They're Coming for Satoshi's Coins | THE ₿ROADCAST EP. 28

Welcome everyone to broadcast part 28. This is where Bitcoin culture meets business and finance. We catch up on news, tweets, videos, charts, trends and any other Bitcoin and macro related content. That's that was in the past two weeks. Welcome back guys. Welcome back. Wrong. Does the CIA love Bitcoin? I am very interested to hear your thoughts, but first, where are the surface of Bitcoin located guys, I don't know if you saw this, but this professor Zhang, right? Like my my my thing with this guy. I have like full on gentleman amnesia with this guy. Like I watch a lot of his videos on YouTube, which are excellent lectures on a lot of different like geopolitical game theoretical subjects, right? But as with many people, and he's had like very bad comments on Bitcoin in in other podcasts. It is so funny that Bitcoin just exposes all these it air quotes intellectuals and they just keep on piling up. But this is probably one of the worst things I've seen. So I want to show it to you. I know you both haven't seen it yet, so I wonder what you think. Recognize that this is a CIA. So the moment people recognize that this is a CIA operation, people won't put their money into blockchain, people won't put their money into Bitcoin. They'll do like, I mean, why would I do that? You have to ask yourself this question, where are the blockchain servers located, right? Because I imagine if you're able to control the hardware, you can also control the software. I don't care what they tell tell me about open source and all that. I want to know where the databases are, where the servers are physically. So the moment people people recognize that, I mean. It's, it's funny because there's another like longer clip on TFTC where he also talks about like, who would invent something that is like super disruptive, etcetera and then just give it to the world, right? And so for me, it's these, there's a lot of like these intellectual people that are very black pilled. I have the same issue with Whitney Webb, for example, right? Like there's a lot of stuff that she gets right and she actually does like a crazy deep research. And then when you listen to her on a podcast, you're like, OK, you know, makes sense and it's all pretty fucked up and blah, blah. And then when she starts talking about Bitcoin, like the whole thing crumbles. Like the whole structure under her supposed intelligence and intellect crumbles. And I have the same with with with this guy. So, you know, I just wanted to throw it in as an intro and also just wonder what you guys think or what you are seeing with, you know, people that are supposedly smart, intellectual or whatever that just crumble on the on the Bitcoin topic basically. I just thought when he was referring to where the server is, I was just thinking about like Langley and wherever MSTR is, that's what I was coming. Like that's what I thought he was trying to drive. Yeah, I did. Jane Jane. I wouldn't, I wouldn't give him the credit of being an intellectual. This guy is came out of nowhere. Little little fishy, little suspect to me is posting these videos on YouTube lecturing to presumably no one. Like, I don't think he's an actual professor. I think he's just recording himself in front of a whiteboard talking about various amalgamations of conspiracy theories smashed together. I think a lot of what he says is is slop. Yeah, yeah. But yeah. There's no, this is truth so that you keep watching. But like to your point, to your original point, it's it the beauty of Bitcoin is it exposes you not only in the realm of Bitcoin, but I think it exposes you more broadly as like if that's your stance on Bitcoin and you're, you're asking that question and you're saying, how could you invest in blockchain, like you said, blockchain instead of Bitcoin? Like you're exposing yourself as someone who speaks with more authority than they actually have. Yeah, yeah, that's a good, it's a good point of the whole notion of you're either incompetent or you're fraudulent. Either way, I don't want anything to do with it until like if he, he's probably fraudulent in the sense of if he came out of nowhere, it's always a good heuristic. If you're allowed to be in that algo and you're getting that amount of traction, it's probably not organic. And so, yeah. And then the other angle that Brian said it's just tied into like the I didn't know anything about it, but I actually like, I'm glad we pulled up the market. Dresen reach our Maxine stuff before, because there is a real notion of like, if it is happening or it isn't, does it really matter? Like what can he do in effect? And so like, and I get caught in this. It's like you get on these rabbit holes. It's like, what are you doing? You know, so you can go listen to this guy and if he's right, it's the CIA. Well, then what does it matter if he's wrong? It's not the CIA. You know, like it's like, what is what's the point in his videos? There's nothing that changes. And the last thing on all of that is like part of the whole doom doom scroll and where that guy sits is there's real like economic forces to like keep this perpetually going in its direction with like slow degradation because you don't want to disrupt the the golden goose of effectively serfdom and everyone swimming into it. So it's not like I've come to this conclusion, I don't think and hope it's not famous last words, but like you're just going to get a slow degradation of like society. You're not going to get it kind of nukes or whatever it is. There's no money to be made there. Yeah. Now it's kind of like looting the treasury, but in a different way, right? It's just like you're you're you're on this wave of the degradation and you're not really changing anything. You're kind of like making money on the way down, I think is what what you're alluding to, right? Yeah, I said, yeah, it was muted. OK, I'll throw in, I'll throw in one, one more. You know, like this is on the other side of the spectrum. This is the the technologists. It's funny, right? Like I feel that the technology Silicon Valley type people, they are kind of looking for an crypto exit strategy, right, Because everything is basically trash. Then there came Z cash, which was pumped in like 10 days and then it crashed and then there was. Tau. Right, decentralized AI compute something, something, whatever. And then we have Jason again, who's been sitting next to Chamath for ages on the, you know, explaining Bitcoin and he still doesn't understand it, but then, you know, tweeting about, you know, you should buy Tao and sell Bitcoin, etcetera. And I just love this tweet. Like Bitcoin is up 11% since Tao and Tao is down 4%. I think it's even more because there are some developers that left. But anyway, it, it's, it's just so interesting that so many people and you guys know that I'm on this train, right? So many people are so close, but they are also very far away of actually getting it. And I think, Michael, to your point of just now, like there's a lot of people who are on this doom train, right? Like there are a lot of people that would say like, oh, Quantum is going to kill Bitcoin. But at the same time, they, they probably have the same question that Zhang just had like, oh, where, where are the servers located, right? So I think it's just all kind of lazy and and boring. And that's also why we're just so early, right? Like millions of people watch this professor who's not a professor that I think that's correct what you said, Brian on YouTube and of all the rabbit holes he goes down in, by the way, I think central banking hasn't really passed a lot of the content yet, right? So that's also, it's also interesting that he's kind of fading that, which arguably is, you know, upstream from everything you would want to fix in the in in the world. Next link was from Brian I think. Yeah, this was from Eric Balchinis of Bloomberg talking about Goldman jumping into the Bitcoin ET game. This is a little bit different than just spot Bitcoin ETF, they're calling it the Bitcoin Premium Income ETF. So my assumption is there's some options strategy component to the product, which kind of makes sense. If you if you think about Goldman, they probably want to charge a little bit more than just a spot spot ETF. So going to try to do something, you know, quote UN quote more sophisticated with with some sort of income strategy attached to it, which will inevitably, you know, cap whatever the upside of this thing is, but maybe a little bit less volatile than just owning spot. But that, all of that aside, why this is interesting to me is that it comes on the heels of last week, which, you know, we didn't, we didn't record last week, but last week Morgan Stanley's spot spot Bitcoin ETF went live. They undercut the entire spot complex with their management fee at 14 basis points, which is 11 basis points lower than IBIT. And so that that I think was a spur imported signal in the sense that Morgan Stanley's an actual bank. Everyone else who's launched a spot Bitcoin ETF is an asset manager of some kind. Morgan Stanley has over $9 trillion of client advised assets and they don't really launch a lot of ETFs. So it was kind of a departure for them to put their name on a product like a Bitcoin spot ETF. And that went live last week. I believe on Thursday was the first day of trading. It did pretty well on its first few days. I think close to close to 60 or 70 million on those first two days. I'm not sure what it did earlier this week, but then this is just this is sort of the snowball continuing of, you know, the bending of the knee. These incumbents realizing that on one hand they can make money from this thing, on the other hand, bitcoins not going away. So they're seeing real client demand internally. And why not just build the products yourselves instead of allowing your existing client base to just go buy another firm's products, which is effectively what has been happening for the past two years with Black rocks. I bet these wealth managers and banks have seen client assets allocate to, I bet they're, you know, they get some marginal fee on, on the overall management of that, you know, someone's portfolio, but they're not getting the management fee with the actual fund. So if they're seeing that real client demand underlying and they notice things not going away, makes total sense that they want to get into the actual issuance and distribution game themselves. And so I think this is pretty important. It's, you know, another step in the direction of, again, that snowball of institutional demand, but also just like broadening access for not even institutional investors, but just people with the brokerage who want exposure. Yeah, I tend to agree. I think the big insight we've been talking about is that this is truly a retail driven phenomenon. And because of that, these banks and other institutions, they have client demand and and that's bullish for Bitcoin. It's bullish for also more sophisticated substantial products will evolve over time because the individual will naturally demand other things that those institutions have to offer them. So seeing Goldman step into the game makes sense. Morgan Stanley and there's that's just starting. I think Schwab next quarter or their wait list just started letting people off which Schwab's no no joke. I think the only person or large firm of that caliber still sitting on the sidelines is Vanguard. Vanguard had switched out their CEO. So I think you would imagine they're going to be stepping in some capacity as. Well, yeah, I don't, I, I think it's interesting. I don't really know a lot about like how big they are or stuff like that. But Mike, you said it seems to be retail driven. Do you really think there are more and more people that are demanding access to Bitcoin through their banks? Like I'm just wondering how that. Different levels of retail. I think what historically would be perceived as retail and crypto is literally just an average guy with a coin base account. That's kind of not what we're talking about. We're talking about more of someone who doesn't have a Coinbase account, but has a brokerage account at a Schwab or Goldman or Morgan Stanley has historically managed their assets and they're in a 6040 portfolio, but now they're going to be effectively solicited to have anywhere from zero to 4% in something like a Bitcoin ETF. So that's a it's, it's a different cohort of retail, but it's still retail. You could think of it as like maybe upper high net worth retail in in some regards, but that's how I would kind of. I mean, it's empirically the whole structure of demand from this last cycle that ran up. We didn't get enough necessarily like proper bull market in the sense of the reflexivity and a bunch of traditional retail didn't step in. It was the demand of the people that have brokerage accounts, RA's, advisors that wanted exposure. And the version I always talk about, it is like wealthy people don't catch a falling knife. And what that generally means is they'll wait for the price of something to retrace and then bounce back up because they don't need to catch it. They're in preservation mode, not in like crazy growth mode. The other version of catching a fallen knife is sending your funds to some third party brokerage that you have no idea when you go on any of these websites cracking Coinbase wherever they look like gambling casinos. That's not what they do. It's not the user experience. The flows come in from a bank offering it right next to the brokerage and RA, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. And so it's not necessarily they're building these because large institutions are coming in. They will come in because they're price driven. But the reality is this is a again, retail driven phenomenon where the individual and also because that maps directly to the consensus around how do you get to the allocation if you're an individual client, you know, think about you getting in, maybe you talk to your significant other, but who else did you have to get on board? Like that's who gets in first to this asset class. That's who has gotten in first. So anyway, because even like the, the, when you look at the 13 FS, like a lot of some of the 24, when the ETS got launched, when it was the 13 FS that if it was institutional hedge funds, they were playing like the, yeah, they were trading it. So they were long and then short the futures where this stuff where they're looking to make money is on the acquisition, they're retaining on assets under management. And then really the flow of capital outside because that's why Schwab and these banks are getting in is because they have the analytics and they can see capital leaving. And it's really interesting flow because when you think about somebody buying a boat like about makes up .3% of somebody's wealth or whatever it is. And then maybe they make it up. But when it leaves the coin base, it's gone forever. And it usually starts to like, it's a one way trade. Usually people are like putting more of that capital in. The next thing you know, you're probably sitting like a lot of us just taking in your income and then it goes to stacking Bitcoin. So it's a rational thing. Why you vertically integrate that to retaining client relationship. Yeah. And the value. Yeah. Well, I I think that is actually interesting because you could frame it in a it's it's like how to say like a threat mitigation almost right. Like like you said, it's usually A1A1A1 way St. and I just wonder. So I don't know, I agree with what you guys are saying. I just, I just wonder how big that is or is becoming so big that a Bank of that size decides to step in, right? Like that has to be a significant amount of of demand before they actually, you know, go up through all the ranks and whatnot to design a product and, and, and, and basically commit. And thus also, I'd say legitimize Bitcoin as a financial asset. And then the better it does, right, the bigger the lock in for an entity like Goldman is to just keep on continuing and, and keep on talking about Bitcoin in a way that is supportive. So I, I, I just think this is just an interesting, interesting development. Like I've, I've walked around in two different banks and like, shit goes fucking slow, right? So, so there has to be some sort of actual demand or business opportunity or on the other side the threat mitigation that just is like, you know, we shouldn't be allowed to miss this boat. So we have to offer something anyway. It's just a, it's a like, it's the same reason where the US has adopted and take the favorable stand. So the ETS were allowed. You have this persistent inflation, it's structural and you need assets that are reflexive that don't impact like socioeconomic factors, right? So like real estate has not been the greatest sponge for consumers or citizens. And then the equity markets as well, where if you have gold and specifically Bitcoin and these ETFs, they're reflexive in that you can just absorb a lot of capital, you can generate the fees. And then to your point, this is really where the sophistication of a financial service firm steps in. Because if you think about Fidelity as an example, everyone knows the story of they were sitting around in 2013. And as any good firm does, is they're looking at like, what's the thing that would disrupt us? How do we disrupt ourselves first? And it's not really rocket science. If you look at this thing that looks like gold in a digital world and has these properties and will continue to grow because the fractal of awareness grows, why you would not want to sit between that? Because somebody else will. And the reality is a lot of the financial institutions aren't necessarily sophisticated. And the other angle of this is like the notion of kind of Kuiper put this out in the paper and this is a different flavor of positioning. But if Bitcoin got to 120,000, why wouldn't it get to 1,000,000? Like you basically have to have a really great position for that if you're not going to do something, because if you don't, you should really look at it and you should probably figure it out because then that means when capital is going to be leaving your firm. And a lot of people don't take that stance. They really, I was just talking to a bank yesterday and the guy was saying or guy that worked at a bank and he, he was, he was more of an off the record, less around the bank kind of conversation. He was referencing like still internally they think all the stable coins, Bitcoin, it's all just like a fad. It's like, well. Fascinating. Yeah, Yeah. I mean, similar sentiment when I worked at a bank is like, we're not going to acknowledge that we're on this burning platform and basically disrupted by the what what is it like 4040 thousand existing fintech startups who all just take, you know, a little part of this big conglomerate and just move way faster and leaner than this oil, oil tanker one thing. Just to add to that, like, so I talked with a lot of folks that are looking to buy banks in like specifically in Texas, because you just have these wildcatter mentalities. It's like we need to add Bitcoin to it. You know, we gotta, we gotta build, build the future here. And when they tell you it's like they, they basically want to rub their head into a wall because they go and talk to the board. These are not big banks and the board of these banks run auto dealerships and they're fifty, 60-70 years old and they're getting whatever coupon, whatever equity, they don't want to rock the boat. So you take that, you extrapolate that across the financial world and it's like nobody's going to get fired for just keeping the way they're not hurting until it's like the chicken or the the Turkey thing where you're like up and to the right until you get killed and then you're blocked. And so like, that's just the status of where all this stuff sits. Yeah, yeah. Just one other thing to your question Brahm about like well, what is the extent of the client demand bin? I think there's a a few different ways you can look at it. One, you can just look at IBET and say and the flows into iPad were, you know, it was the most successful ETF launch of all time. 10s of billions of dollars have flowed into that product. So that's one element. But then the other way I would look at it is it's almost binary because you know, the client demand was enough for them to want to launch their own product. It's either a yes or no. Like was it enough for them to to put their name behind their own product And clearly it is. And so going on a go forward basis, all that matters is now. The the client demand per SE doesn't matter as much because for the past two years it's been reversed solicitation, meaning if you're an underlying client and you want to get into IBIT, you've got to ask for it. You're not being sold it actively. So now that all these firms are building their own products, they are now incentivized to actually go solicit those products. So they're going to, they're going to generate the demand themselves on their trillions of dollars of assets. You pulled the chart real quick because then we got to go. But like, this is the whole thing in a nutshell and you still have this happening and people refuse to look at it like. It's really what I wanted to say is literally what I want to say. So thanks for like just what Brian said like this. The fastest growing ETF ever. Yeah, but Bitcoin is still a Ponzi or whatever. But yeah, how? Goldman's building a Ponzi product, obviously. But I think I think to be fair, this is the status and we're going to talk about some other stuff like you have to take this isn't we're live in a clown world. We truly live in a clown world where things damn right, there's books, Orwellian books, blah blah blah. So this doesn't make sense. And so just when something's working and people think it's the hot thing also doesn't mean it's right. I mean, that is true, as with everything, but I think if this doesn't pique your interest to actually understand why in this example, BlackRock would do something like this and why there's even demand. Yesterday or day before I was in this LinkedIn discussion, I fell down the trenches again. And it's just like all these finance professionals, right? With these tag lines. I'm a finance, I'm a certified finance, blah blah. Now Bitcoin is a scam. It's a Ponce. In addition to that, you know, and I just reply like, OK, tell me, please tell me who's running it. You know, So I mean, it's it's, it's it's also that a large part, I would say of the threat by world is just coasting on a system they don't even understand, right. And it's just working because they're doing their little part in the in the scam of Fiat money and the sloshing around and the moving around the Fiat money and whatnot. So similar as people in the in the banks like it, it is better for them to not understand it, right? Because it would give them probably an existential, existential issue. But yet again, This is why Bitcoin is such an asymmetric opportunity, right? Like it's just so interesting. It's just fascinating. I just think it's just fun, fascinating to see. Let's move on to the next one. Mike, this is your link. If something happened to you tomorrow, could your family access your Bitcoin? Not probably not. They would figure it out with certainty. I thought about this a lot. You may feel confident managing your own keys, but are your loved ones? Billions of Bitcoin have been lost already because someone died without a plan. With Onramp, inheritance planning is built in directly into your custody setup. Your Bitcoin stays segregated and in your control, insured through Lloyds of London and accessible to the people you choose when they need it. Get started in 15 minutes. Book a free consultation at onrampbitcoin.com. Onramp secured by three controlled by me. I pulled this up because I think part of what we forget in this world we live in and specifically around Bitcoin. And then if you're building a business, you have to naturally be adversarial thinking because you always have to look around corner of what can kill you. And so if you look at this chart, if you pull it up, it effectively showing that about 20-4 months ago, 2% of the Bitcoin circulating supply set and ETFs or Dats and now it's closer to 12%, which is pretty substantial for 24 months. And I think that ultimately this goes back to just like the knowledge of really the centralization of gold and where gold failed. And I don't think obviously we're in the same trajectory right now, but I don't even think it's the centralization per SE. It's the centralization of like economic nodes and actors that can help change the trajectory and narrative. In the example here today, that's the closest is like quantum because I think we all objectively know that quantum is very theoretical and probably way too far in advance to be worried about. But it's the panacea or the anecdote that is actually the virus, which is let's go and change these addresses. And whatever got proposed today, I haven't looked into it. But the point being is that's when you start to see and you start to sniff out, well, if you have some of the largest economic holders and they haven't done this work and so they barely figured out Bitcoin, now they're not going to figure out the second and 3rd order effects around moving address structures because of this, you know, false security risk, you end up in a real interesting spot. And I think that's where we're going. And so ultimately, I think this works its way out. And again, this is the bullish case around retail, meaning individuals driving this, that as the price appreciates, people will demand better underlying custodial setups. And I, and so like, an example that I was actually thinking about is like, you almost could make the case that it's more rational for a sailor who has at least two or three custodians to have one. Because if it were, regardless if it was three or five, if one goes down, the whole value prop just crumbles the whole thing, right? I think we all agree there. Like it's just dead on arrival. Well, that opens up the attack surface because now you have to trust 5 custodians to do everything you're needing versus just Coinbase because the Coinbase goes down. You're done either way. And so anyway, it's just structurally not fundamentally sustainable and it will change. That's why we focus on what we're building at on ramp. But I also think that it's just not really understood as second and 3rd order effects because everyone cheers on how much Bitcoin sailors pumping and you're just going to see the equal equilibrium hit where they all start to go. I don't know if I signed up for this, but I digress. Yeah, Bron, what's your threshold? Where would you get uncomfortable? How many, how many coins the sailor have to cover up? Well, I. No, well, I, there's a, there's a few things and I'll, I'll, I'll connect it to this, right? Because this is what was proposed today, right? The big 361, I think the very, very short summary of it, I haven't read it fully, but the short summary of it is kind of like, you know, people get three to five years to adopt something, something, something. And if you don't, you know, after a quantum type event horizon day, whatever, or even before, that's the whole issue here, right? Like when do you implement this? And then if you don't adopt this, then you know, you cannot, you cannot touch your coins. I think that that is stupid because I believe I will get to the answer to your question. I think that is a stupid proposal because the market should just decide, right? So I there's a few things like there's a trade off between, you know, this, this makes you meddle in a certain way with the ownership from a centralized point of view, which I think doesn't fit Bitcoin. But also if if and big, big if, right, if there would be an actor that would, you know, turn, turn on their quantum computer and decides to hack Satoshi's stash. If they dump it on the market, we go down hugely, you know, whether or not there's a quantum, you know, post quantum solution that you could move to. Satoshi's coins are obviously most vulnerable. Let's say we even move to a post quantum solution and, and people move, except Satoshi's coins, they get hacked and then it's dumped on the market. Yeah, I, I just see that as, you know, let the market do the work, right? Like it's just, it's going to be a generational buying opportunity, I think. And it would also be a super retarded to fire up a quantum computer hack, hack the Bitcoin and then just dump it on the market like that. I don't know. I just that that doesn't compute in my head. So anyway, I I just believe in the market. So I think your question about Sailor is valid, right? Because I do think there's a certain bad perception of, you know, him holding 1,000,000 or 2 million coins, however far he gets before other big parties wake up. I would say. And I don't really have an answer to that other than, you know, it's just the market, like anyone can buy Bitcoin, right? Like why, why would you tell someone like Sailor or whoever, like, oh, you shouldn't buy that much Bitcoin because, you know, in the future XYZI mean yeah, it's it's it's just the edge you have understanding Bitcoin today. I don't, I don't know. I think just to add to that you made me think of. But what do you think? Is that an answer or not? Well. We'll look at just about how economically irrational the quantum thing is because you have this like long tail risk. And I don't think anybody that's talking about it would disagree that Bitcoin sits at 500 to $5,000,000 a coin and that long tail risk whether it's three, 5-10 years. So at that level of price, that means that the dollar is inflating and people are recognizing Bitcoin is structurally better or has some relevance compared to gold, right? It has the same profile from a amount of value capture in it, meaning sovereigns are all holding it more than likely. So if you're a sovereign and you've accumulated this position because it's more than likely a sovereign would get the energy and the the ability to build a quantum computer in this fucking crazy theoretical sense, Like why would they dump the coin? Because that would irrational they go then they would hold the coin and what would they sell it for? They would sell it for commodities that they need, maybe gold and maybe oil. So it just doesn't rationally even play out like what would you do with this coins like E Vietnam. It's a race to build a quantum computer. There's going to be a lot of economic benefits and then, yeah, you just have. Yeah, it would. Be like a really great. The only possible reason why you would is if you didn't have any, and then you wouldn't be selling them. You'd be hacking Satoshi calling to have your own bags, and you wouldn't. In that future, in that future world, you're basically like India post gold standard where you pick the wrong currency. So you can't even develop the quantum computer because you don't. Right. I mean. Yeah, Yeah. You don't have money. Yeah, exactly right. Yeah. Yeah. So it doesn't. It doesn't. Yeah, it's illogical for me, but there was one point and then maybe reply to what I said about the market that you made that I saw a tweet about and I'm trying to find it. There's a lot of trees floating around the. Other day, No, no, like I replied to someone about this like you said. So it could be that some parties right with certain financial firepower decide, OK, the quantum risk is real, right. And we are going to pool our resources and all that stuff, and we are going to create and support a certain hard fork that is post, you know, post bond to prove something something. And you know, this is the little by line in the Black Rock ETF terms and conditions, right, where it says, you know, in the case of something, something we can in a change split, we can decide which which fork to to go with, right. And I do think this is kind of like a threat where this is because these bigger parties have, I think, a different risk profile than, you know, crazy Bitcoin and huddlers or whatever decipher punks 5 people. And so it there could be a point in the future where certain parties combined would actually support also in marketing and stuff like that, right? They would support the development of a art fork to to become quantum proof. Whether it's legit or not doesn't really matter. Like, you know, the actual quantum threat is actually legit. I think doesn't really matter. The fact that they then fork off is the is the issue. Right? Because then eventually it's all about the perception of who are. Who are you believing? I mean, that would be kind of fucked up. I would tell me more matter though if quantum materializes or not even in that. That's what I mean. That's what I mean. It doesn't matter because if it doesn't materialize and that coin goes to 0 because it was not necessary to do. Yes, but wait, wait, sorry. This is exactly the right answer that Brian is giving, right? So this is so you need to even zoom out even more, right? Because the I think what people need to understand is that anyone can fork off, but in the end, the very long, long, long, long end, right? The longest chain wins basically. So what you're saying, Brian, is that when it dies off because either quantum materializes or or not like 1 is going to die, like there could be a chain that dies off that is technically superior? So this is what I was trying to tease out when we had Odell on the pod and he didn't bite. And I think it's because it was early, but it's starting to come more and more to light like this. You hear O Saylor and others talk about it. The point and I, I had this discussion like a year ago about, you know, how the fork wars played out. And it was this example of this is also why the 2nd and 3rd order effects of centralization are really important because if you have these economic actors holding these assets, you're basically, you know, selling out your ability to share which fork you want or hold both coins and watch which chain wins. The way that it'll probably get mitigated though is so one part we left out is that they could dump the the non quantum coins, the non quantum fork. So they dump the market there. But the rational thing is if you're holding your Bitcoin in any way that you have a choice would be to dump the opposite to buy back those coins at the suppressed price. And at the same time, if it's more than likely led by the black rocks, the MSTRS, the Coinbase of the world, this is a global asset. So you have everyone else globally saying, I don't know if I like that because I'm holding this underlined. So they'd be on the other side of the game theories. They're going to be selling the quantum, the quantum resistant and buying the others. And that's the real game theory that keeps this whole thing in check. So if they ever try it, like I think that's kind of like the final boss for all this. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I fully agree. And, and, and it is also a, I think it's a very, very realistic scenario as well, because that is the way to, to, to hijack Bitcoin also. It would be shocking if there wasn't. We have to remember, yes, there is an incredible amount of power in seniors over the money, so why wouldn't you try everything to control? It yeah I think I found the tweet bit pain. If a quantum computer materializes it's going to happen you cannot stop at the fork without the giant quantum bonanza is the more valuable fork and it is the one that will be chosen by capital therefore minors yeah micro strategy I bet AL will signal before any hard fork is activated and all intelligent capital will flow. I don't necessarily disagree that agree that people are going to dump, but the point is more that this is what we're talking about, right? The fact that they will signal a certain direction and then the plebs need to figure out. It also probably wasn't around in 17 to understand what happened with Coinbase and the rest of the large incumbents that we're trying to afford and the the two Bitcoin seeds, iron cold storage and runs as I don't know what he does. I agree. With what he's saying here, because there's also a lot of nuance that's left out of this screaming in terms of like, OK, well, what is the actual quantum proofing that is done for that coin? Is there a different alternative path that the non quantum fork or you know, the original chain goes down that's maybe a little less invasive, a little bit more conservative that it'll actually be fine and work out? Because I think we're already seeing a lot of different proposals that have been put forth over the past few months. And then even last week something was like basically insinuating like Bitcoin is kind of already quantum proof. It's not, it's not a practical solution at scale, but if you needed to use it, you could in a quantum proof sort of scenario. So I just, I, I don't think that that leaves out a lot of different variables in the sense that like if the quote UN quote quantum proof coin is going about quantum proofing in maybe not the best way, then that doesn't just automatically mean that like that that side will win ultimately in the market when that, when there is a change split, you know what I'm getting at. Yeah, yeah. No, I, I, I, I agree because the history gave a president, right. But I think just talking about the scenario being a very realistic and logical one and probably also the Coinbase side, right, the incumbent or a big industrial side, whatever will have, I would say way much fire firepower and also way more capital on the line, right? It is different from a block sized wars in that sense. Which, which should concern everyone, Is that framing or somebody like Nick Carter saying like that? The large firms you're talking about will just fire the deaths because in a world where that could happen, it's a slippery slope. It's another road to serfdom because why would they change something else that they felt was was of concern? Like it's just not rooted in first. Principle, I agree. But this is the this is the game, right? This is the Bitcoin game. It doesn't have any value. Like if that's how it wins, change other things and then it's just money again. It's just Fiat. And then it just doesn't work. Yeah, we didn't work the whole thing. Yeah, but that that is that is the game. I want to say that Bitcoin started, right. Bitcoin started as a parallel money system. And like you're saying that there is a way to cut. So let's say there's you have Fiat, you have Bitcoin, there is a way to move back from Bitcoin to Fiat, right? It is creating a hard fork for, you know, whatever sad reason. It's the same as like in the EU, they would not want to introduce, you know, this age verification for the kids, right? OK, we're going to hard fork Bitcoin because of quantum, OK. And then a certain amount of people are going to follow whatever the marketing says and and then it happens. What what you're saying they're just going to slowly adjust, just adjust it and then they can just go back. The whole, the whole point is that the the plebs are basically in charge, in charge like Bryant is alluding to. I mean, could be in charge, let's say it like that. Yeah. I mean, I think where this all goes is there's precedent from like technological cycles that we end up in a much more centralized system than we all thought or or romantically wanted, but you end up at scale with more decentralization. It's the whole idea of like today more people than ever, self custody. But relative to the amount of people holding Bitcoin, it's pretty small. In the same way that like when technologies come out, they're so powerful, you can, you can effectively harness and like think about the Internet. The Internet allows for a lot of things, but it generally people use it in a very censorship form way or trust trusted way. But you still have encryption, you still have the ability to do these things. And I think that's where Bitcoin ultimately goes if it's going to win is you will just have the ease of stable coins and centralized systems and all these things, then you will always have that ability. And that's what allows it to work because it's that powerful. But most people do not want that. They they don't want to associate with that. You see this again with the Internet with encryption and telecommunications that people generally take that path, but it has to be that's where the nation of the notion of it CIA created or not doesn't matter because it either works or it doesn't the same way like theoretically like it actually is true that the Internet was created by the government right. When you go back to DARPA and like for it was during the Cold War for communications between different countries or whatever schools in the US that that powerful system has to be able to work on both sides and then you just create the ease to central. Yeah, I agree with you there. All right, let's move to this one. This is Brian, I think. If the Bitcoin price doubled tomorrow, would you feel good about how it's being secured right now? Most people have not really pressure tested that. And I get it. I have talked to people who have self custody for over a decade and others who've stayed on exchanges because they could never get comfortable managing their own keys. Both camps have real concerns. That is why we built on ramp multi institution custody so no single company can lose it, move it or use it. Lloyd's of London Insurance inheritance planning built in and a team that can walk you through the entire setup. Get started in 15 minutes. Book a free consultation at on rampbitcoin.com On ramp secured by three controlled by me. Yeah. I mean, this has gotten kind of a lot of buzz, so I won't go overkill on it. But we didn't cover it on this show because we recorded two weeks ago. And this this sort of broke last week in the Financial Times. That prior to that, there was a report in Bloomberg 2 weeks ago that for the Strait of Hormuz, the sort of toll system that Iran was setting up, that they were accepting stable coins and yuan potentially. And so people ran with that story as sort of a crypto narrative. But then the Financial Times came out with a piece that quoted a, a particular guy, an Iranian official in their sort of oil and gas union saying specifically Bitcoin was being used. And, you know, I won't go into the details of what he got wrong or right about how Bitcoin works. I could, because I think it's kind of beside the point. I think the point of it is this is now in the zeitgeist that Bitcoin could or should potentially be used in this context where you can't trust your counterparty. You don't want to be able, you want don't want to trust your counterparty who you're doing business with if you're, you know, conducting a toll system where you need payment relatively quickly. So gold is not really going to work that well in that context. And then you also do need to do it basically outside of the dollar system because Iran is a sanctioned country and also can't really use stable coins because they've had their Tether accounts frozen as well. Bitcoin kind of becomes the only option that works for them. And so whether or not like, I kind of, I don't think it matters whether or not this is actually being done at scale to any extent. I think the fact that it's even being discussed as a potential sort of settlement layer that would be helpful in this context, I think is the signal. I think it's important that that's in the zeitgeist because it it really gets at the core of Bitcoins unique properties from a monetary perspective and why it would be useful in this exact context. And you know, it goes back to the the old clip of, you know, Bitcoin is for enemies. And this is sort of the perfect encapsulation of that concept. Yeah, this is one of the most bullish things I've seen in Bitcoin for a while because I. Agree. It's the ultimate version of winning. Like if you don't have oil, I keep Brian's been on so many pods with me. I keep talking about I've never read this damn book and it's generally, it's basically where this is all about the prize, the epic quest for oil money and power. Because it starts at like, you know, oil in the Middle East and then the colonization from British Petroleum to like the US. And it's a function of everything that derives as like, how do you get energy? The point being is if you're a sovereign and your citizens don't eat or able to live or thrive unless you can get the energy, well, then you need to get it and you're going to pay in whatever way as it always goes to the same thesis of like Bitcoin and payments not working. It's like, well, if you don't have the Bitcoin and you want to eat or you need to feed your family or whatever, you're going to need the asset that people will take. And so it's like very much on the barbell of like that's at the very far end of it. And if so, it's good enough for that use case. Everything else is downstream of it. And then it beautifully encapsulates the notion of why you do not want paper Bitcoin, because the thing that most people can't fathom independent of putting dollars or Bitcoin into a system that's over levered, it's a contradictory action. But independent of that is what happens if you actually need the underline for anything, you you've effectively cut yourself out of that. And that's the thing I think most people mess with all the data, crazy trade stretch, whatever it is, is that like in where we're going, gold, Bitcoin money, you need the money that sits outside the system because you may need it. And if you're short that you may do that at your own peril. I mean, I fully agree. I don't know who I talked to this week, the discussion on X, but just, yeah, Bitcoin is literally outside of the system. Bitcoin you can control is literally outside of the system. And I mean, if that's not a value proposition, then I don't, I don't really know, you know what, what would make someone enthusiastic on Bitcoin? And this, what we're talking about now is the ultimate prime use case of that statement, right? Because the precedent has been set in, in many ways where, you know, even, you know, these funds of Russia have been frozen, like you said there there's a lot of funds of Iran that have been frozen, etcetera. But they still need to either trade their own oil, right, or make business and profits from a certain area that they control like like the this trade. So it it it is money for chaos, right? It's money for in, in these types of chaotic times and outside of whoever can mess with you and I, I yeah, it's just amazing. I think I agree. That's super Polish. It's funny you think somebody was going to bring this up. I didn't know what the context was. Have you guys watched Mad Men? Sorry. Have you watched Mad Men? Yeah. So I'm rewind because I was like 10 years ago, too young to really appreciate it. So I started the the show and you'll, you'll love it. Wrong, I think, but the point is on this episode like four or five and he's the badass. He's like running, you know what he's doing on the marketing side and he wants to fire that guy right And he goes in to go get that guy fired and him and the guy, the one of the guy's name's on the wall. He goes into the big boss and they're like, sorry, we can't fire him. And he goes and explains why you can't fire him. And it's a bunch of like basically cock behavior. But the point is that he goes and sits down. They smoke a cigarette and he looks at the guy and he goes, how do you feel about he's like looking very like into the deal and he sees that he's just disrupt, disrupted. Or like, like, how do you feel about not being in control? Like knowing that you don't actually matter, Like you have your name. And like, that's what we're talking about here in the sense that if you've seen everything from age verification, so Australian concentration camps to all the things under the sun, and you somehow believe that cannot happen to you and that you're ultimately saying you're not in control. Because you can say something on Twitter, you could say something on your post. You can do all these different things in your bank accounts, shut down your stretch, you know, get stretched, stretched to oblivion. Like all the things like him going up and then you basically have no money. Your family doesn't eat. Like if that's the version, that's me sitting there being like, how do you feel about not being in control? Like that's what this is all about. Yeah. How do I do? I mean, that's. Good. No, that's good. Yeah, no, I like that. But I mean, that's the whole point is, is that the whole point is understanding that with anything else you are not in in control. And I think there's also a really interesting kind of like business case to make for like you said, let's say you have a country, right and you need to trade with the world. It is a great offer. I would say if if you as a country selling something right, you say like, hey, we don't have to use your currency. I'm not forcing you to use my currency. I'm not forcing you to use the currency of the United States that can debase this until Infinity. You and I can trade with each other even if you like me or not in this neutral asset like that is an incredibly good offer. Like it, it broadens your market. I would say as someone right, however big you are, that is offering, that is offering something in in a trade. And, and it's funny because eventually, like you said before, and I, I'm fully on that train as well. Like we will go back to decentralization of everything. Right now there's this crazy chaos time going on where all the centralist, technocratic, one world government, blah, blah type of people are scrambling to speed up all their fucking plans, right? And, and, and it's just, it's, it's, there's going to be a counter effect and it's going to be in different layers. It's from people up until, you know, institutions and eventually also countries that just don't align with that. And I think it's, it's, it's going to be a very natural way. I don't know how rough it's going to be, but I think we are on the trend towards decentralization and actually, you know, decentralization, sovereignty, etcetera, taking more control and the money is a big part also in the geopolitical space in my opinion. Yeah, a couple things you said there. One is like the power of, to your point, like all these assets outside of gold, but it's clunky. You can't, you can't. You can't trade it. You cannot hold up AQR codes on a tank. You trade in public in the sense of like if you need to move through the SWIFT system or whatever and you can train. So if you're somebody that's sanctioning, you want to do business with another sovereign, you can be penalized for it versus like if you're using this asset. But the other thing that's worth calling out, two things. One is I had this like conversation. I wasn't sure if he was like years ago. This is pre Noster, but it's this notion of with Bitcoin in a digital world as well as physical, you can't ever censor anything. Because if you think about with Torrance, Torrance Big issue was always the person seeding it. Because if you seed it, you're ultimately the one operating with the copyright. You're giving it up, but there's always a price on that cat and mouse. If you because you could cut off the ACH, they will coin whatever you're going to pay for that person to see, but somebody will always have a price to see that. But now if you can basically put that bounty on that, you can you can effectively do that besides into a piece. I didn't read it, but Bucco Capital or whatever that guy's name on Twitter, he wrote something fully up on Jack Dorsey. Because when you listen to a lot of these like Silicon Valley people, they're always touting Jack Dorsey as being ahead of the game. And it's funny because they miss they get it, but then they miss the Bitcoin side. But when you think about like nostril and understanding that forget like even the money movement, but really around like encryption and the different types of packets the Internet works on, you're going to need a new way for communication on that back end. So anyway, and then the last thing I'll say because I know Brahm, you're still fully, you love us, but you're not fully MIC more multi institution pill. This is fundamentally how you are going to transfer billions of dollars in for oil tankers because you will have sovereigns all over the world sitting within these keys. You will put the Bitcoin in that multi sig 3O54-O7, whatever it is, and you'll have a tanker following you with drones. And as you make it across or as you start to deliver that oil, you will get your tranche in Bitcoin paid off and not a second before because you still end up in the same problem with if you need the oil, somebody has to send the Bitcoin 1st and you need that governance layer. And that's how this whole thing will play out. Now the time horizon TBD. Yeah. I mean, I, I am on board. I just think, I think. You only know from Logan, I believe. Now I think, you know, what I think is interesting if what I really like is that there's still so many different types of use cases, business cases. Well, it's everything. It's all the money in the world. Well, yeah, well. Hey nice bridge, do you have a link about that boom? I didn't know if this was, I didn't know if this was there. I figured you'd appreciate this because this was a big eye opening deal about Anthropic getting to 30 billion off of like 3 in like, I don't know, 3-9 months, whatever, something insane. But the point of being is with a, with 2500 people, but B, this notion of that there's an infinite Tam for intelligence because it's again like one of those like dark matter things. You can't. It's an unknown unknown. You just see it proliferated in the amount of productivity that grows. The only thing greater than that Tam is the amount of money that has to flow. And so I really start, you start to see like where Bitcoin is going to just seep into everything. It's the barbell. It's on large transactions and then it's actually on the microtransactions. As the technologies in Silicon Valley and globally recognize, you need that form of money to flow through those pipes versus anything else. Yeah, I think the piece of full potential valuation of Bitcoin by by Jesse Myers, I think is was one of the pieces where I realized, wow, this is this is so much bigger. And it's funny, like you're saying, I think it's correct, right. The only 10 bigger than intelligence is money. Like it has to be valued in something. This intelligence has to be valued in in something. And so or whatever the intelligence creates also has to be valued in, in, in something. And so this again, I also think This is why Bitcoin is just so hard to understand because just this whole notion of how much money is there in the world? What are people doing with that money, right? Like is, is money used in trades the same as money stored in art or not? Like what does that imply? And so I, I think just that therefore just the, the general question of what is money is just extremely interesting and a real start for for the rabbit hole because it is kind of it is so, so hard to understand like just how much money there is in the world and how it's used, etcetera and, and, and all these layers and abstractions and stuff like that. So, yeah, I think this is this super interesting. And it's also actually pretty crazy to see how just the advancement of the technology so that you can be more valuable quicker with fewer people. I think this also shows the technology kind of compressors, right? I mean Meta was I don't know when did they hit 30 billion revenue. You said it says needs 86,000 people but like was that just on the social part or like the? Is that, well, I mean, I would imagine it's copy or whatever. I would imagine it's all just ads and that was it looks like 2022. I would assume they came around like 08 maybe. So that's about 14 years, yeah. Crazy. That's a crazy compression. I don't know. That's the way. The only thing I would add to this is like the convergence you reference. It's like it's even more sort of logical and and wild to think about in the sense that OK, in this world of abundant intelligence, maybe the only thing more important than like value or money is the energy. So if you are going to have money, which you're still going to have money, you're going to need to transact for things. It's, it's logical to assume that that money would look and feel like an energy backed money, which you know, on a technical level, like you could quibble about whether Bitcoin is energy backed per SE, but it's the closest equivalent we have outside of gold in terms of like a currency that is actually enforced by real world energy. And so there's a natural convergence there where like if the most important thing becomes or the GPU's energy, all the data centers and the actual energy required to power all the intelligence. And it's very logical that the, the money that would make the most sense in that world would have a direct tie basically to energy in a, in a sort of direct relationship. One of the most exciting things, and I don't think we're that far because I think inflation is just going to RIP people's faces off, is when the market realizes it's just a competitive nature. In the same way the market understands from a business perspective in tech, if you adopt AI, you're probably going to outrun the other person is when you're competing forces with inflation and margins are compressing and you just hold a better money and you're going to out compete the others. And that's when this thing gets because that'll be in its own little yeah, that's that's its own little like vehicle running while ETFs and all the other stuff are happening. They're just businesses that are actually producing value for the world, stacking it. And they're not sellers, they're not pukers because they like actually understand what they're holding. It's a fundamentally different profile. Yeah, and again, this is so funny, right? Like this is another like exit, like a certain path that that you can take. Just this whole idea of eventually it's just based on your own self-interest. Like how do I survive this crazy fucking world right then? And is, is there a better money that I can hold? Is there something better than, you know, the thing I'm forced to use, the political currency I'm forced to use that is just losing its value. I, I was just looking up the tweet that couldn't find it, but I think last week someone said like cumulative inflation over the last 10 years was XYZ percent. You know, cumulative Bitcoin value growth was like 3 times that or something, right? So as long as you are doing that, you're, you're doing great. And that's I think I think the point and and we still have this whole wave of inflation still even even coming, right the. Whole thing, it's the whole game. It's the only thing that's going to keep you from away from the road to surf film, which was hence how that whole thing started last week was just basically acknowledging you could take a little bit of cash flow through treasuries and then park it in Bitcoin and you get a better blended rate over time to outpace inflation. It was as straightforward as that. Because 11% maybe he's keeping pace with fucking ground beef. So you can keep your dollars, but that doesn't actually do anything for you. Yeah, that's also interesting. Yeah. I'm just thinking about Greg Foss. Shout out to Greg Foss. I wonder where Greg is. But like he's probably the first, first of the, he's probably the person that put this in my head. It's like Fiat, the basement is mathematically assured, right? And so it's also, that's also funny, right? Like when you when you study Bitcoin and you get to kind of like that topic, once you understand that it's mathematically assured, that's the entire thesis is do you believe that is true or not? If, if yes, what do you need to hold to protect yourself from that? If not out outpace it, right? And I mean, that's, that's Bitcoin. Obviously. I think this is a nice bridge to something I wanted to show you guys. So I was thinking, you know, like a few years ago we really talked a lot about, you know, this idea of demand outpacing, you know, fixed supply, hollow rates growing that we've talked about before, right? And I mean, you know, if more and more people figure out that Fiat money is, you know, the debasements mathematically assured, more people will also figure out what Bitcoin is about Bitcoin, etcetera. And so this whole idea of of a supply shock where the use case is becoming more and more clear on both sides, right, supply and demand, where the supply is fixed this. Yeah, I just came back yesterday to kind of like the supply shock idea. Like would that where do we stand right now? Like what does that look like? So I was just wondering and I just want to get your thoughts because I don't have a conclusive reaction, what you guys think of this idea of supply shock. Obviously a lot of people say, you know, there will always be demand to buy Bitcoin at any price. There will always be people that hold Bitcoin and that want to sell, you know, at at any price. And the price is set at the margin also, right? So even if you know, 80% is huddled and 20% is traded, the price is still set by by whoever is trading. So I just asked like, hey, what are the kind of like stats or like graphs I can look at? So I had sunny reach out from the time chain index and I just thought it was just I don't know if you guys ever look at this right? Like sometimes you see like, Oh my God, the Bitcoin, you know, the supply went under 2 million or whatever. But I was just looking at this and this is well, this is from May 1. So I don't know if I can, I have no clue how this how this works, but like as in I want to go back further. Can I zoom out? I don't know. We're looking. At that, we have an honoring Bitcoin terminal coming live next week. It's going to be pretty pretty. Fire then we can show that one. I didn't know if you had this on there, but I was just thinking like what is the range right? What is right? Is there always like 3,000,000 Bitcoin for sale? No, like this is just a fault. Yeah, this is centralized. It says centralized exchange, right? So. I'm saying it's you never know because at any given moment someone could move coins to a centralized exchange. So it's you're not. Oh no, if they are actually for sale. Correct. So it's it's sort of an impossible metric to back into in terms of like what's the available for sale supply because there's always going to be new sellers at higher price thresholds that you can't foresee because they probably don't have their coins on an exchange. Yeah, yeah. And I think the thing that gets, I think everyone most excited is the theoretical and practical reality that that equilibrium will eventually get lopsided where because you've seen this with GameStop or whatever when you live in this mimetic world. And then the mimetic world goes into the practical world, meaning that like inflation is ripping your face off and people recognize there's only 21 million and all the other things associated. Well, then you naturally end up with more people that are chasing those coins than sellers because what are you selling them for? That's like, I don't think it happens all at once. But those are like, that's why we never got the proper bull run because bull runs are usually led by these reflexive actions where the price runs, there's less sellers and then you get the blow off top. And this was fundamentally different price action. As I was talking to a client or somebody about this earlier. That's why I think like we'll be in a shorter, it wasn't a real bull market. We're not in a real bear market. And I was tweet, I had a tweet last week and I was texting the guys. His fighting senses are like, we're gonna be in a good spot for the rest of the year, I think. I mean, we'll hit our blips, but I think we're gonna be back to a lot of this had to do with Tranfine. You need to get their stuff ready before we really get to go. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I also don't, I don't think it's like we wake up in the morning and there's a supply shock, right? Like I don't, I don't think that is what what is happening. I, I think the trend here is clear. I mean, this is from the last, OK, so this is almost two years ago, right? I mean, the trend over the past two years is, is, is down. And I think that's because more people like you said, and I agree, is, you know, they they understand, you know, sell, sell for what is the most relevant question. I hope we wake up in the morning with a supply shock. Hey, can we pull this up real quick just because it? Just I mean, would would be fun, but I, I, I don't think that is this. Just zoom in a little bit. Zoom in a bit. Yeah, this just popped up. I'm assuming this is the, yeah, the Bitcoin Fund mailing list. And so I don't know which math, there's a lot of maths out there. But of course, I believe the lost coin pool is large enough that the Bitcoin community will with almost without question for it to disable and secure spending, passing burdensome coins in the process. And then Parker said, I'm with Francis, you have to be really, really bad at logic to think an overwhelming majority of Bitcoin nodes and miners will fork themselves off from the network by invalidating any previously valid Bitcoin address. It's never going to happen, but have have fun theorizing. I just thought that was that because I was posted like up two minutes ago and that was effectively what we were just finished talking about. Yeah. I think, yeah, this is this for a different conversation, but I think there's a lot of no, I'm not going to say anyway. This actually goes back though, it's worth calling out in meetings and like having discussions that all you can go back to Bitcoin's value and why somebody would want to hold material amounts as if it can credibly enforce the 21 million hard cap supply. Because nobody gets to that point and then thinks otherwise. And so if you get there, then you can understand why this wouldn't be possible. But if you can't get to why it would enforce the 21 million hard cap cap supply, then you believe all of these things are actually possible. And then you can't underwrite why you would want to hold the underline, because then the number can be consistently changed, because that's what they're effectively saying. If you can change the address type, you can change the number. You can change anything. So it either can't do it or it can't. It's binary if it's. Either it's either the strongest property rights ever or it's not. Yeah, I agree, but I also think this. Pro 4 can. You. Know Brom? Brom. For what? No, I mean, I mean, I, yeah, again, I just think it's a market. I don't think we should lock vulnerable coins. Coins. They're not as a bank. Attention but but I'm saying like that, but the point is like you don't think we should lock coins of like a first they. Came a lot of she's cons then they came from. Yeah, of course that's logical. I mean, no, I said this to someone, right? Someone was like, well, but what if there are people that, you know, aren't paying attention, this and that? And you know, I mean, if you're not paying attention to your wealth, then what are you doing, right, I mean. The man in the coma, It's the man in the coma. Yeah, it's the man in the coma. Well, OK, I mean, there's always collateral damage, you know, like what's the? You are. That's what I'm saying, yeah. He's no SO. Right. Sounds like you are freezing the coins. No. OK. No, I mean, there's collateral damage. Like, oh, sorry, you were in a coma. Yeah. I mean, like, there's no perfect solution by definition, right? OK, so don't put me in a corner with with Jameson Lob. Go. What the fuck? No, no, I, I mean, just this whole DDDD quantum threat, if it materializes is an, is an outsider development. But I, I have, I will, I will see if I can find it and send it to you guys. And also for the people listening, like there's a podcast, it's a podcast by Guy Swan. I think it's quite old actually, like over a year ago or something where he like really walks through at that point, kind of like all the known type of solutions and proposals for the, the post quantum proof type addresses and stuff like that. And it's actually, it is very, very complicated. Like the trade-offs there, right? It's, it's either between, well, you know, you just let it, you just let it RIP and, and it's, it's everyone for themselves, right? You either upgrade or you don't or you do something like this BIP 361 where you basically act in in a way where you decide for other people. And I think this is kind of like the crux of the of the discussion. But then when he started talking about the solutions that are there, I think technologically there is like 1 superior solution. I'm not even going to try to name it because I don't know. This is what he said. But the issue there is, and so this is my take. The issue there is that the the, the blockchain will increase in size tremendously. Like the signature I think used in that solution would be like super super mega quantum proof. But the size would be very big. I don't know how much bigger anyway, I think maybe this whole, you know, quantum thing eventually makes us fall in love together to fall in love with each other again, because we have to make the blocks bigger. That's kind of could be, could be. But this is the thing, right? Like you have a technological superior solution, but then you get back to, you know, should the blocks be bigger. For disclaimer, I'm still a small blocker, but. Big blocker wants to freeze the coin. Fuck next one. I don't know who put this in. This is mine. This is one of the best clips I've seen in a long time, but just. Radio OK. President Trump has set APM, has threatened to destroy a civilization. How do how does an investor process that is it, is it a bigger upside risk or downside risk deadline that president? Upside risk? What the fuck? It's just like it's like out of a comedy skit, like complete parody, like how have we gotten to this point? And it's just the perfect sort of encapsulation of Fiat financial nihilism and really like the need for sound money, the need to be able to say without having to be an investor, without having to look at the potential destruction of a civilization. And your first question be should I go long or short, the market like it's just a it's a sad state of affairs. And I I it's fucked up, but like I laughed out loud the first time I saw that clip. So I was like, how is this real? Is this AI? My view of rock? Is this AI? 8/22 Remember the OR 21 when the dude was long and he didn't know what he was? He was a hedge fund manager and he's like, he's like, what does it do? And he's like, yeah. And he's like, what? He's like, what does the stock do? You're long and he's like, sorry. Just like throw his so crazy. Yeah, not much more than that. I just thought it was, yeah. And it's so it's so funny, right? It's it's this I just think about the movie Idiocracy, like it's kind of this level where OK, so crazy orange man says X Mr. what it what do you think? Right? Should we buy or sell? Like what is the signal? And it's just idiotic, right? It's like totally not about any fundamentals or bigger thesis or. Except for Amplify Bitcoin. Except for Amplify Bitcoin. That that that makes a lot of sense. Yeah. Like everything else in stock market doesn't but digital credit and all that. I mean, that's the one thing that's that's. The one yeah, time wise guys, Mike, I'm gonna ditch your Tedder link or if you feel. Longer. If you're really quick, I don't know, I have a video of 2 1/2 minutes that I kind of want to show you. Go ahead. Talking Professor Chang No. No, no, no. That's the guy that it's jank. No, no, no. I think. I think you'll find it very interesting. I can always count on Brahm to bring in like the normie kind of takes on this is nothing Honestly, I actually think this is really underappreciated. Tether probably is TBD on their their tensions, but like they're easily one of the most sophisticated, not sophisticated financial actors and what they've been doing and they released a wallet unifying Bitcoin, USD and GLD. Now you can make the case it's like tokenized gold and the stablecoin Tether. It's not banking relationship, but the still notion of imagine the billions of people that don't have access to a lot of accounts and access to dollars and be able to put all those next to each other is real value add. It's like, it's out of this like a futuristic world where you're sitting in a random country, you have an inflating local currency, you can go into dollars, you can buy a little slivers of gold, you can go into Bitcoin, take it into self custody. It's pretty flat. Can you buy and sell Bitcoin here for USD T? I would imagine you could swap. I would imagine they can, yeah. That's sort of been swapping into whatever you need. So yeah, like, think about, you don't have a bank account, you're accepting that coin for payments. You need to get access to dollars. You can go back from dollars into other markets. You can go into slivers of gold. Like obviously you wouldn't park all your funds there, but I think the notion is that there's a lot of people with not a lot of money, but it's enough that with those smartphone you can get access to the things people consider as money. Is, is really, I just, I don't think people appreciate that enough versus putting in calling market and mean coin #468 there's real value being delivered there. OK, that's interesting. All right. The last one to show, Yeah, it's 2 1/2 minutes guys, if you're good then because I don't know if you guys are into, because I'm not really as in like I don't know enough of it. But I, I've had, I've had Chris Sullivan on my podcast twice. And there's then he talks a lot about like the monetary history also in America, like first banker war, second banker war, right? Like this whole idea of in the, in the past, in, in America, you know, there was a lot of decentralization and like different states at different currencies. And then there was this greenbacks idea and you know, I know Thomas Jefferson, really, I think it was Thomas Jefferson, right? Or or well, Andrew Jackson, sorry, he really fought against the banks, etcetera. But I just thought this clip was just very interesting and I just wanted to show it and then get your guys opinions on why, if everything that has been told here really happens before, where's the revolution today? Like we're very far away from actual kind of like a rebellion against this centralized control of, yeah, well, literally central banks, right? Like this whole idea of when you control the money, you control the people. I think it's just very valid. And the crazy part about this video, I think is that it just goes back for a very long time. You know, in the American history it is only like 200 ish years, but you can imagine that before that time same type of incentives were there in different parts of the world. So yeah, I just want to show this guys and just. History of the People verse banking and the schools will teach all about the Sugar Act, the Tea Act, the Stand Act. They just gloss over the reason for all those taxes. King George and England were in $183 million of debt to the banks, and you don't even hear about the Currency Act and restrictions on American banking. And by 1791, Alexander Hamilton was pushing for an American central bank. And isn't it convenient that today they make plays to glorify him? But by 1811, Congress realized that central bank thing was a bad idea and they didn't renew the charter of the First Bank of the United States. But then the War of 1812, Abbott. And with the war, you need money. And in 1816, the Second Bank of the United States was. But 20 years later, Andrew Jackson would go to war with them, famously saying that the bank was trying to take him out, but he would take them out. And he did, canceling the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. And yes, he was correct. They literally tried to take him out with the Assassin Mist, and Jackson beat him with his paint. And after that, the craziest thing happened. Mainstream historians will tell you America went into a depression, and it did for about four years, but after that the price of land had dropped 80% in many places. Places like Chicago because the crash wiped out speculators and Eastern elites but cleared the way for ordinary people to settle. W as Jackson hated concentrated financial power and in the long run, taking out the bank really empowered ordinary Americans. And did I mention that Jackson is the only president in U.S. history to fully pay off America's debt? And he did it with no federal income tax. He did it with tariffs and with the central bank gun and a tax policy of American protectionism. Tariffs were as high as 50% under President William McKinley in America. Just boom. He had the most prosperous middle class in the history of the world. American steel, American oil, American automotive. Then in 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and America once again had a central bank. It also passed the federal income tax. And since then, it's all been downhill for the middle class. Classical. Learner. Yeah. And so why I wanted to show this is, is I think the, the battle for money, like the battle for control of the money is just a very logical thing, especially in a country that is developing right like the the and forming a like the US at the time. And so I just wanted to ask you guys being brought up there, like what do you know about all of this type of of history? Is this something that is taught to you? Is this guy like super wrong or whatever? Like I'm just, I'm just interested to learn like there seems to be a lot of history around, you know, central banking, decentralized currencies, etcetera, before in the US, whereas now obviously you know, super centralized control, fed, etcetera. Yeah, I would say it's not. I wouldn't say it's like AUS specific the notion necessarily. Like I, I listen to that. I just tie it back to like it's, it's really the principles of like Austrian economics, like you don't want control over the money because it ultimately gets corrupted in some way, shape or form. And I think that's kind of all that he's describing there. I don't know the details or intricacies to say he's exactly 100% factually correct on everything that was in that video. I genuinely or I generally anything with that, like, you know, that soundtrack, that music find it tends to be a little, you know, tough. You might want to take with a grain of salt. But no, I think the in broad strokes, it's it's yeah, like central banking is it corrupts the money and like that, that's everything that Austrian economics is based on effectively. Yeah, we're going to go because we've had a long pawn and we get, we'll do another one on educating Brahm on the history of US money. But like people have known this for for for forever. If you pull up that deal, there's a like easily, you know, it's like one of the wisest people produce as much value. Think about the car and like called it from the beginning. So, yeah, like there, this has always been understood that if you you can't, you can't fix prices of commodities. And so the commodity has to be free floating from a price perspective and it has to come, can't come from us. So there's always the downstream ramifications. People understood this. And that's really like the only thing to add to it is that's kind of the tie in between. There's a lot of people that will say democracy failed. And it's not necessarily a democracy failed. It's the fact that the money failed. So then you can corrupt the democratic process, which is effectively where we find ourselves in because we've never seen like a democratic process with a free market for money. We'll see you in Texas whenever you're ready to move here. Let's do it. All right, guys. Well, thanks a lot. Thanks everyone for watching and we'll see you on the next one. Cheers.