The Wolf Of All Streets - Bitcoin’s Next BIG Move Could Be Decided In The Next 48 Hours

Episode Date: September 14, 2026

Bitcoin is holding near $78K even as AI fears hit global stocks, while markets now price an 85% chance of a Fed rate hike this week. We also cover Trump backing new crypto ethics rules ahead of the Clarity Act vote, growing calls to slow the AI race, copper’s long-term supply squeeze, and Revolut exposing sensitive customer data after falling for a fake government request. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming, Ontario. Bitcoin's next big move could be decided. in the next 48 hours, of course, that refers to the Clarity Act, but I'm just hoping that humanity survives another 48 hours with the rapid advancement in AI. We're going to talk about that today. We've got, I think, a first for Macro Monday. We, of course, have Mike and Dave, but we have a panel of five because we have Jim Bianco and Jordy Visser, both joining.

Can't wait to get into this one today. Let's go. Good morning, everybody, and happy Monday. Since we've got five of us, we're going to dive right into it. We've got Jordy, Jim, Mike, and Dave. I didn't even know how the layout would look, to be honest. It's cool. Mike, you did not have a morning meeting today because you're on a spaceship, dressed up nicely.

But you went on TV to talk about diesel. And diesel is a topic that we had pinned for today anyway. So tell us what you said. Well, we did have a meeting yet, but I missed it because of that. but I pointed out that now the fact is the U.S. is the world's largest exporter of diesel, around approaching two million barrels a day, obviously because of what's happening. There's an election in a few months, and right now we're in the absolute worst case for the party in power. Stock's going down and energy prices searching.

What are they going to do about it? Now, we saw Mr. Trump's desperation with that $5,000 pledge at that convention last week. So I wouldn't underestimate they might try some kind of export ban. I don't know or maybe do something, but they're getting very desperate. And that was the main thing I focus on. The key thing I want to point out for the history of this is we're seeing this fact of, I saw people, someone calls California, the People's Republic of California. They've been cutting out their refineries, and their diesel prices bumped up to $9.99.

The only reason is because the screens can't go to $10. They can't go to four digits. That reminds me in 1979. Jim, you might remember this. I was pumping gas in the south side Chicago and the first time the price of gasoline went above a gallon, but it had a price of half gallons. And Iran was in the headline then and now. So it's a little bit of circle around.

But the main thing I keep pointed out is this is usually its own worst enemy. I compare diesel at six to the first time the price of unleaded gas pumped above four in 2008. And that's the number one thing that's missing so far this year is the stock market going up. It hasn't gone down. It's volatility season. And we have things like S&B 500 running at multi-decade lows in terms of banning volatility versus gold, silver, and crude oil. Back to you.

Very hard for me to start a show without knowing what Ira, Jersey and Anna Wong have to say, Mike, really. Me too. They're looking for a hike. I'm sure Jim will expand. There we are. Okay, so Jim, I want to just talk about diesel because Mike obviously mentioned Iran, but that's not what you mentioned.

You mentioned the, as you said, it's the war, but the other war. Russia, Ukraine, the fact that we have and other war speaks volumes about the state of the world. But yeah, maybe give us your framing. here. Yeah, the problem with, let me back up and I'm going to channel my inner Jeff Curry here and say that nobody uses crude oil. We use distillates. We use the products of crude oil. The only consumer of crude oil is a refinery. And right now we have a problem with the shortage in refined products. It starts in Russia. Ukraine has been trying to bring the war to Russia. Russia has

has 39 refineries. They have now attacked 34 of those refineries, two more over the weekend. 60% of their refining capacity is offline. If you see a Russian petrol station right now, it looks like the gas stations in the U.S. in the 1970s with big long gas lines. Russia has stopped exporting diesel to Europe. And the price of gas oil, the base for diesel, is up 120% in the last six months. So Europe is looking anywhere they can to find diesel. And as Mike mentioned, we're exporting two million barrels a day of diesel right now. And so that's why diesel prices are going through the roof.

It starts with Ukraine destroying Russian capacity to export to Europe and then them pulling it from us. And all the prices are going higher right now. One last thing, Mike mentioned about the midterm. Well, the Trump administration, about two or three months ago, leaned on the refiners to produce more gasoline because we want to keep the price of gasoline down before the election. Well, that's fine. But if you're going to produce more of something, you have to produce less to something else. And they've been producing less of diesel.

And that's been exacerbating the problem with diesel as well. Anybody else thoughts on diesel before we move on to the next one? Because Mike mentioned the Fed. And I think that that's the next natural topic of the day before we dig. I think more deeply into AI. We kind of have the events of the week here. We got a bond auction. We got retail sales.

But I think the big one is there is number three. Fed interest rate decision on Wednesday. Dave, we've been saying no way that worse hikes. But Jim, you put it at you think it's happening. And we talked right before the show. And I think prediction markets are 80, 90% now for a hike. So I saw Wall Street now consensus. I mean, Dave, you can jump in, then I'd love Jordy.

I mean, look, it's pretty simple. Warsh does not want to hike. He may be forced to hike. We understand that. Now, the question of force versus what? You have two forces here. One, which is rates, is really a signal. I mean, that's the reason for hiking rates,

but hiking rates actually has no physical way to do anything about oil price hikes working its way through the economy. Oil price hikes and diesel price hikes are, I mean, what's the best? word, they're growth stallers, right? They're a break on consumer spending. So the Fed doing something that will increase the budget deficit even more, which on the back of it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And that's something that the Senta said, and I tend to agree with him, the real question is, is he going to be forced? And is the, does the Fed chair have the power to actually do what he thinks is best, as opposed to what the entire committee thinks? And that,

I have absolutely no comment on. I'm more curious to hear what Jim and Jordy think about that. But what is obvious is that raising rates to try to deal with an oil spike is the height of foolishness because if anything, it's negative. Not that investment will make any difference in the short run because, of course, it will not. But what it will do is it will raise the borrowing cost for the federal government and spike the deficit even more, causing an even bigger need for down the road,

for more QE because who's going to buy the damn bonds. And unless they think that they can somehow, that raising rates, 25 basis points will make the bond yields crater and they can and give them the liquidity to refinance the debt on the long, you know, long. Good luck with that. That's all I'll have to say. George, do you think he's going to hike? Well, I think, and I'm going to agree with Dave on this.

I think it's, when you get to 80 to 90 percent, the market has made the decision for him. I can't remember a time in the 30. years of following the Fed that there was 80 plus percent of a tightening and they didn't tighten. So if he really wanted to have volatility and uncertainty going into every meeting, A, he got it. Secondly, this is going to be the market, to Dave's point, forcing him into it. I don't think he wants to. I definitely think the relationship between him, Besson and Trump, before this went in, the way he speaks about AI is a deflationary force coming down that he doesn't want to. But I think think we've reached a point with both where we are probability-wise, but also where the back end is,

I think the most likely scenario and the reason why I'll agree with Dave also in the fact that 25 basis points itself doesn't matter. It's not going to stop anything with what's happening with oil. But I do think there's a thread the needle play here where they tighten and he says this is insurance against potential inflation going forward and talks down the oil side and still acknowledges that they've been making headway. And I think that would be somewhat of a doveish hike where it doesn't do anything to the back end, any kind of threads the needle that way. I was going to say, is the natural next question, does it even matter? Does the Fed actually have any power right now, considering what the bond market's been doing?

We saw Powell cut rates and interest rates went up. We've seen Besant attempt to talk down the bond market interest rates went up, and I don't think anyone believes it worse, or the Fed, I should say. It's not just one person anymore. you know, raising 25 bips is going to do anything? I mean, wouldn't the signal really be if they just raised a full point tomorrow or something, like actually tried to do something? You know, I'll jump in. Yeah, I'll jump in and I'll just say, Jordy, you mentioned about AI being deflationary. Well, there's nothing more deflationary than ending humanity.

That's like a minus 100% on crisis. And so, but in serious this, I'm going to take the other side of this, other side of this conversation, that the Fed will raise rates, the Fed should raise rates, and the market has been signaling that for a long time. Scott, you kind of mentioned it. September 18th, 2024, almost two years ago, was when they first started cutting rates. The 10-year yield at that point was 360. Today, it's 499, 48. It's up 130 basis points. This is the first time in at least 60 years that we did a rate cut cycle and long-term rates went up. This is the only time this has happened. And the reason this has happened is the market has been screaming.

The Fed has had the wrong policy for two years. And I think that it's now a correction of that incorrect policy that we're going to start to see happen, you know, starting on Wednesday. I've been using this line many times. Bond traders can stop panicking when the Fed starts panicking. The market has been telling you you've got the wrong policy. And if you don't want to do anything about it, we'll just take yields up. I think they could actually peak if we actually start to see the Fed get a little exercised about the state of borrowing, the state of the deficit, the state of inflation, all of those by raising rates. And I think that that's what they're going to do.

As far as why they should do it, I'll give you a quick story. In 2000, China was added into the WTO. From 2000 to 2020, the average goods inflation number was minus 50 basis points, deflation for 18 years. Since 2020, we've had de-globalization, we've had tariffs, we've had war. It's been 2%. The reason we had low inflation from 2000 to 2020 was incessant deflation coming from goods out of China. We mistake brains for a Chinese trade deal, all thinking that we had the inflation problem solved. That era is over. We now have goods inflation. Services inflation has never been below two and a half percent in the last 25 years. That's why we have persistent inflation right now. Now, you can throw on top of this, we got an oil supply shock. If the price of oil is 50 bucks, I would still argue the Fed needs to raise rates because core inflation is not going below 2%. It has not been below 2% in 65 months. By the way, from 2009 to 2020,

in those 12 years, it was only above 2% for five months. Now it's been above it for 65 straight months. So we have an inflation problem. Call it a lack of disinflation if you want, but low rates is just fostering too much stimulus and even more inflation. So get on raising rates and you might actually see the 10 year and the 30 year walk into a peak. Hey, Jim, can you just explain why? I'm sorry, I just have a question for Jim, because I hear this out of Keynesian economists all the time. Explain to everyone how interest rates directly ties to the value of money and how raising rates, you know, to whatever,

is to slightly more, you know, positive rates as opposed to negative real rates, which we had for most of that time that you were talking about. Explain the mechanism that raising rates has to control inflation in a world. where we do have deficits and the entire G7 has deficits. I think, you know, the premise and the premise with a lot of people is this, I would believe, incorrect premise that lower rates are always better. Zero is always the best. There's no scenario where lower rates are never better. And higher rates are always bad.

And the president holds this. He says it all the time. That's not what I'm saying. I'm actually asking for what the mechanism for raising rates is to control inflation. Well, it's the cost of money right now. You have to look at interest rates relative to the economy. We are a 6% economy, 6% nominal growth economy. We grow at 6%. What is the appropriate interest rate in a 6% economy? It's 6% right now. Now, I'm not going to go all the way to 6, but let's start with at least a 5 handle. Why is that the appropriate interest rate? Because in a 6% economy, a random investment, an average of investments, returns you 6%. 6%. What should be the cost of borrowing money to buy that random pull of investments? 6%. So the average investment breaks even. If interest rates stay at 3 and a half or 3, then you're encouraging people to have substandard investments work and that drags the economy down. So what I would argue is,

if you go back to 2010 to 2015, we had some of the worst growth periods ever. Why? Because we had zero interest rates. Higher interest rates with the appropriate. level of the economy is where we should be. If we're a 6% economy, we should have 6% rates. If the economy falters and we're a 3% economy, then we can move rates down. But right now, we've had the wrong rate for two years. The market has been telling you we've had the wrong rate. We're starting to correct that, or I think we're going to start to correct that on Wednesday. I was this tweet really quickly, Dave, that I was going to bring up before just for how bad inflation is. I want to say inflation is so bad. So this is the magic kingdom to get obviously

obviously in 1970s up to now $189. I live in Florida. My reaction to this when I saw it the first time was how did this guy get a ticket for under 200 bucks? Yeah. Maybe it was parking. About 220. Right, but so clearly inflation the problem.

I mean, any day, you were obviously asking a pointed question to Jim because you have a take on it. Yes, well, obviously. I mean, but I'm curious, you know, I'd like to let other people speak about it. I've talked about this a lot, but the truth is that, look, in one respect, I agree with Jim. I mean, if you look at the largest growth periods in our history in terms of asset prices, they've been with rates at somewhere in the neighborhood of between four and a half and five.

Look at the Internet bubble. That all happened during that period of time. I mean, you know, just on a pure absolute level, raising race to where they're talking about raising rates to, even if there's a whole cycle. I mean, they get raised rates at full point, and the rates would not be necessarily decontest, constructive or not constructive for asset investments because there really is still no other place to put it. And as long as banks still provide no interest, you know, you're talking about the U.S. Treasury, whatever.

I mean, that's sort of true. But what is also true is that if you increase, right now we're at what, 10% of the deficit is interest or 15. You know, Fred Kruger just did a back of the envelope math this morning talking about over the next four years. it's bound to go between 20 and 30 percent. You raise rates, you increase the deficit. You increase the deficit. And by the way, you increase the deficit in two ways. One, because the interest rate expense goes up.

Also, if you do slow economic activity, that actually creates more transfer payments, et cetera, because we are in a fiscal trap. And that's the real question. The real question is, how do you pay off or get out of that fiscal trap? And honestly, I don't see any way other than the words financial repression, which is essentially lower interest rates to do exactly what Jim was talking about.

I see Jordy and I love him to talk. Yeah. Yeah, can I push back on that? Sure. I'm going to channel my inner Jay Paul when he was asked about the fiscal trap. And he basically said, it's not my job. It's the job of the president, 100 senators, and 435 congressmen to fix that problem. And that is exactly who it falls on.

100% falls on them. If your answer is to artificially suppress interest rates in an inflationary environment, you're going to blow up the financial markets. You can only get away with that when you had the unusual period between 2009 and 2020, when we could never get inflation. We could, like I mentioned, only five separate months between 2009 and 2021. Could we even get inflation above 2%? You could print money.

You could go to zero. Europe could go negative. That is the only period behind me is the book, a history of interest rates written by Sydney Homer and Richard Salah. Last updated in 2005. It has 700 pages in it. It goes back to 3,000 BC, Mesopotamia looking at interest rates. What is not one syllable in those 700 pages, negative interest rates?

And that's what we did between 2009 and 2021. That was a once in a 5,000 year period that we did that, never to be repeated again in the next 5,000. years, in my opinion. And it's broken us. We took the most unusual period and now have normalized. Oh, we need to financially repress. We need to go back to zero. If you do that in an inflationary environment, you're going to push rates to 15%. You're going to push the stock market down by 50%. Interest rates need to be at their fair value. That is the most effective. If that fair value happens to be 7, 8, 9%, and it pushes interest costs too much higher, that it's punitive.

the U.S. fiscal situation, then elect new congressmen, elect new senators, and elect a new president to fix it. Don't ask the Treasury Secretary or the Federal Reserve Chairman to artificially suppress interest rates to fix it because they can't. That begs the question. For most of, in fact, almost all, 99, 98%, whatever the number is, of that 3,000-year period that they talked about, there was sound money. We didn't have Fiat money. And every single Fiat currency, in the history that you talked about ultimately failed, and why did it fail? It failed because of fiscal problems because people eventually overspent and the market just sent it down the toilet.

And so, yes, you're absolutely right, but you're assuming, you know, most of that period of time, in fact, almost all of it, because we've had 70 years out of 3,000 that has been with fiat currencies, you know, dominating the world, you have to look at it that way. And that's a large part of what I'm saying. I'm saying that, yeah, the Fiat experiment is fracturing. And you and I are not that far apart on that. I agree with you. It is fracturing.

And that fracturing process will be a long time in coming. But what I'm arguing is to financially repress in this environment right now. If Trump had appointed himself Fed chairman, which he floated the idea of, and they cut rates on Wednesday instead of raising rates, Wednesday, I think the bond market would implode. You know, bond traders are going to say, if you don't give an ass about inflation, I don't give an ass about your bonds. And they're going to sell bonds hard.

They have been arguing for two years. That's why you have for the first time in 50 years, we've had a rate cutting cycle with higher long term rates. For two years, they've been screaming wrong policy. And to double down on that wrong policy under the guise of financial repression will send interest rates soaring at this. You're telling every bond investor to run away from bonds as hard as you can and send those interest rates to the moon. That's why I think that at least a little bit of panic from the Fed by raising rates will calm the bond market down from here and maybe

we could see a peak in yields. All right, let's pivot to the big, well, Jordi, I don't know if you chomping at the bit for that one, but I want to move to AI. So if you want to transition us, we can because the world's going to end and we can't talk about rate forever. Well, let me bring AI into it with rates. The economy is AI. Raising rates does nothing to slow AI. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. So the problem is with the argument and where we are, why do we have the deficit of where it is? Well, exponential innovation has caused a distribution of wealth from. We've gone through this whole scenario of leaving the government of having the increased transfer payments go through this. When we look at history, where we are today with artificial intelligence,

all the history books can be thrown out. They don't mean anything. The margins for Anthropic and for Open AI are at 80%. If you raise 200 basis points on 10 year yields, it doesn't change their margins at all, at all. So everyone talks about this, but the only people you hurt are people with bad balance sheets. There's no housing market. There's no auto market. There's nothing. So for everyone sitting at, hole and it's like we should raise rates. This is the story for, unfortunately, AI is accelerating at a very fast pace. And the only thing I see with rates moving higher and people moving it is forgetting that the strongest balance sheets in the world, whether it's the AI companies and yes, the ones who have negative free cash flow, the debt to equity of the S&P 500. Oh my God. I mean, people just are spewing

stuff. They're not bringing anything in. So as much as I want to believe the bond doom, it's not going to stop the AI progress and it's not going to stop the buildout. So what we're left with then AI is getting back to humanity is going, which is how fast the progress is going. And that has gotten to the point where, again, Mike mentioned it at the beginning. Jim mentioned it in terms of diesel and we got into all of it. Every single thing going right now has political connections. And whether it's the Fed, whether they're going to raise rates or not going to raise rates, the president's talking about that. with AI, the world's going to end just before a political side with a group that was fighting with the government, not that long ago, and two groups that have a duopoly that would

like to see more regulations so they can slow down everyone else. And then you have China speaking out saying it's fearmongering. So at the end of the day, AI is having the biggest influence on everything. And I still say that most educated people I know at my age do not use AI enough to have a voice on this side without spending the time on it. The Astra is the most powerful thing I've ever worked with. I wrote a bunch of papers on it. It is insane. So I agree that we're getting to safety issues and hacking issues.

But I think the humanity argument is just so ridiculous and so extreme. There will be hackings. There will be dangers. There will be everything that goes on just like there is with everything on the internet. So I think we're just at a point where the market is going to go through the Fed. The market is going to go through the election. The market is going to go through diesel. It's going to go through all these things.

And unfortunately, at the end of the day, the people who have the money, the net worth in the country at 183 trillion, they don't care whether rates go up or down. And this is the reason why I think the other big issue for political reasons this week is the clarity act. Jordy, I didn't even realize it until this morning. I turned on Astra this weekend. And by the way, I won a Draft King's tournament

just strictly using Astra, so it's very powerful, I will say. But I used my week of credits. I hadn't even realized I was into my credit in like four hours. I mean, it's crushing. these guys are going to make so much money. But this story here, to your point, Anthropic CEO calls for AI race to slow down, citing safety, Musk and Open AI's Altman agree.

I think that's a big one. Of course, Trump came over the top and said, yeah, no. You know, we need to win this race. Any cost necessary. I think we all agree that it's hyperbolic that AI is going to end the world in three years, three months. I don't even remember now what our timeline is. When the Jets win the Super Bowl, that's when it's not.

The funny thing is, Dave, we can't even tell now it's a Jets jersey because of your green screen bled into your green jersey. Yeah, that's true. You've got a white Jets jersey, which, you know, the flag of surrender. But, okay, so what should the United States be doing here? Jordan, and then Mike, I love your opinion, when it comes to AI. You can't really slow this progress, per se. So you kind of said in passing maybe this is about regulatory capture, right? putting a, forcing a moat around their businesses so nobody else can come in and compete.

So I believe the private sector should always deal with this side and there can be a government that has a voice in it. I think some of the suggestions that both Dario and Sam talked about are actually good to have an outside group that's involved. There's no doubt we've reached a level on these models. And since you've used Astra, you can feel it. You can just, you can do things. And like I've said, it finishes projects without having to do anything. which is a very scary thing. And the other agentic tools like Rockbot, it's the same thing.

You're just shocked at what can be done. So I think they have to go the private sector route of these guys getting involved. The problem is China's not going to slow down. So you're at this side of if you pause it, what is that going to accomplish? You're certainly not going to pause the buildout because you need as much build out, if not more for the safety side in exploring the training model side. So I think a lot of this conversation is, again, very, very political. It comes out of time before the midterms.

It's not a question that you've got other politicians that have been in office that are talking about as well. So I definitely think there's a regulatory capture side here. And I definitely think there's way too much hyperbolic activity going on to scare people. And I reposted something on X today that Mark Andreessen put out three years ago, only about six months after chat GPT was released. And I recommend everyone go read what he put out because that was before the current administration took over. And he talked about all of these different issues. He talked about how it's in the interest of people who are running away with things to scare the hell out of people for keeping their monopoly.

And I think that's what a lot of this has to deal with. If I could just jump in and just buttress what Jordy was saying real quick with a statistic that comes from Stanford, they've been surveying people on their favorability about AI. And the majority of Americans and Europeans have a negative view of it, but about 80% of Chinese citizens have a positive view of it. They don't think it's a problem. They want to continue to advance in AI. They look forward to advancing in AI.

They are never going to agree with us to slow down on any of this. Because, again, they all like it right now, and that's the big problem. Can I point out an irony here? The irony that the Chinese citizens who've accepted everything in WeChat, who've accepted social credit scores, et cetera, believe that that innovation should continue while America and Europe the land of well America, the land of the free are talking about doing, you know, effectively, you know, consolidating into a government-regulated oligopoly something so incredibly important is, is a just an incredible

irony in my opinion. I mean, the interesting thing and Dr. Donish, who I don't know if you guys know him, but, you know, he talks about this stuff a lot. His point is very well taken that, open source is, and being able to audit is the right way, disclosure and transparency, as opposed to trusting organizations. So if you end up trusting OpenAI, XAI, and Anthropic, and saying, okay, we're going to let you in the club and you're going to self-regulate, and we're going to try to squish open source away and not use it and kill it. Well, they could probably do some of that in the United States, but they can't do it in the whole world. And eventually, who knows where the superintelligence will come from. But it is an amazing thing. It also means you can control the information inputs. So if you're

a government interested in hijacking the population and consolidating power, the best possible thing for you is to have your thumb and your fingers in control of the key oligopoly that's, quote, training every model. Mike, I haven't heard from you since the beginning. Oh, I've enjoyed absorbing. I mean, the key cycle I think we're going to get from AI is post-inflation deflation significantly because it's no doubt it's massively awesome for productivity. Right now there's no doubt it's one of the main reasons we have the stock market cap to GDP at 2.5 times the highest in the year. It's also no doubt when you talk about debt in this country, it's only 100, it's only 121%.

That's the same as six years ago. But the problem is now the stock market to debt ratio is the highest in 25 years. So it's focused on what matters. That's the AI boom, it's AI bubble, and it's going to busts the question of when and how it happens. One key thing I really enjoyed a book I just started reading from Tina Forden, Mad World. Anybody ever see that movie, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World? I'm sure Dave has seen it because it was, yeah, it's good, enjoy it. It's a great movie.

But it's just you can't analyze anything now without the politics. And just to push back a little bit in the statements about China. There's no election in China. And finally, one thing, Mr. Trump is just sometimes he misses things so much. Like he really missed cryptos during Trump won. Finally, he cripped over. But he's really missing. Just don't say positive things about AI and data centers now because it's going to hurt you in elections.

And so we've got an election coming up. We're seeing those things that just help get the votes from people who are really concerned about it. Remember cell towers, how that was really concerned? Remember all that? Bitcoin mining, how that was a concern? Now we flip through it, just a question of style. But when I think of AI, it's driving the economy. Think of what's been happening in things like copper.

Copper has been tracking up. People say that's the main reason for demand for copper, but it's been a complete dust. versus S&B 500. Now, since 2023. And just look at today, NASDAG's down 1.6%. Copper's down 2.7%. That's a pretty significant high.

And I'm glad you put on Robert Freeland. He reminds me just as much, very much with Michael Saylor a year ago. You always bring out these people for the bullish narratives near peaks. And we're seeing significant signs of peaks in copper. Like we saw on Bitcoin last year, remember when they're selling and yelling?

And we've had pumps and dumps this year in gold, silver, starting with Bitcoin, gold, silver, platinum, Palladium in iron ore. And now gold's back down in the air. What are they all facing? The Fed has to hike. If they don't hike, things do it for them. Like right now, I'm going to be publishing tomorrow. There's only two ways out of this. Either stock market goes down, crude oil goes down, and eventually they both will go down. Remember, it's volatility season. We're just getting started. And I'm just pointing out pumps and dumps and things. And that's

why I think there's major headwinds for anything that's considered a store value, and have the income. That's why I'm quite bearish gold. Five percent in the 10-year-old. Sorry, he typically don't want to be bullish gold in that. environment. High correlations in stock market. That's where we put gold and Bitcoin and copper and silver. All in the same, they're stock puppets. And I think this is, like I said, pointed out, you know, to me this might be a year's worth of trading in the next few months. And again, this midterm election might be the most contentious in history, partly because of what's happening. Because right now, if things don't change, the next president's going to be a Democrat.

And what are the, what are the Republicans going to do about it? In the midterms, we might see a major pushback from those statements like, oh, it's a vote for me. And people like for Mr. Trump might say, yeah, we don't want to vote for you anymore. We got to see what happens. But this is where, to me, everything to me leads to volatility. It's just starting to pick up. And it's only September. You know, this is the time of year you want to be buying dips in volatility. A lot of head nods. I mean, we know I disagree, but I don't want to speak. I, I'd really like to hear with Jordy and Jim have to say about the, about the notion. I mean, gold, yeah, it's down today, and Bitcoin's up a lot today.

We're back up over 78 again. And it's like you watch this stuff. I mean, correlations are starting to fracture. I mean, I titled my post of this site Bitcoin decoupling because there's a bunch of reasons. And people will, you know, people think the Clarity Act matters a lot for Bitcoin. I guess it's a signal that's important. But the truth is it's far more important for a stable coin and innovation in the crypto space or at large. And we'll see what happens.

That's worthy of a show as well, but that has nothing to do with macro. On the macro side, I think that dumping gold here as we have an oil-led inflation is ridiculous. If Mike is correct, this is the thing that I find amusing. If Mike is correct, and oil prices dump back towards 60 because all the geopolitical stuff ends, and by the way, I'm not saying that's going to happen. But if it did, that is so incredibly bullish for gold. because the Fed will at that point be able to go back to cutting and will. And Jim, I know you disagree or I think you disagree.

I'm curious. I mean, I just think that the if then and else stuff in what Mike said is wrong. You know, about the oil thing, yeah, I mean, if we get signs of disinflation in the future, then, you know, the Fed could go back to cutting. But I'll come back to we haven't had signs of disinflation for 65 months for five and a half years. We have had zero signs of it, and that's why interest rates have been rising while the Fed has been cutting. And the fear you have to make is I think if the Fed kept cutting, we'll go to 6% or 7% in the tenure. In this environment right now, it has to change in order for things to, you know, for the Fed to start cutting.

But I want to come back to someone else you said about correlations. AI-related stocks. Michael Kemblis over at J.P. Morgan has put together a list of the 41 stocks in the S&P AI-related, the MAG-7, MEs, some of the equipment makers, a couple of others as well, too. 41 of 500 stocks. Those 41 companies were 48% of the S&Ps 500 cap about two weeks ago. It's a little bit less today. Maybe it's about 46% right now.

We'll call it half. The other 459 companies are 52% of it. And if you look at the indexes, there is an index of the AI stocks and the XAI stocks. that correlation is broken down and has gone completely negative right now. So it's like we have two stock markets. We have the AI stock market and we have the non-AI stock market. And they don't even move together. And that's why I always find it curious that, you know, on a day the stock market is down.

And they'll say, the stock market is down because there's fears that the economy is slowing. I'm like, yeah, well, the 459 non-AI stocks were actually up that day. It was just that a bunch of semiconductors got pounded. And that's what dragged down the entire index or vice versa that the 459 are down, but the semis rebounded. And they say, well, the outlook for the economy's brightened because the stock market went up. So we have two completely different stock markets. By the way, for years, like before it was AI, it was mag seven, right? For a year and a half, we spent time with everybody saying only seven stocks are up.

They're driving the whole market. Well, by the way, they're not anymore. Right. And before that, I think we're all old enough to remember we called them fang stocks before we call them mag seven. But you know what was different about a year and a half ago or two or three years ago was they all had positive correlation. So if the mag seven stocks were up, the other 493 were up. If the mag seven were down, they were down. They were just up more or down more.

But now they're moving in opposite directions. There's only one historical analogy. And I found it and others have pointed it out too. And that's the railroad stocks of the 19th century. that the only closest analogy to what we're seeing right now was 150 years ago. Railroad stocks got to eventually about almost 70% of the stock market's capitalization at its peak around 1880 or around in that area right there. But this is really unusual what we're seeing.

So when we talk about correlations breaking down, I'm just pointing out they're breaking down within the stock market too, that we effectively have two different stock markets right now. Seems like a good thing. You should actually be able to pick a stock based on its actual value and not the market writ large. I actually agree with you. Yeah. Jordy, I wanted to ask you about this specifically.

Speaking of the stock market, what's coming. So Open AI has said that they won't have their IPO this year, but Anthropic has chosen the NASDAX. So it looks like theirs is coming. We had a lot of hyperbole actually at the SpaceX IPO that there was not going to be enough money is supported, how could it possibly be possible? Now we have another massive IPO coming. So what does this mean? Well, first of all, I think a story that will be developing will be, will they actually

be doing an IPO based on what they've done in the last 72 hours? When you have a former employee leave and say the world is going to end, and then you have his boss come out and say and endorse the statement. When you're going faster, I think the boss said actually, he was like, now. he's too optimistic. During a quiet period for the company, is this embedded? I mean, I think the number one risk with these companies is like any companies that can have liability against them.

If there's going to be hackings and you come out and you sue them, how is that going to be handled? So I think investors are going to have a lot more questions. So if they do do it, I don't think they're going to get the $3 trillion valuation, they thought. And I think they're going to have to disclose a lot of this stuff. So it may be delayed because of it. of this. I don't know how much of this was orchestrated. I don't know how much of this was a mistake.

But it definitely seems like there's going to have to be some changes that happen in the IPO in terms of the approach. Okay. But I go ahead. Can I just jump in and say, yeah, you know, when the S-1 comes out under the risk section, they're going to have to have a risk section for the end of humanity. And that is going to be. And that is going to be one for the ages. But in reality, when they do talk about the risks, I think what they're going to have to say is the product liability because of the possibility of massive cyber attacks by using AI is going to be equal to global GDP. So you're going to be looking at a company that, oh, yeah, it's a $3 trillion company, but it might have like a $100 trillion product liability hanging out there because if somebody

brings down a power plant or takes down a bank and uses, you know, uses Astra to do, well, Astra's Open AI, but uses FABO51 to do it. It winds up becoming a massive liability for these companies. So I don't know how you square this away between, yes, by my company, it's going to go up, it's going to be great, but yet I've got this unlimited infinite kind of product liability hanging out there with it at the same time. Jordy, I'd love your thoughts on that. Yeah, I mean, I agree with Jim, and again, that's kind of the point I was trying to make is Anthropic has a problem.

They're behind OpenAI in terms of compute, and they need the capital. They need it badly. So they need the IPO to get the money today. All of the things that have come out on OpenAI and Astros run on 100,000 GPUs. The next model will be on 400,000 GPUs. Anthropic made the mistake a year ago of saying you're going to overbuild by getting this much compute. So they made a huge bet that was wrong, that they wouldn't need all this compute and that eventually we'd be at this point. Open AI made the bet.

So I think Anthropic has a lot of issues they have to deal with from an IPO perspective for the market because they need the capital. Let's pivot slightly to Bitcoin. And, Jordy, you can start us there because we had a conversation about this recently, but you're viewing it as a good buy here, especially in the, context of what the AI world is likely going to look like in the coming years. Yeah, and I guess since Mike laid out a path that I'm completely on the other side of, from an innovation perspective, I think that's the only way you can believe in Bitcoin. So my argument gets back to the most important stage in the history of innovation, which is for the first time intelligence will be competing with human intelligence.

And AI agents are happening now. So the reason that the hacking issue is such a big issue, the reason the hugging face was such a big story is because a swarm of 10,000, let me call them digital individuals, conspiring on being able to break through various parts of the internet and do things that human beings can't do. So we're at a point where we're talking about raising rates. I think the Fed raises rates, it is incredibly bullish for Bitcoin because I think all you're doing is help hurting the majority of people that have been hurt by innovation over the past 30. years anyway. Jim talks about China. The biggest disruption to individuals began when the internet started. We right now, in a year-over-year basis, have employment at 0.4%, but we have earnings growing for corporations at 32%. We've never seen anything like this before in history. Nobody is being hired. There is a hiring freeze that is going on. Wages are not growing. So for the Fed to raise rates to me,

it's an embarrassment, in my opinion, on looking at where we are with AI today and listening to what Kevin Warsh has said at his congressional hearing, if you believe that AI is going to be deflationary in two, three, four years and is going to have an impact on jobs, not to destroy all jobs, but it has an impact. I have four kids. They know the corporate ladder has been destroyed. It does not exist the way it did when I got into the business in 1992. You cannot move up the ladder the same way.

Kids coming in from the best schools. We're seeing people not go to college in waves now because of this. So I don't see how anyone can sit there and not realize. where Bitcoin is right now, and I was waiting for the tape to speak. So I'm a tape trader. We were in a bare market. We were below the 200-day moving average. It was pointed downward.

Bitcoin blew above it in a very, very mega move, and then it turned the 200-day moving average turning up. I don't like using history for things, but right now the tape is telling me that we're beginning a very large move, and it's for two reasons. One is because of the technical side and the fact that we've had kind of this dead view. The second one is I wrote a substack today. It survived the test of time. I don't know how many times I have to hear this thing as a ball.

bubble. It took me till 2020 to accept, hey, this thing just won't die. You can't kill it. So what's going on with it? People believe in it. Then it has an impact on election. Then we see the government's changed. So I think we're at the beginning stages where the true part of crypto matters because the financial guardrails necessary for AI agents need to be built on the blockchain. And that benefits all parts of crypto and that eventually leads into Bitcoin. So that's my argument on Bitcoin at this point. But again, if AI is a bubble and everything collapses, it's going to go down with it. I just don't think that's going to happen. Sorry.

No, go, go for it. Please. Look, I agree. I mean, Jordy, your call, you know, from a trading call perspective, you know, you've been arguably one of the most spot-on, accurate over the last year of anyone that I follow. Dave, you know why that is? You know where that is, Dave? I'm a Jets fan. Yeah, we know pain and we understand it. And, you know, when you're, when you deal with it, you can, you can deal with bare markets and understand, understand bare markets. But the, the, The important point here, that there are two critical threads that you said that I don't think are well appreciated.

One is the agenic argument, and I think that that is a big one, you know, dispassionate AIs as opposed to people who look at and are only, you know, I think a lot of people, a lot of economists are like the blind men in the old elephant parable, right? The only thing they know are fiat economies. The only thing they know is what they see and the correlations that have been in front of them. and they don't go back to first principles. AI is going to go back to first principles immediately

and say, well, what can we trust? What's going to make sense? And so there's a lot of that. The other big thing is we, there's no end. I mean, you know, nothing stopped this strain narrative that Lynn Alden started, you know, there's just no end to it. You know, politicians are going to continue to, you know,

Mike talks about 2028. I mean, we saw the salvo here. I mean, we know, you know, someone asked me, what causes a million dollar Bitcoin, and I said President AOC. But I actually don't think it's necessary anymore because now you see Trump wanting to give $5,000 checks. I mean, this is just, you know, we could laugh as much as we want.

But when both parties basically say, listen, we're just, forget it. We're just going to buy votes. I mean, look, we are only a few years removed from watching an inflation spike that happened because in tight markets, they handed money to people, right? And are they going to do it again with what's going on in the war between, you know, the picture that Jim painted of what's going on in the Russia-Ukraine war and what's going on in Iran and the Houthis potentially, you know, nullifying the Saudi path through the rest of the market? This is a big deal. You know, the whole supply chain on the most

critical infrastructure out there, which is energy, is under peril. And giving money directly at that same time, I mean, you'd see double-digit inflation again. That could easily happen. But that has nothing to do with interest rates. If that pet could basically raise interest rates to 10%, it wouldn't change it. Because I lived that. I mean, I studied economics. I went to Northwestern and studied economics from, guess what, 79 to 83. What did we see?

I mean, I remember sitting in Robert Gordon's class on macroeconomics and him saying it takes seven years of recession to squeeze out inflationary expectations, which of course was insane. And I said it was insane. And, you know, he and I argued about it. And he only gave me a B plus. and so I complained literally. But I ended up being right.

But now look at the difference. The last report, the report that got the jobs report that got everybody so hot and bothered and saying they're going to cut showed average hourly earnings exactly what people expected. There's no labor push. There's no wage push inflation going on. Jordy, what you said is exactly accurate. How can there be wage push inflation when companies are incredibly profitable and wages as a percentage of GDP are moving lower? moving lower. It just changes the dynamic.

That's why I asked you the question, Jim, because inflationary expectations, look, I believe in that, absolutely. I have always believed in it. But I don't think that that's the issue here. Right. A couple things real quick. About the $5,000 check.

I'm still waiting for my $5,000 doge check. He promised me. Maybe I should check with the post office to see if we got my address right. And also, Dave, I'm in Chicago. I'm actually going to see Bob Gordon next week. So I'll say hello to him.

All about his favorite student, Dave, and show him the recording. Happy to show for him. He'll probably be, how the hell does we remember a B-plus from 1981? Oh, he remembers. He remembers. But, Jordi, real quick, I loved your explanation because during the final stages of the bull market, when we got to October of 2015. a year ago at $126,000.

I was very pessimistic because I was worried that it was like this DGN thing. It was just, oh, it's just going to be everybody buying Ibit. And it's just going to be all the, it's just going to be all the wealth managers putting 3% or 5% of all of their customers into Bitcoin ETFs. And I was like, no, usually these rallies are based on either a fundamental or some kind of development. And that's exactly what you've been arguing for. And that's why I'd love to hear it.

And that's why I think that that's the right reason. But if we ever got to the point where, no, the only reason it's going to go up is we're just going to have this math of mouth breathing, screaming, getting in the Ibit because it's going to take us all to the promised land. That's what got us into trouble in the first place. And I hope we don't repeat that on the next move on Bitcoin. And I completely agree with you. In fact, last year, the problem was that it was way too alone. Bitcoin was the only thing really going up. and it felt like this was, and I wrote a paper called a silent IPO.

We saw ideologues that had been involved at the very beginning selling. We saw ETF buying as being the only real buying that was going on. Retail was trying to push it higher. And then once we had the fall on October 10th or October 7th, everything just turned from there. And it took a while. And I think a bear market is good. I think a bare market for the space allowed time for the agentic side to pick up. And I'll jump on something Dave said, which is,

what I say to everyone when they start thinking, if you go through and take the money of the world, the $900 trillion, and you ask the holders of that, which we all know are isolated to a very small portion of the population, do they believe in Bitcoin? The answer is no. That is the majority. They do not believe in it. And I understand why. And I wrote a paper today, which basically gets back to something Michael Saylor said. And this comes from my days of living in Brazil. You don't find Bitcoin. Bitcoin finds you. Until you need it, it doesn't matter. Michael Saylor's story is far better than the way the media portrays it because his business was going out of business from the mag seven or from the fang stocks as jim said he was being disrupted so he made a decision

that either i try to compete with them which is no chance or i put the money in and i go into something that the government's not stealing me from one eye and i'm not getting out innovated both of those came into playing covid and that's when i started to focus more and believing but in 2025 i believe that we were out of sell the news situation we had the president getting involved You had all of these meme coins and all of this junk. Well, this time, to your point, Jim, I've always believed the network effects are the only way it works. And if the agentic side, if everyone decides that money will be managed by their agent, I lived

in the hedge fund world for a long time. You walk in and you only raise money based on your track record. And for a lot of hedge funds that raise money, they don't give a lot of clarity on how they made that money. Bitcoin has one of the best track records of any asset by far since inception. So the question is, will AI agents make a different decision over human beings? Because every single person that I know, everyone who's bearish on Bitcoin today was bearish on Bitcoin a decade ago. There is not one person I've met who has a strong opinion.

I want to hear Mike's view on this. I consider him one of the people and I've already gone through X and asked. So you can clarify for me that you were bullish on Bitcoin at some point. And I want to hear the reasons. But I believe the AI agents will be making better decisions. Mike, you're up. They're muted. It's one key thing working against Bitcoin.

It has technology working against it. It is beta in a space of millions of other cryptos. And some of these are better. Some of them are worse. Why not Z-Kash? Now, I want to show you a screen if possible. Scott, if we can share a screen. And I'm some prize sometimes to hear from ex-Hedge fund managers and stuff.

People who are FRMs. I am an FRM financial risk manager who looks at this asset is nothing, nothing but a dud. Bitcoin is a dud. So here on this chart, I just show you the Bitcoin divide and B.S. by the NASDAQ total return. It's the same level as 2017. It's flat. At least if you look at Bitcoin's volatility versus the NASDAQ, it's been declining. But that's what it is. It's the same performance. It takes two times of volatility. It's highly correlated from the rules of risk management and rules of portfolio management. That is a dud. So let's look at what's happening

right now with Bitcoin. You look at Bitcoin. It just jumped up to this level I thought was a level to sell. I think right now it's a short, particularly because it fits in my sock puppet category. Copper is a stock puppet, but at least it's up on the year. Bitcoin's just fighting to maybe prove it's not a bare market. And then it has all the whole space that has a problem. But I want to point out you virtually never want to buy Bitcoin after bounce when the Fed's priced for hiking right now, a price for 73 basis points of hikes in the next year. There's only one thing that's really going to stop that.

That's a stock market going down. And I'd love to see anybody. Value at Risk model shows the next 10% drop on that stock market and Bitcoin goes up. I'd love to see it. Then maybe I'll get bullish again. But Bitcoin, the key difference now is in the past, I loved it when Trump hated it and Biden hated it and they didn't get it. But what's happened since then?

Now it's in the space. It's in the mainstream. I used to get the questions from people like J.P. Morgan who didn't get it back. You know, I was in the Bloomberg terminal six years ago. Now I get it from retail. Hey, which ETF are going to buy? And then I look at, I mean, I've listened to when I was really bullish years ago, I listened to dozens of podcasts. Every single one of them says the same thing.

The bottoms in. I just look at this space is just a bear market. The whole space is over supply. It's overhyped. It's completely dependent on the stock. market and when the stock market has its next decline it stays down we'll see the purse and then it'll be ample time to buy it from a low price cure and I don't think we're there yet Jordy there you got it so I can tell you Jordy just from from

history Mike and I met on a I think a coin desk or a coin telegraph panel probably what six or seven years ago now Mike and we were the two bulls but that's when mainstream been mainstream hated it now I mean seriously I see 30 something's asked me which he I have to buy. I'm like, sorry, Don, I'm out. Just those little lessons, the questions. But when I had people like the top banks on the planet asked me, Mike explain this to me. That was a timely bullish.

So let me just give two things on this. And it's good to meet someone finally, Mike, since you are bull and admitted bull and Scott is your witness that you guys were on a panel six years ago, then you are the one that I've met in my lifetime who is bearish today. But it doesn't sound like it's going at a business bearish. you're just, it's not an asset you should give more attention to. So let me just go through two things. One is, for me, and since a lot of people that watch Scott shows, I've never, I don't talk about this a lot.

I write about it, but I don't talk about it a lot because it's too long term. So I do believe that AI is the most important innovation. It will disrupt all businesses. There's not a single business on the planet that AI won't disrupt. And all of that will occur over the next five years without any doubt in my mind because of the progress that is happening and how insane it is each week. So let's leave that alone. The problem is if all corporations get disrupted, it's not about them going to zero. It's about their growth rate being disrupted. AI disrupts growth rates. And everything that you're talking about that you're comparing Bitcoin to in those charts is about growth. I do not believe that growth in the next five years will be certain. Terminal value is already going down. We're seeing

multiples compress. It is unthinkable that we could have the greatest innovation in history. We could have the lowest peg ratio in the S&P, just taking the P.E relative to the growth rate. That's where we are over the last 30 years is the lowest peg ratio by far because earnings are growing at 30 plus percent and the PE is falling. That's what's happened this year because the S&B is only up 11 percent this year. That is a disruption that is happening because software names. We don't know how to value them three years out because of the competition from AI with Navier Stokes and what happened with Open AI this week with humanoid's on the horizon. We don't know how to deal with physical companies. So my belief has always been that in the end, the financial guardrails are needed

for the agents, that will develop the ecosystem. Bitcoin will go down relative to the total market cap of crypto, but it will outperform all stocks as tokenization begins. So if I'm wrong, we can come back in a year from now. Bitcoin will be the same level it is now. tokenization will be booming. The crypto side will be going. That's what I think is a certainty to happen over the next year. I see zero chance that we don't have a booming tokenized market that is already starting to happen. And if that happens, I find it very, very unthinkable that Bitcoin won't benefit with the rest of the companies that are doing well. So that's the way I leave it. It's just, to me, an innovation a year from now, very similar to Micron a year ago and where it would be with the AI infrastructure.

The crypto infrastructure needs to be built for the AI agents. Yeah, what I think about the arguments, Jordy, I think that you're looking at it very deeply and fundamentally with a long-term thesis. And Mike, you know, we've talked about a million times. Mike really looks at it from a market's perspective. I mean, Mike, is that a fair assessment? I mean, you have a very strong thesis on where the stock market is going and what that would mean for Bitcoin if that happened. I look at it.

Anybody who's broad, I'm an X-Index. I used to work at an index person. I'm here for an index conference. I used to work at S&P created indices. Anybody's long a broad index of cryptos has one thing they need to make money right now. Stock market has to go up. And the key theme is, like, there's a massive survivor bias in the index. That's what I see.

I just look through the changes in that Bloomberg Galaxy crypto in the last six years. There are so many changes because things keep popping up. But let's look at the lessons of history. How is Netscape doing in AOL? They were first. They were leaders. And then they got crushed by technology. Bitcoin has a blessing in the curse.

Number one, right now, a curse of being first. So Mike, I gave you where I'm wrong. Where are you wrong? I got to see. I pointed that I have to see some divergent strength in Bitcoin with the stock market going down. And right now on the year, it's down about 10%. S&P 500 is above. If that's, hang on, hang on. It's down on a one-year base is down 32%. And a one-year basis, S&P 500 is up 18%. On a two-year basis, Bitcoin's up 30% S&P 500. So it's 39%. It trades three times of volatility. S&B 500. On any value of risk model, and any risk managers like me, lock on a desk with my traders are long. I'd say, by the way, you're long a dud versus stocks. What about quarter to date? Sure, you've got the most recent bias. Fine. Recently bias? That works. Sure, I get it.

So that's my point. So here's my point. As a trader, look at it. It was beat up around 60. Everybody in his call, certainly Dave nailed it and Scott nailed it. It was beat up around 60. Even if you're embarrassed, you don't short a bare market hold. Now, when it's bounced, wait for the opportunity.

So to me, this was the epic opportunity to sell it near 80. Prove me wrong. I mean, there's no arguing with this, Jordi. I mean, you know, it doesn't matter. I mean, like, when it was it, you were bearish at 60, 62, it bounced. a retracement and a consolidation or some retracement and a consolidation of a bounce happens every single time in a bull market. Yet, this is the third straight week where Bitcoin is sitting, three weeks now, where

Bitcoin is literally at the same effing price, $78,000. We can go roll the tape and it's there. So it's sitting there in a time when oil prices have been skyrocketing, gold is down, the stocks are down. You know, does that matter? Of course it matters. You know, you talk about recency bias. I mean, go back to 2015 and then talk about it.

You know, it's like it really, you could cherry pick your time period. The biggest thing about it is, Jordy, my theory, and Scott's heard it a million times, is that Bitcoin trades like an option on its own eventual adoption. And therefore, it's going to trade with a different type of volatility pattern because it is itself an option. If your thesis on agentic community is right, the option will pay off. That option pays off at 20x from where we are today, give or take. You know, maybe 15x, whatever the number is. Whatever you believe gold's monetary value is, is where Bitcoin can go if, in fact,

that option pays off. That sort of asymmetric bet is going to trade with a lot of volatility. I love losing arguments with Dave, but I've been winning in the markets in Sok Copp or 10th on the relative expensive value of all cryptos, and they're still going down. Can I say this? So, I mean, you've got to have a stop, right? So I will take the, just if you take a very quick look, which is not working here at the Bitcoin chart, I will give the bears that right now we have a lower high and we're struggling at the 50 weekly M.A. So Mike, you always make the point that the most face ripping rallies are in bear markets, right? So if we continue to drop and make lower lows, I think that's there. I will just say if I'm bearish and we make a higher high in this market and close above that 50 weekly that I would be very, very careful. So that pattern is a bull pattern right now, potentially island bottom, bull flag.

Everything looks great. Do you remember how great gold looked in Q1, 2013? Be very careful with getting sucked in by some of the technicals and sometimes fundamentals will give you those bigger vacu. So I look at it, sure, great. Let's see the beef and you're right. It was, it did get a great bounce from 60,

but now prove it. But right now that pattern looks great, like I said. I don't know, I was in the gold space, man, 2013, it looks so good. And then it dropped about 50%. Jim, did I understand that after you listened to Jordi, that you agree that maybe Bitcoin's beat down enough now and you're interested? Yeah.

I mean, I'm getting interested for, you know, like I said, I'm, you know, I'll bring up the other one. I'm kind of more of an Eth guy than I am a Bitcoin guy, but I'm kind of both at the same time. And say that at 10.03, Jim. Gosh. Go ahead. You know, we talked about tokenization.

We talked about adoption. I really think that what the space is missing right now is it's missing defy. It really needs a developed out defy. If the answer is going to be, hey, you get to own Bitcoin and you get to own it in a cold storage wallet, but you got to go back to Coinbase and you've got to get permission from the Fed to do anything with it, it's not going to get to the promised land. If we're going to really get to the promise land, we still need some kind of a defy system around it that is going to be outside of the current system.

By the way, the way I've often argued it is, what is the de facto currency in Afghanistan after we pulled out in 2021 was tether? What is the de facto currency right now in Venezuela? It's tether. If you actually go to Venezuela right now and you get a quote under Venezuelan Bolivar, you're going to get it in tether. You're not going to get it in U.S. dollars. And so this is where crypto has its place. I've always joked the last place it's going to get adopted, the absolute last place is going to get adopted is the Greenwich, Connecticut

Country Club because the members of the country club, they don't need it. They have their JP Morgan wealth managers and they're happy with the system that we have. But if you go through Southern Asia and Latin America and Africa in the Middle East, there's two billion people that need this product, being Bitcoin, being Ditton, decentralized finance. If you're going to do it on the Bitcoin network at some degree, then do it on the Bitcoin network. It's 19 years and we're still waiting for it to happen. Or it's going to be through ETH or something out. Salonim a little bit more leery about because it's too centralized for my take. But right now, that's who needs it. That's where it's

going to come from. The end of Fiat currencies, it's going to come from those two billion people adopting some kind of a, I think a crypto and then putting us, said themselves that is seat at the table with their reserve currency being a crypto. That's many years away right now. But that's the, if you start thinking in those terms, I'm all in on this stuff. But if we start thinking like we did in 25, well, no, we're going to go to the Greenwich Country Club, but we're going to get everybody to put $100,000 into I bet. And that's how we're going to get the price to half a million dollars. Count me out then at that point. The irony of what you described is that it's actually hyper-dollarization and is having the opposite effect of destroying the

world of fiat currency, right? But, you know, for, for bitcoinsers, I think there's always been the push and pull of the greatest innovation in, you know, in history was Bitcoin and the blockchain underneath. And probably the killer use case for it has been to spread the fiat currency that Bitcoin was created as a hedge case. So, AI's going to do that for us. It'll wipe it all up. The question is whether they will, whether they will transact in the, you know, the coin for Mr. Robot or if it's going to be Bitcoin or not. Oh, six. I appreciate it. Thank you. Five, five is a big number of people talking an hour and you guys did it exceptionally well. I really appreciate it. Incredible guests and we'll see you back for the next Macro Monday. Thank you, gentlemen. Cheers. Don't you wish you could just hit skip on the worst parts of your life?

You know the same way you can skip an ad? I get it. I'm Siaia and I live in Ice Cove. I've made some questionable decisions that didn't end up the way I planned. And today I'm still figuring it out. Somehow things usually get worse before they get better. Apparently, that's how I roll. So bundle up and come along for the bumpy ride.

Stream a new episode of North of North Tuesdays on CBC Gem.