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 Darkness 1970. 4. 1980790297, 2000 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. Yeah, so if you like the last trade, you're going to enjoy this episode because it was more of us. We didn't have a guest this week. It was me, Brian, Michael, first time ever, just the three of us. And I thought it was fun. You know, we got to loosen up a little bit and get to cover a lot of different topics. And, you know, Michael told me that I was wrong. I told Brian that he was wrong as well. You know, Michael likes to be a contrarian as you know if you listen to the show. But yeah, it was a good discussion. We discussed the executive order expected to be signed, allowing for four O 1K investments. So what it means for that capital to be unlocked. Also covered gold revaluation, stable coins, sovereign demand outside of the US, ETF demand in Asia, probably some other things I'm forgetting as well. And then we discussed the launch of On Ramp Bitcoin trust services this week. So if you want to learn more about that, those last five minutes or so of the episode. Also a report that we published a really early riders published on the breaking down the cost of capital Bitcoin is a hurdle rate. And so we discussed we discussed a lot. I think you'll enjoy it. Let us know if you like the format. If you didn't. And ultimately, if you haven't spoken to us already, you should maybe reach out at on ramp. We're helping people like yourself, individuals, families, institutions secure Bitcoin for the long haul. This is with multi institution custody, built in inheritance, insurance, Bitcoin back loans, Iras, you name it, really a full suite Bitcoin financial services company. I would love to meet you, speak with you, especially if you listen to the show. So reach out. You can hit me up Jackson at on rampbitcoin.com or you can just go to our website on rampbitcoin.com and you could book a consultation directly there. Hope you enjoyed the episode. OK, we're live. It's the last trade. This is going to be an interesting episode. I I can at least promise that that this is going to be a good one. It's the first ever three-way last trade, the second first time for the three of us, I believe. First time for three of us. Yes, but a rare 3 heads pod. So TLT like still you're still on mute. Basically what the guys are saying is if you don't, if you were planning on a guest being on this podcast and that hurts your feelings or hurts where you thought you were going to be listening for the next hour, you should probably quit listening today for the rest of the pod. But if you're interested in knowing what we talked about behind closed doors and honoring and the relationship we all have with each other for better or worse, is will be a very indicative next hour because that's the plan to have a conversation like we'd have on last trade without a fourth. Person and to be fair, we thought we also thought we were going to have a guest on this episode. We won't name names. We'll have them on eventually, but last minute rug. Yeah, it happens. And I think for an internal RIP like this, what you could expect is Michael's going to have some incredibly spicy takes. If he doesn't, I'm not going to show up next week. I that was kind of the promise here as Michael is going to show up in a big way for this podcast. So let's get into it. This is, this has been a rumor for a couple of weeks, but it looks like we might finally get to see Trump sign an executive order to open up 401 KS to Bitcoin and unfortunately possibly other digital assets. I'm not sure about that second piece, but certainly Bitcoin ETFs and we're going to go around the horn on this one. I think it's exciting. I also think it's important because there is a lot of capital locked up in these vehicles. It's about 10 trillion, you know, some people quote it 989 trillion, others say closer to $12 trillion in 401K assets. And for a long time people have not been able to allocate to Bitcoin if they didn't want to go open a Coinbase account or open an account with river and go through the Bitcoin native process. And so there's of course a lot of people have done that, ourselves included. But most people, as evidenced by the ETF, have chose not to invest into Bitcoin because it hasn't been convenient. It hasn't really had the stamps of approval from regulators, from the government, from Wall Street. And so we're finally at that .2024 was really the the kickoff of, let's say, the maturity and access of Bitcoin opening up into traditional finance. And this is really going to be, I think the next big catalyst for the asset class going forward. And I want to call out as well, I thought this was, I thought this was humorous because on Wall Street Journal, pro private equity worries that Trump might bundle crypto into 401K order. So the broader order, just so the audience is aware, is not selectively for Bitcoin and crypto. It actually includes private markets as well. So allowing for investors in the public markets with the retirement funds to start tapping into private assets, which I mean, that seems like excellent liquidity to me. But I wonder if you guys have other thoughts on on this news here. Maybe one thing just to call out, because I was speaking with somebody this past week on this that worked at Fidelity, they got the 401K product for Bitcoin specifically. And it was just trying to understand that this is more of Trump like blessing and giving clarity or like not clarity, but just the air cover for 4/01 KS to get access to private markets. There's no like actual rule that kept people out. It's very similar to like banks getting involved in the crypto space. I think that's just kind of like a little bit of nuance there. It's not something that's just like is a new legislation or new legal framework for it. It's just saying that I think that they approve. And then, yeah, I mean, I think everyone's probably familiar and you hit on it is it's positive for individuals to get exposure to Bitcoin, especially even if they could set up a Coinbase account. The reality is those are tax advantage savings that they historically had not been able to get exposure to digital assets for Bitcoin. The problem is that the leap from private equity over, you know, inflated multiples on, you know, a startup versus, you know, far coin versus Bitcoin is still a big leap for people. And so you would expect there's going to be a lot of capital lost, but you know, it's positive on the, you know, short to long term, but it's worth calling out. There is also going to be some downstream effects that aren't necessarily positive. Yeah, I think directionally very constructive. I guess I, I have questions around like the, the private equity stuff because like wouldn't, wouldn't you know, accreditation rules still apply in some sense or is like, is it just going to be a free for all on this stuff? I believe the answer is accreditation still applies for certain investments, but I forget what the regulation was about a decade ago that allowed for like certain, you know, certain investors that are not accredited, accredited to access private markets. So that has been in place for a while now, but it is for there's like certain, you know, regular Reg D versus I think it's Reg BI forget the exact lingo, but essentially there's been ways to access private markets as a non accredited investor, accredited accreditation just being a $1 million liquid net worth. But I guess there hasn't really been ways to allocate capital and retire and tax advantage accounts in many ways unless it was self-directed. But now this is opening up, you know, employer 4O1K programs and and just a broader exposure for retirement assets. Yeah, no, that makes sense. And I think Mike's right to just like caveat all of this and like it's not Bitcoin specific. People are going to be confused. No one really knows what's going on with Bitcoin and the sound money trade. And like so yeah, there's some some left to be desired in terms of like just the education and and how people go about this. The other thing that this reminds me of is the tougher chart if you want to pull that up, Jackson, I put in the in the dock like it's, it's similar or corollary to like the broadening access to the ETFs in general from banks and wire houses, which is still like very slowly opening up the plumbing. And so like tougher has been putting out this this table that shows all the major banks and wire houses in the country and their level of access to the ETFs. And so they put this out a few days ago and they've kind of been updating it quarterly. So I went back and I looked at the previous quarter and those 4 shaded boxes are the only changes from 1/4 ago. And so like, there hasn't been any new entrance to like full unrestricted exposure in 1/4. There have been people moving in that direction. Basically, it's not prohibited, but there's certain restrictions around it. But like, to me like this is just like pretty remarkable considering again, like most successful ETF launch ever, you know, billions and billions flowing into these products, yet most people still can't access them through their traditional banking relationships. And so I think this is something that I'm, I'm just watching closely because I think this is like the real, the, you know, watching the floodgates open in real time as all of these restrictions get lifted and, and more exposure is, is able to flow through. And so it just reminded me of of this because it's a sort of a similar, similar idea around the four O 1K stuff. The beauty of the the four O 1K and ETF stuff is it's like ultra bullish for multi institution custody and on ramp because those are kind of mutually exclusive. Like people can do multi institution custody and will without honour having to be around. But Matt Hogan was on a podcast this past week with I think Pete Rizzo and I generally in anyway, I won't go too far, but I was listening and Hogan, you know, talking his own book for the ETF was naturally like, well, nobody will need it in the future because right now it's just impossible to get exposure. There's no way like the UI, the UX isn't easy for somebody to get like real synthetic like direct exposure. So you have all this kind of like, you know, dirt in between whether it's pub co's, pub goes with leverage ETF's with sitting at a centralized custodian and the PD and all, you know, all the things associated. But it was the point of like, we're just that early in the process that it's still like misunderstood on like, how do you get exposure? What's the right type? And then to your point, even with these like products that we all know necessarily you shouldn't park material wealth there, people still can't even get access to them. So there is going to be a world as the market grows and especially what we're doing, it takes a few minutes for somebody to create an account, get spot exposure, best in class direct. They don't have to worry about taxable events and all the other things that we know are inherently wrong with an ETF. And so it's just we just have a long way to go. We're like, again, the best mental model. I think it was like late 80s, early 90s and we're setting up the first computers while the hobbyists were still kind of like at the meetups trying to put together the computer. And then others are building like these things for institutions. We're kind of there just figuring out how to democratize it for for everyday individuals as well as large institutions as well. Yeah, and I will say as well, the other thing from a flows perspective is people just contribute passively to their 401 Ki mean. I haven't done that in a while on ramp. We don't do 401 KS here, but Bitcoin I'm I'm relying on my Bitcoin. So hopefully this all pans out. But anyways, jokes aside, you know, people just set up certainly in most cases, like you're kind of a fool not to take advantage of an employer match, right? So if your employer is going to put a match, you up to 4% allocation or contribution rather into your 401K, kind of put, you know, that 4% in. And a lot of people, because they're told that the prudent thing to do, right, is park your capital and tax advantage accounts. And 30 years from now, 2040 years from now, depending on your age, you tap into that as you need it for retirement. And so there's two things that I take away from that beyond what's already been discussed is that's a lot of passive bidding for the asset. It's kind of similar to MicroStrategy being in the S&P 500, where now people just passively allocate without really even thinking about it. And the second piece is, well, I forget the second piece actually. While you're while you're thinking about it, I just want to be clear, are you calling listeners a fool for if they don't match in their 41K? Are you saying that's what the standard? I would say that's, yeah, that's like conventional wisdom, right? So that's what you're told you? Should be matching that, but you're not saying that's true. You know it's it's up to the listener, right? Because my perception was Jackson was going back to his kind of tradify days. Because if you remember about, you know, a few months back, Jackson was evangelizing for you BI on a Bitcoin standard. And this reminded me very similar because I think he actually believed that you're a fool if you don't match. But in reality is you're actually a full if you do match because you should take those dollars and park them in Bitcoin and not have them tied in to all those products and locked in. So I just wanted to clarify, you know, we I can't let it get too far because people will be listening and they expect the best because this is one of the highest signal podcasts in all Bitcoin. We know this. We have the feedback, people come in, they tell us. But Mike and 2nd get exposure to Bitcoin. Does it then make sense to match and keep it in there or still take it out, Take the, take the penalty too, Because that, that's the other consideration, right, is, well, if you're, you know, not 65 or whatever, like you're taking a penalty on it. It's a great question. There's two aspects to consider. One is if you can eventually roll over the 401K into a self-directed and then ultimately take delivery of the underlying via like something like what we do. The other one really comes down to the question that we've always talked about, would you rather 500K and MIC self custody, whatever you want for $1,000,000 in cash in the bank or whatever that number is. These here, I'm going at it's like what level do you start to appreciate not being stuck in a certain system that is over levered counterparty risk? And so those are decisions an individual has to make. But I just wanted to call out like you are not a sucker if you don't match your 401K if you're putting it into the best performing asset of all the time in a way that you can reduce the counterparties. Fair, good clarification there. So the second part of my the second piece that I just want to bring up as well as I think the passive bidding ultimately ties back into what is happening this cycle, right? There's a lot of theories. Is this the last four year cycle? Are we are we in a super cycle as some people would say? But it certainly has been unconventional when you compare this cycle to prior and there's a lot of reasons for it that we likely have discussed and guests have as well in the show. So we don't need to get into it. But I think that at least supports the idea that if people are just allocating passively, let's call, you know, even a 10% exposure in their four O 1K and they're contributing by monthly to that vehicle. I do think that we'll end up seeing more of a floor on the retail side as well as we likely saw likely we'll see with institutional investors that are positioned for the long game here. So just something to call out. I think it passive flows and liquidity channels ultimately end up changing what the cycle looks like and kind of depends, of course, you know, where we top out and whether that's this year or next year and what that correction looks like. But I do think that this new channel being opened up does change flows structurally. Yeah, I think it's also dependent on, you know, I'm, I'm sort of I'm still unsure like if cycle still exists anymore at least to the same extent because of the things you mentioned. But the other variables in my mind are like, well, what would cause a top? Would it be something like internal to crypto or would it be some other like more macro Black Swan where everything sells off and Bitcoin correlates and so that that's one variable. It's like, well, what is the actual cause of of any top or downturn? And then beyond that, like where have, where have we progressed in terms of the education? Because like, yeah, theoretically passive bids sound nice in a, in a, you know, potential downturn. But like, if the education is not there and people don't understand what Bitcoin represents and what it is and why it might not be related to whatever else is happening in the market, then there may not necessarily be like people stepping into that as heavily as as we might think. Yeah, so it sounds like Jackson takes the one angle, Brian's in the middle, and I'll take the other side strongly. Like there are definitely still 4 year cycles and they'll be heavy volatility and Jackson asked for spicy, so I'll I'll, I'll provide it. The reality is that nobody says this, it's all relative. So what I mean by that is like if you cut the minor reward in half or even, you know, let's say the next having, well, the minor reward is cut, you still have the dollar amount increase, right? So every cycle it's much, it's a lot more dollars being mined every, you know, 10 minutes. And then when you take it a step further, it's hard to see. But what Jackson's referencing in passive flows have always been there. There's been DC airs now again, it increases, it's increasing 10 to 100 X, but it's still the same natural system and it's still the same amount of capital coming in and capital coming out and the same people not knowing what they're buying, the same people knowing what they're buying and the same people stepping in to provide a floor. And then there's going to be the same amount of leverage. So it's kind of like in my mind, like incoherence ability, like maybe they get elongated, maybe volatility. And I think we all agree volatility over a long enough time horizon will like subdue it will be tempered. But to say like this cycles and then there's just inherent bias in human psychology when it comes to animal spirits and business cycles. And naturally as like capital comes in. But I think the notion of like, there's just like this super cycle and all this stuff is we kind of do it every four years. Is there a super cycle? They thought in 17 it was a super cycle. It's true in your mind though. Like what, what, What causes it? Is it internal or external to? It's the solver, it's the sovereign. I think the from all these discussions, the thing that I think changes everything, like truly changes everything is if there's the real sovereign bid because they have no reason to sell. And like that's the longest term hold. If you're holding the Bitcoin on behalf of your country, you're naturally mining it and you're trying to accumulate as much as possible. And I think we end up there and it's possible we go there the cycle and then that would be the structural change. And in the reason I think we could get there is because it ties into some of these other conversations we'll have is the 6040 only exists. It's like the emperor has no clothes. Like everyone knows that inflation is greater than what they say, but we never talk about it or you look like it's taboo to say that it's like 7 to 12% in the same way that everyone knows and Bitcoin is the same thing. Nobody talks about Bitcoin, even though it's been the best performing asset and then bonds have this huge allocation across the world, but nobody talks about how their negative yielding, but people know that exists. And so it's the same thing of like once the sovereigns make their play and you see the adoption and allocation, everything kind of like stems from that because sovereigns still hold the debt, right? And so the second they start selling and we're seeing it slowly, but as they step into gold and Bitcoin increasingly, that's when everyone else kind of follows suit, meaning like tread 5 fintechs and then individually the people listening to this and others and they're like, oh shit. Like it's not the. 60 fourty anymore, it's the sound money index and everything else is credit and This is Money and so that's the thing that I think structurally changes is the quote UN quote people that make the movies in the world eventually like show their hand, which they're already doing it. It's just we live in a vacuum in a. Bubble. No, that makes total sense. I had actually meant the other direction. Like what would cause a material downturn or like what looks like a bear market? Would it be something internal or external to the crypto space? That's a great question. Because that's what I wrestle with. Like what, what would actually cause of it? Like, you know, 60 to 70% downturn in Bitcoin. Well, one of them, I didn't expect to bring it up, but I'll, I'll show it because if we had this conversation internally, it wasn't meant to be here, but Jackson will appreciate it is. If we look at the Bitcoin treasury adoption plug for the honor ramp terminal, if you ever want access to any of this, this randomly pulls up the ETFs and then the top holders. I think it's 80 and what I was looking at if you Scroll down. So this is just public companies, whether TTF's or treasuries. And down here it shows this is 85 of them and it shows 3.16 million BTC and it's 15% of the supply. But here's the kicker, it's actually 20% of the supply because what this is taking into account is 3000 out of the 19.6 million mined, not the four and a half roughly million that have been lost. So this is really on 15,000,000 BTC. So that this is 20% only within 85 holders. This doesn't take account, this doesn't take into account Coinbase and the rest of the whatever they're costing the rest of the custodians and then other pub co's main point is that the centralization issue is real and if some of these pub co's or large custodians ever D lever that could be a natural cause for that. These ultimately people are going to go to liquid assets whether it's gold or dollars if especially if they realize gains so. Yeah. I think I do want to clarify that does include the ETFs though. Yeah, yeah, All right. Yeah, but it's a. It's a valid point. Well, I mean ETFETF micro strategy and and BlackRock is basically like out of that three and a half million is is is like half. Right. Yeah. I mean, I think that's, that's kind of the risk that the coin based risk is just like I, I don't know. I mean, it's, it's a big one in my opinion, not to say like their internal controls aren't up to snuff, but just the idea if a compromise happened there. I think that that's very bad from a reputational risk for the industry. Not to say of course that doesn't imply that something actually happened to Bitcoin. But in terms of education and lack thereof and investor perception, if something happened to a public company in the US, by far the largest custodian securing whatever the number was that not only from just like a cycle top and then drawdown. That concerns me from a reputational risk perspective for the industry for for a very long period of time. But yeah, we let's move on to some of the other topics. And then just wanted to call it as well that the Trump family did front run the 401K executive order. So Trump media has whatever the number is like 16 or 17,000 Bitcoin on their balance sheet with Trump Media company. So everyone wants to pump their bags. It's not to say that that that's unique to the Trump family because everyone's aligned with their incentives. But you know, let's let's allocate a position and then let's open up capital markets and make it easy to access. It's nobody's in, in a nobody wants to lose money, right? Everyone is, is in it for their own gain. So that, you know, just something to point out there. Michael, I wanted to hand it over to you. So you mentioned what'd you say exactly that everything's breaking. Is that is that the right way to categorize it? Yeah, I think the reason why we tied this in this was a a tweet that was going around really a chart, I think maybe before this one. If you go down so that the title, but below this chart, sorry, go back and then just Scroll down. There's two charts. The first one, and this is probably near and dear to Jackson's heart is shows the US medium household income versus home price from 1970 to 2025. And the reason why we're bringing this up is really ultimately to further underpin, you know, the the investment case for Bitcoin, why it's important to be a pillar of all humans, including Americans course way that they store value. But also part of the four O 1K discussion we're talking about is from 1970. You can see the disparity between, you know, income and home price was relatively small. And what's happened in this subsequent 50 years is just absolutely insane. And for better or worse, people hold their homes as not only storing a value, but really, really on the future dependency on optionality and safety so they can develop like social ties and fabric when you think about marriage and kids. And so this ties into the main chart that went viral. If this one wasn't the craziest, the one that Jackson's going to pull up here is ultimately showing since 1950 estimated number a percentage of 30 year olds who were both married and homeowners. And this is probably the craziest chart I've maybe ever seen. It shows in 1950 / 50% of 30 year olds were married and homeowners. And we sit in 2025 and it looks like on this chart it's like 12 1/2 percent. I mean, it's just crazy in the, the chart, the tweet that I saw tied to this was how you don't come back from this. Like it's a takes a black small to come back from this because ultimately this is like, you know, decades of changes that ultimately are like ingrained in everything that we see. I know you guys are having lots of thoughts. So I just wanted to pull those, maybe those other two up really quickly. So this one was just from another person on Twitter. And it shows another chart, very similar mapping is from the 80s and it shows US overall inflation, CPI again, you know, quotes. And then it shows college tuition like 1200%. So these just kind of crazy numbers that people manipulate. But at the end of the day, everything costs more. People aren't making more money. And then the last one was a Peter saying on post. And if you Scroll down, you guys probably haven't seen this. You'll appreciate it. Just look here. So this first one is total pages published in the Code of Federal Regulations. So these charts are like fantastic. We should link to them. But just every year you see the number of pages increase and they'll keep going down. And then here, look, total cost of regulations accumulation from a percentage GDP and the US, it would be the 4th largest GDP in the world if we just did the cost of regulations for the US And if you keep going, I think right here is really indicative too. So it shows expense budget versus the regulatory costs. So Americans make $66,000 and then it's showing the regulatory cost of like everything built into that is roughly $15,000. So we don't go any further, but it's just showing that there's a status, the status of the bureaucracy. And as you put more dollars into the system, they go to more inefficient outcomes. And that's why this was never be able to be solved. You'll never be able to repay back the debt because the debt goes to unproductive things. And ultimately those unproductive things have to deliver because by nature of not being productive. And so you have to insert more dollars into the system and which structurally causes more inflation. And you can't keep up because the cost of somebody to pay an employer, you go to business if you had to keep up with that. And so it leaves this disparity and it's just continuing to get worse and worse. And it's a real, you know, concern because it's a fact. It's a core part of the fabric of society, all these things. And they're all fundamentally broken. Yeah. And you know what this very sad thing is, even with all the the revenue they're bringing in from the egregious amount of money it cost with all these regulatory burdens, they still don't even have enough revenue to to fund the spending. So it's like just crazy how structurally broken the system is where there's just so much excess in spending for things that we have no idea. You know, it's tip of the iceberg type of thing with, you know, how the, the tax dollars are being spent at a federal level and nobody can get it under control because it's, there's no incentive at a political will level to do so. And the ramifications, as Michael showed, are pretty devastating. I mean I didn't realize how close the gap was between the the median home price and the median wage back in 1970. It's almost like a one for one. So if you know you could in theory buy a house with about maybe 1 1/2 years it looked like of wages versus whatever, I think the numbers closer to 7 or 8 Times Now. It was the 50s but but similar, yeah. OK, 70 years, Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, it's it's pretty devastating. And then, you know, I 30 year olds, both married and homeowners, will. Yeah, that's. Yeah, I'd be interested to see the breakdown of that because I, I don't know, maybe they're, they're, you know, relatively equal in terms of their influence on those. But like if you broke it down by each of those marriage or homeowner status, like which is more egregious? But just to reiterate Mike's point, I think it's like it's totally clear that it's like too ingrained because I think like Trump and Doge and Elon was like the best shot we had at reversing any of this stuff. And like, you know, Elon was calling out a lot of those similar charts many months ago around the just the sheer number of regulations, the the cost associated. And we barely, you know, barely, barely made a dent in it. And so like, you know, I think that that was our in terms of like the political will of like the actual ability to turn the Titanic in another direction. Like I think that was our best shot and it didn't work. So like, it's abundantly clear that it's just too ingrained at this point. Yeah, there's, there's no coming back from that. Brian, why don't you hand it over to you? So something interesting that came up from Macroscope. I would say, you know, if you're not following Macroscope, check him out on Twitter or on X I I like his account because he actually posts some interesting stats. He follows the market and and he has really good analysis and it's a breath of fresh air in the Twitter world where everyone just posts in all caps a bunch of nonsense. So Macroscope's a good follow. Brian, what do you make of this post on the Asian markets and and appetites to BTC? It mainly just stuck out to me in the sense that like I think people, well, one, we're we're definitely in the a bubble in the Bitcoin world, but even in Tratify land, I think we're in like AUS centric or domestic bubble. And I think this was just it stuck out to me in the sense that like not only is there obvious real demand domestically for Bitcoin and specifically via these ETFs, but it's a global phenomenon, Bitcoins global asset and you know, for the most part, like tratify firms internationally can get exposure to I bet. So I think it's just was an interesting data point to me just to, to put it in context, zoom out a little bit and, and recognize like this is not just AUS centric dynamic here in terms of the plumbing getting opened and, and people allocating. And you know, you could also make the argument like for anyone X US from an institutional allocator perspective, like the imperative is, is arguably stronger than like institutions in the US to embrace Bitcoin and have some, some form of allocation just given the the relative standing of of other Fiat currencies to the dollar. So that's why it stuck out to me. But yeah, give give Macroscope a follow if if you haven't lots of good content from him. You know what that just hit remind me or maybe think of as the delivery, the de levering we've been talking about is going to be infinitely more greater than anybody is expecting. And why it came to that conclusion was, you know, the notion of like paper Bitcoin and non paper Bitcoin and and is it being suppressed or not? Like I think regardless of where people land with that, everyone I think understands the ultimate barometer or way to reconcile that is to take delivery of physical. And so if if you go down that line, imagine where you know whether there's somebody that blows up or somebody you know, as counterparty risk and it comes back in the system, people naturally seek delivery. Well, think about how much capital we're talking about just giving the amount of money that's been printed, the amount of money that's in the system. We've never even including stable coins or bank deposits with SVB. We've never seen a digital borderless amount of asset accrue this much value. And that can move within 10 minutes, right? So when it happens, it's going to happen insanely fast. And that's when you see maybe Coinbase stops halting, maybe ETFs, you know, if there is some suppression, pub codes, if they're levered, see draw downs that we've never seen. And that's when everyone kind of like wakes up to a lot of this stuff. And so I think that's something that doesn't get widely explained or talked about. We've actually by nature of just the noun of monetary units in the system have that many and then also tied to a digital board of this asset by nature, the quick market cap being 2 trillion plus. And then this free ability to move it at any point is going to naturally cause a lot of things disruption eventually because not everyone's doing things the right way. And that's going to be a massive tail and at some point or headwind, I guess. And one other thing too on that topic, Brian, you just mentioned is, is that pulling up here? Yeah, here we go. So Brazilian lawmakers to discuss strategic Bitcoin reserve bill. Ultimately, it's in everyone's best interest to allocate some Bitcoin, whether you're it's a sovereign or you're, you know, a fund manager in Hong Kong or you're an individual in, you know, wherever. Really at the end of the day, like everyone's looking out for their best interests. And it's becoming more mainstream at this point that U.S. Treasuries are a big problem. They're not really the flight to safety trade or store value trade that people perceive them to be even 5-10 years ago, right? There's a combination of factors that have happened since then, but I think the most concerning 1 outside of the United States is maybe 2. The, the, the first one is the fact that, well, if you tie up your capital in US assets, you ultimately have a lot of counterparty risk. You don't even have counterparty risk just at the investment level. You have counterparty risk at the sovereign level. And if you don't agree or comply with United States directives and maybe your capital seized, and then the second aspect is, well, everyone looks at the numbers and there's just no feasible way to pay back the numbers on a real basis. So if you are a government outside of the United States, it really is in your best interest to acquire Bitcoin and especially do it before it becomes a mainstream thing to do. I mean, we're all kind of waiting. I know Brian in particular is very disappointed that the audit of the strategic Bitcoin reserve in the United States has not been made public yet. But let's hold our hopes out. Maybe we're going to get one. But countries, it's really in the best interest of them to start acquiring before the United States just has the ability to, you know, take out whatever budget neutral ways they want to. Gold revaluation. That's something we wanted to talk about as well. But yeah, this is a trend that I think is really only starting between what we talked about the start of the show with traditional pools of capital starting to trickle into Bitcoin. I also noticed too, I didn't even include it in our topics, but it reminds me that I believe it was Michigan's state pension fund, the latest 13F filing, so that would be for the second quarter of this year 2025 showed that they increased their allocation threefold to I believe it was ARCS Bitcoin ETF product decide. I mean, these institutional investors tend to start with a smaller position before kind of expanding on that based on conviction, due diligence, etcetera. And so it's still a really small allocation at the pension size, but they are an underfunded pension. I think they're about 70% funded at the state level. They're trying to generate a return of about 7 or 8% nominally just to keep pace with inflation. And I think as more people in the institutional investor world recognize that there's really no way to make up a shortfall with traditional assets, they're going to have to be forced out on the quote UN quote risk curve, right? And Bitcoin is at least how it's perceived right now to be furthest out on the risk curve, even though we would make an argument that it is a risk off asset, but it's really one of the few assets that will likely vastly outperform the benchmark of real rate of inflation going forward. So it's like, if I could summarize that it's the retail market's opening up at like the 401K. Then you have institutional investors starting to just really small allocations to start. And then you have sovereigns that are looking for passing legislation to start acquiring Bitcoin for their countries. So we've only just sort of just scratched the surface of that. Yeah. And it's going to get wacky too because there's still, I would say increasing conflation unfortunately between Bitcoin and crypto. And so we don't have to go deep into the treasury company stuff. But like, there's been a number of announcements over the past several weeks of digital asset treasury companies or Dats as folks on Twitter like to call them. And, and I was thinking about this the other day and it's like, maybe this is just the path, Like this is the path for both institutional allocators, but really more so like the, the normie retail equity trader to educate themselves or just, you know, get educated on why Bitcoin is different than crypto, because these other digital asset treasury companies are going to fail. And maybe that is the learning. Is that like, oh, they tried to do a treasury strategy around a venture tech bet like Aetherium or Solana or Tron or whatever and didn't work. Well, why didn't it work? It didn't work because it's not a reserve asset, It's not sound money, It's not credibly neutral. It doesn't have the same fundamental monetary properties that Bitcoin does. So say what you will about the Bitcoin treasury company stuff and and the layers of embedded risk there, but at least it's like at least logically sound like you're, you're trying to accumulate more sound money, whereas all these other things, these digital asset treasury companies are accumulating venture tech best bets like generously. And so I think like as this plays out, like I think that's going to be the learning for a lot of people. And I already see Michael kind of take the other side of this, but I think that's going to be the learning is like, oh shit, like they tried to do this strategy with something other than Bitcoin and didn't work. I, you know, maybe, maybe there's something different about these assets. Oh man, no, I mean, Brian's right, but like I just have to I want to temper myself because we have a lot of clients and and listeners that enjoy the to dabble in the pub go. So I don't want to go too far in the direction, but I also want to be on record as much as possible explaining how they're all the same. So at least we'll have the tapes and then if I'm wrong, then people will get, I'll have egg on my face. So I'm just going to. So that's the caveat to say that the same thing that there's no difference between Ethereum and far coin is there's no difference between far Coin treasury company and treasury company that's holding Bitcoin 101 or whatever. They don't have fundamental. They actually don't truly have fundamental value because you can't make money on money. So it's an over financialized system that's allowing people to leverage debt and other products and then also uneducated to buy the Bitcoin. But I think everyone agrees that's in that trade is the M NAV will eventually get to parity or below and then that will naturally cause market forces to get to take care of them. In the same way that like there is no fundamental value to a shell company buying Bitcoin because there's every way under the sun for an individual to get it via their brokerage or buying spot. So anyway, the point being is like, yes, that there it's nonsensical fartcoin or Ethereum because you can make more of it in the same way it's nonsensical to like tap the capital markets to buy it. If somebody's buying the equity expecting to get more Bitcoin and eventually like the the rubber meets the road and the market either gets educated or the MF gets arbitrage out and then somebody's holding a bag and they should have just bought the Bitcoin because they also have all the execution counterparty risk fees associated with it. Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. My take was more like if you just if you're just comparing digital a digital asset treasury strategy to a Bitcoin treasury strategy, like even if the Bitcoin treasury strategies go to 11X or below M NAV and underperform Bitcoin, I still think they'll outperform the digital asset treasury companies. It was my main take. And my main take is I rather take the far coin 100X bagger because at least if I'm going to be AD Gen. like I'm going to maybe, you know, hit it and then run out versus think that there's fundamental value that Bitcoin treasuries are going to like take 50% of all the the BTC and that this is a sustainable thing is, is my main point. Fair. Yeah, I mean they're. Trades. So yeah, if you if you turn it right, the far coin trade might be better. Definitely be better than. That's treasure code. Well, that's the thing too, Yeah. I mean, at the end of the day, the equity, the equity bets are there are they are trades. And so the people who are allocating to them on the retail side are hoping to exit the position and have more Bitcoin than they would if they just bought spot. And so I think there's I, I hope people at least acknowledge that. I don't know how many people on the equity side, you know, making equity invest investments, believe in a lot of the other, you know, aspects or narratives to these companies. But I think there is an interesting angle from like strategy, in particular with Michael temper yourself. There's some interesting stuff I think on the convert side and the preferreds and I'll admit that I don't know enough about it to speak, you know in a sophisticated manner on the topic. But I do think what is happening there looking outside of the fact that there is a lot of counterparty risk at the treasury, the Bitcoin treasury level. So actually strategies Bitcoin treasury which if you're monetizing the balance sheet, you really can't have an issue with the treasury because then the entire business is effectively defunct and investors are going to scramble out of the door. So if you put that, you know, that aspect of the due diligence aside, I think there's an interesting angle because they're the only company, hang on, they're the only company that I think I think at this point will actually have like serious institutional scale in the sense that if you think about like spot Bitcoin, there are still going to be a lot of investors that maybe will not allocate to spot Bitcoin for some time. And not to say that we think that's the right call, but that's just the reality. And so I think that there are there is a space for companies to engineer products that allow them allow investors to get different areas of the capital stack depending on the risk tolerance and their investment objectives. And so that in my opinion is one of the bigger differentiators with strategy versus the others. And I think the others are just like I said, people trying to trade to have more Bitcoin in the future, which I think most people will end up missing the trade. They'll they'll time it wrong. Yeah, I just have to call out. You said put aside the most fundamental thing that exists and by the way that you focus and work on for two years is like just just make sure we're all aligned there, the listeners as well. So you said put it aside like it's like I need to live without the oxygen. We'll just put that aside for a second in this like scenario. And then I'm also. Let's just no. Let's just assume that Sailor adopts MIC and the coins are in MIC. Does that change your view of MSTR? I don't think on a long enough time horizon it matters if it's at MIC or not because the market will just naturally want the underlying and then we are too early to know what the best products that will accrete. Because I think on a long enough time horizon there will be just like all financial products or financial assets, it'll monetize to a point where we'll have a close enough risk free rate of return whether in there's different permutations that it can take. But I don't think we're in 100K early adoption were this early and we found the solution that is just going to be in perpetuity, this Bitcoin printer, private bank and all the things. And, and again, it's all sounds kind of like taboo and spicy and whatever. But the reality is like there's so much embedded knowledge into like tribal knowledge and building financial products and services in this space. And you see this because there's only so many companies and there's definitely so many companies that have lived through these cycles. And to assume, and I've been in these rooms when it comes to the SBRS and all this stuff happening. And it's like you're just going from like 0 to start to educate individuals and to assume that we're just gonna like jump in and people are gonna buy 500,000 BTC or 50,000 BTC and then start financial service firms and make all this money. And we're just going to go out and the government's not going to have any problems with it and all these other things. It's just like even if it's right, put 5 percent, 10%, but don't like it's not your God and don't put all your capital there. So anyway, and like just for Jackson's Jackson, I have to caveat all these things because Jackson's listening and following you get on Twitter and everyone's there and it may be different with MSTR. It's like it's still the same deal. You're getting Coinbase exposure on top of a third party equity and they have to do everything right for you to get your return. And it's like we talked about on Brown's podcast, the Bitcoin per share theme. It might as well be like casino per hour deal. It's like, what are you up at the casino per hour? When your buddy goes to Vegas, he's like up, up, up. And then you get him on Monday morning with the hangover and he's like, yeah, I lost like $10,000. It's like nobody's realizing it. And if you're realizing those gains, I mean, that's really good, but it's not going to be forever because if you're realizing the gains, by definition, somebody else is getting the other side of that trade. It's kind of like a Ponzi. So anyway. Well, yeah. Yes for spice. Yes, for spice, so. Listen, and I'm happy. I'm, I'm happy that you're giving the spice, but I want to go on record and say that I'm not encouraging people to overlook the fact that there is that risk. I'm just saying. It sure sounded like it's it. Put all the custody aside, let's just think about it in an abstract. Yeah, I'm not saying that it's a good idea. I'm just. But to be fair to Jackson, like that's what people are doing. They are putting the custody to the side. Yeah, nobody really talks about that. Yeah, nobody really talks about. If you put the custody aside, which is the fundamental. I know that's what we but we understand. That. But no, let's just let's break something down. If you're putting aside the most fundamental issue that has mired this industry for 15 years, then what else are you putting aside? Is the basic point. Yeah, I agree. So yeah, maybe take into account the custody risk. And I just want to be clear that I wasn't suggesting, yeah, I wasn't suggesting people to to look past that. But Brian, you want to talk stable coins, I want to make sure we get to cover discussed here. Let's see, I got, I got two things here from you that I can pull up. Yeah. Is this the first one you wanted to start with? Yeah, we could start with this. So this is just broader thinking and, and my evolution of thinking around stable coins, like I think there's a, there's a thought in the market or perception by the market that the advent of stable coin proliferation and the Genius Act and regulatory clarity is going to be a massive boon for all of these other chains like Ethereum, Solana, etcetera. And I just don't think that's how it's going to play out. And, and it's mainly because Tether has been and remains the largest player, the largest stable coin issuer in the world. And Paulo, the CEO is a pretty, pretty hardcore bitcoiner. Like he, he has been on record multiple times. Like he doesn't really like, you know, other chains, other rails outside of, you know, he, he prefers Bitcoin and, and you know, there was an announcement couple months ago of, of bringing Tether to lightning. But the other announcement, if you go to the other tweet is that they're launching Tether is launching its own blockchain. But why it's interesting is that there's no sort of native free floating token like an Ethereum Tether itself, USDT will be the native token for this chain. And so it's a chain basically designed for Tether. And so I think it's just the logical progression of of thinking like, yeah, if if the largest issuer, the most dominant stable coin player is just going to make their own chain, then the value is going to accrue to them as a business. It's not going to accrue to these other chains because they'll be, you know, the most liquidity on stable chain or whatever it is. And part of I think part of the launch of this also, which was referenced in the in the other tweet is like, so because of the Genius Act, they have this three-year window to to comply with all the regulations, etcetera. But so they're going to launch basically a new version of USTT at some point that is like specifically for U.S. markets. And my assumption, my working assumption is basically like that is going to be on whatever this stable chain is. It's not going to be on Ethereum, It's not going to be on Solana. Now that's kind of speculation. Who knows what ends up happening, but like it's just I I think there's a a different path that most people in the broader crypto space are not accounting for when they're thinking about why stable coins are so bullish for XYZ chain. I think tethers just going to continue to dominate. And so, yeah, Mike, I know you. I know you have thoughts. So. I don't know, like I'm not going to be too spicy. Like I don't even. You were referencing the guy that hates all chains launches chain, so there's that. But with no native token. Well, tethered like native to. I know, but it's a, it's pegged to the dollar like it's not it's, it's very different than saying. No, I understand. I'm just I'm just calling out. Like oh, all the value's going to accrue with Ethereum's going to 10K because of stable coins like that? That's crazy in my mind. Yeah, I think the interesting thing would brought to light was probably people in the know knew this, but it was that number floating around like 40% of all like you know fees accrued on like a theory of these other chains were on stablecoin. So really highlighting that and the reason why I like, I just, I guess it's interesting because you hear all these people, to Brian's point, talk about block chains and their usage. And I think we all know that there's nothing or a lot of people know that there's nothing really there. I guess we're, I like have difficulty talking seriously about this is because you don't need a chain for any of this. Like it's all just a database that's run by tether and they can stop it at any point. And who's running the nodes and who's running the validators? It goes back to a proof of stake or a theory. I'm like, I just can't help but like not validate any of this because it's all just a database that it's just Ledger and they can stop it at any point. So I don't really know what like they're going to be talking. About I I totally agree with that. I just think the concept of a stablecoin specific chain with no free floating native token is a little bit more honest version of it right. Like we know all these other chains are centralized to some extent and they're don't necessarily need to be on a blockchain. I think this is just like a slimmed down version that's that's more honest about what it is like. It is just a database controlled by Tether. Sounds like a CBC. Hey, real quick, something I've never really understood and I think, you know, it's like help me understand the audience that doesn't like this notion of gas. I think I understand. It would be good to hear you like what's the version of quote UN quote gas where tethers paying the gas fees and tether and who gets paid? Is it the validators that are setting up the node? Like help me understand how that works. Yeah, I don't know, I mean, in in other on other chains like Ethereum, the native token is used as gas and whoever is validating those transactions receives a portion of that. But yeah, I haven't looked at like the specifics of I don't even know if they've released like full details on what this stable chain will be. But the thinking is that, yeah, like the gas would be paid in USDT itself. But like my assumption is that it would just be so de minimis that like it, it doesn't even really matter, like it's not eating into the transaction value that you're trying to send to a material extent. But I think it remains to be seen like what that actually looks like. So I don't know. To answer your question, I don't know. It's funny because it's like, I would imagine instinctually whatever they're doing in the topography looks like what Visas network looks like. So you have like central clearing houses and you have different layers and then you have somebody taking to minimis fees and there's a net fee and then you own that network and you can shut it off at any point. Like this is literally the same thing. It's just in the digital asset world. Yeah. All right, Gold member, show us what you got here. This is actually Brian's topic, but I'm sure sure Michael has some thoughts on gold revaluation. Brian, you want to catch us up? What's going on here? What does Luke have to say? Yeah. So I guess this was a note about a week ago that Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve put out. And they're not like explicitly saying they're going to do this. They just kind of floated the idea of like revaluing the gold reserves, which has been talked about, been rumored as one of the potential ways to, you know, in a budget neutral way, accumulate Bitcoin. And Luke is highlighting this and just saying interesting timing and admission. the US dollar has fallen from 1:42 an ounce TO130300 an ounce of gold in the past 54 years, a CAGR of 8.4%, which is much higher than reported inflation. So his point here is like, this is sort of a tacit admission that CP is bullshit directly from the Fed. Because if you're just comparing dollars to gold, which we haven't revalued in however many years, 54 years, that's your, that's your much more accurate gauge, gauge of debasement and inflation. Yeah, I'd be curious to see how this could potentially materialize or or mechanically be done. I guess I haven't fully thought it through yet, but just reevaluate revaluing an ounce of gold to I guess I don't fully understand like mechanically how it would be done. It'd just be like the United States would say. I think it's just accounting like. Yeah, they would just say 42. Dollars an ounce and then you would just say, oh, we have all this money now. Yeah, they've talked about it. Where they it's the Treasury. What's the TVA like the the Treasury general account, TGA? I think the big thing that stands out here is we've been talking about a lot where there's going to be overcorrection back to what is sound money, gold and Bitcoin. I think the thing that sticks out here is I haven't looked deeply into this, but we we do know we live in a bubble. And so there's all these discussions around bit bonds, SP, Rs, Bitcoin. And it would make logical sense that in their own bubble, in a different world, there's a bunch of discussions happening. And I think I've seen a little bit of it where bonds get gold inserted. We know sovereigns already stack gold, but think about it from the state level and others that it's, it's not going to be either or it's going to be both. And that would be, that would be part of the mechanics of it is repricing the gold because that would help you offset some of the liabilities on that bad debt. So I think this is part of that whole like way that this will play out because again, Bitcoin 2 trillion, what's gold 1415 trillion dollar asset like it's AI. Think of all this is like hoodie or whatever, like you need malleable things so you can start to like mess with to insert, to keep everything like juiced and well, what better asset than the thing that's worth, you know, 10X with what BTC is? So what do you think so far? Episode's almost over. Got to hear some takes from me. Brian Michael, what do you think of the episode? Let us know. I I want honest feedback. I want to know if you're enjoying it. If you're not, I want to know if you like the internal reps, if you prefer a guest on, if you like a mix of both. Ultimately, we're looking to continuously improve the show. We want to be the best show in the industry and we'll only get there with your support and with your feedback. So please leave a comment. I'm really curious to hear the feedback on today's episode. And then also, if you could leave a like that helps a bunch, Five star review, subscribe, you know the drill. I ask for it every week and I really appreciate those who leave a like leave a comment makes my day. So thank you for doing that and enjoy the rest of the episode. Yeah. All right, so we got get a little bit more time here. I'll toss it over to Michael. Do you want to talk about the new cost of capital report or do you want to talk about trust services launching? We'll do the gloss over really quick. I just wanted to call out the reckoning with the cost of capital. I think mainly to call that out, it was done by early writers in in breaking down Bitcoin as the hurdle rate. I think the main reason, and there was a great quote from Luke Groman that was in the piece is in the to read it out really quickly. Growman's quote was $1.4 billion. Fart coin is what you get when the risk free asset underpinning the entire banking and currency system is a bond issued by an insolvent government with seven with debt of seven times revenues off balance sheet liabilities in 20 to 30X revenues. Point being, is this tied into the four O 1K discussion? And everything we've talked about today is all assets will eventually get juiced, whether the amount of liquidity having to get injected into the system or interest rates being reduced or both. But what's going to get obvious gated is real versus nominal returns and real returns are more purchasing power in the economy. Nominal returns are going to be number go up, but you're not actually getting better off. And that's kind of like the version of what we talked about early with home prices or or school. Like sure, you may get an incremental 2 1/2 percent, 5% pay bump annually, but if inflation 7 to 15%. And so all that's embedded in what is actually the return. And that's really Bitcoin from an underlying perspective, the risk free rate. And it breaks down a lot of just like how to think about it, how to manage and how to plan in the future. So I thought that was a very timely piece that ties into a lot of the discussion because it's all the noise is only going to increase from here. And that's where it just again, focused so much on explaining this stuff versus the treasury company because like my job is to help people hold their Bitcoin long term. And so I focus on that. And you kind of would want me and like our team to be more focused on than that then making more Bitcoin in a treasury company because that's perfectly fine. Everybody can do what they want. But you would naturally want the person in charge or helping you safeguard that asset to be solely focused on. Like how do you propagate that into the future? Not how to, like, go and leverage it up, especially because for 15 years, Bitcoin has been the best performing asset and the game has been just to hold on to it and it's been increasingly harder to do it. So yeah. Yeah. And also Bitcoin only becomes the hurdle rate to the extent people have secure ways to hold a long term because it's like, what what's the point of measuring all of your financial decisions in Bitcoin if a year or five years from now you feel like there's a 50% chance you don't have it anymore, right. So the whole, a lot of the idea about building the business here is that it helps both people who already allocated because we hear it all the time, people you say they have whatever allocation and they say, well, I wish I had more. But you know, I don't love the idea that this just disappears. And then, you know, my wife and my children are are looking at me like what happened to our money and our home is foreclosed and all this crazy stuff, right? And so to actually have a new hurdle rate, a new cost of capital, a new way to allocate capital beyond that hurdle rate, you actually need the hurdle rate to be there and be secure. And it's almost like if you don't have secure Bitcoin, kind of similar to measuring against the US Treasury, it's secure in the sense that you get the principal back when you want it, but it's not secure in the sense that the principal is worth nothing when you get it back. So it's like both could have potential insecurities. And that's ultimately, you know, how I would think about it is you need to have a secure custody solution to actually use Bitcoin as a hurdle rate for your decisions. Yeah, it's a good point. Like the the other just pulling on that analogy to treasuries. It's like, well, yeah, the reason treasuries are no longer risk free is because they can be seized and we've learned that. And so it's, it's a similar idea to like if you don't have direct control or access to your Bitcoin or you're trusting a single counterparty like it's a, it's a similar notion of like it could be seized or it could be lost in that sense. Yeah, So big week this week we launched on Ramp Bitcoin Trust Services. And Michael, you shared a tweet, I think it was earlier today. If you want to just give a high level thought, I know we released a podcast focus specifically on that if people want to listen to it. But if they kind of want the TLDR or they want to, you know, sneak preview of what's discussed and what the product launch is, you mind just sharing your thoughts? Yeah, for sure. I think at a high level our goal at Honorimp is to continue to provide value and deliver value. Multi institution custody is the base layer. Custody is the base layer for all financial services. So we focus there, but ultimately we have conversations weekly. We hear the feedback. There's a lot of listeners that enjoy what we do. They think maybe it's not right for them today in the future they want to sign up. And so we continue just to add, whether it's reducing the cost of services, but increasing the amount of value we deliver, whether it's trade, IRA's, lending, inheritance. And this is another function of that we know from the market, there's really two types of holders. There is and I'll start with the first one. There's the existing large holder, somebody holding hundreds if not thousands of Bitcoin as that asset appreciates, they haven't had traditional financial constructs to protect that asset from privacy to estate planning. The tax benefits that traditional sophisticated wealthy investors have had, mainly because while there's people that do it in their world class, they're very, they're, they, they don't operate at scale. So they have to work with clients with over $100 million. So it's put them out of a position to work with them. But even more than that is they generally had to use the traditional financial tools, which is centralized custody. Because anybody that's familiar with irrevocable and just trust in general, you naturally you have to get the asset under your direct control, out of your direct control. And it ultimately ends up with this paradox where if you have a large position, the way you got it is by not trusting a single entity. So you end up in a place that's really stuck. So this has been my experience working in the in building infrastructure for five plus years. Is that problem. The other person is more likely the majority of the people listening in US is these sophisticated tools have only really been present for people that are holding 1050 million plus in net worth. The ability to think about privacy perpetuity planning into perpetuity, moving the assets away from creditors and other people that may want your state, because as you get wealthier, more and more people are targeting you, the tax savings that associated with it. And so this actually solves for both sides if individuals. So that's at a high level kind of like what we launched. To go a little bit deeper, we partnered with a multi billion dollar Trust Company that's a parked in South Dakota, which has I think objectively the best estate and legacy planning laws in the country. And why it's really special is because at the end of the day, there's all these functions that we can talk about again, from privacy to the legacy planning, estate planning. But the biggest one, as you'll see in this report we'll link to is really the the gains that you save in in from the tax advantages because there's certain features within gift taxes that you can get assets out of your estate. Generally there's seven or $14 million depending on your relationships that is being married. But then ultimately any assets you get out of your state via gift taxes as you move in and those assets grow and you happen to pass away who you're leaving them for. Given a lot of people are thinking about multi generations for Bitcoin, they're going to get hit with a 40% death tax. And so there's AI, don't know if it's in the link that I shared, but ultimately in the report you'll see kind of the drag on somebody holding, call it roughly 100 Bitcoin, $10 million today. That conservatively if we think Bitcoin goes to $1,000,000, when somebody outside of a trust has to pass on those assets, they're going to pay 40% to that government we talked about in the beginning of the pod that's just wasting the money versus parking it in these vehicles. And the beauty is with these dynasty trust, you actually can still direct control. So you can still lend against the asset, manage a portfolio, you can still buy other assets, but you just get them out of the direct purview of your personal estate. So somebody commented in one of our notes is like this is on ramps iPhone moment. I wouldn't, I don't know if I'd go that far. We have a lot of other things planned for the market, but I will say that this is really going to be an incredible thing for the industry in my opinion. Because ultimately what's really mired or not been available is just resilient robust custody solutions that you can embed in these constructs. Because by definition of needing them to last 10 to 100 years, no custodian including Coinbase has lasted that long. And so you can't really trust somebody that long into the future. And that's what multi institution allows is if custodian goes away, defuncts goes rogue, you can just move those assets to a new custodian. Yeah, it's, it's really powerful stuff. Not a ton to add to that other than like, yeah, I don't know if it's our iPhone moment, but it's it's certainly something I'm, I'm super excited to to have live and out in the wild because like you, like you explained like there's been this natural gap of the person who's accumulated a material Bitcoin position is probably smart enough to know that they shouldn't trust a single entity. And historically, that's been the only way to access these types of trust services. And so ingraining everything we do from a custody perspective with MIC into this is, is really a game changer. And like when you go through the report and look at some of the numbers that we just had up on the screen, like it is absolutely staggering. And, and the exciting part about it to me is particularly like, you know, we have a lot of prospective clients who haven't on boarded yet who, you know, a lot of their main questions is around like our fees and our costs. And when you combine that with this type of generational long term planning, like the fees are de minimis relative to the magnitude of savings that you'll have by setting these things up, it becomes an absolute no brainer. So super excited to have this out out in the world. And yeah, reach out to us if you want to learn more. Yeah, well said. I know we got a wrap here, so it's a good one this week. Yeah, we'll have to do it again sometimes. But I will say we'll only do it again if people say in the comments section that they liked the episode. And if you didn't like it, I want to hear that as well. And you can tell us why you didn't like it. But let us know, should we do this again? Should we not? Let us know, yeah. Well, are you disappointed? The thing I really want to know is if you enjoyed it over our traditional podcast, because if that's in the comments, you know we can always have more three-way calls. Internal reps. Internal rips, we can spread it out so it'd be good. Or if you actually didn't enjoy my takes or some of Jackson's crazy takes, we can also make sure we get a 4th guest. We have very big guest lined up for the next couple of weeks, so yeah. Yeah, let us know. Some people say best show in the industry, others say we're showing the exact language. It was like rambling idiots or something. So it's like, let us know which one you think we are and we'll see you again next week. Thanks guys. 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 Ramp Media is for informational and entertainment purposes only, and nothing should be construed as investment or legal advice. Regardless of where you are in your Bitcoin journey, we'd love to hear from you. Visit on rampbitcoin.com/contact to schedule a consultation with one of our private Client advisors.
Transcript source: fountain