The Wolf Of All Streets - Paul Tudor Jones - Bitcoin Beats Gold #CryptoTownHall

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

In this Crypto Town Hall, the team discusses Paul Tudor Jones’ bullish take on Bitcoin as the best inflation hedge over gold and his warnings about extreme U.S. stock market overvaluation. They then break down the DeFi United bailout after the latest hacks and toxic debt on Aave, debating if it’s a sign of industry maturity or dangerous “too big to fail” behavior. The conversation also covers the shift from DeFi yield farming into Bitcoin, MicroStrategy’s STRC, and the future of crypto treasuries. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Morning everybody. Welcome to Crypto Town Hall every other day here on X at 10.15 a.m. Eastern Standard time. There's quite a few topics we can talk about. We tend to venture down the path of macro town hall or smelting town hall when we should be talking about crypto. So I don't really want to like bloviate on the Fed and what's going to happen with Jerome Powell because I'm sick of talking about those guys. We do have someone I'm not sick of talking about that, which is Paul Tudor Jones. who went on a podcast and said that Bitcoin beats gold, that it's the best inflation hedge. And he was very emphatic about it, pointed out quite a few reasons why he believes

that the stock market is once again near the top. Now he's been saying that for quite a while. But mostly that U.S. equity market cap is 252% of GDP right now. Dotcom peak was 270. You know, previous crashes were far, far less. So getting into dangerous territory here and do you really want to buy stocks that are largely overvalued? He thinks that it would be very hard to make money in stocks over the next decade,

and that Bitcoin is the most obvious answer. So I guess we can start there. What do you guys think of Paul Tudor Jones' comments? And then we can talk about Defi United, which I'm having trouble parsing. Could use your guys help. So Paul Tudor Jones, Bitcoin beats gold. What do you guys think? Hey, morning, guys.

Good off on that one. King here from Treasury, a European Bitcoin Treasury Company. So I was at a Galaxy event hosted by Mike Novigrat at his house in New Orleans last November. And Paul Turner Jones came and kindly spoke to the group, giving his whole history and how he got into Bitcoin and how he approached everything. And one thing that is really, I think, very important about him. He's obviously one of the most recognized and important hedge fund managers of all times, frankly, especially in the macro space. and he was really the first to publicly adopt Bitcoin and push it and even write a paper about it.

And I think it takes a lot of credit for that because, you know, how HGFN guys are, used to be one myself. You kind of follow each other. You don't want to be too contrarians, certainly publicly. And he was really the first month to do that. And at this event, he did sort of reiterate that same thesis. And he started up by saying how in 2000,

it was why 2K just sort of happened. It hadn't happened, actually, right? It was January 1st, the world looks very good, he said. He said it never looked so good. And now 26 years, 25 years later, he felt that actually looked a lot worse and that even for the reason Bitcoin had become more important. And you know the arguments behind that. So I think, if anything, it's only gone stronger. Yeah, I mean, he's been saying this effectively since 2020, right? So I don't think that it's necessarily a new comment, but having that same conviction in 2026 when markets and

data look the way they do, I think is still a signal. Yeah, absolutely. Oh, go ahead. Finish your thought. Sorry, you can finish your thought. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. I'm going to respond to that.

So, yeah, I think absolutely, because obviously we've seen this massive research of gold last year. We've seen gold overtake and also to some extent take over the volatile asset, sort of feature of Bitcoin for a little while, where leveraged traders globally started using gold for this exposure. And we also saw that sort of leveraging unbound earlier this year. So I think it's a very important comment in that context where people earlier I'm saying, hey, look at that, see gold's outperforming Bitcoin, but people sort of forget

the sort of core features of sort of value, I think. It's the last thing I'm saying on that. Yeah, I mean, it's not comparing Bitcoin and gold price misses the entire point, right? It's the properties that matter and not the price action. And that's where so many people get confused when they hear digital gold, they think it's supposed to track it in price, which is, to me, it's just nonsensical. Go ahead. Yeah, I think it matters a lot because it's no longer really just a Wall Street problem, right? When stock prices are really this deeply tied to like household wealth or household wealth, I guess you could call it.

You know, retirement accounts, for example, or even tax revenue and corporate confidence. A major market drop doesn't really stay neatly contained on a trading desk. It kind of leaks into the real economy from what I've seen. Jones was actually, this was a really interesting point, Scott. He warned it 35% market decline could hit capital gains tax revenue, widening the federal deficit. and pressure the bond market. So that's kind of a nightmare loop. His stocks fall, tax receipts weaken.

The deficit looks worse. Bonds get hit, and investors are forced to sell more than what they own. And he also cited some of the big IPOs. He said that a flood of new share supply from companies expecting to go public combined with insider lockup expirations could create pressure similar to the setup before the dot-com bus. He pointed to companies like SpaceX, chime, and Stripe. So it was a very, very interesting interview an article. So, yeah, good stuff.

Yeah, he's a smart guy. Listen, and the thing is that, you know, Dumers are wrong like 99% of the time, and then they're right 1% and people don't really listen. But I don't really view him as a Dumer. I think he's got some extreme logic and data behind him. And, yeah, I mean, where's the money for multi-trillions of dollars if IPO is going to come from?

Selling other stocks, right? That's it. So I think that there's a lot of pressure as well there. Anyone else on this topic before we move on? Yeah, Carlo, go ahead. Good morning, Scott. Yeah, I think he's talking about sound money, and he's talking about the fact that the reality is that the dollar is not going to get better.

It's only going to get worse as we continue to print more of it. And as long as we don't see Bitcoin commercials on Fox News, I think it's probably the better option than gold. So I think he's very wise to see where the podcast. is going because everything with respect to how we move in custody money is going digital and gold is the exact opposite of that and I think it's just going to become more and more marginalized and yeah he's probably right about the stock market it does have a tendency to continue to just go up up up so I would add that as a counterpoint that every time we've ever faded that this is the top yeah we've had

corrections, but if you zoom out, just like on the Bitcoin chart, these risk assets, especially the tech stocks and so forth, just seem to continue to push upward. And they're cyclical, but I think overall the trend is that equities go up. David. Hey, yeah, Paul Tudor Jones. I've been around a long time, made a lot of money, made some really smart calls. I listened to him back in 2021 when he wrote his He's talking about Bitcoin basically being his favorite investment. The fastest horse. So that was the one that set the world on fire, yeah.

Yeah, that pony had rockets on it. And so when he comes out and makes statements about saying that this is sort of, you know, reminiscent of the bubble back around, you know, 1999, 2000, yeah, got to pay attention to him. You know, the one transaction I probably worry about most is SpaceX when it comes to market. to the extent that this thing is going to be rushed into the indices before it's really seasoned. And, you know, yeah, Elon Musk, he's a very controversial character. He made people a lot of money, maybe, made himself a lot of money. But I was at a meeting yesterday in Boston with a lot of people who've been associated with money management firms up here for a long time. And, yeah, people are looking at the second half of 2026.

possibly having the air taken out of the room just by the size of some of these transactions. So, you know, equities are an issue. But good to see Paul Tudor Jones come out and, you know, put his money back on Bitcoin. And we'll see if we can get things moving from here. William? Yeah, I think this could be the turning of the tide towards more positive sentiment. And we need more than just Paul Tudor Jones to say. this. I think the positive signals are coming back and I wouldn't be surprised to see Bitcoin at

$2,000 to $300,000 by the end of this year. I think, as you know, it tends to move in violent moves and it won't be any different. It's been sitting at this current level for too long and it's going to move with it, some of the top other currencies with it. So I'm very, very positive and very optimistic for the rest of the year. Should we talk about Defi United? I know you guys have some thoughts on this. For those, obviously, I guess, who don't know the context. We had the Kelpdow hack, which then led to a problem with toxic debt across all of Defi, which led to an issue specifically on Ave, which is obviously considered the blue chip safest defy of, I think roughly 200 million. I don't want to quote it wrong in toxic debt. And we have sort of a

JP Morgan early 1900 situation where it gets everybody in a room and asks for a private bailout. So we have, I guess, a mix of different companies either sort of donating, I mean, standing himself, I think millions of dollars, or offering loans, but basically plug your money. up this hole, I think it's $300 million already, has been pledged, which is a bit misleading, because some of that is actually coins. I think that were on arbitrum from the hack itself that were frozen being contributed. So those obviously are not donations. Those are people's tokens. Actually, you could argue that it should go back to those people and not to this rescue fund. And then you even have circles saying they're buying AVE tokens and tagging Defi United.

This reeks, I think, on the surface of TARP, you know, a government bailout like two 2008, but I think that's sort of a lazy comparison because it's voluntary and it's not forced and it's not the government, right? But really kind of interesting to see sort of a, from the surface of the defy bailout. Carla? The first thing that pops in my mind is the irony of the headline, Chancellor on Brink, when it comes to crypto. So it's interesting that there's a unified tarp-esque bailout of crypto and defy. Look, I don't know, man. I think it exposes a bigger problem. And obviously, defy is really on the ropes right now. People are really starting to question whether it's worth trying to farm for 4% in defy with all the risks that come, especially with the way AI is accelerating exploits and finding weaknesses in defy.

So I think there's probably going to be more bleeding in defy as we continue to see more of the contagion effect of this start to ripple out. I think it just reinforces the narrative that Bitcoin is probably the safer place to be. And it also seems to make a stronger case for the institutional derivatives of Bitcoin like STRC. And I've seen a lot of people in the timeline comment about that as well, that I'd rather go into something like that and get a money market style return than risk my tokens in D-5. I do give me the thumbs up you agree but yeah I do I like carlo he's he's one of the one of the smartest guys I suggest if you're not following him you should flowers for you amigo but yeah I echo echo that sentiment exactly I'm in a most volatile asset class that we play in guys I tend to play it uber conservatively I look at it like a par five dog leg left and so I'm going to lay up not can we try to hit the green avoid the bunker and get wrecked and I think that the stretch is way more appealing than what what will like Carlos talking about, trying to lock up and chase 4% and some define. I've got to jump through hoops and, you know, maybe get hacked. Nah, don't worry about it.

I'd rather take the 11% that the sailor's going to give me. Sit back, Bitcoin and chill. Yeah, I'm going to try to lay up and hook it into the woods and then be stuck in the dog leg in the trees personally. But go ahead, Joe. I mean, Scott, it just depends if you can actually hit the three wood, 250, 275. If you can, just, I mean, you're going for the green. You'd rather end up in the sand, a little pitch, you know, you're in there.

I'm going, honestly, I'm going over the trees with some strange hybrid, and it's like a one in the hundred shot that I get. No, just take it 78% smooth three wood. You're there. Real quick, I haven't looked at the price of Bitcoin since Sunday when I went to bed and it was 79. And I want to guess what the price is. I don't even check anymore, to be honest. I've already done a morning show and I didn't check. I mean, I just, I feel like it's not over 80 because I don't see the euphoria, but I've blocked everything. So I'm going to guess. I mean, I want to say 82. Are we at 82?

No, 767. God damn it. We just can't win. We can't win. Back to the, yeah, I mean, what's the precedent here with Defi United? You know, if the hack is $4 billion, are they putting up the money? You know, I think it was like in a sweet spot of where they thought it was achievable to backfill some of the money. But I just don't think it, you know, if the hack is bigger, you know, I don't think that they

can backfill it, right? They just don't have the money. So I don't know. I guess the question to that, yeah, I agree. I totally agree with that, by the way. But like, you have competitors basically stepping in to some degree, right? And the original sort of crypto ethos for better or for worse is like free market let it die, right? I mean, critical of TARP, you know, AIG should have failed and taken Goldman with it and

fuck them, right? I think the centralized, I think the banks and everyone's seeing this, like, they probably love that. They love it because they're like, oh, sweet. Like, we're not going to lose our money as much. Or they're going to at least attempt to do the right, you know, do the right thing by some of their customers. But yes, you're absolutely right. Like, you know, too big to fail is probably the feeling that they're kind of getting. But at the same time, you know, if they look, if you look at how many funds are stolen from the banks and like the fraud and everything else,

like this is still such a drop in the bucket. And I think that they actually have to hit some sort of critical mass there where it's like Wells Fargo just like shrugging off $5 billion fines, you know, and money being stolen. So it just kind of shows that it's still the immaturity is there. They're trying to get there. They know the retail bid is just completely gone out of crypto. And so they needed to probably do something that makes more institutional hands feel better.

Maybe they got way more, a lot more tech. messages from people that actually had a lot of money in there and they said you better do something. But it is nice to see people coming together. I mean, I know Scott, we talked for a long time on this show about like there's almost too many entrepreneurs, right, in the space and there's too much stuff going on and they need to combine powers to try and get a little bit more critical mass. So maybe we see some of that. So we'll see. But yeah, my big thing is like, you know, if it's five to ten billion dollars of an hacker, like, is Stani, like is he, you know, going to take out a home equity loan on his homes to backfill this?

Probably not. Maybe since Trump is considering bailing out spirit, he can bail out DFI. I think that Trump is more interested in extracting from DFI based on the last few weeks than bailing it out. Or excuse me, Trump-adjacent World Liberty Financial that no longer has his face on the website is potentially interested in extracting value. But yeah, I like the joke anyways. Carlo, it's a good one. William, go ahead. So the way I saw this, the analogy is that what DFI did is

the equivalent of a FDIC insurance kind of a thing where you know what's backing this up. I see it as a positive. Pooled capital from other, like that would be like pooled capital from other entities basically, right? Banks contribute into FDIC. Yeah, well, yeah. I mean, in the in the current world, it's the Fed that came in and rescued the banks a year and a half ago when they had an issue. So in this case, the industry itself did that. So that's a positive, I think. It's a bit of a good cushion. And of course, only Ivy could have pulled this off because there are such a big cahuna in the industry.

Nobody cared when three arrows went belly up or some of the others that had issues. This is different. I mean, this is not just about the 4%. I mean, if you just see the 4% as the draw, it's not it. What Avey is doing, you have to look at the V4, their new protocol that's kind of quite innovative. It's really, like, Sandy's vision is to open up liquidity, like a new liquidity pool that was not available to the traditional markets. So think of Defi as an alternative borrowing market.

and he's backing himself into institutions. If this hiccup hadn't happened, we would have heard a lot more about integrations of V4 with institutional rails. He already started to talk about that in Cannes about four weeks ago. I was there. And Avi was like everywhere, every day he was on a panel. They had ads.

If you know, the Majestic Hotel in Khan is one of the top ones. As you entered the lobby, They had taken big billboards advertising as you go in to the driveway. So he was really, I mean, I really feel for him, like coming off such a high at ECC in Cannes just barely three to four weeks ago. And one week later, that thing happened. So right now they are catching their breath. And I think Defi is getting stronger. Again, I want to use a cliche, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

That is so much the case here. And yeah, I mean, that's what I want to say. I'm not sure. I get it. I'm just not sure. Like, I think there's a lot more skepticism now on DFI. So I think it's a good signal that there's support. But to Joe's point, if it was $5 billion, DFI would be done.

Right. So the size, I think, matters. and considering the attack vectors and AI and North Korea, it seems like this is a great conversation until the next one inevitably comes. I mean, these things happen every thing, I think 2.7 days or something I read, some sort of defy hack, mostly small. It's not a small problem. Interestingly, though, I guess we can also point to the fact that Bivet got hacked last year

for what, $1.5 billion, and everybody did step in to help them. So I guess the contagions of 2022, people learned a lesson. King, go ahead. Yeah, the only thing to add is, obviously, we're always talking about institutional adoption of Bitcoin and maybe Bitcoin sort of crypto broadly. But I think these kind of things don't really help because the whole point of Defi obviously is it's decentralized fines, it's supposed to work on code. That is the theory behind it.

And the fact that sort of the community got together on this bailout with an interesting parallel with TARP, one is good, but I don't think it really helps the whole institutional adoption thesis because actually it's the opposite, right? it's now become based on individuals' actions, as we always knew. So I think it's sort of this weird hybrid where certainly it's the good thing that is happening. On the other hand, it sort of goes a little against the whole concept of digital assets and decent-class finance. Yeah, I mean, wouldn't you imagine if institutions are looking at this, they see the power of utilizing smart contracts is a better way, obviously, for yield and lending,

but won't want to do it in a decentralized manner, and this may actually ironically push them to use the technology to build centralized walled gardens to offer yield for their own customers and not be a part of the larger system where there's potential contagion. Like, why doesn't Goldman Sachs just to have a Goldman Sachs? Like, you know, it's not defy,

but the centralized lending put it all together themselves and close it off the most logical direction there. I don't, do you guys, Joe, am I right, five bit? Was it like $1.5 billion? didn't all the other exchanges come in and basically bail it out? I mean, I have such a short memory. I think they extended a line of credit. I don't know if they didn't even need it, though.

Isn't some of this also lines of credit, by the way? So I think the 300 million is sort of being conflated. Like I said, there's a huge chunk of that. Yeah, like I said, I think was the arbitram frozen tokens, which are part of this. Yeah. It's like 30,000. And then I think maybe mantle or something, one of them, I've got to reread it. So I actually don't talk about it was a huge loan.

They're pending votes though, too. I'm sure it'll go through because the people that are putting it through are going to vote it in. Yeah, I mean, why did, so what's the angle do you think interestingly here I'm looking right now? So we got arbitrage of Dallas, $30,775,000. That's just tokens that were frozen from this hack, right? So consensus is up there. but you got Stani, Joe Lubin sort of individually. But what I find, I guess, I'm wondering the next sort of ancillary story, Circle Ventures is purchasing AVE tokens because strong defy infrastructure does not build itself.

AVE is helping to shape the future of on-chain finance. We're backing that ecosystem in the entire community built around at DFI United. So Circle is buying AVE tokens. That's not really participating in DFI United with a loan or a donation to fill the whole, but they're actually buying the token to support. I mean, what does that say to you guys? I don't really have a great take on it. To be honest, I'm genuinely asking. That's just sentiment.

That's just, hey, we're going to backfill this so people don't dump. It's like, oh, there's like a buyer of last resort. I didn't even realize that Circle Ventures had a liquid fund to just buy tokens on the market. So that was today years old when I found that out. Go ahead. Yeah, I think having been through this before where you have an industry that's, you know, If one player has a problem, it just pulls the whole industry down. And all the players just decide, hey, it's better for all of us to support this player.

So it doesn't, you know, I mean, look at Enron, dude. When Enron went down, fucking credit just got pulled from everywhere. You could have done a credit check with Exxon the day before. As soon as Enron started failing on credit, I mean, you were having to do credit checks every day, every week. So this is a way to just grease the skids and make sure everything doesn't dry up. But it's, it's, you can't keep doing it. I mean, we're having too many problems in this area. It's a failed, it's a failed industry, really, in my opinion.

That's got to get somebody's hand up. I kind of agree with you. How do you really feel, Gary? No, I don't think it's failed. I think we just are the kings of the old. Well, no, I think it is failing. Because there hasn't been very much income other than the, Monopoly players, but look, it should elicit a comment, but I think it's accurate.

And the players that mutate morph out of this and realize, hey, this isn't going to work, they'll create something good. But we clearly haven't found the sweet spot for the product here. I mean, nobody can disagree with that, right? The sweet spot for a large addressable market for tokenization just hasn't shown up yet in a farm that people can get really liquid and trade shitload of it. Yeah, I would argue, I would take that a step further. I tend to agree.

I think that, well, Bitcoin stands alone, right? So I think the product market fit is Bitcoin, digital gold narrative. That's been institutionalized. But on the other side, I would say that tokenization itself, stable coins and tokenization, are the way that value will be moved in the future. But the problem is that that's less likely to be investable or capture. by us for retail. They're going to take the technology and run with it in those walled gardens.

Which there's already dark pools. You know, obviously it has to be exposed somewhere to the markets. But, you know, if you had $100 million in U.S. dollars cash sitting in your checking account today, right? It's like you could go and you can, what are the fees to turn that into USDT, right? then like put that into AVE and earn 5%, right? Or, you know, USC, a little bit more, you're feeling a little safer maybe,

but now you're getting 4.2. Or do you just call Goldman Sachs and get like 3.8% in like a CD or something? Like the spread there is just not worth it. But Joe, Joe, why would you do that? If you even know how to spell BTC, you would go into STRC and make 11. and a half. Sure. Again, other better. Every two weeks get paid.

Better options. There's a million better. There's a million better options out there. But I think that's what's happening. Exactly. Like, why would I take AVE or whatever fucking yield when I can get 11.5, dude, like, I mean, Avey yield. Wasn't it like, yeah, didn't they point, like, I think, like you were saying, William, that it was, he was kind of being praised, like the, I don't remember what it's called, but basically there'd been net, like, there'd been no loss in DFI to, to whatever degree. And Ave was being praise that they were only paying like 2, 3% it was viewed as so risk-free, right?

I mean, the rate in Defi was less than buying a treasury because it was viewed as so solid before this happened. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that that's the case. Like, why, I mean, why would anybody take that right now? Or now you need to see Defi at 10 to 12% to reflect the new risk profile. Maybe that makes more sense. But, Gary, I agree. I mean, I agree.

Like, you know, this is a good thing for saying. he can just look around and say this is the only yield game in town if you're going to touch quote unquote crypto or bitcoin. Matt Hogan, Matt Hogan said something the other day about Stretch that kind of raised my eyebrow a little bit and you guys are super smart than me so I'd love to get your thoughts on it. But he said basically I'll paraphrase, the dividend model that Stretch appears heavily dependent on fresh capital and Bitcoin going up. So if either dries up, that 11% yield suddenly looks a lot less like income and maybe more like

risk wearing a suit. Now, am I looking at that wrong or is that really, is that, is there some concern that? I think it's accurate, but doesn't reflect the runway. I think you're looking at wrong. Look, it's preferred, man. It's preferred over MSCR. Right. Yeah, it is preferred. I mean, yeah, bro, it's like, like, let's be clear, okay.

Everybody says treasury is pure cash and has no risk. That is utter bullshit. This is preferred above the stack on MSTR. I get 75% loaned to value on MSTR. I went to my bank and I said, hey, I want you to move my treasury position, or at least half of it, into STRC. You're giving me 3% on the bonds.

I get 11.5 on the fucking STRC. They did it the next day, dude. Risk management had never seen that trade. I'll bet you they're pumping all their, any of their clients, they're like, hey, let's get you out of treasuries and moving to STRC. It is a preferred capital stack above MSTR. MSTR would fail and you're still going to get paid out. It's ridiculous not to look at this trade.

And as the cash sweep, Matt, it's an awesome money market. And I heard that they have like 42 years worth of like, I do think that's to Scott's point. They have like 42 years that they really could pay this back to have enough. But I was just asking, that's why I appreciate your insight, Gary. You're super smart. Well, one thing to add maybe, one thing that's keeping in check is that obviously Sailor is really keeping the leverage ratio very low. So they have about called 50 billion of Bitcoin and SRC is currently about 8 or 9. And I don't think he's going to go a lot higher, actually, unless he builds more equity, right?

That's why he keeps the ATM and the SRC issuance sort of in check because he'll never want to be, I think, over 20% in credit instruments versus the equity. So it also keeps a risk in check. Yeah, I mean, he has, I guess, to that end, like, I don't know what the number is, but he's got to have hundreds of thousands of unencumbered Bitcoin, right? I've heard as low as 40,000. But, I mean, literally the worst case scenario, which would be a crisis of confidence, of course, is that he would sell a little Bitcoin that's not tied to anything. To be very clear, SDRC is an unsecured product.

So there's actually no direct claim on the Bitcoin. He'll have called a, you know, if he's ever running out of cash, he doesn't have to sell Bitcoin, it'd be terrible for his business, right? He can sort of close the coupon. The coupons will start accumulating, so we'll start accumulating up, but he doesn't have to actually pay the cash. So he's never forced to sell Bitcoin, but if he ever gets a position,

it would clearly also make him a terrible credit issue going forward. So hopefully we'll never get to that point, but there may be theoretically the point where he says, well, I can either just cut off the coupon for now, it's not accumulating until Bitcoin recovers, or I sell Bitcoin to pay for it. Right. Anyone else said any other thoughts here?

I'm just like, yeah, I'm very torn on this Defi United, kind of going back to the initial. Obviously, I want people to be made whole. We've all suffered through the contagions of the past, but the precedent and the mechanics leave me very fearful for the future of Defi. It's just tough to keep getting kicked while you're down, Scott. Exactly. Like, we're down 90% on anything else that we've bought that's not Bitcoin. coin, right?

Like some people down more, things have been lost. Like, retails just got barely, like, almost no heartbeat left. And then the little bit of Eath, maybe that you, you know, that someone had trying to earn a little bit of yield, you know, hoping to get a little bit more capital for the next run. You know, they want four to five percent more of their principal, right, to go run because they haven't been able to put anything in. And then it's just like, that's gone.

And that's happened on multiple chains. like this is a bigger one, but that's happened in small segments all over the place. And so it's like when you're just ripping the heart out, it's like it's how much more can can these people take before people are like actually saying like I'm fully done with this and I'm moving on to the next thing. And a lot of people have. And that's why a lot of people are Bitcoin only now. And I think that's not that number is going to grow. That number is going to continue to grow. And a lot of these people also, it's like they're, you know, they got their boomer dad just laughing at them because they're like, oh, I just.

I've been taking all these AI companies for these 10x rides. Meanwhile, you're sitting there, you know, in Polygon. Because Polymarketing is there and they got the polys in the name. And it's like, oh my God, how can this coin the largest thing ever? How could this thing not 10X? It doesn't matter what's going on. Nope, down 90%. So I think that's just the scenario right now.

And we'll see if we get out of it. Well, can I just add to that? I don't think we do get out of it, Joe. And the reason is, like I saw a couple of mallors responses about what they're doing at that company. And I'm like, wow, none of these STRs, whatever you call them, none of them are going to make it except Sailor. I mean, maybe BM&R. I'm not even sure about them. But if they don't make it, the token market is.

Like, it's all toast. I don't see, hate to be like Mr. Negative here, but I think we go for another round down Bitcoin because there's too much money that's just dying to get the fuck out of XXI and NACA and all these, you know, like none of these companies have done shit, man. We're going to buy 50,000 Bitcoin. Okay, well, when are you going to start? So it's, you know, you just. just have one winner. I mean, am I being really, really, even the miners, look, the miners are getting kicked in the face today or even the HTCA. Yeah, exactly. They're not even minors anymore anyways.

Like, you see what I'm saying? It just seems like the whole industry is failing outside of Bitcoin's holding really well, I think, in a geopolitical shitstorm. Yeah, you got to operate, right? Like, you know, I don't know, Jack, you know, but I, you know, looking at that company it's like, hey, a couple Bitcoin conference announcements, you know, with, you know, some other people are getting people hyped or kind of like, you know, attacking other people and on the guise of, oh, Bitcoin, you know, it's like you're just another Bitcoiner, right? Like, that's got a little bit of a microphone. Like, you have to operate, right? And it's just competing with Sailor on that level. Like, you're just going to get destroyed. And you just can't shout your way out of that. You actually have to operate. You actually have to. to make connections. You have to create the trust. I just don't see people handing hundreds of millions of dollars, you know, over without the main operator there, right? You can have a couple of nice advisors on your website. That's just people need to, they're talking to you at the end of the day,

the CEO of the company, and you have to operate. And I just don't see it outside of, you know, sailor. Yeah, maybe from I said, I'm obviously founder of a treasury company in Europe and maybe not the entire objective. But I think, look, there's about 180 of these companies globally, which is way too much. So I totally agree there's going to be a much smaller number, much, much smaller number of surviving. But there are examples of real winners aside from Sailor in this, for instance, Metaplan, Japan, which really has shown that the model, the treasury model, works in different markets and not just by one company. And that's actually a reason why I started mine in Europe, because we don't have money in Europe on the primary exchange.

But I totally agree with that. After we've seen this high market, cycle last year, that you need to have an operating model with a real distinguishing factor. What you're doing is actually unique. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, no, appreciate it. So that's, and I think for me, the longer-term game on this is that Bitcoin Treasury companies actually will form a very valuable bridge between Bitcoin as a, you know, decentralized asset into the real financial system. And whether they become banks of the future, some sort of the other way, and look at the SCRC, right? SCRC creates a whole digital credit ecosystem based on Bitcoin, thanks to strategy being a listed company,

right? And for digital credit, become a real market. And I've seen this time again, I've been in credit for 25 years, is actually you need different layers of that. So you need different issuers, different currencies, different currencies. So once you start trading, you can start trade a basis, then we have a real ecosystem. And that's all good for Bitcoin, right, because it brings to an institutional capital that's less risk, has less risk propensity to go into Bitcoin directly. So I'm I'm generally very bullish on the whole model thanks to what Seder is built, but also for different companies to do it in a right way. Yeah, as I was going to say, you know, I've always found it interesting. I think kind of, you know, Metaplanet was the only one in Japan.

And there was a unique situation there to take advantage of a tax arbitrage situation where it was superior to holding, you know, underlying Bitcoin from a tax perspective. And so I find being kind of one of the few in a different market has a whole lot of, is it just a just, just a completely different situation. But they can't. Do we need 500 of them in the United States? I don't know. Well, MetaPlan. Yeah, I was going to say MetaPlanic could be in trouble because Japan just changed how

they view Bitcoin and it's now going to be, I think, a 20% flat tax or something. So that now is gone. But you can see why they did it in the first place, right? There was a huge advantage to buying your Bitcoin through MetaPlanit if you were Japanese. Go ahead, Carlo. Breaking news. Fed chair nominee, Kevin Warsh, has been approved by the Senate Banking Committee, advancing him

forward to a full vote in the Senate. I hate to introduce a hot take right at the top of the hour, but it is an interesting and it's not lost on me that as we see a flight out of defy on ETH that we are seeing, and I hate to trigger you, Scott, but we're seeing NFTs absolutely rip right now. Is that really happening or is this? It is really happening. Floor prices across the board of OG collections from the first cycle,

board apes, dead fellas, doodles, the whole thing. You're making up words. Those aren't real words. Now look, I understand most people will think that this is nonsense, but it seems to me that there is a correlation between the flight from defy and people wanting to custody their eph in cryptographily verifiable art.

And I don't think that's a trend that's going to end anytime soon. Wow. How are my lazy lions doing? Check the floor price now. I never, I never, as they said in the movie Traffic Thunder, I never went full retard luckily. So I'm safe. Mark's safe from Lazy Lions. David, go ahead.

Yeah, I was just going to say with Kevin Warsh coming on board, we can expect the dot plot to go away, which means the bond market's got less information to deal with. So we can probably look at rates on the long end going up. And he also has a bias to saying that AI is defrable. disinflationary. He kind of overlooks the secondary effect, which is that how are you going to support the people who get disemployed by AI? So, nonetheless, with that being the setup, yeah, I would expect worse to be cutting rates as soon as he gets into the chairman's role. So, yeah, today's meeting, non-event.

You know, J. Pell says goodbye. Maybe the last meeting we ever have. Maybe the last meeting we ever have. I mean, he's made comments that, you know, that you, and maybe to some degree we should agree, but, you know, that the public doesn't need 400 speeches from Fed chairs a month. Well, you know, Scott, as Ivan Boski said, you know, to Bunny Lasker, you know, your bunny's got a good nose. You're good at this. You dropped one of these a day. Oh, well, guys, listen, I would love to get.

I love the 80s Ivan Boski reference, man. So good. So good. So is Paul Sir the Jones joining now, Scott, or when does he come on? everything old is new again one of us everything old is new again I hope we do get Paul Tudor Jones to join

but it's going to have to be another day because I got to go as usual now Dave will be back I think on Friday and so the show will continue to run until 1115 but I got to go pretend I know what I'm talking about on TV so I'll talk about it's good

Thanks sir see you guys on Friday it's a great show as usual bye