If you have assets that you like to possess yourself, you should have Bitcoin because like
it is money that they can't take from you. It is money that you can send anywhere in the world at
any time. Really what's likely to happen, there will be an AI that's too powerful to be public.
And if China is going to give it to their people and we're not going to give it to ours,
of course that disadvantages us. And I bet you would see the US force China to close theirs off
too. So much debt being issued to pay for all the data centers, not just here, but worldwide.
I think you're going to see substantial, like the fiscal impulse is going to become substantial.
You're going to hear about like the debasement story is going to come back.
Like, and all of a sudden you're going to look at Bitcoin.
It's going to be at like 90K and everyone's going to be like,
oh no, I need Bitcoin because of the storm.
And all of a sudden it's just everybody remembers why they liked Bitcoin in the first place.
And then like, bam, it's no longer in like a bear market.
It's sort of just like chugging along.
If I had to ask you, would the Bitcoin price be higher if Saylor had never bought Bitcoin?
What do you think the answer would be?
How's it going, man?
I'm really good, man.
Good to see you in New York.
Good to see you.
I got in 23 hours late, but I'm here.
I can't believe it.
I was shocked.
Well, was there like a-
23-hour flight delay.
Was there a-
I saw there was a hurricane in New Jersey yesterday.
Oh, yeah.
I guess there was yesterday.
I only caught a glimpse of it from the office,
but I guess there was a tornado warning.
There was like a thunderstorm that rolled through.
To be fair, I'd rather not be in a plane in a hurricane.
That's true.
What's going on?
I mean, it's all like AI and Clarity Act.
And just right now in the summer doldrums market that we're in.
Summer doldrums.
Bottom of the bear market.
We're begging folks in Washington to bust their butts on our behalf.
And it's like a 97 degree swamp down there.
And we're like, please get it done in the last minute.
So I would say it's been an exciting summer, even though the market has been quite boring,
I would say overall.
I think it's true in both equity.
I don't know.
Maybe boring is not the right word,
but it's not a particularly bullish moment
we find ourselves in for Bitcoin
or for equities, really.
It's like ebbs and flows.
It's always exciting.
It's the never-ending saga.
So I spend no time in the data,
but all I have is vibes.
And when you've been in Bitcoin a bit,
vibes kind of work.
Oh, yeah.
And I do feel like we must be close to a bottom.
Yeah, I do too.
I put out a report in June that said,
I looked at the metrics that consistently topped,
just peaked, spiked at other prior tops
and consistently bottomed at other prior bottoms.
So I have all these metrics.
I basically set Claude code to say,
go look like in my own database,
which by the way is what I would recommend.
You don't get a lot of hallucinations
when you put binding constraints on the AI
to only use the data you give it, right?
But what data is that?
So in this case, it's like all derived Bitcoin metrics.
So like everything, if you think of like coin metrics and glass node, right?
Like MBRV and Soper and Nuple and HODL wave data and seller data, right?
Like on-chain movements.
This is Thorn on-chain.
Yes, literally.
And like mayor multiple and like moving averages, like all that type of stuff, right?
And so I created a catalog of which ones reliably mark tops and bottoms.
And then, of course, we go and we look at which of those, did the topping indicators hit in October or in and around that top?
Have the bottoming indicators hit now?
And interestingly, of course, we didn't, a lot of the topping indicators didn't hit.
Some of them hit well before, like after the election and never recovered again.
In a way, almost like a, so a dampening of the amplitude of the top.
And part of my thesis is like that may also like cap the downside.
because like the prior bear market bottoms
are all like 75 to 85% down.
We've not gotten that far
and I really don't think we will.
I mean, touch wood, me neither.
But that's actually interesting
because this ran early.
Like with the ETFs in start 24, right?
ETFs like Bitcoin ran,
then it ran really hard into the Trump election.
Do you think we just had everything a bit too soon?
Yeah, in a way.
Some of the topping indicators
hit in the post ETF all-time high
and never hit again.
And so I agree.
I mean, look, we remember this.
I know James Cech called it chop solidation, that 24, right?
New all-time high, like in February 24,
having, I think, in April.
So first time the new all-time high in a cycle
came before the having,
which is what had everyone asking,
is this end of the cycle or whatever.
Then we chopped for 237 days
until the sort of Trump election run-up.
I mean, we got to like 100 right after that.
and then we only got to 125 after all of 2025 right i mean it just feels like it should have
gone higher and frankly this is um people have talked about this too 2021 felt like it should
have gotten higher 100 so it's kind of like you're in obviously you know like the whether it's those
power law people or whatever like the the um the growth is slowing like the curve is bending towards flatter But again like if you look at the bottom at the start of 2023 it was like 15 Is that where we opened that year
You know, following FTX's collapse.
We're at 60.
I'm looking at my watch like it's a block clock.
We're at 60.
This one isn't working.
Thomas, get this block clock working.
Actually, it's not even plugged in.
That's probably why.
So it's purely an art piece.
You know, we're at 65K right now.
That's materially higher bottom, right?
And 58 has held a couple times now.
To me, I ran a poll at Galaxy among the trading team and the risk and research teams, basically the markets team at Galaxy about like two nights ago.
And I put it in the WhatsApp, our group chat.
And I was like, is this price action, is it grinding higher, ultimately grinding higher?
Or is it bear market noise?
Like is 58 to 65 like the start of something?
and literally like 30 people voted in the poll and it was evenly split 15-15 between those two
options so people don't know is it time to be are we is 58 the bottom where we've tested like four
times personally i like to see it bounce harder off 58 and i'm kind of like in maybe the bear
market like you know maybe set 70 i say okay call it a clean bounce there now 58 but you know 65 is
close to 63, which is practically 60, which is 58. In my mind, it's just too close. So I think part
of the thesis is that, but a big reason why, you know, I think it can go into the 50s. It could even
see a 40, I think is possible. It's what I wrote. It's not necessarily likely, but every day that it
doesn't like go down, it starts to, I mean, who is left to sell? That's the other big part. One of
the big things I looked at in that report and I tweet about a lot is like Dorman's coins moving
on chain which of course does not always mean a sale but it often does i can tell you i haven't
moved coins out of my cold storage like setup ever yeah so like we had two of the biggest years ever
of like you know three five seven ten plus year dormant coins waking up in 24 and 25 um only
rivaled by 2017 but of course 2017 didn't have the volume of like 10 plus year coins we had a fairly
large amount of those last year. As of halfway through this year, we're looking at if it's like
the first half, second half mirrors the first half, it'll be less than half the coins at the end of
this year. So like it's abating, right? And I think that supply side dynamic makes it much,
much more likely that we've bottomed. And then you just like think through that story. You're
talking about ETFs in Jan 24 and this whole story that we've lived through the last two years. Like
if you bought like the ETF buildup at the end of 23 or like the ETF launch is in like the 40s,
or if you bought during chop solidation, you know, which is like 40 to 60s, like you're held
from a 60K buy in like 2024 till now, you're flat. You've had so many chances to sell. Even when you,
if you didn't like the all-time high and you decided to sell once you thought it was going down,
we rallied back a bunch of times we were just at 82.5 just in april of this year like two months
ago three months ago like so if you people who felt like when it went to 60 oh crap i should have
sold they were giving them 30 percent increase to sell into like who is left now that wants to sell
at 65 i think it's materially diminished seller 100 at this point that's my guess so then you asked
about the demand side though then we have to think about the demand side and that's a it's also
tricky. The demand side is an interesting one. So I've had this conversation with a few people
privately. I don't think I've talked about it on the podcast. If I had to ask you, would the Bitcoin
price be higher if Saylor had never bought Bitcoin? What do you think the answer would be?
That is such a good question. I've not ever asked myself that question.
High or lower, obviously.
Well, because I mean, he was what? He started buying in summer 2020.
and he didn't buy that much in the beginning.
And we got to basically this price
without him having bought any of that.
The big pump last time it got to this sort of price
was really Elon Musk buying.
Yeah, I mean, in 21.
Was that about 40K or something?
Yeah, and this is when Michael Rouhani
worked at Tesla, right?
And built out their Bitcoin payments thing.
And then Elon rugged by selling some
and saying he was testing liquidity in the market.
It was great times.
I don't know.
I don't know the answer.
They still own Bitcoin now.
Yeah, no, no, they own a bunch.
of Bitcoin. I think SpaceX specifically. I don't know. Does Tesla? Tesla still owns Bitcoin too.
Yeah. Well, there you go. I mean, he didn't sell at all or anything. But then he, remember he said
the thing about like that the Bitcoin miners need to like become more energy efficient for him to,
and of course they are. I remember him having the debate with Marty about that. Yeah. And this is
like obviously a pretty old debate. I think people don't understand energy now. Like it's not really
very credible critique of Bitcoin mining. They're very supportive to grids and like you need a lot
of electricity as soon as ai turned up well yeah now it's kind of like the the target has turned a
little bit it's not quite all the way there but it's probably about equal to the amount that was
i mean it wasn't like that mainstream of a criticism for bitcoin mining i don't know i got
because it got kind of mainstream if you hold bitcoin long enough there's going to come a time
when you need some dollars it might be a tax bill a business expense life getting in the way but
whatever it is it might come at a time when you don want to sell your bitcoin that where leaden comes in leaden lets you borrow against your bitcoin instead with tiered rates that go as low as 9 so you don have to sell your stack if you don want to Ledin have operated through every market cycle since 2018
and have originated over $11 billion in loans
but the important part for me is the way Ledin handles these loans
your collateral is held in custody and never lent out to generate interest
and Ledin's more than just loans
Tether Gold is now live alongside your Bitcoin
with instant trading across 10 pairs
and later this year you'll be able to borrow against gold in the same way that you do with
Bitcoin. Ledin really is an awesome company. I've used them multiple times. The applications have
taken me less than 15 minutes and you have the dollars in your account within hours.
If you want to check out Ledin, go to ledn.io and use the code WBD for 0.25% off your first loan.
That's ledn.io and use the code WBD. Every Bitcoiner eventually has to answer one question.
If something happened to me, would my family know what to do? Could my wife or parents recover my
Bitcoin and would my children inherit the Bitcoin that I spent years stacking? That's where Anchor
Watch builds Bitcoin custody models to protect you and your family against real life, accidents,
errors, kidnappings, and even your own death. Every Anchor Watch custody solution includes their
inheritance protocol, designed so when the unthinkable happens, your Bitcoin reaches the
people you intended it for. Whether you're a self-custody expert or want multi-institutional
support, your Bitcoin estate plan shouldn't be an afterthought. Bitcoin is only generational wealth
if it can actually be passed down through the generations.
So make sure they can access in the future
what you've built today.
Anchor Watch is your custody, your way.
Visit anchorwatch.com to get started.
That's anchorwatch.com.
If you own a Bitcoin ETF,
especially if it's GBTC,
you need to listen up.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs provide price exposure to Bitcoin,
not direct ownership.
You can't withdraw it,
you can't self-custody it,
and they charge you a management fee every year to hold it.
Well, Swan recently announced Swan Real Bitcoin Exchange,
and it's ready to use right now. RBX is a structured in-kind exchange that converts your
spot Bitcoin ETF shares into real on-chain Bitcoin. It does that without selling on the
open market and it's designed to support a tax-efficient outcome. So for example, if you
hold GBTC, you're paying 1.5% a year in management fees for Bitcoin price exposure. But by swapping
GBTC for real Bitcoin with RBX, you can drop that figure as low as 0% by just holding it in self-custody.
This is designed in a way that maintains your cost basis
and in a manner that supports the deferral of capital gains tax.
So if you own a Bitcoin ETF, especially if it's GBTC,
you need to talk to Swan Private about RBX today.
Head over to swan.com forward slash WBD
and book in a call with one of their team.
That's swan.com forward slash WBD.
But the thing is like the facts were always on our side with that.
Like I feel like people like Daniel Batten and Troy Cross
did amazing work at dispelling that FUD.
Right.
And I think, but for Saylor, I mean, I think he's done a lot for Bitcoin adoption.
And I think, I also think, by the way, on the supply side of this current moment, like
they've substantially raised cash now, I think, to mostly like settle any fears that like
there'd be like a recursive spiral.
Which I think is a really good idea from them.
I think that's a good move.
Yeah.
I mean, I think, look, it was so funny though, it was a big pivot for them, like to basically
say, we're going to actively manage this book.
Yeah.
Because he had been, he had designed the entire thing as just a pure like money in the door
insta-buy Bitcoin, money in the door insta-buy.
No, like that's what we do.
Yeah.
And that's why you should own a Bitcoin treasury company, by the way, because they are like
predictable permanent buyers.
But he isn't really a Bitcoin treasury company by his own admission now.
He's a digital credit purveyor, right?
So it's different.
It has different needs.
I mean, he didn't have to do the preferred issuances that add this complexity with liabilities before.
Initially, he was just selling MSTR stock when it was trading above the value of his Bitcoin and then buying Bitcoin with it.
But he was able to stack quite a lot using these new vehicles.
So, I mean, look, I really respect strategy and Michael Saylor.
And one of the things that I am so fascinated by
is the creativity they have on the financing side.
So he should be thought as one of the world's
premier financial engineers.
Everyone thinks I don't like Saylor, which is just not true.
And I don't think he's been a negative to Bitcoin.
But the question I would have is,
has his buy side been that instrumental?
In the sense that without him,
obviously he's been a huge buyer over the last few years.
As of ETFs, they've been like the two main buyers.
Would the Bitcoin price be higher or lower
without the whole treasury company thing ever existing?
I think it's a really interesting conversation
because if I had to just completely guess,
obviously no one knows the answer to this,
I would say maybe it's the same.
Maybe it hasn't actually made a huge incremental difference.
Yeah, because also the demand that powered those
could have just bought the ETFs or Bitcoin.
I think that's a fair way to think of it,
that it could be replacement for demand,
not substantially more demand.
Especially when you look at the people
that are buying the treasury companies.
is generally like retail investors who probably could just buy Bitcoin Right I think so I think it a fascinating counterfactual to think about Look your interview with Michael I think you interviewed him right after I did like a month after
I have to admit, I struggled to get my questions in. He was doing his filibuster routine. And I was
really proud of your questions to him. And I frankly thought his reactions were really telling
to people and it was not taken well. And frankly, as a person who does a show myself, looking at a
person who does a show like you, like we have obviously different shows and you did a service,
I think, to the community by asking him that question. And frankly, it was an incredible clip.
Like that was great media. How well did that clip? It's funny. I saw him in Vegas and he did a show
with Pete and I was in the room with Pete when he was setting up and Pete just made a very offhand
joke being like, you're not going to shout at me like you didn't Danny, do you? And he was like,
hey, I made Danny go viral. Yeah, you did. Thank you, sir. Yeah. I mean, I think it was a great
interview. I honestly, and I love interviewing Michael because he's just like a crazy mind that
has all these like really fascinating ideas. And his story has evolved so much. I mean, he talks
about this all the time. Like he, I mean, he hated Bitcoin. Now he's, he's well beyond just
loving Bitcoin. He's got this whole new, bigger idea. It's really interesting. So no, I like him.
And the thing that I think I miss is the 2020, 2021 sailor.
Like just being truthful.
And like he can do whatever the hell he wants.
And like, who am I to say what he can do?
But like, that's the sailor I miss
because I thought he was really on it back then.
And I feel like the digital credit thing
has kind of strayed a little bit.
And one of the things that I really don't particularly like
is talking about making Bitcoin better money
through these digital credit products.
Like that's something that kind of just rubs me up the wrong way.
But like, it's kind of by the by, it doesn't really matter.
But I just, I think it is interesting to think about what the demand side would be like without
the treasury companies ever having existed.
It is very interesting.
And I do not, I do not know.
And look, there are a lot of them are not having existed at this point.
I know.
You see Satsuma's gone now.
Satsuma.
And I mean, I don't know what 21 is going to do, but obviously with Jack.
What do you think about that?
Announcing.
I don't know.
I literally do not know.
I mean, Jack didn't, he wasn't that forthcoming
about exactly what the underlying issue was, right?
He said he has a disagreement with the board.
I don't know what that means.
Me neither.
And I always find it very hard
because like Jack is a friend of both of ours.
It's hard talking about a friend in this kind of way
without him being here.
But like, I feel like some of the hints
that he was giving were that,
obviously he was saying the direction was different
between what the company wants and what he wanted.
I think it's the right move for him to step down
if that's the case.
And I'm also super psyched that Jack's going to be unleashed Jack again.
Like one of the things I don't like about the public company stuff is that no one can say what they think.
Like everyone has to be so careful.
I mean, especially if you're the CEO of a publicly listed company, right?
Because you have to file 8Ks when your peer place is like you really can't say.
And of course, this is true for really any company, but even more so for a publicly listed one.
Like you've got this fiduciary duty to your shareholders.
Yeah. You got to if it can possibly contradicts with the, you know, value of the stock, you have to be careful.
And then, yeah, there's lawyers and there's like, I mean, private company is a lot different.
Yeah. I also like I mean, we've I've just always enjoyed Strike.
I think it's a good app. It's been a great app. It's it's Jack and his team are cool.
Jack is one of the coolest people, in my view, in Bitcoin.
A hundred percent. I mean, the whole his whole bit with the closet.
I die laughing every time I see.
Jack and Dylan, they crush you, man.
I know, they do.
But it's, like, Satsuma's small relative to the other treasury companies.
But like 650 Bitcoin or something, it's not insignificant.
Yeah, there's others, though.
I don't, I've stopped, I mean, to kind of partly to the point, like, I don't really follow the treasury companies much anymore.
But the reason I bring it up is, like, these are the things that feel like bottom signals to me.
Yeah, I think there's some truth to that.
I think, and there was a whole, like, rage quit of, like, all these people, like Jeremy Grantham, all these, like,
all the old jokers came out to like dunk on bitcoin that always happens at the bottom remember
like peter zayhan like yeah this always happens when you're saying bitcoin's 17 000 it's gonna go
negative yeah we're like dude well you were literally exactly wrong in fact you basically
painted the bottom yeah um i mean look like it's a long history of bitcoin making critics look
stupid i i'm i think the the demand side going forward though i think you're not right like
sailors i don't you're not going to see them buying a ton probably for the rest of the year
maybe some depending on what happens you know if it you know he said that he'll be buying the top
forever to laura shin that time right which is a banger clip i love it and i it has multiple
meanings but one of them i mean it's i like the meaning that like he's a buyer at all prices so
it's like you know if you buy the real estate market in the u.s like the last 30 years you've
been buying the top forever and it's also like he's one of us like i buy the top every time exactly
but it's also that like he is structurally practically incapable of not buying the top
That's when he gets the leverage to buy.
Yeah. Right.
He needs the exuberance because that's what creates the premium on his stock.
Right. So actually, like I haven't
released this yet, but I've been working on like an academic study, like the ETFs and
Saylor both are structural price followers, like mathematically speaking.
They're lagging in decay.
It makes total sense for Saylor.
The ETFs can be a little bit more surprising to think about.
But again, Saylor, he needs the momentum to exist already.
So it's not like you'll see headlines that are like Bitcoin rises on like strategies,
big buy.
And it's like, it's the opposite.
It's actually the opposite.
It's almost always the opposite.
Yeah, so he'll be buying the top forever because that's when he's structurally able to buy.
And you can see, I mean, now the digital credit thing, engine, as he calls it,
that did create a counterfactual.
Bitcoin's going down, demand is declining while he was still,
I mean, the beginning of this year, I forget the numbers,
but he bought tons of Bitcoin with that.
It was very effective.
But I think about it sort of more generally going for this year.
If you go and ask somebody, what do you think you don't own enough of,
Bitcoin or like NVIDIA stock?
For most of this year, I think most people, even Bitcoiners, would say, I'm definitely underweight AI, and I wish I was longer AI.
And so Bitcoin's been competing with that whole trend.
And then there's the whole derivative and supply chain trends around that, data centers, neoclouds, memory chips, the metals that go into them, whatever.
All that stuff has just ripped this year.
but all of it right now at this moment it's all kind of like it's like it's probably a local top
i have no idea not like the top but like i think frankly like that um the if you call a pullback
or the flat the flattening a little bit of that ai trade is help is being supportive of bitcoin
yeah a little bit right i agree with that there were a lot of people who definitely like called
up their broker and they were like because they bought the etf and they're like not deep into
bitcoin and they're like hey that bitcoin thing's not doing well like sell it and like buy nvidia
Like there's definitely a lot of that, right?
So I think a lot of that has probably abated temporarily too.
And then like, you know, clarity can be a catalyst, although probably Bitcoin's not the primary beneficiary of it.
I mean, even Gensler said Bitcoin was a commodity, right?
So like, but it can be, I think it will be if it passes and can become law, that'll be a demand catalyst.
But then it's like the age old story, like Bitcoin's momentum, reflexive assets,
It's one of the most reflexive assets in the world.
It's like a Veblen good.
People want to buy it when it starts going up.
So like you'll have people if we go,
if we just like the hodlers that are owning it down here at 60K,
we're still DCAing and buying.
I, you know, disclaimer, like I own Bitcoin.
I buy Bitcoin regularly on a programmatic basis
and have for a long time.
We just bleed this thing higher because the sellers are exhausted.
Then at some point it all starts to kick in.
The narrative reemerges.
I think there's a chance that you're going to see like,
You know, the stuff that's happening in debt, there's so much debt, the corporate debt.
There's so much debt being issued to pay for all the data centers, not just here, but worldwide.
I think you're going to see substantial, like the fiscal impulse is going to become substantial.
You're going to hear about like the debasement story is going to come back.
And all of a sudden, you're going to look at Bitcoin.
It's going to be at like 90K and everyone's going to be like, oh no, I need Bitcoin because of the storm.
And all of a sudden, it's just everybody remembers why they liked Bitcoin in the first place.
and then like, bam, it's no longer in like a bear market.
It's sort of just like chugging along.
Like that, it's, I think James has talked about this,
James Check, and I totally agree with it.
Like it's not just the price bottoming,
the price pain that has to happen.
It's the time pain.
People just need time to like be angry,
like sell or whatever, then get so bored,
go away for a while, forget about it.
Then like get their interest peaked again.
Like that just takes time.
Yeah.
And yeah, it's gonna happen.
And truthfully, I don't think most people's interest
gets peaked until the price starts going up again.
That's what I'm saying.
Yeah.
So you need the sort of like, you know,
but the price can't really go up
until all those people have already sold, basically.
And that's why we debate like the supply.
There's not, I just don't think there's nearly
as much supply looking to sell at these levels as there was.
Yeah.
No, I agree with that.
One of the interesting things, I think,
you can tell me that you think this is stupid,
but with the AI trade,
obviously that took so much of the wind
out of Bitcoin sales last year.
And the companies that have done really well
are the data centers and the chip manufacturers,
that kind of thing.
Do you think that they could almost be like what the Bitcoin miners used to be to Bitcoin, to AI,
in that they're almost like a proxy vehicle to get exposure to AI?
And when we see, like, obviously, SpaceX has now gone live,
Anthropoc is going to IPO, OpenAI is going to IPO.
Do you think they're all going to get crushed when there's, like, a real vehicle
that is actually, like, explicitly AI exposure?
That's an interesting question.
I think, I don't think so.
I'll tell you why.
One, the frontier labs, right?
They are purveyors of models, right?
They don't own primarily,
so maybe they have some,
but they're not the purveyors of energy
and compute typically, right?
Most of them are using data center,
NeoCloud, hyperscaler contracts,
and they're creating the models.
The open source models are getting substantially better.
I mean, all models are getting better,
but it feels at least right now
like the gap between the frontier
and the open source is declining.
Well Kimi K3 beat everything pretty much didn it Well on a couple benchmarks Not Yeah not necessarily all of them Okay But it close Yeah I mean even like six months ago
I think the conventional wisdom was that the open sources
were like a year behind the frontier.
And wherever, whether they're behind or beating or even,
everyone agrees that's collapsed substantially.
Yeah.
Now it could expand again.
Like, I don't know if the frontier labs get access
to like troves of proprietary data sets
that make them able to train better
or if they can hoard the better new chips
and train the models on the better new chips
that the open source purveyors can't.
Like, okay, it could expand.
But those open source models still need data centers.
They just cut out the paying the middleman tokens.
So I actually think you could see the frontier labs
need to move more into the application space
and not rely on selling tokens.
That's what they do.
They are token merchants, right?
And so I think there's, I mean,
there's so many angles to these parts of these stories but um i think it's possible that your
theory that the you know like a public anthropic ipo could take the wind out of sales of like what
a microsoft or you know like the neocloud the irons of the world yeah um or the galaxies right
we have we have our own data centers as well big ones and um but i but i think the reality i think
more likely what's going to happen is that those models are disrupted by open source models which
which by the way, are really big and they need them.
So instead of maybe paying Anthropic,
bigger companies first,
but then maybe depending on how easy this gets,
bigger enterprises start getting their own compute
and running the open source models on them,
but thereby bypassing the spending
on Anthropic and OpenAI.
It's possible.
I think this is a, but again, no one knows.
Because there's also the added variable
that no one knows about,
which is what the US government are going to do.
They've clearly been holding back these frontier models.
And I feel like their hand's getting forced
and they're going to have to just unleash them.
I agree.
I mean, but yes, the questions of alignment
and safety and regulation
and the geopolitics of it are very substantial.
Does safety matter though
if they're holding back these US companies
because of safety concerns,
which might be totally valid,
but the Chinese models don't care?
Do they just be like, okay, how about it?
Well, yeah.
I mean, that's the AI arms race.
I mean, there's a couple.
I mean, you could imagine there's great essays, AI 2027.
Have you read this?
Or AI 2040?
So they've game theoryed out so many different possible outcomes.
It's really, really fun.
I recommend people check that out.
And no, you can end up with a massive accord between China and the US to stop the arms race,
just like during the Cold War.
It's totally possible, right?
I mean, I don't know.
How much better do you think it can really get?
Like, I mean, I'm doing stuff with like 5.6 and Fable that is like just literally mind bending versus just like four months ago.
So like, yeah, I mean, I guess it can probably always get better.
It can get cheaper.
I think this is like really what's likely to happen.
There will be an AI that's too powerful to be public.
Yeah.
And if China is going to give it to their people and we're not going to give it to ours, of course, that disadvantages us.
And I bet you would see the U.S. force China to close theirs off too.
And so then the evolution would become
making it cheaper and cheaper and cheaper
and more accessible, right?
And we're in that spot now.
That's starting to be what happens.
Wait, so you think that they might end up
capping intelligence, being like,
this is as smart as we're going to allow this to get?
I think it's almost certainly inevitable at some point.
I mean, if the truth is that we simply can't make it smarter,
like let's say we hit the wall,
that's the only other thing that's going to stop it from growing.
Otherwise, wouldn't it just get smarter forever?
Yeah, but what, like...
That's dangerous.
It's absolutely dangerous.
Sure.
No, it's definitely dangerous.
I agree with that.
Governments are going to involve themselves.
I think it's very obvious.
But is that not almost like Bitcoin,
where it's like, yes, this can be used for bad things,
but it can also be used for great things?
Yeah, but Bitcoin can't literally destroy the Earth.
It can't create Terminator robots.
It can't itself train robots to build a factory,
to build more robots,
and then invade your city like in Minority Report or iRobot.
But is this like holding a balloon underwater,
where you hold it down as long as you can,
And to be clear, I'm like an optimist about AI.
I just think like there's no world
where like everyone's going to get
like literally like extraterrestrial superhuman intelligence
that can crack any lock.
Like that's not going to be allowed.
And so I think, I don't know where that is.
I certainly don't want to, I don't think it's here.
Like it's now, but I think at some point,
like I think conceptually,
there is absolutely a model too smart to let everyone use.
And the question, I think what we need-
But the problem is, like, I, so I think you're so right.
I think there is probably a model that's too smart to let everyone use,
but they'll still use it.
That's my problem with it.
Well, this is like one of the theses in this AI 2040 is that like,
they literally set up where like all of the US's training is in like Mongolia,
right next to China, and all of China's is in Canada.
So we can both easily just bomb it, like in a literal, like, um, like, you know,
mutual shared destruction.
Yeah.
I think But that like that that seems to me like you accepting the permanent underclass You like you giving the government control to use this AI that way too powerful for the public Well it not clear I mean I think one of the
I think they'd probably
both ban as well.
I mean, it's just like
the government didn't
also use the nukes
like when we had-
But they could.
Well, they could,
but they didn't.
And they, well,
they did twice.
Well, that's true,
but that was before,
I mean, the treaties
is what I'm saying.
Yes.
So I don't know.
Yeah, it's totally possible.
It's not clear which way.
right also I mean look if you can't stop the distillation then the models can't I mean it
looks pretty clear now that you can basically reverse engineer a frontier model into an open
source model and so like if it's available anywhere it's basically going to be available
everywhere right away so like I you know and then that you know you I what I hope is that if we start
capping or segregating or regulating that we do it in a transparent way like what I I wrote a piece
last month about this mythos thing where Commerce Department effectively called Anthropic on the
and said, kill it under this authority.
They never wrote a letter.
They never published anything in the Federal Register.
That was completely an appropriate way to do it,
in my opinion.
And it needs to be done under statute.
There's gotta be a process or whatever,
if they're gonna start doing this.
Then it's gotta at least be done through law, right?
It can't be like you get a call at night
and says, cut off these users from your model.
Like, that's crazy.
But then, again, I totally agree.
Just to get into the semantics of it,
The hard thing about that is that they almost,
like the anthropics and the open AIs of the world,
almost have to submit their model to the government first,
be like, is this okay?
I don't like that.
I agree.
But I'm saying there's a decent probability that ends up happening.
I mean, honestly-
But is this not just where China wins then?
Well, I mean, if they can catch up.
I mean, no.
I mean, I'm not sure.
Maybe.
I mean, China's giving it away.
I think the strategy is so interesting here that they are,
they're not trying to make their own frontier models
or frontier labs for profit at the moment, I guess.
I'm sure they're doing some private, you know, government type training somewhere.
But like their strategy is just like flood the zone, like at least have everyone use ours.
It reminds me of like this time I think Bill Gates was asked once if he was upset that there was all these people pirating windows in China.
And he was like, I'm happy they're pirating ours and not the others.
I'd rather have them use ours than the others.
And I was like, I think that's kind of what China's saying here.
Like, well, if we can't control it, we may as well have everyone use the one we're using.
Right.
And like and also simultaneously and then degrade the U.S. like advantage.
Right.
It degrades US advantage.
It hits US markets.
And at any point when they've got enough users,
they can just make a closed source anyway.
They could.
They could or stop releasing new open source ones, right?
I mean, so I don't know where that goes.
I don't think, I hope it doesn't happen soon
because I want to keep getting better intelligence.
And yeah, I don't want you to be walking around.
And by the way, there's way other more dystopian.
They could start saying which models each person can use.
So you'd be like, well, Danny, you know,
you've only been in the United States for two weeks.
So you only get access to like 4.0.
You don't get access to 5.6.
What?
But they could do that type of stuff, which is another reason I like open source, by the way.
And I run some open source models at home, just not like huge ones because I don't have a data center.
So I don't know. That's going to get really, really exciting.
Do you want to pay less in taxes and stack more Bitcoin?
Of course you do.
Well, by mining Bitcoin with Blockware, you can.
Under section 168K of the US tax code, Bitcoin mining servers qualify for 100% bonus depreciation.
This means every dollar you spend on miners can directly offset your income in a single year.
And it's true for both business owners and W2 earners.
So if you have $100,000 in ordinary income, you can purchase $100,000 in miners and potentially offset your tax liability entirely.
Blockware's mining as a service does all the heavy lifting.
They secure the rigs, they source the low-cost power, and they handle all the day-to-day maintenance.
So you get to stack Bitcoin every single day while drastically shrinking your tax bill.
Get started today at BlockwareSolutions.com forward slash WBD
and use code WBD for $100 off your first miner.
That's BlockwareSolutions.com forward slash WBD.
You wouldn't reuse a Bitcoin address,
so why does your phone broadcast the same identifier for life?
Every SIM has a static ID and carriers, ad networks and bad actors all use it to track you.
The big carriers have been caught selling that data over and over again.
CAPE is America's privacy first mobile carrier.
Their identifier rotation feature changes your ID every 24 hours
so you look like a different subscriber every single day.
And SIM swaps are off the table.
Your number can't move without a 24-word phrase that only you hold.
There's also no name at sign up, no social security number,
and there's no profile to build on you.
If you're a Bitcoiner in America,
I honestly don't know why you'd use any other network.
You can head over to cape.co forward slash WBD
and use the code WBD for 33% off your first six months.
that's c-a-p-e dot co forward slash w-b-d if you're already self-custody bitcoin you know the
deal with hardware wallets complex setups clumsy interfaces and a seed phrase that can be lost
stolen or forgotten bitkey fixes that bitkey self-custody built for real life it gives you
an intuitive easy to use wallet with no seed phrase to sweat over and it has a strong recovery
system and built-in inheritance for long-term peace of mind and bitkey's just had a massive
The new device now has a screen so before you approve something you can check it on the Bitkey itself The transaction the address or any account changes It a big difference you not just trusting what on your phone you seeing it for yourself on the device it simple secure self without the stress go to bitkey today and use the code wbd to
get 10 off the new bitkey that's bitkey.world and use the code wbd that's where another place that
europe and the rest of the world are kind of messing up is that like what good models coming
out europe i think there's one i don't even know what it's yeah i i don't know i don't know um and
but also we have so much energy like right we yeah i think this one of the good things and i know
there's you know the beginnings of backlash on the populist front both left and the right against
data centers 100 percent um but i also think partly through the bitcoin bitcoiners work right
like troy and daniel like you talked about and others um there's a bit bigger realization now
that we can't grow and be prosperous
with capping our energy use
and actually energy abundance is the way.
And by the way, things like wind and solar
are naturally good, important parts of the grid
and have grown a lot as well, right?
But you kind of need everything
and you really need to run a growing
and balanced energy grid.
That's what it is, electrical grid.
I think people flip-flop too hard
on either side of that
where it's like either wind and solar
is the only way you can do things
or it's like evil to do it that way.
It should just be like, the truth is everything.
Yeah, you need a bit of everything.
They all have different platform use cases.
I think, I wish we had more nuclear energy in this country.
I hope we get some like deregulation
because I've been, apparently it takes like a decade
to even get a license and like no one's gotten one
in like 40 years or something.
But nuclear is green and huge.
And baseload.
Yeah, and right, and it just goes forever.
And also, I don't know, I wasn't alive then,
but I'm presuming the use of nuclear weapons,
but then also like the partial thing at Three Mile Island
and then Fukushima and Chernobyl.
But if you really look at those,
you know, caused all this negativity about them.
But if you actually look at those,
like none of the, well, I mean,
the nuclear weapons are actually totally unrelated.
Although I get they both have the word nuclear in them.
But Three Mile Island didn't melt down.
Fukushima was, well, I guess the lesson is
don't build it right next to where a tidal wave could come.
And I think only one person died.
Right.
The most amazing show I think we ever did on what Bitcoin did
when we were still doing it with Pete
was a guy called Anthony Jarrod.
I don't know if you ever listened to that episode.
I don't think so.
We recorded it in Nashville.
He was absolutely awesome.
He used to work on nuclear submarines,
like looking after the nuclear reactors.
Yeah.
And we basically did an entire show
on like why nuclear is the safest form of energy.
And anyone listening after the show,
don't turn off now.
after this show, go and listen to that.
Because he lays out all the stats
and it is this,
I think the only safer form of energy was wind.
Yeah.
Like by a very small amount.
Like nuclear is incredibly safe,
incredibly powerful,
base load energy.
Like we need all the nuclear.
Wind is intermittent.
And like also the,
have you seen the pictures,
excuse me,
of the like graveyards of dead blades.
Like it creates a lot of like e-waste,
if we call it that,
or whatever you want to call it.
And then I was going to just say like,
you know, Fukushima was hit by a tidal wave.
if it wasn't actually the cause of the reactor.
And Chernobyl is just obviously Soviet mismanagement.
So there's actually no example of a nuclear plant
just like being dangerous, right?
Like, so I hope we have more of that too soon, you know?
I think it's good.
They're building a new one in the UK.
It's meant to open next year.
Like, we need more.
That's good.
More.
I know.
Well, New York closed one, and now they're like,
you know, Mayor Mamdani's like,
please keep it at 78.
Like, that's not abundance.
Like, that's...
Yeah, you shouldn't be living in the biggest city in the world.
like the world's greatest city.
You should have the accessibility to electricity.
Have it as cold as you want.
That's what I think.
Cheers to that.
Can we go way back?
Because you said something before that
we're meaning to come back to.
We were talking about Bitcoin cycles.
You said like last cycle, kind of disappointing.
Like 2021, everyone was talking about 300K Bitcoin.
We got 60K Bitcoin.
This time everyone's talking about a million dollar Bitcoin
or at least like 300K Bitcoin.
Well, like Samson was talking about a million dollar Bitcoin.
But I think even if you sort of polled most Bitcoiners,
126 was not going to be the top.
No, that was lower.
But the interesting thing was, in 2017,
I was much newer to Bitcoin,
so I could have some of my history wrong here.
20K, I think, surprised everyone.
Yeah.
Why, like, obviously diminishing returns, but why?
Like, do you think we'll ever get those increases
that people aren't necessarily expecting?
There's like, some people say that there could be like an S
where it's like, yeah, it levels up here,
and then it goes like that again.
one day.
The euphoria when it got to 20K,
I remember being absolutely insane.
Well, it 10 bagged in like,
it went from 2K to 20K in about four or five months,
or like six months.
So that was one thing.
In fact, actually, if I recall,
on Labor Day weekend in 2021,
it crashed below 2K, I think.
It might be below 3K.
Wait, 2020?
Sorry, sorry, 2017.
Yeah, okay.
2017.
And yes, thank you.
So Labor Day 2021, I think it crashed like over,
I remember I was on a ferry somewhere and we're like,
my God, it's tanking, right? And then just like December 17th, I think is the top at 20,000.
It's just that like, it was so classically parabolic, right? And it had been, you know,
300 just a year prior, three to 600 in 2016. And also it was the first time that like,
it truly ran to a level that made it like a genuine relevant asset globally.
Exactly. And I always think of 2017 as that was the era where Bitcoin became a household name.
Right.
Like everyone didn't understand Bitcoin, but everyone had heard of Bitcoin.
That's why I don't like when people use the Google trends for Bitcoin, like looking up the term Bitcoin.
Like who is in 2026? I'm looking at you, camera.
Who in 2026 is Googling the word Bitcoin?
It's like Google Bitcoin, right?
Like everybody already knows what it is.
You're more likely to type in Bitcoin in your brokerage account and see what the price is
or on a trading app or type in Michael Saylor.
There's still other stuff to learn about, right?
But I don't know who.
So I know I agree.
I think, look, I think the diminution returns,
I think it's a bigger,
there's a lot of debate about this.
I know like Jeff Park totally disagrees with this idea
that like the bigger the asset,
the more it takes to move it.
But it's all marginal, isn't it?
Yeah, I think it's just all marginal.
I think like, look, you just had a lot of,
look, we got the support from the Trump administration
and the candidate Trump, that also means like half the people didn't like it, right? Like it hasn't,
I did see a video of Stephen Miller talking about debanking like certain types of, I don't know if,
I didn't, I don't want to mischaracterize, illegal aliens or whatever. And I was like, you know,
you could, I think Bitcoin is definitely apolitical tech and you could see the other side
one day decide they need the censorship resistant store of value features, you know, and maybe the
resumption of uh higher growth rates in price is correlated to when both sides say they need it
yeah so there's definitely been um like a stratification of the ownership i think i mean
i had people tell me that they older investors they didn't want to buy it till they till they
heard trump say he liked it that's what made them look at it i mean so it's like and you can imagine
it was the reverse for other people right so um i think you know when people truly need it it still
We know people all over the world who need it,
truly need it, right?
But in America, I have pretty good access
to financial services and assets
that can be used for store of value or hedging or risk, right?
But that may not always be true.
And I think you'll see more people decide
they actually need and want it.
Yeah, I think the idea of financial privacy
is definitely not just a left-wing idea,
but it feels like a pretty left-wing idea.
Yeah.
These are the people that should care about it.
And I do worry that the Trump administration
have put off that whole part of the-
Yeah, but it's all cyclical.
It's all ebbs and flows, right?
Like Bitcoin, none of this is Bitcoin's fault, right?
Like Bitcoin's just chugging along.
Bitcoin's just Bitcoin.
It's a cryptographic signature machine
decentralized with hashing, right?
And that's just a thing.
It's all just narratives that we put on it.
And those narratives have evolved
and pivoted so many times.
Not by design.
just in culture and by markets.
And so I think you'll get,
I think there probably will be
a left-wing Bitcoin movement one day
for all we know.
It's useful.
I mean, people have definitely tried.
Progressive Bitcoin.
Yeah, Trey.
Yeah, yeah.
What's Trey's second name?
I've forgotten.
I don't know.
Yeah.
But there's Trey, there's Jason Meyer.
These people have been pushing it.
One of the problems I've always had with that idea
is that stop putting either side on it.
Yeah, I mean, I absolutely agree. I don't think the, I haven't thought that the Trump administration or Republicans, frankly, have genuinely made the case that Bitcoin is a conservatives asset.
They've mostly made the case that it's a good asset and American dominance is good. And we do a lot of Bitcoin in America. So that's why we like it. And I think that's true. That's not really that political to me.
I think it's more just the fact that they like it
that has turned off some of the left.
So same question with Saylor, with Trump.
Do you think Bitcoin would be higher or lower
without Trump ever having endorsed it?
Oh my, that is a tough one.
I think it would probably be lower.
Do you think?
I don't know if it would be lower at this exact moment,
but I don't think it, yeah, I do.
It's tough.
That's also tough.
This is like real fencing for me,
but like with both cases, I almost think just the same.
Like-
Yeah, you ask the question and then say unchanged.
yeah i mean i yeah it's tough to know i mean look the last year there was definitely some
um competition for interest in bitcoin from like alt coins and of course yeah the president's been
involved in those and i think um i don't know i don't know i genuinely don't know but i i have to
say like you saw the rally i mean i would say no it wouldn't be higher without i mean look at the
rally that took us from 60 to 100 directly in response to him doing that I mean counterfactuals are impossible to know but they are interesting And this is like why I both respect the idea
of like the digital gold narrative.
Also, I don't like it.
I think it's too simplistic.
But if you're trying to explain Bitcoin
to maybe an older generation
who are less like technically inclined,
like it is a really easy way of explaining it.
I think I just like it as money that I can control myself.
that is it is substantially more private than say the z cashers will admit right if you use it
properly it's very private like and also um and it can't be taken away and it's like what am i
gonna it's i mean that's why like one way to think about it and i agree it's too simplistic it is
also a lot of other things and and can be used a lot of other ways but like um if you're gonna if
you have assets that you like to possess yourself you should have bitcoin yeah because like it is
money that they can't take from you it is money that you can send anywhere in the world at any
time now can you do that with eth technically yes of course but it doesn't have the same other
monetary properties that bitcoin has that you may want um can you do that with stable coins no you
can't stable coins are great for like paying vendors or sending money across the border you
get the base exactly the same rate well and first of all you get to base at the same rate so if you're
trying to diversify away from like a dollar then those offer you nothing but also they're freezable
right it is not immutable the way bitcoin is um that's okay i don't pay with the hardest money
immutable money every time we didn't buy this beer with bitcoin today i could here
shout out pokey right but like other things i absolutely might certainly storing value over
time for a long time is one where i don't want i want to know that it's locked away and there's
nothing anyone can do to get it right um this is one reason why we work on quantum a little bit as
well. Like we just announced recently the Galaxy Quantum Readiness Initiative, where we're pledging
up to $5 million in grants to open source developers who work on post-quantum cryptography,
review code, like write BIPs, you know, whatever, all that stuff.
And I think by the time this comes out, it'll be public as well, that a consortium has formed,
the Bitcoin security consortium with Anchorage, ARK, BlackRock, Coinbase, Galaxy, Strategy,
Blockstream, and Block, I believe, all of us pledging money to help fund development of Bitcoin
preparedness. That's awesome. It's because, though, if that were to emerge,
it could threaten my ability to store my Bitcoin. And so we don't want to control Bitcoin development
at all. I mean, I'm doing, we're doing classic. I think we're working with Brink to help advise us
on how to do grants properly, right? And stuff like that. So like, we are not trying to control
Bitcoin at all. We're trying to make sure it's funded. Yeah. We want people, I mean, the other
altcoin ecosystems are funding this. They have pre-mines and from ICOs and whatever,
and foundations that are all funding this. And the president just signed two executive orders
pulling forward. Like it's, even if it's a low, you know, I did this, I hosted that debate at the,
in Vegas. It was like, you know, like James O'Byrne's a big skeptic and I love James.
I like James. He's very smart and great guy. And it's totally fine. But I actually think we
reached a decent agreement that, well, like even, you know what, even if it's BS, you know,
there's no quantum computer that's ever publicly been shown to factor a number, I think, bigger
than 21. Yeah. Which is ironic. Interesting. Do you know when that was? When? 2012. Yeah.
So it's been a long time.
Well, they could be being built in secret.
And I think there was the Google paper from, I think, literally like March 31st or like
March, April of this year.
Right.
They actually provided a ZK proof that they had proven the math they did.
That was a ZK proof that they, for like an algorithm, not necessarily they could actually
do it.
Not hardware.
Yeah.
There is no computer that can do it today.
But they've proven that the math circuitry is actually a lot simpler.
The computer effectively can be a lot smaller than previously thought.
And that keeps happening on the math and software side.
And I think that panel, though, even with the Bitcoin, the very public skeptics, we did all kind of agree that, like, listen, classical cryptography that works for decades can eventually be broken.
Totally.
Like, funding and building new cryptography.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly with AI.
So, like, but funding and testing and battle testing new, like, secure cryptography is a good thing.
and we've added new cryptography before to bitcoin like the schnor yeah right and so like
that's that you know we're not trying to force anything i think one of the things people are
afraid of when people talk about quantum is that like oh we're gonna like rush and like squeeze
something in and like then there's gonna be a bug we're all worried about that the groups that i just
told you um they all love bitcoin they all own tons of bitcoin we don't want it to fail like
Someone should be, and this is what Satoshi said.
He wrote about how when development needs funding,
he hopes that the business is built around it,
that profit from it will fund it right Like that this And here we are I mean if all we get from this is like more advanced cryptography nothing ever happens That great And Galaxy and Coinbase foot the bill Awesome Exactly That what I saying
Like, honestly, it's what I absolutely think.
And I think, so that one's another thing is this Noah Doe case in New York.
Oh, dude, we need to talk about this.
So I heard about this in Oslo.
I was talking to Thomas and he told me a little bit about it,
but it was a very little bit.
I don't know very much at all.
So you should lay this out from the ground up.
So last year, there were last summer, basically, all these addresses, I think about 39,000 Bitcoin addresses were sent a message, a dust with like in an op return, basically, in an op return saying like this address is abandoned.
And if you don't like prove that it's not abandoned in a certain amount of time, then you're then we're going to deem that we have found them or I think take constructive possession of them.
We wrote a big report about that.
And then in the report, we speculated that it was possible,
one possible reason these might be being sent,
is that whoever is behind the dusting might want to use this
to lay the foundation for a legal case to try to claim legal title,
legal ownership, not private key ownership, legal ownership,
over these addresses under abandoned property laws.
That is what ended up happening.
And this anonymous plaintiff, that's why we call him Noah Doe.
That's what he's called in the, they're called in the court documents.
And we don't know who it is.
And we're certainly not trying to find out, right?
That's the court's business.
In New York State, filed this case against the addresses.
And they're arguing that, you know, without going into like every little part of the argument,
but I have a whole report explains everything that they're arguing.
and I disagree with a lot of their facts and analysis in that report.
They're basically saying, we found these coins.
We should be given legal title over them.
And now, that's not a way that they can come in and get my keys.
Everyone's like, oh, my God, but they can't do the keys.
That doesn't matter.
I'm like, obviously, they can't get the keys.
No court can order an unnamed anonymous person to give up their keys.
It's not going to, I mean, they can try, but it won't do anything.
We all know that.
but they let's say that like anyone regardless whether there's noah do or whatever is under this
theory is granted ownership legally over some dormant coins and then let's say those are my
coins and i go and send them to an exchange they instantly like serve the exchange with the legal
order right it's cool and now it's all a mumbo jumbo and like you have to think depending on the
quality of their order that if they're my coins i'll i'm gonna have to have lawyers you know if i
send them to Coinbase. Coinbase would probably have to like get a bunch of lawyers and stuff.
It's like, it's lawfare, right? And it could be substantial. And by the way,
substantively, all of the coins that are hypothesized to belong to Satoshi Nakamoto
are in that case. So they're trying to get legal title over Satoshi's coins as well.
So like this case, like now it's a, it is a very clever case for one. They don't know who any of
the holders are. So they're all named as John Doe 1 through like 39,000. And so-
Who's going to defend it?
And they did dust the addresses again with like a notice of service. But like, I don't
know if you've used OpRatured ever, like-
Never.
Or seen it. Have you ever seen it in a wallet?
I've never, I don't think I've ever seen it.
Well, you probably haven't because the default for Bitcoin wallets is to just suppress dust
and not even show you dust, you TXOs that have OpRatured. Because it's spam. It happens
all the time i get it sometimes in my in my cold storage it'll be like like trade on the use this
mining pool like it's literally people advertise and operaturn all the time right yeah exactly no
um no let's not do that come on man i know um i know it's what everyone it's like all my bitcoin
feed is still bit 110 we're not doing we're not going there so like the super interesting there is
so for one obviously they've hit satoshi's coins but then we know that there's like three to four
million coins that are basically presumed lost, right? So I imagine they've hit all of those.
Yeah. I mean, they hit coins that were like five years or more dormant or seven. I can't remember.
I mean, they hit a lot of coins. And many have moved since. Like many, many are, they hit
Casatius coins. So there's a chance that they could have like hit my coins. I probably got a
coin that's not moved in five years. We could make a, we have all the addresses because we tracked
both in the dusting and the case. We actually won an award. Our authors, Will Owens and Zach
of corny, won like the best crypto research of the year from the Association of Crypto
Researchers and Journalists or Journalists and Researchers for their report about the
dusting.
But the super interesting there is like, obviously completely messed up.
If anyone ever moves Bitcoin to an exchange, like subpoenas might happen, whatever.
Exactly.
Also, if quantum ever is a real thing, that becomes a real mess because like a quantum
hacker steals the coins while that now is a legal case.
100%.
What a mess.
Yes.
This is like the type of, I mean, this is the saga.
It a very clever and interesting and annoying issue right I mean we but like I would say in the case like one of the other things not only might you not even know you named in the case and therefore not be able to appear as a defendant to defend yourself And I will say they have removed some addresses during the case that
have subsequently moved on chain, right? So they've been saying, if these are definitively not
lost, then we will remove them. But again, you would have to de-anonymize yourself and, right,
And know about it. Now, one John Doe, 33, has filed with the court. He has asked for anonymity. I haven't seen yet whether the court has answered this. He is answering and he substantively wrote and his like literal only identifying information he's providing at the moment.
So it's not even technically clear to me that he does own the Coens that John Doe 33 owns.
Like, I didn't see that he submitted like a cryptographic proof or anything or signed message.
But he is only identifying information like John Doe 33 NY at Proton, like privacymail.com or whatever.
So like some, but again, it's clever because there's nobody in the case to explain to the judge, like, why the case is flawed.
because the plaintiffs are,
they were granted anonymity by the court
because they're like, we're back corner, blah, blah.
And like, you know, it's dangerous.
They had an expert who explained,
an expert witness who explained to the court
like how $5 wrench attacks are a problem
and kidnappings or whatever.
And so one of the efforts has been to get people,
that I've seen happen is people filing amicus briefs,
trying to be admitted into the case
as a friend of the court,
to help advise the court on the case.
So one guy, they did an event here.
It was by BTC lawyer guy, Ian Cohen.
He filed one saying, I'm a Bitcoiner and this harms me
and this case is bad and for these reasons.
And he had a hearing a couple of weeks ago in New York
and the judge denied him entry into the case as amicus.
But the digital chamber, one of the big crypto trades,
has filed also an amicus.
and they have they're using like substantially major white shoe lawyers like really good
they've got legit team oh yeah and and part of what the denial said to ian was that like it's
not clear that you like substantively represent the public interest but like digital chamber i
don't know how many members they've got but like you know dozens and dozens and they've got very
prominent former prosecutor as their lawyer, right? And then also our friends at the Bitcoin
Policy Institute have filed a different intervention. So not as an amicus. They are
pleading to become an intervener defendant. Don't even know what that is, but it's different than
just a friend of the court. Somehow they want to be made a defendant by the court. So then they can
directly challenge. I'm not sure. I'm not a lawyer. They also have a top tier law firm and there'll be
a hearing in the Noah Doe case, I think on September 8th in New York to hear both of those,
both from Digital Chamber and from BPI. So the Bitcoin community, both in Digital Chamber, BPI,
have stepped up to try to intervene in the case. And at a minimum, I think just put on the record
the arguments against what Noah Doe's side is arguing. So what happens then? So this goes to
court properly in September. Is it the kind of thing where as soon as the judge has the relevant
information from people like BPI and Digital Chamber, they'll hopefully see the light and just
be like, this is nonsense and throw it out? I genuinely have no idea, dude. This is such a
strange area of law. They're using this relatively obscure abandoned property statute in New York
State that's usually for a lost wallet you find on the street. And I don't know what an intervener
defendant is. I don't know if this guy John Doe, 33, is going to actually materialize as a defendant
in the case. I just have no idea. I think it just, if you read their documents, it's not clear that
the amount of money at stake is $300 billion. And so we're trying to make sure that the judge is
actually aware of how substantial this claim, since they're using something that's normally for
like something worth $10, like, are they aware? So the case is currently stayed until that hearing,
meaning like just paused, right? So- What a mess. People want to steal your Bitcoin. And this is a
method to, you know, it's not clear. I think the quantum is an interesting point, possibility. I
think just straight up lawfare, you know, or like imagine if in the quantum mitigation debate, and I
don't think I'm in favor of anything like this, but question about what to do with Satoshi's coins.
I remember we were talking about this as long ago as like in Bedford two years ago, like our views and what could be done.
And like, let's say that the Bitcoin community does decide to sequester them in some way.
Well, now that they are under control of somebody, a grouper found, I don't know who, right?
They could, if they have this case, they could send it to the Bitcoin developers and harass them about it, right?
Like, it's just like, I don't think that dormancy of coins on chain is indicia of lostness.
Absolutely not.
Like if you have a gold bar sat in a vault,
if it's set there for 10 years, it's still yours.
Yeah, what if I have it under my bed?
If I have it under my bed, the theory of this case
says that I have to basically go present it to a bank
own it. Otherwise, they're claiming it's lost. It's insane. Is there any good precedent that
could be set from this? Yeah. Well, I think if the judge rules substantially against them,
especially if it's with help from BPI or Digital Chamber, that's pretty good. I don't know if it...
I mean, I think it is good. I think if they go and try to... Whoever these people are,
if they go and try to do it in other jurisdictions, having lost here, I think you'll see those
people follow them around and try to enter that case and show the precedent of having lost here
you know you know a low this is a new york state supreme court which i think is basically the lowest
court um but like is the court in the uk bound by that precedent absolutely not but like they might
look at it yeah right i remember in pete's case like um you know with craig wright like they looked
at the they they read and looked about like ira climate and some of the other cases it was relevant
to the judge.
So I think, yeah,
that's the, I mean,
the best outcome for Bitcoiners,
I think, is that
you get a strong ruling against.
Why are people such dicks?
Man, people just,
they scheme and plot.
They do scheme and plot.
I don't know.
We need like, you know,
yeah, it's true.
Like, come on,
go out there
and do something more productive, guys.
Yeah, exactly.
We're in the world of productivity.
That's a mess.
Well, and if this comes out
when I think it is,
like the last, I think,
major topic here
is just the Clarity Act.
Yeah, I want to know about this
because, so I've spoken
to a few people recently who are very, very bearish now on the idea of clarity ever getting
passed. Is that kind of where you're at? Well, I think publicly-
Actually, can we start differently? Yeah.
What do we get as Bitcoiners? Like not anything else. As Bitcoiners, what do we get from clarity?
What are the things that we'll be missing if we don't get it?
Well, you're getting, they called it clarity. It's kind of a brilliant name for this reason.
You're going to get clarity from all the institutional players. We'll all know for
certain um in statute that can't be rolled back by just like a next chair of whichever agency right
um so like again spot markets i mean i think they're quite good today in the u.s yeah um but
there is a fulsome spot market regulatory regime here so like you know there's going to be things
about like disclosures and audits and like you know not harming your customers so i think much
less likely, for example, for like a new FTX to occur at a high level. I think it's substantially
better regulated than today. Whereas mostly today, I mean, New York has the BitLicense and a couple
other states have some frameworks that are more substantial, but also like, you know, wholesome.
But most like Bitcoin purchases today are being sold to you from just someone with like a state
money transmission license. But it's not great. Like the people don't like the BitLicense.
Well, I mean, I think the bit license might not be the right framework, but it does provide safety. I think one of the big reasons that they don't like it is it's a bit too strict. It is expensive. It takes a long time to get the bit license. And so I hear a lot of criticism from entrepreneurs and it's like, it takes too long to get it. Like, you know, now it's like a creative moat, it's like so expensive. That's one of the things. And also I think they have to approve like every new product. Like I think Cash App, for example, still doesn't offer lightning in New York, even though they have the bit license.
I don't know why. Obviously, you'd have to ask them. But I think still, though, for example,
the BitLicense on stablecoins has been, I think, was really good. And it ended up being materially
similar to what ultimately became the Genius Act. And I will tell you that if what you want
is greater access by capital to Bitcoin and longer term, more durable access, you need regulation.
You need something that businesses can feel comfortable.
The rules won't change.
So they'll actually build, right?
I mean, that's the difference here.
I mean, one thing I like to say is whether or not it happens.
Like, I think you have the chance for pretty substantial upside if it happens, literally
in the market.
But downside should be relatively capped because certainly for Bitcoin, because again, this
is much more beneficial in, I think, many ways for the coins that Gary Gensler had said
were securities, right?
He didn't say that Bitcoin was a security.
And obviously that's not Bitcoin.
So, but generally like the crypto industry,
we are getting a lot of good regulation
and innovation from the regulators that is likely to persist at least through the end of this presidency So that two and a half years right So like the real I think one of the best arguments for clarity and it has a lot of good stuff in it truly And I tell you another
thing that's good for Bitcoin is particularly as well. But it helps prevent like rollback. Like,
you know, if we get an Elizabeth Warren presidency, like you saw how fast like Paul Atkins has been
able to pivot the SEC. Because interpretive guidance and memos, they have some weight,
but they can be undone. Federal statute, however, is substantially more durable.
So that's one of the best reasons for it. Is this Save Our Wallet stuff that
McCrello is doing still in it? Yes, absolutely. The Blockchain
Regulatory Certainty Act, it provides broad protections for software developers who don't
control user funds. I think that's- That's a huge one.
Yeah, that's a huge one, of course.
That's many Bitcoiners and many Bitcoin development companies and many, right?
Like, we're talking about, like, effectively, we're talking about non-custodial apps, like a wallet, right?
Like, that's, like, it makes sense, right?
Like, you know, if Osama bin Laden writes his letter on Microsoft Word, they don't show up at Bill Gates' house, right?
Yeah.
Like, I'm just saying, like, things that are truly tools and not, like, intermediaries should not be regulated as intermediaries.
I think that I believe that that's still in it.
And also there is a protection.
There is a protection I saw about protecting self-custody, a whole section about it.
And one of the things I believe it says is that coin dormancy is not sufficient to prove abandoned properties.
OK, we need it.
So, yeah, we need it.
So I think, yeah, BRCA.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's I think it's good.
I think.
But your question at first was about the odds.
Yeah.
And I mean, I think here's the issue.
There are a couple issues.
Everyone's talking about the ethics issue,
which is about how to prohibit executive officials
from doing crypto-type stuff.
And I think that probably is the blocker,
if it's a primary blocker.
The Republicans and Democrats can get on the same page.
And when this comes out, knock on wood, they might have.
That's like, we're recording on Thursday, July 22nd.
Like, they just today released the new combined text of that bill, of the Clarity Act.
And it, for the first time, has an ethics provision in it.
And I think it is the first ethics provision ever for a specific asset class.
It's also pretty good.
Dems want a little bit more.
And, like, I'm not saying that's unreasonable in my view, but whether they can get there is not clear.
I think if they can get there, then the odds are pretty good.
The problem is the calendar.
We have no time. We have almost no time.
So is that because midterms are going to be crucial and then everyone goes away for the summer?
Yeah. So they all go. The Senate, the House, I think, is scheduled to go away next week.
Like that's their last week next week. So July 30th or 31st, right?
The Senate has one more week before they go on recess as well.
Then they come back and it's like race to the midterms, right?
And we could be facing a government shutdown, I believe.
That's a possibility in like September and October.
And just historically, like, if you look, very few substantial pieces of legislation, let alone possibly controversial ones, ever get passed in the fall of a midterm election year, right?
And then after the midterms, like, a lot, I don't know how, however many members lose their seats are now in what is a lame duck session, they call it.
And again, like, do we think they're going to, like, you know, come in to vote for crypto on the way out?
Like, it's doubtful.
I mean, it's not impossible.
It is possible.
It's just much less likely.
We and others have been saying this for months.
So it's not like something that is new.
Like you just, in Senate floor,
it takes a long time to vote in the Senate.
It's not like, the House is like much faster.
The Senate's like, they got to do one whole vote first
just to make a motion to consider voting on it.
That needs 60 plus votes.
Like then you need another one.
And so like I wrote in June
that like we wanted to see text by like July 4th,
but that was two weeks ago from when we finally got it.
It's just taking a lot of time and they're about to split.
And just like that, I think that has been,
I been lowering it consistently from like 60 75 to 65 to 50 50 like basically on calendar alone And so now we sort of at I will say one one sort of thing here is that like timing urgency
the lack of time can force compromises, right? So like you could get a rabbit out of a hat.
People forget the Genius Act failed the first vote, actually literally failed on the floor
and then succeeded, right?
So it is possible.
And that's why I'm not like,
I'm nowhere close to zero.
I don't know.
It feels like a coin flip at best to me right now.
But your viewers and listeners should,
I mean, next week,
like the last week of July
and the first week of August is like,
that's literally crunch time.
So I'd like to see,
hopefully by the time this comes out,
Majority Leader Thune,
there'll have been some compromises
on whatever's outstanding
and Majority Leader Thune will have called a vote.
Like, will have said that a vote will be on a day.
And after the midterms, though, there's no shot?
I mean, I don't think so.
Technically, there is, you know,
like they could do whatever they want.
Like, there is, their Senate will go into session.
Just typically nothing huge gets done then.
And then, look, I mean,
then the balance of power in DC changes after the midterm. So like it potentially, yeah, well,
yeah, right. Potentially. I mean, well, it'll change at least by one every time. Maybe does
it flip? Like, does the house flip to the Dems? Does the, but is the idea is going to flip there,
right? Well, I mean, I haven't followed the campaigns at all. Um, but polymarket I think
says more likely than not, like it's like 55, 45 that Republicans hold the Senate and like
basically the reverse that they take the house. Oh, so it's still kind of a coin flip. Yeah,
i know but american politics you know like and that's 10 point delta is like pretty high and i
think those markets actually have decent volume um so but i haven't looked at polls or anything
but yes i mean i think it is also quite common for the president's a party to lose in the midterm
yeah like um just because like you know it's not the presidential like a lot of the the success of
his party or the president's party in the non-midterm is because the president who won the
presidency is carrying the ticket right so i mean i i'm not going to predict that but i do think
it's true that like you know this is a pretty strong shot on goal right president's supportive
the his agencies are supportive a lot of his cabinet is supportive um and his party is
supportive and his party controls both houses like unlikely to repeat that level of you know
serendipity i think so yeah you know we want to see it i think i think it's a great bill i think
it's a lot of people have worked very hard on the bill i think it has really appropriate and thoughtful
um tests for when things are decentralized and when they're not um and um responses for when
they are and are not either if they're not decentralized enough then certain registration
and disclosure requirements and things like that and if they are too decentralized to plausibly
comply. Like, I mean, people have spent a long time. Staffers are know all like people writing
this bill know a lot about it now. It's not like they're new. Like a lot of this has been being
worked on for like three or four years. Like, do you consider that even a win if this never passes
that at least people have got up to speed with what's going on? Yeah. And look, look, I got to
say a lot of Democrats voted for this in the house. So like a lot of Democrats also are supportive.
So it's not like fait accompli that if the Democrats are in charge, nothing can happen, right?
So yeah, I mean, look, I think we've done great work in bringing regulators and policymakers
and administration officials and industry up to speed on this technology, the legal issues,
the things that are truly important for investor protection, innovation, American capital markets
growth and dominance.
I think a lot of good work has been done.
So as someone who's got no skin in the game in terms of like, I obviously don't live in
America, but America still drives the world.
Like people follow what America do.
Like if if the Democrats do win the next real like next full election do you think we in trouble In in Bitcoin and crypto markets Yeah I I mean it honestly really depends There are some Democrats who love Bitcoin
Who's the most likely candidate?
Is it AOC?
I have no idea, dude.
Gavin Newsom, maybe?
I have no idea.
I think if you, again, I would literally, to answer that question,
I would literally just look at Polymarket and where they're ranked.
I think Kamala is somewhere in there as well.
Surely.
I have no idea.
But I will say, I mean, there's some great Democrats that love Bitcoin a lot.
Ruben Diego, Richie Torres.
Kirsten Gillibrand has been a long-time supporter.
She's been awesome on Bitcoin and aliens.
Angela Alsobrooks.
Like Mark Warner has been supportive in the past.
And there's some really good ones, right?
So Hakeem Jeffries has been supportive.
And I think it was like 70 Democrats voted for FIT21 in the House, which is Clarity Act.
And Clarity, and later Clarity.
Even during the, I mean, FIT21 passed in the Biden administration in the House, of course, not in the Senate.
So, like, I don't think the game's over.
And that we're, but it matters.
You know, if we get, you know, an AOC Warren Gensler presidency, I think that'd be quite bad for us.
So, but again, we've, it's not just Republicans that like Bitcoin, even in D.C.
So, you know, you live to fight another day.
some big, if it doesn't happen, some big legislation takes years and multiple attempts.
This is one such one. But like, you know, Scott Besson said we're at the one yard line and he's
right. Like there's, yeah, they're still debating, like I talk about ethics. I think some Democrats
still want changes to the BRCA a little bit. That's just a couple words though, that we're
down to. It's like a 310 page law. And like we are, he's right that like the number of issues
has gotten very small.
I would just say, to use the World Cup analogy,
that in addition to being very close,
we're also running out of time.
We're in like the last minute of stoppage time
at this point as well.
So like it's time for Messi to find the back of that net
or they're going to end up losing.
I mean, fuck the Argentinians.
Well, I'm not, you know, I'm just saying.
So I don't know.
It's been a long, long road, I will tell you, though.
I've been working, you know, helping everyone
that does anything in like the policy space
in Bitcoin, in crypto.
our friends at BPI, everyone's been working on this for a long time. And it's pretty good. It's
pretty good. It's pretty fair. How frustrating if it never passes. Oh, well. We will live to fight
another day. Yeah, that's what I think. Alex, this has been awesome. Thank you, Danny. For
everyone that's in the depths of the bear market, feeling a bit down, parting words.
Well, Bitcoin is what we'll call it. Is it four and a half times above its prior low? I mean,
the floor is rising, I would tell you. I would also just say that the impulses that have driven
people to fall in love with Bitcoin in the world, never-ending debasement of fiat currency,
I mean, that's not a feature. That's inherent feature of how fiat currency works.
Government debt, Lynn Alden says this, nothing stops that train. Those things that drew people
to fall in love with Bitcoin, truly,
not just buy it in an ETF or whatever.
They're accelerating and they're not going away.
And so everything in life is cyclical and ebbs and flows.
And Bitcoin is just continuing to do its thing.
I mean, I hate to just use tropes here,
but they all carry important meaning like TikTok, next block.
Absolutely.
You know, even if Thomas can't get the battery working here
on the block clock, I assure you the blocks are talking.
They are talking.
And so, I mean, the thing works, like learn about self-custody.
And by the way, we are entering an age of abundance.
I mean, the tools that you can now access with AI, I've built a lot of stuff for Bitcoin,
for my own analysis of Bitcoin.
So, you know, while you wait for, you know, the Bitcoin bull run, like practice and get
good at your coding.
I love it, man.
Thank you.
This has been awesome.
Thanks, Danny.
Appreciate you, man.
Absolutely.
Let's go.
Thank you.