The Wolf Of All Streets - MSTR. Strive Buying BTC as Price Stalls Near 70k #CryptoTownHall

Episode Date: March 11, 2026

In this Crypto Town Hall episode, the panel explores Bitcoin's resilience near $70K amid geopolitical uncertainty and market volatility, with MicroStrategy's STRC product enabling aggressive BTC accumulation while paying high yields. Speakers debate the banking lobby's resistance to stablecoin rewards and DeFi, the rapid rise of AI agents and machine-to-machine economies, and how legacy finance is fighting disruption rather than adapting. The discussion highlights real utility emerging in crypto, the risks of over-leveraged treasury companies, and why Bitcoin remains a strong long-term hedge despite short-term noise.

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Crypto Town Hall here on X 1015 a.m. every other day. Maybe not this Friday, Dave, right? I know that I'll be traveling. I think you might be too. So, yeah, I might be able to dial in, but we'll host. I think it's time that we find even a third useful person who can do this in our stead. Yeah.

That'd be good. Hey, Jamie, you want to volunteer? Sign me up, brother. I'm here for you. I love this. Let's go. Yeah, so today, you know, micro-stratory's strive buying Bitcoin as price stalls near $70K. It's hilarious. I was mocking myself earlier, Dave, that it's just like every title, YouTube or things you see here. It's like, Bitcoin Break 70K, Bitcoin loses $70K. Bitcoin loses $70K. We're like doing this endless carousel. Those old people in the audience, duck season, rabbit season, duck season.

Exactly right. Yeah, if you remember, if you remember Bugs Bunny. Bugs Bunny, of course. Yeah, you got, you know, it's like the real title, the real thing is, is the ongoing, you know, flat out lying around, you know, by the, you know, by the banking lobby is probably the real, the real thing and, you know, the uncertainty this creates. I mean, I know Carlo will get, we juiced on that one. I mean, look, markets are not going to do, no, no offense people, but markets aren't going to do. until people really know what's happening in the Middle East and we see exactly what goes on here. Because, you know, markets are frozen.

And it's like you go down and you look. I mean, crude oil is around is 85. Okay, it's whatever. You know, it's been in the mid 80s now for a couple days ever since it went from, you know, 70s up to 120 and then round trip back into the 80s. That was the fireworks. And now it's sitting here. And people are like, okay, elevated risk, but what's going on?

You know, you look at gold. Gold is, where are we now? Let's just get it right. So gold's a little bit below 5200, which is more or less almost bog in the middle of its recent range of where it's been trading. Silver's trading around 85, same difference. Silver being exposed to the real economy, gold being exposed to store of value. They're operating together.

It's more or less the same. Look at the indices. And you go through every one of them. You would look and say, oh, well, there's not that much volatility right now. There's nothing going on. Well, that's not because there's no potential volatility. It's because the market's don't, people don't know at a price ship. They don't know where things are going to go.

You get misinformation. It's like funny how many times I see, hey, Grock, is this true? Is one of the craziest things? And how the hell is a large language model gonna know other than by what's posted and nothing's getting posted? So that's the situation where it, right? I mean, I was watching you and Josh had actually a really good conversation this morning about, you know,

tokens and value. I think that's what we should really talk about. Because honestly, no one's going to have a frigging clue what's going to go on in the market until the market establishes a direction. You agree? Ryan. I entirely agree. Yes. Go ahead, Ryan. Yeah, I'll jump in on that. Man, you know, I always say in 2020, April and May, I wish I would have bought more Bitcoin. Like, everyone is so concerned about COVID and the pandemic and the market's taking and Bitcoin bottomed out back into 3,000s.

And I kept thinking, man, I should have just thrown more into Bitcoin. I should have thrown more into Bitcoin. When the world was distracted and worried about shit that we knew was going to blow over eventually, I should have just bought more Bitcoin. And now I'm looking at Bitcoin in the 60s, 70, back to 60s, back 70s, 70s, back to 60s. I can't help but think that we're in the exact same situation where the world is distracted have been looking at stuff, oh, quantum, this, or, you know, tariffs, that. And eventually, stuff's going to settle out in another year or two.

And I'm going to think, man, that was the low part. I should have bought more. And then to the point about tokens and utility, it seems like we're getting to the, just now, after 15 years or 16 years, we're just now getting to the point where people actually care about utility. before it was just a narrative in a pitch deck. But with the advent of these compute tokens and these AI tied-in projects, were actually seeing real utility around people needing massive amounts of inference

and them using tokens to acquire it. Yeah, I mean, and that brings you to the point that, you know, Josh was making a couple points with Scott this morning. One is near and dear to my heart, which is that finding real value in an ecosystem, not with the marketing bullshit. He's talking about post-airdrop, what things are going, should get valued normally, and as long as there's a path for the token holders to get that value. And we talk about this all the time.

And yet, you know, the market in crypto is still more of a casino, more based on narrative, and really hasn't gotten there yet. I mean, I think that a few more cycles of Bitcoin goes up, all coins kind of, Bitcoin drops a little, all coins get hammered, you know, maybe it'll flush everything out, but, you know, it's, it is, I think that right now babies are getting thrown out with the bathwater. I mean, that that's what it feels like to me. Yeah, I, you know, I don't know what other people think, but I think that there's a lot of things being built. You know, this whole narrative about AI agents in agentic economies wanting to use crypto.

Well, I mean, yes, they're going to want to use stable coins if they're trading in dollars. Why? Because they need digital dollars. They can't use conventional dollars. And they're not going to want to rely on banking rails that they can't get. That's obvious. It's also obvious that if you're building a business, like we talk about, you know, Sailor making pitches to corporations as treasuries to save their their profits in Bitcoin as a wealth preservation vehicles. I mean, just ask any AI, which is more likely to hold its value, dollars or Bitcoin,

and you're going to get Bitcoin almost every time. So obviously the agents are going to choose to save and keep treasury that is not needed for, you know, not needed for operations in Bitcoin. And so those two things are true. The real question is what networks will actually evolve that will, you know, do things that will create value outside of Bitcoin? That to me is the real question. And honestly, I think that that is a very, you know,

the people who figure that out will get very, very rich. and the people who try and fail will just see, you know, see themselves rugged. I mean, that's sort of where I think we're at right now. Or they get rich also. They just rug before everyone else does. Well, yeah. Well, that happens too, right? But, you know, we're in this uncertainty period.

And I don't know. You know, all I know is I just published an article, you'll love it, Carlo, that just pisses me off. I just gave a little history lesson. You know, the ultimate irony of the banking lobby, the Money Center banking lobby, who effectively, you know, eight years after their last major successful lobbying push, which was to bring down Glass-Steagall, literally almost destroyed the entire economy, and made themselves all bankrupt.

But, of course, they got bailed out. Them arguing about risk by allowing crypto firms to have banking licenses when the crypto firms are fully reserved institutions is just, I mean, it's mind-boggling, really. You know, it's just mind-boggling. I mean, the amount of, I'm stumbling over words because I'm not trying to be that insulting, but honestly, the politicians who are listening and buying these arguments are either unbelievably stupid. I mean, as in you can't pass, you know, forget algebra.

You can't pass math. So you're talking about eighth grade, seventh grade, sort of stuff, you know, just basic math, or they're so corrupt, which is probably the more likely scenario, but they don't care. They'll just take the money. I mean, it is, it is beyond belief, you know, how dumb this argument is that, that, that, that, that crack in, because they're going to use stable coins and in a fully reserved basis is more risky than a cut than companies that have 95% of their, their assets loaned out. You don't have to mix words, Dave. They're just stupid. Yeah, well, I, I don't think they're that.

That's stupid. I'm sorry. I mean, we're talking walk and chew gum at the same time, stupid here. You'd be surprised. I mean, you know, we're literally talking words that you're not allowed to use if it was a Jeopardy category. Words I'm not. It starts with R and ends in D. Can't use that word to describe them, but those are the people who are running our country. That's sad, Ryan. Garlo, good morning. Good morning. Yeah, watching that ABA. conference footage yesterday had me screaming into my phone, infuriated at just how ridiculous the narrative has become. You know, the opening remarks by the president of that association, where he got everyone to raise their hand, if you're in a community bank and you're worried about stablecoins taking away

depositors. And of course, in lockstep, everyone raises their hand. Just the the narrative that they're floating is ridiculous. And what's concerning about it, Dave, is they're so threatened. And I kind of liken it to what Tesla did to the auto sector. Remember how furious all the auto manufacturers were that Tesla had the audacity to sell vehicles online and completely disrupt the dealership model. And it kind of reminds me of that, that you just have this disruptive, technology, this new way of doing things, and a legacy dinosaur who wants desperately to cling

to their monopoly and getting this audience of bankers lathered up and then telling them all, okay, now we're going to walk over to D.C. and we're going to meet with lawmakers so you can tell them just how scared you are that we're about to lose our monopoly on moving money. But the thing that really troubled me the most about yesterday's remarks was one of the speakers, and I put it up in the nest, there's a segment where they talk about the yield problem and the concern, but then they pivot to defy and how we shouldn't have defy either. That's not a good thing either for the banks, because the banks don't just want to stop at limiting what consumers can get on stable coin yield. They also want to destroy what consumers can do in defy with stable coins because they know that there are potentially more attractive, more user-friendly lending protocols available out there that also disrupt.

And the bottom line is this is not about protecting community banks. This is about protecting profit margins for big banks. Community banks have an opening to come out on this and actually take business away from business. big banks if they would just wake up and listen. And I'm putting together a piece that's going to talk about those opportunities for community banks where they actually can have a competitive moat against the big banks if they adopt stable coins. And the ones that fail to do that are going to lose because they are, they can throw all the lobbying money they wanted this, but they're going to lose in the end because they're fighting a horse and buggy defense of an industry in the age of

automobiles and I just don't see them winning this. Yeah, I mean, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, the reason we put the topic up here is we saw, I will, I will, let me just say something, we'll see if I can trigger people. I am not worried per se, but strategies, STRC paying that I have a percent of interest. There is a number where STRC becomes too big and creates too much leverage inside of Bitcoin itself from people who are buying it because we know that. I don't think we're anything close to that level yet. In fact, you know, grain of salt is a, you know, that's his moniker on X. You know, he goes through the math and basically explains, you know, where things are

because it has a very unique thing that the higher the price of Bitcoin, goes, the lower the leverage that micro strategy actually has within their within what they're doing. And that absolutely, you know, does change it. But it also means that if Bitcoin falls, that their leverage goes up and you'll end up hearing all of this stuff. I mean, the fact that that a lot of other debts or at least, you know, Vivex, you know, strive actually are buying SDRC along with buying Bitcoin, which, which is, I find that fascinating. And I find, you know, what's going on very interesting. But it's kind of resurrection. that digital asset treasury narrative in a different way,

maybe not in the stupid way of people paying stupid premiums to get exposure, but in terms of managing money built around a Bitcoin ecosystem, seems like that's going on. And I think that that's creating just the math, more buying than is being mined. And so we are now in a situation where, and this is hard for people to get their heads around, but in every, basically in every other epoch of Bitcoin,

the equilibrium price of Bitcoin would be lower if new money doesn't come into Bitcoin. Why? Because it's being mined, right? You know, you're getting more supply. Well, now there are buyers that are not buying Bitcoin directly that are buying a yield product that effectively means that the equilibrium price is higher because there's more demand. And I'm curious when people think about that. I personally think that that is interesting, but it is increasing leverage in the system. Nobody? I say Ryan Tandap, but I don't know if it's old. No, I mean, I could talk to that. I wanted to respond to Carlos real fast before we jumped into micro strategy stuff. Cool. Don't mind. So one comment, Dave, real fast, just on stupidity of politicians, just look at Washington

State. Like, I can't even believe what they're doing. But on Carlos's point, with stable coins, Like once again, like the critical thinking ability in this country, at this point in history, is just astonishing to me. Because all the banks want to be up in arms about stable coins. They want to be up in arms about crypto. And yet no one's actually sat down and critically thought through what you can actually do on a blockchain and what you can't do on a blockchain. There's a huge difference between credit and lending. In defy, you can lend, but you have to be fully collateralized or over collateralized to do so. because there's no such thing as credit and anonymity.

They're like an antithesis to each other. If you have credit, you cannot have someone be anonymous because you cannot threaten their person or assets. And that is the basis of credit. Banks still hold the keys to credit. And if the banks were smart, they would look at ways of setting up centralized issuances on the blockchain with fully vetted credit systems. And yet they're not doing that.

They're looking at stablecoin. They're looking at these lending markets. They're looking at all these blockchain things. And their eyes go crossed. And I think that it's a threat to them. And it's not. It's opening them up to a huge customer base in a completely asynchronous system. And if they were smart, they would look at leveraging that.

It was like Vietnam back in 2014 when everyone was thinking, oh, communist governments will hate crypto because people could freely move money. And then the Vietnamese government looked at it and said, wait a minute, we can see everything on chain and we can track it. This works great for us. We're going to allow it because they thought about it critically and they realized that it was a completely open ledger and they can track every single cent that goes through it. Eventually, banks will come around to realize this, but it's going to be a little while.

Carlo, did you have any response there, thoughts? No, I mean, that is absolutely on point. And I think banks ultimately by resisting the way they are yield and trying to limit potentially defy in the Clarity Act are ultimately doing themselves a disservice because I think this is going to accelerate their undoing. They're going to be massively disrupted by the very thing that they are fighting to kill. And that's, you know, history has many examples of this. And the fact that they're not being advised by people who understand the very. things that you just talked about is what's killing them. They are still getting their advice from people who don't understand the technology. And even more so, as we move into AI, I mean, we're

building humanoid robots. We have AI agents. They're getting wallets. They're using credit card numbers for online shopping. Open AI is rolling out shopping interfaces. We are moving so fast towards agentic systems where people are not actually doing things themselves, where you're going to have the second layer borrowing system, you're going to have the second layer credit system, and we're going to have to have eventually a registration. I know it sucks, and everyone realizes that eventually we're going to move into the same type of DMV system where you have to register your car and license plate and all that stuff. You're going to have to do the same thing with these robots.

You're going to have to do the same thing with online agentic system. systems and eventually there's going to be a whole automated credit market built on top of this. Now we're talking maybe five, six, seven years in the future, but the smart players are already putting infrastructure in place for it now. Look, when you have the CEOs of Binance and Coinbase coming out and talking about the explosion that's about to happen in agent to agent transactions and it will all be over crypto rails, I coined it the M to M economy. The machine to machine economy is, something that I commented about the other day that I think is also not being taken serious by

traditional finance, especially banks. You know, you have Amazon now from what I learned trying to shut down the opportunity for agents to buy from their platform. Again, doubling down on their legacy model and failing to adapt to what's coming. And there is no stopping this. Yes, there are issues. There are going to be friction points. as far as know your customer and the fact that these agents don't have identities in the sense of taxpayer IDs. These are all things we're going to have to resolve. But meta just bought the Malt social network.

Think about that for a second, folks. This was an open source thing that was spun up by bots, a bot-to-bought social network that just got acquired by meta. It spun up a month and a half ago. A month and a half ago, it spun up. A month and a half ago, think about that exit, guys. Think about that. That is just wildly insane. Jamie and Sasha.

Yeah, I'll just add, you know, I just think, you know, I agree with what, you know, the, you know, Carlos is saying, I mean, I just think that they need to step back. I mean, if they just accepted this new world that's going to be here for everybody, I mean, they get the best of both worlds. They create new, they still get to create the, the new money supply without reserve requirements, but then they add the stable coin deposits with the fully bank reserves. I mean, you know, they maintain their competitive edge over neobanks that can't create money, but then they can also match or, you know, any rewards that could

potentially cause deposits to leave the system. So I think that there's, there's just no downside. I think that I agree with color again that this is something that's going to happen and, rather than try to fight the system to embrace it and to continue to use their edge and their advantage and their political capital to continue to make sure that they stay, you know, maintain their position of power that they have in this traditional financial system. Sasha. Sasha. Yeah, and I was also going to bring up the meta acquisition, both because, I mean, one, the rate

of change of building applications that we see is just mind-boggling. A friend of mine recently, he got into a challenge of building Slack in an open source way, just using agents. In nine days, he had a version of, he called Slok, S-L-A-W-K, and it's open source on GitHub. He got the app running. He got a mobile app running. He's not even at the end of the 14 days. And he has this running, and anyone can deploy their own instant. of their slack. And where that's important is, I think, one,

META has tried to do stable coins. They've tried to get in finance before. I think that's another shot they get at without the threats that they had previously from a regulatory perspective. And the difference is everything is going to change so fast, but in finance, I think there is trust is the most important thing.

And building that trust is going to be a sticking for people trained to build applications in that realm. And when you add the ability to push products very fast, the game is really going to be building that trust, building the liquidity around your products. And I think we're going to see a lot more of those things coming out of the metas and the big corporations that have trust. I don't know if it's necessarily a good thing for OG bitcoins or like more like

Crypt-Cyberpunk type of ethos. But I think there are things that are going to be different fundamentally in what you see in fintech from what you see in just general staff products. Yeah, I can jump in on that, Sasha, also because, I mean, I've been a software engineer for over 20 years and I thought, you know, my job is gone. And like, you know, basically anyone can be a sitting your software engineer now by just spinning up one of these IDs. And the rate at which I can build things is just, it's like godlike at this point. And I'm just like, holy cow.

Like if I can do this, then like it's like game over. I mean, so I actually automated the whole system. I built out a website called tabhr.com. And I can spin up entire fleets of AI employees now. I can give them all different assignments and I can just run an entire virtual company of fake people and it's all running on open claw instances inside encrypted dockerized containers and like the rate at which you can build things and produce things and scale things is is just unreal and so when it comes to the Bitcoin you know software is is going to very very quickly because disposable over the next several years. But Bitcoin and crypto because of an immutable ledger is going to be very, very slow and boring and stationary compared to the metamorphosis

that software is going to go through. The interesting thing with all of this is we've had a user issue, a usability issue of crypto for well over a decade. You know, that basically since the beginning is people, it's too complicated. It's confusing. People don't know how to use. it. But now we're getting the point where you have disposable interfaces, customizable interfaces, anyone can code, anyone can create an app. And if someone wants to figure out how to use Bitcoin, now they just have to ask. And they say, I don't know how to use this wallet. Can you create a wallet for me? This doesn't make sense to me. Can you change it and make it look like this? People can create their own onramps now. And it's going to become faster and faster and faster of people onboarding into cryptocurrency because they're curious and they can do it themselves. Ryan, I have to ask. I've been playing with all of this a lot as well. I mean, how do you deal with allowing it into the wild and trusting it because it makes a lot of mistakes? It does make mistakes, but you can pre-prompt the personas. So for like TabHR, I have all of the personas of the employees so locked down that they ask and gatekeep everything.

So even if you give them an API key, they'll tell you. you like, hey, you just gave me a sensitive piece of information. You know, what do you want me to do with it? And by the time, and when I'm done with it, you need to re-roll this and make sure that I don't have access to this anymore. So there's ways of prompting these engines to make sure that there's a lot of security gates. And then you can also have these AI agents manage each other so they can filter each other. So if one goes awry, another one can catch it.

But this is no different than an company where, you know, you don't give, you know, the janitor keys without having a security officer, make sure, you know, they know that that janitor has access to those areas. You always have layers of security, even in a corporation. And we're going to have to do the same thing with agents. It's not going to be just a one-off agent that can do everything because there are inherent security risks in that. Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. Dave, we never got to micro strategy when we're starting. Before you go there, can I ask another question, like a follow-up question? Thank you.

But security was one question. I think Scott was referring to the capabilities. And in his question, he said, like, it makes a lot of mistakes. And I know there are a zillion and 10 training videos and claims over the internet that all these open claw and agents are just magical and they solve your life and whatnot. But for some reason,

it's either me and Scott being probably not as good as everyone else, but like my agents are really not solving everything. It's almost tiresome to deal with them to get to the quality we expect, or probably we are just people who over-expect things from everybody, including AI. And that expectation is not even 50% of what these large language models do. I'm just talking about like all the claims. So what was your experience?

Like, was it like, oh, shit, this is so much better than my average employees, or was it like, okay, well, I am, I often deal with shit given how shitty my employees are and this is just like probably the same. I'll give you a great example. So I have an executive assistant Lex. She's fully AI. She works in our Slack. She has her own Gmail account. She is actually running on one of our web servers. I gave her a little clock.

Oh, yeah, I gave her a headshot and everything. I have to make all the agents somewhere between a six and a seven because you don't want employees that are like model-ish and you don't want employees. Anyways, so. I mean, I was so glad my mic is off at the reaction today. I'm going to get in trouble. Go to tab HR, spin up an employee. You'll see what I mean.

All right. So these are recorded. I know. I'm in trouble. Excuse guys. What are you doing to me here? Two's, man. Just two.

Dude. Anyways. All right. So I gave Lex an empty Linux box and I said, hey, I need a, what? I need a mail server. I said, can you research an open source mail server? That would be good. And then when you find one, go out and deploy it on this Linux box.

I gave her root access, set it up, configure it. and then give me the DNS settings, I need to update on the domain. She had created or she had basically set up all the security on the mail server, deployed the software, configured it, did everything in three minutes. Now, if I had a DevOps engineer doing that,

it'd be like a week. And then they would have to research and figure and all this stuff. She had the server completely hardened and set up within three minutes. Within the next 10 minutes, I had the DNS set up and we had a mail server live. When I want to deploy applications from GitHub, I can literally text her on Slack and say, hey, pull down the latest, you know, repo from Maine, deploy it out on the server and, you know, debug any conflicts in the deploy.

Engineers will spend weeks trying to troubleshoot deploy conflicts. You know, sometimes there's bugs in different environments. She'll, she won't stop until the software is compiled and gets fully deployed. and sometimes it will take 10 minutes. But she makes sure, and then I have her push whatever changes she made back up to the repo, and then we merge it back into Maine. So we have it documented. But as a server admin, like OpenClawe already has replaced the $200,000 a year job.

And that was just on my first deploy. Now I have these open claw systems tied into QuickBooks into Google Workspace. We're tying them into Office 365. They can make phone calls now. We assign them a phone number and they'll call you and you can call them and talk to them. I mean, this is escalating very, very quickly. But once again, you have. I mean, he's saying that politely and indirectly, but we are the ones who are stupid enough to not being able to use it.

Like, that's what he means. I hear, I can read between lines as well, unfortunately. Yeah. Cool. Okay, we can go to MSRT now. Does Michael Saylor, is he an AI bot yet? Ryan, by the way, thank you so much. It was like, you're the first human that I'm talking to that, that is sort of conferring to that. I'm not sure yet if it's like you having a bot called Alex

or Alex having a bot called Ryan, but whatever. Hey, Scott, the perfect pivot to the MSTR, conversation actually weaves in AI because Sailor's been pretty open that he built STRC over AI. He used AI to solve the problem of how to launch this digital credit infrastructure that he built over STRC. So yeah, he's using it. Yeah, 100%. I mean, he said that repeatedly. And that's definitely the future, I think, for all this.

but Dave, obviously, just to circle back on the, I guess, the overarching topic here, which is that there's a lot of big entities that are still really excited to buy here. I'm one of them. I'm small. I mean, look, yes, I think that that is true. But I mean, the point that people always ignore, people always ignore supply and demand until it becomes obvious. And then they look back and go, oh, I should have seen that. I mean, you know, what Ryan was saying about, you know, COVID, you know, the amount of money that's being inserted.

I just, just a simple question. You have a worldwide, you have this sort of conflagration. That's the right word for it, whatever. You know, this, this sort of war going on and one of the most important choke points in the world. You know, people who are talking about oil, but obviously there are people who are more worried about helium because some huge percentage of the world's helium goes through. through the straits and is produced in Qatar, which has now been threatened. And yeah, we have weeks or months

where they have the supply, but if you don't have helium, you don't make chips. Those are the sorts of things that get people's attention. And what does all that mean? Well, all of this has to do with economic activity. And every single time, the governments in the West on see a potential slowdown economic activity, what do they do?

Well, they panic and they overprint. Why? Because they are all running on social such huge debt burdens that they can't afford a recession because of what does it do? And so policymakers. This space was downloaded via spaces down.com. Visit to download your spaces today. Everywhere do you have the same thing.

In that sort of scenario, just ask yourself what happens to things like gold and Bitcoin. I mean, yeah, Bitcoin right now is trading like a software company. Okay, fine, whatever. I mean, it is what it is. And, you know, it feels like the narrative, you know, will get, it will get another jumpstart from all of this. And it just feels obvious to me. I mean, I don't know, maybe I'm just stupid.

You know, maybe I'm just stupid and banging my head against a wall because I don't understand, but it feels too obvious. Sometimes it is that obvious. I mean, Occam's Razor's not wrong. And, you know, when you look at it, you know, the market is sort of kind of telling you that,

ish, but the numbers are small compared to where they should be. That's really the point. So when you see, you know, $400 million of STRI, of STRC trading in a morning. You know, what are you actually seeing? Well, you're seeing people saying, well, listen, I'm willing to take the credit of Bitcoin not failing

because I'm gonna earn a more than double the risk-free rate. You know, but they're taking that credit, you know, and so it's like is Bitcoin junk bond right now? I, you know, I don't know, you can look at it, but the truth is that he's paying an interest rate that is higher than most junk bonds or junk bond, funds, but people claim that Bitcoin is dramatically more risky. Well, is it? The market's not pricing it that way. To me, that matters. I mean, I don't know. I saw Gary was up here and now he's not. I was

curious what he was going to say about that. I was trying to tee him up. But, you know, I don't know what people think, but, you know, this is the sort of thing that can last for a while. I mean, I don't know anybody who wants to earn yield and isn't thinking about STRC or have SCRC as part of their portfolio. I saw Grady of Salt Joy jumped up and is Mr. Micro Strategy in my mind. Oh, he's up here. I don't see him. I just brought him up as a speaker. Thank you. Grain, you there? Because I don't see you on my screen. And he dropped. All right, Jamie.

We literally just dropped as you were saying that, of course. Well, maybe he'll jump back in. I'll tee this up for Green because we were on space last night and he was going over the idea about, you know, strategy and their accumulation rate because of, you know, the STR continue to capture inflows recently, right? And so, you know, the idea of, you know, strategy accumulating the one million Bitcoin. Like, like, to me, like, right now, like, Bitcoin is just, it's very narrative-driven, right? There's nothing wrong structurally that the network's strong, you know, hash rate, everything. There's no issues. we're currently in a downtrend, we're sideways ranging.

It's not really an exciting time right now. But, you know, and I was watching basketball. I don't know who's an NBA fan, but I was watching one of this NBA, Miami players, scored 83 points last night. It made me think back to the home run race with Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire, if you guys remember that. And I'm not really into baseball like that,

but I was excited. And I think, like, something like the idea of, you know, a narrative of strategy accumulating the one million bitcoins could be something that, you know, could excite the Bitcoin community. And then obviously as Bitcoin goes, so does the broader crypto market. So I just think that as far as a narrative and a macro perspective of something like the people, something like that could be something that people really get behind. Like, wow, this thing is really going toward it. It could be really fun and exciting. Is it going to get there. And I think something like that is something that beyond all the talk and, you know,

the macroeconomics and the conflicts is something that I think could largely power, you know, sentiment, you know, in a different direction. I'm not sure what you guys think about that. I think you're right, Jamie. And sorry, as I joined, I wasn't able to speak. So, so look, once strategy or once I bit gets, and there's a race between both of them to get to a million Bitcoins. The calculation that people be able to do in their head becomes very simple, because if Bitcoin's at 100,000 and they have a million bitcoins, then they're worth $100 billion. And people like round numbers. And so from a human perspective, a million is just a big number. Why? Because it's one more than 999,000. And so being a seven-figure number is a big deal.

And what David was saying before, what people aren't getting is that the conclusion. Conservative analysis is that strategy gets to a million Bitcoins before the end of this year. And it's really going to happen a lot sooner, especially if the price of Bitcoin stays low. So if it stays low, they're able to acquire right now. They acquired 18,000 Bitcoins last week. And I think this caught a bunch of people, including myself off guard, that they will get to this metric somewhere around September, October of this year, get to a million Bitcoins. And in a bull market, as David was saying, as Dave was saying, was their ability to buy Bitcoin goes faster because they'll trade at a higher positive MNAV. And we saw this happen in 2024.

As the price of Bitcoin went to its all-time high in 2024, that's when they were able to acquire more Bitcoin. So right now, we're in a bare market. Bitcoin is approximately 50% off, 45% off its all-time high. and now because of STRC, they're able to acquire this. The other metric that came out this morning is that the volatility on STRC has dropped down to basically 1%. And you're like, well, who gives a crap? Well, the sharp ratio went to 3%. And 3% is basically unheard of in credit markets.

Anything above 2 is considered excellent. So with a 3% on the sharp ratio. And what that means is the given return, the 11.5% given that there's basically 1% versus the risk-free rate of 4% that their sharp ratio is 3 is a completely unheard of number. So as the volatility drops, the ratio gets better. And this is the weird part. Strategy can acquire more bitcoins in a bull market. And right now they're doing for the week, 167. percent of the mine bitcoins per week. So Bitcoin mine per week is 167 percent, but they only trade

STRC five days out of the week. So all of these metrics are looking better and they'll get better as the price of Bitcoin goes up, which is the weird part. That's counterintuitive because a lot of people think as the price of Bitcoin goes up, their ability to acquire Bitcoin slows down. No, it actually accelerates, which is their net leverage drops and their amplification drops, which is the right way to go. I'll answer any questions. That was a hell of a way to finish that. I too will answer any questions you guys have at any given time, but I might not be smart about it. But I don't even want to say anything. I just want you guys to ask great questions now.

And let me chime in and give people why the counterintuitive part is real from historical perspective. On January 1st of 2024, before the spot between ETFs went live, They went live, I believe, January 11th of 2024. There was a thought process. People aren't going to buy MSTR because you could buy Ibit and all the other spot Bitcoin ETFs and whatever, seven or nine of that went live. What happened was at that point, strategy had less than 200,000 Bitcoins. And even though I owned strategy, I did not think that they would acquire 500,000

bitcoins over the next two years. Because as the price goes up, I thought intuitively it'd be harder for them to acquire it. That was my thought process. I was wrong. Then from 2024 and 2025, they acquired 500,000 bitcoins as it went up and hit 120,000, above 120,000 multiple times. And I was like, this doesn't make sense. But then when you think about it, when they traded a positive MNAB, that's when Saylor made that statement, hey, I'm selling a $1 stock for $3. I arbitrage the $2 difference, and it's accretive to the shareholders. And people are like, what the hell did he just say?

I'm like, he's selling $1 worth of stock for $3. It's a 3M nav. The difference between 3 and 1 is $2,000 and that $2 goes to buy Bitcoin. And that's why he was able to acquire 500,000 Bitcoins, double the previous three years in two years. And so now he has 740,000 bitcoins. And so now you're thinking, okay, well, How much can he acquire this year?

Well, last year he acquired $23 billion worth of Bitcoin. And this year, the price is lower. So he can acquire again for the same $23 billion. If he goes up by 35%, which is really not that hard for him to do, that will put him over a million bitcoins. But as the price stays lower, he's accumulating them. But his MNAV is one. If his MNAV goes to 1.5 or 2.0, he's literally acquiring the Bitcoin.

at almost twice the rate. That's the counterintuitive part. And he needs the price of Bitcoin to go up. If it just stays flat, he's golden because the STRC in the sharp ratio. So this is like a lot of new metrics. And it's very hard to project this because STRC has only been available for about eight months. And it's almost $4 billion, which is kind of crazy. But I hope that makes sense.

I know that this sounds counterintuitive. Yeah, I have a question. since you graciously volunteered to answer them. Do you think this is a model that all the other treasury companies are just sitting and watching this with bated breath, hoping that this is their salvation? Like, you know, Sailor's doing something else. Like he has another strategy. And are the other treasury companies that kind of found themselves in hot water looking at this as a potential path out?

Well, they would love to do it. But only strive as the only other company. that's doing this in the U.S. Strive has 13,000 Bitcoins. And they also bought $50 million worth as Stretch was announced today. So they announced they bought $50 million worth a stretch yesterday, put that on their balance sheet.

And then they also changed their trading range. They used to be 95 to 105 on their target range, even though their par values $100 like on Stretch. That's for SAT, S-A. So they changed their target. range, which they're allowed to do. I'm assuming they're allowed to do it because they did do it. And so they made it a tighter range.

And so they're going to emulate what strategy is doing. Metaplanet in Japan. Theirs is moving very slowly. The regulators in Japan are different than obviously in the U.S. And they're doing it. The other Bitcoin Treasury companies, for the most part, if you have less than about seven or eight thousand Bitcoins, you're not big enough to ever to get this working. It doesn't matter how much you want to do it.

It's very difficult to find an issuer that will take you seriously. So that cuts out the vast majority of the Bitcoin Treasury companies to do it. They all would love to do it, but very few are able to do it, and especially if their stock price is impaired. That's a nice way of saying if their stock price is in the toilet. Or if they're trading below, effectively below one MNAV. So they would love to do it, but they can't. Brian, did that answer your question, I assume? Yep, that's exactly what I was wanting to know.

So, you know, it's funny, I just responded. Someone made a, let's see if I can find it. Someone basically made a tweet saying that money markets hold $8 trillion paying three to five percent. You know, STRC is paying 11% at whatever the number is, but it's a hell of a lot smaller. You know, why is no one talking about this? So, of course, I posted that we are talking about this right now. But the point is not that people are going to, because money market funds are, you know, more or less from a regulatory point of view, there's like no risk. And obviously, if Bitcoin goes to zero, strike, you know, STRC blows up. I mean, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's a non-zero possibility. And so it really becomes this question and the point that that you're making, you know, grain is, is very important people to understand. You know, we had this whole argument yesterday.

and another space from someone who is enumerate, which is a fancy way of saying he doesn't understand math, and that people who believe that Bitcoin will not fail, but is likely to languish here for a while because that's what they believe should have their money in STRC. Because if it's not going to fail, you're getting paid 11% to wait it out. And then when you think Bitcoin is ready to go up,

if that's what you're, whatever, because if you're holding your money in cash, as opposed to in STRC, you're giving up 11%. that's a lot of people. You know, that, I think, I think that's a lot of people. And I don't think anybody really understands the effect of supply and demand that that does. I mean, did I capture that? Because you were part of the conversation.

Yeah, yeah, you definitely captured it. And I was at strategy world along with that there was two tracks there. There was strategy world talking about the software company and strategy world Bitcoin for corporations. They're both, you know, in two different days at the same event. there was a company there, Prevail on Energy. And the guy came up, was like the chief financial officer of the company, said, look, I purchased more than $10 million worth of STRC basically as the cash account. So he wasn't buying it from an investment perspective.

He was saying that we have, he goes, I will buy and sell STRC on a daily basis as they need to to fund to fund payments that go out. So company has accounts receivables, money comes in. There's accounts payables. Money goes out. Basic accounting. So what anybody would do with a checking account is you don't fund it at 100% of your account payables.

You fund it at 200%. You need to have a buffer because sometimes you have a payment, right? You don't want to bounce a check. So that buffer amount, assuming, you know, assuming he puts $10 million into it, his payments are probably in stable months or probably half of that. So on the $5 million, he's picking up 11.5% interest, right? Some months it may be, maybe he uses 75% of it or whatever it is. And so he just said he's basically using it like his checking account.

And he was very clear about saying, I will buy and sell as necessary. But he wants to have that little base value in there. And I think that, and for him, that was a relatively easy thought process. I think that also when you have the sharp ratio that goes above three, people are like, that's how much you're getting in return based upon the volatility dropping. And that's where these ratios get kind of weird. As your volatility drops, not weird, your sharp ratio goes up, which is a good thing. And I don't know why people don't get this.

STRC, the other weird part about this, or all the prefs for strategy, legally they're debt. Sailor calls them digital credit, but legally they're debt. Those shares do not count towards the shares for MSTR. They're issued as shares, but they're not counted there. And that's why MSTR has this amplification of things. 33% because strategy by using the prefs is buying Bitcoin, which is a shared pool. But that doesn't increase the shares outstanding for MSTR. And that's why it amplifies the MSTR holdings.

And so, again, as the price goes up, that leverage drops. You know, and the simple example is this. If anybody buys a house with 20% down, you buy a house for a million bucks, right, to make the math simple. You put down 200 grand. As that price of the house goes up, your leverage ratio drops because the value of the house went up. And so you financed it based upon 20%. But if the house, just to make the math simple, if the house were double in value, your leverage that you put into a drop because it's only 10% that you finance instead of 20% because it doubled in value. I don't know why people don't get that. Maybe that

make sense. But people that are strong with math, I don't know why they can't explain it. I mean, to me, it seems kind of realistic. If you have double the equity, you know, sorry, if the house doubled in value, that 20% you put down is only 10% of it. Your net leverage has dropped. And that's why Saylor will be able to, he's able to acquire more bitcoins in a bull market. So the stress test is in the bear market right now. Yeah, my biggest concern with the way they do it is the way he trades, the way he trades it and implements the money, the way he set it up is just, excuse my language, but it's fucking stupid. You know, it's like if instead of when he gets leverage immediately smash buying, he algorithmically bought and in fact did it, you know, used,

well, I mean, I'm not going to mention there's a bunch of customers, there's a bunch of companies that created. There's one in particular, Scott and I talk about arch public, but the truth is you could easily use a more DC8 approach when you have money, and it would get him more Bitcoin, and you wouldn't get the silly chart that has the bigger orange spikes as the price goes up, because people see that. I mean, what you say is true,

and if Bitcoin had a smooth power law kind of advance towards digital gold, that's cool. His strategy would work great, except it doesn't work like that. You know, it's volatile. It goes up, it goes down, et cetera. And, you know, but you're absolutely right that the higher the price of Bitcoin, the more buying power he gets automatically. And so it becomes, people call that a flywheel.

I call that a pyramid because then he's effectively losing in losing confidence by buying at times when maybe is the opposite of buying when others are greedy or others are fearful and selling when others are greedy. But that's that's my personal thing. If I were running their process, I would implement a far different method of accumulating Bitcoin that would absolutely end up with a much higher Bitcoin yield over time. But that's really the only issue. It does, however, in a lot of people's minds, create risk. That's the thing. Hey, Dave.

I had a quick question for you, and I just put a post up in the chat. Obviously, STRC, 11% yield certainly beats the hell out of money market funds. Yes, the volatility of BTC is less than it used to be. But if we want to look at something that has yield in crypto off of something that really has no volatility, if you look at USC and we know Circle, there is a weekly dividend ETF that trades off of SRCRCL, which is CRCO, that offers an annual dividend yield right now of about 116%. So sounds like it's a better number than 11 for SDRCHL. TRC and we don't necessarily have to go through the mental machinations of figuring out what

Michael Saylor is buying and when he's buying and when he's not buying. So what's the ticker for that or what's the? Yeah, it's CR Charlie Robert Charlie Oscar. And okay. And that's an ETF. Yep, it's an ETF. Okay. Did you look in the prospectus to see how they're able to generate

that number? Yeah, they're doing it off of options. Okay. I will look into that and make a comment about it later. I haven't read on it. I think that in this particular space, looking at Misty and IMST and MSTU and MSTX. And for transparency, I was a large buyer, excuse me, I was a large buyer, MSTX and MSTU when they came out, but I only held them for about six weeks. They were not long-term holds. Over time, these options, typically they degrade pretty, pretty horribly. So if you look at Misty, MSTY, that's the poster child that people thought that it was free money. And it was showing a rate of like 90% return per year. And it ended up being a pretty miserable product. Yeah. No, I hear you in terms of looking at the nabs deterioration that can happen in these cases. But,

If you look at something that basically has a stock chart that's kind of going up into the right or is at least stable, that may serve to mitigate the nav erosion. You also at the same time, if you want to pay the price, you can get, you know, you put put options around this or you can sell calls. Yeah. So I'm going to say this, and I heard the other gentleman speaking about AI. And I heard somebody, it was another podcast with somebody else in the space that I respect. and the person said, oh, you can use AI or you could vibe code all your analysis. I'm just going to say right now, I'm a tech guy. I've been to Silicon Valley for 26 years. I use AI approximately two hours a day.

I'm not a coder, my degrees in economics. I could do all kinds of Excel spreadsheet analysis. I've been doing it for 26 years. There's probably maybe in the Bitcoin space or Bitcoin Treasury space, you got like maybe eight to 12 dudes and they're dudes because I have yet to run across a single woman that has done any form of vibe coding Excel spreadsheet analysis and posted it to her website. You got a lot of people that make comments about that, but I've been to multiple events and there's maybe, maybe charitably 12 dudes that do this. When we talk about AI and Claudebot and Moldbook and all this, there's very,

very few women that do it and it's an incredibly small subset of people dudes that are very excited about doing this and that's great because i'm one of them but it drops off very fast when if i want to go explain bitcoin to somebody i don't do it anymore i'm like you know what there's a thing called STRC it pays 11 and a half percent per year you get it paid monthly and there's you know you don't get any capital appreciation and it's return a capital like what does that mean i'm like well your taxes are deferred until you sell it. That's it. It's a one minute pitch. I can do that pitch in one minute. I don't tell them Toshin Nakamoto. I don't tell them it's backed by Bitcoin. I'll say, you know, put 5% of your portfolio in it. Run it for six months. And if it works good for you, then add more. You don't like

it. They go and then what's like the lockup period or how long when I stuck in like a CD? I'm like, now you sell it whenever you want. And I would tell you to sell it, you know, on the 17th of the month. That way you pick up the dividend for that month. But that's it. That's the pitch. And I just want to be clear, I love talking about AI, but let's be realistic. It's a bunch of dudes that are talking about it, and there's very few women that are interested in it. If they are, they're along to promote it, which is fine. And it's just a really small group of people that do it, that do any form of mathematical analysis. So what you just said about doing puts or calls on top of a structured product on top of USDC, the market for that is 10 people or less.

It's not what you're saying is not incorrect. It's just a really, really small edge case. The market has inefficiencies that exist in small pockets. Sometimes. And sometimes they grow into bigger pockets. or not. I would say I was on board of directors for an early treasury company, VTCS. So looked at how could we actually

create value out of these things. It was an interesting experience. Yeah, if you want to call me a bro, call me a bro. Well, that's fine. I mean, I wrote a book on why Bitcoin, I did, I'm going to use a term right now. I did a post-mortem on why Bitcoin

Treasury companies went under, or not one under, why their stocks, you know, traded horribly. Nobody wanted to read the book. And I did a whole mathematical analysis. I published it. I explained, you know, where they made the mistakes. You know how many other people I heard that did a post...

In Silicon Valley, when a product doesn't sell, out of all the companies I worked at, every single company, if we had a product that didn't sell, we always did a post-mortem. It was a very common thing to do. But I'm the only person aware of is, why did Bitcoin Treasury companies not do well? I wrote a whole book on it. I published it in January. I've done multiple, you know, spaces on what happened with it. And I get very little engagement on it because it's validating back to people why they lost money. And people don't want to hear that. What people want to hear is, oh, is Metaplanic going to retake its all-time high? And, yeah, no, I was just going to say, I mean, I was on this space back, I think, in August last year, saying Dave and I were going back and forth. in a spirited debate, basically saying treasury companies, I said that they were going to end badly. I didn't write a book about it.

You did. So, kudos to you. But I would say the one thing I realized when I was on the board of that company was that at the time, the only thing that we really had to offer people was that it was easier to buy our stock and get access or exposure to crypto than just to go out and do it yourself. Now, that ease of access point has been taken care of by all the ETS we can throw a stick at. I bet whatever you want. So, you know, that advantage was gone.

So, you know, the only way that you could really work here from the standpoint of having an attractive crypto treasury company is if you actually had a strategy to create value, much as you outlined with respect to strategy. So thanks for doing that. So I yeah, so go I just some some up real fast. So so I'll give a simple example. And by the way, there was a public space David Bailey was on it. So what I'm going to say now is public information. It was recorded and I posted it. So I asked basically asked David Bailey two questions publicly about three weeks ago. I said, did you model a 50% downturn in the price of Bitcoin when you started your Bitcoin treasury company? And he answered no. we didn't. So they did not model a stress test. Their investment bankers didn't do it and they didn't do it. They didn't

model it. He said it publicly. The second thing I said to him is that did you ever think about your share count? And he's like, no. Now in retrospect, when they acquired Kinley, and he said this all publicly. I'm not talking about any private conversation. We should have done a reverse split on Kinley before we actually launched it, you know, with the SPAC of the reverse merger that they did because it would have been share flow. And I'll use Nakamoto as a good example. They have almost 900 million shares outstanding. So basically almost three strategies, right? Almost three times strategies, 350 million. Right. It was 511 million. So it was almost double. But now once they complete their acquisition, they're almost 900 million shares outstanding. And they own 5,500 Bitcoin. If there were 7,000

Bitcoin, it's off by a factor of 100. So everybody's like, why am I bringing this up? If you slice the pizza into an extra 400x slices, did you get more pizza? No, you basically the liquidity has destroyed your convexity. And that is the key word. There's no convexity because they sliced it up into so many pieces that each share has almost no value to it. That's why the stock trades at 25 cents. I just, just summarize my whole book in less than one minute. And people are like, oh, the share accounts matter. I go, how could you have Metaplanet has almost four times, has 1.2 billion shares outstanding, and it has one 20th of the Bitcoin. It's off by a factor of almost 80x. That's the whole book

summarized. And the investment bankers, oh, does that matter? I'm like, well, I guess we should just let's just increase Bitcoin did 210 million right or two you know let's just make let's just you know increase but great reason here but you just but but XRP you know

that's why they think it's going to go to the same price as Bitcoin they don't care that number of you know how many tokens there are I mean you know it's like market cap what's that I've actually right on faces say or in an XA why do you care about market cap prices the only thing that matters and at which point

I almost don't know how to talk to people like that because just linguistically, it's like you're on different planets. There is a huge innumeracy problem, you know, in the space, and all you've just done is highlighted. Yeah, and that's where I get to this basic math. You know, well, share counts don't matter. Well, I guess the total number of bitcoins don't matter either. I mean, I remember in the old days, like 48 hours ago, there was a countdown to the remaining one million Bitcoin. This is like the old day guys. This is like today's Wednesday, right? Yesterday, everybody's saying, oh, there's less than one million bitcoins to be mined.

Right. And they're like, and we applaud that as Bitcoiners, but then when we talk about Bitcoin treasury companies, they're like, oh, you think the share account matters. Oh, man. I'm like, yeah, I do. PSA to the audience. You should always care about market cap and total amount of shares and not look just at nominal price. Ryan, you had your hand up. because we're getting close to one in the right yeah i i think it's just a difference in world view and where people come from like there's sound investing and then there's speculation and casino and the speculation casino mindset is just looking at number go up number go down and they're

not looking at the big picture because it's not investing it's just you know a minute by minute my question is is it and i don't know if this i don't know a lot about traditional markets Are these lower level treasury companies able to simply invest and hold micro strategy or the larger treasury companies and that way stabilize themselves? Like rather than just acquiring Bitcoin directly, could they just acquire a larger treasury company shares? I mean, I guess. I mean, it depends on how their corporate charter, what they've told investors.

Because the thing is, once you're a public company, now you have to worry about the torque bar. So if you say things to investors and you do the opposite and it doesn't. work out, really bad things happen to you. And depending on as directors of the company, you know, a lot of people don't have DNO insurance or director's insurance, then they're personally liable to. So you have to be very careful. So in all likelihood, the answer is in a practical matter, no, obviously from a cash management point of view.

I mean, strive buying STRC tells you the answer at least to some degree is yes, but that's not the Bitcoin exposure. That's the management of cash, if that makes sense. Yeah, because I'm just wondering if like something like Nakamoto, these smaller treasury companies that are just getting wrecked, could tether themselves to something larger and more stable, but still have the same. Because look at it this way, Nakamoto wouldn't get wrecked nearly as badly if people thought that they didn't have hair on the process, right?

Because, you know, if you bought, let's just pick a simple example. You know, we say, well, that the, when David and I had our argument, what I said is that the failed treasury companies will get, what will, their Bitcoin will get bought back out, you know, on the cheap, et cetera, et cetera, it won't hurt Bitcoin. that companies themselves, if you're trading at high MNAVs, people who buy them are going to get wrecked. I've always said that. I said that about Metaplanet, Nakamoto, et cetera. The thing about Nakamoto in particular is, however, in addition to buying their Bitcoin,

you have to buy their debt. People can model that. That's math. What you also have to buy is the liability of shareholder lawsuits and other liabilities of what goes on for potential arguable mismanagement. That's why in a lot of bankers, the M&A isn't to buy the stock of the company. In fact, that's actually rare. What's more likely is buy the assets of the company, in which case it doesn't help the stockholders or helps them very

little. It's the bondholders who generally run the process because they're senior in the cap table. So all this stuff will get cleaned up, but it will get cleaned up in a way that isn't necessarily good for shareholders. Bondholders, on the other hand, will be the ones driving the bus. That's why Grains math is so important. Thank you, Dave. And by the way, I did lose a bunch of money on Metaplanet. But I wanted to figure out why. And while that was painful for me to lose seven figures on it,

I wanted to figure out why the mistake happened. And there wasn't a lot. If the math is so easy, how come there wasn't 50 people that did a post-mortem like me? I think that's a disappointing part. We have AI that can calculate this. anybody can write a book and self-publish it for for less than you can

anybody can write a book tomorrow and post it on the Amazon Kindle and your cost to do that is only your time there's zero cost to do it provide the book sells for less than $10 a copy but there wasn't anybody else that did a post-mortem and given all the tools we have

how come there wasn't more scrutiny to figure out why that happened so you don't make that mistake again like I didn't have to write this book and tell people why I thought it went wrong you know what's funny about that and and and i and we're going to wrap here is that in every single crash bubble or issue you rarely get people thinking about the why so as to prevent it the next time you just have people saying oh that'll never happen again so the great financial

crisis was because people totally didn't understand correlations and you know et cetera et cetera and there are a few things and what you get out of that you got congress basically creating Glass-Steagel and laws that, that if they did anything, we know, we'll see. You know, with the internet bubble, it was like, oh, well, we're not going to deal with eyeballs and whatnot. And if you look at crypto evaluations, you know that people never post-mortem that or understood that because the same shit happens. I hate to say it, but, you know, greed and fear overpower is thought every time.

Hey, Dave. Yeah. I actually threw a link to the prospectus for CRCO into the chat, if anybody will wants to take a look at it. Cool. I'm going to wait for grain to read it because I'm still, I'm trying to finish the book. I want to try before I go on vacation in April. I want to try to get my done, my book down to my publisher. So, hey, love to read it if you want to put out pre-publication copies. You guys, you guys, well, I will be talking about it. It's called million dollar frat boys. And it is a, it's a first person set of stories. I tried to cherry pick

all the funnier and more illustrative stories on Wall Street of how electronic trading changed, you know, everything and that, so that's what I'm doing. So people who follow me will get to see snippets, etc. Some of these liars, is this liars poker for a digital age? Uh, it's over a longer time period. But yeah, it's in that style of liar's poker because that was first person from Michael Lewis. The difference is, is he, even by his own admission, was sort of a bit player in the, in this where I was kind of right in the middle of it. So it, it's a great title. It's a great I'm in the process. I'm 14 out of 18 chapters written

and everything else has the bullet points and now it's a question just getting it done and then getting it out to Wiley and Sons to see what their editor does with it and hopefully we'll get it published by the end of the year. Cool. Go Dave, go. Ciao. Anyway, we're going to wrap here, guys. I don't know about

Friday. We will try to post about it. I won't be here if somebody else can help. It's the 13th. Don't do it. Yeah, we may be back next Monday, but we shall see. In any case, Stay safe out there. The markets, we're back below 70. You know, it's rabbit season, I guess, not duck season.

So for those who are listening before, take care, everyone. Ciao.