The Wolf Of All Streets - Strategy sells 3588 Bitcoin! Time to panic or is it the bottom?#CryptoTownHall

Episode Date: July 6, 2026

In this episode, Dave and the panel analyze MicroStrategy’s surprise Bitcoin sale and how it dismantled forced-seller and sole-buyer narratives, with the market showing resilience from the lows. Joined by Gary, Lou, Michael, and Jamie, they critique altcoin treasury companies holding hundreds of thousands of BTC but lacking viable models or revenue to token holders, creating zombie projects and exhausted leadership without catalysts. Contrasting this with Bitcoin’s hard money thesis amid fiat expansion, they examine Ethereum and Solana’s user growth versus challenges delivering value to holders, similar to utility protocols. The discussion covers on-chain spam from inscriptions, governance debates on filtering, misaligned miner and holder incentives, quantum concerns, and the need for greater professionalism to overcome immaturity and attract institutional capital. They conclude Bitcoin remains underpriced with strong long-term prospects as digital gold. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Well, good morning, everyone. Looks like people are still celebrating from this weekend or from the World Cup or from whatever. But at least as far as listeners and speakers go. So it looks like just you and me, Tony. Are you there behind the mic? Wow, Dave. Is it really just me and you? Yeah, so far. So far, the producers are inviting people. But, you know, it is an interesting morning, you know, from a crypto perspective. you know, we're looking at, I mean, I personally, whenever I see Salana go back above my, my cost basis, it makes me happy. It really sucks, Dave, because we had some momentum. It looked like Bitcoin, you know, it broke over 63K.

Look, it could still go to 70K or so in this relief rally, but then get the sailor news and it really sucks. Well, you know, that, it's worth talking about that because the truth is, look, I am very critical of strategies trade execution. I'm not going to lie. I mean, there are lots of things. Clearly, you know, they tend to buy the tops. This one, they may be selling the bottom.

I mean, look, but I can't complain about the notion of saying, okay, you wanted us to have dividend coverage that we wouldn't need to sell anymore. Look, we were able to sell this. Without anybody knowing we were selling it. And now we have, you know, what is it, 15 months of dividend coverage. I can't really complain about it. that because the entire narrative on the way down was sailor is going to be forced to sell and

the market's going to pinwheel out of control and here it is he sold several thousand Bitcoin market no one knew it was definitely a surprise and so be it I mean it is what it is I mean it tells you that that this bottom held despite strategy selling instead of buying so the the this the two narratives that we've heard over it over again you know were that strategy is the only buyer, everybody's selling into strategy, and that's the only reason it hasn't fallen, and that the other narrative is that, and when they go to sell, the market's going to collapse out of control. Well, guess what? They sold, and they actually sold, you know, lower than where the price was trading, you know, after they were finished selling. And so it really did crush both

narratives. And so if you think about it from a perspective of, you know, not just from trends and charts, I mean, it's, it's not bad news. Now, is it, good for MSTR holders. I don't think so, but whatever, you know, but from a Bitcoin perspective, I think that it's actually somewhat positive. I mean, it's kind of perverse, but true. The other thing that is true is anybody who trades the orange dots and buys when Sailor announces his buys and it loses money because the next day it generally reverses. So it stands to reason that anyone who sells when sailor sells after he's already done it is probably going to lose money as well. So it, those two facts tend make me think that it's not such a big deal. I mean, am I crazy?

No, I agree with you. But I think, you know, the saying perception is often greater than the reality of a situation. So totally agree with you. But I think a lot of people are holding on to the fact of sailor essentially sold for many years, did aggressive marketing of I will never sell, strategy will never sell and now they're backtracking on that and yes is that um you know embellished a bit by some of the bears that the entire world's going to collapse bitcoin's going to collapse and so forth yes because they're shorting right um so i think to your point you're right but the perception out there the headlines all these things um they have legs because of sailors aggressive marketing over the years yeah i mean that while that is absolutely true and you can't argue with

it. And it is going to get him personally some angst. I mean, his lawyers are, I'm sure, dealing with a lot of shareholder lawsuit-type stuff. I mean, by the way, trading shareholder lawsuits generally is a fool's errand. You know, certainly in the long run. You can, if you're nimble, you can make money, but it's hard. But, you know, and yes, people like me, I have often said that sailors, you know, philosophical tweets or some of the, some of the memes that he posts are probably not the right thing to do for a lot of reasons.

But what is interesting here, and I see Gary as a listener, Cardone, it would be good if you could speak. I'd be curious because you're probably looking at it like me, being told that in a week when Bitcoin looks to have bottomed, that Sailor was selling instead of buying, that kind of puts, it kind of gets rid of the narrative that there are no buyers outside of sailor, and that matters. And so I'd be curious what you think, if you can come up here, Gary. I don't know if you can hear my voice.

You never know with this platform, but you show up as a listener to me. But yeah, I think that that's really what's going on. And look, interestingly, today is an interesting day. I mean, you have to look at it this way. I mean, you know, the stock market, the NASDAQ is up. You know, the S&P is up a little. The Dow is flat.

I mean, it's not that much, but crypto is doing pretty well. I mean, you know, it's a pretty good day from a, from a crypto perspective, which is surprising. And when I say crypto, I'm talking about non-Bitcoin. I mean, Bitcoin is, you know, is doing what it's doing. But, you know, Ethereum is up more and then a whole bunch of others are up more than that, you know, since last week and not necessarily since the weekend. I mean, they're holding their weekend rally, which to me is fascinating. Your thing too, Dave, along the lines of what you're talking about that is it non-factor that, you know, strategy is selling? I think for Bitcoin to continue, Michael Siler has to be more in the background and strategy has to be more in the background.

Because there's too much emphasis and focus on it right now. And I think, again, we're seeing a bit of that, the perception, right, often graded in reality. And I think he was great in a certain part of the cycles, right? 2020 and so forth coming on the scene, the launch of digital asset treasury companies. But now that's becoming a bit saturated and everyone is focused on sailor. Well, Bitcoin, he can't be the poster child for Bitcoin. He has to go away in a sense or be behind the scenes where we're no longer focusing on him. I mean, yeah, the verb tense on the digital asset treasury companies is wrong.

I mean, they became saturated and now they're getting rinsed out as they should. as they should be because they need to have a reason for existence. And many of them don't, but that's a different story. Hey, Gary, I see you're up here. Yeah, man. Are you surprised that Sailor was able to sell 3,000 Bitcoin last week while Bitcoin was bottoming without crashing it? No, I was not.

And I'm really, like, I found the crypto response to this really really, bizarre because even the 32 he sold, we spoke about this this morning. The price was sold off after he had sold. And that's happening again. This industry is so reactionary. One, I think it's an awesome sign. He sold 3,500 Bitcoin and the price has bottomed out. I mean, clearly he doesn't pick his points. It held, it's going up during his selling from 58 to 60, 61, 62. I don't know what you guys are looking at. I don't see anything really doing that great in crypto today.

But I think it's all narrative driven. And if you've got the biggest buyer in the world starting to sell now, now that's out of, like, we now have a new narrative that we never have to address again, okay Michael sailor will go both ways if needed and it's that's what we needed. Yep. And more to the point, it's the verb tense is matter. I mean, what would be the need for him to sell anything over the next 15 months unless he sees it unless he sees.

I think this was all pressure to. I think this was all political pressure. The people, the banks, everybody was like, hey, it's too much. Fucking do something. It's not, I don't think he's the problem. I think the crypto narrative around him. him is the problem because crypto bros hate him, which is fucking absurd. It's the other 150 companies, dude, that have no business plan whatsoever.

Like, I keep bringing this up. Those guys have to get flushed out of the market. They are sellers, 350,000 Bitcoin. I think all of that gets sold back into the market. And I don't care if it happens two at a time or point two at a time. But these companies acquired Bitcoin to save the, their business and it's not going to, like, whoever thought that was going to actually work. Your brother?

Oh, yeah, but yeah, but that's different. My brother will have the best strategic reserve company of anyone because he has organic yield. Now, if his yield goes away, that changes. But he has organic yield, dude, for years and years and years and years. I understand. I was said, believe me, I was joking when I said that. That was fun of the way. Yeah, and he's private, okay?

The private guys will be fine. It's the public guys that are going to come under scrutiny. And if they did take on this business and not fully understand, I don't know anybody that fully understands Bitcoin, like they're being asked questions they cannot answer. You know, and that's embarrassing, dude, being a board member or being the chairman of the board or the CEO, it's like, oh, shit, I'm in order that I can't.

I've got eight Bitcoin. I can't even explain it to these analysts. You know what I'm saying? Dude, it's a problem. It's funny. Tony, were you trying to say something? I was just going to say I interviewed your brother, Gary Grant, just recently. And we talked about the meshing of real estate and Bitcoin in a portfolio.

So very different model for sure. Yeah. I mean, look, using Bitcoin on the balance sheet, you know, as part of a profitable enterprise and is different than just doing everything you can and, you know, selling blood to buy Bitcoin, right? You know, and, you know, strategy has their, has their, their own thing. And it would be good if, frankly, if strategy was less and less the story. There's no doubt, as you said, Tony. But, you know, they have been one of the largest buyers. And make no mistake, if Bitcoin goes on another bull run. Let's not say if. Let's say when Bitcoin goes on its next

a bull run, the SCRC narrative will reemerge because if, in fact, you can, Bitcoin's Kager goes higher, significantly higher, than the interest rate they're paying, that's a bet. And that's a bet that is a, it's at least an understandable bet. Whether you think it's the right bet or not is a totally different story. But, you know, it's not like all the people who keep, who've been chirping for the last three weeks about the whole thing's going to implode, they're going to have to sell everything, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, clearly that's not the case.

I mean, they've been empirically disproven. I mean, grain Europe, Aaron, and you talk about this all the time. Oh, sorry, Gary. Yeah, I just wanted to bring up, if we have time to talk about it, because I get a lot of flak for this, both the strategic reserve companies, the 150 or so, they have 300 plus thousand coins, but also the crypto space itself. Okay. and I'm just talking about over the summer, what is magical going to happen that would drive

Ethereum or Solana's price right now? What is going to magically happen that makes the crypto market, not Bitcoin, but the crypto market just like really do what it normally does, which is take a lead when it has nothing. It has no story. It has no revenue. All it has is pivots and CEOs that are exhausted, man. exhausted, okay? So walk me through. I would just like to know how that gets flushed out of the system or who's going to be the magical bid that raises $800 billion worth of assets or liabilities. I'm not sure

which one they are. How does that get pushed, man? Because if that doesn't get pushed, I don't know how Bitcoin gets pushed. Well, I think Bitcoin is going to move based upon what the issues inside of Bitcoin that need to get resolved, right? You know, whether it's the, the fight over BIP 110 or it's quantum, blah, blah, blah, it is, is Bitcoin going to continue to survive? Because Bitcoin's narrative is really the hard money narrative and the world is, and if it's not obvious to people, then I don't know, they're not paying attention. The world is continuing to print money at an accelerating pace. And so that, that narrative is separate than the narrative of protocol Totally agree. But you can't have the rest of the market. It's an equivalent size market to Bitcoin. You can't have that with a struggling, look, you have a, you have no story there.

Well, I mean, there are lots of stories. Yeah, but do any of them generate revenue? Well, that's the problem. Yeah. I constantly harp on. No, no. Some of them do generate revenue. They just don't go, they go to the equity. They go to the companies. They don't go to the, they go to the, they go. go to the token holders. That's been my big thing for a while. And the fact that like securitized just went live and they have tokenized equity, but they're live, you know, they rang the bell. They have their stock exchange. They have their party tonight, I think. I'm flying out to Vegas to play in the World Series of poker main events. So I'm not, I'm not going. But it's a, you know, these are these are real events that have real implications for some tokens, maybe, but only if the economists get passed on.

I mean, Lou, you run these events every week. I mean, you know, inside of crypto, how many people, how many narratives are out there that are to answer Gary's question? Are you there? Well, yeah, I'm here. I guess I don't really understand the question to the degree that it, I don't think the crypto market is necessarily that different than the public market. And, you know, the bottom 80% of public companies have like $15 trillion in value. and they're all dead. But it's the same thing.

They'll all live on forever, and we've had massive bull markets with all those crappy companies. And I don't understand why we're never going to have another one if all those crappy companies don't go away. Well, I mean, Gary's asking specifically about will economic value accrue to token holders in a way that people can contextualize

and want to bid them up? Like in DFI summer, the belief was that all these defy tokens were going to be generating revenue for massive amounts of total addressable markets because the whole world was going to move on chain right and you could get yield and you could do this and you could do that etc and so that that drove that the nfts market when that happened you know et cetera et cetera Dave also the day of the point I'm trying to make let's say that anthropic or open AI which I suspect open AI will have a really scary story. I think that will bring down the whole AI market, right? Like, it's just, there's just too much, right?

So what I'm saying is that I think crypto and Bitcoin from Wall Street's perspective is inextricably linked. And that if there's not something that's going to really push, you know, the alt coins, like really push them, that to me, that's going to be a drag on Bitcoin, right? Because I, I don't see a bunch of crypto bros going, okay, I'm going to rotate into Bitcoin now. I don't understand why XRP performing has anything to do with Bitcoin. Well, because I think money starts moving out of the digital asset space and it moves somewhere else. That's what I'm... Starts?

Yeah. I mean... Well, when's it going to reverse it? Okay, see, that's the question then. When does it reverse? Because to me, you need money flowing into the whole industry. It's not just going to pick Bitcoin. Well, certainly, you know, we're seeing continued growth in, you know, stable coins on Ethereum.

I think that's a huge, huge, huge thing. And right now the market is struggling with understanding. You think, Lou, the banks are going to let Ethereum have half their fee? No, man, come on. Well, right now they're assuming Ethereum gets no fees. There you go. So what's the case? What's the case for Ethereum?

It's a free business. Well, so there are very few companies who have amassed the audience that Ethereum is amassing and the user banks they're amassing that haven't been able to monetize it. The hard part is amassing and engaged audience. That is a really hard thing. You know, when I wrote about Facebook in 2010, I wrote a Wall Street style research report about it, because you could just see they were just going to grow and grow and grow. And it was obviously much more, it was more obvious how they were going to accrue value.

but you can see it coming. And you know that if people get an audience, if they get users, almost everybody monetizes it. And I think the theory will figure it out. And you think the same thing for all the other tokens that have big audiences. Well, again, I don't when you say a big audience, Tron has a big audience, right? We all laugh at Tron.

It's certainly not decentralized, but it has a big audience. And is he creating value from it? I think Justin's actually probably creating more value. today than, you know, to the bottom line than Ethereum is. Right. And, you know, obviously there are, there are multiple other ones. So, yeah, I mean, but look, it's funny because there are a lot of people in the crypto in this space who look at it in a bifurcated way like I do, that there's Bitcoin and there's

everything else. And, you know, like, Mickle, who's up here has a, you know, basically he talks about the, the memeification or what it is, but, you know, it's still, it's money versus not money. and whether or not anything else can be that way. But at the end of the day, it still boils down to total engagement and can holding XRP or Tao or Salana or Ethereum provide value to the people who hold it, right? Is there some reason for people to want to own it?

That's really what it always boils down to on every one of these tokens. And Gary's asking the question, well, how does that compare? in a world where everything's going to be on chain, and eventually, and it's moving rapidly in this direction, you know, all investors could buy all things. And, you know, then you have to, and so you're competing against all things. And that's essentially your question, right, Gary? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like that. I can build the best blockchain I want for $250,000. I don't need to go to a third-party open source document and use their user base. Nike has a user base. A massive user base.

I'm not going to buy Nike stock. Sooner or later, these companies have to make income revenue, dude, like old business. You can't keep saying it's different this time. I'm not, you don't. I'm not saying it's different. No, no, I'm not, and I'm not picking on anybody. I'm just saying, look, at some point, the farmer has to produce some yield, right? He has to make something and it has to have a positive value.

to it. I think we compare it to the wrong benchmark, though. Like, I don't compare it to companies, right? I compare it to, like, email protocol or IP or T-C-I-P. Like, these are all protocols that I generate any kind of revenue, they make no money. They make no money. Passback to any kind of company, but instead, it's the protocol itself that delivers utility for companies and businesses to take advantage of. There's no revenue stream. People use it because it's a utility. And I think that's how the way of a lot of these public blockchains are going to go. But you're going to have to tax it then. mickle because like you and i use the highway all the time sometimes we use it sometimes we don't it still has to be maintained nobody charges this for it then you get taxed and so sooner or later you're always

going to have maintainers but the question is is whether that has to be a monetary incentive like you can have people who want these protocols to remain robust because it allows their business to operate in a way it couldn't operate otherwise like that's a huge incentive to leave these protocols up and running. So I think there's a lot of ways for these protocols to be able to monetize themselves in a way that's not necessarily solely focused on the amount of revenue generation. That's helpful. Because right now there's no correlation between the amount of revenue generation and the most successful projects in the space. Now that's helpful, okay. If you've got a few example, why don't you give us some examples of how they could do that, generate revenue.

Well, I don't think they're necessary. Or generate value of some type that I can. I guess gets monetized in some other works. I guess hyperliquids creating some... The Bitcoin ecosystem, like most of the development in the Bitcoin ecosystem isn't coming from the miners who are generating the revenue. The development comes from a completely different custodium. Yes, the mining is a critical part that makes the Bitcoin blockchain function due to its consensus mechanism, but the revenue generated from the miners really doesn't flow down

to the end people who are working on the underlying protocol. The truth is, is in all of these different ecosystems, there's a good thing. group of people who are stakeholders who have an incentive to see the protocol do the best it possibly can, whether that's because they use it for something or they store value there. And I just think those groups of people will always be there building and making these chains better. And then say you have an instance like they said before Ethereum or the XRP ledger or you see it with Bitcoin, you have a lot of people who are leveraging this technology to do things they were not able to do otherwise with the traditional financial system. And therefore, if they have to contribute a small

amount of resources that's substantially smaller than what they would have to do in the traditional financial system to do operations that can't exist, maybe it's worth them maintaining these protocols to keep them running and functional so that they can continue to grow their business. But the real question then, because Michael, is, and you and I've had this conversation multiple times in different contexts, is separating the native token from the protocol, right? I mean, so base is the classic example on the other side, right? So Coinbase has this protocol. Yeah, maybe now they're going to introduce a token or whatever. But, you know, but they, they introduced this, this protocol that was part of their business, but there was no token.

And there are a lot of protocols that operate perfectly happily. I mean, if you look at Maddo, these will be polymarket, you know, who's making the money? The money is being made by polymarket, not by the token holders, because the token doesn't do anything. So, I mean, there's a lot. You're absolutely right. There's a lot of ways that people subsidize around it. And, previous figure said, there's a lot of options that are more centralized than others in terms of how they go about things. And I think it's going to be like a total gradient of what's useful. I always bring the example, like I think Gary made this point, which is absolutely true. Like, there's absolutely going to be a huge case for private blockchains. And in fact,

I think the proliferation of public blockchains is going to be driven by the adoption of private blockchains. And the adoption of public blockchains is going to massively grow the demand for private blockchains. I look at it very similar. This is not a perfect. example, but just your private camera role versus things like the social image sharing networks. Like there's tons of things that I want on my private camera role and there's other things I want to share with the world. And honestly, both of them kind of spiral the need for me to have more storage in one place or the other. So I think the same is going to be true for public blockchains. You're going to have private block chains that have a utility intra-company and intra-network.

And then they're going to have public sources of liquidity that anyone can contribute to or draw off of. And I think that's a huge value proposition that the world really hasn't seen play out yet. That's interesting. Lou, I see your hand up. Yeah, I was going to bring up just another quick point that, you know, a problem that I've seen for a long time is my belief that many institutional money managers are never going to invest in tokens that they can't value. Right. And how do you value Ethereum? Right. I still, to this date, I've not seen a great way to value Ethereum. And I think that's actually in terms of kind of, you know, things that we can solve that I think will have a big impact coming up with some valuation metrics. And my guess is over time, they'll be more community-based. But right now, there really aren't any good valuation metrics for

these things. But the problem with that is, is like what is valued correctly? Like people were saying all these AI companies were valued incorrectly and they continued to go up and video was value. Like, no one knows how to value anything. Well, evaluate. Well, you can still look at things like, I mean, we may not like the number, but price to sales or price to revenue or price to book value or tangible value created or projected, you know, 20, 50 revenues in some cases, you know, if you want to try to. But you know it's a moving goalpost, Dave. The second a company blows one metric out of the water, they create a new one that makes it make sense. Well, I can tell you there's one thing that never goes. There's one thing.

There's one valuation metric, which never, ever, ever, ever go. is out of style, and that is free cash flow. Ultimately, all of the other metrics are just place cards for free cash flow. I agree with that, but I do think there's some other metrics there. When I see a company size of Navidia do a deal with Google, and then they do a deal, like the credit, if you show me a 10-year deal with these companies, I'm like, okay, I can value that. I can put a credit score on it. I can put a risk score on it. What I can't do is I can't go, well, gosh, Ethereum is going to be a token for the pornography industry in eight years. XRP will also compete for that business. Now, Visa MasterCard own that business, but you're going

to break into it, not get paid any fees. They're going to just let you do a middleman's sleeve. You're adding no value to the value chain that currently exists. I do. not see how these companies play a role that allows them to build treasuries of money that allow them to invest in their people and their innovation guys like like i would love to hear an explanation of how 800 billion dollars for the companies don't get fucking wiped out in the next year and a half love to hear this story you say companies you're talking about talking about all of the alt markets yeah they should be companies man this is the problem like like coming up with, hey, coders are going to do it because coders want to do it.

Bitcoin has a problem right now because the people that are doing the operations and building the code have no Bitcoin. There's no incentives. I would not let people work for me and my company if they didn't have the stock. They own stock in other companies that compete with me, but they don't own their own stock. They're not like, I need people that are economically incentivized on the same side of the ledger as I am. am I interested in investing in a Bitcoin or an alt coin or anything? You see what you know what I'm saying? I mean, it's like me investing in IBM and knowing the CEO doesn't make any money.

The entire management team makes no money. They have no bonuses. And you can't get rid of them. The people who build this stuff are the only ones who make money. And the people who own the tokens are left holding the money. Okay. And Dave, you know what? Every one of those guys,

But every one of those guys, including the guy that did light coin, they're all exhausted, and you know what happens when a CEO is lost and he's lost his motivation in his company. They're like, these are not companies that you can easily just swing in, hey, let's swing in CZ on Ethereum and let him fix it. Like, it's a profound problem, really. I've never seen it in the market before. Well, there are a lot of zombie ones out there. but I think Ethereum is probably, I mean, we don't have any of our typical, you know, Ethereum bull type guests who can explain what's going on. But I think that there's been some pretty major changes in terms of who's actually driving that narrative forward.

And I'll do a terrible job of explaining it. But I think that it's a bit overstated. But it's not overstated to say that understanding what the token matters, you know, the token not giving you, like there are companies, like actual companies who created to have sold tokens. and the company makes the money and the token holders get nothing. And they did so because of a regulatory reason, but that reason no longer really matters. I mean, the reason is just the reason, right? It's because, you know, I made the statement last week.

I think Gensler did it on purpose. I think he basically structured things to say, listen, you can do memes and you can do governance because it doesn't mean anything and sell them. And if people want to be dumb enough to buy them, fine. And that'll hurt the crypto industry, but I don't care about that. I want to kill it anyway. But if the company tries to sell equity or future revenue streams or anything very clear, he wouldn't let him.

Well, fine. But now we are, it's a couple of years later. And now you're an investor and you're buying something that you don't know what the hell you're buying still. And that's a problem. And that's a problem for all crypto. I don't think it's a Bitcoin problem. I'm not even sure it's an Ethereum problem, but it definitely is a problem. But that's what you're having a problem.

You're talking about from a cognitive dissonance point of view. The only token that doesn't have that problem right now, not the only one, but the poster trial for not having that problem is hyperliquid, where it's a pretty clear mechanism. And that's why it's performed so well. See, here's another example of latecom. This space was downloaded via spacesdown.com. Visit to download your spaces today. Watches all these idiots, you know, build their circus and comes in and takes a shitload of market share from the guys that are stuck. This is exactly my point, man.

It's a market structure issue. Okay? And I could be really wrong on this. But like I look at the structure of this market. I'm like, man, we have a few little problems to fix before we can really take off. I don't care about all those things. I don't think we have to fix any of those things. Those things are going to be there forever, just like they are in the public market.

And ultimately, right, where is the value to a thing? and why is Ethereum question Solana? At the end of the day, the value in all of this is in decentralization. Yeah, and outside of, on the financial markets, I think we can do different things with this technology. They don't have to be fully decentralized. But I think, you know, most other, you know, Ethereum is winning because they're actually decentralized. And they've actually achieved scale and the world is using it. And that's where the value is coming from.

And that's where I think over time it's going to, you know, grow immensely in value. Lou, do you own Ethereum? Yes. Although I'm underweighted. And Betty Bitcoin, too? I'm largely Bitcoin. I think like most people in crypto for long periods of time. Yeah.

I mean, so, you know, I don't know if we want to go back, you know, to the strategy topic only because, you know, it feels like the market is sort of digested it here. and what happens. We've talked about it, I've talked about a million times saying that if you're going to do STRC, it's junk debt and it's based on Bitcoin value as opposed to future earnings. And if you're going to value strategy, it's based on how well they manage the leverage, et cetera. But the real question is, is all this for, what does it mean for Bitcoin? And if it means that we're no longer going to have to hear the strategy unwinding,

causing a depth charge to Bitcoin down to 30 or 40,000 narrative, that then it's undeniably positive, right? You know, to me that that's, and I think that's exactly what's happened. I, you know, that's why I thought it was kind of funny to see the knee-jerk reaction of it's being sold. Lou, is that a new hand? No.

No. So, I mean, I don't know if anybody has any thoughts on this. I mean, grain, I figured, you know, you follow this story very, very highly. Were you surprised because you did that poll last week, And obviously the people who responded to your poll all got it wrong. Yeah, everybody, basically everybody got it wrong. Not everybody. It was basically like 75% saying there was no chance of them selling any Bitcoin.

So the reason why I do polls is to gauge, look, if I say, if I just say what strategy is going to do, I'm one person. But when I have a poll and I have 900 votes, that gives me much different data points. And just look at the distribution. So was I surprised at this? Sure. I think this change, I think strategy is operating completely differently than it did, even in Q2. And we're only on July 5th, sorry, July 6th.

So I think that they're operating completely differently than they did in Q1 and Q2 of 2026. And then everything changed in December of 2025 when they effectively acquired $2.25 billion in cash. And now they have the highest cash amount ever to $2.55 billion. So I think that how they, I think it's much harder to model how this goes forward. You have to model out basically one and a half billion dollars of sales per year. Just, you know, thinking about it logically, they have a $1.7 billion dividend payments. So you kind of have to model that they sell that out each year, which is not really a big deal from that perspective. But then if they want to have positive BTC yield, which is their acquisition of Bitcoin,

you know, if you sell $1.5 worth of Bitcoin, you have to buy back $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin. But you'd rather buy that back when the price of Bitcoin is high, which people are like, that makes no sense. Why would you sell Bitcoin when it's low and then buy it back when it's high? And the reason why is because strategy already has high-cost Bitcoin that they could sell. And so they could sell the high-cost ones. And the reason why what tends to happen with the company strategy is that their MNAV is high when the price of Bitcoin is high. So let's assume that you sell $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin. Let's say it's a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin to make the math easy.

And you sell it at one MNAV. If you buy it back at 2MNAV, it takes half as many shares. And that's the way the math works. So you want strategy to trade at a premium. Or let's say you buy it back at 1.5MNAV. So now it took you 25% less shares in order to buy back. So I think that's the difference that people aren't seeing. But we need Bitcoin to go up.

To Gary's point, you need Bitcoin to go up. The narrative on the alt coins, I haven't, you know, I'll be honest, two, three years ago I was buying. I bought, when I say buying, I bought like $5,000 worth of salana and chain link and and maybe a couple others just for fun. And did they quadruple? Yeah. And then I sold some at a loss. And it was fun.

I just did that. But now I don't know. I haven't owned any alt coins in, I don't know, three years. And it was such a small percentage of my portfolio. I just did it for fun. But the takeaway with this is that I think modeling what strategies is going to do going forward is much harder now. And there's a lot of moving parts.

And we never had amplification. really prior to last year. So how that plays out in a bull market is really anybody's guess. But, I mean, I'll take any questions. I mean, I think. But do you think that we're talking about strategy too much, that it's too much of the narrative and that over time it will decrease as a part of the narrative?

Well, I think that if you're, look, I don't follow Ethereum that closely. And I'm a big Tom Lee fan from his analysis on stocks. But if you're an Ethereum fan, I think you want Tom Lee to be successful. So do I think in that group, Do they talk about it too much? Don't know, don't really care.

If somebody thinks I'm talking about strategy too much, they can unfollow me or mute me or block me. No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. Obviously, you know, people who are helping people understand strategy, I think you're doing God's work. So thank you for that. I'm just saying the discussion of micro strategy broadly as a percentage of the Bitcoin

discussion, I think today it's way overweighted relative, you know, to where it will be over time and that at the end of the day i'm not here because of sailor sailor comes sailor goes it does not change my interest in bitcoin whatsoever okay i i in the spirit of what you're saying do i think we talk about it uh maybe too much sure i could say that over the past week last week over the weekend um i joined a a bunch of phone call a bunch of spaces on bip 110 then i joined a bunch of spaces in in anonymous mode. And I got to hear people that completely disagreed with BIP 110, people that agreed with it. What I can tell you is that if an outsider was to join those calls and listen in,

I think that they would think that Bitcoin is an uninvestable asset. I think that's the takeaway. The way that that was discussed. Totally. I totally agree with you. In fact, I think that discussion has put off more legacy investors than the quantum issue. mile. Absolutely. The the amount of unprofessionalism, attacks, you know, name calling, just overall childish behavior. Had you been, had you been to a call before? Yeah. It's been around for 17 years. Yeah. And it's doing the exact same thing that it's always done. And it's always been a dysfunctional governance system, which I think in some ways is why it's been so successful, because if you could come in and change it every day,

it probably wouldn't have hardened like it did. Yeah, but let me get, look, I've been in this now for just a little bit over nine years. In 2017, I don't remember what day, it was sometime around August of 2017, when we were doing the block size wards, and I was following it on X, and I had been in the space since May 17th of 2017. I went in that scale. I've said this all before. And I bought it in Bitcoin.

it was sub-2,000. And then it went to like $5,000 in June. So I almost done whatever, two and a half acts. But at some time in August of that year, they were just having, you know, arguments about the block wars. And then what happened was China banned Bitcoin for like, I don't know, the 20th time.

And Bitcoin got cut in half in a 12-hour time period. And I was like, oh, God, what did I get myself into? Now, I was still positive for the year. I was still up, I don't know, a couple million bucks at the time. But I was like, you know what? I don't think that China banning it for the 20th. And that was the narrative. Oh, China banned Bitcoin again.

And then literally that night, I went to sleep. I woke up the next morning. And Bitcoin was back to where it was. You know, it took 24 hours for it to round trip, a 50% drop in one day. Do I think that that makes that an investable class that, you know, the FUD, fear, uncertainty, and doubt. And then being on these calls. now nine years later the way people operate, I don't, again, I don't think it looks good for the industry.

I'd like to build on that a little bit. I have disrupted five very large industries, okay? And there comes a time when you can't keep putting a FARC in people's. I had to grow up at some point. You know, at one point you can do really crazy things. But at some level, when you get big enough, if you want to get bigger in that industry, you have to kind of adapt a bit and become more professional, you know, or you're not going to get bigger. They will block your ass. They won't. It's uninvestable. Just like a grain said, these conversations are not a trillion.

This is not a trillion dollar industry that talks like this or has six or seven people that could slow things down. And if that is the industry we're going to have, I think you're going to find people are going to be, like, that's concerning to me. much more than quantum. And it is amazing to me how many conversations we had about quantum and not this matter, the management issues, the decentralized, the negatives that come with decentralization. Yes, I agree. Very related. I mean, the real question is, I don't think that a serious investor, honestly, I don't want to minimize it.

You know, the issue of whether or not the blockchain should be allowed to have spam, whether it could be filtered or not, is a big issue. I know what I think privately, but I'm not going to talk about it now as I don't want to devolve into it. I don't think that issue is existential. The real question is that the industry can't even agree on that, then how the hell are they going to come together to figure out what to do? Exactly. It's not that issue. Exactly.

And that's where when you have a pressing issue, like something related to quantum, at some point quantum is going to be a legitimate problem in terms of it's a legitimate problem from a narrative perspective. But there's at some point where it would be a legitimate problem from a technical perspective. And when we're talking about the crap that they put on the blockchain, and look, I heard this one guy saying, I put crap in the blockchain just because I can't. And this is a guy that likes Bitcoin. And I was like, oh, my God, but he likes putting his crap on because I'm capable of doing it. Then I'll just do it as I see fit. And he literally said, I can spam the blockchain. And I was like, and he's against BIP 110.

And I'm like, wow. And so there are these guys. They're just, in my view, they don't act like it's a one plus trillion dollar asset. They're like, oh, if we screw this up because technically we can't, then that's good for us. It's kind of like the concept is, hey, you know, somebody left the keys in their car, so that justifies me stealing it. I'm like, no, it doesn't. Oh, somebody left their front door. Somebody left their door open on their garage, so I'm going to steal their crap because it's their fault.

you know things like that's the same thing just because i could do this on the blockchain maybe don't do it maybe you just have you know crappy and you know intent and that's what i heard on the spaces and i thought it was disappointing to be honest with you i would hope that the space had had matured and i can use that word had matured over the past nine years and it did and so lou i'll take your feedback on this but i didn't hear that i heard a bunch to be else with you be a bunch of clowns or you know or wizards or whatever you want to call them or and they one of the other spaces and they yelled at other guys it was like i'm like really it was just you know what are you doing to improve bitcoin like no i'm going to just take advantage of it because i can

and because i think i'm right i was like wow if that if that's the case look it came down to this one thing if somebody said to me because there's no way to determine what it is what is, you know, inscriptions, ordinals, ruins, or anything that we can put on the blockchain. There's no way to figure out what is a good image or a bad image or bad data or a good data. In my view, it would be like, then eliminate all extraneous data

and just keep it straight money. I would say, because we cannot trust people to do the right thing, because nobody knows what that is, then I would say to take it all off of it. I would do that because we can't rely on the community. then how do you answer the the argument that's the interesting argument on that is the jason lowry software argument that if you have this blockchain that can protect high value data uh in but now you don't allow data you basically taken out a lot of the that that utility from the blockchain that that

so so yeah can i just bounce in you ask yeah look um if you want to keep something a secret, don't get a patent. There's a lot of things. Look, the recipe of Coca-Cola, it's not patented. It's a trade secret. If you have data that's important, don't connect it to the internet. Now, somebody can say, well, then how do you access it if it gets deleted? That's a different problem. But I would tell you that putting it on a synonymous public blockchain to put data there because it's that important, that's a different problem. It truly is. And, well, let me, let me bounce in here because we're assuming that you can put all the data. You can't?

So if you ask these people, can you put the entire dictionary, all encyclopedia is on blockchain of Bitcoin. You cannot. So the military ain't going to do it, whether they want to or not. It can't take it. What's the big argument about? You guys want to fucking put a bunch of crap on it? Who's going to pay for the storage in 10 years for a picture? Nobody's considering this shit.

It's going to require storage. Right. So Gary, what they were saying was that if it fits inside the existing structure of it today. Yeah, fill it up. Just fill it up. Let them do whatever the fuck they want. But it's never going to be the purpose of Jason Lowry's military project. It can't take all the data. And this is where we devolve back into which data should we put onto it. And my view is, you know, just I would say take it all off. Well, don't you guys think maybe the, like, when I look at it, like there's a little bit of a problem in terms of where the incentives are coming from, right? Exactly, bro. One group of people is incentivized to get as many transactions and fees on the network as

possible because that pays out to the miners. But then there's this other group of people, right, which I tend to be in this other group of people, which is like, I think Bitcoin is hard money and the vast majority of people should just hold Bitcoin and do absolutely nothing with it. But that's completely on the other side of the miners who want as many transactions as possible, right? So you have this weird incentive mechanism where the incentives flow to the miners who are encouraged to do as many transactions as possible. Regardless if they're garbage transactions, they just want transactions.

Meanwhile, you have people like Michael Saylor, right, who's like the head of the industry, are being perceived as the head of the industry right now, who is going much more of this narrative of like digital gold, hold it, don't do anything with it and just keep it and safekeeping. But that totally devalues all the miners. then if the miners have this other incentive to go run over and put their compute in other places, let's say AI, because that is more accepted in terms of a revenue opportunity. I think that's the biggest problem, and that's why you have a lot of these arguments, whether or not it's good data or a bad day to be putting in the chain. The problem is a lot of the market participants just don't care. They just want more transactions because they know eventually one day those block rewards are going to keep going down. And for them, they need a new way to subsidize their business. So for them, get these transactions moving.

Michael, you know, I'm not an expert in this area, so correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the people you're referring to are the Maras of the world who have no competitive edge. They cannot produce Bitcoin competitively. They're losing money. And so they have to overwork the system. They go away, dude. Mara does not exist in the future. This is going to be a decentralized Bitcoin mining operation.

Scale miners won't work. You're not going to pay seven cents a kilowatt and make money at Bitcoin. I don't care what the price is, by the way, of Bitcoin. That's the beauty of Bitcoin. I just think the problem is more so that they're going to fight tooth and nail to stay alive. And if their revenue is completely dependent on pushing new things to the chain, that that's the issue I think we're seeing right now. Yeah, but they're not going to survive.

But they're not going to survive it. You can't push enough to make $118,000 Bitcoin win in a $62,000 market. market. That's what they're fucking mining for. People are saying they're mining for 70. They're not. If Bitcoin's low and they have a bunch of people who want to run and put a whole bunch of JPEGs on the blockchain and they want to go bloat it with all this crap just so they make more money and they stay alive longer, I agree with you, Gary. Like, that's probably not the thing that's going to work over the long run, but the long term damage to Bitcoin is already done as soon as they start jamming all this shit in for their own perverse incentive. Well, there's still plenty of room on it. Like it's not like the blockchain's completely. It's not so much the room, though.

The problem really is, is each one of these things opens up more attack vectors. So the more you add this kind of stuff to the chain, you open up more and more attack vectors. And I'm not saying any one of these is going to be catastrophic, but you go down a slippery slope when you have the community who wants one thing, right? They want this hard money, digital gold store-to-asset that really the vast majority of people might never even transacted on the public chain. They're just using it a store of value. But then you have all the people who are maintaining the infrastructure looking to jam as

much of the things in as possible because they make their money off more transactions. So when you have the community movement going towards no transactions, but you have the infrastructure providers incentivized to do as many transactions as possible, it just seems like you get these arguments, kind of like what grain of salt was talking about, where you have two groups of people completely looking past each other because they're incentivized in completely different ways. Jamie, I see your hand's been up for a while. Yeah, hey guys, how you doing listen i was just listening in and um you know uh i got sent in from the crypto and bitcoin bros that come in and save the day from thinking that this is going to be another end of the

cycle it's not it's fine this is just a bare market guys and the you know a lot of things are happening over spaces of the weekend i agree um you know a lot of the big 110 it's it's basically a nothing burger these this is just spaces talking about for engagement farming. There's nothing serious about it. It's not going to pass. You know, it's just another narrative. You know,

and, you know, anybody makes an investment decision based on what's going on spaces, they're not serious investors anyways. That's not the point. The point that Gary was making and the point that Mike was making is very valid. But what's funny is it's actually significantly better today than it was a year ago or whenever. the valid point is that a lot of the original cypherpunks, and a lot of the original people who are heavily involved in Bitcoin, have absolutely are the best word I could use to describe them

with regard to understanding financial markets and value. And value is immature, and there are worse words, but I won't use them. And that immaturity a year ago was significantly more of a danger because they owned a significantly higher portion than they do now. now and over time that will continue to move in a different direction. But the truth is that it is concerning to people who come into the space because they can't figure out what is a nothing burger versus what is real. What is real, Jamie, and it is real, is there are, and I've heard this concern from multiple

people. I mean, I think they're overblown, but it's a concern. There is a concern that there will never be consensus on what to do with Satoshi's coins that those what if that wallet can't be upgraded to four quantum there there are some people who are believing that the whole thing will blow up there are others who believe that we just can't get the consensus on that etc and and understanding that getting the consensus matters is it is important i mean and so when you see this sort of stuff it it drives people crazy you know no i get i get i just wanted like you know that just offer some optimism to the to the conversation like and and you know

Like, really all optimistic. No, I get it. I'm just like, like, listen, specifically, like, you know, the business like we, you know, historically has been, you know, inline or expanding during a, you know, Bitcoin, you know, price movement. We went to all-time highs last year with, and it largely had not crossed the 50 market. We were 53 and expanding. I think that's a good sign.

There's about a trillion dollars of unlocks that's coming over from the next, from July to December, just from the SpaceX alone, that's going to free up about, let's say, $800 billion of net revenue, of mostly profit that can go and can, you know, rebalance into other markets. You know, I just don't see this as, you know, where's this money coming from? There's some money right there that could move into this. You know, we talked to David Bailey yesterday. He came on to one of the spaces talking about BIP 110. He said that, you know, if this were to pass, he would sell off.

all his personal coins. I said, well, hold on. I said, what happens if it's that serious to you and you would sell your own coins? What about the value of all the Bitcoin treasury companies? He said, well, then, you know, public companies would look at the change in any, you know, a core development leadership or structure change, right, as some very serious, but it's not going to pass. So from their standpoint, they're not panicking. Sailor's not panicking. And the other thing you and I talked about last day was about this selling Bitcoin back to the title. You know, we talked, I said, you know, Saler needs to normalize selling Bitcoin so that he can stabilize the market. I was surprised he sold, but I was glad that he did because he laid out

that plan. Here's what we're going to do, guys. Here's what we're going to, we've got governance for selling Bitcoin. We're going to, you know, at the time that we believe it's going to help us and get the company through this bear market and into a better time. Because when Bitcoin goes up. I don't think these treasury companies do badly. You talk about no revenue. Strategy's been criticized forever for having no revenue. These blockchains make revenue. And everybody's just in a bare market. I'm just saying, I'm just trying to say myself, I see a lot of positive things coming, and I'm just trying to lay out the framework where that could come from. Hey, Jamie, Jamie, let me chime in here for a minute.

I know you're saying. I was going to go to you back. Yeah, thanks. So Jamie, look, I was on that space. Look, guys, anybody can do this. I join spaces anonymously, and then I listen to what they're saying. Okay, look, if there's a bunch of cyberfunks that we never heard about that are on some, you know, mail lists that are talking about this stuff, it's unknown. What I'm hearing is, is there are accounts, 250,000, 500,000 followers, a million followers that say things that are just factually incorrect because they do it because they get likes and they get followers, okay? they're in it just to just to flame that okay oh michael sailor's going to get margin called uh sailor does not buy on margin how does he get margin go oh well it just happened people got margin called that bought stretch those were people that bought stretch on margin did they get margin called sure but

that wasn't strategy that did it and people are like i don't understand your distinction i go that's my fucking point so the takeaway what i'm trying to say right here is that is that and back in the olden days during the internet bubble, I would go to this net world interrupt in Las Vegas with a half a million dollar Ethernet switch and people would be like, and it's a modular switch, right? What that means is you could pull out one of the blades that were in it, and you can pull out the blades

that can do the connections into it, and you guys will see how this is related in one second, and you can pull out the management blades in the middle. And so as a techie guy, I pulled it out, And then when I pulled it out to show people, oh, and this is the board, and the guy says, hey, can I take a digital picture of it? I'm like, yeah, well, we send it. This is not, it's public information. And the guy takes a picture of it. And then I looked at his name tag, and I realized that he was a Wall Street analyst. And what he wanted to see is, if our switch is successful, they know the chips and the manufacturers that made those chips that are inside our board.

And then they can reverse engineer what chip manufacturers are the ones to then go invest in. And I knew this 26 years, 27 years ago. Why is this important when we get on a phone call or a space with a bunch of guys talking about those chips are the exact same thing as, oh, what is the leading indicator for how Bitcoin is going to treat BIP 110, BIP 360, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knox, whatever it is? And then you jump on one of those spaces. And it's a bunch of people that are, you know, I don't even want to bring up the words. They're arguing about, you know, what I consider to be content that shouldn't be on the Bitcoin blockchain. If you want to put that on Salon or Chainlink or something, make your own protocol to do that, go right ahead. But can we just keep Bitcoin clean or at least try to do it?

And the answer to that is, again, the takeaway is the person that had a very large account was saying, Oh, just because I could do it and I'll pay the fee. I'll put whatever, he actually used the word, I will spam the blockchain just because I can. And if you've got friends like that, you don't need enemies. That was the takeaway. But great. Let me just add just a little context to it.

I think everything you're saying is awesome, by the way. I invited David Bailey. He came. The reason I did was because I wanted to have a public company's voice enter that discussion to kind of hear how they look at it, right? He wasn't panicked. Again, you know, he understands the blockchain.

Like all of these things, like when we had the NFTs, they, on Ethereum and transactions went up like crazy. We have the mean coins on Solana. We have inscriptions and JPEGs on Bitcoin. All of these things are meant to test blockchains and see if they can last. That's the use case of them. That's why they're beautiful. Satoshi himself, people forget, the very first spendable transaction, Satoshi inscripted on there

about the chancellors, you know, and talking about the banking. Like, this isn't something that's not a first principle. Hey, Jamie, Jamie, let me chime in here, okay? Well, hold on, almost that, great. Hold on one second. Let me explain a difference here. Hold on a second, crane. Go ahead.

Just let me see my point. What I'm made, my point is that these things are meant to test the blockchain, okay? And, you know, they're not bad things. This is just proving that they work. But to the other point, when there's a lot of panic and spaces, and Saylor came out with this strategy, MSDR has been up over 30% this last week. Like, all the panic and all the spaces that we're talking about strategy,

it's not going to last, it's going to collapse. That's not being talked about right now. All I'm saying, again, to put just to put it all into context, There is very, people are hyper focusing on some of these small, they're not small in the spaces, but small in as far as the broader spectrum of where this is going. I think everything's going to be fine. I think everything's going to be fine. I think you're seeing that in the market.

Yeah, Jamie, look, when you design software, you'll do, you know, QA, quality assurance testing to make sure that it can withhold spam. If you have a test network and you want to test it, great. If you want to take production code and test it in a private environment, go do that. What's happening is there are accounts with 250,000, 500,000 followers, a million followers, that are literally saying, we'll take the running blockchain, which, let's just say, because of its permanence, we will spam it to see if we could break it. And all I'm saying is, do you have every right to do that if you want to?

Sure. Now, but if I'm listening to that as an investor, I would be like, great. We got a bunch of people that think Bitcoin's great. And they're trying to break the actual running code of it by putting crap on it that stays on it permanently. And it's a difference between something that is stateless and stateful. Stateless is, I put something out there. Does it break? Sure, then we do a code upgrade and it continues running.

And that data is gone. What happens with Bitcoin, it's stateful. It keeps this data on the blockchain permanently. So it's like, oh, I'm going to put some really crappy spam content on it just for fucking fun. And they do that. And you're like, great. Were you able to do it? Sure.

Could we stop you? No. Could it be filtered? Maybe. And I'm like, thank you for your experiment. I think that you're, I think that you're being childish. And I think that not you, Jamie, the people that do this. And I don't think that you're helpful to promoting Bitcoin as a mature trillion dollar.

asset. That's my takeaway. Right. And I think that that's a fair point. And I'm going to end it here because, frankly, I need to go. But, and we're at time. But I think that the point that Gary made originally and that Mike, Green, excuse me, you know, is saying is valid, which is there's maturation that needs to happen. And people are who with real money are turned off by some of the, what I'll call sophomoreic nonsense. And you mentioned David Bailey. I mean, the man has been a one-way money incinerator for everybody else, except for himself. He managed to buy Bitcoin magazine, you know, with his, you know, with a company that effectively incinerated value. So, you know, and the mistakes along the way are shocking. So, you know, I'm not, I'm not a fan. We'll just leave it at that.

And, you know, maybe there are things he can rehabilitate himself. I don't know. But, you know, we, we shall see, you know, statements that are that hyperbolic, though, about, oh, I'll sell all my, come on. That was a bit, no, no, that was if Bit 110 were to pass. What he was saying was it's not going to pass. And as far as how. Jamie, Jamie, you're not getting this.

Jamie, you're not getting this. It's not about whether that BIP 110 passes or not. The way that they discuss it is completely childish and matronage. immature. That man is a CEO of a public company making things like that. Agreed. It is completely, is almost as bad as some of the other things he's done to incinerate people on this panel's money. I think you guys are personalizing it from who's saying it. No, I'm not personalizing. I'm reacting to the statement. The statement was if it were to pass, he would sell. The fact that it's not going to pass would give confidence to public markets and

Bitcoin holders at the core network. We're going to agree to disagree on this one. I. don't think that a public company CEO should be making definitive binary statements that way. You want to shade it a little bit? Okay. But binary statements, if this, then that are dangerous. Again, he is saying in general is what he was saying, but specific, that the fact that the developers of over 15 plus years are not changing with the direction. It gives confidence to the underlying asset. That's the point.

and the Bitcoin network. You have to take a content. I'm merely stating that just the way of delivery, it's that when you have a person who's built his business, most of his business, on the basis of marketing and hyperbolic clickbait, don't be surprised when they speak as hyperbolic clipbait and manage a company that way.

That's all I'm saying. It's just more evidence on that. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more, nothing less. But at the end of the day, I believe Bitcoin will do more than survive, and I think the market is dramatically underpricing its potential. So, you know, there you go. But Wednesday will be another day.

I don't know if I will be back. I do not know if I will be here. I am playing. I'm literally flying now. I'm going to be playing, what is it, today's Monday, Tuesday. And if I survive Tuesday to day three at the World Series of poker, I probably won't be here on Wednesday. But we shall see. In any case, enjoy the rest of your day, everybody.

Good luck, Dave. luck. Take care. Get the bracelet. Bring it home. We're a long way from that.