The Wolf Of All Streets - China To Lead The Crypto Bull Market | Crypto Town Hall With Warren Davidson, Dave Weisberger, James Lavish, Eric Balchunas, Bruce Fenton, Wizard Of Soho

Episode Date: June 27, 2023

Crypto Town Hall is a new daily Twitter Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in the crypto and bring the biggest names in the crypto space to share their opinions. ►►OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $60,000!  👉 https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER  ►►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   ►►COINROUTES TRADE SPOT & DERIVATIVES ACROSS CEFI AND DEFI USING YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS WITH THIS ADVANCED ALGORITHMIC PLATFORM. SAVE TONS OF MONEY ON TRADING FEES LIKE THE PROS! 👉 http://bit.ly/3ZXeYKd  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/   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.

Dave and James, fancy seeing you guys here again, since we spoke, I think, 19 minutes ago. We always have more to say, Scott, always. Yeah, I felt like we cut off that conversation way too early, so it's good to know that we can continue it. For anyone wondering what we're talking about, the three of us were on YouTube from 9 to 10, and we're talking about some of the same topics certainly that we're going to be discussing today. I still can't wrap my head around HSBC changing their entire opinion, but we'll get into that a little later. James Seyfried, I see you in the audience. I just invited you up as well, so you can check your DMs for that. I know that Eric from Bloomberg will also be joining to talk ETF today. Guys, we've got a lot on the agenda for today. And I know that Eric from Bloomberg will also be joining to talk ETF today. Guys, we've got a lot on the agenda for today. Just waiting right now for Congressman Warren

Davidson to join. He's been on the show, obviously, before, as you guys know, leading the charged fire, Gary Gensler, the SEC Stabilization Act. Oh, he's here. How are you? Hey, doing great. Nice to join you guys. Warren, I think I talked to you more than I talked to my mom now. Uh-oh. Make sure you? Hey, doing great. Nice to join you guys. Warren, I think I talked to you more than I talked to my mom now. Oh, make sure you call mom. Yeah, I know. Seriously. You're at the top of my agenda. We're just waiting for a couple more people to join on and get the speakers up, but we appreciate your time. I know you only have about, I think, 20, 25 more minutes here. I will call my mom right after this. I'm going to tell her that you sent me. So I guess we're going to go ahead and get started as the team starts to bring

everyone up. Congressman Davidson, I think we should start from the beginning again. I know we've given this context before, but I think it's important as we always have new people filing in to let them understand what we're talking about and sort of lay the groundwork. Obviously, you proposed the SEC Stabilization Act. Partially, fire Gary Gensler has become the calling card of that, but it's obviously about much more than that. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot going on. Some of the people that pay attention to this market, the crypto market, are most attentive to this. But the reasons to fire Gary Gensler are pretty broad. The Securities and Exchange Commission was originally created

just as that, a commission, five commissioners so that there wouldn't be ties. But then they kind of went with a kind of superpowered chairman and they expanded the responsibilities of one of the commissioners and making that person chairman. And it really hasn't worked well. You know, maybe at times it did, but what Gary Gensler has exposed is there's, there's of course a Gary Gensler problem, but there's also a structural problem, you know, where, you know, maybe you could have Huster Peirce or somebody write a dissenting opinion, but it doesn't really change anything. And so Gensler has also been able to move way out of step with Congress and even at times with Treasury and others. He's got no way other than to get fired by the president of being reined in and uh he's he's put a super aggressive rulemaking path out

on most things he's averaged two rules a month uh he's done it with almost no comment from the public uh and then the one thing that he clearly needs to have a rule on crypto uh he says, no, it's already perfectly clear. So easy that no one can do it. And I liken that to Hotel California, a little adapted, but you can check in with Gary Gensler on anything. You're just never going to leave and get the clarity that you need. Even for the handful of things that have been approved, you would never say that that's an optimal path to implement anything. When you look at rulemakings that he's done, he doesn't have legal authority to do some of them. So like the ESG rule, for example, would require different disclosure regime for all publicly traded companies. And because of the nature of disclosures in the supply chain, it would have impacts on privately held companies all the way down to family farms.

And just one of the companies that I talked to is a supplier to a company that would be required to report under this. He's like, I do about a million dollars a year with them, and it would take me about $30,000 in compliance costs to do that. So obviously I'm going to have to pass that through, but so would everyone else. So there's real costs associated with it. The idea that one unelected, very unaccountable bureaucrat could somehow impose that on the entire economy isn't consistent with our constitution. And that's essentially what the Supreme Court said in West Virginia versus the EPA. The EPA was trying to regulate carbon and they're like, we're not saying whether you should or shouldn't regulate carbon. We're just telling you that

there's no law that gives you the authority to regulate carbon. So you can't do that. And that's the job of Congress. And that's the same thing here with ESG disclosures. If really the market says we need that, Gary Gensler doesn't have the authority to do it. He should actually be working with Congress, not trying to impose his will on the market. And that's largely what's going on in crypto. He should be coming to work with us. We should pass a law that provides clarity. I felt like there needed to be a law really since I got to Congress in 2017 on financial services committee. And we've had legislation that's been bipartisan since 2018. But instead of saying, let me work with you to do that,

he's trying to say that he's got all the things he needs, except he can't even answer whether Ethereum is the security or not. So he clearly isn't providing the clarity the market needs. I could go on on all the abuses with a whole range of other things, but the remedy is to eliminate the role of the chairmanship, have a sixth commissioner appointed, so you have three Republicans and three Democrats, and then they have to work together at a minimum. And in general, it's clear when they don't have consensus, well, they have to work with Congress to provide clarity.

And I think that's especially important for capital markets because we have, you know, 50 percent of the world's invested capital. I mean, we have this great treasure in the United States and we shouldn't allow Gary Gensler or anyone else to politicize it. Yeah, you talked about being early on proposed legislation for this. You proposed the token taxonomy act in 2019. I think you reproposed it, correct, in 2021 or recently. And now we're seeing that we are supposed to at least get a markup in July on stablecoin regulation and potentially some other crypto related legislation. So is this actually happening now? Are we seeing real progress for the first time? What does it mean

that they're going to be marked up? Yeah, so the way the process works is you draft legislation, then you notice it for a hearing. Both of those things have been done. And then you take it into markup. And that's the committee gets the chance to offer amendments to the bill. And ultimately, once the committee has passed the bill, then offer amendments to the bill. And ultimately, once the committee has passed the bill, then it goes to the floor for a vote. And then the rest of the House membership, in theory, could offer amendments.

And then once the House passes it, then it goes to the Senate, where usually everything goes to die. They don't take up much legislation. So the hope is that we can put enough pressure on the Senate that they feel, yeah, this is a piece of legislation we need to take up. And let's say they took it up and they adopted a different version. Then you go to a conference committee that has members from the House side and members from the Senate side, and you work out the differences between the two pieces of legislation. If that can be done,

then you land up with a harmonized version. And then the same version has to pass the House and Senate. Once that happens, the president has to sign it. And if it does, then we finally have a law. So that's a tedious process, but at least it's finally further down the line because the House is going to mark up legislation on stable coins in July and hopefully on market structure, if not in July, soon. I look forward to seeing that happen and seeing the process. One of the head scratchers I think a lot of people were pointing at this weekend or at the end of last week was that the SEC just approved the first leverage Bitcoin futures ETF. I'm sure you saw this, the volatility shares 2x Bitcoin strategy ETF. Basically, now you can trade a Bitcoin ETF with leverage, but we still can't get a spot ETF. What do you make of that?

Yeah, I don't know. Sometimes I'm thinking they're trying to actually poison the well on this. Like, you know, they're trying to make it bad in the United States. Like, why would you do a leveraged option versus there and when they did the when they did the futures version uh the the logic is is you know with future contracts then uh there's a all those all those kinds of things because of the leverage and everything else you get more know your customer provisions on who owns the bitcoin and you can't uh you can't do wash trades in it. And that's the fear, I think, at the end of the day,

is a spot Bitcoin ETF creates a giant market where wash trades could occur. And wash trades would break some of the traceability as to who owned which Bitcoin. And if you needed to solve a crime, let's say there was a company that is based in Ukraine and wired money to notable U.S. individuals. In theory, we would want to solve those crimes.

If it's on a public distributed ledger, you can follow it pretty clearly up until the point where you do things like wash trays. Yeah, I just find it interesting that spot ETF, I think everybody clearly would be better for retail, safer product. And we're still getting more futures ETFs, which have marked market tops in the past. And now you can do it with leverage. It just seems like we're on completely the wrong path. I totally agree with the market logic. I'm just sharing the excuses, really. I mean,

and anyone can find an excuse. The challenge is for leaders to find a way. I've certainly been working at it, but we're as close as we've been, but we're not there yet. That's for sure. Yeah. And speaking of ETFs, we obviously saw big news that HSBC is rolling out cryptocurrency services in Hong Kong, three ETFs specifically that they're going to allow people to trade. I mean, it's the same HSBC that was cutting off banking rails to cryptocurrency exchanges just in March and beyond. What I'm getting at is it seems like Hong Kong specifically and potentially China are seeing an opportunity here as the United States cracks down on this asset class. Does that concern you? Is that a fair narrative? Yeah. I mean, Hong Kong was great for capital formation for a long

time. The Chinese Communist Party decided they were going to formally take it all the way over. So they were kind of out of commission for a while. And it seems like the Chinese Communist Party has resolved whatever back end relationships they want. So I would, you know, tread with caution in Hong Kong. It is, you know, a degree of separation from the Chinese Communist Party. But don't kid yourself, it's not really separated. It's just the Chinese Communist Party's little spot market for capitalism. Yeah, but does it concern you then that China is effectively adopting this while we're shutting it down and that we're going to be either far behind or there's going to be a massive opportunity for them? I mean, obviously, all we talked about a few years ago was the China shutdown bans. It was

never coming back. And here we are. Yeah. I mean, I think it's smart. If you look at some of the statements from Xi Jinping, he's highlighted that blockchain has the potential to be as big or bigger than the internet. And I think a lot of people, innovators in the space, see that same kind of potential. I am concerned about how the Chinese Communist Party is using all of this capability. I am definitely concerned. Go all the way back to when Binance

basically exposed the FTX fraud. That's not to say Binance, you know, basically exposed the FTX fraud. That's not to say Binance wasn't doing the same thing. They're just fully staked by the Chinese Communist Party in a lot of people's estimation, if they need to be. So they're never going to have a true liquidity crisis until the Chinese Communist Party won't cover for them. And some people fear that that's kind of what's a vulnerability within Tether now, maybe not something that existed all the time. Some people fear that's something there. So if you look at something that the United States, we've dominated pretty much everything in tech since the Industrial Revolution. I mean,

we, massive innovations even in ag, but certainly from industrial revolution on to automobiles, aviation, aerospace, computers, the internet, our capital markets with less than 5% of the world population, we've got over 50% of the world's invested capital. But in crypto, you've got at least 70 plus percent of them liquidity is offshore. And Hong Kong and Singapore and frankly, Gary Gensler are working to make sure that we have less. So it's kind of the exact opposite of what we've historically done when it comes to innovation. Which makes it interesting, obviously, that we're seeing the BlackRock ETF proposed in this environment. I mean, the same week that we saw the SEC crackdown on Binance and Coinbase, now people are at least viewing it as a legitimate opportunity. I know James from Bloomberg is up

here. I saw that he tweeted 50-50 chance of an approval or a denial. Do you think that that would be a meaningful step in the right direction in this case to at least bring some of this back on shore? Well, I mean, I'll just say, I think it would be disappointing to see Bitcoin be the first ETF approved when you've got people that have worked for a decade to get a spot ETF approved. You know, Bitcoin, I think, or BlackRock, I think, has only lost one ETF filing ever out of lots of them. And 576. Yeah, they're 575 and one. Pretty good record. Yeah, that's a pretty solid batting average there.

So, you know, it's hard to bet against them, but it is sort of like, wow, okay, so it's a big club and you're not in it, comes to mind. And when you look at BlackRock, some of their ties to China are concerning. And if you look at what they've done in the United States with respect to ESG, as an example, you know, they, they, they bought enough ExxonMobil shares to have, I think, three seats on the board and they use those shares. They use those board seats to say no to an oil filled exploration project because it would be bad for their, you know, ESG scores. Well, it's Exxon.

They do oil, right? They're pretty focused on carbon-based energy production, right? And with the same company behind it, BlackRock, used their stake in a Chinese state-owned oil operation to win the bid. And so all this ESG stuff doesn't apply to the Chinese companies. It applies to the American companies. And you see BlackRock doing things like that. I got a lot of concerns about BlackRock. And it highlights, you know, kind of what's going on with the, you know, the phrase ESG. A lot of people are sympathetic to that. Probably people listening in now, you know, when environmental social governance standards and they care about, you know, the planet and all that. exploited to use essentially a social credit system, which is rationing capital in the United

States of America, and often in a way that advantages China. Yeah, I had a glitch there lifting my mic. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. It's definitely a head scratcher that BlackRock has been the champion of ESG and is now going for a Bitcoin spot ETF. I'm hoping that that means that we can somehow put the narrative to bed that Bitcoin is bad for the environment. Do you think that we can make that argument? Well, I think thankfully the argument has been made and is, you know, very effectively. And, you know, again, look, there are probably people that genuinely are concerned about the environment. They're also not trying to shut Google down.

So it makes me say, I don't know that it's sincere when you say it's about the environment. I think the attack on proof of work, they'll pretend, is it really an attack on Bitcoin? It's an overt attack on Bitcoin when you attack proof of work. And the reasoning is it's more secure and you can overpower other types of security more easily than you can getting 50 plus percent of the hash rate to control a proof of work protocol. So, you know, that's a that's a big concern is is the you know, what are you going to do with all that energy kind of invasion of privacy? My concern is kind of the other way. BlackRock being able to do more in this space, given their hostility, might be concerning in the long run. Yeah, and I have to ask you, I know we're running out of time here, but the same question I'm going to ask you every time we speak is, how can people here help, right? What can our audience do to

actually affect some of this change? I mean, I feel like even just tweeting hashtag fire Gary Gensler helps. Yeah, it certainly does. And I'll share some stuff with you soon on the way we're raising money to try to do this. I mean, one of the big lessons I got from my time at West Point was to fight the battle you're in, not the one you wish you were in. I think a lot of us, when we think about our government, we wish it works differently. But the reality is it doesn't. So how do we move things today? I mean, part of it is still the way that it should work, which is public pressure, public awareness, public information. Public information And getting this on frankly every member of Congress House and Senate

Everyone's radar screen That you really need to understand the policy And you don't have to understand the technology You just need to understand why it's important And you should support the stable coin legislation You should support I hope the market structure Legislation we're not quite there

On either of them So I'm hopeful that there'll be products I support, personally, but I'm encouraged about the momentum. And then, you know, make sure you get on people's calendars. That really does make a difference. It makes sure that the staff and the member or the senator prepares for the meeting. Sorry about that. I think lastly, the fundraising part is important

in why you look at who lobbies Congress. Let's just say the status quo, one way to look at Congress is they're really good at preserving the status quo, which is a polite way of saying they don't get much done, except spending a lot of money to keep doing what they've been doing. It is a big ship, so it's hard to turn. That's understandable. But the other part is look at, you know, who spends the most money lobbying. And it's health insurance maybe is the biggest. Banking is certainly one of the biggest.

And they're all interested in things that are broken, not getting fixed because it's working really well for them. So when you want to change stuff, there's almost always somebody that finds an excuse for why you can't really get it fixed the right way. And I just think making sure that people that need to raise money know that there's a way to raise money takes away some of the concerns that people have for being right on the policy. Well, I hope we'll be able to have you back when you can share a bit more about that. I think that's going to be really, really interesting and compelling. asset market structure bill. There's a draft out there that people have been commenting to the House and Senate committees on. And hopefully, we'll get all that input in. That's the way I did the Token Taxonomy Act in 2018. And in December of 2018, Darren Soto, a Democrat from Florida, and I put that out as a totally bipartisan bill, but we wanted comments. And we thought that, you know, by the end of January, end of February, we would have, you know,

the revisions out. But we had so many comments from so many places that it took till, you know, really, I think, late March, early April before we published the Token Taxonomy Act in 2019. And we've got some things that we would tweak to it today if we were to bring that bill as a standalone thing. But the reality is it's certainly influenced what we have in the market structure bill. But what we're moving forward on is, is much more comprehensive than what that bill started out as, which is just to provide a bright line test for what is and is not a, a, a security that's still relevant today. Markets broadly solve that. Technology has broadly solved that. But the one thing that my Keep Your Coins Act does is protect self-custody real clearly. So I think that's one of the things that I need to see in the stable coin bill and the market structure bill is, you know, got to protect self-custody, permissionless peer-to-peer transactions in both. And when it comes to the market structure, it's gotta be a bright line test. So clear that everyone looks at it and sees the same thing. You can't look at it and see

like, you know, modern art where, you know, you get three or four different, uh, takes on it. Uh, it needs to be like, yep, that's an apple. That's not an orange and a very clear to everybody. Oh, look forward to seeing that. Thank you so much as usual for your time. Look forward to having you back very, very soon. And we will all be, as I said, every single time we'll be supporting you. And for anyone who missed it, Congressman Davidson and I actually had a podcast that came out just yesterday where we discussed a lot of this in depth that's pinned just above. So thank you once again. Yep. Thanks for having me. Thanks for the podcast. That was great. And I hope you guys have a great rest of your conversation. I look forward to hearing about it.

Take care. Thank you so much. Perfect, guys. So listen, James, since we have you here and you were invoked in that conversation, I saw that you said about a 50-50 chance of the BlackRock ETF approval, but I'm actually curious your thoughts on HSBC and their three ETFs in China and what that means. Yeah. So we actually have a colleague in China, Rebecca Sim, who I work closely with. I mean, I'm not the expert on China or Asia crypto markets, but it's just another signal that the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party is backing crypto at this point. There's a lot of rivers that they're pushing banks to start banking crypto companies. And as I mentioned, Rebecca Sin, my colleague, has been very bullish on crypto growth in the US. might be a hub because they were the first ones to really approve ETFs and they were doing some things. But she has obviously since changed her to it and basically said that Hong Kong,

at least in Asia, and could be maybe a global hub, but at least in Asia and the Asia Pacific, Hong Kong is going to be the, looks like it's going to be the crypto leader in the space. So- I mean, we've seen ETFs approvals for years all over the world, right? I mean, I think it's the fact that it's China and Hong Kong that's so telling, but really, I mean, you can look to any other crypto ETFs, spot Bitcoin ETFs. They've been in Europe for years. They've been in Canada now for years, as you mentioned. So it's definitely putting US investors at a disadvantage by not allowing them to have access to spot Bitcoin ETF, which would be the most efficient, clear, clean way to get access to Bitcoin through the traditional financial rails. And I mean, you can look at all the issues with different things going on.

You can point to Prime Trust for other issues that are happening in the US. They're supposed to be US regulated. Who knows what exactly is going on there? But an ETF would be the cleanest, safest way if you're using the traditional financial rails. And the SEC just isn't allowing that to happen right now. And ironically, we talked about a few ETFs, Grayscale applied for an ETF that's basically going to invest like 50% or 40%, I don't remember the exact number, of an ETF will be going

to international spot Bitcoin ETFs and the rest will go into Bitcoin miners. And that hasn't been withdrawn yet. I don't remember the exact date when it comes out, but that would come out in a few months, theoretically. So we could have potentially, even if we don't get the spot Bitcoin ETFs, which we've been talking about for the last week or two, Grayscale could have an ETF that literally puts 40% of the assets into spot Bitcoin ETFs and the remainder goes into Bitcoin miners. So it's basically like here, we're going to invest in spot Bitcoin ETFs

that every other regulator has approved. And then the SEC, I'm assuming, might have to approve it. I don't know. We'll have to watch and see if the SEC forces withdrawal, but they haven't yet. So the gymnastics that we have to do here just to get these products listed, I mean, it's astounding.

When you hear that they're going to create something that's going to be a product that invests in other ETFs. And as I asked Congressman Davidson about a 2X leverage ETF, we're getting every single product that can effectively be suboptimal for retail investors and not the one that we need. By the way, guys, the floor is open. Raise your hand. Anyone else who's up here want to speak or contribute, please feel free. I think it's absolutely laughable

that the SEC is hiding behind protecting investors while they turn around and then approve a leveraged ETF, a non-spot futures ETF in Bitcoin last week. It's just laughable. It's nonsensical. I think we all agree there. Patrick, go ahead.

Yeah, I think that the approval of the leverage ETF, and to some extent, even if there is approval, approval of a spot ETF gets to what I think is a longstanding negative trend in the US economy, which is confusing financialization for true support of innovation and growth. Because if you really wanted to support the growth of the crypto industry in the US, you'd be supporting point of sale solutions, self-custody, miners, infrastructure runners, the people who are actually building out and maintaining these networks. Whereas supporting someone's ability to leverage VET on it, great, maybe that legitimizes it, the CME futures contracts approved in December 2017, the day that the Bitcoin market topped, the futures ETFs were almost to the day or week

that the market topped when we got those approvals just a couple of years ago. I mean, these products are used to manipulate price downwards, right, and maybe it's anecdotal, maybe it's a coincidence, but it's happened every single time. Dave, go ahead. Yeah, I think it's no coincidence. I think, you know, Caitlin Long is my favorite person to talk about financialization of Bitcoin

and why it's threatening. And the fact is that this particular SEC believes that futures is the best market structure because that's where the chair cut his teeth in the financial markets. But the fact is that a spot ETF, which requires physical holding of Bitcoin in a trust, is not financialization. But leveraged futures ETFs is exactly the definition of that. And it is, laughable isn't the word, it's just transparently imbecilic. It is so transparent that the only reason for approving it is, well, we said futures are okay, so we don't really care about protecting investors from the ravages of over speculation in Bitcoin.

But what we won't let investors do is actually buy and hold Bitcoin in a trust structure that will make it easier for grandma to own it and for trust planning and estate planning and all sorts of other stuff that people assume, plus not to mention with custodial issues, that it's safe. And so a spot ETF has a lot of that that the futures ETFs obviously don't, the leverage ones don't. But the other point that someone made earlier today, and like Congressman Davidson said, is like, well, they're worried about wash trading.

But that's why a spot ETF that's held in a trust structure that uses the pricing from a venue such as Coinbase. And there are others which are explicitly using software like Nasdaq Smarts or others like Aventus Systems or others like Solidus Labs to actually look for wash trading and prevent it is so important. And yet, despite that, they continue to point to it laughably as why not to approve it. So basically, it's very transparent. It's just political is what they're trying to do, and it doesn't make any sense, and it's clearly anti-investor. Wizard, what do you think of all this?

I mean, why do you think that we haven't seen this ETF approval for Spot? Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot to do with lobbyists and a whole bunch of different extraneous people trying to push back against decentralization and power for the people kind of thing. I mean, I feel like that's pretty standard for USA and so on. But you're seeing that in Asia, obviously, they've been basically accumulating at the expense of the USA. And I feel like now, instead traditional banking and so on until they can get a good grasp or not a good grasp, but a good hold on the assets. Coming from TradFi and working on Wall Street for 15 years, I could see why

the powers that be will want to hold things back until they have full control. The large powers that be here, they don't want to give up control over their know people uh you know the large uh you know powers that be here they don't want to like give up control over their assets so until they can have a good handle on you know them controlling the etf them controlling um majority of the assets the the market microstructure the flow um you know they don't want that to kind of um you know be taken

over so that's probably why it's been held. I think that's probably a pretty fair answer. Otherwise, and that could be a reason why a lot of the DeFi stuff they're pushing away because it's kind of not really that easy to kind of control that stuff on the blockchain. So it could be a reason why they're kind of pushing the SEC to kind of go aggressively on those and make kind of Bitcoin to be uh like a

stronghold because it'll be much easier to pass uh and control maybe possibly the etfs on bitcoin rather than some random you know third or fourth tier coin on some chain so yeah that's kind of my second thoughts go ahead james yeah i mean so the first thing I want to say is that I think part of the reason why they've gone through and approved these 2x leveraged Bitcoin futures ETFs, and I'm not defending it by any chance to say that they should approve these and not approve the spot ones. But part of it is they can't lean on the same reason for denying a leveraged futures ETF because it is a regulated market. There's plenty of other leveraged futures products out there. So the reasoning for denying this, they don't really have one that they can lean on anymore. There's nothing they can do, whereas they can still lean on the spot market and say it's not regulated and all the other things you're talking about, loss trading, manipulation, what have you. But what it really comes back to is this is a political

move, right? Gensler wants more power. He wants to be able to say the SEC under his control, basically put a feather in his cap and say he got the industry under control. He tamed the wild west of crypto by making them come in and register and do all these things. He's regulating via enforcement and he's basically holding this Bitcoin ETFs as hostage in a way. They're holding these spot Bitcoin ETFs hostage because until Gensler can get some sort of control and oversight of the underlying spot markets, which is blatantly what he's after,

he's not even hiding away from that. He says basically that they want to have control over it, even though right now it's not really in their purview for some of these things. And I would admit that there's plenty of stuff in the crypto markets that I view as securities that makes sense that the SEC should go under, but I don't think Bitcoin fits into that wheelhouse. I don't think Bitcoin fits into that wheelhouse. And he's

actually been quoted in the past saying that the exchange regulation also doesn't fit in their wheelhouse, right? And if we're talking about how they're going to track the underlying asset, that obviously is coming from exchange data. So, I mean, it's all kind of a head scratcher. I know, James, I saw you giving a bunch of hundreds and thumbs ups over there. We kind of talked about this earlier this morning, of course, but it does seem like this 2x, they just can't reject it. So they have to approve it as James, well, we've got two James, as James Safer said. Yeah. James Lavish up here. So yeah, the issue is just like James has pointed out is that they've already approved the cash settle. It's easy for them. It's a regulated market, but they can lean on the past denials for the spot Bitcoin ETF that they've already issued. But the interesting part

is that now it's BlackRock, right? So we've got an entity that controls $10 trillion of assets. And then you've got Fidelity that just jumped in as well to start an exchange. They control almost $5 trillion of assets. So now you've got $15 trillion of assets that are jumping in. Fidelity, they've already said that they're going to offer Bitcoin holding in their IRAs. And so whether that's just for employees right now, I don't know. It's not offered in in their regular iras but that's what they're all moving towards this this space and so there's two sides of the coin right so you've got you've got black rock that is the the the monster right it's it's the absolute behemoth that everybody loves to hate for good reason. They've got a lot of reasons to hate BlackRock.

But on the flip side of it, it can bring a massive amount of capital into the space very easily. Just as James pointed out, it's very easy for an RIA to use an ETF, a spot ETF that is regulated on an exchange in the United States and not have to worry about things like custody, not have to worry about things like tax, not have to worry about things like the settlement and the counterparty risk. They don't have to deal with that because they're using a prime broker, DTC, the ETF is regulated. It's very easy to get in and out of. Like it or not, if BlackRock gets regulated, if they get this ETF, this is a super highway for small institutions and RIAs to be able to bring hundreds of billions of dollars into

the space, if not trillions period go ahead simon yeah i was gonna say um the the whole argument of the market manipulation you know it it has to be what james said that the you know the player that was going to get this first has already been predetermined because even if you've got all those regulated markets, the objection to the spot ETF, I mean, we've been at this for, what, 13 years now? Like, 2013 we started trying to get the ETFs approved. And the objection was market manipulation.

But how does a futures, a Bitcoin futures product, get its price? It's based on the same underlying market. And so whether you approve a futures ETF or whether you approve SPOR, to me, if I'm looking at it from, you know, let's relate it back to the prime trust issue it has to be if you're trying to figure it from the perspective of a regulator it has to be custody uh because what happens to an ets if somebody loses a private key and they're custodying it so you know but the whole thing of market manipulation it it just doesn't even make sense because that would relate to a futures product anyway and the answer to the question of why is always the same old market, which is competition. So the key is in the title. If America could, it would try and ignore this market, but it can't because it's too political.

And it's been that way since 2013, when China first started trying to support the Bitcoin market, and then it flip-flopped back and forth. And then the mining started finding new homes with each band, with each unband, with each band, with each unband. But it's always been that way. And it's been competition and the desire for a country to support the innovation and what comes from having a politically neutral currency. Because if you give away all of the KYC data and you give away everything to another country,

we saw that with the Chinese ban when everything went to Japan and Singapore and America started to experience the same thing again. So it's competition that drives it back in the end because you'd rather have a foothold rather than have full control somewhere else. So BlackRock is the perfect institution. It's not market manipulation

because the products will be just subject to the same wash trading and the same manipulation in the underlying price, whether it's the futures or leverage or sport. I just think it's nonsensical that it would be a dangerous or harmful product to retail investors. I mean, it's ridiculous. There's ETFs for literally everything, like multiple reverse leverage marijuana ETFs. And if you go down the rabbit hole of things that we've seen approved for ETFs,

it just makes this completely, completely laughable. But James, do you still view it as 50-50 for BlackRock? And do you think that it is possible they could jump ahead of the line? So they wouldn't be jumping ahead of the line, first of all. The only one ahead of them right now is ARK21 shares. So it's possible that they could be the first one out under even the current rules, which like obviously kind of looks bad, like they're playing favorites, but under the way the rules are set up, technically they're second in line behind ARK and 21 shares. So possibly they could jump to the front. And yeah, we're probably still around 50-50, but all of the pro reasons why we think it

could get approved are largely subjective and qualitative, like just looking at who it is as BlackRock, what's going on here. But if you look just backward looking at what the SEC has said, what Gary Gensler has said, what the statements have been on denials in the past, if you lean more heavily towards that and not towards the subjective, then it's less than 50-50, just because the SEC has been very blatant in their stance that they are not going to approve these until they get a regulated market, spot market. Now, we think, Eric Melchudis and I think that it's possible that the SEC is,

we've talked about on here in spaces like this before, that maybe Gary and the SEC are looking for a way to kind of save face. 100%. They can do that with Bitcoin and then still focus on the rest of the crypto ecosystem potentially. So that's part of the reason why we think the odds are better than super low. But even still, even if you're BlackRock, I've said this before,

even if you view the odds as ridiculously low, like if BlackRock files this and they said, we think there's a 10% chance we can get this through to the finish line and get B first. Like even the odds of that is worth it to them because the downside isn't really that great right they get they get a denial letter they might piss off some people at the sec because they have to do a lot more work

and write these 80 90 100 page denial reasons um but other than that there's really limited downside to them try aside from the cost doing it and blackrock isn't worried about that so it's just the it's asymmetric upside to getting approved um yeah but they would have to jump arc they would have to jump arc 21 shares as you said right correct there would have to be some uh they would have to do the there again the sort of mental gymnastics to disapprove one and approve the other for blackrock to be first well well, ARK21 shares is filed with CBOE rent. So you file with an exchange and CBOE in their 19 before application, where they file for the rule change to launch a Bitcoin ETF, they don't have anything about a surveillance sharing

agreement in there right now. Now, I don't know. If I'm CBOE, I'm doing everything I can to get Coinbase to come on and say that they'll do a surveillance sharing agreement, whatever else, if we think that this is a possible way that the SEC is going to allow this to go through. But theoretically, if CBOE doesn't have that, and NASDAQ, Coinbase, and BlackRock do have that,

all of a sudden, that's the exact reason that the SEC can deny or delay 21 shares in order. So they have ground. BlackRock. They could make the argument. With this specific- Very easily.

Make the argument. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because the thing that differentiates BlackRock is that surveillance sharing agreement. Whether or not that's enough to get through the SEC is a completely different conversation. And you also mentioned the important point, I think, that one is with CBOE and that BlackRock is with NASDAQ, I believe. And there's only two, to my knowledge, BlackRock and then Valkyrie refiling to go with NASDAQ

instead of NYSE. Correct. I believe Valkyrie would need to file a 19B4 as well with NASDAQ to get approved. But theoretically, once you approve one with NASDAQ, the other one would come right on schedule. Not 100% certain. This is a lot of legal and really getting in the weeds type of stuff. And then also, I believe Invesco Galaxy filed with NYSE. So they have a 19B4 application that's also active. So you have active 19B4 applications from all three major exchanges where a crypto ETF would theoretically launch right now.

But the only one that I've seen with stated having a surveillance sharing agreement in it, which is the thing that makes this slightly different than all the other applications, is the Nasdaq one. That said, Gemini and the Wacom Boss twins did file with a surveillance sharing agreement for their Gemini platform when they tried to launch their trust. But while I could make the argument that Coinbase might be a market of significant size, I cannot make the argument that Gemini is or ever was a market of significant size. So yeah. Right. BlackRock clearly believes so if that's who they chose as their custodian, right?

Exactly. Speaking of custodians, you kind of mentioned Prime Trust before. I'm sure people have already seen my videos, arguments about Prime Trust. But we kind of have this situation now where the SEC is going after Coinbase, obviously going after all the crypto native Citadel launching an exchange together. It doesn't seem like it's entirely coincidental. Do we think that, and anyone can answer this, do we think that custody is also going to start moving towards the big boys as we see things like seemingly obvious fraud at Prime Trust? Do we think that we're going to now get BNY Mellon in the state streets, and that's where we're going to now have to cuss to the assets for this industry? Anyone can jump in if you guys don't have an opinion. I'll say probably because it shakes. Yeah. So I think it's kind of heading that way. The SEC proposed a bunch of custodial rules that they were worried about. And one of my pet theories was, when looking at the Grayscale case, our assumption that Grayscale was... Before anything filed, our assumption here was that Grayscale was going to win the case, but that the three-judge panel that decided in the Grayscale versus SEC case, would basically... The decision would be,

you violated the APA, you can't deny spot Bitcoin ETF for the reasons you gave potentially. And then it would go back to the SEC. And one of my pet theories was they might deny on that custodial reasons because they're trying to change the rules for what's a custodian and all these different things that would affect the crypto market. So I do think that things are going to go push more towards the custodial. And there's a lot of tradfi companies that you mentioned, BOML, and there's other people out there that are already investing and trying to build out their institutional custodian offerings for traditional finance companies from traditional finance companies. So I agree with what you were saying. Basically, it's the TLDR.

Now, as far as I want to pivot a bit to price action, because we have not talked about the fact that Bitcoin started last week around $26,000 and ended the week around $31,000. Anyone, Dave, I know, James, we kind of talked about this earlier. Do you think that this is strictly a reaction to the BlackRock news and at the tail end of such bad news with Binance and Coinbase? Or do you think we're seeing a real turning here? I mean, I'm looking right now, we were talking about the decoupling. I have even more data here.

It's the correlation, according to an article I'm reading right now, says that the correlation between the Nasdaq and Bitcoin currently at 3%, the lowest it's almost ever been. Yeah, there's a few things going on there, in my opinion, Scott. One of them absolutely is this announcement of the BlackRock ETF filing. That's a big deal. And possibly even bigger is the Fidelity Schwab exchange. Like I said, this is going to be an on-ramp, a massive superhighway on-ramp for small institutions and investors who have not been comfortable enough with the space. This would drive mass adoption. It could drive mass adoption much faster. And it legitimizes Bitcoin in particular in this space. And that's a really big deal. But then another thing is with all of the

problems we're seeing and with the SEC filing suits, you're seeing Bitcoin dominance rise again. And that in and of itself is moving more capital straight to Bitcoin. And so, do I think that we have a choppy period ahead? Of course, We talked about this on your show about the probability of a recession, but the decoupling of Bitcoin, in my mind, only takes place once it gets to a large enough market value. And it's tiny right now. Compared to the other assets in this world, Bitcoin is minuscule. It cannot compete with bonds. It cannot compete with real estate. It can't even compete with gold in the size of the market right now, especially because gold has so much paper in it. But until it gets to a large enough asset value where investors, huge institutions can use it as a separate

allocation in their portfolios until it gets to that size, which is in the trillions, in numerous trillions, then it's still going to be correlated in some way in my mind, especially because it trades 24-7. Hedge funds love it because they can whip it around and there's a lot of leverage in the space still. And so they use that to their advantage. Makes sense. Dave, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a confluence of factors that have been going on.

And look, I agree with James's basic assertion. As I said on your show, I think that when we look back at this period, the amount of movement that we're seeing are going to look like little tiny indecipherable squiggles. But the truth is that we've seen for six months on-chain accumulation by strong ends. We see at the hodlers, the long-term holders of over a year are at the highest percentage in history. We see the hash rate at more than double where it was when it was at the all-time high in the 60,000s.

So I look at all of those things and that's kind of a fertile ground for reclaiming, kind of erasing the carnage in Bitcoin from last year. Now, what's interesting is, I know there's a few Bitcoiners that are listening, nothing that happened last year, whether it be Celsius, BlockFi, Voyager, Luna, or FTX, none of those things invalidated the thesis of investing in Bitcoin. Yet, it got sold because of forced selling, because it was the available collateral to be sold.

So one has to understand that because the thesis is still there, that there's a lot of people who had no interest in selling. And that's why you're seeing those statistics. When you look at where the market could get to in size, it makes a very interesting thing. And from an on-ramp point of view, it's worth noting, and I think I've said this before, but my brother's a financial advisor, and I talk to a lot of them. There are lots of financial advisors out there. I mean, obviously, there's over 15,000 RAs and FAs in the United States of size. A huge number of them are interested and follow what's going on with bitcoin as a asset and do

absolutely nothing with it professionally because they can't so and there's two things that they worry about they worry about that they can legally and they worry about that they could do it safely so when james talks about it as an on-ramp understand that we may not like you know the fact or you may say black rock is cutting the line or whatever but black rock and fidelity are names that 15 000 plus rias and a lot of others will trust and so it can drum up a lot of interest in the space and so i think that you're seeing people look at that and you know there's there's only 21 million Bitcoin that will ever exist. So, you know, there just isn't a lot out there at these prices to be able to accumulate if, in fact, this starts. And people are always trying to run ahead.

But the types of people who've been buying have been patient. And I'm not sure it's going to change anytime soon. But it is worth understanding how dangerous it could be to be short. Yeah, Dave, yeah. Okay, go ahead, James, please. No, I was going to say is that the problem with RAAs is that they functionally don't have a way to cover their own assets, right? So they have to deal with settlement. They have to deal with custody. They have to deal with legal ramifications. They have to deal with tax ramifications.

Bitcoiners say to me all the time, and it's true that they should be able to figure this out, but it's just not worth it to them because the downside is too big. They can literally blow up their own little franchise that they have inside of that fidelity, inside of those major institutions. And they don't want to do that. It doesn't make sense to them. So yeah, I also, Dave, the same thing. Talk to IRAs all the time and they're like, I just can't own it. I can't do it. I don't have the ability to. And the personal fiduciary downside is too great for me to do it. So this not only gives them the way to, but it gives it legitimacy. It instantly legitimizes Bitcoin as a separate asset class for all of those potential investors, period. Which is why, by the way, that's why the 50% where they say no anyway, even though they lose in court, they may want to do it so that it doesn't happen during this administration. Because legitimizing Bitcoin is literally the last thing the anti-crypto army wants to see happen. Yeah, actually, Patrick, I have a question for you. I pinned a tweet above that says,

following the COVID-19 crisis, the percentage of Bitcoin held across exchange addresses has been in perpetual decline, dwindling to a current value of 11.7%, 2.27 million Bitcoin, the lowest recording since December 21st of 2017. Dave talked about, obviously, the fact that you can see on-chain that whales are accumulating, that high-volume addresses have only grown. What are you seeing on-chain to support this price action we're seeing and that might support this bullish action we're seeing and that might support sort of this bullish move we're seeing in Bitcoin. Yeah. Also, aside from the accumulation on-chain, one thing that we've seen this year is a huge increase of volume on decentralized exchanges. And actually, the ratio of volume on decentralized exchanges compared to centralized exchanges

hit an all-time high relatively recently. And so that goes beyond just Bitcoin, of course, because the large majority of things traded on-chain are not Bitcoin. They're various tokens on Ethereum or stablecoins or ETH itself. But that shows that solutions for interacting with the crypto market that don't actually rely on exchanges are only increasing as the share of the market. And honestly, I think it shows that kind of the cat is out of the bag. And there's really no way to shut the bottle of people being able to interact on chain, buy things on chain. And whether the US gets on board or not, that part of the industry is going to move forward. A lot of people are saying that the SEC is coming after DeFi next, for that very reason,

probably. Yeah, and that may be the case. But if you look at the numbers, you also have, for example, the total value locked in DeFi. So for people who don't follow DeFi market, that's basically the amount that's locked in DeFi protocols is currently at about $65 billion, which is one of the highest points it's been at since the crash last June. So in a year. And that's increasing, especially because you have the ability to unstake Ethereum now. So you have a lot of people staking ETH through liquid staking protocols. And specific protocols aside, the fact of the matter is that if you look at the DeFi market and look at the trust that people have put into DeFi protocols, it's actually actively growing and increasing right now.

Yeah, making it a ripe target. Wizard, listen, you're a trader. What do you make of the price action that we've seen? Obviously, like I said, starting the week around 26, ending almost at 31, covering Bitcoin itself, basically engulfing 10 weeks of consolidation or negative price action in a single week. Yeah, well, can you hear me?

I just want to make sure. Yeah, you're good. Okay, perfect. Yeah, I mean, from a market perspective, it's very interesting because historically, everybody usually says that it's still correlated to NASDAQ, to tech stocks kind of. But obviously, we have seen a big change in that

from a fundamental perspective over the last few months. The correlation to gold is actually, the rolling correlation to gold on a month-to-month basis has increased pretty significantly, which pushes into that narrative of digital gold being Bitcoin and so on. Obviously, DeFi coins, altcoins, you know, those have just been under pressure as, you know, Bitcoin and Ethereum have, you know, hit like new local highs. You know, Bitcoin obviously recently hit the yearly high just

like a few days ago. For me, you know, it's very strange because the digital gold narrative is definitely pushing. So, you know, anytime you. So anytime you saw things with recession popping up, so for example, when the regional banking sector was kind of imploding a few months ago, you saw Bitcoin kind of host a pretty solid rally, which was definitely pushing that digital gold narrative further. But then you saw a lot of consolidation as stocks, tech stocks, started hitting new highs. You saw Facebook and so on hit like 2 to 3x their local lows over the last 24 months, whereas Bitcoin kind of just consolidated, if not started moving lower, as gold kind of hit the top if not started moving lower as gold kind of hit the top line and started moving lower as well. But what you've seen over the last little while, you know, you could kind of, there's a lot of theory about sort of market manipulation that, you know, Bitcoin was kind of kept under

pressure so that the black rocks of the world could kind of keep accumulating. And, you know, then you could definitely say there's a lot of cadence to that theory that as we got closer into the Black Rock and other ETFs and, you know, opening up of crypto in Hong Kong and so on, you saw this huge kind of squeeze up in the market. And there's obviously technical factors as well. You know, Bitcoin did sinceuary kind of have a big move up and then i came back down to that 25k level that a lot of people were expecting it

would retest from a technical standpoint uh and then now it's basically yeah like you said it's kind of engulfed it's showing a lot of bullish uh push up uh for me i kind of want to see it break through this uh you know this uh 32k level that's been kind of, you know, resistance at this point. But you can also say a lot of, you know, today, this week's resistance is next week's support, which is kind of, you know, looking the same way. But if I see a good push out from here over the next few days, you know, I definitely stay very bullish on Bitcoin. All coins, you know, I'm kind of unsure about all coins, definitely. The trade that I've kind of been sitting on a lot lately is shorting all coins and longing Bitcoin.

And if you look at those charts, even ETH, and I'm a big proponent of ETH. Yeah, that's getting destroyed. Yeah, yeah. That chart is just so bearish. So I think Bitcoin is definitely going to lead the way up, which I think makes sense. The narrative is for it. I think sitting on Bitcoin is pretty comfortable. If we do see a pullback to 28, we could see a big sweep down.

If you look at the daily chart at the moment, you could see a little pushback over here in this 30K range. Yeah, 28. That was the 2021 lows between the 65 and 69 times. Exactly. So I could see a big push down and a sweep in liquidity, and then we push up higher, which is kind of how I'm kind of positioning myself. I'm sitting in some stables looking to rebuy in that 28k range. I don't see us getting to 25k within the next- We were just there this week. We were there like 10 days ago. Yeah. Exactly. I don't see us getting to 25K within the next... We were just there this week. We were there like 10 days ago. Yeah, exactly.

I don't see getting there. You know, usually people have kind of missed out like, oh, we're going to get, I'm going to buy in 25K. I was like, well, we just got there. So I don't really see us, you know, getting there anytime soon. I could see 28 to 28 and a half K, 28.6, as you said. I think that makes sense, just so that because we've kind of pushed off like, you know, two, three times over the last three days in this 31, 32K. But listen, for me, I see even if, you know, stocks kind of pull back, tech stocks pull back.

I think that's OK. I think you might see a little bit of a correlation. Yeah. Yeah. that's okay. I think you might see a little bit of a correlation. Yeah. Yeah. It's breaking apart. Like I said, we have a very clear correlation to gold when we're going up and to stocks when we're going down. If you look into the numbers, but the current correlation with Mad Lake, 3% depending, 30, 60, 90, all sub 0.2 correlation. So right now you can't just blindly look at tech stocks and assume at least in this environment that Bitcoins could do the same. Eric and

KJ, both of you guys obviously are go-tos for price action. What are you making of the market this last week after seeing sort of max depression with the Binance and Coinbase news just two weeks ago? Either of you can jump in. Yeah, sure, man. hopefully you can hear me well

but uh yeah you're good basically it was a very interesting situation so we had um what about five six weeks of kind of chopping sideways and down there and that kind of allowed everything to reset as far as uh my metrics that i look at volatility hit lows that we haven't seen um since like june j July of 2020, actually. It was the last time that was comparable, too. So when I see something like that, and then we have a nice move up in the past week, it tells me that it's unlikely to stop here. Yeah, there might be a week or two of sideways as it kind of grinds up against this $30,000, $31,000 level. It's completely fine.

And it might even come back down to like $29,000 or $29,500. Completely fun as well. But ultimately, that sort of expansion now is in play. And I'm kind of looking for this move to carry upwards and onwards over the next month, two months, maybe even three months, basically to end summer. Kind of similar to that rally in 2019, actually. So something similar to that. Where does Bitcoin end up? I don't know. Areas of interest are 35. You got CMV gap somewhere around there from last year, I believe it was May 2020 or 2022, I should say. Then you got 38.5. Then you got some crazy ones in the 40s, actually. One of my good friends actually is um looking

significantly up there and he's quite good with uh with higher term time frames like this so um i wouldn't kind of discount that as well but my main uh the main thing that i'd actually be suggesting after that however is that you know there's a there's a very high probability that we'll see a pretty sizable pullback once this rally has ended. All the way back to here. I mean, if you look at the halving cycles in general, you generally get a pullback that makes a slightly higher low, right? And so, yeah. Yeah, you know, the pullback that I'll be looking for could be, you know, it's going to be probably anywhere between 25 to maybe even 40%.

So it completely depends upon how high Bitcoin gets on this current rally. But it's got a lot of good narratives going for it right now. And it has momentum as well. And as far as I'm concerned, it might spend a week or two here, but upwards and onwards is the direction as volatility continues to expand. Top dirty to me, Eric. Go ahead,

KJ. What's up, everybody? Yeah, you guys have already covered it pretty much uh very very well my feelings are aligned with you guys uh we're 28k as possible uh personally i don't think we're gonna get it um as far as like midterm targets the 40 40 to 42k area makes a lot of sense to me as well um i think that would be just enough to do the trick to get people thinking we're going to get an all-time high this year and then you get kind of like that bull flag draw down slow bleed back to these levels makes makes a lot of sense i'd be looking

for that in q3 um and then looking to kind of go full risk on again in q4 but i've watched uh wiz so just absolutely crush shorting pepe and other alts as well and i think uh i saw a lot of people that haven't really discussed bitcoin dominance like ever i might be like in the past week kind of talking about it a lot and it's interesting because the chart that i look at showing a double top here, there could potentially be one more like acceleration move out of alts into Bitcoin. But it doesn't have to come. When you look at that chart, for me, it's pretty clear that the meat of that move, that like the time to go from Bitcoin, I mean, from alts to Bitcoin is long past. I agree. I'm seeing a lot of setups on alt USD charts.

There was a... I forgot the name. I think it's called other, where it's basically all of crypto aside from the top 10 coins. That chart itself is looking very much like the majority of the mid to larger cap alts that we look at, like Sol and EVACs, where they basically had a year in a choppy range. Some of them actually took their lows on the dip weeks ago. Some of them made higher lows, but at the end of the day, it created the same kind of ejection move that slapped out anybody that was in that range. People hate alts, and they're talking about Bitcoin dominance and how bullish it is.

Yeah, I think especially for spot buyers, these alts can do two to three Xs off these levels. And one of the ones that's been getting a lot of play recently in regards to the team selling kind of becoming a meme is Chainlink. and one of the ones that's been getting a lot of play recently in regards to the team selling kind of becoming a meme is Chainlink however, Chainlink fundamentally is one of the stronger cryptos and I don't say that about a lot of coins but it's something that

you're going to see Chainlink play a factor in what goes forward you look at the head chart, it's not it's not just going down it's like it went sideways forever while other things went up accumulation yeah it looks like accumulation yeah and then it basically it blew the wave so that wave was like over a year long it dumped closes outside of i mean that's like a very clear bearish signal i was talking to my friends about it we were watching and i'm like i'm looking at chain link to kind of assess the health of like what everything else is going to do because if this just starts to nuke it's really not good but if it happens to reclaim that range

somehow then i think it's really bullish for other alts i'm not saying that chain link is going to outperform anything most almost certainly there won't be other alts that outperform anything almost certainly but if it's able to reclaim and that was like a bearish fake out makes me super bullish on alts from like swing trade perspective. I can tell you anecdotally that I had Big Cheds on my show last week and

he made a joke about wanting to be in Bitcoin and why would you ever want to be in any of the older altcoins and he just said link and made a joke and wanting to be in Bitcoin and why would you ever want to be in any of the older altcoins and he just said LINK and made a joke and I got massively like assaulted by the LINK Marines to their credit so there is still a very passionate and engaged community there that would push it given the opportunity. That's what they're known for. I mean they're always gonna do that. I mean I'm not to say I'm like a late maxi or anything,

but just the chart itself, as I was watching it break down, we were like, let's see what this does here. Overall, this doesn't look great, but if it can reclaim, that bodes well for everything else. The only chart that's really concerning, and it's BNB BTC specifically. Yeah, I think there's fundamental reasons people would be slightly nourished on on bme right now you've got some background noise there too kj i think you stepped out into the uh into the streets guys we're gonna probably wrap this up in a couple minutes unless any other guests have any

thoughts on price action here we'll probably move move on and get it going again tomorrow. Guys, you can see above there is, of course, the pinned tweet. If you're interested in advertising on the show, we are taking sponsors. You can email the address that is right above there for sure. And that's basically all we got for today. I want to thank everybody, all of our awesome guests for your contributions. Of course, Congressman Warren Davidson at the beginning, always a pleasure and an honor to have him. It always blows my mind that people who are busy running our government have time to pop over and talk to us in our little crypto spaces here,

which is amazing. All the guests really appreciate your time. Thank you, everyone. We're going to go ahead and wrap it up. See you guys tomorrow, 10.15 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Thanks, everyone.