Good afternoon, Bitcoiners. Welcome back to Bitcoin Center live stream number 37.
keys and more exciting things coming down the pipeline soon.
That's awesome.
I think Paul's a run for his money here trying to keep that seat.
Yeah, it's great to be here again with you, Cedric.
Yeah, it's awesome to see you again.
I saw you this weekend at Bitcoin Day Naples.
It was a great event.
That was a great event.
But you just brought something up that I didn't hear about.
So it sounds unfortunate.
What happened?
Yeah.
So Gloria, I don't ever know how to put Zoe,
Zhao, one of the primary lead Bitcoin core maintainers, her Twitter account got hacked.
And so I think there was a release like anticlimactic. I was not impressed with the response.
You know, obviously everything gets political and people are taking sides like, but all the
pro core people were sort of just like, oh, just don't click the link. And I don't think that that
is an appropriate response. I think if you are in charge of a $2 trillion asset, you know,
you're one of like five people who has access to that asset, you need to take your security setup
a little more seriously. And if something does go wrong, I mean, there should be an apology,
there should be an explanation of what has happened, what is happening in terms of like
securing her entire digital life, including her access to Bitcoin. Like they should revoke her
keys until we're certain that whoever hacked her account doesn't have access to other profiles.
I mean, I just think that it's a pretty serious thing. It should be taken
more seriously. And it was just, I asked you right before we went live, like,
oh, did you know about this? And I don't think you'd even heard of it.
No. I mean, is this a truly like recent thing like today?
I don't know if it's today or I think it was maybe yesterday.
Wow. I mean, that's really unfortunate. I think part of this is how personal this has become
and not about ideas.
And I think on some level,
I think this points to that
we're going to have to take humans
out of this process.
Really hard to work on this publicly in some ways.
Yeah, I agree.
But also that the decisions and the impact
and the unknown second and third order effects
of working on 700,000 lines of code
is going to be near impossible for one human
to understand what their code would do
on all the other lines of code.
You can't have one human review that.
Yeah, no, I agree.
I think there should absolutely be more people involved.
I think it's going to be, to be honest, AI.
I think we're going to move to some sort of new governance,
but I think it would be AI that would write the code.
I totally disagree with that.
Analyze the 700,000 lines of code.
Absolutely no way.
And there'll be human intervention along the way in monitoring,
but I think we're going to have to evolve in terms of how we design this asset.
No, no, I couldn't disagree with you more.
they're first of well they're actually to speak about gloria i didn't mean to cut you up yeah no
well i agree with you i mean it's i don't necessarily fault her in like it's she's a
human i'm you know like that everyone is susceptible to these things tricky thing to secure
absolutely but i just think it's not being taken seriously enough you know what i mean
Like, I just think it's another misstep.
We saw everything that has happened.
And then the disastrous bug that was deleting wallets.
And now you have this.
And I think it's just really like emblematic of the problems with the way that Coors is currently being governed.
And it needs fixed.
I mean, it's unacceptable.
Sure.
I just don't think that we're going to go from like one group of people to another group of people successfully.
I think it's going to evolve.
And I think we need to come up with a new paradigm for governance over what is now a $2 trillion asset.
Yeah, I agree.
And I have been an advocate really of having more stewards of the code and not developers.
Because I think that Bitcoin is incredible.
Short of a couple of things, a couple of decisions that need to be made over the next 5 to 10 years,
there's really not a lot that should be happening.
This is not like a hot new software project that we're continually developing.
This is a trillion dollar asset that needs to be kept safe and secure.
Yeah, I really struggle with who should be working on and how that should be funded.
Should anyone be able to...
I mean, how does a company appoint people to work on it, assign what to work on?
How is that in any way building consensus?
And how do we come to consensus on what we should work on for humanity?
Agreed.
and how do we figure out who works on it?
Right.
Yeah, I don't know the answer to saying it.
It's a big topic, yeah.
Hopefully we'll get some on the show who can help us with that.
Maybe we'll, let's do the intro here and get into it.
We got Hank Hudson coming on, talk about some spicy topics.
Let's be real, right?
Praising Telegram for launching a Bitcoin wallet.
I've always felt like with Kayleigh.
Bitcoin, this digital currency that's out there that people say, oh, it might be the next big thing.
What do you think?
I think it's rat poison.
Bitcoins.
You never heard of them a few weeks ago?
Now everybody's talking about them.
But is it a currency?
I don't know.
Or is it more like a stock?
Or is it a tulip bowl?
Or is it just stupid?
To me, it smells like Ponzi scheme and the greater pool theory right here.
You do like five minutes of freaking research.
Well, thanks for coming to my set talk.
Yes.
Don't buy shit coins.
Oh, man.
I was getting that wrong.
All right.
Bitcoin's recent rally.
Do you agree?
Is crypto finally dead?
Go to the next one.
Matter of fact, they're kind of in the Ethernet.
What are they?
Some rumors that it's a Japanese guy,
but they know that he's a fake name.
It was a pseudonym.
I mean, you're literally putting real money
onto a system that we don't even know who created it.
Good book, I'm Bill Bad-Emming.
Is this the most exciting bull run ever?
Not for me.
No, it's not.
Welcome to Bitcoin Center, the fast-paced show where the debate is the story.
All right. I want to ask you the trillion dollar question.
Is Strike, or Stretch, S-T-R-C, is this Bitcoin's iPhone moment?
What do you think?
No, I think that's silly.
I also don't know that I'm the right person to ask.
I want to, well, I'll read this tweet from Rajat Soni.
Okay.
He thinks Stretch is designed to break the four-year Bitcoin cycle.
He goes on to explain there is a huge gap in capital markets.
Everyone wants a short-term savings account with a high yield and low risk.
But nobody offered a financial product that did this until 2025, and MSTR created Stretch to fill this gap.
Stretch is short-term credit with guaranteed interest payments for over two years,
because MicroStrategy happens to have $2 billion in fiat to pay the dividends.
The best part, it currently pays an 11% yield.
The next best product with a similar risk profile probably pays 3% to 5%.
strategy can create as many shares of stretch as needed to fulfill the demand for low risk high
yield short-term credit all proceeds from stretch go to buying more bitcoin to create more bitcoin
backed credit products when bitcoin falls holders sell and look for a place to park their cash
they should theoretically look for the savings vehicle that gives them the highest yield in that
savings vehicle to stretch strategy can keep adding bitcoin and fiat to its reserves to
strength in its position. Stretch will absorb tens of trillions of dollars of value from bonds and
money market funds and all of it will go into Bitcoin. This is Rajat's post. Sure. It's a good
analysis. So I think Bitcoin is the iPhone. And that sounds great. But that is all fiat Wall
Street stuff. So this might be a fantastic vehicle for Wall Street. But I am an advocate of Bitcoin
for Main Street. And so I don't really give a shit about all that. I think it's a fascinating
product. It's it's interesting. Brilliant financial engineering. Yes. I still think
I have I've you know, I don't think I would move my mother's retirement account to all
none of this is financial advice. But my point is, it's still sort of like when a brand comes
out a new car and you want to you don't want to be the by the first year. Sure. And I'm not again,
It's not financial advice.
It's a bad analogy.
But my point is like over 30 years for someone to retire on,
we have not seen the performance of this.
But this is different from the STY.
There was another dividend paying.
So there's a few products.
Okay.
Right.
But this one's considered the iPhone.
So this pays 11%.
Where does that yield come from?
It's supposed to maintain a par of around 100.
Where does 11% come from?
You could argue the yield may be coming from the common equity.
I don't know.
But what I want, the strategy causes, you know, the layer one they see is digital capital, Bitcoin.
Right.
Layer two they see is digital credit, which is stretch.
And then layer three is digital money.
Okay.
My only issue here is I see layer one is digital money, Bitcoin.
Right.
And anything that we've really had problems with in our financial ecosystems come from credit.
So that's my long-term concern here.
I, you know, remains to be seen.
This could be the thing society is looking for in terms of financial engineering around savings compared to fiat and stable coins.
I think it remains to be seen.
I'm excited for it.
My question is, why not just save in Bitcoin?
So the strategy argument is that institutions don't necessarily want exposure to spot Bitcoin.
That might be true.
Maybe they don't want the volatility.
Sure.
Maybe they're regulated out of exposure to that asset class.
So it's a Wall Street solution.
It's supposed to be designed for institutional grade appetite around credit.
So good for them.
I'm happy for them.
Okay.
I'm with you.
All right.
Let's bring on Hank Hudson from Roxham TV's flagship show.
Hey, guys.
How are you?
Oh, I'm doing great. I love what you've done with the place. Thank you for having me on the show, guys. Super excited to be here.
Yeah, we put these up for you.
That's very kind and thoughtful of you.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
Good to see you.
Likewise.
I want to get into this. I'd love to hear your perspective on this particular clip from Brian Armstrong.
Francis, if you could play it first.
Got the Genius Act passed into law, which actually did enable stablecoin rewards to happen.
THE BANKS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
TAKE THEM TO THE BANKS.
THE BANKS HAD THEIR OWN
CONCERNS AND WE REACHED A GOOD
OUTCOME IN THE GENIUS ACT.
NOW THE BANKS ARE TRYING TO
UNDERMINE THE PRESIDENT'S
CRYPTO AGENDA.
THESE ARE THE SAME BANKS THAT
DEBANKED HIM AND HIS FAMILY.
THEY WANT TO COME IN AND SAY
AMERICANS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
ACTUALLY EARN MORE MONEY ON
THEIR MONEY.
THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR
OWN PROFIT MARGINS, TAKING MONEY
OUT OF THE POCKETS OF HARD
WORKING AVERAGE AMERICANS AND
record profits. And so our view is that there should be a level playing field where banks and
crypto companies can lean into stablecoin legislation as an opportunity. And that
includes paying rewards to Americans so that they can earn. I can't wait to hear what you guys think
about this. Hank, if you go first, what is your initial impression? Yeah, my initial beat on this
is this feels like a turf war of where who gets to be the money middleman over the next decade,
right? Like we've seen banks basically enjoy this kind of privileged position forever where they hold
the deposits, they pay you basically nothing, and then they use that yield to earn or they use that
money to kind of earn yield somewhere else, right? And most people aren't noticing because the system
has always kind of been like that. And then you've got stable coins and some that can actually pay
rewards kind of shines a flashlight directly on that model. And I don't think banks are going to
be too happy to see that because they want to earn this free money and allocate your money
wherever else they want to. And yeah, I think Armstrong is saying that banks are lobbying to
ban stablecoin rewards. But I really think he's just making an accusation that maybe sounds a
little dramatic, but the motivation here is very normal, right? And it's protect the margins for
the banks. And the political angle here certainly matters too, because if Trump's administration is
pitching itself as being pro-crypto, and you've got big banks quietly kind of trying to clip the
wings on stablecoins, that's not really a crypto story. We're looking at more of a power story here.
So basically, it's like, do we modernize money or do we keep the old tollbooths open? So to me,
this is all about who's going to get paid for being in the middle in the future. That's my read on it.
I agree with what Hank is saying, and I don't often agree with Brian Armstrong,
but he's absolutely right.
I mean, I agree it's a turf war
and I don't need to earn yield,
but people do.
People want to hold their money in stable coins
and they should be allowed to.
And I think it's totally nonsense
that the banks are coming in
and trying to take grain of the regulation.
So I actually am with Brian 100% on this.
I agree with both of you,
but let me try to understand this
by a five-year-old.
So the banks pay some yield on your deposits.
It's been very little historically or lately.
And stable coins, it seemed like we weren't going to be able to do that at all.
But is Brian Armstrong making a last minute argument on behalf of consumers that stable coins should also be able to pay out a yield?
That's my understanding.
And then that yield would be a lot more than the banks or just people.
And so less people would use the deposit products at the banks.
Well, it would create more of a free market, right?
People could use whatever they want.
The clarity, whatever this specific bill is,
it was going to ban crypto companies or any companies
from paying a reward on stable coins.
So, I mean, that's not a free market, right?
Do either one of you think Brian Armstrong
or the side that wants stable coins to be able to provide yield,
has any chance of winning this late in the game?
Or is this for show?
Didn't they already kind of establish this in the Genius Act?
So wouldn't this be kind of like repealing part of that only months after the fact?
You're right.
The Genius Act sort of laid this out, right?
That stable coins did not provide yield, that they had to be on U.S. regulated.
They had to buy treasuries.
And I thought this is why JP Morgan was rolling out the deposit coin.
It's a deposit token.
That's what they're calling theirs.
And I think also this goes to fractional reserves.
So we have hypothecation.
So the deposits, if they use a deposit token, they can provide the yield and it was going to be no yield on stable coins.
But also then the deposit tokens could still be rehypothecated, whereas it's hard to rehypothecate the stable coin deposits.
And this does, but I thought this was settled a while ago.
This seems like a major holdup this late in the game.
I kind of like it that they're not, I think anything to slow them down is good.
I agree completely.
Except if I think as a, maybe as an American citizen,
and you could say the borders are fake and that's not, you know,
but I live here and they could put me in jail.
So as an American citizen,
don't I want them to like roll out hours,
provide clarity first and,
and benefit from everything that they think will come with that.
Maybe I think it's better as a Bitcoiner that they don't go fast and that
there's all this lack of clarity and we're not first out of the gate.
But I thought they were in a rush.
I thought that they already agreed on this I think it a good argument making it yeah if you look at this from the consumer perspective i i don know um i i think slow and steady wins the race on this one
right guys i mean this is not too different from a uh the bitcoin strategic bitcoin reserve and
that we're going to be talking about in just a bit like you got to get this right the first time
um because we're going to have the world looking at us specifically with uh the reserve like how
How is this going to get done?
What are the rails that are in place?
And how can people copy that going forward?
So I think this is one of those you can't rush,
even though I think a lot of us would like answers sooner rather than later.
I'd be blown away if they allow stablecoins at this point to allow yield
or provide yield however they do it.
That will change my worldview a little bit.
About everything that's happened.
I hope they do.
I would really think that there's –
Because I do think that's a little bit more of a free market, like you were saying.
But also, does it further entrap people on better financial surveillance than the deposit tokens would be?
Well, that's a good question.
I think it's all going to be surveilled, though.
I don't think you're stopping the surveillance state.
So let's at least do away with the communist banking.
Right.
Yeah, I would be blown away if they can do away with the communist banking.
It's a big fight.
That's interesting.
All right, let's move on to the next one.
Let's talk about the SBR here.
Maybe we could play the clip first from the White House.
We've had good engagement from the DCOSP team, which is Stephen Miller's team, that kind of, you know, make sure that all of the executive orders that have been signed by the president, that the agencies are moving out on them, making good progress.
The Treasury team, Commerce team is involved.
You know, that one is it's interesting. You know, it seems straightforward, but then you get into some, you know, obscure legal provisions and why this agency can't do it.
But actually, this agency could. So we're continuing to push on that. It is certainly still on the priority list right now.
And I think with some of the latest, you know, kind of developments and things that we've learned and engagement from general counsels and different agencies, DOJ, OLC, for example.
That's kind of the, you know, the Supreme Court within the administration has provided some good guidance on where we can move out on this executive order of the president's and do so in a legally sound way.
So. Hank, what do you think? Is the United States government ever going to buy Bitcoin?
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, like, here's the thing, right?
Like they're taking their time. And I think we had expectations that Trump was going to announce strategic Bitcoin reserve.
And all of a sudden the United States was going to be finding ways, budget neutral otherwise, to acquire more rather than just the seized and the forfeitures that we currently have.
Right. But you don't build the runway for planes unless you expect more planes to eventually land there.
And kind of, as I mentioned previously in the last story, like you got to get this right, because the entire world is looking at the United States to likely be the first real power mover to have their own strategic Bitcoin reserve.
And we're trying to integrate a new asset class into kind of a legacy financial system that wasn't necessarily built for that.
So, yeah, it'd be great if we saw this happen sooner than, you know, than we have so far.
But like this is something that, again, you got to get right the first time.
And they're in a lot of uncharted territories here.
And figuring out how to weave Bitcoin into the current financial frameworks is going to take time.
So like, yeah, it's taking longer than expected.
But this in no way changes my thought that eventually there will be a strategic Bitcoin reserve here in the United States.
And I do think at some point we will actively start acquiring it as well.
I think it's all for show.
I think we're probably already acquiring.
I think whatever this is, whatever's happening, it's just the show.
And we're not going to know for a long time, if ever, exactly how this played out.
But if you fast forward two, three, four, five, ten years, the United States will have a strategic Bitcoin reserve.
And I don't know that we'll ever know exactly where the Bitcoin came from or sort of what the moving chess pieces were.
because look, if you're doing something this big,
are you honest about it?
I mean, they're not honest about anything.
Why would they be honest about this?
This is interesting.
So if the United States government doesn't have Bitcoin
through purchases yet
or some sort of acquisition that we don't know about,
my line of thinking is they've never revalued the gold.
So why would they go buy Bitcoin
and have an asset that they don't care
if it goes up in price
and that they can't sell.
So part of me says they'll never buy.
But if they've been acquiring all along
different vintages,
let's say even going back to 2010,
then I could see them being like,
yeah, we have 900,000 Bitcoin on our balance sheet
and we value them at nothing.
Right.
And we're not going to change that,
but we have it now.
And we're not going to sell.
And so I don't know.
If they've already been acquiring,
that'd be really...
And would they ever,
if they were acquiring,
could they ever reveal themselves as the wallets that we all thought were satoshis now that one i
don't know you know right i like to think not but it's certainly a possibility i mean i think it's
definitely why do you why do you guys think they would they would lie about maybe already them
being actively acquiring is that to gain some kind of additional first mover advantage and
literally stacking their bags before they come out and say it and then the inevitable digital
gold rush begins like i'm trying to understand why they would do that
no i i think even just the what you've laid out for you know hiding your first mover advantage and
yeah if you see it as a truly important strategic asset um you know there's always other things
going on behind the scenes you don't necessarily want to lay out your playbook and put all your
cards on the table, especially with something that could be, you know, so, so geopolitically
important. We've seen all kinds of stuff happening in China in regards to like Bitcoin being banned.
And, you know, I think if Bitcoin is as serious of an asset class as like we all believe it to be,
if, I mean, you wouldn't want anyone to know what you were doing.
Yeah. I guess if you found a gold mine, you don't want to tell the people where it is, right?
Yeah. Yeah.
The only way I think they would not be sneaky about it if there was some sort of multilateral process that's being negotiated right now that they would want to announce a multilateral agreement.
Like I said, the G7, we are and maybe one or two of those nations was allowed to acquire some before, but they maybe agreed no one would get first mover advantage when they move to a new monetary system.
But I just don't put my money on that one.
Yeah.
So why wouldn't
I mean, why wouldn't they be acquiring
They've known about this
Since 2010 when Gavin brought
It to them
At some point you could
Put out $100,000
They invest in everything in this country that could be interesting
I also think they probably
Designed and created Bitcoin
I know you think that
You think the government did?
Yeah, my rational
Not the part that made me a Bitcoiner and I hold on to that
started the internet and here we are and facebook right so and probably netflix all of it
i think they seeded i think they invest in these things i they do i i think that they they designed
it to be possibly i'm saying potentially if i was to you know sort of pontificate and they designed
it to be heat sink for credit and debt and they say they gamed out the problems fiat and the dollar
we're going to have. And if they can control all the on and off ramps and they can sort of
and, you know, do the best they can to prevent or prohibit self-custody and any sort of
financial privacy on that ledger. Yeah. This is a great thing for them.
Well, look, historically, look at the people that they've really gone after.
It's always the proponents of the privacy aspect. 100%. It's always the people, you know,
the libertarians preaching Bitcoin.
If you talk about the price of Bitcoin,
a number go up, you are safe.
Right.
So there's something there.
And the brightest minds in Bitcoin
work on tokenizing real world assets
and moving the dollar around on layer two.
Right.
And you just wonder why aren't they hard,
especially if they were early enough,
you'd say they could work on anything they want
because it's purely altruistic.
And yeah, I don't know.
Yeah. Does the fact that like that could be the case, but like Bitcoin is supposed to be transparent. It's on the blockchain. You can check all of it. But all these things are seemingly happening behind like closed doors. Like does that kind of go against the whole thing? Maybe it doesn't even matter at this point. Like I have because part of me is like worried about maybe Bitcoin being co-opted by big governments. Like it's hard to say.
institutions but created i mean it's hard not to think they're not co-op trying to co-opt it now
yeah i'd like to think bitcoin when i'd like to think bitcoin is in like invincible but i think
the part of the invincible part is if humans continue to enhance it in the right ways
which is not a guarantee just like the internet didn't bring total freedom to the users of the
internet. I think increased freedom, but they also think it's starting to tilt where it's
dramatically increased the deployment of propaganda and the centralization of information.
And they figured out how to sort of tame it and sort of corral it. And they created the internet.
Yeah, they did.
It wasn't a gift from God in that sense.
They were heavily involved, you know, as regulation unfolded through the early 2000s and mid 2000s.
and they had offices and all the ISPs.
And, you know, I mean, why would they not be doing the same thing?
You can point to well-versed technically,
people like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Russell,
but none of them were able to avoid detection from the state.
It's really hard to imagine or fathom someone being able to create something
like Bitcoin and actually avoid detection from the state
unless the state pretended to go along with that
or protected that person or people.
I don't know.
That's what my rational brain says.
You're really sucking the romance out of Bitcoin here, Cedric.
I got to say.
I mean, the most exciting thing is,
I mean, maybe as an America,
you'd want like your team,
like as if you're thinking Team America,
like wouldn't you want America to have been,
at least I said,
Gavin brought us this thing.
And if we just put a,
just we should,
we owe it to ourselves to follow all technology in the world.
and let's partake in the networks we understand it and let's keep the coins we mint for free here
basically and then they can seize coins so if they do decide to catch up they might have seized
the coins from venezuela maybe what is going on with that one rumor i heard was someone from
america one of the three letter agencies helped with the architecture of the custodianship of
those coins from the beginning so we just have i don't know and then who knows if maduro has always
been a protected asset.
Right.
You could say the same maybe question about El Salvador, but we've shown even if they're
not friendly or allies or they're doing this for us, that we can take things, including
other sovereign nations, Bitcoin, if they don't know how to protect it or if they use
Coinbase.
Yes.
So if we're not out ahead, I would think that either we're going to buy Bitcoin or continue
to confiscate.
I'm not necessarily a fan of the confiscation part.
I mean, if it's confiscating
and then we should be returning to the
people that suffered an injustice, I would
think. Yeah, I agree.
That's definitely the nicer way to
do it.
Oh, Hank, it's always a
great catch up with you. I'll leave it to you for any part
of it. Let us know where we could
find you. I love the show. I come on every
two weeks, the blockchain. You do.
Yeah. No, it's so great having you.
You know, we certainly appreciate it. I'm at Roxham
TV. Now I'm at Roxham
TV news. I host the show five days a week, 10 a.m. Pacific time Mondays, 8 a.m. the rest of the week.
It's two hours. We have amazing stewards of the space like yourself, Cedric, on all the time
talking Bitcoin and world news and trying to, you know, give people the world through more of a
Bitcoin lens because, as you know, we all see that's kind of the way that things are moving
right now. And we're so appreciative of all the experts we get to have on like yourself. And it
was a real treat to getting to come into your house and hang out with you here. So thank you
so much for the invite today. It was a lot of fun. I really
appreciate it. Awesome, man. It's always
good to see you. Thanks so much. Can't wait. Thank you
so much, guys. Enjoy your best year's show. Take care.
Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye, Hank.
Well, this is off
to such a positive start today, isn't it?
I think that we're...
Oh, okay.
It's all right. Let's talk about Sailor.
Look, I think what's positive about it
is we have that battle still at hand.
We are still in battle.
I hope I'm wrong about everything.
We're in the battle. We're in the battle, so it's not
I think a lot of people are being numbed to sleep.
Yeah.
Because to win the battle, I do think it's going to take actual effort and action.
I agree.
In all different sorts of ways.
Right.
And I'm not sure people really care right now.
Yeah, I'm blackpilled on that.
I agree.
Not enough people care.
And it pisses me off.
But we lived through COVID and all these people didn't care.
So I can't say that I have that much optimism.
But what I will say is it makes me extremely grateful for people like you and Paul and everybody else in Bitcoin that do care.
Yeah, I would appreciate that.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm doing that thing where you're thinking about what you're going to say next.
So, I mean, man, I saw this clip from Edward Dowd.
I'm not too familiar with him.
He's an economist, I think.
Okay.
There's a little bit of a, I don't know how to describe it.
I don't know him that well, but it was a really interesting point that he made.
And he was alluding to that the stock market's at all time high valuations.
Right.
And there's only seven companies that are driving that.
And they're sort of intermingling and going back and forth.
Right.
And the market is excited and enthusiastic about these companies that all happen to be
to creating and designing and deploying our dystopic panopticon oh yeah like we are investing
in our own dystopian future and not you and maybe particular but not me american side through their
401ks and the economy yes and that's really twisted to think of that super uh but like
would you expect anything less with uh yes i was hoping and expecting i was hoping well i want to
see more optimistic signs. I think there's
I don't think that is an optimistic
sign. No. That people are
handing over their life
force to say build my
digital prison.
They're not investing in these companies
maybe that build better
shoes or
things that protect you from all the bad
things in the atmosphere or better food.
The best thing, the most thing
people are excited about are AI
which is I think in its
current form and way it's
It's all dystopic.
Very.
I'm a proponent of getting offline.
I'm transitioning my home back to, you may remember this from like the late 90s.
I'm going to have a computer room where I have a hardwired Ethernet connection.
And that's the only device that you'll be able to use to access the Internet.
And that's my plan.
I think a lot of people are going to go analog.
I think so.
And I think a lot, there is the pushback from the younger generations.
We're seeing them reject social media, reject the cell phone addiction and get out into
the real world and go offline.
They're doing like IRL events.
And that gives me hope.
I think this cheering on of the fake economy and us building our own AI dystopian future,
I think that that's a bubble that will crash.
And a lot of people will end up in collateral damage.
it'll be a lot of collateral damage but we will sort of like rise from the ashes of that
and i think you know yeah i mean that's exciting to hear right and i wish i heard more because
that's maybe people who don't have even 30 grand in their 401k and i would love to hear stories
about people who are like we just drained our 30 our 401k to uh do everything you said to get to To build the computer room Buy Bitcoin To go analog to buy Bitcoin Right To opt out Totally get out
Yeah.
Please hit like and subscribe.
This is Bitcoin Center brought to you by Byte Federal.
Byte Federal.
One of the largest,
one of the earliest Bitcoin ATM networks.
We are holding the hard line on the cash economy
or still allowed to use cash.
It is not illegal yet.
We also have a digital on-ramp and a non-custodial wallet.
Check us out at bitefederal.com and on all of your social medias.
Yeah.
Well, Francis, cue up the clip.
So we at Bitcoin Day, the big topic that kept coming up spontaneously and emerging was the
Danny Knowles, Michael Saylor with Bitcoin did interview.
So let's roll this clip before we get into it.
you said uh 2025 was sort of a bad year a disappointing year for bitcoin that's how you
started out you're like so that started that started the conversation but he didn't blow up
at that point no i know yeah but but it but it automatically kind of put this like negative tone
where it's like 2025 was a pretty bad year for is a dis i think you said called it a disappointing
year for bitcoin i think i said bitcoin price i i don't think you said price i think i think you
just said maybe not maybe anyway but uh so he's like whoa whoa whoa it was anything but disappointed
he went on this rant like we made a new all-time high in q4 yeah and so then it kind of threw him
on his heels but uh it seemed like i ran it through uh ai to figure out and it seemed like
the crux of the matter the argument back and forth with you guys was if a company drops below
one times m nav how does it recover it was kind of that so i think you were trying to get him to
answer that he wouldn't answer it that was actually a little later i think i've actually i've not
listen back. But I think the first question that set him off was me basically saying how many
treasury companies can the market sustain? Because if you look at it right now, it doesn't seem like
it can sustain 200 companies. Almost all of them are trading below 1X MNAV. And it was really like,
who do you think, how many people are going to be real winners out of this?
He got a bit offended by that question. He's so smart. You know. I mean, I've been to his house
multiple times. I've had dinner with him three or four times. We're not friends. He's, you know,
how like, he's very difficult to talk to because his mind is like here. Right. But I think maybe
he's so smart and analytical that maybe you guys were like talking past each other. Yep. I could
give you a layman's version as to why there could be 10,000 of them. But if you'd like,
it was basically a thing I was most shocked about is that it was that question that set him off on
me. And I've had a few people being like, he wasn't shouting at you. It was more of like a
broader audience that is like skeptical on treasury companies. I don't know. I took it like
he was shouting at me during the interview. Um, and I was just like, I had far harder questions
I wanted to ask him, but I was like, well, if that's caused a blow up, maybe, uh, yeah,
I kind of wish I'd asked harder questions.
You guys are muted.
What'd you think?
So I'm team sailor on this. I think it's really hard to build in Bitcoin. And you can have a
conversation about like, he's not, you know, some people think like, well, he's not really building
in Bitcoin. He's building in Wall Street, whatever. But if you really like narrow down the list of
people that are building in Bitcoin and trying to increase access and adoption, whether that is
through Wall Street or Main Street. It's still a really short list, especially in the United States.
And I think Danny triggered Sailor's autism and that he is just, it's like, it's like the next
deep sigh moment. You know, you have that famous clip of him like, and he's like, oh, here we go
again. But instead of like, I think it's a similar moment and that he is probably really sick of the
criticism and the endless exhaustive, like, and I say this because I kind of identify with this,
like, I am so sick of people who are not doing anything. That's not to say Danny's not doing
anything. But like, I think if I could summarize Saylor's response, it was kind of like,
like, go build something like, like, stop with the criticism, stop. Like, Bitcoin has so much
attack from outside, from Wall Street, from banks, from governments. There are so many people coming
at us, especially if you're trying to build and deal with regulation and all of that.
It is endlessly exhausting. And I think that Saylor was maybe just a little bit frustrated,
like, yo, we're supposed to be on the same team. Let's look at this from a positive way. I think
he really believes that he is having a positive impact on like the future of humanity and that
that's his goal and that he believes that. And so it's just sort of like, come on, man, like,
I'm so sick of defending myself and my products and my efforts and all of these things. Like,
why is it coming from you too? It's where I think Sailor was coming from. And if that's accurate,
then I totally agree. Like, I don't know, we need to support each other. And that's not to say that
We shouldn't have debate and questions and things like that.
But I think Danny just sort of like triggered something and it set sailor off.
And in my opinion, that's kind of where it was coming from.
Yeah, I agree with everything you said.
I think, though, I don't think it was anything that Danny said.
I think if I had to speculate that Michael Saylor came in there with that agenda.
Sure.
To use Danny as the foil for everything you just said.
Right.
And I don't think it was personal.
No, not at all.
There were some times where maybe I could see how Danny took it personally.
Sure.
Because he was in the conversation and Michael's addressing him by name.
Right.
But I think it goes to some...
I think Danny has had shows that have been sort of taking...
Objectively took a positive and negative view of MSTR.
He did recently this summer have a show called Is MSTR a Ponzi?
Oh, I don't think I saw that.
With Lynn Alden.
And so I think, but a month ago we did have Fong on, the CEO of strategy.
So we've done both.
Right.
But I think so I was like, you're going to come into my house.
Sure.
Right.
Run shows calling me a Ponzi and I'm tired of taking the friendly fire.
Yeah.
But I don't think of it just in general,
and this is not about Michael Saylor and strategy,
but I don't know if it is to me.
I think no one, nothing is beyond approach or in the Bitcoin scene.
And I don't care if there's friendly fire.
Right.
In a way.
I shouldn't say that.
I mean, that sounds caustic, but.
I mean, I don't disagree with you because like I would say like you, I completely agree.
There should not, there should be, nothing is off the table.
Nothing can not be questioned.
But at the same time, we're human, right?
No matter how autistic we might be, we are human.
And it is exhausting dealing with the backlash and the pushback and the regulation and the negativity and the, you know, sometimes you just want to be like, like, what, what the fuck are you doing?
And I agree completely that it wasn't personal to Danny.
I think really Danny was sort of collateral damage.
Yeah.
I think Mark makes a very interesting point there because I could see I'm just mulling it over and it's I never try to bring a guest on the show to kind of ask them the tough questions.
Like, I mean, like to be like, I know they disagree or I know they don't feel this way and make them unless they want to they want to sort of address that.
Yeah.
Maybe it's a different thing if you have like a pre-production conversation.
You say I'm going to like line fire.
Do we want to present this to the audience?
She wanted the opportunity to kind of address this.
But I think maybe looking back on it,
I was like, I have addressed this on CNBC a lot.
Yes.
Why do this in public in front of our people?
In his own home, like you said.
Yeah.
And there's a different way to maybe, yeah, go back.
It's very interesting.
I don't know.
It is.
It's interesting.
I love a Sailor Deep sigh.
And I think we kind of got another one of those.
It gets so meta, though,
when the next guest is asking Danny
about the last guest and the controversy.
It's kind of interesting.
A little high school, but...
All right, let's move on to the next topic here.
U.S. freezes visa processing for 75 countries.
What do you think of this machine?
What do you think of this?
I'll tell you what I think.
I'm dying to know what you think.
I mean, this just seems par for the course.
I don't know what else to think.
I mean, of course, this strengthens the case for Bitcoin.
I don't know if people are paying attention.
I mean, we went through the Canadian truckers.
Right.
And that was a very worthy cause, obviously.
And they were putting through unjust persecution.
And their lives were at stake.
And I don't think people cared enough.
No, I agree completely.
That was one of the things that really drove me much more deeply into Bitcoin.
I agree with you.
Of course, it strengthens the case for Bitcoin.
But I do agree with it.
And this may be a hot take.
I don't know if people are going to be angry.
But like, I believe in borders.
I believe that we should have borders.
And like, I'm okay with this.
I don't understand.
Like, we can't just open the country to an influx of.
So maybe tell me more about what happened.
They won't let certain countries use visa now.
Is that kind of like,
then they won't let them on the fiat rails for credit?
Well, they're not issuing visas.
So you can't, you know, you need a visa to come,
whether you're visiting or coming to reside.
I believe
I completely misread this topic
I'm thinking Visa the processing company
so this is the Visa the credit card
this is entry
to enter the country
okay so then
wow
so it's a pretty big crackdown
I'm trying to think
does this strengthen the case for borderless money
like Bitcoin where people would be crossing less borders
because they can't come
that's an interesting question
I mean, they're still stuck on their own rails.
This is...
But borderless money requires borders, right?
So like it's not anti-Bitcoin to believe in borders.
Right.
If anything, this that you want,
now people have to sneak across the border
and it enforces the case for Bitcoin
because they're going to try to go across the border
undetected in various ways.
And yeah, I don't know.
All right.
I think we should move on.
We can move on.
Yeah.
Oh, play this clip.
This one's good.
If you said to me when I was a kid, listen, the Danish government is going to be preparing for a military invasion by the United States of their sovereign territory.
And their prime minister is going to be telling their army officers shoot to kill in the event of an invasion.
We're going to treat this like it's a Nazi invasion or you pick a bad guy invasion entering.
and if you had said to me that there was going to be a government in the United States
that would say that a NATO, a member of NATO, that they wanted to take their territory and
that every option was on the table, including a military option to take their territory,
I would have said, okay, that's certainly not going to happen in my lifetime. We have
a predictable democracy, a rules-based society, and the United States, whether you like the
United States are just like the United States. There's more evidence than not that it's been
roughly trying to do the right thing since the end of the Second World War. Are we imperfect? Yes.
Is there racism, tribalism, host of issues, all the issues you expect for human beings have? Yes.
But are we searching as an aspirational country to try to be a better country? I think we are.
But I don't think this speaks well of the United States. If I'm being
It's wild.
I thought it was sobering.
Yeah.
I thought it was very lucid there.
And, you know, I think I've really soured on anything that the Trump really regime has done over the last five or six months, which is the process.
With all the interventional interventionism.
None of this seemed to be on the table.
Yeah.
Or a lot of this didn't seem to be on the table during the election.
I get things come up and things change, but it seems very the end.
And I'm trying to look at it from objective and not having a dog in the fight.
But obviously issue by issue, I can kind of say I like like this one to go that way.
And, you know, but it just seems like some of the things I don't know.
I just think that, you know, it's kind of I think a lot of people who did really support Trump and I was one of them feel that it's a betrayal of the America.
first movement. It looks like this. Yeah.
So even if you weren't for Trump,
it looks like a material against
people who were. Yeah. For sure.
Yes. And I think it's a lot of ammo for the
people who were anti-Trump before. Absolutely.
And want the other candidate to win. Yeah.
And I'm trying to then understand,
okay, what is the objective
in terms of the politics
is Trump trying to get,
not, are they
trying to win the midterms?
Like on one hand, I'm like, oh, maybe
Trump works for the bad guys and he's
getting all the dirty work done.
Right.
Because they don't care about the midterms.
Yeah.
Et cetera.
Or does he really want to win
so he doesn't have a lame duck,
you know, third and fourth year?
And so you would think,
okay, he'd be doing things
that make people like him more.
Yeah.
Domestically and internationally.
And you would think that they would want
the economy to sort of rev up.
Well, we kind of talked about
how they think the economy is revving, you know?
They keep saying that, I guess.
Right.
I don't feel that.
I think, in my opinion, Trump's biggest downfall or his biggest blind spot is that he trusts too many people and he still has too much trust in the old systems.
And I think people have gotten around him and kind of pulled him back to this deep state globalist agenda.
Maybe it's not globalist, but like the in the the rhino, the the interventionalist warmongers.
I think they've got their talons in him and that he has been kind of pushed back to this Trump 1.0 version instead of the Trump 2.0 that we voted for.
Do you think Trump actually gets to make the calls on Maduro mouthing off on Q?
Right.
So if he's not making the calls on these things.
Right.
Then it seems like there's a lot of theater to how all this gets moved along.
Something I've really been pondering, trying to just how orderly it seems to me that AI is being rolled out.
So do you believe there is a theory out there that looks at Vance and his connection to Palantir and sort of this theory that it's all a show and that Trump is kind of knowingly shepherding in this dystopian AI surveillance state?
Do you feel that way?
Yes.
I think we saw in the last year 10 times more surveillance state development than we ever would have saw under any other regime.
And the reason I say that is I think the regimes are used, the fake dichotomy between the two parties are done for that on purpose.
So maybe during the Biden administration, maybe there were 10 times as more many immigrants that came over the border than another regime.
And so it's like we're going to create the problem 10x on this side, offer you the solution on the other side, but then that side is going to come in and give a solution that creates a different 10x problem that we wouldn't have been able to.
Do you know what I mean?
Yeah, you make a compelling case.
Like Trump got tax cuts for the rich during his first term that Hillary wouldn't have gone if she was president.
Right.
Trump was able to push the COVID vaccines and the lockdowns in a way I don't think the right would have accepted from Hillary or from Kamala.
I think the border issue was prevalent during the Biden administration.
This is a black pill night to night, Cedric.
I mean, if you look at this Maduro, right?
You could look at maybe the Bush family and the CIA has been involved in drug running in Venezuela since before Chavez.
Absolutely.
And we set up the banking system there and I really I have to believe that Trump had good intentions and that he like intended to fight the deep state And I think Trump takes incremental wins I think maybe there negotiating going on like you know the intel agencies come to him and say we are doing this And so maybe he will ask for that in return And he believes that there like a net good
but it is a betrayal of the base it is a lot of like bad worse and worser and it's
it just all needs to be like burned down and what i would also mean by with the ai and if you look
back at sort of the internet there was never this wtf moment for the government or anybody to be
like we're hoping it goes this way and holy shit ai we didn't see this coming and there's these
it always seems to everything seems to go in a way that they would want
the cards always fall in their favor as if the deck is not random yeah and they're just playing
card after card right and uh you know there's some sort of i think kayfabe along the way to
kind of and I think there's jockeying for position within the system right but nothing seems to go
not as well the a I mean that's hard to argue but the AI thing what's interesting to me and I think
this is maybe an argument for what you're saying which I'm not sure I agree completely or not but
we know that AI you know every week now we're seeing all of these like new capabilities unfold
and to me that's a bit of a show because we know that the government and the agencies have had
ai technology for a very long time and so the question becomes like well why now why did the
the peasants get it now so and one of the markers i could put so i got dragged into the marvel
universe my son loves this stuff i never wanted to entertain pop culture right cinema's gone but
i'm watching the thing and we watched this one movie i think it was iron man and it's the age
of Ultron and they go up against
the AI. Okay. And the AI
is unleashed. This is a recent...
No, this is like
2012 or 2014. That's what
also made this weird. Okay. Predictive
programming. Right. So they
know exactly where it's going. This
movie goes further than we are now, but it's
rolling out exactly as
you would see it in a Hollywood film.
Right. But in the beginning...
Well, this movie, though, it does get out of
control, which I'm not saying will happen
in our world. Oh, I think it'll happen.
But they're showing you exactly how it's going to get developed.
If it doesn't, they're showing you both.
But I feel like we're on the track where it doesn't get out of control.
And there's never that moment where I think if it gets out of control, it's not going to be out of their control.
They might present you a situation where it's out of our control.
But I don't think there's going to be this.
And that's my proof that they are.
If they can control it, then it's not really the real.
We don't have the full truth of what's going on.
Right, but that's why they're able to manage it so well
because they're only unrolling a limited amount
and they're hundreds of years ahead of how far it can be.
Oh, no doubt.
Yeah.
And it just goes as planned.
Right.
Because they have it managed so well.
They're like holding it back in a way.
It never even gets out too early.
Right.
There's no leaks.
There's no catastrophes.
You know, there have been a couple little things that have gone wrong, but not really.
And I'm talking about across many, many fields now.
Yeah.
But AI just being the latest that we see.
I don't know.
All right.
Let's maybe get on to the next topic.
We got to find a positive note this afternoon.
I don't know.
We'll try.
We are in the prepper's shed here.
Let's go on to the technical setup.
Do you think 26 will be the year many assume 2025 will be?
I don't know if it's this year, but I do think Bitcoin is due for a parabolic run.
And whether it's this year or next year or a few more years from now, it's going to be
epic and I can't wait.
What about you?
Do you think we're going to get a parabolic run or that it's just slow and steady, slowly
up?
Well, this to me feels another thing that's very managed.
Really?
I would never have imagined this price point in any scenarios that I ran.
And that doesn't mean that I tried to run scenarios that are not all positive.
Sure.
If anything, if we were going to be not, again, at all-time high or below $100,000, I had much more negative scenarios.
In my mind, I was attributing more weight, almost more negative, much more negative scenarios.
I didn't have the in-between.
Right.
So do you think it's being it's price manipulation or control or suppression?
So mind you, my gut is probably wrong.
That's all right.
But I think, yeah, it just feels manipulated.
It doesn't feel real to me.
It feels held back.
But maybe that's my naivety.
Maybe I had wrong assumptions.
I mean, I still think that this is not me crying and spilled milk.
I still think this is amazing that Bitcoin's at this price point.
And so in some ways, I feel like 2026 is literally like, I feel like they've sped up the timeline, whoever manages the matrix.
And 2026 feels like we're just going to repeat 2025 in every way possible.
But I don't think we'll get the, just like everyone expected big things for Bitcoin price in 2025.
I, again, expect that.
Yeah.
But what we all expect will not happen.
So I don't know how we won't get what we expect.
Right.
But of course, I look at this year, like, how could you not be more bullish?
Exactly like last year, but 10 times more development and real good news and infrastructure has been built.
Sure.
Do they call that technicals, like strong technicals, people say?
Everything you could point to.
We're going through what looks like could be a better macro environment.
Yeah.
The technicals and fundamentals behind Bitcoin look better.
Adoption looks better.
There's less, I think, liquid coins.
but all this can change and sentiment can change and you know so well it never does what we think
it's going to do that's for sure so i don't know if it happens this year but so i have to train
myself i don't i want to think it's not going to do anything because then it will then i have a
chance maybe we'll do something yeah um so i'm trying not to have expectations yeah i mean i
have a very long term time horizon so we might have another slow boring year i mean it's funny
if you go back a few years and tell us we would be bored around 90,000.
But here we are.
But I do think inevitably there will be an epic parabolic run.
And in many ways, I think the longer it takes, the better,
because it gives people more time to accumulate.
I agree.
So we should be more excited.
You should have the free year, the bonus year,
to acquire more Bitcoin than you probably ever.
Any of the scenarios I was running through my head,
I would have had less opportunity.
Yes.
Except maybe in the more drastically negative ones.
which I did not ascribe a large probability to.
So I don't know.
You know, the hardest thing for people to do
is to do nothing, right?
Like we want some kind of action,
but that's not always the best scenario.
So it's a conflicting desire.
Sure, I agree.
All right, I think we have a couple of bonus tweets
to get into here.
Please hit like and subscribe if you're enjoying the show.
This is Bitcoin Center brought to you by Byte Federal.
Go bank yourself.
Fuck yeah.
All right.
So let me see if I can pull up these tweets here.
Bitcoin Twitter is not dead yet.
The first one, this one is from Health Ranger, and he says Infowars is now reporting that
insider sources say Trump will declare the Insurrection Act next week.
I saw that.
This is right on schedule.
Trump will declare it.
The radical left will amp up their uprising.
ICE will be told to start shooting people, even more, who resist.
This will, by design, result in a domestic civil war situation brewing hot across 20-plus U.S. cities by the summer months,
at which point Trump will deploy the U.S. military to oversee the midterm elections, citing safety concerns for the public.
This will stop the Democrats from cheating.
And if this takes place, as I expect, the Dems will do horribly in the election, since they can only win by cheating.
The cost of this operation, blood in the streets of America, civil revolt.
And if Trump doesn't arrest the blue city mayors and blue state governors who pushed the revolt,
then everything just reverts back to Democrat control a few years later and the entire Trump family goes to prison.
So what you're really seeing here, my analysis, not my endorsement, and again, this is Health Ranger,
is a final tribal war for control over America where Democrats want a giant money laundering machine
and a censorship regime that destroys the Bill of Rights.
And Trump wants a big tech, big farmer regime that surveils the American people, achieves depopulation through jabs and toxic medications, and keeps everybody in line with federal agents on the streets demanding show me your papers.
The tyranny continues.
The tyranny will continue until the dollar collapses, no matter who sits in the White House.
This nation is now under tribal control more than ever.
And the tribes are warring like two Godzilla monsters wrecking the cities and stomping all over the people.
Try to steer clear as the battle rages.
well we just got even more doomer didn't we well i mean what do you what do you think i think
you know what this might be a hot take but i wish that would happen i think that trump is not
ruthless enough like like the the left is ruthless when they're in power and then the right gets in
power and i know you talk a lot about thinking it it's by design and it's for show and i think that
this kind of makes the case to support that, that like, maybe it is all for show because
if we, if the other side of the right was anywhere near as ruthless as the left claims
that they are, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
It would just be like, we're deporting all these people, you know, you're resisting ICE,
you're going to jail.
It would be a lot more, I mean, maybe it's tyrannical.
I don't know.
I think it's not that insane to think people should just follow the laws that we have.
and well yeah that's where i think we slightly differ i think if the left it's like saying if
like my enemy didn't have a left arm all this would go away and it's like your enemy's like
i'll just try swinging with my right only so i think like they're two arms of the same body the
left you think yeah the left and it's just so they both want to mess you up yeah and one's like i'll
do it this way the other one's like i'll do it that way and if you it's kind of like i see it as
if someone in your neighborhood,
their wife gets murdered by their enemy
and that person comes to you and says,
look, they killed my wife.
This is horrible.
We should take up arms and go kill them.
Right.
And he doesn't tell you that he killed that guy's wife last week.
Yeah.
And both guys have a legitimate gripe with each other
and they're both gangsters.
Yeah.
And I'm not, that's the part I get.
I want to just try to steer clear as the battle rages.
I'm glad to live in Florida.
Yeah, but this could come to Florida.
Any of these things, any of these issues
that they use to divide and conquer us.
Right.
See, I...
Yeah.
So, I don't know.
I think we get through all this.
We will get through all of this.
But I also, I think, though,
I worry about how many people will actually be free at the end of all this, though.
It's not going to be a lot of them.
That's a sliding scale, right?
Absolutely.
So I'm hoping 100% of people that Bitcoin frees humanity.
And I think that might be a very naive take, the way the internet hasn't freed humanity.
Right.
It's done a lot for some.
A lot of people want to be enslaved.
A lot of people want to be enslaved or don't know they're enslaved.
And that can be used against them at the same time.
And so I don't know.
We'll see how it goes.
I got one more here.
Um, this, so how many of you are aware prediction markets were a former DARPA project like Facebook?
Oh, shit. I didn't know that.
Um, per the CIA, per the CIA website in 2001, the defense advanced research project agency
DARPA started experimenting with methods for applying DARPA's future markets applied to
prediction future map program tested whether prediction markets, markets in which people
bet on the likelihood of future events could be used to improve upon existing approaches
to, to preparing strategic intelligence.
the program was canceled in the summer of 2003 under a barrage of congressional um criticism
but was it what do you mean no probably not no this is polymark that's what i mean this is what
i think it's really weird like when breaking iranian regimes this polymarket tweeting out
iranian regime security forces have lost nearly all control of iran's capital city city tehran
second largest city in the fifth largest city like how does polymarket know this
right why are they disseminating like who is clearing that it seems like almost like a modern
like somehow like a like a new incarnation of like wikileaks or it's the simulation like showing you
its structure but also getting people to report on themselves yeah and to tell tell this decentralized
uh thing how they feel and what they think's gonna happen unless it's all controlled and
poly market is like informing the masses and driving them like like right if you don't yeah
like if they want everybody to believe x right you know they'll put x up against y and then
pretend like so many people believe it and then everyone else starts to say like oh that must be
the case or maybe that is the case um i think it's highly likely do you remember i'm sorry yeah no no
But you know about Reddit and
Oh, yes. Maxwell. Yeah.
And isn't there like
it's like three main
moderators for like the whole thing.
People think it's thousands of people.
But it's... I don't know how to say it.
Ghislaine. I don't think it's Ghislaine.
Ghislaine. Maxwell.
She was the number one moderator
for like 12 years.
That massive, like the largest channel on Reddit, right?
Or subreddit or whatever. More than one,
I think. Yeah. Maybe just a few.
But I mean, the amount of work just to manage a channel, this woman also to fly helicopters and submarines is amazing.
But it just seems to go really deep.
Yeah, it does.
And if you're up against something that deep, you'd have to, like, they have more resources to outgame us.
Yeah, it's true.
Oh, man.
All right, those are my scary tweets for the week.
But we have Bitcoin and we have chickens.
Yeah, steer clear of the battle.
Go bank yourself.
Go to your Bitcoin, buy federal ATM, buy Bitcoin, move it to self-custody, and bank yourself.
That's right.
Hit like and subscribe if you're enjoying the show.
I got the sun in my face.
This is a little, got a little warmer here in Florida.
So thank you for tuning in.
We're every Tuesday at 3 p.m. Eastern.
We got Mel saying, yeah, it's not good.
Prediction markets are a bad idea.
Nobody should be wasting their money on that.
Not to mention, I do not ever trust it would be fair.
what's up Mel it's good to see you this weekend
I hope to see you soon
good luck with BitBlockBoom
tell us a little bit more about ByteFederal
yeah ByteFederal
really believes in freedom
and we are doing everything we can to keep freedom alive
it is not an easy feat
in the communist United States of America
but we are trying
And I hope to bring you all more and more products that allow you to be free and bank yourself and stay as off grid as you want to be.
And maybe next week we'll be doing this live from Greenland.
Greenland.
We'll go on tour.
We'll be like the 51st day at Greenland.
Then Canada.
And Canada's in the mix now.
Take them all over.
I mean, do you really think any of this is going to happen?
where i don't know man because i instinctually like just immediately my gut says no but i i will
never say it could never happen not after covid yeah never say never thank you so much for tuning
in see you guys next week thanks guys peace