The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin DROPS Below $69K Again! Is The Bottom In??

Episode Date: February 9, 2026

Is Bitcoin nearing a bottom or still searching for one? The answer depends less on charts and more on what’s happening beneath the surface. In this livestream, we break down the growing evidence of structural stress from Bitcoin ETFs, futures, and options, the hidden impact of forced institutional unwinds, weakening sentiment across crypto equities, and why macro signals like PMI, collapsing metals volatility, and policy uncertainty are complicating the picture. With regulation, liquidity, and derivatives now driving price discovery, this isn’t a simple “buy the dip” moment—it’s a test of whether exhaustion is finally setting in, or if one more wave of forced selling is still ahead.

After a massive bounce last week, Bitcoin is trading back below $69,000, failing to hold above 70,000, leading many to believe that this could be a dead cat bounce or a bulltrap. I'm pretty sure that Mike McClone will agree with that. We're going to dig in with him, James and Dave today on what's happening with Bitcoin price action, but more importantly, how we can put it into context of everything happening in the macro world. Let's go. Good morning, everybody. Happy Macro Monday to those who celebrate before we get started. Go ahead and like this video and subscribe to the channel. It's weird that we ask you to like

a video before you've watched it, but you should probably do that because I know you're going to love what Mike, James, and Dave have. They love it already, guys. It's amazing. Very exciting. All right, Mike, you know where we're starting here. Morning meeting. By the way, Mike, you have the most praised person in the history of my channel. over the past couple weeks. And now every time I have you on, our videos are like five times. So I guess, you know.

You know, there's a reason that, well, it used to be at WWF. The WWE does better when they have better when the heels win. You got to have the back guys. Open over again. Yeah. So that's also part of the essence of how the cycle works.

Sometimes you're hot and sometimes you're not. So the next, you know, obviously I've been a few calls I got right. And as they move in, I'm ready to get my face ripped off. And that's the key thing I want to point out as a father and as, you know, you switch over the risk manager. When you see a hurricane coming, despite the personal tax you might get, which sometimes solidifies your views, you have to warn people. So far I have on some things.

But now I'm tilting over to precious metals. The questions I was getting in cryptos last year, very similar to the way I got, are getting in precious metals. Now I'm like, what ETS I should buy? Oh, my gosh. Those of us who sat on these ETS for decades and finally had a chance to sell, don't buy them. But still, I appreciate that. But the thing is, remember, I'm ready to get my face ripped off.

But you got to remember traders get that. So we'll just go over to Anna Wong. She pointed out retail sales would probably be strong. She did mention the positive wealth effect from equities market, pushing up control group, spending, credit card data is all strong. Fourth quarter GDP is tracking 5 percent, primarily due to consumption. non-farm payroll, she expects weak. Then she dug into could be a negative number. Zero to 15 is what she's looking at.

She didn't mention a percent, expecting still 4.4 percent, expecting downward revisions. She's seen potentially the labor market pointing out the end of last year was unhealthy than most people thought. Some months actually deep into negative territory, some of these reversions. She said the BLS has started a new birth death model that might actually pressure it lower. But then she pointed out some of the different inflation metrics. Their inflation metrics for CPI is showing it's going to be around two-tenths per cent. Core runs 0.3, it's basically spot on.

2.5 euro year-year CPI, which is getting pretty good. But the key thing was there's been inflation electronics. She pointed out there's been a decent amount of shortage of RAM is entities that pivoting over towards AI away from consumer products. and she does the key thing. The key thing for her is CPI should be 2.5% not so bad, strong retail sales. But her quote was the label market might actually print a negative number

and might become alarming. So tilting over to Ira Jersey, our Treasury analyst, he pointed out, it was kind of a surprise that the Treasury did not hint hit cutting long end issuance. They actually might add some. He's quote on levels is now with the 10, you know, above 2%.

he thinks can get to 3.5, 4.35%. I'm sorry, now that's above 4.2%. And his quote was, if Ana's right about the weak payroll, she fully expects that 10-year-old to get down to 4.1%. Still thinks volatility, which is crushed to continue lower, both steeping to continue. And he quote was, T-bonds. He sees notable appetite for any type of T-bond near 5%.

So Michael Casper, R.S, are, our, Our equity strategist person said pointed out that the SAS software services, obviously we've seen in a repricing mode right now. He pointed out they're probably getting oversold. And he did point out on the broad market earnings are hitting well. Small caps earning are hitting well, 65% beating. And his quote was volatility is being driven by the hype story. And then Audrey Shield Freeman pointed out what some of us heard this morning that China has suggested their banks to rein in treasuries. and that's back to the market a little bit.

Still a structural bearish case for the dollar. Mostly as we head towards this data coming in, she thinks that's going to be more bearish for the dollar. She did mention Japan, FX intervention risk, she thinks, is key now after Takachichi's victory. It expects yen weakness will be responded with FX intervention. That's really about it. for me i pointed out my bearishness on cryptos remains intact my bearish on the crude oil

remains intact um i need to have some kind of reason to break that and i think still copper above six is a worthy short still think silver anywhere near hundreds of worth it's short i think it's going to 50 and still bearish the um the grain so for me the key risk is if i look at it and i'll end with this and i mention this we just get a little if you're if you're anybody sitting on the desk because i've done most of my life with the leverage position long say You got to be looking over the S&P 500 and better not have a 10% have a 10% I hope it doesn't have a 10% correction because you know that's going to make you lose 20%. Back to you.

I was really hoping they had deep thoughts on Bad Bunny and the Patriot performance. But did you see that video with Trump, um, doing bunny who was a fair? It was so funny. I didn't see it. I was putting my kid to bed during the, uh, it was viral. It was viral. I sent it to you in the, in WhatsApp. Is that what?

Okay. I saw something. Yeah. Take a look at that. Yeah, I'll definitely take a look at that. Okay, so a lot to unpack there. I think today, one of the rare times when I want to actually focus on Bitcoin first, because the price action last week was absolutely absurd, right? We had the largest down candle by price. I didn't check by percentage. The longest down WIC we've ever had on the weekly ended closing about $11,000 wick on that

candle. I think the candle itself with $15,000 or $16,000. We had a day where we had the highest volume in many, many months of selling, and as we discussed, it was just systematic, right? I mean, there was no bounces. It's sold all the way down. But interestingly, and Mike, we can unpack whether this is dead cat bounce or bulltrap territory. But the next day had equal volume on the by side and completely basically retraced the entire move back up, leaving a lot of people confused as to what comes next. You know, there's a lot of reasons. I think you can make the case. I did it on Yahoo News the other day for the bottom potentially being in. I mean, you've got this very interesting graphic here of all the times that fear has gotten this low, right?

It has always been a buy opportunity before things go well. So I guess a worthy conversation here is did we see enough from the bulls stepping in in the 60s to make this potentially a tradable bottom? Depends how you define tradable. I think that's the answer. I mean, look, you know, there's been a lot of stories out there. And the way Bitcoin bear cycles go is at bottoms, you see a crescendo of stupidity. Just like you see a crescendo of stupidity at the top, but it's a different kind of stupidity. At the top, you get everybody talking about how it's going to continue to go farther.

You know, it's all euphoria. Everyone's happy, popping champagne, yada, yada. At the bottom, you get not just bears, you know, it's going to go lower, you get people who pull out these idiotic narratives that make no sense. And it happens every time. I mean, it's either the China stuff or the environmental stuff or this stuff or that stuff. This time, it was the Epstein compromising Bitcoin core developers, which is insane. I mean, James isn't shaking his head because it's insane.

This time, you get the people like the financial times who basically on the subject of emerging technologies, particularly Bitcoin literally pisses all over themselves every time they write an article because they're so poorly researched and they make no sense. And then they embarrass themselves still further this weekend. It was one of the funniest things ever saw. This foolish reporter who's been literally saying the same thing since Bitcoin was $300. I kid you not. He would call Mike McGlone too bullish because she believes it's worthless. But that's cool. She's been saying that for six years, except they published the article, Bitcoin is $69,000 too high. And then, of course, when a did its Bart Simpson rally in the up phase. They changed it an hour or two later to Bitcoin is $70,000 too high. So of course, Pierre Rochard said, you know, do you have any shame? Are you going to change the article back to $68,000 now or whatever the price is? I mean, it's just silly stuff.

The other big narrative that's gone around, which I actually took the time to do a video this weekend about, is just bad takes on the notion of paper Bitcoin, right? all of a sudden it's not a fixed supply cap because people can create it out of thin air, which is completely absurd. In fact, the one thing that is interesting, and we could dive into it if you want or we could ignore it and people can just watch the video, is that the inspiration for that is from GATA and the World Gold Council and other people who have been saying for 30 years, you know, James's partner Larry Lepard could talk about this far more in-depth than me, although I have

been reading about this for 30 years, that the gold, supply and the gold price and the silver price have been manipulated and they use futures to do it. And that's all well and good. You can make the argument. And even Grock will say there's a 20 to 40% chance that it's actually true at times, maybe not a systemic basis. But here's the thing. Gold and silver have futures markets that set the spot price. Bitcoin has a spot market that sets the futures breadth. And that is a massive difference. And so for all the Yehuis out there who keep parrots, these talking points without understanding market structure. Sorry guys, market structure does matter.

And Bitcoin has a very liquid spot market. There's this guy, Kendall, who I guess is an economist and people think he's smart. And there's this really, really dumb threat. I mean, dumb, but millions of views, Scott, dumb threat where people are talking about, well, maybe Bitcoin won't have a spot market because that's what's manipulated. It's like, are you kidding me? You people literally have lost the threat. I mean, you could debate whether it will go up or down.

and I are going to do that. But there's so much misinformation. Now, why am I saying this? I'm saying this because this is exactly what happens at bottoms. It is literally what always happens at bottoms. Now, do I mean V bottom? No, all be clear. I don't believe that we're going to see a massive rally from here. I think we're going to consolidate around these levels, maybe a little bit higher back into the other range, maybe a little bit lower, but I think we're consolidating here for a while. I don't see any reason to believe. Yeah, I mean, oh, you wrote about it. Yeah, I was going to say, you, you queued up James perfectly.

Cool. Let's go down. This is his entire. My base case is we bump around these levels and we end up in a hated rally out of it, which will be a grinding rally, which is exactly what I think is going to happen in silver and gold as well, silver in particular, which I think will outperform gold. So, and we could talk about why. I think the markets are actually very similar.

And my best guess is Bitcoin and silver are going to become positively correlated over the next few months, which I think it's been negatively correlated over the last few months. So we'll see how that goes. But anyway, James, I actually didn't have a chance to read your newsletter this week. I'm too busy doing my own crap. If you go all the way, if you just keep going down, Scott, you could see there's an infographic I made on it that kind of explains. There it is. I mean, the thing is people that, you know, you're right.

I don't like to go out there and just flame people because it doesn't do any good, you know. A lot of fun. But there are some bad takes on this. And, you know, the spot ETF take has just been abysmal. Like people not understanding that spot Bitcoin ETFs have to actually own the corresponding NAV worth of Bitcoin underneath that they're just not getting it. think that they're it's all being re-ipothecated and coin base doesn't have it or whatever it is i mean it's just not it's nonsense it's not true um so spot etf buying is you know i mean it's actually money

that's going into bitcoin that's true that's absolute demand there's just um i don't see any other way to see it unless you guys have a way around that i don't see it um yeah of course futures are our paper, just like Dave is saying here. But it's driven off of Bitcoin. It's not the other way around. One of the things that happens is, and I tried to explain in here, or I explained in here pretty simply. And remember, everything I put in here in this newsletter is very simple.

This is not for sophisticated hedge funds moving around this stuff. This is for people understand what these guys are doing. But the bottom line is one of the biggest trades that's out there is, is this basis trade and holding Bitcoin physical and selling paper against it. And so that's just, it's just a way for them to play around the spreads. And they do that. Options, of course, there's all kinds of activity and options. And a lot of it has to do with hedging.

We heard for many, many months here about OGs selling calls in order to monetize and create some sort of yield off of their Bitcoin they held. And so what does that do? Well, you sell a call, who's going to buy it? A market maker. And the market maker owns a call. They're going to short some Bitcoin futures against it. That's just, that's what they do.

But that that's a reality. And then of course, the thing that we always guard against and we're cautioned against is the whole crypto lending thing, leaving your Bitcoin on exchange and allowing the exchange to re-hypothecate it. That is, that, that is an issue if, if you're an individual investor. So, but, you know, the, the reality is that gold had, has, like Dave was saying, has been held in ranges for many years. And most of the long-term gold holders, the, the gold bugs would say the paper kind of ruined it for a while. Well, but even then even as much paper had been issued around gold look at what has happened to it over the last two

years you know especially the last year it when you print money let's go to first principles you print money you're there there's going to be a there's going to be demand for physical assets that can't be printed that's just reality and so just that that's just a pure first principle, you know, where I think people get confused sometimes when we talk about these things is, are we talking about a trade? Are we talking about long term? Well, I'm almost always talking about long term. And if I'm talking about a trade, I try to make that explicitly clear. There are trades in here. Bitcoin can be a trade here. I don't see extremely, strong demand here at $70,000. And this could easily trace back to the low to mid-50s off these

latest moves, especially if we have a drawdown in the market, in the general market, in the S&P, in the NASDAQ. If you have a drawdown on the NASDAQ, this is going to move with it. It's just reality. Should it? Maybe not. But at this point, the asset is considered risk on, and it's going to move with the risk on assets or actually a little bit more violently if you look at recent history. So that's one thing. It's right on its 200-week moving average here and it's holding there. But that's, you know, I would just caution against people. If you have a long-term view, great.

I don't think you have anything to worry about. But if you need cash and you're plowing into these things with leverage, be very careful. that's all so it's that's kind of the the way i look at it but i agree with dave that the the paper bitcoin is not going to hold it down forever and it's not as as impactful as people are making it out to be on on twitter and and whatever other uh social media plovers especially twitter and and youtube even if it is really quickly i mean you can look at the history of silver and jp morgan obviously holding down silver because now we should know the thread it must be jp morgan that's holding down bitcoin like they did silver right but that's just

just a beach ball underwater. So that is just a matter of how much time it takes for it to explode and break out of that, but not whether it will or whether it won't. So I would say the paper Bitcoin argument could mean a longer consolidation, but I don't think it prevents Bitcoin from going up. I mean, and I think a lot of people are conflating, James, to your point, the Ibit ETF and what the mechanics are with the fact that you have massive trading of the options on Ibit specifically and those spiked during the market crash and people just read a headline and go oh i did it's paper bitcoin it's you know yeah i mean but just just thinking about again like if you have if you have hedge funds who are who are long bitcoin and want to hedge some of it they they will buy options they'll

buy some put spreads or they'll sell some calls they're not doing it to crash they're doing it to but even then even then it's not it's usually not dollar neutral it's delta neutral yeah okay so it's it's a different it's a different amount so what happens is if they're if they're buying a put or they're selling a call or whatever it is and you create the other side of that trade is a market maker who's long this they're not going to hedge it out dollar for dollar exposure they're going to hedge it out the delta exposure that's not dollar for dollar so it's it's it's less it's just it's not the it's not the same and so either you have a hedge fund that says well i've got to reduce risk and sell some of my bitcoin or

Maybe they sell some calls or buy some puts in order to hedge out some of their risk. And, you know, it's not, it's, so either way, they were going to do it. It's not that the paper is what's creating it. The paper is creating their ability to do some things that are, other than just selling straight Bitcoin. That's the point. Dave, before you jump on on this, I just want to show one more thing that I just thought was interesting on Ibit. Bitcoin crashed 50%, but BlackRock's Ibit clients barely moved with holdings down, only 1%. It's Q4. Boomers have diamond hands. I can't say it's necessarily boomers,

but it is interesting that when you look at the actual physical market for these ETFs or the spot market for these ETFs, people are just holding. So, first of all, there's two bits here. The notion that paper Bitcoin is suppressing the price is completely nonsense. And I want to get that. And I'm going to continue to say that simply because supply and demand, people, look, investors, especially in Twitter, always want to blame somebody else other than themselves. They always want to blame something else for happening. You know, McGlone probably gets blamed for things going down because he's talking about it, which is complete bullshit, right? You know, markets move up, they move down. None of us have

Crystal Balls. None of us have Crystal Balls. The truth is, is, Some of us have been extremely good in our careers and long-term moves, but I will tell you, I was short, massively short. The financial complex, including MBMA, Fannie and Freddie in 2006. Didn't mean I was wrong, but I lost money because I was using options and they expired worthless. And I couldn't put them back on again because I learned about trades that City was doing, which was so insane as to be, you know, which basically from insider trading policies, I couldn't trade because I found that about City,

our own desks trades, right? Which was one of the, it was just absolute travesty. But the fact is that you can be right and lose money if you try to time the market. If you're a really good technical trader, some of them like Chris and some of the guys that you have on your show all the time, Scott, are very good at timing short term moves. I'm speaking about this from a long-term perspective, but what I will say from a long-term perspective is certain things, time does matter in markets. But in retrospect, every once in a while, you can tell what actually happened.

And Jeff Park did a really good job explaining what actually happened in his 25 article. And what basically happened is this. There was a lot going on in the Ibit option world. And there are a ton of hedge funds out there who had IBID exposure and software exposure and other exposures. And if you ever sat on a trading desk, you know this is true. Do apologies to Joe Carloser, who has never sat on a job. trading desk, you know that when things start to hit the fan, particularly as you approach a weekend, the risk manager might walk in and tap you on the shoulder and say cut your positions.

And when they say cut them out, I don't care. Just do it. We've all seen, I mean, all three of us have seen this. Look, I've seen it from both the hedge fund side at Two Sigma. And Two Sigma is a quant fund. And yet, it could easily have happened. In fact, did happen on at least one occasion that I know at. at John walked over and said,

detune the models and take some risk off the table. It does happen. It didn't happen there as much as in others. But at City, where we covered tons of hedge funds and we talked to them, it was a common occurrence. And what will happen when that means is you get higher correlations in markets. And the less liquid, higher beta instruments

that are in that tranche of stuff that's being sold go down further. And when you layer that on top of what was going on in the Bitcoin market with fear, et cetera, et cetera, it turned into a wave of what effectively look like forced selling. But unlike forced selling where you literally have a gun to your head and you have to sell at price and sensitive levels, you didn't get these massive wick down backup, wick down backup, wick down backup, you got slow relatively and steady, okay, I'm taking my risk of, you know, there's no other way to explain it. It's literally the only thing that happened And before I understood what I read Jeff's article and actually started digging, I thought it was spot led.

Well, it was. It was spot led, algorithmic led, professionally traded. It was not, oh, I'm going to smash by the top or I'm going to smash sell the bottom. And so it was a different trading pattern than people in Bitcoin are used to. You've mentioned it many times, Scott. But effectively, it's the difference between when professional investors are liquidating and when liquidation engines are liquidating. So if anyone asks the question, how can exchanges improve derivatives? How could they improve their risk control?

The answer is they could use better trading methods for conducting liquidations instead of this sell at all costs and cause these massive wicks. But that's a different story for a different day. The point is decomposing what happened last week is pretty obvious. Now, having said all of that, that tells you a couple of things. It says two things happened last week that are very important. First, a crap ton of leverage got cleared. Second, a crap ton of people who wanted to be long an asset were forced to not be long the asset.

And they will eventually have their money back and they will go back in and become long that asset. It will happen slow and steady. It will be behind the scenes. But those are the things that bottoms are made of. Now, note, it's not a V bottom. Yeah, you got a little bit of an equilibrium reset. But anyone, and I said it last week, I said, if you expect this to go roaring through the 70s to the 80s to the 90s right now, I think you're wilding. I just don't think it's going to happen,

right? I think that, but if you think that it could bounce around these levels, you know, high 60s, low 70s, and creep its way back into the old trading range, yeah, that's possible. But time is what's important. But it's important to understand what happened. And I think that that's the best explanation I could give them what happened. Yeah, we, we, there's, there's probably no way for us to properly due with this macro show this morning without at least speaking a little bit about the possibility of the dissent, Warsh Fed Treasury Accord. You know, that was a big argument. Oh, yeah, that is a really important topic.

I think we should move. I think we should kind of pivot to a full-on macro and maybe put a spotlight on that. Mike, did you guys discuss that at all this morning? that no because he does but I want to bring on that four on macro I completely love that where we kept tilting so yeah I saw that read it wasn't mentioned in the meeting even ira didn't seem to care who knows maybe it's a trial balloon for now but I think the full on a macro is that US Treasury longbound on 115's the next big trade I think it's going to 140 I think the risk goes in 113 and what's the benefit of mr if it goes up or down so it's like a 10x

How time frame? I don't know. Could it be a trade? Sure. It could be a long term. Sure. Right now going into midterms, Mr. Trump needs that future to go up because it goes down.

It means higher inflation and number one issue is inflation. He needs crude oil to go down. That's part of the trade. So to me, that's what's happening. But I want to tilt over a little bit to what Scott did this week. And he posted a on the macro. And this is tilting over the macro. So to me, the macros were overdue for that post-inflation deflation.

We've had the massive run-up in precious metals and buying them here. all know is not a good idea. We had the massive run-up in cryptos until last year. Poof, that's a broken market. People are getting it, except some of those, some people inside who don't realize they're purging the bubble. It's the biggest, that crypto market in terms of the macro is going to go down in history as it's going to replace tulip holes in my question. Every time I've been in trading pits, so we want to talk about market too is expensive, we're going to be saying crypto frenzy, you know, 10, 20, 100 years from now. And what solidified me was what Scott's interview this week and with the headline was the real battle for Bitcoin and Stables is getting started with

Paolo Ardarnio, you know, with Tether. So a key thing I want to point out is let's talk about enduring trends in the market. Tether, I remember 2018 digging into it, Mike, it's $2 billion. It's going to flip in everything and potentially right now. So I'll make the call for this year. Tether's $184 billion. Ethereum's $247. I think they flip it.

Price would be around Ethereum around $1,500 now. But every day goes by, that price goes up. because the accumulation into stable coins. The technology is awesome. The key thing is once Trump flipped and we all realized peer-to-peer cash with a highly volatile digital asset that's highly speculative when I can get the U.S. dollar, it's like didn't make sense. Poof, that's gone. And also the whole, we got to understand what Trump did for the crypto market. He put in that peak. Full disclosure. I thought, I didn't think he was going to get elected. And so I didn't think it was going to go above $100,000 after making the call. But once it did, it put in the high. So that's where we are now.

bear market. Don't fight it. And I think what you're doing is you're picking out weeds in the macro. The macro is this market is broken. Everybody gets it the bubbles over. Everybody gets it. Yeah, we heard the narrative. You launch ETFs. Poof, it dies. The only time I think to think about buying this space is, number one, we need, here's one thing. First of all, we need S&P 500, 180D volatile at 11% to go to 18%. It always does. It's just a question of time. It's been hanging out here much longer than I thought, but you got at least wait for that. And just the concept of a 10% correction that's complete anathema for everybody in the stock market, that's where you got to wait for that. Be discipline, be a good trader, sell rallies and risk assets. So so far that's worked in

cryptos. Yeah, 64 is a great place to cover shorts and test the trade. But 72 is the first spot. It gets back a little bit overdone again on the upside. It's just make the market prove you wrong in the bare market. And they're doing nothing but proving you're right by looking to sell risk assets on rallies. And all depends on that stock market's got to go up. Once that breaks and it will, we're going to first thing we're going to hear is, oh, it's a healthy correction, got to buy the dip. And that's going to fail eventually. That's what precious metals are telling you. We've never had rallies like this. So to me, this is the best trading environment ever this year. And it's barely started. We're only February 9th. Yeah, I disagree with about three quarters of everything you just said. So I'm not really

sure where to start. Let's start with the tulip bulb stuff. There are, if you look, back at the size of the internet bubble that I live through, it was nominally dramatically larger than what you're talking about crypto right now. The crypto market is absolutely tiny relative to global stock markets and other assets. It doesn't even register. At the same time, the internet bubble had the same exact dynamic that you and I do agree on, which is there were multiple companies, Pets.com being that it was a Super Bowl ad being one of the most obvious, but there were tons.

I mean, there were literally hundreds of $100 million companies back then, which, by the way, $100 million in 2000 is more or less like a billion today, not just based on the price of gold and other things, but just in terms of where market cap is, you know, in terms of relative to the market. So it was larger in scope than the crypto bubble. And yes, there are many tokens in the world of crypto that are absolutely worthless. And the fact that they have hundreds of millions or billions in value is insane to me. I've been saying that for eight years since I got into the business, so I'm not going to defend that. But the aggregate market cap of the Internet stocks, if you had sold it and continued to sell it, other than 9-11 and the carnage of the markets that happened after that, other than that blip, it was a great freaking trade after the bubble had, quote, popped.

It was a great trade. You look at Amazon. I mean, you were buying it at 50 cents, right? And yeah, you know, it didn't look like it did much. It tripled in the next year. after the market's cleared. And then, of course, it's been legendary. It's a triple to one and a half. Now it's a 200. So this is split adjusted. Obviously, the trade, the prices were different back then. So, you know, the notion of selling Bitcoin now is like selling Amazon at 50 or 60 cents. So good luck

with that. And I think it's extremely similar in terms of it. Now, does that mean it's going to fly up? Look at the chart. It took forever. You know, it's a very, very slow slope. The slope didn't explode higher until 15, 16, 17, years later, right? So do I think Bitcoin's going to take 15, 16, 17 years? No. I think that time cycles do tend to get faster these days, but you have to be patient. It's not 15, 16 hours. It's not 15 or 16 days, but it could be 15 or 16 weeks or months before you start to see price action. So understand that that is true. Now, that's about the winners. I'm talking about the winners in a technology. You mentioned Tether. Look, I have nothing but responsible. for what they're doing, but the biggest bump in stable coins is going to come out in a competitive

world. And we'll see what happens with clarity. One of two things is going to happen. Either the politicians are going to be exposed for the gutless people they are, and you get nothing. And the banks will, quote, win this round of the war in terms of not allowing, you know, not allowing crypto regulation because they don't want stable coins to be given out as yield, as rewards, etc. Or they're going to cave and you're going to have a much faster financial system. In that case, you're right. Total stable coin assets are going to flip in pretty much everything, but it's because they're going to quadruple, right?

Within a year or two of real rules that allow trading and platforms that can allow both payments and investment in the same platform, including all tokenized assets. That's the real key there. So yes, you're sort of right there. Let's talk about silver. Yeah, I'm going to say, can we do? If it's macro and we've utterly failed.

So, so. So go back to all of his trading stuff. So that's fine. But you're on. I don't care about the trading stuff anymore this morning. We're not going to be able to tell you what Bitcoin's going to this morning. It's just not going to happen. But let let's go back to what I was talking about with, with the possible accord.

I like the phrase you used, Mike, is maybe it's a trial balloon. And Scott, I just brought up a chart, and this is the key to all of it right here. This is off of a Bloomberg article that's talking about this. And just for everybody who's listening, what am I talking about? I'm talking about the fact that Warsh, you know, not recently, but has before talked about the idea of there being a Fed Treasury accord where they actually work in tandem and together to manage the whole, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. risk of treasuries and the balance sheet of the Fed. So what the biggest issue we have here going forward is that we're running multi-trillion dollar deficits. The the treasury has to find a way to stuff channels with all that paper. Where are they going to do it? And what paper are they going to choose to use to

borrow with? Well, we've seen that they've been borrowing with short-term paper for long, long, long time. But that means that they have this, the, a $10 trillion, you know, I guess, swath of debt that they've got to refinance every single year now, you know, and that's only growing larger. And so that's the major issue that we're seeing here is that you've got $10 trillion of debt that's sitting on their books in short-term treasuries. They've got a, they've got to refinance. at the time that you want, you've got an administration, everybody wants mortgage rates lower and mortgage rates are keyed off of this blue line. That's the tenure. The tier is determining what is, you know, where all the things are going. So to bring it all together, the Treasury is trying to

figure out what paper we're going to float. We can't float more of this 10 year or the 20 year or the 30 year because it's going to make these rates go higher. And that means because the more debt that comes into the market requires requires a higher amount of demand. And if the demand is not there, then rates are going to go up. That's the issue that they're staring down right now. So what's the solution? Well, yield curve control. What's yield curve control?

It's when the Fed goes out and buys the paper for them. Okay. That's one solution. The other solution is the Fed to just have a complete backstop to buy every single T bond that the Treasury floats out there, which is not necessary right now. I don't want to be hyperbolic. But the point is that the backstop, that's what they're talking about. They're talking about the Fed becoming a and more or less having an agreement with the Treasury and not giving the, the markets rate heartburn. So they have, it's, it's very clear exactly what they're doing

in every single move. Now, could that be good short term? Sure. Long term, it just means that we're, that we're doing exactly what Japan did. And we're going to head down that same road. And so, maybe this is a trial balloon. Maybe that's, maybe it's why Trump picked Warsh. Maybe it's, maybe it's because Warsh and Bissent know each other. And then they can work together on this. Who knows? It's not unilateral. You don't have a chairman of the Fed who just decides everything that he wants to do is the way it's going to go. But it is worth pointing out that this was a big story this weekend. And, you know, the markets have picked up on it.

And then on the backside of that, China came out and said, you need to be selling U.S. treasuries if you're Chinese. We do not want you holding long-term treasuries. Yeah, I mean, that was literally the next topic. I was going to say we can guess about who's going to buy them, but we know who's selling them. Like, as you said here, this is from Bloomberg this morning. Chinese holdings of treasuries dropped to lowest since 2008. We've long discussed the chart where it shows that their gold, that the central bank holdings of gold have risen and crossed above.

Central bank holdings of treasuries. That is not a trend. It's likely to stop when you look at China. And, of course, as you just said, China to accelerate de-dollarization and get into that, China has instructed banks to begin selling and limit purchases of U.S. bonds and concerns that U.S. debt may expose banks to sharp swings. And it could be that that's the party line, but it also could be like they see that, you know, the Treasury and the Fed working together, really? That's not going to be, that's not going to be positive for the dollar

long term. It's just not going to be. So now the flip side of that, let's again be careful to not be hyperbolic. There is nothing even close to the U.S. Treasury in as, far as competition for the global reserve asset. Nothing even close. Like it's in the 70 something percentile for central banks versus 11 percent of European debt holding. Like there's nothing even close. So this is not something that happens overnight. And I hear Bitcoiners saying that we're going to have the global reserve asset. This is come on. Like this is not going to happen overnight. Let's let's be realistic. The only thing that can. it happens, we have such a catastrophic financial event that the entire financial world collapses

and everything is reshuffled. That's possible. I'm not saying it's not. And that the U.S. dollar has had the helm for a very long time and no currency keeps the helm forever. That's true, at least in the history of the modern world. But, you know, this is this is the important topic of of the treasury right now is how to navigate all this. And with the same time that you have noise around there, and is it really noise or is it actual action? You know, China coming out and telling their banks to sell treasuries, that's an event.

That's not nothing. That's reality. So I've got to figure you on the back on that. I think that's part of the biggest macro trade of a lifetime kicking in now. And I'll show you a chart to show you two charts to show. you first to trade and then the macro not just to trade the big trend the first thing is you just look at the compression of the u.s treasury bond market this is a bond future i started in the business in this pit i've been wrong on it for three years at least that's a good sign when glones been

dead wrong and i was long on gold for till two thousand twenty four and it's just ready to break out so i look at this as yeah i looked at to me it was there's certain signals i had in 1999 to buy some of these weight out of the amount of your dollar calls and one long-term capital went under they went great, but the first few expired worthless. This is just to me a long-call trade. This is by bonds. And this is the Bollinger bands and narrowest in since 2008. Okay, there's a trade there. Maybe it breaks down initially. And then I point out Treasury, I mean, when is the state government's ever advice been good to its government? I remember being in London in 2020 or so. And there was a rule that none of the, they couldn't invest in pension, pension funds,

endowments or any cost, any people in London could not invest in Bitcoin. And my colleague said, okay, that's a chance to buy. But here's what they're doing. Okay, good for you, China. This is just a chart of the total of U.S. Treasury price. Price. You go back versus gold. Total price of gold is the lowest.

I have, you know, I can only go back to 73 on it. It's the lowest since 1980. This is where you look for just a little bit of crocodile, crocodile doll reversion. And then I look at the stock market, the highest versus, you know, S&P 500 and GDP in 100 years. Okay, a little bit of spark there. And what's a good signal to make that lower?

just a bit going back to $10,000, not a big deal. But to me, this is the biggest macro trade on the planet, kicking in potentially this year. And it'll start with that long bond break. And I look, and here's a key thing is what happens with Mr. Trump if that bond yield goes up? And by the time we get to midterms, oh, Mr. Trump, inflation's higher, yields are higher, energy's higher. Good luck with that one. He's going to find a way to make that go lower.

My favorite, my gloonism is 10K Bitcoin, not a big deal. Okay. It is, but there's some things. have to do callously having been there done that not a position of spaces be a response when i see a hurricane comer coming and i don't warn people it's my dude even though i know people are going to react unfaimble i'm sorry but you have to expect that and that they all don't do that i after michael sailor spoke at that economic club meeting in december that everybody i spoke to quote was yeah no and these guys are all very wealthy ex wall street guys they get markets but things he was

saying they're all like yeah no that was the quote i enjoyed it. I'll say it again. The Bitcoin 10,000 thesis is possible. It is a failure case for Bitcoin. Full stop. It goes to 10,000 on its way to zero. That's the only way it gets there other than maybe a stupid way. How about tether, Dave? Or stepcoins. That's my point, that the space is going to stable coins in a way from highly special digital assets. One is a digital representation of Fiat currency of the dollar and the euro and the whatever and the other is a financial asset based upon the network effects of its users it's like compare it forget apples and oranges it's like comparing apples to steamrollers i mean the two things are they're not the same they're not even in

tip but it's a terrible analogy i want to make one other point you can conflate macro and trading in your charts you said it yourself and it's it's i mean look there's lies damn lies in statistics and then there's charts. And that was such a, I don't even know the word for it. Chart criminality to compare the price. Mark just because of a chart crime. I love it. It is to compare the price of an asset in raw terms without taking into account that we have

more than doubled the amount of dollars underneath it during that period of time is just, it's a chart crime. It just is. I mean, it's like gold. You know, like gold at 5,000, look, I made that call when you thought gold had topped and said, okay, we're not getting there. I said, gold at 5,000 is baked in the cake. That's the equilibrium price.

And after that, we'll see what happened. So what's happened after that? It went, it rocketed through. It came back down. And by the way, we're still there. So it's at its equilibrium price right now. But we have $8 to $10 dollars being printed every year. You'll see $8 to 10% appreciation over the next end number of years.

and so that 5,000 will reset as we continue to print. You can't ignore the denominator when you're doing things. And so Bitcoin, the issue is network effects, right? Do people believe it as value yes or no? That's the sole question. And as long as the market continues to churn, as long as the network effects continue to grow, it will continue to do well,

and it will have its moment in the sun. Until then, it will sit there like this. But the chart criminality is crazy. When you talk about the macro and the Treasury Accord, Here's the issue. The issue is simple. This administration, absolutely, you nailed it. They want desperately to bring long rates down. And they want to be able to do what they can to inflate away their debt because the more they can borrow at the long end, the more they know that the monetary inflation and the asset appreciation is going to allow them to get out of their debt. And believe me, it was a wake-up call for the Treasury when the Fed lowered rates by 50 basis points before the election and the tenure went up 50 basis points. That was an, uh-oh, they're not buying our bullshit anymore. We're going to have to actually get in there and do it ourselves.

That's what the market told them. You want rates lower. You're going to have to come buy them yourself. Right. They also noticed something else. And that's very important. they did that at a time when GDP growth was slowing when we had a hyper-regulatory

administration. Right. We now have the opposite. And you can say whatever the hell you want to say about Mr. Trump, as you put it. But two quarters of more than double above the previous administration's trend of GDP growth is not trivial.

But here's a problem, Dave. We won't read about it in the news, but it's not trivial. And it's likely to... But here's a problem, Dave. This is the issue that people grappling with and investors are grappling with and what that's why we've seen a rotation in the market how do you how do you reconcile record profits coming for mag seven companies at the same time they're laying off employees how do you recognize it's easy it's easy i mean how do you reconcile

we know no how do you reconcile i know what i know the reason of it is ai but how do you reconcile how all those jobs of menial task jobs of data collection, data synthesis, you know, spreadsheet analysis, all these things. There's an easy, you want to know the answer? The answer is exactly why you saw the Russell 2000 outperforming. It's because the only answer is to deregulate, deregulate and deregulate and get more shovel-ready, new factories, new businesses, and help small businesses over big, which, by the way, is massively unpopular with the entrenched, most of the entrenched political class.

The real division in the Republican Party isn't the bullshit divisions. I mean, yeah, the bullshit divisions are woke versus not woke and, you know, support Israel, don't support Israel, this, all that crap. That's what's going on. But the reality, Dave, is this just reinforces the K-shaped economy, and that's what's happening. Well, but you know, but my point is the K-shaped economy is what's happening. and what the administration is trying to do. And I'm not saying they're going to succeed.

I am not saying that. I want them to succeed. It would be good for all of us if they did. What they're trying to do, their way to reconcile the case-shaped economy, is to reintroduce small businesses in the United States as the engine of growth. That is the only way.

And that is exactly what they're trying to do. And the implication of that is exactly as you say. They're going to use yield curve control. They're going to continue to deregulate. They're going to try to run the economy hot. Now, that's what they need. to do. Whether they will succeed is a different story. But understand that if you're calling for those sorts of actions, understand what that means. That means that large companies don't have

as much power as small. That means you need to enhance and allow for newer technologies to move in into financial services. That's where the entire debate over clarity goes, right? It's the banks versus – it's not the banks versus Coinbase, although Coinbase is probably leading the charge. It's the banks versus an army of firms that will find it easy to spin up neobanks and neo firms, right? I mean, you know, coding is getting a lot easier with AI, so it's not pure software anymore. The barriers to entry are dropping, but real businesses still need to be built. And so ask yourself, what does that mean? Well, that will mean significant increases in stable coin.

So the half of McLeon's argument is absolutely right. It won't just be tethered, but it will be a lot of them. But it will be massive increases. It will also mean more money in the pockets of Americans and less money in the pockets of banks. There's about $100 billion of interest every single year. We hope that that's what comes out of this. That's if it's successful. That's what successful.

As it stands, the banks want to be able to issue stable coins and have it illegal for them to pass on yield to the customer. That's true. This is a new technological representation of what they already do. They don't want any value capture to escape the banks. It's very simple. They see it as like improving swift to a faster rail. Correct. You know, you give them a deposit.

They re-hypothicate your dollars, and they don't give you any yield for it. You're sitting there at 0.2% of yield at, you know, whatever it is, Chase or Citibank or Wells Fargo, they're giving you none of this yield that they're getting the 4% yield on the front end. They're giving you none of that or $3.80 billion a year. What's that? It's $180 billion a year. They're giving you none of that. And they want that to continue.

That's correct. So that's their biggest fear of the stable coins. But when it comes down to it, the stable coins are going to be, that is where the Treasury absolutely needs for this legislation to get through. so they have more pockets to stuff this paper in. And it'll be stuffed everywhere. The other thing needs to happen and we don't have time to talk about it today. But the Basel rules need to change.

They need to change the leverage ratios for banks. So they, you know, treasuries don't count as risk assets for them. I've talked about it. I've written about it. If you want to, you know, find out more about it, it's in my archives and the information. But that's something else that has to change. But every guy, like every single thing, we're talking about guys. Every single thing comes back to and it will continue to come back to. Mike,

you know this because you were in the pits for so long. It's all driven by by debt. The whole market is driven by debt and bonds. And that's what, that's what if there's anything that we can impart on people watching this show is please do not ignore the debt markets. Do not ignore the credit markets. I'm not saying they're blowing up. I'm saying that that's where the attention needs to be because that's driving everything. And that's just reality and it's going to continue until it doesn't. Right. The Basel rules, here's going to be the grand bargain. The grand bargain is going to be to do exactly what you say at the same time as allowing

for mathematical formula-based haircutting of financial assets. This is a very tricky way of saying allowing Bitcoin to be used as collateral without having to take a full collateral charge. At that point, micro strategy's value is up 25, 30 percent in a blink, if not, more and the real question will be who which big banks will try to buy it. Because and it will be the same for anyone who has the ability to build off of that. Because right now, for those who don't understand it, if you have a billion dollar Bitcoin swap long and a billion dollar Bitcoin swap short, you have to tie up two billion

dollars in capital. If Bitcoin has its haircut to its normal volatility or volatility, where you could, you know, handle it. maybe, maybe it goes to a billion dollars, but it's down 50%. You do a 50% haircut, be perfectly normal given this volatility. Now, honestly, last week, you'd say, oh, well, look, you've got 50% in a week or two. It's like, no, not really. I mean, Bitcoin's volatility is actually not that high.

It would probably be better than that. But the fact is, it's a huge unlock for what goes on in Bitcoin. That will get, when the next time they change the Basel rules, you will see that is going to be part of it. Because the head of the Basel committee actually indicated that that's, That's the right way to do it. Now, the right way to do it is math, not, not, oh, let's just allow it to be freely floating. No, it's off of volatility and liquidity. But by the same token, volatility and liquidity of treasuries relative to whatever benchmark is so low that effectively you could do exactly the same thing as you're saying.

So they could undercover do that. There's a lot of pressure being put on to make that happen. I don't know whether they will succeed or not in the short run. I do know in the long run it will happen. So I have to rope that whole discussion into one simple little chart, most notably when you talk about a denominator, I see Scott getting a little bored with us. I want to just point out one thing, Scott. When you talk about the denominator, which does look like Bitcoin gold. It's been my favorite indicator.

Trump gets elected, it goes to 40. Last year's high was high 30s. It broke below 20. It takes basically right now about 14 ounces of gold per one Bitcoin. The biggest problem on the planet is this leading indicator of their, you know, ancient store value versus this highly speculative digital asset never bottoms with volatility. This is 180-day volatility on SMV-5 and at the lowest in eight years. Just look at the last time at bottom around 10 or so, it was around 25, 26 percent. Now that's a lagging

measure. And again, let's look at the stock market in terms of gold. It's heading lower. And gold is so stupid expensive. Now you can, just the fact that I can say it's two times a 60-month move on average. If I look back from the future, Remember those of us who had PTSD when it bumped up to them in 2019 and 2011 and never got above there and never sold? Well, those are just saying, oh, okay, you're supposed to lighten up. This is a massive trade just kicking in and Bitcoin's the leading in and leading part of it. It's like collapsing versus gold.

I don't see what's so true. The trade is broken to be looking for in long-term dips. It's silly. You sell rallies in that until proven you're wrong. But this whole concept we've used for at least 10 years, five years is puff, it's gone. So on Wall Street, there's an interesting debate always. Are things cyclical or secular, i.e., is this an enduring change or is this a cycle that's going to go? You are clearly saying that the gold price is cyclical and will continue to move. What James said 15 minutes ago about

China and what's going on in terms of holding treasuries says it is secular, meaning that if the non-dollar world or the people who are pushing against the dollar are moving toward gold and that is their trend and it's not just a short-term head fake then that tells you that what you're just that the analysis based upon that chart is flawed because it is a tech you're saying Dave what are you missing gold trade was two three years ago it's over you don't buy gold that through two times it's 60 month moving average good luck with that one is price it's basically it is the dominator When the denominator breaks out, it says there's a problem. When gold grabs up, but you do buy it, Mike, if you believe that, first of all, you don't need the money sitting in your bank account.

And second of all, if you believe that long term, the dollar is going to be absolutely destroyed, the value of it's going to be destroyed by. Versus what? Yield curve control. That's, you, you know, that's, you know, that's, yeah, versus other fiat currency. That's, that's my point. That's the issue. The issue is if sound money ultimately becomes something. that large parts of the world understand the need for, it's a secular change.

And that's my point. I think gold at 5,000 is equilibrium. I actually do. I don't think there's a buy here, but I do think it's, I don't think it's a sell either. And I think that's kind of the point. It's going to certainly move up and down. There's no doubt. But I think having reached an equilibrium price, that is a very different view of the world.

Yeah, my view of the world is different than yours. That is true. I think that your chart, when you look at those things, you showed me multiple lines that had zero correlation to each other. You may think they are correlated, but they don't look correlated. Bitcoin gold looks like it's getting closer to a bottom than a top. And effectively, if it's a point, but it never's bottoms with volatility this low. That's the point.

People are too early. I don't understand why stock market volatility has anything to do with that. Where the, if you could give me the intuitive reason. Give me the, I learned from fairly smart people on quantitative finance that looking at numbers on a chart, will create overfitting unless there's an intuition or a rationale behind those reasons being correlated. Now, if there is, that's fine. Can you explain why stock market correlation should have anything to do with Bitcoin versus gold? Because if you can't explain it, then I don't understand why.

Because it's beta, and I will mention again, the ancient store of Azure basically outperforms almost everything when stock market volatility is going up and the stock market's going down. The ancient store value is already front run that. The trade is over. That's my point is there's only one trade left. And that's Treasury. It's just catching up the rest of the world. Man, 1.81 in China. So I'll say it callously.

1.81% in China for that tenure note. I think that's where we're going. I think we'll have a decent head direction there by then year and starts with one little thing. Just a modest pickup in U.S. stock market volatility. That's my point. We're so dependent on this. I mean, the stock market has basically Atlas shrugged in most extreme measure in history. If it drops 10% everything goes down.

It's just where that's stretched now. And that's what Cryptos are telling us by collapsing. That's what Parabal, gold and silver have told you, but they've already reached pretty good nadars. Yeah. Well, we haven't talked about silver. I will repeat what I always say is that silver, I think, in this, we're not at equilibrium.

I think equilibrium is much higher, but that's because there's specific issues in that metal. And the gold silver ratio will revert towards its historical mean, which is 20. And we're still in a high four. 40s right now. I haven't checked this morning, so I don't know. But there, you understand why there's historical relationships because of the rarity in Earth's crust, right, in terms of recoverability. But the point here is, if you're a Bitcoiner, then you believe something very different than if you're

not. If you're a Bitcoiner, you tend to believe in two things. Sound money is going to ultimately win out and Fiatty basement is going to accelerate, in which case you believe that gold is more or less at an equilibrium and moving higher and Bitcoin will catch up. If you don't believe in that, then you believe everything you just said. And by the way, that's a perfectly fine analysis. It's just understand that that's the knife edge. So you just point out the key thing of my bearishness when I saw Mr. Saylor keep saying it again, you got to believe.

I'm like, oh, God, that's a cult. That's not an investment. Well, I mean, you know, everyone that you claim is part of the investment and not a cult are people who are looking at 70 years, not 70 years. are looking at 50 some odd years of financial history and deciding that that is what matters in the history and that everything before it was irrelevant. Well, guess what? It wasn't. The greatest advancement in human history happened during a period of sound money. It's called the Industrial Revolution, right? You know, this notion that inflation is necessary for human

progress is one of the great siops in human history. And yet almost every single person who, quote, is an investment professional has been taught that's true. So if you think, contrarian, understand where that is. But yes, we live in a investing world and we have to look at these things intelligently. But I'm just pointing out, this is not belief or religion. This is what will ultimately win in the end. And here's the key. China's 1.8 treasury bond because they're a massive, massive surplus economy. They don't need to borrow. They do. They do to goose their own. But who buys it? They probably their own central bank. They have. Scott, I mean, Dave, they're 300% debt to GDP. Their money is flying 20 times the U.S. That's how they pumped up their economy.

That's my point is. But on a real goods perspective, they're still producing more than they consume. And that's where the money comes from. Exactly. They're exporting that in deflation to the rest of the world. Europe's pushing back. And the whole world's dependent on that U.S. stock market not going down for the next post-deflation after inflation period. It's just waiting that. I think that the key that this administration looks at is saying, how the hell do we get the U.S. long bond to be more in line with China, Japan, and Germany. I think that's what they're looking at. And so that is the buttons that they want to push. So do I think that they will get some of that reversion? Yeah, probably. But the question is, who's buying it. And the who's buying it actually has a lot to do with macro. It has a lot to do

with who might buy Bitcoin, who might buy gold, who might buy treasuries. I think that's a large part of the analysis. Anyway, we're getting, we've got away to long as we wrap, just interestingly, Mike, you know, you called for $50 silver on 12 days ago, but only what, six trading days. It took for it to go to 64. We were calling 50. To me, if you get front run on your target, that's a rounding error, and you're right, right? So we went from 120 to 64. If it had gone to 58, the world would be celebrating the call.

Everybody wanted $57,000 Bitcoin because it's the weekly 200 MA and the monthly 50 there. We got to 598, depending on the exchange. to me, that's a good call. It got there, and anybody who's waiting for the exact line maybe gets front run. So I don't know what's going to happen next, but I will say that even according to some of your calls or those that we viewed from other people, it's enough, right? It's enough downside, certainly on silver for you to have been right. Short's a different way.

Yeah. The most important silver call, though, is was that 126 the absolute top? And the answer is probably for 2026, but not. not by 2028, 29. And you talked about in terms of decades. But there's reasons for that. I mean, the fact that silver is above 80 again, which I will continue to say is the Maginot Line where the CME pulled out the big guns.

Understand that... If you're long silver, you have to have the U.S. stock market going up. And it's... If you're long silver... It is certainly correlated for sure. Very much so, because the reason for silver is going to be the next wave of battery technology that layer on top of solar technologies, the top of other technologies,

and data center buildouts, if SpaceX is going to be the biggest company in the world in 10 years, which it might be, by the way, with data centers in space to powering AI, there's an enormous amount of silver that's going into space if there's success. Here's a top two four phrases you're going to hear, one word you're going to hear in silver market next year,

thrifting, and when you hear President Trump, you're going to hear lame duck. Make the call. Well, you're going to hear lame duck because he's up against, you know, whatever. But, you know, the fact is, is we get three years, not one for the regulatory side. Yeah, we've unpacked that. Expecting to do anything is, I mean, I don't know.

The Senate can't pass anything. I don't know why, but they're completely dysfunctional. So. Well, we obviously unpack the important topics here, like Bad Bunny's effect on Bitcoin price. And tomorrow we'll be talking about drops alternate Super Bowl performance and its effect on kilbert. and it's going to be a great week. Guys, that was another incredible conversation. Obviously, we could do this for three hours,

but it is time to wrap so that we can go host Crypto Town Hall. We will be back tomorrow with Andrew and Tillman. And there's another guest, too, and I can't remember because I need somebody to show me my calendar 15 times to remember what's on it. And that's all I got for you today. Thank you, gentlemen. We will see you next week.

Bye.