Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg p m L Podcast. I'm pim Fox.
Speaker 1: Along with my co host Lisa Bramowitz. Each day we
Speaker 1: bring you the most important, noteworthy, and useful interviews for
Speaker 1: you and your money, whether you're at the grocery store
Speaker 1: or the trading floor. Find the Bloomberg p m L
Speaker 1: Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and Bloomberg dot com. President
Speaker 1: Trump tweeting this morning that he hopes that John Brennan
Speaker 1: uh in President Trump's awards the worst CI director in
Speaker 1: our country's history, brings a lawsuit. It will be then
Speaker 1: be very easy to get all of his records, texts, emails,
Speaker 1: and documents to show not only the poor job he did,
Speaker 1: but how he was involved with the mother rigged witch hunt.
Speaker 1: He won't sue. He went on further to talk about
Speaker 1: how everybody wants their security clearance and why it's important
Speaker 1: to strip certain people of it. Joining us now, I'm
Speaker 1: very pleased to say, is Admiral James Staffriti's a Bloomberg
Speaker 1: opinion columnist, also a retired U S. Navy admiral and
Speaker 1: former military commando of NATO. He is the author of
Speaker 1: Sea Power, The History and Geopolitics of the world's oceans,
Speaker 1: and he also is one of more than one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy five former State Department and Penticot officials who
Speaker 1: have added their names to a statement signed by national
Speaker 1: security officials criticizing President Trump's decision to provoke security clearance
Speaker 1: to a number of people, including John Brennan, Admiral. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. What a pleasure, Lisa,
Speaker 1: I would love to just start with, how important is
Speaker 1: it to the nation, aside from just a personal issue, uh,
Speaker 1: that there are these attacks on former intelligence officers and
Speaker 1: a revocation of their security clearance. I think it's a
Speaker 1: mistake from really a very pragmatic point of view, Lisa,
Speaker 1: as follows um, when you have an important job, I
Speaker 1: was the Supreme ali Ander of NATO. I had three
Speaker 1: million troops working for ME, Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkan Syria Piracy.
Speaker 1: When you have that kind of job, you need help,
Speaker 1: you need advice. And I was able to pick up
Speaker 1: the phone and call former Supreme Allied commanders, going all
Speaker 1: the way back to General West Clark and get good
Speaker 1: advice from them because they still had security clearances. That's
Speaker 1: the idea of this. So if we strip away security clearances. UM,
Speaker 1: it'll chill the ability of people in big important jobs
Speaker 1: to reach to their predecessors. And I think that's a
Speaker 1: real mistake. Leaving aside the politics of this, which are
Speaker 1: not very good. In addition to that very pragmatic point,
Speaker 1: what's morale like? What is morale like? I think morale
Speaker 1: is concerned would be the way I would use the term.
Speaker 1: From top to bottom. The national security, UH, establishment is
Speaker 1: concerned about more than any seeing the erratic nature of policy.
Speaker 1: You know, there are some things that President Trump is
Speaker 1: doing that makes sense, going after the Islamic State, negotiating
Speaker 1: with Kim Jung not unleashing fire and fury um, but
Speaker 1: there are other things that we disagree with. It's that
Speaker 1: um up and down, back and forth, the whipsaw effect
Speaker 1: of policy. And I think this feeds into that sense.
Speaker 1: And Lisa, it's how it's viewed from overseas audit concern
Speaker 1: US Admiral Sturdi is uh. We just are getting word
Speaker 1: that Turkey is launching a World Trade Organization dispute against
Speaker 1: the US regarding the still and aluminum tariffs. I'm just wondering.
Speaker 1: I'd love to get your thoughts on Turkey as the
Speaker 1: former military commando of NATO and Uh, your thoughts on
Speaker 1: the idea of Turkey leaving NATO are becoming less allied
Speaker 1: with the United States going forward? What do you think
Speaker 1: about that? Yeah, three key points, Lisa. First, Turkey has
Speaker 1: historically been a very strong member of the Alliance and
Speaker 1: a very strong partner to the United States and to
Speaker 1: the other twenty seven nations of the Alliance. And I
Speaker 1: say that very practically having seen Turkish troops, Turkish sailors,
Speaker 1: Turkish airmen fighting alongside NATO troops in Afghanistan, Libya, the
Speaker 1: Balkans on countervirusy missions. They're very capable, um point to.
Speaker 1: Under President Urduwan, they are drifting away from the Alliance,
Speaker 1: and that ought to concern us very deeply. And that
Speaker 1: gets us to point three, which is the drift is
Speaker 1: getting closer and closer to Russia. We see a Turkey
Speaker 1: buying advanced air defense systems from Russia. We see a
Speaker 1: lot of collaboration between President Urduan and President Putin that
Speaker 1: ought to really concern us UM in terms of this
Speaker 1: particular dispute which kind of centers around UH, a preacher
Speaker 1: who has been unjustly incarcerated in Turkey. President Trump is
Speaker 1: correct to go after the Turk high and hard about that,
Speaker 1: but we ought to be doing that in a way
Speaker 1: that recognizes the fundamental importance of Turkey to the Alliance. UM.
Speaker 1: I think we can get our way through this. The
Speaker 1: number one prescription is let's get an ambassador in Turkey.
Speaker 1: We don't have one there yet. We need to land
Speaker 1: this one diplomatically. Well, Admiral, I want to I want
Speaker 1: to go a little bit further with that. Let's say
Speaker 1: Russia does become much closer with Turkey. What's the potential
Speaker 1: consequence of that in the worst case scenario from your
Speaker 1: vantage point, Yeah, I think worst case, and it's probably
Speaker 1: approaching a ten to possibility, would be Turkey leaving the
Speaker 1: NATO Alliance. Again, I don't predict that. Let's say it's
Speaker 1: an they stay in. But I'm shocked I'm saying these
Speaker 1: words publicly. It's very concerning that we are at this past.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, I think the geopolitical
Speaker 1: balance will tip in favor of Turkey remaining in the
Speaker 1: Alliance because of the economics, Russia really doesn't have that
Speaker 1: much to offer Turkey. UM. I am hopeful that President
Speaker 1: Urdwan will realize that in the time to come in
Speaker 1: the geopolitics will outweigh the emotion of the moment. Admiral
Speaker 1: just in about a minute. Why would it be bad
Speaker 1: at Turkey LEFTNATO? UH? First of all, their capability they
Speaker 1: have the second largest army in the Alliance after the
Speaker 1: United States UH. Secondly, their geopolitical position they sit right
Speaker 1: on the border with the most troubled region. And thirdly
Speaker 1: the symbology. We've never had a nation leave NATO. To
Speaker 1: have a big, important one like Turkey be the first
Speaker 1: would be disastrous for the Alliance. Admiral James Taffritis, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being with me. I wish we
Speaker 1: had another hour to hear your your thoughts, because you
Speaker 1: come with such a rich perspective of what's going on
Speaker 1: both internationally as well as domestically. Admiral James Tefriti is
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Opinion calumnist, retired U S. Navy Admiral and former
Speaker 1: military commando of NATO. He also is the author of
Speaker 1: the recent book See Power, The History and Geopolitics of
Speaker 1: the World's Oceans, shutting light on a really important point,
Speaker 1: which is the strategic importance of oceans and how that
Speaker 1: could be changing. Well, semiconductor shares have been really taking
Speaker 1: a blow on the head again and again in the
Speaker 1: past few sessions, and we can see that again today
Speaker 1: in video shares leading the way down nearly two declines
Speaker 1: following nearly five percent decline on Friday. The question is
Speaker 1: why and is it justified? Is this just a bitcoin
Speaker 1: freak out or is this something deeper? And I'm so
Speaker 1: happy that we have David Garretty here with us. He's
Speaker 1: chief executive of g v A Research based in Brooke. Actually, no,
Speaker 1: he moved. He moved to Manhattan and he is here
Speaker 1: in our eleven three oh studios UH in New York
Speaker 1: City right now. David, what do you think is the
Speaker 1: significance of the recent declines that we've seen in the
Speaker 1: semin conductor companies. Well, I think when you look at
Speaker 1: the global economy and you look at the important sectors
Speaker 1: of a technology, is certainly become more important as a
Speaker 1: sector over time. Much as people have talked about the
Speaker 1: decrease or decline in copper prices since early June by
Speaker 1: about as being indicative of an industrial economy slowdown, we
Speaker 1: take the view that when you look at semiconductors, there's
Speaker 1: a technology sector related slowdown which certainly is being affected
Speaker 1: by the deceleration and the economy in China because of
Speaker 1: the expected impact around some of these tariffs that we've
Speaker 1: been seeing. And so from that standpoint, um, you know,
Speaker 1: we tend to look at semiconductors as being an economically
Speaker 1: sensitive commodity category, albeit of a highly finished kind. So
Speaker 1: are you are you saying that the weakness that we've
Speaker 1: seen of late suggests or points to either a slowdown
Speaker 1: in tech consumption broadly or you know, specifically a slowdown
Speaker 1: in the broader Chinese economy. We would see as being
Speaker 1: a slowdown clearly of tech consumption and would argue that
Speaker 1: perhaps in this case, this is a slowdown in tech
Speaker 1: consumptions being more specifically perhaps in the greater China markets
Speaker 1: or those markets that would be affected by tariffs. There
Speaker 1: may be some spillover depending upon how the tariffs have
Speaker 1: unfolded other geographic areas outside of China. Because clearly what
Speaker 1: the current US administration has been doing has been basically
Speaker 1: going after any and all global trading partners with tariffs
Speaker 1: being imposed. All of this has created economic uncertainty. All
Speaker 1: this arguably is serving to suppress consumption or demand. Really
Speaker 1: interesting and sort of raises a lot of questions about
Speaker 1: the smartphone supercycle as well as car production, I mean,
Speaker 1: all the things that chips are in. Really it raises
Speaker 1: some questions for and definitely as an area to watch.
Speaker 1: But since we're in China, let's talk about Google going
Speaker 1: to China. They made it decision in two thousand and
Speaker 1: ten not to have their search engine in that country
Speaker 1: because of some of the sanctions and the things that
Speaker 1: they would have to follow, the protocol they'd have to
Speaker 1: follow with censorship. Now they're rethinking that decision. What gives
Speaker 1: what a difference? Eight years makes? What a difference that
Speaker 1: the rise of Baidu and other sort of China national
Speaker 1: tech champions has had upon Google And the fact that
Speaker 1: there seems to have been the decision made internally with
Speaker 1: Google that while the mantra might have been starting off
Speaker 1: to do no evil, well, everything has a price. And
Speaker 1: the fact is, at the end of the day, Google's
Speaker 1: business model is based upon tracking users and so gathering data.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to looking at uh state sponsored
Speaker 1: surveillance of populations, you know, Google is essentially saying, well, chucks,
Speaker 1: this is something that we're doing in effect for ourselves already.
Speaker 1: So you know, to the extent that perhaps this is
Speaker 1: something that might be applicable in the case of meeting
Speaker 1: the demands of a client such as the Chinese eight um,
Speaker 1: it may not necessarily be all that wide a gap
Speaker 1: to bridge. In other words, they're okay with certain censorships
Speaker 1: that they weren't okay with in two thousand and ten
Speaker 1: because the business opportunity is too great for them to ignore.
Speaker 1: There is that, and there's also the fact that Google says,
Speaker 1: we're already in a position to be able to track
Speaker 1: individuals online activities and behaviors. And if what the client
Speaker 1: wants to do is to, you know, put some filters
Speaker 1: on this client being the Chinese cover client being the
Speaker 1: Chinese government in this case, because there's significant Chinese ownership,
Speaker 1: Chinese government ownership in the Chinese Internet, and from the
Speaker 1: standpoint that the client wishes to put these filters in place, well,
Speaker 1: you know who's Google to say no. I mean, certainly
Speaker 1: this falls in part and parcel in some respects with
Speaker 1: kind of the debate that's been going on within social
Speaker 1: media is that you know what really constitutes speech and
Speaker 1: you know, should we be in the business of arbitrating
Speaker 1: what speech is or is not to be so talking
Speaker 1: about tracking clients. We were talking when you came in
Speaker 1: today about Netflix and how they're sort of this conundrum
Speaker 1: facing a number of social media companies and others in
Speaker 1: the tech world, including Netflix, of how much to crack
Speaker 1: down on fuzzy numbers about users and subscribers versus how
Speaker 1: much to monetize, Uh, you know what you have and Netflix,
Speaker 1: you were saying, has a lot of subscribers who share
Speaker 1: their passwords with other people, meaning that if Netflix were
Speaker 1: to crack down, they could get a lot more revenues.
Speaker 1: So why wouldn't they You lay at the issue right,
Speaker 1: I mean, the estimates are that you know, Netflix has
Speaker 1: lost revenue from account sharing is something in the order
Speaker 1: of about five million dollars a year. So this for
Speaker 1: a company like Netflix, given their losses, you know, it
Speaker 1: could be a substantial benefit from financial performance perspective. Looking
Speaker 1: at this problem from a demographic perspective, we see that
Speaker 1: users who are baby boomers in terms of that demographic cohort,
Speaker 1: according to recent surveys, you might share thirteen of them
Speaker 1: might share account information. But when you get to younger demographics,
Speaker 1: say under twenty one, that number actually goes with up
Speaker 1: to forty two. The problem is is that as the
Speaker 1: baby boomers age out, you're left with a user base
Speaker 1: who has an expectation that content is going to be free.
Speaker 1: The question here is this might represent something of a
Speaker 1: threat in terms of the business models of these companies
Speaker 1: unless they can do something to promote better consumer behavior
Speaker 1: around paying for the content that's being consumed. So what's
Speaker 1: the argument on the other side for why Netflix would
Speaker 1: want to reduce their numbers in the short term in
Speaker 1: order to do what get more advertising? When debate have that, Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I mean the issue is if Netflix wishes to maintain
Speaker 1: a model that does not necessarily rely upon advertising, then
Speaker 1: you need to have in place a far more stringent regime,
Speaker 1: if you will, from the standpoint of making sure that
Speaker 1: you know account information and is not being shared, and
Speaker 1: that you're actually being able to realize the revenue per
Speaker 1: user uh that you should be doing out of the
Speaker 1: subscription model. And that's where um and we have literally
Speaker 1: like twenty seconds left, but we were talking earlier about
Speaker 1: help blockchain is sort of going to play a role
Speaker 1: eventually in this if they can tract better. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: there will be an available use of apply private blockchains
Speaker 1: to do a better job in terms of tying consumers
Speaker 1: and content consumption. So from the standpoint of sharing, uh,
Speaker 1: look for decentralized technology to be used to try to
Speaker 1: address this problem. David Garrity always a pleasure. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for coming in today. Thank you. David Garritty
Speaker 1: is a chief executive of g v A Research talking
Speaker 1: all things tech. Also, I'll be us move forward to
Speaker 1: Damien sass Our, fixed income strategist with Bloomberg Intelligence. He
Speaker 1: brings us intelligence as always on the developing world, with
Speaker 1: decades of experience in this area. Damien, it is all
Speaker 1: about Venezuela this morning. What are they doing to valuation
Speaker 1: in the Bolivar? What's the purpose? I mean, are they
Speaker 1: basically just trying to uh absolutely remove this instrument from
Speaker 1: being relevant any way, shape or form. Yes, they are.
Speaker 1: I mean this conjures images of the Black Friday that
Speaker 1: kind of led to the rise of Hugo chabas Um.
Speaker 1: It's when Camping's the former president, value the boulevard by
Speaker 1: something on the order of and there was riding in
Speaker 1: the streets, and there was bloodshed and and here we are.
Speaker 1: But look, I mean what's really interesting is over the
Speaker 1: weekend we saw MAURICEO McCree, the President of Argentina, together
Speaker 1: with Chili, Paraguay and Columbia come out and say that
Speaker 1: they might actually be taking um Maduro to the I
Speaker 1: c C, to the Hague UM. And I think that's
Speaker 1: kind of interesting because it's really the first evidence we're
Speaker 1: seeing that it's not a unilateral US you know, uh,
Speaker 1: focused measure to kind of get you know, Venezuela to
Speaker 1: buckle and the Madure regime to buckle. It's really now
Speaker 1: brought extending beyond just the US into Latin America. And
Speaker 1: that's the first evidence of it. And just to be clear,
Speaker 1: what they were saying is that the Madure administration has
Speaker 1: committed crimes against humanity and they're trying to get the
Speaker 1: Hague to come in and rule on that. What would
Speaker 1: that do to the Madure administration? Would that potentially cause
Speaker 1: some sort of ignite, some sort of regime change or
Speaker 1: is it sort of a cosmetic you know, we all
Speaker 1: hate you now, right? So the whispers there that Maduro's
Speaker 1: in power because the military protects him and because the
Speaker 1: generals and party. I mean, you know, part of his
Speaker 1: regime at the top lieutenants, top generals, they're all kind
Speaker 1: of you know, they've got his back, so to speak.
Speaker 1: And you know, by you know, if you take in
Speaker 1: conjunction evaluation of the Bolivar last week, the removal of
Speaker 1: some of the fuel subsidies, and some of the other
Speaker 1: measures that they're taking. I linking their currency to the petro,
Speaker 1: which is a cryptocurrency that's linked to Venezuela crude oil
Speaker 1: exports that has been entirely discredited. Yes, yes, absolutely absolutely,
Speaker 1: and the fact that it's now the link went on
Speaker 1: what six point one billion dollars of bonds with US
Speaker 1: dollar credits. I mean, it all kind of paints are
Speaker 1: really a really kind of unnerving picture, one that kind
Speaker 1: of you know, I think they're trying to get you know,
Speaker 1: it shows that they're very vulnerable. Venezuela is very vulnerable
Speaker 1: and um and they've got some real issues ahead of them,
Speaker 1: and hopefully the i c C can iron this out
Speaker 1: and sort of add some pressure and get and get
Speaker 1: a regime change. One thing that I find interesting both
Speaker 1: about what we're seeing in Venezuela as well as Turkey
Speaker 1: is where the international help is coming from. I mean,
Speaker 1: Turkey obviously has seen a dramatic devaluation of their currency
Speaker 1: of the lira, which is continuing today. It's losing value
Speaker 1: against the dollar. Um interesting that Russia and China have
Speaker 1: emerged as lenders to both of these nations at some
Speaker 1: point or other. And I'm wondering, I don't know if
Speaker 1: China has actually stepped at this point to Turkey, but
Speaker 1: certainly China's been a big lender to Venezuela. What is
Speaker 1: this sort of I don't know, demonstrating as far as
Speaker 1: a sea change, a shift in China and Turkey and
Speaker 1: Russia lending to developing market. Yeah, you're going down a
Speaker 1: path that a lot of people are not whispering behind
Speaker 1: closed doors. The fact that, you know, the US dollar
Speaker 1: strength has always been sort of the acts that kind
Speaker 1: of you know, slits the throat, so to speak, of
Speaker 1: emerging market assets and so diversifying your currency exposure. You know,
Speaker 1: we all talk about the broad trade weighted real US dollar,
Speaker 1: which is basically a basket of currencies and how they
Speaker 1: perform a relative to the dollar, and how that's done.
Speaker 1: And I think what we're seeing here is you know,
Speaker 1: China and Russia trying to step in and be that
Speaker 1: lender of last resort to some of these, uh, some
Speaker 1: of these economies that really need assistance, you know, and
Speaker 1: and that that whose currencies have really declined and the
Speaker 1: valued relative to the dollar. Whether or not um you know,
Speaker 1: that's acceptable to the countries themselves and they're populous, whether
Speaker 1: or not, you know, that doesn't force us to now
Speaker 1: put China and Russia in the same bucket as them,
Speaker 1: which obviously we started to do. Right We have sanctions
Speaker 1: against Russia, we are putting tariffs against China, so maybe
Speaker 1: they feel, you know, what, what more do we have
Speaker 1: to lose? But I think in China's case, this is
Speaker 1: really quite interest thing because trying has been lending to
Speaker 1: you know, emerging economies for for some time now, and
Speaker 1: you know, maybe they're kind of trying to get the
Speaker 1: you know, the renminbi out there and into the reserves
Speaker 1: of a lot of these countries and that might you know,
Speaker 1: kind of save them in the long run and allowed
Speaker 1: them to issue more debt to reach their own GDP
Speaker 1: growth targets, which are being scaled back as we speak.
Speaker 1: So we'll see how it all kind of shakes loose.
Speaker 1: I think it's just you know, quite interesting. You know,
Speaker 1: if you look at just what happened over the weekend,
Speaker 1: you look at Venezuela, you look at Turkey, I mean, um,
Speaker 1: you know, and you look at the squeeze which is
Speaker 1: now turned into a dollars shortage. It's just going to
Speaker 1: be really painful for a lot of creditors. Damian Sasa
Speaker 1: are always wonderful to hear from you. Damian Sasso is
Speaker 1: fixing up strategist focusing on developing markets for Bloomberg Intelligence.
Speaker 1: Certainly an important thing to watch. Where are some of
Speaker 1: these developing markets that are certain they're currently in a
Speaker 1: crisis situation where they getting their money. This is something
Speaker 1: we will continue to watch. The plunge in bitcoin this
Speaker 1: year has been precipitous. It's hard to overstate it. It's
Speaker 1: sort of the year at more than thirteen thousand dollars
Speaker 1: per bitcoin now trading six thousand, four hundred and forty
Speaker 1: six dollars. The question is what does this due to
Speaker 1: investments in blockchain, which has been traditionally thought of as
Speaker 1: the mainstay and sort of the value behind this asset.
Speaker 1: Joining us now are really happy to say, is Ron Quaranta,
Speaker 1: chairman of the Wall Street Blockchain Alliance, and Ron, I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: do you watch the price action in bitcoin and ether
Speaker 1: which is actually plunged more we do, and thanks for
Speaker 1: having me, Lisa, It's good to see you again. UM.
Speaker 1: Really focusing on the price action that we see. We
Speaker 1: have a Cryptoasset to working Group and we have this
Speaker 1: conversation fairly regularly within the wus B a UM. We
Speaker 1: try to separate what's the speculative fervor around some of
Speaker 1: the price action that we're seeing. In any particular day,
Speaker 1: you see ten to price moves UM. Certainly from the
Speaker 1: peaks we're seeing, we've seen quite a bit of decline
Speaker 1: in prices. UM. We suspect that's a bit of froth
Speaker 1: coming out of the market. There are some fundamental technical
Speaker 1: things that we look at as well. So for example,
Speaker 1: some of those I c o s that were funded
Speaker 1: with ether, as they become more cash trapped and they
Speaker 1: unload that Ether, that clearly puts downward pressure on prices,
Speaker 1: but none of that changes the dynamic of what we're
Speaker 1: seeing at the evolution of leveraging blockchain technology across global
Speaker 1: financial markets. UH and things like supply chain for example. Alright,
Speaker 1: so you're still seeing investments made by big Wall Street
Speaker 1: firms and beyond in blockchain. There's no sort of knock
Speaker 1: on effective from this, Yeah, I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: knock on effect really is indicative of the challenges that
Speaker 1: the industry is having involving evolving given institutional interests. So
Speaker 1: for example, I think there's JP Morgan and Bank of
Speaker 1: America recently invested, sorry Goldman is actually invested in a
Speaker 1: company called a sony Um. I think it was reported
Speaker 1: by Bloombergner was really focusing on building the nancial markets,
Speaker 1: infrastructure and tools associated with engaging cryptocurrencies and crypto assets. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess that one. Uh right now, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: in Videos shares there down one and a half percent,
Speaker 1: down nearly five percent on Friday. Uh. And in Video
Speaker 1: reported earnings, the big question mark was that they said
Speaker 1: that their sales were down when it came to people
Speaker 1: who are looking to mine cryptocurrencies, and that have been
Speaker 1: a big driver of certain sales in a small segment,
Speaker 1: and that was weighed down. And I guess I'm trying
Speaker 1: to understand, especially at a time when blockchain investments haven't
Speaker 1: borne fruit for a lot of places the way they've
Speaker 1: been looking for. Um, do you view this as sort
Speaker 1: of the decline of of seeing blockchain is sort of
Speaker 1: the holy grail? Or do you think that this is
Speaker 1: just sort of a right sizing of expectations. I think
Speaker 1: it's more of the right sizing of expectations. I don't
Speaker 1: both from the blockchain as a technology solution perspective as
Speaker 1: well as cryptocurrency hype overblown expectations by far. When you
Speaker 1: look at the innvideo example, the economics of mining don't
Speaker 1: make sense below a certain price point, and when you
Speaker 1: look at forty fifty sixty print drops in things like bitcoin,
Speaker 1: it becomes a challenge to sell those ships. When bitcoin
Speaker 1: was approaching twenty people couldn't get those ships fast enough.
Speaker 1: So again, in our mind, this is the right sizing
Speaker 1: of the expectations across the technology landscape. It's the right
Speaker 1: sizing of the expectations from almost an investment landscape perspective
Speaker 1: looking at cryptocurrencies, and that ultimately is good for the
Speaker 1: evolution of the space. What's the mood like among providers
Speaker 1: of blockchain technology right now? Yeah, it's a lot of
Speaker 1: the mood in the conversations that we have is biding
Speaker 1: time and patients to develop these ecosystems. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of pressure around why is in blockchain delivering on some
Speaker 1: of these promised solutions? Why aren't cryptocurrencies achieving the price
Speaker 1: points that everyone thought they would and the providers who
Speaker 1: are doing the day to day work really putting together solutions,
Speaker 1: and it's big and small firms um really are working
Speaker 1: to ex san that ecosystem and make it makes sense
Speaker 1: over time, and so they're fighting the idea of how
Speaker 1: do we challenge these expectations of blockchainsers of all problems
Speaker 1: immediately versus it's going to take time to evolve the space.
Speaker 1: What is the ecosystem that's necessary for blockchain? Yeah, there
Speaker 1: are a couple of things that are really important, and
Speaker 1: I'll use something like supply chain as an example, and
Speaker 1: recently um IBM, I think they have now something over
Speaker 1: ninety firms involved in their supply chain blockchain solution. It's
Speaker 1: acceptance in education. We always go back to the education comment,
Speaker 1: which is, how do you get firms that would participate
Speaker 1: to understand the dynamics of what blockchain accomplishes for them? Wow,
Speaker 1: what the efficiencies are associated with it, and then it's
Speaker 1: the challenge of interoperability and integration. How do you take
Speaker 1: a blockchain solution and integrated into how they do what
Speaker 1: they do currently, And that's a lot of work. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of work from the provider perspective. Look at
Speaker 1: an IBM for example, it's a lot of work for
Speaker 1: those new firms that would want to leverage blockchain technology,
Speaker 1: and the idea or just to to move beyond using
Speaker 1: blockchain is sort of like a word of jargon where
Speaker 1: people like, you know, if you've got a problem, you've
Speaker 1: got a problem with your son blockchain UM. But that
Speaker 1: basically the idea is being able to track either products, payments,
Speaker 1: whatever else in real time and it is sort of
Speaker 1: an unalterable format from place to place. Is that am
Speaker 1: I characterizing this correct? Yeah? Absolutely so. It's really the
Speaker 1: ability to have that immutable audit trail of data that
Speaker 1: is perpetually tied to specific solutions again like supply chain
Speaker 1: UM they're doing likewise in food, they're certainly looking at
Speaker 1: things in financial markets to track things again like syndicated
Speaker 1: loans and other instruments UM. And also the security associated
Speaker 1: with that data and the ability to disintermediate the costs
Speaker 1: associated with trusts between parties. There's a lot of cost
Speaker 1: savings that happens there. Run Quaranta. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here. A really pertinent topic right now round Coronta,
Speaker 1: chairman of the Wall Street Blockchain Alliance. Bitcoin is certainly
Speaker 1: having quite a swoon, more than half its value being
Speaker 1: raised so far this year, and in video is set
Speaker 1: to unroll some products in the near future. Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the Bloomberg P and L podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to interviews at Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or
Speaker 1: whatever podcast platform you prefer. I'm pim Fox. I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at pim Fox. I'm on Twitter at Lisa Abramo.
Speaker 1: It's one before the podcast. You can always catch us
Speaker 1: worldwide on Bloomberg Radio.