The Wolf Of All Streets - Trump VS Kamala: Impact On Crypto | Crypto Town Hall

Episode Date: November 4, 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.

Happy Monday before election day. Tomorrow is obviously the United States election will be resolved, if we'll get quick answers, if it will take time to count the votes, if it will be contested, all of the scenarios that certainly traders and investors have been mentally trying to price in. The topic today, more specifically, is how the US election will impact Bitcoin. But I have a feeling that we're going to stray wildly from that topic into crypto markets in general and everything else that's generally on the docket. But it's happening. The election is tomorrow. Dave, we were just talking on Macro Monday, obviously. Mike McGlone said that Anna Wong from Bloomberg, their head analyst, said she doesn't expect that we will know who the

president is for at least two weeks. So that should be a fun period. Certainly hope she's wrong, but I have a definite fear that she might very well be right. I mean, what do markets do with weeks of uncertainty at that level? Same thing they've been doing, only probably with more volatility up and down. Yeah, there was an article, Coindesk, I think today, one of them that said, expect tomorrow. I think that that's I don't know if that's true, but expect tomorrow a six to eight thousand dollar candle on Bitcoin in either direction. Well, the thing is, we keep focusing on the headline, which is, which is Harris versus Trump. But there are some some Senate races and the constituency of the House that matters a lot.

I mean, Ohio Senate election in particular, is extremely impactful for crypto. That's for those who don't know that Sherrod Brown, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Elizabeth Warren's right hand man in the anti-crypto army against Bernie Moreno. And the last poll I thought, I mean, all the polls have been really, really close. That election matters. And if that election is resolved tomorrow, even if Trump-Harris isn't, you know, if we know where the Senate is, I mean, that will start to matter. So it's not as monolithic as who who wins the president it goes well beyond that yeah i think we would all love to see john deacon win although we know that it's a long shot uh

that's another one that uh could be i think even more impactful than moreno brown could someone explain to me how how warren's campaign against john deaton her two biggest she spends most of her time on two issues. One is abortion where John is pro-choice. So it makes it, and so I don't even understand that one. And the other is corporate price gouging, which most Americans understand that what she wants to do in terms of price control would have the exact opposite effect. I mean, are the people of Massachusetts just dumb or, you know, completely ignorant? Or is it just that he,

John has didn't have the enormous amount of money it would take to reach these people. So they actually know what they're choosing between because it really is kind of sad. I think people just don't know. And they just vote for the person they've always voted for in the party that they've always voted for. And, you know, that's a major obstacle to overcome. I mean, Carlo, you were listening to me. We were at the fundraiser together in for. And, you know, that's a major obstacle to overcome. I mean,

Carlo, you were listening, we were at the fundraiser together in Austin. How are you feeling about that election? You know what, if anyone can do it, it is John Deaton. Talked about it this morning when I did my little live rant, but it is a very consequential election for crypto. I think the future of crypto really hinges on how this goes. Scott, the people that are hardcore believers in this technology will continue to use it no matter who prevails. They'll find a way to survive and make it work. But the true path to mainstream adoption is legal and regulatory clarity. And we cannot get there unless we have a governing power that acknowledges this technology is a net positive for the country and wants to get behind

it. We know one person who is kind of led by example, and we know another candidate who has sort of talked a lot, but we haven't seen a lot of substance. So it is going to be interesting. One observation I would add to the conversation is Trump and his ability to leverage the meme community and to leverage the virality of memes has been stunning to witness. We don't need to get into squirrels and raccoons if you don't want to, but that has just been a wild pivot in the whole narrative. Elon Musk and what he's done with this platform has really changed the dynamics of the election. Has anyone looked into why the betting platforms have turned against Trump in recent days?

Literally like four days. I mean, they're still Trump's favorite, but you mean how they've dropped? Yeah, by 10, it was by over 30 percentage points. Mario is his Iowa. The pole of Iowa, yeah. Because that's like a gut punch. If Trump loses Iowa, yeah. Because that's like a gut punch. If Trump loses Iowa, forget it. He's done. Really?

Without Iowa, he's really different. What does it symbolize? What it represents. If he's losing the Rust Belt, forget it. And that caused lots of angst. And then you had people, but if you listen to Rasmussen or Silver and other people, they're

like, well, you know, so look, this thing is a coin toss. We've been saying it for a while. You know, when you're in vet, my problem is if you listen to people's opinions who are very invested in the outcome, you're not getting very good opinions. So my opinion, I'm invested in the outcome because I want to see digital assets under a safe United States regulatory umbrella that doesn't do, basically, it doesn't outlaw self-custody, that doesn't do the things. And Simon is far better at this rant than me, but on this topic, we are literally 100% on the same page. But the one difference with what Carlos said is,

look, if the US does elect Harris, then just expect Dubai and the UAE and Singapore and Asia and even potentially Europe to innovate beyond the United States, although Europe is very clunky on that. Maybe the UK, I don't know. But the the fact is this technology will get built there is with almost total certainty the world of finance and all markets will go digital in the next couple of decades not being in it for the next four years would put the us at a critical disadvantage but make no mistake this technology is going nowhere the the biggest yeah and i think i think but i think I think everyone understands that. No one would disagree with that. I think everyone really cares about is how high or how fast will Bitcoin reach all-time highs?

And then what will happen to altcoins and meme coins and the rest of the market? Obviously, Trump is a lot more pro. I can't wait to talk about that when we have election results because I have very... Yeah, it's like two questions. Not only who wins, who who wins and by how much because i think if the margin is low it could be i remember speaking at danish yesterday we all know danish uh having a call with him yesterday and he's like he's really worried like he's like mario i don't care who wins i just want him to win i want them to win by a wide margin uh just have peace of mind that's not instability exactly it's not contested leads to's not going to be instability. Exactly. It's not contested. It leads to instability, et cetera.

But just going back to the betting platforms, can you kind of dig into – I know it's more political. But the Iowa poll, it's just one poll. What makes it so consequential? Usually it's just so many polls and they always vary. Why that poll in Iowa has so much impact? It's also a poll that has been pretty accurate over the last few election cycles, from what I've read. And more importantly, why do you think there is that shift in Iowa and what does it represent? Because we've seen some massive momentum towards Trump.

How can one poll out of Iowa kind of change things so quickly? Yeah, it's changing perception. It's not changing reality. You know, that's the thing everyone has to remember. It's like there's there was an article Nate Silver, actually, of all people, had an article on Friday about how he sees pollsters putting their thumb on the scales, because what they're trying to do is they're trying to influence whether people will, you know, the turnout of the election. And honestly, I can't get my head around

why that matters so much or what, because if you think your candidate is going to win by a landslide, then you don't bother voting. So that's not necessarily good. If you think your candidate is going to lose by a landslide, you don't bother voting because your vote doesn't matter. So what you want to do if you're trying to get your base to turn out is to say we can win, but you need to vote. And that is – it seems like polls are a very blunt instrument for that to me. Maybe someone else on the panel could explain why people would. But the poll is not a biased one, is it? It's a relatively objective one, correct?

The one from Iowa. There are too many polls. Any statistician will tell you when you're looking at less than 1% of voters, and it's way less than 1%, that the margin of error is really all about the sample. So who the hell knows what's objective? I mean, I refuse to believe a lot of these things. There's a lot of cross currents here. The pool of polling is getting the right sample. So Mario, to give you some context, that poll in Iowa came out, but it was either an hour before or an hour after. There was another Iowa poll that came out that showed Trump up by plus 10. So it's all noise at this point. You can take a look at all the polls associated with

what we consider swing states. Most of the traditional polling outfits have showed almost all of those states to be within the margin of error. Again, this goes to what Dave was talking about and Nate Silver has talked about and to a larger extent Rasmussen has talked about is that, you know, there are bias amongst the polls and putting all of the swing states in a margin of error, plus one tied minus one, one way or the other. Um, that it's just not objective. Um, and it doesn't seem to be the case when you take a look at what happened in 2016 and what happened in 2020, the differences in the reality of, of, of voting patterns, um, after the fact versus what polls showed. I think there are four potential outcomes for the election, two of which are probably outliers. One, Harris wins big. Another

one, Trump wins big. But reality generally always lies in the middle, and it's going to be a close election with the electoral outcome seeming maybe bigger than the actual vote show. That being the case, I think if Trump wins a 30, 40 electoral vote win versus Harris, but Harris wins the popular vote, which is probably the most likely outcome. I think you're going to see the side of the aisle that talks about protecting democracy, trying to do everything in their power to tear down the electoral college between now and when inauguration happens. So, you know, what that means for the prices of meme coins, no idea. But it certainly means volatility in a big way across all markets.

Yeah, and I think you're right about that. We lost you, Mario. I'm back. Yeah, sorry, just call me. About the Iowa poll not having too much importance, I would disagree just because of how the markets reacted. Both the betting platforms, the betting markets, immediately saw a slide down in Harris' favor or a shift in Harris' favor.

It's bouncing, though. It bounced a bit. I didn't look at it last three hours but i'm obsessive over it man in a very unhealthy way market was down to 56 and it's pushing 59 now i think calci got as close as like 52 and is now back to 55 or something like that i would also naturally expect that there would be a convergence as we got much closer to the election oh wow it is a big bounce you. Yeah, it was down below 10 points yesterday. Now it's back up in Trump's favor.

Now it's back up to 18 points in Trump's favor. So it's a big shift. And as a betting market, it should probably consolidate as we get closer and closer. And then we see actual results to what the overall numbers look like, both electoral college and the popular vote. I mean, if it's a market that's supposed to be, you know, fairly tightened up from that standpoint, that's what that should look like as a betting market is it moves its way and tightens, you know, throughout the day tomorrow and until Wednesday. You know, the thing that I look at and I listen, I'm going to be 50

next month. The thing that I look at closely is I just take a look at the, you know, the average of polls, the average of the averages across both the popular vote as well as the swing state numbers at Real Clear Politics. That takes a look at all the polls from everywhere, from every state, all the national polls over the course of periods of time, effectively a two-week to 30-day run rate, and what does it look like. And it shows, for all intents and purposes, unless something crazy happens, that Trump will win the election, but it will be a close, you know, fairly tight margin. Whether or not he wins the actual popular vote, I don't think there's any way that Trump just trounces from a popular vote standpoint. If that happens, I think that's a

positive thing for markets overall and for crypto markets, because it's much, much harder to meaningfully contest the election after the fact. And the media will have a hard time running with that story if he wins the popular vote in a big way and obviously wins the Electoral College. But again, I don't think that probably happens. It probably ends up being split between the electoral college and the popular vote. And you're going to have a bunch of legal challenges that will come from that, that will produce volatility. I want to go back to Polymarket Terrence., pleasure to have you on stage for the first time. Big fan, investors in your project as well.

So I'm glad you're here with us for the first time. Your thoughts on Polymarket, because we met in Singapore very briefly and we kind of went back and forth on it. How accurate do you think it is of a predictor? I know we've discussed this a lot and debated this a lot on StageE. I look at Polymarket and other betting platforms as the most accurate indicator because people are betting with their money.

And I trust capital markets, the efficient market hypothesis of factoring in or discounting any biases people might have when they answer polls, for example. So I want to get your thoughts on that, Terrence. I think they're an early indicator, and they also factor in pretty much everything, polls, sentiment, how reliable polls are, et cetera. Hey, guys, can you hear me? Yep. Perfect. Yeah, sorry for calling you, because I just tuned in. Oh, good. So I texted you, no reply, so I pinged you, I just called you. Anyways, I think on, on the poly market thing,

it's actually quite interesting because I don't think it is that many. I don't think it's actually that related to, to the polling. I actually, you know, I run, I run, I run a blockchain project, but I also have a trading team so i actually got my trading team to start looking into this and participated in polymarket in a couple ways um number one was that when kamala went all the way down to uh 33 and uh trump was at 67 there were actually a lot of arbitrage opportunities when you compare it to some of the other prediction markets, as well as traditional bookies. So you look at Betfair, you look at

Latbrooks and whatnot, there was actually an arbitrage opportunity for you to essentially make free money by placing bets on Kamala in on Polymarket, and then on on Trump in other markets. So I got my team to do a little bit of that, made essentially risk-free money. And then the other, I think that that's one thing. So the market is efficient. The second thing is, I think, when we look at what happened with Trump, based on our research, there were a couple of big traders that were really bullish on Trump and just put tens of millions of dollars, regardless of odds. And I think Polymarket

was one of the few places where they could put essentially $40-$50 million worth of bets, because no traditional casino or no traditional betting platform would allow somebody to place such a big size of bets. And I think the third thing, which is actually quite interesting, is that there are some friends of mine, at least in Asia, where a majority of their assets are actually in crypto. And a lot of them actually started betting on Kamala. Not because they think Kamala is going to win or they want Kamala to win, but actually from their perspective, it's actually a hedge.

When they think about it, if they have a million dollars worth of Bitcoin, if Trump wins, they think that million is going to go to a million and a half, let's say. So what they decided to do is actually also put in a couple hundred grand worth of, let's say. So what they decided to do is actually also put in a couple hundred grand worth of bets into Kamala. So in case Kamala wins, they make

money off that bet. Maybe their Bitcoin doesn't go up, it doesn't go down, but at least they still make a little bit of money off the election. But if Trump wins, their Kamala bet goes to zero, they still make money on the- So on that, it's a very good point. I think a lot of people are hedging their bags through a bet on Kamala on Polymarket. But I think that gets factored in. So if there's a lot of people hedging and that works in Kamala's favor, I've got two counters to this. I think a lot of other people would kind of bet against that.

So that shows some sort of discrepancy uh in the in the in the in the odd number in in the odds uh you know it just shows an arbitrage opportunity coming from that hedge that's number one and then number two is obviously looking at whoever mentioned uh real uh someone's got background noise so please mods mute whoever does um it's looking real clear polling. It looks at the average of other platforms. So things like Betfair, BetOnline, Bovida, et cetera, don't have that crypto hedge factor. So kind of the arc's a bit more accurate.

And it shows similar numbers to PolyMarket. So it shows a 43.56 or 13 point difference. On PolyMarket, it's 18. It's a bit more. Could be that hedge arbitrage as well um but we should so terry want to get your thoughts on what i've just said and maybe kind of expand on how accurate you think those betting platforms are i think that you know ultimately the when i look at polymarket right it's you have to you have to be engaging with uh with

the crypto wealth right um so it's it's heavily screwed towards it's heavily screwed towards crypto people um so i think when you have such big size i actually think the odds in the traditional betting markets whether it's your your betfair your latbrooks or whatnot these were bookies um their odds are actually uh trump actually has has has their odds are actually influenced affected by uh by polymarket rather than the other way around right because if we if we look at polling everybody you know obviously i want trump to win but every poll seems to say that it's it's it's a coin toss at this point right so it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense um for there to be such uh discrepancy in terms of odds um wait ryan what

are your thoughts you there ryan no you might yes i'm here so sorry yeah what um what are my thoughts my thoughts are it doesn't really matter who wins to be honest what bitcoin yeah i think for bitcoin yeah bitcoin doesn't matter bitcoin goes up regardless if trump goes up it becomes a bitcoin if everything runs bitcoin runs altcoin runs if carmelo wins there's a flight from altcoins into Bitcoin. And then there's the inflation trade, which naturally pushes Bitcoin up. I think if Carmelo wins, ETH also goes up because people will want exposure to crypto, but they're going to want to be hedged against altcoins. And ETH is the only altcoin that has an ETF and there's regulatory clarity on.

So I think that if Kamla wins, Bitcoin runs, ETH runs, I think we get a dip of all the altcoins. And then I think we get a recovery of the meme coins because then I think the market kind of says, hold on a second, she can't touch the meme coins because there's no precedent on the SEC going after meme coins because there's clearly not a there's not it's clearly not a security and so right now i'm not saying they won't have a tool but i'm saying right now they don't actually have a tool to to take on meme coins they can take on everything else but they can't take on mean coins because because uh they're clearly not securities yet or at least the sec hasn't got any haven't gone after um the uh the meme coins and so i think trump wins everything goes up i think carmela wins uh uh bitcoin eth goes up everything else goes down then meme coins go up um and i think that probably the best hedge right now is too short to go long crypto short doge

and the reason why i say go long crypto short doge is because if trump if if carmelo wins your altcoins may take a bath but if you short doge i think doge is going to be super reflexive because that's the end of this department of government efficiency and elon shilling doge and so doge probably goes back down to like nine cents or somewhere around there are you are you hedging because obviously me and you got a lot of bags in these utility docks. Are you hedging? My hedge is short on Doge. My hedge is short on Doge. So I'm actually long

popcat short Doge. And you think Doge would do really well if Trump wins? How much of a Trump win has already been factored into the Doge price? You see, I think a lot of it's already priced in. For me, it's like, I think a lot of it's already i think a lot of it's already priced in so for me it's like i think a lot of it's already and so why would i why do i need to you know i've already got big crypto bags so just i think short dodge for me

is the is probably the best trade yeah that's a pretty pretty good trade and brian obviously i know your stance politically but what are thoughts on what we're seeing on betting platforms where Trump is still ahead by just under 20 points, about 13 to 18, versus the polls? Yes. So first of all, I think I agree with Rayan on that, on what happens. Probably the only thing we're ever going to agree on, sir. I'm trying to build a friendship here. Go ahead, Brian. I think I agree on what he said about the election if Harris wins versus what Trump wins, Bitcoin versus the altcoins. With the prediction markets, I think there's no doubt that polymarket is skewed towards Trump. I mean it's mostly non-American crypto enthusiasts, and those people are definitely skewing more to the right.

I prefer PredictIt, which is an American-based company that has a cap on the amount that anybody can vote, can bet. I think the cap is, I think, $750, $800 per wager. That has Harris up. I still think that's probably leaning a little bit to the left though. The reason I say that is because you can't have one person drastically skew the market. On Polymarket, you have millions of dollars coming in by just a few people, whereas on Predictit, you have hundreds or thousands of people betting a max of $800. So it's more of a – it's not as skewed based on – Yeah, but I think just on the Polymarket one, and we'll move on from topic before Scott gets pissed off at me again because me and him are not on good terms at the moment.

But on betting platforms, the thing is where I understand that a lot of people more skew Trump. First, all betting platforms are showing Trump ahead by above 10 percentage points. But then the second one is, again, I'd make the same point. Arbitrage. If a fund – there's a lot of funds putting money into polymarket now. The liquidity is insane. So funds will just kind of close that gap. If there's anyone, if there's like, for example, a hedge against a Kamala win on Polymarket, funds will take advantage of the arbitrage opportunity.

No, no, no, Mario. What I meant by the arbitrage is not actually that. What I meant by the arbitrage is the fact that there was a French guy who put $40 million into polymarket betting on Trump. Okay. And so that really skewed polymarket towards Trump. And then someone else, someone else just make a bet against that success and opportunity. And then all the other platforms then had to sort of play catch up. So for example, predicted, then you know, a bunch of people had to put $800 $800 $, $800 to go Arbit so that Predictit and Polymarket become closer.

But then there's probably just not enough people in crypto or with USDT on Polygon that is interested enough to go bet on Kamala. Yeah, so I want to move the discussion back to crypto. And actually, let me ask Scott. First, how important is the who wins to not crypto in general? Because I know Bitcoin, your stance on Bitcoin is that I think Bitcoin will do well either way. But on the rest of the crypto market um are we overstating the um the negative impact that kamala win could have and more importantly are you worried if it's a close election or so you know i think we're overreacting yeah i'm definitely worried about a close election because the one thing we know is that markets hate uncertainty generally and i think that people are

exhausted and have had enough and we need a clear winner as soon as possible. Right. Although my case is not that that's what we'll have. But as far as the industry as a whole, I think Trump is viewed as more of a known known. And I think Harris, we just don't know. Right. I think that there is reason to believe that it will be more of the same. But there's also smart people who believe that her stance is evolving. I think I said it on this show last week. I have a friend who's pretty high up at one of the big banks on Wall Street. And he sat in with the Harris administration, some of the chiefs of staff and in a meeting with the largest names on Wall Street three weeks ago,

I think. And it was basically 100 of the top CEOs of banks, etc. And they had a meeting with the Harris administration who said that, you know, Lena Kahn, no matter what from the FTC will be gone, hinted that Gary Gensler probably might not be around and stated very plainly, at least in listen, this is speaking to an audience that wants to hear exactly what is being said here, but that the Harris administration will be far friendlier to tech, to crypto, to Wall Street than the Biden administration was. Now you can choose whether to believe them or not.

But my inclination is that things are much better under Trump, but are still an improvement to Harris over Biden. How much of an improvement? I have no idea. But I don't think that there's any argument that when you have a presidential candidate who's literally launching shit coins and NFT projects that he I think it's pretty clear that he's going to make sure that those things aren't illegal, whether it's for the interests of the people or for self-interest. You can be pretty sure that we won't be talking too much about unregistered securities a year into a Trump administration. Carlo? Good morning, Mario.

First of all, I hope that I can make peace between you and Scott. I'm happy to mediate if I need to. I didn't know that we weren't until that very public declaration. I'll be out of action for a bit. Mario, what happened? until that very public declaration. I've been out of action for a bit. I've been out of action for a bit. Amaro, what happened? Every time I talk about politics, I just have to,

he starts taking jabs at me in WhatsApp groups. So it's just, he kind of, in a subtle way. Now is the time. He becomes toxic. He becomes toxic as hell on WhatsApp. But we're under the bridge.

I'm used to it. But so going back to kind of Scott's points, Carlo, do you believe that Kamala's – it's hard to believe anything they say days before an election? Yeah, look, I think it's pretty clear that both sides will say anything to win this election at this stage because it is so close. The markets really need – Hold on, hold on. Brian, Brian, hold on. Brian, who do you think is going to win the election? If I was to guess, I would say Harris has a slightly better shot. That's my thoughts.

Tell me why. Tell me why. Why do you say that? What are your base rules? I just want to pick a fight, I swear. I agree with anything. I'm just asking. Oh, wow.

You agree, Scott? In a vacuum, I agree. Yeah, in a vacuum, I agree. Sorry, I want to hear – so, Brian, where do you – in a vacuum I agree in a vacuum I agree so Brian where do you what makes you think that Harris is likely in the lead because I'm not asking this facetiously I'm asking this because

I know that I'm very right biased in terms of my Twitter feed and in terms of my thing and to me it would be unthinkable that Kamala could win but I know therethinkable that uh carmela could win but i know there are people who still think carmela could win so i want to know where are they getting their information from no i i mean that's a good question i i think that's a good

question to ask i i personally think that it's going to be up to pennsylvania if she can win pennsylvania she has it um i think she doesn't because right now the polls right now the polls are saying that pennsylvania is very much trump so if she doesn't win pennsylvania do you still see a path to victory uh if she doesn't win pennsylvania there is a path to victory if she can take nevada and either georgia or north carolina i i think that's going to be much harder i i think that people are drastically underestimating how much the polls might actually be favoring Trump this time around. We've never had three presidential elections in a row where the polls favored one side over the other. The last two have favored Trump. So the polls have possibly over-adjusted. I'm not saying they have,

but the polls are very even right now. And you say that Trump is up in Pennsylvania by a lot. He isn't. It's basically neck and neck, especially if you take the top five or six polls that performed the best over the last decade. You'll see that it's basically it could be any candidate. Okay, so just quickly, so you think that Kamala is in the lead, but what makes you think she's in the lead? That's what I'm trying to ask. I want to clarify. I think it's very, very close. If I was to guess, I'd say 51-49, 52-48 Harris. What makes me think she's in the lead? I kind of explained it. I think the polls are over-adjusted to the right. I think that there's a lot, instead of having a lot of Republican men who are silent to polls, I think there's a lot of Democratic women and as well as crossover Republican women that are either not voting for Trump or possibly are voting for Harris. Interesting. Okay.

I mean, we'll see. I could be totally off here. And, and I, like I said, if she, if she,

if she loses, what will you do for the next four years? What do you mean? I like, this isn't my business. Like I don't, I don't make money from tweeting about, I mean, besides what X pays me $200 a week or so, uh, I'll do what I continue to do, you know, besides what X pays me, $200 a week or so.

I'll do what I continue to do, you know, like run businesses, run my life. It's not going to change much. In fact, I would say a Trump presidency probably helps me financially, but I don't vote just because. How much of your business interests, how many of your business interests are crypto or crypto related or crypto um i have approximately 60 percent of my net worth in crypto someone who has 60 percent of their net worth in crypto like this the outcome of this election is quite important to you right like i'm saying like the selection is very much around crypto. I'll clarify, in Bitcoin.

99% are in Bitcoin. Okay, that's a different story. Okay, let's carry on. Actually, Scott, you agreed with Brian. You think Kamala will win. What's your... I don't know that I think Kamala will win. I think that... More likely to win.

It's already a landslide and that it's a foregone conclusion is smoking rocks but who do you think who do you think has who do you think not saying that that's the person you want to win but if you had to guess who do you think has a slight advantage people freak out when you give opinions like this but this is not a political opinion at all just anecdotally on the streets i think that a lot more people are going to show up at the last second to vote against Trump than for him. And then that's not being counted in. I just, you know, the generation of Americans that will show up and vote no matter what, which is the boomers, I think that leans more heavily potentially in her direction. But I think it's going to be really, really close. I don't think we're going to have a very clear answer. And I think it's going to be really, really close I don't think we're going to have a very clear answer And I think it's going to get very confusing and ugly

Personally, I mean, I just don't Don't trust that The election results Will be trusted themselves, you know And, you know I don't know, I think that It's going to be a very, very strange Few weeks

And Scott, do you think If it's close, Scott, you've got to look at Trump. And there's never been a point where Trump has ever backed down. And I can't see him acknowledging or conceding defeat. Right. That's why I think that regardless, it gets ugly. So ugly. Can you define ugly? I think it's contested. You i think that uh i i can't say that i mean i think that to carlos point no matter what if he loses i think trump will say that it was uh fixed that's again not really a political opinion just going sort of back on history and i think if he wins and it's close you're gonna have democrats maybe crying the same thing at this

point because i don't think anybody trusts anyone at this point in this country. OK, so if Trump if Trump loses the election, I'm sure they'll blame it a lot on the on the immigration issue. Right. Like they'll say, like a lot of the illegal immigrants voted. There was no abortion. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes. OK. So question is, question is, like, how bad is how much of the vote do you think is illegal immigrants i i have no idea someone else got to answer that i have i have no idea because as we talked about here mario remember you asked the question about voter id and you're like yeah that's that's i never had an issue and i explained to you that in past elections, that was literally a flipped issue. Since Brian's here, Brian, what are your thoughts on the Californian – go ahead, Dave. Let me quickly ask a question to Brian. Brian, because I interviewed the Texas AG, Ken, a few days ago.

We talked about the California law banning officials from requesting the voter id when you're voting yet you need a voter id to get a library card for example what are your thoughts on this do you think this is lawfare being used and both sides are trying to use the law to their advantage or is that something of concern even as someone that supports kamala you know like i'm not against voter ID as long as it's incredibly easy to get that voter ID. California, I don't agree totally with all of their laws. It doesn't really matter because California is going to go blue anyway. But I think there needs to be a compromise there. I think we should have voter ID, but you got to make it as easy as possible.

And, you know, like you can't you can't be pushing voters away because of voter ID, if that makes sense. I get the other angle. But the solution, I think the solution is not not requesting an idea tool is obviously in my in your opinion, that's not the solution somewhere in the middle where if you don't have an idea, you have to provide some other sort of identification, whether it's just a bill or a utility bill or something, they can validate who you are. Would you agree? You should have to prove you're an American. Yeah, I think most people would agree with that. Yeah, I think that's fair. Now,

the question of how many illegal immigrants are going to vote, I think it's probably in the one out of every maybe 200,000 to a million people, it probably even less than that. It's not going to have any impact on the election. It never has. There's no evidence that it has. So I think that's a kind of a stupid talking point. Yeah, I was going to say the same thing, but I think it's a yes, but. So I think Brian's right. I think, actually, I agree with pretty much everything Brian just said, which I know, you know, we tend to be on opposite sides, but we do agree on a lot of things. The fact is that it's not illegal immigrants voting that's the issue, although it is something that drives people absolutely insane and they go

crazy about it. What is an issue is ballot harvesting, where people are who wouldn't ordinarily vote or basically leave themselves open for those ballots to be grabbed and voted. And that is because they didn't have to show up or prove who they were, et cetera. And there is an issue there. And, you know, forget the wild conspiracy theories. We're talking thousands of incidents of this being being shown. The real question, however, with ID is voter integrity is election integrity. As long as you don't have voter New Jersey, for example, you get signed up in the voter role, even if you just get a driver's license, not being an American citizen. So you literally could do so. Yes, it will be a crime, but no one would ever catch you. Does anyone do it? Probably not.

But what does that mean? It means people don't trust the election. And when people don't trust the election and everyone's pointing fingers and half the country hates the other half of the country, it's just not something that we should have. So if you try to do things to make, like the SAVE Act, you know, you had to have ID and you have to be in person unless you have an excuse. That's the way it used to be. That would make people, would take away this conspiracy nonsense and help restore, you know, trust. And that trust is important because we're going to have, in all likelihood,

well, I hope I'm wrong, but there's a very high probability, rate probability, that we'll have a contested election. And in that case, not having people believe in it, we- Do you think both sides will contest it?

Oh, there's no doubt. I mean, look, this is not a partisan issue, both. I mean, Trump was probably the ultimate sore loser. That's true. But you don't have to go back very far to find, you know, Stacey Abrams claimed she was the governor of Georgia for two years after losing. I mean, come on. You know, it's just not to pick on her in particular. This has been, unfortunately, we have too much of a polarized society. I mean, Dave, also, we talked about this this morning on Macro Monday, but I mean, Al Gore was announced to be president. Al Gore was literally announced as president and for multiple days celebrating before the hanging Chad incident in Florida where Jeff Bush, George Bush's brother, obviously rocked the outcome of that future election. So we have a long history here of

contested and confusing elections leading up to where we are now. And so everything we can do to enhance election integrity is a good thing. You know, this issue of IDs not being easy to get to, I'm sorry, that's the only thing Brian said that I kind of laugh at. You literally cannot go apply for a job. You can't fly. You can't drive. You can't drink. You can't go to a hotel. You can't do any of those things without an ID. So we're talking about a thing that is easy enough for people to have their daily lives. And I just find it impossible to understand that. But it really boils down to just perception of whether or not institutions in this country are going to be

believed. And we know that the media is at an all-time low in people's trust. We know Congress is pretty damn close to an all-time low in people's trust. The fact, this is a problem. Restoring trust in american institutions matters and that's the biggest thing here but look we'll see what happens as far as all the stuff goes this election is not going to do that no this election if anything is going to make it worse in all likelihood the opposite yeah and how big of an impact do you think that would have before going to terrence how big of an impact do you think that would have on the markets including crypto instead of who, it's like the way they win and the continuous erosion of trust.

Well, I mean, if you end up – if Sherrod Brown wins in Ohio and you end up with Elizabeth Warren back in and basically with this whole nanny state protect us and the people like Ro Khanna and Richie Torres and the Democratic Party get marginalized, that is a massive problem for US digital innovation, right? So to me, how it happens is very important. You want, we want to see innovation be bipartisan, right? And it can be and it should be. And that's something that Brian and I know we agree on that. And, you know, it's just a question of where you draw certain lines in terms of, you know, where do you redistribute, you know, ensure things. But unfortunately, we have a problem. If people don't trust the election, and it gets down to that, then you're going to have a void, and it's going to set things back. And that's the real issue. Trying to get to a bipartisan consensus is hard when people are yelling at each other

and terence just going back to the original discussion of the impact of each candidate on the on crypto when you speak to those vcs obviously you guys raised a ton of money how how how worried are they of the elections how um how big you were worried i mean every every every single vci i'm talking to trading firm i'm talking to obviously trading firm I'm talking to, obviously just wants Trump to win. But I think speaking a little bit about just now in terms of how the election actually gets won, I think if it's a landslide, then Trump wins. Everybody knows it's good for crypto. Kamala wins. You kind of don't know what's going on. You have to wait till inauguration. But I think even if it's in a confused state, you know, sort of an Al

Gore Bush sort of situation comes out, I think, you know, it's going to be super volatile for the next couple months. But then by January, when inauguration happens, I think it's going to recover, right? If it's Trump, then, you know, crypto is not that big of a deal for most people or for, you know, as an issue between Trump and Harris. So I actually think even if it's not a landslide victory or a clear victory by one side, there's going to be volatility for the next couple of months. And then come January, whoever actually becomes president, you know, it'll be the same as if it's a line slide victory. Douglas, you've been pretty quiet. Does anyone disagree with the position of most speakers right

now? Is that, you know, the markets are watching what's going to happen if the elections are contested, it's not good for anybody. And if Kamala wins, Bitcoin will still do well and the rest of the market will struggle. There's a really interesting chart going around that shows how Bitcoin's been affected by elections the last two cycles going into this one, where you have essentially a move from bottom left to top right. Night before election or the week before election, Bitcoin takes a bit of a dip and then it continues on its climb. And I think that that's really where we are. Uncertainty sees the dip, and that's profit taking. And I think you saw profit taking on the Polymarket site as well. So people take profits and try to hold them until they see uncertainty moving off the equation. And Polymarket is moved, and the odds are moved with betting

companies based upon how much money is put in, not how many people are putting in money. And I think that that's very important. That's why there's a huge difference between what you'd see on something like polymarket or in betting markets compared to what you see in polling. And so, you know, with betting markets, they're there for you to play. When Trump gets a low score and you think Trump's going to win, you buy it. When he goes up 10 points, you sell out of some of your position and then you buy it back again. So hopefully you're in a Trump at 20 percent rather than at 40 percent or 60 percent. You know, I think that we all play these markets and in these sorts of ways. So I don't think you can really draw a correlation between the two.

But what I do find really interesting about PolyMarket is it's such a small, small, tiny significance. I think, you know, when people have gone into the details, maybe there's $120 million at play. And yet everyone's looking at it. And so it's affecting, I think, how the media talks about things. And it reminds me of how everyone concentrated on the CDS price for Greece back when the European crisis was going on. And it was on of how everyone concentrated on the CDS price for Greece back when the European crisis was going on. And it was on Bloomberg in the top right corner. And yet only four people really traded CDS in Greece. And so it was largely irrelevant to what actually ended up happening in Europe.

The euro didn't fall apart. So I think that these small betting markets are interesting. They're fun, but I wouldn't really take anything from it. But I say I have to say I'm very anxious about what the results could be because I think that both sides are will have spiked after the election. And I think that if most crypto money has been going into Republicans and Kamala wins, well, that's not going to be good for the crypto industry. And I don't know how quickly she'll be able to get over that. So, you know, I still think that Trump's going to win. I think that it's going to be very contested. But I think that in January, you'll have Trump in power.

Another question. Has anyone looked at betting platforms and their performance, their accuracy in previous elections? Because, and how popular were they back then compared to now? Why were they a thing before this election? Why? Why are they a thing now? Is it just because of Polymarket or are they getting more traction? Because they've been around for a while.

Brexit, betting markets were saying Brexit wasn't going to happen. There wasn't a chance and then sure enough what were the odds what were the odds on betting platforms do you know i i wrote some articles back in the day on it but i don't i don't know what the odds were but certainly everyone was quite confident because of the betting markets that brexit was not going to be an issue and uh it ended up being so when the betting markets and crowd right if you if you look at, you know, even look at World Cup, right, obviously, the odds are based on you know, what what what everybody thinks and then you know, you look at all the betting companies in the UK, okay, the odds for England

winning every single World Cup are terrible, because the Brits like to bet on their own team, even though they haven't won for many, many years. So as I think Douglas was saying, it's a very small number of people who are interacting with polymarket. And as I mentioned, there's some dude who actually put in $40 million into a single trade on Trump, and that really scooted the market. So it's really just one guy. And he's a French guy. He's not even he's not even an American. Right. So so I don't think it's really representative of, you know, compared to polling. So I remember in 2020, the polls and not the polls, but the

betting markets, the prediction markets favored Biden for most of the lead up to the election. On election night, or not election night, election morning, polls started to swing a little bit more to Trump, and then Biden ultimately won. In 2016, there wasn't much going on, but there were a few, and Hillary was deeply favored, just like the polls. Yeah, I'm looking now at the numbers, and maybe you can explain to me what those mean, because I just see the kind of the out of 100, the numbers out of 100, who's more likely to win. But here it says Clinton was minus 550, while Trump was at plus 375. Well, how would that reflect if you're looking at a percentage? And like we see on Polymark and other betting platforms, what would that mean percentage wise? I'm looking at Hillary versus Donald. So a plus 300 would mean that you get three times the money if Trump won and a minus 500

would mean you would get 20% of the money if Hillary won. Interesting. So what would that be in percentage terms? I want to see how inaccurate they were. Do you know how to calculate that? I mean, I guess you could say it would be like a 80-20 Hillary. Oh, wow. Okay, and then they got it right, Joe Biden versus Trump. They had a minus 192 for Biden. Trump was at plus 188, so a lot closer election for 2020, but favoring Biden.

Yeah, I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens tomorrow morning and see if any of them move more towards the polling. I think polymarket is very trendy. People jump on the trends and they see. Yeah, I can see. By the way, I got the percentages. You're right. Like 85% Hillary in 2016 versus 21% Trump. In 2020, it was 66% Biden versus 34% Trump. Let me see. How about 2012? How about're very similar to the polls by looks of it So Barack Obama 75% 70 to 75 over Mitt Romney So they got it right there as well

how about 20 2008 just trying to see for everyone listening to see accuracy these betting platforms is obviously they're favoring Trump By about 10 15 percentage points. Yeah big difference like. Like over McCain, Obama had it 85, 90% on betting platforms. In 2012, over Mitt Romney at 70, 75. 2020, sorry, what are we up to now? 2016, Hillary had 85, which they got it wrong like the polls. And then 2020, Biden had 66%. So even based on the betting platforms, 10, 15 point difference for me is like, all right, that seems like a wide difference. wrong like the polls and then 2020 biden has 66 so even based on the betting platforms have 10 15

point difference for me it's like all right that seems like a wide difference it's not the closest the closest since 2008 probably probably before that as well um so yeah that's not uh let's say it just shows a very close election as well and for anyone that does that's because that's the first time i look at betting platforms i don't think they were as widely used as they are right now. George Bush was over John Kerry 55-60. Okay, it's as close as it was in 2004. And they got it right.

They got it right in all previous elections versus Al Gore. George Bush was at 50-55. They were a lot closer. So I think they got it right in pretty much all the elections except 2016. So if you take that out, which we could say is an anomaly, then they could be seen as a pretty good indicator.