There will be an event. There will be a moment when confidence is lost in the currency. Stop
using each other's currencies and adopt a neutral currency. And then the currency isn't a weapon,
there's a much better chance of order that isn't dictated by one single power broker
you know, being the winner of a world war.
Bitcoin is volatile because it's difficult to understand.
Bitcoin goes up over time because more people do.
Parker Lewis, welcome back, man.
Yeah.
I think, so I read Ray Dalio's piece on Twitter the other day,
and it feels like the most important sort of macro geopolitical story right now.
And as I was reading it, there's no mention of Bitcoin.
there's little mention of like what's got us to this point although it's obviously a chapter from
his book so i think he probably lays that out earlier in the book but in the article at least
there was no mention of how we got here and as i was reading that i was like i want to get parker's
take on this because he's basically setting this up as the sort of breakdown of the world order
complete loss of faith in institutions potentially heading to war um i don't know i i know you were
going to read it. Do you agree with his take or do you think this is sort of peak doomerism?
So, um, I want to pull something up from, I have a quote of his in my book,
but I think that it's, it's peak doomerism. Um, it's not that it's not directionally
on point.
And I did go and read the whole thing.
And it's like I'm not the closest follower of Ray Dalio,
but I do follow him, not just on Twitter,
but just as an investor.
And so I'm familiar with Bridgewater and his background.
And I'm also familiar with people
that used to be executives at Bridgewater.
It feels like very, to me at least, non-deep surface level thinking.
Okay.
Observing maybe symptoms, observing things that are happening,
and trying to explain them at a very surface level
without getting into cause and effect, I'd say.
One of my takeaways from reading the piece, and I can't remember exactly how it was titled, it was like, the old world order is dead, or something like that.
Yeah, essentially, it was like, the world order is broken down.
Yeah, the world order is broken down, the world order is over.
And I was like, well, what was the, in his piece, as an example, he didn't even define what the world order was.
and so you know research that i you know did of like any i mean he talked around it but like
didn't you know it's whenever you're talking that way of he basically said the existing world world
order is broken down without explaining what that exactly is and just saying that we're going from a
place of more order to disorder and and talked about big cycles but also like didn't actually
talk about the cause and effect of why things are breaking down. And, um, and so that was just a
high level takeaway that I had from it. Um, and, you know, we can get into specifics about the
piece. Um, but it talked about, you know, there's various different kinds of war and, you know,
economic or kind of leading up to physical war
and really intimating presumably that it's like US first China,
but didn't expressly say that.
And he also didn't really have, did mention gold at some part
and that bonds would deflate, again,
without just getting into the root of what's causing it all.
So, I mean, obviously this was one chapter of his book
and I've not read his book.
I've got it, but I've not read it yet.
I wonder if there's also,
he does some of that sort of preliminary stuff
earlier in the book.
But let's try and like lay out
what the world order was or is at this point.
Because like when I read it,
what I took from it is it's almost like
the post-World War Order of, you know,
the IMF, the World Bank, NATO, the UN,
all these institutions that have been like
the rules-based system for such a long time.
we're potentially transitioning away from that being as effective.
But I guess the question that I would have is,
when people say that things like the UN, NATO, IMF, World Bank
are no longer working in the system that we're in today,
what has changed since the 1940s when these institutions first came onto the scene?
Yeah, so, I mean, one, again, my observation is just that
What it generally means is that the US has been the dominant world power and there were alliances that existed post-World War II.
America was, the United States was in control of everything and nobody would step out of line.
And now we're going to a place where that power structure, and I think he might have even mentioned this in the book, or maybe I'm referencing other things where it talks about these big global shifts, is that once there's an up-and-coming power that is in conflict with an existing power, that power struggle exists.
And once the rising power gets large enough, it doesn't, you know, the order that previously existed that came from the existing, essentially, superpower being able to threaten and win is fractured.
again he talks about symptoms on like you know not really like expressly how to position but
like one of the things that he didn't address at least i don't think is the currency as a causal
piece of the order breaking down i think he like intimates that in other places
but like one of the examples i just pulled this up from my book to like
not set the stage, but like an example of why, like, I just generally don't think of
Ray Dalio as a super deep thinker. Again, like not in an insulting way. It's like, there's a
broad class of investors. Cause I would, I would say like Ray Dalio is someone who has said that
he's, you know, allocating to Bitcoin, but nothing that he's ever said indicates that he really
understands what's happening or how to evaluate it. He's around the hoop. He's not far off in
terms of what I would call pattern matching of connecting things together, but also at the same
time, not really understanding the core principle. Let me just find this. I have a few quotes in the
book. So this goes back to 2017. This was right after for me. I'd gone down the Bitcoin rabbit
hole in 2016. And I'm watching CNBC one morning, and I figured out both why Bitcoin is emerging as
money. I've also figured out why they're always going to have to print money and why they have
to print money and the problems with printing money and the problems with the fiat system
that is inherently trust-based, two people to a trade. And if you're trading with someone that
you're potentially a foe of, you're having to use one of, in the fiat world, you're having to use
one currency or the other, right? So for the last 50 years, the dollar has dominated global trade.
But if you are China or Russia, or if you're looking at what the United States did to Russia,
kicking it off of SWIFT and functionally seizing all of their treasuries, that puts the currency
in the center of a political fight, an economic fight,
and potentially what he would call a military fight or a kinetic fight.
But a root problem of the impairment of effectively trade
as the other side of war is the money and the problem of money printing.
If you knew that the person that you were trading with
and whose currency you were taking was constantly printing it,
and you owned a bunch of their treasuries because you were offsetting the debasement in the currency by the yield of the treasuries,
but they kept printing it and they kept threatening you, well, you don't really want to continue to trade with your currency.
And one of the things that China has been doing, and Russia really more so out of force,
and again, getting into the details of these geopolitics is like, I am certainly not the experts of experts,
but I can diagnose the problems of the currency is that they're all looking at the same problem,
which is if you cut Russia off of SWIFT and now they're having to resolve that,
then no one wants to trust the other's currency.
Russia wouldn't want to trust China's currency.
China wouldn't want to trust Russia's currency.
Neither of them want to trust the United States' currency,
even though there's talks about Russia getting back onto the dollar system.
It's like that bell has been rung.
And so just noting that Dalio didn't really go into the root of that problem.
And then this was a quote from 2017.
When I heard him say this on CNBC, I was like, I literally had to record it, rewind it, record it on my phone.
And he said, and he's talking about the financial crisis.
He says, there's money and there's credit.
The only thing that matters is spending. And you can spend money and you can spend credit. And when credit goes down, you better put money into the system so you can have the same level of spending. That's what they did through the financial system, and that thing worked.
and ever since i heard him say that then anything else that i heard him say since then
as it relates to bitcoin or in this case of the world order breaking down which i i think that it
is as well but if you're not able to see you know the the currency system as in and it being
weaponized as a chief problem, then how do you, and we've come from a gold standard,
we've come from Bretton Woods, how do you navigate through to the other side of like,
where are we actually going and how does this play out?
If you're making comments like there's money and there's credit, and if credit goes down,
you better put more money in.
And by the way, quantitative easing worked, right?
Because everything else he said is like, he says other things that are kind of on point,
which is like, oh, we have this wealth gap and the wealth gap's a problem.
It's like, how are you not expressly connecting these two?
How are you not connecting the symptomatic problems you're seeing,
just like, say, within the United States and the problem of expanding wealth caps to the currency?
And then similarly, how are you not seeing this geopolitical breakdown of whatever
or however they define the existing world order to the currency system, right?
If you don't do that, you're inevitably not really maybe understanding.
Again, I know it goes beyond currency.
I'm not saying that everything in the world between geopolitical rivals
or potentially rivals in war comes down to money.
It comes down to more things than that, national resources and power.
but money's a big power and security um but money money is the basis of trade
so either you're going to trade with somebody for resources or trade with somebody for security
or if if if that doesn't work then you might go to war right like in russia's case like and i'm
not saying this is the basis of the war, but they could trade for natural gas or they could
plunder for natural gas. If they also feel threatened at the same time for their own security,
then when they're thinking about the calculus of war versus trade, war versus negotiation,
it's like, well, if you were trading and you had a good, reliable trade partner,
wars destroy capital 100 right like the the broken window theory and that that war creates
economic activity 100 objectively false war could be profitable in the sense of like you have some
loss but you get a gain that's larger than the loss but it 100 destroys capital if you if you
you know drop a bomb on somebody else on a bridge say well bridge has to be rebuilt that that was
capital. And so just noting or flagging that the money and trade, if you have a deep trading
relationship with a partner, they're giving you something of value, you're giving them something
else of value, there's more order in that world, and you're less likely to go to war because
you're relying on them for something valuable. And the basis of trade is mutual. Now, all of that
gets broken up at a foundational level if on one hand you're using one country's currency
and on the other hand that country is both debasing it actively creating this natural
impetus to shift away from it at the same time as being weaponized and i think that those those
were the pieces that both are not directly in Dalio's piece of keying in on cause and effect.
He's basically saying things are breaking down, which they are. It's just not that valuable
because without getting to the cause and effect, you can't then really decide, well, what is the
path? What's the path out? Whether you're thinking from a financial perspective or from a, how does
this thing not go into a World War 3 type scenario. What if you could lower your tax bill and stack
Bitcoin at the same time? Well by mining Bitcoin with Blockware you can. New tax guidelines from
the Big Beautiful Bill allow American miners to write off 100% of the cost of their mining hardware
in a single tax year. That's right 100% write-off. So if you have $100,000 in capital gains or income
you can purchase $100,000 of miners and offset it entirely.
Blockware's mining as a service enables you to start mining Bitcoin right now without lifting a finger.
Blockware handles everything from securing the miners to sourcing low-cost power to configuring the pool.
They do it all.
You get to stack Bitcoin at a discount every single day while also saving big come tax season.
Get started today by going to mining.blockwaresolutions.com forward slash WBD.
Of course, none of this is tax advice.
speak to your accountant or tax advisor to understand how these rules apply to you,
and then head over to mining.blockwaresolutions.com forward slash WBD,
and you'll get one week of free hosting and electricity with each hosted miner purchased.
Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin? Well, Ledin makes that possible.
They're the global leader in Bitcoin-backed lending, and since 2018, they've issued over
$9 billion in loans with a perfect record of protecting client assets. With Ledin,
you get full costly loans with no credit checks or monthly repayments just easy access to dollars
without selling a single sat as of July 1st Ledden is bitcoin only meaning they exclusively
offer bitcoin-backed loans with all collateral held by Ledden directly or their funding partners
your bitcoin is never lent out to generate interest I recently took out a loan with Ledden the whole
process was super easy the application took me less than 15 minutes and in a few hours I had the
in my account. It was really smooth. So if you need cash but you don't want to sell Bitcoin,
head over to leden.io forward slash WBD and you'll get 0.25% off your first loan.
That's leden.io forward slash WBD. Privacy was never a priority for mobile networks.
For companies like AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon, data collection and monetization is the default.
But Cape is changing that. Cape is a premium US mobile carrier with nationwide coverage designed
from the ground up with privacy and security at the core.
When you sign up,
Cape collects the absolute minimum data required,
stores it for the shortest time possible,
and never sells it.
They also make you significantly harder
to track at the network level
and protect against SIM swap attacks,
which are becoming one of the biggest security risks
out there, especially for Bitcoiners.
Cape's SIM swap protection is fundamentally different.
Instead of usernames and passwords,
your account is secured by a 24-word passphrase
similar to how a Bitcoin wallet works.
No one can initiate a SIM swap
or take control of your phone number except you.
This isn't a burner phone or a workaround.
It's a normal mobile service built properly.
If you care about privacy and security,
there is no better mobile carrier.
To learn more and get 33% off your first six months,
head to cape.co slash WBD and use code WBD at checkout.
That's cape.co slash WBD.
With fiat money constantly debasing,
wealth preservation isn't optional.
That's why I recommend Swan Bitcoin,
a team of dedicated Bitcoiners
who work with families and businesses to build and secure generational wealth with Bitcoin.
Strong relationships with clients are at the center of everything SWAN does.
A dedicated SWAN private wealth representative, which is a real person that you can text and call,
will help you build a Bitcoin wealth strategy using SWAN's comprehensive platform of Bitcoin services,
including tax-advantaged retirement accounts, advanced Bitcoin cold storage using collaborative self-custody,
inheritance planning with both trust and entity accounts, tax loss harvesting, asset-backed loans, and more.
Swan have helped over 100,000 clients since 2020.
And if you're serious about acquiring and securing Bitcoin, I recommend Swan.
Meet the team at swan.com forward slash WBD, which is swan.com forward slash WBD.
In the piece, he puts five different types of war in there.
So there's trade war, technological war, geopolitical, capital war, and military.
And if you look through them, I think you could probably argue that we're in at least four of them already.
I think in terms of trade war, tariffs are probably a part of that.
Technology wars, the race for AI seems to fit that bill.
Geopolitical, I think the stuff that Trump's done in Venezuela
and is potentially wanting to do in Greenland, they fit there.
And capital wars, the freezing of the Russian treasuries,
in hindsight, and maybe even at the time,
seems like the biggest own goal for the US
and destroys the faith in the dollar system in a lot of ways.
Do you think we kind of fit those four criteria and then the only one left is actual all-out
wolves?
Yeah I mean I think in certain cases if you look at you know the U vis Russia or China that all of those are checked
I think that, like, you know, even on, like, the military side, it's like with Russia, you say, hey, the United States is not directly at war with Russia, and Europe is not directly at war with Russia.
But if you're providing weapons and money, like, are you not?
you know um and so i'd say that's another degree where um and i i read this great book i don't even
think it's still in publication but i recommend it to people it's called a world in debt by
i think the guy's name is tilden freeman um but he goes through all of the the different
relationships of debt of like you know individuals debtor nation is debtor um but one of the sections
is on debt and war and in that he provides a um like an actual logical explanation for
what drives war and he distinguishes like he doesn't say like there's different kinds of war
He's talking about specifically war.
We're going to war.
What are the motivations of it?
Because if you're not talking about what are the motivations for an economic war, a trade war, a technological war,
then, again, if you're looking to see, hey, are we progressing to this kinetic military war,
you're not trying to explain things at the cause and effect level.
Because if you're not at the cause and effect level,
then how do you advise somebody?
I don't know if Ray Dalio's got the ear of the Trump administration,
but he's just saying this out into the ether.
But he is a very powerful, extremely wealthy person.
it's like hey if you have some insight like what what do you recommend is the path out of
de-escalating all of these things but if you're not trying to get to the root of well what's
motivating all the different actors and um in this book tilden freeman basically laid out like
and this was written around the great depression um between world war one and world war two
that the two generally accepted rational reasons for war,
the ones that are typically said,
hey, this is a good reason to go to war,
is, if I remember, security.
In securing trade lines
and anything that your country would need to sustain itself,
Or, and this was the one that I felt was more strange, expansionism, empire desires, or you have a growing population you need to expand.
And so the security side would be either the security of someone else that's threatening you, or you need resources to protect your sovereignty, and maybe someone just on the other side of a border has those resources.
Again, trade is one route. It's a more capital efficient route. But if someone is not thinking about those levels of like, well, why would China and the United States be on this collision course?
and thinking about not just the geopolitics that come through our wavelengths
that are propaganda on either side, but really saying,
okay, what's driving us off this cliff?
I don't think that it's kind of like, yeah, we all get that the shit is breaking down
and feels crazy.
What is the world to do about it to prevent a worse outcome?
My explanation for that would be, hey, stop using each other's currencies and adopt a neutral currency.
And then the currency isn't a weapon.
The currency system isn't a weapon.
One doesn't, you know, because I view it in two ways.
The currency as a weapon being like, okay, we can print it and you can't.
and we're basically exporting to you,
taking your goods and services for money that we create out of thin air
versus the currency system being the rails of looking and saying,
oh, not only are we using our currency system,
but hey, we're going to cut you off from it
and weaponize your ability to leverage it to send money to other people.
That would be the single greatest thing the world could do
to put trade back in the front
to satisfy potentially some of those needs, wants
that various different countries feel threatened by.
Yeah, I mean, I've got a ton of questions in that.
But if we just start with,
does the world need a new order?
Because if you look at the things
that are creating the order in the world right now,
most of those were created post-war.
The world is a very different place.
Does the fiat debt-based system
mean that at this point it's gone too far and we need a shuffle,
we need to change things around?
Because I guess, like, historically, if you look back over, like,
recent history, the two changes in world order, like, the Bretton Woods
and then potentially, like, 1971 petrodollar system.
Yeah, but I would say more, and this is, I feel like, you know,
what Ray Dalio was outlining was that the order shifted
when like essentially
there was a great war
and a
one power went out over the other
and then the winning power
essentially
sets the rules and dictates
it right and
I think that
you know it's still unclear
whether we're
heading down that same path because
you could say well China's
a rising power and the US is a declining
power or at least
That might be a headline. I don't necessarily ascribe to it.
But if you looked at something through that lens, you'd say, well, if China won a war, then they set the world order.
I think another way to look at it, and that would be how you would define it if you were looking maybe at the pattern matching
or looking at the patterns that Ray Dalio had put forward.
But in that world, it was always like one country
or one set of allies that won a war
then dictating the rules to everybody else.
If all fiat systems die, then there's a neutral currency.
Well, the way that trade occurs in the world is functionally different than it ever occurred before.
Because ever before, practically speaking, and I'm talking about in the last 300 years, say, gold as an underlying commodity metal or silver, but leveraging various different types of currencies that were being coined by crowns or governments.
and again even in those processes there was it wasn't a truly neutral trading balance and so
my view of it is that there's a lot of order that will come via trade without you know again
it's not naive it's like hey there are always you know like i don't know who said it what the
quotes were, but like man in his natural state is, is warring and, or something along those
lines of like, Hey, this isn't just, if we have a neutral currency, everything will be
honky dory.
And one man is not going to want to steal another man's oil or, um, whatever other resource
land, you know, with, you know, rare earth metals or what, whatever is desired for whatever
whatever the goal might be of a rising, growing nation.
But even in that world, someone could recognize, well, if there was a greater basis for trade,
then not just on the margin, but categorically versus how the world exists today from a trading
perspective, there's a much better chance of order that isn't dictated by one single
power broker being the winner of a world war.
There could be a lot of order and a lot of bilateral relationships that are far more fruitful,
far less antagonistic than necessarily having one side be in a controller power position.
One of the things that this piece made me think is, if we're moving towards...
The world is getting more chaotic, that's for sure.
Would a move to a new world order be a preferable outcome?
If you look at the two possibilities, I guess it's either we kind of wind this back, move
away from all-out war, and the fiat system continues, and the institutions that we have
today continue even though they're sort of eroded from where they used to be.
Is that a preferred outcome or is going through the pain now to come out to something better
on the other side a preferred outcome?
And it is something that's quite hard to kind of balance.
A way that I describe it would be, it's like, regardless of whether or not he's keying on
on the right cause and effects, it's like the world for a period of time had order,
order on a relative basis and there there is less order and that and you know again that's one of the
reasons where i was like hey if that's what you're saying okay we all we all can generally see and
feel that you know at different levels whether it's geopolitical nonsense whether it's within
countries right because it's not just you know the dynamics between europe and russia and u.s europe
and Russia or the US and China, it's in the UK, in the United States.
And anyone, I can only speak to living in the United States because you can feel it viscerally,
is that we're going from a period of order to disorder.
You know, not to say they're not related, but entirely independent from a plain perspective than some geopolitical foe or threat.
And so that's just true.
It's like things have been ordered and they're becoming disordered.
Now, I think it's, you know, you can say, well, the order, what was creating the order?
Well, it was post-World War II and the United States was the superpower.
And there was no Navy that could rival it.
It protected the waterways.
It protected the trade lines.
And therefore, it called the shots.
And a derivative of that was order.
And another way to say it was like maybe the underlying volatility was suppressed,
but it was always going to be there.
And then I would look at it from the perspective of it's not like this is,
it's something else that's absent wanting and absent in ray dalio's piece which is he doesn't
say what the likely next order is he might not want to say it because like in his mind if he's
just matching history it would be well there's likely going to be a world war and whoever wins
that war is going to set the order um it's going to create the order
In my mind, looking at it and saying more order generally is better than great disorder.
And looking at a country like Venezuela, setting aside the United States and having Nicolas Maduro, but just from an economic perspective, it's like, man, when their currency collapsed, the country went into great disorder.
What happens with great disorder? Wealth is destroyed and people die without a kinetic war. That's what disorder is. That's what order going to disorder from.
and it would certainly be better even if you were heading to a path of disorder
if the bottom of that disorder of when things start to become more ordered rather than less
would certainly be better than an alternative where it just keeps spiraling down and down and down and down.
um and again in my mind it's not like hey what is the order who's the ruling power
like does the does the united states need to go to war with china and one has to win and then the
other it's like well like you know two two people who live in a vacuum who are sycophants might
think oh that might need to happen when anybody else sitting outside would be like certainly that
would be worse off everybody would be worse off if that happened um but someone in the cia or you
know some deep state thing might be like yeah this is this is we got a war game this in this way it's
going to go and like you know iran nuts off um but it's like it's still more it's more disorder
and it is disorder maybe in their minds with a hope of then creating order from it.
But it's like, again, if you don't solve the, like, trade is the basis of cooperation.
It does not sit above, you know, somebody wanting to build an empire and have, you know, need to acquire oil.
Again, like, I'm not naive in that respect.
but if you have the basis to trade somebody for oil
rather than take their country over,
that's going to leave everybody in a better place.
If you don't really have a basis to effectively coordinate trade,
you're more likely to have an order that's dictated by a large war being won
and then whoever is controlling the military
that won dictating order to everybody else.
That might be what happens.
That's unlikely to be good for everybody
living on the earth at this moment in time.
If you haven't tried out Club Orange yet,
then now is the time.
It's my go-to place to find Bitcoiners
whenever I'm traveling.
Club Orange is a social app built for Bitcoiners
where you can find local meetups and events in your area
and find merchants that are accepting Bitcoin.
There are over 19,000 Bitcoiners on there
and whether you're at home or traveling
is a great place to keep in touch with Bitcoiners
from all over the world.
I've been using Club Orange since it was Orange Pill app
and it really is awesome.
So if you're on there, drop me a DM and say hi.
And if you want to find out more and download the app,
just search for Club Orange on your app store
or go to cluborange.org.
If you already self-custody of Bitcoin,
you know the deal with hardware wallets,
complex setups, clumsy interfaces,
and a seed phrase that can be lost, stolen, or forgotten.
well BitKey fixes that. BitKey is a multi-sig hardware wallet built by the team behind Square
and Cash App. It packs a cryptographic recovery system and built-in inheritance feature into an
intuitive easy to use wallet with no seed phrase to sweat over. It's simple secure self-custody
without the stress and time named BitKey one of the best inventions of 2024. Get 20% off at
bitkey.world when you use the code WBD. That's B-I-T-K-E-Y.world and use the code WBD.
This episode is brought to you by Anchor Watch. The thing that keeps me up at night is the idea
of a critical error with my Bitcoin cold storage. And this is where Anchor Watch comes in. With
Anchor Watch, your Bitcoin is insured with your own A-plus rated Lloyds of London insurance policy
and all Bitcoin is held in their time-locked multi-sig vaults. So you have the peace of mind
when your Bitcoin is insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance
planning, wrench attacks, natural disasters, or just your own silly mistakes, you're protected by
AnchorWatch. Rates for fully insured custody start as low as 0.55% and are available for individual
and commercial customers located in the US. Speak to AnchorWatch for a quote and for more details
about your security options and coverage. Visit anchorwatch.com today. That is anchorwatch.com.
Ray Dalio is obviously insanely influential.
It's not like this is completely a novel take.
People have been saying this for a long time.
It's just he's someone that a lot of people listen to.
Do you think gold absolutely ripping over the last 18 months
has been the market saying that a reordering is on the horizon?
I personally don't think so.
Again, it would be easy to say yes.
because all of these things are happening at the same time
while the price of gold is rising.
But for the last five years or three to five years,
Russia's been accumulating gold.
China's been accumulating gold.
in 2022
no I guess four years ago
I don't know exactly when Russia was cut off
but that war started around this time in 2022
and Russia didn't spontaneously collapse
they figured out a way to trade around it
the dollar also didn't spontaneously collapse
when Russia was able to
to navigate off of it.
And so I think that it's more of a symptom of the currency
being on the brink of, like when I say being on the brink of failure,
it's like, I'm not saying it's going to collapse next month.
I'm saying it's heading down that path.
And when buying gold and silver has reached
the retail fervor that it has.
That's like, it has Weimar Germany vibes
because everyone is speculators
in financial assets and derivatives.
The distinguishment, because you say,
well, hey, that's the same thing as Bitcoin.
It's like, the way that I look at it is
there's a difference between speculating
in gold or dollars, or sorry, in gold and silver
to get more dollars, to get more ruble,
or to get more yen as an inflation hedge
versus actually identifying the one thing
that can practically be a solution.
And I'm not closing out that there are certain people,
I believe that Peter Schiff is somebody who looks at gold and says we going back to a gold standard But there also and he won admit this that the vast majority of people that are trading gold
are trading to get more dollars.
Now, an example that's not a geopolitical foe of anyone,
or at least not today really,
is, or I wouldn't describe it this way at all,
but Tether was somebody.
They bought physical gold.
So they apparently weren't just trading in it to get more dollars.
They actually wanted to hold the reserves.
I would just say that gold rising or people turning to Bitcoin gold commodity monies with the thought process that currencies are being debased is about the currency.
And it's less about the collapse of the world order.
Because the world order, and I kind of hate the term, but it's just like the financial system is dollarized.
And the dollar and the US economy, but the dollar economy globally, the cross-border trade, dwarfs any other system.
in the event of an actual dollar collapse
things like gold and bitcoin for a period of time will be sold every credit asset will be sold
every equity will be sold because there will actually be a run on dollars because there's
so much dollar debt that exists and eventually the dollar will hyper inflate and everyone will
migrate over to Bitcoin and sell their gold.
But I would explain it less.
Basically, maybe Ray Dalio making this comment
at the same time that there's fear of going to war with Iran
and heightened tension between Europe and Russia
and the US and China and then gold going up.
To me, it feels like a fooled by randomness thing
where you could pick any one of those things out
and say, this is going up because of that.
And at the underlying side, it's like, well, the dollar is devaluing because there's more dollar deposits.
Even though the Fed isn't creating more base money at the moment, there's more and more dollar deposits, more and more Euro deposits, more and more Yen deposits.
And it's the currency stupid.
And then maybe the fracturing of the global order and the global trade systems and partnerships that existed breaking down might be underlying about the currency losing its value.
So I'm not saying it's not related to that.
It's just that it's coinciding at a time that's easy to stick it to.
And it's like, but you could have said that two years ago.
Right.
Imagine the same thing.
Like China's actively buying gold and Russia's actively buying gold.
Well, why wasn't the price going up?
Right.
What was the was the world order not fracturing then?
You know, so it's like, yes, gold's going up in value.
Yes, the
the world, the order in the world is fracturing.
But.
It's also just the currency is losing its value.
It's like, is gold going?
Yeah.
Like you could basically,
you could have said the same
when the stock market went up
because they printed, you know,
is this a sign of
the world order
falling apart?
No one wants to be in cash.
They want equities.
And so I just
I think it's easy to point it to that.
And the more logical thing is just
people are trying to get out of the dollar,
you know, and.
A lot of them are doing it
for reasons that they're struggling
to get by and they need to speculate in something to try to stay ahead.
And then in others, yeah, China and Russia are diversifying away from the dollar because
they don't want to be tied to the dollar hegemony.
And that also is rational.
But there's something at a higher order that's dictating the fracture.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I've got a question for you that is pretty much impossible to answer, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
You say that the dollar fiat is failing, which I totally agree with, but it's a process, not an event, I think.
It's not going to fail tomorrow.
Well, it will be an event, but it's not going to fail tomorrow.
Okay.
But the reason I say it's a process is because you could probably say the dollar started failing in 2008.
You could probably pick a load of different dates, but that might be one that you could pick.
how long do you think it can last?
I don't know.
Markets stay
markets can remain
irrational for longer than you can stay solvent.
Personally
it's hard for me to
believe that it goes on for another
10 years.
Part of the way
that I get there is thinking about Bitcoin
and Bitcoin adoption.
But also
you know
Maybe one thing that I look at is Venezuela, like an example that I use.
That a lot of times people want to talk about, you know,
Venezuela hyperinflated because of sanctions.
And that's just like totally farcical.
Then Venezuela hyperinflated because of money printing.
The sanctions that actually started
cutting off Venezuela abilities to sell oil was in, I believe, 2019 or 2020.
GM, as a company, GM, the auto manufacturer that's based in the United States,
they had operations in Venezuela.
And in 2013, I believe they wrote down their Venezuelan boulevards.
Because if you think about GM's operations,
GM had auto manufacturing in the country of Venezuela.
They weren't just exporting cars from the United States to Venezuela.
They were importing parts and building GM vehicles in Venezuela.
And they were holding boulevards to be able to,
they were accepting boulevards as cash for cars.
They were paying out boulevards.
And then they had FX reserves because they were having to convert boulevards
of dollars to buy parts from largely US-based manufacturers.
I think they first marked down their Venezuelan boulevards in 2013 by 10% or 20%.
And then the next year, and I might have it off by one year, it might be like
14 was the first year and 15 was the next year or 13 was the first year and 14 was next.
In the second year, they wrote it down 100%, 99%.
And then if you Google, when did hyperinflation start in Venezuela, it'll say 2016 or 2017.
So multiple years before, GM wrote down all of their boulevards and literally had to leave the country because they couldn't continue to manufacture cars.
They shut down their operations.
And over that period of time, before Venezuela actually entered hyperinflation, their currency had devalued by 50% against the dollar over three or four years.
and a lot of things that you need to, at least in the United States,
that you need to purchase, particularly food,
have over the last four to five years,
things are more than 50% more expensive.
And so it's like there are parallels.
Now, I don't necessarily think that three years from there
there's going to be hyperinflation,
but if you're looking at data points of like,
what types of things happen, like looking at the stock market, like an index like the Dow,
and seeing it have this hockey stick, these incredibly mature companies, right? These aren't
startup tech companies that have huge ramps in cash flow, but seeing their valuations start to
mimic what might have been happening in Weimar Germany, as an example. It's like the writings on
that wall. And then when I think forward to like, because it will be an event, like there will be a
moment when confidence is lost in the currency. And that is likely at a point where the currency
starts to get sufficiently volatile that it causes a bunch of businesses to go out of business,
which then disrupts supply chains, which then causes things like food on the grocery shelves
to start to become sparse.
And so if you think about that as one side
of the currency problems independent,
and then you say, here Bitcoin is,
yeah, it's traded down,
but between 1.34 trillion to 2 trillion in value,
and we go out 10 years of a world becoming more disordered
and people trying to figure out,
well, what's the end game here? What's the answer? Then I don't see how with two more full
halvings in Bitcoin and just this natural survival instinct of people. Because at the end of Dalio's
piece, he was basically like, hey, the world's going to shit. You might want to think about not
being in bonds. It's like, maybe think about gold. But as people follow the rabbit hole of
the cause and effect, they'll realize that gold has the same problem.
All of this started with gold and Bretton Woods.
And even if you went back to gold coins, one, it's incredibly inefficient, but two,
it's coined in some country's currency that people are having to trade back and forth.
And so they all will figure out Bitcoin.
And again, not a doomerism.
I don't want it to happen.
I'm just looking out and saying, hey, if Bitcoin adoption increased by 10 times over the next 10 years, which I view to be conservative, then it becomes clearly the second largest currency system in the world.
And once it becomes clearly the second largest currency system in the world, it's like you don't even need to become the biggest.
people will like the writing will be on the wall enough of a consensus will happen that
somewhere in that point of that session from like being larger than the euro and clearly being
larger than gold which i don't really think about gold's currency system um that everyone there'll
be a there'll be a a rapid monetization of bitcoin that happens at that time i don't try to
exactly when it happens you know like to me it doesn't happen in 20 in 20 years great that would
be that would be phenomenal you know i'm just explaining the cause and effect of of where
and why it's going that way so that you know the way i think about it is survive
surviving all seasons all weathers if you know yeah where it's going and why and why it might
not go back to something like gold and why all of these problems that exist today started with gold.
You really think that all these problems, if you can't think about,
well, why did we get to the dollar as it is when it started with gold,
then how are you not connecting?
Well, if you just tried to go back to ground zero and start it over,
it's like, what would you do differently?
And isn't this the logical place that it ends?
Anyways, right?
And if that's the case, then you can't go back to gold.
You have to go to something that actually solves the problem that caused the fiat system to emerge, to solve gaps in settlement, security of gold, the difficulty of transporting gold, which is part of the difficulty of settling gold.
if you're thinking about
the US trading with China
and imagine you had to
actually settle physical gold
every time a ship
moved across
you could do that
but the gold is sitting in one place
it's sitting on one shore
and you might say
well we'll put it in Europe
because we don't trust each other
but then it's sitting in Europe
it's sitting on someone's shores
and moving in a vault because moving it physically between countries is too costly.
And then what is that?
If it's sitting in a vault, you might not need to have a fiat denomination on top of it,
but you essentially have a fiat system, financial system built on top to do all the zeros and ones.
And you're like, nope, we're not going back to that.
We're going to the thing where, hey, if the U.S. is trading with China, you can send Bitcoin.
Anybody who's trading can send Bitcoin.
They can secure it.
And their country, when they're ready to buy something from us or somebody else, they send it there.
They're securing.
You solve the problem of how gold is secured.
Not only how gold is secured, how trade is settled.
You have a greater basis of trade.
Not to say it's all kumbaya.
we're not living in utopia
but there you have
a better shot
better basis of trade
you're not likely to bomb your trade park
or you're less likely to
yeah so the actionable advice
that Ray Dalio gives in the piece is
sell debt buy gold and clearly
gold is not the only option we think bitcoin is a better
option but for the gold bugs
like the Peter Schiff of the world
he's obviously clueless on bitcoin
but he's a smart guy
I quite like a lot of his other takes
Why don't you think they put enough weight
on the sort of currency side of things
and they don't see that if you go back to a gold standard,
you kind of just de facto create fiat again?
I don't know.
I mean, in Peter Schiff's case,
I think that it's because,
like, I don't know the guy.
He seems like a decently fine human being.
but when you've been so right about the problems and you've misdiagnosed the solution
that your bias and just like overcoming the negative psychology of of it like
the rational person would say it's a sunk cost fallacy right but um in his case which i don't
think that is the case of the majority of people, which is why Bitcoin wins, is because he has a
bias that's built around his own personality. He's got businesses built around it. It is not easy to
exit a position and accumulate Bitcoin or let me just finish that thought, accumulate Bitcoin and
then tell the entire world, hey, I was wrong about gold. Now, Larry Lepard is someone who's
like going from the gold world and basically like, I still think you should own gold, but I think that
Bitcoin is going to win. And, you know, in his mind, he doesn't necessarily say Bitcoin is going
to win and gold is going to be a loser. I think that that, you know, the logical conclusion,
not saying that, you know, Larry agrees or disagrees. But there's a difference between that,
which I think is, is, is the rational world versus someone like Peter Schiff, who's, you know,
not just been somebody who's advocated for gold, but has banks and businesses
and everything tied to that end game happening.
And there are going to be fewer of those people, right?
Like one example I would give is when the whole world was going on the gold standard,
China went on the silver standard.
And so it's like people can choose wrong.
And then they can have, you can look at it two ways.
They can have their wealth expropriated from them, or they can have their purchasing power declined.
There's a quote in the Bitcoin standard.
I think it's something along the lines of, you can't insulate or protect yourself from somebody else using a harder currency than yours.
and that's what
we're dealing with with Bitcoin and gold
and I'm not just talking about
the supply
cap
it's the other properties that
make it a superior
settlement rail
faster settlement
like ability to
assay
if somebody looks
if anybody picks up gold
in Bitcoin and looks at them both
and be like shit it's going to be one of these two
and they bottom up, they end up at Bitcoin.
That was me.
And where I first had to understand why gold was money
and why it had emerged.
And then I was looking at Bitcoins through the same lens
and you're A versus B and you stack them up
and it becomes fairly clear fairly easily.
And there's part of that that Safe Dean Amoose
had a debate with Peter Schiff in El Salvador recently.
and he talks about a number of those differences
and I just think that the rational mind ends up there
and someone has to choose how they're going to store each unit of value
and you can do it in both
but everyone is incentivized to maximize their purchasing power going forward
so I think it's like not having the ability to see it in Peter Schiff's case
because he's so wed.
He was so right about the problems,
and now he's so wed to what he was forecasting to be the solution.
You can be wrong.
China was wrong about going on the silver standard,
and now they're buying gold.
That's the other side of this.
They're wrong again.
That might be why they,
if you were forecasting that there's a superpower that rises
and that the U.S. is declining
and China is going to be the new superpower,
It's like maybe they're making the wrong currency bet
and maybe that is the weakness of their whole strategy.
It's almost like if you had to compare like a Peter Schiff gold bug
to some fiat maxi person,
it's almost more frustrating to be Peter Schiff in that situation
where if we're right, Schiff has been 90% right for decades
and then just got the last hurdle,
just tripped at the last hurdle and didn't move to Bitcoin.
Like they might end up buying Bitcoin at the same price.
Why do you think Bitcoin, like if everything we're saying here is true, which I believe it to be, why do you think Bitcoin is still trading like a tech stock and we're at like $67,000 now?
Like that seems deeply, deeply undervalued.
Is this just like an information asymmetry between us and the rest of the world?
It's not that I would say that if you look at Bitcoin and you say, hey, all these things are true.
Well, they were true when Bitcoin was $8,000 and crashed to $4,000.
They were true when Bitcoin was $69,000 and crashed to $16,000.
They were true at and they still true today at or wherever it is And so I think that the explanation for that is like price is the scoreboard right
But Bitcoin is volatile because it's difficult to understand.
And I would liken this very much to when I gave a talk a few years ago about why Bitcoin is not a hedge.
like and i gave it i gave a recent talk in the same venue is that the one that went like viral
on the untamed youtube it was the huge views yeah that was an awesome talk and i and i gave that talk
of like explaining like hey there's inflation happening and bitcoin's coming down like isn't
this isn't this contradictory and it's like no it's perfectly explained um and um and and the
same thing is true now. I gave a presentation at the same venue two months ago. I wish I could have
done it right now with Bitcoin at 66. Because it's the same thing. It's like, hey, the world is
becoming increasingly disordered. And you're saying that Bitcoin is supposed to be the answer
to that, but it's going down, it should be going up. It's like, well, you have to understand Bitcoin.
You have to understand that and then have the world event happen and then buy it.
And if you don't know, in the explanation of inflation, if you don't know that Bitcoin is
the solution for inflation and why, the long-term one, not in the next five days or 10 days, but
why it actually permanently solves the problem of money printing.
And then you're going to the grocery store and shit's getting real bad for you.
And you're living paycheck to paycheck and you're constantly stressed about it.
You're not putting those two and two together, right?
Same thing with this.
World's on fire.
One large war at risk after another.
Well, if you don't see the connection to Bitcoin, then how do you put those things together?
And that's what's happening at the highest level.
But at a micro level, people are.
People right now are buying Bitcoin and having the light bulb go off because four years ago,
They heard somebody talking for the first time about Rush getting cut off of Swift and Bitcoin's the answer to that.
And now they see this piece from Ray Dalio talking about a world becoming disordered.
And they're like, yeah, he's right, but it's not gold, it's Bitcoin.
And they're putting their chips on the table.
And then Bitcoin will bottom at a higher place than it did before because more people will figure it out.
And that doesn't mean for some technical reason that Bitcoin, I'm not saying that it already has bottomed.
I'm just saying that the trend of that higher highs, higher lows, doesn't matter if in 2022 that it went through its prior high, it then went far through its higher highs.
And that's a function of more people figuring it out.
But two things can be true at the same time.
More people are figuring it out.
That's creating higher levels of equilibrium and higher highs.
Very few people actually understand what's going on.
You know what the evidence of it is?
There is 700,000 Bitcoin that's sitting in strategy.
And there's 700,000 Bitcoin that are sitting in IBIT.
If you actually understood what was going on, and I'm not saying an investment in strategy or an investment in IBIT is a bad thing.
The companies themselves are not bad.
Nothing bad with them.
But if you're not self-custaining Bitcoin or if you don't realize, say IBIT, you could just have your Bitcoin at Coinbase.
You have less counterparty risk than you do if it's sitting in IBIT.
You took the convenience of buying it probably because you're trading it.
Like those two vehicles, IBIT more than strategy, are indicators of lack of knowledge.
Not like they're good products, they're good companies, but like you could have your Bitcoin in River.
You could have your Bitcoin in Unchained.
You could have your Bitcoin in a cold card.
You could have your Bitcoin in Strike.
You'd be better off.
Right.
Right. And everything's good for Bitcoin, though.
But I'm just saying there's a lot of people that bought Bitcoin.
And from my vantage point, hosting meetups and going to conferences
and talking to people that are interested, people reaching out,
we never had a wave of adoption.
Like there was never a fervor of individuals that were rushing in
that were like chasing price.
Like that didn't happen.
So to think that like, you know, cycles, like cycles are not dead.
Human psychology is the same.
It's just fooled by randomness.
You know, my explanation for this, where prices are, is, you know, reportedly, according to Galaxy, they helped somebody sell 80,000 Bitcoin.
That was the local top.
And if you have a bunch of people that have bought the ETF that don't have a lot of knowledge,
primary knowledge about Bitcoin, about the real reason to own it or speculate in it, they sell it.
You know, like it starts to go down.
It's easy to buy Bitcoin when it's going up because when it goes up, psychologically, it reinforces it.
You made a good decision.
But if you're still sitting there with limited knowledge and it starts to go down, your first instinct is like buy a little bit more.
And then when it goes down further, you start to panic and then you sell.
We saw the example of the Wisconsin state pension.
They bought Bitcoin when it was like about 60,000 and they bought 10 basis points.
Michael Saylor has this great quote, which is, if you understand Bitcoin, there's no chance that you only own 1%.
Well, the Wisconsin state pension bought a tenth of that.
okay and then when it went up to 100 they sold it they they rebalanced their portfolios like
they and they bought ibit did they actually ever understand bitcoin you know like i myself i was
championing hey you know wisconsin state pension buys bitcoin it's great they they didn't understand
it you know but then you have other markers that are they're very positive ones like um
steak and shake, right?
Like they get it, you know, like not, I don't know where they hold their Bitcoin.
Don't really care.
They don't own, at least not to my knowledge.
But I also know just the fact that they're accepting it as money.
They're not converting what they receive.
They're buying Bitcoin on a primary basis.
They're working with Fold to, you know, have a bonus for employees.
They're leaning full in to Bitcoin and they're attributing their leaning into
Bitcoin to their same source growing far faster than any of their peers. It's not the only thing
that's driving it, but they themselves are directing it. You can look at it and say,
those people figured it out sometime in the last four years.
And they probably own a lot less Bitcoin than when the Wisconsin State Pension bought it. I think
they bought like $160 million. They had more Bitcoin than Steak and Shake. Steak and Shake
gets it and they're just going to stay humble and stack sats.
And more and more people that exist like Steak and Shake, I'm not talking about
businesses adopting as payments.
I'm talking about people really getting it.
Those are stacking and Bitcoin will find floors
at a ratio relative to the number of people that actually get it.
And then it's still going to be volatile because the way I would describe it is no more than one in 100 people know what's going on.
How could something not be crazy volatile if only one out of 100 people get it?
And one out of 100 is high.
It's less than one in 100.
Fewer than one in 100 companies in S&P 500 own Bitcoin in a direct way.
At least if they own shares in BlackRock.
I'm not talking about the ID.
If they own shares in some company that owns Bitcoin, that's not exposure.
Tesla owns Bitcoin.
Square.
Block.
Yeah, Block owns Bitcoin.
I don't think there's another S&P 500 company.
So if five companies owning Bitcoin would be 1%, right?
Yeah.
Then we're not there.
But also if people just check their local,
their company that they work for, their family members,
people don't get it.
So it's just fine.
People just have to learn.
And it's like, if it were easy to see Bitcoin, more people would see it.
And to Safe's point of the price being the ultimate arbiter is Bitcoin goes up over time because more people do.
More people figure it out.
And that's all that matters.
It's just like, as so long as more people are figuring it out, not less, then Bitcoin goes up over time.
if it ever started going down for long periods of time and consistently hitting lower lows and not making higher highs,
that would be a signal that people who had previously figured it out thought that there was something broken about it.
And what we're seeing today, nothing is signaling that.
There's a lot of negative energy in the world of Bitcoin, but it's like more people are figuring it out, not less.
Bottom line.
Yeah.
One of the anecdotal pieces of evidence that people are starting to take this more seriously, not necessarily understand it, but at least take it more seriously, is like every time we've had a price crash in the past, people who know what I do, when you tell them or when they ask you about the price, there's almost like a smirk in there.
They kind of want to say the Ponzi is going to zero.
But this time, the interesting thing is I go to a boxing gym pretty much every day, and people ask me about Bitcoin, ask me about the price and things like that.
And this time, the reaction has been very different.
It's been, maybe now's a good time to look into it.
Maybe now's a good time to buy it.
And I think that sort of skepticism around Bitcoin generally is going away.
Yeah, like there are still obviously people that want to dunk like, I don't know the guy, but Keith McCullough and Bloomberg Talking Heads and Peter Schiff.
It's going to zero.
There are fewer of them each time because most people look at it and be like,
I'm not going to do that again.
I got embarrassed the last time that I did that.
The majority of even the Bitcoin haters are getting wise to Bitcoin's rise and fall.
But to the point, I'm experiencing the same thing.
I'm not yet experiencing just person after person being like, how do I do this?
But when I'm talking to people, despite the fact of Bitcoin being here, it's like, how do I get set up?
Not like ribbing.
You know, of course, like it's not zero.
But an example, like to give another piece of the psychology, I went and bought groceries at the local grocer that got enabled by Square here in Austin.
And I bought, I paid with Bitcoin.
And the person working behind the counter was like, oh, that's cool.
That's the first time I've been here when someone's bought in Bitcoin.
She knew that they accepted it.
But she made a comment along the lines of like, I just feel like I missed it.
I'm too late.
I'm sitting there just buying groceries and I don't want to turn into a full orange pill on the spot.
I was like, look, we're super early.
And I gave her my literal 30 seconds.
I was like, the whole idea is that they keep printing more dollars.
That's why food is getting more expensive.
And the whole idea around Bitcoin is that it can't be printed.
There's a lot of noise.
I work on Bitcoin, but just Bitcoin, you know, like that level of conversation.
I was like, you're not, you're not to, you know, you didn't miss it.
You should, you know, go online and read something about it, you know, but she was interested, right?
Like it wasn't the price is crashing and is it going to zero?
It was like, here at 68,000, I feel like I missed it, which is also a natural side of the psychology.
And then over time, people just get over that.
But it's usually not like the people that are activating right now are the people that had the inclination the last time but didn't.
And then were probably reinforced when it went down to 16,000.
but then when it went up to 125, they were like,
shit, I made a mistake.
And now as it's coming down, they're like,
okay, I don't need to make the same mistake.
And that's just what happens.
That's a combination of human psychology
and following signal being price.
Yeah, the thing that I always say
when people ask me if they've missed it
is like, I thought I'd missed it in 2016, 2017.
And that's going to continue to happen.
Just lastly, on this point of like,
You brought up before that Bitcoin being used as money as being a really important part of this.
Why do you think that is?
Because there's a lot of people out there that think of Bitcoin as just a store of value
and don't necessarily see it as the medium of exchange.
And obviously, store of value is going to come first and has come first.
But why is moving to being an actual currency so important?
So the incentives of it will dictate that it will be used as currency.
Imagine there's 100 people, and imagine one of them is saving in Bitcoin.
Using my, you know, no more than one in 100 people understand Bitcoin.
And I recognize that more than 1% have some exposure to Bitcoin at this point.
It's not as high as people quote it when they say 40% of Americans own Bitcoin.
It's probably something like somewhere between 3% and 5% have some material exposure to it.
But the percentage of people that actually understand, like Harvard sold some Bitcoin and bought more Ethereum.
They own Bitcoin. They don't get it.
But let's just assume that one out of 100 people understands Bitcoin and the 99 others are fiat.
How do you have a trading economy with only one out of 100 understanding Bitcoin?
even if you put it to 8 billion people and go down to 80 million,
which that's where I say there's not 80 million people in the world
that really understand Bitcoin.
But even though that's across the world,
then what is the likelihood of a business and somebody understanding Bitcoin
in the same place and the one that understands it is a business
and they've invested in infrastructure
and you come to their store.
It's just the density is the biggest uphill battle.
People first understanding why Bitcoin stores value,
starting to store value, having some Bitcoin in a wallet,
they show up to a business,
oh, they accept Bitcoin, let me try this.
But go out to a world where 100% of people
have figured out why Bitcoin stores value.
Well, who is holding the bag of the fiat currency?
If 100 out of 100,
all have figured out bitcoin let's not say 100 but say 90 percent you know or 80 percent
then the overlaps of like oh you're you're a person that runs a business that understands
bitcoin you're an individual by and large every individual that's walking through your store
also understands bitcoin and has bitcoin what would be the reason for if they wanted bitcoin
to force somebody to pay them in fiat to then convert it into bitcoin it's just
the incentives of like, hey, everyone's storing value in Bitcoin is that nobody else is holding
currencies that are shitty and lose their value. And then it's like, well, just give me, in return
for my goods and services, just give me that money that's easily exchangeable over the internet.
Thank you. Now, why it's so important that it evolves that way is because if it didn't,
if 100 out of 100 people were holding Bitcoin,
but they weren't transacting in it,
the only rational explanation for that
is because by some fiat decree,
someone said, you can't do it.
It's illegal.
Now, there's also a reason why
a banning of transactions with Bitcoin would fail
because of a global geopolitical prisoner's dilemma.
Somebody like El Salvador is a great example of it,
where it's like if one defects,
which there's a maximum incentive to defect
from some sort of concerted effort
to prevent Bitcoin from being used as payments,
that the only reason why it wouldn't
is because Bitcoin was too centralized
to be able to prevent some sort of legal decree
preventing it from being successful.
And if it was, it's not just that that is a problem,
It's that if Bitcoin was too centralized to allow for what otherwise should have happened by the natural economic incentives, then some outside force is setting the rules in some form or fashion.
And if that's the case, then could the United States government say, oh, we're going to, you know, you miners run this software that says they're going to be 22 million.
And then it becomes a fiat currency.
So the natural incentives will dictate it.
And I do agree, you first have to understand why Bitcoin will store value to own any Bitcoin at all.
It's by and large, in most at least developed world places, easiest just to buy a little Bitcoin with fiat.
Once you figure that out, you start to figure out, oh no, I need to have even more of this.
Beyond there, if you're a business owner, you say,
Yep, open me up.
Just start paying me in this if you have it, please.
That's just a process.
That's a process of adoption.
But as an end state, if it doesn't get to the point where people are
actively just paying businesses is because of centralization.
And centralization is the greatest long-term risk to Bitcoin.
if it weren't to continue to get more decentralized.
But naturally, again, as more people buy it,
as more large competing interests,
as more ends where I'm sympathetic to you.
I watched your interview with Michael Saylor.
By the way, there won't be a lot of Bitcoin treasury companies.
They'll congregate for fundamental reasons,
if they are free.
But that's a side, just saying.
but you know
in the case of like
you know
even though I say you're probably lower on the education scale if you're owning IBIT,
I think IBIT existing is good for Bitcoin, right?
You know, you could look at the People's Bank of China and be like,
ah, People's Bank of China, bad.
But like if they bought Bitcoin, good for Bitcoin, you know.
That's the way the world's going.
Every government's going to own Bitcoin.
The larger the players are that are involved,
The larger the competing interest, the greater the, you know, you could look at that and say, like, Bitcoin's becoming more centralized because 600,000 or 700,000 Bitcoin are in Ibit.
But, you know, if you try to get 2 million prices higher, more people are figuring it out.
Ibit has now opened up the ability to take Bitcoin in kind rather than just have, you know, not everyone can show up to BlackRock and do that.
But Morgan Stanley can or anybody that's a, whatever they call, certain kind of participants can.
There's a natural inclination to take direct ownership over it.
And the more large interests that come in, the more decentralized it gets.
It's like, if IBIT comes in, well, Vanguard is going to have to get involved.
If the United States government gets involved, then China is going to get involved.
Russia's going to get involved and more competing interests, harder it is to change Bitcoin.
And so that's why it's like, you know, the path, the risk of centralization, but everything
about the incentives, even with large participants involved, drives decentralization.
The larger the Bitcoin gets, the more decentralized it gets.
The more companies that emerge to build wallets the more companies emerge to build custody the more companies emerge to work on payments It all flows everything is downstream from adoption of that
That thing clicking that is Bitcoin is actually money, might trade like a tech stock, but
it's money, it's volatile because people don't really understand it yet and they're figuring
out their way.
and you know while price is the ultimate arbiter i also do think like on the payment side like
someone like square turning on bitcoin payments is huge for everybody working on bitcoin payments
because it also will be an education for a lot of people that like a lot of people that might not
have heard about zap right but who our product's better for it creates an opportunity for us but
it also reinforces the store of value because some people are sitting there saying like but you can't
use Bitcoin for anything. And then when they see that Square is incorporating it for payments,
they're like, ah, light bulb off. I'm not. I am. But explaining to somebody else's psychology,
I might not be going and paying for these eggs in Bitcoin, but somebody can. Somebody's paying
this coffee shop for Bitcoin. It's possible. And that that's the end game. And understanding that
That is the end game.
Seeing that Bitcoin is being used as money will unlock Bitcoin as money for more people, in my mind, that will go down.
For a period of time, they're still going to need to read a book, listen to podcasts, and then connect it to someone like Square doing this.
That's turning on payments.
But there's just only so many people that are going to be able to opt into Bitcoin without seeing that.
that seeing it actually used as money is the closing of the mental loop of what this thing actually is For certain people they will be able to read a book and say ah I can see the path forward of why everyone adopts this and why in the future everyone going to accept his money Others need to see it happen and then everything else they heard about Bitcoin fall into place
And for some people, it might be that. Other people, it might be Russia and Swift.
Other people, it might be Ray Dalio's rapid disorder. And then it's like, well,
what's the next domino to fall in the geopolitical landscape?
You know, maybe somebody else merges and actually buys Bitcoin, you know?
So I think it all, like it all compounds, but it's like, you know,
and it is ordered and like store value in payments.
The payments is the end game and payments being developed right now
also accelerates people's ability to look at Bitcoin and connect it to money
and start buying it.
to then later be spending.
I love it, man.
I can hear the family in the background.
We've got some wholesome kid noises going on.
I'll let you get back to them.
But before we close out,
where can you send anyone, Mike,
to find out more about your book
or is that probably anything you're doing?
Yeah, so if somebody's not,
you know, if Bitcoin is not yet clicking,
but maybe this opened up some avenues to understand,
like definitely read my book go to so it's only on the same house it's the best looking bitcoin
book like you killed it on the cover thanks i spent a lot of time the artist proof of paint
on twitter or on x if you need a piece of bitcoin art go check him out he's amazing um
but yeah if you don if you don you know if bitcoin just starting to click go read a book Go find a reliable place to buy Bitcoin and start Sack and Sats But if you already understand Bitcoin then I highly encourage you if you run a business
or are a key person in a business, to make the push to open it up as a form of payment.
People can look us up at zaprite.com, Z-A-P-R-I-T-E.
All one word, Zaprite.
if we're not the right solution for you
we'll put you in the direction of the people who are
we're all on the same path
working on the same mission
so check us out at zaprite.com
and then also news on the book
the audio book is in the process of being released
so it's been submitted to the different platforms
I was sitting on that for a good dip in price
Just really, I was dragging my ass.
But that's now final.
I read it myself.
Marty read the foreword.
Will Cole read the intro and outro.
And so I'm excited to finally get that out.
So there's a lot of people these days
that apparently don't read books anymore,
but will listen to audio.
And so in short order,
it should be both available on safe site,
but then across platforms as well, the audio book.
Awesome.
As someone who runs a company using ZapRite, it is the best solution.
Also, we've been using it for the tickets on for cheat code,
and it's so much easier than doing it the ad hoc way that we did it before.
Check out ZapRite.
Awesome.
Thank you, Parker.
This has been great.
Appreciate you, Danny.
Thank you.