Transcript+
What you're telling me is that music is about to stop and we're going to be left holding the biggest bag of odorous excrement ever assembled in the history. Of gutless. 1974198792972. 1000 and whatever we want to call. This it's all just the same. Thing over and over we can't. Help ourselves. I say when we sell. Hey, OK. I say when we sell. Well, well, well, we're back. We decided to show up this week for the last trade for people who tuned in last week. It was very unclear at the end of the last episode if we were going to continue the show, but clearly the support was there. And so we brought in Bram Khanstein as our honorary 5th guest of the week. So we have Tim Kotzman, Michael Tanguma, Brian Cabela's and Brahm Konstein. Brahm, how are you? Thanks for joining us today. Oh, good guys. Yeah, I'm super happy to be honorary member of this band. Yeah, this is this is going to be exciting. We have a lot planned from the media side. But I think the plan, Rahm, you can correct me if I'm wrong, is you'll join once a month or once every couple weeks to catch up on the latest and jam with the the group here, which is going to be super exciting. Yeah. So thanks for having me guys. Exciting. Thank you. So let's take a look at the price chart. I was really hoping we wouldn't be in the 80s again this week because I think we've just been pulling up the on ramp terminal for weeks now and we've been staring at the same price. And so it's a great opportunity for people who are under allocated, which probably most of you listening right now are under allocated. So it's good to ante up, buy some more Bitcoin. Why the prices are low, but they're not going to be low for much longer. And Brian Cabela's is going to tell you why right now. Brian, why are the prices low right now? And and why are they not going to be low six months from now? Well, you don't even have to listen to me. We've got folks from BlackRock going on CNBC and basically saying the market is wrong and, you know, elucidating the the facts around bitcoins, monetary properties and the fact that it really is a risk off asset. And I think, you know, one of the talking head interviewers was like, well, you know, what if we enter a recession, isn't that bad for Bitcoin and risk on assets? And he was just like, no, like it's actually that would be great for Bitcoin because it's a non sovereign asset, can't be debased. It's actually, you know, pretty bullish if we if we were to enter a recession, which seems to be people sort of base case at this point that you know, everything from tariffs to everything else in the in sort of the macro picture is that, you know, equities are probably going to continue to to trend lower here for a little bit. And then at some point there's going to be some sort of flip to quantitative quantitative easing. And even Powell yesterday at, at FOMC had some comments that sort of signaled that, you know, he, there was one quote around. There's just more uncertainty in markets generally, which it was a very vague comment, sort of a throwaway comment. But at the same time, it is a bit of a signal that, you know, the, the pivot to easing maybe sooner than we think. And also, if you just look at like global liquidity that's already pivoting back upwards and you know, that's, you know, one of the more sort of high signal metrics you can look at in terms of correlation to Bitcoins price is just the level of global liquidity. And that that is now rising again. Because there's, you know, while we've been in quote UN quote quantitative tightening for some time now, there's been sort of stealth QE happening behind the scenes and then X US, we've already sort of flipped to Kiwi in various countries. And so, yeah, all of that is to say it's kind of wild. We're still in the 80s, but it's just a it's a reminder that most people have no idea what Bitcoin is. They don't understand it. They don't understand that it's a risk off asset and that this is, you know, very mispriced at the moment. Brian, the Chief tea leaves Officer at On ramp. I appreciate you breaking down yesterday's presser from the Federal Reserve. Totally agree with what you just said there, Brahm. What are your thoughts? What have you been paying attention to in the past couple of days? Doesn't have to be about the Fed. I mean, we all know there's Fed speak and they do a lot of it. But what are your thoughts about where we are currently? We're at $85,000 per Bitcoin. What do you think? While Brian was talking, I'm just, I was thinking about something that I say quite often, which is Bitcoin is an asymmetrical opportunity based on publicly available information. And you know, Jackson, like, like you said, like or, or Brian, like not many people understand Bitcoin yet, which is logical because I think it's it's you know, the whole what is money topic. And, you know, understanding that before you even understand why you should move into, into Bitcoin with all the characteristics that that it has, right? Like it's, it's a hard thing to understand, but when you see what's his name, Bo Hines, he's I think, yeah. Executive director of digital assets for the US government, he says the US is going to acquire as much Bitcoin as we can possibly get so that is like out there in the ether and we are at 86 K, which is like the new 58 Ki don't know guys like it's extremely extremely early and it keeps fascinating me because yeah again it's publicly available information so I think that is actually what's been on my mind the last week is like yeah I just I I I I cannot believe we are still there and so. I think part of the component is like there's a one, a general cognitive dissonance with the reality and the facts and the public information that you're referencing. But there's also like a rationalization for someone on 0 where even though the US government is embracing Bitcoin, they will rationalize that to themselves as, oh, this is just Trump. Like, I don't really believe that he he believes in this thing. It's just a move to, you know, scratch the back of his donors from the from the campaign. Like there's all these different ways that people can rationalize it in their brain if they're on 0 where they can say, well, I haven't missed it. I'm not, you know, I'm not late. This thing is still not real. Yeah, I agree. Well, and, and what you say with the public information we see, we see Jerome Powell blaming inflation on the terrorists that didn't even start, right? Like, it, it just, if you see this clip and you're, and you're kind of paying attention, like this is pure gas lighting, right? Like it's literally, it's in your, it's in your face, right? And I listened to, I think it was Geordie Fisser with Pompliano, one of the latest videos. And they talked about like how, you know, the whole restructuring and, and, and the economic approach of the current administration is like an easy target to blame things that are all were already in motion, right. So blaming the tariffs and etcetera. And it's fascinating again that you in the same week you see Powell do that. Yeah, just a just a mirage basically. But yeah, if if you're following the guys in the suits, sorry, sorry Tim, but you know, the guys in the suits on TV, yeah, you're not getting the right information. And again, I think that's why it's so hard to, yeah, just grog Bitcoin and and, and kind of like get over that hump. I think there's two aspects to call out is 1 is we think rock Bitcoin, we think like change the world material allocation and most people cannot fathom how that's even possible. So they just won't even like look at it to even get off of the zero. And the other one that's the most fascinating and it's I've learned this just from the experience the past few years. Building on ramp is the majority of the market. And we know this is like consensus driven. They're just always going to go with a crowd. And it reminded me of bonds and Bitcoin. They're like inverse. They're in inverse mirages, right? Like you have bonds and everyone just knows their negative yielding that there's not enough support and liquidity and everyone just plays the game and still allocates. And then on the other side, people look at this 15 year old asset that continues to go up into the right. It's been the best performing. And also will everyone will look you dead in the eye and say it's a Ponzi. And what happens if like Quantum, right, like if there is just a natural mechanism with inertia and until you get to a certain amount of like that penetration of bonds or a Ponzi and Bitcoins, not you're always going to have this like occur. And then that's just going to flip eventually at some point, ideally sooner, so Jackson can move out of wherever he complaints he lives. Thank you, Michael. Question about that guys, because I, I, I agree. I also think it's kind of like this, this Fiat thinking unconscious, right? Like it's the 0 sum game mentality always trying to find like, you know, This is why it wouldn't work, etcetera, right? I think we are on the total opposite side of of that with regards to to Bitcoin, But I I think people will still fade it even as the price goes up. So maybe a fun question like do you think, because I think like even if we're at a million, there will still be people that say like, no, it's a Ponzi, this will never work, etcetera. So I would like what's the price where with what you just said, Michael, where the general public is like, oh damn, I should actually pay attention. What do you guys think? I think it's less about the price and I think it goes back to Michael was it used that said it consensus around the asset. And so I think as soon as we start to see states adopt it with within the US, where I think at the sovereign level, where the US government actually finds budget neutral ways to acquire more of it. And then you see other countries follow suit. And a lot of countries are doing this kind of behind closed doors already. I think once you have these large sovereign balance sheets allocating to it, and then you also have at a more micro level, states, townships, smaller communities identifying Bitcoin as a way to better the lives of their constituents, it'll become more obvious. I think until then, until there's not more, let's say, social proof or there's not more institutions that people want to follow the lead of, it'll continue to be this echo chamber, microcosm ecosystem of that we exist in currently. But I do think that we're really close to that shifting and it's going to happen incredibly fast. I also think yeah. I think like gold parody, I think is an important sort of line of demarcation for people that are like, again, rationalizing it to themselves why it's not real if it's, you know, at parity with gold. And the thesis for a long time that they've heard is it's digital gold that that there is some sort of confirmation there that's very hard to ignore. So I think that would be that would be an important point. But up until then, I think there's always going to be detractors and skeptics because if they're on zero and they just see it going up, that's going to make them more angry like that. That's going to make them, you know, even more hardened in their stance, potentially. What? What if I tell you they'll adopt it and everything we're talking about has less about it has nothing to do with Bitcoin. The way it'll happen more than likely, and I've been thinking about this a lot, is it's the best meme we've probably ever had in this space because it encapsulates what Bitcoin does. It's just a savings technology. And we saw this in Japan, I think, or not Japan, Hong Kong in like the lit in 2019, like nobody used signal there. And then the second that there was those like protests and all the things associated signal went through the roof. It's like once you have a need for the underlying product, then it just makes it so much easier. And so with inflation running rampant, and then once the market credibly understands that it's not a speculative asset, it is a savings technology, then you can naturally just go into it and you don't have to understand how it works, why it works, what it is, why it's a million, why it's 3 million. You just know that as it compares to your local currency pair, it goes up and lets you buy more eggs than less. I think that will be the ultimate driver, not Bitcoin. But Michael, it's so volatile. How can you save in Bitcoin? One thing I wanted to talk about was I saw a great update or or pack of charts from Charlie Bello from Creative planning and what we've seen in the United States over the past at least two decades, probably three. With the rise of passive investing and mutual funds and the equity market becoming the proxy for savings, at least here in the United States is there have been a ton of drawdowns and pretty significant drawdowns in the equity market. But that doesn't mean that people still don't use US equities to save their wealth. So in the 16 year bull market since March of 2009, so the low of the great financial crisis, the S&P 500 is up over 1000%. So those are nominal gains. We know that the real returns are lower if you count for debasement, but it's still a nominal 16% annualized return. And over that period, so over that 16 year period, there's 30 corrections of 5% or more, 10 corrections of 10% or more, 4 corrections of 20% or more and one correction of 30% or more. And so Bitcoin is still more volatile than that. But the point is if you have a long term bias and you want to save your capital and preserve your wealth over the long term, you just ignore the volatility. Like if you have a financial planner and you're worried about the COVID crash in March of 2020, they're going to tell you, well, calm down. You don't own your equities because you need the money today. You own it because you want to retire 10 years from now or you want to retire 20 years from now. And so it's the same thing with Bitcoin. I don't know why it's that hard to understand. If you take a long term bias to the asset class, everything will be OK. It's the same exact thing. And so that's really the critical thing to think about is if you're saving, if you're viewing Bitcoin as a savings technology, think about it for four years or more. Most people that are involved are thinking about it longer and it's it is providing the same purpose and vehicle that other asset classes are, but it's even better at doing that. Just to take the other side of that though, to to empathize is ultimately gold. Like we can't fully understand because we've never been on a gold standard, the amount of profound like effects it has from a societal even in our DNA. There's a reason where we're like intrinsically like just people still hold gold. Love it. That happened over thousands of years. What we're seeing is happening over 15 years, a real, a net new global reserve like substrate of all economic activity happening before our eyes. It's so radical and hard to pick up that to your point, Jackson, it's true. But at the same time you can't touch it, you can't feel it, you don't. People don't know what money is. So everything we talk about here, while it's relevant, it still goes back to meeting people where they're at and helping them get there because it's just still so hard to pick up all of those. I agree, and I'll take the other side of your other side because equities haven't been the preferred way to save for the past 100 or 200 years. It hasn't been as quick as 15 years of Bitcoin, but these are still things that happened generation by generation. So if you look back 100 years ago, people are using precious metals to some capacity to save. Government bonds became popular as well, especially around or after the Great Depression, because people were generally worried or scared to park their money and equities. So these things do change over time. I think it's really only been the boomer generation past 40 years or so where the equities in real estate or real estate is longer, but equities at least have been the preferred savings vehicle. So I think you're right. I agree with you. But I also think that five years from now, it'll be widely understood that Bitcoin is a critical part of saving for the long term. I hope so. I think that the one caveat is like equities are just a derivative of, you know, price exposure to a business and you have a basket. Like these are all things that are easily understood from cash flows perspective and why you would move over from bonds to something that can accrete higher nominal yields. To say this underline jumps is that easy? But to your point, your point is taking that it's mimetic. So the sooner somebody recognizes they can protect their wealth, it'll be it should be quicker. Maybe this is a contrary take to both of your takes, but I was thinking about the the, the gold parity. I actually, I had, I debated a huge gold bug on one of the biggest podcasts in my in my country. And he was pounding the table like, oh, it's five 6000 years old and it's used etcetera. And then I asked him like, OK, but this like, OK, yes, this is the characteristic of gold that is superior to that of Bitcoin, right? Just the track record, etcetera. But if that's the only thing you're you're using like is, is gold a meme coin? That's what I asked him, right? Because it's about a story, because it's yeah, all the Egyptians used it etcetera. And so I think eventually every asset also now, Jackson, you're talking about the equities like it's a story. It's like, hey, this is a way for you to to build wealth. And and maybe when you're early to something, you can actually verify what it is, right? OK, We're early to equities etcetera in in that in that time. But like over time kind of like that factual verification, let's call it like it kind of fades away and then it just becomes a story, if that makes sense. So you go to some financial advisor and they're like, yeah, you got to diversify in gold and inequities, etc. And then you're like, yeah, okay, sure. I'm just going to follow this financial advisor where whereas with Bitcoin, everything is verifiable for you. That's also I think why it's so hard to understand. It's, it's, it's so opposed to all the other options that you have to save and and store value that it also kind of like sounds too good to be true, if that makes sense. You know, like, yeah, you can verify everything for yourself. Oh, really? Well, all these other things that I can use, I actually need other people for it, if that makes sense. It's a good. Point around the track record because if that's, if that's what you're hanging your hat on on like why gold is superior to Bitcoin, like that's inherently a blind spot to anything new, right? Like you're you're, you're inherently excluding anything that isn't, you know, doesn't have 1000 year track record, which just is not like intellectually honest. Yeah. I mean the reality is gold still the base reserve currency, even though we can't exchange it, it still is like that's a fact and it's not a story about gold. It's because gold has objective properties that make it the bet had made it the best form of money and Bitcoin has objective property. It's not a story that Bitcoin has value. It's because there's certain objective properties that individuals like us come to the conclusion what we want it as our money. So I think like it's all relevant on the story, but it's still, these are just deeply rooted and, and economic reality. Like nation states have the majority of their wealth and how they store it not in bonds, it's in in gold. So we have to be like truthful as well, like what it is because people have to build back up to how we got here. And if it's like a story, then like, what do you end up in the Calcanis stream where you're like, you're like, well, there's a better story out there. Well, yeah, so I agree with you. So that's maybe also the point I eventually wanted to make is like, yes, that is true. But as you said, objectively Bitcoin has superior characteristics. And once that exists and and it's your job, for example, to figure that out, like what are assets that exist in the world? How can we store value? Like you cannot ignore Bitcoin based on the characteristics. And then if you keep using, as Brian also reaffirmed, like the story. Right. Then it's a weak argument. That's more my point. So yes. I love having Brahm on. This is going to make our the show so much spicier because, because and. I'm not anti gold, I just don't know. No, no, because. Well, no, I'm not. I mean, I'm I'm I'm pretty, I'm pretty, I'm pretty bug. I'm pretty pro Bitcoin. But but where I was going with it is actually Bitcoin does not have superior properties to gold today. And the reason why because it doesn't have the liquidity profile. So no nation state can actually protect their wealth in that in the future. That's the idea, but that's just that's just fundamentally true. Like no nation state is going to be able to go right now and protect their value. I guess theoretically like they could, but that. Don't you agree? Don't you agree that the the line of that switching is very thin? I mean, what Sailor talks about like if, if America adopts Bitcoin or if America sells gold, not even all the gold, maybe 5% of the gold or whatever Lummus is proposing, right? I think it's around 5:00-ish percent. Maybe Tim knows that better. That's a signal. That's a signal that, hey, there's this other asset that is at least equally as good or even better. I, I would argue because I'm selling the one thing and I'm buying the other thing. And so I'm diversifying in the most base layer important asset of, of my country. Like that's a, that's a huge signal. And of course, when you hear Sailor talk, he's like, yeah, sell all the gold and you buy Bitcoin because then you demonetize all the gold reserves of any other country. I mean, it's an evil plan, but it is true. So in that sense, I'd say that line is very, very thin for people to realize, hey, if this other thing is on the same level, I should, I should pay attention. I definitely agree there. I think like the fact that we're this far along in a monetization of new asset in only 15 years, which you're describing, that line is going to move fast. Yeah, so that's definitely true. I think like we generally think it happens sooner. I think the gold bugs and folks that are tied to gold think it happens longer. There's probably some middle ground where it doesn't happen as fast as we want, but it doesn't take as long as, you know, boomers would expect. I agree. Yeah, Zooming back in, I wanted to pull up a chart from Nidig that they published in their newsletter from last week. Think it's worth discussing just in the context of strategic Bitcoin reserve policy, what's going on around the world, but tying it back into the volatility. I'll make this a little bit bigger just in case. It's hard to see it's assets pull back from their post election peak. And so bitcoins peak from where the price was prior to the election was a 54% return, but it's still sitting at 20% higher than it was before Trump was elected in November. And so when you compare this across the board, because as we know, this year has been volatile to the downside for traditional markets, especially equities. We've seen a lot in tech, tech stocks as well. Bitcoin is still outperforming everything else. So it's a good view and a lens to have. I think I did get it did a good job in putting this chart together because yes, Bitcoin is $85,000 currently. Yes, it was $109,000 at some point in the past couple of months, but if you just take, you know a six month look at it, it's still up 20%. And so the fundamentals continue to improve. We could talk about the supply and demand imbalances that will likely occur this year. But if you, if you just take a look at this, yes Bitcoins volatile, but if you have a strategy to take advantage of the downswings and then also dollar cost average into the market as well, it ends up benefiting you for the long term and it ends up growing your purchasing power faster than any other asset class. Yeah, I love this chart because it really, you know, hones in on on this idea of like short, short termism is really the norm in Wall Street and traditional finance. And like even a six month period is long for for most folks in that world. And so like even just zooming out to to six months, you realize, OK, you know, while the sort of narrative around bitcoins volatility recently has been like, oh, it's crashing, right. Like it's crashing back down to the 80s. It's like, OK, well, it's actually the best performing assets since the election. So like, it it flies in the face of anyone's preconceived notions about the volatility or that, you know, we somehow topped or like, you know, we're just have have crashed to this level. It's it's just not the reality. And, and so even zooming out to this, what I would consider still very short term, 6 month period that that should be eye opening for folks. But I don't know if if trap folks are looking at that chart. I think they're looking at week by week, you know, month to month charts and and thinking that way. Yeah, maybe one thing to add there, I had, I remember the tweet from last week about South Korea's central bank dismissing establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve. And one of the quotes was price volatility is very high. And you know, when you think about that, OK, central bank should have a long term strategy, right? OK. And then they say price volatility is very high. But you know, I, I think we're kind of talking about how early are we and like, how do people understand this? How do they look at it, right? Because if you, if you look at the chart that you just showed, like it's pretty clear it's a good asset. You know, even in, in, in pretty wild times, I think where, where we're in, right? Like lots of stuff is, is happening. And then you have a central bank saying like, OK, price volatility is very high, but so they don't understand a central bank doesn't understand market risk. So the price volatility, the difference between that and and the counterparty risk, like if you studied Bitcoin, you know that one Bitcoin is one Bitcoin in the future. It's like the most extreme stable things in the entire world, if you think about it in Bitcoin, right. And So what I find so fascinating again, yeah, I love the word fascinating that the central bank says that, but they don't understand it, right. Like, and and that I think for me, shows why we are so early. But then when you show a chart like this, it actually should show people that, no, this is an established thing already. Like it's it's working. You, you can use it and, and protect yourself even in these times, right? So I, I like that, that bouncing back and forth because it's, it's just eventually, I think about just how much time you, you spend on it and try to kind of like challenge all the, the preconceptions that that people have. It's a great point. It's an exercise we've done for years in the sense of like, would you rather have 500K and BTC or $1,000,000 in a bank account and all the things associated. And I think it came out this past week because of the counterparty risk issue. And you know, you can always be debanked, wake up and have your just be completely offline, not be able to access it. But it came out this past week. I feel like I remember the names, but there were the, some of the big four banks that were now people that have been hacked. They weren't like reimbursing them because historically you would reference, you know, why, you know, multi institution and why insurance and all these things we do are important because you can't reverse the transaction IEA bank when there's something nefarious or malicious that happens. But now banks aren't even doing that because I think my assumption, I didn't go too far into it because but because social engineering and hacks are so prevalent, it's just like uneconomical because you have these boomers that are just clicking buttons. And this is how Coinbase assets are lost. Like their brains just aren't wired for the way that bad actors think online. And so even with banks now, even they don't have to do anything wrong, even though they keep, you know, failing. You just have to not click the right button or not have the right operational security with your Gmail account. And you may lose a certain amount of assets that don't get. Yeah, that's. The drop back, I think the, the intricacy there is that with social engineering, why it's, you know, so prevalent as a, as a form of, of crime right now and accelerating is because basically you're, you're tricking the, the end client to do something basically willingly. So it kind of like whether it's the bank or Coinbase, it kind of lets them off the hook because it wasn't like necessarily their systems that were hacked. The the person themselves was socially engineered. So I think that's kind of what you're referring to on and why. I haven't looked at this story either, but I know that's what's happened on the coin base side of things. Well, but the point being is like on Coinbase, it's a bare asset. You can never take it back. So it would make sense. But on the on the like it's just a Ledger in any other database. So they should theoretically be able to reverse that in the same way we have a fraud, fraudulent charge with your credit card. They can, but the fact that they're not doing that is already there's probably part of it is because it's so prevalent, then it's it ends up costing money just to go back to have to reverse that through the the banking system. Yeah, I, I wrote something on LinkedIn earlier this week just about the perception that Bitcoin is uninvestable because of all these problems that we're discussing. Because what's worse is what what's worse? Just not buying Bitcoin, not having any of it or buying it and then just not having it one day because your account, your social engineer to give up the credentials or, you know, send your Bitcoin somewhere or because you're on the next FTX and it blows up one day and you don't you didn't have anything in place to cover your ass. So Bitcoin is really just been uninvestable for people who don't have the time or resources or curiosity to figure this thing out. And that is obviously not a problem. If you have a Charles Schwab account, you don't need to figure out, well, how do I manage my SPY shares? You just buy SPY in your Schwab account and then it sits there. And then if you want the dollars back at a later point, you sell the shares and you have the dollars in your brokerage account. But Bitcoin is just has not been that simple. It's getting there. Like what we're doing is helping to make it more simple for people. The ETFs make it more simple for people, but there's still not a lot of solutions that actually make Bitcoin investable for the masses. Or it's just a perception thing too, right? Like the buy bit hack a few weeks ago, Like I think it hasn't been talked about a ton, but I would say that like that has contributed to some of the, the current draw down and, and correction that we've seen over the past month or so. Like, I think it speaks to exactly what you're describing of the, the confidence and conviction someone has in allocating when they see a, a, you know, a massive hack, the largest heist in, in, you know, financial history that gives people pause. Can we can we like pause on the buy bit hack for a SEC because I was thinking about this isn't meant to scare us or anyone, but I was just like thinking about I forgot I was sending an e-mail to a prospective client. It was it was. So the buy bit back hack we all know is like the largest hack or theft in financial services. But when you look back from a physical theft, it was it's about 20 X the largest. So the the largest I believe was in Iraq. It was 70 million from the gold that they had there. And then before that I think there was like 50 to 60 million that was a painting. The point being is this is 20X and this is digital online. Somebody can do from any place on the planet earth. We are just not really prepared for the firt like having digital assets online that are bare that you can never reverse and the asset price is only 8590 K. Like imagine 250,300 thousand, 500,000 million dollars. The level of sophistication like we are just not ready for it. And then the physical hacks come with it because right now people generally do them digitally. We know. So it's just a fascinating to think about. All the world's wealth stored in Bitcoin comes with a lot of like responsibility and infrastructure and processes that just aren't fully baked out. It's the we're so early paradox. Well, yeah, like in in that same conversation with that gold guy, we talked about this, right? Like if so, yes, this is all true. I think what Michael says. But and and also again, even if you understand Bitcoin, it's hard to make decisions as to what you allocate, how you store and all these things because every person has a different I'd say risk profile or preference or however you want you want to call that right? Because if you, yeah, if you store Bitcoin with on ramp, it's different than self custody. It's it's probably going to be way different than when you store it at a Charles Swahab or you know, so there's just different ways to do that. Just as now people have either real estate or art or stocks or or whatever. And so even when you understand the properties of Bitcoin and what it gives you in in true self custody, that's also not for everyone, right? Like, I think it's just eventually very personal decision. And so again, why are we, we are early, but this adoption goes really fast because it's digital. But again, it's like a 1 by 1 conversion, right? Because if once you do the work, you still have to decide like how do I apply this new knowledge that I have and how do I move well with this Bitcoin and, and what do I do with it? So I also think that's why it's slow and hard and again, why it's an asymmetric opportunity, because once you get it and you do the work to make these decisions for yourself, that's when you can actually have an edge against all the other people that are still figuring it out. At On Ramp, we believe that Bitcoin is the most important asset of the 21st century. The hard part is securing it right There are shortcomings with keeping your coins on an exchange, but also with setting up your own self custody arrangement. On Ramp solves for these concerns. Our multi institution custody solution maximizes security and minimizes counterparty risk, ensuring that your Bitcoin remains securely in your possession and provides built in inheritance planning to ensure your family is protected as well. On Ramp provides Peace of Mind for your Bitcoin journey, whether for your whole stack or for part of it as a compliment to your existing self custody setup. For more information, check us out at on rampbitcoin.com. What Tim, on your side, what's been like interesting in in the Bitcoin treasury world? Because I would imagine it's the spectrum just as wide as individuals when it comes to some get it and they're just now trying to figure out from a governance and consensus from an internal perspective all the way to others, like what the hell is this? And maybe I want some Solana instead of Bitcoin. Like, how are those conversations going? What? You've been leaving the other chains out of it? I had a call yesterday with someone that they've accepted Bitcoin on their business website for several years, but they're still considering whether they want to even be public talking about the fact that they have Bitcoin on their private company balance sheet. Which is understandable. Not everyone wants to be an Internet celebrity or even visible. But yeah, I mean, I, I think what you guys mentioned about the digital assets and the headlines of these hacks coupled with like there's going to be a point, I think in this administration where you see this overwhelming social proof, whether it's the United States buying Bitcoin or, or, or something like that, and the price is just ripping where people will get off 0. They still may not even understand it, but but it'll be this kind of call to research, call to study, right? We're just like FOMO, right? Like I don't think we've really seen FOMO this yeah cycle thus far. Yeah, yeah. There's two directions we could take this. I want to throw it to the group. So based on what Tim just said, I think there's an interesting anecdote there where a business is accepting Bitcoin for several years, but they are not sure how much they want to share about that because it opens up sounds like potential security risk to them depending on how they're managing the asset and it creates a higher profile that maybe they want. So One Direction we could go in and talk about insurance as part of a treasury strategy and then another totally different direction we could go in perhaps later. But Tim's to your point is as things start to accelerate at the nation state level, I want to talk budget neutral. That's that's the big buzzword as of late. So I want to toss it to the group. We're talking insurance right now. Are we talking budget neutral? I like budget neutral. Let's do budget neutral and then we can go. I think there's something to standardizing like in general what Brahm said I think makes sense right now, but over time, the only way we get mass adoptions, you have to standardize processes like a checking account works like a checking account, the Internet works how it does, I think. While we'll have. Preferential ideas on how we want to secure Bitcoin today. In the future, it'll have to be standardized from the individual to the corporate because that's how you're able to insure it and do other things. So maybe we can do that one later. Budget neutral it is, I've never, it never occurred to me that this was a, a term that would be thrown out. But as of the past couple weeks, it's, it's really the term. It's like, what does it mean? What are some ways that the US government can acquire Bitcoin in a budget, budget neutral manner? And so it might have been yesterday or the day prior, but there is a Tom Emmer who's in the House of Representatives in Minnesota had a, I don't know where he said it, but he's, he said that he was confident that by the end of this Congress term, so in the next year or so, that the strategic Bitcoin Reserve bill, so the acquiring 1,000,000 Bitcoin would be enacted before that term ends. And so then it ties into, well, how will they actually acquire the Bitcoin? Because they've made it clear in the executive order that it won't, there will not be any use of taxpayer dollars to do so. So budget neutral, I, I think there's a, there was a good summary or some thoughts that were put out by Vanek. I could pull it up if it's helpful of some different budget neutral strategies that have been identified. So I can just rattle them off real quick just for anyone who's listening. And then we could talk about them. So there's exchange stabilization fund. I don't really know what that means to be honest. So someone else smarter than me could tell me revalue gold reserves which I believe Scott Ascent said they wouldn't do recently but I may have misunderstood that. The third would be reduce the feds permissible surplus. 4 would be lobby IMF to include BTC in SDRS. 5 would be Bitcoin bonds. Bitcoin bonds is something we spoke about last week. We could talk more about that and then #5 sell the £1.4 billion of cheese stored in Missouri caves and then number six would be a percentage of Doge savings. So thoughts from the group on on these six ideas? I have a sell. The cheese market sell the cheese immediately. Like who's going to buy that? That's I have a lot of thoughts. Actually, I, I, I love grok. So I asked, what's the Exchange Stabilization Fund? It's AUS Government Emergency Reserve Fund managed by the Department of Treasury. Established in 1934 under the Gold Reserve Act, Its primary purpose is to stabilize the value of the US dollar and maintain orderly conditions in the foreign exchange market. The ESF can be used to buy or sell foreign currencies, extend credit, or engage in other financial transactions to counteract fluctuations or disruptions in currency markets that might affect the US economy. Well, you can read that in different ways, but that pretty much aligns with what. Seems like a pretty vague, vague slush fund. Yeah, of course. But I think to to use it to stabilize the dollar. I think that argument could be made, but I want to go back to to just the term budget neutral, right? I think there's different ways why that's a good term. I think one, it buys time because it kind of implies like, OK, I'm going to do it, but budget neutral means I'm going to take some time to figure out how. So you give yourself some some time. Whether that's strategically smart, I don't know. Because like on the other side, we've heard, I think it's also Michael Saylor who says it a lot, right? Like the first country that prints their own currency and buys Bitcoin wins. But that would even be way more obvious than selling gold and buying Bitcoin. I think like that, that would be like the total. I don't know that that would that that would call in crazy times. I think if if America would do that. So I think that's then you would basically also admit that the dollar is not a strong currency. I'm just giving it up, I'm inflating and I all all these things. So I think that that would generally be a bad decision. So they buy themselves sometimes, sometime and not using any tax funded ways, of course, ties back to what we previously talked about, just the whole view of Bitcoin. Half of the country didn't even vote for this stuff, right? Like, so that is just that's a narrative you cannot really defend. And then just the the budget neutral part, I think the the options that that you show and even selling gold, I'd say it's part of budget neutral. I think it's just a smart way to phrase we're still figuring it out. But at the same time, you see Scott Besent and Bo Bo Hines and all these guys, they are affirming that their intent is to buy and buy a lot, right? So the the the argumentation around why it's strategically important etcetera is actually amplified now in in the interviews and. That, that you see, it's interesting because it seems to your point, Brahm, it's becoming more obvious to us what the intentions are, but it's still very esoteric to most people. It's almost like the Federal Reserve, right, where people generally know that the Federal Reserve exists, but they don't actually know anything about what they do in terms of interest rate policy. How do they make decisions? And then there's this group of people that spend time on Twitter and on other platforms where they look at what comes from the Federal Reserve on a monthly basis. But most of the population pays absolutely no attention to that. And and you're kind of better off paying paying no attention to what they have to say. But the same thing is applied here where it's like, yeah, we're really drilling down now and we're paying attention to these snippets of information that are being shared publicly. But we're like in the point 1% of people in the world that are paying any attention to this. And I think that's where all the asymmetry is. Brian, you said it great eloquently earlier about how I forget the exact term used, but we're just relying on publicly available information to have a symmetry as it relates to Bitcoin. So that is like that's where I think we are. I'm curious to the group though. Any other thoughts on on budget neutral? I could pull up the thing again if it's helpful. Yeah, I think the would the exchange stabilization fund, I think that's a a likely target. The other one that seems likely to me is selling the stockpile of of altcoins. And maybe you like you wait for a quote UN quote alt season in the next six months and you you try to time the top of selling the altcoins to buy more Bitcoin, Bitcoin bonds is interesting. I think that would be a probably less likely in the near term. I could see that more medium term as a as a way. There's another suggestion I've I've read that, you know, partnering with mining companies to some extent. So like, you know, U.S. government getting into into mining and just, you know, generating Bitcoin themselves instead of just outright buying it, but you know, buying infrastructure instead. There's also this the golden visa idea that the Don has put forth. If that actually, if we see that come to fruition, that would be budget neutral. So there's a, there's a number of ways and and frankly, like I think there's probably a handful of ways that what Nick and Descent are currently concocting that we're not even thinking about. Yeah, Tim, Tim just added in the chat like the the that ESF is without any congressional approval. So I think it's descent with Trump that can actually determine if they can use any of the 39 billion that are in there. And I think actually to add, I saw a Lummus tweet about the audit that's going on, right? So they're auditing like how much Bitcoin do we have, which is also going to be a very interesting if they share that result, right? Because in general people talk about like, OK, the US has 200,000 Bitcoin, but I've talked to several people that actually say like, no, it's closer to 60 or 80. Like that is an old, old number. And they've been selling, you know, the Biden admin has been selling along the way. And so that's going to be interesting too. Because referring back to the to the buy bit hack, I don't know how many Bitcoin that is in North Korean hands right now like what they laundered, but that might be more than the US pile after we've had the the the research. So I think that's also an interesting dynamic there. I have like 0 take on this or care because I've just watched the government blow money in every which way and never had to explain how they did it. And so like it all just comes back to if they're going to want to do it and have enough of the consensus with whoever's making the decisions, they're just going to figure it out independent of it's on the five things on that chart or something else. It's an interesting. They'll figure out we might. It's just them selling it, like selling it to the American public that it's not costing them anything like that, that. And they'll figure out how to do that. You have to really, really feel like take like, I know sometimes we feel like we're in a bubble, but this conversation make me truly feel like we're in a bubble because think about all the different ways they're going to spend their money. And we're like talking about this one portion of it and going super deep. And then yeah, it's just a funny. It's funny. Awesome, nice, nice. Michael, it's OK if you don't care. We don't have to talk about. No, no. No, I'm just referring to it's just something I truly like, haven't thought deeply about because I just always assumed like it's with everything else, if they're going to spend the money, they're going to spend the money. They find a way to do it just like they were spending in, you know, trans kind of learnings in North Africa or whatever else that they found USAID was working on. Yeah, I maybe, maybe nice bridge to add to one thing, and this is not verified. I just saw a tweet that says the IMF board has warned Trump not to add any Bitcoin to America's strategic reserve, citing volatility and stability risk to the US economy. Again, it's unverified, but it wouldn't surprise me if they actually said that. But why do countries leaders, IMFECB, why do they pay attention to Bitcoin if it's nothing? You know, I I find that so. Yeah, that's always been The thing is like they just have all these words to dismiss it, but then there's just so much action and intent on trying to. Discredit. Yeah. Of. Course, but when you talk about it, you validate it also absolutely. I mean, I agree with you, that's what I'm saying. And this is actually a great anecdote tying back to Hawaii and also its utility. And ultimately you can't stop something that provides value. And this was I think something that got like under reported. It came out Friday, but it was Russia using crypto and oil trade with China and India. I would imagine crypto, they're referring to Bitcoin. I don't know if you're trading Solana for large barrels of oil via shipping tankers to skirt Western sanctions, but I think there's just this reality that Bitcoin provides the ultimate amount of utility and value, whether it's from moving large scales of commodities because your country needs them, all the way to your strategic reserves. And how do you get offset this tack of the debt situation we're in and everybody finds a way? Well, Michael, what do you want to talk about? No, it wasn't that I want to talk about. It's just like, I think it's like it's a good thought experiment. And I guess that's what this part is. It's just thinking through things. It's just the fact that like whether it's the thing on that list or something else, I think we all believe they want to get it done. They're incentivized to get it done. I think of Bitcoin in their arsenal as putty, like putty. It's just the thing that they're going to use as the asset appreciates to get us out of this debt situation. So they naturally need it to go up in value. And because of that, they're going to figure it out independent of if they do something on that list or some other, you know, crazy scheme that's never been seen before. It's just going to like get swept under the, the, the rug in the same way they sweep everything else under the rug when they allocate to things we don't appreciate because there's going to be a whole slew of citizens in the US that are going to think this is insane and they're just not going to care. In the same way that they do a bunch of things that they fund that we think's insane and it just doesn't matter. Like the, it's, it's, there's a guise of that it matters and there's democracy and all that. It really doesn't. They're going to figure it out and just get it through. How do you think about, you know, let's say that the strategic Bitcoin reserve actually gets actually starts, right and they're selling gold or they're, you know, any budget neutral way, they're just adding to it, right? I saw this take. I don't know by who it was, but they said like, what if the rest of the world just thinks America has gone berserk and crazy and they just think like Trump is an idiot, etcetera. And you know, they're they're crazy to do so. Do you think that's actually a legitimate option? Or maybe if yes, maybe that's actually even bigger because I think it would most mostly be like countries in Europe, right, or England that say that like we're not going to do it or like South Korea. But I think that would actually be an opportunity for smaller countries to adopt, adopt A strategy. So, so geopolitically, I think it's a very interesting thing, but I wanted to to to get your take on that. It's a great point because it it would actually track like you would probably should be from the past 15 years, be less surprising than it than it would be simply because it's less of the the powers like Bitcoin being emergent has come from the bottoms up. It's the people that need it naturally and have the the least amount to lose already don't have the the assets. So UK European powerhouses would with theoretically that would make sense. I think the thing that's interesting that came up, it's in Safe's book, I believe, but Cam from our team was bringing it up about like this notion that everyone's going to get Bitcoin ASAP is the idea behind India and China, how they pick the wrong currency because they had adopted silver for 50 to 100 years while everyone else went on the gold standard. And they literally like have suffered for that for for 50 to 100 years. And so I think that ties into Braun. What you're saying is everyone gets Bitcoin at the price they deserve, including countries. And maybe the the smaller countries deserve it sooner because they're going to be more nimble. They're the Estonia's, the UA ES of the world. Yeah. But then if you think about like the gunpowder analogy, that that could also play out, right? It's just like, OK, damn, I need to adopt this even though I don't understand it or don't like it or, you know, whatever any objection is. But then you have just like a like a, like a global frenzy in that sense, right? That that's what safety also says about the the gunpowder analogy. Yeah, it's an interesting thought. I think that there's there's a non 0 possibility that's that's sort of how this plays out Brown like, because I think it goes back to the the idea around rationalization and almost like a some cost fallacy of like, you know, if you're a Western democracy in Europe and like you're still clinging to the idea that you have a a sovereign currency that has some value. And then you look at what the United States is doing and you think, OK, well, you know, most of the Bitcoin sits in America anyway. This seems very self-serving to them to adopt it. That could be a line of thinking. And then it could also just be like, they don't like Trump and they think that he's the one driving this, when in reality, like that's pretty misguided because like, you know, Trump at the the crypto summit, the other the other week was like really signaling like this is not him driving this. Like he's like, sounds good. Like you guys are telling me to do this, like let's do it. So it's like. It's. Misguided. If if other countries around the world are saying like, oh, this is just a crazy Trump thing because it's not like it's, that's not who's driving it. It's people he's surrounded himself with that are going to be, you know, implementing this and executing on it. Yeah. But we started this talk with the market is wrong and we see like the South Korea central bank talk like like how they talk right. So it, it, it also looks like the people that should think rational are not always thinking in rational and long, long term way. So I mean, anything goes right like that. That is why this is so entertaining to to just watch and and see what happens. Yeah, maybe it's worth talking about insurance now, but before doing so, Tim, are you able to do a quick tie reveal? The tie is it's pretty long today, I'd say average to above average. So it's a light, it's a light orange almost, almost salmon. I, I did I, I think we'll have to let it up to the fans to really discern. What? Orange enough? Yeah, let us know, is that actually an orange tie or not? If you like the tie, if you respect that Tim wears a suit to every the last trade episode, you could rate the show 5 stars. But yeah, let's talk about insurance. Subscribe, Comment, and share. Yeah, if you don't like this tie, you can comment too. He'll take the feedback and figure it out for next week. Let's shed insurance. I think this will be a spicy 1 and I think it's a good one to have because Brom comes from a great side of that. Everyone is going to make their own decision I think today, but in the future it'll be a little different. So we announced before the pod and this, so this will come out recording Thursday, it'll come out Friday that we partner with Lloyd's of London and their syndicate partners to offer $100 million policy across our our platform to ensure clients assets. But why that's important or why it matters. And ultimately this ties actually into this whole conversation of why businesses, institutions, individuals haven't adopted, at least in my opinion. And I think Brian and Jackson share some of it is ultimately people a need to be educated on just like why, you know, there's only 21,000,000. Most people don't even know that. But once you get there, it gets to be more of common sense than like an IQ test because theoretically there's only 21 million. There should be some value. And then it's like, well, what is it? But the problem is when we talk with individuals or anybody that makes up an institution, which is it of individuals that Ponzi that it's a, you know, snake oil. It's used by bad actors. It can always, you know, whatever they're like. Objection is generally in sales. You know, the first objection is not the real one. And the way I perceive the objections is less about the asset. It's more that it'll always disappear the next day. So historically, for 15 years, there hasn't been an actual credible way to make Bitcoin custody bulletproof. You ultimately have to rely on yourself, which can be a potential single point of failure, or you rely on a single third party custodian. So that's why we exist to offer Peace of Mind to make that bulletproof. Now where insurance comes into play is because at the end of the day, full stop, the best form of Bitcoin insurance is the way the private keys are secured. So you want best in class services. That's what multi institution, multiple qualified custodians involved. But for financial services, for market structure, for larger institutions to come in and individuals, you still have to have to backstop that because there are tail risks. And so that's where this insurance policy comes in. But the beauty of insurance is it sometimes gets conflated because the reality is you can insure anything like Brom, that beautiful green shirt that you brought, you know, with the on ramp colors. You can go and ensure that in the same way you can ensure your private key Bitcoin setup. The question is, is it economically feasible? Because that ends up being effectively what I would think of as a snowflake. You have to go to underwriters. You have to have to understand the risk where you're segregating, how the keys are stored, what kind of proprietary on proprietary technology, What are all of that? And you end up in this set up where you have to pay 1 to 2% of your assets annually and then you still have to pay a premium anywhere between 10 to 50% if something bad happens. So that's kind of like out the door, unless somebody probably has billions of dollars, but then they're just going to be leaking Bitcoin every year. The other side of that, which most people know is effectively going to the large custodians. And they all know that's generally marketing or window dressing because the insurance policies are generally anywhere between 100 to 300 million for these large firms. But the amount of assets they secure is anywhere between 10 billion to all the way to Coinbase 700 billion. So there's no credible insurance policy there because they sit in an omnibus, which is just fancy word for in a pooled vehicle all there. And if there's ever a tail risk like a buy bit, you're never going to be made whole. So there's a natural gap. And that's ultimately what we're doing with on ramp and multi institution custody will be there'll be a lot more about this. But where this ties into what we do is effectively trying to democratize access for individuals that are coming into the space by making it bulletproof. Not having to go through all of the learnings we've all had to over the past five to 10 years of C phrases, multi state collaborative custody, like all these things versus just being able to just dissimilar like the Mosaic or the Nets Netscape browser where you can just tell friends, family, yourself, go through an onboarding, have a multi institutional wallet, secure large amounts of Bitcoin and never have to deal with any of the complexity. And it mirrors bank vaults in the insurance world. So bank vaults the if you look back into financial services, the way that that really grew was the uniform standards that banks had to adhere to by the dimensions of a bank vault. You can now start to credibly insure banks. You can start to ensure the financial products that they deliver. There hasn't been that uniform standard in the industry and that's why we're excited about this and what multi institution really is just scratching the surfaces on how much it's going to really change the market structure around Bitcoin, the amount of allocations that can come in and ultimately at the end of the day how people can get off the rack race of being debase and then have a better form of custody. Yeah, it's really well said. I think one, one element to highlight is that, you know, this coverage is coming at no additional cost to, to on ramp clients and it's, it's baked into the custody fees. And you know the reason for that, the reason we're able to do that is because multi institution custody by itself is extremely robust and secure. And so the underwriters were able to get very comfortable with providing coverage on our specific custody model because risk is distributed inherently as the keys are distributed across distinct entities and also clients aren't holding keys. So you're already eliminating a whole slew of risks that you would potentially being insured, you know, insuring against everything from the the wrench attack to social engineering. Those are already mitigated via the custody model itself. So, you know, the underwriters at Lloyd's were able to get comfortable with it pretty quickly and also do it at, you know, basically a, a price point where we could bake it into our custody fees. So I think that's that's just worth highlighting. Yeah, I think it always comes back to Peace of Mind. I think Michael and Brian, you both did an excellent job highlighting the value proposition. The most simple way I would put it for myself is you don't have Peace of Mind if you don't own Bitcoin because life gets more expensive over time because of the basement. Then you gravitate toward Bitcoin as a way to protect yourself from that. But then as Bitcoin grows as a percentage of your net worth, you have less Peace of Mind because you know that there's some sort of tail risks that exist out there that could result in a permanent loss of capital. So you could mismanage the keys yourself and lose the Bitcoin. You're you could pass away and your family wouldn't be able to access the Bitcoin. You could leave your Bitcoin on an exchange and the exchange could go under or your account could be compromised and hacked and you could lose the Bitcoin. So there's always like this lacking of Peace of Mind all the way through this Bitcoin journey. And so I, I love to sleep, as you guys know, I, I go to bed pretty early 10 PMI like to be in bed and I sleep well. And I and I sleep well because I have Peace of Mind about my assets and my Bitcoin. And it's because of multi institution. And now what we're offering to our clients, as you both mentioned, is the insurance is just kind of the cherry on top. The end of the day, it's all about the custody of the asset, the security of how the keys are managed. But now these like really outlier tail risks are mitigated through an insurance policy as well. And ultimately that gives me the Peace of Mind to know that my Bitcoin is protected for the long term and I can actually rely on this savings technology to preserve and grow my wealth for my family for. A while, yeah. And one thing just to add, like it sounds like, you know, we're talking our book, we focus on custody, but there's an actual reason why we focus on custody. It just comes from we've been building infrastructure personally in this space for half a decade. We've had thousands of conversations onboarded large amounts of capital and the common thread throughout everything is all of these conversations at education or feudal. If you do not, if you can act credibly offer the the the person you're trying to Orange bill or help a way that they're not going to lose all their assets. Jackson brought it up earlier and it's kind of a joke, but it's so true. Everyone will say that it's easy to put 12 words on AC phrase yes for $10.00, but not for meaningful amounts of wealth. And that person would rather have the next 20 years of negative yielding bonds versus put it and lose it the next day. Everyone would, including ourselves. If we just do not feel comfortable with all putting 90% of our wealth because tomorrow we lose it, we would just take the slow bleed. Our lives would get harder, but at least we wouldn't lose all of our money. And so unless custody is fully baked out and bulletproof, you're always going to be hindering adoption. And that's ultimately where you have to have a nice balance between, again, protocol being native on chain, the assurances of multiple institutions. We still live in a world where we trust folks, but at the same point, making it simple and easy without the friction of three plus years of having to listen to pods go down because people are on the rat race like that was. This is actually ties in really well Jackson to the podcast we recorded with Bob Griffin. It's a fantastic pod, one of the best we've done on the institutional side. He ran pensions institutional capital and he was just referring to, you know, he didn't really get Bitcoin until he kind of took a a leave. This is a very wealthy, you know, made his money, very sophisticated investor. He couldn't look at Bitcoin earnestly because he was just stuck working. When everyone's working and have their own busy lives, they can't just sit back for a few months. And he was sitting at a coffee shop and he heard folks like Brahm and Tim sitting behind him talking about Bitcoin. And he was just like, oh, what's that? And then he went and did the research. But imagine working your full time job trying to make ends meet or just trying to work at your hedge fund trying to make that next, you know, $1,000,000. You can't actually just sit around and think about this stuff. And then if you do, you're still like, it's just a Ponzi because I don't even know I'm going to secure it and not end up, you know, in the metaphorical landfill or North Korean. So it just naturally needs to be ubiquitous that somebody can get exposure to the space and not lose their assets. And that's when we're really going to see the fly, like the flywheel take off. Yeah. Well, I think we can wrap it in just a second here. I want to hear if anyone in the group has thoughts what we discussed today or maybe something we didn't discuss. What do you think the next thing will be that will move the markets higher? Do you have any guesses like what comes next? What gets us out of 85 Ki? Don't want to. I don't want to be here next week looking at 85 K on the terminal. I think I'll I'll have something to say that'll draw Kotzman out. I don't know if it was my own tweet or someone else's tweet, but the idea of like a huge serious company adding Bitcoin to their treasury. So either Zuckerberg, who has majority voting rights, Amazon, Dell, I'm thinking something along those those lines. So not, not, not a country or anything, but like a serious American entrepreneur adding Bitcoin to their treasury in a, in a, in a big enough way, let's say big enough way, like just in a serious enough way. Brahm, What about GameStop? Oh, yes. Oh, yeah. That's, that's where the tweet came from. Well, actually I talked, well, you also talked to Matt Cole from Strive and he he sent a letter to what's his name again? Cohen, Brian Brian Cohen, CEO of GameStop. Yeah. So or, or GameStop. Yeah, that's that's where the tweet came from, because people were talking about GameStop. So it's either, yeah, so GameStop, Zoc, Dell, Amazon, but I think GameStop is I, I think that's happening. You know, if you, if you think about what, what I love about Bitcoin that it's like it's it's true native Internet concept and idea, right? Like it, it originated there and that's how it's manifesting true. Not only the digital world, but the real world. And I think one of the memes that I love on the Internet is like the most entertaining outcome is the most likely, right? And the whole journey of GameStop is already dead. You know, the whole, the whole fight of, of like an online, decentralized online community, right? Just people that don't really know each other fighting against like the Wall Street shorters. And like just that entire story is fascinating. But like the cherry on top would be using that leverage that they created not only in terms of the money they have, but also the, the, the, the. Like. Yeah, like like the whole image, like how people view it, like, OK, so I'm going to take this 5 billion and I'm just going to plow it into Bitcoin and then I'm going to like better perform than any other company, you know, listed listed company, maybe, maybe maybe even more of the MicroStrategy, I don't know. But like, that thought is so it's not only entertaining, but it's also very logical. Like the the, the financial opportunity before GameStop to just catapult into the stratosphere along with Bitcoin. It is so clear. It's so clear. And yeah, that would be truly entertaining to watch. And that might blow up the Internet. I always thought like 100K Bitcoin would blow up the Internet. That didn't really happen, but this is this, this is going to melt the brains on on MSNBC. Like what are they do? They did what you know, So I I think I think that is probably the best suggestion. I I think that that would help it. Yeah. So like a company buying Bitcoin in a meaningful way. Yeah, I can see based Zuck giving Bitcoin the Zuck down. He has Bitcoin goats, you know that, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Is Goddess called Satoshi or something? Or I don't know, right? Or like I forget the names, it was like maybe one of them was like Max or maxi something. Like that? Yeah. Well, that's quite a Kawai in filming in person interview with Zach once he does that. I think it's global liquidity. Keep an eye on global liquidity. It's it's pivoting back upwards. There's typically a lag in terms of of global liquidity moves and Bitcoin and other scarce assets response. So I would just keep an eye there. Yeah, I think that's a great call. We didn't talk. I mean, we talked about gold, but we didn't talk about it tapping like 3050 or whatever. I think there's a lot I've, I've have solace in knowing that gold just ripping right now because it's just a matter of time before Bitcoin follows and then rips much harder. So that's fun. You love that yellow rock, man. Love the rock, you know, maybe that's that's behind the the color scheme. We got a little little gold in the, the, the tree. Can't forget you can't forget the roots from what what would you like? You know, you're you're part of the family now. You're going to be joining every couple weeks. What's a good segment we don't have that you think would be valuable and interesting to talk about that we can think riff on the next couple weeks before you come back? Oh, I like that. That's a fun idea. I, I think there's, there's two things kind of what, what, what passed here. Maybe like the most bullish take that we've seen and the most bearish thing that we've seen. And I think the most bearish thing I've seen was the central Bank of South Korea. Just, you know, talking nonsense, but like a bearish thing that maybe gives us hope or something like that. Something, something fun. Like just. Yeah, that's the first thing I like. That we could definitely do that. We were. We're gonna try to do signal and noise. We could maybe do both. I did have a noise for the week before we wrap up here. Actually, I saw the Vanek filed for an avalanche. ETFI don't even know what avalanche is. It's such a such a distraction. Oh my God, yeah. That's noisy Vanek, if you're listening. I mean I'll if. You see what you're. Doing out there. If you're gonna go noise, I'll go signal that, that that the length of Kotzman's tie is just. I can't get you can't get more bulled up. We talked about it at the conference. I think Brahms going to be there. You're going to see that thing draping on the ground just like. Just the longer the tie, the more bullish Tim is. The bearish The bearish thing that gives you hope is the price action right back to the terminal with Jackson. The lower it dips, the higher it rips. I love it. Stop talking. That's the ending. That's the. Ending Jackson, are you coming? Are you coming back next week? What do you what do we need to get Jackson to come back next week? We need Tim, we need Tim's tie to be longer so the price can go higher. I think because I'm I don't know if I want to do it next week if we're in the 80s still. I'm very appreciative of the the the listeners going in the comments and explaining how Jackson provides alpha every week. So that was that was nice to see. Like and subscribe like and. Subscribe. It was fun. Cheers. Thanks boys. Cheers. 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 to schedule a consultation with one of our private client advisors.
Transcript source: fountain