second. Gold is what? A transaction

a minute. I don't know. You need to tap out, you know, try to, you know, try to, you know,

shake a gold shavings off and measure it and that's it. Well, and the bigger the amounts, the longer.

People say what you could do, you can digitize gold. The answer is, yeah, that's true,

but you could digitize Bitcoin on a well-layered two also. That's how lightning works, right?

The difference is, is gold, you have to continually verify it and pay money to do it and have

men with guns watching it. In Bitcoin, you can verify it and it's verified and stays verified

by 25,000 nodes at every single 10-minute block every day. So, you know, you could come to the

conclusion, Bitcoin is better than gold. Come to the conclusion, the market is pricing it as a

one in 20 possibility and say, I don't understand why the market is pricing at this low.

Particularly when you look at the people who have made this bet, when the world's largest asset

manager has made this bet and has its most profitable product, be this bet, saying that it's a

5% bet, you know, this is generational. People don't understand this is not, look, it's not Shiba Inu.

You're not going to get, you know, 100,000, you're not going to turn a dollar into a million dollars.

But turning a million dollars into 20 million dollars is a generational opportunity with this sort

of asymmetric upside. And that's why people look at that. So, is it a get-rich-quick scheme?

No. I mean, you want to do that. Go pump.fun. Go to the track. Go to a casino. Go on prediction markets

and gobble stuff up and take wild assets. That's fine. You want to have a portfolio opportunity

that's rare in your lifetime. This is that. Yep. Like you said, some people are seeing this.

Also, some countries, governments are seeing this. They're mining Bitcoin with government resources.

Why are countries doing this? Is it just about making money, stacking Bitcoin,

or a national security issue? How do you view this? Why are there sovereigns mining Bitcoin?

Well, I mean, you use the words before game theory. Right now, sovereigns will mine Bitcoin because

they see it as an asymmetric upside bet. I have cheap energy. Geothermal energy in certain cases,

you know, stranded gas deposits in other cases, hydroelectric dams and other cases doesn't matter.

I have cheap energy. What can I do with this? Because I can't sell the energy because it costs

too much to transport it. I know I can use that energy to give me an advantage and mine Bitcoin

out of profit and do so in a way where I accumulate an asset that might very well be 90-some odd

percent undervalued. It is a smart economic decision to do so. They can cover their costs

and accumulate an asset. So you're seeing very smart players. Now, once that happens and once

the critical mass continues to evolve, then game theory sets in. Then it's like, wait a minute.

If this is what it's going to be, the best way to back my currency and I can make my currency

strong this way, much, much cheaper, this is a bet that makes sense to take and that becomes more

and more possible. You know, this is a world where I wrote it. I did another article or another video

actually this one was. In a world filled with lies, what's the value of truth? You know,

Mark Yusko, who started Morgan Creek with Pomp, he makes the point that Bitcoin is the technology

of truth in a financial system that's based on a technology of trust and truth trumps trust.

And so there's lots of reasons why people might want to be involved in the network and why

want to try to make money at the same time. It's not always the same. It's not a homogenous answer,

but I think that those are the continuums, those are the sorts of things that they're looking at.

I wonder if there's also this idea of a multipolar world that comes into play where, you know,

just the need for a more neutral way to exchange value is also something that more countries

just want, right? Just this abuse and the export of inflation. Let's unpack that for a second.

Because I don't think the multipolarity has anything to do with it. I think what does have to do

with it is censorship resistance. I mean, if all you're doing is using, is relying upon U.S.

dollars and U.S. dollar assets, then the U.S. government can take your assets away.

We've seen sanctions, etc. Now, they're going to be able to sanction most things. Bitcoin included.

You know, let's not kid ourselves. You know, if you wanted to use it or spend it, it's, yeah,

you might be able to do something. But there is a reason that Hamas told their donors,

don't pay us in Bitcoin because he has, really, he's figured I had to intercept it and trace it,

right? So it's not completely clear that you get that much of a benefit there. But what does happen

is with an asymmetric potential return, you have reasons to hold it. And we're at least for

individuals, not at country-wide scale, you saw examples like the Canadian truckers, etc.,

where individuals benefit from the censorship resistance of Bitcoin. Governments aren't going

to bother people at that's not nation-state oriented scale, right? They just don't. You know,

or very, very large scale. So for the average person, it's a great way to build wealth. But truthfully,

most people in the rest of the world these days, they're much, much, much more concerned,

much more concerned with protecting their own wealth, in their own currency, which is hyperinflating.

So when you're totally getting Venezuela, what's going on in Iran? You know, and that people

using stablecoins for that, using dollars to be honest. Bitcoin is a way to save. But for money

that you need to spend, people are happier to keep it in the dollar right now unless the dollar

implodes. And while the rumors may say that dollar's going to implode any day now, I actually

don't think that's going to happen. I think we've got quite quite a bit of time before that happens

unless we do something unbelievably stupid. You know, it's what I call the Mad Max scenario. Bitcoin

will probably worth a lot more. And a Mad Max scenario where electricity and computers don't disappear.

But it's not a world that I necessarily want to have happen. But there's an easy scenario to see

where it will be a far better wealth creation, wealth preservation mechanism than anything else

on the planet without that scenario happening. Yeah. You mentioned that Bitcoin is slow. I also

think the adoption goes slow right until it kind of doesn't. And you hit this inflection point

and this game theory again, you know, Ray Dalio, someone who should fully see it. He doesn't

write. So this shift is not as obvious as you and I might might might see it. What does that tell

you about how much longer this kind of like status quo can last? Obviously, there's a lot of stuff

happening, the dollarization, you know, like you mentioned, buying gold, not US Treasury. So

there is stuff happening. Is it just a matter of time before, you know, views like Dalio has become

obsolete? Or do you think we're giving Ray way too much credit here? I mean, you know,

right now he, I mean, Dalio like Dalio like, but he looks at the world as it is today. That's his

job. Yeah. He's not a futurist. He's not trying to tell you what the world's going to get in

five years, 10 years, 15, 20 years. He's not. He doesn't give a shit. I mean, he may say he does,

but he doesn't really care because I thought what his models are doing. And so, you know, he's

skating to where the puck is, not where the puck's going. And that matters quite a bit. Now,

I will say this, there are a few structural impediments that we'll, that have to get over.

We live, we have just lived through a, what are we at? You know, I don't know how many months,

eight month period of time, where one of the structural impediments has to be overcome,

which is distribution. Bitcoin cannot become a global store of value when it is dominated by whales

that bought it before 2011. Just can't mind it before 2011. Just can't. You can't have Bitcoin

billionaires be the new rubber bearings control the entire world and everybody else clamor at their

feet. You need these people to start selling and let it broaden out. And that is something that's

been happening. And that is a very painful process because what's going to happen once they start,

they sell until the price can goes down. And then they stop and then the price goes back up and

then it's like, you know, let's wait for it to go a little bit up higher next time. And so cycles

are born. And whether you will call the four year cycle dead like I do because it's bullshit to

talk about four years and the way it'd be around the having now. But there's still a cycle that

has to play out of Bitcoin rises. OG sell flat now rises sell whatever. And whether you call that

the power law, however you want to call it, there's lots of different ways of looking at it.

It is a necessary type of cycle that has to happen. That's thing number one because it needs to

be distributed. It can't be in the hands of people who are just zealots and holding it forever.

In fact, at a certain point, the notion of hodl at the extreme would damn Bitcoin to failure.

Now that said, as a smart investor, if you think something is 95% undervalued, selling it is

stupid. And so therefore, you get to the second problem, which is right now, Bitcoin is taxed

in most jurisdictions such that if you sell it and then buy more, you have to be capital gains

on what you sold. So that's true in the US. So now take me. I have a number of Bitcoin. It's not a

huge amount, but it's enough that I'm a whole coiter. I'll say that much. But not, you know, I'm not

grand cardone. I'm not selling houses. I'm not, you know, whatever. Why would I sell even a

Satoshi when I have to pay capital gains taxes from my cost basis under 10,000? The answer is I

wouldn't. Would be stupid to do so because I would have to pay all of that. So until there's a

way to spend Bitcoin, it's not without capital gains at applications. It won't get used as currency.

My bet is it won't happen until such a time as it's done going up. Or, you know, so Bitcoin

therefore won't become a currency, but be an investment until it gets to some equilibrium somewhere

at today's prices around with gold, where it is at around 1.4 million. At which point, then it

could be used as because then anything is probably just moving with the money supply. But we

could still go up, but it's not necessarily just going up because it's undervalued at that point.

So you have to understand those are two very important dynamics.

Yeah. Yeah, makes a lot of sense. So if you had to look at the future, let's say we look at

10 years from now, what is one thing you think will happen by then or will be the case by then

that people would say is crazy today? Well, crazy. I don't know about that. I'd say that my view

is that Bitcoin will go to its next level of acceleration towards digital gold within three to

five years from the time that it's fully integrated into the financial system, meaning that Bitcoin

is treated based on the same way as other assets for as collateral, i.e. based on its volatility

and its volume and its volatility and liquidity. I think that that will be the trigger for the next

big move up. And whether that gets two, three quarters, half, or full, what gold is worth at that

time I don't know, but that'll be the trigger for the next big bull market. That doesn't mean we

can't grind higher towards that on the way as it becomes more and more obvious, but I think that's

a big deal. When you start talking 10 years out, you're starting to get close to where I think it

becomes likely that this sort of thing happens. The last time I was asked about a prediction in the

future was back in 1990, about when when markets get fully electronic. And that had to do with

the fact that people made a lot of money by the markets being inefficient. I would feel more

comfortable in saying this about DeFi and whether when it will become really prime time in the

financial system. And there, I would say 10 to 15 years is sort of what I was thinking. I think

Bitcoin's going to be more cyclical and in pieces, but we'll get there. So whether it's 10 years

or 15 years, I'm much less aggressive in my thought process than Sailor. I think that he just

assumes up only you have to look at the corrections and the distribution and what happens. But

10 to 15 years is sort of my time for Bitcoin to be accepted as in the same sentence certainly

beyond silver. And Bitcoin was above silver, not all that long ago. I think silver has some reasons

why it's going to continue to go higher, but that's structural because of industrial demand.

But I think Bitcoin becoming actually a piece, something that is in the same conversation as gold

and it's more correlated to gold than it is to a tech stock, that happens in the next 10 to 15 years.

Yeah. Is there something you would want to add to kind of what we talked about

in this conversation that you think we've missed that is important for people to see or

I think for you. Yeah, so the big topic is ease of use and safety and security.

There are people in the Bitcoin world who say, well, it's every very easy to use. You just

spin up a wallet. You memorize a 12 thing seed phrase. You stick the seed phrase or half of it

in one safe deposit box in one country or one one locality and together half of the seed phrase

put it someplace else so no one thief can get it. And make sure your hardware wallet is separate

from that and you keep it air-gapped. And when you want to move something, you you know,

you have to you follow this sort of procedure or that procedure, etc. I don't know about you,

but every time I open up a ledger and I do something and I see the the the pit in my stomach when

I hear your software needs to be updated. I mean, that's like that's like a huge fear and I have

a very small percent of my wealth on any any individual ledger. But you keep Bitcoin will not

become a global store of value with a UI UX that requires grandma to open up a computer ledger

and start typing in, you know, past phrases and memorize seed. It's just not going to happen.

So there has to be a better way. And honestly, what people what has happened in this world

is the better way one way or another for or a different form of intermediary. I mean, nobody

gives a crap how this thing works. That's my old colleague. I may now still alive old Jack Russell

as he was young here. But no one cares how this thing works. It is do it. They trust Apple. You put

your face on. Everyone knows Apple knows your damn face. Ever try ever wonder why you're talking

with your wife about a product and you go on on some website and ban your served your service

that add why because your phone's listening to you. All the people who say that the average human

being is going to be paranoid about safety. No, they want a trusted intermediary that they know

isn't going to screw them with they have recourse if they can trade. And to me, that's where the

Bitcoin community needs to go. Now the ETFs go part of the way there. But the ETFs don't give you

the full maneuverability. You can't move it in and out. So look, there's a long way to go.

Light years it's light years better today than it was five years ago. And it will be light years

better in five years. But understanding that it becomes the kind of thing that everybody can use if

they want will be great. Now my friend Carlo just published a book. It's a free book that he published

it says make your wallet your own bank. And he's talking about how to help people do that with

better technology. And his AI and five coding everything goes comes down in all this is happening

at the same time. So I see a bright future. But we're not quite there yet. And so anytime people say

well, why isn't it already happening? Well, the answer is is because it's not already happened.

Yeah, that's a good one. I like that. All right. To to wrap up, I want to ask you a question that I

ask everyone at the end of each conversation, which is what is a core belief that you will never

let go of? My most important core belief is how important freedom of speech is. I would far

rather let people say things that I find offensive and be able to argue about it. Then hide

from that truth because when you hide from that truth, it drives them to ground and people start

believing it. So the fact that people are afraid, for example, today to debate what's going on

with anti-Semitism, anti-Israel, fervor, etc. is a big problem in my mind, a very, very big problem.

Because it has created the Tucker Carlson's of the world to be able to get away with things

because such subjects are effectively either taboo or not discussed. And so he could say things

and create and create enormous problems. The worst idea is the worst racism going back decades

happened because you weren't allowed to talk about race. And so we end up with with all sorts of

things. The entire DEI system grew up around the fact that you couldn't talk about it. So I

genuinely believe that freedom of speech is incredibly important. It's a very core value of mine.

You probably weren't expecting this to well thought out answer, but it is something that I care

about quite a bit for many, many reasons. I'll leave you with this when I was in college. I,

as a Jew, worked with the ACLU to, on the Amicus brief, that they filed for the Nazis to be able

to demonstrate in a Jewish area. Now, was that because I supported the Nazis? Of course not.

Most of what the Nazis say is incredibly stupid. And it's far better for people to hear

incredibly stupid stuff. So they could say, wait a minute, that's really stupid. Then they say,

oh, you're trying to block them. They must be up on to something. And so that is my core belief.

Yeah, thanks. Thanks for sharing. I mean, I, I ask it everyone because everyone has a different

answer. And sometimes people are taken aback and they have to really think other people like you,

you had your answer straight ready. So, you know, for me, I think it's just a fun question to,

to wrap up. Yeah, no, it's important. It lets you know where people are coming from. I mean,

I'm happy to be proven wrong when I'm wrong. I mean, you mentioned Luke Grohmann. I was wrong

when he said that he talked about came and coming out because of 90,000. I thought that it had

bottomed from 126. I was wrong. He was right. Right? That's fine. You know, I admitted it. I have

no problem with that. You know, anyone who can't, who thinks they're going to be 100% right all the

time, generally, you're the ones that are the most dangerous people to follow.

True. All right. Well, I want to thank you for your time and your insights. I think people will

find this valuable and yeah, we're going to see how it goes. Let's let's stay in touch and do this

against some time. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Cheers. I hope you enjoyed this episode. If you did,

you can click here to find more. Just like it and click here to find all Bitcoin for millennials

podcast episodes. Also, if you want to help me shine a light on the message of Bitcoin,

please like this video and subscribe to stay connected. I hope to see you for the next episode. Bye.

Rinse knows that greatness takes time, but so does laundry. So rinse will take your laundry and

hand-deliver it to your door, expertly cleaned. And you can take the time pursuing your passions.

Time one spent sorting and waiting, folding and queuing, now spent challenging and innovating

and pushing your way to greatness. So pick up the Irish flute or those calligraphy pens or

that daunting beef Wellington recipe card and leave the laundry to us. Rinse, it's time to be

great.