The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin's Massive Pump: Will Uptober Push Prices Even Higher? | Macro Monday

Episode Date: October 14, 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  ►►EARN TOKENS FOR INTERACTING WITH MY POSTS ON ROUNDTABLE 👉https://roundtable.rtb.io/shortUrl/HIAzSBY ►► 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.

Bitcoin finally broke back above $65,000 this morning on a nice Sunday evening, Monday morning move. Getting everyone asking the big question, is October finally upon us? When you look at historical trends, usually the big moves in October come in the back half. And last time I checked, we're basically a day before the back half of October. That's going to be one of many topics we're going to discuss today on Macro Monday with the crew, Mike McGlone, James Lavish, and Dave Weisberger. When Bitcoin's moving, the show is always a lot more fun. Let's go. What is up, everybody? I'm Scott Melker, also known as the Wolf of All Streets. Before we get started, please subscribe to the channel.

Hit that like button. Going to bring up the crew. Without further ado, we've got Mike, James, and Dave. Good morning, gentlemen. I hope all is well where you are. like the uasf hat james dyslexic military it's not dyslexic military guys it's a bitcoin thing i did did find though when they always made the uasf hats they were almost always camouflage and therefore kind of implied dyslexic military i get get a lot of funny looks at me going through the airport with this. I'm quite sure.

So as we were talking sort of before the show and I was doing research to get ready, every headline seems to have China right now, Mike. China, China, China, China. Yeah, I appreciate you starting there. I was on a little bit this weekend. Every weekend I update commitment of traders from futures data. And the expectation for more stimulus is kind of what you'd expect. It's not getting what people wanted as far as they're so high as far as putting specifics on it. They didn't put specific numbers on it. And then the latest PPI number came out, minus 2.8%. So China is doing what I think most of us in commodities fully expected. And we've seen this before, those of us who work the Japanese firms. And they're catching up. They're trying to do everything they can to stabilize a deleveraging economy.

And it's clearly in a massive deleveraging stage. It's a question of how long it lasts, where it goes. And you can really see that in commodities. Crude oil, Brent, bumped up against 80. It's all hoping it's going to go up on geopolitical problems, and it can't do it. It can't stay above 80. That, to me, is a sign. Sometimes, as a trader, you've got to put a line in the sand. Just show me divergent strength. Just do that. It can't do that. It's down 15% on the year. Even copper. Copper bumped up the $10,000 a ton. And that's a key commodity that needs to go up if China's reflating other than the stock market. And it's back down to $9,600.

And then I look at all my commodities are starting to deflate with the exception of gold, which is that global macro deflationary trend. I want to show you key thing is gold since the unlimited friendship was declared on February 4th, 2022, which to me is what's all that's happening in China. Now, when you decisively enable a war in your neighbor's backyard, according to NATO, not my quote, you got to expect major deleveraging. So gold's up 50% since that date, February 4th, 2022. The Hang Seng's down about 15%. Crude oil's down about 20%. And then that quote I like to use all the time, what stops that? I don't think anything does. I think the major risk for that type of trajectory, which is global deflationary to continue, is first of all, the inordinate burden. US stock

market has to stay elevated or it accelerates. And I think the best leading indicator for that has been Bitcoin, which has been lagging, but maybe it'll catch up. And I suspect you or other commentators, either Dave or James might have, I never got to smile at Dave on that one. But before the show, James and I were trying to see if we can tee off Dave on something more political, geopolitical or something. Later, later. We got to save that for the back half when the crowd fills in. But I do want to mention, so this is from this Bloomberg article here. China is striving to revive its economy, but a highly anticipated weekend policy briefing failed to specify exactly how much fiscal stimulus the government plans to inject.

Economists are unconvinced that officials are doing enough to defeat deflation and a world beating rally in Chinese equities has begun to fray. But interestingly, then the next one is, hey, Chinese stocks are pumping. Right. So we have we have we have this narrative, obviously, here, if we're going to jump in the Bitcoin direction. We had a narrative, I should say, in the last few weeks that Bitcoin dropped because there was so much Chinese stimulus that people decided to buy Chinese stocks instead of Bitcoin. I'm not saying that's correct. That's the narrative we had here. And now they're saying, well, if that money is not going to go into Chinese stocks, that's good for Bitcoin. It seems like we're grasping at straws here when you start to read these sort of conflicting cognitive dissonance of these

narratives. It's kind of funny. But in reality, Scott, if the vast majority of people who are trading Bitcoin at this point on Wall Street, they treat it as a risk asset, then it would make sense. And so you're watching the US stocks now,-time highs. Everything I was reading about this morning was worries over the multiples on S&P 500 and how the Magnificent Seven, those multiples aren't keeping up with the latest surge. And so the question is, you know, will Chinese stimulus be enough? Probably not because it needs so much, right? And their bubble is quite problematic. But, you know, if Bitcoin is the tip of the risk spear, then we've seen that play out in both directions now, if that really is the case. So, you know, and it's so far it is, but Bitcoin is, is kind of marching to its own tune as well here, because it's been in this trading range for so long for, for what, six months now. Right. So it's 1473. Yeah. So yeah.

But Dave, I know you've got, you're got, you're waiting patiently, which is nice, but. Where are you, Dave? I am in Chesapeake, Maryland. We had a lovely weekend wedding at good friends of ours. Their daughter got married and it was down here at the higher Regency, which is on Chesapeake Bay. It's lovely. Look, I saw over the weekend and i wish i could remember it because i was driving and we had all sorts of problems we got halfway down here or a third of

the way down here and our car broke down the battery died on my acura and modern cars i don't know if you know this but when the battery dies you can't tell what's going on it feels like the alternator the starter all the computer things the lights are flashing it's it's like the u.s government and then but but speaking of governments the new jersey if you break down a new jersey turnpike i learned this you call triple a and they say well i can't send any of our good people you have to have the people that new jersey turnpike authority has authorized and all they can do is tow you to outside the new jersey turnpike so the guy came supposedly to jump the car because we thought it was the battery. He couldn't get the jumper to work. So he towed

us to outside it. By the time, you know, this all happened at six o'clock. By the time we finally got a AAA person to come to the car who was able to jump it, it was like after 1130 or so. And so we ended up driving home to go to our take our other car and uh didn't get home till one in the morning then it drive down yesterday so we've had a hell of a weekend so i didn't get a chance to do a lot of research but i did see something uh a story about long-term holders bitcoin wallets moving uh bitcoin to exchanges over the summer and you know that that trend is continued not huge amounts but enough to be to be much more like about double the amount over the summer that uh miners uh were mining

and i think that if that is true then that is all the explanation you need for where the supply has come from that has kept the price down at the same time we know that new wallets you know bitcoin etf holders other people have been buying it as it's gotten around here. And my thesis, which we all know my thesis, it was that starting today, because for those who weren't keeping track, the Jewish holiday, Shem Kippur, was Saturday, would be as asset managers, it's not like a race. It's not like a, you know, a Formula One race, you wave the flag and everyone races off and it goes. But now, I think we're in a period of time where we will see if asset managers start to allocate for next year towards Bitcoin. I think we will see if things start to go. I think now, if there is such a thing as uptober, and by the way, I don't believe in straight line ups of any sort, anything like that. But if there is such a thing, now is the time that you would see it. Because the real question with any asset, it doesn't matter what the asset is. We talk about all sorts of stuff, but at the end of the day, if there's more supply than there is demand, the price will drop or at least will be capped. If there is more demand than there is supply, the price will go up. And over the summer and for the last basically eight months, there's been more supply than there has been demand.

And that's really the issue. And there could be even more supply coming out with the report of the report of of the government being able to now sell those silk road coins so right well i mean that's a that's a really interesting one because if harris is out actually telling people that you know she's trying to she knows she's getting crushed among males uh young males uh you know if she actually is serious about changing it the very first thing she's going to say if she has if her advisors are as smart as I think they are, I don't think she goes, I'm not sure she could spell, you know, Bitcoin,

but I do know that she understands that if her advisors tell her to read off the teleprompter, we will not sell the Bitcoin from the Silk Road so that your prices don't go down in crypto. She'll read it off the teleprompter. Now, I don't know if she's going to say it or not. I hope she, I hope so. I hope her advisors are smart enough to understand what's going on. No, because that's literally her proposing a Bitcoin strategic reserve. Not selling is adding it to the balance sheet and that is-

She proposed no tax on tips. She's, look, what difference does it make? Politics is all, you know, all's fair, love, war, and politics. I mean, there's nothing stopping them. I mean, proposed no tax on tips she's look what difference does it make politics is all is is is is all you know all's fair love war in politics i mean there's nothing stopping them i mean there's no she reads that off the teleprompter though she has taken all of the wind out of trump's sales i mean which is why it would be smart right that's my point i mean but look this the simple fact is is you could look at what's going on in the polls. And I talked to a bunch of people this weekend and it is the fact is there are consequences. And but we don't know where we are at yet.

I mean, you know, the last week has not been good when, you know, 60 Minutes has a scandal. And by the way, I don't even care about the political implications. What CBS did, taking an interview and editing one response to it is journalistic malpractice. And if I were running the FCC, if there wasn't blood in the streets there, they would lose their broadcast license. It is unbelievably bad when America is being told a news company, remember, according to the charter, news is news. Entertainment is entertainment. We all know the line is blurred, but that's a level that I don't think any broadcast company has ever crossed before where, you know, they fake it. I mean, you know, you fake news, literally.

People, these are the same people, by the way, that talk about misinformation being a problem. So we have a lot going on here. And that is a big deal. And people are pretty, it's amazing the people who are angry about that. Frankly, I mean, it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned, because, you know, the biggest problem I have goes way beyond, I don't give a crap long term about Trump or Kamala Harris or any of these people.

What I care about is the integrity of their institutions. And if we have broadcast journalists who are given all sorts of, you know, airtime and et cetera, and they, we can't trust that what they're putting out on video is accurate, that's a much bigger problem than any of this. So I'm sorry for the diatribe to go after Bitcoin. But look, what you're talking about with fiscal stimulus, remember, both candidates will have massive fiscal stimulus according to economists. Now, I personally think that if you look at, if you're able to deregulate, that it may be less than you think in the case of a Republican win, but maybe not. And certainly if it's a divided thing, if the Democrats win the House and Trump wins the White House and they have to actually negotiate, you're going to get very

little done. And so it's much less if the Republicans win the Senate and the House and Harris wins the White House, then you're not going to get a whole lot done. You're going to continue to have these deficits as far as the eye can see. And we have to remember, when you have almost $2 trillion deficits, that's $2 trillion in fiscal stimulus. That is moving the denominator. And so honestly, you can make an argument that the S&P, while it's bumping up against all-time highs, really isn't. Because if you divide by M2, you divide by the money being pumped in, it really isn't. And that is kind of important when we look at this stuff. Because- Global M2.

Right. Well, that's true too. It's every country, basically. But this is why it's interesting, because I agree with Mike that by all rights, we should have had a massive reset. Right. Post the big, you know, the big expansion. But we haven't because the governments haven't allowed fiscal sanctions have become illegal. Recession governments have made recessions illegal. Let me piggyback on what Dave said. I think that's a good point is to me, my base case, I spent last week at the Greenwich Economic Forum. And in one sense, I'm getting everywhere it goes, patriotism is kicking in. And I think that's part of the people are reflecting, yeah, we have a mutual enemy now. They created themselves to be their enemy. That's somewhat China. But my sense

is what you said, Dave, is I think the base case is that we will have a Democratic first female president and then a Republican legislative branch, which is ideal. It's like ideal. It's not planned. It's not expected to help anything that this new president tries to do, like Clinton tried to do. The member, Newt Gingrich, in the contract America will push against it. So it might be good for this, at least to me, that's a case I think good for the maybe somewhat alleviating this unstoppable deficit spending and maybe tilt over to me. The next big trade, I think, will be U.S. long bonds just falling, what, 2.15 percent in China. But that's my sense. And just I like to point out the facts, too.

Just remember the midterms, every single candidate that President Trump endorsed lost. And now there's a viable option. So my sense is that the population is, and certainly from the Republicans I know, are going to click on her for the candidate, the president, and then click Republican down the rest of the ballot. That's what I think is going to happen. The funny part about that is the polls don't say that.

The polls actually, the polls show, and I was talking to someone yesterday who analyzes poll data um i wouldn't say professionally but you know he spent a lot of time on this stuff and and i was at uh noip and we had both rasmussen and wolf give their analysis the election and the one thing that that struck me that uh actually is is not good as far as i'm concerned, but obviously, you know, it depends how you think is how in like McCormick in Pennsylvania, Moreno in Ohio, Sam Brown in Nevada, Mike Rogers in Michigan are all polling behind Trump in their own states. So your thesis, what you just said in those four absolutely critical is the exact opposite. I want it to be the way you're saying it, but hope and dreams is not a good trading. Either way, it's funny. I think there's a lot of people,

there's a lot of people, obviously, um, maybe myself included, I don't know, but who believe that, uh, mixed house Senate presidency is the best case scenario so that we just have gridlock and nobody can screw up anymore. Well, not this unlimited spending, at least a check on this unlimited spending. I mean, it used to be, and you know, it used to be that both parties were far from monoliths, right? We all know that people made fun of the Republicans for not being monolithic.

They have their quote crazies unquote. And, you know, one talked about space lasers. I'm going to credit her as crazy, but we'll, we'll, we'll push some of the other ones are just, you might say they're principled in terms of what they actually care about. Uh, they're fractious, call it whatever you want. The Democrats on the other hand have resembled, uh, certain Eastern European pre cold war ending parties. And so far as you're not allowed to vote away from the party. And they've been able to whip their, and the word whip, by the way, is not me making it. That's their word for it because they have the house majority and minority whip. Their job literally is to get their party members to vote as one party, as one block. And I think that it's

unfortunate because 30 years ago, 20 years ago, you had blocks within both parties that would often dissent. And so you could end up with bipartisan deals. Now we have parties that strive. Their goal is to vote together. That is not a good thing, by the way, just in case you're curious. But the reason that all this matters is because the question becomes, what could a president do? So you can game theory it out. If Trump takes office and he puts Elon in charge of a Department of Government Efficiency and he has Vivek somewhere in the government to know to implement his plan of cutting bureaucracy, what can they do without the legislature going along with it? Because as much as we've all

cheered Loper Bright versus Raimondo, which for those who don't know, that's the case that eliminated Chevron deference, the executive might not be able to do everything he wants to do in terms of cutting back federal bureaucracy. And so it's going to be very, very interesting to see how that goes, right? I mean, he will certainly be able to change the SEC, which, by the way, last week was one of the most ridiculously, obviously, you know, nail in the coffin of Harris even possibly claiming that she could be pro-crypto a week from the SEC, and it has to be talked about. The fact that they went so far as to sue a market maker is a line, and that not a peep came from Madam Vice President, who is in the administration,

and while she can't stop them from doing it, could certainly have said, I don't think this makes sense. The fact that she didn't, to me, is all you need to know. If you're a single-issue crypto voter, you have no choice anymore. The choice was taken from you last weekend. And let me explain why. Cumberland is, which is the crypto arm of DRW, which is based in Dublin, Ireland, not based here. DRW moved it there in the beginning because they couldn't get, they went to the SEC and they tried to get clarity and couldn't get it. Provides liquidity to institutional investors and only institutional investors it, provides liquidity to institutional investors and only institutional investors. There's no question about this. They don't provide to retail.

And the SEC has accused them of providing liquidity in tokens for investors, institutional investors that might have had US funds blended in with their foreign funds. That's what they accused them of. Now, think about what that means. That means a couple of things. It means first, you know, that the SEC is asserting that these things are securities. Okay, that's not that new, but it's kind of a bridge too far. The second is they're asserting that Cumberland knew that hedge funds, professional investors, when they declared to them that this was non-U.S. funds, that they were U.S. funds. The third thing is, it means the SEC is saying that making markets better is a bad thing. Think about what that is. It's making markets better. Tightening bid-offer spreads

for investors is a bad thing. That is literally what Gensler said here. And so, yes, I'm on a rant. And yes, it's a big deal. But it's a big deal because if you're going to pick on it, you want to go after the Solana Foundation and say they're really a company. Or you want to go after, you know, whatever. Pick your coin. It doesn't matter. Personally, I think it's a bad attack. But at least you can understand they can make an argument on the issuer side. You want to go after Coinbase. At least you can understand they're going after retail, right? I personally think that that case has no merit also. But going after a market maker is a line that I actually, even I can't believe they crossed. Because not only is there no allegation of investor harm in this case,

but there is absolute proof. So we did a study at CoinRouse and we had a perfect way to look at this. In March of last year, when Silicon Valley Bank all went down and all of the banks were pulled and the market makers pulled out of making markets in Bitcoin, US dollar and all the US dollar pairs for a month before they reestablish banks. We watch the spreads quadruple and we watch the volatility go up by an order of magnitude. So we know this is not a question. It is not. You could make it. There's no assertion. It is literally two plus two equals four. You sue market makers. You hurt market quality. you hurt U.S. institutional investors, you hurt all institutional investors globally. That is literally what the SEC did. That is part of this administration and no one in this administration and no one campaigning on the Democratic side that supports this administration. And if you're super conspiracy theorist and you start going after the, why did Google

remove price search from Bitcoin? Right? I mean, there's more stuff like that, but less information. What I hear Dave saying is that Gary Gensler and Kamala Harris sabotaged his car on the New Jersey trip. You know, we go back, though, before this, we were talking about gridlock in in Washington. And, you know, I was reading an article about quotes from Jamie Dimon after blowout earnings on Friday.

And he's he's concerned about he's concerned about the economy is concerned about global economy. And the first two things he listed that remain like several critical issues is what he is what he was saying is large fiscal deficits and infrastructure needs you know and so um it's it's finally the the fiscal deficits as much as little as the politics was that me or is that i know i lost james so i don't know if he froze or what i think james i'm assuming he's going to come back i I'll take him off until I see him moving again. Right now, his face. Oh, he's back. OK, you keep going. We lost your light. I think he lost power. I'll bring him back in a second.

Interestingly, that that is what he's discussing right there is one of the main articles on Bloomberg today, which is that Wall Street banks hit two-year high. So it's interesting that Jamie Dimon would be lamenting the economic situation when bank stocks are actually basically hitting highs, right, Mike? Well, exactly. That's been my base case for a few months now. If we end the month now,

we have the NASDAQ is a record high. Gold's a record high. S&P 500 is a record high. And we all know Bitcoin's still languishing. And it, to me, is the problem. We will get a correction. The S&P 500 at 24% above its 100-week mover average will get there. It'll go back to that 100-week mover average or the moving average it'll go to. It's just a matter of time. It has some normal back and fill. Maybe it's around the election. And that's my point is until we see that type of normal back and fill in beta, I'm very, very skeptical of this underperforming, highly fastest horse in the race.

It's still the trajectory. But the key thing I want to point out, I think what Dave, so to me, that's still the market's view. And certainly from a commodity standpoint, I see nothing but this deflationary trajectory. We have to get through election. But the one thing I want to tilt over to a little bit on the macro is let's look forward to the future of how the future is going to view Mr. Gensler. He's probably done in for the public service. He's got made enemies on both sides of the aisle.

But like a parent and like all people we've known, when you're a parent and you just let your child have an easy route, but if you make it difficult for them and they overcome the obstacles, that to me is where Bitcoin and cryptos are coming from Grant Gensler. In some ways, we should say, thank you for making it difficult. We went over your head and we got these ETFs launched in the US. It took 10 years, but now the whole space is stronger because of having overcome that obstacle. That's one way to look at it as an optimistic, more disciplinary type parent from a son of a US Marine. So I think that is one way to look at it from the future. He's gone. I mean, even if Harris is reelected, he's just not favorable. He's not going to be reappointed

by any type of... So to me, from a commodity standpoint, but from a macro and a standpoint in terms of Bitcoin, I still see this divergent weakness that I'm really afraid of. To me, from a commodity standpoint, but from a macro and a standpoint in terms of Bitcoin, I still see this divergent weakness. I'm really afraid of it. To me, when I published again on this weekend, when I saw what's happening in China, it's Bitcoin gold. That ratio has just been a great indicator for me. I've been watching for a decade, and it keeps showing me it's not good. Bitcoin gold means I'd rather stick with gold. Let's talk about that.

Why is gold up? Treasuries are rising. You know, it looks like we have not even a soft landing, but a no landing. S&Ps are at their all-time highs, right? S&P equities are at their all-time highs. Why would gold be up right now? Like, just think through that for a moment. And, you know, one of the obvious reasons that there's going to be more inflation, that's either you're going to have lots of inflation or you're having a flight to safety to gold because of because of both inflation or what we were talking about before the show.

Scott is the BRICS influence. You know, you've got the reports are coming out that you've got major, major superpowers buying gold secretly in Switzerland. So this is, I mean, this is, it's not because BRICS is trying to form some sort of currency that is outside of the US that they're all going to now have as their base currency to do energy and international trade. It's because they just don't want to use the U.S. dollar. They don't want to hold the treasury. Why? Again, they know that the expansion of the monetary supply in the U.S. is going to be gargantuan

because of our fiscal deficits and because of the situation that we're in with our debt. And so I can't get to any other answer. And I would love, Mike, if you have a different answer for me on that, please. Slightly, yeah. I was just going to say, just in between, I was going to ask James. James, you're asking Mike.

But I mean, isn't there also an element of just less reliance on the dollar that has nothing to do with necessarily fearing that it's going to implode? Yeah, no. They don't want to hold it because of two things. It can be seized, which we demonstrated when we seized Russian assets, right? And the second thing is because there's risk with holding something that's devaluing every single day. So the great – well, that's a good point. The great reset is happening in China. That is why we're seeing this massive fiscal monetary stimulus.

They're just trying to catch up to what is just a normal, way overdue depression and deleveraging and rapidly advancing emerging market. Of course, they're some of the biggest buyers of gold on the planet. And ETF buyers in the US have just started getting started. But to me, it's more the deflationary event that's very normal, historically reciprocal to the inflation we got on the back of the massive money pumping. Now, you keep saying we're going to back of the massive money pumping. Now, you keep saying we're going to have more and more money pumping. I give you a scenario where we might get a pretty good check and balance, but we won't. I think it's where this election is going to go. So sure, if we get, I think the worst case is for money pumping, if we get a sweep, a Republican sweep, and it's just drill at will and spend at will, yeah, that's, okay, deflation for crude oil, but inflation for the deficit.

But the key thing is, remember, is it's already priced in. If you look at the average of the top five countries in the world, China, Japan, Germany, India, and the UK, the average of their 10-year yields right now is about 100 basic points below the US. Before the great financial crisis, it was the opposite. We've already priced in that a lot on a global basis. If you look at the bond market on a global scale, where are you going to put your money? There's no other even close option to get anywhere near the return. And then we also learned this lesson. We have debt to GDP in countries like China and Japan, if you can measure them properly in China. Many, many excesses of what you're seeing in the US. Sure, I mean, it's a problem, but it's just the thing I've heard since I've been in this business is, oh, when you expect yields to go up because of this bad fiscal spending problem, sure. It's just not usually how it works.

Take it one more step, Mike. And that is, what happens when AI does have major breakthroughs in the next five to seven years? We're going to have an incredibly deflationary event. And so what do they have to do to battle that? Print more money. Buy bonds. Print more money. Print more money. Buy bonds. Print more money. They have to print more money to get GDP up in nominal terms. There's no way around it.

I think we get to a different answer. If you get to a different answer on an AI revolution, let's pretend that there is one because I... It's already in place. It's already happening. It's already happening. why is monetary money supply why is the why is the global money supply expanding already we

haven't even had a recession it's it's expanding across the world why because you're not allowed to have a no land you're not allowed to have a landing. We cannot land. So that's the point is unless history and human nature have changed, we will get a landing. We will get no more version of risk assets. AI is an event that we have not priced into the markets ever before. Well, I think that it's really important to understand a couple of things here. First of all, this notion that things are deflationary inflationary, we're using one term to describe two things, and you really need to split them. You have consumer prices and you have asset prices. They are absolutely different. And the federal government in the United States

and the government in every country wants asset inflation and wants no consumer inflation. Right. We're not allowed to go too long on this one because we do it every week. But the point here is the denominator for assets. We do this one every week. No, it's true. But we keep saying it. And so I will keep saying it.

So, look, that is what's happening. They're trying to get that under control. Now, what's fascinating about the last couple of weeks, though, is the 10-year in the United States is now what? 410. It's at 410. It's 30 basis points higher than when they cut. A lot. 30 basis points higher after a 50 basis point cut.

The yield curve is funky. I mean, the 1 to 10 is flat. The 2 to 10 is inverted. Everyone is anticipating what is about 80 basis points the bond market is saying between now and out to two years or out to a year. Even after the blowout jobs numbers, we know that there was a lot of, yeah, we know, we talked about already, but. So one has to ask themselves the question, what's the bond market sniffing out here? What the bond market is sniffing out here is asset inflation and continued re-leveraging or maintaining leverage. And there's skepticism about the US and any government ability to do anything about these deficits. That's what seems to be going on. And that matters. And so when you look at this and you talk about deflation, I mean, deflation can only

can't happen when we have rampant monetary inflation. You can have consumer deflation. AI is consumer deflationary. You can have oil deflation, as you just mentioned, Mike, because we drill so much, we create an oversupply. You can have every industrial commodity deflation as there's less demand for real goods and more cheaper ability to extract such things from the earth. And that's true. But if you're still creating more money, it has to go someplace. And I know I take the Milton Friedman approach,

but I think what we're seeing is something much bigger. I think we are in the very, very early stages of the end of the fiat experiment. Now, the fiat experiment is only 70-some odd years old. Just keep that in mind. Most of the recessions and business cycles apart from the 70s and the crash of 87 that you're talking about are in the fiat world. Governments have learned how to adjust the fiat world. And so they're doing that. Now, will they lose control? Well, they could, but Powell learned that lesson. That's why he cranked interest rates as fast as you say, the fastest rise in interest rates in history in terms of in percentage terms. Why? Because he didn't want a repeat of the 70s. And so, you know, that's the thing that people have

to understand. When you go back in history, hundreds of years, most of it, we had hard currency and there was discipline. We don't have we have not had that since 1971. We have neither currency or discipline. You could have you could have currency that could be deflationary or it could could be debased um if you had some discipline there's no discipline across the entire world so that's that's the issue with fiat currency a balanced budget with inflation but you i mean but it allows the incentives to get out of out of alignment and that's the issue right there well and it's bipartisan let's understand that i mean. I mean, when Volcker did what he did, the debt to GDP was in the 30s percent as opposed to the 130s percent range. That's a big difference.

Bill Clinton was the last president to have a balanced budget. You cannot do what Volcker did today. If you raise interest rates into the high teens, good luck. I mean, that's it. It's over. They would destroy the US dollar. That's right. It would destroy a lot of things. And they know that. But that's the point. The point is that we have, and we haven't even talked about entitlements, which neither party seems willing to address. And so when you put in- To be honest, though, they need to be addressed, but with the runaway fiscal spending and the interest on the debt, they become almost drops in the bucket. I mean, cutting a $200 or $300 billion even from an entitlement when you're

paying a trillion to $2 trillion in interest payments becomes almost ineffective. I mean, James talks about that debt spiral all the time. We've almost made it, so cutting doesn't even help because we have so much interest on our debt. You can't get there. You can't even get there right now because of the interest payments. No matter how high taxes go or no matter how much you cut now, you can't get there. You can't get there because of the mandatory expenses are over our budget. So I want to circle a little bit back to Bitcoin into this article. So this was obviously the article we were talking about with China impacting the price of Bitcoin,

them effectively saying the money will flow into Bitcoin rather than into Chinese stocks. I think we all think that's slightly dubious. But the article also lays out a few other sort of important nuances, one being that the U.S. presidential race may be providing another prop for digital assets. We know right now both on PolyMarket, which is crypto native, Trump is at 54%. Even on Kalshi, which is not crypto native and is actually US, he's at about 53%. So we can't just say it's crypto degens outside of the country that are making these bets. And of course, we're seeing crypto generally rise when there's a bigger chance of Trump. So that's one thing I just want to lay

out there that's been the case. Also, the Mt. Gox, the payouts have been pushed back an entire year. So for anyone who was worried, once again, about huge supply coming on the market, that's not happening until October 2025. But I want to take this so we know, and we've talked it to death, there's a lot of tailwinds for Bitcoin. But I actually want to do something different today to take the opportunity to talk about microstrategy. I wrote a very, very long newsletter explaining sort of the infinite money glitch that Michael Saylor has somewhat created here. And I wanted to better understand myself, what he's doing, how he's using these debt instruments and how this can basically

infinitely grow, as he says, to sort of a trillion dollar company and a Bitcoin bank. But it's a perfect time to talk about it because, A, if you look at MicroStrategy's chart, it's made a new all-time high. This is where MicroStrategy bought Bitcoin, by the way. Equivalent. It hadn't split yet, but we're talking about a $12 stock at the time that's now $220 gapping up and people not understanding that you can't short this thing. They just think that because of the premium and the value of MicroStrategy to the underlying Bitcoin, you can short it. James, maybe I'll let you run with this because you sat with Michael Saylor at a wedding this weekend and talked about this exact thing.

Yeah. So I mean, the reality is MicroStrategy has figured out a glitch in the system because of the underlying value of a super volatile asset. You have high volatility asset in Bitcoin that's rising. And so he's figured out and Greg Foss actually had a great tweet on it. And I just dropped in the chat. And but the reality is that he's figured out something here with the convertible bond market. And so convertible bond traders will buy these converts at a super, super, super low interest rate. And that allows Michael to float these convertible bonds at very, very cheap cost. And they're based in fiat currency okay so he's arbitraging the two basically is what is what greg is saying here and then and he's right they're exploiting arbitrage

between bitcoin volatility and equity volatility so when when you're when and here greg goes on to say essentially print print debasing fiat by issuing convert debt, convertible bonds at a vol enhanced equity premium. So that means that the traders will buy these converts at a cost all in between the conversion price and just the interest rate on that debt annually and buy a pristine, scarce asset with it, which is Bitcoin, and he'll just hold it. And so what happens is because Bitcoin is so volatile, the underlying asset that's driving microstrategy is so volatile, and that volatility is not driven by illiquidity. Typically, in convertible arbitrage,

you know, you've got an underlying asset that's volatile because of illiquidity and that's not, and then, then that, that makes that convert a little bit more expensive because it's illiquid. And, and, and so bond traders can kink it in and out of it as, as well, because they have to be, they have to be hedging it, right? So you own a convert, can be converted into equity, and they hedge it. It's called delta hedging. And that delta changes along with the volatility, super confusing stuff for normal people. But the bottom line is he can keep doing this. And as Bitcoin rises, he can just keep doing it forever and literally just keep printing money. And so he's found a glitch here and people are not, and they're saying, oh, he keep printing money. And so he's found a glitch here.

And people are not, and they're saying, oh, you can only- He's printing money. He's printing his own money. I think it's important to understand history and to understand what Greg is actually saying. And both are really illustrative. So history.

The last company that did this was Amazon. Amazon built out their distribution centers, not by raising money in an IPO, not by doing secondary sales, but by selling at the time what was an enormous amount. It's kind of quaint how well we've done with money. But $2 billion of convertible notes because Amazon was an internet stock. And he said, and his stock was very volatile. And so he said, okay, I'll sell it at 20 or 30% higher. If it gets called away, great. If not, not. And I get to pay virtually nothing in interest payments to be able to build out my entire distribution network. So he monetized volatility. Now I said this earlier this summer, but Greg is now saying it. So let's repeat what I said. What I made the point was one of the drivers of Bitcoin in the fall is going to be the fact that the fiscal years of the rest of most of the world will all be rolling over starting in October and then different companies have different fiscal years. And starting from the next fiscal year, from this past January, FASB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, says you can

account for Bitcoin on a mark-to-market basis, meaning that if companies want to put Bitcoin in their balance sheet, they can without risking their financial statements looking like dog doo-doo. MicroStrategy, Saylor basically said F that, and he did it in advance, and he's been brilliant for it. So understand that what Greg said in his tweet, because I think it's absolutely right, is if you are a CFO, everyone who has volatility in the underlying stock or even cash on the balance sheet potentially should be looking at putting Bitcoin in. And we live in a copycat world. I don't care if it's professional sports or investing. It doesn't matter.

People who win get copied. MicroStrategy winning is going to inspire copycats. And that becomes another part of the flywheel that's important. Why don't we think that's happened yet, Dave? Because we've been talking. Yeah, I understand the accounting rule, but that's been a while now. And we started talking about this and giving conferences to CFOs in 2021. Right.

But they couldn't. But until your fiscal year cleared, you couldn't do it. And that literally started this month. So we'll see what's happening. We don't know what the sources of demand have been. Another company that did it, David, you'll remember, is Qualcomm. They did the exact same thing. We were buying those converts. They were just issuing one another, another, another. It

was incredible how many they were issuing back in the 90s. And it's the same thing. It's a good playbook. So now there's another point that people need to understand is that a lot of people from an investor point of view, if you look at, so flip it on its head compared to other companies. From an investor point of view, why are people buying MicroStrategy? Well, if an individual was allowed to buy Rentech or the Medallion Fund, they would have done so. Now, the Medallion Fund returned, what, 30% a year for decades? Well, why? Well, it's a leveraged play and it's a closed amount of assets that they can trade at. So investors are looking at MicroStrategy and saying, well, wait a minute, I could buy Bitcoin, but I would like to lever up with it.

And these guys doing it already and he's doing it professionally. He has the inside track. Why don't I give my money to him? Because if Bitcoin goes from $60,000 to $200,000, I'll triple my money a little bit more if I buy Bitcoin. But if I buy MicroStrategy, I might 5X or 6X my money. Yeah, because it's trading at 2.5, 2.7 times the underlying value of Bitcoin right now on an EV basis, which is, and that's only going to go higher. It's not just an NAV.

You say that's only going to go higher, James, but your average person, well, not your average, but a lot of people on Wall Street would say, short the shit out of this thing. Like, it's not trading at such a mega premium to the underlying asset. Why don't I short it and Bitcoin comes up and we meet in the middle and I make a whole ton of money. Can I just? Yeah, go ahead, Mike. I just want to interact some value.

Remember, we all were all over the grayscale Bitcoin trust, because if you're bullish Bitcoin, you might as well buy something that's going to narrow. Now, MSTR, Micro Strategies, I've looked at it since 2020 when he really got into it. It's traded a decent premium versus Bitcoin. Now it's an all-time high. So if you're a rational investor and you want less leverage, okay, sure. But you're buying it at the most expensive versus Bitcoin in its history. I mean, it's been popping up. And obviously, it's.003 now. It was before he did that stock split. But now it's like, okay, if you want to get long Bitcoin, this is, yeah, you can do leverage, but you're buying something that's

rocket fuel, super expensive. Might as well buy the actual Bitcoin now. It's at a super premium. When you're trading, Mike, you could buy Bitcoin, you could buy the leveraged Bitcoin ETFs, which are 2X, right? Or you could buy this, or you could use leverage on Bitcoin futures. But you're trading that cost, that rolling cost to do that for execution risk on MicroStrategyPoint. That's what you're trading for. You're trading for trust that Michael is going to keep playing and keep on this playbook and that he's going to keep printing fiat himself and buying Bitcoin with it. And that's the execution risk and trusting the manager. Or you're going to pay that rollover premium for the leveraged futures or leveraged ETFs.

That's what you're doing as an institutional investor. And I know there are hedge funds out there doing exactly what you just said. And this weekend, they got their faces ripped off because there was a massive gamma wall at $182.50. And they just went right through it. Right. But the problem is, and we've seen it in the past, if you don't understand this infinite money glitch or what he's doing, like I said, you look at this and you say, I should be long Bitcoin and I should be short MicroStrategy, right?

If you want to play some sort of a trade. But what happens, it actually negatively impacts the price of Bitcoin and did massively in the past when there was an unwind of multiple billion dollars of hedge funds doing this trade is when microstrategy rips to the upside and rips your face off and melts up because those shorts are getting squeezed. People have to sell the underlying Bitcoin. Exactly. Bitcoin actually goes down. So it hurts Bitcoin when that happens. It does a little bit. Getting wise to it now. But that that's the trade that was happening.

And that's the trade that you're like lizard brain, college graduate, first year hedge fund analyst is going to think you need to take right now. And it's not even his first. Scott, I'll be honest. In my hedge fund, in the Bitcoin Opportunity Fund, we looked at this and we ultimately decided that that's the wrong way to look at this. We had to, you have to look at a different lens. You cannot look at this as a typical lens. You can't, you, you just can't look at it that way. And we ultimately just bought MicroStrategy and it has worked out. Mike, you know, one of us will be right at some point here, but you know, I've talked with Michael and his, and his treasurer quite a bit and it, you know, I've talked with Michael and his treasurer quite a bit.

And, you know, and Cherish came up with this strategy with them. And I understand what they're doing. And I trust that they're going to keep doing it. So my point is, since you did that, that was an awesome trade. Would you double down and overweight it? Or would you be a prudent investor and say, thank you, that was an awesome trade. I'll lighten up a little bit and get back to my core. No, I'm holding exactly what I have right now, because I think that there are other tailwinds with it. There are a few tailwinds. Number one,

I'm very bullish on Bitcoin price over the next 18 months. That's a huge tailwind. Number two, I'm very bullish that as that happens, MicroStrategy is going to be added to the Russell 3000, maybe the NASDAQ 100. And that is just massive tailwind for all of these institutions that just own these ETFs. They just have to buy it. They don't have a choice. It has to be added to them. It could be another catalyst for this. And then the third thing is what Dave is saying is that the gap accounting is it just changes the fundamental valuation that institutional investors look at microstrategy on. It's a complete switchover fundamentally. So really, yeah, you run with this, but it's incredible to see what this can do for Bitcoin or for microstrategy as a single company.

It's sort of the same game theory we've talked about with if the United States adds Bitcoin to the balance sheet imagine every other company having to do it if we get two or three more companies that start to do this they're literally all just demand there's no supply there it's all demand yeah it's it really is the the the moment that bitcoin moves from an option to an asset and that's what we're describing here right as an asset bitcoin needs to be somewhere around the market cap of at least half the market cap of gold and probably three quarters of it to get there. This is the way it gets there sooner rather than later. I always thought that it would probably be one or two cycles more.

This is how it gets there in this cycle, possibly. Am I saying it's going to happen? Obviously, no. But I do want to point out one thing on MicroStrategy that's fascinating. First of all, there were lots of people that were doing the grayscale arm when it went to a premium to the extent that they could sell it, right? And we all know what happened. The thing is, markets do really crazy things. If you have demand from people who want to buy leveraged Bitcoin in a retirement fund,

that is, MicroStrategy is literally the only way to do it right now. In an active fund, you can, with options when they start trading, which will be soon, people will be able to try manufacturing it. The problem is using options to just get pure delta leverage is extremely expensive. And the only one who makes people who make money there are the market makers in general. So that won't work as well. The fact is, if you want a fund that is professionally managed, that is going to give you leverage to Bitcoin, that's where MicroStrategy's demand comes from. And you only have to buy 50% of it. You only have to buy 50% of it if you want a regular allocation.

If you want a 2% allocation, you buy 1% of it. And then you have your 2% allocation. Take that other 1% and dump it into 5% yielding treasuries. And just- The play devil's advocate, the GBTC trade that you're talking about when it was trading at a 40, 50% premium was effectively the widow maker for the entire crypto market when that unwound a much discount. What's different this time, though, is that you can unwind your MicroStrategy in real time and you don't need to wait six months for your GBTC to unlock if you're the institution. Grayscale was not levered. It also was not leveraged. Grayscale had nothing more than access. This is different. Now, I personally, I'm somebody in between Jim and James and Mike. I personally think there are times when MicroStrategy is at a premium that is too rich and you're going to want to, I don't know about short it, but lighten up your allocation to that vis-a-vis physical Bitcoin and vice versa.

And you can play the trade and there are traders that do it. But making a balls-ass bet that says, I'm going to stick a line in the sand saying, this is the premium. It won't go higher then. Well, the premium could triple and then you get your face ripped off and your returns are dead. And if you're a hedge fund, you can't afford that. So what ends up happening is people make the bet on the, okay, not trade around my position like you, James, but someone says, okay, I'm going to actively short MicroStrategy because this is absurd. It doubles. They lose all their money. They get stopped out of their trade and it continues. And then it will gently get back to where they probably should be in terms of premium. But we see those, when you talk about gamma walls,

just for the audience, what James is talking about is literally what I'm saying. There is a point at which there's just so much short interest and they just can't take the pain anymore. And so they buy it back. Right. And when they buy it back, the price of MicroStrategy will outperform Bitcoin during that period of time significantly. But Bitcoin should go down if they're playing the other side of that trade. Yeah, maybe. It depends on how much of it is there. There's still more of a bigger supply of Bitcoin than there is of MicroStrategy. But yes, but the point here is, I agree with Mike that there is absolutely a point where MicroStrategy can outperform Bitcoin. And I agree with James that over the long term, it's going to track to

whatever his financial targets are, 2.5 or whatever. But if it's trying to outperform by 4x, it's like, okay, it got ahead of itself. The problem is traders aren't disciplined, and a lot of traders get stopped out. That's all I'm saying. Yeah, and it all comes down to the risk reward analysis of what you hold. And my risk reward analysis on Bitcoin is that you're being paid to own it here long-term.

And so it all comes down to like, how long is your visibility? Like what's your duration of your trade? Mine's a long-term investment. So I'm good with holding it on long-term investment here because i don't care if micro strategy goes down more than bitcoin does on a on you know a drawdown here because the risk reward is better to the upside in my opinion right yeah and and the market obviously right now you know it's it's i get, I get nervous. If I stop hearing people that agree with Mike, that's when I get really nervous. I don't want to be the majority opinion. Of course. But my base case would be I told people circle today on their calendars. Actually, I said to circle Sunday on their calendars, you know, weeks ago.

And obviously we're seeing it today. And that makes me nervous because I really wasn't thinking it would be a get off to the races kind of movement. But, you know, hey, it is what it is. My base case is we're going to float towards the top of the range at 70. It's going to have a hard time getting through it. We're going to see some reversals and ultimately we'll go through it. That's what I've thought. I thought it was baked in the cake. I don't think it changes anything as far as gold is concerned. I want gold to keep going higher because I agree with Mike. I think it's signaling something. And I think that Bitcoin has something

in addition to what's going on with gold. It has what's going on with gold is true. But in addition, it has to do with its growing acceptance. And so those are the two things. And, you know, you could look at it however you want to look at it. The fact is, is every single macro wind in the world is printing money. And therefore, in fixed terms, the denominator being dollars, there's more dollars. The price of everything has to go up just to stay the same. And that becomes an interesting part of all this. And we look at this election and, you know, look,

I don't think the election, I honestly, other than the Bitcoin strategic reserve question, I don't think this election means a damn thing for Bitcoin because I think both candidates are going to print. I think that the difference is I think people are underestimating how much Kamala will print and overestimating how much people think Trump will print because Trump's going to try to, you know, Elon Musk was able to cut 70% or 80% of Twitter's workforce. It's going to take a long time. But if you think that there isn't fat in most government budgets right now, then you're not paying attention to what's going on. But that said, that's a long-term effect for a year.

The first year of that administration is likely to print significantly. As much as we're doing now, it's not going to make a big difference. And I think that under a Democratic administration, I think that we're going to see that money printing. So I don't see the driver. I don't see any reason for gold to correct. I think gold will continue to burble higher. And I think the same thing about Bitcoin. Our difference is on the rest of crypto. And the 10 year yield, you know, that curve is going to continue. Yeah, exactly.

What's interesting, though, is there's a bit of conflict in what Dave just described, because if that's your core belief, then outside of the regulatory environment or the legislative environment, crypto should absolutely freaking fly if your base case is that they're going to print more than they are now, since we know that crypto is largely correlated to M2 supply. And actually, you could make an argument, which I would not, by the way, because I think that the actual fundamental policies matter. But you can make an argument that if they actually start to cut and print less and become more efficient, that Bitcoin and crypto wouldn't do as well. I'm not making that argument for the record. Let's be really clear about this. Bitcoin and potentially ether are different than the rest of crypto in a world where where bitcoin held in etfs and by banks like bank of new york custody is legal and and allowed which is what the harris administration's world bitcoin could go higher it has the license to go

higher it is the license to get to gold's price if it starts going beyond gold's's price, then at that point, they're going to be concerned about it. Just like, you know, there's always been this question. And look, it goes back to Greenspan. I mean, every Fed chairman and Powell included has been asked that what price of gold do you start to be concerned? And the answer is not here. Probably double this price. So Bitcoin, which is one tenth, one twelfth of gold, they don't care. So it doesn't matter. So Bitcoin kind of has the blessing. But honestly, in a Harris administration,

the likelihood is you'll have no self-custody and you will have pushing towards if it was a Democrat sweep in the midterms next time, you would get to, because the Republicans won't have nearly as favorable of a Senate map in the two years from now. You could end up towards a CBDC and you could end up with things that are very, very different. But all of that is not bad for Bitcoin as an asset. But it's terrible for crypto as an innovation system. It's terrible for deep hit. It's terrible for crypto gaming. And it's bad for shit coin number 2400.

Correct. And so I want to be really clear what I'm saying when I talk about Bitcoin being, I don't see the election being a big deal for Bitcoin. I think the election is a very big deal for U.S. innovation, for U.S people to create coins that have no economic value. Under a Trump administration, you would be allowed to create economic value. Yeah, because he's doing it. That's going to cause some very interesting cross currents. Yeah. I think the sale starts today for world liberty and financial. It's literally absurd.

I wish to God he wasn't doing it. I hate it for so many reasons. But you know he's not going to make it illegal. That's all I'm saying. That's the point. So look, you know, there's a lot on the table, but Bitcoin price is not. That's the point. Sorry. Go ahead, James. No, I think it's Mike's turn. It's Mike's turn. We grab the microphone from him. Yeah, I know we're up to time, but I want to ask Mike a question. And it's not to put you on the

spot, but our narrative that I think you've been accurate about is that Bitcoin has been trailing. Right. Dave and I, I think, would make the argument that it's in a predictable trading range after the halving in the cycle. But factually, if that does not end up being the case, it has obviously not been making you all time highs as stocks do. The other thing we know, though, about Bitcoin is that it's 10 days a year that this thing just melts faces. If for some reason we get this October narrative, we're at 65.3, and we just get one of those $10,000 a day candles right back to all-time high, does that change the premise there for meeting risk down? It would shift it. Right now, I think the key problem with almost all risk assets, particularly copper, crude and Bitcoin, is the U.S. stock market has to keep going up.

It's not that complicated. Even although a commodity index, I've been saying it for a couple of years, an inordinate burden, the U.S. stock market has to keep going up and it's pretty expensive. So I'd love to buy into it. I'd love to agree with it. But to me, Bitcoin is much more of a risk asset, three times the value of gold and beta. And let's prove it. And it hasn't. And yeah, it's catching up. It's great. But that's the bottom line. I still stick with gold and even bond yields. I think the only reason bond yields will stay high or strong is if the US stock market keeps going up. And we all know that's just at some point that doesn't last. Yeah, that makes3 damn i wish this show was four hours long sometimes to be honest and there was a i'm just going to put it up on the screen it's in my newsletter but

to wrap the micro strategy conversation there was an incredible this is from jeff at uh bitwise i guess you guys can look it up he's dgt but basically explaining this phenomenon but the end the tldr was this is the structural bid of the MSTR complex you're up against. It's not price. It's not value. It's not rational. It's the investment management industry benchmarks. It's emotional. So explaining basically how this can happen and you can be confounded as to why it makes any sense. But when you read the thread, it explains exactly the thinking that we were talking about. Guys, that was an awesome show. I'm really glad that we dove into MicroStrategy for a long time there. I think it's really, really interesting. Obviously, it relates directly to what's

happening with Bitcoin, but also gave us something, I think, fresh to talk about. James, I don't know if you can share, but right before we go, though, I did say you were sitting at dinner with him and obviously Natalie and Sam's wedding. I mean, what was his reaction to sort of seeing this? Was it a chuckle? Was it how dare you short me? I mean, I know you talked about it. Well, I don't want to divulge private conversations, but he was not upset that shorts were getting hurt.

Yeah. I would imagine that there's a level of satisfaction that we all take. So it's got to be personal for him. I mean, we all love seeing him win, right? Because it's just an absolutely incredible phenomenon. I hope it continues.

All right, guys, that's all we got for you today. Oh man. And Dave, you were even sending me stuff in the private chat. We have topics for next week. That's all we got.

We'll be back. Of course, next Monday, 9 a.m. Eastern standard Time. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Dave, James, Mike, and all of you listening. Amazing conversation. Bye.