The Wolf Of All Streets - Election Day: How Will This Impact Crypto? | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: November 5, 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.

What do you think, Scott? 25 point difference now in polymarket. Yesterday, the gap closed significantly yesterday, if you remember. Now it's back up almost to the highs of 30-something. Once again, it's important to note that polymarket is not saying that people believe that Trump will win by 60 something percent, but rather they think that he'll win by one electoral vote and 60 something percent think that, right? So I'm not surprised that on the last day, there's a lot of people who are probably voting their passion and coming in and raising the numbers. But I don't think, honestly, I don't think it's any indication. Everything else I look at has this thing in a dead heat. And I think that that's the case. And when you consider the fact at this point, the polymarket is non-American.

By the way, I don't know if you saw, but Bloomberg, which I thought was really interesting, in the last 24 hours has run multiple stories about polymarket, all sort of negative. They ran an article, I can't remember which was today or yesterday, but I think yesterday one basically saying that experts think that it can be manipulated. I can actually try to find the exact document so that I don't speak. Just give me two seconds. And the other one, here, I'm going to bring it up because I don't want to misquote. Experts worry election betting markets are skewed ahead of vote. That was one of them. And that was run, I believe, yesterday.

Yeah, November 4th. And then the next one was polymarket paid U.S. social media influencers for election content. This is both from Bloomberg, by the way, which I would imagine is slightly left-leaning, but mainstream financial media. And basically making the point that the United States audience is being targeted with ads through United States influencers, but it's banned and can't be traded on in the United States. So sort of both negative-leaning content about polymarket in the two days of the election here, which I found kind of interesting. Yeah, but I think that's not that important. On the real politics platform as well, the margin is about the same looking at all the platforms, looking at BetOnline, Betf, I don't love polls. So I would, I guess, maybe give a slight nod towards the betting platforms over the polling sites. But I think when you really,

really dig into the way that elections are structured in this country, I mean, what we generally see, especially in the last 20 years is she'll win the popular vote and it'll be really close probably in the electoral college. And then we'll have a whole lot of argument as to the system, whether it can be relied upon. But we're really coming down to a couple hundred thousand votes in a couple counties and a couple states that will decide the election. And I think it's really hard for pollsters or bettors to drill into that specific level of who's voting for who when you're just kind of taking these national numbers. You know, polymarket's very binary. Who wins, right?

I would venture that a lot of people betting on polymarket don't even know about the electoral college. They're just foreigners who are like, yeah, everybody seems like Donald Trump. I doubt it. i don't know why dwayne agrees with you also the only amount of also the only amount there's not that much like even though the volume is big there's not that much money at stake on polymarket on this election hold on is it like over a billion dollars no no it's like a hundred and something million dollars it's actually at stake like as it closes i think let me check now it says the volume of the betting and the actual amounts that will be won or lost are different

as far as i understand it because the better the volume is at 3.2 billion um so i don't know what you mean by what's at stake and how that works i can i can dig into it but yeah if you look at if you look at the the uh nate silver's prediction it kind of shifted again and shifted like three times in the last few few days and now he's putting kamala just ahead of trump by less than a percentage point uh which is less than half a percentage point which makes it to a top standard deviation yeah standard deviation within two percent yeah anything within two percent or three percent either way is a coin toss right yeah so that that's what's weird because because based on the polling um it's hard you know because there's a whole argument that the the poll numbers

um uh trump versus uh biden trump versus um um he was he was behind at the same time last uh two two cycles he was behind and now he's waiting i want to tell you really quick really quick i just wanted to wrap that little conversation i can tell you though what makes me like suspicious of the numbers in general and it's anecdotally but i'm obviously i live in the united states i live in like a very small, uh, blue spot in the middle of Northern red, uh, North Florida, um, like the only blue spot effectively because it's a college town. And I can tell you that I've spoken to at least 10 people in the last two days who still don't know who they're voting for. So let me tell you a little story about polls, right? There was this guy that I know, um, South African guy, um, name is ron and he listened to the

polls when it came to when it came to brexit and the polls all said there was no way that the uk was going to exit the eu so ron put a lot of money on on on the uk not exiting the eu and ron got shafted and then ron went and took a bet on the 2016 elections based on nate silver's polls um and ron lost a lot of money on nate silver's polls in a landslide right like it was a clean landslide yeah exactly rand seems like a gambling degenerate to me if it's not foreign currency it it's crypto. If it's not crypto, it's anything. I'm just saying I don't trust the polls. I think that there's always room for a surprise.

And I think there's going to be a surprise here. I don't know what a surprise means because the polls are so fucking close, but there's going to be a surprise if someone's going to be i think most people um that i speak to here would be that like we're at that point in the cycle where nobody would be surprised by literally anything like i i think i would be equally unsurprised if we got a clear winner tonight by a landslide as i would if we were still talking about this in two months and debating who was the president without having clarity. Nothing on the spectrum of those two things would surprise me at this point because of the way that people get sort of whipped up into a fury. And I just think that public sentiment is very easily manipulated here. There's a lot at stake.

I think that people are edgy and emotions are high, and this could go on for a very long time. I'm not saying it will, but I wouldn't surprise you. A lot of the toss-up states could take a while, could take days to count. Is that correct? And if it's close, we could get the results within days, yeah? Yeah, I think, yeah.

It can be within 24 hours. In 2016, in 2012, when Barack Obama won, it was within hours. By the end of tonight, you would have had the predictions already. You would have had the AP would have already declared the election.

So it can't even happen in the next 24 hours. Yeah, Biden was days afterwards, no? Yeah, I had a list. Trump, we knew by like 2 a.m. the night of the election in 2016 because it was such a surprise and so clear. Biden took forever because it came down to counting the provisional and like military vote, military by mail ballots in one state. So the weird dichotomy here is that if Harris wins, it's very likely we won't know for days because she's going to edge it out with like 270 votes exactly just winning Pennsylvania. And it's going to take days to finalize it because they can't start counting until the polls close. Whereas if Trump wins, it's very likely Trump wins with like 300

or more electoral votes. And it becomes very clear because the blue wall states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin, if he wins one of those three states clearly, we'll kind of know tonight. Because even though the votes won't be finalized, it'll be clear. And this is the thing that people miss when they talk about, used to get election results immediately no we didn't it always took days to actually count all the votes it's just the person was so far ahead that you could call it exactly that's what the difference can i just ask a question i'm not american i want to try and understand this thing of the swing states explain to me like why not every state can be a swing state i mean it's just the reality of like how close uh what the population looks like if you look at

california or you know wyoming so are we saying are we saying that that california can never ever ever turn red is that like well no listen florida florida florida used to be florida used to be blue yeah california voted twice for reagan um they can absolutely change over time but right now if you look at this election it's clear yeah yeah i mean florida used to vote very blue actually it was kind of interesting because you had the latino vote in south Florida. I was living in Miami for most of that time, and they always voted Democrat. But actually, when the sentiment changed about Democrats, at least the narrative became in Florida that Democrats were socialists,

and the Cuban immigrants then flipped very heavily Republican because obviously they lived under actual socialism in Cuba, and that largely swayed the vote towards it being more red in Florida. Now Florida is sort of like a very red, expected to go red state with a ton of electoral votes. It's been one of the keys. Obviously, Florida was the key in the 2000 election when Gore was announced. And then we had, you know, Jeb Bush was governor, his brother George was running for president, and we had the hanging chads and the ridiculous guy with the glasses looking at the ballots. And was it a vote for who and all that nonsense. And ultimately, the Supreme Court made George Bush president and kind of switch. But I mean, to Alex's point, it takes a long time to switch these states, but they can. But, you know, right now now there's no damn way that california is voting trump yeah i mean scott it is people don't realize this desantis won by like you know fractions of a percent his first election that's right one slide in his second election for a bunch

of reasons not the least of which was uh florida in the pandemic was the best performing state and he you know people loved the way he handled. And his opponent and his opponent was like doing coke with transsexual hookers in Miami hotels. Well, that's true. But no one knew that in the first election. That was the one he almost lost to. That was Gillum. You know, it's it is fascinating.

The other thing that, you know, that famous meme ran, which is the where the parties have moved to, both parties have moved towards the extreme. And so when you have toward the extremes, but it's very clear. I mean, Scott used the word narrative. I mean, I'm sorry. But if you look at the election, the last day's election campaign of Harris talking, literally, I get the text on my phone. I'm in Florida. You're telling people in Florida to vote for Harris because she's going to fight corporate price gouging. Everyone's nuts. Everyone, anyone from Cuba, anyone from Colombia, anyone from Argentina knows that's not even code for socialism and for government control over the economy. And so yeah, you lose those people

immediately. And once you lose them, it's no longer what you have to understand. There's a lot of in this country, vote blue, no matter who vote red. No, I don't have a good a good thing for that. A good rhyme. Come on, man. Yeah. So, I mean, the bottom line is you get people who are tribal and don't actually look at the policies and it stays. It could go for a while. California went blue because of an enormous amount of immigration. And the people there say, well, that'll be forever. But Scott's right. It won't be forever because people get themselves established. The places they came from, there are lessons. But in the beginning, that's who they vote for. It's like the inertia to break that tribalism. You know, it is hard and it will be

that way. The only places where, you know, you see really strange elections are like New York City, where Eric Adams has been, you know, he's been attacked mercilessly by the Democrats federally because he's been calling it like it is on immigration. And Trump will almost certainly pardon him. And it's crazy, but he's a Democrat, right? So, yeah, Ross, we're talking about this. I mean, think about like a Ross Ulbricht right now. But yeah, go ahead. Pardon if Trump wins. He has his frigging hashtag in his Twitter handle. I mean, you know, in all of his messages. I mean, at this point for him not to do it would be it's almost inconceivable so you know you get all sorts of stuff going on but look we'll see what happens i has anyone

mentioned because i had to join late anyone mentioned the rogan effect because i think that's actually a big deal and yeah i do too i was i was but dave i was thinking that as well because obviously we whenever something comes up we talk to the team should we do a space and none of us wanted to do a space it was too late but when i looked at so to find out if it had a big effect or not i thought it could be pretty major but i don't know because most of his listeners kind of he's been pro trump for a while so the change wasment hasn't changed. No, he was pro-UK. He just endorsed Trump. Yeah, but he's been talking positively about it. He was clearly

pro-Trump. He's been like two months. Exactly, nothing but trash in Kamala. Only because Trump came on. I mean, if Kamala came on... No, even before that, Dave, even before that, just to kind of reinforce that, that's my opinion. My opinion is pretty worthless. I looked at Polymarket, which is a lot more fluid, and Polymarket, if anything, kind of

it didn't react to the news if anything the gap even even got smaller right after the news i'm like all right cool obviously they're ignoring that that endorsement i mean i thought i think probably one of the sanest uh commentaries i saw in the last day was from van jones who you wouldn't expect me to say that about on cnn he basically said that the closing difference is harris is having all these elite you know hollywood a-list celebrities and that's been the focus and trump has people like rogan and then and where where is this luxury to be decided to be decided by working class turnout in pennsylvania michigan wisconsin., just as Alex was saying, right?

Yeah, they're not voting where Kesha goes. They don't give a crap about Wright, you know, about those guys. But Rogan, on the other hand, I think does matter to them. I mean, Rogan's a Sanders supporter. I mean, he is far from conservative as you're going to get. So, I don't know. We'll see. I mean, I went to bet. Before I saw that, I thought Harris was going to win. Now I think it're going to get. So, I don't know. We'll see. I mean, I went to

bet. Before I saw that, I thought Harris was going to win. Now I think it's going to be Trump. So, can you repeat? Sorry to interrupt you. I said before, yesterday morning when I woke up, I was, I mean, it's an emotional hedge, right?

But I thought that it would be Harris would win and after rogan actually came out and explicitly said it i think look it only takes you know 50 000 votes into the school in this election yeah and so i just think that's going to be enough let me let me read out just uh sorry actually let me go to whoever i interrupted and then i'll read out i think it's you alex and then i'll read out a quick tweet that could be interesting. I was going to say, I think Dave's analysis of who is doing those last-minute big public talks is right on. I think the thing that people on Twitter miss a lot, though, and where a surprise could come from—I'm not saying it will, I'm saying it could, is the Democrats' ground game.

And what I mean by ground game is number of organized people walking around neighborhoods, canvassing, knocking on doors, making sure people are getting to the polls, offering rides. The Democrats have spent two decades building the crap out of that ground game, starting especially with Obama. That is where a surprise absolutely could come from here because they are way better at it than the GOP. Mario, that's kind of what I alluded to yesterday was that when it comes down to the actual voting day, I think that, you know, I don't know that it pushes her over, but the assumption that the older Democratic voters, they always show up.

And they're going to be at the polls, and you wonder if the younger people that might be helping Trump won't. But it's hard to know. Yeah. Sorry, I was just sending a message. What was that tweet you were going to read? Yeah, I'm going to read it now by farzad oh someone called me great uh yeah so by farzad it's a good um it's a good overview he's made his prediction he's someone i'd like to listen to uh he says the following my prediction trump wins by a lot and the election will be over by wednesday morning reason trump is

outperforming i'll go through point by point get thoughts on it trump is outperforming versus 2016 and 2020 in every single consequential poll. Harris is performing worse than either Biden or Clinton did. Which I mentioned earlier in the call. How important do you think that point is, Dwayne, Dan, Dave? So I'll just say one thing. Sorry if I jump in real quick. The idea that the older Democrats will go to the polls and numbers. I'm sure that's true. But the classic

trope is that Republicans will walk through a mile of snow to vote, whereas Democrats will vote if it's nearby and convenient. So I think if it comes down to the on the day polling, I think Republicans have it. You know, Republicans, as I said, will walk through a mile of snow to place their vote, whereas Republicans will vote if it's convenient. But just the question is, do you think that Trump, so Harris doing worse than both Clinton and Biden, isn't that enough to put Trump ahead in our predictions?

Yes, I do. Yes. I think the question is the following. He listed all the important states, all the swing states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. I think the markets are starting to price in at Trump victory.

I've just seen Bitcoin ripping up. We've seen Trump trade stock dripping up. I think the market, the invisible hand of the market is starting to price in from victory. Is there any developments? I look at Polymarket. Polymarket just, for some reason, had a huge swing down and then back up. Yeah, I think that swing down came because of that poll.

I just loaded it. It was at 58. It just went to 62. No, I mean, just like... I don't know if my cookies are not set right or something. No, it's your cookies, I think. Hold on, let me see. Yeah, he's been above 60 since... Yeah, last six hours. And then, obviously, the drop a few days ago is because of that poll in, I think it was Iowa, if I remember correctly.

But just going to the point, and he says it is highly unlikely pollsters have been able to adjust for Trump's overperformance versus polls that occurred in 2016 and 2020. They had a shot to do it in 2020 and failed. So essentially polls are still going against Trump and is in Kamala's favor. So that's the argument he's making that that that floor still exists and Trump is still ahead of the polls. Dwayne. Yeah, good morning. I mean, it's it's really, really hard to say really what's happening with polls, because there's been a lot of conflicting information and polls have been skewing left and right. So if you want to look at those particular polls and say that, you know, we're going to get a secret Trump vote where there's people who aren't going to say they're voting for Trump, but once they get behind that box there in private, they're

going to vote for Trump, then sure. But that's really up in the air. You know, if we look at, say, something like the Iowa poll, the Iowa poll is... Your audio is bad. Not sure if you can fix it because I want to hear what you want to say about the Iowa poll. Well, I'm sorry. Can you hear me now? A bit better.

Okay, cool, cool. Yeah, so what I was saying was that the Iowa poll... So if the Iowa poll is correct, that's very favorable for Harris, because that means that Harris is going to rip through the Midwest. If she's able to turn over the Midwest, then that would mean most likely a victory for Harris. Now, if the polls are underappreciating Trump, like they did back when he was facing off against Hillary Clinton, that's very favorable for Trump. But on top of that, though, we've also had the influx of about 80 polls, like basically 80 right wing pollsters that have come in since August. And that is also skewed the polling in favor of Trump. So it's really hard to say, right? So I mean, you know, when you look at the infrastructure, one of the gentlemen here was talking about the infrastructure of the Democratic Party. And all of that is true. Kamala Harris basically pulled the sword out of the stone,

out of the stone, so to speak. So she inherited all of the infrastructure from Biden. And that means a lot of people on the ground who are actually working for free and knocking on thousands and thousands of doors. So that's really going to help her in that respect. I think this is going to be primarily a story of who keeps their base and then who can expand their base, because I think that's really questionable, right? So if we look at Trump, it's possible that he's lost quite a bit of his base. You have the whole Republican never Trump crowd, and they haven't really been able to budge those people back to Trump. And then with Harris, there's a whole issues with Israel, Palestine, and some of the younger left-wing voters, which aren't too happy with the Biden legacy here that

they may attach to Kamala Harris. So when we factor in all those things, it's going to be who can get the independent voters and then who can also pull their base along. And in my opinion, all of that's questionable, right? So we really don't know who's going to win this election. If I had to bet, if I had like a gun to my head, I would probably say Harris has a bit of an advantage just because of the anti-Trump vote, because there's quite an influx of anti-Trump voters who are following Nikki Haley and following some of the other candidates who I don't think are going to hop on was performing against Trump. There was a couple of states there where she was getting 10, 15% of the vote. And those are in states where it was Republicans only. So it's really, really hard to say what's going to happen. So I think it's still up in the air

despite what the polls are saying. I think the polls have been giving us mixed messages here. And a lot of these pollsters are going to have to go back and reevaluate their yeah in terms of the polls i'll let you respond dan and alex just in terms of the polls like there's three potential scenarios here the polls are in trump's favor polls are fair and the polls are in kamala's favor i think we would all discount the fact that they're in trump's favor so they're either fair or in kamala's favour. If they're in Kamala's favour, that means Trump will...

May I come back? Yeah, go ahead. Can you hear me, Dan, or no? Yeah. Yeah, of course. Sorry, mate. Yeah, go ahead. What you're saying is, one poll that was obviously defined by everybody, even Democrats, as a massive outlier, and you're taking that poll and projecting it forward across the

entire Midwest. That's why, that's what really lost my respect for the argument about that, honestly. Yeah, so you talk about the Iowa poll from two, three days ago that kind of changed things and got the odds against Trump, yeah? Yeah, correct. That was a, I mean, even Democrats referred to that as an outlier. What was the sample size of that one? It's the sample size.

It was aively over samples. So the reason that poll got a lot of traction, not one just because it was good for Democrats, it's because the woman who put it out, Ann Seltzer, is one of the most accurate and most well-respected pollsters out there. You can disagree with what the poll is or think there was issues with it but she has a very long incredible track record which is why um that there was a lot of initial uh interest in and why people were anticipating it coming out i think to the idea of like which direction the polls are wrong the i think the idea of like inherent anti-trump bias is overstated in

the polls and the idea that they couldn't be skewed to him is also wrong the i think the area that is most likely to be an issue with the polling in this one is nobody knows exact there's a lot of really really weird economic and racial realignments going on in the american electorate right now um you know it's one of the funny things about people constantly hitting trump for being racist is at the end of the day he is way way outperforming historical republican numbers uh with both um-Americans and Latinos, right? He did it in 16 and 20, and it's projected to do even more this time. When pollsters are running polls, they run all kinds of corrections against demographics, trying to, you know, basically

match what they think the electorate will look like. If the electorate is changing and those alignments are changing, it makes it very, very hard to be accurate. And so I think that's one big area. But the other thing is that, again, we're talking about the difference between odds for percentages and polling. Given how tight these swing states are, a 1% polling error, which is very small, or 1% or 2% polling error, could be a difference of 50 or 70 electoral votes across all of these different states and things. And so if one of them wins by a huge margin, you'll hear a lot of people talking about, oh my god, the polls were so off. It might be that the polls were off by a percent or two and it's just that they were all skewed in a certain way and these states were so tight that it ends up magnifying and looking a lot bigger than that is it possible they skewed in trump's favor considering what happened in 2016 and 2020

it's possible i don't think it's super likely but it is absolutely possible and also on the the justice framework doesn't know the national poll um i read somewhere that kamala needs at least to win by two percentage points for her to have a chance of winning this and um they're pretty much dead even right now um that is yes that is the the rough estimate is harris needs to win by two to three percent in the popular national popular vote in order to win the electoral college uh based on just where the numbers landed in 16 and considering and considering that that even right now it just doesn't look too good for her and even if there's a slight advantage in kamala's favor um then it's pretty much in the bag for trump if the polls aren't slightly in Kamala's favor, then it's pretty much in the bag for Trump if the polls are slightly in Kamala's favor. Yeah, I mean, waking up this morning, I would rather be Donald

Trump than Kamala Harris. Every single pollster agrees on one thing, Mario, and the only thing they agree on is turnout among males in the United States is going to, across demographics, not racial, just, you know, sex lines, you know, you know, if men vote, Trump wins, that that's the only thing that everybody agrees on. I mean, when I say vote, I mean, vote above historical averages, because historically, women, I think it's 54 to 46%, 54% of women eligible, eligible voters vote and only 46% of men if that reverts anything close to the 250 50 or 54 even 54 50 even then trump will win that that's the one thing that all agree on the only the only thing that everyone's looking at right now is turnout really that's the only thing that matters

and there's nothing there's no factors that could impact turnout in any key state or any key demographic as i used to tell my children at a certain point you just have to wait and see what factors that could impact turnout in any key state or any key demographic? As I used to tell my children, at a certain point, you just have to wait and see what happens. It's not like you're going to get a bolt of lightning or a revelation that's going to tell you what's going to happen today. That's the reality. AK? Hey, Mario. I'll tell you, Jimmy Kramer, you and I may well know, has given the nod to Kamala Harris. So I think it's decided in the stars now once Jimmy Kramer speaks.

And I'm curious, did you guys touch base on, you know, Bitcoin price predictions today or? No, that was my next question after you spoke. What do you think the markets will do? And I think all of it depends on how the election turns out. I totally agree with you. But do you think, what do you think has already been factored in? Sure, sure. Well, last time I was here, Mario, I don't know, a couple of days ago or last week, I told you to be cautious.

I tell everybody to be cautious. Bitcoin was pushing 72, a little bit above 72,000. I wasn't buying it. We dipped down about 7% to 67K. To all the permabulls and believers, obviously, this is nothing. But to technical charters, for guys that are kind of closely watching it, again, I do heed warnings. It is looking like Bitcoin this week needs to bust through that 73, 74, 77,000 range on a weekly chart. If it doesn't, I, again, I don't hate to be the dinosaur and the pessimist in the room. I think we are going to consolidate at a

lower stage than where we are today. So it's coming really tight to the wire, even on, you know, for chart watchers. Last week was the week that it needed to bust through. That rejection happened. This week, it's an absolute must. So obviously, the catalyst is the elections. Let's see what happens. If it doesn't, yeah, this is the local top for the next little while. So is it fair to say then that if Kamala wins, it could end up being pretty ugly short term? Man, the only thing that scares me right now, honestly, I'm kind of reverse psychology because the markets are looking like they want to kind of like, you know, slow down a little bit, kind of give back a little bit,

which tells me that's probably a Trump win because everybody who's expecting Trump to win is betting up. It doesn't just go up. Not everybody bets on one side, right? So I think that he will win, but we will have a drop in the market. Oh, wow. So you think we're we will have a drop in the market. Oh, wow. So you think we're going to have a drop in the market either way so that we're not going to be breaking all-time highs? The charts never lie. I look at the charts before the news. Okay.

Scott, actually, I haven't got your prediction, Scott. What are your thoughts on the markets and how big of an impact do you think a Trump versus a Kamala win will be? My only prediction is that it will be extremely volatile, you know, and to decide which way, it could be both ways, if we're talking about short term. Do you think the likelihood of a downtrend after a Trump win is possible?

Absolutely. Like, listen, so, like, you know, I have Mike McGlone on Macro Monday, every Monday, and he makes the point, and we often discuss it, that markets are somewhat have been rising and pricing in a red sweep, right? That Trump would win and that the Congress and Senate would all go red, right? And so in markets, generally, if you are pricing something in, even if it happens, then you get a sell the news event, right? Buy the rumor, sell the news. And so I'm not saying like long-term, but actually, I think if the Republicans sweep, you're most likely to see a whole lot of profit taking in the market actually dumping. I don't think that will last in three to six months or whatever.

Two, I agree. I think there's a volatile argument for the outcome that's quote unquote best for markets. Markets usually go the wrong way first. Yeah, but then two questions I have. So number one, if that's what happens if Trump wins, then what happens if Kamala wins, which could be a lot uglier for the market size, Hume?

I don't know. For all the predictions about what happens to markets under any regime, we were told four years ago, and this is not a political statement. Once again, it's fact. We were told four years ago that the stock market was going to go to zero if Biden won. And last I checked, it was nothing but all-time highs for the last four years.

And if you believe that liquidity being added to the system aligns with assets, especially risk assets going up, then you have to assume that it's price that's baked in that Kamala Harris is going to spend a shit ton of money, print a shit ton of money. And that should be good for the stock market and assets. So, no, I don't think that there's like this. I think that's a narrative. But we've seen that that narrative was literally exactly what we heard before Biden. And we're at all time highs. The next question I have, you said Trump wins already been factored in this in your conversation with Mike McGlone. But how is that possible considering how close the election is? How can you factor in something so unsure? It isn't. I mean, I'm sorry, I had to jump in. Mike and I disagree on this one rather substantively. I think that just this morning is basically more proof that the market is it's not nothing is priced in. Asset allocators are sitting on their hands. The major money flows that are

going to matter aren't going to knee jerk, you know, the instant the ballots are counted. They certainly weren't going to knee jerk after, you know, but while this election was hanging over and, you know, they're making those major decisions, speculators will knee jerk all the time. And some are right and some are wrong. And so it's a very nuanced question, Mario. But the short answer is that asset prices are priced based on the Federal Reserve continuing to inject liquidity, the government continuing to print money. People actually like the jobs report, which, by the way, in a normal world, that jobs report would have been the final nail in Harris's coffin, right? You know, more down.

But it means more printing and more cutting. More printing. And so the markets are going up because the pieces of paper are all denominated in U.S. dollars and you make more of them. And so, yeah, the price goes up, but in dollar terms, not necessarily in real terms. So that's what most of markets are focusing on. But there are massive differences. The biggest one being the ability to self-custody Bitcoin, being able to invest in altcoins that have meaningful economic participation, being able to have U.S.-based businesses have, as John Reed Stark on this show said, a Trump win means all those cases come to a quote, screeching halt. Those are big differences, and that will trigger a bifurcation. You know, the knee jerks one way or the other on the stock market.

I mean, I agree. I mean, I think that people think that Trump's tariffs are going to be bad for the market. There are economists who believe that. I don't know what the by the rumor, sell the news is on the stock market writ large. I know that domestic U.S. manufacturers will probably do well if Trump wins right off the get go. And I know that companies that rely upon import from imports from China are probably going to suffer right off the get go. But other than that, I think that there's a lot of what Scott is saying is exactly true,

that knee jerk will probably be wrong. In crypto, you have to understand there is there are very substantive policy differences that are extremely clear. So a clear election win will will probably the knee jerk could even be right, certainly if given enough time, maybe not in five minutes, but certainly in a day. But but if we don't get an answer, that's going to cause a lot of volatility. If there's protests in the street, if there's all sorts of things that could happen, you know, let's talk about it tomorrow morning and see where we're at, because we may be scratching our heads saying, oh, God, what's going to happen next? Yeah. And Dave, there was an article, I believe it was in Coindesk that said it was from some research firm, but that said the trade, the election trade right now, kind of that you should be taking or that they were viewing as the best way to trade the election was long Bitcoin, short Solana, if you're in crypto. Effectively saying that, you know, if Harris wins, I think the argument there is Bitcoin goes up either way and you're hedged the Harris victory if Solana ends up dumping because ETFs

won't get approved and et cetera, right? So So a massive reduction in the odds that Solana gets regulatory credit or ETF gets approved. So Paris wins, Solana does. Okay, now here's why I hate that trade. Just to understand, this is the mind of the way I would look at things. I think it's massively oversimplistic. I think Solana, being the casino for meme coins, meme coins will continue to, outside of the United States, continue to be a big deal. And Solana will do fine. Yeah, sure, it'll decrease the ETF. But

the real losers will be all the coins that are banking on DePin, which has yet to be sued, but certainly in a second Harris administration will be sued. All the DeFi coins that are going to be kept out of the U.S. market forever. And that's where the real losses throughout the altcoin universe. You're going to be out. You're going to want to distinguish between. Yeah, it's almost I agree with you, by the way. So I was just quoting that article. Yeah, no, no, no. If you could like short a basket of the most sort of on the fringe regulatory altcoins versus Bitcoin would be kind of the more all, but some of the native crypto companies that are listed or people are trading privately, liquidly, are going to get forced to be acquired by

large financial legacy firms. And a lot of startups are just not going to happen. And so there's a lot of startup portfolios. The equity, it's not really an investable thesis, but it is something that matters. That's where the real impact is going to be, in my opinion. And on all coins not being able to get access to U.S. liquidity for another four years. Those are those are real. Now, what will actually happen to Bitcoin? I mean, yeah, I don't think you're going to see a strategic reserve. I don't think you're going to see I think you're going to see continued selling of government confiscated coins. But you're going to see massive monetary printing and you're going to see people being encouraged to buy Bitcoin via ETFs.

And so, yeah, I mean, not as bullish as Trump, but certainly on a relative basis, Bitcoin should outperform Bitcoin. The best trade. And I can't remember who on the space said it. The best trade. If you want to bet, you know, a Harris, you want to put on a trade of Bitcoin dominance going up. If you think Harris is going to win, that to me makes an enormous amount of sense. Which is effectively shorting a basket of all coins, right? Conceptually the same thing, right? Yes, no, absolutely. But not specifically. But actually, if you could make that bet, interestingly, you can't. But on Bitcoin dominance, Bitcoin dominance, if you were betting on Bitcoin dominance up or down, Bitcoin dominance could actually go up massively if Bitcoin is volatile in either direction. So it's actually kind of even a more favorable trade because Bitcoin dominance often rises when Bitcoin drops hard because people sell off their altcoins even more aggressively.

Right. That would be a really interesting trade. Right. I mean, that is that's true. their altcoins even more aggressively right that would be a really interesting trade right i mean that is that's true i mean look there are outcomes that i don't think will happen i mean you know polymarket is putting moreno ahead now by a substantive amount i hope that matters but a harris win coupled with sherrod brown and elizabeth warren retaining their seats is significantly worse for the all coin universe if the republicans do i think the presidential election is less impactful than some of these other ones actually for crypto as a whole so i

mean look i i'm talking too much so i'm gonna i'm gonna peace out now a lot of the people talk but i just wanted to react that the notion that that a trump win is priced in though is foolish the notion that harris win is priced is foolish most people that i know in who actually have real money uh are treating this like a coin flip and have been maybe not this morning but you know i think it's only speculators who is the hot money that that's saying anything anything. Okay, you had your hand up. Yeah, I think honestly, Bitcoin's rise and

ability to cement itself in the US regulatory and jurisdiction systems is done now. And I think that it's inevitable for Bitcoin to rise. It's just a matter of flattening out the curve and having mainstream adoption.

To your point about Bitcoin dominance, I actually haven't looked at that chart in a little while. It's over 60% for the first time since March 21. Yeah, it's looking really good. And it looks like it, you know, it could set up here on the weekly and monthly candles to maybe go up to 65 or beyond so that's i think that's bullish overall for the market because you want bitcoin to essentially gather as much market cap as possible or as much uh value as possible and then redistribute it's bullish if it happens with bitcoin rising it's not bullish if it happens with bitcoin going to 40 right which i'm not saying absolutely if that, we're screwed because they don't even know where to go with their money

anymore, right? So that's the scary part, right? So no, you're right. And I think that by the time everything is said and done, Bitcoin dominance will probably float around like 60 to 70% just on average, in my opinion. Interesting, even with the amount of new altcoins constantly being added to the market. It has to almost put a reserve type of mysticism the same way that gold is in the Federal Reserve. And you have to have a baseline on how much gold there is, the same way that there might be a baseline for how much Bitcoin there needs to be out there

in circulating market cap to maintain the market as it continues to grow. Now, I don't know that. I'm not a fortune teller. But I know that if the US was to get involved, this is how they'd start to build their baseline. Yeah, you're describing that in a much more mature asset class where the speculators have been marginalized by the investors, but I agree with that long-term. Yeah, I agree with you.

Yeah, that's right. Anybody else, specific thoughts here, want to jump in? How did I see Joe? I'll bring you up. Joe, you might be connecting, so I'll just give it a second

as I try to bring him up on stage. Joe, yeah, you jumped up. I saw you throwing out emojis. What are your thoughts here? Yeah, you made a comment, and I went into it. We've been flirting with the last full cycle's all-time high, right? We keep testing it, retesting that trend line, which is what typically happens right before, like, let's call it the super cycle or the extreme gains that, you know, winds up being on MSN or on mass media every day. And we just broke it again right now.

But the one thing you mentioned about meme coins, I'm kind of seeing this a bit different where typically we expect capital rotation from Bitcoin into memes. And I expect that to happen. But if you've noticed the days that memes are up, dominance is also up. So I honestly believe it's pulling in capital directly from Web two into web three directly into memes right and we keep seeing more and more on ramps that do this and then that capital is actually rotating to bitcoin instead of the other way around right like people are like i agree with that i guess they get yeah they get fed up like yeah but it's important to note joe i think like the cycle that we've seen in the past,

that we all know, obviously, Bitcoin makes its big move, gathers up all liquidity, dominance goes up. And then if we believe in the four-year cycle, 2024 is not the year that altcoins should have performed. It should be 2025. And we've seen that in the past. 2021 was a huge year for altcoins, 2017, et cetera. So we're not even there yet, right? So what you're describing is accurate now, but I don't think it's an indictment yet on what will happen. But Bitcoin liquidity is not going to Solana

to memes right now, right? We would need Bitcoin makes a new all-time high, consolidates, gathered a ton of money, and that starts to trickle down into all the like dinosaur coins. And you get this sort of writ large altcoin cycle where everything goes up. We haven't had the you throw a dart and it goes up part of the cycle yet. I'm not saying we definitely will.

I think meme coins in its own universe, to your point. Yeah, it's basically what happened. You probably remember. Remember when Binance was like begging for customer service reps because they couldn't handle the volume of people coming in because of Doge. Doge. That was peak cycle. Now it's happening with Teams. Like CZ, I had him on my show and he said, I think his quote, what he joked about it was,

I don't think there's enough people in China I can hire right now and train for customer service to onboard as many people that want to trade Doge. But the difference this time is that you don't need to onboard to a centralized exchange to trade meme coins. Yeah, exactly. I just think it's gathering a lot of capital. And I think that's going to rotate the Bitcoin. I do like with the previous speaker going to 65, I completely see that as well. There's not a lot of resistance up to 65. And then we'll go into the normal cycle, probably where we start to rotate to L1s and then to memes and to everything else. Yeah, I mean, and we've seen select kind of the new L1s start to catch the bid, right? We saw the big Sui move and the big Aptos move and those things.

So there's evidence that the money is interested in it. But I think you're right. So when memes are going, that's the same washing machine, casino, the same money that's been here the whole time rotating and trying to find the next pump and get out before the next cycle happens. That is not new money, in my opinion. Yeah, I agree. I agree. I agree. Right now, it feels like new money, though.

Because Dominus is going up. And memes are going up. So now it's new money, which is strange to see. Yeah, makes sense. Go ahead, Dave. I mean, it's not that strange. I mean, you know, we've seen the ETF inflows. I mean, that's most of the ETF I mean, you know, we've seen the ETF inflows.

I mean, most of the ETF inflows, not all of it, but most of it is new money. I mean, it's people who literally had no way, because all their money were in brokerage accounts, to be able to invest in Bitcoin before it. And, you know, we in our insular spaces, you know, just take it for granted because it's pretty easy to get a, you know, I have accounts of a variety of exchanges. I don't really have a whole huge crypto position. We know that. But the simple fact is most people, the average person on the street doesn't necessarily know or trust companies that are being sued by the SEC with their money. I mean, you don't, we don't understand just how important it is that most people have their money in 401ks, which the only way to use do Bitcoin in a 401k before and I did it. So I know how hard it is. It's difficult. And so, yeah, the truth is, there is new money. It's just, and it started to trickle in the back half

of October, which was what we had said, and will resume after this clarity as people start after the election. And so that that new money is certainly relevant this year that in normal cycles, you would have expected Bitcoin to sag significantly more over the last eight months rather than staying in a trading range. The reason it didn't is because of new money, but not enough to do what Scott was talking about. Start the great washing machine, the normal alt season stuff that happens later. I think it's really funny that we're sitting here digging into the nuance of what will happen after Election Day to markets and all these things. And we could have skipped all of this and just looked at a chart of the four-year cycle on Bitcoin and been exactly where we're supposed to be, alt exactly where they're supposed to be, and we don't have to talk about any of it. It's just when it actually arrives and happens in the way that you expect, you doubt the next part of the move, right?

So you can't guarantee it's going to go parabolic like the previous guests have said, but that should be what comes next as we kind of test that, you know, Joe, it was you, I think that said, you know, we test this kind of 69,000, 70,000, depending on the exchange, previous all time high. Like if, you know, if Bitcoin's at 85,000 in two months or something, or in three months, like you literally could have just been in a coma for the last four years and woken up and been like, yeah, of course. We didn't have to talk about the Fed or the boat getting stuck in the canal or Evergrande collapse or printing money. None of it matters.

Bitcoin does what Bitcoin does every four years. And it's laughable. So the default case right now has to be that you think Bitcoin is going to probably go up and that altcoins will perform well in 2025 until proven otherwise, regardless of the president. Sorry, my mic is glitching. But Dave, you know, we talked about it at length. You're a company in the United States that deals with crypto. That is different. Yeah, right. right like the atmosphere the atmosphere for crypto in the next four years could be very different different pending the election but it's not like you know we didn't have massive altcoin moves during the biden administration right the one thing you would say 20 the last cycle you know like at 2021 was insane yeah i think that the only thing that is

different is if that was pre-genser going nuts but if if uh crypto has to move forward in a relatively hostile environment in the united states you know versus one that's welcoming the difference is the magnitude so people who look at the magnitude of the cycles getting lower over time, that switches, I think, if it be, that's the difference. You know, whether we go from 70,000 to 100,000 or 70,000 to 250 or more, I think is what we are talking about now, because that matters, right? You know, the four-year cycle, everything you said is true up to a point, but the four-year cycle has gotten progressively less and less large, but a major switch, which is opening up half the world's investable capital into the crypto market writ large, I think could flip that script. That's the biggest difference that I see.

Not what will happen in the next, you know, for the next chart squiggle or, you know, which I'm not trying to belittle chart squiggles or charting. No, we love them. We love a good squiggle. Right. Well, I mean, look, you know, between the move from a move from 69,000 to mid 80s is a big move. And people are going to trade it and make a lot of money if they get it right, lose a lot of money if they get it wrong. But a regime change where the entire US market is opened up to it is literally what's on the table. But that's after that. So that's why, you know, when you when we look at these things, you're right.

You know, you and I agreed in March that we're likely we're going to have. Yeah, pretty outspoken that this is exactly what would have happened for the last six months. Yeah. I mean, we've been you know, it's I'm glad that we've had people to disagree with us. Otherwise, we'd have been bored, you know, talking about this every week. But literally, we've been saying the same thing. I do think, however, that as we talk and we know what happens here, we'll have a pretty good idea of what the next roadmap will be. And it'll be more about magnitude than direction.

I think that that's kind of what I'm trying to say. AK, then Joe. Yeah, I think that that's kind of what I'm trying to say. AK, then Jilla. Yeah, I realize that a lot of the audience here is mature and many have 401ks. So just a quick addition to anybody who believes in crypto, and I think anybody for the future should, based on tuning into this show, it's the same thing as not betting against America. And one thing that a lot of the greatest investors in this world, Warren Buffett, the mongers, the big guys, the leaders of investment worlds, you know what, one thing that they just didn't do, they didn't bet against America for the last 30 years, and they bought continuously, whether it was up and down. And my sentiment for the next 30 years is to just not bet against Bitcoin. There's no, just don't bet

against America. Don't bet against Bitcoin because that is going to turn into a lot of people's long-term portfolios. We're adopting it and we're going to continue to adopt it. So, you know, I may say, yeah, heed warnings and yeah, it's going to flatten out, but I want it to go down. So I buy more. It's not so that I don't buy more. I believe in the system. I'm in the ecosystem. So I think, you know, if you buy over the next 30 years, $500 a month or whatever your availability is every single week or two weeks in the long run, you are like betting on a 401k and betting on America.

So, yeah. So, so you mean if the person that you're supporting loses tomorrow everything's not going to zero and the world's not going to end that's totally right as long as liquidity buyers and sellers and you know what right now that works by what we believe in and we're all here for one one reason right go ahead yes scott have a, it's a serious question. Okay. It's something that'll definitely be affected by the election, right? Which is Doge, right? The department of government efficiency that Elon would run.

Yeah, it's already starting to fly. And I think if he wins, he's like people who are into Doge think that Elon speaking to them through code, that it's going to two trillion when he's on the stage and be there. Ask, where do you think the efficiency will go? And he's like two trillion. And I have people writing me, yo, Elon sending us a message that it's going to two trillion. Yeah, I think. And it's funny i talked about on my show this morning but it's the only thing that's green uh for the past seven days in the like you know top 20 coins or something is doge

so that kind of that's the idea of like uh preempting an assumption trade is you want to get you know that so doge probably sells off if trump wins first too right as a selva news event it pumps into the thing it wins and, and then it goes up, right? Just to make sure that everyone gets liquidated both ways. We're kind of coming to the end here. Matthew, you haven't really had a chance to jump in. And, you know, listen, you're an RIA, obviously. You're dealing with sort of, you know, real adult people's money on a daily basis and

how they gain access to crypto, do you view the election as impactful through that lens? Or is it just sort of the train that's going to go just maybe a matter of how fast? I think it's a great question. One of the things that we've been really trying to advocate for is getting capital allocated before a lot of volatility happens and not trying to position yourself to gain or lose from the sort of short-term market volatility that's going to happen. Because I don't think it's going to be decided today. I think there's going to be a couple days where this is up and down, sideways, left and right, and people don't really know what's going on. But the longer-term

perspective is you got to be allocated to this asset class in some form in your portfolio, whether it's 1%, 2%, 5%, or whatever makes the most sense for you. And being able to get allocated earlier rather than later is going to be great because in six months, you're going to look back and say, boy, I sure wish I hadn't just put it off to the sidelines during this election, hoping it might go down or might go up. So I think today is a better day than tomorrow. And yesterday was a better day than today to be in. So that's mine.

Yeah, there's a lot of people who are going to be looking back, in my opinion, in six months and being like, wow, man, I could have bought it for 69. I was waiting for 65 and it went to 66. Right. And now, you know, at 80, do I buy now? And then whenever the eventual cycle top is, that's when those people call you and tell you they bought. It works that way in markets every single time. Exactly. And I think too, one thing that people have touched on is just how the market is forward looking and needs more information about how things are going to play out in the future. And right now the market doesn't have an answer. So it's going to act really funky.

It's going to do weird things. But once it has an answer, the release of pressure from knowing that information will help capital flow to the appropriate places. Hi guys. Well, my inclination here is to save our energy. Scott,

you may not be able to see my hand. Yep. Oh, I can't even see you on stage. I couldn't hear Matt either. You're, you're a listener. How are you? Are you able to see my hand. Yep. Oh, I can't even see you on stage. I couldn't hear Matt either. You're a listener. Are you from the future? Yeah, I'm porting in.

Go ahead, and then we'll get a wrap after you, Simon. Yeah, I was just going to say a couple of future trends beyond the immediate see in the election is actually the importance of what happens to crypto relative from a Bitcoin maxi perspective. The reason I say that is because there are two big challenges ahead with Bitcoin that I think we need to win and we need to be aware of. One of them is the self-custody to ETF ratio, the self-custody to custody ratio, I think is really important to have a continued healthy ratio and also the future of the fee. Why do you think that it's important to have a instinctively I agree with you, but why do you think that it's important to have a self-custody to custody ratio?

What's the difference um well firstly the the the second part of it is also the fee market um we need to have a buoyant fee market um in order to maintain the security model of bitcoin into the future beyond the block subsidy and so therefore i think self-custody and the utility of Bitcoin to drive a competitive fee market means that we're going to have to end up building stuff on top of Bitcoin, which means that we're going to have to have a pretty healthy self-custody market as well to drive the demand. So just a couple of points.

The first point is in terms of the fee market, and I know why you said, but why is it important while Bitcoin are still being mined? Because the counter to this is that you don't have a healthy fee market and so the miners land up earning more of their revenue via transaction revenue, via minting revenue, and therefore the price of Bitcoin naturally goes up.

Because if the price of Bitcoin mining is subsidized by fees generated by non-emitted Bitcoin from the algo, then it naturally suppresses the price of Bitcoin. Yeah, sure. So, you know, if the block subsidy is being compensated through the price doubling, but as we start to hit a more efficient market where the returns are probably going to be diminishing

into the future in each cycle, we're going to have to start thinking about how fees actually replace some of that. But isn't that the whole genius behind Bitcoin? Which is why I've had an aversion to fee markets. I don't have an aversion to fee markets. I'm just saying the counter argument to fee markets is to say we want the price of Bitcoin to go up and the best way to get the price of bitcoin up is not to subsidize the miners so that the natural ecosystem or the natural algorithm of bitcoin can just keep

increasing the price or decrease or decreasing the hash rate accordingly yeah so and so i think we i think that i think in 2145 or 2140 or whatever it is that's when we should start worrying about or maybe 10 years before we should start worrying about this. But for now, like, I'm not sure that it's, that it's like such a big thing. I mean, can I back up Simon here for a second? That ratio is an indication of Bitcoin censorship resistance, not just here, but you know, but why? Because the, because the amount of Bitcoin that you have doesn't,

it's okay. So let's flip the argument, right? So you don't need Bitcoin to run the network. You just need miners, which means that the number of Bitcoin you hold is completely inconsequential. It's not as relevant as in a proof-of-stake environment, right? So if the ETFs land up holding all the Bitcoin, and the ETFs land up confisc confiscating all the Bitcoin or the governments land up confiscating the whole ETF or whatever, it just means that the Bitcoin that aren't in the ETF become triple as valuable. Okay, so a two-tiered market, you imagine a different price for self-custody Bitcoin versus ETF Bitcoin. Correct, Correct. Cause you've got to, you've got to back the Bitcoin by the.

It only becomes relevant if all of a sudden governments close markets. So right now there's no premium because there's free flow of markets. But the minute that governments, the minute that governments intervene in markets, which is, so let's say like like let's quickly replace the word us let me let me just answer your argument with your own argument the fact is if there's a robust amount of voters in the united states for example who have self custody bitcoin that dramatically decreases the likelihood of governments attempting to confiscate yeah okay that's fair that's fair from a voter point of

view from a voter point of view they don't have to be self-custody they can be any any holders of bitcoin because everybody that holds bitcoin want the number to go up yes i think it's an interesting um thought experiment and just wanted to put the debate out there and yeah, making sure we keep an eye on that ratio. My counter, Simon, my counter to the debate is that the more non-self-custodied Bitcoin they are, the more valuable the non-self-custodied Bitcoin, sorry, the less non-self-custodied, the less self-custodied Bitcoin they are, the more valuable theself-custodied, the less self-custodied Bitcoin they are, the more valuable the self-custodied Bitcoin become.

And how would you have that two-tiered price? Because obviously at the end of the day of the ETF, if the inflows are increasing. As I say, if the government steps in, if the US government steps in and says, we are taking control of the ETF now, then it becomes very similar to the Solana-wrapped Bitcoin, where the Solana-wrapped Bitcoin completely lost all its value and the Bitcoin that weren't wrapped on Solana increased in value, right? Yes. It's almost like you can almost call the ETF a wrapped Bitcoin.

Yeah, during the Black Swan event as opposed to before the Black Swan event. Correct. So when the markets are functioning when the markets are functioning efficiently there's no need for it but the minute that the markets start functioning inefficiently you get uh you get you get a situation where the where the real bitcoin i said the real bitcoin the self-custodied bitcoin because that's real bitcoin those that's where the real bitcoin shows its value yeah so it's kind of like um i mean like burns a bunch of them within the custody realm. Yeah, for me,

ETFs are wrapped Bitcoin. It's the same thing. Yeah. I think that's a relatively good analogy. I think actually, by the way, if it gets that crazy is what you're talking about, Ran, I think you'll actually even see a second divergence between regular self-custodied Bitcoin and what I'd call like virgin self-custodied Bitcoin, where it has never touched a KYC to endpoint and is like something that has only ever been traded over the network or for cash.

And it's completely unlinkable to a person like virgin bitcoin from miners basically a virgin bitcoin premium yeah but i mean yeah i mean i'm just going back to i'm very happy every time i see the etfs buying i think amazing just you guys just keep your keep keep putting the bitcoin in the hands of one custodian. We know how that ends. That could diversify now. I guess it's coming. Maybe our favorite players get exceptions to SAB 121. Some of that's going to end up in BNY Mellon now. You can guarantee it'll be with State Street and Goldman

and stuff in the future. But yeah, sure. Yeah, I guess it's coming from a perspective of whether custody is always going to remain custody or whether these are going to actually become you know the ability to do other things with those bitcoin and then also from the perspective of driving as much freedom for as many people as possible rather than just price considerations as well i think if i think if we get a favorable administration i think a couple of i think two things are going to happen pretty quickly.

The first thing is we're going to get a staked ETH ETF. So we're going to get like right now, the ETH ETFs can't stake ETH, which I think is a major negative on their behalf. Cause when you're dealing with wall street and you've got a yield bearing asset, but you, you stripped it of the yield.

I think that's quite a, like in, in, in trad fire, that's quite a big thing to take it a yield bearing asset and strip it over its yield i think the second thing plus you give the governance to blackrock and correct and i think the second i think the second thing the second thing that will happen is we'll start getting you know babylon chain is is is going to launch soon

although the token's going to launch let's put it that way um and then there's going to be other networks which are launching so like there's things like goat. Let's put it that way. And then there's going to be other networks which are launching. So there's things like Goat Network. There's Elastos, which is a project from 2017, which allows you all these projects which allow for utility with Bitcoin. And I think eventually we're going to get a class of ETFs, which is going to be like putting your Bitcoin to work kind of thing.

So participating in staking or interest- opportunity or yield bearing opportunities using Bitcoin. And I think that that's going to be a second class of ETFs, which are going to be launched. Interesting. All right, guys, we got to wrap. And I was just saying before, save our energy for talking about what's actually happening as opposed to what might likely happen, because we're going to start to actually get clarity by tomorrow's show. We'll know if we have an election result, how far those results might be. And we're going to actually see what the market does. So we finally are getting the opportunity to move on from speculating

to actually analyzing what's happening, which- What will we talk about? So we'll talk about, we'll talk about, and then we're going to talk about the hanging chats and broken voting machines and mail-in votes and gerrymandering and, uh, you know, storming the Capitol. I have no idea. I mean, like next week when the elections are finished, what are we talking about? If your base case is that the elections are finished next week, I don't know.

But, you know, we'll go back to talking about inflows and outflows and Gary Gensler and his likelihood of surviving. I think it's going to actually I do think that once we have a clear victor, that there will be a lot of conversation to be had about. Well, if it's Trump, about the likelihood that he delivers and what progress we see towards the promises that were made. And if it's Harris, well, people are going to start demanding to see action and policy. So we'll still be talking about politics. That's the short answer. Hopefully, we'll be talking about new wire houses coming online and more people buying ECFs and more institutional adoption and the approval of things. But yeah, it could get very boring to your point. Although, Ran, maybe like by January, we're talking about an altcoin super cycle and everything's going up and we at

least get to talk about price action again. Wouldn't it be nice to talk about 100Xs again? Wouldn't that be nice if we just like every now and then just mentioned like Scott hit 100x? Yeah, I do want to mention very importantly that I just got in the last eight minutes for those who are in Florida. Dave talked about this earlier as we're going. I literally got three spam texts. And one of them says Donald Trump will increase taxes on imports by 20% costing a typical family an extra $3,900 a year for everyday items like groceries. It goes on. And then another one saying Kamala Harris will increase taxes by 20%. I mean, it is

absolutely bananas. I'm getting them from both sides constantly. But how is it legal? How is it legal for these people? It's probably not. I don't know, man. They can sell you, sell us to anyone, I'm sure, you know, to just, but whatever. Okay, I really have to go. Have you seen the most illegal thing? Sorry, the swap the vote? No, man, they can sell you, sell us to anyone, I'm sure, you know, to just, but whatever. Okay, I really have to go. Have you seen the most illegal thing?

Sorry, the Swap the Vote. No, I haven't. Did you see that? Yeah, it's a website that Dems put up. It's called Swap the Vote that asks you in your state, which is like a swing state, to vote for Kamala and they'll get someone to vote for Trump in a different state. What the fuck? There's an actual website. I don't even know how that's legal.

Unless you want to take over because I'm out of here. Have a good day. We'll see you guys tomorrow. We'll see you tomorrow when we're talking about the actual election. Bye, guys.