The Wolf Of All Streets - Trump ATH Margin On Betting Platforms: Market Impact? | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: October 21, 2024

Crypto Town Hall is a daily X Spaces hosted by Scott Melker, Ran Neuner & Mario Nawfal. Every day we discuss the latest news in crypto and bring the biggest names in the space to share their insight. ►►TRADING ALPHA READY TO TRADE LIKE THE PROS? THE BEST TRADERS IN CRYPTO ARE RELYING ON THESE INDICATORS TO MAKE TRADES. USE CODE ‘2MONTHSOFF’ WHEN VISITING MY LINK.  👉 https://tradingalpha.io/?via=scottmelker  ►► JOIN THE FREE WOLF DEN NEWSLETTER, DELIVERED EVERY WEEK DAY! 👉https://thewolfden.substack.com/    ►► OKX Sign up for an OKX Trading Account then deposit & trade to unlock mystery box rewards of up to $10,000!  👉  https://www.okx.com/join/SCOTTMELKER ►►NGRAVE This is the coldest hardware wallet in the world and the only one that I personally use. 👉https://www.ngrave.io/?sca_ref=4531319.pgXuTYJlYd ►►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    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.

I can hear you, but I hear music better. Yeah, perfect. How are you? Did you make that song? Did you know that I'll mention it in a bit, but do you know that two of our projects won the... Let me see, it's pinned on my account.

But won the... There's like a pitch 200 projects we're pitching for BitAngels. Not sure if you've heard of them. And two of our incubated projects won, but he gets all the credit. We came number one, number three out of 100 projects. Was it an

in-person thing? I didn't know anything about it. I think it's in-person because there was a video of it as well. I never heard of this, but Bit Angels has judges like Brock Pierce and Michael Turpin. He's a regular on the show.

And I don't know if you know the last guy. David Chom. Not sure if you know him. Yeah, of course. David Chom was literally like the original founder of cryptography and digital money. I've interviewed him before. He's an interesting guy. Yeah, exactly.

So they got a show. I don't know if it's like an actual show or they just do it behind the scenes where they just it's like a showdown like a Shark Tank style showdown over 100 projects and yeah man

we got what were the two projects Social AI and Mindshift Meta they're under the incubator so where he knows he's the one dealing with them but

yeah man I was pretty pretty proud of it that's awesome yeah you say congratulations usually. Congratulations. That's amazing.

You did a great job. Appreciate it. While everyone else is getting busy with meme coins, which I won't lie, we're deep into that world. We're still talking about IDOs. I'm not sure if you've seen that. Finally, VC-backed projects are starting to get some of the love they deserve. I think we're starting to see much better performances. We've got a few.

There's one that did 26, 27x or 30x or whatever. I've got what it's called last week, and there's another one sitting at about 15, 20x. So it's good to see some liquidity coming back into that world. And again, I'm extremely bullish on VC backed projects, and I think a lot of the

liquidity that got out of that world into meme coins will cycle back. Yeah, I just think we need, I just, I agree if we get a huge like infusion of new money in the space, just because we need more demands to buy all that supply. But I think that's coming because there's no bull market for anything if that doesn't happen. Yeah, but I think it's bound to happen once we break all time highs.

Yeah, we got pretty close to 70 there, uh kind of selling off today uh what's it at today did we we didn't touch 70 did we no it got up to like the mid 69s so probably 69 420 i saw it being memed into existence uh and then i think uh today dropped almost just about uh low 67 so far i haven't looked in the last 20 minutes. The only time we broke 70K was when we hit all-time highs a few months back, and that's it, yeah? Yeah, I think once it lost it, it's pretty much steep. Well, actually, I think it went back above because we were watching like 72. Now I have to actually look. I don't want to quote myself wrong, but I'm not in front of a chart.

Yes, back down to 67.5K. What do you think is leading to that before we kick off the show? Is it mainly the political aspect of it? The upside or the downside because it depends on the day or the week or the month. We're at 67K. I think it's hard to talk about downside. I mean, today you have the, you know, on a very short timeframe, you have a yield rising, dollar pushing up.

Obviously, I mean, gold continuing to make new all-time highs. So if you view Bitcoin as a risk asset, you would expect it to be going down. But we're talking about very slightly. I think the general rise from kind of like high 50s to almost hitting 70, a lot of people are pointing to the Trump trade. I don't know that I really necessarily agree with that. But obviously, as polymarket odds rise, Bitcoin has risen, I think, you know, more of a coincidence than necessarily a correlation. But, you know, at the end of the day,

I think Bitcoin's still just in this range, right? I mean, we're just trading in the 60s, and that's great. But trying to point to any specific reason why it's 61 or 69 on any given day, you know, it's kind of the same price. Yeah, exactly. I agree. 61 or 69 on any given day you know kind of the same price yeah but yeah exactly i agree but um um the poly market is now at an all-time high for trump it's a 24 point difference which is pretty mental yeah 24 point difference was that 20 a couple of days ago and that's at 24 yeah i was just looking at the chart.

So Bitcoin did, I mean, after making 74, it went back into the 60s, back above into the 70s, then dropped quite a bit and then topped right at 70 the last time it kind of tried to get there and now going again. But listen, usually it's going to eventually happen, obviously. Just maybe not today. Yeah, on the political front,

yeah, Trump, I haven't looked at the polls let me see if there's any new polls but trump is um way ahead on the betting platforms 20 on the aggregate of all betting platforms and 24 points uh i think what is it i can't remember what it was but like 38 to whatever it is 50 whatever um on uh trump's side on polymarket but let me see the days yeah dave what were you saying this morning about rasmussen maybe dave sorry no no i i heard i just couldn't find i was i was looking at cal sheet which was 57 uh you know so only a 14 point difference on that one. Yeah. Rasmussen was saying is that the house is going where the president goes. And so the idea of having a, you know, a split where the Republicans control the legislature fully and the Democrats

have the white house, I think that's really unlikely. Are you playing symbols? No, I'm on an elliptical in my building. I wasn't expecting to speak for now. Sorry. Yeah, by the way, Trump, look at the polls as well. Trump is ahead in all swing states by a very small margin, but the momentum is definitely shifting towards Trump.

And you saw Elon's going. Go ahead, David. Yeah, I was going to gonna say all that's within the margin of error but that said the the hysterical response to elon and his sweepstakes idea to energize voters is i mean it's actually kind of amusing uh but yeah it's elon is definitely is is a big factor that is weighing on the betting markets no doubt because him campaigning in pennsylvania even betterman uh basically said this is a big deal he's gone all in it's fascinating and it's just also fascinating how he succeeds at everything he does like he's gone into politics and within within a couple weeks he's um well not even two weeks yet. He's already – he's now playing a key role in the momentum on Trump's side as well, rallying on a regular basis.

I think every couple of days he's doing a rally. He's streaming it on X. He's done that million-dollar prize every day until Election Day. And he's launched America Pact as well, for anyone who doesn't know, which is – I think it's like half a million followers, whatever it is now. I haven't checked for a few days. But yeah, it's just fascinating to watch what's going on. We're going to start doing regular daily shows. I just told the team half an hour ago to start doing daily shows on the elections.

How many weeks away are we? What's the date today? Two weeks from tomorrow. Two weeks from tomorrow? That's insane. Is there still room before we kick off the show? Sorry, everyone, but is there still room for an October surprise

within two weeks? I know we saw that with Hillary in previous elections as well, but what's the likelihood to get a surprise in the final two weeks of the election cycle? I don't know. The closer it comes, the better in some ways.

But I'd say within a week is too short given early voting. But I'd be on tune for something in the next seven days. And has anyone, so if there's nothing

in the next seven days, then it's much less likely. And has anyone been watching the early voting, the numbers from from there compared to previous elections like how many people are actually registering and and voting early because obviously that works in the democrats favor compared to the last two cycles last two elections anyone at all looked at these numbers because i heard two different stories on

one side they're saying on the one side they're saying the turnout was a lot less and so that was a bit of concern for the democrats but then someone told me just a few days ago that it's actually the opposite in i think it was detroit in michigan and it was um higher than average um which is a bit of a surprise and and i'd say i don't know if we can actually draw the same inferences as you could in 2020 there's been a lot of commentary on how voter propensity has flipped between the Democrats and the Republicans over the last few years. And so now Dems are the higher propensity voters. A lot of Republicans have been making push to get people to vote early and kind of walk back the mistake they made in 2020 in downplaying mail-in voting to their own base. So I haven't looked at what the

return numbers are yet, but I think there's plenty of reason to think that they may not be as indicative as like they were in the 2022 congressional elections, where everything was just very tied to the same kind of patterns we saw in 2020. Interesting. I asked a question earlier, you had the one about what could happen in the final moments. I just wanted to note that Hillary Clinton, the investigation was announced by Comey on October 28th. Now the election then was the 8th, so it's a little further back, but that's essentially

what 10 days out? Yeah, exactly. Cool. I'll let you go. Do you want to go ahead, Dwayne? Oh, yeah, sure. Cool. I'll let you go. Do you want to go ahead, Dwayne? Yeah, sure. Thanks. Good morning.

Well, there's record turnout in Georgia in regards to mail-in voting and early voting, so that generally would favor the Democrats. I think this election season is unique in the sense that no one really has an indication of what's happening. If you look at a lot of the polls here, there was like at least 28 new, I guess, right-leaning polls, pollsters that came out this year. Also, a lot of the polling companies, you know, don't want to get caught with their pants down again, so to speak, from the, you know, from the previous election prior to Biden with Hillary Clinton and Trump, where the numbers were completely off. So, you know, they're,

they're sort of looking at that on a scale as well. So no one can really tell what the actual numbers are, what the voter turnout's going to be in regards to ground game. The Democrats have a superior down ground game to the Republicans at this point. We'll see how Elon's PAC does in terms of getting actual people to go door to door in order to gin up some voters here. So I don't really think any of us can really tell. But I think there's going to be a record amount of voters this time. I think you're going to get anywhere from 90 to 100 million plus voters coming out. But

we're just going to have to see what the outcome is going to be. I think that the Harris campaign will win the popular vote. But of course, it comes down to the swing states and the electoral college. And that's sort of up in the air right now. Yeah. as opposed to being a hawk, the moment that has changed this election is that Butler, that second Butler, Pennsylvania endorsement rally by Elon Musk. The trend is your friend and there's no question that the market,

I mean, that the election really had a pivot point. And I think this is going to be a massive, massive change. And that's what changed the trend. Bill Maher and Jim Cramer, about a month ago, came out and said there was no way Trump was going to win. And you know what? I actually look at Bill Maher because he's actually more honest in spite of the fact that I have nothing in common with him politically. And he basically looked really

worried, really worried on his Friday show. And then Frank Luntz, who I respect eminently, he's a little bit left of center, but he is an honest man, has been pretty, pretty clear about the directional change. And so has Mark Halpern, who used to work for Bloomberg, and as you well know, MSNBC. They are both talking about the alarms that the Democrats are obviously feeling. There has been a change. And then one last thing, the not attending of this Al Smith dinner in New York reminds me of the last president that didn't go to

that dinner, Walter Mondale. And we know that in that election, he lost to Ronald Reagan 49 to one. So I'm going to go with the trend is your friend. Mario, do you think that it's must? Um, I'm looking at John Deaton. Our friend John Deaton just got the... Would you call it an endorsement? I'm not sure if you saw Elon's... From Musk? I mean, Musk retweeted Brian Armstrong

simply saying, yes, that we need to vote for John Deaton, so I'll take it. But it's not like Musk sent out a tweet that was like, here's a link to... If Elon gave him some money. No, I think when it's Elon Musk, a true endorsement

as much as I love that he's supporting him would be writing a huge check, right? I mean, you're talking about a guy who's been reportedly giving $40 million a month in the presidential election. Yeah, exactly. But you don't have to donate money to endorse someone. You can endorse them just with a tweet. Elon, everyone said Elon Musk

when he did that tweet. I think it's great, regardless. It's huge. Do you assume that Elon Musk supports John Deaton over Elizabeth Warren? Everything else is so... Support is one thing, but would you call it... The reason I'm asking, guys, I'm just about to tweet it out

and tag Elon to see if he gets more support to John. Can we call it endorsement or just support for now? If it's going to just about to tweet it out and tag elon to see get get kind of more support to john so can we call it endorsement or just support for now what do you guys if it's gonna get you to tweet it and get elon musk to retweet it then i would call it a rousing endorsement uh i'm not gonna i won't do that would you call it i would say the most honest way to put was indicate support of i think it's fair to say all right thanks for endorse alex i said if you want the most honest version i'm just i'm calling the balls and strikes scott i guess it is what it is dennis you're about to jump in sorry

oh yeah i was just um gonna jump in and comment on. I think it was Dave that was talking. I couldn't tell if he was up on stage or not. So his mic wasn't moving much. But just this idea of like, where we are in the election. It's really, it's gonna be very interesting, because obviously, you have a lot of these different constituencies, you know, and there's some that are really interested in seeing Trump win and some that are really interested in opposing Trump. It's really just, I think, comes down to a level of excitement between the two. And it hasn't really worked for either side to demoralize the other camp. Let's take the Hillary Clinton campaign as an example. Trump pretty much demoralized the Hillary Clinton camp voters at the very last two weeks. I think it obviously got a big boost from the Comey announcement. But you know, at the beginning of that election, she was kind of perceived as this like, you know, sort of perceived as a coronation event. She was, you know, walking in and just going to take the crown and everybody was, you know, loving on Hillary at the time. I wouldn't say everybody that a lot of people on a lot of Democrats are supporting her even

centrist voters are supporting her but over the election, I think just Trump everybody, but a lot of people, a lot of Democrats are supporting her. Even centrist voters are supporting her. But over the election, I think Trump just treated her like a punching bag and did everything he possibly could to make her look like she was a criminal. And I think that obviously the FBI investigation really highlighted some of the points that Trump was trying to make about Hillary and really put a lot of doubt in the eyes of the voters. Now, I don't think Trump has been able to do that same thing with Kamala. I mean, certainly some people in this room will probably think he has, but I can promise you that he hasn't. There's a lot of voters that are very excited about Kamala. I wouldn't say that they're anywhere near excited as they are with,

you know, with like an Obama. But there's definitely that level of excitement. There's people that feel like there's an opportunity there, hope behind her. You know, the Republican voters, the partisan voters in the room are going to hate me for saying that, but it's true. And the other thing that you have to take into consideration is the anti-Trump contingency. How big is that anti-Trump contingency still? There are a lot of Republican voters that don't want to vote for Trump. Are they still in that position or have they changed their minds? There's a lot of people who have come out this election who have said they've changed their

minds. They've said that they were anti-Trump and now they're very favorable towards him. So I think it's really going to come down to really how excited are the voters actually. You have a ton of Trump excitement. I don't think anybody is doubting that. But also there's been a lot of, you know, recording in the past showing that Trump is not a majority candidate. And what that means is that he can't get a majority of the electorate. But has that changed? Possibly. His approval ratings have certainly improved quite a bit, even though they're still negative. I think he was like negative 30 in 2016. Now he's only negative 9. So a lot of dynamics are changing. As a political junkie, it's sort of like the Super Bowl,

and I couldn't be more interested and more excited to see the result. A lot of dynamics are changing as a political junkie. It's sort of like, you know, the Super Bowl. And I couldn't be more interested and more excited to see the result. You know, I think it's a lot closer than people would give it credit for. But it could also be, you know, some people are stating here could very well just be a blowout, right? Like, we don't know. We'll just have to see how the cookie crumbles, so to speak. Hey, Dennis, can I ask a question? Because it's a genuine question. I'm not leading the witness or anything.

I can't tell. Is that Dave? Yeah, it's Dave. Sorry. Yeah, he's on stage. He can't. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Hopefully. Well, you can repeat the question. I'm just wondering, though. OK, good. It seems to me that I'm seeing much more like Obama seems to be doing almost as much campaigning for Kamala as he did for himself or damn close to it, just a huge amount of campaigning and stumping. Whereas we didn't really see that in in the last election cycle, you know, vis a vis with Biden. And it seems like like there's a lot more energy and, you know, you know, effort going on know, what people would call the democratic machine. You know, do you make anything of that? Or do you think it's just anecdotal? And it's not really true? Definitely. I will. I mean, here's the other thing I think that I, you know, I should

have said, and I didn't say, but I'm glad that you're bringing it up, which is that I think the difference between past elections and this election really, I think, is that Democrat voters truly believe that Trump can win. In 2016, they did not think he could win. And so I think that the fear in the Democrats' minds, because they have quite a bit of fear about Trump becoming president, actually motivates them. So there's a correlation between the excitement around trump and the fear around those voters and that will actually activate voters so there there's some candidates actually and trump is one of them let's see if it persists it might change given this election is very different you have a lot

of people coming out in support of trump which never had happened in the past uh but there's a lot of opportunity for you you know, potentially for people to get activated by how, how apparent it seems that Trump could win, you know, with polymarket going up and with his polls improving with the favorability improving, like these things, you know, although they strike excitement in the heart of Republicans, and maybe moderate voters who have chosen to vote for Trump, they strike, they strike fear and terror into the hearts of people who are anti Trumpers, and also Democrats. And there is a very large anti Trump contingency that is completely outside the Democrat Party. You know, someone who operates in the political space, I mean, you know, a lot of people know that I've,

I've, I've had introduced, I've introduced pro Bitcoin legislation over 20 states. So we talked to a lot of different lawmakers. And you know, lawmakers and it's not all as some people would hope it would be. Now, listen, Republicans that we talked to that are anti-Trump, the thing is they're probably still going to vote for him for the most part. So just really how entrenched is that anti-Trump vote in the middle and on the right? How excited are the Harris voters? How excited are the Trump voters? And, you know, who's really going to push to be able to get out the vote? You know, I would say that Trump is running a very strong online campaign, social media campaign. He's running a very strong, you know, memetic campaign, one that is full of you know punching as usual and one that is full of very

large rallies sometimes in places where he doesn't need to be campaigning but it also draws a lot of people uh and the harris campaign seems to be more focused on like just actual specific fundamentals but um you know at what point you know i used to say Twitter isn't, is not real life. Uh, social media is not real life, but at what point does, uh, the impact of Elon and Trump being in your face 24, seven, three 65 on this platform, um, make a major impact on your vote? Because I have seen, I have seen candidates. I've monitored candidates go through entire races where they've gone from, you know, 50,000 to 500,000 followers and they lose to an opponent who has, you know, 5,000 followers on, on social media. who has 5,000 followers on social media. So social media is not everything. It's not completely real. And then also, I think the

last point I think that would be important is with Polymarket. I think an important point there is Polymarket... I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's definitely skewed for sure because the vast majority of the people that are voting on polymarket that are placing their bets there are probably men um predominantly young men and we've already shown in this election that young men have skewed dramatically towards trump now they they're they may not know how but this is right yeah but official market hypothesis they could be right it could be right but the vast majority of people even if they're betting on polymarket are young men and young men are dramatically in support of trump yeah yeah yeah so um the counter to that is that dennis is that you know there's a lot of funds that is over a billion dollars liquidity on that bet um so a lot of um funds would close that gap

that factor that in um and if i think that would be factored into the price and then know that what the demographic is of users on polymarket especially their crypto users um and if they feel like it's swayed because of that because of demographic and that closed that gap for financial reasons for financial motives and just remember as well kamala was about was ahead of trump just a few weeks ago so i would um i would not discount polymarket i said that when kamala was ahead a lot of people on the trump side were pushing against polymarket for whatever reason um it was rigged and whatever and i'd say the same thing now that trump is ahead even though it's a pretty big margin and by the way it's not only on polymarket if you go on this website called always references real politics and they give you the odds on all betting platforms and across the

board even though most of them would probably be used by men um across the board trump is ahead another is a fortune article i think it was fortune of forbes that put out an article that there's three accounts all funded by kraken that kind of that played a big role in in trump's margin i'm not sure if polymarket responded to these claims um um so the market is not not as efficient as they should be but i still believe that other funds would close that gap if there is that discrepancy. And the fact that BetOnline, Betfair, Betsyn, Bovada, Bwin, PointsBet, AntsMarkets also show similar margins on Trump's side kind of gives credence to PolyMarket's...

Yeah, I mean, I would certainly be interested to see that. You could be totally right. And I would definitely be interested in the bill. This is why I can't wait literally till the election because I just am like, okay, how accurate is polymarket? And how accurate are the polls? And has the market flipped on Trump where Trump used to be sort of down in the tank when it came to favorability? He was never a majority candidate. But based off what I see online, that doesn't seem to be like that anymore.

So we'll see come November 5th. I couldn't be more excited to witness the election take place, even though many people are totally losing their minds. But when I get into the last month of the election, I just pretend that... I forgive everybody their sins, so to speak. The last month, you lose your mind, you go crazy about the election. I've done it myself in the past, so I hold no grudges against anybody in these final moments. Yeah, I think a lot of people, myself, Scott, I've literally got my whole plans on hold. I'm trying to know who wins November 5th. I think that would play a big role on what I can do moving forward and who I can interview, which countries I can go. I was speaking to tommy robinson yesterday i don't know digressing go back to crypto and maybe just kind

of discuss how got a good question on that scott like how important is it who wins for crypto like is it we're going to see bull market either way before asking that question i was talking to tommy robinson yesterday you know people love it people hate him but he was landing in the uk he's like mario he's expected to be arrested in the next few days if anyone's been following his stories fighting for free speech again very polarizing though and um he said that you know Mario I wouldn't come to the UK if Trump wins he should come to the UK because the rest of the world kind of follows America's footsteps and if Kamala wins don't come to the UK because they're just cracking down on anyone that uh that um that kind of supports free speech and says certain things against the government or whatever so uh yeah i think my my life is kind of on hold till november 5th um but and even elon and

tucker carlson's interview i'm not sure if anyone saw that clip we talked about it a few days ago or a couple weeks ago i think and he said he's like tucker's like like you've gone all in elon like what happens if trump loses he was like i'm fucked like i would be surprised if I'm in jail, etc. And already seeing the mainstream media, I'm not sure if you saw, my team was posting about it, Scott. Mainstream media is already painting Elon in a similar way.

Yeah, you post about it a lot. It was crazy. It was insane that the articles they put out against Elon and how they're labeling him. Yeah, you guys called him the new Howard Hughes, basically, right? Yeah, it's insane. But yeah, I think the question, bringing it back to Crypto Scott,

and I'll ask you that question before you go to the panel, is that how important is it who's the president? Cuban was talking, doing an interview with the All In podcast, and he talked about how he thinks Camila will also be very pro-crypto, and maybe not as much as Trump, at least a lot of us believe it's not as much as Trump. But he still thinks that no matter... Well, he didn't say that, but based on what he said, that even Kamala will be good for crypto. So that means that it doesn't matter who's president, we should be seeing the history repeat itself next year.

I think there's a fighting chance that Kamala would be slightly less bad than the current administration, but I would definitely not push so far as to say there's any evidence. Bad enough to jeopardize the all-time highs? For Bitcoin, no. I've long made the point that, and I know this sounds ridiculous because it's good if he wins, good if she wins, and that sounds a little nuts. But I mean, I think that Bitcoin does well if he wins because global strategic reserve asset and protecting self-custody and all the things that he's laid out. I think it does well if he wins because the whole purpose of Bitcoin

is to hedge against the government and inflation. And if people perceive that Kamala is going to win and they should fear their government or that we're going to print more money, by the way, I think they'll both print a ton of money, but they'll print more money. The same people who buy guns and ammo or move to Puerto Rico will buy Bitcoin. So I see at least a bullish argument for Bitcoin, which has already sort of been institutionalized. It's already got the stamp of approval from the United States government. But for the industry, like writ large, I think obviously there's a hell of a lot more question marks as to what would happen. I mean, think of it this way. I've said it on the show a million times. But I mean, Trump literally is launching a token. Trump has launched

four, I believe, NFT projects. Do you think that Trump is going to put someone in charge of the SEC who's going to make those things illegal? No, he's gonna do everything he can to make sure that these are not unregistered securities and to make sure that people that even if it was only in his self interest, I'm not saying it is. But even if it was only in his self interest to make sure that what he's doing is legal, which means that the entire industry effectively would be legalized in the United States. Kamala can say whatever she wants right now, Gary Gensler and the SEC have still been on the warpath even in the last week or two. Right. So I'm not saying she has the power to change that right now but a little

bit of rhetoric that sounds eerily similar i mean even in the highly criticized uh in the highly criticized statement she made recently where she said basically she would protect consumers with a crypto framework but in the context of black men right So people took that in different contexts. But even taking the part out about the racial side of it, the language she has been using to talk about crypto still sounds like the language the current SEC is using, protect consumers, blah, blah, blah. It's not like she's saying free to innovate for those things. Maybe she will. I don't think it will be politically popular to be as aggressive against crypto, but I think it's very clear that longer term,

I'm not talking about what happens to prices at the election day, that longer term there's a safer bet that he would protect the industry as a whole. You can go to the panel. Who's got their hand up? Same question. Yeah, Eladio and Dave and anyone else. I'm actually genuinely i really want to get to that question what it means for crypto under a trump administration versus common

administration and not only just bitcoin just crypto in general including you know tom vc back projects and um even going as extreme as dgen as meme coins if anyone wants to comment on that Scott was incredibly eloquent yes do you hear me yep yes yep hello okay Scott you're spot on you're much more eloquent than I am and less emotional for sure sorry sorry I can't hear you can I take you down sorry about that it's it's uh you're too too positive towards Scott I don't like that at all so we'll have to yeah I. No, we can hear you Elijah. Go ahead. Yeah. Continue. Well, well, spot on. Look at this all started. I was on, I was on the Mariana Falls crypto conference. There was a crypto conference where Kamala didn't show up and you saw that Trump showed up and, and, and Bobby Kennedy is, is showed up. The mistakes have been too many. There's no question that Gary Gensler and

Elizabeth Warren are not Republicans, and they're not voting for Donald Trump. I'm going to leave that politically. The other thing that everybody is not looking at is this McDonald's stunt that Trump pulled yesterday was brilliant. What a brander and a marketer. And you know what? The fact that the Kamala campaign can't come out and actually show proof that she actually worked at McDonald's. The timing of this announcement, timing is not only everything in investments, it's everything in politics. And there's no coincidence that one of the smartest men in the world is going all out, in this case, Elon Musk, who I believe is the Leonardo da Vinci of this millennium.

And it will probably take us into space like we see in sci-fi movies in the last half century. I think that the mistakes have just been too many the momentum is in is there and and there's really no sincere individual that believes that a kamala administration is going to be more pro-crypto than a trump administration no one says that i think they're saying how how much worse is it going to be and what does it mean for crypto? Well, I still see, I think Scott nailed it. I think that we're going to see 100K at some point in the future. spending and the necessity of the Fed to constantly come in and add liquidity like they did in 2020, like they did in 2009 to save the global economy. The Fed has a new mandate that nobody talks about,

which is their main mandate, financial stability. And there's no question that crypto is a tea party revolution against reckless spending and reckless monetary policy and and the and the and that could change if we deregulate our our our economy and if we lower taxes because the one thing we have learned is that deregulation and lower taxes does create more revenue. And that flies in the face of everything pure Keynesian economists have said. Bitcoin, I think, has a destiny to 100K. When? I don't know. But if Trump wins, it may even happen as early as this year. Danish, where do you stand on this? What does it mean also not only for crypto, but also for the economies at home? It's going to upset people, but I don't think it matters anymore. I don't think it matters at all

anymore. I think the horse is out of the barn. I think they all like votes. They all like money. They all like donors. And I think that nobody likes donors more than the Democrats. I really don't think it matters anymore. Gary Gensler tried his best, but still Bitcoin as an ETF. Gary Gensler tried his best, but yet there's a high likelihood that again, people are not going to like this comment, but Solana will have an ETF. I just don't see how this stops. I think this continues. And really, even though people want you to choose a certain candidate, because they know you care about crypto, it won't matter at all. None of this matters for crypto, because crypto

happens to be outside their hands now. And then talking about the economy as a whole, what do you think it means for the US economy, US dollar? Everybody's compromised. It's all about the Fed. Okay. It's all about the Fed. Trump's going to come in. And I think, again, my opinion, I think he's going to ask for lower interest rates

when we don't need lower interest rates. I think we're going to continue to see inflation play out. I think both sides don't give a crap about the government anymore. Sorry, the economy anymore.

And they're going gonna inflate uh like you've never seen before um i think we go back to hyper inflationary times and i think that entitlement universe is here and you can't stop this train it's um i think they're making tons of mistakes look i will say this that the one part that i do like is that we're talking about government efficiency at some level but i think it's just a talking point i don't see any even Look, I will say this, that the one part that I do like is that we're talking about government efficiency at some level, but I think it's just a talking point. I don't see any of that. Even with Elon talking about the Doge or the Department of Government Efficiency and being

involved in the administration, it's still not enough? You don't think there'll be enough to shift things? No, no, because it's not about that. There's nothing about our government specifically. We need to stop the wars. We're putting billions of dollars out there to other governments. And I think as we't think we should do, or no Medicare, which I don't think we should do. Or no, I mean, like, we're gonna have to get like rid of swaths of government spending that are actually driving inflation instead of just like talking points. Matt?

Yeah, to Dinesh's point too, like the vast majority, 75 percent of government spending is mandatory, like Social Security and Medicare. Twenty five percent is discretionary. And given where the current budget deficit is, you literally cannot cut that. And so they can talk about all they want about, like cutting inefficient federal agencies and firing half the federal workforce, it still gets nowhere near balancing the budget. And I think the odds that like we actually get significant entitle reform, the government has spent the last 30 or 40 years just shoveling money to baby boomers. And now they are moving into retirement and into their highest propensity voting age. And we think now is when they're going to start cutting those entitlements. Alex, this is the funniest part about our government. We're capitalists for young people, socialists for the boomers.

We have absolute socialism for the boomers. And so the boomers, by the way, are the donor class. Yeah, you could just say the wealthy. It works as well if you say socialists for the wealthy and capitalists for everyone else. Socialists for the wealthy. Exactly. For everybody else. Like that poor single mom that's working two jobs.

She doesn't get any socialism. We talk about SNAP benefits. Do you know SNAP benefits are like 0.00% of the budget? But Medicare, which is free healthcare for people that didn't take care of themselves for years, now suddenly we can't even talk about it, right? So this is the problem. Alex is 100% right. And it all comes down, I'm telling you,

it comes down to they want to fix government efficiency, get rid of Citizens United. No more money in politics, suddenly the boomers will start losing all their entitlements yeah i'll i'll i'll push slightly on it i think citizens united is super overrated uh in terms of how big a deal it is um that said like this is part of the problem with how much power our government has right he's giving away a million oh yeah i know trust me it's are you kidding it's

gross and disgusting but citizens united wouldn't actually even affect that um like but this is what's so absurd there's just too much money and too much power in our government which gives way too much incentive to try and control it and we have no ability to limit it right now i don't know that you even could without a constitutional amendment um and by the way this is also the same reason the government's gonna keep printing money is the you know the explanation with like the boomers and the entitlements there it's the same thing as we've basically created this system where you know what 66 of people roughly speaking own a home and we've spent now a decade and a half or decades before massively inflating that asset value and convincing people that like the home is their main form of like security and safety

and financial investment we just simply can't tolerate the prices of those assets going down it would like completely destabilize a massive portion of the economy and so unless we figure out and oh god and this is what drives me is we just make it worse every single day right um this is actually exactly what happened like with the taxi medallions in New York City when Uber came out. The government hadn't spent 20, 30, 40 years inflating the price of taxi medallions. You wouldn't have had a bunch of taxi drivers who ended up losing their life savings and committing suicide and all of these awful things. Because just every day you let this drag on, it makes it that much harder and that much less likely that we can actually fix the problem in the long run so going you're cutting out it's breaking up for me who are the largest consumers of crypto um moving it back a little bit and thanks for bringing me on

moving it back moving it back a little bit um it's not really a question of what does the new administration mean for Bitcoin? It's really what does it mean for the crypto ecosystem? It's an ecosystem that's really sitting back wondering who's going to win. And they're very, very positive, I think, obviously on Trump and negatively on Kamala. Now, America's over the last 20 years, I'd say Americans don't go to the vote and vote based upon who they want. Rather, they vote against who they don't want. And you've got to have two things to win an election. You've got to have people that don't want the other person.

And you need to have an excitement that's politically correct. Now, Elon came into this and made it, I think, politically correct for people to suddenly vote for Donald Trump and talk about Donald Trump in their social activities. As I drive around in Connecticut, I'm seeing so many Trump signs that I didn't see in 2020. I'm seeing people that are supporting Trump and wearing MAGA hats that I never saw in 2020. But I certainly saw it in 2016. And in 2016, it was still politically correct to say that you were a Trump supporter. I think that that's now come back. Now, I don't know of anyone that's really pro Kamala. But I know many, many people that are anti Donald Trump. And that's why they're

going to vote for Kamala this election season. And I think that really comes down to the fact that there was no primary really for Kamala to be the selected person. And so I think that there is overwhelming support for Trump. I think that it's going to be much greater than expected. I saw numbers earlier that Elon had retweeted of the early voting that's coming out in Pennsylvania that's overwhelmingly for Trump. And I think that it's the fact that it's politically correct to go to a dinner party and say that you're supporting the Republican side that's really changing things, I think, for a lot of donors and for a lot of people. Now, when it comes down to how much people are reading about that Kamala raised a billion dollars, I it was was it last month or last quarter huge numbers but if she's not spending the money

in the right way it's largely irrelevant I think in 2016 it was seen that the Republicans were spending less money but it was smarter and I think that this time around we're seeing exactly the same thing but what what Elon's brought what rfk brought, what Tulsi's brought, is that ability to say, you know what, I'm not voting for Trump, I'm voting for the coalition that Trump has put together. And that makes it very, very politically correct to be a Trumper. But then why doesn't that show in the polls though? That's what confuses me.

Is that the betting platforms are voting for Trump? Mario, if I can hop in. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, if I can hop in. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, if I can hop in with the data here for the polls. So if you look across, so our real clear politics, which is what you were referencing before, is a 58% chance for Trump. If you look at all the bookies, so BetOnline, Betfair, Bovada, PointsBet, all the offshore ones, they have a roughly 60% average. Prediction markets, Polymarket predicted Kalshi between 57% and 60% chance of Trump winning. And then you go to the

actual models. So like Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight, all have slight Trump advantages. The only one that has Harris winning right now is the Economist slash Columbia model, which I would bet is probably a democratic leading model. So you have roughly 15 polls that are saying that Trump is leading right now. And we have to remember that Democrats vote early and do. And so these polls now are indicative of what people are actually putting their ballots on. It's not what they're going to put on in two weeks. So this actually matters. And so the speakers point a minute ago, you see these new engaged voters who will be voting potentially in two weeks. And you have states like Pennsylvania,

where Republicans just registered 20,000 more votes than Democrats through Elon's campaign and others. So this stuff with the margin is all trending Republican right now. Then you have, which is another kind of x factor you're gonna have Camilla just start throwing Hail Mary's left and right like I know she might go on Rogan Trump might do the same thing and the more interviews she gives I think we can all see that she's just not cut out for answering these questions I I don't think it's gonna get worse like now that the trend has already set itself in place let's we're also talking about two different things here we're talking about polls and we're

talking about models, right? What Tom was referencing with like all of the 60%, you know, 56 to 60% Trump, those are about probability models based on who is most likely to win the electoral college, which, you know, Trump gets a 2% advantage on, roughly speaking, for being a Republican. The actual polling is still showing a very tight race overall. I personally do think it will break Trump again, just because of how it basically all comes down to 20,000 voters in each of four swing states. But the most likely outcome, even if you look at the betting markets and things right now, is still that Trump loses the popular vote nationally by a percent or two and wins the electoral college, you know, again, I'd say

probably by like 30 or 40 votes right now, assuming he takes the majority of the swing states. So I don't think it's accurate to say that there is this massive, massive surge of support for Trump and that he's going to, you know, like you said, there's like no world, I think, in which Donald Trump wins the popular vote by more than a percent or maybe two. There's no like overwhelming mandate from the country absolutely wanting him. But I do think it's absolutely likely that he wins just because of how our electoral college system works and breaks out. A hundred percent. But historically, that would be pretty massive because it wouldn't have happened for the

past like 44 years or something like that, right? Given the way the demographics have broken in the country, that would be fairly historic. Republicans have only won one popular vote in the last 30, 40 years. Yeah, that's what I mean. That's what I mean. If he won the popular vote, that would be- Oh, sorry. Yes, that's what you're saying. Yes. Yeah, that's what I mean. That's what I mean. If he won the popular vote, that would be... Oh, sorry. Yes, I see what you're saying. Yes. Yeah. Winning the popular vote, even by a couple percent, would be relatively high for a Republican.

But it's still not like, you know, Reagan, who came in and won by 10 or 15. Was Reagan the only Republican to win by popular vote? No, so Bush won the popular vote in 2004. He lost it in 2000. Trump lost it in 2016. George H.W. Bush won it in 88, and then Reagan. Basically, the Republicans losing—the skew in the electoral college has gotten much more pronounced in the last couple of decades. Interesting. Dave and Simon? skew in the electoral college has gotten much more pronounced in the last couple of decades interesting uh dave and simon and yeah i i want to go back to where i gave donish the thumbs down because actually he and i generally agree on most of what he said the the difference is and it actually is going to matter in the election because people are going to realize it and her statements there.

Kamala is probably indifferent vis-a-vis Trump for Bitcoin and probably Ethereum, but completely, it is completely different in the way. So if all you're doing looking is number go up, yeah, okay, fine. But it is highly unlikely that a Kamala Harris presidency is going to be even neutral to self-custody. It will probably be anti-self-custody. a Kamala Harris presidency is going to be even neutral to self-custody. It will probably be anti-self-custody. The Kamala Harris presidency will 100% be anti-disruption to her donor base, which are all the traditional financial companies, meaning no innovation in derivatives, meaning forcing Coinbase and Kraken to become stock exchanges under a different framework and basically kind of seeding that business back to the three big exchange groups, making sure the banks and the BlackRock and the Fidelity is going to control crypto. That is clearly the that's the most positive case one could articulate for Kamala. So therefore, if you're worrying about control, or if you see if you're owning Bitcoin, like most minority people, most minority and poorer owners of crypto are not doing it for number go up only they're doing it for number go up and they can't take it from me. And she does

not support that. And that is important because people understand this to be true. I mean, Mark Cuban might not understand it, although I suspect he does. He's a smart dude. He just doesn't want to talk about it. So he's talking about, yes, we're going to have safety. I mean, if you go back to her speech, which crushed her, where she talked about, that was the famous black men's speech. She talked about the need for everyone to be able to invest in crypto if we can protect them. Elizabeth Warren, in the debate against John Deaton, changed her tone to be not anti-crypto, which was kind of humorous. But then she put in the sentence, as long as we can protect people, but understand what they mean by protect means take away your

right to make choices and limit those choices. And that does matter because in terms of the demographic where the crypto single voters, crypto single issue voters care about self-custody and they care about the process. Yeah, everyone wants to see the number go up, but that is a non-subtle distinction that I think is really important here. And I do think it will matter in the end. I mean, there are voters and every single little bit matters. Dwayne, Simon? and Biden. So she's inherited a lot of that support. I think going into the convention there, it was smart to get the delegate support and that's the only way it could have been done. I think would have been dumb as hell to have another candidate in there and have

her vie vie for support or have another one via support, you know, considering the things that happened with Biden, and it would have just been a big ball of confusion and she wouldn't, wouldn't have been able to get the momentum that they've received thus far. And I mean, overall with, you when we're looking at markets here, we look at things like macro and earnings and technicals and Fed policy, geopolitics, etc. And I don't think much of this story and the major themes are going to change, regardless of who's in office, especially for Bitcoin.

For altcoins and some other coins, that's a whole other story. But I think the proverbial Pandora's box has been opened. And I think just having some candidates that have millions of followers and aren't wearing a tinfoil hat who who mentioned Bitcoin was a big difference maker here. So I think both candidates will definitely have some Bitcoin policies moving forward. I think Mark Cuban was smart to get his, you know, to get to get the ear of the Democrats and he's going to have his, you know, his head under the spigot. Definitely. And I think he's going to dictate a lot of the policies moving forward. So I think just the fact that you're getting institutional investment here and, you know, the whole liquidity factor here is going to, you know, basically have good tailwinds for, you know, for Bitcoin and for hard assets. And I mean, it's really just about, you know,

stacking your chips, stacking your investments for now because we're going to have the biggest, you know, the biggest change or the biggest handover of assets in maybe world history, you know, when, when boomers pass away. So I think, you know, the same sort of market conditions are going to prevail here. And the same sort of big themes and major themes are going to continue moving forward for years. Simon? Yeah, hey, everybody.

Yeah, I think once we get past the election, obviously, everyone on the panel is kind of thinking about what Trump and Harris will do for Bitcoin. But the reality is, if you're thinking about this correctly it's actually what bitcoin can do for americans and it's what bitcoin can do for america um because that's the real thing um so americans need self-custody um there is a clear direction of pushing everyone to custody with bank of new york melon buy an buy an ETF through the New York Stock Exchange, and be holding your Bitcoin with BlackRock. And that's exactly what the regulators, the financial system wants you to do. That's all great. But the true power of Bitcoin,

when things go wrong, is the self-custody thing. So for me, the Bitcoin vote has to go to who's going to protect your self-custody because Americans need Bitcoin. And then you've got to look at the Fed is a Ponzi scheme. The dollar is a Ponzi. What is the way of breaking that? How do you break that cycle? Yeah, every politician will be printed up $7 trillion or more from here on in. You know, Biden, Trump was given $7 trillion. Biden was given $7 trillion. Harris or Trump will be given $10 trillion probably. Because that's the reality. The reality is that there's no paying it down. Debt is the only thing that can go on. And eventually, that breaks. So Bitcoin will definitely benefit from while all the printing happens. But eventually, that breaks. And that's where the Bitcoin strategic reserve

asset strategy to be able to restructure your economy away from the Fed is something America needs to be preparing for. And no politician is going to prepare for it because everyone's thinking in four-year cycles and having low rates and money printing in order to stimulate the economy and create the wealth inequality that America is experiencing. Yeah. Final quick thoughts on this, Scott. Are you worried on – and we're going to wrap up after this, but a genuine question. I'm not worried.

You're not worried on considering how polarized the world is, but obviously the US is on – No. Okay. since the day I was born, I've heard that if the other person wins, whichever one, the world is ending and the world is never, and the world's never ended since I've, since I've been alive. But that doesn't mean that one's not better or worse for my self interest, but I don't think that, you know, America is over. Will you be voting for Trump now? I wanted to ask Danish who he's voting for.

My votes are relevant relevant I live in Florida man it doesn't it doesn't it literally doesn't even matter who I vote for I you know I was obviously a pretty ardent RFK supporter but like I think that uh it sets it could potentially set our industry back a bit depending on who wins and I think it's interesting I mean just really quick to to what Simon was saying about the government. I don't know if people saw, but the European Central Bank put out a report that basically said that early Bitcoin holders have gained all of the basically advantage. And if Bitcoin price continues to go up, it'll basically like enslave the rest of the world who doesn't own Bitcoin. It's bananas.

And then the Minneapolis Fed, so our central bank, followed it up basically saying that Bitcoin shouldn't exist. And the ECB also laid out basically reasons why Bitcoin should be banned or limited. Because if price goes up, they basically can't sustain debts anymore for the United States economy. It's so nuts. So if you're ever curious, if, uh, Simon's right about what the government actually wants, they're saying it out loud as of the couple last weeks as well. But no, like if you're, if the question is, am I worried? No, I don't worry about anything. I don't worry about things I can't control.

And, uh, the world will be fine. Just wait a couple more years and the pendulum will swing in whatever direction you need it to for your own like self interest. But I'm not the kind of person who's like, if my team wins, the world's ending or loses. Mario, the thing that the paper that Scott mentioned is really important, actually, I mean, it's bullshit, but it's important to the bullshit part is it's complete lunacy. It's clearly written by MMT, modern monetary people who believe you can print fiat to infinity. But what was notable about it is it specifically said we can print money to infinity as long as we don't let Bitcoin take root, right? And they ignored gold, which the Fed

over time has always looked at and said, you know, maybe we should worry about how gold price is going up, but they clearly don't. So it's clearly gotten to the point where the people in the Fed have Bitcoin in their crosshairs or the ones, the modern monetary theorists. And look, I don't think they're going to win anything. I don't think they're going to be able to do anything, but it gives you a hell of an insight into why it is we might very well be at that pivotal moment where Bitcoin starts to gain acceptance, because that is the then they fight you moment. But it's kind of a really strange version of it. But Dave, don't you think the Fed has become the MMT?

Because they do believe you can print money to infinity. And that's it. Oh, there's no doubt that there are people in the Fed who think that. I mean, there's also no doubt that Powell is doing his best to manage asset price inflation instead of consumer inflation. And there's a little bit more of an adult in the room. And but yeah, I mean, you know, you and I agree on that. I mean, we both think that at some point, the fiat era will end in a massive crack-up boom, and there will be lots of dislocation. And we both see Bitcoin as the ultimate answer to that. And we both look at crypto across the board as disruptive to the financial system to be able to improve that. I think this all fits that narrative perfectly.

On that point, I think we've gone a bit over time today, but we'll see everyone tomorrow. I just want to give another quick shout out again, unrelated to the discussion. A quick shout out to our two. Scott. All right, cool. He's gone offline. The founders are, oh, there they are. Brock Pierce, Michael Turpin, and David Chong.

But I just want to give a massive shout out to these two projects. And for anyone that doesn't know, our biggest business line is incubation. So we've incubated about five projects in the last month. And we've had some big success stories. So yeah, any project in the ecosystem, while some people are bearish on VC-backed projects, we're bullish as hell. And we have been throughout the entire kind of stagnation in the last 10 months where liquidity went to meme coins so if anyone's building a project definitely hit us up um but yeah uh that will be it we'll see everyone tomorrow

morning appreciate you all and good luck everyone on november 5th bye everyone see you tomorrow