Speaker 1: Now money is energy and information. Because bitcoin is money,
Speaker 1: I think sixty percent annual growth is conservative. Countries with
Speaker 1: abundant excess energy, they could be very wealthy countries. You
Speaker 1: raise capital, you allocate a portion to buy bitcoin, which
Speaker 1: will pay back the principle, and then you invest into
Speaker 1: a revenue generating activity like mining bitcoin or building new
Speaker 1: energy in front also mind bitcoin which will pay the
Speaker 1: cupunt off.
Speaker 2: What do you think about bitcoin treasury companies?
Speaker 1: Hard to say?
Speaker 2: All right, Samson Mark, We had a lot of topics
Speaker 2: to talk about, so thanks for taking the time to
Speaker 2: come talk to me.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 2: We're here in DC at Bitcoin and Policy. Bitcoin policy
Speaker 2: put up by Georgetown University. So I want to talk
Speaker 2: about politics and regulations, and I want to talk about
Speaker 2: the keynote Sailor had yesterday talking about tokens, which is
Speaker 2: typically nottset that we hear in the bitcoin space. Something
Speaker 2: you've worked on for a really long time, Nation state adoption,
Speaker 2: and what's going on in El Salvador. I want to
Speaker 2: get into the the bitcoin protocol. I want to get
Speaker 2: into the NOTS versus core debate. So there's always something
Speaker 2: going on in bitcoin. Oh man, it keeps its exciting,
Speaker 2: you have to find something. So here we are, we're
Speaker 2: in DC, both of our first time year. I guess,
Speaker 2: first of all, how do you think about how are
Speaker 2: you Canadian? Yes, okay, I find this sometimes maybe Canadians
Speaker 2: and Americans look at this a little differently because of
Speaker 2: you know, the country euro Upon. But how would you
Speaker 2: look at the way you think that bitcoiners should be
Speaker 2: working with governments or not working with governments or asking
Speaker 2: the governments.
Speaker 1: Well, that's an interesting topic because a lot of bitcoiners
Speaker 1: are often criticizing what we're doing because we engage with governments.
Speaker 1: That's top down. We have two strategies top down bottom
Speaker 1: bottom up is aqua getting the unbanked into a financial system,
Speaker 1: and then top down we engage with governments, politicians, regulators.
Speaker 1: We've been meet with central banks. But the question is like,
Speaker 1: why do you want the governments to have Bitcoin? And
Speaker 1: I think it really comes down to what kind of
Speaker 1: world do we want to live in. There's a number
Speaker 1: of dimensions to this. One is in countries with abundant
Speaker 1: eccess energy, they could be very wealthy countries, and Bhutan
Speaker 1: is a great example of that. They're just converting excess
Speaker 1: hydro into money. They are using that money to build
Speaker 1: a new airport, but it shows the promise of that
Speaker 1: and for any energy rich country, that is your path
Speaker 1: to prosperity. Much like in the UAE, you don't pay
Speaker 1: taxes if you're in an AMORTI the government gives you money,
Speaker 1: and that could be the case for like Canada for example.
Speaker 1: But moreover, most governments need money. It's like a big
Speaker 1: machine that consumes money. Like today the government in the
Speaker 1: US is shut down, right, yeah you would notice it,
Speaker 1: but yeah, yeah, you would notice it. But bitcoin prices up,
Speaker 1: but maybe that's uncorrelated. But governments need money, and when
Speaker 1: they need money and there there is no money, that's
Speaker 1: when they look to different ways of getting it, like
Speaker 1: wealth taxes, taxing, unrealized capital, gains, seizure of money for
Speaker 1: whatever reason from the citizens, or various other creative ways
Speaker 1: to take money from people. So I think if you
Speaker 1: can get a government to adopt bitcoin, and if they
Speaker 1: have energy even better they can mine bitcoin, then you
Speaker 1: kind of wean them off the wheel of taking money
Speaker 1: from people for lack of a more eloquent way.
Speaker 2: To put it.
Speaker 1: So that's one thing. The other thing is, obviously we
Speaker 1: want to be protected as bitcoiners. We don't want our
Speaker 1: bitcoin taken from us. We don't want to be blamed.
Speaker 1: And if you look back in history, there are many
Speaker 1: examples of you know, groups or ethnicities that are blamed
Speaker 1: for various problems, usually economic, right, many many examples in history,
Speaker 1: and I can see like, if we are in a
Speaker 1: fourth turning and things do get bad, who do you blame?
Speaker 1: It is the bitcoiners because maybe we're okay, We're doing
Speaker 1: okay because we have bitcoin. And the counter to that
Speaker 1: is really getting more bitcoin adoption. And the government can
Speaker 1: encourage a lot of bitcoin adoption. They can say bitcoin
Speaker 1: is usable for payments because most people don't want to
Speaker 1: go against the government. Right, So if you can get
Speaker 1: the governments to embrace bitcoin as money, more people will
Speaker 1: have bitcoin. So if you think of it, you don't
Speaker 1: want a witch hunt. And how do you avoid or
Speaker 1: avert a witch hunt? You make more witches, right, more bitcoiners.
Speaker 2: Witches in the government, Yes, exactly.
Speaker 1: And also I think if you get the government to
Speaker 1: understand bitcoin, and there are a lot of Congress people
Speaker 1: and you know, like people like RFK Junior that understand it,
Speaker 1: it's kind of fixes itself. Bitcoin does change people's thinking
Speaker 1: and the way they view the world. And I think
Speaker 1: if you have enough of that, in a critical mass
Speaker 1: of that, maybe it's possible to change government for the better.
Speaker 1: I don't really see any other way of doing that
Speaker 1: because the nature of government is to you know, take
Speaker 1: and redistribute at the fundamental core.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Ideally, I don't know if you're for smaller government, but
Speaker 1: ideally it's just administrative, you know, like, you know, make
Speaker 1: sure the borders are safe and people can live safely.
Speaker 1: But then it always scope creeps into more and more
Speaker 1: and more things, more programs, more free things, and then
Speaker 1: it kind of spiles out of control and you have
Speaker 1: thirty seven eight trillion dollars a debt. So I think
Speaker 1: this is kind of the reason why you do want
Speaker 1: governments to embrace bitcoin. Is not that we want to
Speaker 1: give the government lots of bitcoin, but we want them
Speaker 1: to understand it, use it, have ways to get bitcoin
Speaker 1: that is not taking it from people, and learn about
Speaker 1: bitcoin and learn the ethos of bitcoin.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I love that. Sailor his keynote yesterday, he
Speaker 2: said that he thinks everything really changed twelve months ago,
Speaker 2: and that's what's the new administration that came in. Yes,
Speaker 2: we can see how the previous administration, I mean what
Speaker 2: an all universe were into if Kamal had one and
Speaker 2: the kind of extended what the Biden regime had been
Speaker 2: doing where that would have gone. But you know what
Speaker 2: Sailor's talking about is you sort of had basically everyone
Speaker 2: in the government was very hostile so bitcoin at crypto Yes,
Speaker 2: And as Frank I did that fireside job Frank Day
Speaker 2: on stage and he said, you know something I say
Speaker 2: quite often was the government's not a monolist. It's a
Speaker 2: bunch of people in the government. But under the Bid administration,
Speaker 2: very few lead in bitcoin er weren't invested in bitcoin.
Speaker 2: In today Trump administration, from Trump himself all the way
Speaker 2: down with the cabinet, they're all bitcoiners. Yeah, so I
Speaker 2: think that's a pretty big thing. What do you think
Speaker 2: about though, like with the laws right, so, like I
Speaker 2: think more of a constitutionalist, where like the law should
Speaker 2: be preventing the government from infringing back to having a
Speaker 2: small government. Yes, I think like in the in America
Speaker 2: with a Second Amendment, So it's not that there's no
Speaker 2: policy of guns. The policy is don't infringe on my
Speaker 2: right to have guns. Yes, sorry, So like I think
Speaker 2: of like I see some of the states, we've had
Speaker 2: six states put through rules that say a right to
Speaker 2: self custody, a right to mining, right to open networks.
Speaker 3: But then at the same time, with new technology, if
Speaker 3: we look back, like the telecom or on the internet days,
Speaker 3: there were rules put into place that protect the industry
Speaker 3: to allow it to grow. Yeah, and so a lot
Speaker 3: of rules that they put in place could act hurt
Speaker 3: it as well.
Speaker 2: So how do you navigate that?
Speaker 1: I think it has to do with the evolution of technology, right,
Speaker 1: Like when the Constitution was written and the amendunce were passed,
Speaker 1: you didn't have central bank send government money predominant in
Speaker 1: the world.
Speaker 2: But Jefferson was warning us about that.
Speaker 1: Yes, but you know when money is centralized and largely
Speaker 1: digital and very controllable, then a lot of those rights
Speaker 1: are no longer guaranteed because if you have no ability
Speaker 1: to have your own money, like let's say the right
Speaker 1: to bear money, then can you have free speech? Right?
Speaker 1: Can you actually you know, pay for your internet bill
Speaker 1: to post something? Can you bear arms if you cannot
Speaker 1: buy arms or if they have a social credit score
Speaker 1: and they go, yeah, you can't have this now, right,
Speaker 1: so that you.
Speaker 2: Can't pay to drive to the assembly, right, Yeah, it
Speaker 2: all hngdes on pains.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but it was kind of assumed that money would
Speaker 1: be bearer until suddenly it wasn't. And I think bitcoin
Speaker 1: fixes a lot of this. And I think perhaps it
Speaker 1: was Trump's experience, you know, being attacked by the other
Speaker 1: side that made him understand maybe a bearer asset is good.
Speaker 1: And you do see him piling into bitcoin, unfortunately a
Speaker 1: bit too much in the crypto side, but you know,
Speaker 1: nobody's perfect, but definitely it's on the right track that
Speaker 1: he is for bearer instruments, and I think this is
Speaker 1: kind of the way to fix that. But it's kind
Speaker 1: of sad that you have to pass laws for the
Speaker 1: right to having self custody or other things like that
Speaker 1: when it should be a given that you should be
Speaker 1: able to have money as a sovereign individual.
Speaker 2: Yeah. What do you think about some of these dragnet
Speaker 2: surveillance orders in today's day and age you had mentioned earlier, like,
Speaker 2: for example, I go through the border, they opened my phone.
Speaker 2: Now they can see my account pass orders, or they
Speaker 2: could see my private keys and things like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, I don't think there are enough protections right
Speaker 1: now in this day and age, and at a global level,
Speaker 1: especially where it's the world is ready for money being information.
Speaker 1: So you missed my keynote after Sailor, but I was
Speaker 1: talking largely about the equation being changed now money is
Speaker 1: energy and information because bitcoin is money, and this changes
Speaker 1: so many different things because money has never really been
Speaker 1: information before and money has never been energy before. Right
Speaker 1: Kenry Ford theorized in nineteen twenty one, he said, let's
Speaker 1: have an energy currency, But it wasn't until the dawn
Speaker 1: of bitcoin that we actually had in energy money. But
Speaker 1: that means you need energy because energy is money. Like
Speaker 1: I gave the example before, if you have energy as
Speaker 1: a country, then guess what, You're a rich country and
Speaker 1: you have money.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But with bitcoin it changes it because it's not just
Speaker 1: oil in the ground or whatever. You could have nuclear
Speaker 1: reactors and have money too. But the information part is
Speaker 1: different because money as information means you can teleport money
Speaker 1: anywhere around the world. Capital controls no longer exist, and
Speaker 1: I believe right now we're seeing countries kind of grappling
Speaker 1: with that new reality. In Korea, they're trying to push
Speaker 1: for a Korean Wan stable coin. Is that going to
Speaker 1: be only transactable in Korea and subject to the same
Speaker 1: limits or is it free flowing. If it's free flowing,
Speaker 1: then you don't have capital controls anymore. And I think
Speaker 1: this is kind of where the battle is, Like the
Speaker 1: internal conflict is do we have free money or do
Speaker 1: we want control money and controlled economies? And you know,
Speaker 1: to that extent, you need more protections too, Like I
Speaker 1: was saying, like when you cross the border, if someone
Speaker 1: could take your phone and take your information or look
Speaker 1: at your information, they can take your money. And how
Speaker 1: do you prevent that because you know someone looked at it,
Speaker 1: how do you prove that they stole it? Like ideally,
Speaker 1: you know, as a bitcoinner, you know if someone ever
Speaker 1: looked at your seed, treat it like it's gone, or
Speaker 1: if your device is compromised, then you know, move your
Speaker 1: funds immediately. But as we get more and more bitcoint adoption,
Speaker 1: you know that learning curve is applied to billions of
Speaker 1: people around the world, and I think you need some protections.
Speaker 1: And the protections really come down to more sovereignty, like
Speaker 1: making sure people are independent, reducing the surveillance state, right,
Speaker 1: like what happens if a camera somewhere catches you with
Speaker 1: your seat phrase and the guy with the camera, can
Speaker 1: you know, steal your funds. There's always that possibility. But
Speaker 1: the world we're going in is tilting more towards the
Speaker 1: surveillance side rather than to more freedoms. So this is
Speaker 1: an interesting point in time where we go. But definitely
Speaker 1: government seem to be cognizant of all these changes and
Speaker 1: you know, protect the people, at least you hope they will.
Speaker 2: We talked a lot about the name name drop to
Speaker 2: talk a lot about the American politics. What about Canadian politics?
Speaker 1: I mean, our prime minister is a former central banker
Speaker 1: and heavily tied to the world that comic forum and
Speaker 1: all those organizations. But we'll see. We have peer Polyev,
Speaker 1: which I've met before, who I've met him before, and
Speaker 1: he understands bitcoin. He has bitcoin like yeah, but unfortunately
Speaker 1: he didn't win the last election.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I did miss your keynote. I wanted to
Speaker 2: see because I want to be more prepared for this.
Speaker 2: I love the framing note. Bitcoin is information and so
Speaker 2: a lot of times we try to compare their technology
Speaker 2: to things that we understand so we can make sense
Speaker 2: of them and they are like those things, but they're
Speaker 2: also more that's kind of what you're framing. So I'm
Speaker 2: gonna go back and watch it. For everyone listening, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna put it in the show notes down below, so
Speaker 2: you go watch that keynote as well. Unfortunately I missed
Speaker 2: it because I was coming up periated ready to have
Speaker 2: Sailor come up here. But I did watch his keynote,
Speaker 2: So let's talk about that for a minute. A lot
Speaker 2: of buzz going on here in DC about about the keynote.
Speaker 2: A lot of things that I thought were really good.
Speaker 2: One thing that seems to be creating a lot of
Speaker 2: buzz in the bitcoin community specifically, was he spent quite
Speaker 2: a bit of time talking about, I guess, tokenization of
Speaker 2: real world assets. Every day we see headlines about inflation
Speaker 2: and dead and diminishing control over our own money. That's
Speaker 2: why I always come back to bitcoin, because it's built
Speaker 2: for generations, it's built for legacy. But protecting your bitcoin
Speaker 2: legacy the right way is not always simple. It demands discipline, focus,
Speaker 2: and the right partner. That's why I personally use Unchained Signature.
Speaker 2: It's a premium private client service for serious bitcoin holders
Speaker 2: who want expert guidance, resilient custody, and an enduring partnership.
Speaker 2: Now Signature, you're paired with your own dedicated account manager,
Speaker 2: someone who understands your goals helps you every step of
Speaker 2: the way. You're going to get white glove onboarding, same
Speaker 2: day emergency support, personalized education, reduce trading fees, and priority
Speaker 2: access to exclusive events and features. Unchained collaborative custody model
Speaker 2: is designed to provide the same security as the world's
Speaker 2: biggest bitcoin custodians, but for those who prefer to hold
Speaker 2: their own keys. Now. I've been using and recommending unchained
Speaker 2: for years. I even got my parents to set up
Speaker 2: with them. So if you want to get set up,
Speaker 2: check out unchained signature at unchained dot com, slash mark
Speaker 2: Moss and as a loyal listener, I got a discount
Speaker 2: for you. Just use code Moss ten at checkout to
Speaker 2: get ten percent off your first year. Because your bitcoin
Speaker 2: isn't just for life, it's for generations.
Speaker 1: Well, I think there is a place for it, and
Speaker 1: the world definitely is changing to embrace you know, real
Speaker 1: world assets tokenization more so. But at the same time
Speaker 1: the trad file world is evolving too, so I think
Speaker 1: soon you'll have twenty four to seven trading of equities,
Speaker 1: and then the question really is what is the benefit
Speaker 1: of tokenization, And I see a really interesting path from
Speaker 1: there because it's always a competition. Right if the origin
Speaker 1: of you know, stocks were bearer, you have a piece
Speaker 1: of paper and that's your stock and the company. I
Speaker 1: think real world assets could be very interesting if they're
Speaker 1: tokenized in a way that they can be bearer, because
Speaker 1: then you can have distributed ownership. But the question again
Speaker 1: is does the system as a whole want that.
Speaker 2: Well, it made it illegal, so I would guess.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, so well with the see but going to
Speaker 1: that kind of a world is very interesting, not just
Speaker 1: twenty four to seven trading because I think the old
Speaker 1: system will evolve in that way, but having a real benefit,
Speaker 1: which is something is bearer and being able to be
Speaker 1: okay with that. But like you said, it's not something
Speaker 1: that the system wants. But what Sailor's point was more
Speaker 1: so like, I think it's okay now to tokenize things,
Speaker 1: And the critiques on his talk were more about why
Speaker 1: are you talking about all these other crypto projects and
Speaker 1: why you can tokenize on those crypto projects, right, And
Speaker 1: also he mentioned Katie Perry a bunch of times, and
Speaker 1: it was funny because people were messaging me and saying
Speaker 1: what was that about, Like what was he going on about?
Speaker 1: And I was backstage, so I didn't really hear what
Speaker 1: he was saying.
Speaker 2: Well, he was saying that somebody like a Katy Perry, yeah,
Speaker 2: could create tokens for fine clubs. Yes, he said that
Speaker 2: a country club could tokenize new memberships, and so you
Speaker 2: could have influential people musicians, movie stars, athletes, country clubs
Speaker 2: taking assets that maybe couldn't create a goal before and
Speaker 2: now they could.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I listened to the talk after, so I did.
Speaker 1: I caught most of it. But the problem he was
Speaker 1: saying it didn't work before because I guess he was
Speaker 1: implying the administration was kind of hostile to that, which
Speaker 1: we talked about too, right, like the Biden administration. But
Speaker 1: he said, if you have like regulatory frameworks and there's
Speaker 1: safety for people, then you kind of removed the fun
Speaker 1: part of it, which then anyone can just go live
Speaker 1: and launch a token, right and if you have the protections,
Speaker 1: then you're going into the realm of it being regulated
Speaker 1: by something like the SEC. Maybe it's like the fun
Speaker 1: token securities commission, fun token commission or something like that. Right,
Speaker 1: But then you do that and you had you add
Speaker 1: some friction back, right, And there's no way, I think,
Speaker 1: for any organization to do that. Like Sailor also said,
Speaker 1: forty million businesses need access to the market.
Speaker 2: Right, Let's let's stick on the fan club stuff right there? Sure,
Speaker 2: ygam because I think what he was saying, and I
Speaker 2: believe Truck put forward this year in one of his
Speaker 2: executive orders. But the Digital Token Act is to allow
Speaker 2: these thinks to happen without being considered a security and
Speaker 2: without the sec oversight, so they're not really a security.
Speaker 2: And so like I can already charge people to join
Speaker 2: my membership, why couldn't I just tokenize that without it
Speaker 2: being in security? And I think that's what he was saying.
Speaker 2: He there's mine country club membership that happens to be tokenized.
Speaker 2: Isn't really a security. I don't craze any value whether
Speaker 2: I paid to join your Katie Prairie Bank club and
Speaker 2: I get a token or I don't get a token.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that creates any more value for you.
Speaker 1: There is some value, I would say, So there is
Speaker 1: value in tokenization if it is a bare asset, right,
Speaker 1: Maybe equities no, but definitely a membership token is and
Speaker 1: is it really bare? Is it transferable? Can you give
Speaker 1: your Katie Perry fan club membership to me? Right? And
Speaker 1: this is something that most entities don't want. They don't
Speaker 1: want that fluidity and liquidity. They want to lock you in.
Speaker 1: So if someone did want to do that and it's
Speaker 1: fully transferable, then and they honor that transfer, then that
Speaker 1: is better than the old system where you cannot have
Speaker 1: that liquidity or transferability. So maybe he's right in that sense.
Speaker 1: But then usually when things are tokenized or you know, tradeable,
Speaker 1: someone wants to regulate that too. But if you can
Speaker 1: avoid that and it is free flowing, then yes, you
Speaker 1: can have your fun and tokenize anything. There is a danger,
Speaker 1: of course of people scamming, but that's always been a danger, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: and you have laws that's rod, yes, But you open
Speaker 1: up a bigger can of worms because now anyone can
Speaker 1: make any fan club and how do you know that
Speaker 1: that's the real Katy Perry Frank club?
Speaker 2: Right? Right? Okay, so then you should And then you
Speaker 2: also mentioned that the forty million businesses that can't raise
Speaker 2: capital because of costs millions of dollars to take two
Speaker 2: years to go public. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, if you think about it, why do we have
Speaker 1: all the regulations in anscoie public because there were bad
Speaker 1: actors before and we had to protect the people. So
Speaker 1: it really comes down to it, can you regulate forty
Speaker 1: million businesses all going public? And how exactly mechanically would
Speaker 1: you do that? Do you just step out of the
Speaker 1: way and say it's like a fang clup token, it's
Speaker 1: free for all.
Speaker 2: Well, I think you would. So again, I think what
Speaker 2: happens is here we are in DC and we have
Speaker 2: all these legislators. Yes, and their job is to legislate. Yes,
Speaker 2: we have lawmakers and their job is to make laws.
Speaker 2: And so you mentioned earlier the scope creek. So what
Speaker 2: happens is is probably good intentions. Yeah, let's have some
Speaker 2: consumer protections. But then over years of continuing to make
Speaker 2: lots of legislations, it's prey right. So like if if
Speaker 2: in this digital token bill, if a company was able
Speaker 2: to raise money, maybe it's up to a Serpa amount
Speaker 2: five million, ten million, one hundred million go to bed numbers,
Speaker 2: and I had to make disclosures and you had to
Speaker 2: see captable din ourship. But I could just create top
Speaker 2: and raise money really quickly and not go to the
Speaker 2: whole sec in. I mean that could be beneficial. Now,
Speaker 2: if I defraud you, I broke a law, there's a
Speaker 2: law for that, right, So I think the laws that
Speaker 2: we currently have now sort of could catch all of
Speaker 2: that maybe. And then at the same time and then
Speaker 2: it's like, do we believe in the nanty state? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean this is the crucks at the issue, right.
Speaker 1: What will end up? As you could say, forty million
Speaker 1: businesses can now raise capital, and then some things bad
Speaker 1: will happen and there will be an outcry to Longleg
Speaker 1: Harris to say protect us, right, and they will start
Speaker 1: implementing some lightweight protections, and then they add more and
Speaker 1: more and they eventually end up with the exact same
Speaker 1: system we as the public company, with the same costs,
Speaker 1: same overhead, same complexity.
Speaker 2: What sailors when we interviewed up here, we talked about it,
Speaker 2: as he said, you can always have that argument like, hey,
Speaker 2: maybe the government should make electricity illegal because I shocked
Speaker 2: to myself. Yeah, and maybe we should raise the driving
Speaker 2: limited age to sixty because people courge somebody to card.
Speaker 2: So you're never gonna get away from that, and so
Speaker 2: you always have to sort of look at the good
Speaker 2: and the bad in those things. And a few people
Speaker 2: electrocute themselves what most of us have light he so
Speaker 2: that's pretty good, right, a few people maybe dying car accidents,
Speaker 2: but like we can move around the world and that's
Speaker 2: pretty good, right. So I think that's kind of what
Speaker 2: he was calling for. I think also what I was
Speaker 2: hearing was it sounded like he was actually trying to
Speaker 2: make a clear distinction that bitcoin is a commodity and
Speaker 2: everything else is maybe non security, but some form of
Speaker 2: a company and should be completely different. I thought I
Speaker 2: heard him maybe trying to really designate that differently.
Speaker 1: Well, if you listen carefully, he's basically implying that all
Speaker 1: the other crypto projects, blockchain projects, or corporations that well,
Speaker 1: actually he said it. He said there he set up
Speaker 1: a Swiss foundation and they're pretending to be decentralized. And
Speaker 1: now that you agree with that, it's true. I mean,
Speaker 1: they are corporations, right, that we're pretending to be decentralized.
Speaker 1: And you can argue was it ethical or not ethical
Speaker 1: because at the time the regulations were that, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're a security, you should register. Right at the time,
Speaker 1: the laws were very clear. Ethereum was very obviously a
Speaker 1: security if you go back and listen to their pitch
Speaker 1: to investors. But of course they're kind of grandfathered in
Speaker 1: and now it's a free for all everyone, like Tron
Speaker 1: is a company now, right, So it just it just
Speaker 1: changes with the time. But the danger is the pendulum
Speaker 1: swings the other way. And I've heard a few people
Speaker 1: here in DC kind of mention the same thing, like
Speaker 1: if you swing it so far here and everything is
Speaker 1: good and you're able to do anything, and you know,
Speaker 1: Tron is listed, then what happens when the Democrats come
Speaker 1: back into power and they seek to, you know, punish
Speaker 1: some people that may have gained from that, and the
Speaker 1: pendulum goes hard the other way. So I think there
Speaker 1: has to be some balance, Like, yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Agree, and but I think, like maybe I just heard
Speaker 2: whatever I was biased here, But like I said, I
Speaker 2: think you've verged in that he didn't sort of make
Speaker 2: this distinction. They're all some sort of quasi company and
Speaker 2: maybe maybe not a security, but it's not Bitcoin. And
Speaker 2: the reason why maybe I lasted onto that is I
Speaker 2: talk about it today when I was up on stage.
Speaker 2: But what I'm afraid of is when these lawmakers are
Speaker 2: now making laws to regulate this, they lump it together.
Speaker 2: But bitcoin can't do what the other ones can do.
Speaker 2: So they could regulate these things happening on crypto, but
Speaker 2: you can't apply that to bitcoin. So I do want
Speaker 2: the lawmakers to understand these are different things right moving forward.
Speaker 1: But the SBR was very encouraging that I would credit
Speaker 1: David Sachs with that. You know, there's the SBR crypto stoppal.
Speaker 1: This is to be added to or accumulated budget neutraally,
Speaker 1: this is to be disposed of, held until disposed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I could keep going. I have a
Speaker 2: lot of thoughts on like even token ice in RWA.
Speaker 1: But if you want my opinion, the best way would
Speaker 1: be to deregulate everything so you focus more on education.
Speaker 1: There's no reason why you can't educate people to think
Speaker 1: critically for themselves, like what is a scam, what is
Speaker 1: not a scam, and that you know you're probably gonna
Speaker 1: lose money if you invest in one of these cryptotokens
Speaker 1: and let the market sort itself out because you can't
Speaker 1: really regulate it like, how would you regulate all coins?
Speaker 1: You can't write either you do it or you don't,
Speaker 1: because there's like I don't even know how many there
Speaker 1: are now, Like last count I heard like twenty thousand.
Speaker 2: I think, well that was coin marketcap dot com. There's
Speaker 2: nineteen point five million.
Speaker 1: Okay there you gone to that find milling and you
Speaker 1: can't regulate those. How can you regulate forty million businesses
Speaker 1: that all want a mini IPO or whatever it is
Speaker 1: to raise capital, right, and then you factor in external
Speaker 1: actors not like at that point you can't really know
Speaker 1: is this an American business or company?
Speaker 2: Right? For sure?
Speaker 1: It could be some guys in Pakistan or India. Masturating
Speaker 1: is an American company raising money from Americans. You can't
Speaker 1: control that. So I think what it comes down to
Speaker 1: is you have to be okay with educating and the
Speaker 1: free market. And that's the only way I can see
Speaker 1: this vision of Sailor playing out in a way that works.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and our founding fathers said as much, and they
Speaker 2: said that, you know, really this only works with an
Speaker 2: educated people, and so we have to educate on what's
Speaker 2: going on, but we also have to be educated on
Speaker 2: the real world. At both you know both times, and
Speaker 2: so to your point, like rather than trying to kick
Speaker 2: out all the risk, couldn't be educated demand simbrisk Yeah right,
Speaker 2: Like yeah, let's like I said, I have a lot
Speaker 2: I could think about RW tokens that we can get into.
Speaker 2: The bear instruments are important if I think about it
Speaker 2: from a first principles level. I also just think like
Speaker 2: how much value is an add right? So for example,
Speaker 2: we know Kraken is now doing like tokenized shares, But
Speaker 2: to your point, if I don't have this bear instrument
Speaker 2: with his ad any value. Just recently, I've never dosed before,
Speaker 2: but my friends send me some tickets for Ticketmaster I
Speaker 2: just sent to somebody else, and so I just log
Speaker 2: in my account and I reassigned it. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: that's kind of like a token, But I don't think
Speaker 2: it happened on a blockchain.
Speaker 1: It's happened in the database, right, well, unless it's the
Speaker 1: Bitcoin blockchain. Most things are kind of central, right is
Speaker 1: that that? That's my entire point, So like how much
Speaker 1: value are they adding? And then you think about like.
Speaker 2: Well, let's token is real estate, but like there's no
Speaker 2: global market or liquidity for that, so like how am
Speaker 2: I gonna if it's not fungible? So how do I
Speaker 2: measure a token on a duplex at Daytona Beach, Florida
Speaker 2: to five hundred unit building in Vancouver like COPI you know,
Speaker 2: So it's.
Speaker 1: Like, well, the other thing is if you have the
Speaker 1: token and you lose a token, did you lose your house?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Right, you got to get it back to somebody, So
Speaker 1: it all goes back to you know, there are maybe
Speaker 1: some minor benefits to tokens doing real estate, but at
Speaker 1: then you have a register and.
Speaker 2: I think a token is a fractional unit. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: you can already fractionalize it with with corporation and it
Speaker 2: she shares. Yeah. But let's jump up jump topics. Something
Speaker 2: that you've been working on for quite a while, and
Speaker 2: you actually talked about it in the beginning. When I
Speaker 2: talk about politics, this nation stated option and when you
Speaker 2: think about like the government's not a monolith. Can we
Speaker 2: just get a few more witches, as you said, or
Speaker 2: can we get a few more people that started in bitcoin?
Speaker 2: So the first nation I think you started working with
Speaker 2: was El Salvador. Yeah, so I want to know more
Speaker 2: a bigger national state. But let's talk about Elsabdor for
Speaker 2: a minute. The sure El Saberger started off three four
Speaker 2: years ago. They made announcement the Good One conference in
Speaker 2: Miami that they're going to doop bitcoin and I it
Speaker 2: was this excitement. I've been down there many times. They
Speaker 2: started buying a bunch of bitcoin. It's worked out tremendous
Speaker 2: for them. Yeah, they thought well that they did very well.
Speaker 2: They're going to do the bitcoin bond, which was the volcano.
Speaker 2: And it looks like everything's kind of been unraveling. Governments
Speaker 2: will never stop printing money, so inflation it's not going
Speaker 2: away now. If your money's not earning at least ten
Speaker 2: percent a year, you're losing purchasing power. And that's why
Speaker 2: I talk about bitcoin. It's the number one way to
Speaker 2: beat in relation and secure your future. And the question
Speaker 2: I get asked almost every day is where do you
Speaker 2: buy your bitcoin? Now? For years, I've personally used River
Speaker 2: dot com and I only take on sponsors that I
Speaker 2: use and I trust, and I trust them because River's
Speaker 2: bitcoin only. They have one hundred percent reserve, and they
Speaker 2: keep your bitcoin safe in cold storage with no middlemen,
Speaker 2: and you can actually talk to a real person, a
Speaker 2: US based support dedicated manager. Now try getting that peace
Speaker 2: of mind from coinbase. Of course you can't. Now the
Speaker 2: perks if you set up auto buys, you can pay
Speaker 2: zero fees plus. Instead of your bank paying you, you know,
Speaker 2: zero point four percent on cash, River pays you three
Speaker 2: point seven five percent on cash paid in bitcoin. So
Speaker 2: if you're ready to build your bitcoin position with confidence,
Speaker 2: go to River dot com, slash mark Moss and get
Speaker 2: up to one hundred dollars in bitcoin when you sign up.
Speaker 2: Because freedom starts when you own your money, and your
Speaker 2: money starts with bitcoin. What's going on in l savad
Speaker 2: or the just did it uption?
Speaker 1: They're hard to say. There hasn't been much direct communication,
Speaker 1: and it's become sort of a loyalty test, like who
Speaker 1: do you trust us or the IMF because Alsalva are
Speaker 1: saying they're buying, but the agreement with the IMF says
Speaker 1: we will not buy, and that is signed by the
Speaker 1: Minister of Finance and you know, at the direction of
Speaker 1: the President unless he did it without the President knowing,
Speaker 1: which I don't think is possible. So there is kind
Speaker 1: of confusion now and a lot of bitcoinners are also
Speaker 1: asking questions like how is this possible, but the reality
Speaker 1: is like somebody is not being forthcoming here, either the
Speaker 1: IMF or the Minister of Finance or the President's and
Speaker 1: it just comes down to this loyalty test now being
Speaker 1: pushed out, like, you know, do you believe the IMF.
Speaker 1: That's what a lot of supporters of Al Salvad are saying.
Speaker 1: But then you know, Al Salvador also said we're not
Speaker 1: buying anymore, so it puts us in a very difficult
Speaker 1: position and there's a lot of uncertainty. Also when they
Speaker 1: walked back at the Bitcoin law, which was a provision
Speaker 1: of their agreement with the IMF, that was kind of
Speaker 1: they've had to soften the bitcoin mall. So basically there
Speaker 1: is a bitcoin mall, but it is like voluntary, which
Speaker 1: is the legal tender. Yes it is in writing legal tender,
Speaker 1: but it's voluntary.
Speaker 2: You're not unforcate or making anybody accept it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they didn't, but now it's not in there anymore.
Speaker 1: And there are other provisions there weakening the bitcoin law,
Speaker 1: but it does still exist in paper print format right.
Speaker 1: But the whole process of that being rolled out I
Speaker 1: think frustrated a lot of bitcoiners because it was this
Speaker 1: pushed out, you know, in night one evening and no
Speaker 1: communications were sent from the government. So you can understand
Speaker 1: how people could be frustrated. If you move there with
Speaker 1: your family and you set up your life there, your
Speaker 1: business and everything, and the reason you move there was
Speaker 1: because it was this law and adoption of bitcoin, and
Speaker 1: things are being rolled back, it could be very frustrating
Speaker 1: me and I can understand that.
Speaker 2: And then you mentioned earlier about a nation, it's the
Speaker 2: wells of a nation is typical has been on the
Speaker 2: energy that they had they had. I thought it was
Speaker 2: very interesting that you said that you could have the
Speaker 2: nuclear power plant and then create energy right by mining
Speaker 2: dew coin. And I thought it was very interesting. They
Speaker 2: had this volcano, which typically you think about savad or
Speaker 2: four nation with no exports, and now they have a
Speaker 2: volcano which is really useless. Well, they could use the
Speaker 2: energy to my bitcoin. They have power. And then I
Speaker 2: started thinking about the indications that globally, so like Drew
Speaker 2: South Pacific, you have a toolls with the volcanos and
Speaker 2: they could have they could plug into that generate keep
Speaker 2: mine bitcoin, you starling, and like they could generate growing
Speaker 2: that that could redistribute the power of the world, which
Speaker 2: I thought it was pretty amazing, but then I think
Speaker 2: the whole volcano mining thing did that all fall.
Speaker 1: Of fart as well.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: It was supposed to be launching twenty twenty three and
Speaker 1: it just didn't happen, which is unfortunate because the structure
Speaker 1: that I put together was buying half a billion dollars
Speaker 1: worth bitcoin at that time, which would have been forty
Speaker 1: seven maybe fifty thousand dollars per coin, so that would
Speaker 1: have proved out this bitcoin bond model. But other countries
Speaker 1: are still interested in it, so we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: But going back to the conversion of energy to money,
Speaker 1: the biggest geothermal potential out there in the world is
Speaker 1: the Philippines and it is, you know, a developing country,
Speaker 1: so if they did move into the bitcoin bond program,
Speaker 1: that would have changed it. And the second biggest is Indonesia,
Speaker 1: another country that has a massive amount of geothermal potential,
Speaker 1: so they could become the next you know, Ua or
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. Yeah, and incredibly credibly wealthy if they decided
Speaker 1: to tap into that.
Speaker 2: And Bitcoe, are you dropping to those nations.
Speaker 1: We're reaching out. There have been forays into meetings, but
Speaker 1: we haven't nailed out a meeting yet, but Paraguay, where
Speaker 1: we just came back from, they are very interested in
Speaker 1: hydro bond so B. The ones that I designed for
Speaker 1: Alsavado were called volcano bonds Bass of volcanoes and Parbuay
Speaker 1: has four Taiwan hours of the year excess, okay, and
Speaker 1: they're interested to do something. So we know with the
Speaker 1: senator there and he's espalating the bosal up okay and
Speaker 1: the food chain, and I.
Speaker 2: Want to know, I want to know more about the bonds.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna come back to that, but let's just stick
Speaker 2: on the al store for a minute. So, uh, the
Speaker 2: per the ifdo, which I thought Big one had gone
Speaker 2: up so much they could have paid off the IMF debt,
Speaker 2: I thought, But here they are taking on more IMF
Speaker 2: debt and per the terms of the new IMF debt,
Speaker 2: and they had to roll that back. As you said,
Speaker 2: in the IMF documents, it says that they can't buy
Speaker 2: bick one anymore. Yeah. Uh, they said they're buying, but
Speaker 2: they used to announce their buis and now they don't
Speaker 2: announce any bodies.
Speaker 1: So they still announced, but the other's still announced. There's
Speaker 1: an analyst Samny He did some analysis and so we
Speaker 1: theorized that it was transfers, internal transfers, and he kind
Speaker 1: of confirmed it, like they're sending it to finance and
Speaker 1: then sending.
Speaker 2: It back to the wallet.
Speaker 1: So there are other government of wallets that have bitcoin
Speaker 1: that are not public right now, right, so there there
Speaker 1: are current bitcoin reserves are public, but there's something else
Speaker 1: that they can draw from.
Speaker 2: Yeah, would they like I mean, I guess maybe the
Speaker 2: governments don't need to report that, but I mean, would
Speaker 2: they come out with that poorly annually? Do I'm a
Speaker 2: document sent to a board their assets like.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll see, but so far the emd of documents
Speaker 1: don't show their total holdings. It just says total holdings
Speaker 1: are unchanged, which kind of is corroberated by Sandy's analysis.
Speaker 2: In the wall chain, an unchanged could be one they
Speaker 2: did sell but also they didn't buy. Yeah. God, okay, Well,
Speaker 2: as you said, I mean, if we back test what
Speaker 2: the bond could have been would have been amazing. So
Speaker 2: you sort of have as back tested. Now you're talking
Speaker 2: so so paaraway frame of how the bond works and
Speaker 2: how a nation state could benefit in that Canada as
Speaker 2: you said as a ton of energy, but how would
Speaker 2: a nation state the ton of energy Philippines in Indonesia
Speaker 2: benefit from a bond.
Speaker 1: Basically, the bitcoin bond is what Strategy and SLOR are doing,
Speaker 1: but with sovereign debt instead of you know, corporate debt
Speaker 1: or preferred shares. It's the exact same thing. You raise capital,
Speaker 1: it's a dollar denominated, you allocate a portion to buy bitcoin,
Speaker 1: which will pay back the principle, and then you invest.
Speaker 1: For Alsalvador was half into a revenue generating activity like
Speaker 1: mining bitcoin or building new energy infra also mine bitcoin,
Speaker 1: which will pay the cupon off. So it's basically a
Speaker 1: way to buy bitcoin for countries that have no good
Speaker 1: way to buy bitcoin right or are more impoverished. But
Speaker 1: for Alsalvador was tricky because you have to kind of
Speaker 1: figure out how to allocate the existing energy that they had,
Speaker 1: because to build a new geothermal climb takes ten years,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe five years, maybe ten years, but you can
Speaker 1: kind of like move stuff around, shift things around, and
Speaker 1: squeeze out some energy to mine. But for Parkway, they
Speaker 1: have a massive amount of access right now, so they
Speaker 1: could raise and start mining tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Okay, they have sex, they raise what ten billion or
Speaker 2: start with a billion to the billion, and then so
Speaker 2: the five hundred million goes into the mining equipment and
Speaker 2: you actually start mining. Yeah, and then five hundred million
Speaker 2: by bitcoin buys Bigcoin. And then is that a five year.
Speaker 1: Bond or a ten year bond or I like a
Speaker 1: ten year about ten year bond because yea, theoretically in
Speaker 1: five years the kigir on bigcoin could be zero, right,
Speaker 1: but ten years you're definitely gonna be up. So the
Speaker 1: key is that the bild the five zero over five
Speaker 1: years worst case scenario, west case scenario, it could.
Speaker 2: Be okay, okay, but not likely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, point zero one chance.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just just for the record, sure edything in Alley
Speaker 2: Sailor looks says to be precise twenty nine percent over
Speaker 2: the next twenty one years. Yeah, that's what he says,
Speaker 2: thirty percent. I think it continued the fifty percent of
Speaker 2: the least for the rest of the decade. I think
Speaker 2: there's a case to be made or argued for potentially
Speaker 2: even seeing why the Kaggart could actually start to accelerate
Speaker 2: a little bit as bigger money comes in and we
Speaker 2: start to tap into these big ghost calendar. Sam has
Speaker 2: bit quite twenty four model and a tapers right. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I have a model.
Speaker 1: We haven't published it yet. O, we should publish it.
Speaker 1: But it's called the it'll be called Omega sixty basically
Speaker 1: sixty percent of growth every year based on a sixty
Speaker 1: percent medium. Yeah.
Speaker 2: You're the one pushing the god candle.
Speaker 1: I mean the god candles ten K. It's already happened
Speaker 1: many times. Yeah, Omega candles the next one hundred K,
Speaker 1: one hundred k.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I mean we're starting to talk, we're starting
Speaker 2: to chip into the dam holding back, you know, three
Speaker 2: indred trying to fixed endgup. Yeah, and if a big
Speaker 2: enough chumper that comes into two shoe on dollar asset,
Speaker 2: you think they can move a lot. So okay, so
Speaker 2: ten years just to be safe, and then it's all
Speaker 2: it needs to do is double because then that pays
Speaker 2: off the bond. Ye, it'll more than double. I get.
Speaker 2: But but you're banzered. But worst case scenario. Yeah, right, Well,
Speaker 2: when you're.
Speaker 1: Pitching to governments, you should actually try to be as
Speaker 1: conservative sure possible. Sure, even for me, I think sixty
Speaker 1: percent annual road is conservative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So then they pay off the bond, and they
Speaker 2: get all the infrastructure and the mind bitcoin from that,
Speaker 2: and the revenue is gener.
Speaker 1: But also I structured in a way where you recoup
Speaker 1: the principle after five years and then let's say bitcoin triple,
Speaker 1: then you have more bitcoin left otor right, so then
Speaker 1: you share that bitcoin upside with the investors.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but there are.
Speaker 1: Many permutations here. The key is that investors have some
Speaker 1: extra exposure to bitcoin, not just the base cube partner, right,
Speaker 1: and it ideally scales what bitcoins, you know, astronomical growth.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, I mean as opposed to a traditional bond.
Speaker 2: Right now, today I just have to beat money back. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but I didn't make any more money to pay off
Speaker 2: the money.
Speaker 1: So so, but if you look at it, like a
Speaker 1: lot of Latin American countries are in debt to IMF
Speaker 1: or whoever, and this is really the only way for
Speaker 1: them to get out of debt. We we presented we
Speaker 1: prepared a debt for Argentina and it's like you know,
Speaker 1: making its way up the food chain. But we did
Speaker 1: some projections and we think if they did a sort
Speaker 1: of a DCA bond doing a billion a year, they
Speaker 1: could probably pay off their debt I think one hundred
Speaker 1: plus billion dollars of debt in thirty years. If they
Speaker 1: did a lump sum bond issuance of what was it,
Speaker 1: thirty billion in bonds in one year this year, they
Speaker 1: will pay it off in ten years. They will be
Speaker 1: debt free in ten years.
Speaker 2: Wow. Wow, So that's going to Mila. Yeah, and most
Speaker 2: like Trump and bassent you know, the US wants to
Speaker 2: open up those swap lines to Argentina, so they're gonna
Speaker 2: have some money and there. Maybe Trump's pro bitcoin stance
Speaker 2: could get down there a little bit. Maybe we'll go
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 1: Argentina is also an entry bridge too, so they could
Speaker 1: you know, outside of that program, they can do bitcoin money.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay, now you're talking about South American countries, Alsabador, Argentina, Paraguay,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Another thing that you're trying to tackle is
Speaker 2: unbanked people. Yes, per the IMF. I mean, it's got
Speaker 2: the years where I thought it was like a billion
Speaker 2: or a billion or a billion and a half people
Speaker 2: adults actually not people adults, and a one that weren't
Speaker 2: bank You say, maybe the numbers higher. I'm guessing a
Speaker 2: lot of that's probably in South America. I'm guessing that's
Speaker 2: coming from number one. Most people don't have permission to
Speaker 2: join than unreay documents, we're in a sanctun country, or
Speaker 2: they're so core they can't afford a bank account.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing is banks don't want customers. It's too
Speaker 1: risky for them now to have customers. Right, That's why
Speaker 1: it's kind of weird to say. It's true, like it's
Speaker 1: harder today to get a bank account than ever before
Speaker 1: because of all the regulatory requirements. Right. Compliance teams are
Speaker 1: growing in size, and it's risky. Like unless you're putting
Speaker 1: a lot of money at the bank, you're a cost
Speaker 1: center to them. You're not a revenue generating you know,
Speaker 1: lender to the bank at that point. So there is
Speaker 1: no encouragement to bank the unbanked. And this is why
Speaker 1: I think stable coins are becoming so prevalent, because they're
Speaker 1: the last mile. If you look at tether in Latin America,
Speaker 1: people just call it digital dollar. They don't know it's tether,
Speaker 1: they don't know who Paulo is. It's just the digital
Speaker 1: dollar that they can get on their phone, and that's
Speaker 1: good enough for them because for them, that's their bitcoin.
Speaker 1: That's the thing that protects them against the inflation of
Speaker 1: the peso or whatever bolivar or the currency that they have,
Speaker 1: and we just have to get them to understand that,
Speaker 1: you know, bitcoin is better than that. So it's a
Speaker 1: it's a process, I think, and it won't.
Speaker 2: Be long before they just call it a dollar. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and not even digital.
Speaker 1: Well in Bolivia they're pricing things in the grocery stores
Speaker 1: in the USCT really yeah.
Speaker 2: Interesting, So as part of your big initiative to bank
Speaker 2: the n banked is to give them access to digital dollars, well,
Speaker 2: do to reap or what's there through awfua A.
Speaker 1: How are you in that, Bob, So I would say
Speaker 1: we're approaching the USDT users in lat M. There's four hundred,
Speaker 1: maybe four fifty now a million users of us ET.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately a lot of them are using all coin wallets.
Speaker 1: But I think we are the first bitcoin wallet that
Speaker 1: has stable coin support. So in Aqua you can receive
Speaker 1: stable coins from other chains. It'll swap it to liquid tether.
Speaker 1: That's the base of Aqua. It's a liquid wallet, and
Speaker 1: then from there you can swap it to liquid bitcoin,
Speaker 1: send it out over lightning, or swap it to bitcoin
Speaker 1: mainchain and put in cold storage. So that's kind of
Speaker 1: how we plan to onboard them. Do local integrations, integrate
Speaker 1: with local payment providers where they can like, you know,
Speaker 1: send picks to their aqua wallet and get the pick.
Speaker 1: Stable coin dpicks.
Speaker 2: What's that?
Speaker 1: It's the stable cooin of the Brazilian currency. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: Brazilian digital bank currency cult base. But there are a
Speaker 1: lot of these systems in place in lack America. You
Speaker 1: just have to build the right wallet that integrates all
Speaker 1: the on and off remds and connects it to bitcoin. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that's what awkoy is.
Speaker 2: So markets are you n So far?
Speaker 1: We have a lot of users all over the world,
Speaker 1: but Brazil and Argentina are two of our bigger ones.
Speaker 2: What I love about that is I think about stable
Speaker 2: coins as a very necessary step. Bitcoins just isn't good
Speaker 2: for short term money. It's just two balter for shorter money.
Speaker 2: The stable coins solve that problem. But also it's like
Speaker 2: this gateway drug where it's like I don't know about
Speaker 2: this magic internet money, but oh dollars, okay, fine, Yeah,
Speaker 2: over time they're like, why do these dollars keep buying
Speaker 2: me less and less and less? But this bitcoin buys
Speaker 2: me more and more and more, and then they can
Speaker 2: see them compared to each other exactly.
Speaker 1: So at the top of ACO we have a bitcoin
Speaker 1: price and then it shows bitcoin. There are two bitcoin
Speaker 1: liquid Bitcoin, and then USDT. So if they're using it
Speaker 1: for USTT, they're always seeing the bitcoin price at the top,
Speaker 1: and they should eventually understand that. You know, maybe we
Speaker 1: should get some and you just swap it.
Speaker 2: Real estate or bitcoin. Which one's better. Well, it's not
Speaker 2: about choosing one, it's about using both together. Because today
Speaker 2: sixty percent of American homeowners net worth is trapped in
Speaker 2: their home and there's no way to put it to
Speaker 2: work in bitcoin until now. Horizons help you unlock a
Speaker 2: portion of your home equity to buy bitcoin. And it's
Speaker 2: not alone. There's no new monthly payments and you stay
Speaker 2: in your home just as usual, but you leverage your
Speaker 2: equity to get bitcoin exposure. Now what makes Horizon stand out, Well,
Speaker 2: there's no term limits. You keep one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: the upside of the bitcoin, and the bitcoin is yours
Speaker 2: to custody however you want, with no risk of forced liquidation.
Speaker 2: So if you've got equity but you don't want to
Speaker 2: refinance or take on new debt, but you would like
Speaker 2: some bitcoin exposure. Horizon could be the perfect option, so
Speaker 2: check out. Joinhrizon dot com to learn more and get
Speaker 2: an extra five hundred dollars in bitcoin if you use
Speaker 2: my code moss MSS and you get funded again. Join
Speaker 2: Horizon dot com code moss to get an extra five
Speaker 2: hundred dollars in bitcoin. You used to work about to
Speaker 2: Adam back? Right? Yeah, yeah, what'll more? Cally you get
Speaker 2: at them back? Yeah? What do you think about bitcoin
Speaker 2: treasury companies? And Adam seems to be like all in,
Speaker 2: like both feet in. Yeah. Are you as excited about
Speaker 2: them as he is? Or what's your view point on those? Oh?
Speaker 1: I own strategy. I supported Sailor's goal from day one.
Speaker 1: I think it's how you look at it. Some treasure
Speaker 1: companies seem to be marketing to retail, right, Sailor's approaching
Speaker 1: a different market segment. He's going after fixed income. And
Speaker 1: I think this is where some bitcoins may sit on
Speaker 1: different sides of the fence, because if you're targeting retail,
Speaker 1: they feel like you're just taking advantage of people. But
Speaker 1: if you're targeting a bigger market and you're you know,
Speaker 1: becoming this monetary black hole putting everything into bitcoin. I
Speaker 1: think that's good for bitcoin. That's why sports sailors initiatives. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: what's your thinking go on? Uh, well, well you're biased.
Speaker 2: IM sure, I'm biased because I'm involved in several of them.
Speaker 2: I think, first of all, it's it's a process. So, right,
Speaker 2: he's like six years into or whatever out of five
Speaker 2: years into it. Now, you're right. So it's like a process,
Speaker 2: and he was able to start with such a massive size.
Speaker 2: So I think I think phase one is get to
Speaker 2: a big enough asset base, yes, and that's probably at
Speaker 2: least a billion and eight thousand big point. Then once
Speaker 2: you have the asset base, then you need to phase two,
Speaker 2: which is then creating securitize debt and credit instruments off
Speaker 2: of the big gooing of bout cheat. But phase one
Speaker 2: is sort of that bootstrappy moment, which is like, hey,
Speaker 2: we need volume on the stop, we need eyeballs. We
Speaker 2: can raise the money to get the asset phase. And
Speaker 2: then ultimately a two point that you made Sailor's customer
Speaker 2: is not a bigcoinner. Say this customer somebody who wants indome. Yes,
Speaker 2: they're the opposite of a quick customer exactly like I
Speaker 2: can't hoddle for five years up seventy eight years old.
Speaker 2: I got to pay by bills tomorrow, right, so that
Speaker 2: I can't hollow bick them. So they're not a big
Speaker 2: one buyer. So that's his target. But I think in
Speaker 2: the beginning a lot of its companies are bootstrapping off
Speaker 2: with bigfoiners, and then bitcoin aers start asking questions like
Speaker 2: why would it I perform bitcoin? Which is a great
Speaker 2: question to ask, That's what I would ask you, won't no,
Speaker 2: they certainly will.
Speaker 1: You think so oh yeah, it's certain Well we'll see.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I'll tell you why I think that.
Speaker 2: But let me finished stot. But uh, the bitcoinners should
Speaker 2: be asked that that's our paral rate. Why would I
Speaker 2: put my money inthing else? Again, be a bitcoin? However,
Speaker 2: most of the world doesn't think that way. Trad File says,
Speaker 2: will it beat inflation or will it beat the S
Speaker 2: and B five founder? Yeah, And so I think if
Speaker 2: you can market to trad fy, then you have much
Speaker 2: bigger market and they're not trying to beat that paral way, right,
Speaker 2: So I think the big one person is a smaller
Speaker 2: person or smaller, but just morket. Why do I think
Speaker 2: it'll be bitcoin. It's because of the multiple rights so
Speaker 2: current and the metric that Sailor introduced is this M
Speaker 2: that number. It's a multiple to an asset value. It's
Speaker 2: no different than a price to book that you would
Speaker 2: see in traditional finance. Right, try five? Why should it
Speaker 2: trade more than one? Right? So if it stays the
Speaker 2: same as bitcoin, it'd be one times and a half. Right.
Speaker 2: If it can go to one point two or one
Speaker 2: point five or two point zero, then it beats bitcoin, right,
Speaker 2: So why should it get more than one? Well, the
Speaker 2: reason why it gets to more than one is because
Speaker 2: they're using leverage. Ye. So if I borrowed fifty percent
Speaker 2: LTV a's my bitcoin, buy more bitcoin, I'm leveraged and
Speaker 2: I'll probably outperformed by a big one. I'm gonna have
Speaker 2: to do it with provolatility, right, but I'll outperform bitclin Right.
Speaker 2: So it's adding leverage that gives us that out performance.
Speaker 2: How do we do that? First of all, if we
Speaker 2: look at like asset heavy businesses, so this would be banks,
Speaker 2: insurance institutions, oil companies, they're typically trading a one to
Speaker 2: two maybe a one to three priced book ratio, so
Speaker 2: banks have leverage. Of course, the top ten bank trade
Speaker 2: a higher leverage than community banks, for example, but they're
Speaker 2: all trading greater than one typically, like when the oil
Speaker 2: christ snappture down for point eight, but like most of
Speaker 2: the time it's in that rage. So I think that's
Speaker 2: sort of like a range sailor thinks that if you
Speaker 2: watch his quarter two presentation, he you know, and you've
Speaker 2: been with it many times. He thinks in like ten
Speaker 2: to twenty year chucks, so not two months or five months,
Speaker 2: ten year chunks. So in his charts they're modeled for
Speaker 2: ten years. And this is where a lot of MicroStrategy
Speaker 2: investors get very frustrated. And he's like, hey, we've doubled
Speaker 2: Bitcoin's performance in the last twelve months and five years.
Speaker 2: What about this quarter? This court Like I'm thinking ten years, right,
Speaker 2: So he breaks that chart and there's three levers. You
Speaker 2: have leverage. How much leverage will we apply it? And
Speaker 2: we apply the leverage prefers. So anytime I take on
Speaker 2: debt numbers or I sell preferreds, that's the levers. Then
Speaker 2: you have the ar R of the bigcoin, and then
Speaker 2: the KGAR and then you have the how much after payout?
Speaker 2: So those are three very put in there. But if
Speaker 2: we get like a thirty percent KGAR and a thirty
Speaker 2: percent leverage and an eight percent yel, yeah, that would
Speaker 2: give him what he calls bitcoin factor. I think of
Speaker 2: two point nine or more. So he thinks that's the floor, right,
Speaker 2: it should trade it a minimum three times a bigcoin
Speaker 2: because of the leverage.
Speaker 1: I think it could go higher if I said floor floor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I said the floor.
Speaker 1: But if you look at a lot of other companies,
Speaker 1: it's your your pe ratio is sure, they're insane.
Speaker 2: Sometimes no, right of first, I mean it should be twenty, right,
Speaker 2: so if you look at like the price to book
Speaker 2: of Tesla and now if I'm twenty thirty whatever, So no,
Speaker 2: he said that should be the floor. So two nine
Speaker 2: three times before, so that's three times the performance of bitcoin.
Speaker 2: Now he could easily get to more leverage. And we
Speaker 2: also probably both think that bitcoin does better than thirty percent.
Speaker 2: So now we're at five or six times, right, and
Speaker 2: then you start thinking about, okay, what if we start
Speaker 2: buying these is a growth company and the astogy old
Speaker 2: bank because banks and oil companies don't have assets that
Speaker 2: are going up in a fifty percent of kag are
Speaker 2: So now should it be six or eight times? So
Speaker 2: I'm saying three times, and that's why I think the
Speaker 2: output film big one. Now will all of them do that?
Speaker 2: Of course not, but I think most of the good
Speaker 2: companies should achieve at least a one and a half
Speaker 2: or two times, and they should most of the companies upfolder.
Speaker 1: Right, So it depends on what time frame. If you're
Speaker 1: like an investor, I guess I'm looking at quarters right, Well,
Speaker 1: they shouldn't. Yeah, they should.
Speaker 2: That's a big dismatch, I know.
Speaker 1: But sailor, yes, he's looking at ten twenty. But I
Speaker 1: think eventually there is a time in which there is
Speaker 1: no more capital to sell to there be three hundred trillion.
Speaker 1: We'll see can three hundred trillion acts pitcoin?
Speaker 2: Directly?
Speaker 1: I think things will change, like if you'll get metiplanet.
Speaker 1: They have kind of a mote, right, But if the
Speaker 1: laws change and spot bitcoin is now not taxes heavily,
Speaker 1: I think it'll see a decline. But if you take
Speaker 1: that principle apply it to the broader market, you know,
Speaker 1: whenever it happens that a lot of that capital can
Speaker 1: go to spot. I think it'll change that equation, but
Speaker 1: for maybe maybe ten years, maybe twenty years, maybe thirty years,
Speaker 1: it could perform. But I think ultimately it equalizes it.
Speaker 2: As some mooint I think. I think this is where
Speaker 2: the discrepancy is that most of the market's missing is
Speaker 2: going on. And you just said it. Actually so you
Speaker 2: said that he's going after institutional investors. Yeah, so the
Speaker 2: real product that's that micro strategy, micro strategy sold the
Speaker 2: teleto software strategy, it's a new product. Is selling credit instruments. Yes,
Speaker 2: that's where they're on. So they're selling ten percent yielding
Speaker 2: products to people who would never buy bitcoin. They're not
Speaker 2: buying bitcoin, right, they're buying ten percent to yield the products.
Speaker 1: But let me asking, Mark, do you see a point
Speaker 1: at which does it Okay, does the dollar co exist.
Speaker 2: With bitcoin forever? Well? Or where was a long time? Well,
Speaker 2: let's say let's say fifty years.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you think it coils is for fifty years?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: I'm of the cap, which is it does the mechanic
Speaker 1: co exist? Eventually? Something's got to give that people just
Speaker 1: want one thing.
Speaker 2: But I nobody knows when I would use history as
Speaker 2: our guide, right, So the dollar took over the reserve
Speaker 2: status from the pounds sterling one hundred years ago and roughly,
Speaker 2: and that was about a forty year process. Yeah, so
Speaker 2: it didn't happen overnight. It was like a process. Right,
Speaker 2: But even today, one hundred years later, the pound sterling
Speaker 2: is still the third most used currency in the world
Speaker 2: and they produce no exports, have nothing of value about
Speaker 2: the brom on the bus, but they're still there. Yeah,
Speaker 2: why is it still the third most use currency in
Speaker 2: the world, right, So I think I think so bitcoin
Speaker 2: could take thirty forty fifty years to become the reserve
Speaker 2: currency of the world, the United account of the world,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't actually mean that the dollar goes away. Alt.
Speaker 1: Why is the pound sterling still there because bitcoin is
Speaker 1: still young? I would say, yeah, maybe it depends on
Speaker 1: your figure. Like if bitcoin is the best form of
Speaker 1: money ever created, and we have the ability to teleport
Speaker 1: bitcoin around the world in an instant, we can verify,
Speaker 1: you can't counterfeit it.
Speaker 2: Maybe it changes the diameter. It does it does because
Speaker 2: it can be everything in one asset. Yeah, it can
Speaker 2: be the whole stack in one and so I'd agree.
Speaker 2: I've given where I think it is by twenty thirty,
Speaker 2: twenty forty, twenty fifty. I think after twenty fifty twenty
Speaker 2: twenty fifty to twenty fifty five, it becomes a unit
Speaker 2: to account of the world. And at that point maybe
Speaker 2: there is the meat for one hundred power refiats.
Speaker 1: There are, we'll see. But I just know there's a
Speaker 1: lot of inefficiencies with your currencies, and we're going to
Speaker 1: see a lot more drop away. And you had in
Speaker 1: the past, you know, reboots of currencies, and I don't
Speaker 1: think that's possible today. Like if you're if your currency
Speaker 1: is hyper and plate inflating, you can't make a new one,
Speaker 1: you know, with bitcoin and stable coins, you just cannot
Speaker 1: sell it. Right, the alternative exists now, so I think
Speaker 1: you're gonna see fewer and fewer FIA currencies. Sure, we'll
Speaker 1: just all roll under the dollar, the dollar rise. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and eventually to be determined, it either co exists or
Speaker 1: it doesn't.
Speaker 2: Col I think there's twenty five or thirty years and
Speaker 2: then it becomes Union account and then the dollar or
Speaker 2: Robbly Vain the distance and I think we agree maybe
Speaker 2: a little bit different thro on time brain, but most
Speaker 2: of the same. But but we have. What I think
Speaker 2: is interesting is you take again three hundred trillion dollars
Speaker 2: of I mean, what does that number either pre troia
Speaker 2: like saying right of fixed income and if you think
Speaker 2: about it, right, like so I'm a simply ago first
Speaker 2: and and I need the income. Right, so I have
Speaker 2: money a debt that i'd be in that yofa and
Speaker 2: currently that debt is based off for fiat debt. Yes,
Speaker 2: but what happens is that's paying me four percent. Let's
Speaker 2: say it was gonna pay me ten percent. Yeah, So
Speaker 2: I'm going to take the debt and I'm just going
Speaker 2: to move it. The debt doesn't go away, and he
Speaker 2: doesn't get extinguished, but it now moves to a bitcoin layer.
Speaker 2: So it's almost like the bedrock of this three hundred
Speaker 2: trillion gets rug pulled and bitcoin goes under. So the
Speaker 2: three hundred trillion is still there, but now sit on
Speaker 2: a bitcoin layer. Yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 1: What could prolong with dollars lifetime is just so many
Speaker 1: debts are dollar denominated, Yeah, country, sovereign level and something
Speaker 1: that could that could mean they need dollars still.
Speaker 2: That's the that's Brent Johnson dog milkshake theory. Whole basis
Speaker 2: is that all the debt is dollar denominated and it
Speaker 2: has to get extinguished, and so it has to get
Speaker 2: paid back when the dollar. Yeah, yeah, we're we're going long.
Speaker 2: But I want to I want to dig into the
Speaker 2: main topic I want to talk to you about.
Speaker 1: So we first chatted about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that is that's at least the immediate future
Speaker 2: of bitcoin in the consensus or the protocol. And so
Speaker 2: there's a big debate that's going on in the bitcoin community.
Speaker 2: And this might be a little bit in a deef
Speaker 2: and maybe a little bit too much merdige for most
Speaker 2: of my community. So I'm sorry about this, but it's
Speaker 2: important topic. Bitcoin is sort of creating a division between
Speaker 2: Bitcoin Core that maintains the code based trying to go
Speaker 2: from B twin I to be thirty and some people
Speaker 2: don't like that. And so now we have this not
Speaker 2: spin off that's trying to do something else over here.
Speaker 2: So let's freak what the heck is going on.
Speaker 1: So it comes down to the core developers are changing
Speaker 1: a default and why it's causing such a stir. It's
Speaker 1: not really a technical thing like changing people like say,
Speaker 1: it's a technical discussion changing the default is not technical.
Speaker 1: You're removing it. You're changing the limit by removing the limit.
Speaker 1: It's really about telling other bitcoins what to do. And
Speaker 1: Core is the main implementation right now, so what they
Speaker 1: change has a massive impact on the market. A lot
Speaker 1: of people just upgrade, like most people just blindly upgrade
Speaker 1: their software, and this is what people are kind of
Speaker 1: up and uproar about. And there's many different opinions on
Speaker 1: the detrimental effects of the upgrade. But to me, the
Speaker 1: crux is Core is changing a default, and I, as
Speaker 1: a node runner, don't want to be told what to do.
Speaker 1: So people are moving to knots for many reasons. One
Speaker 1: of them is a protest vote, like, you're not telling
Speaker 1: me what to do because you know bitcoinners are very sovereign,
Speaker 1: and well why do they have to be.
Speaker 2: Told what to do? But just can't every node runner
Speaker 2: stand be twenty nine?
Speaker 1: They can, and a lot will stay on twenty nine.
Speaker 1: I'm kind of in a neutral faction. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: I'm not upgrading. I'm not gonna let you change the defaults.
Speaker 1: But the defaults do matter because when the rest of
Speaker 1: when like the miners upgrade and they go to thirty.
Speaker 1: Then that changes the network behavior because they run a
Speaker 1: lot on the defaults, and that is what a lot
Speaker 1: of the people in the knots camp are worried about that.
Speaker 1: Now you just remove the limit and we're gonna have
Speaker 1: massive opera turns and spammer are going to spam and
Speaker 1: make a new collection of cat NFTs that are one
Speaker 1: hundred kilobytes to take advantage of that.
Speaker 2: So one, why, I mean, why are they book going
Speaker 2: for between ninety thirty? As you said, it seems like
Speaker 2: they're making a change to accommodate and that will people
Speaker 2: censorly the minor so the miners can reap all money necessarily,
Speaker 2: but maybe for other Layer two applications, yes, right, so
Speaker 2: like layer two's and miners shouldn't be forced to create
Speaker 2: an innovay based off of layer one. Layer one shouldn't
Speaker 2: change for layer two. That seems like.
Speaker 1: That's another part of it. I mean, I would seem
Speaker 1: like a good end. The rationale was another company in
Speaker 1: called Cetrea. They're polluting the utfsode set. So that's like
Speaker 1: kind of transactions that are you know, Bitcoin transactions. It's
Speaker 1: a big database and it's often stored in memory and
Speaker 1: then you have like the operatar, which is the thing
Speaker 1: that's sored on disc that can be discarded. You want
Speaker 1: to proven. But the concern is like, we don't want
Speaker 1: them to make these UTXO transactions. We'd rather have to
Speaker 1: have an outperturn so we can get rid of it.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of one of their many rationales. It's
Speaker 1: a very complicated, multifaceted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know debate. I believe that there's a
Speaker 2: lot of entering the consequences, so things could happen that
Speaker 2: we're not there for. We don't know until we know.
Speaker 2: I also believe that everything has trade off. Yeah, there's
Speaker 2: no free lunch right to get something to give something.
Speaker 2: So then if we go to knots now they have
Speaker 2: a way to handle that. But what's the trade off there? Now?
Speaker 2: Are they censoring it or they put in a filter
Speaker 2: and choosing that to run certain things the filter which
Speaker 2: is another form of censorshow yes and no.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's if the crux of it. One side
Speaker 1: is saying it can be filtered and the other side
Speaker 1: is saying it cannot be filtered, and they're both right
Speaker 1: because you can buycass filters. Filters are done at the
Speaker 1: node level. If the miners decide to mind a transaction,
Speaker 1: it'll go in the blockchain. So both are right. You
Speaker 1: can filter, the filters are undeterrent, but they can't be
Speaker 1: bypassed because miners can mine whatever you're filtering. Still, so
Speaker 1: I think that it's a more philosophical discussion on development. Really,
Speaker 1: the developers don't want to fight a battle against SPAN.
Speaker 1: They would rather build cool new things. So no one's
Speaker 1: working on anti spam projections in bitcoin because they think
Speaker 1: it's a gay you can't win. And if you sit
Speaker 1: down with that on the back, I'll say, yeah, I've
Speaker 1: rationalized and reason through every single way to fight SPAN,
Speaker 1: and I've come to the conclusion that you cannot fight SPA.
Speaker 1: So that's why they're saying, let's let it be the
Speaker 1: way it is. Well, you don't have to increase it
Speaker 1: to make it easier. No, you don't, And that's what
Speaker 1: these guys the Knots camp are saying. And I guess
Speaker 1: I'm also saying that you should deter it and you
Speaker 1: should fight the SPAN because let's say you're right, it's
Speaker 1: an arms race. The people kind of have spoken, the bitcoiners.
Speaker 1: They want arms to defend against the spam, so there
Speaker 1: should be is.
Speaker 2: There really spam? So let let me frame that question up.
Speaker 2: So you just said that money has changed, it's now information.
Speaker 2: A lot of people say bitcoin has no value. Well,
Speaker 2: you may not see value, but I see value. And
Speaker 2: so then we think about free markets and we start
Speaker 2: to think about what goes into the block space, and
Speaker 2: it should be for monetary information. But what's a monetary information?
Speaker 2: It's all the information, and what information is the most valuable.
Speaker 2: So if I'm willing to pay for that information more
Speaker 2: than you're willing to pay for the information, your information
Speaker 2: might be a monetary transaction, My information might be whatever message.
Speaker 2: I mean, shouldn't the free market just decide what goes
Speaker 2: into that Is it really spam if it's actually more
Speaker 2: valuable than monetary transaction.
Speaker 1: So this is a really interesting little conundrum we've gotten
Speaker 1: ourselves in too. So the spammers have basically said, we're
Speaker 1: paying fees, so we're not spam. But the most important
Speaker 1: thing is spam is never from the perspective of the sender.
Speaker 1: It's from the perspective of the receiver, which in this
Speaker 1: case is the node runner. Stuff I don't want, right,
Speaker 1: stuff I don't want I okay, let's talk about email spam.
Speaker 2: Talking about my sex message spam. Sure, every day I
Speaker 2: have approof for a new loan that didn't even apply
Speaker 2: for it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know that guy paid for his cell
Speaker 1: phone plan and whatever, and you know he paid to
Speaker 1: send it to you. It's not spam. But you think
Speaker 1: it's spam. Yeah, a point, it's the same like physical mail,
Speaker 1: like a junk mail. They paid the postage fees. It
Speaker 1: not spam. Spam is always from the perspective of the receiver,
Speaker 1: and in Bitcoin's case, it's a receiver. So Jae, let's
Speaker 1: go into like is it data? So bitcoin is information,
Speaker 1: but not all information is bitcoin. If you download bitcoin
Speaker 1: the client in twenty two thousand and nine and you
Speaker 1: boot it up and you get some coins because you
Speaker 1: could mine back then on a CPU, and you send
Speaker 1: some coins to me, that's a Bitcoin transaction. If you
Speaker 1: stick a picture in there, you know that's not native
Speaker 1: behavior of bitcoin, right. So people in the core side
Speaker 1: have said, you know, bitcoin is just a database, right,
Speaker 1: But it's a database of Bitcoin as the native data,
Speaker 1: and you can send and receive that native Bitcoin data.
Speaker 1: But if you start sticking other things, that's not what
Speaker 1: the software was meant to do.
Speaker 2: I had never lived there from that angle, so I
Speaker 2: appreciate that perspective because to your point, I expect phone
Speaker 2: calls from people I know and want to hear from
Speaker 2: not doing lone applications every day, and it drives me
Speaker 2: crazy and up downloaded applications to build her. I can't
Speaker 2: stop it.
Speaker 1: So so the spamas are saying, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: censor us. It's you're wrong to censor us. But my
Speaker 1: perspective is you shouldn't be here. Are you here in
Speaker 1: my holey or never go.
Speaker 2: Do because this this space and my mail is not scarce,
Speaker 2: but the block space is scarce. Wouldn't true monetary transactions
Speaker 2: groud about or outpright your price them out?
Speaker 1: Well, that's another argument too, like the fees are the filter.
Speaker 1: But we've also changed the economics, like during the block
Speaker 1: size war, we increased the block size the effective block space, right,
Speaker 1: we made we scaled the coin. We made transactions cheaper.
Speaker 1: But therefore, but we also made spam cheaper too, by
Speaker 1: a multiple And we're doing other things too, like removing
Speaker 1: those limits that cores. Removing it makes it easier. So yes,
Speaker 1: you can say fees are the filter, but you've also
Speaker 1: just kind of opened the door and made it cheaper
Speaker 1: for them to send you the sms. So yeah, a
Speaker 1: lot of dynamics have changed, and you show, you show
Speaker 1: that you can bypass the filters. So now you kind
Speaker 1: of like showed people that were less savvy, less technical,
Speaker 1: that oh you can do this.
Speaker 2: Now what about the precedents that's set that once I
Speaker 2: show that I can filter things, then the DOVERMA could say, oh,
Speaker 2: you can filter things, and I want you to filter
Speaker 2: out these o fact knocking blind addresses. We want you
Speaker 2: to fact this out with these mixer addresses and things
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 1: But you can You can't really stop it, even if
Speaker 1: you get a mining pool to sense ay, like you know, Mark,
Speaker 1: your pool should censor these transactions, someone else will mind them. Right,
Speaker 1: The thing goes both ways. You cannot stop spam one
Speaker 1: hundred percent, but you also cannot stop transactions one hundred
Speaker 1: percent too.
Speaker 2: So you know, I kind of fall in line with Sailor,
Speaker 2: which is maybe the best way to ruin something is
Speaker 2: to try to fix something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you hear his spiel on Yeah, if I want
Speaker 1: to destroy Big Quiet, way hire a bunch. You hire
Speaker 1: a lot of exaltators to make it better.
Speaker 2: Yeah, make it better, yeah, not fix of the make
Speaker 2: it better right. And there was an inflation book.
Speaker 1: Someone was trying to optimize bitpoint and they introduced an
Speaker 1: inflation bitcoin and that was there for two years, almost
Speaker 1: two years. So in that two year period someone could
Speaker 1: have inflated bitcoin supply.
Speaker 2: It killed it. So it seems like it's like almost
Speaker 2: just ossify the code and if there's something critical, we
Speaker 2: could maybe see about fixing it, but like try to
Speaker 2: make improvements of like changing the blocks. I seems out
Speaker 2: all right, So I don't want to go too long
Speaker 2: on this, but you're in the Needer camp.
Speaker 1: I lean more towards not. I think that there should
Speaker 1: be efforts to fight spam. Maybe it's not winnable, but
Speaker 1: there should be tools given to people like it. There
Speaker 1: are so many proposals for soft forks, for new features
Speaker 1: of bitcoin. Everyone wants to do something new with bitcoin.
Speaker 1: And it goes back to Sailor's point. You know, if
Speaker 1: you give developers unlimited resources, they're.
Speaker 2: Going to try to build there. It's like the point
Speaker 2: I made earlier. Legislators legislate exactly, coders want to code
Speaker 2: exactly they need to build something, but go build layer two. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you've been around a long time. You understand at of
Speaker 2: deep level, what is from your perspective, your historical precedent
Speaker 2: that you've seen set, the block sized wars that you've
Speaker 2: went through, etc. Is this like it's a healthy reaction
Speaker 2: to the community to debate this and bindent ways around this,
Speaker 2: or is this like one of these could be critical
Speaker 2: and people should be like paying attention to worry about it.
Speaker 1: I think it's good that people are discussing it and
Speaker 1: we're bringing things up. I think having one dominant client
Speaker 1: is not the best thing, So I think not existing
Speaker 1: and having twenty percent of the network is good. I
Speaker 1: think even better as you get a third implementation that's
Speaker 1: widely adopted and then you kind of a three way balance.
Speaker 1: It's like a triangle or separation of the powers in
Speaker 1: the government, right, So you can't force any change through
Speaker 1: without you other two clients getting major adopting it and
Speaker 1: getting attraction through that way. So I think that's the
Speaker 1: best way to awsome five bitcoin. So you can't just
Speaker 1: ram a change through, and that's largely what this is about.
Speaker 1: Like corus able to set defaults because they are the
Speaker 1: primary dominant client.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I don't like that. So this might be
Speaker 2: a healthy reaction. It's not mission critical.
Speaker 1: There is balance and you know, no one group can
Speaker 1: push something through as a default.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, okay, first you go on. I like that,
Speaker 2: all right, Sam, So I think we're gonna wrap it up.
Speaker 2: We covered a lot around unbanking the bank or banking.
Speaker 2: The mbad was Aqua nas to stay the adoption. I
Speaker 2: love the bond idea and palitic So anything else that
Speaker 2: you want to point people, what are you working on?
Speaker 2: If you're paying attention to download your wallet Aqua, give
Speaker 2: it a try.
Speaker 1: Check out Aqua. You can look it up on Aqua
Speaker 1: dot net. Yeah, it's on the app store, Apple Android
Speaker 1: and we're on X gentree Calm I have, Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: on X two.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Cool