The Wolf Of All Streets - HUGE Crypto Win: Stablecoin Bill Approved! | Is The US Crashing Into Recession?

Episode Date: March 14, 2025

Friday Five is THE show about the main news in crypto. Join me and Nathaniel Whittemore as we delve into the main topics that moved the markets. Nathaniel Whittemore: https://twitter.com/nlw ►�� 🔥 LBANK Exchange - No KYC Required! Claim up to 50% trading bonus! Join today & get rewarded! Start trading to claim up to 50% in trading bonuses!! 👉https://www.lbank.com/activity/ScottMelker-Cashback?icode=4M3HD ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEKDAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/ ►► Arch Public Unleash algorithmic trading. Discover how algorithms used by hedge-funds are now accessible to traders looking for unparalleled insights and opportunities! 👉https://archpublic.com/ ►►TRADING ALPHA READY TO TRADE LIKE THE PROS? THE BEST TRADERS IN CRYPTO ARE RELYING ON THESE INDICATORS TO MAKE TRADES. Use code '10OFF' for a 10% discount. 👉https://tradingalpha.io/?via=scottmelker Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://x.com/scottmelker Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.com/ Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c #Bitcoin #Crypto #Investments 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.

The crypto industry can't seem to stop winning in the United States. All of this winning is becoming exhausting at the legislative level. We have the genius stable coin act passing out of committee and onto the Senate floor. Also, the controversial defy broker rule that passed through the Senate now passing through the House as well. Price may be flat, but it's fair to say that we're getting everything we want in the halls of Washington at the moment. Those are just a couple of the big stories from this week that we're gonna unpack.

NLW and I bring you the Friday Five. Let's go. What is up everybody? I'm Scott Melker, also known as the Wolf of All Streets. Before we get started, please subscribe to the channel and hit that like button. You know, I tried to quote a little Trump there at the beginning, just all this winning so much. I mean, well, so there's the the amazing pun of the stable act, and then the genius act, which when brought together become the stable genius act.

And and we know that that has to be on purpose because we have a stable has to be has to be has to be so the what we're talking about here for those who don't know, the stable coin bill clears Senate Banking Committee and there's no thing there there is the stable coin bill clears Senate Banking Committee. This is obviously that genius act that you mentioned, brought to us by Haggerty. Interestingly, obviously, this committee was yesterday, we all know who sits on this committee and is no longer the chair.

It's Elizabeth Warren. And man, she was visibly shaken if you watch this, especially because a number of Democrats flipped against her obvious wishes and voted for this, making it a bipartisan passage out of the Senate Banking Committee. This is just one of many pieces of stable coin legislation floating around. But this one seems to have the best shot right now, right? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, look, the new divide in Congress,

which for those who have been watching closely over the last few years, was always lurking under the surface. The new divide is not strictly or always Democrat versus Republican. It's an age gap, man. If you look, it's the youngest members of the Democrats are flipping en masse and just don't care about the crusades of these boomers is the short of it. They're interested in charting an independent path. They believe what they believe.

Digital assets aren't weird and scary to them. They make total sense because they grew up with the Internet. And now, you know, we've got these folks who are in their, you know, 40s or even their late 30s, who are just not toeing the party line. Also, at this point, if you're an independent thinker, how far has the party line gotten you recently with if you're a Democrat? So, yeah, it's interesting to watch. But the grip on power and cohesion, certainly on these issues, I think, is slipping in. And you got to think, you know, not to get too generally political for a minute, that part of the challenge is, my guess is that a lot of the traditional democratic power brokers assumed that in the wake of a second Trump administration, it would just be all anti-Trump all the time, right?

Like, you know, toe the line, everyone against it. And when you've got all these common sense issues that are coming up where that's not the case, it really throws into chaos that whole strategy. So it's pretty interesting to watch. And obviously for us, a very good thing, you know, to see that independence being asserted. I hadn't even thought about the young old divide

in quite a while, but I think you're absolutely right. I actually had Richie Torres over a year ago on Crypto Town Hall and asked him the question, why is crypto so controversial? Why does it seemingly such a pro crypto right and an anti crypto left? He says it is not. It is that there's a bunch of old people and young people and the young people in both parties get it.

He said the exact same thing and he is arguably the most forward-thinking young Democrat on crypto. I believe, I'm not sure someone can probably check this in the comments, but I believe that I read that of the, I think it was half the Dems flipped on the Senate Banking Committee to support pushing this through. I think it was literally age lines. It was like the four youngest Democrats voted, you know, to move this through and the four and the older Democrats didn't. Someone check that but I'm pretty sure I saw that somewhere. So, you know, even if it's not exactly that, the I think the broader point certainly remains the same when you dig into the numbers more directly. Yeah, the vote was 18-6. So this was a landslide victory for this to pass through

committee. And I think there's an expectation it will see that reflected probably on the Senate floor, we'll get into the DFI act later. But having seen bipartisan support for that, this is arguably less controversial. And I think that leads to the next part of this conversation is what's actually in this bill, I have not personally read the entire thing, I just go to Eleanor Tarrett and others to dig into it. But this seems, as she says here, that they've expanded beyond the original February text to include reserve requirements, supervision, anti-money laundering,

encounter terrorism features, sanctions, compliance standards, liquidity requirements, and risk management standards to facilitate international transactions and interoperability with United States dollar denominated payment stablecoins issued overseas. That's a shout out to Tether, right? Yeah, so I think one of the parts of conversation, obviously lots and lots to like in this, I think that a couple of things that people are watching. One is how restrictive

in terms of issuers is legislation going to be. One of the things that Democrat versions of this bill have tended to include in the past is really limiting it to banks and traditional financial institutions in a way that sort of makes it anti-competitive with existing crypto players. So that's something that people are trying to work to, again, have a fair playing field. The second piece is, and this one, I think is going to be a little bit harder to whittle down a real pro US based issuers thing, you know, like the it seems like these bills are going to be passed with strong preferential treatment for US companies. And look, obviously the biggest implication for this is Tether, full stop, right? And how, you know, where it's gonna sit for them. I think that if you are in the camp

that everyone should have equal access to compete and that by virtue of offering US dollar stable coins, they're already playing in the US dollar ecosystem and that shouldn't be a limiting factor if they're not a US-based company. It is good news that Paolo was walking around Washington, DC. I think that's the thing that about two years ago, people would have assumed would never happen, right?

I did not realize until I read his comments yesterday that he had never visited the United States since creating Tether. Maybe never at all, but he said, I've never been to Washington, the United States because I thought I'd get arrested. Yeah, exactly. Pretty big sea change. Yeah, exactly. So there's, look, there's positives there. But boy, if you're paying any attention to any part of this administration, I think the likelihood that you don't see some amount of preferential treatment in legislation for US-based companies is very, very low. It's just

what's happening right now across every spectrum, every industry. So that's- Made in the USA cryptocurrencies. I mean, we've seen it already. But to that end, though, my instinct and my gut says that they'll find a way for Tether to domicile in some way, shape or form in the United States or work with Cantor P Pitchfield, or a bank to make it more USA based. I just think that's the end of the world. There are paths. I mean, remember, the Made in USA is not about cutting out the rest of the world. It's about forcing the rest of the world to slap on an Uncle Sam t-shirt and an American hat and rock and roll, you know

That's that's what the the goal of the policy is so you you would think that there's gonna be pathways for tether to you know to You know slap on an AK 47 and a bald eagle and get ready to go I can't wait to see the French riding around and pick up trucks drinking bush beer, you know, listening to Miranda Lambert or whatever people do. I don't know, probably the wrong example, but talking about their dogs dying and that sounds like my summer in a couple months. And you know what, it's going to be a great all American summer. You're going to be having a record. We do have Scott here, Mark Warner, old, and the four youngest Democrat senators on the committee across the floor.

There you go. Yeah, you guys think I'm joking. I am 100% not joking. That will be me in three months. That this is my wife's entire side, like family, huge family, all, you know, like worked on farms and grain of the earth Americans. I love getting out there and and experience in the real America.

Just to put a bow on the quick conversation here about stable coins. So Haggerty himself said this is about improving transaction efficiency, freeing up working capital, driving US treasury demand. Then we have an article, momentum builds in Washington to pass stable coin legislation, marking a moment for us here in Congress now to act.

I think it's very clear that this is the time this needs to get done because it does have the tail ends. And then of course, you even have the sense, you know, who's the Secretary of the Treasury saying that the US will use stable corns to ensure dollar hegemony, which is something that Palo's actually said for years, like, listen, this is about hyper dollarization, not hyper bitcoinization. It's not about crypto. We're buying your treasuries and spreading the dollar all over the world. I mean, this is something that people in the crypto industry who are focused on stablecoins, who are advocates of stablecoins, have said for years that the biggest countervailing force to questions of the US dollar status as the world's global reserve currency is the rise

of US dollar denominated stable coins, right? Because, you know, who cares about the concern of Russia sanctions if you can still access dollar stable coins and pay with the thing that everyone already accepts, right? It is a huge, huge force for kind of, you know, it extends the US dollar's hegemony for at least another generation. And that is now officially from the very top, an administration talking point that's now being parroted by folks in Congress, in the Senate who are advocating for this. That is a monumental change, a super obvious one. It's, it's not being noticed because it's such a duh sort of statement, but really, really big change. Yeah. I mean, you have the guys who literally are in charge of the

dollar talking about stablecoins. Europe's freaking out about it. Christine Lagarde is accelerating the Euro CBDC because they're concerned that all of this, that US dollar denominated stablecoins is going to threaten their hegemony. There's someone, and I apologize for not having the exact quotes, it was an epic tweet, but it was pretty funny that entire continent's monetary sovereignty is being threatened by fake internet money. Listen, I think we've made it then. If Lagarde's having to push forward to CBDC because of Tether, then I would say that the cryptocurrency industry is at the forefront now. Listen, we mentioned this before last week,

that the US Senate passed a resolution to kill the unworkable IRS DeFi broker rule. That was huge news. We don't need to talk about it again, especially how bipartisan it was and how many Democrats flipped, a reflection of what's likely to happen with the Stablecoin Act.

Well, now we have the US House following the Senate and passing the resolution to kill the IRS defy broker rule a bipartisan majority in the US House of Representatives voted to repeal the so called IRS defy broker rule and you can see congressman Mike Kerry here celebrating on the floor of the house that this bill was passed and is heading to POTUS is destined to be signed into law. Look, now we got one passed both houses.

And the only notable thing here is that it was an even bigger majority, even broader number of Democrats crossing the aisle to vote for this one. Absolutely. So, we'll move on to the next story, which I think I don't know how to title this one. We could say, you know, we have recession jitters, money screaming out of ETFs, tariff mayhem 200% on wine coming from Europe. Good thing I enjoy wines from Napa and Sonoma. And we have good wine here in the United States, but clearly the market for a moment hitting a

correction yesterday on the S&P down over 10% from the peak Complete mayhem in markets many saying that that's obviously Trump's fault with the lack of certainty as to what he's gonna do But now we are also talking about the risk of recession now arian obviously saying 25 to 30% Trump saying nah, dude No recession coming down plays market turmoil. I don't care about markets. And then you jump over to JP Morgan, who's saying they see a 40% chance of a US recession. And that's due to exorbitant privilege. What the hell's going on with our economy? We talked about this before. We'll mention it again. Trump weaponizes chaos because he thinks that he does better in chaos than anyone else got some good evidence for that

Even beyond that though in this particular circumstance It feels very clear that Trump 2.0 is very serious about this sort of global economic realignment It seems like they're very serious about Really trying to push through some fundamental changes to how the U.S. economy is structured. I think that a lot of people thought that these things were just bargaining chips, and certainly some of the early evidence with tariffs suggested that they were. But then you got Howard Lutton, the Commerce Secretary, going on mainstream TV talking about how they'd like every country to pay a membership fee to the American economy so that earners making less than $150,000 a year don't have to pay income taxes.

And what he said this week was, we've had taxes for so long, income tax for so long that we've been Stockholm syndrome, like it's a normal thing or a good thing. And, you know, look, whether you think that they can pull anything like that off or not, I think at this point, you have to believe, it's, it is, it's on you if you're not taking them seriously. And whatever, however serious they are, they've clearly made a determination that now early pain is the way to do this, right? Maybe that's a calculus about the midterms. Maybe that's just a calculus about when they have the political clout to move really dramatic changes in. But they have clearly decided that pain now is worth it for what they're trying to achieve. My sense is too, and there's, there's nothing that they've said that I think indicates this, I just, you know, markets always freak out when they don't know what's going on. And speaking of Stockholm Syndrome, there is a chance, I think over the next couple of weeks, that markets get used to being absolutely pummeled by these

completely what were previously out-of-left-field policies. And they actually just get used to Trump dumping on them incredibly hard and start to rationalize again, because they're like, Oh, cool. We, you know, the the beatings will continue until morale improves, and they'll just chill out. Like, part of what we're seeing right now is, you know, this feeling of uncertainty. Once the pain becomes certain, we might level off a little bit. So I don't know, it's gonna be fascinating to see. Look, if you watch any sort of, you know, news analysis from any political perspective,

the big question is, is there a strategy behind it or not? You know, you ask two people, you get three opinions, but what's for sure is that no one has any goddamn idea what's going on. And and markets are not gonna gonna thrive in that in that sort of environment. Yeah, it's pretty wild, though, that Trump aside, there's a pattern I've showed the chart 100 times. I can bring it up very quickly. But you get an inverted yield curve, yield

curve normalizes, that's blue, the Fed pivots in red, and then the stock market corrects. Every single time for the last 30 years, well, the yield curve un-inverted, the Fed pivoted, and now the stock market's correcting. And by the way, then it goes back up. So even if you take out all the insanity, I think you could say that he inherited a situation

right now where at some point there had to be a correction and for him better now at the beginning of his term. Totally. You know, one thing that's interesting too is it's been sort of another another part of the conversation is crypto has been hit worse, right? I mean, you know, stocks have corrected, but there's a bunch of different indicators, right? Like I think last last month, Robinhood trading was off something like 29% for stocks, or 29% for crypto, but only 1%

for stocks, right? And, and I was talking with someone yesterday about, you know, what what is going on. And I think Travis Kling was also talking about this. We are now reaping, I think the pain of having not brought in any new market participants over the course of this cycle, right? There is no internal catalyst whatsoever for any excitement. There's no one new here with fresh eyes, you know, and full wallets. There's no exciting new theme like NFTs or DeFi in the past or ICOs before that. There's just us who have been here painfully for, you know, the last few years. And all of our hopes and dreams were based on sort of narratives and policy, which turns out like policies going about as good as it could have been. And it's still not enough for us.

So there's clearly some like more fundamental underlying things. And I think that it's just it's very difficult to have all catalysts have to be external, right? And we're seeing that now like everything is going about as well as it could and it's still not enough. We need more people in. The Solana meme coin casino is like the digital Donner party. It's just everyone who's left starving and eating each other.

And I mean, it's it's really the same people who are here four years ago, just taken out 25, 30, 40% more of the participants by dumping on each other. Yeah. I mean, the other thing I was thinking about too, from just what we should expect standpoint, obviously, I was very close to this, but after the FTX implosion and the revelations, everyone was talking about how many years this was going to set us back with the how far back the crypto industry was going to be set in America, right. And everyone's saying, you know, this sets crypto back five years. And I

think that we forgot that somewhere along the way, because just a few months after that, BlackRock stepped in and planted its flag and said Bitcoin ETF is coming and we're, you know, sorry you don't get to slide anymore. And the institutions came along with, you know, Uncle Larry Fink and institutions have been less freaked out this whole time and have been sort of positioning. And then things went good with the administration. We forgot that for normal people,

I think that we kind of are on that five year timeline. They still remember it's still fresh. And by the way, the more that Sam pops up to in stupid interviews, the more they're gonna remember that they think this whole industry is BS, you know? Yeah, and that's the people outside. They remember the sentiment and don't want to enter. And then you have to remember that a meaningful percentage

of people who actually were in have missed out on the ability to participate because they lost all their money on these platforms. Yep. Yes. Or at least are just getting a percentage of it back now. But yeah. It's unfortunate.

I mean, it's just the I think the point is we've been struggling. There's this constant kind of undercurrent conversation over the last couple of months of why are things going so well but everyone feels so bad. And the reality is that when it comes to the internals of this house, it's not structurally strong right now, right? There's not capital, there's not new people, there's not new themes. So it does like,

ultimately, you can't have a full true bull market without the inside and the outside working together. And we've only got the outside right now. And holding aside that half of the outside is also the macro scene, which is just causing chaos for everyone. So it's a tough, tough, tough situation. My brain doesn't want to agree with you, but my portfolio certainly does. And speaking of outside catalysts and things that were heavily hyped, we had the crypto summit on Friday, right after we recorded the last show.

Three takeaways from the White House crypto summit here. Now listen, I would almost argue that there were kind of no takeaways from the crypto summit, right? Donald Trump walked in the room, the part that was televised. Everybody kissed the ring, told him how wonderful he was thanked him nothing was actually discussed but apparently behind closed doors. Behind that they did talk about the strategic reserve Digital asset pile which now we know are real things that there's actually a US digital asset strategy

Which I think is important and that crypto audits are becoming a priority But it seems like this meeting was an excuse to get everyone together to signal that the government is very serious about our issues But then it was preempted largely by the executive order the day before. So I don't know if there was anything new in this meeting, but still, to me, it's a massive, massive signal that Donald Trump himself, David Sacks, Lutnick, all of them took the time to actually sit down with the leaders of our industry, and the leaders from a cross section of our industry, not

just Bitcoiners or just exchange heads, etc. Yeah, I mean, look, the the only takeaway that mattered was that the thing existed and it was, you know, populated with who it was populated with. And if you've ever watched any other summit at the White House, I don't know what you thought is going to be different about this one, that the main policy was introduced the day before. I think, you know, I've been screaming and squawking all week about why I think that people should be excited

about how the BSR was set up rather than frustrated by it. But again, it just shows, I think, as you can probably tell, my base case is that the frustration that people are feeling is the fact that none of these external catalysts actually can do anything to outweigh the internal challenges right now. Yeah, absolutely. Well, the final story that's probably worth discussing here is all things Binance and

more specifically all things investments into Binance. So we have Abu Dhabi's MGX makes record 2 billion investments into Binance. So we have Abu Dhabi's MGX, makes record two billion investment into Binance. MGX is, I believe, effectively owned by the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Wealth Fund. It's not the Wealth Fund itself, as many have said, but I think that's slightly semantics. This was $2 billion in stable coins.

It was paid, leaving many to question why Binance would take money when we know that they're flush with cash. So what's the strategy here? Interestingly, this news, I think, broke on Wednesday. I, for the first time, sat down with Richard Tang on Tuesday and asked him a whole bunch of questions about Binance's future and at no point did he even hint to the fact that they're going to be taking any investment.

So I got nothing out of him. him is basically what I'm saying. And the news hadn't dropped. He was very, very tight-lipped about this. But many saying that this is more a signal that Abu Dhabi wants to become the financial capital of the world. Finance crypto or otherwise is one of the largest financial institutions on the planet. And this is a path for finance to eventually go public in Abu Dhabi, which would be a huge coup to have them there. Many wondering though, why

finance would do it? What's the angle there? Yeah, I mean, so it's a couple things. One, if you think about the size and scope of the investment, on the one hand, $2 billion, the biggest crypto fundraising round we've ever seen. On the other hand, $2 billion is the biggest crypto fundraising round we've ever seen. On the other hand, when it comes to the valuation of this company, Coinbase is valued at about $50 billion or something like that now. This is sub 5%, I bet.

If I don't know what the valuation was, it would be probably sub 5%. This is an investment that, sure, maybe there are some positive balance sheet, shore ups, in the wake of paying a big fine to the US government or something like that, you know, like, I'm not discounting the value of having an extra $2 billion kicking around. But it's clearly pretty clearly about other strategic purposes, and sized as such. So what might those be? Well, from Binance's perspective, they are trying to, you know, they have been on this long term journey to move away from like, you know, remote, you know, they have been on this long-term journey to move away from like, you know, remote, you know, man with no home to actually domiciled in a place. This is

a much closer connection to a specific, you know, government and regulatory jurisdiction that they can potentially call home in a bigger way. I think something like a fifth or a quarter of Binance's employees are based in that area. So that's one thing. A second thing is, just from a sheer legitimacy standpoint, Binance has done a lot to weather a storm. You know, like, CZ went to jail, guys. Like, it was not enough. Casual four billion they paid. Yeah. And, you know, and look, FTX didn't come back after its founder went to jail. And look, FTX didn't come back after its founder went to jail. Binance is still the biggest exchange in the world. And they are trying to reposition for the next generation of the company. And this sort of like very kind of institutional integration is potentially a way that they're

positioning for that. The third piece, which I find most interesting is actually the part that's on Abu Dhabi's side, not Binance's side, which we're getting into, which is two things going on. One, there is extreme competition in the Gulf states for who's going to be the new financial capital of the Gulf? Is it going to be Riyadh? Is it going to be Abu Dhabi? Is it going to be Dubai? Or is it going to be some combination, right? And so each of those different places are kind of, you know, making, making their bid. Second piece is there is a serious, obviously, geopolitical realignment happening between the US and China, where the Gulf states are one of the key battlegrounds. And you've seen this play out specifically with AI, right? For a while, the Gulf has been very good at playing both sides, being able to do business with both sides. And over the last year or so, you've seen the US as they increase export restrictions on AI chips to China, putting incredible pressure on the Gulf states to turn officially towards them and away from China, right? You saw this with G42 last year, where, you know, Microsoft took a minority stake in them, they invested about 1.5 billion. By the way, this is an ex crypto person who runs G42 as well. He was at MicroStrategy, believe it or not. And, you know, the G42 basically had to say, got it, we can't do business with both sides. We're going to, you know, we're going to be a US focused company. And so I think there's a bit of that going on too, where it's a stable coin transaction.

They're bringing this huge financial institution in. Basically, I think that this is not only Binance getting closer to Abu Dhabi. I think it's also the Gulf states continuing to turn towards the US as well. So it'll be interesting to see. That could be completely wrong. They're obviously keeping their optionality open, but it's one more indicator of how the geopolitical sands are shifting right now. Speaking of things that are apparently completely wrong, the final Binance news we have here is the Wall Street Journal yesterday with this

breaking huge news. Trump family has held deal talks with Binance following crypto exchanges guilty plea, basically hinting that CZ was looking for a pardon in exchange for allowing the Trumps to invest in some way, shape, or form in Binance US specifically, which by the way, the exchange is still ticking on and still to this day is theoretically a completely separate entity from Binance, much like OKCoin was with OKX and theoretically FTX US was with FTX, although we know that that was not the case. But this is not really CZ's company per se.

And then right after that, Bloomberg, Trump Crypto Venture has talked to Binance about doing business. And even before that Bloomberg article dropped, CZ, sorry to disappoint. The Wall Street Journal article got the facts wrong. Here you go. Fact. I have had no discussions of a Binance U.S. deal with, well, anyone. Complete FUD. And then he went on to say, oh, times two FUD with a history and said that Bloomberg was the other media post with a baseless hit piece after the Wall Street Journal and then went on to talk about his long history with

Bloomberg that I did not recall where apparently they had to do retractions after he sued them and they've tried this with him many many times. What's going on here man? Like why on Thursday March 13th are the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg posting straight up fake news about Trump and Biden? Might you have just answered your own question. You know, it's who knows? And like I think that the one could be forgiven for thinking that the sourcing standards are perhaps a little bit less when it comes to rumors about the Trump family right now in the U.S. as relates to popular media.

It's a juicy story if it's real, you know, to be fair to the media side, you know, the damn guy put out a coin with his name on it five seconds before becoming the president fours is, you know, we got we got Ryan Selkis arguing with Brad Garlinghouse. We've got CZ dropping fours, things are getting better. It's back to back to normal, you know, again, we just need some new people to learn what these things actually mean. I didn't catch the Selkis, Garlinghouse, whatever round this is maybe it's round seven, the rumble in the jungle, I don't know which one we're now calling it. But I remember when those guys were like best friends. Well, yeah, but before that they were sworn enemies again, they know but I was at Missouri, I think maybe I said it here but

like a couple years ago and they did the dunk tank together I was like hosting the dunk tank and Garlinghouse ran up and dunked him and they hugged all wet and stuff. I mean, these guys were buddy buddies. Yeah, yeah, it's a, you know, look, they seem to they seem to have a particular relationship, it works for them. You know, so who am I to judge? I don't judge anyone else's marriage, you know, whatever

works for them works for them. Alright, guys, that's all we got for you today. Of course, whatever works for them, works for them. All right, guys, that's all we got for you today. Of course, check out the breakdown and follow NLW on X YouTube and everywhere else that you can listen to these amazing podcasts. He goes into much deeper detail on all of these topics, even than we do here, man. Thank you so much.

Otherwise, I guess we'll see everyone next week. Peace, guys. Bye, guys. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go. you