The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin Under MAJOR Pressure As Trump Tensions Peak! What Happens Next?

Episode Date: April 13, 2026

Bitcoin keeps running into a wall of selling above $70K — roughly $20M/hour in profit-taking — and now that wall has geopolitical weight behind it after the Islamabad peace talks collapsed, Iran's Strait of Hormuz stays effectively closed, and Trump ordered a naval blockade of Iranian ports starting this morning. That's pushing oil toward $100/barrel and forcing tanker traffic into a full reroute away from the Gulf, which benefits US energy exports but hammers Japan, South Korea, and India hardest. Meanwhile the dollar's long-term slide continues — now just 46% of global FX and gold reserves, a 26-year low — even as M2 keeps expanding at 4.8% YoY, and central bank gold holdings have officially eclipsed US Treasury holdings for the first time since '96. And on the crypto side, the WLFI vs. Justin Sun feud is turning into a full legal brawl over a $75M loan dispute, backdoor token blacklisting, and accusations flying both ways — exactly the kind of circus that undermines crypto's push for institutional credibility. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by Tellus Online Security. Oh, tax season is the worst. You mean hack season? Sorry, what? Yeah, cybercriminals love tax forms. But I've got Tellus Online Security. It helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud so I can stress less during tax season or any season.

Plan started just $12 a month. Learn more at tellus.com slash online security. No one can prevent all cybercrime or identity theft. Conditions apply. Bitcoin is under pressure again with major selling above 70,000 as Trump tensions peak. I think we can make the case that Trump tensions have peaked both from a geopolitical and macro perspective, but also with everything happening with World Liberty Financial in the crypto space. We have a lot to talk about.

I've got Dave, James, and Mike here to unpack it all on Macro Monday. Let's go. Good morning, everybody. Happy Monday. Let's get right into it. We've got Dave, James. Mike, good morning, gentlemen. Morning.

Mike, morning meeting. I don't even know how you guys do it. But I think Mike, can you hear us, Mike? I don't think Mike can hear. Morning. Oh, now we got you. Okay, cool. I hear it.

Yeah, give us the morning meeting. Ana Wong came out some good stuff today. She pointed out the core PC. She expects it to continue hot, basically. mainly because of consumer software the oil shock she expects cpi potentially peak in may potentially by july around 4 percent um ace april cpi it's going to be strong gas is already up 8 percent expects core to be hot um and a year of year to run 4 percent um but she expects it to drop like a stone by two thousand twenty seven it's 27 likely below 3 percent cpi versus peter

PC, typically fades faster on a deflationary tilt. And then she dug into the economic effect of the war, and she mentioned natural gas falling year over year, 22%, the key trigger to spill over into fertilizers, plastics. And to her key point is it's one of the key things for U.S. manufacturing to crush it versus the rest of the world. Boosting output, you know, manufacturing is quite bullish for manufacturing. It's part of how the U.S. is winning this is U.S. gas.

And we only export out 15 to 16 percent through LNG. How much is that going to go up? So part of the U.S. manufacturer sector rebounding. The rest of the meeting wasn't that significant. No one on equities today. Ira Jersey mentioned we had tens and thirties last week. Those auctions that came out pretty much math, not much going on. But he did point out that 5% 30 year.

It's a decent duration. It seems every time we get near, there's decent buying. And what Audrey Schilt Freeman, our FX strategy, just mentioned, this. What's happening in Europe might have given the European, the euro a little bit of a bit, it certainly would happen with Hungary. And then I point out, I think crude oils, I just point out some facts about crude oil. It's, if it closes here, 104 or 103, it'll be the highest year-end close ever. that only compares to the last two times of 2011-13.

In the U.S. we were at 98. And that's right when the U.S. Shell Revolution started kicking in. The average cost of production is around $70 to $73 a barrel. Now it's around 55. And you know you got the nod, all the producers got the nod in the week from the Trump administration. Oh, by the way, sell forward.

Here's your chance. And you've seen that in a curve bringing it on. So I just pointed out that if it goes as much higher from here, it's going to break things more than go down eventually. And then I just tilted over natural gas. guided the way in 2022, the I was 10 by 2024 is 1.5. And I think it's doing the same thing this year. The I was 7.

Right now it's 2.7. Yeah, it's going to be bit up a little for the January contract. So overall, this is a pretty clear sign that the key thing also I published today was just look at that Bloomberg all energy index. It's up 45% in the year. That's great. But that got it to unchanged since 2005. It's the key thing to remember about energy prices. When they go up at high velocity, they don't stay up, they break things and go back down.

And then I pointed out, I think we still have those enduring peaks and gold and silver. And we have pretty potential oversupply in cryptocurrencies and corn and soybeans. And that's Emily and bear markets. Back to you. I didn't hear anything about blockades, peace negotiations breaking down. Seems like those would have been the key conversation pieces. Markets don't care. Not mentioning that that much, but it's, these are no knowns that we didn't have a

strategist to really figure out what that's going to mean. But in terms of what I see in markets, the key theme of our FX strategies, it seems like all markets are getting a bit of war fatigue. And I didn't hear any comments about that. But, you know, this is becoming, U.S. has become a little bit insulated, as you see from natural gas and you seem for equity prices. Yeah, there was a really. I don't know if you guys saw this, but it was interesting from a Morgan Stanley analyst that said the Iran oil shock is nothing like the ones that crash markets in the past.

And actually, I thought that this could be an interesting conversation piece because what he pointed to is that in the previous times that we basically went into recession with oil spikes, we had expected earnings dropping massively before that happened. So it was kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back was the oil price surge. And this time is the first time when we've had an oil price surge like this where we've had consensus expected earnings rising. and continuing to rise, basically saying that companies are strong going into this oil shock, so maybe it's different. That's not really my department, but I found it to be an interesting read. Well, it depends what kind of companies in the mix. I mean, you know, software companies have, and, you know, basically technology companies are much less exposed. It's the consumer that's exposed, right, because it's going to be aggregate demand that's going to get, you know, from people having to pay for gas.

But, you know, there's a lot of interesting geopolitical talk this weekend about the U.S. manufacturers and U.S. oil industry and how big of a boon this is to that. Now, that's not a big deal in the S&P because the U.S. oil industry is pretty small. But it is fascinating. The Saudi pipeline and the rapidity with which they're replacing things. There's a lot going on. It is still too early, in my opinion. I've really tried very hard not to comment on what's going on geopolitically because we don't know. I'm really still, I think a lot of people who have had a lot of takes, both, you know, cheerleaders and haters are going to, you know, in two or three months,

are going to be scratching their heads saying, you know, I hope that what I said two or three months ago gets scrubbed from the internet or nobody remembers that I said it because there's a lot of stupid shit. that's been said, you know, and it's just people don't really know what the hell is going on. And that that's the reality because it seems exceedingly clear that there was zero chance of there being agreement from a delegation from Iran. But why go through with it? Well, you go through with it because then if you're going to take action, you have air cover.

So now the Trump administration can say, listen, they want nuke still. We're not letting them have it. And we're going to blast the living shit out of them. And that feels like what they're doing, but I think it'll be much more surgical than that. You know, they're literally playing a game. It also just gives you a time to take a deep breath and reconsider. Right. If you look, what's fascinating is if you look at, you know, Bitcoin, S&P, silver,

I leave gold out for a heartbeat because those three, those are all clearly risk assets tied to the economy one way or another at this instant in time. They're all up on the week, a weekly, right? And just think about what that means. That means, you know, with all of this, with the crap before, because remember a week ago, we were saying, oh, Tuesday is going to be Destroy Civilization Day. And then we had the piece and this at, and you look, crude oil is down 7.8% on the weekly from that.

And everything else is up. So, you know, it's pretty simple. Crude oil is inverse to everything else. And Mike is right. I mean, the cost of production is way lower. This is a question of, you know, like you posted, like you sent around Jim Bianco's thing. I mean, it's not about oil production. Oil production isn't down.

It's the ability to move it. So they're, they kind of turn the taps off until they can actually move it around because it's, it's about a transportation bottleneck. It's a literal supply chain disruption. And that's what it is. But I want to go back to something that Mike said because it just, it drives me absolutely crazy. And the World Liberty Financial thing is going to actually input. This notion of unlimited supply on Bitcoin, it's just pathetic. It's just pathetic.

It's not true. And the fact that Bitcoin is so different than all the cryptos that have ownership groups or founding groups who can do stuff and put in spark contracts is becoming more and more obvious, not less and less obvious. And so if you want to say that the crypto structure is a crypto asset, have problems, sure, I agree with that. If you want to say there's a oversupply of Bitcoin, it's actually the opposite. The Bitcoin supply situation is getting tighter and tighter, because like a machine,

week after week, fixed income investors are giving sailor the ability to buy a billion dollars for the Bitcoin. They're buying more than his mind, right? Mining used to be the supply of Bitcoin. Now the supply of Bitcoin is people selling what they already own. And that is a major supply difference. And that has a, especially at these levels, that has a likely decreasing amount of supply. So it's really a question of demand.

Now, the demand could collapse and the value could go to zero, right? You know, people could say, oh, Bitcoin's useless. Look, we could debate that. That I personally think is less likely than others, but it doesn't matter. This notion of supply just, it just, let's keep away from that. It's just silly. And, you know, I hate relitigating it every week, Scott. But the reason I mention it is because World Liberty Financial is something that we should talk about.

And James can comment before we get there. But the difference between Bitcoin and VC or founder created coins out of thin air is very different. Right. James, I know you. I know you. I know you're muted. I'm muted, James. Yeah, I muted myself. So I don't want to relitigate it either.

So look, the bottom line is J.B. Morgan is talking about accepting Bitcoin as collateral. You don't accept something as collateral unless you believe that has some sort of underlying value. The only way Bitcoin has underlying values is if it actually is scarce, if it has limited supply, like Dave is talking about, if it is actually digital gold. because right now, you know, the Bitcoin as a network or payments, it's just not there yet, but Bitcoin is as a settlement layer and as a long-term asset, it is there. And institutions are understanding that. You know, unfortunately, retail is not fully understanding that yet, Dave, and that's what we're seeing. We're seeing the turnover of it.

And, you know, it's just not sexy enough for the young people to be buying. It's trading at $71,000. And they see that and they think, well, this is not going to go up 100x. I need something that's going to go up 100x. And you know, you guys know I wrote all about that this weekend, the betting, you know, just that that mentality. And it's not anybody's fault. And I'm not blaming them because they're trying to catch up and all of that. But the issue we have here is that institutions understand it.

and they're adopting it nice and deliberately and they're they're doing it in a way that it's not it's not causing waves all over the yeah the casino in your pocket exactly the polymarking kalshi and everything else you're just trying to catch up but you know the the the real the reality is that there the news outlets aren't paid to talk about bitcoin list there's there's some sort of controversy. We all understand that. And right now it's just one, just one company after another is quietly integrating Bitcoin into their system, whether it's their, whether it's, whether they're selling to their clients or they're creating platforms for you to use it and actually use it like you would a long-term structural asset, you know, like a bond or like a, a, a, a, a, a, a,

like gold holdings in in a vault. And so that you have to realize that and you have to step back and recognize that and have patience. The all of this stuff that's going on with Trump and the, you know, the straight of Hormuz and the struggle to to take control of it. I mean, I don't want to say it's noise, but the market clearly is treating it as noise both ways. And, otherwise you'd see much larger swings in the market. If we thought that this was going to really escalate into something that was catastrophic, the markets would be telling you that. But they're kind of shrugging it off to be true, to be truthful.

I mean, look at the futures down what, half a percent as we're going into the open here? And oil, yeah, oil is up again. But like you said, crude is at 103, 103, 104. Brent is at 100, 102. So, you know, it's not like this stuff is moving around, partially just because of momentum traders, though. And you have to also understand that. But the uncertainty around all this stuff is causing investors

to just sit on the sidelines. How much cash is Buffett sitting on now? And it's just a mind-boggling number. And so not that he knows everything, but it's a pretty good indication of what institutional investors are willing to do right now. And so, but we won't relitigate the supply situation with Bitcoin. But just to make it clear, it's very difficult to argue against the fact that's being adopted on the institutional side. And the reality is there's a lot of confusion with the, with, retail. I've already talked to people who bought Bitcoin up at 80 or 90 or $100,000 and have dumped it

already because they're like, oh, this isn't what I thought it was going to be. But they have no idea what it is because they didn't really do the research on it, really understand it. I know, James, what I find interesting along the lines of what you're saying. Yeah. I'm not promoting the idea of, you know, our enemies utilizing Bitcoin, but Iran made a very clear statement that while charging tolls in the straits and four moves, they wanted to be paid in Bitcoin. Yeah. I mean, it's, so that's, that's interesting, you know. They didn't want to be paid in U.S. dollars.

They don't want to be holding U.S. treasuries. We know why, you know, we may just take them from you. So that's, that's, that's something to be, to be noted. It's, it's important development. Yeah, I mean, there's a trend there beyond, you know, just this immediate situation. the U.S. dollar continues to lose market share. The U.S. dollar now represents 46% of global FX and gold reserves, the lowest in at least 26 years. This percentage has declined 15 points since 2017.

Now, I'm definitely not a dollar as global reserve currency doomer, but there's clearly a trend and incentive for foreign governments and entities to try to diminish their reliance on the United States dollar. Yeah, they're looking for a way to get away from having to hold treasuries, and it's obvious. And so that's why you saw Central Bank's around. the world buying gold. They're trying to get away from two reasons for that. And Putin is the one who said it out loud. He said there's two reasons you don't want to hold treasuries. Number one,

they can just be taken from you. They can be seized from you. And number two, they could just be inflated away, which is what we're doing. And he recognizes that. And he's like, these guys are just printing money hand over fist. And so why do I want to hold something that I'm going to turn in for you know, I'm going to trade in for dollars. I'm going to be worth a fraction of what they were when I bought these things. Why would I do that? Well, that's a, I mean, that's a structural issue. And that right there, that's the first principle of what the Fed is trying to fight.

That is what they're fighting. They're fighting the negative perceptions that are rising around the dollar. And the Treasury needs the help from the Fed to fight that. It's reality. Do I think that we're going to get off a dollar system anytime soon? No, I don't. I don't think we're going to get off the, but we are going to have problems of issuing as many bonds as we need to at some point here.

So it's not something just to just shrug off and say, oh, we've been talking about the debt forever. Yeah, well, you can keep talking about it's not going to be a problem until it really is. And I don't, I'm not calling for, you know, an auction to fail or something like that. Not yet. but it's it's the writing on the wall guys and you know you better own something that that has value and clearly there are plenty of very large players around the world that believe bitcoin is one of those things it's obvious it's just that you know they're they're they're doing the best

they can to get as much they can before retail wakes up completely and it becomes that thing that everybody needs to own i agree yeah the the thing about the Iran accepting Bitcoin is actually very important. You know, I've seen a bunch of takes, some reasonably good, and some just ridiculous. The ridiculous is the notion that this will feed the anti-crypto army because they'll say, oh, look, bad guys are using it, except they're not doing it under the table.

They're doing it completely transparently. They're saying, this is what we want to do. They're fighting with us about it. They want us to agree to it. Why are they doing it? it because unlike gold, ask someone to bring a million dollars in gold on their ship and hand it to the ship that comes alongside and collect the toll. Not very easy. You know, gold ETFs or gold receipts that are in faults, you're at the mercy of whoever owns the gold receipt or the gold

whatever, whereas Bitcoin, you can own it. It's an actual bearer asset. That is something that Bitcoiners have been talking about for, well, all 15 years that people have been talking about Bitcoin. And now there is a country of 90 million people basically saying, yep, if we need to take an asset, we're going to take it. Now notice that is extremely important and very, very underappreciated because when you compare Bitcoin to gold and Peter Schiff can talk about it until he's blue in the face. But the fact is, here's proof of a sovereign nation saying, listen, getting rid of intermediaries and having an asset without intermediaries matters. And that's a very very big narrative change. And this will not be the only one that happens. Even if it's, even if it's just

that they signaled it, it's a big deal. Because the whole point about Bitcoin, and I've said this a million times on this show, actually, that's hyperbole, but I have said it hundreds of times, is that, you know, the market is pricing, it's likelihood of becoming digital gold at less than 5%. That's just the math. And what you're seeing is a growing group of people saying, well, no, that probability should probably be somewhere over 50% because it's already being used that way, which means it's severely enterprise. That's the thing. And that has nothing to do with technicals.

This is an inflection point of using. It's like if you shorted Apple based on squiggles before the iPhone, or if you shorted Amazon before they perfected just in time delivery and weren't just a book company, you got carried out. And I guarantee you, because I know people who did not Apple, because I would. was to but Amazon, I remember people shorting it at varying times for this exact reason. And it didn't go so well. I know people who shorted Tesla before it was obviously they were going to become a robotics company. You know, a friend of mine, you know, I remember sitting with, I'll tell him his name because as a matter, Jim Angel is a professor of economics at Georgetown.

It's a really good guy. And we were sitting at a dinner in Washington a few years ago and he was talking about, you know, complaining about how his Tesla short wasn't going so well. And I said, Jim, don't short narratives. Never short narratives. That's one of the things you learn in trading. I didn't learn in a trading pit. I learned in a trading desk, but shorting narratives is dangerous because they can always go farther than you think, and particularly when they actually happen. So I think shorting Bitcoin here is like shorting narrative, shorting a story. You don't short stories because stories either die or they continue, and most of the time they continue far longer than you expect. In this particular case, the story hasn't really caught on yet.

Right? It's the smart money that's getting in. And that's James's point. So anyway, well, let's just, the reality is this thing's been around for, we're going on 17 years now. And so it's not like, you know, and it's got over a trillion dollars in it. I mean, this is not something that's just going to disappear. It's not, there are so many people who want to own as much they possibly can, you know, the thought that it's going to go to zero is kind of laughable. The only reason it would is because of some sort of structural change in the code or that there's an attack on Bitcoin in a way that we cannot fathom right now, which is obviously the quantum, you know, question that people keep bringing up. But beyond that, explain to me how

there's suddenly going to be no demand for it. You know, that's that's, that's, that's, that's, It's absurd. So we can get off that topic. But, you know, we're going to continue. This is the way it's going to be for until we have resolution out in the Middle East. This is the way it's going to be. We're going to keep dancing around the issues of possible demand destruction from the price of oil feeding into the price of every single good and service out there. That's what we're going to.

That's what we're up against right now. And like Dave said, you're going to see. rotations, you're going to be rotations in and out of different sectors of stocks because of it. And that produces opportunity. If you're a hedge fund, you're out there, you're trading these things. You're trading around all these sectors because it's opportunity for you. What's that one? This was the tweet that Dave referenced before from Jim Bianco basically saying that there's obviously

going to be demand destruction or that there should. Once again, you have, you know, governments trying to fight that demand destruction, which is effectively necessary and that the Germans are going to cut the duties by 17% per leader for two months to cushion the impact of the war. Once again, just trying to play financial engineering with an inevitable force. Right. And that's, I mean, that's what we're up against now as investors. That's what we're watching.

Impossible. Of course, it feeds into everything. It feeds into the long-term bonds. It feeds into short-term trends. Treasury's mean two years because of the, has people move around the possibility or probability of there being any rate cuts, which now there's, I don't know, Mike, it looks like there's less than a half percent chance. It's like a 25 percent chance of a rate cut in by the end of the year now. Yeah. We're not, we're seeing one, one cut in Fed futures out a full year.

year. So, you know, I mean, it's just, this is not, it's not something that we're, that, that you're, you know. Yeah, I mean, I love Mike's clarity on that, you too, but I just, that is what makes no sense to me. I understand the 40 chess narratives and that we don't know everything, but if you're fleeing Powell for months and months and months and everybody's handicapping what the next Fed chair will do and they're going to put someone in who's definitely going to cut. And then just go ahead and create an environment where it would be very hard to argue for cuts. You've got you've got you've got one camp that is saying that we're going to have demand there's going to be you've got one camp that saying that there's going to be layoffs from

AI and then another camp that and saying that that would be demand destruction because you have the economy is turning down because you have layoffs and people are not going to have money to to spend on goods and services and then you've got another side of the camp that's saying no it's we're kind of rocking along here everything's fine and we're you know you're going to you're going have either structural inflation because of the oil prices energy prices or you're you know the the case-shaped economy is going to keep rolling here and you know too bad if you don't own assets the people who do are going to keep the economy going which remember stocks are not stocks are not, they're not the economy.

You know, I think Mike has said this a number of times. And I agree. The stocks are not the economy. But what they do is, you know, it's reflective where people think, where people think things are going for certain sectors of the economy. And that's just the, that's an important thing to remember. The S&P is 500 companies. And they're moving around money between them, you know, in their, they're,

placing their bets on them. They're just moving them around. And that's what you're seeing in the markets. You're seeing quite a bit of rotation in different sectors. Mike, you're definitely up. Yeah, I'm glad we flip back from to the macro rather than complaining about Bitcoin. So, first of all, I say the opposite. When you get to 2.3 times GDP, the stock market is the economy. Only two examples in history, 1929 in the U.S., 1989 in Japan. And we've never had extreme surges in volatility in gold and crude oil with stock market volatility so low net following. To me, that's still my main thing. And shorting Bitcoin early in the year worked out well, Dave, I'm sorry. And you were just to correct one thing you said. I did not say, I have never said

Bitcoin has unlimited supply. It's part of a space. I said, cryptos have unlimited supply. Bitcoin was the first. Now there's many forts, but it isn't a space with unlimited supply. As a strategist, I view that as an issue. And since E-Chester launch, which we figure would potentially put in the peak, which was accelerated by Mr. Trump, the performance has been horrible. So from an initial standpoint, what you mentioned about people buying and getting out, yeah, they should be getting out. The performance just socks, and maybe it'll get better.

And I keep saying, just like if it's not indiscriminate, but I do love how Bitcoin people need to demonize people who disagree with them. But I'm not indiscriminate. I cannot be bullish copper unless I expect how stock market going out. I cannot be bluish any metals, including gold in asbestos, unless the stock market goes up. Gold right now trades over 2.3 times, volatility has to be 500. That's a classic sign. You want to say, thank you.

What a great trade. Get out. And so I stick with my prudent short and Bitcoin, which was above 90 in the beginning of the end, I moved it down to 75. So I'm sorry about having locking a few profits, but I still stick of the prudence short. Because if it goes down, everything goes down to great evening indicator, but you can't put a level on the bloom. or galaxy crypto index because no one watches it. So that's what I'm wanting to watch and Bitcoin is just the main thing to watch. And they tilt over to one thing you said that was incorrect, James, is Bitcoin's down about

3% on the day compared to Friday. Now, we have one day. I mean, if you compare it to everything else in the screen, it's down about 3% from Friday. So on the day, it doesn't really matter because it was from Sunday. So my key theme remains that this year, I've been wrong. We should see a pickup in stock market vouchly in this year, commissurate, what we've you seen in gold last year. And crude oil this year, it's a classic switch. And we still have not seen that.

So I stick with prudent shorts. Maybe initially I had silver around $100, $9.85. We get to $9.5. I think it's a prudent short. Copper around six, still the same level. Bitcoin, you know I move my level down to 75. Long bonds are around 5%. I think that's still a buy.

I haven't had any appreciation there yet. But the theme that I've been wrong on is still working. You sell risk assets in what you, when you see a market that's potentially just normalizing in terms of volatility. We have not had that yet. It's been a great year for trading. Certainly if you've been trading Bitcoin from the short side and from the long side, the best rallies come and bear markets. But let's just be careful with demonizing people who've had calls that have been accurate and sticking with this discipline of stops. And that's the key thing about trading to bear markets.

You fully expect to get your face ripped off, you expect to run through stops. And the key thing for this year is by the end of this year, if the stock market's up, yeah, Bitcoin will be up. If the stock market's down 10%, I don't think any of us really think Bitcoin will be up. So I want to react to that because I'm not demonizing you. I am being very, very, very laser-sharp, specific in my critique.

In fact, almost every word you just said, I made a statement possible. It was frozen. Go ahead, Dave. I'm being very, very specific in my critique. I almost every single word you just said, while there are disagreements, I think they're all very rational thoughts. In fact, it's exactly as a traitor. I would be leaning on the 75 level as a short, 74, 75.

I think if it can't get through that, it's going to, it just proves that can't break out of the range. I think that's absolutely right. I have no problem with that. I've said it myself. I was wrong early in the year. I did underestimate the quantum risk. There's no question about it. I didn't know it was going to become a big narrative and story that was going to scare people. But, you know, Scott, James and I have all talked to investors who have pulled back or done less or not bought because of quantum. So we know that happened, and I understand why. My point is very specific, not against that, but about understanding, you know, the denominator, right? The reason stock market gold volatility is so high is because it got

insane because of the hotball of money. Contract for differences, magnified leverage, and people went hog wild when, you know, you had the central bank buying, we had a blow off top and now it's back. Now is future volatility likely to be as high? No, of course not, but it could happen. Stock markets are inflated because corporate profits are inflated and because money is being inflated. And that's where you and I disagree. That's our more fundamental disagreement. We have two fundamental disagreements. One, I think that you have to look at the denominator and the continuing to print everywhere around the world.

Two, I think that the two, what just happened. Probably had a glitch for some reason, but I think it's all right. Yeah, two, the second one is you and I disagree on the ultimate, what would be the bottom of a range. and I make the point that when FTCS sold off, you're basically calling for a bottom of the range that's 60% lower than that, which basically means a great depression. And in a great depression, it could get to that.

I'm calling for a great depression just for the record. Right. So if we have a great depression. Okay, sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mind. Not a great depression, but just pointing out the fact where we are. And Dave, that's a key thing. I don't disagree with the big print.

I agree with it. The point is we've priced it for it already. That should have Larry Lepard, as I mentioned, Larry, should have printed, should have published that in 2019. Here's the problem. You're putting, making suggestions what to do. You're saying buy Bitcoin or whatever you want to hear what you suggest. It's not talking about exactly what you think, but what's the trade to do. If you're investing or if you're selling any type of like treasury to buy gold right now,

you're doing that at a 44 year extreme. gold extreme gold high versus treasury low i just choose no i'm not going to do that i'm not going to suggest it this strategy so risk is against you all you need is a little flip and you're going to get your face ripped up i just pointed out one little thing i've been watching forever is that trade buying tl tl t selling u s o i wanted to write about it a month ago because it's just flat lines ready to go and i think as a trader as an investor you wait for an opportunity it just gave us an opportunity to buy tl tl tl and sell us so at extreme discount the last two times that happened you got a 10x within uh a couple years. And that was 2022 and then time before to 2008. Wait for that dip.

You buy it. You go with the fundamentals goes up higher. But what your point is, I agree with that. The point is it's all priced in. We've got 2.3 times GDP. We have a situation now, you don't want to buy stocks. You can make investing in the history. The history proves you're wrong. And I just pointed out how gold was the trade last year, but that trades run its course. Bitcoin was the trade a couple of years before that trades run its course. I just stick with the bias. Stick with treasuries. and pick your spots and pick out stuff that you think is expensive. I pointed at all those.

Haven't been stopped out yet. Maybe I'll get stopped out of Bitcoin with profits. I'm not trading, but I'm just pointed out. And it's a key theme is in baseball. The theme is, you know, good. It always starts with the walk. The big theme here is nothing matters yet until that stock market makes it move. If it's up 10% in here, I'll bet everything you're talking about, like Bitcoin, bond yields,

and it'll probably be up. It's down 10% in the year. Everything will be down. but the thing is that might be the beginning of the next big trade. I mean, the word that you used seven times in that statement was trade. And that's really important because I think as a trade, I understand what you're saying completely. I have certain small differences, but it doesn't matter.

But as trading, tactically, it's fine. If you're a long-term investor and you're not planning on adjusting your portfolio, then I would look at things very differently. And I think that's a large part of where we're at. I mean, I think that the trade of Bitcoin versus the S&P, that's a trade I would want to have on as an investor for a long time, but not any leverage on it because with leverage, you could get stopped out of that thing very easily.

But I think over time it will do very well because there's an embedded option on Bitcoin that doesn't exist on the S&P. That's literally what I think. Does that mean you want to put all your income in that? Of course not. That'd be insane, right? You know, there's lots of ways you could do tactical adjustments, but I just want to keep things.

Like you mentioned USO. USO is an asset that if you can sell it, it's going to underperform oil. There was one point when they were first talking about Bitcoin ETFs, that oil was up 7% over its life and the USO was down 93%. Because of the role risk, it is a horrible asset. So the ability to sell that. Negative, right?

I mean, and if you want to sell that. It's a terrible asset. I agree with you. That's a, it's a great trade. Now, of course, you could lose money in the short run, so you've got to be careful with leverage because who knows. I mean, you know, we keep talking about oil jumping to 150 or 200 based on doing exactly what Trump says he's doing.

But the reason it isn't there is because no one actually believes them. They think it's a negotiating tactic. So who knows what will actually happen? I think that that's an interesting question. You know, like, you know, there are analysts on this platform. or on various platforms making statements that we'll see how fast the market can adjust. How fast can the market adjust if the straits are effectively kept closed for the next month? I don't know the answer to that. I'm curious. Is it true that Saudi's been able to take

seven million barrels a day and move it out to the other side? You know, is it true that the U.S. can ramp up production and people can send their tankers to either the Gulf or New York? Jersey. I mean, I don't know. I don't know the answer. I'm not an oil expert. I mean, you know more about it than me. I mean, these are things that people are actually worrying about because it matters, right? You know, as I said, lots going on. When it comes to the stock market, the interesting question here is, as long as you keep printing money, you know, the stock, and as long as corporations are at record profits. I mean, the percentage of GDP argument is scary, but the fact is what's scary about it isn't the stock market valuation. What's scary about it is the share of GDP that's going

into corporate profits as opposed to wages, causing a case-shaped economy that's going to cause massive political upheaval. And what will the massive political upheaval bring? That's the risk. And that risk is non-trivial. I agree with you. It is non-trivial. And so I don't know what happens as a result of that. I mean, people looking at Hungary, that's not true. The guy who won in Hungary is center-right. I mean, there is no leftists running there. You know, the UK, look at the popularity of Starmer.

They're stuck with them for a bunch for four more years, I think. But, you know, look at his popularity. If there was an election tomorrow, it would be the exact opposite of what happened last time. So we don't know. But there's a real shot at pitchforks and, you know, and torches, right? now, you know, because people feel correctly that that crap's going on. And, you know, before we leave, we have to talk about World Liberty Scott. I was going to say, speaking of pitchforks. Hold on a second. Before we get to World Liberty, I'd share a, um, a, um, we get it. Go ahead.

You see it? Yep. This is, uh, this is from Michael Howells, uh, newsletter this weekend. It's a pretty good observation. This is, this is exactly opposite what you're talking about, Mike. I vehemently disagree. The U.S. has not learned their lesson. They're not going to stop printing. They're still fucking printing right now. They're literally buying treasuries. And yeah, so they're buying short-term T-bills.

It's to raise the bank reserves, you know, buy it to a level where they feel like they're adequate because they need to make sure that the markets, they do not, they have no dysfunction. They want to make sure, that the banks have enough reserves in order to make sure that there's no spike in overnight rates and that there's liquidity is available. And so it's absolutely ridiculous to say that they're not going to print again. They are printing. They're printing right now. They're going to keep

printing. It's not going to stop. The question is, are they going to print a multiple of what they printed last time in order to save the stock market, like you said, or save, or save, the all markets, and particularly the bond markets, if there is some sort of credit issue, credit event. I mean, we've talked about the private debt situation, and I don't know if you guys even talk about that in your morning meeting. It sounds like you haven't touched on that too much, but that's a real risk. Is it a risk a la great financial crisis? I don't believe so. But it does have the possibility of becoming something like long-term capital, where you've got a major player that just implodes

because they have debt on their books that's worth nothing that they're carrying it near par, that would be a problem. Would it cause contagion like the great financial crisis? I don't believe it would, but I think it could be contained, but it will require some sort of bailout for somebody. So that is a risk out there, you know,

and are we going to have another big print? Well, I do think we're going to have one at some point, especially if you think, especially if we do have a sharp downturn in the economy. If we do have a drawdown in the market that causes dysfunction in the credit markets and the treasury market, we're going to have a print. And it's going to be multiples of what it was before. I mean, I'm showing an image here of the money supply, but I mean, year over year, or up 4.8% year-over-year in February.

It's not going to stop. That's the most important thing for our listeners to understand is they must own assets. It doesn't mean that you can't trade around them like you're saying, Mike. But long term, you better own assets or you're going to be left behind. You must own assets. You have to. And that is, I am not going to stop telling people to do that. I'm not going to stop.

You have to own them because it's going to get worse, period. I'm not going to stop telling them to do that, Mike. And you can trade around it if you want, but you better have a core holding of assets. Because if you're not in the market, when they do print, you're going to have a V shape like you had in 2020 and be left behind. That's what people are pissed off about. That's why the pitchforks are going to come out because they feel the case-shaped economy and the wage earners out there are suffering. And so whatever you can do, go out there and get some assets and hold on to them for a very long time. because that what we just showed you, the printing on both sides.

What the, on the, the tweet that you showed, Scott, and what I just showed of the Treasury buying assets, it's not stopping. It's going to continue. It's just a question of how wide open that fire hose is going to be. Yeah, my response real quick, and then I want to move on to World Liberty Financial. Go ahead.

So bring that chart back up. Or you don't have to bring it up. It showed U.S. money supply running $22.6 trillion in, China is 50, double that. Their government spending is 300%. So that's the second largest economy. And their 10-year-old yields 1.8.1%. Okay, let's go to the third largest economy.

Japan. Their 10-year-old yields in a two-handle, and they're running 200% of GDP. Let's go to the fourth largest economy on the planet. Their 10-year-old needle is 3% in Germany. And they're starting to print. My point is, the quote from Benjamin Israel,

we generally anticipate seldom occurs. You're pointing out the last big trade. Okay, Dave, because of the trade, the last big investment. We've had three years of 20% up years in the S&B 500. That's almost unprecedented. It's been wonderful. We've had a massive move in gold. It's been wonderful.

We had a massive move in Bitcoin. It's been wonderful. My point is it's all ending this year, and I'm bold enough to make the risk. The wrong thing to do is to jump back on last trade. It's a lesson you learn sometimes. You want to buy it after one up. And that's why I point out, as Dave says, it's a trade. But when you guys find out a 40 point out, a 44-year high in the price of gold versus a

basket of U.S. Treasuries. For that to keep going, you got to get past one key theme, the next big test. U.S. stock market just dropping 10 percent. Show me the test. Let's see the beat. Let's see how it pans out. We haven't had that for a while. I've been pointing itself for years. Wait, wait. Wait, wait. Wait. Let's go back to that. That quote, you just said that, the U.S. gold versus treasuries. Go back to that. So there's a we have one measure. It's, there's a, I can say, I think it was a day or two after Larry the part, like I got upset with me. I published the facts of, there's an index on the Bloomberg terminal call. It's a Bloomberg treasury index.

It tracks the whole index. It goes back to 1973. Now, I've taken that index for a while. You divide by the price of gold, and gold is the highest versus this index and 44 years. My point is, that's the wrong trade. I just pointed out how expensive gold got last year and early this year. The trade is over. And now it got to 2.3 times GDP.

You are pointing out a wonderful trade to be in. That was the right thing to be in. And I think it's ending this year. I've put levels on it. Prove me wrong. And I have been proven wrong so far as stock market hasn't gone down. Now, if it starts dropping, to me, that's the trade kicking. And it's the post-inflation, deflation, all the lessons of history.

But you're pointing out things that always happen. you get elevated on things like money printing there's always good reasons you have technology and then it stops i'm pointing out the market's been talking and this is what i've been hearing and we can agree to disagree but i want to be very careful pointed out when people say write books about by overweight gold and bitcoin after they potentially peak to multi-year highs and i point out how cheap the treasury market is again it's a key theme is yes i get the big print we all agree on that but we're already at two point three times gdp my point is a lot of that's been priced in it's spend the last big trade.

Before I go on the World Liberty Financial, James, you're saying. So I'll let you respond. You know, we'll get there. Hopefully maybe. Okay, we'll just go around and circle. We can agree to disagree. That, you know, one of the problems is that this has not been forever. You know, it's really, it really took off 50 years ago.

And we're starting to, we're starting to see the effects of it now that, that we, you know, we're not in a spot that we were in that when this. began. It's a completely different world that we live in now. It's not the same. I'm not saying it's different this time. I'm saying it's grown into something that doesn't that you could not recognize in 1975. So could I give you a stat? I just looked it up. Global money supply is up over a hundred times since 1973. So depending on what one thinks the equilibrium price of gold was in 73, because that was post Nixon and it was moving around. Let's just pick the middle of the range and say it was somewhere around $70,

multiplied by 100. That's where it should be. And if you ignore the fact that money supplies up by a factor of 100 on a global basis since 1973, you're looking at charts that aren't normalized and non-normalized charts are problematic. It's something I've said many times. I have made the statement that I think gold's equilibrium price seems to be around $5,000. So let's say it was $50.73, whatever, and that it's trading that way. And in fact, that's why when it started bouncing, dropping down below 45 to 44, I think, you know,

it's going to get back up into that range. And it's going to trade like Bitcoin did because the hop ball of money is going to be range trading it between 4,500 and 5,000 for a while. The notion that gold is, which is basically just a proxy for a percentage of the money supply, is going to fall because stocks fall, because stocks are based, because there's a recession coming that is not factored in to earnings estimates is, I think, wrong. I mean, that correlation will break. It won't break on the first day of a fall. And 10% isn't nearly enough to do it. 30, 40% in the stock market, sure, everything will fall when that happens. And then, just like in the Great Depression, home state mining, gold will outperform and Bitcoin will outperform. That's what I think. I think that in fact, if you're right and we get the right crash, yes, it'll be uncomfortable to be owning things, everything. You're right about that. As it was in March 2020, but then look at April and May.

Right. That's the point. It's the money supply point. Anyway, I think we do have to talk about World Liberty because it is a very big deal. So I'm sorry. I'll give the very, very quick TLDR. Obviously, I think to put it in context, everything is driven by Trump tweets, Trump comments, Trump actions at this point in markets anyways. But, you know, we have this push and pull between the obviously favorable regulatory and legislative environment that people were excited for that came with Trump, which I think you can just argue also was just erasing what was happening in the past. Just getting off of the Gensler and Biden White House and moving on to anything. else was probably a massive positive. But we saw it from the very beginning that you get the two sides of Trump, which is the grift comes with the positives. And we saw it with the launch of the Trump meme coin, obviously, in Melania, the weekend that he was about to be inaugurated. We know that obviously retail has lost a ton of money on those. But World Liberty Financial is interesting because, you know, the Trump's pushed this as they were debanked by J.P. Morgan and the bankers. And therefore,

they're going to help people not get debanked and effectively are debanking the investors and others within this process. And now they've removed themselves entirely from the website. There is no team on the World Liberty Financial website anymore. But the controversy comes from effectively a protocol called Dolomite, which is a lending and borrowing protocol that is run by one of the advisors to World Liberty Financial. And effectively, they've taken billions of World Liberty Financial and used it as collect. on Dolomite, which is a platform for World Liberty Financial. So at the most TLDR level, they printed a whole bunch of money.

Investors are still locked up 80% of their money. There's no roadmap for those 80% to come out. We don't know if those same tokens are being lent or if they're from a separate pool, but they're being lent at a level that brings the collateral of some of these pools over to 93% loan to value, which means that if anyone wants to take any money out, they'll never be able to. Literally impossible to know just how bad that is. by the way, there's a tweet here that shows that if they were to try to sell the World Liberty

Financial position of $391 million, there's only $2.8 million that they could actually extract from that in their largest pool, which is Ethereum. So this is 100% money extraction one way or another unless they pay back the entire thing. But they took World Liberty Financial, which they created, much like FTX. They used it as collateral on their own platform to withdraw $150 million in USDC and USDT and USDA1, and that money went to Coinbase Prime factually. And you have Justin's son, which the irony of them fighting with Justin's son, who got off from the DOJ after investing massively immoral liberty financial, saying that he now was backdoored and it wasn't decentralized and there was a way for them to block him.

And now they're saying they're going to sue Justin's son. I mean, so basically they printed money, used it to get a loan on real money. they got retail to participate in those same pools. Now everybody can't get their money out. They're the way they would be able to. Is that to sum it up? Yeah. This is the, I mean, this is literally the best case for what Paul Atkins and Mike Selegg

are talking about wanting to do and the best case for the wreckage caused by the Warren Gensler administration. So let's be clear. I think Gensler was an evil genius. I think that his plan was to steer people into governance tokens and meme coins, which provide zero value to token holders and zero protection, and say, have at it, boys. And they did. And people walk right in and let grifter's grift. Now, when I say let grifter is drift, understand that almost everybody is self-motivated in these markets. People in markets will try to extract money if they can. And the irony of Justin Sun complaining about this is that, well, two things.

First of all, one would think that he's capable of reading a GitHub repository to know that the exploit was in the smart contract. I mean, this was the point that Lou Kerner made. And I'm not making fun of Lou. Actually, I agree with Lou. Lou is a bright guy on Cryptotown Hall where he said, well, look, you don't need rules because anyone could go into GitHub. It's open source and figure out that there's an exploit. You hear we have the terms and conditions. on anything. That's right. And so my point has been that the obvious answer here is there's a

collection of rules that need to be changed, the accredited investor rule at the SEC, which basically turns retail into exit liquidity in a normal way. And the rule set that effectively allowed for governance tokens that as long as they didn't effectively pass on economic value needs to change. And there needs to be disclosures. You need to know. There needs to be very. basic things. What is a lockup? Who can use it? How is there any preferential access? All of these things matter. The token economics matter. And investors in these tokens didn't know. Now, would that have saved them in this case? I actually think no. People were buying the Trump name. Everybody bought these things because they thought that the president of the United States,

the most powerful man in the world. This counts for Trump, Melania, NFTs, World Liberty Financial, you name it. They believe that his incentive would be, as the most powerful man in the world, to see these assets rise in price that he would pump their bags, they would go up, and they didn't realize that actually he would make all of his money on the fees and using those same people who thought it would go up as exit liquidity. He didn't want it to go up. He knew how much it could make. He made that much. Or not he. It's entirely possible. Trump is like on the phone about these. I think that the team they hired, but listen, they made hundreds of millions of dollars in fees.

on these things without even having to own buy or sell any of it. Right. So no, you're absolutely right. People thought that he would pump their bags and I think he ignored it completely and just let his sons and the team do whatever the hell they wanted. And it's now it's now a black mark and it is a big one because it a lot of people were harmed. Now, do people care? I mean his base if you listen to the contents, they're like, well, whatever, we bought this. We don't care. I personally think that if I lose 90% on my money, I would care.

I did not buy a penny of this stuff, nor would I, because I didn't buy me coins, you know, except for a very small allocation at one point based off of somebody's recommendation that some smoking chicken fish token switcher, you know, I think I lost $300 or something. But, you know, outside of that, I don't play in that space. But it is a big deal here in terms of regulation. The actual, my working theory here is this is such a big deal that I think that the Trump administration is not going to be able to fight certain elements of rational ethics in clarity. And this could actually end up being a very good thing. Without good.

You know, because it's crazy. I mean, you know, it's just, it's insane that you could have tokens that were, quote, legally done. And people lost this amount of money with all of this. being... They only raised from accredited investors, if you remember. I'm actually remembering this now that World Liberty Financial's whole pitch was we're doing this the right way in a compliant environment. That's right. It's a classic example where compliance can be form over substance. In this case, the form doesn't really protect. The substance, what we need, was explicitly stopped. And this should be the strongest single argument for passing a clarity act and letting the SEC and

CFTC modernized rules that one could possibly have. Obviously, that's not going to be the first reaction, but it should be the reaction. I mean, Mike Dave, you know, excuse me, Mike James, any specific thoughts on this? I mean, I find it just, it's so troubling in so many levels. I mean, it's just, and that's, and that is, to Mike's point, is that's what has, that, that is what scares people away from this space, this kind of nonsense. Yeah. To see up Mike, James, I mean, this is a classic example of infinite supply. There you go.

In crypto. Classic. Yeah. Classic. And exactly the point where I find myself as long, it, the ultimate irony is if you, if you separate Bitcoin from crypto and you look at crypto, crypto has infinite supply. Yes. Because crypto, most of non-Bitcoin crypto, most tokens numerically, and I mean by, when I say most, I mean north of 98%, have no reason. to exist other than as a method for founders to raise money.

Right? And so as a result, you know, yes, that doesn't mean there aren't some that have good reasons to exist, but they're drowned out. And so that is, and this was a very classic case of that. I mean, you know, the question, where does yield come from, you know, in World Liberty Financial? Like, where was the yield coming from? I mean, if you read their, if you read their response, where by the way they said to respond to the FUD, which in a very very chat cheap ET. Like you could tell they didn't even have a lawyer read their response, which is insane that like you can just tell

that they just flippantly responded. But they basically had said all the quiet parts out loud that people are so skeptical of. We're doing this on purpose. This is the way that we create outside yields for retail. Trust us, bro. Like we're doing this. This is the whole point. We take the token and we, you know, we are on both sides of it. It allows you to earn a ton of yield. You should be happy.

Thank me. I mean, it's insane. I mean, I want to say Bitcoin dominance. Go ahead, Mike. Dave, I'm real good. Go ahead. The macro to me is Mr. Trump's in his polls, what I heard, I think, are the lowest since when right before Nixon compared to Nixon before he got impeached. So it's a very never-entry.

I'm going to losing their jobs to AI, not the energy crisis. I mean, I see some combination of 9-11 and that big pump in energy prices in 2008 that flipped my switch, that this is going to shut up the consumer, and this is going to be the big one. And all that matters, that's why it's all about the stock market now. So to me, this is part of that macro where it always happens. People get greedy at the wrong times, and there's going to be laws against this kind of stuff in the future. But right now, to me, this is part of that consumer flip that I'm really worried about that. It really triggered me way too early 2007. But when crude oil spike in 2008, that was your sign that just sell everything.

I mean, from a narrative perspective, you know, this is on Bloomberg. I saw it this morning, right, that the World Liberty Financial News was very much cracking into mainstream. And this does have the potential to be yet another, like, quantum confusion, Bitcoin situation that helps keep the price down by people who, don't understand the difference. It does. You know, I like listen, you know, we, we, we, when you have pro-cryptopresident, best crypto president, and then you see this thing on the other side, there's going to be plenty of people who don't bother to do their research on Bitcoin or World Liberty Financial who once again just say, why? You know, why would I touch anything? I don't think those

have long-term consequences, but there's Dave show you as a badge. What's it saying? Well, the reason I'm saying it, Scott, is because I'm at a conference where there's three different panels today talking about the importance of crypto fundamental technology. That is not the importance of crypto tokens. Right. There's one that will talk about crypto tokens a bit. And they'll mention Bitcoin and it's different. They'll understand whether Ethereum is going to do whatever.

Whatever is going to happen. The truth is that the technology and what will actually be happening inside the plumbing of Wall Street is going to change. That convergence is happening 100%. There's no question about it. It is inevitable. That is absolutely not investable from the perspective of token XYZ. You know, it just isn't unless you actually know what the linkage is.

And the problem with a large number of crypto tokens is exactly what James was saying, to bring it right back full circle, which is people thinking they're going to get 100x or 1,000 X's in a week because they time it right. I mean, you could try to do that, I guess. You could do that in penny stocks too. but it rarely works out. The number of penny stocks that have graduated to the national market system is staggeringly low. I haven't seen the exact percentage now, but I mean it is less than 1%, and it's probably less than a hundredth of 1%. Well, these are the new penny stocks. Let's face it. And penny stocks is not a way to invest. It is a way to trade and speculate. And so there is a huge

amount of those, quote, penny stocks that have hundreds or, you know, hundreds of millions to billions, of dollars in value. And Mike's point that that needs to get washed out, I mean, it will get washed out. It's going to take time. The reason that it doesn't get washed out as fast as penny stocks are companies need to file things, right? Cryptos, once they exist, like FTT is still worth $100 million. There's also nobody. I've said this last week. There's nobody left to sell. Right. That's going to be there and be zombies. Just in people's couch cushions. I mean, or they were never even unlocked. I mean, 80% of these World Liberty Financial tokens are still sitting in World Liberty Financial.

Yeah. So, I mean, it is. Investor token. It sounds like I'm agreeing with Mike's thesis because in large part, I am. It's just there. And by differences on a couple of very specific ones. This is, there are clearly reasons why you don't want to give immediate liquidity to a founder to the public with shitty disclosures off a PowerPoint where they raise money because they do an IEO,

want an exchange. I mean, what did Eos raise? Six billion or four billion? I mean, whatever the number. Don't build anything. They block one on a couple hundred thousand. But on the other hand, you don't want to do the opposite. You don't want to make it cost $20 million to IP up. Right. And take, you know, two years. Yeah, but this Scott's point is that the vast majority of cryptos is a big white elephant now. Right. And here's that James, to wrap that in a bow, I mean, what Dave said is, yes, he's going to go sit on a panel and we're going to build the entire new financial system on this. I think the disconnect is all the people who believed in crypto for the last 10 years that were not just Bitcoiners, probably will not benefit from that.

We'll see all their tokens that they're still holding on to for dear life going to zero while the financial system is built on our rails. That's a big problem for people who deeply believed in this and actually bought the tokens. Not all of them, Scott, but numerically the majority for sure, yes. Yeah. Yeah. So that's where everybody's right here. You know? So it's interesting. Once again, there's a lot of nuance of the conversation.

Oh, my God, we got to 10.05. Sorry, gentlemen. We ran over. Dave, Mike, James, thank you guys so much. Another great conversation. Always steers in the direction we don't necessarily expect. I thought we'd be talking about blockades on blockades and triple stamping the double stamp.

And we didn't get there, but I'm sure by next week it'll be irrelevant anyways. Thank you guys. We'll see you next week. Bye, everyone.