BTC Sessions - Macro Update: Bitcoin’s Path to $1,000,000 & Global Monetary Reset | Luke Gromen

Starting point is 00:00:00 If you're acting in the interest of the United States, then yeah, you should absolutely just let inflation run hot, screw bondholders, screw banks. The alternative is much, much, much worse. It ain't going to get better from here if we don't do something on that front. Bitcoin is a political force. It's undeniable their political power has surged. But the beauty of Bitcoin is right, like, unlike everything else, they really can't stop it. Ultimately, a way of essentially standing up Bitcoin as sort of the de facto neutral.

Starting point is 00:00:30 Reserve asset to kind of fight the gold, you know, bricks system. What would that do to the price? I think you could probably add a zero to be safe to start. What if I told you all the chaos, wild news cycles, economic policy flip-flops, the geopolitical drama isn't just random madness, but a screaming red flag of something massive unfolding right now. Today we're sitting down with Luke Gromond, the macro mastermind from FFTT, a guy who's called market moves with eerie precision while everyone else was chasing shadows. We're digging into why Washington is panicking, the impact of currency devaluation,

Starting point is 00:01:06 and the hidden shift in military power that's reshaping global influence. And of course, where Bitcoin fits into this wild puzzle and where it's headed. Stick around because by the end, you'll understand how to position yourself in a world that's changing faster than anyone wants to admit.

Starting point is 00:01:22 Going beyond Bitcoin to bring you the skills and insights you need to escape the Fiat Matrix. This is Mentor Sessions. Awesome, Luke. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. To kind of kick things off, I don't know about you, but for me, the last couple months, the news cycle seemed absolutely ridiculous. Like, we had Doche Cutting, then Elon's out. We had terrorists. We had Trump versus Powell. Now we got Trump versus Obama. We had the war with Iran. We had where's the list, rent us at the Fed, the Genius Act and the Clarity Act. Just to kind of get a lay of the land, that 30,000 foot macro view. What are we looking at here? What's signal and what's just noise that's distracting us? What has your attention right now? That's a great question. I think the noise in some ways is the signal. You know, there was high confidence we came into the year that plan A was going to be, you know, finally, you know, we have some Wall Street adults in the room and we've got a businessman in the office and we're going to doge and we're going to, you know, we're going to take some pain, right? We're going to let asset prices fall a little.

Starting point is 00:02:29 we're going to adjust and shift investors into long-term treasures. And judge us by the 10-year treasury yield. It's going to come down. And as it comes down, then we're going to term out the debt. And we're going to doge. And that'll bring yields down further. And we're going to put everything. And I was watching this thing the whole time going, like, I'll have some of what they're smoking.

Starting point is 00:02:50 Because it wasn't like, you know, by March, people were going, how did you know, yields were going to go up when they, you know, after a brief moment when they tried to do doge? I'm like, math. Like, yeah, it was, it was literally, you know, you just look at the U.S., you know, the dollar debt, foreign dollar debt position, which is like $13, 14 trillion. So foreigners need dollars. And you know if they cut and if things slow, the dollar's going to go up. And then you look at the $26 trillion net that foreigners own of dollar assets.

Starting point is 00:03:18 Like, it was just, it's just, it's an equation. It's like, you know, one plus one equals two. And they were like, well, one plus one equals dog and, you know, or doge. And so I think that when I say the noise is the signal, I think very serious people thought that was going to work. Really? Yeah, I really do. And so I think part of this noise that we're seeing is a little bit of panic. You know, the panicans aren't out in America.

Starting point is 00:03:48 The panicans are in D.C. The panicans are in the White House. And why I think that noise is the... signal is, oh, gosh, you know, like, not only did we get that, but then we get, well, we, you know, April 7th, Besson with Tucker Carlson, we have all the leverage. We're the debtor economy. The creditor economy has all, that has no leverage. I taught economic history. I know how this goes. And what we said at the time is, A, the treasury market will blow up remarkably fast if they try this. And B, watch rare earths.

Starting point is 00:04:24 And so like a bald guy in Cleveland, you know, seven days later, you know, warned them, you know, warn you, hey, this is how it's going to go. Why? Again, it wasn't some secret connections or, you know, it was just you look at where the leverage points are, the real leverage points. And there seems to be a lack of second derivative thinking around those, you know, culturally these days. Like we just sort of, you know, we're like bulls and China shop. And seven days after they did liberation. day that treasury market started to literally blow up and they had to back off. And then the rare earth thing is ongoing. And it's, it's, it's astonishing to me that the administration apparently didn't understand this leverage point. I mean, the Chinese literally weaponized

Starting point is 00:05:13 rare earth against the Japanese 15 years ago. Hillary Clinton said in 2011, we're dependent on China for the rare earth to make our bombs. Now, she was Secretary of State. that for eight years. She didn't do a damn thing about it. It's neither here nor there. But the point is, is I think ultimately there was this part of the noise as the signal point is this recognition of, oh my gosh, like, I think this is the White House recognizing they don't have the economy they thought they have. They don't have the markets they think they have. They don't have the military they think they have. And what I mean by that is ultimately, we can't go to war without Chinese rare earths. And we're not going to be able to for five or ten years. And so,

Starting point is 00:05:54 that's what I think some of this infighting and noise and all of this stuff is just, I think, you know, sort of panicking. I think they're going, oh, gosh, okay, so what's plan B? Well, plan B is what plan A should have been all along, which is, okay, we're going to juice growth. We're going to juice inflation. We're going to devalue the dollar. We're going to devalue the debt. And, you know, I think some of that's going on. But that's how I'm looking.

Starting point is 00:06:19 I think the noise is the signal that just there's, you know, all this stuff going on is like, you know, fly to sound repeatedly and the reason they're flying to sound is because A, the strategy they laid out failed and B, they don't have the cards they think they had. That's very interesting. I actually want to touch on that for a second, too, as well, too. So regarding the currency devaluation, you've called for that for quite a while now. And actually, I was listening back to an interview you did with Preston Pish. And back then we were sitting around 107, 109, you called for 95 to 100. And six months later, we're bang on. And it's just been like this continuous trend over the

Starting point is 00:06:52 entire year. I'm curious if, one, that is the currency devaluation that we're seeing there. We're also seeing gold and Bitcoin, appear to rip or at least continue to grow as a result. And do you expect that this is going to continue or we're kind of reaching the end of that trend? And I just want to tag on one other thing as well, too, the idea that we can grow our way out of this, I'm hesitant, but I'm not nearly as knowledgeable. If 0% interest rates couldn't really juice that much growth, can they get enough to actually resolve the situation? So I think we are sort of coming to the end of part one of the dollar devaluation.

Starting point is 00:07:26 It's going to have to go a lot lower. Really? Oh, yeah, I think so. Overtime, you know, but it's a tricky thing because you got to get debt to GDP down. You got to sort of anesthetize the long end of the bond market, right? And so I think part of what we're watching, and we can touch on this in a bit, part of I think what we're watching was stable coins and the desire suddenly to shift issue. forward is essentially to pre-anesthetize the long end of the yield curve so that when the dollar goes from 97 where we are today to 87 or I don't know 80 or 75 something um then you know the result

Starting point is 00:08:05 in inflation that I think will start showing up later this year as a virtue of or as a result of the you know the lagged impact of the dollar weakness we've seen so far you won't necessarily need to lose the long end. In other words, right, but if they try to just get the dollar down a whole lot more from here, then I think you start bringing up inflation concerns, term premiums rise, you start to lose the long end, and then you go into sort of this debt spiral dynamics. We've seen it for a couple brief moments over the last several years, and that's going to undo everything that they have accomplished so far. So I think it'll continue, but I think there's sort of an order of operations they seem to be following. And in terms of, sorry, the second question was

Starting point is 00:08:48 If Zerp couldn't juice growth enough. Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, if Zerp couldn't, uh, Zirp could. They just chickened out. Interesting. Could you unpack that a little bit? Sure. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:09:00 So in 2022, as, as Powell's getting ready to hike rates, like, this is the wrong thing to do. And consensus was, oh, he's going to be the, he's going to be the next Volker. He's going to, he's going to be, do the tough things. And I said, that the GDP when Volker did this was 25, 30 percent. It's 130%. 30% today. You know, it's down to 120 or 122. The, you know, the deficit was 2% of GDP. It's seven when Powell, or maybe six when Powell started. You know, the US net international investment position was positive. In other words, America had more foreign investments and foreigners had here by like

Starting point is 00:09:40 five or 10 points of GDP. So as he strengthened the dollars, Volcker strengthened the dollars, rates rose, the dollars that were overseas on net came back here. containing inflation and bolstering growth and bolstering asset prices. The net international investment position, as opposed to being positive 10 when Volker did that, it was negative, I think it's negative almost 30% now. So like, it's, you know, you've got $26 trillion net, sorry, negative, negative 90%. Right. It's negative 90% of GDP.

Starting point is 00:10:10 So you've got nearly as much in GDP here on net of foreigners money. And so when the dollar rises when he tries to play Volker, What are they going to do? They have to sell dollar assets. And our economy is based on the rise in dollar assets on the margin. And so our tax receipts to the government. And so Powell paradoxically, people thought the brave thing was to be Volcker. It wasn't.

Starting point is 00:10:33 The brave thing was to be Arthur Burns on steroids. Or maybe a modest version of Rudy von Haventstein, right, would have been the brave thing for Powell to do, which is to say in 2022, hey, inflation's eight. it's becoming a political problem for Biden, understood and agreed, and that the GDP had gone from 130 down to 117. The deficit had gone from $3.1 trillion down to $1.4. All he had to do was sit on his hands and hold rates at zero for another year, that the GDP would have been back to probably, I don't know, maybe 103. And, you know, in fact, inflation could have ticked up some more.

Starting point is 00:11:20 And the deficit probably would have gone from one four to maybe $800 billion. And then if he'd have done it for one more year, so that takes us into 2024, you know, inflation at that point is probably running 10, 12 percent. Stock markets ripped, bond markets, you know, being held down. We would probably have gotten to a position where debt to GDP was down to 85 to 90 percent. and the deficit probably would have been back to $500, $600,000 or like 2% of GDP. So they would have completed sort of the restructuring or the paying for COVID, right? You had all these politicians saying, we've got to spend all this money.

Starting point is 00:12:06 COVID is like World War II. Okay, great. But then on the other side of World War II, the Fed came in and kept rates pinned from 1946 to 51. And bondholders got friggin destroyed on a real basis. Real rates went to negative 13% at the lows. Bondholders paid for World War II with the purchase. They went from being able to buy steak with their bonds to being able to buy hamburger

Starting point is 00:12:28 with their bonds, being able to buy dog food with their bonds. And that's what had to happen to bonds this time. And Powell chickened out. Why? Political reasons. You know, obviously we can see, you know, it was messing with Biden's reelection chances or sorry, the midterms, excuse me, at that point. It was a problem politically for Biden and the midterms.

Starting point is 00:12:47 And so that's why I say you can do it. You know, now the problem is because he chickened out then, you know, now 10 to 12% inflation ain't going to cut it. Now you're going to need 15, 16, 17%, 17% inflation, 20% inflation for two, three years with rates at zero. And then you can get the deficit back to $500, $600 billion. You can maybe even a surplus. Who knows?

Starting point is 00:13:07 You know, having the S&P up 50% on year on year like it was in 2021 or so. That helps. It's a huge driver of tax receipts. So it's really just a question of, you know, do you have, you know, number one, who are you acting for if you're Powell, right? If you're acting in the interest of the United States and the balance sheet of the United States, then yeah, you should absolutely just let inflation run hot, screw bondholders, screw banks. And on a real basis, they'll get paid every dollar nominally. And you set the U.S. back up to be in a good position. Now, if you decide you want to act on the behalf of bondholders, banks and one political party, you know, you get what we got right now. And so, you know, I hope he

Starting point is 00:13:55 enjoyed his, you know, his moment in the sun because obviously he's not having as much fun as he was in 2021 when they were saying he was the hero of COVID. And he did a marvelous job handling that without question. So he just, he didn't go hard enough. He had to, you know, the brave thing was, you know, kill bonds on a real basis. Now, wouldn't that have like, really not strong, sorry Gary, I'll each of me after him, just loving this. Wouldn't that have consequential knock on effects in terms of bondholders around the world looking at is more risky and further getting away from bonds as the preferred collateral and kind of reserve asset?

Starting point is 00:14:30 Well, I think U.S. treasury bonds have already lost to gold as a reserve asset. That started in 2014. Global central banks have sold on net $200 billion of U.S. Treasury bonds. on since 2014. They bought $800 billion of gold. So central banks have already decided, like they've done the math. They look at this and go, you know, one plus one is two. One plus one is not dog. And if you believe one plus one is two and not dog, then you can't own long term treasuries. And you haven't been able to for 10 years on a real basis. And I think they remain uninvestable on a real basis. So, you know, the central banks, the sponsor of the system have

Starting point is 00:15:07 known this for some time. Paradoxically, had he done that, gold would have gone to the moon. Central bank balance sheets would have improved meaningfully. The dollar would have weakened meaningfully. And those central banks probably would be back in buying our bonds by now, but they're still not. In terms of the private sector, sure, yeah, they're not going to be happy. They got screwed. And so what? Like a lot lesser powers have completely screwed their bondholders and had bondholders

Starting point is 00:15:35 back buying their debt within a couple of years. Look how long Argentina was locked out of markets. Like they've defaulted like 17 times. Like these bondholders, they show right back up, Greece, right? Greek yields, you know, these bondholders, like, they put you in the penalty box for like a second. And oh, by the way, we're not Greece or Turkey. We could make, we could make them do it. We could regulate them into it.

Starting point is 00:15:57 And, you know, we have to certain extent. So, you know, I think it would have been a modest concern, but I don't think it's nearly as much of a fear or as much of an issue, you know, that the bondholders make it out to be. Right. When you hear the people who say those things, who do those people. people tend to be. It's the Larry Summers is of the world. It's the Ben Bernankees of the world. It's the Janet Yellons of the world who have a very, you know, entrenched interest in defending the system that they set up versus, you know, versus where it needs to be evolving to given what has happened. Yeah. And so ultimately it's devalued the currency and then all the inflation is probably

Starting point is 00:16:32 going to flow mostly into the hard assets, gold, Bitcoin and probably real estate and commodities. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Gary, did you have anything? I've been hogging the mic this whole time. No, I'm glad you hogged the mic because I wanted you to get your questions in because I'm about to be an asshole and blow up this interview. Let's go for it. So you said that they should have held rates low, close to ZERP, and I believe in correct me if I'm wrong, the idea is this kind of save the United States and get us back on track. And I guess I have to just wonder, what is the United States, if not more than just a collection of people in it? And in that respect, if you're intentionally inflating the money supply, when we say we're

Starting point is 00:17:14 inflation 10, 12 percent, what we're actually saying is we're stealing from people 10 to 12 percent of their wealth each year. And if that's what we're doing, then what are we saving? That depends, right? If you're talking about the 1%, yeah, they get screwed. And I say, you know, and the bottom 90%, you know, their wage is skyrocket, right? You can just look at us. and go, we've been, we have consciously made a decision since roughly the 80s, right? So if you go back further than that, 1940 to 1960, right? It was, it was, you know, what's good for, you know, 1960 and 1980. What's good for GMs, good for America.

Starting point is 00:17:58 1980 to 2020, what's good for Goldman Sachs and the treasury market is good for America. And the regime just changed, right? And really, you'd say, probably say 1940 and 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 1980, 20, 20, those 40 years. What's good for Goldman Sachs and the Treasury market is good for America. So, yeah, would that have screwed the Treasury market holders and Goldman Sachs? Yeah, on the margin, relative to, you know, everybody else in the economy. Sure.

Starting point is 00:18:30 And, like, I think Goldman Sachs can be okay. I think the boomers who own 55% of the wealth in this country and who are receiving 70%, 70% of the all-time high tax receipts are going to boomers in the form of entitlements. So the richest generation in history is getting 70% taking food out of the mouths of the younger generation, literally, because we can't afford education. We can't afford some of this other stuff. We should be investing in infrastructure for the future. Yeah, do I mind taking money from Goldman Sachs and the richest generation in history via inflation?

Starting point is 00:19:08 Not at all. Not for my kids. I would do it every day. And so you can see from 1980 to 2020 who the winners in the economy were. They were Wall Street. They were Washington, D.C. and their politicians because they could run big deficits. And they were China. Do I mind screwing Wall Street, Washington and China to rebalance the economy by allowing wages to rise and taking money basically, you know, if you're a if you're an electrician and your wages, your food bill's growing 15, your wages are growing 15 and your house is locked in on a 30-year mortgage at five. Are you losing? No, you're getting a debt jubilee on your house. So I think it would be, you know, particularly if you do what we've done on the immigration side under the current administration, where the supply of labor stops growing, I think you rebalance things in a way that haven't been rebalanced in a long time in this country if you were to do that. But, you know, to your point, that's, it's tricky. Powell can't do all that, right? So, you know, Biden wasn't going to let, you know, he wasn't going to curtail immigration to. help allow wages. So then you're going to get into a situation where, you know, if Biden was still

Starting point is 00:20:13 president, he's letting in lots of people, then you're going to get food bills up 15 percent and wages flat, well, now you're going to have a revolution. That's not going to work. So it really kind of has to be a whole of government approach. I think it's very fair. But in terms of, you know, inflating away on a relative basis, the wealth of the winners of the last 40 years, I got no prize, it's the right thing to do. The alternative is, you know, much, much, much worse. You know, I mean, people keep saying, well, when are things going to get worse? Well, like, you can see advertisements for private security in Brentwood and Beverly Hills. You can see CEOs getting shot in the streets in Manhattan.

Starting point is 00:20:51 You can see the most tumultuous, you know, social and political divisiveness in this country in 50 years. Like, it ain't going to get better from here if we don't do something on that front. May I just follow up for a moment? And I think the idea of what you're saying is over the years, so many of the wealthiest, most connected people, I agree with you, have benefited from the way our system is set up without question. At the risk of sounded like a socialist for a moment, which I definitely am not. So I get what you're saying there. I guess I just wonder the way you described it of, you know, the price is going up, but your wages go up to match and so on and so forth for, you know, working people. Is that actually how it plays out?

Starting point is 00:21:36 Because from what I understand, like with something like the cantalon effect, where it's those who are closest to the money printer who get the benefits first and those farthest behind who see their wages lag behind prices, that's not how it works as far as I understand. And by inflating the money supply, we're actually pumping more into those who have these, quote unquote, hard assets, who already have their established wealth, who have their lawyers and accounts where they can afford to hide their assets

Starting point is 00:22:03 and their savings, while the working people continue to get screwed to the price of houses and so on and so forth. What am I missing here? I think it refers back to the sort of the whole of government type approach to it, which is if you keep allowing millions of people into the country illegally to basically dilute the supply of labor, that ensures and maintains and reinforces that can a lot of effect. I would argue that if that if you do that in a constrained labor supply, then all of a sudden it sort of dilutes the Kandalon effect or even starts to shift or move these, especially skilled trades, etc. up in front of, say, the financiers, a lot of financiers in the Kandelan effect.

Starting point is 00:22:56 In other words, you know, like I tell a buddy, a mine around here, he's a contractor. And he's like, man, I'm so busy. I'm like booked out 18 months. I say, how many are your, you know, clients are boomers? He's like, oh, it's probably two thirds. I said, for the boomers, raise the price 40%. He goes, why? I said, because they got all the money.

Starting point is 00:23:17 They're going to pay it. I said, and there's not enough of you guys around. And they know it. And you're reliable and you're trustworthy and you get the job done fast and quality. raise your price 40%. And if they won't pay it, walk away. They'll come back. And he tried it.

Starting point is 00:23:31 He's like, you're right. I can raise the prices on boomers. They are completely pricing elastic. They want it done and they just pay. I said exactly. And so I think it really, like I said, it depends on the structure of the whole thing. If you've got people that can undermine you, then, you know, then, you know, in terms of diluting the labor supply, it's a recipe for, for, for, you know, for.

Starting point is 00:23:55 what you said, which is just an absolute disaster from the Canelan effect. But if you actually do it from a way that stops, you know, that stops the falling and maybe even bumps sort of the bottom 50, bottom 80% of the people up in line a few slots, then it can kind of improve the cohesiveness of the country as opposed to deteriorating it. It's very interesting. I just want to point out, too, that in terms of negotiating, boomers have all the money, but none of the time. So that's a, a good position to necessarily be in. I want to make sure that I kind of have all this hate mail from boomers now, by the way. They're going to be like, oh, my apologies, send some here. Send some to Gary. Gary can handle it.

Starting point is 00:24:38 He's got quite the ego. Now, if I understand correctly, then essentially by developing the currency, we're going to be, and as long as that immigration is kind of capped or under control, that you then be increasing the wages and kind of, you could probably move to even onshoreing things like manufacturing and industrial base back in the U.S. Now, what I think this is is basically kind of that double-edged story because this would strengthen the U.S. domestically and probably improve relationships here. But wouldn't this also then not come at the cost, which I'm totally fine with, the U.S. Empire, meaning that even with the devalued currency, wouldn't that make it harder even with Chinese rare earth and military strength kind of abroad? You'd lose more of that international impact, which if I have this correct, it might be like a reinforcing circle, meaning that if you focus domestically, it weakens the U.S. Empire international. And then as that continues, that essentially what the U.S., and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I almost view it, and Gary and I were talking this beforehand, that the U.S. is not necessarily exporting dollars around the world. What they're exporting is protection. But if that protection, their ability to kind of intervene and protect on behalf of different players in the geopolitical space is waning, I think it benefits ultimately, it continues to benefit the domestic base, but doesn't that continue to shrink the U.S.'s influence abroad?

Starting point is 00:25:53 So, yeah, I mean, I think a perfect example, you know, really of is, you know, the dollar fell 90% against oil from 2001 to 2008. Right. It went from $15 a barrel to $150 at peak. That's a dollar collapsing 90% against oil. What did we get for that? It's shale, right? Like, they knew shale was there. They knew it was there in 1980.

Starting point is 00:26:18 There were two things that drove it. Number one, the long lateral, steerable lateral technology, huge deal. But the big one that no one wants to mention is, frigging price. Price of oil rose 10x. And suddenly, when paired with that technology, production in the U.S. went from, you know, whatever, 4 million barrels a day to 18 million barrels a day over 10 years. All the related demand jobs, et cetera. I do agree with the dynamic of, you know, the structure of the system is essentially, you know, exporting.

Starting point is 00:26:54 Yeah. defense as a service, if you will, right? Or defense of the commons as a service, along with us exporting our, you know, dollars, bonds, capital markets to recycle, right? And that's, okay, what is one? What did I, you know, Washington, Wall Street, China. Great. Because China's making all this stuff.

Starting point is 00:27:14 But the system has become a victim of its own success and of technology, paradoxically, right? In America, it's considered anti-American or Luddite if you're like, oh, I'm want to slow down the pace of technological growth. The problem is with technology paradoxically, it's not a problem, but it's a paradox. It has eroded. What does technology do over time? It erodes the value of artificial moats, right? If you have an artificial moat, text deflationary. So who's got the biggest artificial moat in the world? I would argue it's like the banking system, but we'll set that aside for later. But sort of the dollar system, like the, you know, you, you, you, U.S. defense. We spent a trillion dollars a year. And I hear very credible rumblings that for the last

Starting point is 00:28:07 18 to 24 months, the United States has been running the strategy and the weapons and tactics of the Ukrainian army. And we lost to the Russians. The Russians are winning. They outspent us four to one. And not only they outspent us four to one, but there is a, a, or, you're excuse me, out produced us, 4-1, not necessarily out-spent us, but out-produced us, excuse me. And that's, according to Mark Rudy, the Secretary General of NATO earlier this year. And more than that, the nature of warfare, like Eric Prince, the former head of Blackwater, came out earlier this year, gave a speech, said that warfare, as a result of what we learned in Ukraine,

Starting point is 00:28:47 went through arguably the biggest change since Genghis Khan put stirrups on horses 800 years ago. Wow. And what that change is is drones, missiles, subs as well. That's a separate discussion. But these drones and missiles and the technology have, in his words, not mine, rendered obsolete trillions of dollars of American defense spending. And so, you know, you start going. You say, well, we provide safety on the oceans. Okay, great.

Starting point is 00:29:19 How's it going in the Red Sea against the Houthis? Not so good. not so good why because the asymmetric dynamic of drones and high speed missiles mean that they can pop shots at $100,000 a rattle and possibly risk severely damaging a 1220 1215 billion carrier which has two big problems number one it pierces the veil you know the emperor has no clothes but number two you don't get to take a shot at a carry and not have a very serious escalation, right? So, like, we would respond and then someone else would respond.

Starting point is 00:30:01 Someone hits a U.S. carrier. It runs the risk of World War II. But in this speech, Eric Prince said, look, here's how it would go in Taiwan. If the Chinese blockaded Taiwan, we would send a carrier. And if we sent a carrier there and it threatened them, it might get sunk. And now you see pictures of, you know, 5,000 American men and women on a boat that's smoking or sinking. But all of this speaks to this dynamic of the technology is evolving to a spot that the defense as a service is no longer credible. And if it's no longer credible, then what are we doing?

Starting point is 00:30:40 Like, we have no, you know, now we very likely have stuff that the world can't even believe we have. Trump's alluded to that a few times. and if you don't use it, you know, it's like a tree falling in the forest and no one around. And there's probably pretty good reasons they're not using it. That's neither here and or there. But to me, when we take a step back to the monetary, we say, okay, well, this deal worked and it was great for Wall Street, Washington, and China. And we protect the commons, except we can't protect the commons anymore.

Starting point is 00:31:12 And we're spending trillions of dollars to not protect the commons when it can be done equally effectively for way less money. But in that case, it requires a change in the structure of the system, right? I mean, like, it doesn't require $800 billion a year to have some Navy SEALs with a 50-cali sniper rifle doing pirate duty, you know, off the coast of Africa. Like, it's not that expensive. Like, you don't need carriers to fight those guys, right? And the carriers you do have against great powers are like not that useful anymore because technologies evolve. So there's this paradox of, you know, yes, if we focus more on home and we change this system, we do this inflation and we devalue the dollar, we would actually probably in the law, it's probably the right strategic move

Starting point is 00:31:58 because we can get back to investing in things that allow us to adjust to the new reality of warfare rather than trying to defend a status quo that is over and just hasn't been marked to market yet in the minds of a lot of investors. So it's a long answer, but I think it's a really good question, really important because there is, it would absolutely pull away from Empire and you go, so what? Empire's not going so good as this. If you can't stop the Houthis in the Red Sea without taking real casualties or the fear of real casualties that would escalate things to an unacceptable level, then like,

Starting point is 00:32:37 like it's over. It just hasn't been marked the market yet. Imagine mining Bitcoin, cheaper than buying on an exchange with direct payouts hitting your wallet like clockwork. Saz mining makes it real. You own the rig, no gimmicks. It's your asset pumping out Bitcoin every single day. No markup on hardware or electricity. They get paid when you get paid. Fully aligning incentives. Mining Bitcoin below exchange cost is a great way to DCA your stack. It's so simple, anyone can do it. No tech skills required. You get white glove support and education, a rig performance guarantee. Plus, it's powered by 100% carbon-free energy

Starting point is 00:33:08 prioritizing renewables. Ready to take control of your Bitcoin future? Visit sasmining.com. by scanning the QR code or clicking the link in the description down below to book a free consult and start mining today. Are you still delaying taking self-custody of your Bitcoin? Do you feel secure in your current Bitcoin set-up? If something were to happen to you, would your stack make it to your loved ones? At Bitcoin Mentor, we've helped thousands of people level up their Bitcoin security and fast-track their understanding. If you find that you simply don't have the time to go through all the books, the tutorials, the guides, you can book a free one-on-one strategy session with myself, Gary, or any of the other great mentors by visiting BitcoinMentor.io. Scan the QR code or simply click the link in the description down below to find out how Ben and the entire expert team at Bitcoin Mentor can help you accelerate your Bitcoin journey.

Starting point is 00:33:53 Use promo code BTC sessions for 10% off. Yeah, I think a lot of what you're saying from my limited knowledge compared to yours, it makes sense to me. And that's just the nature of warfare we've seen evolve throughout human history. I mean, you can even go back to just World War II where the Japanese had all the battleships thinking they were going to win the sea. We came across with aircraft carriers. They're like, what? Wait, this thing is going to win it. And it did. Technology evolves. I'd like to bring up something. I watch your interview with Tucker. And you mentioned the Carl Blessing letter from the Deutsche Bundesbank back in 1967, where blessing from West Germany basically suggested to America, like, hey, what do you think if we kind of put some of our Deutsch marks in gold, i.e. repatriate some of our gold from you. and American authorities more or less said, I mean, you could do that and maybe we could remove our troops from West Germany and you can deal with the Russians yourselves. And that was the end of that. So to Nathan's point of, you know, us kind of exporting protection, and to your point, if we're not as good at that anymore and it seems to be less and less effective and we're manufacturing less ability to do that here compared to China, how does that affect the dollar worldwide? In the sense,

Starting point is 00:35:10 how much of other people using the dollar comes down to they want to use the dollar or they're using it as a favor to us because we say so or we're protecting them. Well, I think there's also, I think there's some of that. And I think there's also sort of the incumbent payment system infrastructure. And I think technology is disrupting all of it. So like, you know, the protection side. You know, if we threaten the Germans with that today, there's an economic impact that I think is very big for various local. in Germany, and that would be an issue. Now, practically speaking, like, we're protecting you from the Russians is, like,

Starting point is 00:35:48 one of the dumbest things I ever hear because, like, number one, the Russians have 11 time zones they can barely handle, right? So, like, the same person will tell you, we are protecting Germany and Europe from being overrun by the Russians. And then that same person will turn around in a different podcast and say, China is, like, open field running because the Russians don't have enough to defend their own border against China. China is going to start taking over Russia. Okay. So they're going to go west and leave that even more

Starting point is 00:36:16 exposed to the far greater military power and threat. That does, no one ever pushes them on that, by the way. Then no one else. And then that same person will then finish their podcast by going, Russia has a catastrophic demographic crisis and the country is going to be like, you know, down 50% population in 20 years, which may or may not be true. I don't know. But like those three things cannot exist all together, particularly when they then overlay it with the very simple observation that at peak America, the greatest military in the world, had 500,000 soldiers roughly in Iraq. And it's a desert. Desorts are easier to defend and to say, especially with our weapon systems as it were structured than say Europe, which has trees and lots more cities and lots more hills and

Starting point is 00:37:00 mountains and all these things. And the greatest military in the world with 500,000 soldiers could not control Iraq. And Europe is 17 times the size of Iraq. Putin doesn't have 17 times the army times 500,000, and he's got a demographic crisis. And he has a border crisis. So like this whole dynamic of like, well, we're, the only thing standing between, you know, Europe speaking Russian, you know, is our military, is like laughable, especially when you can overlay the realities of what happened to Ukraine. And these are horribly tragic. But like, there are people that, that you can see studies that have estimated the casualty rates suffered by Ukrainian infantry when drones are in the battle. And it's like in the open, it's like 90 plus percent. In the woods,

Starting point is 00:37:50 it's like 40 percent. So 90 percent by way of comparison, we've all seen the opening scenes of saving private Ryan. Those are 90 percent casualty rates. Door goes down. Everybody's hit. So like, if the Russians somehow did take Europe, they're little. literally going to be like swatting these drones away and they're all going to be dead within you know a year or less so this along with a background of like the sort of protection as a service card sort of is is no longer a weapon um and then sort of a follow on to that sorry around the dollar what does it mean for the dollar um yes i think that's part of it uh i think it's part of it right people say, well, ultimately the U.S. military backs the dollar. Well, that dynamic of it is not good for the dollar because, you know, and very, you know, at high levels, it has been noticed. You know, there was an article a couple weeks ago that in one of the defense trade rags that asserted that the U.S. blew through 15 to 20 percent of its air defense missile inventory in just 11 days of medium combat against, you know, defending, defending Israel.

Starting point is 00:39:07 from Iran. And Israel, you know, as we poo-poo the Iranian stuff over and over and over, but these are the Iranians were said to have another five years worth of this stuff. The Iranians were said they were running out. Oh yeah. And oh, by the way, guess who makes, guess who makes the rare earths that we need to make the stuff to replenish this? That, that, the, China, almost all of it. So at a high level in very senior levels of power, there are two things that are understood. The Americans, cannot go to war against near peer or peer powers because the Chinese decide who goes to war with near peer or pure power.

Starting point is 00:39:45 So number one, all of the sort of trade negotiations, dollar stuff that we think about always has the background of or we will Saddam you or we will go to Gaddafi you. And the reality is, is like if we tried to do that to Saudi, MBS is going to pick up the phone and go, hi, President Xi, hi, President Putin. How many missile systems can you give me? And, you know, David P. Goldman, Asia Times says Chinese can make 4,000 cruise missile motors a week with AI integrated manufacturing. By way of comparison, according to him, America, as of two years ago, had 5,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles in inventory. Total. Total.

Starting point is 00:40:33 war, everybody says, well, war is ultimately about who can make more the fastest. Absolutely. And that's what we did in World War II. And today that's China. And it ain't even close. Yeah. So like the, paradoxically, it leaves me very bullish on risk assets because I think we're going to peace for at least the next 12 to 18 months for a simple reason. No one can go to war without China. But then I do think that has implications for the dollar around, you know, sort of this ultimate, you know, back. And of the dollar. I don't think it necessarily is, you know, people stop using it because of these military realities. I do think the bigger risk is sort of the payment side, right? That basically the dollar is used and in and and. And we've sort of been shooting ourselves in the food on that for 15 years. You know, we kicked Russia around out of the Swiss system in 2012, which is like, you know, unless there's something there where that I just am not, you know, party to in terms of why we did it, or privy to, but that's like running your single best offensive football play, super secret, you know, double pass, you know, against like St. Mary's School of the Blind

Starting point is 00:41:46 that you're going to beat, you know, by 42 with like your third string guys. Like, Luke, I have to, I have to interpret that's probably the best analogy we ever had on this show, but continue. It is, oh, it was so galactically stupid amongst like an ocean of galactically stupid tactical and strategic decisions. But more recently. You know, when you repeatedly weaponize the dollar against Russia, when you threaten sanctions against a Chinese, when you threat, you are telling people, you know, it's like here, it's like giving your kids a video game system that the longer they play it, they're going to get cancer. How long would you let your kids play with that video game system? The answer is like, it depends, which one?

Starting point is 00:42:23 Which kid? Yeah. And with day too, right? Yeah. Right. No, and it's, but it's literally like, that's, you know, this, they made it clear that this was the best weapon we have, especially now that everyone at a senior level knows that the United States cannot go to war with near peer or peer powers without the, without the Chinese sending them the rare earth to do so. So now we're into this weird situation where the U.S. either has to make some real concessions, which I think will be dollar negative and I actually think are strategically in our long term interest. or we got to keep using the only weapon we have, which is we're just, you know, it's like, you know, Game of Thrones, right? You know, the Mad King. Burn them. Burn them. Burn them all. You know, sanction them all.

Starting point is 00:43:07 Everyone gets sanctions. You know, Oprah. I see you get a sanction. And they all go, okay. And again, here with technology, I made, for instance, before with the defense side. But like, you can make payments using China's Wii chat, using the People's Bank of China, you know, EU-U-on, outside. the dollar system entirely. And, you know, Janus Verifacus gave a great speech two weeks ago in Britain where he said, look, you know, when they set this stuff up, no one wanted to use it. And then the Europeans and the Americans grabbed $480 billion of Russian FX reserves. And then they threaten 100% sanctions on Russian oil.

Starting point is 00:43:44 And then they, and you go, okay, I'll use some of this stuff. And the more you use it. And oh, by the way, you know, nobody trusts the Chinese more than Americans, but everybody trusts It's gold more than the Americans. Everybody, even our former Ellen Greenspan said that in 2014. So that gold is better than the dollar. So, you know, China has set up gold convertibility and expanded it. Even a couple weeks ago said, hey, we're opening up Hong Kong.

Starting point is 00:44:10 Gold vaults, boom. You end up with the EU one. You'll bring it to Hong Kong. We'll give you gold. Where's the gold coming from? Not China. It's coming from America and from Britain. And we've done all the marketing for them.

Starting point is 00:44:20 Oh, it's like, okay, thank you. So, again, I think it's ultimately, you know, I think the dollar is going to be like, it'll still be used, right? But it's giving itself Gresham's law disease, right? Or, you know, and paradoxically resolving Triffon's dilemma, right? Triven's dilemma is being fixed because people are going, all right, well, fine, I'll divert some of my payments into the, you know, non-dollar system, doesn't touch that system. I'll settle in gold. And, you know, we look around and say, wow, central bank gold reserves are up another 1100 tons. year, wonder why that's happening. Huh, I wonder why. Like, I think it's going to keep happening.

Starting point is 00:44:57 And I think eventually you'll see Bitcoin get involved with that, but, you know, not yet. So on that point, then, I want to tease that a little bit. So you make a very strong case for gold being the, everyone's moved to gold as the neutral reserve asset. And then my question is, what is it that is it that is preventing Bitcoin from also fulfilling that role? What is it that you kind of need to see in terms of adoption or market cap, is it purely that it's just too early in its monetization phase that couldn't handle the necessary liquidity or kind of what's going on that you see that maybe Bitcoin, but not Bitcoin yet. Because arguably like the idea of even having things priced in dollars, so we're just looking at maybe from like the unit of account. You got kind of that currency

Starting point is 00:45:36 asset split into two. Bitcoin very nicely moves those right back together. Like I, one, why not Bitcoin at this point in time and kind of where do you see things going? And then two, if Bitcoin was to eventually find itself in that sort of a role, wouldn't that, unlike gold doesn't really compete with the dollar in terms of a currency, can Bitcoin and the dollar actually coexist further down the line? I think ultimately why not Bitcoin yet is what you just said, right? Liquidity. I think it's liquidity and it's track record, right?

Starting point is 00:46:07 It's tech, it's new. It's, you know, you can't touch it. You can't look in the vault if you're a sovereign and say there it is, you know, until you really understand the technology. And once you do that, then you can look at it and say, there it is. So I think there's a learning curve there around that that is accelerating rapidly. And there's a whole group of people out there that are, I think, pushing the understanding of that very, very nicely, various different lobbyist groups and et cetera. So I think that's a possibility.

Starting point is 00:46:40 As I look at it, I think some of what we're seeing with stable coins is effectively an admission by the U.S. going, okay, we did stand up long-term trade. Treasuries is the primary reserve asset. And 11 years ago, you know, central banks were like, yeah, no, led by the Chinese and Russians. But we sort of fought and they stood up gold. And over the last 11, you know, 10, 11 years, gold and long-term treasuries fought. And the reality is, is that gold won by knockout. You can see it in the chart. You know, the price of gold in treasury bond, long-term treasury bond futures is up 4x in 10 years. So gold wins by knockout. Uh-oh. We need a new neutral reserve asset. And the reason we need to be neutral, is the Chinese will happily still use dollars to trade, and they're going to want to buy, you know,

Starting point is 00:47:24 Freeport MacMaran with their dollars, and they're going to want to buy, you know, the port of New York, New Jersey like they tried to do, and they're going to want to buy farmland near Air Force bases. And like, these are all the things that the dollar system post-71 says, you got to have a wide open capital account if you want the dollar to be structured that way. And if you don't want the dollar to be, you know, if you don't want the Chinese buying up all of the good stuff, right? Like, like America's been like, no, no, no, no, buy this empty strip. in Minneapolis, it used to be a Best Buy. And China's like, no, I'll take the Port of LA Long Beach, please. I'll take the port of New. And like, if you don't want your dollars to be good for stuff that people want, then you're going to have to close your capital account on some level.

Starting point is 00:48:06 And doing that changes the dollar system. And you're going to need to offer something of value. And we can't use our gold, but not anywhere near $3,300 an ounce, you know, maybe at $30,000 an ounce, we could certainly do that. That's one way out of it. And certainly that would have implications for the dollar and trade value and reindustrialization, inflation, lots of different things. But ultimately, you know, you can start with a stable coin setup. And you, to me, I'm intrigued because if you have stable coins start to sort of

Starting point is 00:48:40 disintermediate foreign currencies on phones around the world, right? hey, I want to own a digital dollar and I'm in, you know, I mean, I'll use, I'll use Besson's example from three weeks ago, right? If I'm in Nigeria and I want to own dollars, I can now buy, you know, basically leveraging American technology on my iPhone, internet. I now can have access to a digital dollar. And you can see why they would want to do that. You know, the nine, the NARA, the dollar in NARA terms over the last three years, I think is up like 300%. Yeah. Great. But how long is it going to be till that same person? on that same phone with that dollar stable coin looks at the performance of Bitcoin in narrow terms

Starting point is 00:49:21 and goes, oh, Bitcoin was up 4,600% over those same three years. You know what? I'm going to take 20% of my money in my digital dollars. I'm going to put it in Bitcoin and I'll take the volatility because I know it and it's fine. And, you know, if you're living in Nigeria, you're probably used to more volatility in your life anyway relative to the average boomer who wants to clip his 4% coupon from Uncle Sam. And so I think that they're not saying it, but I think the stablecoin thing is ultimately a way of essentially standing up Bitcoin as sort of the de facto neutral reserve asset that sort of, you know, the treasury market is laying there on the mat bleeding out, barely conscious. And they're like, you know, like WWE tagging in Bitcoin basically through the stable coin market to kind of fight the gold, you know, bricks. that has, you know, drub this, you know, as, you know, gold tends to do to fiat currency system. So I, I, there's an interesting dynamic there. There's a lot of executional sort of risk developments,

Starting point is 00:50:29 policy stuff that I think kind of has to happen. But you can see clear. I saw you guys smiling at it. Like, like, you sort of, it, you can see clear to the intuitive and the human incentive path there. I don't think the Secretary of Treasury of the United States says we want Bitcoin to be our new reserve asset. I don't think he's ever going to say that. But he's gotten relatively close to pronouncements around that without saying that, in my opinion, so far. Amazing. I'd be remiss of it and ask too. Then just for a little bit of bullporn, what would that do to the price?

Starting point is 00:51:06 I think you could probably add a zero to be safe to start. Gary, you had something there, yeah? Yeah, I'll zoom us back out to 30,000 feet. You know, we've talked a lot about how there's going to be pain, I think, no matter what happens, no matter which policies are pursued, there's been pain already just based on the fact that you have a system that prints money. We talked about the cantalone effect before. We were talking to people getting screwed. So people are going to be screwed by the fix. I mean, just given that the Fiat system is based on credit, it's based on debt, it's based on a money printer, which in essence steals from.

Starting point is 00:51:42 some more than others. We're talking about all these ways to save America and maybe save the system. Is the Fiat system worth being saved? Yes, because I do think it has some, there's some flexibility to it that, you know, to me, I think the fix is not paging your currency to some hard asset. That is better for savers, but cruel in other directions and also, and again, cruel, away from that, politically destabilizing. You know, you, so to me, the fixed to Trippin's dilemma has always been and remains. You separate, you know, you've got your unit of account, right? So currency, unit of account, medium exchange, store of value.

Starting point is 00:52:30 Unit of account, I think it's going to stay dollars where my kids have kids and beyond. You've got to separate the store of value and the medium exchange. And I think fiat is very useful as a medium exchange. I think where it goes wrong is when you then have your store of value also denominated in that in that medium of exchange so that you can steal from your, you know, you can steal from your your your creditors, right, from inflation, right? Those are the two sides. When you marry those two, the creditors get screwed.

Starting point is 00:53:05 And when you met when you marry the store of value and sort of cow. to that, then your debtors get screwed. And, and, you know, because now you're like, hey, we're spending 70% of, you know, of receipts on entitlements. Well, if we went to a hard currency, receipts are going to fall, you know, in all likelihood for a period of time. And we need to run a balanced budget. And so, you know, we need to cut entitlements 50% starting tomorrow permanently.

Starting point is 00:53:36 Like, you know, in a country with 14 guns for every 10 people, that's not going to be really good in terms of political stability. So like sort of the Solomon splitting the baby, how you cut that gaudy and not is you separate, store of value, medium exchange, so that you can continue sort of your liquidity on one hand with the medium exchange and do the things you need to do and hopefully make better policies over time, right?

Starting point is 00:54:03 That's funny. But ultimately the harder store of value will lead to better policies over time, right? Because ultimately, in theory, over time, those people are going to end up with more and more political power as they end up with more and more money, more wealth. And I think you're seeing that in real time with sort of Bitcoin, right? Like Bitcoin as a political force 10 years ago was like, who are these nut cases? And now they're like, you know, they've got the president and I was down at Bitcoin 2024 last year. The president was there. The several senator, right, it's undeniable their political power has surged.

Starting point is 00:54:39 Why? Let's not be naive. Their wealth has surged. Why has their wealth surged? Because it's because they are gaining share of wealth by virtue of having this emergent separation of store of value and medium exchange. Do you think that it needs to, you know, I know you're saying separating an out in a fiat world, you know, the medium exchange and store of value. Do you believe that in a Bitcoin world, I would argue when that happens, and I don't know the exact timeline, would you need to separate those two things out? You might not. You might not. And, you know, if you run the game theory, I would completely concede your point, right? There is, you know, at some point the people saving in the Fiat instruments go, wait, I'm the sucker at the card table. I need to own Bitcoin, right? And, and, you know, there's only one hardest currency. And they sort of, and you end up with. I have a hard time coming up with argument to say that doesn't eventually happen.

Starting point is 00:55:46 Politically, I can tell you if it happens too fast, you end up with bad political instability. I think that's an understatement. Yeah. But the beauty of Bitcoin is right, like unlike everything else, they really can't stop it. You know, unless you sort of shut off the electricity and shut off the internet. And A, you're going to have even worse political problems if you do that. And B, like you shut off the internet, like the wealth of the top 1% and point. 1% like goes to zero overnight.

Starting point is 00:56:14 So they can't do that. So that's, you know, it really is sort of what's that quote from, you know, I can't really is Barnacis or Hayek. Yeah, right? Like the only way you're going to get hard money is you sort of sneak it in and, you know. Sly roundabout way. Yeah, sly roundabout way. And it's blended really with Henry Ford's sort of electricity dollar.

Starting point is 00:56:31 So, um, in terms of how it's structured. So I completely concede your point, Gary that you could get there. I think it's a matter of how do we get there. what's that look like? You know, there's Windows, right? I don't think Gen X really thinks

Starting point is 00:56:45 we're going to get that much in terms of social security and stuff. I don't. I don't expect it. No. So, like, if you kind of screw us as a generation,

Starting point is 00:56:52 you'd be like, oh, well, you know, it's like Vinnie Daniels in, you know, big short,

Starting point is 00:56:58 you know, tell me how you're going to screw me and I'll do the deal. Like, just stand up and be like, Jen X, you've known it was coming. You're going to get rich

Starting point is 00:57:04 when your parents die and leave you all their stuff. You're not getting any social security. Well, Thank you for being honest. Honestly. The guy might win in a landslide to be on. Exactly.

Starting point is 00:57:14 Yeah. It's true. Yeah. Great big short reference, by the way. I love that scene. Beautiful. I want to pivot for one quick seconds. I do want to get this question in and get your thoughts on, Luke.

Starting point is 00:57:24 I believe you talked previously about the idea of a sovereign debt crisis. And in my view, that's still kind of in the cards, but I imagine that the central banks just kind of swoop in and it gets pushed down to the private sector. What I wanted to ask specifically was, where in the world, where in the world is, where in the world, would you expect the highest probability of a sovereign debt crisis to occur, if anywhere at all? And the one thing that I wanted to point out, because I found it very interesting, was the 30-year guilts right now are 50 basis points above where it was during that Liz Trust crisis back in fall of 2022. And there was the chancellor, was it, Rachel, Rachel Reeves.

Starting point is 00:58:01 Yeah, eyeing that she's got, Chancellor on the brink of selling five billion pounds of Bitcoin to plug the hole in their budget. That just screams like they're doing great, but maybe there's somewhere else. I was about to say the, yeah, if I had to guess, I would start with the UK. They're a twin deficit nation, big financial markets, not much real economy relative to that, a foreign policy that seems to still think it's 1907 in terms of their relative power and military projection and defense industrial base. And yeah, now, of course, there are our second biggest foreign.

Starting point is 00:58:39 creditor. So if they have a problem, guess what they're going to be selling to raise liquidity? Treasury bonds. You know, and it's mostly private sector, not official sector, but still, you know, it would spread fast. And yeah, I could own, when I looked at that, I, all I could think of was Brown's bottom around, you know, gold, right? They sold all their gold at $250 in 99 or 2000 to basically bail out the LBMA. And yeah, to bail out the BMA. And yeah, to bail out politicians, bad decisions. You know, that's, you know, if you think, if you think Bitcoin's a bubble and you think, like, think about it, the guy who's selling it to you is that government.

Starting point is 00:59:22 You really think people have seen an all-time peak? Like, I would love to pose that quick. Bitcoin's never going higher. Britain is talking about selling it to plug in the holes in their budget for, like, good luck. Short it there. Knock yourself out. Beautiful. With that, Luke, is there?

Starting point is 00:59:40 there any place tell people where can they go to check out Forrest for the T's trees, Twitter, all that fun stuff. Absolutely. FFTT-L-L-C-com for more information about our different institutional and mass market research products. And on X or the Twitter, as I say, I say like a fuddy-duddy at Luke Gromman, L-U-K-E-G-R-O-M-E-N. If you enjoyed this episode with Luke Gromin, please do like and subscribe and check out the previous episode with Alex Gladstein on Bitcoin as a talk. for human rights.

BTC Sessions - Macro Update: Bitcoin’s Path to $1,000,000 & Global Monetary Reset | Luke Gromen

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