Speaker 1: Hey, everyone, welcome back to another episode of the Markma
Speaker 1: Show where we talk about politics, finance, technology. We talked
Speaker 1: about the decentralized revolution. Of course we're talking about bitcoin.
Speaker 1: I'm joined in the studio today by Dennis Porter. He's
Speaker 1: a political advocate. He's the host of the podcast called
Speaker 1: Smart People Beep. I can't say that because we're on radio.
Speaker 1: I think you can fill in the blank there. Um. Anyway,
Speaker 1: you can find them on Twitter at Dennis Underscore Porter
Speaker 1: Underscore A little bit tough anyway, Dennis, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for joining me in the studio today. Pumped to be
Speaker 1: here with you, Mark, Um, I'm ready to get into
Speaker 1: it today. Nice. Nice. You know, Um, you know, the
Speaker 1: decentralized Revolution. I talk a lot about how technology changes
Speaker 1: the world. It changes the way that we communicate, change
Speaker 1: the way that we organized, and so that's what really,
Speaker 1: you know, creates all these shifts as you go back
Speaker 1: through thousands of years of history. Um, and this decentralized
Speaker 1: revolution is a big piece of it. You know. Bitcoin
Speaker 1: is like a thread that weaves through every area of society,
Speaker 1: and so for each of us a kind of attaches
Speaker 1: to us a little bit differently. For myself, it's kind
Speaker 1: of like the historical narrative side of monetary um and
Speaker 1: it's and it's and it's like politics. So I kind
Speaker 1: of like the politics and the and the history side
Speaker 1: UM and so that's what I tend to talk about
Speaker 1: in regards to bitcoin and UM. You two. It seems like, right,
Speaker 1: you're you like to kind of focus on it from
Speaker 1: like the political side. Yeah. Absolutely. When I first jumped in,
Speaker 1: you know, I think I got into it for the
Speaker 1: you know, fix the money, fixed the world aspect, like
Speaker 1: we all did, you know, number go up was great,
Speaker 1: But eventually I started to really hyper focus on the
Speaker 1: impact that bitcoin would have politically across the United States
Speaker 1: and across the globe. I have a small background in politics,
Speaker 1: so you know, I've helped I was trained as a
Speaker 1: campaign manager. I ran several campaigns, did some behind the
Speaker 1: scenes work, UM did some opposites and research. Helped four
Speaker 1: candidates win their primaries. Hoping to get my fifth this
Speaker 1: year as well, to be five for five. But I
Speaker 1: just really see that the United States could significantly benefit
Speaker 1: from a more popular bitcoin approach from the political spectrum.
Speaker 1: So just fighting every day to make sure that we
Speaker 1: are part of the future instead of the past when
Speaker 1: it comes to bitcoin in America. Yeah, I know, you
Speaker 1: and I we traded quite a few messages on Twitter,
Speaker 1: like a week ago or whatever talking about that, and
Speaker 1: I think I made the statement that it's, uh, it's
Speaker 1: really anti I see it as like, uh, some people
Speaker 1: call it a political, almost calling it like anti political. Um,
Speaker 1: it's neutral. I mean it's a it's a protocol. Right.
Speaker 1: It's like saying, like a screw driver's political. Right. If
Speaker 1: I stabbed the right wing person, then it's a left
Speaker 1: wing tool, and if I stabbed the left wing person
Speaker 1: as the right wing tool. Um, I look at it
Speaker 1: as a political anti political. Uh. You don't necessarily agree
Speaker 1: with that kind of give me your your thought process
Speaker 1: on that to this. You know, in some ways we agree, Mark,
Speaker 1: I really agree with this idea that bitcoin is a
Speaker 1: political I don't think it has sides. I don't think
Speaker 1: it associates with one party in particular. I'm more so
Speaker 1: see it as a tool. But as a tool, we're
Speaker 1: going to see it have massive implications or massive a
Speaker 1: massive impact on politics. We can already see the way
Speaker 1: that it's impacting the mid terms, and I think it
Speaker 1: will go on to continue to be a major issue
Speaker 1: in American politics today. I think that, you know, essentially,
Speaker 1: what's the point of bitcoin, right, destroying the money printer
Speaker 1: and giving it back to the people, that's a very
Speaker 1: political movement. So I just see bitcoin, although it is
Speaker 1: very a political that it will have a massive ramification
Speaker 1: on the way that politics is done, not only here
Speaker 1: but across the world. And you know, people try oftentimes
Speaker 1: get mad at me, right, like, you know, stay away
Speaker 1: from politics. We don't need to be involved in government.
Speaker 1: But I want to make sure that my country, the
Speaker 1: United States, moves forward. I want to be forward on
Speaker 1: this issue. And in order for us to do that
Speaker 1: in the next five to ten years, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to be friends with legislators, We're gonna have to be
Speaker 1: friends with policymakers. And I want to make sure that
Speaker 1: the United States is in a position to benefit from
Speaker 1: this technology and benefit from the move of the miners
Speaker 1: leaving China and coming to America. If we aren't careful,
Speaker 1: we could end up in a situation where we end
Speaker 1: up banning bitcoin mining or banning bitcoin, and that would
Speaker 1: make us a lot more like the CCP, and I
Speaker 1: personally want to be a lot more like elsavad or. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I certainly don't want to be like the CCP, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. You know. The one thing I think about, though,
Speaker 1: like in in that is that, Um, first off, today
Speaker 1: we've seen this situation where like freedom now is like
Speaker 1: some fringe right wing ideal, right like freedom like to me.
Speaker 1: So I guess I guess some of it's like semantics
Speaker 1: or the way that you look at things like I
Speaker 1: don't look at freedom as like political ideology, like it's
Speaker 1: just freedom right like Um, so I guess when when
Speaker 1: you think about it in terms of like bitcoin and
Speaker 1: bitcoin gives me freedom to transact. Um, I guess freedom
Speaker 1: today seems like a right wing ideology, but um, I
Speaker 1: don't see it that way. So I guess some of
Speaker 1: it is that. But then also back to just even
Speaker 1: more political um you know, I know as you've been
Speaker 1: diving into the political side more, um, you do have
Speaker 1: It was what really kind of sparked that off, I
Speaker 1: think was Ted Cruz was talking about, um, how the
Speaker 1: liberals want to take away and he I guess he
Speaker 1: kind of made that statement and kind of pitted the
Speaker 1: two against each other, right where the liberals want to
Speaker 1: censor you and tell you what you can do. Bitcoin
Speaker 1: gives you the opportunity get around that. So that's now
Speaker 1: it's right wing, right, But then you have I know,
Speaker 1: you've been working with like Erica Rhodes and she's a
Speaker 1: Democrat and she's running on bitcoin. So uh, from that standpoint,
Speaker 1: then it is a political I guess yeah. But I
Speaker 1: like Ted Cruz and I like that he's been forward
Speaker 1: in the sense that I like that he's been forward
Speaker 1: on the issue of bitcoin. I think he has been
Speaker 1: one of the strongest advocates recently, and he's done a
Speaker 1: great job of speaking about it. There was just that
Speaker 1: one line, you know, you know, the left doesn't like
Speaker 1: bitcoin because they can't control it, And I just really
Speaker 1: want to make sure that we as a country and
Speaker 1: we as a people stay away from that kind of
Speaker 1: partisan politics around bitcoin. Um, obviously bitcoin in this sense
Speaker 1: is very political, but really we've got to be careful
Speaker 1: with the part is an aspect of this bit of
Speaker 1: bitcoin as an issue, and the main reason why we
Speaker 1: want to do that is so that we don't get
Speaker 1: into a situation where one party is constantly fighting back
Speaker 1: against this technology. That will result in a world where
Speaker 1: fifty of the time we are fighting back as an
Speaker 1: industry and as holders against bad policy, whereas if both
Speaker 1: parties were working together in tandem, that would mean that
Speaker 1: we're fighting aggressively competing for better policy. Each party is
Speaker 1: like trying to outdo each other, so it's a fifty
Speaker 1: percent of the time fighting bad policy or a hundred
Speaker 1: percent of the time competing over better policy kind of situation.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I've seen a lot of Democrats getting on board.
Speaker 1: There's this narrative that Republicans own bitcoin in the sense
Speaker 1: that they are more in align with bitcoin than others,
Speaker 1: and I just don't think that's true. There was a
Speaker 1: report put out recently that six of bitcoin and digital
Speaker 1: asset holders are Democrat voters. I just think that the
Speaker 1: party as a whole, the actual legislators, have done a
Speaker 1: better job of getting in front of this issue. But
Speaker 1: mostly then my opinion, that has to do with this
Speaker 1: idea that for a few reasons one, Republicans are the
Speaker 1: party out of power, and the party out of power
Speaker 1: is always looking for ways to change or overcome the
Speaker 1: status quo, and bitcoin is an obvious way to overcome
Speaker 1: the status quo. Um, and it's a way to kind
Speaker 1: of give a you know, a pushback on the federal government,
Speaker 1: and Republicans are naturally very anti federal government more in
Speaker 1: line with its rights. But we are seeing very large
Speaker 1: push from Democrats. We've seen ten Democrats, led by Darren
Speaker 1: Soto and Rokana write a letter to Nancy Pelosi to say,
Speaker 1: we do not agree with the cryptotax reporting Amendment and
Speaker 1: we do not want this kind of legislation pushed forward
Speaker 1: in this country. So yeah, working with all sorts of
Speaker 1: Democrats because I think it's key that we make sure
Speaker 1: that we maintain this as a bipartisan issue. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I was saying, I think, um back to the a
Speaker 1: political versus what I've been saying is like anti political
Speaker 1: in a sense where um, you know, I Alex Fetzki
Speaker 1: and I just got together did a book Sprint and
Speaker 1: we wrote a book which we're having a Kickstarter campaign
Speaker 1: launch next week Uncommunist dot com. By the way, go
Speaker 1: check that out on commist dot com. But we basically
Speaker 1: took the Communist Manifesto, which is only four chapters, eight
Speaker 1: thousand words, it's like a forty five minute pamphlet, and
Speaker 1: we we rewrote it and we said that in that
Speaker 1: book Karl Marks put the struggle between classes, the rich
Speaker 1: versus the poor. Um. Hitler put the struggle between races, right, um,
Speaker 1: And we said that that's all wrong. Um. Instead of uh,
Speaker 1: instead of left or right or red or blue, Democrat Republican,
Speaker 1: it's individuals versus collectivists. So really it's the people versus
Speaker 1: the government. And almost like politics is meant to divide
Speaker 1: the people. And so what we said is that the
Speaker 1: struggle is between classes or politics. The struggle is between
Speaker 1: the individual and the collective is always trying to pull
Speaker 1: them into groups. And so I guess that's what I
Speaker 1: say when I think about like a political Um, the
Speaker 1: source of the political party's power comes from that money
Speaker 1: and that money printer, and uh, I believe that if
Speaker 1: we take away the money printer, then we would see
Speaker 1: the size of the government shrink way down. We'd see
Speaker 1: the politics shrink way down. And that's why I would
Speaker 1: call it like the death of politics into politics, because
Speaker 1: we don't need to be partisan on these things. It's like, look,
Speaker 1: we're just all individuals, um, trying to do the best
Speaker 1: that we can against this state apparatus kind of a thing. Um,
Speaker 1: you're just tuning in you're listening to the Mark Moss Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about if you haven't guessed it, Bitcoin. We're
Speaker 1: talking about the intersection of politics, finance, and technology, which
Speaker 1: of course is bitcoin, is the decentralized revolution. I'm in
Speaker 1: the studio with Dennis porter Um. You can find him
Speaker 1: on on Twitter at Dennis Underscore porter underscore Um. You
Speaker 1: can also find him as a host of the podcast
Speaker 1: Smart People Deep. You can figure that out. We're talking
Speaker 1: about these topics. We have a lot more to dig into.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about executive actions that are potentially coming.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about what countries will adopt it next,
Speaker 1: and so much more. Don't go away over you right back,
Speaker 1: all right, welcome back. You're listening to the Mark mo Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the intersection of politics, finance, and technology.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized revolution that is changing the world.
Speaker 1: Of course, that's bitcoin that is doing that. I'm in
Speaker 1: the studio with Dennis porter and we're talking about politics
Speaker 1: and UH and tech. Before the break, I was kind
Speaker 1: of going on a rant and Dennis didn't get a
Speaker 1: chance to reply to that, but I was talking about
Speaker 1: this UH, this book on communist dot com that's Fetzky
Speaker 1: and I wrote, and the strung go between the individual
Speaker 1: and the and the and the collectivist or the group.
Speaker 1: And so that's kind of why my view is anti political.
Speaker 1: What do you think about that? You know, I would
Speaker 1: say that when you're talking about bitcoin, um and it's
Speaker 1: interaction with the state from the perspective that democrats might
Speaker 1: not like it because or socialists might not like it
Speaker 1: because you know, bitcoin kind of erodes the state or
Speaker 1: pushes back on the state. I think ultimately for most
Speaker 1: people there there's this over attribution that democrats love the
Speaker 1: state and that they're just in love with this power
Speaker 1: that they have, when I think in reality, they see
Speaker 1: the state as a tool, very much like we see
Speaker 1: bitcoin as a tool, and it's the you know, to them,
Speaker 1: the best means possible for them to help the average
Speaker 1: person and to help the individual. You and me know,
Speaker 1: I think and agree that it's not necessarily really shouldn't
Speaker 1: be used as a tool to help the individual ends
Speaker 1: up you know, getting corrupt, having all these money problems.
Speaker 1: But now all I'm talking to a lot of my
Speaker 1: Democrat friends who are bitcoiners, and they see bitcoin as
Speaker 1: a better tool and a real tool that can actually
Speaker 1: help those individuals in you know, historically left behind communities, um,
Speaker 1: disenfranchised groups. And so I think Republicans people on the right,
Speaker 1: and Democrats and on the left they want to help
Speaker 1: the individual they just go about it from different ways.
Speaker 1: Some like to use government and the other ones you know,
Speaker 1: kind of don't. Yeah, I would agree with you on that. Um.
Speaker 1: I've talked to many of my friends who were on
Speaker 1: the opposite side of the spectrum and we can both
Speaker 1: kind of see the same problem. Um, but it's just
Speaker 1: different solutions to that. So I would agree with that.
Speaker 1: Now back to kind of as you were saying, it's
Speaker 1: you know, more and more politics getting into it. We
Speaker 1: have Republicans like Ted Cruz, and we have people Democrats
Speaker 1: on the left like Erica who I had on the
Speaker 1: radio show I think two weeks ago. Um, and you
Speaker 1: have what what I'm seeing. And I'm curious your take
Speaker 1: on this, but um, was it The mayor of a
Speaker 1: New York City ran on like a pro bitcoin stance
Speaker 1: and he's gonna make bitcoin capital of the World or whatever,
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden he wants to ban
Speaker 1: bitcoin mining. And it's like almost like this bait and
Speaker 1: switch then we had Erka on and and I love
Speaker 1: what she's doing. I especially love that she wants to
Speaker 1: replace Brad Sherman because I really like to see him
Speaker 1: out of there. But she's running on like a pro
Speaker 1: welfare stance, and it's like, how does bitcoin doesn't really
Speaker 1: work with pro welfare? So like, um, I guess do
Speaker 1: you see some danger? I guess I should say, do
Speaker 1: you think there's some danger into these politicians co opting
Speaker 1: bitcoin and then kind of do this bait and switch. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: I think that's always a danger for any sort of
Speaker 1: political movement to make sure that it's not co opted
Speaker 1: for me, regardless of you know, someone like Erica Rhodes,
Speaker 1: whether she comes through on her promise to protect bitcoin.
Speaker 1: The biggest thing that we're doing in that race is
Speaker 1: making sure that we eliminate Brad Sherman and then we
Speaker 1: send a message to UM those in d C that
Speaker 1: we're not going to put up with guys like Brad
Speaker 1: Sherman trying to attack and destroy the opportunity for the
Speaker 1: America to move forward on bitcoin. So yeah, there is
Speaker 1: oftentimes some things I think that people, you know, they
Speaker 1: they interact with bitcoin, they like it. UM and they
Speaker 1: don't understand that some of the goals that they want
Speaker 1: to accomplish, some of the ends that they want to pursue,
Speaker 1: really just are not an alignment with Bitcoin. And I
Speaker 1: just leave that up for them to learn on their own, right,
Speaker 1: because it's kind of impossible to change their minds on
Speaker 1: some of those issues. Yeah, I think they will, you know,
Speaker 1: um as you know, um, being in the bitcoin space,
Speaker 1: like bitcoin changes you and it's you know, like once
Speaker 1: you get into bitcoin, it it starts you start looking
Speaker 1: at the world to dose like orange colored lenses and
Speaker 1: everything just looks differently. I think we've seen that most
Speaker 1: recently with the President Boukaylie and Nel Salvador. I mean
Speaker 1: from where I see, I saw what he was talking
Speaker 1: about and doing when he first kind of came on
Speaker 1: the scene to where he's at now, it seems like
Speaker 1: he's been totally changed. So to your point, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, with the Erica Rhodes, etcetera, like they'll they'll
Speaker 1: they'll get it more and more now, um switching gears
Speaker 1: a little bit. Um. I liked what you said there. Right,
Speaker 1: It wakes up Washington to like, hey, this is what
Speaker 1: the people want. One of the biggest objections I have
Speaker 1: heard to bitcoin is like, yeah, yeah, yeah, the government's
Speaker 1: going to make it illegal. And I've often said that, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: if a billion people don't want it to be illegal,
Speaker 1: it ain't gonna be illegal kind of a thing. Um,
Speaker 1: it seems like maybe one of the biggest attack vectors
Speaker 1: that I might see coming. Not really have an inside knowledge,
Speaker 1: maybe you do, but one of the biggest attack victors
Speaker 1: that I see coming is maybe on custody. So Biden
Speaker 1: admitts Bien edmund and announce they're gonna do some executive
Speaker 1: actions to regulate it. The Treasury told us that as well,
Speaker 1: and then we had Rep. Davidson of Ohio put this
Speaker 1: bill together keep your Coins at kind of thing. So
Speaker 1: maybe he sees that attack vector. What do you think
Speaker 1: about that? I think that the ability to self custody
Speaker 1: is definitely one of the biggest attack vectors for users.
Speaker 1: You have two physical links to the bitcoin world, right,
Speaker 1: which is the users and the miners, and those are
Speaker 1: the two things that we really need to be pushing
Speaker 1: to protect as much as possible. So I'm every day
Speaker 1: I wake up and I'm trying to push that goal forward.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to make sure that we protect the right
Speaker 1: to self custody, that we protect the rights to pure
Speaker 1: to pure transactions, but that we also protect and incentivize
Speaker 1: the growth of industry here in regards to bitcoin mining,
Speaker 1: because bitcoin miners, you know, as as we saw China,
Speaker 1: they can get banned, they can get moved out, coders
Speaker 1: can code around law pretty easily. By bitcoin mining is
Speaker 1: a very physical thing in the sense that it takes
Speaker 1: up a geographical space that uses electricity from utility companies.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult to hide. So um, I think it's
Speaker 1: very critical that we protect those two things. But I
Speaker 1: have been very encouraged by what's going on to d C.
Speaker 1: As you said, Warren Davidson, putting for the k y
Speaker 1: c Applete called done keep your coins. Not know your
Speaker 1: customer right, but uh keep your coins to protect yourself custody,
Speaker 1: protect the right to pure to pure transactions. We need
Speaker 1: to make sure that as Americans in the United States
Speaker 1: that we have leaders like this, that we're going to
Speaker 1: them and showing them that we support them by writing
Speaker 1: letters to other legislators and saying, hey, get behind this bill.
Speaker 1: We need to show up to events they get behind
Speaker 1: this bill. We need to donate to Warren Davidson. We
Speaker 1: need to contribute to his campaign. We need to make
Speaker 1: sure that this guy feels like he's got support behind him,
Speaker 1: so that when the going gets tough, he knows that
Speaker 1: he can keep pushing forward. And that's why I want
Speaker 1: to make sure that bitcoiners wake up and realize the
Speaker 1: importance of being active. We've we've gotten into this place
Speaker 1: in this country where it's like, oh, my vote doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: nothing matters that That's exactly what they want you to feel.
Speaker 1: That's what they want you to think, because when you
Speaker 1: become apathetic, you're actually handing over power. So I know
Speaker 1: stuff can be tough to get done in politics, but
Speaker 1: we are one of the most entrenched voter groups and
Speaker 1: I think human history, we're gonna be the richest voter
Speaker 1: block in American history for obvious reasons. But we're also
Speaker 1: highly morally incentivized to protect and defend bitcoin, which I'm
Speaker 1: sure you've talked a lot about the moral and social
Speaker 1: impact of why we need to adopt bitcoins, so I'm
Speaker 1: not sure you need to explain that too much to
Speaker 1: your listeners. But it's been very encouraging to see Warren
Speaker 1: Davidson moved forward on this, and we've also seen I
Speaker 1: think it was Rep. Emmer Right a bill to ban
Speaker 1: cbdc s. I mean, who would have thought two years
Speaker 1: ago that we would be writing to ban CBDCs and
Speaker 1: not bitcoin. Everybody was predicting we'd band bitcoin, So I
Speaker 1: didn't see that one. That's that's pretty amazing. Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I like to say that we vote with
Speaker 1: our money right, our money as our most effective vote,
Speaker 1: and so to your point, kind of getting behind these
Speaker 1: people showing our support for that, which then means more
Speaker 1: people hopefully would run on those same platforms as well.
Speaker 1: I would say a little bit kind of to what
Speaker 1: you said though about um, my vote doesn't count and
Speaker 1: the apathy, Um, I think that's probably never I've I've
Speaker 1: personally never felt that as much as I did in
Speaker 1: this last election. It seems like we're I think the
Speaker 1: idea of ever voting ourselves out of this is a
Speaker 1: little ridiculous. Um. I and I come from a strong
Speaker 1: political family. My parents were grassroots political. As a kid,
Speaker 1: we still discussed politics at the table. Um, But it
Speaker 1: just seems like it's kind of worthless. But that being said,
Speaker 1: I will go out swinging and whether I think my
Speaker 1: whether I think my vote is going to be effective
Speaker 1: or not. I am still going to place it because
Speaker 1: it may be the only thing that I have. UM.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Mark Moas Show. We're talking about
Speaker 1: If you haven't guess, we're talking about bitcoin. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the intersection of politics, finance and technology. We're talking
Speaker 1: about the decentralized revolution that is changing the world. I'm
Speaker 1: in the studio with Dennis Porter. You can find them
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Dennis Underscore Porter Underscore and I'm on
Speaker 1: Twitter at one Mark Moss. So send us a message,
Speaker 1: tell us you heard us, asks a question. I got
Speaker 1: a lot more to go through. I want to talk
Speaker 1: about UM, legal tender countries. Who's next. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about more about governments doing bitcoin marketing and so
Speaker 1: much more. We'll be back in a second. Don't go away, everyone,
Speaker 1: Welcome back. You are listening to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Mark mos Show where we talk about the decentralized revolution.
Speaker 1: We talk about the intersection of politics, finance and technology.
Speaker 1: Of course, we're talking about bitcoin. UM in the studio
Speaker 1: with Dennis Porter. You can find them on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Dennis Underscore Porter underscore and uh yeah, we're talking about
Speaker 1: we're talking about bitcoin and politics and how it fits in.
Speaker 1: Before the break, we were just talking about how, um,
Speaker 1: we should support politicians who are kind of pro I
Speaker 1: would just say pro freedom, but pro bitcoin um. And
Speaker 1: I was saying that maybe even if you are apathetic
Speaker 1: and you don't think that it is that effective, you
Speaker 1: should still do everything that you can. And so that's
Speaker 1: that's definitely that um. But I guess back to the question,
Speaker 1: and maybe you don't know, maybe it's just a hunch,
Speaker 1: but do you think that like when it comes to
Speaker 1: so Biden announced an announcement of announcement right, an announcement
Speaker 1: that we're going to have executive orders and we're gonna
Speaker 1: do something, and the Treasury says we have these powers.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think that's where they go? It's
Speaker 1: the custody piece. Well, with the Biden executive order, it's
Speaker 1: it is definitely one of those things where there is
Speaker 1: no real inside knowledge on what's going to be dropped.
Speaker 1: They they've been having a people have been calling in
Speaker 1: an Obama level of of carefulness when it comes to
Speaker 1: the information. There some administrations are very good at keeping
Speaker 1: this information under wraps and some are not UM and
Speaker 1: this administration has been particularly well um position to make
Speaker 1: sure that they don't have any leaks on what's coming
Speaker 1: from the executive order. What we do know is just
Speaker 1: what they've been telling us that they're gonna order for
Speaker 1: new groups to be formed to go investigate crypto and
Speaker 1: bitcoin and figure out what they want to do. So
Speaker 1: it's I wouldn't tell if if anything, I would just
Speaker 1: tell people don't worry too much. I think it's more
Speaker 1: of like we're gonna go investigate bitcoin. Is kind of
Speaker 1: like the premise of this next to move from Biden's administration. Yeah,
Speaker 1: one thing I was thinking about, you know, when I
Speaker 1: was spent the last to ours talking about the the sanctions.
Speaker 1: But I mean, we obviously saw what happened in Canada
Speaker 1: with the truckers and people who donated, and then then
Speaker 1: obviously world stage, you know, Russia, Canadas at Russia, Ukraine, UM,
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, there's articles all over the place
Speaker 1: saying that they're gonna use cryptocurrencies to evade sanctions, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, so pretty much anything other than the
Speaker 1: US dollar and swift is evading sanctions. So if they
Speaker 1: were to use their oil or their gold or their wheat.
Speaker 1: I mean that also of aged sanctions too, So it's
Speaker 1: kind of like trying to like put this boogeyman onto
Speaker 1: onto cryptocurrencies when the reality is anything outside of their
Speaker 1: system is sanction, is getting around sanctions, right, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean I was talking to Matthew Pines. I brought him
Speaker 1: on the show. He's a fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute,
Speaker 1: and he's also a national security expert. But he had
Speaker 1: a very specific take on this, and it was that
Speaker 1: bitcoins just really isn't big enough to avoid sanctions, Like
Speaker 1: this thing is a tiny little asset, and compared to
Speaker 1: what the Russian economy looks like, I think they move
Speaker 1: like half of bitcoins entire mar market h market market
Speaker 1: cap within like a matter of like a month or so.
Speaker 1: So it just wouldn't really function for them to be
Speaker 1: able to evade sections. And we all know, let's not
Speaker 1: let's not kid ourselves. The bitcoin blockchain is very transparent.
Speaker 1: You can see what's going on if they were to
Speaker 1: go into bitcoin, and then how are they going to
Speaker 1: get back out? What's the off ramp they're gonna use.
Speaker 1: They're not allowed to use any of the other off rams,
Speaker 1: so it just doesn't really function as a way to
Speaker 1: escape these sanctions. In fact, it's been a great tool
Speaker 1: for the Ukrainians to raise money. They've raised over fifty
Speaker 1: million dollars in bitcoin alone to help support the troops
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. So, if anything, bitcoin has been a tool
Speaker 1: to help the people that are being oppressed versus the
Speaker 1: folks that are doing uh, you know, going out and
Speaker 1: committing war crimes essentially. Now, um, we've seen obviously we
Speaker 1: already mentioned El Salvador in President Bukayley down there. It's
Speaker 1: amazing what's going on down there. Um. I've been down
Speaker 1: there doing stuff with them. I mean, it's just so
Speaker 1: much hope is in the air. It's amazing. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: the United States is uh is a beautiful place if
Speaker 1: you can just kind of your paradigm and stop thinking
Speaker 1: about the bad stuff. I mean, it's amazing and a
Speaker 1: good el sowad Or and it's extremely poor, very very
Speaker 1: very poor. Um, but there's just hope in the air.
Speaker 1: And so there's that. Um. But you made a comment
Speaker 1: about more countries adopting it as legal tender. Now I
Speaker 1: did see there was a headline I think a city
Speaker 1: a city in Switzerland, I think said they were going
Speaker 1: to adopt as legal tender. We've seen in Arizona, and
Speaker 1: I've seen you've been reporting. I mean Arizona put a
Speaker 1: bill I think to make it a tender. A governor
Speaker 1: in Texas is like running on a bill to make
Speaker 1: it legal tender. Um, what are your I guess what
Speaker 1: are your What are your predictions? What are your predictions
Speaker 1: for more nation states happening in? What do you think
Speaker 1: about that? Yeah, I'm I'm getting very strong signals from
Speaker 1: some you know, what people would call sources. I know
Speaker 1: that word is like thrown around loosely in this industry,
Speaker 1: but from people that know better than myself. I am
Speaker 1: getting very strong signals that there are going to be
Speaker 1: multiple nations, mostly smaller nations. Obviously we're not talking about, uh,
Speaker 1: the United States or Russia or China adopting bitcoin is
Speaker 1: legal tender. Uh, something probably a little bit bigger than
Speaker 1: Al Salvador is what I'm getting the impression. Um. But really,
Speaker 1: what I'm most excited about is what's going on in
Speaker 1: the United States. That's like my main focus right is
Speaker 1: making sure that we adopt bitcoin as legal tender here
Speaker 1: in America and We've already seen that Senator Wendy Rogers
Speaker 1: from Arizona has introduced a bill to make bitcoin legal tender,
Speaker 1: and we've also seen in Texas Don Haffinds is running
Speaker 1: on bitcoin legal tender as one of his key issues. Now,
Speaker 1: whether or not these things will actually get past in
Speaker 1: the in the first shot doesn't take away or dissuade
Speaker 1: from the fact that this is an incredible moment. We
Speaker 1: are now pushing to make bitcoin legal tender in the
Speaker 1: United States of America, the country that everybody thought would
Speaker 1: be the absolute last place to adopt bitcoin. It's completely
Speaker 1: shattering all of those narratives. And now we also have
Speaker 1: one in calif Mornia as well, bitcoin legal tender bill
Speaker 1: being crafted and being put forward, And that's the one
Speaker 1: that I'm most excited about because now it also it
Speaker 1: also shatters the narrative that this is a Republican issue
Speaker 1: and that Republicans are going to lead on this. We
Speaker 1: have Democrats in blue states, we have Republicans and red
Speaker 1: states pushing for bitcoin legal tender, and I couldn't be
Speaker 1: more excited about the developments to come. Uh the one
Speaker 1: in California in particular, I'm very excited about because that
Speaker 1: is a legitimate effort. I don't really I'm not connected
Speaker 1: to what's going on in Arizona or Texas, but I
Speaker 1: know what's going on in California, and that is a
Speaker 1: very legitimate bill. And there's a lot of excitement and
Speaker 1: a lot of energy and a lot of people getting
Speaker 1: behind that bill. What do you mean it's very legitimate
Speaker 1: in a sense, it's not a PR stunt some you know,
Speaker 1: because these things could be PR stunts from other elected officials.
Speaker 1: We don't know. There's no way to know what their
Speaker 1: true intention is. Are they just because any legislator can
Speaker 1: write a bill and submit it and be like, look
Speaker 1: what I did, right? But are they actually gonna fight
Speaker 1: for it? Are they gonna wake up and try to
Speaker 1: get it through committee? Are they going to bring it
Speaker 1: to how a floor vote? Are they going to make
Speaker 1: sure and you know, talk to other legislators and get
Speaker 1: their support. We don't. We don't know that. There's no
Speaker 1: way to know that. But I personally am a part
Speaker 1: of what's going on in California, and we do know that.
Speaker 1: We do know that this is a legitimate effort. It
Speaker 1: is going to be pushed forward through committee. There are
Speaker 1: going to be efforts to make sure that we make
Speaker 1: it a bipartisan bill, and we are going to make
Speaker 1: sure that it gets to a floor vote as well.
Speaker 1: So it's being put together by someone credible and there's
Speaker 1: some support behind it. A lot of times you'll see
Speaker 1: like a freshman put together a bill that has no
Speaker 1: support or whatever. But this is like a someone good
Speaker 1: to put it together. It's good support for it, That's
Speaker 1: exactly it. And I'm very close to what's going on
Speaker 1: with this bill in particular, and I'm very excited about
Speaker 1: the potential to have California be the first state in
Speaker 1: the nation to move forward on bitcoin legal tender. Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: What about the tax problems though? So if anybody who's
Speaker 1: not aware, right, you have to pay tax every single
Speaker 1: time you spend cryptocurrency. It's a taxable event, and so
Speaker 1: that makes it very difficult to buy a cup of
Speaker 1: coffee when you have to file a tax report on that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the big argument right now, right is how do
Speaker 1: we get rid of capital gains taxes? And this is
Speaker 1: one of the approaches. Obviously, if California passes big win
Speaker 1: legal tender, that doesn't automatically make everyone have to stop
Speaker 1: paying their federal capital gains taxes. But the point is
Speaker 1: that we want to get enough states moving forward on
Speaker 1: this issue. Very similar to how we've done with legal
Speaker 1: marijuana in this country. You get a bottom up approach.
Speaker 1: Because we live in a republic, we don't live in China,
Speaker 1: we don't live in Russia. We can do whatever we
Speaker 1: want on the state level and move those things forward
Speaker 1: from a bottom up approach. The the other part of
Speaker 1: the strategy that we're approaching it from is also on
Speaker 1: the federal side, also with senators, also with elected officials
Speaker 1: in the House, and I want to make sure that
Speaker 1: we push from the bottom up and the top down
Speaker 1: to ensure that we have the best chance to make
Speaker 1: this happen. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, if
Speaker 1: we have to, we'll go to Article five, we will
Speaker 1: go and we'll rewrite the Constitution. That's how much power
Speaker 1: the states have in the United States of America. Mm hm,
Speaker 1: that's juicy. I want to I want to talk more
Speaker 1: about that. We so much more to dig into here.
Speaker 1: But I love the bottom up coach because bitcoin is
Speaker 1: decentralized technology and so like I really applaud what they
Speaker 1: did in El Salvador have been working with those people,
Speaker 1: and they started in the local community. Didn't try to
Speaker 1: go to the president. They started the local community. Finally
Speaker 1: that it got so big the president and said, what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on there? Oh, shoot, we should
Speaker 1: take that nationally. And so it's pretty interesting how they
Speaker 1: did that. You're listening to the Mark mos Show. I'm
Speaker 1: in the studio with Dennis Porter. We're talking about politics
Speaker 1: and bitcoin, some fun things, some fun things that don't
Speaker 1: need to go together. I want to talk about Article five,
Speaker 1: how we can change the Constitution. Will be right back
Speaker 1: with that. Don't go away, all right, Welcome back. You
Speaker 1: are listening to the Mark Moss Show. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the intersection of politics, finance, and technology. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the decentralized revolution that is bitcoin. I'm in the studio
Speaker 1: right now with Dennis Porter. You can find them on
Speaker 1: Twitter at Dennis Underscore Porter Underscore. And we've been we've
Speaker 1: been digging and covered a lot of good stuff. It's
Speaker 1: been fun. Now before the break, Dennis, you said that, uh,
Speaker 1: if we don't get our way through voting, then we
Speaker 1: can always take it to uh Article five and constitution.
Speaker 1: So break that down. What do you mean by that right? So,
Speaker 1: because we live in a republic, it's just a very
Speaker 1: different governance model. It's very decentralized compared to all governance
Speaker 1: models for nation states throughout history. It's part of the
Speaker 1: reason why the United States has been so successful. Um.
Speaker 1: But before we get to the you know what exactly
Speaker 1: an Article five is the reason why we would go
Speaker 1: to that is because if we are not able on
Speaker 1: the federal side to get them to pass bitcoin as
Speaker 1: legal tender and to remove capital gains tax and just
Speaker 1: make this money it's it should be money. It's money.
Speaker 1: It should be treated like money, just like the dollar,
Speaker 1: just like gold, just like silver. UM. And we need
Speaker 1: to make sure that we are headed. Like I said
Speaker 1: in the beginning of the show, we want to go
Speaker 1: to the same direction as El Salvador. We do not
Speaker 1: want to go to the direction of the CCP UM.
Speaker 1: But if the federal government doesn't get on board, if
Speaker 1: we can't convince enough, what does it policy makers in
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate to be a part of
Speaker 1: what we're doing. Which I've had great conversations which would
Speaker 1: make me believe that we can move that direction. But
Speaker 1: let's say we can't worst case scenario, what we're gonna
Speaker 1: be doing is we're gonna be passing bitcoin legal tender
Speaker 1: on a state by state basis, and once we get
Speaker 1: to enough states, we can call for what is an
Speaker 1: Article five. We can have a constitutional convention that is
Speaker 1: completely outside of the control of the federal government. Every
Speaker 1: state legislator votes if they would like to go to
Speaker 1: an Article five, and then once we do, we can
Speaker 1: go there and we can make whatever changes we want
Speaker 1: to see. So obviously anybody can introduce an amendment during
Speaker 1: this process. It can be very messy, but it is
Speaker 1: the ultimate backup, is the ultimate backup plan for this
Speaker 1: process if the federal government doesn't get on board with us.
Speaker 1: So I really see it as this kind of like
Speaker 1: we have the ace in the whole if we can't
Speaker 1: get the federal government on board with what we're doing.
Speaker 1: How has that been used in the past. It's it's
Speaker 1: rarely ever been used. I don't think it's ever been
Speaker 1: used for many, many years. But there is already a
Speaker 1: movement underway to push it forward because there are several
Speaker 1: other groups that want to get this done. We already
Speaker 1: have seventeen states as of today who want to go
Speaker 1: to an Article five. We only need thirty four to
Speaker 1: get there. So if we can get thirty four states
Speaker 1: to vote to go to an Article five constitutional convention,
Speaker 1: we can go there and amend the Constitution. I would
Speaker 1: honestly also probably encourage us to take out the seventeenth Amendment,
Speaker 1: which put the vote for a senator up to the
Speaker 1: people instead of the legislator. One of the main reasons
Speaker 1: why that was so critical was it helped with the
Speaker 1: decentralized nature of our governance model. UM. So I want
Speaker 1: to decentralize our power in this government by getting rid
Speaker 1: of the seventeenth Amendment. But I the key one is
Speaker 1: making sure we adopt a coin as legal tender. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I was actually talking about that earlier on one of
Speaker 1: my other segments. UM, I was talking about the democracy
Speaker 1: and and in Canada, and I was explaining how, yeah,
Speaker 1: the US is not a democracy, the U s is
Speaker 1: a republic. Most people don't realize that. Um, if you
Speaker 1: grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance, then you should
Speaker 1: should understand that, and how it's a decentralized government, and
Speaker 1: how really under that, under that type of decentralized government,
Speaker 1: the president really shouldn't matter that much to us, Right,
Speaker 1: no one should really care about the president, because the
Speaker 1: presidents have much power over our direct lives. Really, they
Speaker 1: deal with some international stuff. Today everything's federal, right, everything
Speaker 1: has become federal, So now it affects US. And and
Speaker 1: the one problem that I have with that is it
Speaker 1: takes away what I consider the most important ingredient that
Speaker 1: defeats authoritarianism, and that's competition. And so if I don't
Speaker 1: like California, I could move to Texas, and if enough
Speaker 1: people go to Texas, it changes Um. And if I
Speaker 1: don't like the US, I can go to go to
Speaker 1: El Salvador. Right, we vote with our feet, vote with
Speaker 1: our money. But when they make everything federal, it takes
Speaker 1: that away. And so like, hey, if you like super
Speaker 1: strict gun rights, uh, then live in a state that
Speaker 1: does that. Um. If you like a place that wants
Speaker 1: a sanctuary cities and and uh gives everybody free money,
Speaker 1: go there. But then let's see how it plays out
Speaker 1: against another state that doesn't offer that right. Um. And
Speaker 1: I guess that's kind of what you're thinking. It's exactly
Speaker 1: what I was thinking. It was funny as you were
Speaker 1: saying the word competition. I was writing it down as
Speaker 1: a note on my piece of paper. Competition is critical.
Speaker 1: We need to make sure that the government is competing
Speaker 1: against itself for voters, for capital, for business, for enterprise
Speaker 1: to come to their states. And when we take the
Speaker 1: power away from the states and we suck it into
Speaker 1: the federal government, it removes the level of competition that
Speaker 1: we have today. That's why I'm such a big proponent
Speaker 1: of bitcoin, because it takes away the states, or it
Speaker 1: should say, the federal government's ultimate power, which is the
Speaker 1: ability to print unlimited money and to decide where that
Speaker 1: unlimited money is spent. We need way more focus on
Speaker 1: states and individual states, not the federal government. So I
Speaker 1: hant a percent agree with you? Yeah, I do too.
Speaker 1: I just I don't want that to be a political
Speaker 1: issue like um that one side would be partisan to like. Nope,
Speaker 1: we need to have unlimited money and we need to
Speaker 1: be able to print as much as we can. It's
Speaker 1: like that that that one I guess that someone could
Speaker 1: control the money supply and just print that will seems
Speaker 1: ridiculous in the first place. I'm going to think that
Speaker 1: that's to one side or the other seems ridiculous. And
Speaker 1: so um, massive change if if that will happen now. Um,
Speaker 1: one more thing and we'll talk about is that, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, in in countries like Africa, or in countries
Speaker 1: like Al Salvador, Venezuela, Argentina has massive inflation inflation going on,
Speaker 1: there's a there's a massive urgency to move into something
Speaker 1: else where you're not going to lose your money. So
Speaker 1: there's this need for bitcoin if your authoritarian government's gonna
Speaker 1: uh seize your accounts like the Taliban and Afghanistan for example,
Speaker 1: there's a need to go into bitcoin. In the West,
Speaker 1: primarily you know, North America and Western Europe. Most people
Speaker 1: say like, but what's the need, Like what's the use case? Right? Um?
Speaker 1: Even uh Peter Schiff was like, uh, you know, there's
Speaker 1: there's just no use case right um, which is a
Speaker 1: very like American centric I think view. Um. But today, well,
Speaker 1: I should say, over the last three weeks, uh, we've
Speaker 1: seen Canada and now rest of the Ukraine proving exactly
Speaker 1: why we need that. And so um, when the when
Speaker 1: the government tells you don't do drugs, they're bad, that
Speaker 1: doesn't make you want to go do drugs, right they're bad?
Speaker 1: Of course, their war and drugs doesn't do anything to
Speaker 1: stop drugs. When they say that you don't have the
Speaker 1: right to store your wealth in a way we can't
Speaker 1: steal from you, it kind of makes you want to
Speaker 1: do that. They're kind of almost doing the marketing for us.
Speaker 1: What's your thoughts on that. I mean, I'm a very
Speaker 1: I'm very opposed to any sort of prohibition. I think
Speaker 1: that prohibition historically just never works at all. We've seen
Speaker 1: it with um, not only the war on drugs, but
Speaker 1: the prohibition of alcohol. It led to increase in consumption
Speaker 1: and also led to the mafia being built off of that,
Speaker 1: because that's how the mafia and the cartels are funded
Speaker 1: is off of these illegal illicit trades. And so it
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense to ban things. If you end up
Speaker 1: banning bitcoin, it's not gonna go away. People are just
Speaker 1: gonna use it anyways, and all you're doing is incentivizing
Speaker 1: the creation of better network tools on the bitcoin network
Speaker 1: that enable people to use it outside of government eyes,
Speaker 1: out of government control. So you you just can't stop
Speaker 1: this technology. And that's why it's just better to get
Speaker 1: on board, and it's better to start adopting it as
Speaker 1: legal tender. It's better to start incentivizing miners to come,
Speaker 1: an industry to come, because you can't win this game.
Speaker 1: It's a lose lose game. Bitcoin is anti fragile and
Speaker 1: people deserve and really I think it's very American in
Speaker 1: the sense to people should have the rights to store
Speaker 1: their wealth and whatever asset they want. We're not talking
Speaker 1: about drugs here, we're not talking about weapons. This is
Speaker 1: just a safe way to store your money. And to
Speaker 1: think that governments could try to ban it, it's nuts. Lastly,
Speaker 1: on your point about Canada and Russia, it came right
Speaker 1: after the Super Bowl, right, and everyone was like, man,
Speaker 1: there wasn't really any good bitcoin super Bowl ads, but
Speaker 1: we didn't need them because governments give the best ads
Speaker 1: of all time for bitcoin. Yeah. Yeah, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's also kind of proving that even out today.
Speaker 1: I was earlier on one of my segments to reading
Speaker 1: some of the news and there was a headline obviously
Speaker 1: we're seeing that they're you know, trying to impose sanctions
Speaker 1: even on cryptocurrencies, which of course you know, it's very difficult.
Speaker 1: You can you can impose them on a centralized exchange.
Speaker 1: But there was a headline that said um met a
Speaker 1: mask and Infuria are now blocking Ethereum transactions. So Infuria
Speaker 1: is basically the company that runs like all the nodes
Speaker 1: for ethereum, and now they're censoring them. And so again
Speaker 1: back to you know, bitcoin and crypto one being decentralized
Speaker 1: um ethereum supposedly, but look what they're doing with that.
Speaker 1: And so to your point, they talked a lot about crypto,
Speaker 1: but now now they're doing all this this bitcoin um advertising.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Mark Mos Show. Of course, if
Speaker 1: you're just tuning in, we're listening. We're talking about politics
Speaker 1: and bitcoin, two things that probably shouldn't go together, but
Speaker 1: we're discussing how that works. I'm in the studio with
Speaker 1: Dennis Porter. You can find them on Twitter at Dennis
Speaker 1: underscore port or underscore, and we're talking about how the really,
Speaker 1: as I say all the time, how bitcoin, how technology
Speaker 1: changes the way that we organized communicate, and that's what
Speaker 1: changes the world. It's the decentralized revolution. Dennis has been
Speaker 1: talking about how we can change politics in a decentralized
Speaker 1: fashion from the ground up local level, to the state level,
Speaker 1: and then eventually to the federal level. Give him a follow,
Speaker 1: say something on Twitter. Reach out to me. I'm number
Speaker 1: at number one, Mark moss at one, Mark moss Um.
Speaker 1: That's what we got for you today. I appreciate you listening.
Speaker 1: I'll be back with more later. Thanks,