The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin RIPS Past $66K On Trump's Iran Deal – Macro Monday

Episode Date: June 15, 2026

Bitcoin just RIPPED to $66k as Trump confirmed the U.S.-Iran peace deal will be signed Friday in Switzerland — ending the 15-week war that's been crushing risk assets all month. WTI oil collapsed 5%, the Strait of Hormuz reopens within 30 days, Nasdaq futures ripped +1.5%, and Glassnode flagged $68K-$80K as the next bullish marker. Add SpaceX's record-breaking IPO closing +19% at a $1.77 trillion valuation, Tether briefly flipping Ethereum for the first time in 8 years, and Mike McGlone forecasting USDT could eventually top Bitcoin — and today's setup is the cleanest bullish inflection we've seen since October. We break down whether the Iran peace deal marks the cycle bottom and which catalysts could keep this rally running through the G7 summit. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor,

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Bitcoin's ripped past $66,000 on Trump's Iran peace deal. I did the air quotes because it sounds more like an extended ceasefire than a peace deal to me. But I'm sure we will discuss that today with Dave Mike and very special guest, Gary Cardone. It's going to be a good day to talk about oil boys. Let's go. Good morning, everybody.

Welcome to Macro Monday. I'm going to bring everybody on right now right after you like and subscribe. we've got Dave, Mike, and Gary. Dave, I mean, congratulations. I said it to you before I'll say it again. I know you've waited 55 years for anything good to happen in your sporting light. 53 years. Not quite technically. The Knicks for sure. And the Knicks won this weekend. I was in New York. It was a lot of fun. Not the writing that I saw on TV personally. But hey, I guess that's what that's what the media does. Mike, let's start with the morning meeting, which I'm sure is all about the Knicks. Yeah. Andrew Sacher, an economist, came in and he pointed out it's going to be what Warsh says.

Some other people had comments about that. And retail sales this week in the Iran War, it looks like it's pretty much cleaned up. Chris Kane, our equity strategies pointed out that we probably reach all times highest. Today there's been decent divergent strength in the overall Equate SP 500 index. Advanced decline lines have been pretty positive, healthy market rotation. His scorecard says momentum is still the primary factor driving things, values number two. Low Val and profitability remain bottom. Ira Jersey, our senior interest rate strategies, point out, expects the front end to move lower in yield.

Two-year likely dropped towards $3.90 for fair value. Long-end supply-driven, he thinks that 30 years is going to stay below 5% now. Range-bound environment and long-in. His quote on worse is he thinks unlikely. that Worse is going to be able to convince the FMC to cut rates. Hawks are likely to continue to be vocal and strong and hard. Financial contestants are a bit easy, so it's not really a story for lower rates, particularly with higher inflation.

Audrey Child Freeman, our XFX strategies pointed out the yen is getting sticky at 160. It's getting bearish on the yen despite the fact that B.OJ is going to be hiking again. Fed's the one is going to be dictating, so she's really watching what Worse is going to say on June 17th. the US data continues out form which is a bit of a dollar factor but she expects a hawkish meeting from the BOJ to continue and they actually typically i go last in meeting they asked me to go second today so i just point out the key facts that commodities you probably peaked pre-show Dave was giggling a little bit with that cool game giggle about all the longs and and wTI crude oil and they're getting stopped out the thing i want to point out is i'll stick with what i'm my bias in crude oil

is that December contract that's where the Puck's going. It's $74 a barrel. I think it's going to be low by 55 or lower by midterms. That's what Mr. Trump needs. That's also the effectively the break-even cost of production, the world's largest producer net export or the U.S. But it's not just crude oil. It's corn, soybeans, and wheat. They all got really pumped out. Now, there's a sector that got way long. Hedge funds get way long. And I just, sometimes you just love writing about stuff when you know it's probably going to go the right way. And they're all getting stopped out. They've dropped a lot. Corn was at five, now it's near four.

Soybeans are at 12, now they're near 11. They're probably going to go to their cost of productions or which much lower. I pointed out natural gas is being leading the way. And then I just mentioned in metals, the metals are completely dependent on the stock market going up, most notably copper and gold. And that's why I have to half off Canada TV

once we talk about gold. And they usually don't like when I'm embarrassed, but I've been bullish for decades, and I just stopped being bullish this year. So back to you. Yeah, I want to go, Gary, so obviously on this oil point, we got tentative deal on ending the Iran war. We can discuss that. But sending stock storing oil prices to lowest level in months, you've obviously

participated in the oil market for most of your career and the energy market. So I mean, we agree with Mike, I guess, first that, you know, this is what Trump needs and they're going way down before midterms. What do you think is going to happen there? Yeah, I do agree with Mike. I don't necessarily agree at 55, but by October, maybe. would you say what's January Mike? 75? Yeah, December right now

7490. It's high. I'd be selling that. See, I just think, you know, that's a Yeah. Listen, you got Exxon and mobile out there, Shell saying, hey, look, we do have a supply issue for a couple of months.

So I wouldn't worry about it. I think oil comes down. Nat gas is abundant in America. That's going to help everyone with oil drilling comes gnat gas whether you like it or not so I do not think that we're going to have this world war or no war where we have

$120 crude oil I do not see that world war or no war yeah then let's zoom in on the actual war so actually right so I guess this is one of them US-Iran deal updates Israel says no Lebanon with trolley runs as funds expected before final talks. Okay, so we obviously, for those who live under Iraq, we got an announcement effectively for Trump saying that a peace deal

had been negotiated. It will be signed this Friday. It was done on his 80th birthday while motorcycles were jumping across the lawn of the White House and people were fighting. I'm really disappointed they didn't do Monster Jam instead because I want to see Grave Digger jump over the White House. All of that aside, as the details sort of started to emerge, it feels like somewhere between a piece deal and an extension of a ceasefire, right? So they're saying 60 days to negotiate, call me crazy, but it feels like this is a hard regime to negotiate with. So that may be more difficult than it seems. But that seems to be why prices of everything are kind of raging today, right? Oil's down and all that's down on up on headlines. And I think what's fair to say,

even Bitcoin, right, Dave is here is up on that headline right now. Clearly. I mean, clearly. Look, liquidity wins, right? You know, here we are. We, the most, important event and we haven't mentioned it yet from a macro point of view in investing in united states is the fact that space x came the IPO held on the first day is doing well today and all the other shit that was sold to buy it uh is now doing well so the amount of money that obviously people were were were doom and gloom saying well they're going to have to sell everything in order to buy this but the liquidity is there and i was concerned about that just to raise my hand No, no, no. It was definitely a thing, but now that it's not a thing, it matters.

And then people who are expecting that thing to happen, i.e. everything else to drop, all of a sudden is underallocated and now they're at risk. And you have to understand. And when I talk about underallocated, if you're a pension fund and you have actuarially assumptions or you're a fund manager and you have benchmarks and you are less invested than the benchmark, you're short effectively. And that's a short squeeze that happens. It is an important type of short squeeze.

And they're all in this kind of business together. And there are a lot of hedge funds, not hedge funds. There are a lot of asset managers that had higher cash allocations than usual going into SpaceX and figuring they're going to get a chance to buy stuff cheaply. And that stuff, I mean, Bitcoin is one of those things, but that stuff is all doing well. I mean, we saw this dip last week in AI infrastructure stocks. I'm not going to talk about AI consumer stocks because I think those are overvalued to the extent that they exist in the private market. But the AI infrastructure race, because the money is there to buy that shit.

That is, they have years of demand. That's not going anywhere. But they all took, you know, like I own a few, right? They all took 8 to 10% drops before SpaceX. And by the end of today, they'll probably be right back to where they were. And then we'll see. And that liquidity matters. Now, the other thing that matters is the market, polymarket, the pundits in terms of what the

worst Fed is going to do, they're wrong. I mean, I legitimately think it's one of those cases where I believe that most of the markets, the dot plots and the expectations on the Fed are literally wrong. You know, there's like zero. There's like wrong for years. No, but I mean, but the expectation that rates will be flat to higher by the end of the year, I think considering the, you know, what this particular Fed needs to do working with this particular treasury and this administration, I think they're wrong. And, you know, at a bare minimum,

there should be some probability priced in, but there's zero. So when, when war starts talking about stuff, and it's going to be all sorts of double speak, you know, if James were on, he would, he would be, you would be laughing. You know, we don't know what they're going to call it. But one thing is certain is if the oil shock dissipates and it looks like it's going to, then that gives them the air cover to try to decrease the ridiculous $1.3 trillion a year U.S. funding cost of our current deficit. It gives them the chance to try to spur business investment, which is what they want to do. And that is all they need. So the fact that Fed expectations haven't changed at all,

and oil is now at 80 as opposed to everyone talking about 100 to 150, 50 is just nuts. And so if you're investing in risk assets that you think are very sensitive and people are going to start coming to the conclusion, well, wait a minute, I should be buying the things that, you know, if I could find something that is, oh, I don't know, 40, 50% below its all-time high, I should be, they're going to, which is why Gary, I disagree with you on Bitcoin and did last week and we'll continue to disagree. We'll talk about that after Mike leaves because it'll be a great topic when he does. And since we've still got Mike here to talk about Right. But I think that liquidity wave is there. And if you look globally, I just did the look. I mean,

our money supply and credit expansion has accelerated. And so is China's over the last month. So it's not terribly surprising the risk assets are higher. You know, the real question is, will there be exogenous shocks? I mean, will we see more bombing and more shit going on or will this actually hold? But none of that does send oil up at this point. Like if what we've, I agree with you, Mike and Gary, I mean, if we haven't seen 130, 40, 50 oil on all the things that have already happened, it's hard to imagine this scenario or a piece of news that sends them back up there, right? That's sort of my base case. Mike?

Well, it's a macro big picture, what's happened. The incremental supply of Middle East has been declining relative to the rest of the world, most notably Western Hemisphere for decades. Now, Gary knows this has been in the market. The largest marginal excess supply. of crude oil on the planet is US. We have Canada all the way down in Argentina, and the massive incentive to decrease that supply and continue to do that. We just got a great reason to do that. Now, that's just not just crude oil. It's natural gas. It's corn soybeans and meat.

They're all heading lower and a normal cycle to a low price cure. So to me, that's an incomplete low price cure. I like to point out the first time I went to Texas was in 1986. That was a bit of a bust. That was a low price cure. We're still not there. So it's a matter of time. The key thing I think to think about here when you compare all assets is we have a pump and dump contagion that I fully expect is going to continue by the year. At the beginning year, just a month ago was just Bitcoin and natural gas. Now it's gold, silver, platinum, plating, and corn. That list is getting longer every day. I think it's going to continue.

And the bottom line for most of those markets stay up. Most notably Bitcoin is a stock market has to stay up. The thing that's changed is we are talking about spaces with excess supply. Look at, okay, there's a bit of a blip right now with crude oil in the Middle East. least that's going to be fixed. It's certainly not a U.S. It's not a problem. Natural gas, cryptos, major oversupply, and they don't have income.

Yet we're pointing out to the biggest game in town now is this massive pump in earnings and in the stock market. There is no hope for cryptos in this environment. At some point, they need to find their low price cure. So in terms of the macro, the key theme also, and to push back in Dave a little bit on the Fed is here's what the future is going to look back, what we're doing now. The Fed has kept cutting rates. They stopped a little bit last year with stock market cap the GDP running 2% inflation above their target and massive liquidity.

That will be looked back at a mistake. They're creating more liquidity, increasing that stock market cap the GDP at $2.5 times at $80 trillion now, which is two times the total debt. The last time we got that was near 2007. So what Worst is going to do, his term will go past Mr. Trump's. He's going to look back and say, yeah, I don't want to be looked back as Arthur Burns, And I can we look back at his Paul Bork. And I think he's going to thread the needle and say, you know what? This is not an environment to ease.

And if we do that, we're going to make it worse for inflation. Here's a key thing to remember is what's changed. The paradigm shift has changed. If you are in incumbent right now and you do not want to get elected, yeah, make that stock market keep going up, keep inflation up. So you will not get elected. And if you want the next president to be a Democrat, keep inflation high. Let the Fed, push the Fed to ease and make inflation higher. That's what's changed.

To me, that's the end game. And that's why I still tilt over by the end of the year. Gold has worn us, crypto's worn us last year. Now that 5% in the long bond might be looked back and say, that was your last chance. I don't think rates go up, but isn't there a difference between we should raise rates now in Worse's mind or we shouldn't have cut rates before, right? I think his most likely scenarios do nothing in wait, right? Well, the concept of the new chairman coming in, and moon least Mr. Trump pushed back and said

He should do the right thing, whatever that is, and then he'll put it a little bit at low rates. But Mr. Besson has to be tapping them on the shoulder to say, by the way, Donald, since we've been cutting rates, yields have been going up, mortgage rates have been going up, inflation is going up. If you do not want to get elected, if you do not Republicans who get elected, keep doing that. Finally, he's figuring it out. Anybody want to take comment there? Go ahead, Dave. And then I mean, look, I think there's two things, right? First, this, the notion that modern economy. have in their head that there is a perfect correlation between Fed raising interest rates and fighting inflation is just, I mean, mind boggling to me.

I mean, it's just mind boggling. Look over the last 25 years. I mean, it is, the raising rates is a tool that impacts almost, almost perfectly consumer demand, and that's it. It doesn't do anything else. And so you're going to slow the economy, and that's the idea of slowing inflation. But if inflation isn't coming from consumer spending, if inflation is coming from money being printed and it doesn't do a damn bit, it doesn't do anything. And so what we've seen is we've seen, and you can look at it as I did the analysis over the weekend, if you look at the correlation between asset prices and the money supply and consumer inflation in the money supply, and you can put rates in the same thing.

What you see is that asset prices have been ridiculously correlated to rates, and consumer prices have not. Now, a blind person could see it. Warsh has actually even talked about it, so we know that he's not foolish. And so this notion that rates and inflation have this mythic Paul Volkerian, you know, correlation and causation, actually, We have a very different situation than we had in the 80s.

In the 80s, there was this massive oil shock. There were strikes and labor things and contracts being reset. I mean, look, I lived, my economic awareness started when I started debating in high school in 1976, and I was an econ major when Volker was doing his stuff. So I am very aware of this. And I'm telling you guys that the assumptions underlying what, Mike said are just wrong. I'm not blaming Mike for this. This is most of the economics profession. You know, the problem with professions, you know, like economics these days is it's safe to say

what everybody else is saying. And so you kind of get into this common knowledge trap, but you actually should look at data. And, you know, if you look at other things that Warsh has talked about the Fed in terms of changing it, I mean, he's been spot on and almost everything he's said about it. You know, this is an organization that has had like one of the work, track records at predicting economic moves ever. I mean, they have, how many ever PhDs, 900 of them? You know, and they do a great job of looking backwards, but their forward models have been awful.

I mean, not bad. I mean, literally random, you know, chucking darts, you know, having monkeys piping on keyboards probably would do as well as the Fed has done. I mean, it has been absolutely god awful. And the reasons are they make these assumptions. and these assumptions are wrong. So now we have a new head of the Fed who actually is smart and understands this. And so my guess is, yeah, they're going to care about aggregate demand.

And to the extent that our inflation was coming from union contracts being negotiated with inflationary expectations, damn right they'd be raising rates. But that's not what's been happening. And so that is very important to understand is the dynamics underneath, you know, what causes inflation are very relevant here. And we've gone about this chapter in verse, Scott. We talked about it. I predicted it before the pandemic.

I said, listen, you can't give helicopter money to humans at the same time supply chains are being crushed. That's going to cause inflation. But we're not giving helicopter money to humans. And supply chains of anything are getting stronger. And that's what they're trying to focus on until the war happened. So anyway, that's my rant for the day. I mean, Gary, what do you think?

We get Borses' first comments publicly really on Wednesday, right? So this is actually the week to talk about it. have an FOMC. He actually had said maybe they weren't going to do that anymore, but I am assuming he will speak. But, you know, before he came and he said, maybe we don't need, you know, the speech from the chairman. But I mean, what do you think is? I can't imagine, um, anyone raising interest rates here. That's, that's ludicrous. It's crazy. I don't think that need to lower rates, but I can't imagine them raising rates. That would be crazy. What happens if the cut? You know, if inflation is heating up.

I'm not sure really inflation really is here. Look, I got ripped into pieces last night. I did a presentation for Alex Jones's audience, the son, Tim and Alex. And they were just like, dude, you're so out of touch with the regular human being. And I mean, their claim is, look, people are making 60 grand a year. They can't afford a car. Look, it is a world of two economies for sure. And that is not going away no matter what Trump does.

We got to fix this because the amount of grief I got from 30 year olds looking at me going, dude, you're completely out of touch. I mean, I could feel it. Like he was like half the audience hated me. They just think I'm rich. And my message is, wow, dude, I've never been able to get an MBA for free. I've never been able to rent anything I wanted whenever I wanted. I've never been able to not have an assistant.

I can plug into one of these AI things, and now I've got an assistant that doesn't ask me stupid questions constantly, wasting my time. I think our world is going to become very, very much more efficient. And I'm not so sure it's good for the AI companies, but I think it's going to be great for the companies and the individuals that use AI. So everybody wants to own their own business. dude, white one up, read a book.

And this is what people get the pushback. They're like, hey, you're being, how can a $60,000 a year person, you know, stop everything and learn? And it's like, well, I mean, this is the game we're playing. I can't make you learn anything. But I have to believe this is going to be great and the deflation is going to come from great efficiencies. And the more we look at our world, dude, it is grossly inefficient.

Right? It is great. For crude oil not to have gone to $300 says everything about how inefficient our market is. We have energy shit. We have stuff that's just stuck behind the pipes. We have intellectual capital that's not being fully deployed. And we have a lot of waste. We have a lot of mediocrity in corporations. Once you get to 150 people, it's very, very difficult to make it efficient. So I just think we're at inefficiency and all this technology is going to drive us into big margins and lower cost. Yeah, and the most inefficient entity is our government. But no one wants civil unrest when you have two populations and it's the spread between the two populations is this big. You're going to have violence sooner or later. It's just too big of a gap. I mean, look, four people here, like we have a different life than most people in America or much

less the rest of the world. Yeah. I mean, look, you have to look at the reasons. I mean, I have these conversations, one of my favorite people on the internet. I mean, although I have met him. Thank you, Dave. I wasn't going to talk about you. I like you, too, but that, but we have met. Thank you, Dave. But they won't do dairy. Had to be made. You know, Robert, who goes by Infra, who does a lot of economic stuff and whatnot. We talk about the wealth gap. And the wealth gap is very, very real. And if you set out to create a wealth gap, the two policies you would do is you would encourage capital over labor.

And you would do that in a variety of ways, most notably by making, keeping real rates below the rate of inflation. And at the same time, you would have a government structure where big companies have huge advantages over small. because if that happens, then, you know, then basically big companies, all of it goes to, you know, the top of the pyramid versus the bottom of the pyramid. And we have basically had that policy on a bipartisan basis going back 40 years. So it's completely unsurprising that we are where we are. And the way to reverse it is to kind of do what, what Miele is doing in Argentina with his chainsaw. And the fact that nobody in America is talking about the fact

that every economist in America that is effectively was wrong about what would happen in Argentina as Miele was doing this is fascinating. Well, why? It's because the economists in America are, you know, with the media, with everybody else. They think what they think. And they're mostly a bunch of hatchet jobs. I mean, hell, econ majors, a huge percentage of econ majors believe socialism is a better policy than capitalism. Despite the fact of socialism has literally failed, every single time it has ever been tried. And by the way, that includes in the Nordic countries, in Sweden, et cetera. It failed and they had to reverse it. I mean, it has, it is the, it is so much worse than the Knicks were for 40 or 40 or 45 of those years that we were in the desert before we

won. It's absurd. But yet, that's what they're teaching today. And so, you know, understand, get the government out of, out of things and things will be better. But the government is entrenched in so many different areas. And so that's one of the reasons that, frankly, you know, you, you talked about it in your rant. It's one of the reasons that I became a bit-cominer is, as I realized, that there's a need for private commerce. And, you know, when we look at all of this, it matters because there's populist anger. So this notion that this image that's burned into my retinas that of Elizabeth Warren and all of these Democrats yelling about how obscene it is that Elon Musk is, is a trillionaire is exactly the perfect metaphor for the day. So somebody who's created hundreds of

thousands of jobs, someone who's created over 4,000 millionaires, they're saying how bad it is that on paper he has this worth is insane. You should be celebrating it because it's not like he's sitting like Scrooge McDuck with, you know, swimming in his gold coin. That's part I was going to say is when they say that he could, you know, solve world homelessness by himself. And I think like, by what, selling all the stock and crashing every single market on planet Earth? So, I mean, it just, they're great names. I mean, there were tweets that literally said, you know, Elon must stole this money from you. Yeah, I mean, people are really dumb.

But that stupidity is important. Let's be careful about complaining and focus what this means for markets. This is the tilt. We might get the next president to be present AOC. there's a complete tilt away from extreme capitalism, which is what we have right now, which is focus on what that means. It's like I had a conversation with some of my colleagues in New York recently. They hated Trump so much that misguided their views on crude oil.

I'm like, sorry you, I'll love them or hate them. This is what it matters for markets. What's happening now is a severe cyclical normal cycle shift. Just what happened after Herbert Hoover was elected. Then we had, what, on how many, 12 years of Democrats? This is where we're going right now. unless Mr. Trump doesn't. And he's going to get just the fact,

I love the quote when he says he doesn't care about midterms. It's like someone who's never been married, not caring about the word when your wife says no. He makes, you're not understanding. And I heard of how someone punnet this week and said he takes him by his word. And he means he cares. He just knows he's losing. So what's he going to do about it?

And the point I want to make is he needs affordability better and inflation lower. There's a few ways to get that. But it's the lose-lose. It's the number one way on a scale on a one to 10 on a historical basis, the 10 for inflation to continue upwards is that stock market can't control and above 2.5 times GDP. And the number one way for deflation is the stock market to go down. Besson gets it. I guarantee it. Trump, I don't probably doesn't, but this is the lose lose now.

Stock market goes down. It's a recession. Stock market goes up inflation. It's almost a guarantee next president's a Democrat and he's going to get hammered in the midterms. This is a cycle one right now. Now, crude oil is a nothing. On the screen right now, that $80 a barrel gear remembers this. I remember trading that in 2007.

So we had a pump and crude oil so far this year. It's going to go down. Like I said, I think it's going to be down in the year, just like natural gas and corn and soybeans and Bitcoin and all the precious metals. The key theme is for anything to stay up. Now, the stock market has to stay up. So this is, I think, the best trading year of a lifetime. And just let's focus on the trends.

That pump and then dump trend is continuing and just the inordinate burden for that stock market that go up, it feels like, for me, it feels like 1929. Unless, Mike, unless we democratize equities and we do what Fidelity, I think this is a big green flag. We are driving the ability for Joe consumer, Joe investor, Joe family to invest in IPOs. And that means that they're going to be allowed to invest in private companies or be pushed into private companies. I think you're going to see a tremendous amount of cash.

access the market has always been able to only do it through a 401k or through some other mechanism. If you don't believe that's going to increase the demand, then why have people been complaining forever and ever and ever not being able to access the markets like the rich people? So I think they'll change the accreditation laws. They already, dude, they didn't even talk about accreditation when Fidelity sent out a note and said a $2,000 investor can participate in the IPO. My brother tried to get 8,000 units. He got less than 1,000. This is a big news. I hear people saying, hey, Elon's extracting money out of Betty Homemaker.

It's like, dude, Betty Homemaker has the same access as the richest people in the world. That's cool. Like, why are you all complaining about that? We're not extracting value. You're giving access. It's a wonderful thing that the South American person is in America creating wealth. I mean, people don't get that. Good luck.

Mike, that could drive. Mike, do you agree that could drive some demand we've never seen before? It could, but think about what happened. Sure, okay, but cash as a percentage of stock market cap is very low. Right now about 10%. People keep pointing at that level at $8 trillion. Well, before 2008, it was 14% or no of stock market cap. Did you be not 10%.

People are missing the relatives. But the balloons grown, man. That's my point is it's going, but what's, what happened to cryptos? Crypto insiders sold out to the mainstream three ETFs. Now, Mr. Trump pumped that up a little bit and we're still dumping. That was a sellout. Right now, as Jim Chano said, he helped me nail micro strategy last year, pointed out, now we finally have the first time in a couple of years we have supply meeting demand in stock market.

Those IPOs are just going to continue, insiders selling out until the market gives up. It's just use your way it works. The question is how far it goes. Well, I would maintain $80 billion for a company this has Tesla. It's just not a big run. Like these are not massive raises. For SpaceX. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, there's two points. I want to go back to something before you leave, Mike, that you said, although I think Gary's conversation is interesting, but we can continue. You talk about, you go on about these polemics about the midterm, but I ask Grock a very simple question. I knew what the answer was going to be.

And it's very simple. I said, who gets hurt most by rising interest rates? And it's not even close. The bottom income quartile is generally hurt most by rising interest rates. And the richest are hurt the least. Namely, a policy, if you want a populist policy, interest rates are impacting the people who are paying for credit card debt. It is as simple as that.

And so it just understand first principles. You have to, this gets ignored. And I don't know why it gets ignored. I keep saying that because these are obvious economic relationships. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be living paycheck to paycheck and on and paying interest rates on credit card interests or other interest rates, variable rate interest. Some of which when you start raising interest rates gets usuris. And some of it is already usuris. this is why the $60,000 person can't. Look, I have a daughter and, you know, I, you know,

I can help her, but, you know, she's been working for a few years and, you know, and doing reasonably well in her career, but it's not a very, I'm not going to go into it, but it's not a incredibly lucrative industry. And, you know, her budgeting is hard. It's hard, right? You know, there's no question about it. I mean, you can't argue that, that the, that home ownership is even within, reach of people with an entry-level job, even two, three, four years in. It's just not there unless you get help from your parents. And that's all true. And that's because why. It's because decades of asset prices going up has dragged homeowners, you know, homes and real estate with it for obvious

reasons. But you can rent and renting rental supply is not so bad. You can do a lot of this other stuff. But you have to understand if you raise rates, you hurt the poor. You cut rates. You help the poor. Who are the voters? Ask yourself that question. We should jump to Mike because I know he's got to go in two or three minutes. So I don't understand why that's not not so. So Bank of Japan, Bank of England, ECB, Bank of Australia, they're all hiking rates. It's the wrong trade. I agree with you. That's a global recession kicking in. Okay, they're going to be cutting later. Remember this in 2008? The US is the one who did not hike rates when CPI went to 5.6 percent. Now the high this year is 4.2 percent. But you're missing the macro, I think, Dave, and that's affordability.

When you get to the polls, they're not talking about rates. They're talking about affordability, gas and food and all that stuff. And all these rich people are just saying, who, who, I'm making them money. And Trump's tops the top of the game. Just some of the stuff, the thing he's hosting the White House, these are all the rich people doing well. And your average person to vote for him is just, you just look at his numbers in the polls. So I look from an outlook standpoint is I don't disagree with you. I don't disagree with you, Gary.

It's the dumb thing to do to raise rates. but we've reached an endgame of lower rates pumping up inflation, the stock market. And it's just we can't do that anymore for a while until something gives. To me, the only way to rate rates going down now is the stock market going down. Mike Jeeleads. And yields. And I got to go. Sorry.

Yeah. We let Mike go and we're going to pivot because I want to, thanks, Mike. I want to talk about strategy. Good, good time for that conversation. I think we got strategy has acquired 1587 Bitcoin for $100. million to increase our Bitcoin Reserve. We've also increased our U.S.D. Reserve by $100 million to buy $1.1 billion. It's been a week of commentary on this, right? So you had obviously Bitcoin Prague last week, you had Matt Cole from Strive and Michael Saler there from strategy, but of course

Jack Mahler's kind of poke the hornet's nests and basically said, listen, if what you're doing isn't dilutive to shareholders, please tell me what is dilutive, right? I spoke to Fong Lee about this on Friday. I mean, my sort of grand conclusion is he got to zoom out and what a company does for one week is not really relevant to the long-term trajectory of their plans and what they're doing, but there's a lot of heat on strategy right now. Obviously, they close that convert for over $1.3 billion and now they're re-raising that cash reserve $100 million a week and still managing to buy Bitcoin by selling micro strategy shares. So here's my quick take. My quick take is Everybody ignores, not everybody, so many pundits ignore the actual value props of the assets.

And let's understand what they are. And there's no magic here. The value proposition for MSTR is that they will be able to own in a case where Bitcoin goes on a sustainable run that they will be leveraged to the upside versus Bitcoin. Full stop. At the same time, in order to pay for that leverage, they are going to underpreference. perform when Bitcoin goes sideways or down. This has been the case from the beginning. It will always be the case. It is literally how they run the company. And there's no magic there. And yes, you can short it if you think Bitcoin's going to go flat or down. And you should be long it if you think Bitcoin is

going to continually go up and grind higher and have a rally. It's that simple. SCRC, you are basically buying high yield debt at a perpetual basis, but instead of the high yield coming because the company itself might go bankrupt because they're in a business where they don't have a good credit rating and there's difficult prospects for earnings and the bill could come due, your high yield reason there is because Bitcoin could drop in value and go to the point where eventually they won't be able to pay it back. They will lose, they'll be over levered. But their leverage rate is really, really small right now. And so that's not really a thing. And in the case with Bitcoin increasing, that credit rating is going to go way higher,

and the rates will drop down, so take advantage of where you are. It is that simple. I don't understand all the histrionics here. I mean, it's not like, I mean, look, I have criticisms of the way that micro-stratit trades. I think the way they allocate their capital,

the way they trade, the way they use the market, is sophomoric, and it allows hedge funds to make a lot of money by front-running them, it allows them. It's clear performance drag on the leverage they want to get to. But it's a small performance drag,

and I'm a shareholder because I think that it's a good leverage bet. And so I don't like leverage of my own accounts because you have to be glued to a screen. I'd rather that implied leverage. But the truth is that that's what the investment thesis is. And when you think about it that way, then most of the histrionics just go goodbye. There's exactly one criticism, Scott, that I heard last week.

one, that were we in a different administration is a risk. And this is a real risk. The risk is that Sailor with his social media has effectively done misleading marketing. Right. By the way, that exact risk was highlighted and was used by people to not buy Tesla and kept a lot of people out of Tesla about 1,000% ago. Yeah. So I just want to make that clear. It's a real risk. Were we to have an SEC chair who was very enforcement happy, yeah, they could definitely be difficult. The shareholders, lawsuits could be difficult. It's a real risk. I will tell you that Tesla was the last time we saw a company with a flamboyant CEO making statements on the internet and that people were saying the same exact stuff about, and it was over a thousand percent ago. It's been a 10x. since those statements were really a big problem.

So I'm not saying that strategy is going to 10X, although I actually think it probably has a shot at doing so over the next, you know, end number of years. But I am saying that you got to be careful about how you're approaching your investments. If you don't want to be an levered investment, don't be in it. So, Dave, I'm assuming that you mean that Bitcoin has to do a 6, 7, 8x for MSTR or SDRC to do

a strategy to do 10x? I don't know what the numbers are, but those numbers don't seem crazy. Yeah. FTRC won't do it. See, I think it's yet to be proven that MS, the strategy is a, that you're going to get upside premium when the market moves. I don't. I originally went, okay, I'll go along with it, 800,000 coins, but is there really any

value for on a commodity to have size? Well, it's not. I'm not so much sure. And I'm not sure that the equity is going to. I'm going to give you two reasons. One is nothing to do with size. So let's start with that first because the size one is important. It could be just as bad on the downside if there is any upside.

No, what you're missing is is that the higher Bitcoin goes, the more they can raise via without increasing leverage, the more they can raise via the STRC mechanism and be able to lever that into buying more Bitcoin per share. And so it is that they have positive operate as Bitcoin rises, their leverage increases in a sense. Actually, the leverage decreases so they're able to fund more to make their leverage increase. You know, grain of salt does, you know, explains this. He has all presentation on this impact. But there is positive operating leverage in that model. Now, the other one that's very interesting that nobody's talked about over the last two weeks is the critical mass point,

which is if Bitcoin becomes collateral that can be used within the system without the current way that the Basel 3 rules work, which are, and we saw Senator Lumas talk about this a week ago, they're punitive for Bitcoin. That will allow Bitcoin in the banking system to be useful. At that point, the scale that they've achieved will allow them to do things or create more interesting products and banking, etc. That is a positive piece of optionality, but honestly, I think you're right. I think if you want to value the company, it should be based upon can it maintain positive operating leverage by converting fixed income buyers into Bitcoin buyers that go onto the balance sheet. That is the real question.

Does that make sense? It does. I was actually going to just flag one thing that I just, and I was kind of just researching it there with Claude while you were talking. actually the fact that STRC right now is trading at 94 5.67 which you know a preferred trading below par is no big deal but I did just kind of look up and say wait it's June 15th isn't this when it's always you know every month it kind of pumps right back up to 100 X dividend date which now will be bi-monthly of course but you usually would see this to be the exact moment when STRC was trading back to part 100 and Saylor was selling to buy billions in Bitcoin and it just didn't happen this time. Yeah. Well, I mean, given everything that's happening, some mushy demand here. Yeah, I mean, but that's not surprising, really. I mean, you know, there's a lot. What creates the ability to be a successful value investor? The ability

to be a successful value investor, or frankly, I ran stat ARB, statistical arbitrage. As I once explained to Chuck Prince when he was running Citigroup, statistical arbitrage is, basically using mathematical methods to find when markets are mispricing, right? You know, markets misprice things in the short run. That's why some of the most, and if you don't think that, then, well, you know, you don't understand where some of the richest people on the planet come from. You think Ken Griffin is where he is, or Ray Dalio is where he is, because markets are efficient and there aren't smart bets that can be made.

I mean, the answer is we know that. I think that when Bitcoin is trading the way it's been trading, when people are, when it is in this situation, there are people who are used to say, well, there's no real risk here. They're going to be paying their dividends. If Bitcoin dropped to 40,000 and stays there for a while, people will worry that STRC is going to suspend the dividend. Full stop. That is they fear. And therefore, you're going to see a trade below par. because understand that if I don't know what is a perpetual zero coupon would be but I guarantee

you it will be well below par I don't want to try to do the math now because it'll make my head hurt but the fact is is that if there is a risk the dividend could be suspended it's going to trade below par is as simple as that and people will view that risk as non-zero and so that's why the market is what it is if bitcoin were trading at 120 people wouldn't have look at that risk and it would be trading at par, full stop. They may even trade above it. And Gary, what do you think of the, I guess, broadly what strategy is doing,

but the treasury space, I guess we can speak more briefly about, broadly about. I think it's problematic, buddy. I mean, I haven't seen Jack Muller's do anything but talk. I think you have 200 companies that probably, the CEOs and the board are going, hey, what are we doing? What are we doing with this Bitcoin?

You know, getting into these trends and then getting out, if we saw 100 companies go, hey, this is not for us. I'm disappointed with the buying here. It seems like the crypto bros hate anyone that's buying $66,000 Bitcoin in size. Like, we're bad. Can't imagine what would happen if Michael stops buying. this really, really concerns me. Because we just constantly beat up the biggest buyer in the market,

making him the evil commercial guy. But we need most certainly we need someone buying Bitcoin. Someone buying it today. Good, good. But we got a lot of, I mean, we have a lot of levels to get through here. It's interesting. Yeah, I don't know if you guys saw this news, but MetaPlanet acquires Japanese securities firm for $13 million to launch Bitcoin yield products.

So I think if you want to see where the puck is going with treasury companies, the days that we're just going to buy Bitcoin and wait for something to happen are over, right? So you're going to have to do something. I'm not saying this will or won't be successful, but you've got to do something, right? And this is them saying we're going to take our stack and do exactly what we've been talking about, you know, create the full financial services platform for Bitcoin for Japanese investors. The platform they bought, I think, is one of the biggest bond issuers. you know, online bond issuers historically in Japan. So, you know, creating, I'm assuming

STRC and other. And think about the yield you would need in Japan and how much, that's a market, which is vastly underappreciated fixed income in Japan. Is the entire, they were able to hold, they're able to, they have been able to hold debt to GDP, you know, government, you know, debt to GDP at way higher rates than us. Because, of the amount of cash held by Japanese people in their postal savings accounts, etc. It wouldn't take a whole lot for products like STRC in Japan to become very, very large. Maybe, but I tell you what,

I see companies moving into areas they have no expertise in. I'm like, wow, Metaplanet started to arbitrage the tax play, basically repeating what Saylor did in the U.S., making Bitcoin available to big investments, investors that weren't and wasn't available to them through the ETF or through MSTR. And MetaPlanet does the same thing. I just don't get it, dude.

Like you're going to be competing with the biggest financial brains on planet Earth. They've been doing this forever to think you can buy a $13 million platform and turn it around. I mean, they're just being forced down the food chain to deliver retail products. And that was not the pitch. Well, I mean, MetaPlanit, I was, all I can. could tell you is that was one of the most obvious shorts on the on in history i yelled about it you know by paying seven times made no sense i mean is this really does this suburb i think the answer is there are certain markets and certain niches and certain products that will work i don't know who will be

the ones to deliver it i will tell you that that providing yield products in japan on the basis of bitcoin as as collateral is a very reasonably smart business. Whether they will execute it, I know nothing about the people. But I do think it's a much larger market than is generally appreciated. And it doesn't take a lot of demand to influence Bitcoin's price because the selling is exhausted. I mean, it is the, talk about exhausted selling. I mean, you can see it this more, you know, why did Bitcoin move on this weekend on the basis of this, of this? And why is it not able to get below 60? Because the people who would, be selling or exhausted. They're not selling. And it's, it's, you know, it's like we still,

we saw ETF outflows last week and we still didn't get there. I mean, you know, Scott just did a whole post on the technicals of looking like exhaustion, but it looks like exhaustion. And so it, this is a very, it's moved from $60,000 on Saturday, June 6th. That's nine days ago. It's not like it's no, it's not rocketing. It's it. And I mean, it's moved. I'm getting so excited like it's going to go to a hundred grand. It's like, dude, made a $5,000 move. Dude, I sound excited. I sound like I think that my base case has been a hated rally,

which will grind higher slowly and infuriate and frustrate people for most of this year until something changes. And we hit an inflection point and then you'll get something. You know, if it goes up too fast, it's going to come right back down. that it's as simple as that my base case has been we will float back up into the 70s I said it last week I said it the week before I still think I'm right I'm halfway there there you go does that mean it's not going to fail at those levels of course it could fail at those levels there's you know this is Bitcoin is an option and not a whole lot has changed but there is there are until we see liquidity

we get an actual you know there are two things we've been waiting for one just happened and the other will happen. We were waiting for SpaceX to see, will it suck liquidity out of the rest of the market and other risk assets? And the answer we can now say is no. That's an important no. To say that prices shouldn't be adjusted for that,

I mean, okay, you could say it, but you're wrong. You know, it didn't. And I'm actually surprised at how the market took that and how it's done. I'm lucky now it's 175, 450, so it's not just, but SpaceX is up, but it has this up liquidity of everything else. So that's important.

And the other is what is the new Fed going to do? And my best guess is they're going to keep it much closer to the vest. It's going to be you're not going to really know what they're actually doing. And the next move when it happens will probably be lower on rates. But liquidity, they're going to try to figure out how to increase liquidity to help decrease the cost of government funding and decrease deficits and work with it. That is what they're going to do. The playbook is from post-World War II. It really is.

And once again, don't understand how, you know, the sentence basically yelled this, that this is what's going to happen. Now, unless Mike is right and Warsh is going to be like, you know, going to do to, you know, be the economic equivalent of Justice John Roberts, you know, on the Supreme Court

and kind of go off in this totally different direction from what the person who appointed him thought, we're you know what we'll see i guess we're going to see and those are the two things that matter everything else is noise it's really all about liquidity i i don't know any way to say it i mean you know look we are in a period of technology where which is so deflationary it's this is your point gary we are in a period where technology is creating enormous deflation so the question is can you translate that deflation into less inflation, how much monetary inflation can you create when you do that? That's really where they're at.

That is what they're trying to engineer. And it's hard. I mean, look, I keep saying it. The only way out is through, right? The only way to get through this budget situation is to grow the pie. That's it. It's the only way. Now, will they succeed or not?

I have no idea. I will tell you it's the only way, though. And so I expect that at a certain point, they're going to say, excuse me, but they're going to say, fuck it, let's just do what we can do for the next two years before 2028. What has to happen for that? Because that's a capitulation, right? Well, what has to happen is they have to, every single one of the agencies needs to start deregulating. And they need to make monetary conditions easier. That's what has to happen.

And so whether they'll be able to succeed. And oh, by the way, they've got to get the states to work with them, or at least some of the states to work with them. You'll see if, in fact, I'm right, you will see even more migration from blue to red states. Because the blue states that, and it's not about Democrats or Republicans in a sense, although it is. It's survival. It's if you cannot build a factory in California, you literally can't. Why would anyone invest in California?

Why would you, why would you spend the time to go through seven years? What? There's no difference in going to Europe. That's right. You wouldn't build a business in Europe. You could go to, New York or L.A. You could go to Montana or Texas or wherever and build a factory and get it approved in six months. And it takes seven years in California.

You're not going to try in California. I'm sorry. It's not going to happen. And so you're going to see a lot of that. And that's what they're trying to do, whether they'll succeed or not. Once again, I don't know. But I do know they were going to try. And risk assets are going to be.

move are going to work based off of the effort, not based off of the success. And so that that's a large part of it. And, you know, I just, I just think that ignoring liquidity has been the single biggest mistake that investors have made, but on both sides, by the way, in 2023, when they were sucking liquidity out of the system, you know, we didn't realize it. We should, we should have. So, I don't know. Yeah, I think that problem is that nobody can agree if there is liquidity or not. Well, I mean, with $2 trillion, there comes from, there's no choice. You know, you could try, but what are you going to do?

I mean, it's like, you know, we haven't even talked in, you know, about this is a macro show, so we haven't talked about the fact that I don't know that anybody cares. I mean, I know there are people in the Senate that care about clarity. I think that that businesses are like, they're saying, you know, look, we're going to get what we're going to get. And, you know, the fights from the banking sector, I mean, there's been no sector in the United States economy that epitomizes the wealth gap more than the banks. People don't want to talk about that, but the pitchfork should be for Jamie Diamond's head because the banks have been bailed out to the tunes of trillions by the way that the oligopolistic rules.

The only ones that might be worse than the banks or the insurance companies. Right? And so I would imagine that you're going to see part of why I think that the clarity thing isn't going to be hammered through or might not be, is they want to basically use this as a cudgel. The Republicans want to use this as a cudgel on the Democrats. And you're going to start seeing, you know, they're going to see John Deaton is going to be talking about Ed Markey helping the banks and insurance companies as his campaign. And we'll see what the people of Massachusetts think about, you know, being, about supporting the poster child for wealth inequality when people are hurting. That's what's going to happen here.

I mean, you know, it, once again, it doesn't take a lot to understand it. And it's right. It's actually true in this case, which, you know, not the politicians need the truth to say what they're going to say, but that's what's going on. But what does that mean? You know, if you're a smart, if you're smart, you're, and you don't want that to be an issue against you. And so, you know, we'll see how all this stuff goes. I mean, I was wrong. I thought that the Democrats would realize this. And maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't know. We'll, we'll find out in the next couple of months. But we have an interesting point in time here. And I just say, keep your eye. It's like, The only analogy I could think of is we're getting towards football season.

The first thing they teach you when you're in defensive back school is don't look at the head, look at the hips because you've got to look at the center. You got to keep your eye on what actually matters if you're on a cover or stay with a receiver. Well, with investing, you need to look at liquidity. That's the most important thing. Where is the money actually going? What are the clues saying? And Mike could end up being right.

we could be going into a crash if there's something that causes the liquidity come out of the system. Crashes are no longer allowed, my friend. Yeah, that's a Matt Hugg inside. They're legal. Recessions are been removed from the dictionary and we either go boom, boom, a la bomb straight up or we go into depression. I don't think the depression's on the ticket for anyone. That means you're going to have shitloads of liquidity.

Well, if that's true, then invest accordingly. I mean, look, Tom Lee is obviously buying Ethereum this morning. How much did he buy? I didn't say. Well, I don't know. I'm just saying I'm looking for price. It's over 1,800. It's gone from 0.0 to 6 to 0.072.

Just maybe the ratio. It may be, hey, you got $35 million. I mean, it's like you can see it in the price when it happens. That's the thing. Supply and demand is a wonderful thing. When there's an exogenous buyer, and you see these moves, right? You know, it's like you can see it up and down. And in the more speculative assets, I mean, you know, the most obvious trade,

and I didn't trade, but if I were, if I were, the trade I would have been was at around 320 was when I thought, okay, it makes sense to buy Zcash. Zcash is 520 now, right? 530, actually, sorry. You know, it was obvious because these are the way speculation works. When something that you think is going to go to zero, stops, going down and starts going back up, then all the shorts have to cover. And you're going to see a lot of that.

And what's the asset that's probably the most underweight compared to where people wanted to be? Probably right now is Bitcoin. Now, Bitcoin is much bigger, so it's going to take it's a much larger spring. But that's the point that I'll make. If that's what happens when sellers get exhausted, I mean, Ether was literally at 15, you know, it's, you know, what is that, 25% rally off the bottom now? Yeah.

I'm looking at also. So I didn't realize, obviously, we saw the announcement of Bitmines preferred, you know, the 9.5% SDRC copycat. Well, I didn't actually realize they raised $274 million for that last week and I've added $136 million today. So I'm wondering if that has been the tool for... Of course it happens. ...for temporary by already, yeah. Yeah.

I mean, supply and demand, dude, that's where... That's what's why where Gary and I agree on Bitcoin. It's like, you need demand, right? Well, you need more than one buyer. That's right. And in Ethereum, you have one buyer, and in Bitcoin, you have one buyer. I'm talking about new money. I'm not talking, and I don't think there is any old money.

I mean, me and Scott might have a little old money, but it's not like we're deploying a thousand Bitcoin right here. You need billions of new money, or the OGs need to liquidate whatever else they got and start buying Bitcoin. I just do not see where the demand is. I would love to see where the demand is. is okay I would love this to be so obvious that I just plow in here but like we have one buyer for Bitcoin and everyone hates we have one buyer for a theory and that we think is guys going to

go bankrupt and or just shoot the moon and I think this is a world where you just shoot the moon now this is not a you can't make mediocre returns you just everyone's going to shoot the moon what a time it's going to be volatile I think it's going to be volatile I don't see how you can just walk through this and it all go straight up and to the right. Nope. I think it's a hated rally where we start, we float and the people. I agree with the landing is going to drive people crazy.

Yes, it's going to drive people crazy. Yes, that's the one thing you can be guaranteed. And in keeping with my theme, I mean, you know, it's like you got to be patient. You'll get there in the end. Not one of the biggest qualities of characteristics of the crypto community is patience. Correct. Oh, it's not going to have, the rally will, not be from the crypto community. It will have to be from the expansion of the community and from

the rest of the world. So where does that come from? How much massive allocators who say I'm really struggling? Where is that when you can invest in SpaceX or IBM and make 20, 30 percent, and you know there's earnings there. Where does this new money come from? It's exactly the same question as when the software stocks and all the SaaS companies were getting pummeled. Or people say, well, why would anyone be putting money into this thing? These things are going to get their lunch eaten by AI. And then they've ended up very quickly over a couple of months bouncing right back to those levels. People would realize, well, the business is actually sticky. There are a lot of people who were investing in Bitcoin ETFs at one or two percent.

And you could see going to 5 percent if, in fact, they think it gets that it's safe. There are a lot of people who didn't put money into Bitcoin specifically because they thought the thesis was wrecked by quantum. You know, so these are the things that you have to understand. It's, when it's going up, it tends to become self-reinforcing. When it's going down, it tends to become self-reinforcing until they stop in both directions. And investing is like that. And so, yeah, that's why I go back to fair value metrics.

I mean, Matt Hogan talks about one and, you know, Scott's interviewed all the people who are best at this. I mean, you have Mark Yusko and Matt Hogan and a bunch of other. who all will tell you that Bitcoin is well below what its value metrics say it should be based at this point in the cycle and this point of adoption. And to me, I like buying things that are cheaper. Then you have technicians to say, well, buy it to 200 week moving average also tends to be, you know, work out. That's the way I look at it.

It's not sexy and it feels terrible when you're doing it. Oh, yeah. It feels too good buying Bitcoin for me. That might be a problem. All right, we're past 10 o'clock, Gary, Dave, thank you, Mike. The Ghost of Mike. Thank you as well. Dave,

I'll be on and off on spaces today, but I'll see you in a couple minutes, hopefully. Okay. And everyone else, we will see you guys tomorrow, obviously. Thanks, Gary. Thanks, guys.

Welcome. See you next. One of those media strategy people clicking through slides, scrolling spreadsheets. Yes? Good. This is for you.

Because on Spotify, there's an audience that's different. Locked in. Loyal, Invested. They're called fans. Fans don't just listen to music. They feel seen by it, like it belongs to them. So when your brand shows up on Spotify, that's who you're talking to.

And you're right next to artists like me, Lizzo. So, are you ready to talk to fans? Spotify Advertising, you're among fans.