Transcript+
Let's be clear, Bitcoin is an international asset. We are spending like drunken sailors. Bitcoin is the only economic entity where the supply is unaffected by the demand. If you want to preserve your wealth, you have to convert that currency into an asset that's scarce, desirable, portable. Durable. And maintainable. Welcome back to Scarce Assets from On Ramp Institutional. This week, we're joined by Chris Kiper, Vice President of Research at Fidelity Digital Assets. Excited to have Chris join us for this one as we relaunch On Ramp Institutional. In this conversation, we dug into a lot of things that are timely for many cycles now, at least the past two people were saying that institutions were coming, they're here, they're allocating. We found out it wasn't true, it was still early, but this time around we dig into why advisors are now showing up as the leading cohort in the 13 F filings for the Bitcoin ETFs, showing that they actually are allocating in size to Bitcoin. We also discussed why the old four year cycle no longer explains bitcoins behavior and what to look out for going forward and also how to think about portfolio allocation and bitcoins role within a traditional portfolio, especially with bonds as a potentially impaired asset class and on ramp. We help institutional allocators, advisors, family offices allocate to Bitcoin confidently. Our architecture is built on multi institution custody which removes single points of failure and gives you a durable foundation for long term Bitcoin exposure. Whether your firm is starting from zero and needs advisory services or you have exposure through the spot Bitcoin ETFs and want a more direct and conservative approach from a team that is laser focused on Bitcoin, we can help you. For qualified investors, the Bitcoin on ramp Bitcoin Trust offers security like exposure with in kind delivery, multi jurisdiction custody and direct ownership of your Bitcoin and an advisory team that will help equip you and your investment committee with clear frameworks to avoid the pitfalls that have trapped investors in the past cycle. If your organization is evaluating Bitcoin or is already at scale and ready to allocate further, let's talk. E-mail me Jackson at on rampbitcoin.com or book a consultation at on rampbitcoin.com. Welcome back to Scarce Assets, Chris Kuiper. Great to see you this morning joined by my Co host as well, Michael Tanguma. For those who are not familiar, Chris is the Vice President of Research at Fidelity Digital Assets, really leading the firm's research on Bitcoin and digital assets. He's also a friend of the firm on Ramp here. And this show, for those who are not familiar is really the reboot of on Ramp Institutional. So we're excited to be launching on Ramp Institutional this week with Chris. And for those who are not familiar, we're just focused on advisory services, investment solutions built around multi institution custody. And I think this conversation with Chris will be incredibly informative. It'll give institutional allocators, advisors really the firepower ammunition to have conversations with their clients, their investment committees. And so, Chris, really excited for this conversation. Thank you for joining us today. How are you doing? Great to be here. Thanks for having me and doing well. Yeah, super, super excited to have you on Chris. Obviously one of the the the brightest minds in the space. We think that meet, you know, try to find Bitcoin and then leading at Fidelity Research, who's obviously been notable leading in this space around education and helping, you know, the market get exposure in the right way. So no shortage of exciting things to talk about. I think the first podcast you you joined kind of coined at least in the lexicon that we published a bunch around Invert, always invert. And it's kind of a good mental model to to look at I think the world and where we're at today. Yeah, I think a great place to start is pulling up the Bitcoin price. Just a minute here because first of all, we are long term oriented allocators and really Bitcoin is meant to be a long term investment. You shouldn't be necessarily trading this thing around performs best if you have 510 or longer time horizon typically. That said, I think it's worth pulling the price up because it really informs the start of this conversation around 2025 and comparison to previous what used to be the four year cycle. I'm curious, Chris, if just the market structure and participants in the market has fundamentally changed the four year cycle. I'm looking at this on ramp terminal right now and you can see that the Bitcoin price is up 15% year to date. And so you'd think if you compare that to 2021 or 2017, we're we're lagging pretty significantly, but things I think have changed. But what are your thoughts here? So one of the ways to look at this is the cycle since the having so the four year cycle and yes we are we're lagging greatly on that. If you look at a chart like that, the other chart you can look at there for cycles is starting from the the deepest draw down and we were tracking the other cycles from there pretty closely. And then just in the past few months we've started to lag there as well. So one of the things I think that that is responsible for that is the exchange trade products they pulled for forward a lot of demand. If you remember it was the classic by the rumor sell the news. A lot of people ran the price before they were approved. And then of course the halving was after that. So normally historically gains come right after the halving. And so a lot of the games games came with the ET PS right before the halving in this cycle. So that's what makes it look like we're lagging sometimes. But in reality, we're not lagging maybe quite as much. But I do think the four year cycle is dead in terms of four years because we're we're already past that, right? And we haven't got the euphoric blow off top that we've had in the past cycles, at least historically, right? Our signals don't show that, MVRV don't doesn't show that. And even just the sentiment and the games don't don't show that. That euphoric blow up top happens at the very end of the four years. It's compressed in just a few weeks. And there's just this incredible run. And we've just seen grind higher, consolidate, grind higher, consolidate, which has been very interesting. So I personally think the four year cycle is dead, but I don't think cycles in this space are dead in general, if that makes sense. It makes a ton of sense. I guess, you know, zooming out from just Bitcoin cycles in a lot of ways are tied to just investor sentiment and you know, people over leveraging themselves and deleveraging. You see that quite a bit in just the economy and traditional asset classes. And I think that'll continue to persist. I would agree with you there. And it does seem like though the four year cycle has fundamentally shifted or potentially is no longer something investors need to be thinking about. I'd be curious because you touch on it a little bit, just we're about 18 months after the Etps have been launched. It's been as far as I've seen the most successful financial products or at least Etps ever launched. The demands been insatiable and it really speaks in my mind to just the a lot of the red tape and barriers to access that had existed previously with advisors, with institutional allocators and even actually retail investors. I think the 13 F show that it's still largely a retail market, but I'm curious how the past 18 months of kind of have they exceeded expectations, lagged expectations with the launch and appetite for the Bitcoin ETFs? Certainly exceeded. We had some internal numbers or guesses of what we thought the flows would be when these things launched and they far exceeded our expectations just on the research side. I'm not talking about our product side or anything like that, but absolutely blew it out of the water. If you combine all of these together, you know, you had Eric on the show. I listened to that episode, great episode and and he just ticked down like all the ways these things have have been the best performing exchange traded product ever in the history of all of these things. So to me there's just no doubt about it like that doesn't happen by accident. There has to be the an actual demand behind that. So even US who had a very optimistic idea like we suspected there was this pent up demand, there's pools of capital that would would allocate to this that were trapped and they could only allocate through this vehicle way more than we would have thought. So you mentioned like the the 13 F filing. So I, I find this really interesting because yes, you can say they still seem very retail because anyone who's not filing A13F is under the 100 million. So you can assume they're smaller than that. But if you look at other ET PS, like the percentage of of the dollar amount captured in the 13 F filings is, is also not that high either. And the number of firms at launch is way higher than any other exchange trade product that is launched. So if you look at other, in other words, you look at other exchange trade products when they launch, how many people filed those 13 FS? It was maybe a few dozen or something and we've got I don't know how many now for the the Bitcoin ETP, so very notable there. The other thing that's interesting in the latest one with the data is advisors are now the top category. And I think that's very significant. We can talk about why that is because it used to be hedge funds and of course there's still some very big hedge funds on there. But to me, the, all the 13 F filings from the hedge funds, I'm not in this world. So I, I don't know all about it, but to me, most of those were doing the bases trade. So it's just an, an arbitrage. It's not the same as a conviction in long only holding this position in a portfolio or a client portfolio. So I think that's a big one. And then of course, you saw a big endowment, a big name endowment on the list there. And that's very notable to me. That's a lot of signal because pensions, endowments, foundations, that is one of the the institutional investor segments that has been the lowest allocated. So we've done five years of surveys in the past and those categories, those endowments and pensions foundations, they were always low to mid single digits in terms of what percent of our respondents said they were allocated to digital assets, the lowest by far of any other group. And so the fact that you're now seeing them, you're seeing a big name that removes a lot of the career risk for others. You know, these first movers are always the hardest to get to do this and it'll be interesting to see going forward if we if we see some more follow suit now. Yeah, the the pensions and endowments interesting 'cause I think it, I saw this morning Harvard's positions top five in their portfolio and it's greater than Google and I believe in NVIDIA. So it's pretty significant. One thing just to go back to on the just kind of like adoption in the past, the cycles, the thing that I haven't been able to reconcile is it feels like a lot of retail and the demand that we've seen in the blow off tops around this time ultimately come from reflexivity. Just the, the notion of a constrained supply and too much demand. And there's market forces on, you know, the having coupled with the price appreciation naturally has more buyers than sellers. And it feels like right now, my, my take is that that will, that will happen eventually because give us a fixed supply, infinite, you know, amount of demand, but it's just been elongated. And I don't know if it's because of the options market and institutional plumbing that has come in, if it's natural, because we've hit these new price points and there's a lot of flow coming out from holders that have been unfolding for, you know, almost a decade, because we've seen this like also demand from whether it's the ETFs or treasury companies. So I'm just curious how you think about that because my personal take is that we're just seeing these like cycle elongated and we're going to come back with that volatility, at least in some respects, it's just getting pushed out. But I haven't thought that deeply about it to to form a great take. It's just a take. No, I'm in a similar position to you #1 I do think the infrastructure and the build out of all these derivatives markets does dampen volatility. And you can look at traditional finance proxies. So for example, commodities. Commodities didn't used to be an investable asset class. It wasn't until the 90s that they actually became institutionalized. And then there's a lot of academic research that you're exposed to and you go through with like the CFA program and all this stuff in tradfy world where they show empirically that when you get derivative markets, options, futures and you get these deeper liquid markets on top of something that will dampen the volatility. Because you're bringing in all these other players, people who like volatility, people who want to sell volatility, who want to buy volatility. So that does dampen it down and it gives people exposure to the asset. It gives them a levered way to to get exposure. So I do think that's one factor. The the other factor though is exactly what we've been seeing and in writing about. There's an analyst on our team, Zach, who published a report on the ancient supply, quote UN quote, it can be any threshold you want to make it. I think in this, this first report, he made it 10 years and it shows that the new coins coming into the ancient supply cohort, that threshold because every day that goes by, more gets added. More coins on average are being added to that cohort. 10 years of being inactive or more, more coins are being added to that cohort than new coins now being released from the the network. And to your point, that's exactly true. What we've been seeing too, where it's we see, we can see empirically all the demand from the Bitcoin treasury companies and we can see the demand from the exchange traded product. And that demand dwarfs all the new Bitcoin that is created every day, every week, every month. So the question is, where's the extra supply coming from? Who's selling? And to your point, yes, we see in the on chain data, it's these very long term holders that have been selling. And if you look at a report, he's got dots and then also bars of like how much has moved. And in the last cycle those original investors, early investors, they sold into the rally. This cycle they're selling even more heavily into the rally. And of course it is just coin movement. So you might get some people just moving coins, not selling it obviously, but you see it anecdotally. We saw the press release about a company that helps someone, an early investor, liquidate 84,000 Bitcoin. So we're seeing it anecdotally. We're seeing the market absorb it and that's who's selling. The question is at some point you would think those original holders have to get exhausted. Like anyone who wants to sell it around 100K is going to be done. You know, like the press release said, for the estate planning purposes, they're going to be done selling whatever amount of stack they want until we get to a new high price point and then maybe that induces more people to sell. But eventually you would think you start to see that supply demand imbalance and the price squeeze higher as a result of that. But again, who knows? We'll see. No, I think it's an important notion you shared because it's a truly elegant system that I think a lot of individual investors and institutional investors will look at the market forces and believe you'll end up with a centralized supply, you'll end up with individuals. But over empirically over 15 years, we've seen that supply get distributed because naturally people realize realize their gains for number of reasons. And so I think it's important fact that this is just a natural part of Bitcoins distribution cycle and mechanism. And it's a great thing. It's a great thing to see it distributed amongst other parties and and it should be expected and somewhat welcomed in my opinion because it's showing it's going along in this adoption, adoption journey just like everything else. Yeah, all very interesting points, Chris. I'd love to go back to some of the earlier points you made on the 13 FS because we've heard for a long time that advisors were coming, you know, traditional finance was stepping in, the institutions are here. Like these narratives go back at least one cycle, maybe 2. But I would say it, you know, we finally have gotten to that point in 2024 in particular and now in 25 with the ETFs, the other products that have been brought to market. And you mentioned something that was interesting on the advisors now being the largest cohort of filers. We'd love to dig a little bit deeper there and better understand the significance of that. You also juxtapose that to the, the hedge funds were previously the largest buyer and and they typically or the largest filer rather. And to your point, there could be basis trades, they're typically not seeking long term strategic asset allocations that could be more tactical or more of a trade. So how do you think about the advisor showing up in a bigger way and general thoughts there? And then I guess going forward, like what are you hearing from advisors in terms of interest and questions around Bitcoin? So I'll take that last part first. And it's funny you asked that because I don't know if this is coincidental or what, but just in the past few weeks here, I've had multiple conversations with advisors, wealth advisors, Rias who've been reaching out to us and they're all saying the same thing. And it's some version of this. We know we have to get educated in this space. Our clients are asking. This isn't going away. So we're starting our journey now because we feel like we're behind. Can you help us? Can you help us get up to speed? And they are, they are literally starting at at square one. I just had a like a digital assets one-on-one conversation and presentation with a, a very big advisory firm. I won't say the name. So that's interesting of where they're at and what they're saying because they're now recognizing this isn't going away. We have to deal with it and they're finally taking some action. It's big enough to move the needle for them either from a portfolio perspective for returns and and all the benefits that Bitcoin could give their clients, but also just from a risk competitive standpoint, if their competitors are going to be doing it, people are going to go go to their competitors. And of course, the big tailwind behind all of this, as you might know, is the boomer generation retiring, passing, passing on their assets. And I forget what the data is, but there's it's, it's a very high percentage of children who do not stay with their parents financial advisor. And, and I think it's kind of like you don't go to your father's Barber. It's like, I don't want the same haircut my dad had. So for whatever reason, people don't want to go to the same financial advisor their parents had. They want to be different and, and of course, digital assets are going to be a big part of that in my opinion, because as you know, the younger generation is digitally native. They're much more receptive to this. They have the time and, and the, the horizon and the, the wealth to deal with this. I personally think the advisor space is the, the lowest hanging fruit or the path of least resistance for adoption right now because A, it's a massive pool capital B, the infrastructure is already there. Before they did not have easy 1 button solutions like the exchange traded products. Now they have multiple channels. For example, Fidelity is, is integrated into our wealth platform now of Fidelity digital assets. So there's another channel as well. For a lot of these people, the stigma has been removed, the career risk has been removed and it's going to be client driven. So I think that's a big force. And then the other thing is again, as an example, this this major firm we were just talking to, we found out they technically do allow clients to get exposure to Bitcoin, but it's there's like half a dozen or more hurdles or checklist they have to go through. Biggest one, it's still non solicited. So they can't sell it, they can't recommend it. They have to have either like net worth or income level thresholds or age or appropriate risk levels. However, they determine that so. There's a lot of hurdles to still overcome, but I think over time that that will go away and and that's OK that they're there because the fact that they're even there is is helpful. And it's just a matter of getting them educated and comfortable with these things to remove some of those hurdles that they still have up on these. Yeah, it's an amazing anecdote at the the first step to recovery is admitting you might have a problem and you know, the realization that maybe they they should get educated on it because it's not going away. We've heard similar anecdotes to your point on whether it's compliance or just like getting the approval to offer them up is a is a still a barrier. But then the other side into your point where Raas, specifically the emergent banks and Raas I see is like really big opportunities because they run like private businesses, they have the incentive to bring assets AUM back on platform, right. So the thing that doesn't really get talked about a lot is Bitcoin mean close to a $2.5 trillion market, give or take where we sit. And about a trillion of that sits in these hardware devices offline. And they've sat there for a very long time and people feel increasingly uncomfortable and they want to bring them back into the financial world. But there's no mechanism for that, whether in kind, you know, contribution, bringing them onto a custody platform or a banking solution. And this is still very foreign to a lot of the tratified world. And we hear a lot of the stable coin fervor and obviously there's a lot happening to stable coins, but that's going to be a very, I don't want to say commoditized game, but it's, it's the movement of assets versus the aggregation of assets. And then that growth that I think most advisors still don't, they're starting to appreciate. It's like it's the fastest growing asset of all time. If you bring it on platform, you're going to be able to build in U.S. dollar terms, whatever that that growth is going to achieve in the coming years. Yeah, absolutely. A lot of interesting points there as well. The Chris, I looked it up while you were speaking and so the number is about 80% if people are curious about the next generation choosing not to use their parents financial advisors. So I can imagine that is a big, you know, it's a big catalyst for advisors wanting to get educated because they recognize, to your point, that while there is a lot of, if you look at the, the nominal number of ownership of Bitcoin by older generations, baby boomers and jacks, they have more money. So they, they do own Bitcoin. But in terms of volume of purchases, Gen. Z millennials far outpace those generations. And so I can imagine, a, to your point, if they're not getting smart on Bitcoin and their, their clients are asking them about it, Well, the clients are going to start asking their, you know, their competitors about it, which is a problem. And B, if they're not up to speed and educated and speaking the same language about what the children are interested in, in many cases, these would be like 20-30 year old, 40 year old children, then they're, they're not going to have a relationship with the advisor either. So I think that is maybe one of the underappreciated things about Bitcoin being so early in this all where it's $2 trillion asset class 15 years later, we have a lot of ways to go here. It's, it's still very early for Bitcoin and the portfolios are going to change. And that kind of ties into the next topic I wanted to discuss with you is you'd mentioned before we hit record the idea of bonds being an impaired asset. I would love for you to explain that topic and then we could discuss maybe in these advisor conversations that you're having, how are they starting to think about and how do you speak to them about portfolio allocation as relates to Bitcoin? Where does it fit in? How do they think about it in that context? Yeah, I'll take the later part of that question first, which is for us, we've been pretty consistent or at least I'd say very consistent in advocating that Bitcoin is best understood as a monetary asset, an aspiring store of value. And so whenever you think of Bitcoin, especially as an advisor or institutional investor, whatever you think of it, whatever you've heard of it, you owe it to your yourself, your clients, your fiduciary duty to just look at it on a pure investment basis and, and just look at the stats, look at the characteristics of it. So it has a low positive correlation to every major asset class, even other real assets like gold, commodities, real estate. It has at least historically, an asymmetric risk reward, so much higher upside than downside. The the return is obviously absolutely fantastic. But then of course, people look at the volatility and get scared. But again, as a professional investor, you should be looking at risk versus reward, right? Things like sharp ratios, certina ratios. So if you just take down all those things, you would say this at least deserves some attention. It it ticks all the boxes of what traditional finance would say, which is to add a non correlated or low correlated positive returning asset that can increase my risk adjusted returns. Like that is the Holy Grail of all portfolio management. So I think that's one thing to just look at on a, on a base level. And maybe for, for some, the answer is still no, this doesn't make sense. But at least you've done the work and you've, you have a reason for it and you're not just pushing it aside and just saying like, oh, hand waving and saying volatility in a vague way or something like that. In terms of your the first part of the question, the role of it in the portfolio, this is where you get into the idea of having a non sovereign asset in your portfolio, something that a lot of people think of as an insurance policy against currency debasement, preserving your purchasing power, perhaps a a put to our insurance policy against fiscal or monetary policy error, if you will. So that's another way to extend this as into the actual economic reason, not just the statistical reason. And I was talking about this with Yuri and Timmer here at Fidelity, who is a great macro guy who found his way into Bitcoin, but he's been a Fidelity over 3 decades now and has been covering macro for that period of time. So he's very well versed in all the major tried 5 macro stuff. And he's the one that brought up this idea of we're so used to the standard 6040. We're so used to bonds being the anchor to the portfolio. But, and again, this isn't a recommendation, but just a question that people should be considering and asking themselves. He said. If you've got fiscal deficits as far as the eye can see and that doesn't seem to change, at what point do you ask the question, are bonds an impaired asset class? And right now we are in a five year drawdown for the general bond market, one of the longest ever. And if you look at bonds on a historical basis and, and look at their drawdown in real terms, inflation adjusted terms during the high inflation period, the stagflation period, the 70s and 80s, bonds had a real drawdown of 50%. And so people, people don't realize like that's what you, what you can bring home and eat, right, the real return. And so you think you're, you're getting safety and an anchor and bonds, but you're actually not. And so his question was, at what point do people start thinking with the 6040, I need to diversify away from the 40 into alternative assets, not the 60 because the traditional attitude is, oh, if I want to go into alts, I take it out of my quote, high risk bucket equities to fund it. At what point do you say though, I'm going to start taking it out of this potentially impaired asset class and start funding alternatives like Bitcoin or even other things, which I I thought was a really interesting idea that is not being talked about enough? Absolutely. I'm quite curious about that as well because you mentioned just the economic case for Bitcoin, right. You, you can point to the fiscal conditions of the country, you can point to monetary policy. And it's kind of interesting because I feel like a lot of these, a lot of the themes that people in the Bitcoin space talk about were once considered very fringe or kind of out there as a related to kind of bringing that into traditional finance and thinking through, you know, sharp ratios, portfolio construction and whatnot. And I'm, I'm curious, is that still the case these days? Is it still like when you bring up currency, just debasement, is that a term that advisors are familiar with or do you kind of have to explain these things Still genuinely curious about that. And then how is that idea of bond bonds as an impaired asset class landed? Is that like a radical idea to many advisors? It depends on the advisor for sure. But yes, I would say still very radical. They're still not thinking about currency debasement. You know, of course, we are privileged to live in Western world in the US where we have the, the world reserve currency. So it's a little bit like asking a fish what is water? You ask a financial advisor or a financial person like what is money or what is currency? The basement. It's like, what are you, what are you talking about? And of course they're, they're basing their heuristics on, on, on the priors. Like we've been in a bowl, a bond bull market for 40 plus years. It's worked out great for them. All their clients are happy. It's done exactly what they wanted it to do and expected it to do. So why would they change, right? There's no, there's no incentive to change yet at this point. And so that is what makes it very difficult to try to get people to see. And again, I'm not rooting for this or saying it will absolutely happen. I'm just saying people need to think about are there massive structural changes that are going to happen that will affect you and your portfolio? And if so, what's the best way to protect against that? And it doesn't mean you have to go all in on something. It just means like what's the the most capital efficient way to protect against that. And I think that's what deserves the question and attention. So that's the way I try to frame it, like try to angle in there, but it is difficult to your point. So many of you are familiar with On Ramp for the work that we do directly with individuals, for people who are looking to protect their Bitcoin for themselves, their families, for the long term. You may not be familiar that we launched On Ramp Institutional, which is the area of a firm focused on financial advisors, institutional allocators such as pensions, endowments, family offices. And this arm of the firm is really equipping institutional allocators with a trusted team that can provide advisory services, guidance, and just a framework for navigating the space. Because ultimately, there have been so many losses, there has been no shortage of counterparty risk, and there's been so many distractions beyond Bitcoin. And so if you are within an organization that is looking to better understand Bitcoin or you find yourself being the one who's champion Bitcoin internally, but you need an external organization to provide some air cover, provide some education and research, we are really the firm to do that. So please get in touch with us at on rampbitcoin.com. You can also e-mail me direct Jackson at on rampbitcoin.com. Happy to have a conversation. Would love to meet you since you're a listener to the show. So don't be a stranger. Reach out and we'll see how we can help you out. Thank you. Chris, curious how gold fits into that, you know, with gold sitting at close to all time highs into that story, because I think gold has a similar notion in, in camps of the gold bugs. And it's a it's, it's an alternative asset And the 6040 is the 6040. But the, the gold markets and what's happening can't go unnoticed in the same way Bitcoin can. And curious and they're, they're two sides of a different or the same coin, just different types of trades. 1, you know, operates a little bit more like an equity, but just curious like how that narrative goes. And I guess the other part is how was the experience been with individuals versus like institutions? Because institutions, I feel like there's a lot of inertia and people, nobody ever gets fired for first sticking with the status quo. But we see this, I know in the day-to-day with peers and probably folks you talk with in real terms, the portfolio is not keeping up with what it costs in day-to-day living, whether it's the house, insurance, the car, the vacation, you know, bonds, appreciate it, whatever the number is in real terms. And then you look at the S&P, people are starting to feel it because of the level of debasement that's occurred. Just curious like how that mosaic starts to frame some of these conversations over time. People are definitely feeling it, right? Anyone who's been in the market for a house or anyone who has to manage a household, if prices, prices have gone up 25 to 30% on average in the last five years, that that has to be felt by the average person. But on the other level of say, institutional investors, you're exactly right. There's so much inertia there because they have committees, because they have career risks. Look at their incentives like the old adage, show me the incentives, I'll show you the outcome. Their incentives are I stick my neck out, make a very contrarian play here. If it does, great, maybe I get a little bit of that reward or promotion, or maybe they do get some compensation based on that. But if it goes against them, they're out of a job. Which risk reward here? Yeah, like a little reward, but a lot of risk to take that on. And interestingly, I'll, I'll share another anecdote here. I went to a pension event and there was someone there. Of course, they won't name names, but the they were one of the very early investors in digital assets with a pension fund in the United States. And it's obviously been the best performing asset in their entire portfolio. And even with that, they still get heat and they still get a lot of Flack for this. So it's like even if you did the right thing, you're still getting penalized for it at this at this higher institutional level. And so that's why we see anecdotally and in our data or survey data, any institutional investor that has more of an individual at the helm is going to be a lot more adopted to this. So think like single family offices, certain Rias, obviously high net worth individuals, hedge funds, all of those are well up the adoption curve compared to the big institutions that have committees and governance and all those things, which is obviously necessary and good for them. But the flip side is they're going to be slower to move. Now this also squares the the circle of like, how can so many people say they have exposure, but we're still at quote, only a $2 trillion asset class for for Bitcoin. And the reason is a lot of people in the number of firms or institutions can say they have exposure. But the ones that have the lowest exposure, like I said before, single mid low digits, at least this was the case a couple years back. They're the big money. So the big gorilla in the room is like very low allocated and all the other smaller fish are have a higher allocation. So that's why you see the disparity in those numbers to oh, go ahead. I would say this is really great framing and important framing because I think what helps is individual see a Bitcoin price at $110,000 and will naturally think it's overheated. You know what's going on, but you're laying out the exact case on why it's still very early. And there's so much upside because of the, the notion of, I've talked about it, a lot of bitcoins ultimately been an emergent asset with individuals because it requires a consensus of one, maybe 2 if you talk to your wife about getting the allocation. And so to your point, you see the family offices and specifically the public traded companies are generally Alex Leachman, I think coined the term, the orange dictators at these companies because they kind of like run the firm or have a very, the governance is a little bit different than a traditional firm. And then the other side of that. But your point is, the most sophisticated investors that are, that are have been established and rewarded for thinking differently. Paul Tudor Jones, Stan Druckenmiller, You look at Swift, one of the best endowments run in the country, made the allocation. Harvard. It's happening. But at the same point, there's just this stigma that exists. And but that is the opportunity. And I think sometimes it's helpful to understand why the opportunity exists so you can look at it at face value versus like, oh, I must be missing something. This is too good to be true. It's just the reality of there's bureaucracy and there's inertia that exists. And that is why we're still so early and allocations are still so limited. Yeah. And and to that point as well, it's been while we have seen in the 13 apps, we've seen some major players step in. We, we named Harvard as an endowment on the recent filings, I think the largest endowment, university endowment in the country or at least in the top three or five. But then you've also seen some major pension funds as well. But to your point, Chris, these, these entities are allocating like a few basis points of the portfolio. I mean, it's still significant relative to what an individual or maybe just some single family offices may be able to allocate. But at the end of the day, you know, $100 million, two hundred $300 million allocation may only just be like 20 bits of the portfolio, perhaps even less. And so I do just want to emphasize the fact that while for some people may feel like you're kind of late to the party here or, you know, Bitcoins best years are behind it, it's just fundamentally a different market. And to a lot of Chris's points, there are way more advisors out there that are starting at Ground Zero with education than there are advisors, you know, let's say registered independent advisory firms that are very sophisticated on Bitcoin, that have Bitcoin and most of their client portfolios. So I would just encourage people that you're really not late here. It is a good time to be just thinking learning more about Bitcoin. And I would love to get your thoughts on this, Chris, because we mentioned at the start of the conversation that the four year, specifically the four year cycles are dead is kind of what you had said there. And I'm curious then like how do you think about the market going forward? If, if we're not really just if sentiments not really being driven by the having anymore, it's not following what we have historically seen over the past 15 years, then what are you paying attention to? What should investors pay attention to to inform their investment thesis around Bitcoin? Yeah, I want to go back to the the last comment just to add a little more color on to get people to understand of like where we are with with institutions and then I'll I'll answer that one. I was at a a family office event. So it was just like network for family offices and there was decision makers there and and some of the actual families. And of course we're asking around. And do you have any allocation to, to Bitcoin or digital assets? It was either none at all, very little or the most common answer was yes, we invest in a funds like a private equity or VC funds that is investing in companies. And so my point bringing this up to give you some color is these institutions invest in channels and packages and things that they know and they already have procedures around and compliance around. So ironically, it's easier for them to do a more complicated, convoluted investment and structure in a fund that's investing in infrastructure and companies in the digital asset space than it is to just buy spot Bitcoin or, or an exchange traded product. And, and I bring that up because that also helps answer this question of like, why isn't the price higher or how could the price move higher? We haven't gotten to the point where people are just making the the more simple allocation to just. Pure exposure, they're still investing in all these other things, which I think is quite, quite interesting and telling. And I personally think there's just also a bit of a, a bit of AI don't want to say attitude, but like general idea of like if you're a family office, you're very sophisticated, you're used to doing sophisticated alpha generating strategies that the common person cannot. And ironically the the the bigger alpha generating is probably to have just been allocated to to spot Bitcoin over the last few years at least. Can I, can I add one thing to that? My assumption and thesis has been that the reason and we, we had this report that came out from early writers, which was about moving from a hobbyist industry to mainstream. And we likened it referencing whether you looked at like the PC computer specifically and how it was a bunch of obvious that used to be at meetups and put together motherboards and, and ultimately somebody had to commercialize a desktop computer. And the things that happened, you know, post that you couldn't really see to the future. And my assumption is the VC firms or the firms that historically had been the case. My thesis is that the pub codes are an example of this and the ETFs as well somewhat versus spot is that you're kind of pushing over the risk to these institutions or these other individuals because you can't get fired. It's something that you can't get fired for it. But you look at like the pensions in the, in Canada that went into FTX or the venture fund that went into FTX, they're probably OK, we made a bad bet because it's VC and some bets, you know, don't pay off. But that notion of spot custody because we had not figured out custody yet. And I know this is like a meta theme, but there's this notion that for 15 years people associate Bitcoin with a Ponzi because you keep hearing every few years that it ends up in a landfill on this little hard drive or it ends up in North Korean wallets. And I think that we don't fully appreciate that that is subconsciously the reason why most people are afraid to look at this asset and ultimately see what we're talking about here, Because then it means they have a problem of like, Oh my God, now I need, I'm under, I'm under allocated. I need to figure it out. And that opens up a whole other can of worms of like, well, who's a custodian? How do I make sure that it's going to last for 10 years? And so it's much easier to push that risk to the micro strategy and Sailor and you figure it out. I'm allocating to an equity or even the BlackRock and Coinbase, which we know there's, you know, significant, I want to say significant counterparty risk. But historically for 15 years, there have been problems with centralized custodians. And so anyway, I think that's just another component that exists in the substrate of individuals minds that you just hear in the news in these cycles keep coming back. And that volatility isn't just pure volatility of the asset, but it's a volatility of what other asset do you allocate to in the next day. It could actually be a 0 because you got the wrong custodian wrong, right, the wrong counterparty, not that the thesis was wrong. And so I think that's another component of it. I obviously can't prove it, but you see like SWIB and these other firms allocating the microstrategies and the meta planets of the world, like independent of their growth trajectory, there's still a bunch of execution risk on the management company when you should just be holding the underlying if you're already underweight it. And that's one of the logical conclusions I've at least come to is you're just pushing out that risk into other forms because if it goes wrong, you have somewhere to point. Yeah. I think from their perspective, they want another layer of management for to insulate them. But to your point, they might unknowingly or unknowingly be taking on additional risk by doing that, then yeah. I forget who it was is. Oh, go ahead, Chris. No, go ahead, I. Was just going to say to your point about the, the family offices and some of these institutional portfolios you'd mentioned in anecdotes for, you know, people are looking for alpha generating strategies and they tend to overcomplicate things and in some part of good reason, right. There's a lot of funds out there that deliver on their absolute return or risk adjusted return targets and beat their benchmarks. But at the same time, Bitcoin is really not something that needs to be overly complicated or sophisticated. And so I, I do think that there is this friction point with a lot of these allocators because to your point, they're looking, they're, they're not used to holding the benchmark in many ways, right? They're looking for strategies that will do something sophisticated to outperform or maybe they're not even looking to outperform a benchmark, but they look to protect some sort of downside, right? There's all sorts of different strategies out there. And with Bitcoin, it's something that we look to do as a firm is really share the idea that the the alpha is to your point, Chris having a long term allocation of Bitcoin and the alpha is in the custody in the infrastructure, right. Like you guys do great work at Fidelity. I think we do great work here at on ramp. And so the idea is that if you can have a long term allocation to Bitcoin and you can secure it for the long haul because many people haven't been able to do that, you are in some ways generating alpha. You are able to enjoy in terms of your portfolio gains, you're able to enjoy that appreciation over the long term. And so I think that's what a lot of people are still missing is there really is alpha in just having spot exposure and having a good infrastructure partner. Yeah, I was thinking this the other day of there's three major, major decisions or, or hurdles people have to get over to reap the full benefit of Bitcoin, or at least potentially I should say. And we are so focused on #1 because that's where everyone's AT. And it's somewhat the hardest, which is number 1, is just to develop a thesis and, and get on board and say, I'm going to allocate whatever percentage to this. And that's like 90% of my time. But to your point #2 is then don't get scared out of it or conversely, don't completely sell it when it goes up 100% and said maybe think about rebalancing that. You have to give it room to run in and stay convicted. So #2 is holding it like, OK, I've allocated now I'm actually going to hold it. I'm not just going to view this as a trade. It's going to be a core position. And then the third major, major thing is securing it for the long term and not messing that up because then all your work from the previous two steps is just completely lost as well. Yeah, I think not to, you know, blow too much smoke, but that is a fundamental reason why fidelity is best in class in this industry. It's where the arm ramp was founded on is the research and education is the most important. It feels like the least important, but it actually is the most because if you don't have the understanding confidence, conviction in the underlying over the the past 15 years, a lot of institutions that have effectively been exit liquidity, they come in at market tops and then they get left holding bag and sell. We saw MASA and soft make is a great example, I think back in 2017. It requires a heavy level of confidence to understand kind of like the allocation sizing, how you think about timing, volatility. And so there's very few businesses in the world still. That's how early we are. They go very deep including BlackRock because BlackRock launched an ETF. But as you guys know, it takes years to deeply understand this and be able to educate the market. And you can't come in in six months, 12 months, 24 months and produce best in class material content that can get institutions up to speed because this is a very deep and nuanced asset class. And so it just requires that level of education and in generally that's a time in the market product. If you're enjoying this episode, please leave us a like a comment. Please subscribe or rate 5 stars on your podcast player. All this helps a bunch. We spent a lot of time reaching out to guests to prepare for the episodes, record them, edit, distribute, you know the drill. So if you have just a few seconds here and you're enjoying the episode, please leave a comment, leave a like subscribe if you haven't done so already. It goes a long way. It helps to get our content out there. It helps more people to find this message. It also helps us to grow the show to bring on more guests so we can continue to add value to you. So thank you for being here. And if you don't mind, please leave us a like a comment subscribe rate 5 stars. Really appreciate it and hope to show up every single week and deliver a lot of value. And thanks again for being here. I appreciate it. Love to go back to we went on a bit of a tangent, but it was it was a worthwhile tangent. Go back to Chris. Your thoughts on so for your for your cycles are dead. So now what are you paying attention to going forward? What what do you pay attention to? What do you communicate to advisors and institutional allocators on how to think about Bitcoin and the, you know, the tailwinds or potential headwinds for the asset? Yeah, so the four year cycle I think is dead and like it's not going to happen like clockwork. You know, everyone likes to look at the the yearly candles, green, green, green, red, green, green, green, red. Could it happen again in the pattern repeat. Sure. There's there's cycles and everything, but if something looks that easy and that identifiable, I I tend to think not. It's like the old market adage. The market's job is to inflict the most pain or discomfort on the greatest number of people. So. To, to what we were talking about earlier before recording like this year seems so, so weird and odd because we always want to match it up to historical patterns. But I think that's the point of the market, right? It's going to, it's going to do what you least expect. It's going to inflict the most pain. And so I think cycles will continue, though I'm not in this camp of people saying the exchange trade products and the institutionalization, the treasury companies have changed everything. And we're, we're never going to see these deep bear markets again. I, I don't think so. I mean, if, if the stock market can easily go down 30% or or more in a general run-of-the-mill correction bear market, Bitcoin's definitely going to do more than that. It's incredible to me how low volatility is today in Bitcoin compared to the fact that we've hit new all time highs twice now. So I think Bitcoin Vols all the way down to like 35 realized Vol 30 day Vol stock market fix it at 15. But historically it's at least 20 or so. So you're telling me that that bitcoins not even going to be double the volatility of the S&P over the next few years? I I would think not at least personally, but in terms of looking out longer term, a lot of this is just is just noise and cycles. And for me, the biggest long term framework I use macro framework is, is just simply liquidity. How much liquidity is out there? How much money printing is out there? You can look at global M2 broad money supplies. What we look at, you look over that at A at a long enough time horizon. And I'm not talking about some of these people that match up the charts or they do like a certain lag period. I think, I think that gets dangerous. Anybody can play play those games and that'll probably get you in in trouble. But just looking at a long statistical analysis, we find global M2, the changes in global M2 to the change of Bitcoin price statistically significant for sure. And a very high R-squared of 80 to 90 or more. So 90% of Bitcoins price move can be explained by changes in the money supply. And it's a bit of a, a simple tautology like like if you're going to measure Bitcoin in dollars and the amount of dollars goes up, you're, you just have a ratio here, right? So you would think over time, dollars going up more than the amount of Bitcoin going up, that ratio is just going to naturally change. It doesn't have to obviously, but you see how simple that framework can be. So if I look at the, the macro environment right now, we wrote at the beginning of the year, at least I, I did for my section, why isn't anyone talking about stagflation? So this was very early January of this year. And the impetus for this was inflation had roared up to 9, a little over 9% CPI and we were coming back down and everyone said we've got inflation under control. And I said, we've seen this, this movie before in the, in the 70s and 80s where people think, Oh yeah, inflation was high back then. Like it was just a homogeneous high inflation period. No, there was actually 3 distinct waves. And so I was just asking the question. I said this isn't necessarily my base case, but it deserves some probability or some weighting of what happens if inflation is coming down. But it's just going to be another wave. And now we see the Fed cutting into inflation that's actually ticking up. So of course, they're leaning more on the labor market as the reason for the cut. And then you've got things like tariffs going into effect and what not, so that the Fed thinks labor market's slowing. We've got some other headwinds there. Maybe we do see a somewhat stagflationary environment again. And if inflation comes back, the other big factor that we found has a very high R-squared to to Bitcoin is inflation expectations. So again, it doesn't necessarily have to to actually manifest, but if people think inflation is coming back and get worried about it, that's the other thing that's going to drive Bitcoin over the medium to long term. Yeah, I think there was 2 interesting points there that stood out to me. The first was agreed. It is kind of an odd time from a certainly from a volatility perspective, Chris, not only as you pointed out a Bitcoin but also in equities as well. And one of the things that I think people get hung up on is that volatility is bad, right. Like we had a report last fall, it was really focused on volatility of Bitcoin relative to other asset classes. And there's a perception that volatility is bad because most traditional assets exhibit more downside volatility than upside volatility. So just because you know, Chris is saying that he expects volatility to be higher than what it is in Bitcoin going forward doesn't necessarily mean well, you did say as well you expect correction. So there will be downside volatility, but also means Bitcoin historically has exhibited a lot of upside volatility has typically more good days and bad days when you look at volatility there. So that's I think one thing that typically falls short, especially for people who are entering the space, you know, new to Bitcoin and they just look at the high volatility, but they don't fully understand kind of the picture of how the performance skews. And then the other thing as well as I always just find it kind of humorous, the money supply thing kind of in 2020 when I started to dig more into the macro, the fiscal and monetary story and global liquidity and all that, it made a lot of sense to me intuitively that you would want to own the asset that performs best in an environment where credit expands indefinitely, inflate, you know, money supply expands indefinitely. But it is so interesting to me going back to earlier in this conversation where you mentioned the term currency debasement or I'm sure even just M2, a lot of advisors, a lot of people don't even look at M2, right? They, they've learned about it in an econ class in, in college or, you know, finance class, and then they don't really think too much about the money supply. Maybe that's changing, but it is remarkable to me that you can look at global M2 and you cited 80 to 90% R-squared. A lot of the price movement of Bitcoin is simply explained by global liquidity. And so we're in an environment where that isn't necessarily going to change. And I just it, it's always remarkable to me. It's not not to say that's the only thing that impacts Bitcoin, but maybe people need to kind of like come back to first principles and, and understand more deeply what's, you know, what's moving the markets at a macro level of muscle and a micro. Yeah, that, that is one of we touched on before. One of the hardest things and one thing I have tried to show people to, to get this point across is price something like the SP500IN gold. And of course you can do this easily with with charting stuff nowadays and it's like it hasn't moved in decades, right. And of course, you, you maybe you should take the total return to account for dividends and cash flows to be fair. But Even so, it, it's like, wait a minute, I could have held just this non cash flowing assets, this inert metal and, and done just as well. And Michael, you asked about gold earlier, so we can get to that. But obviously we view them the same, the same way in terms of their monetary properties and and store value and hedge against potential currency debasement. But investors aren't doing that as much. I'll steal from from Yuri and Timmer again, where he's he says he views gold and Bitcoin different players on the same team. And a lot of times it hands the baton back and forth. So if you look historically, gold makes a move up, Bitcoin follows usually in a much bigger way. And then they take turns consolidate and moving back up again. So it'll be interesting to see what happens with with gold again. Again, back to my point of potential rising probability, I should say maybe still low, but rising probability of, of stagflation and higher inflation for people. And then I do want to go back to your first point, Jackson, on, on that report you put out, because it's one that I, I love to cite. And I know Mark Connors, who, who put out the term, you know, good cholesterol, bad cholesterol, there's good volatility, bad volatility, Absolutely love it. I, I asked him if I can use it. He said sure. I, so I, I shamelessly have stolen it because that one really resonates with advisors. And my favorite chart to show is if you look at the distribution of returns for the S&P, it's a pretty normal distribution in that shape that, that, that bell curve shape up, it's slightly skewed to the right. So there's a positive mean. So every month, if you look at it on a monthly basis, the the stock market's going to go up a percent or two, maybe down a percent or two. And the Bitcoin is like completely flipped inside out of that. There's very few occurrences in the middle. So it's either on a month to month basis going to go up a lot or down a lot. But to your point, historically at least, there's been a lot more positive occurrences on the right side. So you have more good volatility than bad. And that is one of the most underappreciated characteristics of Bitcoin, in my opinion, for the traditional finance space, because it completely flips on its head everything you've ever been taught about it, which is risk equals standard deviation. And there's good reason for that. The old adage stocks take the escalator up, the elevator down. The reason traditional finance is so, so enamored with, with volatility is because it's almost always happening when things are crashing, right? So they see volatility, you can almost assume bad things are happening, things are crashing, right? But you look at Bitcoin, you see volatility, like, wait a minute, there's, there's more volatility on the upside, on the good side. How does that work? And then all of a sudden you realize, oh, you can actually harvest that volatility. You can rebalance, you can pair that back. So I think more advisors need to be aware of that potential amazing characteristic of of Bitcoin that is not evident in any other asset class that they own guaranteed. Yeah, I think it's a great point. And also bringing up the gold aspect is simply from like this notion we'll be playing a little bit more into on RIP institutional, on sound money renaissance, right? Like these concepts we're talking about if you go back, you know, hundreds of years, like there was a base currency, it had a certain amount of inflation and then everything was measured against it. And to Jackson's point, going back to first principles, there's X amount of Bitcoin, there's X amount or infinite amount of monetary units that are continuingly created. So you look at if you have certain fundamental properties of Bitcoin that are fundamental, you would say, well, then the price, if I can underwrite this, the price should go up, it should increase in some value. Now I have to figure out like, what's that number? I think one of the key aspects is it's been looked at as a risk asset. So we talked about the two to three percentage in a portfolio, but whether it's personal or institutional. And that naturally skews people to be like, I can forget about it because if it's only 2 to 3%, it may go up, it may not, but it's not really going to impact. And I think this notion of sound money renaissance starts to change that 40% in the bonds allocation. We've had Jerome Blockland on the podcast and I think he's one of the first to pioneer. What he does is his 6040 and I think he's, you know, performing a lot of funds is 60% is in blue chip equities and then the other 40% is weighted heavily in gold and then some component to BTC. And I think that framing is going to change fundamentally when individuals to your point start looking at gold versus the S&P and looking at just hard assets, how they perform against assets that continue to be created. And then thinking about well, maybe this isn't just a trade of 2 to 3%, but this is actually something much greater. And then that that's the easy way to start backing into Bitcoin. And I think as I don't know if it's a community, but just the notion of Bitcoin and crypto being lumped together starts to put it into a bucket versus Bitcoin and gold should be more closely aligned to your pointing with Jordan shared, because that will open the aperture for investors to think about it in a completely different framework. Especially in the world where we're going. I think gold is going to be the the leading indicator, not only on price, which just hit all time highs today, I think over 3500 an ounce, but really in the, the understanding of sovereigns already are accumulating this thing like nobody's business. It's part of the reason behind the capital, the price rising. And so I just think that's going to be a theme that we'll start to see play out increasingly over the next 12 to 24 months. And obviously Zoltan and others have been ahead of it. We just had Luke Roman on the pod yesterday. But I think that's still taboo. And the PTJ's, PTJ and Druckenmiller camps versus in the mainstream, it's still nowhere near, you know, kind of just in the the everyday path. This is exactly the challenge we face. It's like the path of least resistance is to get people off 0 and say, and just, you know, think of it as like a little bit of a risk or speculative or, you know, Eric calls it like hot sauce for your portfolio. And of course they lump crypto in there. But on the other hand, you know, I personally believe like, like you, it should be viewed in that other bucket as a risk off asset. And it's like if you think about it from first principles, fundamental perspective, Bitcoin's the most risk off in terms of its characteristics. You know exactly what it's going to do. It's going to take out these blocks about every 10 minutes. You know exactly how many Bitcoin are out there, how many are created. There's very few unknowns with it versus things like equities where you don't know cash flows and all this stuff. The problem is the path of least resistance to get people to adopt it is to think of it like risk on when they should think of it like risk off. But if I pound my hand on the table all day and say this is a risk off asset, it should be viewed differently. But they just trade it and treat it like a risk on asset. Well, guess what? It's like self reinforcing. It's going to trade and look like a risk on asset to them. And so this is like the paradox we find ourselves in. And I'm not sure exactly how to get out of that other than, you know, maybe we just start to see some data points. And, and maybe we saw that with like when Jerome made the, the, the comments about potential rate cut or what was viewed as evidence of potential rate cut, Bitcoin went up a little, but the rest of crypto went up a lot. So maybe people are starting to, to get this through their heads, but I don't know how to do that. It's like, it's like if somebody's eating soup with a fork and I tell them, no, this spoon over here is designed to do that, but they just keep using the fork. It's like I don't know how to help you. Yeah, it it goes back to the chicken or egg thing. And the reality is it's kind of a crude example, but the notion of do you want to make money or do you want to be right? Because being right would say it's risk off. But if you want to just meet the market where they're at and make some money, you start with it's risk on. And that Nat, you have to get somebody off of 0 anyway possible because then they naturally will look at it. Luke had a great anecdote about his buddies and 2010 we're going down to Latin America to buy it peer-to-peer. And they finally got him to buy it in 2013 on Coinbase. And this was just him doing due diligence on a new asset. Had very small account, but he watched it for four or five years, thought it was a bubble in 1718, saw a crash. And then in 2020 he's like, wait, this isn't a bubble. This is a currency problem. And so it took seven years of him to be exposed to it to realize it's a risk off assets. So there's just a, it's a function of how do you get them there? I get one thing I wanted to touch on because it's going to come increasingly back. How do you think about like the basket of currencies that they're going to start to push to advisors? Because it kind of falls into this. You already seen it with some of these. I think yesterday Safer had a great tweet. There was like, I don't know, it's two Bloomberg terminals pages. It looked like at least 100 of ET. PS And you know you're going to see the top 10 market weighted crypto assets and how do you feel about that for the industry and kind of part of this conversation, is it helpful or is it going to because we've seen for 15 years it's underperformed. I think you've seen natural the top ten and there it always moves, right? So on ETF, XRP and all these things. Just curious how you think about that and from an institutional perspective. Yeah, I actually don't have a lot of opinion here yet, so I'll I'll withhold until maybe I do. Other than we've been very adamant of put Bitcoin in its own bucket, emerging monetary good, best understood as a monetary good and then put everything else in another bucket. And therefore you're going to have to have a different lens of there's going to be a lot more competition. You know, the, the favorite thing we like to point to is look at the top coins besides Bitcoin and three years ago, four years ago, five years ago by market cap, look at look at the list today, maybe one or two is still on that list. A lot of those don't even exist anymore. So those are the odds you're you're up against, right? You have to have way more of a venture capital lens on this. Know that there's way more competition. A lot of these don't have product market fit yet or they're still trying to figure it out. But to your point of like meeting people where they're at, I, I guess I see, I see why it happens in the the appeal, right? It's like, well, it's this is an X trillion dollar asset class. So if I want to just be neutral, I'm going to allocate X percent because that would just be like the market cap weight. So I understand why it happens. But we'll see, Yeah, we'll see how it plays out. Well. I know we're coming up on time here. Chris, is there anything else that we didn't touch on that you wanted to today or do you think we we got through all the topics? You know, I think we covered a lot of ground here. This has been a lot of fun. Thanks for having me. On excellent. Well, thank you, Chris. Really appreciate it. Great conversation. You have great insights for for people who are not familiar with your work, where would you like to send them? Yeah, all of our, almost all of our research is on fidelitydigitalassets.com. So you can sign up to receive our our research there. Just click on the research tab. It's all on our website. And then me personally, you can find me on X at Chris J Kiper. All right. Thanks again, Chris. Thanks for listening to this week's episode of the show. If you found the information valuable, please share the episode with a friend or leave a rating on your favorite podcast app. All the links we discussed in today's show will be in the show notes inside your podcast app. Before we finish, a quick reminder that On Rat Media is for informational and entertainment purposes only and nothing should be construed as investment or legal advice. Regardless of where you are on your Bitcoin journey, we'd love to hear from you. Visit onrampbitcoin.com Contact Schedule a consultation with one of our private client advisors.
Transcript source: fountain