The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin Set To Skyrocket To $80K After Election? | Macro Monday

Episode Date: October 28, 2024

Join Dave Weisberger, Mike McGlone, and James Lavish as we break down what's happening in macro and crypto! Dave Weisberger: https://twitter.com/daveweisberger1  James Lavish: https://twitter.com/jameslavish  Mike McGlone: https://twitter.com/mikemcglone11  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEKDAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/   ►► The Arch Public Unleash algorithmic trading. Discover how algorithms used by hedge-funds are now accessible to traders looking for unparalleled insights and opportunities!  👉https://thearchpublic.com/  ►►TRADING ALPHA READY TO TRADE LIKE THE PROS? THE BEST TRADERS IN CRYPTO ARE RELYING ON THESE INDICATORS TO MAKE TRADES. Use code '10OFF' for a 10% discount. 👉https://tradingalpha.io/?via=scottmelker  Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://x.com/scottmelker Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.com/ Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe   Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c   #Bitcoin #Crypto #MacroMonday The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own and should in no way be interpreted as financial advice. This video was created for entertainment. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision. I am not a financial advisor. Nothing contained in this video constitutes or shall be construed as an offering of financial instruments or as investment advice or recommendations of an investment strategy or whether or not to "Buy," "Sell," or "Hold" an investment.

The election is merely eight days away and Bitcoin is back to trading just under $69,000. We are finally going to hopefully get some election clarity and therefore some clarity on where Bitcoin is headed if you believe that the elections are going to impact that. And I think we all do. I can't wait to discuss this and so much more with the Macro Monday crew, James, Mike, and Dave. Let's go. What is up, everybody? I'm Scott Melker, also known as the Wolf of Wall Street. Before we get Let's go. So good. Man, that steak. Wow. Mike knows how to order steak. Yeah. Mike sits down and he says, show me all the Wagyu's you have. He's like, we want all five of those. And then he goes, you know, do you want the thousand dollar bottle or the five hundred? Yeah, it was one of those dinners. It was a good time.

And give us a tomahawk. Yeah. And one tomahawk on top. Also Wagyu just for fun. But that's not what you guys are here to talk about. We're here to talk about the most Mike McGlone article in the history of Mike McGlone articles. It was not written by Mike McGlone. I saw this on CoinDesk and I thought it had to be him. But here we are. Bitcoin has a lot going for it, except the persistent slide in copper gold ratio. You know, Mike, you talk about this a lot, but I had never actually looked at the copper gold ratio and its relation to how Bitcoin trades. But apparently there's actually a very tight historical correlation there. Yeah, I enjoyed publishing on it recently.

I've been comparing, obviously, you've heard me compare 60 day correlations between Bitcoin, S&P 500. It's the most ever. It's almost 0.7 on the way up. And even the copper with S&P 500. So it's usually how that works is these assets typically, copper is really not higher, most of the higher volatility, but typically it'll trade with the beta. And right now we have a situation where beta keeps going up and these two assets that typically go with beta look fine on a standalone chart, but if you divide versus beta, they're going down. And that to me is the high risk. When you have the high correlations, beta going up, they're going down. And then for copy,

you see a key reason why. It's just every day I look on the terminal, I type in NI China or BI China. It's just what you expect. And I look over at bond yields in China, they tell me China's in a pretty severe depression. It's normal and rapidly advancing emerging markets. And so that's why I'm probably publishing, if not today or tomorrow, to me, the next key indication for all the macro is copper has to go up. The doctor copper, the metal known to have a PhD in economics. It did make a new high this year and it failed. Sounds familiar. Bitcoin did the same thing too. Now, Bitcoin, I think is more of an indication of risk assets and speculative excesses, either bullish or bearish. But copper, to me, is more of the macro. And so right now, it's stuck between about $9,000

and $10,000 a ton. $10,000 is resistance, $9,000 is support. And I'll be publishing this soon. If it breaks below $9,000, that's your signal. Dominals are falling. Now, the election might have something to do with it. It's already happening in China. And it's a key indication is the US stock market just has to stay up. It can't go down. Or these two teetering, most notably copper, teetering assets are more likely to tilt lower. So that's why I keep calling it the inordinate burden. I've been using that term for too long. But in terms of commodities, what you're seeing with copper and crude oil and grains and gold, the only one that's really going up and sustaining new highs is a global recessionary trajectory. I just didn't realize how much people looked at that copper gold ratio,

even outside of Bitcoin for the basically global health and appetite for risk assets. Until I read through this article, and I didn't also realize that Bitcoin's best years have been characterized by copper's outperformance relative to gold. Not obviously a correlation causation, of course, right? But it really, I never realized how important copper actually was even listening to you. Jeffrey Gundlach, the widely known bond guy,

I'm sure James could reiterate on that. Maybe David too, it's one of his favorite things he's watched. But copper's one metal. It does have issues with supply once in a while um and the macro big picture is supply is not keeping up to the global demand you expect in the next five ten years but it's just like the thing i hear about bitcoin forever it's so widely known you have to be very careful when people say it for the bullish case because that's usually a case that they're kind of trying to push the envelope. The key thing I think for it is I love to look at gold versus a basket of industrial metals, the Bloomberg Industrials Metal Index. And that ratio right now is above the high from 2008. It's at a key resistance. It's breaking out higher. It's

not a good sign for the global economy. Maybe it's just a short term with the election, maybe pricing for a bit of a red sweep. But once we get through this election, gold staying strong versus industrial metals, industrial metals weak. From a commodity standpoint, everything I see is global recession. And then I just tilt over to the US stock market has to stay up. And the world tilts that way. And that's why I'm worried if we do get these tariffs that Mr. Trump is suggesting, that makes all these indications for commodities just accelerate downward, copper lower, crude oil lower, gold higher. I love learning something to start the show. So there you go, guys, copper straight from CoinDesk as well. Obviously, taking a look at the crypto market quickly, things are ramping up. As

I said in the beginning, we're just under 69,000 here on Bitcoin. Ethereum still getting smashed by Bitcoin. Altcoin is still looking rough. It's clearly a Bitcoin dominated cycle. And I think that's going to remain the case until we get some election clarity. But it's interesting to me to watch the lack of election clarity, right? We got Polymarket is just booming for Trump, 66 to 34. But then I actually just right before dug up who's favorite to win the 2024 presidential election with classic polls, and it is just neck and neck literally everywhere. And across the board,

and we know that it's going to come down to seven states. And even according to this, that as Harris kind of tipped in her favor for those swing states, why are we getting such a massive gap from polymarket? Which, by the way, it's not saying that he's going to win by 66% of the vote. It's just saying 66% of people think he'll win by at least one electoral college. The strange thing is, Scott, your classic polls typically lean Democratic.

I always thought that was Hillary. Especially with Trump. lean uh democratic and especially with trump uh there's there's you know whatever for whatever reason people not uh picking up phones who are trump supporters or just not admitting it or whatever it is um they've claimed that they're uh that they've fixed the polls that they've fixed the um you know the demographics of it but i'm not sure that they have. And I think that the markets are kind of calling them out on it and whispers from within each campaign sounds like terrible internal polling from Harris and really encouraging internal polling from Trump. And then when you see the early returns off of the voting that we're getting from the early voting, it's overwhelmingly in favor of the Republicans versus the last two elections.

So it it you know, the betting markets are the betting markets. I think they're hard to manipulate because there's just there's a lot of volume there. But, you know, it probably has to do with people just calling out the pollsters as being wrong yet again. Dave, have fun. I mean, well, there's two topics. As far as copper is concerned, it's Mike's been talking to this for a while. It is the copper gold ratio and actually Mike's better version of that, which is the industrial metals to gold ratio, is extremely important for understanding what's going on in the global economy. And I agree with

him in terms of recession. Where we disagree is the governmental response, which is printing money to try to stop that recession. And that's why gold will actually become self-sustaining on gold. But it will also end up in assets like Bitcoin for a variety of reasons that we could talk about. China being a major one, considering that they're now actually allowing people to talk about the fact that they're stockpiling Bitcoin via mining. I saw a post on LinkedIn from Jim Pressler and I've seen a bunch of others where the whispers are getting louder and louder that they're kind of articulating this. And it's a fascinating topic that we could dive into if we didn't have the election to talk about.

But the election is actually interesting because the Chinese policy as being articulated is repressive in terms of a CBDC for their own people, in terms of control of trade by trying to get a digital yuan to be used in trade. And at the same time, starting to loosen the reins on Bitcoin mining, etc. Understanding that as a global reserve asset, it is important for them, just like they've been stockpiling gold for them to stock, and probably silver, although we don't know that for sure, for them to stockpile Bitcoin. Now, the appropriate response for the United States sounds eerily like one of the parties, which is to have free market approaches to digital currencies, i.e. stable coins, as well as innovation, and at the same time to start stockpiling Bitcoin

and understand that Bitcoin as an asset is relevant. And so it's fascinating because geopolitically, that's the obvious answer for the U.S. Hopefully, whoever wins will get on board with that. But it is definitely not priced into the Bitcoin market, not even close. I mean, basically, there's like rumors or scratches at the door sort of priced into the Bitcoin market, not even close. I mean, basically, there's like rumors or scratches at the door sort of priced into the market. You know, 70,000 is irrelevant. If Bitcoin ever becomes digital gold, it's one 15th of where it would be. So it's important to put all these things in context. What we're looking at are squiggles. Now, when you talk about beta,

beta is fascinating, because one of the things when you run a risk book, you know, beta beta is fascinating because one of the things when you run a risk book you know is beta is notoriously unstable right now what do i mean by that i mean that a company if we're talking about stocks that traditionally was a two to one beta uh it could very well go to one to one or four to one uh because of different factors that are idiosyncratic to that particular thing so when we start talking about data if it it's this uniform asset that doesn't move in this uniform sort of relationship, that's very misleading. It also doesn't have as much to do with magnitude of the move sometimes, I mean, it's supposed to, as it should. So like, when you look at a discontinuous asset like Bitcoin, and I'm sorry for using the math words, but it is, you look at it and you

start talking about correlations, you're talking about intraday moves or whatever. But the fact is those 10 days a year that basically correspond to most of the movement in the asset, leaving out the other 240, violate that. Now, statistically, those would just be considered outliers. But since Bitcoin has started and moved from basically a dollar zero to almost 70,000, you know, those spurts are what determines price discovery. And so when people ask me, what do I think about what's going on about Bitcoin? It's that I think that we're stuck in a range until we move into price discovery and then all bets are off. And so everything we're seeing, everything we've been talking about for nine months now, it has been inside of a trading range. What will get very interesting is will Bitcoin actually break the range it gets price discovery? And so I don't think that has a thing to do with beta. I think that has everything to do with the narrative that's driving global supply and demand forces. And, you know, we've talked about that. So I just want to put that in context. But what I think is the most important thing that

I read over the weekend, what is really fascinating is what James wrote. And so I'd like to hear James talk about the bond market and the fact that, you know, bonds at the long, the 10-year bond at four and a quarter after a 50 basis point rate cut. And what does that signal for the global economy? What does that signal for risk-athlete? Because frankly, you took the time to write it, James. I took the time to read it, but I'd rather hear from you. I appreciate it. I mean, yeah, if you look at yields across the board, they're up. And so people are kind of confounded. You know, the Fed just cut rates. The Fed is cutting rates.

Why would why would rates be going up? And it's a simple the simple answer is all roads lead to inflation. That's the simple answer. The more complex answer is you're seeing a few things going on. So with the prospect of a Trump sweep, a Republican sweep and possibility of getting both the House and the Senate, you know, that that could leave spending pretty much unchecked. Even if you do have Elon coming in and trying to shuffle the cards around, it's still going to it still could leave spending unchecked. That's one thing. The second thing is, you know, we're just seeing continued deficit spending and it's not getting better.

You have to log in, Scott. I know, dude, it's not working because it's long term. So anyway, but, you know, we're seeing continued deficit spending. We're seeing better numbers than expected and worse on the inflation side. Inflation just stuck somewhere around 3%. And the job number's okay, but it's fiscal driven, and people know that. And so what's happening here is you've got some uncertainty. The uncertainty is where do rates go in the future? Because the treasury is going to have to slide out on the duration scale here. And Mike will, I'd like to hear what Mike has, his thoughts on this,

but I just don't see how they're going to continue to be able to issue floating rate debt in the T bills in short term without eventually having to slide out in the duration scale and start issuing bonds. 10 years, 20 years, not so much because it's not that interesting, but the 30 year. And so now you've got the 30 year at 4.5%, which means that the mortgages are stuck up over 6%, 6.5%. I mean, people are expecting more inflation. They're expecting and whether it's driven by the economy, a strong economy in the future, or it's driven by just pure the issuance of debt and the need for continued QE at some point in some sort of quasi or real, you know, yield curve control eventually to keep those rates down, it's going to be inflation. All roads lead to that reality. And until we see something different, rates are going to continue to gravitate higher because of two things.

The investors want to be paid for that interest rate risk. And rate premiums are on top of it, not because people think that the government's going to default, but they will soft default through expansion of the money supply. And that's just reality. It's interesting. We have two articles, one from Bloomberg. American wealth will grow either way under Harris or Trump survey shows. And if you dig in, a lot of it has to do with what you said. And Bitcoin's going to 80K regardless of Trump or Harris win. Right. So the only path, Mike, is up. There's no other choice

but up no matter who wins. Yeah. So we know we hear that there's an issue. But one thing I just I want to disagree with Dave because I don't disagree with him. There will be continued

fiscal monetary stimulus. But the bottom line is never forget what the catalyst typically is. What caused the US to bottom in 1933 is when we debased. You got to usually have a little bit of pain in risk assets for that to really accelerate. The problem is, as Ira Jersey pointed out right now, we're just spending an extra 2 billion a year, 6% to 7% in GDP.

That's unstoppable at the moment. But the key thing is, markets right now pretty much priced for a red sweep. And to me, it's more likely we're going to get Harris presidency and a Republican-leaning Congress, which is a natural check and balance. Anytime they try to spend, they're going to say, oh, we're going to regain that austerity that they had during Newt Gingrich, the old contract with America. To me, that's where we're going. But the bottom line is, to me, all roads actually lead to deflation. This is where James and I can disagree because

right now we're getting inflation, a pickup. But in history, all the lessons of history is when you pump that much liquidity into a system and then you dump, you almost always get deflation. And also I'll mention two books, The Price of Time by Edward Chancellor points it out, clearly happening in China, The Price of Tomorrow. Jeff Booth pointing out the massive amount of techno-optimism that's happening. It's a word I learned this weekend from reading the book Power and Progress. But to me, this is, first of all, from a commodities bias, obviously, very deflationary forces, nothing but going that way. U.S. average gasoline price in this country is about $3.13.

Expected to be below $3 within a month or two. That's typically the time of year it does. U.S. average diesel price is around $3.50. Expected to go to $2.50. And if it works out that way, it does not work out that way, you know who to blame. The average cost of production for crude oil in this country is $56 a barrel. Well, still $10 above that. But I need to put what James said in a global context. Bond yields in China, the 10-year-old yields 100 basis points less than the US. Okay, so maybe it doesn't matter.

If you look at the top five countries in the world, they're, okay, 10, I'm sorry, China's 200 basis points less than the US. The top five countries, their average, including India, is 100 basis points less than the U.S. So, yes, the deficit's a problem. I've heard it every single day. I've been in this business since the 80s. The problem is everything might change in a week. So we have to kind of be careful, see what's going to happen with that election. If we get the red sweep, I think James' and that reflation story is more likely to play.

But if we get the check and balance, which Americans are famous for, remember what happened in the midterms, we got a little bit of check against, it's always the way they do it. Not always, but typically. Then we have that thing that I'm worried about is the dominoes for deflation are accelerating China, Europe, Canada, Germany. And there's one key trigger. Well, we had a lot of tariffs. All these people like to export to us. That's a problem. And or if we just get a little, I've just never seen a time

in history of the world where the market and the whole world's more dependent on the US economy and US stock market staying elevated. And we're just overdue for a little bit of 10% correction in S&P 500, which right now on a market cap basis is the most, be the most um related and most effective and most pressure on gdp in 100 years because it's two times gdp the funny thing is that if trump wins and we get a complete red sweep that's what i think would give you your 10 quick correction to be quite honest because if if if this red sweep is priced in then you sell the news right i'm not saying that it's bad for markets. I'm just saying that would be the trade, the natural trade for anyone who watches markets say,

hey, we're going to get a 10% correction when the thing we think is going to happen finally happens. So I think there's two points here. First, the market's not pricing in anything. I disagree with that. I mean, you know, the market is kind of leaning in a direction. Yeah, but no, I mean, it's not. I think that it would be, I would actually be surprised if, in fact, there was a red sweep, if the market didn't sell off big time from people who are terrified about tariffs and mistake Smoot-Hawley for what's actually being proposed and don't understand the difference in global GDP dynamics, the fact that the U.S. was a producing nation when Smoot-Hawley went in and we're now a consuming

nation, which is a vastly different scenario and probably deserves some unpacking, but I'm going to blow through that for a second and completely underestimate what will actually happen in terms of tax policy and deregulatory policy, et cetera. And so, yeah, it wouldn't remotely surprise me to see a crap stock market for a quarter or so until Trump is inaugurated and people actually see what the real policies are because there's going to be protests in the street. There'll be all the people hand-wringing. I mean, just look at the rhetoric. I mean, the one thing that's bothering me about this election and the reason why I think that it is your scenario is almost impossible, Mike. I'm not saying that Harris can't win, the Democrats can't win. I am saying that it's unlikely to be the way that honestly might be the best for, you know,

certainly for the mainline financial legacy financial markets, is the rhetoric on the Democratic side has just gotten to a level that's actually turning my stomach. I mean, when a comedian speaks, and that's all people talk about, you know, when you're getting all this Hitler and fascist stuff, it's like, I mean, come on. I mean, enough already. Let's talk about actual policies and actual things that matter. And that's why the politics is just such a dirty game that I can't stand it. So I don't want to worry about it. But what I do think matters and what is very relevant is this notion of unchecked spending, the place where we all agree

is at least in the beginning, there is going to be money printing, there's going to be deficit spending. And the real question and the real question for this show, for our listeners is, how does it impact crypto markets? how does it impact the newer financial system? I think that it's pretty interesting because it's pretty obvious that that will be unleashed when you can't say the market is pricing it in when you'd have an actual Bitcoiner as VP, another Bitcoiner in the administration, RFK. Trump's son is a shitcoiner. Actually, all of his sons are shitcoiners. Howard Lutnick and Elon. No, it's not priced in. People who

want to jump in and push the button, and considering my personal circumstance, I'm extremely aware of this. I are, I have probably talked to two or three dozen people in the industry who are waiting to make changes and policy decisions on their own in terms of direction of their business because of the election, and they have not pulled the trigger yet. So no, I don't think it's priced in. I think that it's leaning in that direction, absolutely. I think that pharma companies, if it was priced in big pharma prices relative to the rest of the S&P, would be getting hammered because of those proposals. But I don't think any of that is priced in. So I just think it's important. But could we get, or will we

likely get a Trump fear trade based upon tariffs? Yes, absolutely. I think that's a highly likely scenario. And in that scenario, the trade for those who really want to put it on are buy U.S. domestic oriented companies and domestic manufacturers and sell multinationals that have outsourced a lot. You want to find a sneaky trade, there's a lot of research to be done there. That's the trade to put on if you really want to see a Trump win. And that trade is not working right now because it's definitely tilled smaller cap and small caps have not outperformed. So it's worth looking at that. Yeah, we have sort of this consensus here that, of course, markets, you know, margins go up if Harris wins, market goes up if Trump wins. OK, that's Bloomberg. But we do here in this panel believe that both will print money regardless, right? And that the path is the same regardless of who it is,

kind of the Spider-Man twins pointing each other. That said, Trump has floated the Elon Musk Doge, Department of Government Efficiency, which Lutnick has been talking about as well. Is there even a path to cutting costs enough for it to matter? That's my question. Because if you're over a trillion- You have to ask that question in two parts. What candidate hasn't said that in history? Oh, we're going to agree more efficient. No, no. I mean, you have to ask that question in time. Because the answer is yes, if you stay over four years, but the answer is no within the next year.

Yeah, but hold on. I mean, the answer is, look, we've got $2 trillion of deficit. Where are you going to cut it? I mean, you've got your mandatory expenses are over $4 trillion. So, I mean, where are you going to cut out every single thing that is not, that you're going to cut out defense? No. That gets you to $5 trillion. You were taking $6.9 trillion.

So either, if Mike is right and we have a deflationary event, it only gets worse. The simple fact, Scott, is I've been saying, politics aside, now let's push politics off to the side. You and I have talked about this multiple times over the years. The only way out of our debt trap, there's only one way out. I don't know that we'll make it. I don't know that we can get escape velocity past the black hole of debt. Inflate, inflate, inflate. It's inflate. It's a combination of two things. It's inflate financial assets and it's unleash productivity by deregulating in a massive way.

That is the only- Outgrow our expenses. Outgrow our expenses. Now, there is- What Dave is saying is create the situation where each dollar that you borrow creates more units of productivity, which is not what's happening right now.

It's going the other way. So you've got to reverse that. And I have no idea where 70% of the defense budget goes. Yeah. The simple fact is, I have no idea whether or not, you know, either party has even the slightest chance of doing that, although obviously the Democrats want to regulate more so that that's kind of off the table. But, you know, I'm not saying that that will work. What I'm saying is that is the only possible way. And, you know, to get back to natural three to five percent GDP growth, not these little fits and starts and things, you know, actual reflating of the

manufacturing economy, actual, you know, innovation unburdened by enormous amounts of government, you know, government regulation. Anded by enormous amounts of government you know government regulation and by the way both both cabinets forget tariffs do that the tariffs do that in the united states if tariffs were so high producing everything again in the united states i i i want to talk about tariffs separately but no this is about deregulation and to be fair uh kamala harris has actually said this as well. Unfortunately, her party probably let her do it. But she's made the point that starting a business is too much red tape. And yes, that's true. But we have a federal government which has strangled innovation in this country,

except for the fact that it's strangled it less than in Europe, which has been completely strangled. But compared to Asia and other areas in the world, we're lagging. Now, I don't know if we can grow away. I'm not going to, I'm not, I'm not being, this is not a pom-pom exercise. This is a, that's the only way. And Elon Musk certainly understands that because he's been saying more virtually the same words, you know, recently you've heard about it. But those are long-term things. You don't

wave a magic wand and increase productivity. That takes time. So in the short run, a lot of what might actually help could actually be deflationary in the sense of, you know, we could be, you know, we could have some serious problems or inflationary in the sense of we're just going to print too much money. And as James said, it's not going to go there. The point I'm going to make about tariffs is it depends who you listen to. If you listen to J.D. Vance or you listen to Trump, if you listen to Trump, it's across the board. It's narrative based nonsense, which if you did a lot of what he said that says he's going to do would be destructive, right? Because it would decrease global trade

and for no purpose. If you listen to J.D. Vance, what he says is we have very specific decisions to make. We opted to hollow out the American middle class. And how do we do that? We allowed every multinational company to do regulatory arbitrage, to basically say the cost of doing business in the United States for environmental rules, worker protection rules, and other rules is much higher. So better to, and the most famous example, this is steel, by the way, where we ship, where, where originally it went to Japan, which the cost for wages was more or less the same as ours, but they, they had less, they had less rules and regulations. And then events of course, moved to other places. The simple fact is,

if you want, I'm saying simple fact too much. When you look at tariffs and you look at what you're trying to do with tariffs, if what you're trying to do is reestablish parity in terms of regulation, in terms of the things that we believe matter in terms of the environment and protecting workers, and if you're looking at reestablishing some sort of wage some sort of wage base and probably not not a horrible idea. It's just a question of there are tradeoffs. It will certainly lower standard of living because we've been importing a better standard of living due to this. And so these are tradeoffs that you can make. This is not a hyperbolic, you know, smooth holly causing disaster. Short term, likely to be inflationary, you know. What? What do you think?

Short term, be inflationary. Absolutely. Prices of everything would go up. I mean, there's no question about that. Now, let's remember something. And here is where, which comes down to the thesis, my core thesis. There's two types of inflation. There's monetary inflation, which really goes to assets. And then there's consumer inflation, which takes into account supply chain.

This would increase consumer inflation. That's right. And that's what people care about. So that means it could be a rocky road in the beginning. It might work and it might be a better ultimate answer. But there is no tariffs, money printing, whatever. There's no short-term gain without massive pain. There's no changing the system in any direction short term that doesn't

cause a lot of pain, unless you just stay on the same unsustainable path indefinitely. I mean, James, and then Mike, tariffs. I mean, tariffs, cutting expenses, is there any path here that's not just massive inflation or money printing, or I should say inflation of the money supply. Well, those actions are not. I mean, like Dave said, if we could cut expenses that are not productive and start creating expenses that are productive and create an expansion of true productivity, that would be positive for GDP. It would be positive for our debt issue, our, you know, our, our, our deficits. That's the question. Can we do it? I think there,

there are paths to do it. Absolutely. But then you turn around and you've got the balance of that, which is the tariffs and, you know, tariffs that will be inflationary. There's just no way around it. That's right. And that's why, curiously, despite having completely different ways to get there, Mike and I end up in a very similar place, which is a market, which is a beta fell off in the markets where we differ is specifically to Bitcoin and to assets that will likely be freed sooner rather than later from what has been a very, very hostile government. And so that's why it's really important to de-link crypto. There is a very real possibility of a de-linking of macro from crypto initially because we faced it. I mean, read anything that Caitlin Long has written and any of her entreaties to Musk and whatnot about how hostile the government has been to her enterprise and others. And I was talking to a bunch of people over the last couple of weeks at conferences who have talked about just how incredibly bad Operation Chokepoint has been for crypto. But do not underestimate the Beth campaign. I said it when it happened. I mean, Scott, you had a great back and forth with John Reed Stark a couple of weeks ago,

and he gave the best Trump ad ever. I know he didn't mean to, but he did. And his friend Scaramucci probably was unhappy with it. But the exact quote from John Reed Stark was that all of the SEC enforcement actions against crypto companies if Trump wins will come to a screeching halt. Do not underestimate the impact of that on crypto assets. Can't. And so that has nothing to do with the macro. I mean, it's macro in a sense because it's obviously an overarching theme. But that is what I'm talking about. But I think, you know, Mike's point about, you know, global economy being, you know, whatever, and you start introducing tariffs, you introduce these other drags on the economy.

There's a lot of risk there. Mike? Well, yeah, so you know, Mike, directly from commodities. Obviously, it's not playing out in the one major country, and that's the US. So I look at it simplistically. We are near multi-year lows, six-year lows in VIX volatile index, 200-day, 50-week moving averages, very low volatile in the US, the highest stock market measure. Some people said 97 percentile versus price earnings a year from now, but very expensive stock market. In that environment, we should get a little reversion at some point. Typically, it takes a catalyst. I've been early.

I've been wrong in some things. But that's why I look at the US treasury market as basically a put without decay on just a little bit of normal backup in stocks. The question is, how long does it last? It's just overdue. And so then I look over. I'm still really bullish gold, but I fully expect my base case is Harrisville win. We'll have that check and balance, and then gold might drop $200. It's overdue.

In big picture, it's still in a massive, pretty substantial bull market. The key thing I like to point out is in this environment, unless you think things are different, unless you expect beta to keep going up, overweighting risk assets like Bitcoin or cryptos that typically have a much higher volatility than beta are typically underperformed. Yes, I'd love to see that divergence strength. I'm not seeing anything right now that's like I see copper and beta and Bitcoin just the last six months or so trying to inch up higher with beta. So to me, that's the key thing. And everything right now is political. Dave mentioned to ignore it, but I know you're kind of kidding. All that matters is what happens on Tuesday the 5th. If by the next day we have a definitive change of power in this, what I'm hearing globally is that point that we might be somewhat leaning towards the end of the in this. What I'm hearing globally is that point that we might be

somewhat leaning towards the end of the American Republic. I've been reading a little bit too much history lately. So that's what's pricing in the gold market. So everything is about what's going to happen. But the bottom line is we're looking at, in terms of cryptos, highly speculative, very risky assets. And now the main stream's in it. We've got the ETFs. They've launched. They're done. We have to look forward to, oh, okay, now they're going to be buying more. Great. But all that big stuff we can point out forever. That's why I keep tilting over towards gold and treasuries.

And that's where, to me, the next key indicator is going to be copper. If copper breaks down, it means the dominoes tumble. Interestingly, pivoting to Bitcoin, we now have in the options market, popular 100K year end goal for Bitcoin has less than 10% probability in the options market. And actually, it's even a relatively low probability, although higher, that it gets to 82,000. So it seems that people actually putting their money on this bet are not as excited as the standard charters and pundits of the world who thought it was a foregone conclusion that we would get to a hundred uh i mean god it's not priced in i keep saying not priced in repeat after me

it's not there people are not putting their money on it the remember i've made this point many times but i think this is you're about to see it play out in force. Bitcoin over its history in every bull run has been led by speculators. And if the speculators don't get follow through in the spot market, you see an immediate crash. Right. So we saw if you remember last summer, we saw from 25 to 32 on the announcement of the BlackRock ETF. Now that sounds quaint right now, but that's a big percentage move, right? And it failed and it did it again and again. Then the ETFs got approved and it moved and it moved up into this 50 to 70 range. And as it moved, there were- After going 46, 49, 39.

Correct. The speculators during all this time have gotten, basically, it's the old hit on the nose with the newspaper. And you do that enough times and they don't do it anymore. And so the amount of upside speculation is really, really small relative to Bitcoin's market cap, probably the smallest it's ever been. Which is ironic considering the amount of tailwinds that we have regardless. But that's right. So it's, but every time you expect, just look at your mentions, you dared mentioned Bitcoin was pushing up against 69 and there was this little teeny tiny wiggle, you know, in 69 right now. I understand that. But when you said it, there was a little red candle

down to 68, seven, something or other, and somebody chided you. And I'm sure, and I'm not picking on the person because it doesn't matter. I think that a lot of people felt it. Like, how dare you say that? Like, if you put out your tweet 69,000 all day like you're almost certain to do. I'm doing it right now while we talk. There will be a bunch of people say, oh, no, you're jinxing the market. You know, it's like people are the speculators are just so used to having it collapse in their face. The real question is, will there be it?

Are these demand drivers going to show up and will there be supply to sell? If you believe that the answer to that is yes, by all means, bet your chips on it. If you're more like most of the people in the market, the vast majority of the traders in the market want to see confirmed breakouts before they put their money in. Right? They want to see it. And that's why you have this dynamic. It's really fascinating and incredibly healthy. Markets climb a wall of worry. Right now, nothing has changed. I am no more euphoric at 69,000 than I was despondent at 51,000. We might be really euphoric above 70 or 74. Well, at some point, euphoria becomes when, I'll tell you when euphoria happens, not when the price is that or price will be there euphoria is when microsoft or other big companies with huge cash stockpiles say crap you know i need bitcoin on

my balance sheet and you start to see instead of three or four companies putting bitcoin in their balance sheet you start to see three or four hundred at that point you start to see that that's a seat change those are the sorts of things that matter and and and that's the demand drivers that would cause the this dichotomy to resolve itself and the dichotomy yeah james what are those like i i agree i mean we saw microsoft catalysts yeah what would be the other catalyst obviously central banks yeah well yeah that that is that that is definitely out there. But we saw Microsoft announce that they are having a vote on this December 10th. They're having a vote whether or not to add Bitcoin to the balance sheet. Now, it's unclear exactly who pushed that, but a large shareholder clearly pushed it, in my opinion. And so now the board has recommended against it. They said, we recommend against this measure. Here's the problem with that. And people are getting excited and they want this to be approved. With the board recommending against it, it just becomes very unlikely it becomes approved.

And why is that? It's not because people won't, we're just gonna say, oh, well, the board says no. It's because typically institutions, small institutions, family offices, you know, they, your small pension funds, you know, firefighter funds and police funds, they don't go in and do the research themselves. Typically they just, they just have their proxies voted for them by agencies that do this for them. And Mike, what's the biggest one, the biggest proxy vote? Anyways, they just go and that proxy vote goes along with the board because it's a cover your ass thing. It's just like, well, the board said, no, we're going to go with the board. And so it's not likely to be passed. But this is the important, this is the significance of it is that it's on the docket.

It's being considered. It can't be ignored now. It's being considered. And so the boards can no longer say, oh, that's nonsense. We're not even going to bring that up to a vote. They're just like, okay, we'll bring it up to a vote.

It's like the years of ETFs getting filed and not approved and filed and not approved until there's enough groundswell that it pushes through and it happens. I think that's what Dave was alluding to. I don't think this time it's one more company. I agree with him. And I don't think this time if it becomes a strategic reserve asset, it'll be one central bank, right? I mean, this is when we're really, I think, pushing. Now you're talking about gamesmanship. Exactly. Game theory. If I don't do it and they do it, then I'm left behind. Mike, aside from obviously the stock market correction, we've talked about this before, but central banks, companies adding it to the balance sheet,

are there any of these catalysts large enough that in your mind, you could see a major decoupling and to see it fly regardless of what's happening elsewhere? And we have talked about it. If you're right, James and Dave, about corporations adding it to their balance sheet, absolutely. Eventually. But here's the key thing, as I was thinking about that, is corporations have had a chance to add gold to the balance sheet for 5 for 5000 years. And they really choose mostly they choose U.S. treasuries or their global, their local key bills or local local interest rate instruments. So it's a major leap, I guess, in technology to go to Bitcoin. But and yeah, I can see a little bit. But the risks of being wrong for a board means you get fired.

It's like, OK, maybe 1% is not a big deal, but people use numbers. So that's the key thing I'm concerned about is if they're going to just jump for Bitcoin. I mean, central banks buying gold makes sense. And then it's like the second, third reserve currency now after the euro, after what's happened in China. But corporations, it's a whole different story. I mean, I can see the techno-savvy ones, obviously, micro-strategy, sure, but the rest of the world, you're talking about some very stoic, conservative, accountant-type people. I agree. The personal risk is too high. The professional risk is too high at this point. What you just said, Mike, is what's so key about this, is that

if and when they do, a board does add this to their balance sheet. And in lieu of treasuries, that is the significance right there. And when they do that, that tells you that they're storing their value somewhere else. And that is mind blowing. But that is eventually where we're going unless something changes, you know, unless Bitcoin just never does catch on, unless Elon solves the, you know, the deficit issue. And we're now super productive with every single marginal dollar that we borrow. You know, like there's at some point and I'm not saying this in the next six months. I mean, like this, it is going to happen at some point and I'm not saying this in the next six months. I mean, like this, it is going to happen at some point.

And the significance of them choosing it over a treasury. That's where it's like, OK, now now it's a now it's a different story. It's not just adding gold. It's something. It's a simple fact of high volatility, highly speculative risk assets versus U.S. treasuries. Sorry, but when you're a fiduciary, I just look back and like, yeah, I know. You just don't do that. But the thing is, I only hear it from Bitcoiners. That's the only people who say it. Otherwise, you're rational people who are not in this.

I have to mention the last few conferences I've gone to, I see a lot of money showing stuff. I see a lot of gold everywhere. But I don't see a lot of Bitcoin and cryptos because this is more traditional. People are making a killing in the queues and until they stop making a killing in the queues, they're still going to be their focus. Yeah. We're getting the trickles. Sure. But you know, it's just, that's the key thing. I mean, I point out, I know Dave will push back. It's almost four years now that Bitcoin's just underperforming queues and like, okay, at some point it might catch up. But that

to me is a point is we're due for a reset. Yes, I've been early. I've been wrong. We're clearly seeing a global reset in commodities. The key question is after the election, we're seeing the rest of the world, definitely in China, definitely in Germany, a lot of Europe, Canada, is it going to happen in the US? And if it does, that's where I point out just, you know, it's time to underweight risk assets, and there's a time to overweight, and that's why I'm out just, you know, it's time to underweight risk assets and there's a time to overweight. And that's why I'm sticking with gold and, well, some bonds, some point bonds. But I know, James, you pushed back on that one hard.

I would not own long-term bonds. I just wouldn't. Not right now. Just that the risk reward isn't there for me. You know, I'm not shorting them. Mike, let's say we get the quick correction, right? That we don't get the 30, 40% that we've historically gotten because as matt hogan said you know recessions are illegal let's say we get a 10 correction uh from november to february or march right and then

things start heading back up do you agree that uh the next four years could just be yet another up cycle and that could be enough correction do you think they can kick the can far enough down the road? It could. It depends on who's in power. It depends on. But historically, it's been proven that that's not when you want to avoid risk assets. We still need something to shift and change. And we haven't seen that.

Now, we're seeing in China, the second largest economy, seeing most of the rest of the world, obviously in commodities. But that's the problem is I keep pointing about this. I started writing about it in February, about the test. When are we going to get a test? And we got a 5% correction. It has to be 500. Most risk assets, particularly Bitcoin, dropped a lot more.

We had the 10%. Most risk assets, particularly Bitcoin, dropped a lot more. But they came right back. It's wonderful that we don't have, we've outlawed recessions, which is one of those, it's the things I've been hearing lately that I really- That's one of those comments, of course. That's the topping signal type comment. It's like the quote, I tweeted it on this weekend. There was a famous person point out that some people are looking at the Magnificent Seven as a store of value. There's crypto people. I hear it all the time. They look at spies as a store of value.

These are the kinds of things you hear and you remember from the future and you say, yeah, that was a sign that I should have been staying in gold. Dave's got the tracking going on. Did the green screen go with him? I couldn't figure it out. Yeah, I didn't check. Sorry. I just had to run out for a few seconds. I mean, I heard what Mike was saying. And I think that- You heard all of it. So look, the simple way of looking, my mental model of Bitcoin as an option, which I'm not going to go into, is will we get to that level of acceptance? Store of value is, the better word for it is denominator. So the dollar right now is the denominator for the world. And that

explains why the US rates are higher, because it's the denominator for the world, right? There's no rational other explanation for Greece having lower borrowing costs at 10 years than the United States. There just isn't any. And so my mental model says that. That mental model extends to the fact that for 5,000 years, gold was the denominator for all financial assets. And in 1971,gged from gold since 1971 but buying power purchasing power and gold have still tracked pretty well if you look at purchasing power parity you know price of a suit price of this price of that and so we've seen this deep linking of financial assets from consumer you know from consumer prices that has been massive. Right. And, you know, there's always these snarky tweets of what happened in 1971, because you see all this, this, but that's what happened.

And so we literally have been, our careers have all been in a regime that in global financial history is microscopic, right? So from 71 to 2024, you know, 53 years is the fiat regime. Before that, there was only little tiny instances of fiat currency, because as empires basically blew apart, there has never been this before, a global fiat regime. And so what I believe, my mental model is that the, and I don't want to use the hyperbolic, I'm going to death froze and fourth turnings and global everything. But the fact is, is the crack up boom is my most likely scenario for this reason, this fiat regime. And I don't think it's coming to an end anytime soon. I don't.

I do think that the pre-shots of it coming to an end will be the massive asset inflationary bubbles serially getting bigger and bigger over time. I mean, that's the telltale side of the fiat regime, right? It's bigger business cycle, bigger crack-up booms, bigger depressions. Right. That kind of supports Mike's theory that recessions can't be illegal and eventually the uh bigger recession depression comes right except but what mike isn't telling you and and and i know he knows this what are you hiding mike what are you hiding i want to hear it. Tell me what I might. That actually takes out the underpinning and confidence in the regime would be disastrous. Exactly. And that is exactly what the government all are terrified of.

And we'll do everything they can to keep those nominal numbers as high as possible. And that's why there's a desire for inflated financial assets to decrease and hopefully to make that prioritizing capital to once again, keep a lid on consumer assets. That's the issue. And so, you know, it's a mental model. I understand it is what it is, but our disagreements have much more to do with that than me saying, oh, no, you're looking at the chart wrong because he's not looking at the charts wrong. So basically, we have to be careful saying it's different this time. I look at very simple measures. We all know unemployment always 100 percent chance goes to 6 percent. I love pointing out that since 1979, crude oil has always fluctuated around 40 dollars.

It's probably heading back that way. And if you look at the gold, the S&P ratio, it almost gravitates towards one to one. Right now, it takes over 2.2 ounces of gold per one S&P. I'm sticking with gold because it's, in particular, if you head towards recessions, unless it's different this time, it's how long we can keep this Ponzi scheme going is my point. And that's why- That's what impresses me the most. Yeah, exactly. It's going, it's one, me too exactly it's going it's one me too god admit it it's it's happening but again we all know what's with that massive deficit spending in this country which we know is good for bitcoin but i think it's better for gold and that to me is what i'm worried about by still that gold's going to prevail and it's just when we have this normal

period when the s&p 500 doesn't make a new high every single day, maybe for a couple of years, just something that we all grew up with that used to be normal, that this is looking to me just like one of the most speculative risk asset bubbles in history. Bitcoin led the way for good reason. And now the fastest horse in the race might be leading the other way. I'm just pointing out those simple facts and pointing out the good alternatives and it still remains gold well it doesn't mean you shouldn't own any bitcoin in your portfolio that's the point is that you have to have your core and if you're going to trade around it great my my and you know my viewpoint is super long. So then, you know, but honestly, Mike, if I wasn't on a Bitcoin standard in my hedge fund, I would borrow money against long, long bonds. I would short long bonds and,

and, uh, and buy gold and buy, well, not in my hedge fund, but I would be personally buying, you know, Bitcoin and, and borrowing long-term bonds. But that's a longer-term trade for me. It's not just overnight, but it is a longer-term trade for me. But since I'm on a Bitcoin standard, I don't need to borrow in dollars. I would have to sell Bitcoin to effectively do that because of margin. That doesn't make any sense. But you understand what I'm saying. James, but this was the sort of inspirational tweet for your newsletter. I mean, what do you think Powell is thinking when he's sitting there at cut 50 and mortgages are back above 7%? What's he thinking? Well, he's obviously wondering if the market is thinking that he's made a policy mistake or if they are hammering treasuries because of the U.S. treasury and not really U.S. treasury but the U.S. government. So fiscal dominance, Lin Alden.

Exactly. So what's next stage for the Fed? Is there any problem? They buy bonds. They always have. They will buy bonds. They're going to continue to lower rates. The question is at what rate?

That's all. What is at what rate? That's all. What is the terminal rate? So what we've seen is the markets adjusted the terminal rate from being 275 or 280 back up to 350 since before the Fed meeting, which is really interesting. Now, you've got one more thing that's coming up. I know we have a few more minutes here. We have one more thing coming up and it's Wednesday. We've got the quarterly refunding announcement from the treasury. And so what are they going to do? Well, this is a really weird time because you've got the quarterly refunding. This is the last one we're going to have before the election and before the end of the year. This is it. So what are they going to say? And are they going to just kick the

can down the road again, not raise the amount of paper issuance and just keep, wow, keep issuing, Dave just didn't like that, you know, keep issuing the floating rate key bills and just kick it down the road for an eventual, you know, if they really believe that Trump is going to win, it doesn't matter, you know, and again, but the treasury is not really political. Technically, they're not. They're just trying to do the very best they can from quarter to quarter and decide just how much they can get away with the short-term paper issuance. There's not a lot left in the reverse repo. You got $200 billion left, right, Mike? I mean, that's it. There's not that much left drawing out of there so yeah you know mike it's gone yeah huh i know i mean it's not catastrophic i don't mean that's

this is not alarm bells catastrophic oh my god the market's gonna melt down no it's just a it's another signpost for the treasury say okay well now we've got to we got to start getting we're gonna have to start getting borrowing from somewhere else. And that means moving out on the curve, likely, right? That's Mike's alarm that copper just broke out. I hear it. So that's the thing though,

is that you've got, you've got that going on this week. So it's going to be interesting. I don't think there's going to be a big change. I think the big change would be the Fed to come out and say, okay, no more QT. Like even $25 billion a month.

Isn't that much, but no more QT, that's just the mental significance of it. Mike, quickly, it's funny. We have these articles that say up no matter what. Harris wins, everything goes up. Trump wins, everything goes up. But to be fair, if you're looking at this historically and the way that you are, everything goes down either way at some point. Well, it's also, I always like to look at something I started decades ago, looking at where's the relative positioning, relative center, where's the market relative to its normal means. And I know Dave makes fun of me sometimes and we make fun of silver going higher

and silver going higher is not going to the mean. That's an extreme when silver goes higher. So it's just, we're so extended and there's so much optimism. It's when you lick your finger and you hear the, or you just go in a room and you hear the complete optimism. We've seen these things before. I just see it on the charts. I see it in commodities. Obviously I'm a commodity guy and I see nothing but global recessionary trajectories. And I just look at Bitcoin as it's the wonderful trading vehicle. I agree in the big picture, but I think it's also a great leading indicator. So the macro to me is, yes, we'll see what happens on the election. Everything right now, we can just use all the words we can.

I just pointed out how expensive risk assets are. I keep going up. That's great. Bitcoin's part of that. And gold is actually getting a little expensive short term. But it's really going to be all about this. And this is potentially most if we trip to a red sweep, it might be the most we might look back at from history is the most significant elections in our lifetimes. If we get what happens oftentimes in the U.S., you get that check and balance.

Red Congress and Harris is president, first female president. Then that's going to be probably the normal check and balance, red Congress and Harris is president, first female president, then that's going to be probably the normal check and balance that, but we'll say overall, as you point out, everything is so just on a complete upward swing. You just got to be careful. Here's the check and balance that we're not going to get if we have a red sweep. And the last part of information that people should have is that we currently have no debt ceiling. Now, not that we would have a real hard debt ceiling either way but there's literally nothing stopping you know those those two branches that that branch of of the of the uh government the congressional branch from just deciding what they want to spend i mean that's that's where i

agree with mike and but but the point is either way, you're talking about the same thing, which is a crack up boom or a sharp deflationary event that requires a mass amount of money printing to counteract it because of the current fiscal situation we're in. I just want to caution people because we talk a lot about this stuff. And then I don't think about the US dollar's demise over the next 18 months. It's not what I'm thinking about. I'm just thinking about the inflationary pressures that are inherent to the current situation that we're in. That's because of either way. Either you have nominal GDP that's just rising because of fiscal spending, or eventually you just have money printing because of the need to continue to assert yield curve control to counteract it. I mean, that's what's in my mind. I'm just so excited for this election to be over. Mike, you're on mute. Yeah, Mike muted.

It looks like he had something awesome to say too. I think the key word for you and everybody is relief. And hopefully it's relief. Hopefully it's not contentious because we all know if Trump doesn't win, I'm sure he's going to push back and say it was fraudulent, which, oh gosh. But we'll see.

It's going to be great to have it over. No, it would be nice to have either way. You know, it looks to be pointing more like it would be more likely to be a red sweep. And and it would be very difficult to to contest or the other way. I mean, it's just that I just hope it's it's not contentious. I love watching the mental meltdowns in the chat, though. It's become my favorite part of the show, my ADHD kicks. I will say once again, this show, I could rebrand it Echo Chamber and we could just bring in four people who agree on how high markets are going to go every single week if that's what you guys want.

But, you know, I think having measured opinions backed by data and experience are probably what we want here. So you prepare for anything like literally, Mike, you say that Harris could win and people freak out as if that's a. Well, I think people freak out. Guys, it's an election that polls are saying is kind of 50 50. It doesn't mean she could. It's like it's not it's not a crazy statement to say that either person could win the election no it's it's my base case i think your typical republican like i am will go down look in their ballot and pick harris because they they're just concerned about the risks of a

muslim republic and then go republican arrested ticket the vast majority of this country are female and democrats um and there's an alternative to the discourse of violence and potential unpleasantness. We might have a Trump 2.0. Every single, what is it, 50% of his ex-cabinet members had pointed out at War With Ourselves by General McMaster pointed out that Trump 2.0 is not just a regular president. It's a complete autocratic leader with a bunch of yes men. You see that in Vance. So that's what I think people are going to look down at and say, okay, maybe push back on that. That's my sense of the population. Remember, I'm from a Trump state. I'm from Illinois. I'm from the Corn Belt. And that's my sense. A lot of Republicans are using the quote behind the scenes, crazy man. That's

what I'm hearing from- Yeah, listen, either way, I'm definitely hoping in two weeks that we're having a conversation about what things look like moving forward with president. I'm not going to get political. Whoever it is that we do have a non-contested election and that we're moving forward analyzing what the likelihood is for markets in the future. We've been talking about this a lot. Yeah, it would be time to move on and and you know um it's funny mike because here in nevada which is a purple state in 2020 saw a lot of harris or we saw a lot of biden signs i'm surrounded by trump's surrounded like i i there's one i've seen one biden sign in the three neighborhoods around

me that's it i don't know like me. That's it. Like it's, it's interesting. So yeah, there's a lot. I was saying to my wife, actually the other day, there's a lot less political posters in general than last couple elections. It's content.

Rather than if it's mostly Trump, Trump posters, even though actually my County votes blue in Florida because of the university of Florida, but generally just very, very few signs. It seems like people have just kind of like given up. I think we're all ready for this to be done. Yeah. One last piece of news that I just wanted to share. I don't know if you guys saw this. We

talk about polymarket endlessly, but Robinhood just added presidential election markets. Really? Yeah. So that's 24 million funded users on Robinhood. I don't know if we're going to get enough clarity in a week, but this could be bye-bye to Polymarket in my mind, as far as relevance, if Robinhood can actually get some traction with their markets. Oh, guys, 1006, Dave imploded. I don't know what we said, and he finally disappeared. Green screen swallowed him.

The green screen ate him into the bathroom behind the green screen. But that's all we got for you guys. Listen, next week we're going to be talking election tomorrow. Oh, God. And a week later we'll be saying what happened in the election five, six days ago. It's going to be pretty wild. Macro election Monday. All right, guys.

Thank you so much. I always appreciate the banter and the opinions. See you guys soon. Bye.