The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin & Alts Skyrocket | Meme Fever | The Best Week For Crypto

Starting point is 00:00:00 Bitcoin has skyrocketed this week and meme coins have skyrocketed even further. It's meme fever. Also, we have SBF testifying, but not in front of a jury and saying some wild things. We have Elizabeth Warren saying that Hamas is using crypto to fund terrorism. And then Senator Lummis, usually very Bitcoin friendly, coming in and saying that the DOJ should charge both Tether and Binance for their role in that and terrorist financing. We have a lot to talk about. I've got NLW and this is your week in recap. The Friday Five. Let's go. that like button. Going to go ahead and bring on NLW now. Quite a week that we've had, huh? Indeed. It's been a week.

Starting point is 00:01:09 It's funny because we always talk about how hyperbolic and exaggeratory our titles are allowed to be. Yeah. And this time we were actually... I was like, take it off. Do whatever you want. Have at it, man.

Starting point is 00:01:20 It really did skyrocket, right? I mean, obviously we have Bitcoin sort of consolidating here under $35,000. Meme coins like Pepe and Flocky doing 100% plus gains. Is there real money and interest coming back into this market right now? Are we back in the washing machine and we're going to see it rotating? What do you think? So two answers to that. On the one hand, I still think that the vast majority of it is just our money internally and people moving things around and people, you know, kind of putting more of their own capital back in, moving out of stablecoin, stuff like that, right? It is excitement that's predicated on the community itself that's already here. However, the big, big caveat to that is that every institutional fund,

Starting point is 00:02:08 every Bitcoin onboarding firm, if you watch anyone who works in Swan's Institutional Management, all week they've been talking about just phones ringing off the hook, people coming in. I think Matt Hogan tweeted that the conversations this cycle have started to move from, hey, you should have a 1% allocation to, hey, you should have a 1% allocation to, hey, you should have a 5% allocation to Bitcoin. So I do think that while when it comes to this vicious rip up that we had on Monday, that's market structure dynamics playing out with regard to this particular community by and large. But it does seem like this one may have finally triggered alongside all of the narrative stuff

Starting point is 00:02:45 we've seen, the phone calls to start coming in for people to actually kind of move in from outside. So I think that for the first time when we're asking this question, in a long time, it actually is potentially some amount of a mix of different types of buyers. Yeah. I mean, Matrixport being the analyst here that they're referring to, fifth bull market has further to run. That's coming from Matrixport research. They're saying that this is officially now the fifth bull market for Bitcoin. Of course, they say 125,000 by 2024. We don't care about that. We don't really care about the hyperbolic price predictions. But to your point, I think that something's different this time. I know those are dangerous words, but we can see that the market cap has risen dramatically. We can see that both Bitcoin

Starting point is 00:03:29 rose and things like meme coins rose at the same time. That can't happen with the rotation of capital. That means that there has to be new money in the system. I've spoken with quite a few people. I had James Butterfill from CoinShares on and he said, yeah, we're seeing some inflows definitely at 300 million this year, institutional inflows. He said, yeah, we're seeing some inflows definitely at 300 million this year, institutional inflows. He said, interestingly, we're seeing a bit of outflow from the futures ETFs. And what that tells me is that everybody now is ready for this ETF's approval, right? So I'm not surprised that we haven't seen billions flowing in already, because why would you start throwing money into this market if you're an institution today, if you think that there could be a Bitcoin spot ETF that you can safely invest in in a month? Yeah, 100%. I think that the other thing, going back to this contention of,

Starting point is 00:04:17 is it a bull market yet? Listen, analyst papers love to call those things. They're very useful. They're good for selling research. But when it comes to the gut check on this question, because I think from a community perspective, that's in some ways more enlightening. I think that we are just starting to be in a phase where in the long in between, between a bear market and a bull market, you have the first part in which the little spikes that look like bull markets feel like the exception. And then you return back to the rule, which is either down or sideways. And then you get to the second part where it feels like the retraces back down and the slight move sideways are the exceptions to the larger momentum.

Starting point is 00:05:02 And I don't want to say this for sure, but it does feel from a psychological standpoint in this space that we maybe have just flipped over into that. Even if we saw the first half of November going slightly down, we get back down to 30, 29. I think that it would still feel like, yeah, whatever. It's not going to change. It's not a return to the norm. It's now sort of like, that's the exception, not the rule kind of a thing. No asset in the world loves to leave people behind more than Bitcoin, right? So if we get the retrace, it'll be shallower than people think. It'll bounce $1,000 higher than everybody has their orders. We love to talk about the meme of which direction is max pain and what

Starting point is 00:05:41 can the market do to punish the most people. now? It feels like anyone sidelined is really hoping that they get that dip to buy, which means to me, they probably won't that Max Payne perhaps in this case, finally is up. And speaking of Max Payne, look at this guy, free trial,

Starting point is 00:05:58 live updates from the courtroom. I know looking at him gives me Max Payne. I'm sure even... Oh my God. Every XFTXer is just calling their therapists off the hook for the last month. I'm quite sure that the therapists that service crypto clients are probably making almost as much money as bankruptcy attorneys who service crypto companies at this point. But some wild stuff happened here. Maybe you can explain why he testified, but not in front of a jury. Even the judge seemed somewhat confused at why that was happening. They asked the judge question, frankly, was like, I've never done this before. So I don't

Starting point is 00:06:36 know. And SBF went on to say things as wild as I had no idea it was wrong to use customer funds. Yeah. So a couple of things. One is it's worth noting that I don't think that there has been a lot of meaningful progress in the case besides this. I don't even really think that the defense had a chance to make a lot of its case this week and just, I don't know, there's just not much there, right? And I think that that's sort of what gets us to the situation. There are two reasons that SBF is testifying. One is because he was always going to testify because as a person who is, the biggest thing

Starting point is 00:07:09 that he suffers from is narcissism. And there was never a chance, I think, that at the end of the day, he wouldn't testify. So that's one. The second, though, is that it really is the only chance he has left. Even if it is a literal snowball's chance in hell, it's better than the definitive verdict that he was looking like he was heading towards. And so I think on some kind of perverse way, it makes sense that he asked to at least try. Now, what my read on the situation was in terms of why the jury was

Starting point is 00:07:36 dismissed, the government said something like there's data that the government doesn't think the jury should hear. But it seemed more like the situation was the judge was trying to figure out what Sam was actually going to say, because they called it sort of a mock testimony, right? And he wanted to see like, if Sam was just going to be evasive and not give answers, you know, because I think the judge has to rule on whether he's going to allow Sam to testify in front of a jury. And so yesterday was this very weird, there was a lot of obfuscation. There was a lot of, someone noted, I think it might've been Laura Shin or someone else. It was Sam, or maybe it was Tiffany Fong, but someone noted that Sam was doing exactly what he was doing during his media tour, which is when asked a question, he slightly sidesteps it and

Starting point is 00:08:20 answers something else. Politics. Yeah. And unfortunately for him, that's courts don't work like that. When you do that in court, they say, you know, answer the actual question asked. Right. So so it's sort of TBD on on how that's going to play out. A second thing that Sam did a lot is is very clearly the defense very clearly and has from the beginning wants to make this an issue of FTX counsel, right? That Sam was just doing what he what he was legally told to do. Every other answer was Dan Friedberg, right? Who's the name of the general counsel who was formerly, you know, involved in a in a big sort of poker scandal as well. And it's very

Starting point is 00:09:07 clear that Sam is desperately trying to throw Dan Friedberg under the bus and say, I just did what he said. Now, I don't know if you have this tweet pulled up or if we can find it, but there was one moment where the judge literally asked Sam's attorneys to explain to him how blaming counsel was different in this case versus if you laundered money from a bank. The judge was basically trying to figure out, it's like, look, you did a crime and then later the attorney told you how to deal with the crime. Doesn't that mean you still did the crime? And it's just this sort of very weird moment where, again, the judge is still trying to figure out if he is going to allow the way that the defense is trying to present the case, you know, because it's not a for sure. Yeah, he wants to blame his lawyers for everything and claim ignorance, but nobody's going to buy that.

Starting point is 00:09:58 There was even a point in a trial where they objected and it was sustained and he decided to answer anyway. And his lawyers got miffed. I mean, this guy is off the rails. I don't know if he got his Adderall or not. To me, that's the bigger story, right? He needed Adderall if he was going to testify. I wonder if they gave it to him. Do we have any insight on that important story? I think that was the most remarkable moment for kind of anyone watching or reading along about it, is Sam deciding to... He said he felt he needed to answer a question, after an objection was sustained, to which his attorney said, have you not been here for four weeks? It's just wild.

Starting point is 00:10:42 Dude, chill. Yeah. I loved, by the way, that in this quick summary from InterCity Press, that we had the inclusion of bribe trabuko and dan illegal narcotics friedberg this is the first time that we've seen trabuko's name he's been the missing man this entire time i mean he was the head of alameda with carolyn ellison and it's like he never existed i think this is still this is still super confusing i mean it seems like there has to be something more going on because it's just, it doesn't make any sense. No one has ever offered an explanation. No one's ever tried to offer an explanation. The complete silence around it is, you know, as sort of dubious as anything else. Deafening, as they said, the silence is deafening. Now we get to move on from SBF because I think that's enough. We all know where that's headed for today. And we get

Starting point is 00:11:26 to talk about something much more favorable. I believe we touched on it actually last week, Hamas militants behind Israel attack raised millions in crypto. Obviously the bigger story that that was a Wall Street Journal article that referenced data by Elliptic. We saw Chainalysis come out and say, this is completely wrong. And then Elliptic themselves, who were the basis for this article, said, whoa, whoa, whoa, we're setting the record straight on crypto crowdfunding by Hamas, talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars, not tens of millions of dollars. But the bigger story is that we're not seeing a retraction from the Wall Street Journal. And we're certainly not seeing Elizabeth Warren and 100 plus senators and congresspeople retract their statement that was made based on this article.

Starting point is 00:12:09 And then to dig even deeper into it, yesterday, Senator Lummis, who's been very, very favorable, she's the one writing the stable coin legislation that's being proposed, saying the DOJ needs to do their job and go ahead and charge Tether and Binance for their role in things like this. It's a lot. Yeah. So this is, I mean, this has been, this is actually one of the most, probably the most significant story going on in crypto right now. Because there are a bunch of different dimensions to it. There is obviously a larger media story of the incentives of press. You've kind of seen the journalist who wrote the piece or one of the journalists who wrote the piece on Twitter defending himself. And effectively, his argument has been, well, no, I buried these caveats later in the piece and it makes sense. Now, if you go back and read that original piece,

Starting point is 00:13:10 the headline and the first paragraph could not make it clearer that the thesis of the piece is that Hamas was able to carry out this attack, this specific attack, by the way, because of cryptocurrency financing. Now, by the end, there is a lot more doubt into that. The journalist isn't wrong that there is more questions by the end than are there in the beginning. But one, it's a fair question of does that matter when you scream out the headline the way that you did? And two, the way that he did these caveats with journalistic covers are things like they raised as much as 93 million from crypto. It's like, come on. You think that adding an as much as, that doesn't imply that it's $93 million? That's not a reasonable journalistic take, I don't think. And so there's the whole media side of the story.

Starting point is 00:13:58 But obviously, it's even more complicated because it comes at a time when the crypto industry is being absolutely assailed and has been for the better part of a year now. The opponents have been looking for anything to cast doubt on this. This was the sole source of information for a letter that was signed by a fifth of Congress. That's totally, totally inappropriate. And so the question has been, will the Wall Street Journal issue a retraction? But I don't think that there's any chance on the planet that they will. It also doesn't matter if they do, because we know that fake news proliferates so much faster. And once it's seen, the retraction never is. The damage has been done. Absolutely.

Starting point is 00:14:37 Yeah. There's no coming back from that. Obviously, I also pointed out here that Sherrod Brown calls for crackdown on the use of crypto to fund terrorism. I think that what's just most interesting to me is that this Senator Lummis letter comes after we already know that this is a fake story. It was one thing for Elizabeth Warren, I guess, can claim plausible deniability. I read the article. I trust the Wall Street Journal. It was right there. We wrote the letter. Lummis, who we all love, who we all love, she wrote this letter seemingly after it's very clear that this isn't true. So I'm just trying to figure out what the potential angle there would be. My instinct is that the angle there has more to do with a prioritization

Starting point is 00:15:20 around what threats we're dealing with, right? Like she clearly wants the emphasis to be on offshore, non-American regulated sort of institutions and their role, rather than sort of like targeting the better part of the, you know, or the sort of controllable, you know, regulatable part of the American crypto industry. So, you know, listen, it could just be literal politics. You know, instead of trying to say, hey, don't go after crypto, it's instead saying, go after this very different part of crypto, you know? Go after non-American crypto, right? I mean, that's basically what they're saying. They're saying we're going to pick the winners, which we understand. Maybe this is saying, hey, use USDC.

Starting point is 00:16:02 We're regulating the hell out of it. Don't use Tether. Use Coinbase. We're regulating the hell out of it. Don't use Binance. I mean, Paolo from Tether and Bitfinex responded, we at Tether are proud of the work we do to stop illicit activity. Tether proactively collaborated since inception with tens of law enforcement agencies, including US, Ukraine, and Israel. Crypto used by malicious actors accounts for a small drop. You get it, right? I mean, he very quickly said the same thing they've been saying all along. Listen, we're literally working with you guys to freeze these wallets. Everybody sees it. They're actually doing that work. So it just kind of blows my mind to see that. But I think you actually have it correct, which is that we're going to get rid of the foreign actors in this

Starting point is 00:16:42 industry so they can be better controlled by the United States. I mean, I think that that's a fair sort of way to approach this. Yeah. I mean, listen, it's reasonable to not like that approach. It's just, this is very clearly, there are, let's put it this way. If on the one hand you have crypto antagonists, and on the other hand, you have like the full-on sort of crypto industry, let markets decide, you know, figure it out, folks. In the middle, especially in crypto industry, let markets decide, you know, figure it out, folks. In the middle, especially in DC, there is a big space that says, you know, we got to make some compromises, we have to exert some control. And so the compromises that we're going to make are things like, you know, focusing on, you know, pushing out the unregulated,

Starting point is 00:17:20 uncontrollable stuff and, you know, and sort of enshrining and holding up the things that are sort of regulatable. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. The next story, I believe this is number four. BlackRock, Bitcoin ETF in August got on DTCC site that just belatedly moved markets. That is a mouthful of a headline from Coindesk. I'm not even sure if they wrote that in English. But the idea here is a story that we've all been discussing, which is that the reason, because we need a reason, for the last move of Bitcoin from $31,000 to $35,000 was because BlackRock's Bitcoin spot ETF had been listed on the DTCC site as IBTZ. We dug into that and the meaning of that apparently was that BlackRock is advancing.

Starting point is 00:18:06 They're taking the next steps. They wouldn't do this unless they thought they were going to get approval. And further, once you do that, you start to actually seed the fund, meaning that you have to buy the underlying asset for that ETF, meaning even if in small amounts, BlackRock is going to start buying Bitcoin. We all know what happened next. Apparently, it disappeared from the website. Then the website itself disappeared because so many people went to check if it was still on the website, which actually crashed it. Then when it came back, it was there. It wasn't there. This all, of course, according to Twitter and the ARK ETF was there. But then that wasn't there. Apparently, that was fake news. So basically, we had this massive, confusing,

Starting point is 00:18:44 nonsensical story. And it turned out when someone actually just bothered to call DTTC that it had been there since August. I personally, I just loved this story. Everything about it is... I mean, listen, what this story tells you more than anything else, hold aside the details, is that one, this is now two weeks running where we've had a Monday fake news story around the ETF. So let's see if we can make it three. And then two, it's that there is so much pent up energy, excitement, anticipation. I mean, look, it is very clear that people believe rightly or wrongly that this ETF is going to be the starting gun on the next

Starting point is 00:19:27 bull market. And anything that hints, I mean, that we are there is pushing people in, you know, and, you know, what I would be interested in is knowing sort of, you know, how much, like how much it's new market participants versus just more, you know, new capital from existing market participants, because it feels like it's a lot of versus just more new capital from existing market participants, because it feels like it's a lot of that. But anyways, listen, I think it was hilarious that ultimately it was just something that we didn't notice for two months, drove the market that way. But I think that that speaks less to us being insane, although there's obviously always a little bit of that, and more to just the anticipation of what is seen as an absolutely catalytic event.

Starting point is 00:20:07 That's right. It shows you that this market wants to go up. It wants to believe and it wants to continue. And so I think you're right. It really doesn't matter what the news is, real or fake. It's giving us a huge hint as to what we can expect from this market when we do see a real approval. My favorite, just to wrap a bow on that one, was this final take from Phil Back, my brothers in Bitcoin. I spent six years managing new ETF launches for NYSE 2010 to 2016, and about 15 years in ETF product development and management. The DTCC thing means absolutely nothing. Nothing. Get offline and spend time with your loved ones. So just to give you the context, all of that, even if it was just there since August, apparently, even the takes about how important it

Starting point is 00:20:50 was that it was there were false. And this is literally an entire nothing burger. But the bigger nothing burger it is, the bigger the story it is to me on how it was treated and handled by crypto, the crypto world of media. Well, you know, it was interesting. I mean, I think that like, so we had this crazy rip up. And then when the next day on Tuesday morning, when this ticker symbol was suddenly gone, everyone freaked out and Bitcoin retraced three or 4%, right? Not nearly the entire move, but meaningful. Then when it came out, when it came back, and even when it was revealed that it was nothing, people were like, oh, no, you know what? We like that higher level better. We'll go back to the thing. This asset wants to be somewhere around where it is now

Starting point is 00:21:33 for the moment. And it's sort of clinging to that, I think. I don't know. I'm not sure what would knock it off. I guess another ETF denial entirely if the SEC came out and wiped off the slate, maybe that would really... Yeah, I think it would have to be the January denial when there's actually a final deadline for ARK. I think that would probably be it. I think until then, we're just going to maintain this hype. Maybe it'll float down if we hear nothing for a bit. Maybe my favorite actor in this whole story, I don't know if you saw today that Jay Clayton, who's been on his roadshow, the ex-SEC chairman, saying that we should approve a Bitcoin spot ETF, saying if he was chairman now, he would approve a Bitcoin spot ETF, is the most fair weather

Starting point is 00:22:13 clout chasing human I've ever seen in my life because he was literally SEC chairman and had the opportunity to approve a Bitcoin spot ETF. I guess we can say, hey, it's changed. The environment is different. Yeah, it's actually a lot worse. Like we're in a bear market. So I don't really get that. The life of an ex-regulator, it's very good work if you could get it. Living in the sun, man.

Starting point is 00:22:38 Just like sunny 24-7, got a great tan, having a beer and just getting to fight. It's kind of like being the party that's not in power in politics. Yeah. Because you don't have to do anything but be critical and say what you would do if things were perfect. So much fun for him. But man, it just aggravates me.

Starting point is 00:22:56 It's a little raw. He's literally the guy who could have done it. But hey, what are you going to do? Now, moving on to the fifth and final story is not just the approval, but what would happen if we do actually get it right. So Bitcoin spot ETFs could see inflow of $14.4 billion in first year. This is from a pretty comprehensive report by Galaxy, which we can accept and enter the site. You can see that here on galaxy.com. But we're starting to get the analysis.

Starting point is 00:23:20 We can call it research. It's really hard because it's all projection on just how big this could potentially be for the market and how much money we could see coming in. I think the only real reference point we have is BITO, the Bitcoin futures ETF that was approved a couple years ago. We saw over a billion in less than 72 or 48 hours of inflows, assets under management. That was the most successful ETF of all time launch, any ETF, obviously, not just crypto ETF. And Valkyrie, which didn't launch for another 48 or 72 hours after that, even being second was still, I believe, the 14th most successful ETF launch of all time. So that was in a bull market. There was huge demand, obviously, for a futures ETF. Now you have eight to 10 of these, including the biggest names in the investment world.

Starting point is 00:24:09 What can we expect and how can we come to that sort of conclusion as to what we can expect? Well, to your first point, it's all just projection. So there's no certainty here. A couple of things worth noting. One, obviously, Mike Novogratz himself is a, you know, a huge bull, he will always show up in the arena with a price prediction. That's sort of his thing. His team at Galaxy Research are not that they're super serious. Alex Thorne, you know, was at Fidelity, he's, you know, been an investor for a long time. You know, these are very serious people who are if they're coming out with a 14.4 billion dollar projection, and that's in their first year, they think it goes up to like 21 billion in the second year and 39 billion by the third year.

Starting point is 00:24:50 They're looking at that, you know, listen, they still could have the rose colored glasses that we all have in the Bitcoin space. But I think that you can take it more seriously than just some sort of, you know, errant CEO pumping up, pumping up to sort of the space. So that's one thing. The second thing is, I think that these big numbers are predicated upon either an assumption or a bet that what's different this time is that, one, because you have an instrument which is accessible to a huge array of investors, and two, you have the providers of that instrument being some of the biggest

Starting point is 00:25:25 giants in traditional finance, that all of a sudden those messages of, you know, get off zero, basically, you know, the stuff that people have been talking about for six, seven years now, or more, like actually start to resonate. And when you start to have, you know, some meaningful portion of people who wouldn't allocate before there was an ETF say, sure, 1% to 5% going in, it doesn't take all that much to add up to these seemingly big numbers. So I think that the question will not be in some ways so much to me what the actual number is, because that's arbitrary. It will be, do the things that we anticipate happening because this instrument exists, i.e., this new set of investors allocating a little bit to it, does that actually happen? That, we're going to. Do institutions say, now that we can, we're going to. Is the real demand there? All of these calculations,

Starting point is 00:26:35 as you said, they're based on a theoretical, if we get 1% from all of the investment managers in the world, it breaks down to X number. Mark Yusko came on, he did it. He was like, we have some 3 trillion. If we get 1% of those and they do 1%, it's this number we're going to see. But I would tell you that the price action in the market is showing that at least that demand is there. So I don't know if the numbers are going to matter if Bitcoin just skyrockets. That will probably do more for inflows and adoption than anything else. Nothing makes people want to buy Bitcoin more than more expensive Bitcoin. Can I do an honorable mention real quick? I don't know if you've seen this one, but we're supposed to be done, but this one got me. JP Morgan chases Jamie Dimon and his family to sell 141 million of

Starting point is 00:27:17 stock in 2024. If you guys haven't seen this, he's never sold in his 17 years at JP Morgan. This is 1 million shares of the families. The families, right? Because you put it in a trust, so it's not yours. 8.6 million shares. He says he's just doing it for tax purposes to be efficient. He still believes in the company. I believe all that to be true, by the way.

Starting point is 00:27:38 But the billionaire playbook usually is never sell anything, take loans against it, and die and magically poof, all the expense goes away for your family. Do you think that this is... Listen, I think people have the right to take profit. I have no problem generally with people eventually selling something. But do you think that this is meaningful in the context of Jamie Dimon consistently saying that there's this massive correction and depression coming? He's been very vocal about how bad he thinks the market is going to be. I think I would characterize it as a meaningful signal to watch, especially if we start to

Starting point is 00:28:19 see a lot more things like this. There's a whole sort of watch what people do, not what they say aspect. To your point, could be completely innocent. Could be his son wants another yacht and their line of credit is over. But it is not an unnotable thing. Let's put it that way. Yeah. To be clear for everyone, this is starting in 2024. So interestingly, he's doing it for tax purposes, but not this year. My guess is he's just trying to buy 5% treasuries and get the hell out of here. But hey, what do I know? If you can get a quick $140 million, $1 million into treasuries and earn your safe risk-free 5%, why wouldn't you? That's all we got. Are there anything I might have missed

Starting point is 00:29:01 when we put this together? Are there any other narratives or stories that are on the top of your head before we let you go? No, I mean, listen, this is the big actual meaningful story in terms of where our energy and fights should be are certainly in and around this sort of narrative battle around terrorist financing. It's important because there's a lot of legislation that's sort of coming up. There's a lot of momentum around certain bills. There's rulemaking that has public comment periods going on right now so that's one that's worth paying attention to and then you know listen we're always going

Starting point is 00:29:33 to have to go through the spectacle and chaos of an sbf testimony so we're at the end phases of that you know that should wrap up next week i'm sure next next Friday's show will be a wild one to look back on. But for now, that's where we are. Perfect. I love it, guys. Everybody follow NLW on Twitter. Follow The Breakdown. Check this out on both his audio and video channels. And my final take of the day is that Jamie Dimon is obviously selling $100 million in stock so that he can buy Bitcoin. Right? There you go.

Starting point is 00:30:08 I'm in. Obviously. You guys heard it here first. Don't edit that part out and put it on Twitter. Thanks, guys. We'll see you next week. Bye. Let's go.

The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin & Alts Skyrocket | Meme Fever | The Best Week For Crypto

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