The Breakdown - The Friday Five: Bitcoin Custody Controversy

Episode Date: October 26, 2024

This week on the Friday Five, NLW and Scott Melker discuss the biggest stories in crypto this week, including some controversial comments from Michael Saylor as well as a proposal for Microsoft to act like Microstrategy. Unlocking Bitcoin DeFi with ExSat The exSat Network aims to unlock and scale the Bitcoin ecosystem without compromising Bitcoins Ideology. The network has partnered with the largest mining pools in the world, major custodians and exchanges, BitTrade, Cubolt, Matrixport, Everstake, OKX and aims to have over $200M TVL at mainnet launch on the 23rd of October. Follow exSat’s Twitter to stay up to date @exsatnetwork or visit the testnet exsat.network Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/nathanielwhittemorecrypto Subscribe to the newsletter: https://breakdown.beehiiv.com/ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownNLW

Welcome back to The Breakdown with me, NLW. It's a daily podcast on macro, Bitcoin, and the big picture power shifts remaking our world. What's going on, guys? It is Friday, October 25th, and that means it's time for the Friday 5. Before we get into that, however, if you are enjoying the breakdown, please go subscribe to it, give it a rating, give it a review, or if you want to dive deeper into the conversation, come join us on the Breakers Discord. You can find a link in the show notes or go to bit.L.Y slash breakdown pod. All right, friends, we are back with another Friday 5 with Scott Melker, we're talking a little bit about a Michael Sailor controversy, but also about a micro strategy copycat at Microsoft.

Lots of interesting things going on. Let's get into all of it now. Another week with a lot of news, some controversy, sailors in hot water, Stripe making some big moves, Microsoft on the docket. Things are happening. Yeah, I like it. It's different than our normal slate. It's nice that we're finally out of the like, oh, it's the same thing all over again. It's like, you know, it's interesting.

Like, people are so clearly past the elections, you know? It's like, God, I don't want to talk about that anymore, even though they haven't happened yet. And on that note, 64% chance that Donald Trump will win the election on polymarket. This spread seems to be increasing. But we are basically days away from finally getting some clarity here in the election, maybe not having to talk about politics as much, although I have a fear that it's going to force us to talk about politics more, depending on how the election results pan out. Temptorarily, for sure. And we'll actually get to see what happens, depending on who the winner is to our beloved market.

But I don't think there's much to talk about on the political front today. I think that now it's watch and wait. And maybe we're going to see some real fireworks in all markets when we finally get a result here, don't you think? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the only thing notable, I'm sure you talked about at some point in some of the shows over the last couple weeks, you know, there's definitely a sense among market participants that markets are throwing their lot in for a Trump victory, right? Drunken Miller, I think, has had the loudest sort of statements about this. I think it was about a week ago now. Maybe he'll even a little bit more than that, but he basically said that over the last couple weeks, it seemed very clear to him that the markets had decided that they

thought that Trump was going to win. So pretty interesting to see if that holds. It will be interesting and usually in a situation like that when everybody is pricing in bullishness because of a certain result. If that result happens, you get a sell off. Yeah. You buy the rumor and sell the news and it goes exactly the opposite way, at least temporarily. So it will be actually interesting to see how it plays out, at least in the short term, if he does win. Yep. Okay, the first big story I think that we have today, Stripe confirms plans to acquire stable coin platform bridge.

Bridge helps businesses issue and accept stable coins. They actually help Tesla. Stripe agreed to pay $1.1 billion for the crypto startup. I think that makes this the largest M&A play basically in the history of crypto, if I'm not mistaken. Yep, it does. Listen, you know, one of the things that we talk about here a lot is what is the nature of this cycle?

Where are we in a four-year cycle? Does the four-year cycle even apply? What's different this time? We've talked about in the past how this cycle hasn't really had a catalyst for new retail investors to come in, right? There's no equivalent of NFTs this time. around. What's interesting, though, is if you take a step back, there is starting to be, I think, some clarity around what will be looked back at as having to find this cycle.

And it seems to be, at least so far, the mainstreaming and institutionalization of two core sort of pillars of the crypto space. One is Bitcoin with the ETFs, obviously. And I think Ethereum is sort of part of that ETF, you know, institutionalization, even though it hasn't done as much from a financial standpoint. And then the other is stable coins, right? Stable coins are now officially being recognized by the rest of the world as dollar infrastructure for the next generation, right? The same way that we've been thinking about it for years and years, but that's really coming to fruition now. And I think that this is a great example of that. Stripe has obviously been peeling back its previous shift in crypto policy to get more friendly again. But this is a real investment in a digital dollarized

future, basically. I think it's very notable for that reason. Yeah, there's a great quote from Bridge. We proved ourselves into those outside the company that stable coins to become core global money movement infrastructure. This happened not because consumers or businesses inherently want crypto, but instead because stable coins solve critical financial problems. Yeah, I mean, listen, one of the things that has seemed very clear to anyone spending a bit of attention with this and why some of the sort of, you know, U.S. antagonism has been so weird, is that there have been, you know, on the one hand, there have been reasons why the U.S. looked more precarious as the world's reserve currency than before, particularly in the wake of, you know, politicized

sanctions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and things like that. There's all these reasons that people started to wonder, you know, are we finally at a tipping point where people are going to try to start peeling back, right? Certainly we've seen central banks want to buy less treasuries, but there's a countervailing force, which has been the fact that dollars are still the most liquid, most desired currency everywhere in the world, right? You go to any market anywhere and you're going to be able, if you have a $20 bill, you're going to be able to use it, right? Pretty much. And digital dollars in the form of stable coins specifically have seemed for a long time like the single most likely scenario for extending dollar dominance for at least another

generation. And boy, is that coming to fruition in just an absolute storm. irony of the killer app for crypto being to hyper dollarization should not be lost on anyone who's an early bitcoiner, but it has been the killer use case absolutely for crypto outside of the creation of Bitcoin itself. I think there's a lot to be said for if you view crypto, one of the values of crypto as truly free markets, right? Markets that are more unfettered than just about anything else. This is a great instantiation of that, right? People around the world demand dollars and they can have access to them much more easily than they ever did before. Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't still a desire for a totally different type of asset,

like something that Bitcoin represents. But, you know, there's a lot that crypto represents and freedom to transact is one of them. And I think, you know, stable coins have been a total unmitigated victory on that column. Well, the European Central Bank doesn't necessarily agree with what we just said and published a paper that we discussed briefly, last week. That was called the distributional consequences of Bitcoin. He made some dubious claims about our favorite assets. Here you go. The notions that those who are late to investing in Bitcoin are impoverished by those who are early to investing in it and that Bitcoin has failed as a payments technology are the author's central arguments. And this would sound only slightly bad shit crazy

if it was just the ECB, but the Minneapolis Fed effectively followed up with similar thoughts, only days later. I mean, the idea that early people who got into Bitcoin are going to benefit from the impoverishment of future generations who buy it at a more expensive price is just wide. Yeah, there's a lot that's interesting

about this one to me. I've been following this story a little bit. There's plenty of dubiousness in the arguments that people can get into if you want to get into the specifics of it. I tend to think that the meta, trying to understand the context

in which this is coming is kind of more interesting, right? Because there's very different circumstances that are possible. On the one hand, is this two economists who are simply associated with the ECB? You know, like the paper says not the opinion of the ECB, it's the opinion of the authors, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Are these people engaging in an intellectual experiment where they're just trying to have a conversation? And this is what academia is for.

And candidly, there's some evidence that that's sort of how they treated this, that you know, this is as much a thought experiment as a declaration of war, right? We saw that in the fact that they had sent an advanced copy to a bunch of Bipcoin or academics that they were friends with wanting to sort of encourage a conversation. So there's some evidence, you know, they've also been very proactively engaged with people about this. So there's some evidence that this is like really meant to be an academic exercise and exploration. On the other hand, this is even to the extent that it is that from these two in particular, right? And they're not as antagonistic as the, as the paper would seem. This is setting an

intellectual framework for an absolute war on Bitcoin. And so even if their intention is not, as two human beings to declare war on Bitcoin, it sets a framework argument for potential future attempts to ban it. So I don't know, it's a pretty fascinating thing with potentially some fairly big consequences if sort of adopted in by other people. I agree with you that it's an academic but it does sort of draw some conclusions that seem to lead to, we'd be better off without Bitcoin at all. And the Minneapolis Fed went that direction. I mean, I love this one. The new Lamborghini Rolex villa and equity portfolios by early Bitcoin investors do not stem from an increase in the economy's production potential. Rather, they are financed by diminishing consumption and wealth of those who

initially do not hold Bitcoin. It's like filling one bucket by draining water from another. The laycomers have to give up for the benefit of the early holders, thus missing out. Bitcoin is not merely a lost opportunity for wealth accumulation, but means real impoverishment compared to a world without Bitcoin. The redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. Even if the latecomer cannot attribute their loss of purchasing power, they will feel a malaise and frustration that will contribute further to even evermore split society.

So even if there aren't actual financial consequences, they're going to feel really bad about and be angry. Yeah. I mean, listen, like I said, the substance of the paper, there's a lot of, a lot of dubiousness in this. There's, you know, just there's so many assumptions that they don't even try to caveat them as assumptions. They just kind of plow through and hope you don't notice.

Oh, man, when I get my Lambo, I'm telling you, man, I wasn't an early enough Bitcoin or enough, I guess, to qualify. So I'll be malaise and frustration guy. Speaking of Malays and frustration guy, finally, man, Nigeria drops charges against finance, cryptocurrency, boss, I believe he's been in a Nigerian prison since February. And he was basically being held accountable personally. This guy's U.S. citizen for the charges that existed against finance.

He's been in terrible health. They're finally releasing him, said he can leave the country, go get the health, the care that he basically needs, the medical treatment, and that they're not dropping any charges against finance, but Gambarion Tigran is free to finally go. This is crazy. I mean, this guy went on a business trip to Nigeria for Bynance in February and has been sitting in prison since. This is an insane story.

We've talked about it at least once or twice before. But, you know, like you said, the good news is that he's out. But the unconscionableness of the way that this transpired is just so insane, right? The fact that he was held basically as ransom for Bynance by the Nigerian government, the fact that not only is he a U.S. citizen, he's a decorated, former IRS officer, you know, who sort of, you know, has legendary status in that group. He joined Binance in 2021 trying to like write that ship and make it more compliant. I mean, everything about it is insane.

There has been a growing chorus of pressure on the U.S. government to do something. We have no idea at this stage, like what was the set of things that led to this release. You know, it's not clear that it was behind the scenes pressure from the State Department or work. It could have been, but it took too long. It took way too damn long under any circumstances. And I think the entire U.S. should be very embarrassed about how this happened, even though it's free now.

There's a lot of U.S. hostages in a lot of places right now that our government doesn't seem to care too much about. Yeah. This episode of The Breakdown is brought to you by XAT Network. As regular listeners know, one of the things that I think is really exciting right now is all of the new builder energy around Bitcoin. And XAT Network is a great example of that. XAT Network utilizes a combined consensus mechanism of POW and POS, enabling miners to earn

revenue and stakers to earn Bitcoin yield. Their state data index mirrors Bitcoin UTXO data, creating a venue for BTCFi to flourish and a platform to trade Bitcoin assets. ExSAT network partners with MatrixPort committing 5,000 to 10,000 NBTC to the network, assisting with DAP development and enhancing security. Ultimately, the goal is for XAT Network's decentralized asset custody to enable you to earn Bitcoin yield without sacrificing security or transparency. The X-SAT network aims to unlock and scale the Bitcoin ecosystem without compromising Bitcoin ideology.

Check out X-SAT.network or follow X-SAT on Twitter at X-SAT network. That's E-X-S-A-T-N-E-T-W-R-K, and unlock Bitcoin Defi with X-Sat. Michael Saylor got absolutely annihilated this week by his beloved Bitcoin Maxi community for some comments that he made in an interview. We'll talk about this reversal first, but I'm just going to go ahead and play the clip really quickly, if you don't mind, because it's- Go for it. Greater when they're unregulated private entities

that are perceived to be holding the asset. When you have regulated public entities like Black Rock and Fidelity and JP Morgan and State Street Bank holding the asset, well, all the lawmakers and all the law enforcement arms, they're invested in those entities, right? So there's no way that all the senators and all the congressmen are going to seize the assets

from Fidelity and Black Rock or Vanguard because that's where all their retirement money is invested. So the asset moving from private to public hands and moving into regulated entities, it does a bunch of things. It decreases the volatility. It decreases the risk of loss. It decreases their... Like, who do you trust more as a custodian?

FTA. or Fidelity, right, or Vanguard or State Street, right? And if you walk down the street and you said, you know, would you put all your family's money in an offshore entity without a headquarters run by five dudes without an auditor? Or would you put it with a bank that's too big to fail in the U.S.? Right? Like, at the end of the day, you have an OG crypto community. It's very hardcore about it, but if you look at where all the money is,

99.9% of the money is actually in the traditional economy. And in the war for the future of money, the war is going to be won with money. Right? I mean, right, at the end of the day, Bitcoin is capital. Who's going to actually decide who's the winner or the loser? The people with the capital. And so where's the capital? It's a Vanguard, Fidelity, State Street, J.P. Morgan, Stanley.

They're all regulated entities of sorts. So when Bitcoin is held by those entities, it becomes regular and normal. And, you know, people would no more think about seizing that than they think about seizing a building in the middle of Manhattan or seizing, you know, the S&P spider assets. Why would you do that? That's just the capital that you built the country on. Well, if you ask, why would you do that if you consider the Great Depression? I mean, people thought that their gold was safe in banks until the executive order of

1933. So we're not entirely safe. I mean, I know that's kind of a wild thing to suggest may happen again, but history does repeat itself. So people's Bitcoin wouldn't be entirely safe. People say that, but mostly it's paranoid crypto anarchists that save that. Yeah, that last part, and he said that earlier, he actually said at the beginning right before this came in, if there's more Bitcoin hell with third party, well, he basically called them crypto anarchists twice, right? And, you know, those are his friends. Sometimes you watch an interview and all you can think is, as they just dig themselves deeper and deeper. And then the interviewer gives them a chance to walk it back and they go, they start shoveling behind them.

Yeah, he literally, he responded to that. He's like, they didn't really take the gold. And gold was just the money. And they didn't like go take people's buildings in Manhattan. So whatever. Yeah. At what angle do we want to explore this from? There's a lot.

What do you think? Okay, well, let me first say this was his response after getting roasted, because people perceive this as an attack on self-custody, saying the true spirit of Bitcoin, obviously, is the ability to custody yourself. Whether you do it yourself or not, that needs to exist at the very base level. So he said, I support self-custody for those willing and able the right to self-custody for all and freedom to choose a form of custody and custodian for individuals and institutions globally. Bitcoin benefits from all forms of investment by all types of entities and should welcome everyone. So that was his sort of responsibility. after he got annihilated by the community. First, I would maybe ask, did you view what he said as an attack on self-custy? Not really, but like what people forget, and this happens all the time with every area, to be fair, but it happens to Bitcoin a lot, is we forget or people forget that everyone doesn't think exactly like them. And Sailor has never thought exactly like all the other Bitcoiners.

There are a lot of parts that he agrees with. There are a lot of conversion experiences that he had, right? He had his road to Damascus conversion and became, you know, St. Peter for Bitcoin in some ways. But he doesn't think the same way that all Bitcoiners do. He is radically more entrenched in the traditional system. He always has been. He's been unabashed about this. And so this isn't all that surprising.

He's also a man who doesn't really have a PR department, I think, you know, thinking about his statements and how they're going to hit with Bitcoiners. I think that there's a reasonable, frustration that comes from the fact that he is appointed effectively a spokesperson for Bitcoin by the media. And that comes with some amount of responsibility. And so to the extent that it's, if he hadn't used like the phrase like crypto anarchist three times, I think it would have been a very different thing. He was talking about something else, but that made it about like those people are crazy, you know, it would have been totally reasonable for him to say, I support the right

to self-custody. I think it's unbelievable that we have an asset class that enables that now. However, I also think that, like, it's a big full market. There's lots of options and what makes it great is that we have all these things. You know what I mean? Like, he also could say my base case is that I don't believe that the government's likely to seize it for these reasons. But that's still different than like the only people who think that are crypto anarchists, you know? Yeah, if he had been speaking strictly about how institutions perceive it and how this will grow on Wall Street or through governments or through Bitcoin on balance sheets, he would have been 100% correct. There's no entity.

We've all made that argument. We talked about institutional adoption in the last cycle, and you look back and it's laughable to think that a company like Tesla was going to buy Bitcoin on their balance sheet in 2017 and put it on a ledger. At the time, we didn't even have trusted custodians that a company or a government could use to even hold Bitcoin on a balance sheet or gain exposure or to have safe ETF. So it is absolutely true that these companies need. a custodium with a fiduciary duty to custody these assets in a safe way,

and that's never going to be a self-custody device. The problem is that, as you said, he didn't differentiate that from why this exists and is important to the individual who might not trust those government entities. Yeah. It's a great reminder of like, ultimately you never want to meet your heroes, because even when they're genuinely great and you're always going to find points where they're just different than you thought, it's good that he clarified. Bitcoin is not in a safe enough position, even with the ascension to the ETF world,

for it not to be wanting to defend itself from things like this, right? There are lots of ways that this plays out where Bitcoin still gets just sort of absorbed. Ben Hunt is called this Bitcoin, the sort of the institutionalization of Bitcoin, and there's a lot of ways that could go. So I think the response is a healthy immune system response that sort of is exemplary of what makes Bitcoin unique. I mean, he's in the unenviable position of effectively having to appeal to those OG crypto anarchists that he spoke of,

but also, as you said, be the institutional spokesperson moving forward. I don't think anything he said was that horrid. He just said it in a terrible manner in this case. It also, like, it was very unclear what the hell the point he was trying to make. Like, from a complete rhetoric standpoint, again, other than the like clarifying to say only crypto anarchists think that, like, I really truly do not know what he was trying to say with the first part of the quote. It was not particularly coherent.

So no. Yeah. I mean, there was a comment, I think, from Udi underneath to the effect of, well, if you do, you know, four hours of podcasts a day, seven days a week for, you know, 900 straight days, eventually you're going to say something slightly regrettable. And I think that a sailor has obviously operated to the benefit of all of us for years here. And I think it's fair to give him that benefit of the doubt, just kind of give him a pass on this one. I don't think it's such a big deal.

But I do think it's important that people at least clarified the importance of of self-custody and Bitcoin as an asset that is a hedge and an opt-out. Totally. Yeah. It will impact the way that he thinks about these conversations in the future, and there will be plenty of chances for him to talk in the future. I think, you know, we'll get an example of that in one of our stories later on. Yeah, here we go. Microsofters, shareholders to vote against a proposal to assess Bitcoin as a diversification investment. We have the title, Is Bitcoin the best hedge against inflation? Well, in this context, the National Center for Public Research argued that Bitcoin is an excellent,

if not the best hedge against inflation, and then at minimum, companies should invest 1% total assets into the crypto currency. This is actually on the docket for Microsoft to go full micro strategy. We've got Microsoft and Microstrategy. To be fair, it's not going to be voted for. Yeah. Right?

Just because it's there doesn't mean it's going to happen, but I think it's important that it's there. It's not ignorable, right? This is a proposal that was being called by shareholders who have the right to do that. They're going to have discussions of it. You're right that it's absolutely not going to get through. But they're specifically calling out the example of micro strategy, right?

They're saying, look over there, look at what they've done, look at what's happened. From completely economic reasons, there's a strong argument just based on that that we should be doing this. Yeah, but we've yet to see sort of that second company come in and take this stand that micro strategy did. I mean, at the time, I guess we had Tesla and Square. Those were somewhat expected, but it's been years in the dry desert of, Bitcoin on the balance sheet here. Yeah, there's no pressure for anyone to do that. So it would take someone, it would take a leader who is specifically high conviction around

it and was willing to like really go to the mat for it in some ways. You know, it's the type of change that until there's sort of a broad, broad agreement that that's the way to go, it's going to still take very individualistic, high-powered leaders to push that through. Yeah, I think it's also important to note that. when micro strategy, Tesla and Square did this, the accounting rules were not favorable to companies that wanted to add Bitcoin to the balance sheet. That has changed. And to be fair, that probably just started the process years later than they all decided to add Bitcoin.

And that process is going to take years and years and years to play out for a company, especially as large as Microsoft or an Apple that people have floated to actually take their money and put it into Bitcoin on the ballot sheet to hedge against inflation. When Bitcoin, to be fair, has not proved yet to be an inflation hedge. Yeah, no, I think that it would be shot down by most boards as like it's, even if someone agrees that the long-term trajectory and destiny is Bitcoin as debasement hedge, it operates as a risk asset functionally for markets. It's pretty undeniable, you know, at this stage.

And so it's really like, what's your time horizon? What's your perspective there? Yeah, they've actually, I thought there were some interesting comments, though, that Microsoft said here, past about. have included Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies among the options considered, and Microsoft continues to monitor trends and developments related to cryptocurrencies to inform future decision-making. So they're saying this isn't new. We've looked at this.

We've continued to look at it. And there may be a time when it becomes appropriate. So behind the curtain, this is not the first time this is being proposed. Totally. Every time something like this comes up, it normalizes the conversation more. And I think that it's more likely that we're in the sort of like long, slow, quiet period where this gets discussed for years before it finally becomes kind of normal, then we're in a period where there's going to be another fire brand like Sailor. And frankly, when it comes to setting off a

pattern, you kind of want more boring, normalized adoption. Sailor is a very hard act to imitate. It's very easy for people to say, yeah, but their strategy has worked because they went all in on this. They basically did, you know, this became their whole company. We're obviously not going to do that. So it's like it's not really copyable, you know. Yeah, it was a huge. story last week, that Tesla had moved Bitcoin from one wallet to other wallets, were they selling, you know, that's more of a classic example of, I'm not saying they did sell, but they have in the past, but a more classic example, I think, of what you would expect from a company that might put Bitcoin on the balance sheet, which is that they might not have diamond hands. They might let it

go at some point. They might start moving around. There could be some controversy. Nobody else is going to be seller, to your point. Yeah, I actually, for what it's worth, I think that Tesla's ability to sell when they needed to sell, when it actually comes to that normalization of purchasing, that will be seen as the people will point to that as a great argument for why you should adopt because this thing is so liquid, it can go if you need to. It's part of what makes it a great treasury asset is that it is liquid at when needed. You're not committing to something that's going to screw you later if circumstances change. People don't put treasuries on their balance.

You can expect to never sell those treasuries when they need liquidity. Yep. Right. And so at the time, Musk literally said I was just testing the liquidity to make sure that we could actually sell these things. I tend to believe him. Yeah, yeah, totally. It's, it's, Elon is for whatever false he has, he's not particularly poker-faced. And like that, that one seemed pretty, pretty much him just explaining how he was thinking about things. Well, we had, that was all the stories, but we did have this honorable mention. And I guess it aligns with sort of the ECB's comments. But tokenization could pose risk to financial system according to the FSB. B-I-S. Basically, just another skeptical paper of the future of blockchain here.

Sort of. So this one is frustrating because the people who are loudest about being excited about this report are traditional, like, crypto antagonists, and that makes it hard to give it a fair shake. Really what this report was saying, I dug in a little bit. It's basically just saying that, like, tokenization is likely a very powerful force that introduces all of these new types of risk that we just need to consider. I think that you can read this as like tokenization is no longer being treated as an if it's being treated as a when.

There are like so clearly so many reasons that institutions are going to push for tokenization because of the new opportunities that it opens up, that they're now actually trying to reconcile and deal with what challenges that brings up, which is what the Financial Stability Board's job is. Again, where it gets frustrating is that you have long duration antagonists of crypto holding it up on Twitter as some validation of their point, you know, and screeching about it, which makes it just frustrating. But taken on its own face, it's completely reasonable that like, if the entire world is tokenized in a decade, it's going to be new and different and there's some stuff that we should deal with. And listen, if you're excited about tokenization, we should be trying to

figure that stuff out so we can get all the benefits without, you know, these big catastrophic new risks that might be introduced. There's a time at the early days of automobiles when there were no road signs and lights and seatbelts and safety precautions or even lanes. And as it be proliferated and became clear that automobiles were the future of transport, they took some consideration as to what could possibly go wrong and actually made some laws and regulations to make sure that it was safe. There's a phenomenal video that you can find on YouTube of just the utter frustration of people when open carry laws went into effect. These guys who just couldn't believe that they weren't allowed to crack open a six-pack

on their way home anymore after a hard day's work. So, you know, the world changes, the world evolves. It is a visit. Yeah, I mean, you should definitely be able to have a full open six-pack in the front seat with no seatbelt blasting. God bless America or something else. I don't know, man. And you have to have a screaming eagle painted up.

Yeah, I was going to say, only if an eagle's driving the car. Absolutely. All right, guys, I think that that's all we've got. you today, it's about to get so incredibly interesting. I mean, it's October 25th. We have an election and, you know, less than two weeks. Hey, next week, next week we get to, we get to give the official determination on how Octobery, October was. Oh, that's true. We are going to get some percentages and numbers behind it. We can have to have a hell of a move in the next week to have a true October celebration. But hey, we all know that October is generally followed by

a very bullish November. So I guess we'll see. Weirder stuff is that. Thank you. So yeah, thank you so much, guys. Check out the breakdown. Of course, listen to all his other shows, and that's all we got for you today. Later. Later, guys.