The Wolf Of All Streets - BTC to Hit $100K by Year-End? The Countdown Begins! | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Crypto Town Hall is a daily X Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in crypto and bring the biggest names in the space to share their insight. ►►TRADING ALPHA READY TO TRADE LIKE THE PROS? THE BEST TRADERS IN CRYPTO ARE RELYING ON THESE INDICATORS TO MAKE TRADES. USE CODE ‘2MONTHSOFF’ WHEN VISITING MY LINK.  👉 https://tradingalpha.io/?via=scottmelker  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/    ►► OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $10,000!  👉  https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER ►►NGRAVE This is the coldest hardware wallet in the world and the only one that I personally use. 👉https://www.ngrave.io/?sca_ref=4531319.pgXuTYJlYd ►►THE DAILY CLOSE BRAND NEW NEWSLETTER! INSTITUTIONAL GRADE INDICATORS AND DATA DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX, EVERY DAY AT THE DAILY CLOSE. TRADE LIKE THE BIG BOYS. 👉 https://www.thedailyclose.io/   ►►NORD VPN  GET EXCLUSIVE NORDVPN DEAL  - 40% DISCOUNT! IT’S RISK-FREE WITH NORD’S 30-DAY MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY! 👉 https://nordvpn.com/WolfOfAllStreets    Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottmelker   Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.io   Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe   Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c   #Bitcoin #Crypto #Trading 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.

morning everyone get the music off happy thursday 10 15 a.m eastern standard time back once again with your daily dose of crypto town hall and what a week it has been for crypto obviously uh markets starting to i think price in or comprehend the red sweep. Trump obviously winning the presidency, popular vote, seemingly Congress also going red, Senate also going red. A lot of discussion as to how accurate polymarket was and how inaccurate largely the polls were, which was a conversation that we had constantly here. Just really a lot to start to absorb here in the aftermath of the election and certainly markets absorbing it as well. We saw, I believe, yesterday was the best day in history for the S&P on a day

after an election. So obviously the initial reaction of markets, we saw it with Bitcoin, of course, extremely bullish with people believing, clearly markets believing that Trump is going to be very, very good for stocks and all other assets. Bitcoin obviously made a new all-time high on election night. Not only did it make a new all-time high, but in making that all-time high, from what I saw on the charts, had the highest bullish volume of any single day since the previous all-time high actually in March and closed meaningfully, I think, above that line of the previous all-time high, technically sort of a confirmed breakout on high volume. Luckily, I don't have to talk about that because we had the legend peter brant here um we can discuss uh what the chart looks like peter i

know you know we are kind of talking in the past for you the higher high was 70 that was the first meaningful line but i've got to imagine that breaking all-time high is meaningful as well oh well i mean no we're we've broken out with that whole sequence of lower highs lower lows from march and you know that's now been violated i think the big key to watch here for me and the thing that intrigues me is the whole store of value story uh gold versus Bitcoin. And what are the implications of that? What are the implications of that central bankers, implications of that to investors? That's a chart I did post on my Twitter feed here this morning, taking a look at that. I think that's key. I mean, right now, the Bitcoin gold ratio is somewhere mid 20s, 20s i think it eventually goes to 130 so

um i posted the chart i mean that's really the story i shared it above for people i just pulled it from your feed just so people can take a look i actually randomly posted as well i mean it looks like we're breaking out of a bull flag here yeah we, we are. I mean, so that's the big story for me. I mean, day to day, week to week, month to month. Yeah, it's interesting to follow Bitcoin. It's fun to trade Bitcoin. It's fun to conjecture where Bitcoin goes next. But it's really what's Bitcoin's role in the financial world foundationally. And I think its role is really the ultimate store of value. And so, you know, just looking ahead, I mean, we take the Bitcoin gold ratio to 130. You know, that doesn't mean we do it next week. It doesn't mean we do it next year. It doesn't mean we maybe even do it in the next decade, but I think we do it.

And so you just plug in your numbers. Where do you think gold is going to go? And where do you think Bitcoin is going to go? A good friend of mine who's really tutored me a lot over the last six, seven years in Bitcoin is Tour de Meester. Love Tour, love his thinking you know his projection per bitcoin uh at which point it equals the total uh asset value of gold held by central banks uh is somewhere eight hundred thousand dollars per bitcoin you use the 130 ratio and even project out a continuing uptrend in gold, taking it to four or five thousand dollars, something like that. It's really kind of easy to plug in a number somewhere between a half a million dollars and a million dollars for Bitcoin. Again, that's no reason to as we've seen in the U.S. politically and other countries politically, is that populism equals democracy.

Unlike the elitists saying that that is not the case. In fact, populism is democracy. And so you have populism politically, you have populism economically, only supports an argument for Bitcoin long term. So I like the charts. I think we're on an upward. Sure, we have some resistance points along the way, but I'm unchanged. I think Bitcoin goes to $130,000, $140,000. Next top will be August, September 2025. Aligned with the previous cycles. What I find interesting, Peter, is that we've talked,

obviously, the election to death and the Fed policy and rate cuts and all these things. But if you just zoom out and look at the four-year cycle, we're kind of exactly where we should be with the same kind of targets that we should have in the same part of the year, right? Talk about that end of 2025. Obviously, we saw Bitcoin sort of finally top sort of the end of 2021, 2017, every four years, same thing. Yeah, I mean, everyone looks at these cycles in Bitcoin a little differently. I have my own unique way of looking at cycles. I mean, some people is low to low, high to high. I know that's a popular way is high to high. I tend to look at Bitcoin in terms of where's the low of a bear market cycle and where's the halving because there is a very, very consistent pattern that if you take the distance of really kind of a bear market low to the halving point and measure that distance, the next high in the bull market cycle will come equal distance from the low point of the previous bear market to the halving date. You project it on out, you get an equal distance. And so that's kind of my understanding and way of looking at cycles in Bitcoin. And, you know, that takes the halving date that we had back earlier in the year, and it projects it out from the November 2022 low, which puts us into a high point somewhere in that August, September of 2025 range. And that is kind of my master map that I'm,

that I'm going by as I plug in my, my thinking on, on how we, how we get to that point. I'm looking at your chart as you do the Bitcoin gold ratio, you're doing it. I was just trying to see what assets you're doing. You doing btc usd divided by gc 11 futures right so uh how did you choose that as the proxy for gold for your for your ratio well it's not 11 it's uh i can't see yeah yeah yeah

no it's not it's in it's an asterisk and so so really that's a continuation chart. That's a nearby continuation chart of the most active chart of gold futures. I'd like to do it on XAU, but I haven't seen a chart I really like on XAU. That would be my preferred way of doing it. But, you know. I did it on XAU and yours looks better. That's why I was literally asking because I was taking a look. I did XAU, which obviously kind of includes silver.

But mine comes at a billion billion 9.487 billion so it was different i think it's that by uh price yeah yep yep so that's what i do it and it did the best way to measure it against gold going back to when gold became legally tradable in the united states is you know which was 1973 1974 is to look at that nearby contract of gold future says the proxy makes perfect sense duane you had your hand up before oh yeah sure thanks uh good morning um this is a quick question for peter just for my own understanding of um well understanding of your viewpoint so i'm looking at Bitcoin versus gold here, the Bitcoin to gold ratio, would you say that, I guess, at the point that you have Bitcoin hitting, say, 800,000, would you say that all of the, I guess, factors or tailwinds that work for gold, so for example,

the geopolitical environment, inflationary concerns, just overall demand with more of it getting taken off the shelf, so to speak. I'm contrasting that with what's happening with central banks and demand for jewelry, etc. Would you say at that point, I guess, Bitcoin would overtake gold for those sort of safe haven concerns or as a safe haven asset? Just trying to get a better picture here. Yeah, I mean, we've got to get, obviously, to 100,000 Bitcoin before we start talking about a whole lot more. But no, I just think that Bitcoin is a better asset than gold long term. Now, that doesn't mean it doesn't

have problems. It doesn't mean that we do not have, hey, governments have power. Governments do not like giving up power. Central banks will not like giving up power. And, you know, power begets power or holds on to power. And so, you know, there's going to be some opposition to Bitcoin as really kind of historic benchmark store of value, I think gold replaces it. And I think a good way to look at it is just how much gold is being stored by central banks, what's the value of that gold at any point in time. So I'm really not including gold that might be recycled. In other words, jewelry type gold, coinage type gold. I'm just really looking at kind of above ground, centrally bank archived gold holdings when I look at this ratio.

Sorry, guys, I'm having the glitch as usual. But Dwayne, I don't know if you had any comments or if that answered your question. Oh, yeah, sure. Yeah, that gives me a clearer picture of at least what you were saying in regards to gold, because that was one thing I was wondering. That's why I mentioned jewelry as well, because there's that level of gold where, yes, a lot of gold gets taken off the shelf by central banks.

And then there's the whole jewelry issue and, you know, just different demand fluctuations throughout the year, which takes gold off the shelf, brings gold back up on the shelf, which affects the prices as well. So I was trying to contrast that with Bitcoin where you could argue that a lot of it gets taken off the shelves forever, so to speak, and it has a limited supply. So I just wanted to sort of ratify that in my own mind

here and just i wanted to get some of peter's commentary but yeah it's very interesting thank you all right so now obviously we've sort of dug into the the chart perspective and the way we look at the cycles uh kind of uh going through here bringing people up on stage. Sorry, it's a lot to moderate talk and also be at the controls. But we have the title here, Bitcoin to hit 100k by year end. That's doable. I mean, it's basically a 30% increase from here. We've seen Bitcoin move that much in that amount of time, many times in the past. But does anybody expect that we'll actually see 100K, as a lot of pundits are saying, by year's end, by the end of the year? I think most people here probably think that we could hit it by a cycle.

Simon, I'm going to put you on the spot. If Simon's not there, Dave, what do you think? I think that, well, I did have a question for peter but i think that it is you can ask peter a question that's fine too well it there there's two things here there's fundamentals uh in in supply demand and there is the technicals the technicals obviously are often driven by fundamentals, but they seem to align. And the one to the question was going to be, which is relevant for all this, is within the cycles, we've noticed that, seem to be consistently decreasing, which you would expect, because as the asset price increases in percentage terms, it takes more for it to move.

But the countervailing factor here is reaching critical mass. And what Peter was describing is for Bitcoin to be at where he is vis-a-vis gold, it's basically a critical massive acceptance. If that happens, then there's another factor at play, right? The other factor is gold has done a really good job over thousands of years, and certainly the last hundreds of years in terms of maintaining purchasing power parity for consumer goods. But we know that the value of financial assets to consumer goods has dramatically increased because of zero interest rates and a lot of other things. So the question is, if you get to you can get to gold is step one. But what the sailors of the world talk about, Robert Breedlove, lots of other people are well gold will bitcoin be the denominator for financial assets which is when under order of magnitude more uh and so my question is is how do you account for

that from a chart perspective in you know when you're looking at at magnitude differences because if you use log scale it's all going to be you're going to expect things to be continued to decrease if you go to absolutes well you know that that may not be right either. So I'm just curious, how do you account for those for that, that major difference? So when you talk about 100,000, by the end of the year, I mean, it's really a question of answer riddle me this, will any large sovereign wealth fund, major institutional investor that isn't allocated to Bitcoin, allocate to Bitcoin in a public way that triggers a lot of follow ons. And if the answer to that is yes, 100,000 is doable in a day, probably not going

to happen that way. That's nothing. The real question is, is when do we get to what is a cycle top? And I've told you my prediction for the cycle top, other than if we get the Lummis bill passes, which case all bets are off, is still somewhere around 240. And I've given you my reasoning many times for that. So I'm curious, Peter, how do you take those things into account? Boy, there's a lot of questions packed into that. Yeah, I mean, I'm not a global macro guy. So for me, the charts are the charts.

I mean, the charts are the charts to a certain degree. I mean, beyond the charts, and I've said it many times, is I think currently most assets are expressed in U.S. dollar terms. I think we will see a shift in that over time where the common expression of assets will become Bitcoin based. And that really deals with acceptance. It deals with the level at which, you know, I mean, we'll probably have to add a few more numbers to the right of the decimal point over time as we get through Bitcoin. I mean, I think that'll be that'll be a fork that's going to have to take place. So I don't think of timing to that degree where we're looking at $100,000 by year end. I'm not sure when we get to $100,000, whether it's this wave or the next wave.

I'm just looking at how I projected the $130,000, $140,000, and it certainly could be 250 as well. And I don't know if that answered your question, because I maybe didn't completely understand the essence of your question. Well, what I'm asking about is magnitude in the chart, because a lot of people, a lot of the Elliott Wave theories at least use log scale. And a lot of Bitcoin chartists look at it in an absolute sense. But when you look at an absolute sense, each succeeding cycle has lower movement relative, you know, in percentage terms, at least, right. So I was just curious, how do you

how do you account for that? Or do you think that that is just normal variance? Oh, I would never look at Bitcoin defies linear scale. I mean, Bitcoin, in my opinion, has to be charted in semi-log scale. It's a log scale asset. How do you take an asset that goes from under $1 to $75,000 in the course of whatever we have here, 15 years, and want to chart it in linear scale. You can't do it. And so I look at Bitcoin as a log scale commodity, especially when you look at the long-term charts. Now, on a day-to-day basis, I happen to be a swing trader. As a swing trader, I would not look at Bitcoin in log scale, because that's just not the magnitude or the timeframe of my scaling, or the price objectives that I would have in Bitcoin.

But when I'm looking at Bitcoin from a long term basis, and trying to have it make sense to me, from the standpoint of the global macroeconomic system, you got to look at it in log scale, not linear scale. Awesome. Thank you. That was sort of what was going on. I've only ever looked at Bitcoin on log scale as well. Right. But the distinction, Scott, that I was hoping he would say, because I knew that this was likely,

and I think the audience will benefit from this, is distinguish your longer-term views from your swing trading. In swing trading, you can't look at it that way. And that was what I was hoping Peter would say because that's what I thought made sense. But he's far better at it than me and probably explained it better. So I just thought from the audience perspective, that was a very useful piece of point.

Yeah, Matthew? Yeah, I think there's some danger of mixing up fundamentals with ta here um i think we need to keep them separate but just regarding log scale i think the most useful um use is of log scale is basically in the early price action so at the moment with the rapid price action has been in the last you know few basically in the early price action. So at the moment with the rapid price action has been in the last few years, the early price action doesn't seem to, you know, you can't see any waves if you're an Elliotian or anything like that. You cannot see the waves unless you're using log scale. But the problem is with Bitcoin, it's evolved so much as an asset. So initially,

it was obviously purely a speculative asset and it's evolved into much as an asset. So initially, it was obviously purely a speculative asset, and it's evolved into becoming a real store of value. So I think that looking at the early price action on Bitcoin, I don't think is actually that useful. And that's why you would use log scale to analyze that early price history. And then looking at gold, I don't know whether we discussed it earlier, because I just came on towards, you know, a couple of minutes ago. But quite interesting to note the last halving event on Bitcoin, that actually propelled Bitcoin to a better stock to flow ratio than gold. So when you look at the amount of Bitcoin in existence, there's now less being produced in relation to that as there is gold in relation to amount of gold. So that means that, you know,

Bitcoin is really rapidly maturing and becoming that store of value, becoming true digital gold and overtaking Bitcoin in that way. So in terms, and then the final thing that I think we're looking at is, you know, how fast can it appreciate to 100 and beyond? Yes, it can happen very, very quickly. I think there's still some potential headwinds with potential geopolitical risks. And also, obviously, we've got interest rates tonight, and the ongoing what's going to happen with the economy. And also, there's some tensions, geopolitical tensions, even with China and trade barriers and that kind of thing. So there are a lot of potential headwinds, but if all goes well, it can absolutely sail through 100 very quickly by year end. But there are some risks. So anyone who's trading, I think we really have to watch your, you know, manage your risk very, very very carefully but the potential is absolutely there so that's about it for me but it's interesting as we kind of alluded to with all those geopolitical things to watch and all the conversations we've had over all this time

bitcoin's exactly where it's supposed to be in the halving cycle did you find that a bit funny um i mean you look at halving cycle everyone talks about this halving cycle i mean it's long term obviously it's amazing because there's effectively less and less supply of bitcoin but um again if you put the halving events on a on an s&p chart it looks as though the halving events have a literal effect on the s&P 500, and they don't. So I actually think that there's too much talk of cycles because we just don't have enough data and history on Bitcoin. As I say, it's evolved completely from a totally speculative asset. I think we actually put too much into cycles. Yes, long term, it means Bitcoin should reach the moon. But I think that we cannot

use these events as timing of cycles. Because as I say, if you put these harbing events on an S&P, you could literally justify that the S&P is reacting to the harbing cycles. So I think we just read too much into that. I think we've got to be very, very careful about talking about repeating cycles in an asset, which has been around for such a short period of time. You can't talk about since 2009, because it was so speculative in those early days. Now we can start to begin to consider cycles, but we need more data to have any sort of reliance, I believe, personally, anyway. I think that's fair. Dave and I talk about that often. I mean, statistically irrelevant, certainly, but the pattern is somewhat undeniable. But yeah, you can't take, I mean, Bitcoin is a very different asset in each cycle than it was with maturity, institutional participation, etc. Dave, to your point, though, you were saying there could be sort of some white swan, I guess, that sends it there overnight, not by the end of the year, but certainly if Trump goes into office and passes a Bitcoin act or we see, obviously,

become a strategic reserve asset, that's the type of thing that I think, as you've mentioned many times, can't be priced in, period, right? I mean, the United States adding Bitcoin to the balance sheet in any meaningful way would force effectively every country in the world to follow there's just not enough bitcoin for that dave did i articulate that uh properly or uh but uh i think maybe uh keep going to guess and they're not here. Simon, are you back? Hey, Scott. Sorry, I just couldn't hear anything Matthew was saying at that time. Oh, classic. Okay.

And I'm glad you can hear me because I tried to call on you earlier. We won't have to repeat it. Maybe for now, I'll just go to Florian. And obviously, you trade both Bitcoin and gold. So kind of relevant to all this conversation. Yeah, thanks for having me again. Well, I mean, I think we've seen a regime change in the last few days. Obviously, gold had a heck of a run over the last few months. And it seems that it's time for a bit of a breather here, maybe.

And Bitcoin is about to break out, most likely. I mean, we have this still strong resistance zone where it's right now i would say everything between 75 and 80k is still kind of resistance even though it's above or it's a new all-time high here but uh yeah once we take out this resistance zone i think it can actually rally very quickly to 100k and we've seen this earlier this year how fast things can happen so um yeah i think it's time to be bullish i said it the last time already and um yeah it looks pretty good here do you have an idea i mean the timing of course in the title you know by end of

year but is that relevant to you or do you think that this is just a general trend kind of here into the next cycle well timing is always tricky but mean, we've seen it in the gold market, how much energy can be unleashed out of such a cup and handle pattern. And we have a similar pattern here in Bitcoin, three years in the making. And we've seen it earlier this year in Bitcoin. I mean, it rallied quickly 20K in just a few months, a few weeks. So yeah, I think 100k by year end is possible yes um i wouldn't bet on it but it's possible for sure i would love day were you here

probably not i don't know if anybody has the data because i'm not in front of a computer but i would love to see what the futures contracts are or the odds are of a hundred thousand on december like an end of december contracts do you have an idea florian by any chance i don't trade the bitcoin future but uh i need to take a look at it myself yeah i'm just curious because we can put obviously we can put a at least uh what the what uh people are betting on with their money odds on that right by uh kind of uh looking at the futures contracts but i don't know the answer to that. So listen, we got Ron here.

Let's pivot a bit to politics. Ron, massive red sweep here. Got to imagine that that's what you guys were kind of lobbying for in this context. You're probably pretty happy. I personally am happy. I mean, I lobby more of the Republicans for VA again. So like, this is great for me personally, as well as a lot of folks in the industry, I think. But, you know, we had a lot of good Democrat wins, too. So and also I think like the narrative of Warren and the anti-crypto army, it is mainstream now how much that has backfired politically. So that's good to see kind of that going to the mainstream. And we're entering 2025. It's a pretty strong position. So to y'all's point, I think we're going to have a lot coming up in the next 100 days for the Trump administration.

And crypto is going to be in the mix for a lot of that. So buckle up. It's going to get pretty busy pretty soon. So what are you looking for in the coming months now as we make the transition? Trump's obviously done this before. Last time, I think people point to as being kind of a mess um do you think that by inauguration we might actually have some chatter about what's likely to happen with digital assets um we're starting to do that already in congress but um even before that uh there was a recognition within the trump uh team or the campaign itself that they did really fumble in the early days of their administration, just trying to get a lot of nominations through.

Mind you, again, different political times, a lot was going on then. But even like the mid-level staff, like the delay at the top really delayed a lot of the actions that were doing the bureaucratic work because those folks weren't put in place. So they've been really trying to stimulate that for the past couple of months. So I've been in communication with them, helping them vet folks for more of the crypto side. There've been plenty of other folks as well in the crypto community that have been working with them. So they have a pretty robust list from all sources I've been talking to.

It kind of just depends what the upper folks choose, but they have allegedly already vetted the top folks and they're ready to hit the ground running. And with Republican Senate and a decent margin, you know, it's not one or two. It looks like now they're going to have a couple of votes to mess with here. They're going to have a pretty good runway. It's just more you only have a year and a half to really move the policies forward. And that's what they're going to have to work on.

And they know the fires on their back because likely the Senate's going to flip to Democrat next go around. So it's a very limited time. You get two years. Yeah. I mean, but do you think that with enough people in his transition team and surrounding him that are sort of pro crypto and literally all of them, right? I mean, you've got RFK, Elon, Vivek, obviously, uh, Lutnick. I mean, do you think that they view this as important of, uh, you know, as important of an issue that it could be, you know, in the first sort of round of congressional, you know, action that we see market structure or obviously stable coins, but then more importantly from the Senate, this global reserve, you know, Bitcoin reserve? I mean, is this something we could be talking about in the next four to five months definitely i mean already so uh yesterday the number two house republican put out his agenda for the top next 100 days of the trump administration uh crypto regulatory framework was on that list now mind you again that's just the house and if i had to predict

anything it would probably be that stable coins likely falls off to the wayside in the lame duck just because the pushback has been the Democrats and the Republicans have all the advantage right now in the negotiations. So if there's any pushback from the Democrats, they're just going to wait until next year and just do it when they have full control of the administration and Congress. So we'll see what happens there. I do hope we can get a deal done, but I'm not worried if it doesn't get done this year, it'll be pretty quickly done next year. But market structure, again, look towards that to be the large focus in the first 100 days, moving out of the House at least.

And then tax. Tax is going to be also coming up in the first 100 days. With Republicans having full control of Congress, it's going to be open season here. And crypto has come up a decent amount already in my conversations preparing for this scenario. So expect tax issues in crypto to come up a lot. So already, first couple hundred days,

and we're not even getting to the personnel yet, we're not even getting to the executive orders potentially, so even just for Congress alone, it's going to be busy. Simon? Yeah, my question is, and I think it's worthy of a discussion to the panel, is why wouldn't America have a Bitcoin strategic reserve? Like what could go wrong here? So many of the traditional financial institutions have now figured out that they would rather

monetize Bitcoin. You know, the IRS has said, you know, they'd rather tax it. We've got the whole integration into the pension system through 401ks and everything with the ETFs now. So I'm wondering who can get in the way of the process? We've got what seems to to be if you've got the house the senate and the president all republican things are going to be able to go forward soon the transition team are all um bitcoin type of people that get it um so what what are we what are the things that we need to be aware of that could get in the way that might get in the way of America not having one? I mean, Ron, couldn't it just fall by the wayside? Like one of those many sort of campaign discussions that just doesn't become a priority?

Yeah, there's two points here. So first is what's Congress already focused on? What's been the main focus? And that's been stable coins already. That's been the debanking and market structure. That's been in the mainstream narrative in Congress for about the past four or five years because they've been hearing that from the industry.

So that's already kind of top of mind for them first. On the strategic reserve too, even though the administration put that in their policy and we've seen a Senate bill out of there, we haven't seen any really take up on the House side for that legislation. It is kind of a newer idea, whereas like market structure legislation has been more around for about four or five years plus. I mean, that's what I was working on back in 2017 in Congress.

So it's a little less fleshed out. Again, I think of all the priorities, that's one where it's a little harder to map out given just the, I would say, the lack of political will from a lot more of the major players here. Again, Lummis is a major player, so it's still worth looking at. But I wouldn't put it as high as like stable coins or market structure by any means. I actually even say self-custody probably has a better chance of getting enshrined into legislation in some way, shape or form before that. But we'll see. There's a lot that can change on this front. But that one doesn't have as much political buy-in as the other issues do right now. Yes, I guess my appeal to whoever may be involved in that process is it would make a lot more sense to the U.S. to front-run all of the different

types of things that they'll be working on. And so, you know, whoever's involved in that process, it would be crazy for America to get everything right, set up the game, and not already have started on the strategic reserve. So I think if anyone's influential in that process, it would be great to put that to the front of the queue, however that that process works i'm sure i'm sounding a bit stupid because i haven't been involved in well yeah i i think you know ron you can speak to this but i was looking obviously at the chart of sort of pro crypto congress and pro crypto senate and anti-crypto congress and senate obviously it was a huge win for the industry i saw senate basically had three what were viewed i guess guess, as pro-crypto senators

outright, and now only one anti, which is obviously Elizabeth Warren, now that I guess Sherrod Brown is gone. I mean, does this matter? Is it about how much sway like Lummis has, since she's the one who obviously proposed the bill at the Bitcoin conference and presented it in Nashville? Is it about getting people in line because to simon's point they could pass it probably now right but that doesn't mean that they want to it could have just been a talking point yeah i will say no lummis is fully uh you know pushing this is not a talking point she fully believes this uh through and through so i this is not just uh to try to win over votes or anything like that. She is fully in. I've had several conversations with her staff, and they've been

very aggressively trying to make this happen. So I would say, you know, when it comes to the Senate, though, and that's been kind of the major obstacle for a lot of things, is you do really need a broad consensus of people supporting it. And so we only have like one or two or four or five members supporting a certain issue. It's kind of harder to elevate through the list. But Lummis is going to have a lot more power from next Congress. And it's very likely she's going to chair this new digital assets subcommittee. And I'm sure this is going to be one of the first things she puts up there. So, you know, it's worth keeping an eye on and keeping an eye on her especially because she is pushing for this at every chance she gets.

And, you know, she is the crypto this at every chance she gets. And, you know, she is the crypto center and a lot of views. Yeah. Bitcoin center, certainly. One final question. Is there any,

is this, is this a job or a task for the Bitcoin lobby? Is that something that influences it or not really? It is. I think the next phase of the lobbying is going to get really interesting. um we're gonna see a lot more of like industry versus industry uh within the crypto industry fighting each other potentially uh i can see this going into banks because stratify is coming in hot and they're coming in hot on the lobbying side especially now so um it's gonna be looking very different than like you know just the pro crypto versus anti-crypto it's gonna get

pretty meticulous so um so we can see the Bitcoin lobby pushing for this as a whole. But you have to remember, we're going to be facing a lot of fights here on a lot of other fronts. And this might be one of those things where it's like the cherry on top versus the existential crisis of banks being the only issued stable coins

versus non-banks and stuff like that. For those who listened to Nashville, though, Ron, it was kind of interesting because Trump, people expected Trump to announce a strategic reserve, and he actually technically didn't. Right. What he said was that effectively they would not sell the Bitcoin that was already on the balance sheet, you know, talking about Bitfinex, Silk Road, all the Bitcoin that's been confiscated. He came up short of saying they would ever add any more. He basically said we won't sell. He didn't say strategic Bitcoin reserve, but then they obviously had

Lemus come out on stage as he was walking off and propose the bill. So is there actually, without that bill, is there a middle ground here where I would imagine, yes, where the government just doesn't sell, whether we call it a Bitcoin reserve or not, they've at least already committed to not selling what's there. And by the way, they could still sell it before he's even in power in the next three months if they want to really be contentious.

100%. Everything, every scenario you just outlined is in the realm of possible. And again, this is less Congress, at least in terms of the actions of the government's held Bitcoin. That's going to be a regulatory decision.

So that's going to be a Trump admin call. But I would watch him more hold on to those promises of not selling the Bitcoin versus like creating the strategic reserve because he probably will need Congress in some form or fashion. Easy middle ground. Go ahead, Dave. Yeah, I actually have two completely separate. One question and one, you know, kind of a, well, actually both sort of questions. So on the Bitcoin strategic reserve, you know, topic, you know, there's also another middle ground, which is treasury and or the Fed buying Bitcoin, or having Bitcoin on their balance sheet. I don't see why you need

congressional authorization to do that, because they were able to buy MBSs and other sort of stuff without it. So it seems hard to understand why they couldn't do it in sort of a stealthy mode, at least in the beginning, if they were so inclined to do so. I'm curious, you know, what you think about that. But before I give up the mic, the totally flip flop second question has to do with market structure. And we took crypto, we care about market structure a lot, because there isn't one. But one of the things that this audience doesn't know, but I'm very well aware of, is that there is an enormous pushback against the last four years of the SEC in traditional finances, particularly the equity markets, where Gary and his handpicked academic at trading and markets have had an onslaught of market structure rules that are incredibly prescriptive.

And for the most part, the industry thinks is not even remotely close to satisfying the APA. That's the Administrative Procedures Act, which is why there will be lawsuits on quite a few of these things. Now, the reason I'm mentioning it, Ron, is because I don't know what you need from Congress for that, if anything, but political pressure will be immense on the next SEC to simplify. And then the question then becomes, it's like, well, wait a minute, if we're going because it needs to be, because frankly, it doesn't. It's massively overengineered on the equity market side. And I think and we can talk about that at will. A large part of why crypto firms don't want to try to fit within equities has to do with the incredibly prescriptive nature of those equity rules, and they go up and down the gamut. And I'm curious if you've heard any rumblings about any sorts of normalization. You mentioned TradFi lobbying. I guarantee you one of the things for TradFi lobbying is, why do those guys get to have better rules and we have to suffer? Because that's obviously going to be a problem. So to me, a large part of this is some form of normalization or understanding. And I'm curious if anyone has come to that realization or if we have to wait a few moves in the chess game before we get to that realization. You raise a lot of good points. I'll try to address the best I can.

I think when it comes to the very in particular stuff, this is where the fights are going to get really in the weeds and granular. And it comes to the point where a lot of the industry is going to collide um and i want to say also like the republicans it's not a free pass by any means i mean we're still going to see a push to get something on the books whether it be legislation or rules because they will a they want to prevent another gary gensler coming in down the road but also at the same time they want to make sure there's very much clear clarity here and get the rules right. The idea that they have all this effort here on market structure and then, OK, no, we have an SEC that's on the knees of Trump and we're going to be good to go. No need for legislation. That's not the cards. That's not in the road.

Just let me clarify. And by the way, I just just, you know, I'll say it publicly. I am happy to help you in your efforts to understand some of these thorny, deep in the weeds issues and where they come to it. So we'll just put that out there. But that being said, what I'm asking is a lot of, there are two most important things in the FIT Act that was there. The most important thing is end regulation by enforcement. We all understand that that's a big deal. And then the second most important thing is clearly delineate responsibility. What I'm asking about is anyone talking about what do you need to do and what

could Congress do to, once you have delineated responsibility, to guide the CFTC and the SEC in where they are responsible. Because obviously those first two things come first. I mean, we do need those things to get done. Yeah, there are folks that have been helping on that front, both within the BA membership and certain individual companies, but also just more on the government side here as well on the coordination front. So those conversations have been happening for quite some time,

but obviously we haven't gotten to the point where we're implementing something either from Congress or rulemaking that's quite... So we're definitely, again, more, we'll have to wait and see how the chessboard looks for us, but we've got the right folks in place. I will say the D.C. resources, we do have a decent amount of folks, and it's a good bench to pull from, but it's going to be the regulators to some degree with at least their rulemaking and saying that diverts to the courts. And now you have a more conservative, you know, Congress, Senate and president. So it seems like the regulatory agents have less power generally, correct? Correct. They have less power. And then you have a full mandate here from the American people for the Republicans to enact what they think is the right direction for the country. And that is a lot of stuff. And so that's where also crypto is going to come into a couple of fights is that

we're going to have to try to get ourselves at the top of the ticket in terms of issues solved. And again, it seems like already that's in place with the Republicans already saying that they're going to get to crypto in the first hundred days. But to your point, there's a lot of issues we've got to get to. Very likely some fall off down the road, and we've got to get that finalized as soon as we can because there's so many other issues that Congress wants to go to. So there's no realm where we're voting three or four weeks on just crypto because they're going to focus on so many other issues. I was just going to ask, does crypto just get wrapped into one of these huge, like, you know,

Inflation Reduction Act type things that we saw from the administrations where it's just all these random things thrown under one huge umbrella and maybe it's just a bullet point? That is very, very likely the situation that's going to happen in the first six months of 2025. To what extent? I think taxes is guaranteed almost at that point to be in a big bill. But like market structure, stable coins, SAP 121 repeal, all that stuff is likely on the table.

So again, just because it doesn't make it into this big bill that Republicans are trying to push in the first 100 days that they're allegedly forming, by no means does that mean like it's dead in the water. It's just going to be probably the first ticket out of Congress

and Trump will sign it. So like that's going to be probably the first ticket out of Congress and Trump will sign it. So that's going to be the thing to watch. Since I've still got you, sorry to focus so much on you. But we obviously saw, as I said, that sort of huge swing in crypto-friendly legislators versus negative anti-crypto legislators. House was even much bigger numbers. How much of that was strictly

Republican or how much was bipartisan? Because I have a feeling actually it was quite a few Democrats as well. I mean, we were saying before the election results came out, like, regardless of who wins, like, especially in the House, we are feeling pretty confident we'll get a lot of good stuff out. And just because the Republicans win, I mean, it means that we have a lot easier of a chance to get some of this stuff done. So again, it'll be a lot more in the wheat's bowels here, but we are feeling good because we actually got a lot of good Democrats in this cycle, a lot of younger Democrats. And there were a couple of races where it was a Republican, pro-crypto Republican versus a pro-crypto Democrat. So I would have the pro-crypto Republican calling us frustrated because they're helping us out,

and then vice versa for my colleague on the Democrat side. But that's a good situation to have. And I think that's going to be more the norm next cycle. It was really dumb strategically to be against crypto. And that's going to be the sticking point for quite some time. Now, mind you, though, it's the next phase. So, for example, self-custody. To my knowledge, we haven't gotten any Democrat to co-sponsor a self-custody bill. It's been a Republican issue. It's in their Republican Party platform. But that's going to be another thing. We've got to move the Democrats along.

Just because they're pro-crypto, self-custody doesn't mean it's a guarantee for a lot of these Democrats. So we have to push them in that direction. So the work is still cut out for us. I bet Ro Khanna would do it if you're talking about in Congress. I mean, Richie Torres voted against the Warren Davidson bill on self-custody. And he's great for our space. I'm just warning folks, there's a lot of good Democrats here, too. But it doesn't mean they're 100% sometimes.

So just always be aware. And the same thing goes for Republicans, too. Is Elizabeth Warren as marginalized as we think she is. I mean, even in her debate with John Deaton, she backed off her anti-crypto rhetoric dramatically, which I felt like was just insane that they let her get away with it, but they obviously don't know. She effectively went from saying that crypto should be banned to saying, hey, I think crypto is great. We just need rules, right? Which obviously isn't the case. So maybe that was showing that she's going to back off. But I mean, is there any indication that, A, she will continue with this level of rhetoric and antipathy for the industry? And I guess, B, would it even matter at this point when she has so little support?

I mean, without Gensler, without being the head of the banking committee, without Sherrod Brown, isn't she just basically sitting on an island now? Yeah, that's the thing. This is going to be probably the most interesting dynamic for the Democrats in the next about two or three months is what they decided to do with Elizabeth Warren. Because again, it's gone mainstream that the crypto industry, they won this battle. Again, it was front page New York Times the other day. So it's mainstream that crypto won this round

against Elizabeth Warren. But right now, given the folks who have lost their elections, again, the two that were anti-crypto ahead of her, she is slated right now, as it stacks up, to be the lead Democrat on Senate banking. So even though she's in the minority, she still has a lot of power and she still is seen as the mouthpiece for financial services policy for the Senate Democrats. And there's a lot of Democrats who disagree with that direction. And so I'm sure there's talks happening within Chuck Schumer's office and others saying, do we want to put her and her policies that have been outright rejected by the American people

on Tuesday, do we want that to be the face of the Democrats' view of finance policy? Because there's been incredible backlash on this front from a multitude of angles. Schumer himself made very pro-crypto comments a couple of weeks ago or months ago, right? Exactly. And I don't see a situation where Elizabeth Warren backs down. I mean, even politically, you don't really back down from an issue, especially when you put so much effort into it. So she'll either pivot to another direction or she'll double down and say, you know, this industry took out a lot of my allies and I'm here to have their reckoning. So she could be a thorn in our side, but she's going to be around a lot more likely.

And I don't see it going positive. So we'll still have plenty of narrative battles here, but she's on an island by herself right now and losing allies fast. And those who do join her camp, I know they're going to be on the crypto list for the election next cycle. So let's see what happens. I mean, if we get a massive bull market here, can you imagine how much crypto money is going to go into the next election in two years? It's going to be insane. It's insane. I mean, again, I'll stress the trap, my folks, the number of people I've been talking to, I was in New York two weeks ago, and just the number of people talking about the election being the inflection point, and them texting me the next day. They're all in. And again, in D.C., they've been around for quite some time. I mean, they've

had the foresight, too. Take BNY Mellon. They were lollying me on custody back in 2017. So they've been thinking about this way ahead here and laying the groundwork. Tokenization has been a hot topic on Capitol Hill the past two years. So look for the Tratify, folks. See what happens. But I am really excited and nervous a little bit to see where this goes on the lobbying side. But for the market, it's going to be great. Can I ask one last question, Ron? You may not even talk to them.

But one of the major weapons that Gensler has wielded, and honestly, it started under Clayton, was they basically, and they're not legally, this is extra legal, but they basically told FINRA to not approve any broker-dealers to offer crypto trading services to their clients, which is why, by the way, Robinhood has their crypto arms and so does Fidelity in non-broker-dealer affiliates. I've mentioned this on the space a lot, but I'm curious. One would think that people in D.C. are telling Robert Cook, OK, you may want to normalize this policy because that's a big deal. If you're in TradFi, if you're in a bank and you have to set up a separate affiliate and you have to do what's called Chinese walls or information barriers and all sorts of things, it's really hard to do it. Whereas what they do with futures, just so you know, those are not securities either, is they are allowed to trade them in their broker dealer and they have to have policies around it.

But it is dramatically easier to do so. I'm just wondering when that's the tsunami that will get all the financial services firms out there into crypto. That's literally been the sticking point for many, especially from midsize to small broker dealers. I'm curious if you've heard any movement on that or if that's something we have to wait for. That's been on the radar for members of Congress for quite some time. And Robinhood's been pushing that, so have several other folks. So I would imagine that broker-dealer stuff would get, at least in some way, shape, or form, more industry positive, to say. But it's really unclear the direction they're going to take,

especially also what they're going to do with the SEC before Gensler leaves. So I think we've got to see if there's anything finalized on that broker rule afterwards, as well as there will be a congressional reaction, if not SEC rescinding that whenever that person gets in place from the administration. So, and, but again, to your last point though, about the Tratify money coming in, when I mentioned the next stage of the lobbying fight, this is kind of like where the stratified lobbying world comes into play and kind of how their strategy is. And I think folks should be more aware is that, you know, some folks, again, it is effective sometimes, largely not, but it does work. You know, they try to get regulatory burdens to kind of capture the market and put some barriers in place.

Again, the banks have done this for years. And so I think we're going to see either banks trying to push into that space or crypto folks trying to win some market share through regulations on other fronts. So, you know, it's going to be a very interesting dynamic to watch. And it's going to get very in the weeds. So just buckle up. It's going to be interesting to watch. Yeah, there's just so many issues beyond crypto with Wall Street, where people are obviously are just disillusioned with the current regime and that's going to change. Do you think that Denzel even makes it to January? I mean, I believe the last two SEC chairs when there was regime change basically resigned by like late December, pre-Christmas. I mean, he has waited until the last second to do a lot of things that have been positive for the crypto industry. I mean, take the Bitcoin ETF. He had months to approve it. He

waited until pretty much the last day. So I think that's going to be indicative of his strategy. We are on pins and needles. If he does anything, if he even does anything in this short time interim, it'll likely be rescinded or dropped if it's like an enforced action or something like that. So we'll see. But I'm sure there will be some noise he makes when he leaves. Because he's probably the noise of crying. One could hope, but I'm sure he'll go out with something on the letterhead, too. Well, doesn't it, Ron, doesn't he have, if he decides to stay, he could stay as a commissioner, but doesn't that basically mean Crenshaw automatically can't be renominated because there can only be two Democrats on the commission and he would just be one of the two non-chair Democrats?

Isn't that the way it works? Yeah, there's a lot of scenario playing. We've been talking with folks on. That is one scenario. But again, Crenshaw also isn't great for the industry in some cases. He's arguably worse. one scenario. But again, Crenshaw also isn't great for the industry. In some cases, in some folks, he's left to work. So whoever's in that commissioner's slot, whether it's Gensler or Crenshaw, the good news is that they'll be in the minority before you know it. That makes sense. I mean, pivoting back here from politics. I think we've definitely beaten that that topic here, which is great.

Dwayne, what do you think the regime change here and the sort of red sweep is going to mean for markets over the next few years? Obviously, we keep talking about where Bitcoin will go above of law, but in context of greater markets, do you think

that this will generally be bullish for stocks and assets over the coming four years? That's a very big question. So I think in general, yes. One of the things that I'm wondering about here is, you know, with organizations like the SEC and all the secondary tertiary sort of organizations here, we have a new, you know, we have a new government coming in, it's a brand new day here. So is that going to change the picture for, you know, things like productivity, inflation, manufacturing, is that going to change the way that they are going to approach policy? So that's one thing I'm wondering about, especially when we're basically in a an easing environment right now, or at least an initial easing environment, are we going to see some more rate cuts?

I know that Trump's going to bang the table for rate cuts because he's going to want he's going to want a better, you know, basically a better environment to foster economic growth here. So I think at least on a high level, I think it'll be positive for markets. I think that we're in a realm right now where you could argue that inflation is cooling. And I think the Fed will probably give us another rate cut just in light of inflation cooling and some concerns about job growth cooling as well.

So just on those fronts, I think that it would be good for markets. We have to see what this means for things like on-shoring for industrials. We're seeing the rates for freighting is coming down globally. So if you're going from Shanghai to New York, if you're going from Asia to Europe, we're seeing those costs going down. I don't have a computer in front of me, but I've hit somewhere in the realm of $3,200 US for a 40 foot container.

So as we see those go down, we're seeing the asset prices increase for basic materials as well, which is a positive sign. But for buyers, that's going to get offset. The lower price on shipping should offset the higher prices. So on different fronts here, I think overall for markets in general, it should be positive. But, you know, I think we should really watch manufacturing and basic materials to see what happens with rates and to see if we can

basically get some productivity from there as well. I think that's the key. I think in regards to tech and some other industries, we should have a good environment, but we'll have to see on some other fronts here. Peter, do you think we're going into a raging bull market here with all assets? We obviously talked about Bitcoin, but what are your view on the broader market as a whole? We're going to wrap soon, but I'd love your thoughts here. I think we might have lost Peter. Might not get those thoughts. Florian, what do you think?

I think we have some tuned out guests or some glitches. So I'm going to move here to wrap because obviously people can hear us. Go ahead. Good, good. Go ahead. Well, I assume we are in a melt up in basically everything. So this could last until end of the year, next spring. I assume stock market will continue to make new highs. I expressed already

my opinion that Bitcoin will start to break out and then most likely will quickly rally to 100k. I assume that we have a price target out of that cup and handle for Bitcoin at around 130,000. And I also assume that precious metals and certain commodity prices will do well. However, I also assume that during the course of next year, the market will start to question whether the situation in total is really that healthy if the Federal Reserve has to continue to lower interest rates dramatically. And that certainly reminds me of 2007 and 2008 and maybe during the next year we might see some liquidity crunches at some point but this is still away from us.

I think for the next few months we are in a melt-up in everything. Awesome, guys. We're going to go ahead and wrap here after doing an hour. We'll obviously be back tomorrow morning 10.15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Thank you to all the guests.

Thank you for all of you listening. This is a hell of a week. I can't wait to see how all this plays out. See you guys tomorrow. Thank you. Bye.