Speaker 1: All right, welcome back. You are listening to another episode
Speaker 1: of the Markmas Show where we talk about bitcoin, we
Speaker 1: talk about the decentralized revolution, and we talk about politics,
Speaker 1: technology and finance in the context of those. So just
Speaker 1: as we can have a better understanding of what is
Speaker 1: going on in the world, how it's changing, and more importantly,
Speaker 1: how we can personally navigate that, so we can survive
Speaker 1: and thrive as this is changing. Now, one thing about
Speaker 1: bitcoin that's very difficult for a lot of people to
Speaker 1: understand is that it's a lot of things. It's a
Speaker 1: lot of things, and it's going to be more things
Speaker 1: than what we know it is. It's a new technology,
Speaker 1: and so as humans we try to understand it by
Speaker 1: comparing to something else that we know. It's sort of
Speaker 1: like this, sort of like when electricity came out. The
Speaker 1: first application of electricity was the light bulb. So then
Speaker 1: you would say, well, what is this electricity thing? And
Speaker 1: you would say, well, it's sort of like a digital candle.
Speaker 1: But what do we need that for. Candles have been
Speaker 1: light for five thousand years and they work pretty good.
Speaker 1: And look, it's portable. I don't need all this these
Speaker 1: wires and all this stuff. Right, So, um, bitcoin is
Speaker 1: like digital cash. Yes, it's like that, it's like digital gold. Sure,
Speaker 1: it's like that, but it's gonna be so many more
Speaker 1: things and so it's hard to understand that, and so
Speaker 1: I like to look at that. But really, um, it's
Speaker 1: fixing a lot of things. And when you're looking at
Speaker 1: something new, like a new technology like this, one of
Speaker 1: the least important things to look at is the price
Speaker 1: of it. What's more important is the problems that it's solving.
Speaker 1: You're trying to predict where it's going to go in
Speaker 1: the future, and looking at the daily price of the
Speaker 1: weeklier monthly price is just a distraction in my opinion. Now,
Speaker 1: I do like to say that the price is like
Speaker 1: the ultimate bait and switch. It sucks people in for
Speaker 1: the money, for the number go up technology, and then
Speaker 1: it switches them into freedom mindset, long term mindset. But
Speaker 1: you know, like I said, it is it is the
Speaker 1: bait and switch, and so people are coming into it
Speaker 1: for the money. And when you look at it from
Speaker 1: the money standpoint, you think about the the adoption of it,
Speaker 1: and you look at Wall Street coming into it, the
Speaker 1: hedge funds coming into it, etcetera. And one of well,
Speaker 1: the biggest bank in the United States, JP Morgan Chase
Speaker 1: head up by Jamie Diamond. Um, you know you would
Speaker 1: think that being one of the biggest banks, and Jamie
Speaker 1: Diamond arguably being one of the most powerful and influential
Speaker 1: people in the United States and in the world because
Speaker 1: of running the bank, he's been a giant opponent of bitcoin.
Speaker 1: I think it was seen he fight famously kind of
Speaker 1: came out and said that you know, it's a fraud,
Speaker 1: it's a scam. He said, if anybody at JP Morgan
Speaker 1: even traded, if they would be fired. Um, he's been
Speaker 1: very vocal against it. And and of course it makes sense, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, running the biggest bank, you don't want something
Speaker 1: to come compete for you. However, you know the old saying,
Speaker 1: if you can't beat them, join them, so to speak.
Speaker 1: And of course we've seen all the big banks, including
Speaker 1: JP Morgan, getting in on the bitcoin action. And this
Speaker 1: week we saw an article come out from the research
Speaker 1: team that was pretty amazing. Banking giant JP Morgan said
Speaker 1: in a note Wednesday that bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are now
Speaker 1: among its preferred quote alternative investments. So wow, what a difference, right,
Speaker 1: went from Jamie Diamond saying if anybody even traded it,
Speaker 1: they'd be fired. To now the banks saying it's in
Speaker 1: their preferred alternative investments. So what does that mean. Well,
Speaker 1: let's let's break this down a little bit. So it
Speaker 1: says that bitcoin's steep sell off. So what does that mean?
Speaker 1: The the bitcoins steep sell off? So the price of
Speaker 1: bitcoin is down? Okay, let's down. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: a big surprise to anybody. It had reached a previous
Speaker 1: UM high of about sixty in November one, and since
Speaker 1: then it's been sliding down. I'm gonna talk about how
Speaker 1: far it's down, especially in relation to some of the
Speaker 1: other tech darlins. But in bitcoin, steep sell off as
Speaker 1: well as that of other cryptocurrencies has been profound, and
Speaker 1: there's been more profound than other alternative investments such as
Speaker 1: private equity, private debt, and real estate. A couple of
Speaker 1: things I'd say about that private equity. Private equity, that's
Speaker 1: not a liquid market, it's not marked to market. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? It's not really we don't know the
Speaker 1: price of that every day. UM. A lot of private equity,
Speaker 1: especially when it comes to like venture type deals. You
Speaker 1: may not know how that shapes out for seven to
Speaker 1: ten years. UM. Private debt, again, that's not marked to market,
Speaker 1: there's no liquid event. Real estate it's not marked to
Speaker 1: market either, and so um, of course it's much more volatile,
Speaker 1: it's much more profound. In their words, but it said therefore,
Speaker 1: the Bank envisions more room for a rebound in the
Speaker 1: digital assets class than in other alternative classes. So what
Speaker 1: they're saying is that because bitcoin has sold off more
Speaker 1: than equity, private debt, and real estate, they expect there
Speaker 1: to be more of a rebound. So notice they didn't
Speaker 1: say they think it's going to zero and it's going
Speaker 1: to crash. What they're saying is, no, it's going to rebound,
Speaker 1: and it's going to rebound even faster than those other
Speaker 1: alternative classes. Quote here it says we quote we thus
Speaker 1: replace real estate with digital assets as are preferred alternative
Speaker 1: asset class along with hedge funds. That's what they wrote
Speaker 1: for the Strategist. So now they're saying that we think
Speaker 1: that bitcoin is better than real estate. That's what they're saying.
Speaker 1: I guess what they're saying is they think that over
Speaker 1: the next you know, near term, that bitcoin will rebound
Speaker 1: faster and higher than real estate, and it's their preferral
Speaker 1: turn of asset class. JP Morgan strategists reportedly said um
Speaker 1: that they're sticking with their view that thirty eight thousand
Speaker 1: dollars was a fair price for bitcoin. It's about twenty
Speaker 1: seven point five percent higher than its current price of
Speaker 1: about twenty nine thirty thousand dollars right now. So a
Speaker 1: lot of times people want to know, is it a
Speaker 1: good price? Is it dog? Should I buy? Should I?
Speaker 1: Should I not buy? They say that they think the
Speaker 1: fair market prices thirty eight thousand, which is higher than
Speaker 1: where it is today. So what does that mean? Does
Speaker 1: that mean that it's going straight up to thirty No,
Speaker 1: it definitely doesn't mean. That doesn't mean that it can't
Speaker 1: drop lower than here. No, it doesn't mean that either.
Speaker 1: But what it does mean is that they're they're they're
Speaker 1: projecting what they think to be a fair market valuation
Speaker 1: today of about thirty thousand dollars now. As an investor,
Speaker 1: the goal is to buy low and sell high. Right,
Speaker 1: That's easy, Well, it's easier said than done anyway. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's so easy to buy low, But how do you
Speaker 1: know when it's low? And how do you know if
Speaker 1: it's gonna go high. Well, you're trying to figure out
Speaker 1: what these fair market valuations are, and so I think, Um,
Speaker 1: what they're saying is that they think the fair market
Speaker 1: bios thirty eight thousand. So anytime you can buy below
Speaker 1: that value, that would be considered a bargain. Now, that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that fair market value won't continue to go up,
Speaker 1: which of course it will. JP Morgan and City Bank
Speaker 1: have also put out guidance. They think that bitcoin will
Speaker 1: overtake gold Well Gold about a twelve trillion dollar asset,
Speaker 1: which gives us about a twenty x upside from here
Speaker 1: just from that alone. You know, when you're looking at
Speaker 1: venture type deals, well, you're trying typically trying to do
Speaker 1: is trying to invest into a company that's going to
Speaker 1: create a new category. So for example, Uber of us
Speaker 1: an example before. But with Uber, let's say that you know,
Speaker 1: you're in Silicon Valley getting pitched Uber and they're like, hey,
Speaker 1: I have this app and it's gonna help you ride
Speaker 1: chairs and people can be able to call cars from
Speaker 1: their phone. And you're like, well that's stupid. I've never
Speaker 1: heard of that before. Um, how much do you think
Speaker 1: it's worth and they're like, oh, it's worth a hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars, Like, well, I never even heard of this before.
Speaker 1: How that did come up with a hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1: That's that's a ridiculous evaluation. Well, um, you know, the
Speaker 1: taxi industry is this big, and the limon industry is
Speaker 1: this big, and the van chair rideshare industry is this big,
Speaker 1: and if we can get five percent of each of those,
Speaker 1: then we can get to a hundred million. Right, So
Speaker 1: something like that. And you would also look at the
Speaker 1: same with bitcoin, if it can overtake gold per City
Speaker 1: Bank and JP Morgan's guidance, Well, that's a like I said,
Speaker 1: t X right there. Okay, what else, Well, it's kind
Speaker 1: of like having a Swiss bank account in your pocket.
Speaker 1: Swiss bank accounts have always been the best place to
Speaker 1: park money offshore, but not so much anymore now these
Speaker 1: rush ridges and oligarcs are getting their accounts frozen. However,
Speaker 1: the rich still put their money into offshore bank accounts
Speaker 1: to protect it. And there's about forty trillion sitting in
Speaker 1: offshore bank accounts. Could to get ten percent of that, well,
Speaker 1: there's another four trillion there. There's twenty trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: negative yielding bonds could have take five or tempercent of that. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's another two two to four trillion dollars and very
Speaker 1: quickly you can see how fast that can start adding up.
Speaker 1: So while they say that they think the fair market
Speaker 1: value today is thirty, doesn't mean that's where the cap is.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean where it's going to go. And it
Speaker 1: depends on obviously what time frame you're looking at. I
Speaker 1: like to think if you're gonna hold bitcoin for at
Speaker 1: least three years, you don't really need to worry about it.
Speaker 1: And I say three years because there's never been a
Speaker 1: point that you could have bought and been underwater three
Speaker 1: years later. If you would have bought at the peak
Speaker 1: in twenty dollars took about three years to get back
Speaker 1: to a new new all time high. Um. But it's
Speaker 1: not just that there's a new report here that I
Speaker 1: want to talk about says that bitcoin is better than
Speaker 1: the NASDAK. Now NASDAC is all the tech heavy stocks,
Speaker 1: the fay, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Google, et cetera. And I
Speaker 1: want to show you that you know, bitcoin is too
Speaker 1: volatile supposedly, but is it Is it doing better than
Speaker 1: the fan stocks. I want to talk about that and more.
Speaker 1: I got I got some numbers in front of me
Speaker 1: and it is going to shock. You're gonna be blown
Speaker 1: away here, um, and I got some stuff coming out
Speaker 1: of the bankers and you'll be surprised what they said.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the markma Show. We're talking about bitcoin, cryptocurrencies,
Speaker 1: the decentralized Revolution, breaking it down for you play by
Speaker 1: play so you can navigate this correctly and more. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be back with all that in a second, so
Speaker 1: don't go away, all right, Welcome back. You are listening
Speaker 1: to the Mark Moa Show. We're talking about bitcoin, We're
Speaker 1: talking about the decentralized Revolution, and we are narrating it.
Speaker 1: We're navigating it for you so you can take advantage
Speaker 1: of it, not be left behind. Now, before the break,
Speaker 1: I was talking about JP Morgan changing their story. You know,
Speaker 1: if you can't beat them, join them kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Or maybe it's the Gandhi quote which is first they
Speaker 1: laugh at you, then they fight you, and then they
Speaker 1: join you kind of a thing. But Jimmy Diamond JP
Speaker 1: Morgan has been way outspoken against bitcoin, saying they would
Speaker 1: fire anybody who even traded it. And here they are
Speaker 1: now saying that they think it's gonna overtake gold, and
Speaker 1: they think that there's a upside on bitcoin right now
Speaker 1: today based off what they consider the fair market valuation,
Speaker 1: which is pretty amazing. Um. Now that's their guidance. I
Speaker 1: don't know if that's not necessarily my opinion. Um. Another
Speaker 1: analyst that I follow a good friend, Nick Bottia. He's
Speaker 1: been on the show before. UM. He put out some
Speaker 1: some reports this week showing based off of about five
Speaker 1: different metrics that he put out that he thinks maybe
Speaker 1: it's more around Um, the bottom, I should say is
Speaker 1: around twenty to twenty, about twenty two thousand and so
Speaker 1: what do I mean by that? The bottom meaning he
Speaker 1: thinks that if if, if it did, if it could
Speaker 1: get pushed down that far. And I'm not saying it
Speaker 1: will and probably not JP morgansond is gonna go up.
Speaker 1: But even if it did, if some if some of
Speaker 1: these hedge funds attacked it, you know, um, you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: the markets crashed and people rush for liquidity. He thinks
Speaker 1: that even if it got down there, that would be
Speaker 1: the absolute bottom and people would buy it back up
Speaker 1: from there. UM. And so you know, we'll have to
Speaker 1: wait and see. So if the bottom is somewhere around
Speaker 1: twenty and then the current fair market values UM forty,
Speaker 1: that means you're risk to reward ratio is pretty good.
Speaker 1: I think, I said, if it just overtakes gold, I
Speaker 1: mean that's a twenty x upside. So I have a
Speaker 1: twenty x upside with a you know, zero point two
Speaker 1: percent downside. Like I like those odds. Those are pretty
Speaker 1: good odds and you should too. Now, the the stock
Speaker 1: market and really the economy United States has been driven
Speaker 1: by the tech stocks over the last twenty years, of course,
Speaker 1: and over the last decades specifically, it's been driven by
Speaker 1: internet stocks. We talked about the fangs. The fangs are Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Google, Right,
Speaker 1: those kind of lead lead it, and all the tech
Speaker 1: stocks are are Most of these tech stocks are in
Speaker 1: the Nasdaq INDEXI, of the SMP five, of the nasdacum
Speaker 1: et cetera. And so the NASDAC has been the place
Speaker 1: to be in So financial advisors they like to talk
Speaker 1: about how, um, how bitcoin is, uh, you know, it's
Speaker 1: a new asset. It's maybe it's like a tech stock.
Speaker 1: It's been kind of trading along with the NASTAC sort
Speaker 1: of like it's been treated like that, and because it's
Speaker 1: trading along with that, it's it's got a lot of
Speaker 1: high correlation, so meaning they're correlated moving together up and down,
Speaker 1: which they are. And I think what that demonstrates really
Speaker 1: mostly is just that a lot of these tech investors
Speaker 1: are also invested in the bitcoin right now, and so
Speaker 1: they just treat it like everything else in their portfolio. Now,
Speaker 1: everything is correlated until it's not, and so it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean it always will be that way. But I think
Speaker 1: that if we if we look at this, if we
Speaker 1: if we looked at you know, a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of these tech investors look at bitcoin as another
Speaker 1: tech play. So could bitcoin be like the next Amazon,
Speaker 1: Not in a sense of what it does or the
Speaker 1: use case of it, but just in how um the
Speaker 1: valuation could grow? Things like that, Um could it be
Speaker 1: the next Bitcoin? Could it be like the next Apple, Facebook, etcetera.
Speaker 1: But I think that, um, if you look at it
Speaker 1: that way, it's way too small, it's way too limiting.
Speaker 1: I think a much better analogy would be to look
Speaker 1: at um bitcoin as the nasdack. Not one of the
Speaker 1: companies in the NASTACK, but as the NASTACK because what
Speaker 1: we're seeing is we're seeing all of these companies now
Speaker 1: being built on bitcoin, just like all these other companies
Speaker 1: are on the NASDAC listed on the NASDAC. Now all
Speaker 1: these other companies are being built on bitcoin. We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about some of this new technology that's being built
Speaker 1: on bitcoin in a minute. But if we look at
Speaker 1: this like I said, these, you know, most of the
Speaker 1: tech investors, most of the stock investors, really most of
Speaker 1: the wealth that's been created in the stock market has
Speaker 1: come from this tech sector. The top seven companies in
Speaker 1: the index are Apple, Microsoft, Google, alphabet Um, Amazon, Tesla
Speaker 1: and Video and Facebook or Meta as it's called, which
Speaker 1: have generated in trillion dollars worth of wealth in the
Speaker 1: last decade alone, which is pretty big. But they're not
Speaker 1: quite the darlings that they have always been. And so
Speaker 1: what we've seen for a couple of things. One well
Speaker 1: we really saw through the election process in is that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of regulatory risk that's been coming to
Speaker 1: these tech stocks. So um, everyone talks about we'll just
Speaker 1: wait until they regulate bitcoin, which I would respond with, well,
Speaker 1: bitcoin is already regulated. As a matter of fact, is
Speaker 1: probably the most regulated asset in the world. Every financial
Speaker 1: or every regulation is in entity in the United States
Speaker 1: already regulates it, with the I r S, the SEC,
Speaker 1: the c f TC, we got FNS in I mean,
Speaker 1: you name it. Everybody has put regulations on top of bitcoin,
Speaker 1: and they don't all chime in on other types of assets,
Speaker 1: and so it's already there. But what we're seeing is
Speaker 1: increased regulations against these um text stocks and so um.
Speaker 1: You know with President Trump, you saw you get off
Speaker 1: of Twitter, but before he got kicked off of Twitter,
Speaker 1: they were talking about I'm repealing this protection this section
Speaker 1: two oh three um that they have. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to get deep into that right now, but you know,
Speaker 1: there's allegations of monopolies being built, of manipulation alex and Tampa, Tampa, tampering,
Speaker 1: of you know, censoring, things like that, and I think
Speaker 1: more and more people are starting to wake up and
Speaker 1: see this. The regulators are, the politicians are starting to
Speaker 1: see this as well, and there's there's a lot of
Speaker 1: regulatory risk there and I think the future of tech
Speaker 1: stocks is greatly diminished because of that. I think we've
Speaker 1: seen all this growth, but in this environment that we're
Speaker 1: in all the money in the markets is rotating from
Speaker 1: tech and growth and moving into value commodities, things like
Speaker 1: that UM with less liquidity, without the ability to borrow
Speaker 1: a bunch of money, it's gonna make it harder for
Speaker 1: them to grow. And I don't see them repeating the
Speaker 1: tech X return over the next decade. That's where bitcoin
Speaker 1: comes in. I think bitcoin can outperform that. Now. A
Speaker 1: lot of people say that bitcoin is two volatile. It's
Speaker 1: two volatil. Right, let's take a look at that. So
Speaker 1: year to date from January one to today, Bitcoin is
Speaker 1: down thirty seven it's a big drop. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: lie seven percent. But you know else is down thirty
Speaker 1: percent year to date. Tesla. Tesla's down thirty seven percent
Speaker 1: year to date. Amazon It's down thirty four percent year
Speaker 1: to date, about the same. Netflix is down sixty eight
Speaker 1: percent year to date, almost double whipitcoins down. Shopify is
Speaker 1: down seventy five percent year to date. Meta Facebook is
Speaker 1: down forty four percent. So when you look at the
Speaker 1: tech stocks Tesla, Amazon, Netflix, Shopify, Facebook, Bitcoin is doing better. So, yes,
Speaker 1: it's down, I'm not gonna say it's not. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna lie to you it's down, but not as much
Speaker 1: as Tesla, Amazon, Netflix, Shopify, Meta, Googles down. So not
Speaker 1: quite as bad and so big. As I said, bitcoin
Speaker 1: is is being looked at as like a tech stock.
Speaker 1: It's trading along with the NASDAC. There's a high correlation
Speaker 1: there now. Doesn't mean there will always be there, but
Speaker 1: it is there now. But it seems to be holding
Speaker 1: up better than Tesla, Amazon, Netflix, Shopify, and Facebook Meta.
Speaker 1: So is it too volatile? Well, if you think that's
Speaker 1: too volatile, then you also have to think all of
Speaker 1: those are too volatile as well. Now, volatility is also
Speaker 1: a good thing, right. Volatility works both ways. It goes
Speaker 1: up and down. How does an asset like bitcoin go
Speaker 1: from zero to being worth thirty thousand dollars today without volatility?
Speaker 1: The answer is it doesn't. If it wasn't volatile at
Speaker 1: alogyy stuck at zero forever. And so you want volatility,
Speaker 1: you want prices to go up and down, and that's
Speaker 1: what's happening. Now you're listening to the Markmas show. We're
Speaker 1: talking about, of course bitcoin, we're talking about um this
Speaker 1: decentralized revolution that the world is going through, and we
Speaker 1: do that by looking at finance which we're doing right now.
Speaker 1: Of course we do that through looking at politics, which
Speaker 1: affects the finance, and of course how technology reshapes the world.
Speaker 1: I have a lot more to cover. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about what some of these people at World That
Speaker 1: Comic Forms said about Swift. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: the FED chair, talking about cb d c S, I
Speaker 1: want to talk about what's happening with the central bankers,
Speaker 1: and so much more. Don't go away, all right, welcome back.
Speaker 1: You are listening to the Mark Moa show where we
Speaker 1: talk about bitcoin. We talked about cryptocurrencies, and we talk
Speaker 1: about the decentralized revolution, and I was talking about before
Speaker 1: the break, how we're seeing this massive shift going on
Speaker 1: right before our very eyes. Of course in more ways
Speaker 1: than we can count, one of which is a capitulation
Speaker 1: by some of these Wall Street banker types. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about Jamie Diamond, head of the biggest bank in the
Speaker 1: United States, maybe the world. JP Morgan, and how he
Speaker 1: went from Bitcoin's the biggest fraud scam thing in the
Speaker 1: world to um and if anybody at JP Morgan ever
Speaker 1: traded it on fire, him too. Now JP Morgan putting
Speaker 1: out guidance saying it's gonna overtake bitcoin and how they
Speaker 1: think it's um has upside today from where they consider
Speaker 1: its fair market value. Pretty amazing, pretty big about face
Speaker 1: if you will, UM. And we're seeing it all over
Speaker 1: the place. I mean it, it is, it's all over
Speaker 1: the place. We saw this week that at the Federal
Speaker 1: Reserve UM the FED Vice chair Lele Brainerd. She was
Speaker 1: being questioned by the House Committee on Financial Services asking
Speaker 1: about um C b d C s UM, which stands
Speaker 1: for central bank digital Currencies, and being asked specifically if
Speaker 1: a cb d C could coexist with stable coins? So
Speaker 1: what does that mean? And what does that have to
Speaker 1: do with bitcoin? What does that do with the financial system?
Speaker 1: Well a lot, so, the US Federal Reserved Vice Chair
Speaker 1: Litle Brainard said that a central bank digital currency s
Speaker 1: CBDC could, in fact, it could exist alongside stable coins
Speaker 1: and provide a measure of safety. Why would it exist
Speaker 1: provide a measure of safety? Well, let's talk about that. So,
Speaker 1: she says, CBDCs could coexist with be complementary to stable
Speaker 1: coins and commercial bank money by providing a safe central
Speaker 1: bank liability in the digital financial ecosystem, much like cash
Speaker 1: currently coexists with commercial bank money. So currently we have
Speaker 1: stable coins. If you're not aware of what they are,
Speaker 1: a stable coin is basically a token that represents a dollar.
Speaker 1: So if I give you a dollar, if I give
Speaker 1: a company a dollar, they give me back a token
Speaker 1: that represents that dollar, and it's stable. It's a stable coin.
Speaker 1: It's stable with a dollar. That token is always supposed
Speaker 1: to be worth a dollar. And and it really got
Speaker 1: um popular and famous, with a tether being the first one,
Speaker 1: because it made it very easy to trade bitcoin and
Speaker 1: other cryptocurrencies to go in and out of dollars because
Speaker 1: in the beginning days, UH crypto exchanges didn't accept any
Speaker 1: form of dollars, and so if I wanted to get
Speaker 1: out of my position, I could go to a stable
Speaker 1: coin token um whereas today a lot of exchanges now
Speaker 1: do operate in US dollars, so that's kind of taken
Speaker 1: away some of that. But we have all these stable coins,
Speaker 1: and there's lots of them out there now and they're
Speaker 1: really getting out around the world, which, um, you know,
Speaker 1: from a central bank, especially from a Federal Reserve US
Speaker 1: centric viewpoint of central bank, that's a good thing because
Speaker 1: there's more dollars going out to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: More people are using dollars now, I've I think it
Speaker 1: was a week or two ago I was talking about
Speaker 1: this whole meltdown of this Luna Tera stable coin token.
Speaker 1: I don't want to go super deep into that again, um,
Speaker 1: but that was one form of a stable coin, and
Speaker 1: that was this algorithmically controlled stable coin where they were
Speaker 1: trying to create this fancy complicated algorithm that the stable coin,
Speaker 1: when you give him the dollar, that dollar token that
Speaker 1: you now received would be redeemable not for a dollar,
Speaker 1: but redeemable for a token that a Terra Luna token,
Speaker 1: that you would get a dollar's worth of it. But
Speaker 1: what happened was the valuation of those Tera Luna tokens
Speaker 1: went from about fifty billion down to zero, so there
Speaker 1: was no dollars worth of those tokens left to get.
Speaker 1: So that's a big problem. I broke all that down
Speaker 1: for you. So when you're looking at stable coins, you
Speaker 1: have a couple of different ones. And so what I warned,
Speaker 1: and I would continue to pound the table on warning,
Speaker 1: is that any stable coin token that's not backed or
Speaker 1: I should say fully reserved with dollars is going to
Speaker 1: be a problem. And why do why do I say
Speaker 1: with dollars. Well, what a lot of these stable coins
Speaker 1: like Tether have done is they say they're quote fully reserved,
Speaker 1: But what are they reserved with. That's the question. If
Speaker 1: they're reserved with terror Luna tokens that become worthless, then
Speaker 1: there is no there's no reserve, right, there's no value there.
Speaker 1: And what happens is it creates these runs on the bank.
Speaker 1: So if if I'm holding these tokens, you're holding these tokens,
Speaker 1: and we start to think that maybe there's a chance
Speaker 1: we don't get our money back, then we'll all quickly
Speaker 1: go to redeem those tokens and there won't be enough
Speaker 1: money left because they're fractionally reserved. They don't have all
Speaker 1: the reserves. So I think it's important understand that. And
Speaker 1: as far as I know, there's two different stable coins
Speaker 1: that are fully reserved with dollars. That's U s d
Speaker 1: C and that's U g U s D So those
Speaker 1: are only two that are fully reserved. The other ones
Speaker 1: I'd be watching out for. But she's talking about and
Speaker 1: so okay. So then um I made the case in
Speaker 1: this other radio show podcast, is that these stable coin
Speaker 1: companies that are doing this like Tera Loot and all
Speaker 1: these other ones. It's sort of like this free banking
Speaker 1: period that the United States had back in the late
Speaker 1: eighteen hundreds, where a bank would open up, they'd create
Speaker 1: their own currency, and they all have their own different
Speaker 1: risks and rewards and paid out their own interest, and
Speaker 1: many of them blew up. This was the reason why
Speaker 1: they gave us for creation of the Central Bank. And
Speaker 1: they said, all these banks are blowing up, and all
Speaker 1: these people are losing their life savings, and so we
Speaker 1: should create a central bank, the Federal Reserve, to backstop
Speaker 1: all of these other banks. And so if one of
Speaker 1: these banks fails, then we'll put the money in so
Speaker 1: the people don't lose their deposits. Which you know, sounds
Speaker 1: like a pretty good idea right off the bat. A
Speaker 1: couple of things that are wrong with that one um
Speaker 1: that takes away competition. So banks should survive and fail
Speaker 1: based off of how good they are, the decisions they make, etcetera.
Speaker 1: I have the choice, like with stable coins, I could
Speaker 1: choose to use terror Luna and I could stake it
Speaker 1: to earn, but I have to know that there's enormous
Speaker 1: risk with that, and I could choose to take that
Speaker 1: risk if I want, or I could choose to use
Speaker 1: one that are fully reserved like us d C or
Speaker 1: g U s D that offer no yield, and then
Speaker 1: I would say, well, that is no risk and there's
Speaker 1: no yield. Or I can take twenty yield and I
Speaker 1: can take the risk and it's up to me, and
Speaker 1: if that fails, that's on me. I took the risk.
Speaker 1: But what it does it allows competition, It allows innovation,
Speaker 1: allows new things to be tried, That allows me to
Speaker 1: choose what I want to do UM. But what what
Speaker 1: she's talking about here is creating the central bank digital
Speaker 1: currency that could then backstop these UM stable coins. That's
Speaker 1: what you're saying. They could protect them, which is no mobile.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that it leads to the central
Speaker 1: banks creating a bunch of money, and when they create
Speaker 1: a bunch of money, they create lots of problems and
Speaker 1: distortions in there UM. She also wrote that thoughtful regulation
Speaker 1: is necessary given the recent collapse of Terra, USD and Luna.
Speaker 1: The rapid ongoing evolution of the digital financial system at
Speaker 1: the national, international level should lead us to frame the
Speaker 1: question not as whether there is a need for essential
Speaker 1: bank issue digital dollar today, but rather whether there may
Speaker 1: be conditions in the future that may give rise to
Speaker 1: such a need. So she's basically saying, look, um, we
Speaker 1: need thoughtful regulation because look like this Terra Luna, it
Speaker 1: blew up, and um, there may be more problems in
Speaker 1: the future, and so we should probably build this out
Speaker 1: now so that when these problems do come in the future,
Speaker 1: we're able to handle that. And what I would say
Speaker 1: is back to actually what I said before, which is
Speaker 1: these companies should be allowed to innovate. These companies should
Speaker 1: be allowed to try new things, and it should be
Speaker 1: up to me to decide if I want to work
Speaker 1: with them or not. Now, what I might like to see,
Speaker 1: and I was interviewed about this, uh just earlier, what
Speaker 1: I would like to see is maybe a requirement for
Speaker 1: more transparency. What I would like to see is, you know,
Speaker 1: more transparency so I can make informed decisions. But again
Speaker 1: that's on me. So I was recently meeting with some
Speaker 1: of the people. I'm not going to name the name
Speaker 1: of the company, but I told them straight up, I said, look,
Speaker 1: you need to have more transparency, because for me, I
Speaker 1: can't work with your company because without that transparency I
Speaker 1: don't know what my risk is and if I don't,
Speaker 1: if I can't quantify my risk, I can't move forward
Speaker 1: with you. And so UM, I think the market will
Speaker 1: demand that. I would like to see that. I mean,
Speaker 1: if if the regulators want to demand and regulate, they
Speaker 1: come up with more transparency, I think they could be
Speaker 1: a good thing. But I don't think they should take
Speaker 1: away their ability to innovate. I want to continue to
Speaker 1: see innovation. I want to continue to see UM people
Speaker 1: trying new things, progress, et cetera. And I understand it's
Speaker 1: gonna be risky, but it's up to me to decide
Speaker 1: if I want to do that now smooth. He has
Speaker 1: never made a skilled sailor, so if I lose my money,
Speaker 1: that's on me. And guess what, I probably won't do
Speaker 1: that again. And if I do do it again, then
Speaker 1: I probably shouldn't have the money in the first place.
Speaker 1: And I know that's a harsh reality, but that is
Speaker 1: the truth. That's the way it goes. You're listening to
Speaker 1: the Marks Show. We're talking about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, UM
Speaker 1: and so much more because it is so exciting. UM
Speaker 1: and bitcoin is is the fastest growing asset over the
Speaker 1: last twelve years, and JP Morgan says it is an
Speaker 1: undervalued asset by about just now today you listen to
Speaker 1: the Mark Moa Show talking about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. We'll
Speaker 1: be back with a lot more. So don't go away,
Speaker 1: all right, welcome back. You are listening to the Mark
Speaker 1: Moa Show. We're talking about bitcoin, We're talking about cryptocurrencies
Speaker 1: and the decentralized revolution, and we were talking about um
Speaker 1: stable coins CBDCs. How the Federal Reserve chair Lele Brainerd
Speaker 1: says that they think that they should have CBDCs to
Speaker 1: backstop stable coins. Pretty interesting. But talking about central banks,
Speaker 1: we also saw this week something really big, which was
Speaker 1: a convention of central bankers. And it's not the first
Speaker 1: time this happened. We have these central bankers that get together.
Speaker 1: Of course, um, almost not every but almost every nation
Speaker 1: has their own central bank. Of course, the United States,
Speaker 1: that's the Federal Reserve. In Europe it's the ECB European
Speaker 1: Central Bank. In Japan it is the Bank of Japan
Speaker 1: boj etcetera. And of course smaller nations have their own
Speaker 1: central banks as well. Now fun fact um in the
Speaker 1: Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in the late eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: He gave a ten ten points of what needs to
Speaker 1: happen in order to get this Marxism, the socialism communism
Speaker 1: into play. Point number five is that each nation should
Speaker 1: establish a central bank. So central banks are part of
Speaker 1: the Marxist plan. Central banks are communists in Nature's number
Speaker 1: five in this ten point plan. Now, also fun fact,
Speaker 1: I wrote a book called the Uncommunist Manifesto, which basically
Speaker 1: took the same format, same four chapter, same length, and
Speaker 1: I just rewrote it, and I gave my own ten points.
Speaker 1: And of course I said that we should abolish all
Speaker 1: central banks. I'm not a big fan, because nobody should
Speaker 1: be creating money from thin air, forcing us to use
Speaker 1: it and enriching themselves. Nobody should do that. It's not
Speaker 1: about taking it from one group of people that are
Speaker 1: bad and given it to another group of people that
Speaker 1: are good. It's about nobody should be able to control it.
Speaker 1: But anyway, back to the conversation here, and so these uh,
Speaker 1: these forty four different countries, set representatives from thirty two
Speaker 1: central banks and twelve other financial institutions, and they all
Speaker 1: got together in El Salvador to learn strategies about financial inclusion.
Speaker 1: Participants in this financial form are members of the Alliance
Speaker 1: for Financial Inclusion or a FI, an organization that promotes
Speaker 1: and develops economic policies to help improve the lives of
Speaker 1: poor and unbanged populations. So Alliance for Financial Inclusion. If
Speaker 1: I now, why why do they need an Alliance for
Speaker 1: Financial Inclusion? Think about this for a second. Now, I
Speaker 1: believe that this, uh, this smartphone I have in my
Speaker 1: hand right here is the great equalizer. With this phone,
Speaker 1: I could learn anything. I can go on YouTube, I
Speaker 1: can learn anything, I could meet anybody on social media.
Speaker 1: I could do almost anything with this. You have kids,
Speaker 1: teenagers anywhere in the world with Instagram account that could
Speaker 1: make a hundred thousand dollars a year or more. It's
Speaker 1: a great equalizer, except what if I'm not allowed to
Speaker 1: be in the financial system? So how could I earn
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand dollars? Now you might say, well, what
Speaker 1: do you mean who's not able to be in the
Speaker 1: financial system? And I would say that over two billion adults,
Speaker 1: about half the adults in the world today are not
Speaker 1: in the financial system. Why why do they have this
Speaker 1: a f I financial inclusion? Why about half of the
Speaker 1: adults in the world today don't have access. The answer
Speaker 1: is mostly permission. They don't have permission. So if I'm
Speaker 1: a fifteen year old kid growing up in Iran, for example,
Speaker 1: I'm not allowed to join the financial system that don't
Speaker 1: allow me. I don't have permission. Also, it's a cost prohibitive.
Speaker 1: So if you're an al Savador, for example, it might
Speaker 1: cost you fifty a month to have a bank account,
Speaker 1: but when you only make a couple hundred bucks a
Speaker 1: month and you can't afford fifty bucks a month for
Speaker 1: a bank account, so they don't have them. Um, if
Speaker 1: I run a small little roadside stand selling papoosas or
Speaker 1: some food or coconuts or whatever, well I need about
Speaker 1: you know, twenty dollars a month of revenue in order
Speaker 1: to afford a merchant account of credit card processor. But
Speaker 1: if I don't do that much revenue, which they don't,
Speaker 1: I can't do that, so I have to take cash.
Speaker 1: I can't be in the financial systems and system So
Speaker 1: there's this inclusion that's not they're mostly because of permission,
Speaker 1: which of course bitcoin is permission lists, meaning anybody can
Speaker 1: grab their smartphone, whether you're here in the United States,
Speaker 1: Developed world, or any of these third world countries. You
Speaker 1: can download an app, a bitcoin app, and you can
Speaker 1: have your own bank account in your own pocket, and
Speaker 1: you can instantly be in the global financial system, where
Speaker 1: me sitting here in the United States can instantly send
Speaker 1: money to somebody in Al Savador in literally like a
Speaker 1: fraction of a second for almost free. But anyway, so
Speaker 1: they all met here um UM it's an organization that
Speaker 1: promotes and develops economic policies that help improve the lives
Speaker 1: of poor and unbanked populations, which sounds great again, how
Speaker 1: can we have equality if people aren't allowed to join
Speaker 1: the financial system? Now UM Al Savadre has been a
Speaker 1: member since two thousand twelve. They've been hosting the latest
Speaker 1: rounds of meetings for a f I S Digital Finance
Speaker 1: Services working Group and the Small Medium Enterprise Services Working
Speaker 1: Group and according to El Salvador's president, Naya Bukeley Um,
Speaker 1: he said, the gathering focused on financial inclusion, digital economy, banking,
Speaker 1: the end banked, the big end, and the bitcoin rollout
Speaker 1: and its benefits. Now, this was not a bitcoin conference.
Speaker 1: This is just the bankers around the world. This a
Speaker 1: f I for Financial Inclusion getting together. Now, they did
Speaker 1: happen to get together in El Salvador, which, in case
Speaker 1: you've been living under a rock, then you already know
Speaker 1: that El Salvador was the first nation in the world
Speaker 1: to make bitcoin legal tender. They have it on their books,
Speaker 1: on the reserves, and they're working on rolling out a bond,
Speaker 1: a bitcoin bond as well. But it is UH. It's
Speaker 1: specifically mentioned here that this was not a bitcoin conference.
Speaker 1: So we saw in an interview with the Salvador and
Speaker 1: State News Media Bongi Malabo, a representative from the zam
Speaker 1: Zambian delegation in Africa um AND, in reference to the
Speaker 1: adoption of bitcoin, he said, quote, it's a progressive move.
Speaker 1: It's the evolution of money and the rest of us
Speaker 1: need to catch up. So he sees it. He sees
Speaker 1: it's happening. UM. Of course, the UM Central Republic of
Speaker 1: Africa just made it legal tender as well, so it's
Speaker 1: over in Africa. UM, we're starting to see that. But
Speaker 1: it says some countries are just not ready for bitcoin,
Speaker 1: um and, so Paraguay Central Bank UM released a statement
Speaker 1: saying the country's population, UM, we're not about the adoption
Speaker 1: of cryptocurrencies. Um and has said that right now because
Speaker 1: the central bank doesn't issue them that they're not legal tender. Um,
Speaker 1: so it wasn't a bitcoin conference. But they're there for
Speaker 1: financial inclusion, and of course they're in El Salvador where
Speaker 1: they're using bitcoin for financial inclusion, and I'm sure they're
Speaker 1: all taking notice, which is why they're there. They went
Speaker 1: on to say that quote the majority of attendees are
Speaker 1: not low level bureaucrats. So the attendees were not just
Speaker 1: a bunch of low level people, but they were central
Speaker 1: bankers and decision makers and their decisions will impact their
Speaker 1: home countries, which is pretty big. So El Salvador is
Speaker 1: the bitcoin model. Eight months ago they you know, they
Speaker 1: adopted it. They made it legal tender. Like I said,
Speaker 1: they've put on their books. What they've seen is that
Speaker 1: I didn't look up this number of the top of
Speaker 1: my head. I think it was the amount of capital
Speaker 1: that's flowed into El Salvador since they announced this is
Speaker 1: like up, I want to say, And so what do
Speaker 1: other countries notice where they go? Will shoot? If they
Speaker 1: got more investment into their country, then maybe I could
Speaker 1: adopt it and I could also get investment into my country. Right,
Speaker 1: so they see what happened. They see what the result
Speaker 1: is and they want more of that. They see that again,
Speaker 1: this financial inclusion. So all these people in El Salvadore
Speaker 1: that haven't been able to get a bank account. If
Speaker 1: I want to send somebody money in El Salvador, I
Speaker 1: have to go to Western Union. They have to get
Speaker 1: on a bus, go to San Salvador or wherever they're
Speaker 1: app go to right a bus an hour or two,
Speaker 1: get the cash right back on the bus an hour
Speaker 1: or two. Maybe get robbed, you know, hopefully not um
Speaker 1: and they lose depends on the amount because it's like
Speaker 1: a dollar percentage, but maybe they lose up to thirty
Speaker 1: percent of their money gets taken up in fees. I
Speaker 1: don't remember all the numbers off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: Up Ben del salvad are working with them, but um,
Speaker 1: imagine if they could get money sent to them instantly
Speaker 1: and free, If I could send it from my bedroom
Speaker 1: in my underwear, they could get in their bedroom and
Speaker 1: their underwear and that taken in fees aren't taken Imagine
Speaker 1: if all that I think it was, I don't know
Speaker 1: of their gdp AS remittances. Forgive me if I'm wrong
Speaker 1: on that number. But imagine if other GDP they could
Speaker 1: increase it by thirty percent, because that's what we can
Speaker 1: getting eaten by fees. And that's exactly what's happening. And
Speaker 1: now that money can be used to be spent in
Speaker 1: the nation on other more productive things instead of going
Speaker 1: to someone like m Western Union. UM, it's amazing what's happening. Now.
Speaker 1: There's a lot more to talk about, UM, but that
Speaker 1: is the big news. UM, it's changing and it's changing fast.
Speaker 1: Don't be sleeping on this information. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Markma Show talking about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies and the decentralized revolution.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.