The Wolf Of All Streets - Richard Heart Fraud? | Crypto Town Hall With Eric Wall & Martin Shkreli

Episode Date: August 1, 2023

Crypto Town Hall is a daily Twitter Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in the crypto and bring the biggest names in the crypto space to share their opinions. ►►OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $60,000!  👉 https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER  ►►THE DAILY CLOSE BRAND NEW NEWSLETTER! INSTITUTIONAL GRADE INDICATORS AND DATA DELIVERED DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX, EVERY DAY AT THE DAILY CLOSE. TRADE LIKE THE BIG BOYS. 👉 https://www.thedailyclose.io/   ►►NORD VPN  GET EXCLUSIVE NORDVPN DEAL - 40% DISCOUNT! IT’S RISK-FREE WITH NORD’S 30-DAY MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE. PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY! 👉 https://nordvpn.com/WolfOfAllStreets   ►►COINROUTES TRADE SPOT & DERIVATIVES ACROSS CEFI AND DEFI USING YOUR OWN ACCOUNTS WITH THIS ADVANCED ALGORITHMIC PLATFORM. SAVE TONS OF MONEY ON TRADING FEES LIKE THE PROS! 👉 http://bit.ly/3ZXeYKd  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/   Follow Scott Melker: Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottmelker   Web: https://www.thewolfofallstreets.io   Spotify: https://spoti.fi/30N5FDe   Apple podcast: https://apple.co/3FASB2c   #Bitcoin #Crypto #Trading The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own and should in no way be interpreted as financial advice. This video was created for entertainment. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision. I am not a financial advisor. Nothing contained in this video constitutes or shall be construed as an offering of financial instruments or as investment advice or recommendations of an investment strategy or whether or not to "Buy," "Sell," or "Hold" an investment.

Hey, Scott, I'm sorry for the bad news, man. Oh, God, what do you got for me today? No, just, uh, you're on a personal level, bro. I know when you're, um... You know how it feels like when a friend, uh, gets targeted by authorities? Oh, God, stop. I'm the only person here who hasn't had the guy on my show, actually. I've had a lot of other people who've been targeted by authorities.

Hold on, what's wrong with having him on your show, though? Nothing, it's just at the time on your show, though? Nothing. Just at the time when it was offered, I just kept denying because it felt... Oh, really? Yeah, quite a few times. Yeah, quite a few times. Actually, yeah.

Why did you deny that? SBF, Mashinsky, Steve Ehrlich, I've had everyone else. So, what do you get? I'm sending out the invites. But the, no, you denying him is weird, man. He's a, you know, there's still like he, so he'd come on my show and when he came, I'd have him in tone vase or him in a few Bitcoin maxis

and it led to some of the coolest debates. And, you know, he always tries to sneak in Hex, which we kind of twice, you know, to shut it to sneak in Hex, which we kind of twice, you know, to shut it down. Even if Hex was a good project, we just didn't allow shilling back then. And, well, we still don't,

but we didn't allow shilling. But otherwise, he was a really good speaker, man. A really good speaker. I think he was some of our best speakers. Very, very, very smart, great perspective, early Bitcoiner.

I totally get all of that. But whenever the offers came it was always very sort of hex specific and i just didn't want to go down that rabbit hole i mean even today i've literally like i think i tweeted the trailer to the movie that's coming out and i said that it was a who's that embarrassed and it's like 400 like comments from angry xers like that they're gonna come to to my house and I'm a bigger scammer than Richard Hart. All the fun stuff. I literally can't tell anymore today if

I'm being like targeted by bots or actually actual human beings. It's getting very strange. Yeah, I haven't looked at your feed. I've just sent out all the invites and not sure if it's glitching for other people. Twitter seems to be playing up today.

Cool. All right, man. Well, we've looked deeper into the whole hex thing. And I think what we're going to be focusing on today, what the bombshell is, is potential possibility of him spending life in prison. I know this is just pure speculation. But that's the bombshell for anyone listening. And that's going to be something we're going to discuss in a bit.

And then we're going to discuss the... Hey Mario, I feel like we're missing someone. I feel like we're missing... I don't feel like we're missing anybody. Oh, that's right. No, we're not missing anyone. It's just me and you, bro. It's just me and you as always.

Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. We're going to be playing some clips of Rand's interview with Richard as well. You're going to miss me when I'm gone, bro. When are you going to be gone?

Five, six years. Okay, cool, man. Cool. But because of retirement. Yeah, we're going to be playing some clips of your interview with... How many times have you had

Richard on your show? Many over 10 and uh oh shit okay and um what was your has your position always been critical of hex or um critical of x critical of pulse critical of x this critical of pulse um and um not that critical around richard actually he's a very, very, very smart guy. I don't actually, people refer to him as a scammer. I think he's anything but a scammer because I think he says exactly what it is, like it or not. To me, a scammer is someone that says something and does something else.

I think he was quite honest. I think he made a point of being pretty honest about his intentions. And, you know, you got what you paid for. You know, HECS was supposed to be what he called a situational deposit. It was exactly that. He didn't want to miss you anything else. Let me read this out, Ryan. It appears that 94% to 99% from the SEC complaint,

it appears that 94% to 97% of these ETH deposits, that's deposits in the HEX private sale, however, were recycling transactions directed by Hart or other insiders, which enabled Hart or other insiders to gain control of a large number of HEX tokens. That's not something he talked about.

Don't quote me. Don't quote me and I don't want to stick up for him because I don't know enough. But if but i remember correctly he was actually quite honest about it and he said we took the money from the thing and don't quote me on that though that's something i'm not aware of um yeah let me send out a few more invites guys uh and by the way scott since i missed yesterday's interview with suarez before we kick off the show can you give us like a quick recap for anyone else that missed it like I did? Sure. I think it's funny that we can talk about

Suarez here one day and then we're obsessing over Richard Hart an hour or later and then a day later. But I guess that's the nature of the crypto space. I think that the takeaways and Rand might want to share his thoughts as well, but was that he's very genuine in his desire to improve things. I think he's learned a lot of lessons as the mayor of Miami. And I think that it's undeniable that he was, of all the presidential candidates, the first one to legitimately look into Bitcoin and crypto and to adopt policies on the local level. Of course, in Miami, they could potentially teach lessons about how this technology and the assets could be used in Washington on the national stage. I think we have other candidates who are somewhat passionate about Bitcoin.

I think RFK, although he came later, I think he genuinely is. I think that the consensus and even interestingly sort of hinted at from Suarez, who is the mayor of Miami, but the governor of his state, Florida, obviously, is DeSantis, was that DeSantis is somewhat using it as a talking point, a way to potentially get votes, but not really down the rabbit hole in the same way. And then I think we obviously have candidates like Trump and Biden who are just too old and anti-Bitcoin and largely anti-crypto, but apparently not anti-NFT projects. But I figured that was really the crux of it is

that Suarez, I think, knows that he came into the race late, that he has a lot of catching up to do, that he has a lot of fundraising to do to get on the debate stage. And I think he believes that each time he gets a bigger national audience, his name will become bigger and he can grow. He pointed out even that Trump at this same point, the election cycle when he won was at 1% basically rating, just like Suarez is. And so he was using that sort of as the idea that he could grow. But I do believe that he is genuinely pro-crypto and would bring that to Washington if given the opportunity and that he understands that it's a long shot for that to happen. Full man. All right, let's kick it off. I think we've got the panel ready here. Rags, David, Lawyered, Alkshan, good to have you guys. We do have Avishal with us as well.

Avishal, we're going to be talking about the quote-unquote DeFi contagion and what's going on with Curve later on in the show. So good to have you here and I would love to get your input on the HEX discussion as well. But let's kick it off. David, how are you, sir? Mr. Silver. Doing great. So good.

Yeah. As soon as the microphone goes off, he starts billing. Here you go. Hey, guys. Sorry. Guys, I'm go. Hey, guys. Sorry, David. Guys, I'm actually working for one minute. I'm getting some great breaking news on this. Oh, shit.

I was watching Scott's video this morning. I'll be back in about five minutes. Cool. We'll wait for that breaking news. We've got lawyers here as well. Lawyer, how are you? Pretty good. Pretty good.

How are you doing? Good to have you back, man. Have you gone through, I'm sure you have, the SEC complaint around Hex? We'd love to get your initial thoughts before we start digging into it. We do have Rags here with our other speakers coming in to kind of get both perspectives. But now that we've had time to go through the complaint,

give us a quick recap for anyone that wasn't here yesterday and let's start digging into the various charges. Yeah, I mean, I will preface it by saying, I agree that he's always seemed very genuine to me and good for the space. I mean, I think the single best clip in the entire crypto space is when he yelled stuff at Craig Wright. Um, but, and that being said, so obviously there's accusations that there were, uh, really a fix, uh, uh, Lloyd, Is there any chance you could fix your mic?

Is that any better? About the same. Sounds fine. There's a bit of a windy echo in the background, but let's give it a shot. Sounds fine to me, Mario. It's called being a perfectionist, guys. It's called being a perfectionist.

We've got different standards when it comes to doing shows, but it's okay. Mario, which lucky packet It's called being a perfectionist, guys. It's called being a perfectionist. We've got different standards when it comes to doing shows. But it's okay. Lloyd, go ahead, man. Yeah, I mean... Mario, which Lucky Packet do I need to buy to get the same headphones as you? Come to the supermarket Lucky Packet. Go ahead, Lloyd.

I mean, the accusations surround all the things that have been going on. Securities, how they've been sold, and what is a security. And, you know, i'm not going to go through all the details but i think we you know we've all we're here we've sort of glanced at it which is that um he was not registered to sell the securities they were securities but i just want to say that the most important thing i think here is that to draw comparisons because we've

gone over this argument question of what is a security and in the crypto space what's that going to look like in court and we don't know maybe some judge is going to come at the top and say look there's new rules we're bringing them differently this is how we see it and let's say so yeah i don't the question sorry scott i'll give you the microphone after but i wanted to kind of touch on the security, not a security discussion is not something that I think none of us are really caring much about. This is a battle between the SEC and the crypto world. I think what really concerns us is other allegations being made. And I'll start looking at the first one.

I'll read out the first one. There's a couple here. And again, this is all civil. There's nothing criminal yet, but there will be a discussion for later in the show. Haar via the HEX public address accepted more than 2.3 million Ether from investors, worth more than $678 million at the time of deposits. In exchange for their investments, Haar issued HEX tokens to investors. It appears that 94% to 97% of these ETH deposits, however, were recycling transactions directed by Haar or other insiders, which enabled Ha or other insiders to gain control of a large number of HEX tokens. So before I get your thoughts

on this, Lawyer, I do want to go to Ran. Ran, you've talked about this yesterday, touched on it earlier in the show today. Can you explain more what they mean by recycle, just for the non-techie person in the audience? So what I understand understand i may be wrong here but what i understand is that you pay east into a um like a token sale account and someone then withdraws those east and reroutes them via centralized exchange or whatever and then puts them back into the account so you're using the same ethereum you're recycling the same eth Ethereum for the same ICO to make it look like you're raising more Ethereum. And I think that's what's going on. So Lloyd, for me, this one is more concerning than whether Hax is a security or not.

No, so that's what my point was. My point was to bracket that whole argument. And so I don't quite fully understand what that looks like on chain. But I know that their allegations come down to the fact that, you know, this was marketed and sold in a, in a, in a shady way.

Um, and ultimately the, um, my, my view is that these arguments can be made for a theory, like all the arguments that you want to attack hex, you probably could make to attack Ethereum and the way that they raised money at the beginning, whether it was done

properly. It certainly wasn't done as a registered security. How do I interrupt you, Matt? Yeah, I think that's the part that doesn't matter to Mario's point. I think that we've all accepted that we're going to be going down this endless rabbit hole of whether things

were securities offerings or not. It's the fraud. Yeah, so I think I'm not a blockchain expert to the point where I can say that that was fraud. Is anyone confirming that? No, it isn't. And I'm saying these are allegations.

I have no idea. The fraud is that he took money that was invested and bought the world's biggest diamond in clothing and cars with it. So basically he took investors money to, you know, find things for themselves. Well, that was Paul's chain. So I'm separating that out, right?

Wasn't that Paul's money? Yeah, but even that one, Scott, I'll make an argument. I'll play devil's advocate here. I see David's hand up. He might have breaking news for us. But even that one doesn't concern me as much, surprisingly. I'm not for it. I think it's very unethical, even potentially illegal.

But again, Richard is a smart guy, and we're assuming he has a lot of money. So why would he use the raised money for that? And the argument he could make, and I know some influencers do this, I won't name them. What would they say, Zach Mario? You know, the ones that are very slamboyant when it comes to Instagram, they show off their wealth.

They say, this is part of our marketing. This is a marketing expense. And through all this, all the diamond and this and that, I'm actually showing off, it's just all part of a strategy to get more investors into HEX, to get more users or whatever into HEX, into the ecosystem. But I think the recycling one, in my opinion, just sounds a lot more concerning. You're inflating the amount of rates by 94% to 97%, assuming this is what it means. This one for me, and by the way, Laurie, I muted you. Go ahead. I want to play devil's advocate here way, Loretta, I muted you. Go ahead.

I want to play devil's advocate here. I want to play devil's advocate here. Again, I'm not sticking up for the government. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. If I am an address originator for an ICO, and I receive funds for the ICO, from that point, I'm pretty free to do whatever I want with those funds, right?

Of course not. No, no, no. Hold on. What do you mean? No, absolutely not. Gary, hold on. What do you mean? No, absolutely not. Gary, hold on. Look, Gary's giving you... Under what law are you? No, it's absolutely not. You raise money for the purpose of actually investing into the business, building out the business, delivery.

It's not your money. It's not your salary. No, no. If that's the case, then people bought security. Yeah, that's what they did. You're applying securities laws to it. Yeah, but private sales are considered securities. It, that's what they did. You're applying securities laws to it. Yeah, but this is, private sales are considered securities. For the XRP ruling,

I think anyone that disagrees on that security... No, no, no. Guys, guys, hold on. I need to stop this right now. By the way, thank you so much Mario for having me. I got to set everybody straight here. In the actual documentation, it's referring to HEC. It's not referring to pulse chain in terms

of the recycling. So it's very important that we have that context. And it's referring to HEX, not referring to pulse chain in terms of the recycling. So it's very important that we have that context. And it's also very important to have the context of what was happening back then with the distribution model that Richard Hart was using. And I think that's where I can kind of play a pretty strong part here. So Richard had something called the adoption amplifier. And this is very misunderstood and not well known amongst the community. And what he basically did was he used the adoption amplifier to divvy out tokens for a 352 day period. Okay. On top of that, now what the adoption amplifier was, is you give ETH to the adoption amplifier, it's going to kick you back hex.

All right. There's actually a price kind of attached with that in a way. But the other issue here was, was there was also liquidity on Uniswap back then. And what Richard was trying to do, I think, I'm not in the man's head, I can't speak for him, but I think he was trying to find a way to distribute this fairly so it could not be gobbled up by a bunch of whales. So what he was doing is allowing people to come in every single day. He divvied out a billion tokens for 352 days and he allowed people to come in and make purchases. Now, what was happening was whales were actually going on the Uniswap side with liquidity pools, and they were arbitraging the AA against Uniswap liquidity pools. So what you're having is the SEC is saying that Richard Hart was the person who was

circulating this in and out, when actually it was Richard Hart being a market maker matching the price of Uniswap at the end of every day and then people taking those arbitrage events and dumping them back into the AA. So that's extremely important context that I'm sorry I had to interrupt you guys, but I wanted you guys to know that. To add to these points you know what people like to say is that uh when especially when you use the word misappropriation of funds i saw that inside the sec document uh hex again if we speak specifically to hex hex launched complete there was never a appropriation of funds necessary because the capitalist in the system, the founder, had already developed that product complete. There was no future expectation of new add-ons,

features, partnerships with exchanges, referral links. None of that stuff was ever marketed or told by richard to the community before the product actually went live december 2nd i believe in 2019 so when the community gathered around this youtuber talking about bitcoin everybody loves the guy because he's talking about their bags of bitcoin and when he destroyed people over products like IOTA or even when he was very anti-Ethereum, saying that it didn't have enough history, basically, to have a Lindy effect, right? That this was a new risk in a system of cryptocurrencies.

And he was a cyber-porn it when it came to his Bitcoin bags back then. You know, the history led to Richard creating a product of his own capital, intellect, volunteerism from people that ran simulations, you know, provided math, basically, you know, solidity code and things like that. And then he published it publicly. It's always been available. If you just go to Etherscan and you look at the contract.

So anybody that chooses to say, hey, this was misappropriation of funds, you know, they simply have not done any research whatsoever, specifically with the product of hacks. And I'll point out one last thing here. The SEC makes the argument that this was done to create a false impression of significant trading volume. And I want to point out, if you've ever listened to Richard,

he has always accepted the fact that there is not high trading volume, especially in the early days, based on the amount of people who were back then staking or mining. So I find it very interesting that they used that argument because Richard has never, never, ever said or mentioned that Hex had high trading volume for those reasons to attract investors. That's never been something that... But does it matter? And I'm asking this genuinely because I haven't watched these videos, but does it actually matter what he said if the on-chain evidence is otherwise? Yeah, it doesn't. So that's a good point. And that's a very genuine question. But my point here is that I don't think that there was. And the other point was, you know, that's one of their primary arguments.

And if that's one of their primary arguments, the blockchain will tell the truth there. Right. That makes perfect sense. I want to go to David because I know you said you had some breaking news. I'd love to hear it. No, the breaking news is just I was actually working. It was not crypto. Oh, come on, David. We are back in five minutes.

So now you can give us the broad strokes and tell us. Breaking news, guys. David works. He's building. David works once in the blue moon so he can pay for his ostentatious lifestyle. Look, I get what Gary Rags is saying. I get. But this is so.

First of all, the accusation levied against him under the law for the, and you can call it, you know, money laundering, you can call it watch trading. Essentially, they're accusing him of being on both sides of the trade and creating a market where he was both the buyer, the seller, and the beneficial owner of the transaction. I don't know whether that's true or not. But David, by the way, I don't want to interrupt, but that is literally what market makers do for a living. Yes, but they... I'm not saying the market maker is on their own project, but I am saying that that is... I mean, what you just described is what a market maker... But the market maker does it when it's listed. In this case, I mean, you're talking about the private round.

So it just shows the raise. I'm not defending it. I'm just pointing out that a market maker's literal job is to provide liquidity on both sides of a trade. Are they referring to the private sale or the public after it's listed or both? It was listed. There was nothing private about it. That's the whole point. Yeah. All you guys are talking about cryptocurrency and you're saying that you have freedom to transact. Without KYC, if you have Ethereum in your wallet from seven years ago from the launch, which there are whales inside of the HEX ecosystem that have 300,000, 400,000 ETH and billions of dollars worth of crypto value basically as well locked away in their wallets.

We can see these things on chain. The whole benefit of public blockchain is that you can have pseudo anonymity. Now, is that a feature you want to carry forward over the evolution of future cryptocurrency? It really comes down to what are you in this for? Are you in this because the ticker goes up and price goes up? That's a lot of people. That's the majority of people, I believe. I don't think anybody volunteers time if they think that their investment of resource is going to wither. So what is the purpose? This was always public. It was never listed. I think even listings of Hex product on central exchanges have very low volume. And that is because the culture around Richard's commentary seems to be cyberpunk. It seems to be the 10 year, 12 year ago dream of people having peer to peer choices about how they spend their funds. It seems to be a freedom of speech kind of narrative Richard has promoted. Guys, so I'm just looking at this first. The more I look into this, by the way, Scott, you'd be surprised what I'm about to say. But then again, what I'm about to say is pretty worthless since I'm not a lawyer. But the more I talk about this, the more I realize that either the most critical people of the SEC around, but I mean, there's probably something there.

The question is whether it's, like you said, I mean, whether it's a technicality or... I think he has to understand it. I want to jump in here. I want to jump in here. I want to say that Richard Hodge is one of the smartest people that I've ever met

in my life, intellectually. He may or may not be a scammer, and he may have made a lot of things wrong, but why can't you condone that? The guy is very, very, very, very smart. He's very, very, very, very calculated. I think, as I said yesterday, he is the type of guy that just wants to be noticed. He just wants to be noticed and just wants to he just wants to wants to do um he just wants to be noticed and be remembered and he hates the fact that people like satoshi have been remembered and vitalik have been remembered in fact i'm going to try play saying i don't know if you guys are going

to be able to hear it um but i want to play this for you guys just so that you can hear the interview that he did on my show i don't know marie if you've got this one but let me just play this to you hopefully you, you guys will be able to hear it. You hear it? Give me one second. Okay, so let me just play this for you guys. Asked him, why do you wear these Rolexes? Why do you shop?

Why do you go flaunting your wealth? That's not the Richard Hart that I remember when I met him in 2016 and 2017. I think this is his answer. I'll try to find it first. I'll try to find the way to find one. One second. I think Duquan has more followers. Okay, so here's where

he starts talking about it. He's got a little bit back. That's just the main thing. There it is. Up a little bit back. There it is. Up, up. Up a little bit. Well, yeah. He's right-lifting shopping bags

in this interview. Deadlifting, that's shopping. Someone made that. The deadlifts are real. The shopping bags. Actually, they did pretty heavy. So, you know, life's not fair. And everyone has more followers than me. People that have stolen people's

money and bankrupted people have been fraudulent and been misleading, have done great harm in the world, have more followers than me. I think Duquan has more followers than me. I think 3R's capital guy, Suzu, has more followers than me. I think a lot of scammers, this guy named Ben Baller,

he said all my watches were fake. He said my XS90 thousand-horsepower is slower than a 765 ROT. It's not. He says it's slower than a Senna and a Quermont. No, it's not. This guy just says all these lies. He's got more followers than me and sells people an advisory service on how to

gamble to make a secondary income. Sports gambling. Wow. What a piece of trash. So all these stumbanks have more followers than me. Now, why is that? Is it because they design better products? No. Is it because they got better returns? No. Is it because they called the top of the day? No. Called the watch top as well? No. And so I did everything I could that in a just and fair world would lead me to glory, that would lead me to greatness. My voice would be amplified because I was right about everything forever. But that's not how it worked out. Instead, the scumbags that are louder

and more rambunctious and more controversial, they get the audience and the good honest person doing the honest work does. And so you get rewarded for being abrasive. You get rewarded for being a prick. And if you're going to reward me for being a prick I guess I'm going to have to learn to be good at it but what's the reward I mean you measure your value you measure the fact that they beat you they got an unjustly beat

and they're still beating me yes I'm trying to fix the world literally all of it if you go to my oldest YouTube videos it's me teaching you how to get better apologies, have better relationships, drink less, work out more, do a lot of things that I've found hard to do in my life, but I know

tactically how to do them right. So, I mean, that's the one video. The other video which we played today on our show, I'll play it here because I think it's quite a funny video, but it's maybe ironic, maybe funny is not the right word here, but listen to this. I hope you are. I want you to know in the deepest,

deepest parts of your heart that I've saved a lot more people from being wrecked than you have. Because I did everything I could to prevent people from putting their money to Blackfly, did you? I did everything I could to prevent people from putting their money to Celsius, did you? I did everything I could to put people in charge of their own keys and get them to have self-custody. Did you do that? I called the top of the day. Did you?

What have you done? So, I mean, you get the point, Joe. Like, Richard Hart is a man on a mission to be the good guy. He's the man on a mission to make a difference and to be remembered and to get more followers and to get the cred and recognition. Now, that's why I think that he's going to fight this. He's not going to take any settlements.

He's going to fight this till the end and he's going to use the money that he has to lawyer himself up and to try and beat the SEC so that he can get the same recognition that Ripple got when they beat the SEC. And I think get the same recognition that Ripple got when they beat the SEC. And I think that that's what's going to happen here. This is the type of guy you're getting with you, and he's full of money.

I mean, there is one of his wallets that is mentioned in the SEC papers, which has $700 million worth of buy-in-it. He has money to fund this. So when you, there's a thread on, I understand all this, but there's a thread on, I understand all this, but there's a thread I'm going through, through Truth Labs.

I'm trying to see how serious the allegations are and whether this will escalate to becoming criminal. So Truth Labs has a great thread and I'm going to pin it above. Let me see if the crypto, the Crypto Town Hall account is there. So they can pin that thread up and they break down a lot of the concerns they've had,

they've talked about months and months ago, and how they relate to this case. So for example, here, and David, that goes to you, for going to action is, ultimately, he sets up thousands of wallets to farm Hex and PulseChain. I highlighted in November that he withdrew over $50 million in PulseChain sacrifice funds already at the time to his own personal accounts. And he puts out a link to a tweet, the Truth Labs tweeted in November last year about that exact allegation. And then he says, back in April, I shared a peek into who CZ personally interacted with. Richard Hart was one of those long list of frauds directly interacting with CZ's personal Binance wallets

and starts breaking down all the transactions. So it just seems that if you go through the thread, it gets a bit technical as you read through it. But the allegations of the whole, what's the word again that they've used in the recycling? It seems something, it seems to be the more serious one. I don't know if it becomes criminal.

So I just, It seems to be the more serious one. I don't know if it becomes criminal. So in terms of what you're saying, Ran, about his personality and why he's doing all this, he is very smart, but he might have not been able to outsmart the SEC and their resources and might have gotten ahead of himself. True, Mario.

Can I say something about that? Please do, Mario. Please do a model. I'll go to David. I created a video that I posted to this thread here that walks you through the Hex launch and origin address and it's scripted and I spent a lot of time

kind of really thinking about what I saw back then because it's in the past and it's really hard to kind of see uh here today but I haven't seen any really chinalysis evidence that there was recycling right I did see a a bunch of wallets with um ethereum stacked on there but um the central point that rags made was that the origin address was there to blunt the arbitrage opportunity for HEX in its infancy. Because if you participated in the origin address, or if you participated in the adoption amplifier, you received roughly the same amount of HEX each day that you would have received if you participated in the open market. But what that turned the adoption amplifier into is basically an over-the-counter way to bid on large amounts of hex

so that they're not getting slippage in a shallow market. And so at the end of the day, I would see this Ethereum come in, not to boast and brag about, oh, look, we have so much volume and we're doing it. That didn't happen. The Ethereum came in at the end of the day after everyone bid to bid up the amount of HEX that everyone would receive. And it would be on par with as much that you would have received if you bought that in the open market. And that's what I saw happen for 350 days during the adoption of Flare. That's a point to be made.

We like to brag, or Richard has bragged for years, about the launch of Uniswap and how the first five months of volume on Uniswap was dominated. More than 50% of volume on Uniswap was Hex. It was the launch phase of Hex. I don't recall that Uniswap existed. Maybe it did, but I don't think it was popular at the time that Richard was making a lot of content around this idea of Bitcoin hex or how hex would be distributed and

things like that. And if you look again on EtherScan at the contract itself trying to make sure that Bitcoin holders could make a free claim simply by signing that they possess Bitcoin in their wallet. And he made a lot of effort, content, and engagement with community, growth of community around that idea that you could participate. And I actually know a lot of people that bought bitcoin simply to sell it the next day after they made a claim so like there was a whole a lot of the design and development was that uh this launch mechanic and what i remember is that that initially there was a there was a great arbitrage opportunity because people would buy or get divvied out HEX

with a couple of ETH, two or three ETH into the daily distribution of, I think, 500 million HEX would distribute daily. And they would buy it, and then they would put it in liquidity pool on Uniswap and they would, you know, one either earn fees or if they wanted to play charts, then they would arbit and make, you know, I think that Richard got annoyed with the fact that people were eating a lot of slippage. If they went to buy on Uniswap, they might see a lower price point than the daily distribution or the previous day's distribution rates. And they may think that they could buy the same amount and not understand, you know, slippage or low liquidity markets. So the idea that it was, you know, misappropriation or recycling, this has already gone through basically as long as there's been smart contracts, as long as there's been ways that people could do the same thing. EOS is the biggest example in the room.

And EOS has the same truth people that just got commented about. They did the same analysis two years ago, this all public, about how $4 billion was raised and basically $800 million is speculated to have gone through the same sort of process of open market. I wonder, David Silver, are you there? I am. Have a look at the pinned tweet above if you can. And everyone in the audience can also check it out.

And then it's by Martin Shkreli. I don't know if it's the actual Martin is a is it the actual martin shkreli account scott do you know uh apparently it is uh he definitely knows he definitely knows something about uh ferrara dale martin shkreli tweeted the following and it's part of a thread him and eric sorry commented him and eric were going back and forth uh he says the following i'd rather so i'll read out what he says um um let me let me pin the okay i pinned the last tweet in the whole back and forth. So it says, no Fed charges for Hart. And then Eric Wall responds, whether there's a parallel SDNY case we don't know about is anyone's guess at this point. I don't like to speculate too much on friends, ex-friends going to jail.

Then Screlly goes, I'd rather no one went to jail, for financial crimes but that's not the way with the world works I can't imagine the DOJ not copy pasting this into an indictment he'd be looking at life um and then Eric Wall says are you sure please elaborate and then Shkreli says well if you look at page 90 of the sentencing guidelines um I'm not sure if you've gone through that David um which I which if you look up the sentencing chart, in the same PDF is recommended life sentence. So if you look at, again, page 90 of the sentencing guidelines is already at over 40 points. With all the victims, it's a rough situation if he gets cuffed. So essentially what Martin Shkreli is saying is looking at life in prison based on this

particular point. And I've pinned that last comment, David, for you. And that's the one Iice in prison based on this particular point. And I've pinned that last comment, David, for you. And that's the one I really wanted to elaborate on. Okay, so let me start with the basic here. So I want to go back

to what Rand said because, you know, I understand why people who support Hex are going to talk like it's 2017 again. But Rand... I'm not a Hex supporter

just to be clear. No, no, no. I was talking about people... Rand is a Hex investor. A hodler. Rand, I'm not a hex supporter, just to be clear. No, no, no. I was talking about people. Rand is a hex investor. A huddler. Rand, I'm saying to the people who spoke after you. You were just talking about how he's a genius who wants to be famous and does good. What does that sound like?

And I'm going to move on from that point because I want to get to the legal side of it because you guys don't have me here for my good looks. But when we're talking about geniuses who want to do good things, I'm sorry, like, this is like where, you know, the definition of crazy here,

we're going to keep banging our heads. Legally, with the SEC and what Martin's talking about, let's, it's very, very important. I said this yesterday. And I said that I kind of was waiting for the second shoe to fall. And Mario, what you're talking about now

is the second shoe. Something about this complaint doesn't ring true. And what doesn't ring true about this complaint right now is they talk a lot about Hex, but it's really focused on the actions after Hex more recently with the, you know, the money and taking that. So what does Hex tie into? And I think if you look at what Truth Labs was doing, he's showing an interconnection between other shady businesses who we all think the SEC and DOJ are investigating right now. And what this possibly can be is the tie between Binance, Uniswap, Hex. These are all billion dollars. These aren't like 12, you know, we kept saying yesterday, come on, did he really steal $12 million and then they go after

him for $12 million if he's worth a billion? It didn't make sense. I'm with Rand. I think he's going to lawyer up and have a lot of money to spend. But if for some reason this guy just turned out to think he was smarter than everyone else in the room, all of these interviews that he gave, all these things are going to bite him in the ass with the SEC. Everything he said from a historic perspective is wrong. It's going to kill him. And he's going to be hung out to dry on the unregistered sales of security. Even Ripple agrees with that. Even the Ripple decision agrees with that. But what we're looking at right now, if you ask me, is the SEC is doing a DOJ while we haven't seen the DOJ drop.

We're going to see all of the interconnections. There are people who believe that, and I'm not one of these, but that the cabal of crypto is tied and can be manipulated from within by large wealth. If that's true, and we can see, and Truth Labs kind of pins this in some of his tweets, all of the guys who are turning around and are interconnected in the trading, market manipulation, and these things exist, that would be a hell of a second shoe to fall. And I can see the way we're looking at this right now, that's what we're talking about. Why isn't it a lawsuit?

This is four years old. They are so, they are reactive. They are reactive. Have you read the actual court documents? Because quite frankly, with all due respect, it sounds like you haven't at all. You've talked for three or four minutes and I haven't heard anything. Well, I'm sure you do this for a living too. Again, the court documents.

I have the court documents. I have the court documents. I had to be very specific. I don't think you did. Well, what I said was there's another two to fall. You're not listening. Detain three of the court documents because... Of course I did. You're bullshitting in front of all these people, and that's not helpful to anything.

That's good, though. That's why people like you can come on here and talk about how it's not a security. Right, and now I'm at the end of the day. And you're dodging. So I'm trying to get back to you. I 100% said yes. But let me educate everybody. I am all.

I'm going to educate everybody in this chat about the case points since David did a bad job of it. So the first thing is HEX. HEX is staking feature. This is one of the main points. Richard Hart developed a feature called staking for HEX, which allowed investors to lock up their HEX tokens. And they also talk about the 38% return. And they were very confused about how that can happen, but it's mathematical and on-chain, and that can be very easily explained. The second thing that they have a problem with are the large deposits. So between December 2019 and December 2020, they say that Hart accepted, and I quote, more

than 2.3 million Ether worth over 678 million. So to answer your question, that's how HEX comes into play here. It might not have been you, it might have been somebody else. The third thing, and this was actually very weak when I went over this on stream yesterday, I went through the entire court document. They talk about Richard Hart's knowledge of securities laws, and they're trying to use that to say that he had enough knowledge to be able to try to manipulate the system. And they're all tying that together. The next thing, misappropriation of funds. Hart and PulseChain allegedly misused $12.1 million of investors' funds. And that's how we tie in pulse chain and pulse X to this equation. So we have a timeline, HEX initially, pulse chain and pulse X.

And again, I'm reading straight from the core documents here, summary here. Expectations of profits. So they were saying that people had expectations of profits. And obviously this is playing into the Howey test and then the efforts of others and then the common enterprise thing. Hey, Rage, really quickly. And this is, I think that we all understand that we're going to, like I said, litigate this unregistered security thing

with multiple projects and nobody here is that concerned. But I mean, there's videos of him saying Hex is going to a million dollars and, you know, 40%. Yeah, he said based on the thing that Hex was built on, could it? You know what? Maybe, maybe not. It could go there.

Right, but he's the founder, right? So I think the problem is, and I'm not saying, I really don't have a judgment. I'm not deep down the rabbit hole, but like, it's semantics, right? We were arguing this yesterday. Are people sacrificing or are they investing? You should know.

It's a very important point that everybody misses all the time. It's a design feature. Hex was designed to do a 10,000x. Right, pumponomics. I remember. I can't imagine that the SEC loves the term pumponomics. This is a joke. I mean, this is a joke, especially with the videos that are out there. Did it do a 10,000x, David? Did it do a 10,000x?

That's the whole point. Just because something does a 10,000x. No, I'm asking. Your argument is that it's a joke because he said that it's designed to do a 10,000x. Did it do a 10,000x? My whole point is that you're not understanding that all I've said, and's designed to do a 10,000x. Did it do a 10,000x? My whole point is that you're not understanding that all I've said, and you're actually agreeing with me, is that there's a second shoe to fall here. The opening, and this is the civil side of it, if the criminal side is bigger than this, the whole point of what's going on right now, we all agree on this now, we've been talking about this for days, weeks, and months, is institutional different than private sale.

No one's arguing whether or not you can do a private sale, whether or not that's going to hold up. The point here is the SEC has a slam dunk on the unregistered sales. Bump, dump. We all basically agree with that. We're all crypto tokens ever. I don't agree with that.

I don't agree with that. Sorry. Don't agree. Not legal, but don't agree. Well, if you're right, then it's true for all ERC20s ever. I mean, the X chart doesn't look that different from 99% of all coin charts, right? And so, listen, you can say whatever you want, but it's disingenuous to pretend that just because something is down 90% that it was necessarily a scam because that's the entire market, which people would argue. So I don't use that as evidence that it was a scam because it went up and went down. I mean, welcome to the bear market. No, I don't think anyone was saying that.

I'm saying that all the mechanics, all the market making, all the liquidity, what is it actually when you look at it under one lens or the other? It seems to me like if anything else, most people who are intellectually honest will agree that Richard Hart made efforts to comply, to try to sneak through. I mean, I think that's his biggest problem, right? He made arguments in his head, convinced himself. Yeah, he convinced himself that they're foolproof. Right. If he in his mind said, hey, this is a sacrifice and not an investment, that would protectproof. Right. If he in his mind said, hey, this is a sacrifice and not an investment, that would protect him. Right. Everyone in the room is an ICO.

Right. There's literally a price curve. And we're all supposed to say that there wasn't a sale. Right. That's where I see him running into Trump. He made the mistake of innovating without asking the SEC's permission. And in the community, we say this all the time for the past four years, no expectations of profit from the work of others. It's been a mantra. And if anyone

who wrote this complaint would have done any research or asked literally anybody in the community, they would have heard that. You're missing the point. And I'm not saying you're wrong, but him saying it does not make it true. And I'm not even, I don't, like I said, I'm not deep down this rabbit hole. I haven't heard it, but there's plenty of people who have said, I didn't launch an unregistered security who launched unregistered security. So, following it as a mantra is irrelevant if the SEC views it as an ICO and everyone views it as an ICO, just the language is irrelevant. I mean, if it was launched and people invested their money, and especially if he then took that money out. And again, these are allegations. I have no facts. But if he then took that money out to buy the most expensive diamond in the world, it doesn't make a world fuck of difference if he did it as marketing or if he did it without the proper language, that is fraud. And I'm not saying he did that, but if he did that, that is going to be fraud.

So it doesn't matter if there was a mantra in the community that said, oh, by the way, guys, this is not a security offering just because we say so. No, no, no. It's critical that everything is being viewed as an unregistered security offering. So you take that with a grain of salt. I don't like the SEC. It's critical to us as hexagons in the community that we take that to heart because we have to do all the work. Everything in Hex is built and designed and backed by the community. And that's the only way we're going to be a decentralized cryptocurrency. So it really kind of helped shape our thinking. And it was informed and instructed by the Howey test, which is why we understand that Richard Hart doesn't work for us.

He's never going to work for us. And so this is how we kind of... To no offense, him saying it could go to a million dollars. It's him. I hear that every day about Bitcoin. He's a community participant. He's a community participant. Yes, but you don't hear Satoshi Nakamoto saying it. You know, but I hear you're talking about it a lot.

Like I hear a lot of people talking about it. I didn't create it. I didn't launch Bitcoin. So listen, I'm not even trying to argue in principle. It's just not the same thing. It's not the same thing. He is the founder of Hex, correct? So the Excel excels with what you can or cannot do is different.

That's all I'm saying. Yeah. I'm just going to zoom in here and ask the question before I start insulting people. Model, how do you feel about funding that person's lifestyle? How do you feel about funding Elon Musk or any other person's wealthy lifestyle? Elon Musk has cars. It's a good question. Let me take this back. So the Hex adoption amplifier was rumored to take in

a million Ethereum, right? And so Richard Hart called the top on the day for Ethereum two weeks in advance. And so if he sold a million ETH, that's $4.6 billion. That's not the Pulse chain sacrifice. That's not the Pulse X sacrifice. And that's not him mining full 50 Bitcoin block rewards back in 2011, or the fortune that he amassed before he retired. So this is his lifestyle. What you saw for that year of the bear market, where he's buying all this stuff with Flexin and wanting. That was him doing outreach marketing to overcome the gatekeeping and all of the censorship, which is legendary in the crypto. Dude, that's all totally fine. I agree with you. I thought that was great marketing. The question

will only be whether he did that with his own money or with you. Can I finish one thing? Can I finish one thing? And all of that outrage marketing just paid dividends yesterday and today and going forward because it was irrelevant that he's now he says, stay humble. That was irrelevant because he's been humble for six months now and not posting like that and not doing that. And he still got the SEC complaint and everyone still came out and showed pictures of him wanting and flexing and doing all this stuff. Do you think the SEC cares whether you did it before or in the last six months? I'm sorry, man.

That is completely irrelevant. What I'm saying is I don't care. I understand the tactics and the purposes to overcome the gatekeeping and censorship that is rampant in this community because we've experienced nothing but the cold shoulder of crypto for the past four years. We're not listed anywhere.

Why do you think that is? And listen, I don't have even a judgment on that. Because we get to promote, market, flaunt, flex, and stunt 38% APY yield. And you can't do that anywhere. And the next level is, what's better than passive income paid to your cold storage wallet? What's better than that? There is nothing better than passive income. It's the whole... I don't know.

It's the income that you earned and doesn't get lost in your wallet. That's what triggers people. They're like, where's this 38% APY? How does a coin that employs 3.69% pay on average 38% APY? People need to look into that and understand that that's what's going on here. Yeah, listen, I don't disagree with... I don't think that's the point. Either it's provably true that he used his own money or he used all this money to bait. No, well, look, he's smart. So if he knew he has money, if he used that, the world's like literally almost like a caricature was with that money. He either used his own money or he was. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but either used his own money or he was

using the SEC. I'm not saying it was a good idea, but like I said, I think he's convinced himself of some legal argument that may or may not be novel. That's the risk he faces. I highly doubt that's his money, and if it was LeRae's money, then he

meant for it to be a bait. Yeah, I think that all, like I said, I think I understand that it was a marketing tool. Great. I understand that. I understand that he is exceptionally wealthy and bought the diamond. If he made a mistake and bought that with user funds, that's highly problematic for him. That's all I'm saying. Go ahead, Action. I agree with you, Scott. And like, Matt, I appreciate you going off and letting us know what the hexagons really feel like. For the 6,500 people that are in here, this is going to play off really well. And let me go ahead and do the ascending all the way around.

At this point, unfortunately, Richard Hart is just as bad as SPf as at least with his mindset because that altruistic mindset that everyone else sucks and i'm the only one who's going to say no no no i'm getting i'm getting i'm going to step in i'm going to step in there so you can't compare spf to richard hart where richard hart was was very transparent about what he was raising money for he told you that the money that you're sending to him is a sacrifice He made every commitment that he made he actually got out He said he's going to build pulse chain and he built pulse chain. He said he's gonna build politics He built politics. Okay, Sam Bankman freed on the other hand didn't tell people what he was doing was a liar

misappropriated user funds in his account Against the terms of exchange of the agreement. You cannot compare the two. You cannot compare the two. Sorry, we've got to keep credibility in the spaces. We've got to make sure that people don't just come here and yap off garbage. We have to hold the spaces accountable.

And to come in here and to just, on a whim, just say that Rich Rod is a government for you this is uh richard is coming to send back for you is not something that we're going to conduct and i'm not sticking up for richard because i don't really care about richard but i do care about people coming in here and just trying to chase cloud by talking so but we don't know so not on the brand actually hold on we don't know what richard has done though ran that was a great speech but we don't know what he's done we don't know like there's a whole no we don We don't know. There's a whole thread that I just pinned above that goes through a very serious allegation

that could all be false. But to make the statement that Richard, I'm not saying Richard is the same as Sam. I'm not saying he's different. We just don't know enough. With Sam, there's been a long time since FDX. You cannot compare because Richard Hart delivered literally everything that he said

he was going to deliver. He was transparent about it. Let me just ask you something. If you go through? Well, Sam did build one of the biggest exchanges, so he did deliver something. Now, while delivering this... No, no, no. FD, hold on.

No, no. We got, we got, what, before? No, no. What is it? The difference is, the difference is, everyone lost their money at FTX because FTX told them to give them their private keys. And while we, the hexagons, earned passive interest in the next Bitcoin to our cold storage wallet through all the cartage of 2022 and the hundreds of other projects that were wrecked and lost, that's the difference. We self-custody and earn passive income. So if you find out, but Mara, can I have a question? Mara, if we find out that Richard took $50 million or $100 million, let's say $50 million

out of PulseChain into his own personal wallet, if you find that out and it's free of all the blockchain, I'm not saying... He told you he was going to do that. He told you he was going to do that. Mara, he literally said he's going to... Hold on, he said he's going to... So you got to educate... Yeah, go ahead, Mara.

He said if you give money to this contract, you're sacrificing your money. You should expect nothing in return. We don't commit to anything. Nothing. He did that. He literally said that. That's different.

The money that was sacrificed and the money that was sent to the adoption, they will never benefit you. He said it's literally a sacrifice. Then I agree with you. I think that level of transparency makes sense. Can somebody explain to me then, and this is a genuine question, no judgment, because I know people are going to crawl up our ass, but how does that then square with saying,

you know, this thing's going to a million dollars, you'll make this much money, 38% interest. How do you say, hey, we're giving 38% yield on something, you'll never get money back? But he was transparent. It's a novel legal argument. Made it before. No one's given away and said these things. So that's why I think there's risk. It's really accurate. So you got to put it in comparison to the things you guys are all familiar with. If you're already familiar with Bitcoin and you say, I'm going to run a mining farm, I'm going to have hundreds of miners. I'm going to earn a certain percentage of the Bitcoin supply over the coming year. And then you project that out, let's say seven years on average and say, I'm never going to redeem my Bitcoin.

I'm simply going to collect my Bitcoin. And then in seven years, I'm going to redeem it for market value. Whatever the market is pricing Bitcoin in seven years, that is my yield over seven years. That's not a sacrifice. It's not a sacrifice. No, I'm explaining the code. I'm explaining the code and the protocol since everyone that doesn't have hex logo gradients doesn't really get. They don't actually go look at the contract.

They don't actually go to Etherscan. They don't actually ask anybody that understands math or solidity. They simply project their own bags. That's what happens in these spaces. So if you actually look at the contract itself, or maybe the hundreds of hours that Richard put out there, or thousands of hours of people that are not Richard put out there explaining exactly how the contracts work, right? And the fact that it's all on-chain. You know, what the space is about is because people don't like Richard and his abrasive, outraged kind of personality.

He holds a mirror up to... Actually, let's move away from the personality. This is the part I like about him. It's just so fucking funny. But, Ryan, I want to go back to the point you made. It's interesting that...

Then how can he misappropriate funds if he said these funds that's what i'm saying that's what i'm saying you think mario look there's a whole legal argument i'm not a lawyer and i don't know how the sec is going to hold up on this and i don't know who's going to win but he literally said if you put the money into x you're not investing anything you're sacrificing your money in fact with pulse chain some of what the contributors did was actually donate like $20 million or $30 million to a charity. Like literally, you are giving money

to a charity. You're not an investor. So my question, let me go So it's a legal concept. It's not sacrifice. There's no legal concept called sacrifice. He's invented. There is one called donating without any without any so what uh expectation or anyone in the film

yeah this is very important right now and this is the importance of words okay because in the documentation the court documentation the sec is trying to make the assertion that richard hart was telling people that there was going to be, they had some sort of expectation. However, if you know Richard Hart and you've listened to his videos, the most commonly used phrase of Richard Hart is, hey, no expectations. Okay. And that goes back to the Howey test. Now, I know you guys don't want to talk about that, but I do want to talk about the words that matter. Now, to answer you, Scott, I think you made a really good point, Scott. You talked about the

$12.1 million, whether or not that was for his own personal gain or marketing. Well, I will say this, it's going to be very difficult to prove in court that it wasn't for marketing, as Richard was saying that on stream quite a bit. And if that money wasn't his, it still doesn't matter because he specifically said from the start, absolutely no expectations. And that quote, they quoted him tons in the court documentation. That quote showed up nowhere, and it's probably his number one quote of all time. And I wonder why. Yeah, so David, why do you think all these strategies didn't work? Like why, if he says you should not expect anything in return,

you're sacrificing that money, why then would they go after him for misappropriation of funds? Are they just trying to find something? What am I missing here? David, are you looking for more? We haven't, no. David's looking for more breaking. Oh, there he is.

No, no, okay. So, you know, I'm just like, you know, thinking about First of all, if they're, and this is Like, you know, Tezos, we said this yesterday Tezos, you were not just buying a Tote bag when you bought Tezos You know, I get, you know, he said a lot Of good things, and again, you Know, there's something missing

From this complaint, because Unlike everything else we've seen with the SEC, with the internal emails, the internal things, the videos, there are a lot of different things out there. We're still missing something here. And if this is ultimately all they have, and I said this yesterday, for a guy worth all these millions, you know, the $12 million, he would have just simply stroked the check 12 million dollars and this never would have happened something's missing so yeah i said there's a second leg can the sec have a second lawsuit can they do two lawsuits i thought they put everything into one well no they well one they can always amend but two it's the issue of and like you said these are all allegations of what you know know, the interconnected, what the Truth Lab has posted. Who knows what's true and what's not? Look, it's a huge jump to jump up to SPF. And I agree that,

you know, you can't dilute when bad people do bad things. One of the things Richard did was say and come up with novel terms like the sacrifice. That's not going to win the day in court that he called it just because you call something. And I've been saying this for years, an ICO sounds like an IPO. You know, it doesn't matter. A safe, when you're invested in a safe, well, it's not really safe. Just because you use the right terminology and say it sometimes, once you say something wrong once, that's all the SEC needs. And then we're going to start seeing the internal documentation. It's not there yet. So that's why I think, Mario, you're having such a hard time because you're sitting there and you're listening to a lot of people who are saying all the right things he said. It does seem superficially weaker right now. You know, when they came out with the

Coinbase and they came out with the Binance in the last couple of weeks and what they have with Ripple, the initial punches they threw were a lot harder than the punch they threw here. And that's why I believe, because I am an old school believer that the SEC wouldn't do something this week. They're going to have more in the future. And if they don't, then look, maybe Richard walks and gets rid of it. Let's just assume he accidentally took the 12 million. He strokes the check, pays a penalty, and moves on. I've got to believe there's something wrong. Would you, so, is it common for the SEC

to have two legs to a lawsuit? Well, the criminal and the civil are always different. We still don't know. Ah, so you're talking about the DOJ, not the SEC again. Mainly the DOJ. Exactly. Yeah, so, like, let's just... But then you see, but no, by there, but yeah, but David, by next year, we saw the DOJ. Exactly. Yeah. So like, let's just, but then you'd see, but no, but yeah, but David,

in Binance, yeah, we saw the DOJ follow the SEC, but then the SEC was a lot, had a lot more meat in it than we're seeing here. Like this one just seems too empty for the DOJ to have anything.

That's all the SEC could have on a single case. I don't know what's left for a criminal case. No, the CFTC was the weak one. The SEC was stronger. We still haven't seen the DOJ in Binance.

I'm talking about Richard. With Binance, the SEC had a lot of meat. With Richard, the SEC doesn't have a lot of meat. Did you see that tweet? Before anyone jumps in, that one by Shkreli, I've tweeted it above. Did you see that one talking about page 90 of the sentencing guidelines is already above 40 points? Well, his point is he'd have to be found for each individual investment, for each investor, he'd have to be tied to that. And then his

investment in his sentencing memorandum would be sky high. He's right on the technicality, but he's assuming they're proving that each individual investment was a criminal, could be held criminally liable, then he'd be in life. But again, that's so far down the rabbit hole. We're nowhere near that yet. Can I, would you, if I had to make you, you had to make a guess, David, two options and you put money in it, would you say Richard won or Richard is screwed?

Which one would you put money on? You know, but I want to say if John Dillon was here, I would have also said he was screwed. Which one would you put money on? the videos. They're going to get him because we're separating out the unregistered sale of the security. So I do think he's screwed. He loses on that. But right now, I don't see anything where he should be shaking in the boots going to jail just yet. I do think there's another punch to be thrown. I don't think we're done. Early in the game. David, I appreciate that insight. I've got to say I didn't think I was going to send Rand that quickly, but to finish that point, as far as SPF to, you know, ascend Rand that quickly. But to finish that point, as far as SBF goes, the difference, and this is important, the difference is that

SBF partnered with governments and institutions. Richard was not looking to do that. He was looking to empower people. Like that's the biggest difference. So their altruistic views are similar, but I'm not saying that Richard was going out and trying to scam people. That's a point that's super important here. And I'll bring it to the whole curve thing. And the problem is that Richard's not going to get a bailout like Curved did. Like that Telegram group that I was watching last night that had a lot of people in it with a lot of money in it.

And just let's buy 3 million, 2 million. And money was just being tossed around to stop the bleeding. Richard doesn't have all of those friends that are willing to, you know, get in a telegram group and say, hey, if we spend 100 million, you know, we're going to save, you know, the whole ecosystem. Investigation and everything. You can't speak to that. You can't speak to that.

And I can't speak to that. You don't know who Richard's friends are. You don't know that Richard is the O.A. or not. You don't know what he spent, if he took a mortgage against his castle to buy a fucking diamond. You can't speculate about what he is or who he has relationships with.

Well, he didn't donate his life to the SBF. SBF a lot. But also, can you guys hear me? There's also, with Curve, which I think we'll get into later, but there is a much wider risk of contagion for the entire DeFi ecosystem that doesn't necessarily exist if there's a problem with PECs. And I would say that that's the reason that people were aggressively looking to bail that out, not because of the individual.

What would you bet on, Scott? I know that Eric was trying to come up. I've just sent him an invite, by the way. So Eric, I've just DM'd you an invite if you've got time to jump on before we move on from Hex. But if you had to bet money, what would it be that he... Oh, there's Eric. There's zero reason

at this moment to believe that he's going to jail because there's no criminal. Let's go speculating, man. That's what we do every day. That's the fun part. Before you move to Eric, which again, I appreciate Eric's commentary. I really do. I think he tries to speak on behalf of people that might not want to put a voice into the Hex ecosystem.

But before you move to Eric, could you consider Mind Your Biz, which is Seth? Seth just interviewed the documentarians that spent two and a half years in Richard's presence, castle all over the world. And I think that he might have some insight on at least some of the, maybe even the information that the SEC may be curious about, like what happened,

what happened over the past two and a half years so if anybody can be nominated to speak it is Mind Your Business that's already on stage I think it's amazing, Mind Your Business, I think you have two great speakers Mind Your Business I think Mind Your Business I think he glitched out, I'm just trying to send him another invite, he's in the audience

I'm going to bring him up there, he is I'm adding him Eric, him another invite. He's in the audience. I'm going to bring him up. There he is. I'm adding him. Yeah, yeah. I've added him as well. Eric, good to have you. Hey, guys. I was just reading a back and forth between you, Martin, and Shkreli and we were talking about it. Did you hear us talk about that back and forth earlier in the show?

Yeah, I joined a couple of minutes ago. I heard a little bit. Yeah, so we're just going... I've brought it up twice now and I was going through the last comment comment by martin because you asked him for clarification to elaborate on on his uh on the when martin scrilly said that richard will be looking at life and he says well if you look at page 90 the sentencing guidelines is already at 40 above 40 points which if you look up the sentencing chart is the same pdf is recommended life sentence with all the victims it's a rough situation if he gets scuffed.

And I think David was just saying that that assumes that each investor would be looked at as a, what is it, David, how did you explain it? Like a criminal investment? Yeah, in order for the criminal guideline for him to get life, what he was saying is that they would look at how much money you steal, and so he'd be convicted of a crime, and then he'd be convicted that each investment

was a fraudulent investment, and then that money would accumulate so high he'd be off the charts on the sentencing guidelines. Before jumping into this conversation, I just want to make it clear that, same as Elon, I don't respect the SEC. I am not convinced that going from the model where everyone used to be able to do these ICOs and retail,

we're able to participate them to this model now where it's just a bunch of funds and VCs and institutions that participates in these rounds. And then retail only gets to buy the top. And then it's downhills from there, as with these Aptos and all those other projects. I'm not advocating that that's a better model. I think that there are negatives to both these models. But the matter of the fact is, in this situation, we are in a climate where it's deemed as illegal to offer ICOs to people, basically. We know that that's not allowed. There's no one, especially not those who make these ICOs open to the public that are allowed to do that. that so i don't think that you know regardless of what you think of it or not and i'm definitely not

a fan uh of authoritarian um you know authoritarian um enforcement here but it we are living in that world where this is not allowed you're not allowed to do an ico to the public anymore and i think that it was unfortunately very very clear that rich did that and as much as you can say like as much as you can have this language that this is a sacrifice I mean it was I speak with hexagons all the time and you know it's like

a meme in the hexagon culture that you know I sacrificed and I didn't have expectations of course you had expectations because even on the even on the post chainChain website, it says that if you sacrifice this amount, you get this many points. And these points will later turn into how many PulseChain tokens you get. But that's like, I mean, if you really sacrifice for nothing in return,

then why are you talking about how many coins you get? Why are you talking about this sort of amplification and bonus scheme that talks about the more you donate early the more points you get later that's it's completely obvious that that is an ico and it's also targeting sort of the weakest in society like if you compare this to the luna crash or something like that where i think the similar amounts of capital bottom, we're talking about like $50 billion of each. I think that the difference between Luna and this example here is that Hex specifically targeted sort of the weakest retail in society.

They employed these marketing schemes where they sent out physical letters that ended up in mailboxes to people that weren't that savvy when it came to crypto. So for that reason, this is a more pernicious case of targeting people that aren't qualified to sort of defend themselves and sort of vet these deals. And how many people knew, like if you participated in the Pulse Chain launch, which marketed itself as a copy of ethereum if you participated in that race and then in the last like 30 minutes of the race richard donates 13 billion hex to himself in the donation so that your portion of the pulse chain tokens that you got the points that you were sacrificing for just shrunk into this five percent bucket so that everyone that donated actually only got five percent of of the total supply and that would be fair and fine if it wasn't for the fact that Richard is actually accessing those funds. There was a transaction on the Pulse Chain blockchain where you can see that funds were being moved from the Pulse Chain original supply,

and there were tens of millions of dollars that were being sold openly on the PulseX market. So it's not like this is just some dormant supply that's never touched. That supply is actually being used. And it also turns PulseChain into the most centralized blockchain in the world. Because you can't have a proven stake blockchain and one person owns 95%. So as much as I don't like the SEC, I have no respect for the SEC. I don't think that this ball is better. We did go like completely

against if everyone has to follow those rules I don't think we should be surprised that Richard also has to follow those rules that being said though the reason that I'm sort of emotional in that interaction with Shkreli is because the moment that I realized that this is not only

a civil case, there is a chance that there's a parallel Eastern District case or Southern District case or Department of Justice criminal enforcement action also going on, it just, the whole relationship that I have with Richard sort of flashed before my eyes and I remember all the interactions that I had with the guy and then I think about

okay, so bad things might happen to Richard Richard might go to prison for life, worst case and as much as I'm not going to be out protesting on the streets and saying that Richard is innocent but as a person who has some personal relationship with him I'm not going to be laughing or trying to make it worse when that happens. I think he is in the clutches of the government right now, and he is going to

get probably a harsh sentencing, civil or criminal, and at least my job here is done to the point where I don't feel like I need to be putting fuel under the fire. He's already lost.

Eric, what do you think of Richard? Let's put the case aside. Let's put whether or not it's a security aside. I think that those discussions will be had in good time by good lawyers, I'm assuming. I want you to tell me about your thoughts about the person. I think it's interesting to compare Richard to other people that we are familiar with, like Doe Kong and Mashinsky and SBF or Russ Albright. I would say that as much as I don't like SBF and i think that he's a scammer i think that he deserves justice coming to him and it's terrible what he did i don't think that spf should be for the rest of his life behind bars like i think 20 years behind bars is good enough of a punishment

and a deterrent uh for other people to commit the same crime i think that the u.s justice system is inhumane so that regardless like what i think about these people i crime i think that the u.s justice system is inhumane so that regardless like what i think about these people i don't think that anyone deserves or to sit for the rest of their life behind bars that's just the u.s punishment just sounds so inhumane i agree tell me about richard you've you've interviewed him many times you guys seemed like you had a love-hate relationship tell me about how you characterize the person I think you're a good judge of people's character

walk me through how you characterize the person, is he a scammer? does he have good intentions? is he smart? is he dumb? walk me through it well still I think it's helpful to put it into relation to Do Kwon so Do Kwon, you could say about Do Kwon that Do Kwon actually believed in his stablecoin. He believed that a decentralized stablecoin was beneficial to society. He believed that he could build it and he believed if he could build big enough of a Bitcoin a Bitcoin

bag that he could defend the peg and so you know you could say about Do Kwon that he actually believed in this and I think that Richard Hart believed in the end like not initially this is he has admitted to that initially when Hex was called Bitcoin

Hex and was just going to be like one of those Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Gold or whatever forks. That was sort of the original idea of Hex. Then that was a scam. But then when he got cracking with this problem of sort of designing

Hex and inventing this self-insulating staking mechanism, then I grappled with it for years. Richard pitched this idea to me, and I'm like, do you think I'm fucking stupid? Why are you doing this? Why are you pitching this?

You know me, Richard knows me. How the fuck could he think that I would be interested in a coin that you just lock up and you make more of the same coin? Obviously, Richard knows that I'm smarter than knowing that that is interesting, so why would he pitch it to me? So I battled with this for years, trying to understand,

does Richard actually like this invention that he has made? And what I learned in the end was that Richard really did believe that, I mean yes this is a self-inflating coin is bullshit but it does attract you know the stupidest the dumbest you know intuitions of people it attracts

you know it captures the stupidity that is inherent in mankind and for that reason it is actually a good it is a good project because yes I think that you're a prick and i've heard you say that quite a few times and i'm gonna i'm gonna come on record saying this that's that's really messed up because based on my experience and based on your experience because you've been in the same rooms with a bunch of hex skins for years and i know you have

these are not stupid people these are not trailer part people and i'm tired of you saying that these are some of the smartest hardest working uh members of society from each echelon top to bottom and i think it's disingenuous what the fuck are you talking about like hex people are on the smartest people in the excellent actual society are they are one jesus fucking christ no they're not no they're not they run circles around 95 percent of crypto guaranteed heck and i'm tired as a person next there's a personality cult around richard it's a simp it's a bunch of people that are like if you like financial if you like financial domination if you like financial domination you send your money around us if you want to go to

parties with us if you want to chill with us and then call us trailer park trash in front of thousands of people, then maybe you need to bounce, dude. There are a bunch of hexicans that are living in trailer parks. Go up on Twitter, search for MrSilverTooth and read his story about being a hex OG. A bunch of hex OGs are like that. I don't know where you're coming from. There are a bunch of people in hex that are coming from about and you're sticking to a really messed

up narrative that really spits in the face of thousands and thousands of people and i think it's very disingenuous of you i do appreciate your work to throw a compliment in there but i hate that part about you man it's really messed up and i do take a sense to it. Yeah. Can I push back on some of the narratives that he's making as asserting? It's like, you know, Hart targets the weakest among us to self-custody, right? We're talking about self-custody. We're promoting self-custody while broader crypto is destroying the lives of the weakest among us and getting them to trust middlemen and counterparties. Hex has a huge admin key in the form of Richard Hart. Richard Hart can control the inflation rate of Hex at any time.

He can turn it from 30% to 2% with just unstaking or staking his own Hex. He can capture all the Hex rewards if he wants to. It's the biggest sense of admin key in a project. If he disappears, Hex will go to zero. If he goes to jail, Hex will crash. Paul Shane won't work. Richard Hart is the middle man. Yes, it is.

Richard Hart controls 95% of the supply of a proof-of-stake coin. Richard Hart controls 95% of the supply of a proof-of-stake coin. That is the largest sense of admin key there is. You're lying. It's an admin key. Can somebody please eat him? Like, I want to eat him. Does Richard or does he not control 95% of the supply in a proof of stake?

You don't know. We don't know. Yes, you do. Yes, you do. You do know. How do we know? You do know because Hexagon is going to be all the time. The reason that they're passionate about tax and post shit

is because Mr. Koshy has a million tokens. A million Bitcoin, right? But you don't know that Satoshi doesn't have 500,000 extra. You don't know. You weren't mining. You don't know what... Bitcoin is not a proof of stake. Bitcoin is not a proof of stake.

Bitcoin is not a proof of stake. Bitcoin is not a proof of stake currency....dumping you at the top of a market, but you don't know when... Bitcoin is not a proof of stake currency, so the more coins you own in Bitcoin, this thing gives you influence over the consensus mechanism. In the hash chain, in the pulse chain, 95% if you own 95% of the supply, you literally can control the consensus mechanism.

It is an admin key. All of Rich's products are centrally controlled because owning the supply literally can control the consensus mechanism. It is an admin key. All of Rich's products are centrally controlled because owning the supply... What Eric's saying is actually right. From a technical point of view, you're kind of like you're saying... I'm trying to push back on it because it's a mirage. Okay?

So pulse chain, like you said, being the most centralized chain, would have to sped up 30,000 nodes using its majority supply to then commandeer the chain. And then what everyone always forgets, which is what Hark just flexed in front of all of crypto and showed us how to do it properly, is we can always fork. The community can always fork and figure out what's happening if something wants to be evil. But for every single day that the origin address, it doesn't stake 90% of the hex that it controls. Everybody else who's in the pool is earning 38 plus percent APY a year.

And that's been going on for four years now. And so he can sit there and paint this picture like he always does, but it's not the truth. It's not the reality. It's not what's happening on the ground. This comes out of Richard's mouth himself. What happens to all those tokens if he dies? Ran asked me what I think about Richard, and as someone who knows Richard, Richard knows and has said himself that these apy these self-inflating apys are not

actually like real economic yield it attracts the dumbest in society they are chasing after these yields and gets them to congregate around this one coin and that's hex that is like straight out of is that trust bitcoin mount themselves? Because it seems like people chase through mining and electrical and labor and shareholding. You can't compare a proof-of-work chain and a proof-of-stake chain, guys. You can't compare a proof-of-work chain and a proof-of-stake chain. It's just technologically you can't compare them. The one has the more tokens that you have, the more validators you control. You can own as many Bitcoin as you want. You don't control one mining machine and therefore you don't control the consensus. One bit. The discussion around, you know, when you make an argument around proof of work

and proof of stake and you make the comparison that people that own Bitcoin are in the same position as people that own a lot of pulse, you discredit yourself because you show that you don't have a technical understanding. You don't have a technical understanding. And the problem is that the core of your argument basically falls flat and becomes discredited. And you can't compare that. Yeah, let me jump off of you really fast and just pardon the interruption there.

I just really wanted to get a word in here. So I might be the only person on stage who described in detail in a whiteboard explainer video how the first version of Pulse was architected. And I'm not going to chop wood or carry water for anybody here. I was curious enough that I dug through the documentation and then I made a whiteboard explainer video because I felt like people would need it explained like they're five. Even semi-technical people, even people who are reasonably intelligent within the crypto ecosystem would want to have an Eli-5 explanation of how Pulse Chain was architected at that time. It's since changed, right? So some of the primitives that would have held true, the game theory that Eric just laid out of 95% centralized ownership being a de facto,

like being tantamount to full control of the chain would have absolutely held true had they stayed the course with development, just forking BSC and then mapping the chain state, copying chain state of Ethereum and mapping it onto that fork of BSC. Well, they changed

and they went to what the current development state of Ethereum is. It's the same situation in Ethereum 2.0. If you own 95% of the supply, it's the same. What does it matter? The only reason that it matters, the only reason that it matters, the only reason that the only reason that the only reason that the only reason that- The whole same word. Yeah. So, okay. Well, let me give a little more backstory then. I started my content stream talking exclusively about proof of work. And yeah, so, I mean, it's not like I'm ignorant to what that means. And that's false equivalence. Why would you even bother mentioning the comparison when we were talking about a proof of stake chain? That's disingenuous. But I wanted to ask you a question, Eric, because you know Richard very well. And so it's likely

that you can shed more light on this than other people can. Why do you think he's doing all of that? Where do you think it goes? What is his incentive to rug pull? What is his incentive to commit massive fraud with that centralized ownership? Yeah. I was walking you through the psychology of Richard before you guys started interrupting. I can continue. No, actually, you weren't even talking before, but go ahead. Yeah. So Richard designs Hex and convinces himself that actually these mechanisms, while they

are appealing to not necessarily clever people, and I maintain that point, they do bring attraction to the project. He's said a bunch of times that he's using a bunch of MLM tactics to get people into a coin and then not rumple them. So he's using these tactics that he knows works on the primitive sense of people's psychology, and that's his tactic. And he's open with that. Okay, that's fine. That's Richard's project. Okay. Then when he programmed this... Sorry, he didn't program. When this contract was programmed, if you look at the source code of Hex, it's not the most efficiently programmed solidity contract that was ever written, there's tons of inefficiencies in the

contract code itself. So when people try to unstake HEX during the bull market, it did cost like $600 just to end the stake in HEX. So if you have that issue that you have a bunch of people that you got into HEX and now they can't even afford to unstake it because of the gas fees, then it is sort of rational to say okay i'm gonna copy the entire state of this chain and then and then launch another system with it where the fees are going to be lower you know that that's a perfectly rational reasonable thing to do he didn't necessarily need to raise a billion dollars for it from retail people, but that's Richard. Hey, like Richard is an excellent guy at combining, you know, what's good for people with what is really good for himself and convincing himself that, you know, that's fair and that he needs that.

I personally don't think that he did need to raise like a billion dollars for Pulse X when he could have spent like 100k getting the system up and running with a developer from fiverr but you know hey you know that that's me uh so i i would say like characterizing richard it's a it's a it's a convoluted picture because you have an extreme narcissist but you don't necessarily have i I don't think that there's necessarily evil and malintent. There's definitely this ability to forgive himself for telling

people, for example, that Hex can't go down in value. That's such an extremely arrogant thing to say that I put Hex in a liquidity pool with a bunch of USDC and then there's this magic formula which I'm going to call Hart's Law, which says that now Hex is not going to be correlated to the rest of the crypto market. If you want to be attended to the interests of your community, you would tell people that, hey, this is risky, don't put in more than you can afford to lose but he was saying that hex was pointed to a million dollars with a conservative line and that it was decorrelated from the rest of crypto so

it's not going to be it's not going to go down in a bull market because it's going to be anchored to the usdc price so i mean he did uh that was that was sort of the issue with richard that he did give you a lot of valuable smart advice uh He did say a lot of reasonable and true things, but embedded into those things that he was saying, he was also putting these thermonuclear bombs of advice, which was that my coin is the best thing in the world

and you can't go wrong, staking basically your entire wealth in this coin and locking it up for 15 years and not hedging your risk at all. That's sort of how this thing becomes pernicious. So I don't mind Mashinsky going to prison for the rest of his life because I think it's an awful person. Somehow some people would say that Richard also deserves that, but I think that Richard has redeeming qualities. I don't think that he... I don't know.

I think he deluded himself in certain cases. I think that he was narcissistic. I think that he got hubris. But I think that he had a heart. He was not an awful human being in all sense of the words. He was an entertaining, a smart, and a really interesting character. He still is. So for that reason, having my relationship with him flash before my eyes

when I read from Shrelly that he could potentially face a sentence of life behind bars, it does make me sad. It makes me sad that Richard took... That he flew so close to the sun and took a bit off a way bigger bite than he can chew and took so many people with him and told them basically not to you know, to be prudent

with their risks and told them that this was going to be uncorrelated and that this was going to revolutionize the world I just think that the whole thing is pretty sad, I think that it's hard to paint Richard with one brush because he had multitudes inside himself as many of us do

so I'm not going to say that he was a horrible person I want to thank you for alleviating all of us of the delusion that the Hex price can't go down because of Hart's Law. I really appreciate you summing that up for it you did a really good

just to explain it. Man, that is not what Hart's law is supposed to outline. That's not what Hart's law is pointing at, right? That's literally what it is. That is literally what it is. I have video clips from him that I can upload where he says that the next time that the crypto market goes down, HEX is not going to be correlated to that because while the rest of the market is crashing, you're anchored to the USDC price and you're just going to be sitting there and being like, hey, how's the free fall going, everybody?

That's verbatim words from Richard's mouth. That is what he said. That is exactly what he said. I will float HEXsearch.io. Anyone can go and use HEXsearch.io and that's going to pull from all of Richard Hart's videos, and any word or anything that you want to see to kind of like zero in on what he's talking about. Yeah, I would recommend others to do the same, actually. I would recommend other people do the same. One specific instance where he didn't like suss out his words perfectly. Okay. So go to hexsearch.io, search for how's the free fall billing everybody.

And he'll go exactly to the thing that I'm talking about. All of the hecticans cannot, uh, believe that, that, that hex cannot fall because of Hart's law, the hex price. That's all. That's the mass delusion that we're under because of your cherry pick assertion of what's Hart, of what Hart's law is. And so, I mean, I mean, yeah. Okay. So, I mean, okay, so here's another clip from Richard, this discussion right now, like that, like, I think the other things that Eric has been bringing up, and I think in

general, everyone who is not part of the hexagon universe is bringing up just a whole lot of misrepresentations. I mean, for one, the supply centralization, it's been widely known and widely discussed that yes, that the OA has a large amount of the supply, but all they can do with that is

influence the stake rewards. And it's like I personally believe, and I was tweeting about this last week. And nuke the price to zero. And nuke the price to zero forever. It's like an admin. He can run the project to zero at any time.

So it's an admin. So why are you preaching about decentralization and trustlessness? If you really cared about that, then why doesn't he burn the OA supplier? He has to answer those. There's no need to. And you're right that it could be sold. And you don't need to burn your admin keys in a DeFi project either if you trust the founder.

Oh, DeFi is so good. But what you're suggesting about the inflation that he can toggle, he can toggle the rewards, but he has to bear the risk of doing that. Because if he wants to lower the inflation rate, which I personally think should be the case, I think the OA stakes way too little. The OA should be way more... He's an outspoken proponent of not... The rewards are... I think the rewards could potentially be too high. If HECK had an admin key, then what could you do with the admin key?

You could probably change the rewards. The admin key, where Richard Hart uses the admin key that Eric is talking about. Let's see what that looks like. So 90% of the hacks can get locked for a day or 5,555 days, which he would enter the share pool

and then the shares would be cut across the board. So everybody in the share pool would receive the same haircut. It wouldn't mute the inflation. It would just minimize it and it would lower the inflation across the whole spectrum of HEX as a currency, right? Then what could also happen is he could end that stake early. And then what would happen is 50% of the HEX that he locked would go to the origin address as a penalty that goes to the origin address,

and the other half would go to the people in the share pool. That's the other side of what could happen if Hart uses his admin keys, as Eric likes to put it. It's not an admin key. You can't mute the inflation in the HEX contract. if Hart uses his admin keys, as Eric likes to put it. It's not an admin key. You can't mute the inflation in the HEX contract. Okay. Dude, there are people that stake their HEX for 15 years based on APY figures that Richard has marketed.

And if he can change the 38% to like 2% by pressing a button, that's an admin key. If he can make the price of Hex go down from a market cap of a billion dollars down to zero forever, that's an admin key. It's an economical admin key. You still haven't answered the question, what incentive

does he have for that? It's already... It doesn't matter which incentive... Incentive doesn't matter. You can get... Okay, so I mean, again, let's just go back to it and say that you cannot be preaching

decentralization and telling people decentralization is good and then create a project where you can single-handedly control the project, control the staking rates, control the... You can control anything. You can control anything. You can control anything.

So I've got to agree with Eric here that in this case, there's really no justification for not burning the keys or burning the extra tokens. Hold on. And that supply is locked for 15 years and there's nothing that can happen.

And so that move has been made. It's not some point. I think you're missing the point. You're missing the point. Listen, he may be a trustworthy person, but you can't claim decentralization and also say it's all good because we trust the guy who has

the keys and has all the controls. Well, let me give you a great example. Let me give the controls. Well, let me give you a great example. Let me give you a great example. Let me give you a great example. It is alleged that in the multi-chain hack, the founder is in police custody, and it is alleged that the Chinese police are in control of the fence. Now, the same could happen to Richard. He could go to um he could go to jail and maybe the cops would get his keys i don't know i don't know how that would happen but

it could it could be um and then then the whole project is in the hands of the police how would you feel about that well i i didn't have parties or hold sure T is is not something where if you just take possession of him that you now have possession of Keith that's trust again though that the point is more like you're missing the point then she's still with that much at stake and that much to lose wouldn't know hex is not centralized because we trust Richard is that exactly right and this hill this is why I'm saying this is why'm saying that Hex preys on the dumbest in society because we hear these arguments right now that Hex is not centralized because we trust Richard. That's such a stupid argument and just reflects the fact that Hex has been successful at attracting

a lot of stupid people that don't understand the fundamentals of crypto. That is a fact. I'm sorry about that, but that's just the reality. But I think from two different ways, it's like people on the outside they assume that that's like a risk that can never be priced in but here we are pricing in this risk so it's like we were do you look out for this that's different and say it's not decent listen i'm not i don't care either way but then say it's not decentralized we Listen, I don't care either way, but then say it's not decentralized. We never say it's decentralized.

We never ever suggest it. Nothing is decentralized. We talk about the benefits of supply centralization. It's like nothing you're saying is anything new. Everyone's fully aware of it and it's fully priced in. And that's everyone's right in the market is to assess the risk that's in front of them, confirm the information with what they can see on chain, be persuaded by information around them, and then decide how much they're going to buy,

when they're going to sell, what price they're going to buy. I understand that. But to Eric's point, your average person, and this is not unique to Hex, your average person in crypto does not know how to price the risk of these things. It's literally impossible. You can't play code. Nobody understands that. Speak truthfully also. It's not about the middle of the participants.

It is about everyone in crypto. If you're putting something into Celsius, FTX, anything else, it's not savvy or accredited investors that are making the best decisions because I see them even in this room where they've lost millions and millions of dollars through their decision. I lost millions of dollars on Voyager. One. Quite openly. That's why I'm saying it's not a criticism of anything specific, but we have to be careful about the way that we talk about things. All right. But to Eric's point, who can stop me from staking Hex?

Who can stop me from plugging into a decentralized central bank for the world to earn passive trustless interest in my cold storage wallet? Is there anyone? Can Richard Hart do it? Richard Hart can. Richard Hart can.

So let's say, for example, you stake thinking you're going to get a 38% APY and then you lock up your coins for 15 years, assuming that's the stake thinking you're going to get a 38% APY, and then you lock up your coins for 15 years, assuming that's the APY you're going to get. If Richard Hart picks the coins from the OA and stakes that alongside you, then the APY collapses down to 1%, 2%. And then you can't unstake your coins. You can't unstake your coins.

If you unstake your coins. You can't unstake your coins. If you unstake half of your coins, if you unstake your coins, either all of it or a portion of it will get burned through a penalty and some of that will go back to Richard. So up to half of the coins will go back to Richard if you unstake because you're disappointed in the APY. There's tons of these unnecessary centralization books

inside the mechanism itself that isn't there. But that ATY number it's not even really accurate to just look at that because if you in terms of the users of hex the understanding and the strategy that everyone aligns with with the

because everyone knows that the supply is centralized they know that that lever exists it's like there's like the user piece of the pie and then there's the OA. And so if the OA... They don't know that. It's like even if that quoted number of the units goes from what it really is,

max really is 30% right now. It's 38 if you include these log stakes. But then if that quoted unit number goes from 30%, say down to 2%, it's like your piece of the pie relative to all the other users still growing at the same rate it's like gang guys yeah i have to stop i have to stop this discussion i have to stop this discussion because i cannot believe that we're actually sitting here

and debating whether it's okay for someone to be in control of a project and still being encrypted if you want to be in that kind of project go to jp morgan go to chase. There you can have Jamie Dimon controlling everything. If you want to have one point of failure, then you shouldn't be in this discussion. We're here because we want decentralization. We're here because we don't trust the actions of one person. Again, as much as I respect Richard and believe that he's... I actually believe that he's actually a really good guy. I cannot sit here and have a discussion around whether it's okay for someone to have the keys to the project. Sorry, it's just a discussion we can... But by the same token, you have people lining up by the tens of thousands to go get their biometric data harvested by WorldCoin. And you have plenty of people in this room

that went and tried to get it on the early press. Oh, Sui. I'm going to mute you. Oh, Sui. I'm going to mute you. Right? There's so many VCs. Yeah, I know you will.

Yeah. I'm going to mute you. I'm going to tell you why I'm going to mute you because, again, you're showing that you have absolutely no technical knowledge. The people scanning the retina displays on WorldCoin, it is a zero-knowledge proof, and the scan itself is not stored. It's just

a hash of the scan. Now, if you understand that, you'll understand it's very different from centralizing. Very, very, very different from centralizing. We can have discussions. I'm very happy to have discussions. Providing over seven minutes. The slide is Sam Altman. Good Lord, Ren. I'm the

only person on stage who already kicked and muted. I think it's obvious I'm not wanted here. It's really, I'm the only person on stage you've already kicked and muted. I think it's obvious I'm not wanted here. It's fine. Appreciate you letting me on stage the one time, but this is how you treat your guests. I'm not a man. No, really, I'm good.

I'm good. Ren's made it obvious that I'm not muted, man. He muted everyone, bro. He muted everyone. All good. I got your back, bro. I got your back.

I'm Ren's enemy, man. I'm Ren's enemy. But what pissed you off what pissed you off about the discussion though Rand because I've never seen you mute they use the mutual but I mean no I mean I mean I'm very happy to have discussions but if you have I think maybe I hit a little too bad no you know you and don't you go ahead go ahead bro we don't have massively centralized supply almost everything true no definitely not definitely not and I don't have massively centralized supply. Almost everything does. No, definitely not. Definitely not. And I don't own projects where one person has the keys.

Give an example. I don't have any projects where one person owns the keys. What about one thing where 10 people own 80%? And the token supply? I'm not involved in that. Those aren't the tokens that I participate in. I bet it would be. No, no. I bet you it won't. I bet you involved in that. Those aren't the tokens that I participated. I bet it would be.

No, no, I bet you it wouldn't. I bet you it wouldn't. I bet you it wouldn't. Okay, then, name an example. I mean, you guys, I cannot believe that I'm having these discussions with people about it's okay to centralize. No, it's okay for people to centralize. You got the stock homes you want to look at. It's neither way.

I don't know. I don't know. But that you guys are supposed to centralize. I largely agree with that statement of a lot of crypto having Stockholm syndrome in the same way that a lot of people who are deep into the Yuga offerings have Stockholm syndrome and don't understand really what they own and don't really understand intellectual property. But to get back to the point that I was making earlier, people are lining up to scan their iris. I wasn't. You tried to bring it down a technical rabbit hole, which normally I'd be game to discuss. All I meant to say was the act of lining up to scan your iris,

to try to get an airdrop from a totally centralized group and project like WorldCoin. And the number of people, again, in this room who like, you can say all you want that you didn't, but the number of people who confirmed in this room went and bought pre-sales like Sui, that's fine, Ran.

Go ahead and tell it to my face next time I go and bring you something nice. Yeah, no, cool. Very cool, again. It's a stupid argument, honestly, because you're comparing a project where one person has control of the project with a project that is...

That is totally controlled by a VC group. Right. Yeah. Vastly different. Right. Vastly different value proposition. When you have a VC group that there are numerous participants that you don't understand the ethos. You don't understand where they're coming from.

I agree that most projects are centralized. But would you say a bunch of VCs is still less centralized than just one person? It's still not ideal, but would you say it's less centralized than just one person? I'd say it's far worse. It's a decision by committee, right? It's creativity by committee. It's innovation by committee. Just that one case.

I don't know. In this case, when Richard wants new revenue, then there's a new launch where all the funds that change hands happens up front. It's like in Hex, everyone that put in ETH, they don't give a shit because even at the current prices, 100% of the people that put in ETH are up massively. And his ETH went up 40x. Everyone else's went up hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands, depending on what day you got in. So it's an entirely different thing where the vcs are waiting for exit liquidity because they have to deliver returns per their lp agreement sure a lot of good and and like it's all and again

the important thing here is that it's just baked into the price like everything you're saying like it's just sure it's it's like this risk is widely known widely discussed and it's like everyone just harps on about it's like okay like isn't the purpose of crypto like freedom where you have the right to choose what assets you are invested in and what risks you're willing to bear right back it up back it up just a little bit though back it up just a little bit and again when there's the pearl clutching about like i can't believe you think it's okay for there to be a centralized ownership, but then people think it's okay for VCs to be involved, where there's the added layers of complexity where you have to, I mean, necessity. In some cases, you have to KYC, or you have to yield some personally identifying information, whether it's behind a zero-knowledge proof or not. And we can talk about the differences in zero-knowledge proofs if you really want to go there. We can go to it at 10.

So, I mean, as far as the splitting hairs and this pearl clutching of like, oh no, centralized ownership of VCs are okay. I think the hexagons do have a point in the sense that if we're really for decentralization and permissionlessness, then people should be completely free to participate in a game such as hex like in the same sense that i think it's completely okay for you know a middle-aged man to send all his money to a girl who commits

financial domination on him i i personally can understand that more when it's a hot girl controlling the money of a rich man in this case it's like you know people in in the u.s sending their money to a fat guy wearing product clothes but that's like that's that's their decision like if that's what they want to do then we can respect that they're not violating any law by participating in a heavily slanted game like anyone that wants to participate in financial domination, that's up to them. And we shouldn't necessarily

look down upon that. And that should be... Just like how they want to let a bunch of VCs run a train on them? Is that part of the domination that you're okay with? Because it sounds like that's where the conversation

was headed earlier, was that we were saying centralized ownership was okay as long as it's VCs. I'm not the fan of VC chains either. Eric, do you know any websites I can go to if I want to participate in financial domination, by the way? Are there any ones that come highly recommended? I'll look it up for you.

The only one I'm aware of is Richard Hart. I'm asking of is Richard Hart. I'm asking for... One thing that I did want to discuss that I'm actually interested in hearing some opinions on is this whole argument that the SEC is spinning against Richard that

he has misappropriated funds by buying the hex diamond and buying those clothes and buying those cars. I want to hear people's opinions on whether or not... As much as you dislike Richard and as much as people think that this was done in a very braggadocious and negative way, he did measure the view counts and the statistics of all these things, and he renamed the diamond the hex.com diamond. So I want to hear, is it possible that you can take those expenses

and put them on your market? This is very common, isn't it, for a lot of influencers? I've seen prior to crypto, I've seen a lot of people talk about it, people that I know. Even, again, people that we all know in crypto, influencers that we all know, and I won't name them, obviously, have told me this multiple times. They're like, hey, Mario, let's go out.

Don't worry, I'll pay. I'll put it all on my, as a business expense. And they're just going out every day and filling up their Instagram with that shit. So I just don't, and him calling it Hex Diamond, it kind of makes it even easier for him to explain. But, and that's why it surprised me when the sec went after that eric it just seemed like a nothing burger relative to all the other issues so to answer eric's question about the about just like the general funds i just put up in the the top a i i did a kind of a back of the envelope audit of all the addresses

related to both the pulseulse Chain and Pulse X sacrifice. And if you look at that, $618 million of stable coins still sit in those addresses. There was 16,000 ETH sent out through Tornado Cash. That was about $31,000 at the time. The 350 billion HEX in there just sits there. And then if the $12 million that they cited as being misappropriated, that comes out to 2% of the total non-ex funds, a fraction of the total funds that were. And there's no way to even know if that $12 million that was spent came out of funds that went into the sacrifice. Or what i have believed to be most likely is that the eth that was put into the hex launch was and richard's existing bitcoin from way back in the

day that he was actively you know talking about selling that's where i when i saw that like just like the the flexing and all that all that dumb I'm like, okay, it's most likely that these funds were derived from the Hex launch and his prior Bitcoin. Considering how small, like, all things considered, it's a very small amount of money that was actually, you know, I considered the amount through data casting. What's going on with, like, what makes something look, I considered the amount through data casting you said. What's going on with what makes something look

past the Howey test, right? And so what makes something look more like a security would be if that entity was spending hex, was selling hex to do marketing or promotion as an allocation, like what VCs normally do.

It's like this amount of supply is going to marketing, this amount of supply is going to the VC, yada, yada, yada. Hex doesn't have any of that. Ren, Ren, and Shkreli is in the audience. Can we get Shkreli up here and maybe talk about what he thinks that the outcome of the case is? Are you sure Shkreli is up? He's in the audience. Sh? He's in the audience. He's up, he's up, he's up. Money that's going into these things

as investor deposits when it's really revenue. Like, this money's not investor deposits. These aren't investors. Why can we just not have a debate about whether it is a security or unregistered security offering because that's been litigated to death. I think that has nothing to do with the fraud side of it. And I'm not

saying that there is fraud, but the accusation, obviously, that he took that money and committed fraud. I think everyone here is generally anti the SEC and sentiment and really doesn't care deeply about that side. And I also believe that as a result of the Ripple case, the secondary sale, if you're going to use precedent, is likely not a security, but the offering itself, whether you call it a sacrifice or investment, it will probably be a security. And that probably won't matter because that would probably be a fine. So I don't think that that matters deeply in this conversation. And so I think we've beat that. It was just the point that I wanted to highlight and talk about.

Sorry. Someone that basically about... We talked about it earlier. We talked about it before it didn't work. Hold on. Let me just do sex model. Just do sex model. Martin, it seems like you're still 20 years to count. Just want to make sure it's you, man. How are you? Martin, you got to speak so we know it's you.

He doesn't like you. His old account used to like me. Martin, can you hear me? He just blocked you, I think. All right, he just blocked you. While we're waiting for Martin, I want to go to Ran. I know there was a lot of back and forth, and I was just on a call, so I kind of missed a bit of it.

But what was the – actually, I'll go to Scott because we heard a lot of – Hey, guys. Can you hear me? Scott, what was – hey, man, how are you? Martin's here. Martin, can you hear us? How about it, buddy? You're muted again, Martin.

The guy's preparing. No, no, he's preparing his AI deep voice thing to pretend it's Martin Screlly through another 20th account that he's created. Martin, can you hear us? While waiting for Martin, Scott, just give us what was the whole back and forth that triggered

Ryan earlier while I was on the call? I think that there was a deep debate as to what decentralization is for centralization and then obviously people in certain camps of whether that matters if you can trust the individual person i mean listen in my mind it's either centralized or it's decentralized sure there are different levels of centralization i personally would never invest in something where one person could fall on their head. It's not even if you believe that the guy is going with fraud. You may believe he's not an honest actor, but I mean, if the guy falls on his head and he's realized, it's highly problematic.

And also, I think it's stupid for us to try to parse the language of what the SEC will or won't believe. The SEC doesn't bring this action unless they believe that they have the evidence and that the language of sacrifice versus investment, et cetera, is irrelevant. But I would really love to hear Mark's thoughts

if he's here. Yeah, I've just DM'd him to fix his mic. It seems to be muting and unmuting. So I've just DM'd him. While we're waiting, I want to ask a question to Ran because I think that Ran has been sort of a secret bull of Richard

Hart projects. I've seen thumbnails from Ran's videos where he's talking about that the pulse chain is going to do a 14,000x, even though that that would bring the total market capital pulse chain to 14 trillion or stuff like that. And now Ran's sort of agreeing with me that these projects are centralized. And so I want to hear... No, I think... Hold on. No, no, no. Eric, I've never been a fan of Richard Hart's project. I thought that Hex from the beginning was something that I couldn't reconcile,

just like you did. I think I made my opinions very clear there. In terms of Pulse, I think he set out to do something which was very, very, very ambitious. And I think that if that would have worked, then I think that he would have really done, it would have been a technological breakthrough.

It's an Ethereum fork. If it raises a billion dollars, it would have worked. I think, hold on a second. I think what he set out to do and what he landed up doing were two different things. so i think when he started the project he had one ambition i think when he landed up as you say i think it's it's a it's a thorough fork in its in its state and i think he dropped um some of the technological plans that he had so to speak um and so i've never been um i think the following i think when it comes to hex i think rich Richard was always clear about exactly what it was

and what you were getting. And there was, you know, like I once challenged him. I said to him, look, I think you're a scammer. And at the end of the discussion, Hex said, you know, you're actually not a scammer

because a scammer says one thing and does something completely different or lies about what he's doing. He's actually really open. And if you know the rules of the game and you still want to invest or sacrifice, then good on you. That's not a scam.

And so that's kind of like where my head is at. It's a scam if you don't tell people you're going to take the money and buy clothing with it. Exactly. Nobody thought that thing was going in. Martin, the whole premise of this is that the money goes in and is no longer your money. It's an investor fund. It's revenue, if anything.

So it's not like... Guys, what happened to Eric? What happened to him? Oh, where's Eric? Oh, he dropped out. Just send him an invite, man. Just DM him. And only 2% was ever really spent.

Please let Martin speak. He hasn't even made a point yet. This is pretty cut and dry fraud, and my guess is he'll go to jail, and he'll probably go for a long time. And I don't wish that on anyone because I did it. But I think that in particular, the SEC is very, very nasty when money goes from a poor person who's uninformed to a person who makes a lot of money and then that whatever they bought drops in value dramatically. You can sort of try to create some machination in your head that, oh, well, maybe it's not a security. Oh, maybe it's not this or

that. But if you actually read the fraud statute, it's like one sentence and it's extremely vague for that reason because our legislators a long time ago realized they couldn't enumerate every single type of fraud. So wire fraud is literally fraud over the wires, any kind of electronic communication. And Hart, bless his soul, what's his real name again? I'm not going to call him Richard Hart anymore. Richard Thor, aka Richard Hart. I'm surprised he's not a criminal defendant yet you know um usually there's a sort of a parallel process but it doesn't always happen that way but the point is like you know he's made a lot of statements over the web over youtube over twitter

prognosticating about the price of his security or his asset or his whatever and you know if you if that induced you to buy it right it doesn't matter if it's stock or a bond or a beanie baby if you have been his claims induced you to buy it and then you got injured by that by a false claim or an incomplete claim i actually had a lot of issues in my case where I was omitting something. Like if you omitted the fact that, oh, you know, some of this money is going to go to my pocket. Well all they have to do is put somebody on the stand and say, wouldn't you like to know that some of the money was going to go to his pocket? Wouldn't that have been important for your decision? Wouldn't you have liked to know that beforehand? And as long as one

person says yes, it's securities fraud. And it's a really... Look, I don't like the rules, by the way. I did seven years for the rules. I don't like the rules. I'm not familiar with your story. I'm not familiar with your story. Maybe just give us a little bit of background around your story and how you learned it up during seven years. Sure. Really fast. I had a bunch of very small hedge funds. They made quite a bit of money. They made about three or four times their money. During that process, the courts and the government, including the SEC, convinced a jury, at least out of eight charges, they convinced the jury that I was guilty of three and I was not guilty of five, that I lied about my funds. So even if you make your investors a fortune and you tell a lie or omit something, you

don't even have to tell an affirmative lie. Even if you leave something out that an investor would have thought would have been important. For example, I'm going to take your money and spend it on the diamond. You know, I feel like that that would have been important to me to know beforehand. And it's not like some thing that everyone knew was that 100% of the money went to the fund. No, but that's the whole premise. The funny thing about that is that I'm not sure

you appreciate having sat in a criminal trial for six weeks. The average juror is a postal service worker, a homemaker. They're not sophisticated people necessarily. It's a jury of your peers they don't understand any of that stuff they look at wallets they look at this stuff they're not

gonna they don't give a shit they're gonna say this person with five thousand dollars bought whatever this thing is called hex for four thousand of their dollars and now they have no dollars and hex which is worthless and this guy is wearing lou Vuitton. He's wearing, you know, he's buying, he's apparently bought all the stuff with their money and that's it. He's guilty. I mean, it really doesn't that more complicated. I think the problem is, you know, that we, we tend to try to over-rationalize the justice system when, you know, there's a reason that 99% of people brought to trial go to jail. There's no way out. Once you're in, you know, all the arguments in the world

kind of fly in the face of they've got the FBI, they've got the American bald eagle there, they've got witnesses that tell you how bad the defendant is. And it basically just collapses on you. And if you doubt me, look at the, I don't know, 20 crypto people that are in prison and none of them who have beaten their charges. Vitalik's old friend is in prison with some of my buddies right now. He was doing five years and there's countless others. Look at my other friend, Charlie Shrem, who did some time. I mean, who is beating charges in crypto? Nobody. Nobody's ever heard the word. But Martin, there's no criminal charges. There's no DOJ indictment yet, but you're saying you're

pretty confident. You used you as an example or ran referred to as an example. But in your case, you didn't lose your investors money. You actually made the money and you still went to jail for seven years. So obviously with Richard and the amount of money lost. And I think Eric, you did a tweet on this about comparing the amount of money lost in Hex versus I think it was Luna. I can't remember which ones you're referring to. It was significantly more.

The numbers were wrong. Okay. But it's really large numbers. I'll just leave it at that. So you say that puts him- What's really funny about the- Go ahead. Yeah. What's really funny about the DOJ is that when somebody murmured the numbers are wrong, and I think that's true. In my case, I actually had to pay back every dollar that the investors invested in my funds, which was $8 million. Even though they got about $30 million in returns, I still had to pay $8 million in damages.

And they gave the seven years based on the $8 million. Please explain to me. What do you mean damages? If they made money, there are no damages. What am I missing? In the world of the Department of Justice, nothing makes sense. The way they look at a loss and a victim is anybody who's ever been lied to, that amount of money they invested immediately is all a loss. It's called intended loss. So there's two theories of loss in the government. There's actual loss and intended loss, and they take the greater of the two. So if you actually lost the money, that right then and there is immediately securities fraud and you're liable for the whole amount in time you're going to get sentenced and financial

penalty, which in Richard's case, I wouldn't be worried about the financial penalties right now. I'd be worried about the time penalty. So if somebody put $50,000 in hex and they lost it all, basically that accrues to the loss amount because not because they lost the money, hex and they lost it all, basically that accrues to the loss amount. Not because they lost the money, but because they lost the money and there was a lie somewhere. Any lie at all,

any kind of omission, and by the way, prognosticating that your security is going to be the best security ever, really bad idea. That's the problem. I have a question. Maybe you can answer it. We just made this equivalency between the losses of I have a question, sort of comment, Martin, maybe we can't judge the future price of something like everything that's down, it can go back up. But have these people effectively

actually lost their money or are they just down on their investment? Does that semantic even matter at this point? To give you an example, so I invested in, well, I bought my first Bitcoin through Mt. Gox and as everyone knows, Mt. Gox collapsed and lost

800,000 or 600,000 Bitcoins from people who billions of dollars were lost. I actually still made money buying Bitcoin at Mt. Gox because even the fractions of Bitcoin that I'm going to get back, which is like 15% or something like that, is still going to be up like 15x from when I bought it if you denominate it in dollar value. And Mark Carpello still went to prison, right? Mark Karpelos went to prison for embezzlement, even though that I made way more than I would have made it- Right. I'm in the stock market. Broad is completely divorced from gain or loss.

For example, if I went to Vegas, if I told my investors I had a quant fund that did diffusion modeling of stock prices, and then I went to Vegas, put all the money in black, and tripled their money, or 10x their money, or whatever. I wrote them, obviously. And I gave them back the money. I still defrauded them, even if I made up 10x. And some of them may say, gosh, I love you for making me 10x. I don't want you to go to jail. And I had witnesses like that.

So I think even though Hart has all these people behind him, it doesn't matter. You know, it's a false equivalency between bankruptcy and an asset being down in price. Now, I will say this, though, which I always find ironic and to echo Eric's points from before, I obviously, I've been outspoken

against the SEC as effectively everyone. I don't think anyone on the planet is hashtag fire Gary Gensler more than I am. And I always find these things interesting because since it is a civil claim and it is the SEC, the SEC is going to come in and it's not criminal. They're going to come in and

punish Richard Hart effectively retroactively. And if he's guilty or something like that happens, theoretically, that could send the price of Hex to zero and be the reason that everybody ends up losing all their money. Yeah, it's super ironic. I was a publicly traded company CEO. The day I got arrested, one of my stocks fell 90%, and it caused more damages and losses

than any of the alleged... I mean, guys, they say FTX in the name of consumer protection, but everybody's already lost their money and they're making it worse. Go ahead, Rand. I've got to be honest. I've got to be honest. Watching the U.S. justice system and watching the U.S. enforcement agencies from the outside

as someone who didn't grow up in the United States, I'm absolutely sarcastic about how the U how the US has achieved what it's achieved. And bankruptcy is worse. And bankruptcy is worse. No, no, no. It's a lot worse. It's a lot worse. Their bankruptcy process is unlawful.

I'm just watching the FTX, the Celsius, the Voyager bankruptcy. The processes are laughable. The costs are absolutely laughable. Watching it, John, you're telling me that the reason why I'm not going to get a fair trial is because I'm being tried by a postal worker who has

no technical... who's got no chance of understanding the case technically and then still thinking that that's the best justice system in the world is laughable. It's something I'll ask the press to clear from me. They're protecting... I mean, watching enforcement agencies claim that they

are protecting investors when it is clear that they are the reasons why investors are losing more money than anything else is laughable. Well, it gets much worse. So the SEC has something called the ALJ, which is the Administrative Legal Judge. And so they have their own court, in essence. So they have an SEC appointed person act as the adjudicator for the SEC case. Now, Richard's going to the Eastern District of New York, which is a very interesting choice by the SEC. And my guess is there could actually be a sealed indictment while they wait for Richard. They may be indicting him and extraditing him at the same time. And what we've seen from this DOJ is a very, very aggressive crypto and kind of fraud in

general stance where like bank men usually like, I guess the point I'm making is usually there's the statute of limitations, which is in our country, five years. So you have five years as a law enforcement to arrest the person. And I was arrested at four years and 10 months because nothing in the government goes fast, right? There's no, you know, there's no reason to run into it. And so the fact that- I think he needs to quickly-

I don't think that will help, but the point is for SBF, they could have waited for four and a half years to arrest them you actually get to five years until the crime ends so the clock kind of keeps going and anyway they arrested him right away they did the same thing to to one of my friends who's uh currently still sitting in jail a certain arbitrageur you guys may know um who's traffics in fruit-named protocols.

Avi is who I'm talking about. But anyway, he's still... I was talking to Avi two days before he got arrested, and he was going to come to the city and hang out with me, and what did they have? They had a sealed indictment waiting for him as soon as he landed.

And, you know, he still hasn't made bail. So I think that it's possible that they're just waiting for Richard to arrive at JFK. Yeah. And Martin, to your point, what's interesting actually about Mando Marx, he made the point that he was not actually committing any sort of crime. Very publicly, he came out and said, listen, this is in the contract. I'm just utilizing the features of the contract. That sort of rings familiar here. Yeah. When you go to a jury, all bets are off.

And look at the, if you don't believe me, just look at the percentage of people who get acquitted. It is very close to 1%. So somebody mentioned that. How much did it cost you? How much did it cost you? A lot. Are you talking about legal fees alone?

forget about loss of income forget about loss of income, loss of reputation like what do you need to take on to defend yourself? I think for a really robust criminal defense I would say at least 20 million and for I'd say a civil defense at least 10 or 15

million. But you're cooked in the state. You don't have it. So 5% of the stable coins still sitting in Richard's sacrifice wallets. We know that Richard... They'll try to freeze those,

by the way. They will try very hard to make sure that any illicit God and funds are not used for your legal defense. They get really angry when... I'm not serious. You know, if you organize your company really intelligently and you get insurance and you get a board and you try to do all that. I know Sam didn't even have a board, but you could theoretically get some some money for, for your legal defense. Um, it depends on how raunchy your crime was. And I think in this case, they're going to say, look, you can't use, you can't use the victim's money to defend

yourself. You know, that's insane. Um, but it was just a couple more points I wanted to make real quick is, you know, in the sec lawsuit. Yeah. I hate when people say prosecute or charge. The SEC sues you. That's all they can do. And I hate the SEC more than anyone. I've battled with them since I was 19 years old. And I beat them every time except once. But the point is,

they seem to try to make a part, and in his alter ego, which is an important theory in the law. And again, we think about the crypto world and stuff like that. None of that stuff matters. It's how a jury is going to look at it. And they're going to say, Hex Schmex, this is Hart.

This is Richard. This is just an extension of him in computer code. There's no code is law. Talk to Avi about that, right? All that stuff just doesn't apply because all they have to do is prove wire fraud. All they have to do is prove the statutes. Like if you read the statutes, they're very, very vague and image matters a lot. So when you put somebody sitting next to it, you know, in a courtroom, you drag them in.

Remember, the prosecution goes first. So you get weeks and weeks of why this guy is a bad guy. And all of the testimony is canned. Every single thing is rehearsed. And again, you have a 99% conviction rate. So it really is kind of kangaroo court in a lot of ways. I mean, ask yourself how many times, like, why should the government win 99% of the time? Like, how could they be so accurate and so smart?

And I think the reality is it's kind of stacked against you. So there really is no defense if he gets indicted. And I think the ultimate point of agreement is to decide think the idea is ultimately decided no but you said sorry bottle juice two sex model read what all the studio i just want to ask one more question to to martin say that what's the what's the what's the likelihood that you you'll win when when you're sued the ESC or when you're facing criminal charges? Say it's like 1%, Martin? Yeah, I'd say less than 1%. Less than 1%.

Yeah, it's like China or Russia. Yeah. Yeah, Martin, listen, like, that is statistically correct. Hold on, less than 1% applies to what exactly? So you're acquitted if you're dead in a criminal prosecution government. That's mental. The SEC has an 85%, 90% success rate, which is already really high. We were talking about this earlier.

But now we're talking about the DOJ success rate of 99%. Are we sure about that? Let's say- Can we come out and frame what's going on here with Hex. We've had this now 20 minutes of hallucinations about real serious stuff that we're talking about. But what we have is a finished product with flawless uptime on a network that was delivered, on a decentralized exchange that was delivered. All of it's working flawlessly.

Yeah, I'm going to bow out. I don't understand the purpose of having these hexagons talking Richard Hart talking points. That's not an interesting conversation. I'm going to bow out. But Eric, you're the only one technically that can help us refute these claims.

I know a lot about crypto myself, not as much as Eric. But what I'll say is that the nice thing about the law is when I got arrested, all my drug companies ran. All my drug companies ran. Well, let me just make a simple point about what we've done here with the founder who has delivered a perfect, flawless product with complete uptime that pays us to our cold storage wallet. Let me... We're talking about... We're talking about a founder because they failed to ask

permission. He failed to ask permission in this corrupt system before he acted and innovated. And the community isn't here claiming fraud. The community isn't here claiming fraud. They're here defending the founder and his actions. And I grew 100%

20 minutes painting this insane picture about what could happen to him. It's just a misdemeanor, the problem. But that's the system. That's the system. The acquittal rate, sorry, the acquittal rate is not 1%, guys. It's 0.4% in 2020 and 2021. I said sub 1%.

But also that's misinterpreting because only cases that they think they can win do they bring. Jack, a plastic introduction to Jack, if people already don't know. He's one of the Google people from a long time ago. He's been in the startup community for a long time. Palo Alto Software before crypto. He's founder of other crypto projects as well as separate networks and so forth. So I think his perspective is interesting. He has a relationship of sorts with Richard. He has a relationship of sorts with Hexagons. So I am curious about his framing when it goes to being an American citizen

in a tech-centric environment, when it goes to also navigating what is a security, what is not a security. Hey guys, how's everybody doing? Crazy week. Definitely this news that came out was a long time coming. It's kind of like a combination of things. I mean like definitely when you buy the world's largest diamond and you're covered with watches

and you tell people to hate you it's kind of like almost you're asking your community to look at things and maybe 95% of people actually love this showmanship that Richard was exhibiting but 5% who bought the top of Hex they didn't like it at all and it was ultimately the community members that basically complained to SEC I mean I don't know those people personally but I am in a bunch of Hexagon groups

just hanging out there. And a lot of people are pretty smart in there. But a lot of people really don't care what he shows. But those who really got affected by Hex falling, they had the reason. And those reasons, they were shown on YouTube by Richard. So ultimately, it's kind of like pretty obvious

that that happened. My kind of issue with Pax always was that it had the financial administrative keys and it was very obvious that the OA address, no matter how many times Richard has disclaimed that it's not his, can be actually

potentially be proven that it's not his, can be actually potentially be proven that it is his, or rather the intent of controlling of the financial system within the smart contract. Even though smart contract is immutable, if you control the OA, like basically Eric mentioned, you do control the outcome of all of the toggles and knobs on the contract. So that is the control of the contract, obviously. But there is a bigger issue here at stake, actually. So like, yeah, you know, people putting money into crypto

and people lose money all the time. This isn't new, actually. Flip a coin, you're going to lose all your money. I mean, it's like that's crypto 101. The biggest issue that I have is the potential damage to the crypto ecosystem as a whole, where the process or rather the concept of sacrifice that was introduced by Richard, kind of like basically, if you say this magic word sacrifice, then all of a sudden,

you're not breaking the law. And obviously, like the definition of sacrifice, if you ask a hexagon what sacrifice is, that basically means that you're giving your money away and there's no expectations of profit. Well, the question is then, well, why is everybody so upset? If you're not expecting profit and you're expecting your money to be gone, then obviously, why are you going to SEC and complaining about it? And I understand maybe you were not the person who sacrificed any money. Maybe you just bought the top and then you went to SEC and said, hey, this guy is a fraud. And enough of those complaints come in and the case actually gets larger. And obviously, the sacrifice wallet has billions of dollars sitting in it. So it makes you a target. It's like you have a bullseye painted on your back.

Now, the bigger issue that I see is that as Richard has popularized the word sacrifice, a lot of projects and a lot of smart people got into the situation where they thought, well, if Richard can get away with it, maybe we can get away with it also. And it's actually not great for crypto because we're in crypto for the purposes of decentralization, immutability, and all of the first principles that crypto has presented since Bitcoin. Now, when somebody comes and says, oh, by the way, you can actually print your tokens out of Cinear and then sell them and call it a sacrifice. Well, sacrifice would be is that a bunch of people give you money without expectations. And then you get 10, 15, 20 other projects do the same thing,

basically thinking that, okay, this is definitely not a security, we're going to get away with it because Richard said so, and all we need to do is produce this magic incantation of sacrifice and then all is well. So that... I wanted to ask you a question. Is sacrifice, it's coming back up and it's

bothering them because the same people are saying the sacrifice of the contract will be the same ones to talk about how much money they need why on god's green earth would anybody send me for no reason with no vacation of anything to the smart contract i just maybe because those people are free to take their own risk and free to... No, no. ...make their own choice. No, or is it... But Jack, Jack,

is it... Or is it you take risk with the expectation... Or do they, Jack? You can't say it. Taking risk. Jack, or...

Taking risk is the expectation of earning. Jack, or can I... Can I frame it in another way? Or are they expecting profit and they know that Richard is calling a sacrifice to avoid the SEC but behind the... But... and that's just semantics that he genuinely and the reason

that richard hart keeps talking about the price going up and that's probably the main thing he talks about every time he brings up hex when he was on my show is about the price and everyone in all these communities talking about the price and they're upset when the price goes down means that they are expecting a profit and semantics was used purely to avoid the law is that a fair statement, Jack? Everyone has the same understanding. That is exactly right. It doesn't matter.

You call it a duck, not a dog or a dog. It quacks like a dog. It is a duck. It doesn't matter what it's called. It's an investment. It's not like... The thing is that cult-forming 101, you have to give vocabulary in language to your members.

And so if everybody's repeating the same word until it gets like this new meaning, okay, it's a type of investment we call a sacrifice to get away with the fact that the government is stupid enough not to realize that sacrifice is not... You're not having any expectations. Of course, everybody had all of the expectations. Of course.

And most of the projects that are launching after hacks that are calling for sacrifices are actually funding themselves to launch those projects. And a lot of those projects will be ragpoles. Those people will take your money, will disappear, and you'll be left with digital artifacts that are worth nothing. Let me ask you a question. I know, Martin, you've got your hand up, but I want to ask Dip Catcher and Model,

if you guys agree with this statement, and try to be as direct as you can with the answer. I'm genuinely curious. Do you think my statement is fair, is that everyone was expecting it? And I'm not saying that makes Richard guilty, as for the courts to decide, but I'm just saying,

is it fair to say that most investors, if not all of them, let's say most of them, were at least hoping if not expecting a profit and that's the reason they invested and they know that sacrifice was a term used purely to avoid the SEC. Would that be a fair statement to model on Dipcatcher and try to be directly the answer if possible? I mean, that's one way to frame it, but like, you know, we could point out that this was one of the fairest launches in all crypto in the history of crypto. And the disclaimer wasn't cryptic and it was blunt and brutal. And what people may have wanted to participate in, even though it's so hard to do something like that, uh, with the sec and all these rules and stipulations and life in prison

and everything is a little bit of weight as is nothing but yeah so he asked yeah i think the first part model the first part hold on let's call it yeah so yeah he did he said that's one way to frame it i just kind of appreciate it and just to to uh to kind of press you a bit further model um is that a fair way of framing it i'm not again we're not we're not the court so we can't decide whether that's enough to to to not be considered security and the reason we're in the light of of of we're now now we're talking about life in prison for the founder who no so this is so we're actually yeah yeah, yeah. Mario, can I answer? Yeah, yeah.

Let me, let's see. Let's see what they've got you. What do you think? And then I'll add on to it, just a reminder that Richard talks mainly about the price of hacks and how you're going to make a lot of money. Okay. So there were about 200,000 people that participated in these sacrifices. So there's obviously going to be a whole range of people's mentality going into it. I personally viewed it like a donation that I did not expect to even...

Honestly, I didn't even think that it was going to be delivered. Honestly, realistically. But did you expect to make a profit? Did you expect the token to go up? I hope that it goes up, but I do not expect... Is that the reason you invested? No. Like I said, I viewed it like a donation.

Like as if I was donating. So why did you, I appreciate you asking. So why did you donate? What's the cause that you donated for? Probably because support of somebody to over the course of the by then four years that i've been interacting with him online has just provided value through you know community building through the education you know through producing a quality defy asset like an industry category creator of these like yield producing assets so like it was not so much for the investment side of it it was really just in

support of a of a but did on my richard but did richard need that support because you could look at someone like andreas antinopoulos for example who who would appreciate would need that support a bit further so do you genuinely think that richard and i'm trying to put you in a bad spot i'm just curious to go a bit back and forth before going to gary is that do you think richard and the money he's made being early in bitcoin needed that support like do you genuinely think you were donating money to richard because you're supporting the cause um or maybe that played a small role but i'm like what i'm trying to get out of your dip catch is i genuinely think that that either, I don't know whether you don't admit it, or maybe it's a small part of why you've invested, but there must have

been a part of you that said, there is a likelihood that this is going to make a lot of money. Because Richard keeps talking about thousands of percent returns. Go ahead, man. Well, at the time, having experienced those in real life, having experienced massive upside, I mean, look at my pinned tweet. I was one of the first people promoting Hex on Twitter. Having seen positive outcome from participating in this person's minting of things or just in the launches of these assets, that probably suspended all disbelief where I understood the risk of this donation I'm making

could never come back. The asset that perhaps could get airdropped if it ever launches. But that's the risk. So that's a... Yeah, so Deepcatcher, I invested in a whole bunch of projects with tokens locked

up and um i many of them i don't expect them to launch the platform it doesn't mean that i don't want them to many of them i expect them to go to zero doesn't mean i want them to that's just an expectation based on the statistical probability that they'll succeed i know a minority of them will do well and i was expecting a profit my question though is in your tweets because i know you've been early early on tweeting about hex so in your tweets, because I know you've been early on tweeting about Hex. So in your tweets, which anyone could go back and verify, have you ever talked about, either in a comment or a tweet, do you think you've ever talked

about why you think Hex will go up in price? Or argued back and forth with someone that says Hex is a scam and then talked about as a chart of the price going up? I've probably been one of the leading proponents of hex and defending hex from false claims of it being a scam and the the the reason why i perked by defend it so heavily and

why i feel like i have a strong backing is because hex as an asset has really strong fair but i, so the question is, sorry, the question though, did you talk about in any comments or tweets, did you ever say that you think the price will go up or why you think the price will go up? Explain to people the whole narrative of why we'll do whatever number of Xs.

Yes. Yes. So what's the tweet, Scott? Let me... It's literally Hex value is up massively from year one when people could mint. Yeah, I talked about... It's all right. Everyone that sacrificed for Coltrane was at a break even until yesterday. That was 21 minutes ago.

I'm not even trying to say something negative. Yeah, and this doesn't... Let me add, sorry. Tonto, one more thing I want to add. This doesn't put you in a bad light, in my opinion. This is not aimed at you. I think anyone in the audience right now listening, or even anyone on stage that says they're not here

for the money, I think they're full of shit. There's just a different spectrum. Mario, really quick, my favorite argument during NFT summer was that people were like, you know, I am my turntable or my, you know, linguistic lion or whatever the fuck. Linguistic lion.

I'm here because I am a seer because I am my lion and my soul and my art and I'm here. And when Christ goes down, you're not your fucking lion anymore. And I'm sorry, it's the exact same thing. Everybody should admit, and there's nothing wrong with it they're here to make money why are you here you don't send money to a billionaire because you know there's but there's scott's you can't you can't say you can't say there is no ethos there's people in crypto not only to make money like they believe in what crypto stands for you know that people mainly those people that are here right now in the midst of the bear market and the projects like this that

are launched where you send your money into something, you have an expectation of earning money. You're not donating to a billionaire because he needs the money. Give me a break. Good, I'm just saying that it's disingenuous. It's a choice. Do you believe that I was a billionaire? He's always there.

So someone that has hundreds of millions of dollars. So Richard Hart having a lot of money from Bitcoin prior to Pemex. You're asking to get there why people call on Richard Hart money for something that he delivered. And your misunderstanding is probably why I probably massively outperform you. So it's like it makes sense why you don't get it. It's not hard to say one thing. Unfortunately, you're not here for profit. Now you're telling me you outperform me. What is it? What do you don't get it it's not hard this one thing unfortunately you're not here for profit now you're telling me you outperformed me

what do you understand about he just said he just agreed with me when I said a few months ago you're a shit traitor Scott after listening yeah so after looking at this for 20 minutes I'm revising my projection I'm now certain I'm just going to jail

I've changed my mind me this for 20 minutes i i'm revising my projection i am now certain are just going to jail i've changed hey guys uh god yeah you got it and if you want to sacrifice something why do you why why do you need to get talking back i mean a true meaning of the word sacrifice that that's a might be someone yeah you don't need any talking jack you know what jack do you know what you know what jack you just did? Like, I'm so pissed off at myself and I think anyone will admit it. Like, we, our whole perspective changed. Remember Scott, how I said earlier, and I think some people agreed, I think even Ryan agreed, is that I think, you know, Richard might have just outsmarted the SEC. And then Jack just made the most obvious points.

Like, hold on. If you're donating money, why the fuck do you need a token? Why do you sit there holding that token how is that and then why are you telling me and i probably you're dope and then what oh not the donation that's not what i said no no yeah martin i i agree with you like you you said he's going to jail now your search is going to jail i was pretty confident that he'll he's even outsmarted the SEC based on the lawyers we had early on stage. But when Jack came in and just said the most obvious fucking thing,

I'm like, shit, it looks pretty bad now. I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what,

I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what,

I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what,

I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what,

I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what,

I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, the diamond into the courtroom and they're going to be like so what does this have to do with hex and you know it's it's it's just going to be such an embarrassing moment that the jury is going to

roll their eyes and say that's it's obvious this guy's there let's see martin yeah god martin sorry i didn't go get a gary afterwards this guy has no idea what he's talking about okay hold on soldier soldier something you gotta hold on soldier two six weeks afterwards i just brought you up on stage i don know you, so don't ruin it for us. Go ahead, Martin. Yeah, let me just make one last point. I'm an entrepreneur. I invest in entrepreneurs.

I have no problem with the actual product. I think that if it's a good product, it'll survive Richard Hart dying. It doesn't matter, right? Like, Satoshi is not around to help us. My drug company survived me going to prison you know if it's really a good product and you believe in it then what does it matter if heart's innocent or guilty if he misappropriated 10 20 million dollars to buy luxury goods okay he'll pay the price for that maybe he'll do jail time maybe he won't but hacks fundamentals should not

change right that's a fair point yeah i mean you're right about if he went away. I mean, the OA has taken no action in over a year now, over two years. The OA itself, in terms of its actions with Hex, hasn't taken any action for over two years. And the only action that was ever taken was sacrificing its own Hex to itself. And then those Hees just sit there. And if that continued to happen, say none of those addresses ever moved any funds again, then it just over time gets entirely diluted out. So it's probably just a main component of the supply starting about years.

So you're right. I think he made two key mistakes. The first was to put his hand in the cookie jar and spend some money. Whether he had good intentions or not, not a good look. And the second is you cannot, I was a publicly traded company CEO. You cannot tell people that your stock's going to go up or you're going to have a 38%. Yeah, look, this is a very important point. So I took a company public a couple of years ago now, and I would get the chairman and the board would tell me,

Mario, never even mention the price, ever. It's like a big, massive red line. If I even mention it briefly, it just suddenly is a crisis meeting that we all have to have. Right, for Mario, their argument. Yeah, but that... Yeah, but that that Yeah, so so would you would you say Gary I've got two questions for you Gary number one If do you think if this is this ends up being considered a security then Richard is in deep trouble considering everything

We've said including that last point and the size question number one Gary a question number two I'd love your comments on the back and forth a really good discussion. I had with dip catcher earlier Regarding and with the points that Jack made that if you're not expecting a profit, why would you be talking about the price? And are you genuinely not expecting a profit? Are you really donating to a person like Richard Hart? And why the hell do you need a token that you sit there holding and then eventually sell for a profit? to the first topic to me again it just seems like language uh money is language ledger entry is language uh you know social uh signaling is language right you say hey work with me because i'm a multi-millionaire i'm a billionaire uh you know when people make content all day long especially about cryptocurrency or stock market or bonds and they're talking about you know macro trends or look at the chart

because this is what this thing did in the past, and maybe it'll do it again because these are things or cycles. I think it's disingenuous when people say, like you had said, do people have expectation of profit? I don't know because I know a lot of people do foolish things that have nothing to do with money. So why would they need a coin if they're not expecting a profit uh you know there's there's again i speculate uh you know the oa has an awful lot of tokens uh coins and you know if those have moved into the marketplace

then there's going to be repercussions very similar to building a rocket and then exploding it on the launchpad. Like it didn't serve its purpose. So when it goes to like, why do people buy anything and lock it away inside of a drawer in the kitchen? Like people do things all the time. Some people, you know, certainly they get involved with cryptocurrency because they say, hey, Bitcoin used to be a penny and Ethereum used to be 15 cents. And by the way, if I stake my Ethereum, I can get 4% APY by being a validator, basically with no work if I just do an AWS server. So there's all kinds of examples in this community, in this culture of people getting invested and saying, hey, I'm going to talk to my next door neighbor about Cardano. Why? Because they have smart contracts now. This conversation is weird because everyone

is involved for their own reasons. Some of it has to do with financial. So Gary, can I ask you a question on a personal level? Did you expect to make money or were you hoping to make money with Hex? I speculated on a lot of startups and I got involved with a lot of startups and software that went to zero. Nine out of ten went to absolutely zero. But were you hoping or expecting Hex to get a return for you?

I think again, I'm going to speak to my 2017 experience. I think I bought something like a hundred different startups or ICOs or products, whether they were good or bad. Market cycles affected whether I had an exit or had a profit. But on those ones, on the ICOs, let's move away from that. On those ICOs, were you hoping or expecting to make a profit when you invested in those ICOs? Or were you donating to those founders?

Hoping. Yeah. So you know where I'm coming with this. It's a very valid argument. Again, it's not your fault. I'm putting you on the spot, but it's not a difficult argument to make, in my opinion. It won't be a difficult argument to make. At least now, this is what I believe after this whole two hour, three hour conversation, especially with Jack jumping in and making the points. But let's see, Hexagon Soldier soldier you were pretty vocal earlier like is there something we're missing here like in the points we're making like you get a token you put in money did you donate money to richard hart or did you invest expecting to make money because looking at your timeline i was going

through it earlier it definitely looked like you were expecting and hoping to make money i made money i wasn't expecting to make money i'd made money in the coin everybody everybody goes into cryptocurrency to make money it is everybody goes to jail i think i can actually solve the subject here two seconds two seconds sorry i'll just i'll get out and give you the mic again just because you were very loud but just want to say i think you're recording this is recorded so i think you're recording that clip. It's going to be played in court. Just a heads up. But continue, please.

But that's okay. I'm telling the truth. There's nothing wrong with that. What I want to do is talk about Marco. Marco kept saying that he was sure for certain that Richard is going to jail. Why? What did he defraud? You keep saying that he spent the money.

Did you know that Richard was rich before Hex? Did you know that Richard was mining Bitcoin in 2010? Do you know how much Bitcoin he has? The guy was rich before Hex. So what money did he spend? I want to know who

was it that he so actually the point I'll ask you a question there and Martin maybe you do want to answer briefly and I think we've talked about it earlier it's about talking about the price talking about a security going up and promising certain returns is that a simple way of saying it Martin? What are the reasons? What he promised

was what he said was that Yeah, let's say my next yes soldier. Let's let's get Martin to it to respond Oh, look, I I'm a pro entrepreneur I I wish the best for art the problem is that the law with that don't control the world would be fairly fair And we're kind of like it. Well, I wouldn't have gone to jail myself The problem is the law says that if you lie,

why don't you sell a security? It's a security fraud. If you omit any information that the briber would have liked to have known, why don't you sell a security and commit a security fraud? It's a very...

Some of these laws apply outside of securities too. So why are frauders... If you default anybody out of money at anything, securities or not, that's a crime as well. So the problem is it's so much that I don't like Richard or something. I personally, by the way, I don't. I met him on Mario's podcast show

and I found him to be a sufferable. But I can put that aside and say, look, I hope that you all win and I hope you all make a lot of money and I'm pro-entrepreneur, I'm anti-SEC, and I'm anti-DO his company went on after his time served. So again, I do like what Martin says. Martin says about the government laws as they stand versus the public perception. And we have mulled it over for many hours this morning, and it will continue to be a discussion. Going forward, if you take the products that have an RH label or icon out of the equation, these things are a social consensus, in my opinion. The social consensus that one Bitcoin equals one Bitcoin, maybe that's provable in math or a transaction from one address of control to a

different address of control. But when people say things like I'm in Bitcoin because it's freedom, some people actually buy those things because of freedom. Some people buy gold because of freedom. Some people say that they have a stake in real estate because they think that they have sovereignty over that real estate. So the idea is why we're in cryptocurrency, I believe. Sure, there's a lot of that are gravitate to the fact that you can multiply your money or you can get an uh you know a return that's above inflation or whatever it is as far as your purchasing power uh but that's why we're all here sure the origin story if you want to call it a fair launch if you want to say that hey you know miners can volunteer their electricity and their hardware their gpu so that they can have this magic token that has no value whatsoever

because they can't even buy fucking pizza. Maybe that was that clique and that group. And certainly over the past 13 years, that group, if they're still here, they're not paying $1,000 for their Starbucks coffee at the purchasing price of the Bitcoin that they bought. They are profiting from the narrative and from the idea of cryptocurrency being ability to transact between people. And yet most of the marketplace is not between people. Most of the marketplace is yield promises that are not on contract.

They're on... Let's do this. Let's do this. So Scott, I'll go to you first. By the way, for anyone in the Hex community, the best person to tag it in your attacks is Scott. Make sure you tag him. And you spam his name.

Yeah, yeah. Just honestly, it's very important. Can I make one quick point about just kind of what they've been saying right now? I think what this is really showing is that the way that the Hex skins see things versus everybody else it's entirely different so like it's almost like fruitless to just kind of carry on with the argument but also i think what this is showing is that while other people in crypto think that they're the ones that are you know innovating and pushing for freedom the hexagons really are we're innovating in capital

formation with this whole premise of this sacrifice, we're innovating. You can't call sacrificing an innovation. Why not? Because it's a marriage. Yes, soldier. By the way, did you know that the conviction rate is 95% because most of the times the cases never go to trial. most of them get settled out of court yeah but then do you not and do and do you not see do you not see you not see how this is this is simply eos 2.0 give give us a piece yes give us the money that yeah yes but here's

the thing say say they take them down say worst case scenario happens sent away for life do you think just from the personalities you've spoken to and what you see online, do you think that that makes us sigh away or is that only emboldened us? So it's like, okay, what's the worst that could happen? And I think Gary used the word martyr. I don't know. If the price is. Yes. So I don't. Scott so i i don't think that language i'm telling you honestly scott scott don't diminish not makes it sound like no i think i'm not dude i think it's a very good call you you say cold like it's a bad thing what what i i really view as more we're more like a political group that's more more so than a cult which political groups kind of are like but that our future is going to martyr.

Yeah, yeah. So, okay. So if you think that if Richard was put away for something that everyone else viewed positively, you don't think that would only embolden us? It might, but what if the keys go? But what does embolden us mean? Like you'll just complain more on Twitter or what exactly would you do? No, no, we continue. Probably the main complaint over the last couple of years has been that Richard hasn't been active enough.

It's like so many different groups and independent people have been contributing to the ecosystem in huge ways and it's like we're all kind of brought together in this in this group and so it's like he falls down the next person steps up and it just carries a dip like that's our strength you know what i find you know what i find ironic that the irony the the irony the irony is that that rich everybody about Celsius about a year and a half before it happened. I know, I know. Everybody about Celsius about a year and a half before it happened. That doesn't mean... Yeah, I know, I know.

You could be... But, soldier, soldier, you could... No, but you could be... Seriously, though. Who are these soldiers? What hexagon has told you that he has been defrauded by Richard Hart? What hexagon? Nobody, no hexagon will ever come to you and tell you that they were defrauded by Richard Hart? What hexagon? Nobody, no hexagon

will ever come to you and tell you that they were defrauded by Richard Hart. It's stupid. It's stupid to say that. No, you speak to people that are not hexagons. If you speak to hexagons, not one of them will come up to you and say, I was defrauded by Richard Hart. That's actually BS. That's actually BS. Go ahead, Jack. Go ahead, Jack. That's actually BS because if 100% of Mexicans loved Richard so much. There would be no case. There would be no case, exactly. Some people.

It's not that they don't. It could be wrong by anyone. Love of a hate him. He has not defrauded anybody. If you put the top of a coin, right? If you put the top of something and then it went down 90% Were you defrauded by the founder? What is then then has been nothing no one no one No one in soldier soldier soldier

Soldier soldier just to get up Scott just Scott meet him. I got I'd have my phone Scott you can okay now Hey, so the only thing I'm saying the only thing I'm saying, the only thing I'm saying is that, one second, one second, just to clarify something, nobody is saying that the ex-agents would say he defrauded them. The claim of gout fraud is if he spent $12 million of their money, ours and mine.

And if he already had $12 million before that, if he already had $30 million before that, soldier, soldier, you got to, Scott, can you, Scott, I wasn't before if you already had 30 million soldiers soldier you gotta okay scott can you scott i don't have my phone scott can you soldier just please look soldiers take a breath man and jack i'll let you respond because so i think you know i'll just take like that will be the final time we'll respond to this because i think you don't understand what the issue is no one said it's because the price went down if you go to every startup my whole portfolio my v my VC startup portfolio

that we've invested in, all of them are down even more than Hex. Doesn't mean they're all frauds. And I don't think anyone's making that argument. It's just crypto startups 101. And we won't repeat

the argument again. But Jack, I'll let you respond quickly before I ask my final question. Yeah, so it's, thank you. It's a very, very difficult actually to say what is fraud and what is not. The facts are that a lot of people are feeling, I guess, mistreated by Richard or just by the optics of his behavior.

So that's definitely caused the rift in the community, and that's why we have this case. The biggest issue, again, is this concept of sacrifice. And we just had a discussion 10 minutes ago. If you're sacrificing, why do you need a token? If you really truly don't need any expectations, why don't you just like send money to the contract and then you truly have nothing to gain from anything. And then let's, I mean, there's like this argument about financial performance, how Hex is like this, you know, best thing performed really well. But then but then again like if you're sacrificing why do you care about the performance i mean ultimately the charts if it goes up it's marketing and people feel like they want to talk about it

so what's what's unfortunate about the situation during the bull market pretty much everything went up and it amplified this concept of sacrifice which is essentially a word salad that is used to sell digital items with hope that they will not be labeled securities. That is ultimately the core of the case here is that somebody, essential figure, gets the benefit from using some sort of, you know, an incantation, so to speak, like this word sacrifice and get people in. And everybody's like believe that, okay, well, if we do sacrifice, which is the same thing as really investment, it's actually not an investment. They're still going to make a ton of money and it's not going to be security. And so now this thing is in front of us and let's see what happens.

Let's see. Let me ask you a quick question, Jack, and that'll be a question to everyone else on the panel. Just kind of wrap it up and before I ask that final question, which will be the most interesting one and that's how likely do you think Richard will end up in jail 1 to 10? Just for the fun of it. Speculation. And I know we're speculating on something pretty morbid, but

we're doing it in an educational way. Before you answer, Jack, just to remind the audience first, I hope you enjoyed the debate. Two things. Number one, if you want to come up. Oh, there's Gary. Gary dropped off. Gary Cardone bringing you up again.

So, Gary, I'll give you the final words. Just let me just remind the audience. We've pinned above three tweets. Two of them are just if you want to come on as a sponsor or join the Shark Tank show Ran, Scott, and myself are doing. Just hit us up via email there or DM me or Ran. The email is pinned above. It's easier that way.

And there's also a tweet by Crypto Town Hall for Bybit, which is a sponsor of today and I think for a while. And they've got an $8 million prize pool. We've got like a whole, it's like a sports team, a trading team. And you compete. Ran, you're better at pitching it. Do you want to give us a quick overview of what that Bybit $8 million prize pool is?

Great pitch, Ryan. So if you want to go in there and participate in that giveaway, check it out. It's pinned above. It's a Bybit tweet. And again, you just go in there. I think you trade. If you got the best returns, you win a lot of money. We've got a team there, the roundtable team. Not the roundtable, sorry, the Crypto Town Hall team.

No, we're part of the town hall team. Yeah, the town hall team and then we've been acquired by the roundtable team. Not the roundtable, sorry, the Crypto Town Hall team. No, we're part of the banter team. Yeah, the Town Hall team, and then we've been acquired by the banter team. So we're owned by the banter team now. So you can check it out. So we sacrificed into the banter team. So I want to ask

a question for the panel. But before that, Gary, you've been listening to the debate for a while and i know we've had a similar discussion before and we're talking about we're going back and forth about the doj what are your thoughts what you've seen so far what you've heard so far regarding uh the sec and and versus uh richard and the potential doj indictment hey mario good to see you guys i have a lot of respect for a lot of people. I like Gary a lot. Look, I think the guy will be in prison for the rest of his life because he will be extricated from doing business with anyone in the future that's reasonable or logical, no matter what he ends up

with. I cannot believe anyone actually stated on this that no one's been harmed and that no hexagons care about this. I heard massive rants last night from people that were supporting this gentleman over how much money they've lost. It's a it's, it's a shame. Okay. It's a shame that we have such a bad education in finance that anyone could possibly believe they could make a 36% yield by locking up their assets. I mean, look, if you guys want to lock up your assets for 10 years and give them to me, like bring them on. Okay. i'll pay you a great rate knowing that if my rate gets so crazy i will probably default uh last last thing i'll say okay this is classic key man risk three words key man risk and the thing about bitcoin is i don't have any key man risk so i don't need

another jesus in my life i don't need another Jesus in my life. I don't need another God in my life. I need a business that doesn't have catastrophic failure because some guy decides he wants to buy 30 bags of Louis Vuitton stuff. This is criminal, man. You can't take shareholder money and spend it on personal things. Even if they sacrifice the money, Gary, even if they sacrifice, yeah, even if they sacrifice, even if they, hold on, I they sacrificed... Hold on, Dip. I'll do it for you, Dip. Even if they sacrificed that money instead of investigating Gary, the money's sacrificed.

Yeah, I mean, it's not only sacrificed, but it's locked up. No, they're entirely wrong. Yeah, Gary doesn't have a clue of what he's talking entirely wrong. Gary doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. He really doesn't. Did you even read that?

I've read that website. Go ahead. For God's sake, send me a case. Oh, shit. But Gary, I think Gary is giving a a cake. Oh, well, yeah. That's it, dude. But Gary, Gary, I think Gary is giving a good old man. No, no, let me.

No, actually, what I'm going to do is I'm going to get Soldier. I think he dropped out. Let me get Soldier for a quick final word. I think it would be great. Hold on. Let me get Soldier up. And then this way, the hate will move away from you, Scott, and will come to me.

Let's go. me.