The Wolf Of All Streets - Is Bitcoin The Best Hedge Against Inflation?

Episode Date: October 25, 2024

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  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEKDAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/   ►► The Arch Public Unleash algorithmic trading. Discover how algorithms used by hedge-funds are now accessible to traders looking for unparalleled insights and opportunities!  👉https://thearchpublic.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 #FridayFive 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.

Bitcoin is currently trading at 68,000 American dollars amidst elections coming soon and a whole lot of institutional involvement in the space, including Microsoft, considering it as a treasury asset. We're going to discuss this, whether it's a good inflation hedge, maybe the best inflation hedge of all, and much more on the Friday Five. NLW and I starting now. What is up everybody? I'm Scott Melker, also known as the Wolf of Wall Street. Before we get started, please subscribe to the channel, hit the like button. Going to go ahead and bring on Let's go. things are happening. Yeah, I like it. It's different than our normal slate. It's nice that we're finally out of the like, oh, it's the same thing all over again. It's like, you know,

it's interesting. Like people are so clearly past the elections, you know, it's like, God, I don't want to talk about that anymore, even though they haven't happened yet. And on that note, 64% chance that Donald Trump will win the election on Polymarket. This spread seems to be increasing, but we are basically days away from finally getting some clarity here in the election. Maybe not having to talk about politics as much, although I have a fear that it's going to force us to talk about politics more, depending on how the election results pan out. Temporarily, for sure. And we'll actually get to see what happens depending on who the winner is to our beloved market.

But I don't think there's much to talk about on the political front today. I think that now it's watch and wait. And maybe we're going to see some real fireworks in all markets when we finally get a result here, don't you think? Yeah, absolutely. The only thing notable, I'm sure you talked about it at some point in some of the shows over the last couple of weeks, there's definitely a sense among market participants that markets are throwing their lot in for a Trump victory, right? Druckenmiller, I think, has had the loudest sort of statements about this.

I think it was about a week ago now, maybe even a little bit more than that. But he basically said that over the last couple of weeks, it seemed very clear to him that the markets had decided that they thought that Trump was going to win. So pretty interesting to see if that holds. It will be interesting. And usually in a situation like that, when everybody is pricing in bullishness because of a certain result, if that result happens, you get a sell off. You buy the rumor and sell the news and it goes exactly the opposite way, at least temporarily. So it will be actually interesting to see how it plays out, at least in the short term, if he does win. Yep. Okay. The first big story I think that we have today, Stripe confirms plans to acquire stablecoin platform Bridge. Bridge helps businesses issue and accept stablecoins. They actually help Tesla. Stripe agreed to pay $1.1 billion for the crypto

startup. I think that makes this the largest M&A play basically in the history of crypto, if I'm not mistaken. Yep, it does. Listen, one of the things that we talk about here a lot is what is the nature of this cycle, right? What makes this one? Where are we in a four-year cycle? Does the four-year cycle even apply? What's different this time? We've talked about in the past how this cycle hasn't really had a catalyst for new retail investors to come in, right? There's no equivalent of NFTs this time around. What's interesting though, is if you take a step back, there is starting to be, I think, some clarity around what will be looked back at as having defined this cycle.

And it seems to be at least so far, the mainstreaming and institutionalization of two core sort of pillars of the crypto space. One is Bitcoin with the ETFs, obviously. And I think Ethereum is sort of part of that ETF, you know, institutionalization, even though it hasn't done as much from a financial standpoint. And then the other is stablecoins, right? Stablecoins are now officially being recognized by the rest of the world as dollar infrastructure for the next generation, right? The same way that we've been thinking about it for years and years, but that's really coming to fruition now. And I think that this is a great example of that. Stripe has obviously been peeling back its previous shift in crypto policy to get more friendly again, But this is a real investment in a sort of

digital dollarized future, basically. And I think it's very notable for that reason. Yeah, this is a great quote from Bridge. We proved ourselves and to those outside the company that stablecoins could become core global money movement infrastructure. This happened not because consumers or businesses inherently want crypto, but instead because stable coins solve critical financial problems. Yeah. I mean, listen, one of the things that has seemed very clear to anyone spending a bit of attention with this and why some of the sort of, you know, US antagonism has been so weird is that there have been, you know, on the one hand, there have been reasons why the US looked more precarious as the world's reserve currency than before, particularly in the wake of, you know, politicized sanctions following Russia's invasion of Ukraine and things like that.

There's all these reasons that people started to wonder, you know, are we finally at a tipping point where people are going to try to start peeling back? Right. Certainly, we've seen central banks want to buy less treasuries, but there's a countervailing force, which has been the fact that dollars are still the most liquid, most desired currency everywhere in the world, right? You go to any market anywhere, and you're going to be able to, if you have a $20 bill, you're going to be able to use it, right? Pretty much. And digital dollars in the form of stable coins specifically have seemed for a long time, like the single most likely scenario for extending dollar dominance for at least another generation. And boy, is that coming to fruition, you know, in just an absolute storm.

The irony of the killer app for crypto being to hyper, you know, hyper dollarization should not be lost on anyone who's an early Bitcoiner, but it has been the killer use case absolutely for crypto outside of the creation of Bitcoin itself. I think there's a lot to be said for, if you view crypto, one of the values of crypto as truly free markets, right? Markets that are more unfettered than just about anything else. This is a great instantiation of that, right? People around the world demand dollars and they can have access to them much more easily than they ever did before. Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't still a desire for a totally different type of asset, like something that Bitcoin represents, but there's a lot that crypto represents and freedom to transact is one of them. And I think stable coins have been a total

unmitigated victory on that column. Well, the European Central Bank doesn't necessarily agree with what we just said and published a paper that we discussed briefly last week that was called the Distributional Consequences of Bitcoin. They made some dubious claims about our favorite assets. Here you go. The notions that those who are late to investing in Bitcoin are impoverished by those who are early to investing in it and that Bitcoin has failed as a payments technology are the author's central arguments. And this would sound only slightly batshit crazy if it was just the ECB, but the Minneapolis Fed effectively followed up with similar thoughts only days later. I mean, the idea that early people who got into Bitcoin are going to benefit from the impoverishment of future generations who buy it at a more expensive price is just wild.

Yeah. I mean, there's a lot that's interesting about this one to me. I've been following this story a little bit. I think there's plenty of dubiousness in the arguments that people can get into if you want to get into the sort of specifics of it, right? I tend to think that the meta, like trying to understand the context in which this is coming is kind of more interesting, right? Because there's very different circumstances that are possible. On the one hand, is this, you know, two economists who are simply associated with the ECB, you know, like the paper is, you know, says not the opinion of the ECB, it's the opinion of the authors, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Are these people engaging in an intellectual experiment where they're just trying to have a conversation? And this is what

academia is for. And candidly, there's some evidence that that's sort of how they treated this, that, you know, this is as much a thought experiment as a declaration of war. Right. We saw that in the fact that they had sent an advanced copy to a bunch of Bitcoin or academics very proactively engaged with people, you know, about this. So there's some evidence that this is like really meant to be an academic exercise and exploration. On the other hand, this is even to the extent that it is that from these two in particular, right, and they're not as antagonistic as the as the paper would seem. This is setting an intellectual framework for an absolute war on Bitcoin. And so even if their intention is not as two human beings to declare war on Bitcoin, it sets a framework argument for potential future attempts to ban it, right? So I don't know. It's a pretty fascinating thing with potentially some

fairly big consequences if sort of adopted by other people. I agree with you that it's an academic experiment, but it does sort of draw some conclusions that seem to lead to we'd be better off without Bitcoin at all. Yeah, absolutely. And the Minneapolis Fed went that direction. I mean, I love this one. The new Lamborghini, Rolex, Villa, and equity portfolios by early Bitcoin investors do not stem from an increase in the economy's production potential. Rather, they are financed by diminishing consumption and wealth of those who

initially do not hold Bitcoin. It's like filling one bucket by draining water from another. The latecomers have to give up for the benefit of the early holders. Thus, missing out on Bitcoin is not merely a lost opportunity for wealth accumulation, but means real impoverishment compared to a world without Bitcoin. The redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. Even if the latecomer cannot attribute their loss of purchasing power, they will feel a malaise and frustration that will contribute further to even ever more split society. So even if there aren't actual financial consequences, they're going to feel really bad about it and be angry.

Yeah. I mean, listen, like I said, the substance of the paper, there's a lot of dubiousness in this. There's so many assumptions that they don't even try to caveat them as assumptions. They just kind of plow through and hope you don't notice. Oh, man. When I get my Lambo, I'm telling you, man. I wasn't an early enough Bitco or enough, I guess, to qualify. So I'll be malaise and frustration guy. Speaking of malaise and frustration guy, finally, man, Nigeria drops charges against Binance cryptocurrency boss.

I believe he's been in a Nigerian prison since February. And he was basically being held accountable personally. This guy's a U.S citizen, for the charges that existed against Binance. He's been in terrible health. They're finally releasing him, said he can leave the country, go get the health, the care that he basically needs, the medical treatment, and that they're not dropping any charges against Binance, but Gambarion Tigran is free to finally go. This is crazy. I mean, this guy went on a business trip to Nigeria for Binance in February and has been sitting in prison since.

Yeah, this is an insane story. We've talked about it at least once or twice before. But like you said, the good news is that he's out. But the unconscionableness of the way that this transpired is just so insane, right? The fact that he was held basically as ransom for Binance by the Nigerian government. The fact that not only is he a US citizen, he's a decorated former IRS officer, you know, who sort of, you know, has legendary status in that group. He joined Binance in 2021, trying to like write that ship and make it more compliant. I mean, everything about it is insane. There has been a growing chorus of pressure on the US government to do something.

We have no idea at this stage what was the set of things that led to this release. It's not clear that it was behind the scenes pressure from the State Department or work. It could have been, but it took too long. It took way too damn long under any circumstances. And I think the entire US should be very embarrassed about how this happened, even though he's free now. There's a lot of US hostages in a lot of places right now that our government doesn't seem to care too much about. Yeah. It's just a sad state of affairs currently. And talking about sad state of affairs michael saylor got absolutely annihilated this week by his beloved bitcoin maxi community for some comments that he made in an interview we'll talk about this reversal first but i'm just going to go ahead and play the clip really

quickly if you don't mind because it's pretty good stuff greater when they're unregulated private entities that are perceived to be holding the asset. When you have regulated public entities like BlackRock and Fidelity and JP Morgan and State Street Bank holding the asset, well, all the lawmakers and all the law enforcement arms, they're invested in those entities, right? So there's no way that all the senators and all the congressmen are going to seize the assets from Fidelity and BlackRock or Vanguard because that's where all their retirement money is invested. So the asset moving from private to public hands and moving into regulated entities, it does a bunch of things. It decreases the volatility. It decreases the risk of loss. It decreases the... Who do you

trust more as a custodian, FTX or Fidelity or Vanguard or State Street? And if you walk down the street and you said, would you put all your family's money in an offshore entity without a headquarters run by five dudes without an auditor? Or would you put it with a bank that's too big to fail in the US? Right, like at the end of the day, you have an OG crypto community

that's very hardcore about it. But if you look at where all the money is, 99.9% of the money is actually in the traditional economy. And in the war for the future of money, the war is going to be won with money, right? I mean, right at the end of the day, Bitcoin is capital. Who's going to actually decide who's the winner the loser the people at the capital and so where's the capital it's a vanguard fidelity state street jp morgan morgan stanley they're all regulated in entities of sorts so when bitcoin is held by those entities it becomes

regular and normal and you know people would no more think about seizing that than they think about seizing a building in the middle of Manhattan or seizing, you know, the S&P spider assets. Why would you do that? That's just the capital that you built the country on. Well, if you ask why would you do that, if you consider the Great Depression, I mean, people thought that their gold was safe in banks until the executive order of 1933. So we're not entirely safe. I mean, I know that's kind of a wild thing to suggest may happen again, but history does repeat itself. So people's Bitcoin wouldn't be entirely safe. People say that, but mostly it's paranoid crypto anarchists that say that. Yeah, that last part, he said that earlier. He actually said at the beginning, right before this came in,

if there's more Bitcoin hell with third party, well, he basically called them crypto anarchists twice, right? And, you know, those are his friends. Sometimes you watch an interview, and all you can think is, as they just dig themselves deeper and deeper, and then the interviewer gives them a chance to walk it back and they go they start shoveling behind them yeah he's he literally he

responded to that he's like they didn't really take the gold and gold was just the money and they didn't like go take people's buildings in manhattan so whatever uh yeah i mean listen what what at what angle do we want to explore this from? There's a lot. What do you think? Okay. Well, let me first say this was his response after getting roasted because people perceive this as an attack on self-custody saying that the true spirit of Bitcoin, obviously, is the ability to custody yourself. Whether you do it yourself or not, that needs to exist at the very base level. So he said, I support self-custody for those willing and able, the right to self-custody for all, and freedom to choose

the form of custody and custodian for individuals and institutions globally. Bitcoin benefits from all forms of investment by all types of entities and should welcome everyone. So that was his sort of response after he got annihilated by the community. First, I would maybe ask, did you view what he said as an attack on self-custody? Not really, but what people forget, and this happens all the time with every area, to be fair, but it happens to Bitcoin a lot, is we forget or people forget that everyone doesn't think exactly like them. And Saylor has never thought exactly like all the other Bitcoiners. There are a lot of parts that he agrees with. There are a lot of conversion experiences that he had, right? He had his road to Damascus conversion and became

St. Peter for Bitcoin in some ways, but he doesn't think the same way that all Bitcoiners do. He is radically more entrenched in the traditional system. He always has been. He's been unabashed about this. And so this isn't all that surprising. Now, I think that the, you know, he's also a man who doesn't really have a PR department, I think, you know, thinking about his statements and how they're going to hit with Bitcoiners. I think that there's a reasonable frustration that comes from the fact that he is appointed effectively a spokesperson for Bitcoin by the media. And that comes with some amount of responsibility. And so to the extent that it's, you know, he's diminishing, listen, if he hadn't used like the phrase like crypto anarchist three times, I think it would have been a very different thing. He was talking about

something else, but that made it about like, those people are crazy. You know, it would have been totally reasonable for him to say, I support the right to self custody. I think it's unbelievable that we have an asset class that enables that now. Uh, however, I also think that like, it's a big full market. There's lots of options and what makes it great is that we have all these things, you know what I mean? Like, like he also could say my base cases that I don't believe that the government's likely to seize it for these reasons. But that's still different than like, the only people who think that are crypto anarchists, you know? Yeah, if he had been speaking strictly about how institutions perceive it, and how this

will grow on Wall Street, or through governments or through Bitcoin on balance sheets, he would have been 100% correct. There's no entity, we've all made that argument, right? We talked about institutional adoption in the last cycle. And you look back and it's laughable to think that a company like Tesla was going to buy Bitcoin on their balance sheet in 2017 and put it on a ledger. Right. At the time, we didn't even have trusted custodians that a company or a government could use to even hold Bitcoin on a balance sheet or gain exposure or to have safe ETFs. So it is absolutely true that these companies need a custodian with a fiduciary duty to custody these assets in a safe way. And that's never going to be a self-custody device.

The problem is that, as you said, he didn't differentiate that from why this exists and is important to the individual who might not trust those government entities. Yeah. I mean, listen, it's a great reminder of like, ultimately, you never want to meet your heroes because even when they're genuinely great and you're always going to find points where they're just different than you thought. You know, I think it's good that he clarified, it's important for Bitcoin to have this sort of, you know, Bitcoin is not in a safe enough position, even with the

ascension to the ETF world, for it not to be wanting to defend itself from things like this, right? There are lots of ways that this plays out, where Bitcoin still gets, you know, just sort of absorbed, right? Ben Hunt is called this Bitcoin TM, right? The sort of the institutionalization of Bitcoin, and there's a lot of ways that that could go. So, you know, I think the response is a healthy immune system response that sort of, you know, is exemplary of what makes Bitcoin unique. I mean, he's in the unenviable position of effectively having to appeal to those OG crypto anarchists that he spoke of, but also, as you said, be the institutional spokesperson moving forward. I don't think anything he said was that horrid. He just said it in a terrible manner in this case. It was very unclear what the hell the

point he was trying to make. From a complete rhetoric standpoint, again, other than the clarifying to say only crypto anarchists think that, I really, truly do not know what he was trying to say with the first part of the quote. It was not particularly coherent. No. I mean, there was a comment, I think, from Udi underneath to the effect of, well, if you do four hours of podcasts a day, seven days a week for 900 straight days, eventually you're going to say something slightly regrettable. And I think that Saylor has obviously operated to the benefit of all of us for years here. And I think it's fair to give him that benefit of the doubt, just kind of give him a pass on this one. I don't think it's such a big deal. But I do think it's important that people at least clarified the importance

of self-custody and Bitcoin as an asset that is a hedge and an opt out. Totally. Yeah. And it will impact the way that he thinks about these conversations in the future. And there will be plenty of chances for him to talk in the future. I think, you know, we'll get an example of that in one of our stories later on. Yeah, here we go. Microsoft urges shareholders to vote against a proposal to assess Bitcoin as a diversification investment. We have the title is Bitcoin the best hedge against inflation? Well, in this context, the National Center for Public Research argued that Bitcoin is an excellent, if not the best, hedge against inflation, and that at minimum, companies should invest 1% total assets into the

cryptocurrency. This is actually on the docket for Microsoft to go full micro strategy, we've got Microsoft and micro strategy. To be fair, it's not going to get voted for. Yeah, right. Just just because it's there doesn't mean it's going to happen. But I think it's important that it's there. Yeah, I mean, it's not ignorable, right? This is a vote, you know, that or a proposal that was being called by shareholders who have the right to do that. They're going to have discussions of it. You're right that it's absolutely not going to get through, but they're specifically calling out the example of MicroStrategy, right? They're saying, look over there, look at what they've done, look at what's happened. From completely economic reasons, there's a strong argument just based on that, that we should be doing this.

Yeah. But we've yet to see sort of that second company come in and take the stand at MicroStrategy. I mean, at the time, I guess we had Tesla and Square. Those were somewhat take someone, it would take a leader who is specifically high conviction around it and was willing to like really go to the mat for it in some ways. You know, it's the type of change that until there's sort of a broad, broad agreement that that's the way to go. It's going to still take very individualistic, high powered leaders to push that through. I think it's also important to note that when MicroStrategy, Tesla, and Square did this, the accounting rules were not favorable to companies that wanted to add Bitcoin to the balance sheet. That has changed. And to be fair, that probably just started the process years later

than they all decided to add Bitcoin. And that process is going to take years and years and years to play out for a company, especially as large as a Microsoft or an Apple that people have floated to actually take their money and put it into Bitcoin on the ballot sheet to hedge against inflation when Bitcoin, to be fair, has not proved yet to be an inflation hedge. Yeah, no, I think that it would be shot down by most boards. It's like it's even if someone agrees that the long-term trajectory and destiny is Bitcoin as debasement hedge, it operates as a risk asset functionally for markets.

It's pretty undeniable at this stage. And so it's really like, what's your time horizon? What's your perspective there? Yeah, they've actually, I thought there were some interesting comments though that Microsoft said here, past evaluations have included Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies among the options considered. And Microsoft continues to monitor trends and developments related to cryptocurrencies to inform future decision making. So they're saying this isn't new. We've looked at this, we've continued to look at it, and there may be a time when it becomes appropriate. So behind the

curtain, this is not the first time this is being proposed. Totally. Every time something like this comes up, it normalizes the conversation more. And I think that it's more likely that we're in the sort of like long, slow, quiet period where this gets discussed for years before it finally becomes kind of normal. Then we're in a period where there's going to be sort of another firebrand like sailor. And frankly, when it comes to, uh, setting off a pattern, you kind of want like more boring, normalized, you know, uh, uh, adoption. Then the sailor is a very hard act to imitate. It's very easy for people to say, yeah, but their strategy has worked because they went all in on this. They basically did, you know, this became their whole company. We're obviously not going to do that. So it's like, it's not really copyable,

you know? Yeah. It was a huge story last week that Tesla had moved Bitcoin from one wallet to other wallets. Were they selling, you know, that's more of a classic example of, I'm not saying they did sell, but they have in the past, but a more classic example, I think of what you would expect from a company that might put Bitcoin on the balance sheet, which is that they might not have diamond hands. They might let it go at some point. They might start moving around. There could be some controversy. Nobody else is going to be a seller, to your point. Yeah. I actually, for what it's worth, I think that Tesla's ability to sell when they needed to sell, when it actually comes to that normalization of purchasing, that will be seen as the people will

point to that as a great argument for why you should adopt because this thing is so liquid, it can go if you need to like, it's part of what makes it a great treasury asset is that it is liquid at when needed, you're not committing to something that's going to screw you later if circumstances change. People don't put treasuries on their balance sheet and expect to never sell those treasuries when they need liquidity. Yep. Right. And so at the time, Musk literally said, I was just testing the liquidity to make sure that we could actually sell these things. I tend to believe him. Yep. Yeah, totally. Elon is, for whatever faults he has, he's not particularly poker-faced. And that one seemed pretty, pretty much him just explaining how he was thinking about things. Well, we had that was all the stories. But we

did have this honorable mention. And I guess it aligns with sort of the ECB's comments, but tokenization could pose risk to financial system according to FSB and BIS. Basically, just another skeptical paper of the future of blockchain here. Sort of. So this one is frustrating because the people who are loudest about being excited about this report are traditional crypto antagonists, and that makes it hard to give it a fair shake. Really what this report was saying, I dug in a little bit. It's basically just saying that tokenization is likely a very powerful force that introduces

all of these new types of risks that we just need to consider. I think that you can read this as like tokenization is no longer being treated as an if, it's being treated as a when. There are like so clearly so many reasons that institutions are going to push for tokenization because of the new opportunities that it opens up, that they're now actually trying to reconcile and deal with what challenges that brings up, which is're now actually trying to reconcile and deal with what challenges that brings up, which is what the Financial Stability Board's job is. Again, where it gets frustrating is that you have long duration antagonists of crypto holding it up

on Twitter as some validation of their point and screeching about it, which makes it just frustrating. But taken on its own face, it's completely reasonable that if the entire world is tokenized in a decade, it's going to be new and different. And there's some stuff that we should deal with. And listen, if you're excited about tokenization, we should be trying to figure that stuff out so we can get all the benefits without these big catastrophic new risks that might be introduced. There was a time at the early days of automobiles when there were no road signs and lights and seatbelts and safety precautions or even lanes. And as it proliferated and became clear that automobiles were the future of transport, they took some consideration as to what could possibly go wrong and actually made some laws and regulations to make sure that it was safe. There's a there's a phenomenal video that you can find on YouTube of just the utter frustration of people when when open carry laws went into effect. These guys who just couldn't believe that they weren't allowed to crack open a six pack on their way home anymore after a hard day's work. So you know, the world changes, the world evolves. It is.

Yeah, you should definitely be able to have a full open six-pack in the front seat with no seat belt blasting god bless america or something else i don't know man but yeah and you have to have a screaming eagle painted yeah i was gonna say only if only if an eagle's driving the car absolutely all right guys i think that that's all we've got for you today it's about to get so incredibly interesting i mean it's october 25th we have an election in what you in less than two weeks. Hey, next week, we get to give the official determination on how uptobery October was. Oh, that's true. We are going to get some percentages and numbers behind it. We're going to have to have a hell of a move in the next week to have a true October celebration. But hey, we all know that October is generally followed by a very bullish November. So I guess we'll see.

Weirder stuff is not. Thank you so much, guys. Check out The Breakdown. Of course, listen to all his other shows. And that's all we got for you today. Later. Bye. Let's go.