Animal Spirits Podcast - Talk Your Book: The Impact of a Bitcoin ETF

Starting point is 00:00:00 Today's Animal Spirits Talk, your book is brought to you by Fidelity Digital Assets. Go to Fidelity Digital Assets.com. They are the institutional standard for digital assets. It's Fidelity Digital Assets.com. Welcome to Animal Spirits, a show about markets, life, and investing. Join Michael Batnik and Ben Carlson as they talk about what they're reading, writing, and watching. All opinions expressed by Michael and Ben are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Redhol's wealth management. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon.

Starting point is 00:00:30 for any investment decisions. Clients of Ridholt's wealth management may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this podcast. Welcome to Animal Spirits with Michael and Ben. So is Bitcoin the best performing asset this year, Michael, of the big? It's got to be close, correct? No, it's the 2x Bitcoin. Okay.

Starting point is 00:00:53 But what do you said, it's up to 80% this year? Looking at that, I mean, obviously, coming from a low base, You also told me today that Carvana is up 600%, but it's down 91% still in terms of drawdown. So you always have to put these numbers into context. But might surprise some people that Bitcoin is doing, especially in the face of bad news. I think the first good news crypto has gotten in a while is the fact that some of these traditional finance firms have gotten into the potential race for a more traditional fund. And we still haven't heard any announcements saying, hey, this ETF is. is going to happen.

Starting point is 00:01:30 But I think this is the first step in the right direction for crypto in the past, I don't know, 18 months or so. It was interesting. Did you see any of Larry Frank's commentary? Not really. He was on Fox talking about, talking about Bitcoin. I was about the term it was surreal to see him say that. It wasn't surreal.

Starting point is 00:01:47 It was because I wouldn't go that far. It was interesting to hear him talking about it given not too long ago. I don't know. Less than five years ago, ever. Every single incumbent traditional financial institution was calling Bitcoin rat poison or worse? I've been trying to think through what the implications could be in terms of, is there a lot of money on the sidelines that has said, no way I'm getting into this space. If I'm holding my own keys or using Coinbase or some other custodian like that, I'm going to wait for the ETF because it's far more regulated. It's impossible to come up with an estimate for that.

Starting point is 00:02:24 But I guess the bull case would be places like BlackRock are big, or even financial advisors, say, one or two percent of our models are going into a Bitcoin ETF. Dude, how about this? This is much more realistic that Bitcoin will start going to model portfolios. That is a much more realistic thing than what happens if S&P 500 companies start putting Bitcoin on their balance sheet. Remember that nonsense? Ah, yes. Yeah, that's the company that sounds better in a bull market. I think Tesla was the only one to do it.

Starting point is 00:02:56 Yes, you're right. So we'll see how long it takes until we have Bitcoin ETFs in, like, my Vanguard target date funds. But it's that, you're right, that's the, that's the potential for good thing for this base. I didn't wonder what hardcore coiners are thinking about this. Because on the one hand, not only does the institutions coming in legitimize the asset class, but there's also, it opens up to a lot more buying, which opens. up to higher prices potentially. But on the other hand, like, as we spoke about with Jack, the whole reason why Bitcoin was created was to live outside the financial system. And

Starting point is 00:03:32 Jack made a good point. It's like, well, the two could coexist. You can have your keys and your cold storage. And if somebody wants to buy Bitcoin through an ETF, so be it. Right. You can have it both ways, if you want. And I think the narrative has changed so much. You can have your coins needed to. But the narrative has changed so much in crypto over the years that I think, I don't think it's going to be a leap for some people to just be like, Yeah, whatever. So there's an ETF. Who cares? It's more people who can get into the system. Yeah, I agree. I think there's going to be the hardcore, hardcores that are not into it, but everybody else is probably cheering it on, right?

Starting point is 00:04:06 Right. So we've talked to Jack Newrider from Fidelity Digital Assets a few times, and it's always good to check on them. So here's our talk with him. We had a bunch of questions for him. We just fired him at him. So here's our talk with Jack Newriter from Fidelity Digital Assets. We're joined today by Jack New Rider. Jack is a research analyst at Fidelity Digital Assets. Welcome back to the show. Yeah, it's a pleasure to be back. Thanks for having me again. All right. We're going to start today with a question about the recent news. I think out of the institutional space was Fidelity. I'm sorry, not Fidelity. It was BlackRock who filed an application for an ETF, which is a big deal for many reasons. Number one, either first, or second largest asset manager in the world, or third or whatever it is, very influential. They don't just throw crap against the wall.

Starting point is 00:05:01 I think their record was like either 475 or 575 approvals and one rejection. So it seems like, again, they think they know something, or at least maybe the market thinks they know something. Bitcoin had a nice run up after the announcement. There are many implications for a potential spot ETF for Bitcoin. if you think about the most important things, like, what do you think that is? Yeah, I think overall it's ease of access to the asset class in normalization. Right.

Starting point is 00:05:33 So you're not getting an ETF approved or building, you know, the infrastructure to support an ETF for Bitcoin if you're not planning on it having some sort of, you know, staying power or not to say that it legitimizes the asset class. but it allows a wide set of investors that at the moment wouldn't or can't access the asset class to be able to access it. So to me, it's a normalization thing. And then beyond that, when you think about allocations to digital assets, it's usually small percentages. Because how do you account for a volatile asset that, at least historically, has had high levels of returns? It's position sizing. And so when we're talking to, you know, investment advisors, family offices, or, you know,

Starting point is 00:06:21 kind of you name it. Investors are looking at this as a small percentage of their portfolio. And so how much of an operational and due diligence headache do you want to go through in order to be able to access the asset class, right? Historically, you've needed to set up a separate relationship. And are you willing to do that for, you know, one, two, three percent of a traditional portfolio? And I think for the average person, it's, you know, it's not worth the squeeze a lot of the time. Have you even spent, have you, have your team spent any time thinking through, like, what that possible cash on the sidelines for the lack of a better phrase could be in terms of how an ETF could open up new investors in

Starting point is 00:07:01 crypto? Yeah. I mean, the problem with any market sizing is you can get to, it's kind of like a discounted cash flow. If you change the growth rate or you change your set of assumptions, you can get the number that you're trying to back out. So I don't know that it's, you know, useful to frame it from the context of perfectly addressable market. But we know, I mean, we know generally speaking, that the number is big. Do you have any, while getting into like the weeds and the nitty gritty, any sense of why you think it's taken so long to get one to market? Do you think it's just because this is such a new asset class that the regulators just want to be very careful. What is a good sense of the reason why it's taken so long?

Starting point is 00:07:54 Yeah, I mean, anytime you get a new asset, especially in the context of a digital bearer instrument that if you're holding on to the private keys, you have that asset. And if you lose those private keys or if someone gets access to them, they can take those assets. And so I think part of it has been the fact that it's a bearer asset. And then the other piece is that the regulatory environment hasn't fully regulated spot market trading. Those are sort of the two qualms that regulators have had around approving a 33 Act spot fund. And so we've seen the futures funds have been approved. But at least thus far, largely from regulators, it's been that the futures funds, well, they're cash settled. So you don't have to worry about the custody piece. And then the

Starting point is 00:08:45 futures markets, at least, you know, CME that the approved funds trade on, have, you know, the ability for those trades to be, you know, monitored by regulators. Whereas, I guess, the argument around spot markets largely to date has been that a lot of trading takes place offshore and even a lot of the onshore exchanges, there isn't a ton of, you know, regulatory clarity or regulation involved in that spot market trading. You mentioned the futures ETF. There's also a two times a levered Bitcoin future ETF that was approved. I think it started trading a couple weeks ago. Matter of fact, gray scale in a letter this morning, Jackie might have seen this called this out specifically. For people that don't know the regulatory

Starting point is 00:09:36 landscape, how do you, it is hard to make sense of this. Like if you're just a normal person who wants a Bitcoin ETF and can't get it. it. But then you see them allowing to leverage Bitcoin ETF, even though understanding that the underlying might be, you know, slightly different mechanically. It's just, it's odd. Yeah. I mean, that's why we've seen, you know, so many traditional financial firms filing for spot ETFs, because I think one could make the case quite clearly that, you know, it would be a better long-term investment product for the average investor. And you would have a competitive land. landscape. Whereas at the moment, you have a set of trusts that are traded on the secondary

Starting point is 00:10:21 market. They're rather inefficient. They tend to be higher fee because there's not a lot of competition in the liquid ones. And from there, they trade a discount. So they're not very efficient. Matter of fact, I'm sorry, keep going. Sorry. No, no. Yeah. And then on the future side, you know, you can look at the futures market and it'll trade either in contango or backwardation, which means ultimately that there's a role cost or in some sense, sometimes a role yield, but it doesn't perfectly track the underlying. And so I think that's a lot of the debate here around, you know, wanting a spot product in the market is to have overall just a better way to access the asset class.

Starting point is 00:10:59 So to that point, it's July 10th and year to date, Bitcoin is up 80% or so. And Biddo, the futures ETF, is up 57% due to the costs associated that you've mentioned, which is, I mean, that's a, it's a gigantic spread. 81 versus 57? Yeah, not to speak to any single investment product in particular. The one piece I would add is you have to look at total returns because currently the futures market trades in backwardation. So there's a role in cash interest. And so there's actually a dividend associated with a lot of those funds at the moment. So there is a disparity. I don't think it's quite as extreme as looking at price. Noob whale.

Starting point is 00:11:40 Newb whale ridden all over my forehand. Always total returns, Michael. Oh, my God. You know what? I see a lot of that floating around. Okay, Jack, I stand corrected. In that case, the gap shrinks basically to zero. So I'm going to take the L on that.

Starting point is 00:11:54 Thank you for clarifying. I wouldn't have known that. That's interesting. It's not zero, though. You are right in calling it out. It is meaningful. Like, if you were a buy and hold investor, if it's 5%, I don't know what exactly it is.

Starting point is 00:12:05 It's somewhere between 5% and 10% last time I looked over the past year. And so that is. What done is this? It's an exorbitant cost to roll forward. You have to reinvest your Bitcoin dividends? That is interesting. So you mentioned the cost of running a fund like that, like a Bitcoin spot ETF.

Starting point is 00:12:23 I don't think anyone thinks, if they're holding a gold ETF, they don't think, well, how does this ETF, where do they store my gold? Like, what are the vaults in London or wherever they store it? But there are going to be different costs associated with this than stock market ETF, like an index fund. And so I guess could we assume that the costs for this kind of fund if and when it happens would be a little higher because there are more costs to own and operate it? Yeah, I mean, a lot of, you know, custody has been commoditized largely.

Starting point is 00:12:51 Most of the fees that folks are paying, you know, on the average retail app is a commission. And then the actual custody, if you choose to, you know, utilize those services is either free or, you know, 10, 20, 30 basis points. depending on the platform that you're using. But for the most part, the custody piece gets commoditized away because there's a bunch of scale once you actually have the infrastructure in place. So I don't know that if you had a landscape of five or ten of these approved and it was a competitive landscape, I think that you could get fee compression, especially considering

Starting point is 00:13:28 when you look at the cost of trusts or investment vehicles that give you kind of similar exposure, even those futures funds, there are 50, 75, 95 basis points depending on the fund. I think that you get, you know, again, I'm completely speculating here across the market. I want to make that clear. But I do think that you could get, you know, a pretty competitive market on fees all in. I can't, I saw somebody tweet this. I can't remember who it was, so forgive me for stealing this idea, but somebody mentioned that there's going to be these, let's assume that the ETFs do get approved, which is, you know, we don't know. We'll find out. By the way, is there any time frame for that? Is there any date that we should be aware of? Yeah, so the few dates that I'm aware of

Starting point is 00:14:10 and most of this is just following Balchunis and the Bloomberg guys. But early August, second week of August, the ARC 21 shares filing, I believe, were supposed to hear on. And they did make an amendment that sort of roughly would make it have that sort of surveillance sharing piece that seems to be the new kind of piece of information that people are maybe hopeful on. then in the fall, potentially hearing on the gray scale case, that's another sort of, you know, thing to watch, at least moving forward. And then I think the rest of them are end of year into next year. I want to get back to the surveillance piece of this, but my question was going to be this. So let's say they get approved. These ETFs need to get off the ground. They need to be seated

Starting point is 00:14:54 with some money, right? So there's going to be potentially buying pressure from a handful of ETFs. Is that, again, obviously we're speculating. Would that be enough to potentially move the market? Let's say that there's, again, I'm making this number $100 million of buying pressure from from ETFs being seated. What sort of volume we're seeing in Bitcoin on a daily basis? Yeah. So the one caveat here is depends on what happens also with the gray scale trust as well, right? Because there's a discount embedded in that trust at the moment.

Starting point is 00:15:22 And so necessarily, again, we're completely speculating here. But that trades at a 30% discount at the moment, assuming that you went into it with a 30% discount, and it became an ETF, that would be redemptions of the fund, right? And you'd be selling Bitcoin in order to close out shares. So there's an offsetting pressure there of, I don't know what the AUM and that fund is. God, because JPDC is like 30, it's a 30 or something? Well, and you've probably had people sitting in that. That's been the Widowmaker trade for a few years now, right? So you probably have people who are waiting for a parachute for that. Exactly. Well, the question there is, you know, who's a long-term

Starting point is 00:16:07 investor or who got stuck in the fund. And then at the same time, we've seen the discount closing, but is that closing? Ben, Ben, totally got stuck. Ben, admit it. You got stuck. But is that discount closing because they're speculating on the prospects of an ETF approval? I think there's probably some amount of funds of people that are doing that. And then are they hedging that with Bitcoin or not? There's a question or are they leaving it open-ended? There's not a clean way. I don't think to be able to hedge that out. But if you're, Jack, the discount is, the discount is only 20, I'm using air quotes, only 27%, which is, but it was 44 just like a couple weeks ago. Exactly. So if you say some percentage of those folks that are, you know, that are

Starting point is 00:16:49 bidding it up are doing it because of the potential for an arbitrage if it were to convert into an ETF. Again, a lot of ifs here. But if that is the case, then you have some folks that would unload the asset if it traded at NAV. And again, so there's some portion of these assets, including the discount, where you would say, well, that is a net sell pressure at the same time as you potentially have, you know, new ETF spawned. Right. So you, there's, there's an offsetting piece of there's this large sort of, to some degree elephant in the room of the gray scale fund that trades at a discount and some of these other funds as well, that if they were approved to be an ETF, again, these are two different things, like potentially ETFs would be approved and maybe they

Starting point is 00:17:34 wouldn't be able to convert right away or something. So there's a lot of like different muscle movers here. But you you have to think overall that if an ETF was approved, that at least from a sentiment perspective, you have a, you know, a rather bullish sentiment and narrative for a period of time. We've spent the last 14 minutes discussing the potential ramifications of an ETF or not and what it might do to price? And has Bitcoin lost the plot a little bit in the sense that it came to existence because it was outside the sphere of traditional financial markets? This was something that you could own. All you needed to remember was your password or your cold storage key. And this was not censorable, unsensurable. What the heck is it? How do they call it?

Starting point is 00:18:23 You can tell about crypto-native. But it was- Unsensurable. It's served that purpose. And do you see this evolution as, is crypto just a, just a speculative asset or is this validation? Like, is this, is this bad? Is it good? I'm not sure what to think. I think you can make a case both ways here, but also at the same time, if we're being realists about how this industry will scale, then it always necessarily has. to cross paths with the traditional financial system. I think you can see some, like I've heard Ben Hunt make the argument of Bitcoin TM, which is this idea that, you know, in theory, overtime Wall Street will take the crypto industry or Bitcoin and, you know, sort of put it inside of the existing system. And there's some of that happening here.

Starting point is 00:19:17 But at the same time, it doesn't take away from the fact that anybody can access Bitcoin themselves, that anybody can send it across the world. and it doesn't know or matter where you're located. It is uncensurable. There will, you know, according to its current rules and the rules that it's had for the last 13 years and going, only be 21 million Bitcoin. Those rules don't change.

Starting point is 00:19:39 If you want to take counterparty risk and own the asset inside of an ETF because that's an easier way to access it, well, then you're able to do that, right? But at the same time, that doesn't take away, you know, my or anybody else's ability to use, use our private keys and sign transactions across the world or hold on to those private keys ourselves. And so while I can see the argument that you're losing the plot to some degree,

Starting point is 00:20:05 it's still, it doesn't change the fact that it still works as designed. It's just starting to be put inside of an existing system or framework in some capacity here. I think for the total market cap-wise, one of the coin market cap has it, like, Bitcoin got to, like, in the high 30s for percent of total crypto assets. Now it's back to, like, 50 percent almost. So strangely, this whole bare market in crypto, and I know there's been a comeback, has been good for Bitcoin. Do you think it's just the brand, or was it were a lot of those things just so speculative that they just needed to go out of business? And actually, it's a good thing for the Bitcoin and ETH, which are the two kind of main building blocks.

Starting point is 00:20:48 Yes. I think if you zoom whatever Bitcoin dominance chart you're looking at out on a long enough time scale, you'll kind of see a pattern that during bare markets, you tend to see consolidation and strength in Bitcoin, in particular Bitcoin in the earlier days. I mean, the market was basically entirely Bitcoin until 2014, 2015, then you have Ethereum. And then during sort of bull runs and manias and euphoria, you see that the Bitcoin dominance level lowers. And so this kind of a continuing pattern over time where during this bare market, we're seeing consolidation into, in particular, Bitcoin now being over 50% of crypto's market cap, but Bitcoin and Ethereum in large part.

Starting point is 00:21:31 Like, if you look at Bitcoin, ETH and the tokens on top of Ethereum, that's like 90% of crypto's market cap if we exclude stable coins. And so there's consolidation into really the two networks that have some degree of institutional interests or ownership. that we can see on-chain have real users that are using the network. And for their particular use cases, I think they have kind of different use cases, or at least different main use cases. We continue to see activity based on for Bitcoin, people buying and holding the asset on

Starting point is 00:22:07 chain. And for Ethereum, people using applications on chain. Okay. So right now, Bitcoin is at $30,800. It's actually been trading in a very tight range since June, 22nd. I saw a tweet from Bespoke this morning saying there have only been a handful of other times in the last six years that Bitcoin has traded in as now a range as it has over the last two weeks. And the range is when it's less than seven and a half percent, there's one, two,

Starting point is 00:22:32 three, that looks like eight times over the last six years. So it's been, it's been training pretty tightly. Uh, somebody asked us, Bitcoin just broke 30,000. Is this meaningful at all? Technically, are we hitting any important milestones in terms of price? Yeah, so from a technical perspective, there's not really a level other than the fact that 30,000 is a round number, and we all know we're irrational and cling to things like that. So I think there's something to be said for an asset breaking, whether it be equities, you know, S&P breaking 4,000 or below 4,000, whatever. So the same thing kind of applies here in terms of like the mental sentiment indicator. But in terms of like an actual price level associated with 30,000. thousand, you know, the moving averages don't sit at 30,000. Right now, you know, the 50 days at 28,000, I think, roughly. The 200 week and the 200 day are down sort of more towards 25,000. So what I would say is you kind of broke the range and period of low volatility that we were in back in early June that we were going on for a couple of months with some of this

Starting point is 00:23:44 ETF news, and you broke into this kind of new range where we're in now, which, as you said, I think we've traded in a 4% range for the past three weeks. So another week, week and a half, we'd be going on a month. Those periods of very low volatility don't tend to last too long. And that's actually been kind of how I would characterize a lot of this year is consolidation and shop, and there's no narrative for a period of time, and it kind of gets boring. And then all of a sudden volatility gets very low and very suppressed. And then, it snaps, right? Because it's like a rubber band in any asset class, but especially in an asset class that is typically very volatile. And so it feels like we're kind of on the precipice of that

Starting point is 00:24:23 again. And I do think that this move will be important as we head into the second half of this year of defining, like, are we headed in a, you know, an up trend amidst, you know, still down 50% from here, but could we head towards 40? Or are there macro headwinds and do we break back down into that lower range and does sentiment kind of wane again? I don't know the answer there to be clear, but I think one of those things is going to happen. Michael has two ways of explaining charts and technical analysis as far as I'm concerned. One is this chart looks like crap and two is, this looks like it's ready to explode, right, Michael? Is that, is that fair? Yes. So one of those two things is going to happen. Well, I mean, am I... It could go up or it could go down, right? It could

Starting point is 00:25:06 definitely go up or down or continue to go sideways. To me, holding high here, I'm going to say that it's going to explode out of this range to the upside. But with that's actually a good segue for the next question, which is this. Crypto, Bitcoin, whatever, the industry has had a lot thrown at it recently. In November was FTX. And then, and then, uh, and then, uh, finances. There's a lot of smoke around that. The SEC is suing Coinbase. There's a lot of bad news out there. And yet the price of Bitcoin, it's up 80% this year. What do we make of this? Well, if we look at broader risk assets, right?

Starting point is 00:25:48 We're seeing tech equities are up 40% this year. I think the NASDAX is up close to 40% this year. You're coming off of a year that ended on lows, right? And so overall, I think we're kind of in this, to some degree, ambiguous state in most, most markets to some degree. Jack, I was told that risk assets can't rally when the 10-year is above 4%. Well, is it ironically, could it be that inflation falling is good for Bitcoin in crypto? Is that, I mean, right? So I think here in lies the issue is, and we've talked about this before,

Starting point is 00:26:33 is forward inflation expectations really never changed the whole way through. it was nominal yields moving up and down. And nominal yields have been responsive. And now they're back at highs, right, near November, October of, what are we at? 4% on the 10 year, over 4% on the 10 year. But why is it real? Why is it real yields? Unpack that a little, please.

Starting point is 00:26:56 Yeah, because Bitcoin is posing itself as an alternative monetary asset, right? So there's only 21 million. It sits outside the existing system. It's scarce. Same thing with kind of gold. Right? There's an inflation rate of gold that's roughly 2% right per year. It's about the same at Bitcoin's current issuance rate. And what does Bitcoin or what does gold respond to? It's real yields because if inflation is high, well, that's necessarily an issue for bonds, right? And so it's the same thing for Bitcoin in theory. If we're thinking about it as a digital gold, an alternative store of value asset, it becomes more attractive if there's higher levels of expected inflation in the future. But if nominal yields offset that, well, then bonds are attractive again. Right. So the key is it's a forward, real yields, because the market's always forward

Starting point is 00:27:50 looking, at least in my opinion here. And that's why I think at the moment that the key here is like nominal yields are at 4%. Inflation breakevens are 2.25%. So you got 175 basis points of real yield. I think that that's a headwin for Bitcoin for the time being. I think it's a headwin for gold, and that's why gold's sitting below 2000 still. And, I mean, it should be a headwin for equities, at least in theory. But at the moment, we have the AI narrative and the things kind of continuing to run there. But what are we going to see as we go into this second half? If what you're saying is CPI continues to come down, if that's the base case, do inflation expectations stay the same?

Starting point is 00:28:36 because they never moved up before. They were always saying that inflation was probably going to be around 2% on a 10-year, forward basis. They said they would always re-normalize. They never really moved. Will yields come back down? If nominal yields come back down and inflation break even stay the same, that means real yields come down.

Starting point is 00:28:56 That's a boon for Bitcoin and gold, if that makes sense to you. I don't know if I'm explaining it. I've got the Zach Alfenakis math thing going on, but you did a good job explaining. No, that makes sense to me. I've always seen the real yield thing for gold, but I guess that, yeah, that assumes that Bitcoin really is the millennial gold. And is that, I honestly think that's probably the best narrative that I've come down on after working through all the different crypto stories. I think for Bitcoin itself, take away all the other potential cryptos. I think that's, that narrative still makes the most sense to me. Yeah, I do too, and I think it translates well to the average investor. The thing I want to add here to that whole rambling of nominal yields, real yields, inflation expectations. If you get an uptick in the second half of CPI, if inflation expectations start to move higher, that's where we could start to see the actual narrative of Bitcoin as an inflation hedge move. If inflation expectations move higher and nominal yields have already offset a lot of it, unless nominal yields continue to rise, right? If it's the netting of real yields, I'm losing you. No, I'm with you. That's the netting of real yields. No, I get it. So you're saying that if the expectations rise, but Bitcoin, like, decouples and accelerates into it, then maybe it will

Starting point is 00:30:16 at least have the potential to say, yes, I am an inflation hedge. Yeah, because the market, last time we had inflation at 9%. I'm not saying it's going back to 9%. I'm not even predicting where inflation is going. The last time it was at 9%. The bond market said, oh, it'll be fine. It's transitory. What if it starts to say it's not transitory? That's when I think Bitcoin responds well to increasing inflation expectations. So that'd be like if long bond yields started to rise. Well, those would be offsetting the change, right? True. I get your saying because Yeah. And then if nominal yields continue to rise at the rate that inflation expectations rise, it's neutral because real yields stay the same. But if inflation expectations rise and nominal yields top out, whether it's yield curve control or whatever, the reason why, then that's the environment that Bitcoin performs well because real yields are coming in. At least in theory. That's why you never fight a land war in Asia. Jack, thank you. We appreciate the time. Thanks, guys.

Starting point is 00:31:27 As always, thank you to Fidelity Digital Assets, send us an email, Animal SpiritsPod at gmail.com, and we'll talk to you next time.

Your Ad Here

Animal Spirits Podcast - Talk Your Book: The Impact of a Bitcoin ETF

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.