What Bitcoin Did - Is Bitcoin Culture Dead? | Pete Rizzo

Episode Date: September 19, 2025

Pete Rizzo breaks down how Bitcoin’s culture and institutions are being reshaped in 2025. From Trump’s executive orders and the creation of a strategic Bitcoin reserve to the rise of treasury companies and institutional adoption, we explore why this cycle feels different — and why that may not be entirely bullish for freedom money. We get into the shifting monocultures of Bitcoin, from grassroots self-custody to Saylor's vision. Rizzo explains why treasury companies must prove they can outperform Bitcoin itself and the risks if hundreds of them collapse in the next bear market. In this episode: - How institutions are changing Bitcoin adoption - Trump, strategic reserves & Bitcoin policy - The cultural shift in Bitcoin - Why treasury companies may struggle to survive - The next phase of Bitcoin culture THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS: IREN RIVER ANCHORWATCH BLOCKWARE LEDN BITKEY Follow: Danny Knowles: https://x.com/_DannyKnowles or https://primal.net/danny Pete Rizzo: https://x.com/pete_rizzo_

They're disingenuous arguers because they set up these arguments, but they don't actually believe what they're arguing. I hope that they don't take extreme measures in the face of that and do something that would disrupt Bitcoin's narrative publicly or threaten the use of the software for everyone else because literally their claim is that what these people are doing is disrupting the software. You're building a bunch of tools that I think could probably be used against people using transactions that you want to make. The leader of the current free world and market economy is leading the transition to Bitcoin and crypto stuff, largely through stable coins. And they're using that to entrench the global power structure. It ultimately migrates the sort of Bitcoin as a global reserve asset. Rizzo, the Rizler. How you doing, man?

I'm enjoying it, man, holding on with both hands, you know. We've got a tight grip. It's the middle of a bull market, you know. The bull's bucking. The middle of a bull market. The price does not, but like spiritually, you know, there's a lot of fucking. I think we should talk about being in the middle of the bull market. Because we did a show for Bitcoin's birthday back in January right at the start of the year. And we were kind of speculating what might happen this year.

And I think we were both overly optimistic on a few things. The first one, like Trump was kind of the story at the time. We were talking a lot about the strategic reserve. Well, he's still a, yeah, he's still a big part of the story. but I don't think it's dominating the narrative as much as it was then. And what do you think of what he's done? Because for me, when I look at it, there's been a lot of words and basically no action. And the only action we have seen has been pretty negative, I would say,

in terms of what's happened to the samurai devs. So give us your sort of overview on what you've got on. I mean, it's changed the whole tone in the environment, right? So, like, he's a president. He has to work with Congress to pass laws and regulations. So, like, you know, you can sort of argue, like, is the letter, how different is the letter of the law? So maybe in that case, like, the Genius Act is, like, the only new thing besides the executive

orders, which made the strategic reserve in the stockpile, got rid of debanking and other things. But, like, the tone is, like, 100% different. And the tone is 100%, you know, what's pushing forward, like, the institutional adoption that's happening right now with the Bitcoin treasury companies and what's going on with the big banks, like, onboarding stable coins. And you're hearing, like, you know, sometimes, you know, the, you know, as a Bitcoin are you have to step out in the broader crypto, like, you know, you know,

And it's like Google's integrating crypto payments and AI, Lightning Wall is going to be in there with, you know, there's big, like big things happening. You know, on a scale where it's like, okay, like, let's take the Google AI thing. Okay. So like they're going to integrate a Lightning wallet into, you know, Google's AI platform. The idea that like there would be talking about it was like theoretically impossible like prior to Trump. And it's all about the tone of the administration. And sure, they have to follow through. ensure there's some things that, like, the administration could be better on.

And again, this is not, like, a huge validation of the current administration by it means. It's just that, you know, it's a statement of, like, they have changed the tone and culture, very obviously. Maybe you have to be in America to see it. But, yeah, it's night and day. Again, like, whether or not they're, like, good stewards for Bitcoin or, like, the Trump family's involvement in crypto is good, whether, like, you know, they have plans to make Bitcoin nakedly partisan, which I think it's pretty obvious that they want that, that outcome.

come, right? You know, it's a mixed bag, but like, you know, undoubtedly, like, there would be, you know, there's just a whole tonal difference, the way the things were talked about, what companies are doing things. Yeah, right? I don't know. It's like, how could you've, what else could you've wanted at this point, right? Well, I agree that the, the tones changed. Obviously, like, the regulatory environment's changed and it's allowing Bitcoin businesses to go and build Bitcoin tools to a degree, like obviously not if that's a privacy tool. They seem to be very unhappy about that. And there's now this kind of expansion of the Patriot Act that they're talking about. But, like, as the administration themselves, like they obviously sign into law. Well, actually,

I don't know how it works. They sign the executive order to do a strategic Bitcoin reserve, but they've not really done anything. And the stuff they have done is like, well, that's like, technically that's currently law. And like there is the, the, any Bitcoin that's held by the government is considered part of the reserve, like officially as of now. So the way the executive order works is that it, an executive order, like, creates not law, but it's essentially like, it's like a law in lieu of something else, right? So like, you know, as long as that's the decree, then that, like, that's what it is. And that legally, like any, you know, organization or agency with the United States would have to report that to the federal government and that would be part of the strategic reserve. So,

I mean, it's, it's as real as a law could get without them passing the Bitcoin Act. All the Bitcoin Act, really does is it prevents something from, people like a card game. An executive order can be, is like a one, as a, is like a two pair. You know,

and like a congressional act is like a full house, you know, it's like it beats most hands. So it's like, it's there, you know, if there's another hand, like it's played and like wipes it out. But it's, you know,

for all intents of purposes, like in the current legal climate, it's there, right? It's achieved. So yeah, I don't know. I would dispute that the Trump administration, I guess if we had this conversation on January, you know, what is it? What's the birthday third? January 3rd. I mean, yeah.

You're the Bitcoin and the reason. Well, I'm a January 9th guy. You know, I'm not a January 3rd. I'm in the very small minority of people who think since the day that the software was released should be considered Bitcoin's birthday. So I'm a separateist on that issue, the spirit of Forks and the division. But yeah, no, I look, I mean, it's hard to imagine like a conference. like I was at today, the NYC, Bank on Treasury's on conference, where there was so much institutional presence there. Like, it's just really hard to imagine that have happened without the Trumps and you could say what you will about. There's a lot of pluses and minuses on their participation, but like, I don't know, I'd take

it over on that. They've kind of pretty much changed. Like, the idea that there's conferences in New York, that, like, it weren't conferences in New York for many years prior to this. That is the one thing that has clearly changed this time is that institutions are definitely here. When Saylor came out in 2021, there was a lot of talk about this and nothing really happened. There was a couple of companies that did a similar thing back then, but this has obviously

been the year where institutions have actually come to Bitcoin. Corporates have been putting it on the balance sheet. I'm still kind of skeptical about the Treasury Company thing and we will get into that. But do you think this has changed the four-year cycle? Because this is something that you've been like a four-year cycle, Maxion for quite a long time now. Yeah, it's been my teddy bear for a long time. So I had a podcast with Matt Hogan where we debated it. Yeah, I think, like, look, if any time is different, my steel man for like why this time is different.

So I've developed a steel man for like, here's why I think this is time is different. And I don't know if it's enough for me to walk off my position of like, I think there's going to be a four-year cycle. Because I think, again, the four-year cycles are psychological and, like, people will get over-extended, especially if it runs in Q4. I think the steel man for this time is different. Essentially, for me, goes. you know, if you think about the way that Bitcoin could have become mainstream, like, in the world, like, there was maybe, like, a thousand scenarios in which Bitcoin, like, became global money. There were, you know, in 2009, you know, let's just say, uh, there was, you know, there was all these

domino outcomes, like, a world in which, like, the United States is, like, specifically spearheading that. And, like, they are by doing, by spearheading that global transition to this new system, both entrenching the current power structure and then ensuring the U.S. dollars place in that structure, like, indefinitely, is, like, an incredibly specific outcome that, like, removes, like, 99% of the outcome. So, you know, there's a board game in the United States, like, called Guess Who, and you sort of have to guess the facial attributes of a person. And so one of the quirks of the game is you'll say, you know, oh, does this person have a beard and it'll wipe out, like, three people? Or, you know, this person, like, you know, whatever. this wipes out like 90% of the options.

Like it's like it's almost like you said, you know, does this person have hair? And it's like, no, like wipes out 90. It's done it. Just Danny.

Yeah. Wipes up 90% of options. And it's a, you know, because again, it's like a very specific outcome. Like maybe there were outcomes where El Salvador led a global coalition of nations

that established some alternative Bitcoin basket for like sovereign adoption and that the US was a laggard. And they, lag behind or maybe no countries did and it like remained a grasswood thing like a specific reality where like the leader of the current free world and market economy is leading the transition to Bitcoin and crypto stuff largely through stable coins. I mean, we can debate that, but that's what's happening. And they're using that to entrench the global power structure is a very incredibly specific outcome. And I think it gets you to a point where it's like, okay, well, if that happens

and this is how the industry mainstreams, then, you know, there's not that much, there's not like a huge disruption left. You're like, you're a lot of the way towards this being a, because again, it's like, you can kind of think about it as like, Bitcoin began, and then it's sort of like the open question is like, okay, how does it become the money of the world? How does it become like mainstream as money?

And so, like, you know, we live in the window of time where that's an unknowable answer. Like, none of us know that. But like, this feels like a very specific answer. it becomes global money by the United States, you know, adopting a policy of pushing stable coins abroad to, you know, entrench the dollar, displace all other foreign currencies, and then eventually, like, they have to save in Bitcoin to, you know, offset the deficit and other things in order to do that. That's incredibly specific. And I would have argued in like, as far back, you know, maybe as recently as 2021, incredibly unlikely. It's actually astounding that that happened. And how quickly it has. happened and how people we know, like, were involved in, like, you know, a three-month period in which, you know, you always think about Bretton Woods and you're like, a bunch of guys got together for a weekend and, like, made the financial system. And you're like, yeah, they, like, took luggage there and they ate and they went home and, like, you know, they left with, like, the financial system

being different. Like, we saw that happen, but it was so fast that, like, even we didn't notice it. It's like, that happened. Like, in the summer of 2024, the people we knew went to the Trump administration with this idea to use stable coins to entrench U.S. hegem. and internationally, and to use Bitcoin as, it ultimately migrates a sort of Bitcoin as a global reserve asset. How aligned that coalition is on that, it's pretty clear that that's what happened. And it's pretty shocking how little public discussion there was on it

and just how clearly it seems to have been enacted. And so it's quite possible that we live through one of these events that just was like, no, that happened already. It's over. Like, that's the way that this is going to happen. One of the things that keeps me up at night is the idea of a critical error with my Bitcoin cold storage. This is where Anchor Watch comes in. With Anchor Watch, your Bitcoin is insured with your own A plus rated Lloyds of London Insurance Policy and all Bitcoin is held in their

time-locked multi-sig bolts. So you have the peace of mind knowing your Bitcoin is fully insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, wrench attacks, natural disasters or just your own mistakes, you're fully protected by Anchor Watch. Rates for fully insured custody start as low as 0.55% and are available for individual and commercial customers located in the US. Speak to Anchorwatch today for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage. Visit anchorwatch.com today.

That is anchorwatch.com. Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin? Well, Leibon makes that possible. Ledden of the global leader in Bitcoin Back lending and since 2018 they've issued over $9 billion in loans with a perfect record of protecting client assets. With Ledden, you get full custody loans with no credit checks, no monthly repayments,

just easy access to dollars, out selling a single sat. As of July 1st, Leiden is Bitcoin only, meaning they exclusively offer Bitcoin-backed loans with all collateral held by Leiden directly or their funding partners. Your Bitcoin has never lent out to generate interest. I recently took out a loan with Leiden and the whole process couldn't have been easier. It took me less than 15 minutes to go through the application, and in just a few hours I had the dollars in my account. It was super smooth. So if you need cash but you don't want to sell Bitcoin, head over to leaden.io forward slash WBD and you'll get 0.25% off your first loan. That's L-E-D-N.io forward slash WBD. Bitcoin is absolutely ripping and in every

ball market there's always a new wave of investors and with it a flood of new companies, new products and new promises. But if you've been around long enough, you've seen how this story ends for a lot of them. Some cut corners, take risk with your money or just disappear. That's why when it comes to buying Bitcoin, the only exchange I recommend is River. They deeply care about doing things right for their clients and are built to last with security and transparency at their core. With River, you have peace of mind knowing all their Bitcoin is held in multi-sid-cold storage, and it's the only Bitcoin-only exchange in the US with proof of reserves. There really is no better place to buy Bitcoin, so to open an account today,

head over to river.com forward slash WBD and earn up to $100 in Bitcoin when you buy. That's river.com forward slash WBD. I mean, that's a pretty wild framing when you put it like that. I've not heard it described like that, and it's pretty fucking crazy. Do you think, like, again, we were talking just before. we started recording and you were saying that there's people trapped in like a 20, one of them. I may be one of them. I think you're in the carbon. You're fighting the carbonite. Yeah. But like my worry with this stuff is like what risk are we introducing to Bitcoin?

Like I get the Trojan horse analogy. I think it's probably going to be right. But there is like an alternate reality where instead of them taking the horse into Troy, they just burnt it down. And like what I am worried about is Bitcoin still being freedom money. But what are you talking about specifically? Like Bitcoin's still being able to use as freedom money. Like not just having this as like a KYC store of value. Yeah. So you're introducing a 2021 meme and saying like, is this bad for this 2021 meme?

Which, you know, is the thing I hope that Bitcoin is freedom money for people. Right. Look, all these things are. So there's Bitcoin is this competition of ideas, right? And I think that the culture basically, you know, as far as I can figure out over time, Like, what it does is it elevates sort of figures in the movement. And then it sort of, it coagulates in different periods around like this, what I would call like, you know, a utopian vision. So like the freedom money of like the 2020 and one era was the utopian vision of that time.

It was said like Bitcoin is going to mainstream through grassroots adoption, through self-custody, through the culture becoming mainstream and becoming, you know, Bitcoin, you know, so Bitcoin has a counter culture movement that would, you know, spread globally. and that Bitcoin, like the people would sort of rise up outside of the governments and sort of remove power from government. Like that's a very specific instantiation of like the idea of how Bitcoin would mainstream. And so I think like the history of Bitcoin is like a history of Bitcoin gravitating to different people who have different answers for this. Right. And so like, you know, in the 2014 era, you know, Andreas had the idea of Bitcoin as like internet money, right? Like, you know, the internet money, internet money, right? And so, like, that was kind of the utopia of the time.

And, like, Bitcoin was going to be used for, like, payments all over the place. And, you know, Bitcoin was going to disrupt the banks and, like, kind of do all these things. You know, the 2017 era, like, had its own kind of figures, like, that kind of had that. And then I think the 2021 era had its own collection of figures that, like, collectively, like, sort of had this vision for Bitcoin. And so, you know, one of my jokes with the old timers that I think most of them laugh at is that, like, if you went to a Bitcoin conference, like, in the past, like, so like, let's just say I teleported you back to like the 2013 Bitcoin conference. Like, how long would it take for you to notice that you're at a Bitcoin conference?

Like, so the, so the analogy here is like, would you know you're in like the same place because it's so different, right? And so like, you know, if I teleported somebody from like the New York Bitcoin Treasuries Unconference to like the 2021, Ross Ulbrook speaking from prison, Tony Hawk on a skateboard, F the government, people screaming on stage, like version of the culture. like they would find themselves in a place that they thought was completely unrecognizable. And I think if you went back to 2017 where it's like, you know, Max Geiser's on stage screaming like Bitcoin is the only secure database. Like it's the way that all sort of, you know, cryptograt, like, you know, settlements, global settlements is going to happen on top of, you know, layered Bitcoin. We're building, like, you know, it's like every, in 2013, it's like you would have had a similar

thing with people like global commerce or maybe you'd see a Murataki like with AK-47 being like this is going to be like deep. state, like, you know, internet money, then, like, you know, people will throw off the yoke of the state and uprisers. So, like, every, every version of Bitcoin has kind of, like, a different kind of, like, ideal, I like the word phrase utopian vision, because it's essentially, like, you know, it's a, it's a way that, like, or a theory on, like, how Bitcoin will be mainstream. Like, I think what we're living through right now is, like, Michael Saylor has a very specific vision on that. It's, like, pretty new. It's like, I'd say, like, maybe, and he acknowledged this

on stage today, like, maybe within the last year or something that he's kind of, he's kind of stumbled upon where it's like Michael Saylor was somebody who like was in the culture in the movement, very important. But like I don't think like was like leading the whole movement. Like in 2021, like he wasn't like somebody that people were like, oh, like that guy is like going in the direction of the mood. There were other people that we would have looked to for that. But this is very much like the culture being remade in Sailor's image. Like I say like, you know, this is Sailor Mania. This is the Sailor cycle. And Sailor's specific vision for Bitcoin mainstreaming as a financial asset that it.

is highly securitized and pushed through financial institutions is a very specific utopian vision. But the thing that I think that's the most interesting about it, stick with me, is that it's the most compatible with like the current regulatory framework and the also this idea that the Trump administration has of pushing like stable coin adoption globally and maintaining its role as sort of like the global superpower. And I think if you look at every other version of like the utopian visions, they're not as highly compatible. And so, like, the new thing here is, like,

Sailor's particular Utopian vision, Bitcoin mainstreaming through financialization as a credit instrument, push through institutions where retail adoption, custody risk are solved through regulated financial products is an incredibly specific vision. But it's also highly compatible with, like, something that the government would tolerate

and traditional financial institutions would tolerate, contrast that to the 2021 era of we're going to get rid of the banks like F the banks like they can't be platform us we're going to make self-custody like that very antithetical to institutions very antithetical to the state so you know the thing where you know

I get wrapped up in what Sailor is doing is like maybe this is the maybe this version of the Ethiopian version of Bitcoin has the most chance of happening because it's so synergistic with like the other power structures it's the least offensive to them like the idea of freedom money, you know, just that, that kind of verbiage and like what we meant when

we said freedom money, you know, again, it speaks to sort of this like grassroots uprising kind of idea that Bitcoin would, you know, scale as a global counterculture and challenge like the status quo, that that's threatening to the institutions and the state. And so now we have like a utopian vision for Bitcoin, but it's highly compatible with those things. And that's what sailor, that's why I think sailor is getting a lot of momentum because it's actually something that's pretty new. makes sense. It does make sense. And I think for Bitcoin to have done what I would consider succeed, it needs to have done all of those things. Like, I think just being a financialized

asset is not interesting enough on its own. Like, do you think the kind of freedom money elements come off the back of this financialization of Bitcoin? Yeah, the trick is it's like looking at different parts of the same painting. It's like, so is Bitcoin any less of a payment method than it was in 2013. And there's no. It's like, I can pay you for a hat or I can buy something at the Danny Null's store with Bitcoin. It's just that's not the focal point of the culture. And so, you know, each of these, like the Bitcoin culture is like, you know, shadow puppets. Like, you know, you make your hand and like there's the big scary thing in the wall. And so, like, you're just shooting the same thing from different angles. And it's like, the thing's the same.

Like, how many lines of code about, you know, for all the knots like core drama, like, how many lines of code of Bitcoin are different from the original version? Like, very little. And so, like, what's happening is, like, it's us imposing the light, shooting the light on the thing. And it's creating a different version of it. It's like, that's still true. Like, Bitcoin scaling and layers, like, through a fee market, like, we thought in 2017,

and that, we can get in the not stuff. But, like, still the true, like, developers are still building towards that. The 2020-1 era, it's like, freedom money. It's like, okay, if you want to hold Bitcoin and, like, not, you know, avoid the state, like, you can still be a mere talky. he's still living in Spain, like, you know, trying to, like, start a Serbian revolution, like, somewhere. Like, he can still, like, there's nothing about Bitcoin that has, that prohibits him

from doing that. Like, Michael Saylor financializing Bitcoin doesn't prohibit him from doing that. So, like, it doesn't lose the properties, but then the culture and the, and the industry and the, you know, the, it's like, every time Bitcoin, like, goes up, we have to sort of explain why it's happening. And so we sort of just tell, like, the culture is the story that we tell ourselves. right and so sailor is like that's that's the story that we're telling ourselves right now is like that this is the way it's going to happen i don't like my qualms like it's like i don't think it makes the 21 21 stuff less true uh it's just that like um it seems to be like the current culture you know because each of the culture is also like you know they sort of are referendums on the other cultures right so if you look at what were the parts of the 2021 culture that the new culture is throwing out so like self- custody is thrown out, right? So now the idea is like, we can't solve

custody, self-custody with technology. We're going to solve self-custy with financialization and financial products and securitization. So they have a critique on the 21 culture and now that is their culture. And then so I'd say like, what's another like big critique? Let's talk about that critique first because like to me, that's a huge, like it's an issue. Like we do want to be pushing self-custody Bitcoin. And like the idea that self-custody is really hard. I just don't think is true. What's really going to bend your mind, I think, a little bit is like when, you know, it becomes theoretically possible, like, self-custody

MSTR through like the layer two bitcoins because you're issued like a financial product that you can then self-custody on some sort of rail. Do you need to self-custody, like a publicly traded equity, though? That seems very different to me. Well, so one of the things that the exchanges have been doing that's, again, like, sort of outside the normative Bitcoin radar, but is pretty interesting, is like, So right now, it's like if you go to Cracken or Coinbase or like Robin Hood, so they're doing tokenized equities, which again is like nobody in Bitcoin's are paying attention to this. But it's a really interesting idea because essentially like what's the best use case for tokenized equities? It's like Bitcoin Treasury companies. So what does that mean?

It's like somebody in Nigeria can buy a share of MSTR on Crackin, like on Solana, like in a wrapped asset that they own with an exchange. and like they have Bitcoin exposure. They are buying exposure to Bitcoin price through this really warped, you know, sort of system. And so, you know, just because you are issuing equities or like credit doesn't mean eventually you won't have self-custody. That is actually, that could actually happen. And I think today you can do that.

Like, you can actually hold a tokenized equity self-custodied in most of the exchange wallets, like if you wanted to. And so like the idea that that, you know, So then you argue, well, it's just a credit. Like, you know, it's like a stable coin, right? You have to redeem it at the bank, and then they give you the dollar or whatever. And it is like stable. Take up on the stable equities.

Tokenized equities are stable coin and stable equities. You basically now have sort of like you can self-custody dollars, you can self-custody equities. And so like the treasury companies are equities. And so we can't, like people are self-custody equities currently. Yeah, but I struggle with that because like are you actually self-custody dollars and equities in that in that situation because like you're still at the whim of tether or you're still at the whim of like strategy well tether economy has been around for 10

years right and it seems pretty good right like we don't hear a large like we don't hear many stories of like people in russia or china like using tether to avoid sanctions that are losing access to their dollars do you like i don't i don't heard any of those stories but it's the issue of the word like self-custody because if you are at the whim of an other company, are you actually self-custodying anything? Well, where the company in this case is just issued, like, again, it's like a stable coin. So if Coinbase issues you the stable coin and you self-custody it, you have the coin in your

wallet, you have the keys to the asset. Unless they decide you don't. No, like, so a lot of the exchanges have self-custodied wallets now. So, like, they have both an exchange account and you can have like, you have essentially a software wallet, like, through them. and so you can buy the asset within the exchange account, and then you can withdraw the asset to the self-custody wild that you have, like the software wild that you have.

But my point on like the tether thing is, I agree we've not seen them. I mean, we have seen them blacklist certain people. It's been a small. I'm not arguing this is a good thing. I'm just telling you that this is possible today. And it's like,

um, that so I think like the idea here that like the equities are antithetical to self-custy just like might actually not be true. Like so there's a, there's a, there's a pathway where that criticism. just like isn't super relevant. Like, you actually might be able to self-custody MSTR and STRC and S-Strike and stride

and all these credit products to like Michael Saylor is like issuing, like, within a wallet. Yeah. But my point on that was really that the idea of us throwing out the idea that people should self-custody Bitcoin is a negative. Well, no, it's just, it's just the current culture within this like kind of new 2025 Sailor Mania culture, just sort of, I think it, it, it, that we hit some ceiling on like how many people it was like possible to like increase Bitcoin adoption like through that. I'm not arguing for their point. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm

just telling you like this is what this group of people think. What they think happened in 2021 is that we issued all these hardware wallets and we issued all these products and we did all these things and that we hit some sort of a total ceiling address of the market on how many people were actually going to custody Bitcoin on that. You might not agree with that and that's a reasonable thing to disagree with. That's just what they think. And they're what their plan is to address that is to increase the exposure that Bitcoin that people have to Bitcoin

by offering people a chance to buy these equities which offer them exposure to Bitcoin. That's the whole kind of general idea there. You can, again, like, I don't think that they're guaranteed to be right. That's just the current, that's the,

just like the 2021 era, I can't say that they were necessarily right. You themes, and they could think very strongly that that was like the way to go and that like that was the only you know possible outcome i don't know i'm like i held my opinion much more loosely on that and again i can still self-custody my own bitcoin i can use collaborative custody and you know i have access to the same tools these institutions have uh so i'm not bothered by that i would like more people to self-custy of bitcoin i thought it was cool the idea that i like the 2021 culture it was like my favorite if i had to pick any of the four

cultures it's my favorite it's just not the thing that's happening right now yeah i mean i think we could go like a round and circle on that. And my point to it is not that like the narrative is going to evolve and I'm okay with that. And Bitcoin doesn't care what I think about Bitcoin. I just think there's some values there that are being lost. Perhaps. But again, I think like, as I said, like potentially these things aren't as antithetical as you might think because it might be possible to solve them with technology. You know, it's also possible. You know, one of the reasons that I think Bitcoin Treasuries.comnet is interesting is because like, yeah, there is no place to actually litigate what these companies are doing and actually compare how they're doing. I'm like,

we do need a forum to like have honest conversations about how these companies are performing because this whole thing is an experiment. Like, I mean, yeah, I mean, it's like we know that strategy is working, but there's a lot of, you know, parts about their thesis that might prove to be untrue or that some other future culture might rebel against. You know, we could, we could look at like, okay, what does the current culture believe? And then what are the potential issues with that. But like, you know, so if you were to kind of say like, okay, what is the new culture? What is the sailor? What is this new children of sailor culture? I don't know. What do we want to call it? Like the post-sailer, you know, institutional Bitcoin culture that's the Bitcoin

Treasury's movement. Like, what is that? What do they believe and what do they want? I think it's pretty clear that they think they're increasingly addressable market for people who own Bitcoin exposure by solving custody and regulatory challenges for people. and they think they're scaling up that base. I think it's pretty clear that they think that the cost of Bitcoin, like the Bitcoin's appreciation should be the hurdle rate. The rate of return should be what all companies strive to outperform. And they think that the new companies,

like the companies of the Bitcoin era, should both outperform Bitcoin and then offer investors a return beyond what Bitcoin was able to perform. provide. So the real big question is like, will that happen? You know, and so the derivative metrics are from there, like, and this is a lot of Bitcoin Treasuries.net is working on, is like, okay, well, so like, if you have a company that's stated goals to outperform Bitcoin, and you have investors that are investing in this company on the basis that doing so, they will outperform Bitcoin, by what metrics do you actually judge that performance? And how, what do these metrics mean?

like how, you know, correct are they? So that's the conversation on Bitcoin Treasers. Right now right now that I think is actually really good and, like, needs to be had because a lot of this stuff is theoretical. Like, it's not guaranteed that, like, you know, Bitcoin is the hurdle rate. And so this is, you know, the word of God, it will always be the case that this is how it operates. This is a very complex thesis that is rolling out in real time that a lot of people are in capital or aligning behind.

That is what you're seeing. You're seeing the emergence of a new movement of Bitcoin that has a very specific thesis that is gathering a lot of capital. And so then it's important to say like, okay, well, what is their thesis? Like, what do they actually think? And so I think like, you know, number one, scaling custody by solving regulatory, you know, challenges increasing that. The hurdle rate thing, you know, both on the investor side and the Bitcoin side, they believe, and I, you know, this is, you can explain it pretty simply, right? Like, if you have a company in the United States, you would, you want to invest in that company if they will outperform the dollar. right like so if you if like you invest in apple because apple will outperform the dollar that that's how how companies work like that's why we form this is the nice thing about bitcoin that like breaks down a lot of concepts like a company has a group of people to get who together you want them to outperform the cost of capital so if bitcoin is the cost of capital then there's a higher bar and so like this new

bitcoin company now wants to sort of outperform the rate of return of bitcoin that's what it thinks the sailor's sort of vision here is that the new company the new Bitcoin company will outperform Bitcoin and deliver higher returns, because that is why you would invest in a Bitcoin company. There is not a point to invest in a Bitcoin company, if the Bitcoin company is going to lose your money in Bitcoin terms. And so this whole sort of movement, and this is why I actually think this movement is pretty aligned with Bitcoin's incentives,

you know, as much as they get sort of, you know, trashed for not doing that. They're trying to create an environment where the companies measure their performance in Bitcoin, which if you think there's a Bitcoin standard, like, that seems pretty obvious that that would occur, and where investors can actually analyze the results of companies, like, in Bitcoin terms. And so if you believe in a future where, like, everything has denominated Bitcoin, it would seem pretty obvious that, like, the financial markets would need to operate that way. What if you could lower your tax bill and stack Bitcoin at the same time?

Well, by mining Bitcoin with Blockware, you can. New tax guidelines from the Big Beautiful Bill allow American miners to write off 100% of the cost of their mining hardware in a single tax year. That's right, 100% write-off. If you have 100k in capital gains or income, you can purchase 100K of miners and offset it entirely. Blockware's mining as a service enables you to start mining Bitcoin right now without lifting a finger. Blockware handles everything from securing the miners to sourcing low-cost power to configuring the mining pool, they do it all. You get to stack Bitcoin at a discount every single day while also saving big come tax season. Get started today by going to mining,

blockware solutions.com forward slash WBD, and for every hosted miner purchased, you get one week of free hosting and electricity. Of course, none of this is tax advice. Speak with blockware to learn more at mining.blockwresolutions.com forward slash WBD. This episode is brought to you by the massive legends, Iron, the largest NASDAQ listed Bitcoin miner using 100% renewable energy. Iron are not just powering the Bitcoin network. They're also providing cutting-edge computing resources for AI, all backed by renewable energy. We've been working with F-F-Factor. founders Dan and Will for quite some time now and have been really impressed with their values, especially their commitment to local communities and sustainable computing power.

So whether you're interested in mining Bitcoin or harnessing AI compute power, Iron is setting the standard. Visit iron.com to learn more, which is iri-en.com. If you already self-custody or Bitcoin, you know the deal with hardware wallets, complex setups, clumsy interfaces, and a seed phrase that can be lost, stolen or forgotten. Well, BitKee fixes that. BitKee is a multi-sig hardware wallet built by the team behind, Square and Cash App. It packs a cryptographic recovery system and built-in inheritance feature

into an intuitive, easy-to-use wallet with no seed phrase to sweat over. It's simple, secure self-custody without the stress and time named Bickey one of the best inventions of 2024. Get 20% off at bitkey.org when you use code WBD. That's B-I-T-K-E-Y-D. World and use code WBD. I think the obvious question there then is how many of these companies do you think will actually outperform Bitcoin because when you look at, like, I'm on your website now, there's like 192 public companies that have Bitcoin on the balance sheet at the moment. Strategy, obviously, miles ahead of everyone else. There's a few in there that are going to have either launched or about to launch that

have a significant amount of Bitcoin. I think there's a chance that those manage to do pretty well. But there's a long tail that I assume is going to massively underperform Bitcoin if you go out more than, you know, six months. we've seen what's happened with NACA recently, their share price is absolutely tanked. How many do you think is sustainable to outperform Bitcoin in this market?

I mean, that's the question, right? And that's the experiment that we're going towards. It's like not a knowable question, right? So, I mean, I think you will see thousands of them started. I don't know how many you will see succeed. But again, I think that goes through this idea that, you know, the, You know, the Treasury company, even at the baseline opportunity of, like, the people accruing Bitcoin for themselves within company vehicle, okay, like, what's the bear case for, like, the Treasury's movement? Like, what's the worst possible outcome? The worst possible outcome is, like, you end up with, you know, hundreds of companies distributed around the world where investors have kind of, like, put dollars in, the companies have bought Bitcoin. The companies are all sort of stagnant, insolvent. They all go bust, whatever. They sell their coin.

and then nothing really happens. You're sort of back at square one, right? So that's the bare case. So like, let's just like, let's actually run your scenario to the end. Because like, that's how you would actually see whether scenarios are good. So let's just pretend all of the Bitcoin companies don't outperform Bitcoin. They all suffer catastrophic losses. They all sell all their Bitcoin and they all go to go to zero with the exception of like strategy.

Like what happens? Like, uh, Bitcoin movement will like move on and like figure out some different ways. to like scale and like try to become mainstream and like further bitcoin as a technology movement. I can say why I think that bear case is unlikely. I think it's unlikely for a number of reasons. I think it's like one, there's there's actually like regulatory and tax like issues like in each jurisdiction where these treasury company models, it's likely for them to accumulate a lot of Bitcoin.

And then if you can imagine the future, it's like we can build a financial services company by just owning a lot of Bitcoin or just have a company that just endures. You know, so from the 20-21 era, like Tahini's is a great example. Tahini's is a Bitcoin Treasury's company. I'm talking about like the Schwarmow place from Canada. They save in Bitcoin.

They've expanded and they're growing. Are they a Bitcoin treasury company? Not in the kind of modern sense where these companies are trying to kind of exploit the financial system to like inflate their, you know, overall balance sheets. But again, like, ask yourself, like, what do you think then about how business, how the business world works

in a Bitcoin standard and how bullish are you on Bitcoin? Because like, okay, so your bull case for Bitcoin then is a world where no company is on Bitcoin? Like, what's your, what becomes your case from? It's definitely not that. It's, like, I think Tehini's is a great example of a, like, so I've been getting a load of shit on Twitter today. I was just telling you about it before the show.

Okay. What's your book case for corporate adoption and a hyper Bitcoinized world then? So, but this is the point is that, like, so I have been pretty skeptical about Bitcoin treasury companies. Again, like, it's really hard to even bucket them together because like, the question is, okay, you believe in hyper-bitquinization, correct? But let me get there. Let me get there. Because my point is, like, I think there's, like, strategy are doing interesting stuff. I think the prefers they've launched really interesting. I think there's a market, a huge market demand for that. I think they'll be absolutely fine.

And when it gets to the smaller Bitcoin companies that are trying to do the Treasury play, like issue debt by Bitcoin, I think that's rapidly becoming less interesting. And the things that I am bullish on are like positive cash flow companies putting excess reserves into Bitcoin. And this is why I did the investment into B-Hoddle because they're not just going to issue a ton of debt and buy as much Bitcoin as possible. They're actually trying, they've put Bitcoin on the balance sheet. They're going to try and put that Bitcoin to work and yield on like running lightning nodes. We'll see how well that plays out. a Bitcoin business, not just like a pure cash grab issue debt by Bitcoin. Yeah, so I think the thing here becomes like, okay, like in a world where Bitcoin is like

fairly mainstream, it's like how much of the business is denominated in Bitcoin. And so you get into like weird asymmetries right now where it's like from the Bitcoin treasury company's perspective, they would rather pay their employees in dollars so they can accrue more Bitcoin because they would, they think that it's better to play employees in dollars and then use that, that use the Bitcoin they have to like accrue it and accrue more Bitcoin. So the idea here is like if you have a public company,

a company where there is an equity that people have purchased, if it's going to underperform Bitcoin and it's a Bitcoin company, why would you hold it? That's essentially the question. This is how they've derived at this idea that they need to outperform Bitcoin. Because in a world where you are put it, why, so you have bought, yes, you have bought Bitcoin like treasures in this company, but for the company to keep going,

it has to accrue more investors over time. That's what a company is, otherwise it dies. So there has to be some reason for other people along this curve to then buy the shares later. If it was better for you to have bought Bitcoin when you invested in that company,

then invest in that company, then you lost money and you made a bad trade. Which is very possible. You could have traded those Australian dollars for, I'm assuming, Australian dollars for Bitcoin at a certain rate, and you got less Bitcoin as a result. And so the interesting thing with strategy is like strategy outperformed Bitcoin.

Like you put a dollar in and you got more Bitcoin than you could have bought. This is like this is one of the things about the movement that I know a lot of the 2021 Bitcoiners blanch at, which is this idea that like you give the company capital and it creates more Bitcoin for you than you could have bought. It's like a weird thing to think about. But again, it gets to the kind of point where it's like, okay, like, let's just imagine that like, let's just get rid of the specifics. Let's just say that this whole movement right now, what it's trying to ask is how will businesses operate in a Bitcoin world? How will publicly traded Bitcoin businesses operate in a world that moves towards a future where Bitcoin is money for everyone? And so if you agree that Bitcoin is going to be money for everyone, then businesses have to adapt to that. then what this movement is doing is aligned with our mission because essentially what it's trying to do is answer this question.

That doesn't guarantee that all of its ideas are good and 100% going to be correct, but it's directionally moving us in a positive forward direction because it is grappling with questions that there is no known answer to. So we can't possibly know how this will happen. All we can do is build and kind of iterate in a certain direction. And that will reach some sort of conclusion at some point, or it won't, right? I mean, who knows, right? So, like, it'll have, or, and then the culture will go in some other direction. But, like, I think it's pretty obvious that, like, we would want to have a conversation

about how businesses are structured, how they're capitalized, and how they perform, like, on a Bitcoin standard. And that these companies, even if they're doing things that are raising money in bad ways that it'll make sense, or they're treating investors badly or they're promising things, like, these are all things that are actually happening. There are companies that have raised money and then probably ways that they regret. there's companies that have underperformed Bitcoin, there's companies that are currently worth less than, you know,

they promise, like, this is, so, you know, I think more transparency and more discussion around that is good because that's the forward direction. Like, that's what people are arguing about. That's the, that's the serious current conversation that's happening. And so, like, my instinct is just like, okay, let's dive into that. So, like, you know, Bitcoin Treasury is like the emails, the social media, like whatever, like, that's what we're talking about.

Like, let's have a conversation about that. It's very clear that, like, you know, sometimes you just have to experiment in the right direction, right? 2021, we experimented in all sorts of new directions, right? Podcasts, books, like, all these things were, like, were new. Like, they didn't exist, right? And so they were efforts by the culture to achieve a wider adoption. And now there's, you know, we're past peak podcast. Was podcasting a mistake?

Like, should we, like, we think Bitcoin podcasting was a mistake? Well, it looks like it moved the culture forward, right? And it adapted Bitcoin to the culture of the times. It moved Bitcoin forward. It's still useful for the people in the industry. But we're probably past peak Bitcoin podcast, like where we agree. I think peak Bitcoin podcasting could be ahead of us still. I think when these treasury companies blow up, we're going to have a real boost in Bitcoin podcasting.

But a few questions on that. One is like which business models will survive. because I wonder if the idea of just sort of diluting shareholders to buy more Bitcoin, issuing debt at like everyone. Yeah, it would be nice. I think one of the things would be nice to see that it would be more models, right? So like, you know, whether it's like, you know, what B-Hoddle is doing or like companies that are going to buy and acquire other operating companies, yeah, you're going to see a proliferation of other types of models. And some of them will work, you know, this treasury company that's invest in other treasury companies. is a model where, you know, a number of people are coming to market with similar things there.

And it's like, again, it's like the Bitcoin culture is very good at, like, taking an idea and then just, like, driving it to its conclusion through, you know, mass speculation. And that's what we've done, though. The whole thing is just a somebody gets a good idea. It's like, safety and writes a good book. And so there's a thousand, thousand fucking book. You know, it's like one person does one thing and you iterate on it and you push it to the extreme. And so, like, Michael Saylor did this.

thing and it's like, oh, there's a thousand companies going to do that. You've got to run into the end. And so, yeah, I don't, you know, I don't think you have to know where the Bitcoin Treasury's movement is going. I just think you have to analyze it as like a sociological phenomenon, which is like, okay, what are these people trying to achieve? Like, what do they believe? And are they aligned with the movement? I don't, I think the argument that they would be not aligned with Bitcoin culture is pretty weak. Because again, it's like, if you assume that the Bitcoin is going to be money, then businesses have to adapt to them. So this is just the culture that. that's working on that problem at the widest of you, like, that's currently what's happening.

And I don't see that as antithetical to Bitcoin. Yes, some of their cultural norms, you know, we've talked about this a lot when we talked about the ordnals and different stuff there. It's like some of their cultural norms are different than the previous Bitcoin monoculture. But I think what you're going to witness is that this Treasury company culture, that's going to become the new Bitcoin monoculture. And Bitcoin monocultures are pretty short-lived, right? There's different versions of it at different times.

And I get it. Yeah, it's like, you know, if you haven't seen many of them, it's hard to know, like, how different they were. And, like, I think each of them contributed to something, right? Like, I would say, like, you know, with the knots and core thing, this is almost like a referendum on the 2017, like, development culture, where it's, you know, the normative view in 2017 was that fees were going to be high, blocks were going to be full, and Bitcoin was going to scale in layers.

and that, you know, the rules that we set post-Seguit of, you know, developing a pricing structure for data that's embedded in transactions that was consistent and fair and, you know, developing sort of policies that, like, you know, the developers thought would ensure Bitcoin, you know, continued into a centralized manner. Like, that's kind of being chipped at. So, like, you know, you always have different versions of the Bitcoin culture that are trying different things. The culture right now is pretty fat fractured.

You have a lot of smaller factions. than we had before. There's the Knotts camp, which I think is trying to take us towards some sort of, I don't know what they're doing, but they're trying to like, you know, they imagine a very, a very engaged user

within technical development. And they ultimately are, you know, putting a message to the Bitcoin community that, like, we are failing potentially by not, but, you know, they're a culture, right? Like, they're trying to compete to be a monoculture. They want to be a monoculture, right? Because they're aspiring.

The culture is really growing as well. Like the number of comments I get under every video now talking of like asking me to talk about knots and corn is insane. What's your take on that? Because loads of people have been asking me to cover it. I did have a mechanic on the show and I had Shinobi on the show maybe, I don't know, four or five months ago. I've actually tried to have them on the show again together to debate. But like the kind of discourse is broken down to a point where they weren't talk to each other anymore. They won't do it.

Yeah, I think within Bitcoin culture, the flat, the side that, like, waves the doomsday flag is usually the side that has the weaker intellectual position. And I think, like, on the knot side, it's like, they've been very quick to, like, you know, sort of signal that, like, they think Bitcoin will fail if, like, people don't, you know, go along with what they want. And that's usually, like, a sign that they just don't have a very strong position. I don't know. Look, I've been, you know, I was pretty, one of the reasons I tried to put forth a positivistic

argument for ordnals and runes and like sort of meta protocol development on bitcoin is that i didn't want there to be a fork like within bitcoin like i thought that would have been the worst case scenario uh i think the knots you know group will eventually fork whether it's the current people in it or a new set of people or some other group leading it that's sort of what happened in the forbores right wasn't mike hern and gabin and d'nardt it was jihon wu and um roger did all mixed in the now not roger uh but you know it was the later people right um And so, because ultimately what the Knott's group is saying is like, what is happening on Bitcoin, like, can't have ever happens. Like, or Bitcoin will fail.

Like, they're actually saying that things that are currently occurring on Bitcoin should not happen. And they want to, they ultimately have the most intolerant view, right? They're saying Bitcoin can only succeed if you fall, if we do follow this direction. And so they have the most, like, narrow intolerant view of, like, how Bitcoin. could grow and expand. And because they ultimately object to things that are currently happening that can't be stopped by anyone, and their whole kind of emphasis is on stopping this thing, they will eventually take some means to stop it.

And I think that they will eventually have to do that through some sort of extreme technical means because, you know, the core developers, I think have laid out a pretty convincing, like, technical thesis. Like, it's, you know, we have to be tolerant of different uses of Bitcoin. We have to be tolerant of people doing things. that you don't want them to do with Bitcoin in order to have a system where the rules are better for everyone. And I think the Knott's vision where, like, I don't know, I just, I find their whole worldview very problematic. It's like they want to start this sort of coalition to discourage some users from transacting,

and they think that this is good. And I don't understand why I've asked them hundreds of questions about it. Whatever their specific technical, like, proclivities are, I understand that they don't, like, yes, it's like, okay, like, we don't want the Bitcoin blockchain to become too large. great, we have a block size. Okay, you want to relay, like, you don't want to relay some of these transactions? Great, don't relay them. They're going to get into blocks.

So, like, you know, the most charitable view, I think, is that, like, it is great within Bitcoin that you can have a dissenting piece of software. So it is great that we can have two softwares, and we can have one that most people run, and we can have a software that some people run who don't like what's currently going on. A problem with that on the technical side, though, is there's very few. instances of that happening within Bitcoin. So, you know, one of the reasons that if you go back to Satoshi, Satoshi was very against, like, multiple implementations of Bitcoin. But core developers have largely inherited this. And the reason that core is the dominant implementation of Bitcoin is largely because

there's a fear of there being multiple implications. Okay. So Knott's is like a more benign version of that. It relies heavily on the core culture. But eventually, like, Nott's if it goes down its road, we'll have to have a separate implementation and a separate team. Like, we'll have to do that. there's just not a react. Because again, it's like the farther you go in the fork, it's like,

these people will keep updating their software and they'll have to keep up a day. And so you're maintaining these two kind of, you know, forces in parallel, uh, which is incredibly costly and takes a lot of time. And so like, you know, there aren't, there's only one real instance of like a small dissenting economy, like where people didn't run kind of the majority forks. And we don't know that much about it or how long it lasted or how much, you know, they transacted or anything like that. That's something I actually like argued that the core developers should look into that they didn't, they never really liked that idea. But if the Natsbiel were interested in looking into it, it's called the real Bitcoin. It was released by

Mercia Pepaskew. It's supposedly still used by some of his former economy participants in Costa Rica. But like, you know, we don't know how long these things can last. And so, you know, there's just a cost to continuing this that I think will build up. So, like, the steel man, I think, is it's good to have dissenting software. This is like an interesting technical experiment, I guess, but I don't ultimately find the non-script to be doing anything like terribly interesting, because ultimately they feel like they're at war with this sort of, you know, post-fork war world where, you know, why do we have arbitrary data in the Bitcoin? Well, because Bitcoin's data. And we want to have a script and data, like in Bitcoin in some cases.

And, you know, yes, you can discourage these things. And yes, we can build a culture around discouraging things, but you're building a bunch of tools that, like, I think we'll could probably be used against people using transactions that you want to make. And again, it's like, it's so at odds with the data. Like, the stuff's been around for two years. It's like the blocks aren't full. It's like the sets are like, like, like, Fordnals has come and gone. You know, it's like it came and had its time.

But people who were there got into Bitcoin through it. Hopefully they bought some Bitcoin. But like, what's it? Like, there's nothing. Like, it's, you know, they remind me of the big blockers because, again, it's like, they have a very intolerant view. It's like Bitcoin must succeed one way. And we must do this.

And if we don't do this, it's a failure. And that's just a huge red flag. And then this other idea where it's like, you know, they say they just want to not relay these things. But that's not really what they really just don't want them happening. It's a class thing. It's like the other thing. These people are bad. They're, you know, we don't want them here.

They want to be able to kind of use their software to discourage people and, you know, make their transactions more difficult. So like, you know, it's hard for me to see, like, why that would inspire, like, the whole of the Bitcoin culture to rally behind that. That's, like, a very sort of crass message. It's like, okay, like, we're going to build a positivistic version of the future of Bitcoin by encouraging people to, like, discourage other users from using Bitcoin in ways that we know. And look, the knots thing, it's like, sure, now it's fine. Like, you can run knots.

And look, as long as you're not saying crazy things, about how Bitcoin, you know, it'll be illegal to run a node if you run, you know, like, very like non-technical things that are just like not, you don't, why would you introduce, you're introducing attack vectors like against Bitcoin and claiming that, um, the people doing these transactions are, but like, no, you are doing that. Like, you're the one talking about this. And like, you're introducing this tax risk. So I don't know. I think the knots probes that's like, great that they're running a node, dissenting softwares are cool,

but this dissenting software just, for me, it doesn't offer a particularly, like, compelling vision. I don't know, I've talked to Chris Guida, and I like mechanic and Luke, and I hope they don't. I hope they sincerely don't believe that Bitcoin is going to fail. It doesn't feel like Bitcoin's failing to me.

This is where I have an issue. It's like, it's the extremes that the argument's being taken to, where it's like, Core 30 is going to destroy Bitcoin, which, like, I just clearly don't. think is true. I do see fault on both sides. I think core, even if they're sort of technically correct, had a real issue with how they communicated what they were doing and the way they went about. I don't have a responsibility to communicate anything to you. They don't work for you. No, no. I totally understand they don't have a responsibility. They don't work for me. But they,

like, I think there's some level of responsibility to like the Bitcoin world, even if it's not an explicit responsibility. And then on the other side, like, I don't care people running out. It's like run whatever implementation you want. I think that's cool. I also think people are understating the kind of threat of running a implementation that's maintained just by Luke. And Luke's done amazing things. And like if we can get more people working on knots, I think that's interesting. And then the other one is like, I think it would be more interesting if the dissenting software was something like Lib Bitcoin, which is like a ground up new implementation.

But that goes off to deep end a little bit. Yeah, you have the consensus risk that like was kind of introduced originally. So yeah, I mean, like, you know, the right conversations I think to have are about, okay, is Bitcoin going to a world with multiple invitations? And like, is there a net new thing that reduces the risk? To me, I don't, there's not a net new thing here that reduces the risk of that. So then is there a compelling reason to do that. In which case, like, you would have to kind of, again, accept the sort of argument from the, the Nots group that, like, something overwhelmingly negative is having with Bitcoin. Like, my ability to use Bitcoin has been, has not been impacted over the last two years and has not degraded or deteriorated at all. I would category reject almost any argument that would suggest that that is the case because I can't fathom. Unless in like 2024 when blocks are full, it's like, okay, you paid an extra fee. But again, that is by design, like how Bitcoin's supposed to function. Like one of the great, you know, tricks of Ordnals is that it, or Ordinals was a, you know, sort of the kind of genius of it was that it was a thing that was, it wasn't what Bitcoin was designed for, but it like it met the rule set. like it followed the rules of the thing, of the protocol.

I mean, they're going to kill me for that one. But like, you know, it followed the, okay, this is how transactions are priced. This is how, like, competing transactions would be, you know, compete for block space. This is how a block space commonly mature. And the developers want to build that because they're biased towards getting us to a place where if in the future blocks need to be full, Bitcoin functions as a technology in a market. in a specific way. And so, you know, the argument that I always found

was most compelling for Ordinals and Rooms was that it pushes Bitcoin closer to that path. And so I think the only question is like, okay, well, why don't you see any benefit in modeling that? Because, again, it's like the block size is 4 megabytes. No matter what people are putting in, they can't extend the block size. You, by running the software,

agree to the consensus, which is that you agree to store up to 4 megabytes worth of data per block. That is what the consensus. rules are, and we are currently adding less than 4 megabytes worth of data per block pretty unarguably. So, like, in which case are your expectation as a user of the, as a user, you're running a node, but you have to follow the rules. The job of the node is to enforce the rules of the network. So, like, it's pretty obvious that, like, we're not adding the maximum

amount of theoretical data to Bitcoin that we could be doing, nor with ordnals or any sort of exploit, is that occurring. And so, like, you know, some of the people, they'll say, oh, well, the demand, you know, that they both, they both think that, like, oh, God, this is, like, such a long road. But it's like, they think that, like, they simultaneously think that, like, crypto assets of, like, Ethereum and all these things are worthless, but that the demand for them is so great that they'll destroy Bitcoin. And so it's like a literally, it's like, you can't argue the loop because it's just a,

it's just, it doesn't make sense. It's like, they're like, oh, well, Ethereum's, like worthless. But if Ethereum comes to Bitcoin, it'll destroy Bitcoin. Well, why would it destroy Bitcoin? Well, because there's so much demand for, like, all these, like, all these, these assets and all this arbitrary data. I was like, you just said there's no demand for arbitrary data. So, like, Ethereum's not going to work.

So, where's the demand for Ethereum? And they're like, oh, well, it'll come to Bitcoin. And it'll, they'll be the demand. There's always demand for shitcoins. And it's like, okay, well, then if there's always demand for shit coins, then wouldn't you want to build Bitcoin in a way that it accommodates that, such that those transactions like can take place in a, you know, non-disrupt, in as minimally disruptive way as possible?

It's like, no, we like must repel them and they must go elsewhere. And it's like, okay, so you want shitcoins. like continue? Like, no, we don't want Shiklins to continue. Shiklins are going to go to zero. They're a distraction. Like, okay, so like, what do you want? Like, you know, it's like, I almost like, the, though the Nots people, it's like,

they're disingenuous arguers because they, they set up these arguments, but like, they don't actually believe what they're arguing. They actually want something else. They want these transactions to not be possible and to have never existed. And since I can't give them that, like, and no human being can give them that, they will ultimately be very

unsatisfied and like they won't be able to achieve that. And so it's hard to know how to interface with that group. I hope that they don't take extreme measures in the face of that and do something that would disrupt Bitcoin's narrative publicly or threaten like the use of the software for everyone else because literally their claim is that what these people are doing is disrupting the software. And if they find themselves in a situation where like they have to potentially disrupt the use of Bitcoin for everyone to make that point, that just it's just to close my mind. I don't know. I don't understand. To defend the nots people like to a degree, like I do ideologically understand where they're coming from and and somewhat agree with them. And the problem that, because I assume you

would call them sort of the monetary maximalists. And, and that is what I want to see Bitcoin for. But I also understand that it's not up to me what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin just is and all of these transactions are following the consensus rules. And, and but the one area that I do think there may be overlooking is the idea, like they don't want to see things like BitVM and Citria and these roll-ups and layer twos. I think they maybe discount the monetary transactions that may actually happen on these other layers. And the fact that that could be a huge step up in terms of people's ability to get Bitcoin in close to self-custody, at least with a unilateral exit. The much more interesting conversation we have, if the nots folks want it to have it,

would be that they don't believe that the fee market will function in the future where blocks will be full. So I wrote a piece for Forbes in 2022 called Bitcoin After 2140, where I like was started to kind of see like that there were like these weird sort of divisions between things that I think have are sort of manifesting where it's like the developers are operating on the premise that blocks will be full. The feed market will be competitive and thus we need to scale in layers. Like that post the Fork Wars, that was the status quo.

It was the status quo because bigger blocks, the road towards bigger blocks was a world where a fee market never developed and blocks were never full. So the fork in the road there was like, okay, big blocks, no fee market blocks are never full, block space always cheap, user onboarding always cheap. Small blocks are always full. Fees are always competitive. This is best for Bitcoin in long term because it maximally ensures Bitcoin's success, even in adversarial conditions. The fork was over. The big blockers thought that they could remove adversarial conditions for Bitcoin by Bitcoin being popular. Thus, they wanted Bitcoin to be free, thus they wanted to be widely used, thus they wanted to get regulatory acceptance through that. The small blockers said

the best thing for Bitcoin is for it to be maximally adversarial, for it to be able to succeed in conditions even when it's under threat by all sorts of authoritarian governments. Therefore, blocks should be small. Bitcoin should be maximized centralized. Therefore, fee should be high. This is how we solve potentially if there's an issue post-subsidy of how Bitcoin continues in the future. This is how we solve that issue. This is, that's their, I've been calling this like, the post-fork war consensus. Like, if you think of, like, the post-World War II consensus, what was the post-World War II consensus? It was that the U.S. dollar runs the monetary system of the world.

Everyone saves in the dollar. The post-Fork war's consensus was that this was how Bitcoinos was operating. In which case, the Segwit introduced the pricing mechanism for data, like, on the chain, which is why we have block weight. And so if really what you're arguing, really, is that, like, you don't think that, like, you don't think that there is a feed market that needs to develop and that you don't think that there needs to be like the system for how

you know, that Bitcoin doesn't need to go down that technical path then that's fine. You're just sort of, I think, shipping out, you're just sort of, you're actually on a referendum on something else. Like, it's like where you're talking about it's just something completely different. Where you're trying to change like how Bitcoin

should operate or like how, like, the normative view on how developers think Bitcoin should operate. Like, core developers don't think that ruins and ordinals are an concern. The data would prove that I think that they were correct, that there wasn't a reason to be overly concerned about them. The burden of proof should be on the Knott's camp to prove by some means that that has become sufficiently disruptive for someone to, you know, again, so again, they want some action about this. They want this demand that they have to be satisfied. But the closest articulation I can get to their demand is that they want the ability to be disruptive of other users and to discourage. other users from, you know, certain types of transactions. And the seemingly the correct, the response of the developers is, okay, well, these transactions look like other transactions that we might in the future want.

So we will not do that because that doesn't actually make Bitcoin better in the long term. And so, like, that's the disagreement. So to your point, it's like, yes, some of the L2s, if you have a, you know, close of a situation, it will look very similar to a Ordinance transaction. And so therefore the software, you know, and the eyes of developers, like, should accommodate that type of transaction, you know. I almost feel like the not folks, like, I would be more sympathetic to them if they just present it, like, we have an alternative thesis for how Bitcoin should work. Like, here's actually how the economics of Bitcoin should work. And, like, just be honest about that you want something else because I, I just find it so unsatisfying.

It's like you really, really don't want to relay people's transactions that are going to block it anyway. Really? Like, that's your concern. You don't want to relay them? I don't know. Like, do I don't even notice relaying transactions? I have a note at home. Relating transaction? Like, do you know who, like, it's not an active thing. It's not like you have to go to the door and, like, open it, like, let people in. It's like this major inconvenience. You're just relaying transactions. Like, what are you? Okay, so you have to update your node, like, more quickly. It's like, nobody told, like, nobody guaranteed you, like, nobody guaranteed you, like, nobody guaranteed. Like, that's the, that's the note. That's the, that's the, that's the, that's the, the system. Like, what are you talking about? Like, what, so where is the, where are you being like, like, so inconvenience here? You know, and it's like, okay, well, if you want to scrub that stuff off, or you want to get it off your computer, your node, it seems like you can do that. I haven't done it myself, but it seems like

people are saying that that's possible. So this would lead me to, to be suspicious of their claims, because I, I just, it's hard for me to fathom that that many, that many people are upset about this? Like, how are that many people upset about this? So I, so I don't think the Knots group is like homogenous. Like I don't think they actually believe the same things because it would be extraordinary to me that they believe that.

It would be extraordinary to me to believe that there's so many people who care so minutely about the operation of like their node that sits on their desk like wherever, such that they're like so concerned like about this particular thing, which again, I have, I as a user of Bitcoin sincerely, like sincerely to the Nazis, have not noticed any change in like the past five years. Like it works the same. I mean, but it clearly has captured the imagination of a lot of Bitcoin. It's like, I think the latest number of like, Nott's nose was 28% or something.

I know that those numbers can be like cooked a little bit, but it's a significant number of people doing this. Do you think this is like the death of monocult? Pardon? What do they want? You know, that's my question. The death of what? Is this like the death of monoculture in Bitcoin? Do you think we are now completely divided into these different subcultures?

Yeah, that's also possible, right? like maybe mainstreaming Bitcoin is Bitcoin becoming like essentially like adopted by all these subculture. Again, I think of the Nauts people, it's like I'm just not 100% convinced that they're like a reasonable subculture just because I don't know what they want to achieve. And if they can't achieve it, like, I don't know how interested I am in like the minutia of it. So I don't know. I think that like it would be nice for core version 30 to be released and then, you know, we can all just go and watch the Bitcoin continues to operate. and yeah, I don't know. Again, I think that the monocultures, I don't know.

I think the Treasury thing really feels like it's the new monoculture. It just feels like that is what people are excited about our companies buying large amounts of Bitcoin. What they're excited about is going like, you know, a website and seeing like which companies own the most Bitcoin and like how fast they're like, you know, going up. That seems to have captured the imagination of most people. The Nott's thing I think is, yeah, it's tempting. I think the trap of Knott's that I've always like really think, I think the mental trap is that it's tempting to think that, like, you matter for Bitcoin. And what Knott's really offers is a compelling story for the average user who isn't a Michael Saylor, that they really matter for Bitcoin and that their action is necessary for Bitcoin's continued survival. Like, that's the story that that's being sold.

And in this particular instance, I just don't think that story is true. like that's not a real thing that like you should be concerned about and because that's not a real thing I just can't sympathize with it so yeah I don't know but I understand why you would want it to be true right because there's a lot of people from the 2021 era who like made being a Bitcoin or their identity and like their social identity their cultural identity like not being in the industry like just being someone who owned Bitcoin and you know 2021 it was a great era I love of 2021. We were all on Twitter. Everyone was sharing ideas. It was truly a time where it felt like most people in the movement were equal and that everyone was involved. And it was the peak

sort of grassroots Bitcoin. It was us against like the crypto institutions. I get it. I understand. I was there. I was there for that part of it. I left the crypto industry and I enjoy I understand why you wanted to achieve that. And I was like I was there with you know. But like, you know, Now, is it still true that, like, you individually, like, it's so tempting. It's like, I get it. You want to feel like you are important for Bitcoin because that's how the old culture sort of scaled, right? So I think this is sort of how we know it jumped to the other culture.

It's like, this is the old culture breaking down. Like, why can't we scale to the Bitcoin culture being everybody part of the Bitcoin culture? Because everybody can't be part of the Bitcoin culture. If you go to a... This is the analogy of a... for the signaling. You go to an internet cafe in the 1990s.

You're Danny. You have the internet show. Everybody watches your internet show. And, you know, we are all friends because we're on the internet. Well, because of Trump's election, every coffee house is going to have internet. There isn't an internet cafe anymore. You don't go to an internet cafe to use the internet. There is internet at every cafe.

And so I don't go to a cafe. There is no internet cafe. And I think Knott's is sort of really what Nott's is like it's the continuation of the internet cafe fable. It's this idea that you are still part of the movement and that you can still be culturally part of it. When really what's happening is the technology is scaling and it's going to become so ubiquitous that it is impossible for us to have that relationship with it anymore.

You know, the analogy that I've used is like, how many internet protocols are facilitating this conversation? We're on Riverside, which is on the internet, which is on, you. you know, it's going to be on your YouTube with the show, which is going to be on the website. And what do you know of, like, the actual workings, like, of any of these technical protocols? What do you know of Wi-Fi?

What do I know of your Wi-Fi? What do I know of your modem? What do I know of this hotel's modem? What do I know about whether this is on a LAN? I don't even know what a LAN. I barely know what a LAN is. So, like, so what are you talking about? Like, what are you?

Well, sincerely, what are you talking about? Like, this is the future of Bitcoin is the progression of technology is that. It's getting people away from that. Sure. Are there some people who are probably, like, somewhere helping us have this conversation, you know, in the battles of the internet? I don't know. I can't conceive of who they are. But thank you, I guess, right?

I think. So, yeah, I don't know, man. I just find it really tough. I just, I get it. I really under, I feel like I understand what they're actually, what you're actually upset about. It's just there's no way for the technology to, you know, because it's like, oh, if we, everybody runs Nauts, then Nause is Bitcoin and then like, we helped save Bitcoin. It's like, okay, yeah, they get it.

I get it. I get why you want that to happen. But, like, maybe that's a you thing and, like, not a everyone in Bitcoin thing. To bring it back to the start, I mean, we, I think we could go around a circus on that. It's a really hard conversation because I feel like whoever we're talking about, like, we're obviously talking about the Nots people here more specifically than the core people. Like, they're going to be pissed off that we're having this conversation and not representing them in some way. Because they are so, like, fervent in this mission.

And I think some of that comes off the back of, like, the fork walls as well. People are just like, hey, this is why we made the decision. Like, here's like why we think it's a good idea. No, the core people definitely aren't. And this is why I've not been super desperate to cover it much because it's just like, I don't see this as like, memple policy is not something I'm going to get crazy irate about. Like, I think it's fine if you want to run different imitations. But at the end of the day, I'm not that bothered about this. I don't think it's a threat to Bitcoin.

Right. So I think what I would like from Nott's is like, okay, like, can you provide us with some sort of positive, like, distinct vision for this? Like, you know, what's the, you know, what's the right, like, give me something here because I can't get behind slightly inconveniencing, like, the crypto people who I, like, actually want to use Bitcoin. Like, it's just not offering me anything, really. And so, like, I have no, like, give me some sort of, you know, steal me.

Like, why should I support your cause? Well, it's like, you know, kill it. Well, you know, you'll kill Bitcoin if you don't. I was like, okay, well, you know, it's like, give me something else. You know, it's like, give me, okay, well, you know, maybe coercion have that much power and users should have other options. Cool. Raise the money, build the developer team, sustain it for a couple years.

You know, I said this to like a reply on Nithven Holmes tweet, but I was like, you know, it's like, if you're happy with nuts, like, why are you so unhappy? Like, just be happy running nuts. If it was that great of an experience running knots, then everyone would run, because like, it would be so over, your joy of, like, being a knots running be, like, so overwhelming.

And, like, your benefits, like, would be so overwhelming. That, like, people would, you know, like, what does Sailor's vision offer? Sailor's vision offers you the ability to be the banker and the CEO, and for Bitcoin to be the bankers and the CEOs, or for Bitcoin to revolutionize the financial system and to borrow into the annals of Wall Street and take it over from the inside.

Like, it's a great vision. He's got it. He's got it. He's got a great pitch. It's great. You know, it's big in scope. It's, like, wide. It's participatory.

It offers, like, this idea that you can become, you know, you can further the Bitcoin movement, but gain financially. So what, like, what's the utopian vision of knots? Like, okay, well, we're all going to be obsessed with, like, who's using Bitcoin? And we're all going to, like, fight about, like, who's using Bitcoin? And we're going to, like, develop customs software to stop them if we don't like them. And it's like, or, again, not stop. Sorry, slightly incommient them or raise their cost slightly, such as, such as, that they can't use it.

So I don't know. Yeah, it's unsatisfying. And I think, like, as Bitcoin users, like, how we create these cultures is, like, ultimately, like, a call to action, like, has to be strong, right? So I think I've outlined, like, okay, what does Sailor's Utopian Vision? Like, why is it catching on? Like, why is it a big tent? Like, and, like, maybe less, we can run knots through that.

It's, like, why is knots, like, somewhat limited? Well, it's like, it, it just feels like it can't be the forward direction of the movement. It doesn't feel like Bitcoin scales down that path. It doesn't feel like Bitcoin gets any safer down that path to me for the reasons that you said. You know, we might find ourselves in a situation where, like, a single software with a single developer is sort of like calling most of the shots, which seems net worse than the current. Even if you hate bureaucracies and, like, large meritocracies deciding things, like, it just seems like, you kind of net worse.

You know, and so what's the, what's the vision? And, and it's like, okay, best-st-place scenario, like, Sierra's, like, some JPEGs, like, aren't on the chain. I don't know. I was fine with the J-PICs. things. I made my arguments about the JP. That's actually one of the interesting things about it, though, is that if you take this to the

absolute extreme and you say, okay, tomorrow, 99% of people are either running knots or running call, like, which do you think is the better outcome? And I struggle to know how someone who is on the Knots camp would think that's a better outcome. Like, maybe they do, maybe they

have their reasons, but like having 99% of the nose run by knots, which is maintained by one person, I know it's a fork of call, but there's like, there's like a lot of changes in there. Like that seems like an obviously worse outcome to me. Yeah, I think like an outcome where you lose the 10-year like meritocracy that has been craved around core.

Like I think like one of the last lessons of the four wars is like how much effort it took into extending the Bitcoin development team and being as large as it was. And how the checks and balances that were enacted around this where there's like funding, there's like different people working out different parts of the database. There's like a whole kind of like a whole kind of like a, elaborate culture of review. And like early in Bitcoin history, that's like not a thing, right? Like, in some cases, like, software was like, you know, you look at like old softworks that like were released on like a three month timeline. It's like, you know, and like now it's like the level

of review and the culture of the funding and like how much the improvements have been. Um, so ultimately what, you know, this is the other problematic part of the knots group is that, you know, ultimately really what they don't like is like democratic meritocracies. This is why they like, you know, have the memes about like, don't take the core vaccine. Like, you know, it's like a cleverly plays into the 2021 era, like anti-COVID. It's like culture that was mainstreaming Bitcoin. So it's like, to me, it's like, I get where this comes from. It comes from users want to feel important. It comes from the, these are the people who are left over from the anti-vax kind of adopting Bitcoin culture movement to find that not speaks to them because it offers them a way

to rebel against authority. But then the correct question is like, is that authority worth rebelling against, and if you rebel against it successfully, then what occurs? And so, like, if you analyze that question, is this authority, like, worth rebelling against? I don't think so, because in the 16 years of Bitcoin, there hasn't been anything better created than this, which is a large, multi-stakeholder debt, like, the meritocratic process where it's very hard to change Bitcoin. That was the whole point. And your antithesis of this, what you're offering in exchange, can only be at best a large meritocratic process in which it's very difficult to change Bitcoin run by different people. Like, that's your bull case, is that you, is that, oh, this is a large meritocratic process, like, run by the wrong people.

So we're going to make a large meritocratic process, like, run by the right people. And, like, oh, that will be better. And it's like, well, no, like, the thing is, like, it's probably, like, this is the best case scenario for the, for, is that this is the best model. you know, maybe if there's two, like, large meritocratic processes like competing for Bitcoin, okay, maybe you get me there. Maybe that would be good. But then, you know, prove to me how you can solve the technical issues, which we know at the root here, is that if these things actually do progress to being separate implementations, like, you know, there are known risks with that. So, like, you know, solve the actual root problem. But no, they just want to supplant the other, you know,

they're just interested in becoming the new large merit. cartocratic culture. So, you know, I think that the challenge here is to sort of evaluate these things and run them to the end and sort of say like, okay, well, what is the actual solution that you're offering here? And it looks exactly identical to the same version. So even if you disagreed with the core version, you can just not upgrade. And if I was on the not side, I would just be desperately trying to get developers, like getting eyeballs on the code. Because you don't want this to be something where Luke's just shipping code without like very good peer review. But let's move on from the not stuff.

Just to close out, can we talk a bit about Sailor's Utopian vision? Because he has been very careful about what he said in terms of Bitcoin helping the US, helping the US dollar, being an ally in this. Sailor's obviously a very smart person. Do you think he believes that? Or do you think he's selling a narrative so Bitcoin gets adopted as quickly as possible? I had some possible for me to know I don't know so well enough to say no to answer that question the question I think that might be more interesting is is that the prudent path for the bitcoin movement or is there another option available and so you know right now it's like uh let's just say we didn't want to be a participant in that

well there's a lot of other cryptocurrencies like in around Washington DC that like you know now have their own digital asset treasury movements and you know from this perspective of the Trump family don't seem all that different from Bitcoin in terms of, you know, their utility to the administration. So I don't know how to answer that, right? I don't know. I try to look at things. I do sometimes have strong reactions to things, but I try to look at things and sort of

say, like, okay, like, just describe them. Before you have a feeling on it, just describe them, right? Okay, so like Bitcoin is mainstreaming now in the United States, and it's happening along with the expansion of the dollar. I probably personally would have liked to see a world where other countries that have been excluded from the financial system were not continued, didn't continue to live under sort of, you know, the repression under the dollar, the Alex Ladstein and other people have written about pretty eloquently. I don't think I will get. So I'm not entitled to that. I don't think I will get that. And I don't think that that will kill Bitcoin. like that's just

I will have to accept the reality where that most people wanted this outcome and I don't think will Bitcoin be any net worse I think the reality is the dollar is going to be a lot stronger for a lot longer

this is always my you know so I do think there's two things that I think that's interesting about that it's a you know I don't know how much the people who are using the crypto ecosystem to advance the dollar really get Bitcoin

I don't really know what their incentive alignment is long term I have a lot of questions about that. And then the question is, is the stable coin movement so successful that they actually increase the strength of the dollar so much that it like breaks the models of the Bitcoin treasure companies? Because the Bitcoin treasury rate companies are sort of largely based on this idea that Bitcoin has a consistent compound annual growth rate. And because that compound annual growth rate can be calculated, you can make derivative financial instruments off of it. It's the whole thing. So if you're really looking for like one little jenga piece at the bottom, I was talking to Jeff Walton about this.

But like, you know, maybe the hypothetical is, you know, the stable coin industry is so broad. Because again, like there's two ways to increase the price of the dollar. It's like you either, you know, limit the supplier or you increase demand, right? And so you get you, it's theoretically possible that stable coins could increase demand for U.S. dollars so much such that the U.S. dollars stops to decline against Bitcoin. That's theoretically possible. And so the question is like, do these dollar, do the dollar pro dollar faction groups, you know, are they so successful that they break some of these models? That's where you get that, that's where the, you know, if you really want to looking for like a weak leg in the treasury movement, you know, maybe you see something like that, right? Because Sailor's whole thesis is predicated on Bitcoin continuing to go up over time at a consistent rate.

You can't do financialization if that doesn't happen. But if you're biased towards hyper-Bitonization, you would expect that to happen. So I don't know, man, it's a hard game. I don't know. I would find that a hard one to believe just in this. Like the idea that I'm sure demand for US dollars will go up, but I'm sure supply of US dollars will go up faster. Like is my left curve take on that?

Yeah, that's a reasonable stance, right? But I'm, I posit it because I think it's, it's an outcome that people seem to not consider that seems possible. Because if you think that like, okay, well, you know, if you look at what's going on and, you know, you know, Korea and Japan and Russia and China, how successful do you think their stable currencies are going to be in the crypto market? And so if the crypto market is 99% dollarized, then that means that their economies are

eventually going to wither and go to zero and that the U.S. dollar will be the beneficiary of them. You know, yeah, I mean, I think that, yeah, that'll set up the scenario where, you know, Bitcoin and the dollar are sort of the remaining ones. And that implies that the U.S. dollar demand would increase, like, tremendously. Like a world where, like, you know, Bitcoin was the, sorry, the U.S. dollar was the only, like, remaining fiat currency. Like, you would imagine that, like, demand for dollars would be astronomical. I think that's probably a likely scenario.

But I think if they got that, they would also increase the supply to benefit themselves tremendously. Sure. I just paused it because I think it's a fun, like, thought experiment. it and I'm not 100% convinced that it's impossible. And I'm not 100% convinced that the participants who are pushing it don't think that it's possible. I think that they might think that it's a plausible outcome. And if they think it's a plausible outcome, I would be interested in that. But yeah, I don't know, man.

It's what going on. We always have so much to catch up on. Do you think the path to hyperbitconization then is first every country basically being a de facto on the US dollar? Well, CK always said hyper-dollarization and then hyper-bitcoinsization. That's an old meme that I think has been lost in Bitcoin culture, so if I could put anything in anyone's year, it's that I think C-K was 100% right about hyper-dollarization before hyper-bitcoinsization,

and that I think he's collecting, he was saying that in 2020, and I think that's probably a likely scenario, just because, again, like the administration is pushing this stuff so heavily. But, yeah, TLDR, I think, right, We're living in a cultural change of Bitcoin. There's like a new movement and kind of a new monoculture. I think it's important to kind of analyze what it wants to achieve.

I think that monoculture is pretty aligned with like hyper-bictonization. I think I explain sort of like, you know, why even in a worst-case scenario, I think what they're working on generally is like interesting and should be of interest of the Bitcoin movement. The knots and core stuff, you know, I think that will go where it goes because I don't know, I, it's hard for me to like see that. I don't see the bull case for that playing out. I could be wrong.

I don't know. Maybe I'll start running knots, but I don't know. Yeah, and then with the stablecoin stuff, right? Like that's, yeah, that's the big concern, right? The ghost of Mark Goodwin. Yeah. I mean, that's one of my favorite books in Bitcoin. All right.

Well, Rizzo, this has been, well, I always love talking to you, man. We should catch up again for Bitcoin's birthday. We can do some predictions for 2026. Yeah, it has to be sufficiently long enough for now, though, because, you know, it has to be long enough for things to be confusing. But, um, yeah, man, I don't know. I would, I would encourage you to maybe off your 21, you know, your 2021 cultural sodginess of, uh, you know, it's sort of, um, there's nothing about Bitcoin that's really changed. Just because there are other cultures, they're doing new things with Bitcoin. Like, it doesn't, doesn't really, you know, if they're successful, that's great for you, you own Bitcoin. If they're unsuccessful, then we're kind of back at square one, no, right?

Yeah, I mean, that's true. And like, buying Bitcoin, whoever's buying Bitcoin is cool. But I just, I think it is important that people continue to push, like, the values that are very important to me about Bitcoin. Yeah, that's a big question, right? Like, is, like, does these companies become so large that they compete for Bitcoin demands? But they have to buy Bitcoin anyway. So it's like their demand is sort of pegs. It's like suggesting that, like, 3% fruit juice, like, you know, competes.

with like 100% orange juice. And it's like, okay, like, kind of, you know, I'm less likely to buy a coconut because I can go buy a coconut water in like a cave. So I decrease the demand for raw coconuts. How dare you? Yeah, I mean, somebody has to buy the coconuts and then, you know, process them into some sort of drink

that I can buy, right? Yeah, I mean, we let, because there's so much stuff in that. We don't need to get back into it. Because the, the problem, like, with that analogy when it comes to the treasury companies is, where are they holding the coconuts? And they're just giving all the coconuts to Coinbase and Anchorage and all these other people. But Rizzo, we've covered it.

I might put that at the L2 on top of Bitcoin that are yield bearing. Yeah. Well, then there will be another shit show. Right. Let's catch up for Bitcoin's birthday. January. We'll do on January 9th just to on it. Yeah.

But I appreciate you, man. This has been fun. Okay, man. Peace. Sorry for offending. Anyone who's running knots. We love you. Stay with us.