What Bitcoin Did - Trump's Secret Plan for a US Economic Renaissance | Brent Johnson

Episode Date: February 25, 2026

Is the US government preparing to weaponise the dollar like never before? In this episode, Brent Johnson, creator of the Dollar Milkshake Theory, returns to discuss his $5,000 gold call and why the traditional rules of global macro are currently being rewritten. We get into the Imperial Circle, the exact strategy Soros, Druckenmiller and Scott Besant used to break the Bank of England, and why that same playbook may now be driving US economic policy. Brent explains why gold and the dollar can be strong at the same time, why Bitcoin has underperformed gold this cycle and how stablecoins are reshaping global capital flows in ways most people aren't paying attention to. THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS: ANCHORWATCH BLOCKWARE LEDN BITKEY SWAN CLUB ORANGE FOLLOW: Danny Knowles: https://x.com/_DannyKnowles or https://primal.net/danny Brent Johnson: https://x.com/SantiagoAuFund

One of the primary tools that any government has to control their population is the money. And that's why the legal tenders laws exist. It's why they say gold can't be used as money. You know, you can't pay your taxes in Bitcoin because they need to be able to control those channels. The world is looking for protection in times of uncertainty. It's not necessarily just a rejection of the dollar. It's kind of a rejection of fiat. This was not only like euro dollars, but it was a potential way for the U.S.

to have a kind of world-class cutting-edge technology version of the euro dollar market that they could actually use as a weapon and control. And that's kind of the dream of every government. And so this scares the heck out of me, to be really honest. I mean, this is not for the faint. This is really big. Good to see you, Brent.

Thank you for coming back on the show. It's nearly a year since we last spoke. And one of the things that you said in the first interview, which I think is the perfect place to start, is you called for $5,000 gold and we got it. And I think probably maybe even you would agree, was that quicker than you thought it was going to happen? Oh, yeah. I didn't. I didn't think it was going to. Well, that's a good question, actually. If you'd asked me 10 years ago, I would have said it would have come quicker. but then the length of time it took to double or almost triple was shorter than I would have expected. So what do you think's been driving this? Because this can't just be sort of retail foam and there must be some sort of central banks really stacking gold pretty hard right now.

Yeah, you know, I think that's exactly what it is. I think it's both central bank demand and demand from overseas. It hasn't been driven dramatically by United States or even Western-based buyers. And I think the thing I would point out, I think a lot of people probably thought gold was going to go to $5,000. But I don't know anybody that thought gold would go to $5,000 and the dollar index would still be in the high 90s. You know, synonymous with the gold 5,000 call was typically calls for DXY to be in the 80s, 70s or even 60s. And so, you know, I think the fact that the DXY has remained strong on a relative basis over the last several years, even though gold has been rising shows. that it's not necessarily just a rejection of the dollar. It's kind of a rejection of fiat overall.

And it's an indication that the world is looking for, you know, a protection in times of uncertainty. And, you know, at the end of the day, you know, government bonds and fiat currencies are a representation of the country and not necessarily a representation of value, right? And so I think that's largely what's been driving gold. Yeah, so DXY obviously showing dollar strength, which has kind of been your theory on the dollar milkshake thing for a while, is that gold and the dollar can both be strong at the same time. Why do you think that, in fact, let's go back a little bit. Maybe we should start off. We obviously covered the dollar milkshake theory a lot in the last show.

Should we just lay that out quickly so everyone has context in case people didn't catch the last one we did? Sure. So this all started in 2018 and then I started talking about it. I did my first interview where I discussed it in late spring, early summer of 2018, and then I kind of started pounding the table on it more in 2019. But what it essentially said was that I thought that for the first time in 40 years, interest rates were going to start to rise. And I thought that because that hadn't happened for so long that I thought that would

cause a number of knock-on effects that markets just weren't ready for. The first thing I thought would happen was that the dollar would get stronger because typically with higher interest rates, you know, that the higher interest rates will pull capital into that market. And then combining that with the fact that the United States dollar just has many advantages that the rest of the world doesn't. You know, the system is kind of set up $4.

I thought there was the opportunity for the dollar to get quite a bit stronger. And at the time, the DXY was around 88 or 89. So it was below 90. And that wasn't so, outlandish, but the call that, you know, the people kind of couldn't quite square was I also said that, so I thought bonds would fall, dollar would rise. So interest rates would go up, bonds would fall, dollar would rise. But then I also thought gold would rise and U.S. equities would rise as well, even though we were going to have the stronger dollar. And it didn't all play out like that

perfectly. But if you go back to 2018 and look at now, you know, the dollar index is up around nine or 10% from that time period. Gold is, you know, doubled or tripled. U.S. equities have tripled. Interest rates are much higher than they were. So from a, from an asset class standpoint, it worked out pretty well. Now, ultimately, what I thought would happen was that it would cause a sovereign debt crisis. And in that sovereign debt crisis, I thought we had the potential for a much higher dollar. You know, the dollar went to like 113 in 2020. So we got pretty close to our sovereign debt crisis in 2022. You know, England had to bail out there, government market. The Japanese had to bail out their government bond market. The ECB had to buy peripheral, periphery country debt

to keep it from spiking. So we got very close, but we ultimately did not get the crisis. So from a specific event, you know, the milkshake didn't happen, but from an overall fund flow standpoint, it worked really, really well. And so I just really think of it as a framework for understanding capital flows. Okay, so we're going to get into that in way more detail and talk about stable coins as kind of a supercharger for that. But just before we do, like, I don't know if you saw recently Ray Dalio put out a piece, which kind of went viral on Twitter talking about the collapsing world order.

Do you think part of the gold trade is people sort of buying that framework and thinking that the faith in fiat currencies across the world is declining? I do to a certain extent, but I think there's a part of it that even Ray has, wrong. And that is whenever Ray talks about this stuff, he always talks about it and specifically targets the United States. And the issue is that all the, all the issues that Ray laid out as to why we have this changing world order were focused on the United States and all the mistakes the United States is made and all the potential problems with the dollar. What he doesn't do is take a same hard look at China or Europe or Asia or Africa or Japan or wherever it is. And so it's a very myopic

view. And the point that I've tried to make is despite all the problems, and there are many, and I don't try to cover them up, you know, the United States has many, many, many problems. But so to all the rest of the world. And the United States has many advantages that the rest of the world doesn't. And as a result, the dollar, despite its issues, you know, is not going to disappear before all the other fiat currencies do. And, you know, the issues with the budget deficit and the trade deficit, you know, they're not all just germane to the United States either. And again, the United States has many, many things and levers it can pull that the rest of the world just can't. But I do think the world order is changing. But again, what I think is being missed in many

of the commentary on it is that the United States is the one that's changing it. Donald Trump is the one that is changing the world order. That's why everybody hates him, is because he is, throwing out the status quo and he's doing things differently than the world has done for the last 50, 60 years. Yeah, I would argue that Donald Trump has done more to up in the global order in the last 16 months than the bricks have done in the last 16 years. And that creates a lot of uncertainty, right? And, you know, in an uncertain time, gold typically does pretty well. And I think that's what we're seeing, you know, in spades right now. We're surprised, I know you're not a bit coiner, but we surprised that Bitcoin. didn't perform well while gold and silver had a huge run? Not really.

And it's because I've just not been a huge Bitcoin advocate to begin with. And I know we will talk about this more. But I actually think the rise of stable coins is hurting gold, or I mean it is hurting Bitcoin. And I actually think gold would be even higher than it is, if it wasn't for dollar stable coins. So I think that they are cannibalizing some activity, that it otherwise would have received.

Why do you think that? Because people who are living potentially, like in the global south, living under high inflation, instead of moving to Bitcoin, they're moving to stable coins. Correct. That and I think to some extent, and listen, this is not a criticism solely of Bitcoin on this

because the same thing happens in dollars. But, you know, some, I don't want to just say illegal, but some nefarious or gray market activity, I'm sure was taking place in, in, in, Bitcoin, but it was a way to move money around when you couldn't move dollars. But now, because you can move dollars just as quickly and swiftly and easily and in some cases cheaper and faster, you know, I think some of the flows that perhaps would have gone to Bitcoin before are now going to stable coins. The thing that keeps me up at night is the idea of a critical error with my Bitcoin

cold storage. And this is where Anchorage comes in. With Anchorage, your Bitcoin is insured with your own A plus rated Lloyds of London insurance policy, and all Bitcoin is held in their time-lots multi-sig volts. So you have the peace of mind knowing your Bitcoin is insured while not giving up custody. So whether you're worried about inheritance planning, wrench attacks, natural disasters, or just your own silly mistakes, you're 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 Anchor Watch for a quote and for more details about your security options and coverage, visit Anchorwatch.com today. That's anchorwatch.com. Bitcoiners, as you know, with Fiat money

constantly debasing, wealth preservation isn't optional. That's why I recommend Swan Bitcoin, a team of dedicated Bitcoiners who work with families and businesses to build and secure generational wealth with Bitcoin. Strong relationships with clients are at the center of everything Swan does, a dedicated Swan private wealth representative, which is a real person, that you can text and call will help you build a Bitcoin wealth strategy using Swan's comprehensive platform of Bitcoin services, including tax advantage retirement accounts, advanced Bitcoin cold storage using collaborative self-custody, inheritance planning with both trust and entity accounts, tax loss harvesting, asset back loans and more. Swan have helped over 100,000 clients since 2020,

and if you're serious about acquiring and securing Bitcoin, I recommend Swan. Meet the team at swan.com forward slash WBD, which is SWAN. a.com forward slash wbd. Do you wish you could access cash without selling your Bitcoin? Well, Leiden makes that possible. They're 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 Leiden, you get full custody loans with no credit checks or monthly repayments, just easy access to dollars without selling a single SAP. Ledon exclusively offer Bitcoin back loans with all collateral held by Leiden directly or their funding partners. Your Bitcoin's never lent out to generate interest. I recently took out a loan

with Ledden. The whole process was super easy. The application took me less than 15 minutes and in 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 leddon.io forward slash WBD and you'll get 0.25% off your first loan. That's L-E-DN.I-O forward slash WBD. I mean, I definitely can see that there will be people living in the levels out that living under high inflation that want to take the US dollar stable coin, which is obviously it's not a stable coin. It's as stable as the dollar, but it's far more stable than their local currency. I completely understand why those people would move into that over Bitcoin. But like Bitcoin, it hasn't only slightly underperformed because of people moving to stable

coins over Bitcoin. It's like massively underperformed gold. It's not been a debasement trade so far. Yeah. I mean, it had a very good year or so. But, it's down 50% from the highs right now. Yeah, I mean, and this has been one of my arguments for a while as people would tell me that Bitcoin was a flight to safety trade. And Bitcoin, I have never seen Bitcoin perform well when there was some kind of a liquidity event or some kind of a crisis.

To me, Bitcoin is a pure play on global liquidity. And as long as people are not worried, and there's plenty of liquidity or plenty of money, Bitcoin is a fantastic way to speculate. on whether liquidity is going to be plentiful or whether it's going to dry up. And as soon as it starts to dry up, and as soon as there's some uncertainty, I think Bitcoin, you know, suffers the consequences of that because I don't think that Bitcoin, I don't see Bitcoin as pristine collateral. I know why, I completely understand the argument for why some people think it is. I've just never

seen it perform that way. And so I'm not saying it couldn't, but that's why I'm not surprised that it hasn't done as well over the last six months. Yeah, it's one of those tricky things where like Bitcoin's only 17 years old. It's still clearly in like trading like a tech stock, even though it has the properties in my mind of being something more akin to gold. Do you think it's something that will, you think Bitcoin is something that may get to that kind of safe haven asset style gold type thing? Or do you think it's always going to remain a speculative investment? I kind of see it as a speculative thing. I won't be surprised if it does, but I've just never seen it that way.

Again, I think if I were to see it hold up well during some kind of a liquidity crisis, you know, I would have to take that, you know, into consideration and think then maybe I'm missing something, but I've just never seen that. But, you know, I think another part of the reason why, you know, it's pulled back so much is I think it just got ahead of itself as well. And I would put gold and silver in this, too. You know, gold and silver, silver more than gold is at a pretty, I mean, silver's had a 20% pullback from its high, 25% pullback from its high. Gold's had maybe a 10% pullback from its high.

I think in some ways, they got ahead of themselves as well. And it's not to, this is not to say that the valuations aren't justified, but anytime you go somewhere that quickly in a straight line, you are going to have pullbacks. That's just what markets do. All markets do that. And, you know, Bitcoin's not special, gold's not special and silver's not special. You know, they are, they are, you know, prone to do the same types of pullbacks and well. And I think part of it was last year, one of the big narratives was this, you know, the debasement trade, right? And all of the world's governments are going to have to print money. And so all you have to do is go out and buy hard assets or things that can't be debased and sit back and ride your wave, the, the waves higher because

endless liquidity is going to come. And it's not that that's completely wrong. And if you want to step out and say over the next three to five to ten years, I would tend to agree with that. But markets don't move in straight lines. And I think to a certain extent, all of these assets got ahead of themselves based on the certainty that the basement trade and the resurgence of inflation was coming back. And now what we're starting to see is that there's some deflationary forces out there as well. And the inflation certainty is not quite as certain as it was. We have some deflationary shocks that are happening. We have, you know, whether it's AI, which has the potential to drive massive deflation. You have private credit, which is starting to seize up, and that has the potential to

cause a credit crisis or even, or just a credit contraction. And during a credit contraction, that's liquidity disappearing, right? And so I think as the narrative shifted from abundant liquidity to a little bit more conservative posturing, those assets that got ahead of themselves, are coming back, perhaps, you know, to where they should have been initially. It's funny. Like, in Bitcoin, there's obviously this kind of like gold bug versus Bitcoin dynamic, which I don't agree with at all. Like, I think the, at least from my perspective, the trade is pretty similar.

So we'll give you this one, Brent. Congratulations to the gold bugs. We'll see you in year and check the scoreboard. The funny thing is, each side is equally, what's the right word to use? offensive when they're doing well and they're equally defensive when they're not. So, yeah. Of course, but we can give you this one. Okay.

What do you think of the global macro situation right now? You're saying like liquidity might be rolling over. It seems like a pretty uncertain time. What's your read on it? Yeah, I just, it's funny because I'm not a pop-a-pocalyptic, as some people are. I don't think we're going into another Great Depression. I don't think that I'm not even convinced we're going to have a recession. I won't be surprised if it happens.

I understand exactly why we could. But, you know, I think we're overdue for some volatility and overdue for some pullbacks. But as of now, I'm not expecting some cataclysmet dive that, you know, leaves the United States or the rest of the world in a five-year depression or recession. I think everything has gotten way ahead of itself. If you take Bitcoin out of it, everything else is kind of near its highs. or I guess software, software stocks have pulled back, but, you know, the NASDAQ is still near its high, the Russell is still near its high, the Dow and the S&P are still near its high, the Dax is near its high, Brazil's Bovespa is near its high, Hong Kong near its high, Korea is near

its high. You know, you just go around the world. Everything is pretty close to either at their highs or pretty close to their highs. And that, to me, to a certain extent, indicates, you know, markets are priced perfectly. And I just think we live in a very imperfect world right now. And I think volatility has been uncharacteristically low. It's around 20 now. And it's funny. What's funny to me is that VIX is around 20 and people are saying, wow, the VIX is at 20 as if that's like this big scary thing. But historically, the VIX at 20 is not that big a deal. Right. But now, because we're just so used to it being in the low teens or mid-teens that even goes to 20, we're like, holy cow, what's going on? So I think we're probably overdue for some kind of a shock.

And it wouldn't surprise me at all if this March in April, they're very similar to last March in April, where we could have some volatility in a few weeks of down, but then, you know, things turn around and go higher. The other thing that we have to remember is we've got, well, there's so much going on. It's hard to address it all. But the three big ones are obviously Iran,

central and Latin America. and then the presidential election, or I'm sorry, midterm elections later this fall. And any of those have the potential to create great chaos. So far, they've caused a little bit of volatility, but they haven't exploded. But any of them could cause things to really explode. And so I think it's one of these things

where you need to have exposure, you need to be invested, but you definitely need to have an eye on the exit and be prepared for those types of drawdowns. So those three things are sort of the major geopolitical things happening. The one you left out is what's happening at the Fed. Is that because you don't see that as actually that big a deal? Or do you think that Kevin Walsh will change things there?

Well, that is a potentially very big one. I happen to think that they are, it's really interesting. My base case is that the battle, between the Fed and the Treasury, which I've been saying for years was going to happen, and I thought the Treasury would win. I think it's been moved to the back burner. The question is whether it will stay on the back burner. And what I mean by that is, I can't imagine that Trump allowed them to pick Warsh without some kind of assurance that he's at least going to play ball a little bit. Now, I don't expect Warsh to come in and do just anything that Trump or Besson say.

but I have to believe they had numerous conversations leading up to this, and they must at least have some common ground on how to deal with, you know, the challenges ahead. And my guess is that Bessent went to bat big time for Warsh because he felt like Warsh was somebody that he could work with and that saw the overall framework of what they were trying to do as something that the Fed could accommodate. Now, I'm the first to admit that it's easy to say one thing when you're running for office and then do the exact opposite once you're in. So it won't shock me if it turns out that Warsh is not on board, but I would anticipate him being that way.

Yeah, the interesting thing about Walsh, I'm not going to pretend I knew very much about it at all before the nomination, but after looking into him, in 2008, he left the Fed because he didn't agree with the idea of money printing. But he's obviously coming in with Trump wanting rates at 1% or whatever it is, significantly lower. Do you think something has changed there and he will basically just go to bat for Trump and be a sort of puppet there? Or do you think he will try and keep some kind of Fed Independence alive? Well, I think he will try to keep Fed independence alive.

And I don't think he will be a puppet, but I do think he will be accommodative. There's one thing that I think people should be aware of. Now, I did a show on this a couple weeks ago on my YouTube channel where I said, people need to be aware of this. I don't know that this is necessarily what they're going to do. But if they did do it, it wouldn't shock me. And it kind of goes along with Trump's, you know, United States economic renaissance thesis or attempt. And that is this concept of the imperial circle.

I'm not sure if you've ever heard of this before, but this imperial circle is something that Soros popularized back in the 80s and then is the this imperial circle is the basis of which the Soros and Druckenmiller and also Besant was working with them at the time when they put the trade on that broke the Bank of England so if you give if you give me two minutes I'll explain what this this imperial circle is so the imperial circle was the let's just go back to the early 90s in the late 80s, early, not very early 90s, the Berlin Wall came down and German reunification was on the table. And as a result of German reunification, the government was going to have to spend a lot of, the government of Germany was going to have to spend a lot of money to, you know,

to fund these programs, you know, that were centered around reunification. And there was fear that all of this government spending was going to cause inflation in Germany. because this was before the euro. This is when they had the Deutsche mark. And so the Bundesbank raised rates in order to keep the Deutsche marks strong and to counter those inflationary fears. And a lot of people said, well, that is going to crush the German economy that they are trying to revive. And it will be bad.

And you'd be better off not being in Germany. And Soros said you have this exactly wrong. Soros said the fact that you have higher rates on a relative basis than the surrounding area and you have the government spending a lot of money that will turbocharge the German economy because the higher rates will pull foreign capital into Germany. And then when the government starts spending money, that's going to goose the economy. That will cause growth to accelerate. people will see growth accelerating and they will want to be part of it. So more money will flow in and it will

become this vicious cycle or benign cycle to the higher level, right? So he called it the imperial circle. And as it gets stronger, it reinforces the flows that make it even stronger. And he said that that liquidity would leave the surrounding area and go to Germany and that the countries that were now deprived of that liquidity would have to break their pegs because they were all tied to each other based on the European exchange rate mechanism. And that's exactly what they did.

So they said, even though Germany has problems, don't try to take out the king, take out all his lieutenants, right? Go after the weak ones that are surrounding it. And that's exactly what they did, and that's exactly what happened. So money flowed into Germany. The German economy did well. Short-term rates went higher.

Long-term rates fell, and the stock market went up. So it was a great success. And so he was invested long in Germany, short the surrounding areas, and he became a legend, right? Okay, so that was Soros, Drucken Miller, and Besson. The Besson was young at the time, but he was kind of on that team. So where did Warsh go after he left the first? Fed in 2015. He went and he became an advisor to Druck and Miller. Right. So I'm not saying that all of these guys have sat around and said, we're going to do the imperial circle in the United States.

I'm just saying these guys know how to use it. They understand it. And now they're in positions of power to actually not just see if it comes true, but to make it come true. Okay. So let's, let's bring that back to the current situation. The United States has higher rates than most places around the world, most developed markets. So they could cut rates and take them from three and a half to two and a half, and they would still be high relatively to the rest of the world or to the rest of the developed markets, especially when you consider other countries will be cutting rates as well. So my point is, I don't think the United States is going to be cutting rates because growth

is slowing all on their own, right? I think they would be cutting rates in unison. So in other words, Warsh could come in, cut rates, two or three cuts in the next year, have rates at two and a half percent, which is still fairly low, but still fairly high on a relative basis. You know Trump is going to spend money through stimulus and the big beautiful bill and all the other things that they're going to try to do. And so you kind of have, and you already have everybody needs to be, you know, long the dollar anyway to operate on the global stage. You have the potential for flows to continue coming into the United States and push this economic renaissance that Trump so badly wants. And so I think Warsh and Bessent kind of understand this. In other words, if you take rates from three and a half to zero,

you know, Trump would probably love that, but that would also be a signal that something is wrong, right? Why are they taking rates from three and a half to zero? And if you don't get paid to sit in the currency, you could actually see that currency leave and go somewhere else. So, again, I'm not saying that this is what they're going to do, but I think it's really important to understand it as a concept and why Warsh might not just cut rates immediately and why they're and why not doing something. so might actually still help the U.S. I've got so many questions in there. So if in this framework, why does percent want a weaker dollar? Like, how does that play into this? Well, so, and that's something.

So I think they do want a weaker dollar. And I'm not sitting here saying that Trump wants a strong dollar. But I don't think they want a dramatically weaker dollar. So some people are saying that, you know, they want, that Trump wants to devalue the dollar and they'll say DXY going to 75 or 80 or whatever it is as a result. listen, that could happen. And if that happens, then asset prices are probably doing very well because for that to happen, there has to be a lot of liquidity.

So if that happens, you know, we own a bunch of assets. That will be fine. But, you know, I don't think they want it to go that low because here's why. Okay, I'm going to try to explain this in simple terms. But there's a band within which the, if the DXY trades within this band, everything kind of, of works. If it goes to the outside higher than the spanned or if it goes to the outside lower, things start to break down in the global monetary system. So I'll explain why. So in our current system, money is loaned into existence. And when it's loaned into existence, it has an interest rate

attached to it. So anybody that borrows money and then puts it to work has to get a return that's higher than that interest rate. In financial lingo, that's called a carry trade. You're borrowing money, there's a certain amount of carry that you have to exceed, and if you can exceed the cost of carry, then you do the project, right? So anybody that does that on the global stage typically does it in dollars, both U.S. institutions and non-U.S. institutions. That's the euro-dollar market that exists outside the United States. So the United States only has to do it in one currency, and that's the dollar. Everybody else has to do it in two currencies. because they use dollars in the euro dollar market,

and then they use their local currency in their local markets. The problem is that currencies trade relative to each other. So if the carry trade is going against them in dollar terms, then it's helping them in local currency terms, right? And that's fine as long as the DXY remains in the span. But if the DXY goes to 103, 105, 108, now that that dollar carry trade starts to go against them and it starts to hurt them, right? But if you take the other way, let's say that the DXY goes to 82 or 80, now their local currency is getting very strong, even though the dollar's getting weak.

And not only is the local currency getting strong, that puts pressure on their exports. And as there's pressure on their exports, it makes it harder for them to exceed the cost of carry. in their local currency terms. So now they start to fall apart because of that. So that's why I mean the dollar has to stay within this band for the global economy to kind of expand and function. If you go too far outside either way, problems start to happen. And so that's why I don't think the U.S. would love it

if the DXY went to 90, 91, 88, because, you know, that provides, you know, easier exports for the United States. the dollar is not completely collapsed. It's weaker, but it's not completely collapsed. And the other currencies are stronger, but they haven't gone through the roof. But again, if you go outside that band either way, problems start to happen. And so I think that's why, and I guarantee you, again, I'm not saying the Besson is managing based on this principle, but I guarantee you he understands it because, again, he was part of the team that made a billion dollars in a day doing this, right? He

understands these dynamics. So that's why I don't, I think this may have been lost on other people. I don't think it's lost on Besson. Yeah, no, I can believe that. Besson's clearly a very smart person. But the other thing that he wants is, or he said he wants, is a week a dollar and he wants to be able to term out the debt. So to term out the debt, he needs interest rates lower. If he gets that through Walsh, then tell me how this imperial circle is going to work. Like, who is the winner and who's the loser. Obviously, US being the winner, is everyone else the loser? Well, it's a good question, and it kind of depends on how fast it happens and over what time period. So remember, if you go back and you look in the early 90s in Germany, they raised rates

on the short end. And when that capital flowed into Germany and the economy started to expand, long rates came down because it was seen as a growing market. If you have what is perceived to be a growing market, long-term rates will typically come down because it's a safer place to invest. It's when things start to go bad or when there's fear of high inflation where the long-term rates would go higher. So potentially, and again, we don't know. And actually, my base case is not that we get dramatically lower long-term rates. I think they probably kind of stay where they're at. Maybe they go down a little bit. But I think what Bessent and Warsh and Moran and their whole team is counting on is a growing U.S. market that draws in capital from around the world and as inflation fears continue to come down.

And if inflation fears continue to come down and economic growth picks up, you should see lower long term rates. So, you know, and he has said he wants to get long-term rates lower and then he wants to term out the debt, right? I don't think that he's going to wait for zero to do that. I think if it gets, you know, it's at three, it's at four now, long-term rates are at four. I would think if it gets back to two and a half, three percent, he starts terming some of it out. So because remember, long-term rates at zero is not a great indicator either, right? No. I think his point with Yellen was it has to be a cost to account.

No, exactly. And again, he's a markets guy, so he knows that there has to be a cost of capital. Maybe he doesn't want it to be at five or six percent, but I don't think he wants it at zero either. But if he could get it down to two and a half, three percent, my guess is that they would start terming some of the long-term debt out. And for those who say that they won't be able to sell the debt at that rate, I think they will. I think they would go around to the world and they say, hey, we are terming out all our debt. We're going to sell. We're going to be able to sell. We're going to be able to sell. buy back, we're going to sell new treasuries, 50 year treasuries or whatever it is, at two and a half three percent, and you're going to buy them, and then we're going to take that money, turn around, and pay off the debt that's already out there, right? And if people say, you're not going to buy them, I think they'd turn around and say, yes, you are. And if you don't buy them, then you don't get a swap line anymore, and you don't get preferred trade status, and perhaps your tariffs go higher. I think this is the world we're in now. I think we're in the world where, where we're no longer cooperating because it seems like the right thing to do.

We cooperate because the most powerful entity says do it. And, you know, people aren't going to like that. But I just think that's where the world is headed. I think we're going back towards power policies as opposed to efficient policies. Ray Dalio was talking about that in this piece saying it's we're going back to the jungle. Yeah. In that scenario, if he gets the economy chugging along, things look good. There's less fear of sort of inflation or deflationary birth.

Do you think that is a scenario where gold starts performing worse and Bitcoin actually starts performing well because at the moment it is trading like a tech stock even though I think it's something entirely different? Potentially. I mean, if you get growth and interest rates start to come down a little bit, that could put to, then I think you have to remember most people in the world don't want to buy Bitcoin and don't want to buy gold. Most people want to buy stocks, right? Now, I think the markets for Bitcoin is obviously growing because it's a great debasement trade. And I think, you know, people are starting to wake up. They see gold at 5,000. They say, hey, what am I missing? You know?

But again, when things start to go crazy, the first thought in every person's mind is not, let's go to gold or let's not go to Bitcoin. You know, it's not that people, there's not people that don't do that, but that's not the first thought of most people. And so I'm not sure that we're going to see gold double from here anytime soon. We might. And listen, I'm not selling my gold. I own gold, you know, exactly for these reasons. But, you know, gold came a long way really quick. Silver came a long way really quick. It wouldn't surprise me if they just go sideways for a while. Maybe they even go down and sideways for a little while until we get more certainty on how things are going to play out in going forward. But if Bessent and Warsh and Trump and Moran and his whole team are able to boost growth and provide and not, you know, and have adequate liquidity, then you could see gold, or you could see Bitcoin go higher. It wouldn't surprise me. But I think there needs to, again, there needs to be, there needs to be plenty of liquidity for that to happen. I don't think that that happens as a result of a crisis or a crisis.

deflation trade. In other words, I would not expect Bitcoin to perform well if we get into some kind of a deflationary wave. 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 over 100% of the cost of their mining hardware in a single tax year. That's right, a hundred percent write off. So if you have $100,000 in capital gains or income, you can purchase $100,000 of miners and offset it entirely. And Blockware's mining as a service allows 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 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 blockware solutions.com forward slash WBD. Of course, none of this is tax advice. Speak to your accountant or tax advisor to understand how these rules apply to you. and then head over to blockware solutions.com forward slash WBD and you'll get one week of free hosting and electricity with each hosted mine are purchased. If you haven't tried out Club Orange yet, then now is the time.

It's my go-to place to find Bitcoiners whenever I'm traveling. Club Orange is a social app built for Bitcoiners where you can find meetups and events in your area and find merchants that are accepting Bitcoin. There are over 19,000 Bitcoiners on there, and whether you're at home or traveling, is a great place to keep in touch with Bitcoiners from all over the world. I've been using Club Orange since it was Orange Pill app and it really is awesome. So if you're on there, drop me a DM and say hi. And if you want to find out more and download the app,

just search for Club Orange on your app store or go to cluborange.org. If you already self-custody Bitcoin, you know the deal with hardware wallets. Complex setups, clumsy interfaces, and a seed phrase that can be lost, stolen or forgotten. Well, Bitkey fixes that. Bitkey 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 Bitkey, one of the best inventions of 2024.

Get 20% off at Bitkey.world when you use the code WBD. That's B-I-T-K-E-Y.World and use the code WBD. And the only thing I'd push back on there, and I think you'd actually probably agree with this, is I don't think most people do want to, buy stocks. I think most people want their money just to not lose value. But I think that's fair. But I think that ship has sailed. One of the other things you said in there is you think Trump's going to try and do stimulus, whether that's through the Big Beautiful Bill or something else. Do you think we have some kind of, like if he gets this, if he gets the economy ticking, do you think he will start hitting

the money printer again pretty hard? Well, I don't, if the economy's humming, then he doesn't need to do money printing, right? So I think the only way we get QE coming back is if we get some kind of a crisis, right? So I think people didn't remember that QE or, you know, quote-unquote, money printing, that is a response to a lack of liquidity. If there's plenty of liquidity, they don't need to provide more of it. And it would be very hard, you know, to just start doing QE without a really, really good reason to do it, especially after the negative consequences of the last time they did QE, right?

They're sitting here calling Jay Powell the worst Fed chair in history, but they're going to do the exact same policies that he did. So I'm not saying they won't do it. If liquidity dries up and they need to do it, they will absolutely do it. But I don't think, first of all, I don't think they want to do it.

And second of all, I don't think they would be doing it by themselves. I think the rest of the world would be doing it as well. But I do think they're going to spend money. So, and you got to, this big, beautiful bill, you know, that's like $3.5.4 trillion over, I think, a five-year period or something. That's a lot of money that's already kind of queued up to be spent. He's now talking about raising the military budget from $1 trillion a year to $1.1.1.1.000. 1.5 trillion year. First of all, one trillion a year is an ungodly amount of money. To take it up to

$1.5 trillion a year, that's $500 billion. That's about the size of a QE program, right? And they're going to do that every year. So, you know, think about it. And the difference between the big, beautiful bill and, you know, an increased budget, military budget, is that money gets spent immediately and goes right into the economy. It doesn't. have to go through the banks where it then has to get lent out. So you remember with QE, they're giving collateral to the banks, but if the banks don't turn that into loans, it doesn't find its way into the real economy. But with government spending, it goes into the real economy right away. And so then this is where you get into this fiscal dominance, right? Well, the government is crowding out,

you know, it's taking all the money and funding its projects, and that crowds out other projects that may be more efficient and better allocated, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So, but I do, but, and I don't, I think a lot of people think that the U.S. is not going to be able to fund these budget deficits. I think that they will be able to fund the budget deficits. I think buyers will show up. It doesn't mean the rates won't reflect that, but I don't think we're going to have a failed treasury auction.

And if we do have a failed treasury auction, that is a nightmare for the whole world. it's not just a nightmare for the United States because everybody's bonds are priced off of the U.S. Treasury. All corporate bonds in the world are priced off of the U.S. Treasury. So the idea that the United States is going to have a fiscal crisis and not be able to fund itself, but England will be able to fund itself and Germany will be able to fund itself and Australia will be able to – that's – that's silly. Yeah. No, I mean – for lack of a better word. I occasionally like will check in.

on what's going on under stock market in the UK. And when it opens, obviously the US hours, everything's closed in the US. The stock market in the UK looks like it's just guessing what the US is going to do until everyone wakes up in the US and then it knows the direction. Like clearly everything is downstream in the US. But when you look at this like imperial circle, how does that play into your dollar milkshake theory? Because I kind of want to do this in two ways where we'll, we can talk about like the

normal system and then let's bring stable coins in. Yeah. So I will be the first to admit that the Imperial Circle heavily influenced my whole dollar milkshake theory. That is, you know, understanding how and why Bessent and Drucken Miller and Soros did that, that's kind of what helped me come to my conclusion that rates would go higher, but U.S. stocks would go higher as well. So again, when I started saying the dollar was going to go higher, people said, well, then that's going to be bad. for stocks. And I thought, well, no, that's not necessarily true. And this imperial circle was a big reason about it. And then they said, well, okay, so even though rates are higher in the, in the

Germany, and even though money's flown into Germany, Germany still has a lot of challenges. But they said, even though, but we're not going to try to take out Germany. We'll try to take out the weaker ones. So that's, that influenced me as well. I said, okay, so that's smart. No need to try to fight the Fed. No need to try to take on the global superpower. or let's just look for the weaker ones around the world. And let's stay away. Let's be long, the U.S., let's be short, the other ones. If we're going to try to, you know, to attack one, attack one of the weaker ones.

And so it was a great influence on the dollar milkshake theory. You know, it's part of the reason why I think some of these currency pegs around the world will eventually break. Now, will they break for sure? I don't know. Maybe they won't. And the other thing I'd say is the one thing, I'm going to pivot. here just for a second, but I think it's important to say this. I think there's a misconception around what Trump and team wants with regard to China and what they don't. If they wanted to break

the Hong Kong dollar peg or if they wanted to break the CNY's kind of quasi-pegged, they could do that. They know how to do that. They have the tools that they could use to do that. They don't want to crush China. They want to keep China in a box because there's not there's not there's There's two things that Trumps want wants more than anything in the world. Number one is he wants his face on Mount Rushmore, right? He wants to be the greatest president that ever lived. You can't do that if China surpasses you while you're a president, right? So he needs to keep them under wraps.

But he also wants to be on the front page of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal is this great dealmaker that's overseeing this fantastic economy. If you crush China, that causes a global crisis, and you can't be seen as a great deal. dealmaker if everybody suffers as a result, right? So what they're trying to do is actually harder than crushing them. What they're trying to do is not let them grow as much as they did and not surpass the United States in certain areas, but also not cause them to fail because that and that hurts everybody. And so that's why they still want to do business with them. It's why they haven't totally cut them off. But it's also, you know, the U.S., and to be clear, the U.S. would be if they

tried to crush China, I think they could do it, but the United States would get hurt in that as well, right? So instead, they're trying to thread this needle, and it's really, really hard to thread that needle. But I do think, you know, bringing this back to the Imperial Circle, I think that they understand that there's natural gravitational pull to U.S. markets for all the reasons that we've already discussed. And if you combine that natural pull with government stimulus, that should be good for long-term rates coming down. It should keep the dollar relatively strong, even though they're trying to weaken it. And it should be good for growth and overall markets, and it should be good for the economic renaissance of the United States. So what they're trying to do is very hard, but I think

that's what they're trying to do. That makes sense. And so when you came up with this theory, stable coins were around, I believe, but they weren't the, like, behemoth that they are today. When did you start properly paying attention to Tether? And actually, just to put the size of Tether into perspective, I was in D.C. about a year ago, and Paolo from Tether did a fireside with Jack Mallors. And the scale of their company is insane. It's about 400 million users when they were talking, at least. And they're adding 250,000 users a week.

It is growing so fast. Essentially, that is dollarizing the global South without any governments having to change policy. Yeah. So, okay. So first thing I'll say, I got that wrong is 250,000 users a day. Yeah. Okay. So Tether is a juggernaut. There is no way around it. And I've had my problems with Tether for a very long time. So I've said this a few times now in the last couple of months, but I'm going to say it again. So there's three parts of this. Number one, I messed up. And what I messed up once is I, I let my opinion of the people influence my opinion of the technology. So because I didn't like the people that were running, not like I've never met them, I don't know them personally,

but because I thought some of the things they were doing as a company were less than pristine, I let that influence my understanding of the technology itself. And I should have done a better job of understanding the technology despite my personal views of them, right so that's number one number two um there was a guy that i used to know in san francisco his name was max i cannot i think he worked for fidelity i can't remember for sure but he told me back in 2018 that these stable coins are like euro dollars and i agreed with him i thought it was a very

good analogy and because he was talking about how it's a parallel system for dollars it's mainly outside the united states and i thought that's a very good analogy um my issue was that I thought, and there's actually evidence to prove this, and I'll discuss it, that if and when the United States or other governments around the world wanted to stomp these out or stop this parallel system from developing, that they had many tools that they could use to do so. And while I wasn't sure that they would be successful in shutting these parallel systems down, I thought they had enough tools to make it interesting and be a battle, right? And if you look and you see some of the different actions that governments around the world have taken with regard to crypto, that's been proven out.

I think the biggest one was, I think they called it Operation Choke Point 2.0, you know, when the Biden administration started defunding the ability for crypto companies to operate. They also, it was a pretty big fanfare. Facebook or meta was trying to launch their own currency, their own token. And the Trump, I can't remember if that was Trump or if that was Biden, but they shut that down. And so I was saying while I, yeah, so while I understand that, you know, this is this parallel system and this is pretty interesting technology, I thought it was being run by some fairly shady individuals. and I thought the government would not allow it to exist. So that is why every time I went down that rabbit hole, I eventually came back out and said,

no, I don't want anything to do with it. When they started talking about the Genius Act, maybe a year or two ago, or a year and a half ago, you know, I started thinking, well, this is probably just a way for them to officially regulate it. This is an example of them doing what I've always said they're going to do. But then they came out and they basically endorsed them. And they basically said, this is a new technology.

It's very powerful. These are the rules by which we think that they should operate. And then I was like, well, okay, why are they doing that? I didn't expect that. But that's a new information that I have to at least take account of. And when I went back and I started thinking about it again, you know, and I, you know, again, I'd already kind of thought of or had the analogy given to me that stable coins were euro dollars and I had seen the the you know the growth of the industry the ease of use and now the

and you know the fact that Trump was starting to battle the treasury was starting to battle with the Fed you know I but but the the Treasury needs the Fed right but if they didn't need the Fed it would be much easier to do what they're doing well you know I guess these stable coins are they don't they wouldn't really need the Fed right and so that kind of made sense and And then I was like, oh, then I started thinking about it at issue. And then I got, okay, so it's not really a CBDC, but if they can let the market proliferate these, then every place around the world starts to, starts to, you know, dollarize. And if it gets big enough, they just won't be able to stop it. And then they can come in and put their own regulations on top of it.

And because these are programmable digital rails, it's super fast, but it's also super, what's the word, controllable, right? And maybe they go out and they say, okay, maybe they will grant five licenses to people that can operate stable coins. Or maybe they'll say you can have a stable coin that trades in the United States, but you know, you have to have these issues. You know, it has to follow these guidelines and has to have audits and you need to hold certain number of treasuries. And so the more I thought about it that way, the more I realized that this was not only like Euro dollars, but it was a potential way for the U.S. to have a, you know, kind of a world-class cutting-edge technology version of the euro-dollar market that they could actually use as a weapon and control. And that's kind of the dream of every government.

And so this scares the heck out of me, to be really honest. I mean, this is not for the faint. This is really big. It definitely is very big. But I'm curious, like, how do you think they will use this as a weapon? because they have the ability to close accounts of anyone they want. Yes, but I think that's further down the road. I think they can use it as a geopolitical weapon against small and emerging countries

and even some of the bigger countries, because once another country's currency starts to be rejected and instead using dollar stable coins, because as bad as the dollar is, it's better than most other local. local currencies, that starts to strip away sovereignty from those local governments. If one of the primary tools that any government has to control their population is the money. If they lose, and that's why the legal tenders laws exist. It's why they say gold can't be used as money. It's why they, you know, it's why there's rules around what, you know,

you can't pay your taxes in Bitcoin because they need to be able to control those channels. If they start to lose control of those channels, they start to lose control of the economy. And if you look around the world and look through history, anytime an economy has collapsed or a currency has collapsed, the government typically collapses shortly thereafter, which makes sense. If you lose your primary form of control, then you resort to your only remaining form of control, which is violence, right? And when that fails, you're gone. And governments can, they can put down revolutions for a while, but if enough people revolt, they eventually fall. And, you know, when a country's currency fails, people feel like they have nothing left to lose, let's revolt. Let's get rid of these

jokers. Let's put some new guys in power. And that becomes very tenuous for, very tenuous for the local government. I'm going to give you a perfect real-world example right now. And that's Iran. Iran and this is again, you're asking me, why do I think they could weaponize it? Besson just came out two weeks ago and said they weaponized the dollar against Iran. In a speech he gave, I can't remember where it was at, it might have been in Davos.

He said, well, what we basically did was we caused dollar liquidity in Iran to dry up. That forced Iran to have to print a lot of money. When they printed a lot of money, their local currency fell in value. And when it fell in value, the people started to revolt because they couldn't do anything with the local currency, and it wasn't too long after that before they're out in the streets protesting.

And here we are today. So, you know, you combine all those things. And then two days ago, he was in Bessent was in Dallas, and he gave a speech, and he said, stable coins are a financial innovation that are very important and are going to be part of the system going forward. I know I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said. So when I see a guy who was part of the team that broke the Bank of England, come out and say he knows how to weaponize a currency against a country, and then a few days later says stable coins are going to be a big part of the future, you know, he's got my attention. Yeah.

It's not surprising, in hindsight, at least, that the U.S. have embraced these because really there's no loss to them. Like, I don't think there's any real reason that people in the U.S. are going to be using tether as their money. Like you just use the dollars. But if all these countries in emerging markets, like if your option is a currency that's inflating all the dollar, you're obviously going to go to the dollar or Bitcoin or gold or whatever. But I think it's worth breaking this out into two parts because there's tether which is like taking some market share of like fiat currency and being an actual currency. But then also on the back end it's propping up the treasury market.

Like which one of those two is the most important? So it's my belief that many people are focused on stable coins as a way to sell more debt and help the financial fiscal problems of the United States. I don't completely disagree with that, but I think it's a much, I think it's a secondary or derivative issue. I don't think it's the primary reason. And I think by focusing on that, and maybe the government wants people to focus on that because they don't want them to think of it this other way. But to me, this is a geopolitical tool that they will be able to use. And, you know, I think it may create some demand for treasuries kind of on the margin. But I am of the belief that there's plenty of demand for treasuries anyway. So I don't think that this is like the white night that's coming in and saving the treasury market. But I do think it will help. And where it will specifically help is it will help continue to fund the government at the short end because the primary backing of stable coins is short-term U.S. debt. And it gives them a buyer, it gives them a big buyer of short-term debt while they wait for those longer-term rates to come down like we talked earlier.

So from that perspective, I do think it helps. I just don't think it's the primary benefit to the U.S. The other thing, we haven't really talked about this yet, is that, and I haven't fully thought through this all yet, but it's just something that's kind of I'm thinking about is that this could ultimately, and this goes back to, you know, do you have U.S. dollar stable coins that are issued by U.S. institutions that are regulated by U.S. regulatory agencies? or you could have a U.S. dollar stable coin that's issued by a, I don't know, company based in Thailand, right, and is not subject to U.S. regulations. So then you get into a, and right now, euro dollars trade one for one. Euro dollars and U.S. dollars trade one for one. There's no spread, right? You could potentially get into a thing where there's an onshore stable coin and there's an offshore stable coin. And those prices would not necessarily have to trade at par, right?

So you could eventually get into an onshore dollar and an offshore dollar. And perhaps the U.S. would, you know, and the next time there's a crisis and everybody once bailed out, they could say if you are a holder of U.S. regulated stable coin, you get this preferred funding. But if you're not, then you don't. Right. So there's a number of different things that could come out of this technology. And again, I don't have perfect insight to how this goes. I can just see how much money is being made by them, the benefit from a geopolitical perspective, the benefit from a fiscal financing perspective, and you know, you've got to hedge them on that

wants to remain that way. I don't see why they wouldn't use it, right? Yeah, it's one of the interesting things that came out, the Genius Act, was obviously they basically embraced stable coins but said you can't share any of the interest. I actually heard David Sacks on All In just after that got announced, and he said, the exact reason they did that is because there was pushback from, I think, particularly the regional banks, because they basically saw this as just eating their lunch. The interesting thing, and I think that's 100% right. And I think the thing that will come out of this is Tether will likely at some point have a US regulated entity which doesn't issue interest. And then they'll have something else for the rest of the world where you can have a share of the interest.

Like at the moment, if they're growing at 30 million users a quarter, like they have really no incentive to start sharing that. But if that growth slows, then they could start sharing the interest with the users and, again, just speeds up the dollarization of every other country. Some people will say, well, why would the government do this with Tether? You know, they're a fraud. They don't have all the reserves and da-da-da-da. Maybe that's true. I don't know. When I did a deep dive on these guys, you know, five or six years ago, I came to the conclusion they didn't.

But, you know, so far, maybe they've been able to plug those holes. or maybe, maybe the U.S. government went to them and said, listen, we know you messed up, we know what you were doing. Here's your choice. You can either help us or we will crush you. And there's nobody better at helping than the people who have perpetrated the event, right, or the thing. Like, you know, the U.S. government does this all the time. You know, they take confidence, you know, somebody who is part of the crime, they give them an easy deal if they help them put the other guys away. right? Or, you know, it's not unusual for governments to do business with either terrorists or former, you know, former enemies if it now helps their interest going forward. So maybe they said, yeah, okay, we know there was some bad stuff that happened five, ten years ago. Going forward, this is what you're going to need to do. And if you do that and you stay within these lines, you know, we're going to start to regulate these things. You can help us proliferate them around

the world and when the time comes, we give you the signal and you do what we say. I'm not saying that that's necessarily what they're doing, but it wouldn't surprise me. Yeah, I mean, this is pure speculation here. But like, Tether, when it first came out, wasn't, I don't think they were thinking of Tether becoming what it has today. It was initially like a way of moving money between Bitcoin exchanges. I think to catch arbitrage, like, because there was a big arbitrage opportunity in Korea at the time. I don't think they saw Tether becoming what it is right now. And I could totally believe there was a period of time where they weren't fully backed,

because they used to have all sorts of corporate bonds and stuff in their reserves to a way higher degree. Whether the US sort of help bail them out or what I think is maybe a more likely scenario is when interest rates started going up from essentially zero to where they are now, I think they might have accidentally been bailed out by the Fed. And I do believe they're probably fully backed. I'm almost certain they're fully back now. In fact, I think that they are over collateralized. Could be.

The interesting thing is that they're also moving into gold now. So Tether have Tether Gold. I think they are the largest owner of physical gold for a private company, I believe. I'm pretty sure that's right. Do you see this as them becoming sort of a new age central bank? Well, so potentially, right? Maybe this. I hesitate to say this out loud.

Maybe they're the new bank of international settlements, right? I mean, I don't know, maybe. But, you know, this brings up another battle that's coming along, too, is that, well, why would people use a U.S. dollar stable coin if they could use a gold stable coin because a gold stable coin or Bitcoin or whatever it is is, you know, it's not going to lose value the way a U.S. dollar is. And I, okay, there is some truth to that. that fills a different function. You know, the dollars are used for payments, for commerce, for everyday use, for living your life. You know, the people that are looking for dollars

are not looking for the same thing that a holder of gold or Bitcoin or stocks or real estate is, right? But that doesn't mean that Tether couldn't offer all these different, you know, options. The other thing is, you know, despite gold stable coins have been around for a while, you know, Paxos has been around, I think, five, six years. But despite that, 99% of stable coins in the world are tied to the U.S. dollar. And the reason they're tied to the U.S. dollar is, that's where the demand is. That's meeting the market demand, right? And so, but yes, but going back to your point, I mean, tether is a force now, right?

I mean, they're, and not only that, but Lutnik, as I understand it, custodies a big portion of their treasuries, right? I mean, that's the U.S. Commerce Secretary. So, you know, you don't have to connect the dots too hard to figure out that there's potentially some cooperation here, right? I think one of the real telling signs is that Paolo from Tether, it was his first trip to the U.S. when I saw him in D.C. last year on stage. There's probably a good reason that he hadn't come before.

No, totally. I 100% agree with you. If I was, if I was Palo and I didn't have like a ironclad guarantee that I was going to be able to leave, I wouldn't have shown up. Absolutely. And the thing that I do like about it is the Tether people are Bitcoiners. And like, we always talk as Bitcoiners and being like, you have to have a seat at the table. And I think Tether are giving Bitcoin as a seat at the table because they are becoming just, you can't ignore them anymore. Right.

So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. You wrote a piece recently, The Stable Coin Wars. Is there anything we've not touched on that was in that piece that you want to get into? I think. So let me just set it up because we wrote our original paper back in October, and that basically laid out the geopolitical angle and why I thought they were going to be a big deal. This is a follow-up which lays out all of the battles going on within this arena. And the reason all of these, and there's many of them.

And they're enormous and they're like knife fights. And the reason is because the profits are so incredibly huge, right? The one thing that's in the paper that we did not discuss yet, and again, I do not fully understand this because I'm not a technology guy, right? But if you believe in the AI trade and you believe that AI is going to become an increasingly important part of the future, stable coins are the currency of the AI trade because there's these bots, There's these AI entities that will trade with each other all hours of the day, even when businesses are closed. And they do these micro-transactions, but they do it in such great volume that it ends up being a lot of money.

And it's not something that legacy finance can do because legacy finance is too slow. The minimums are too high. The regulations are too high. And so it's almost like, it's almost like marrying the base layer of the monetary system with the currency that goes along with it. This is huge. And I cannot, I can't believe that I was so slow to the table on it. But now that I see it, I can't unsee it. And I guess if I give myself a little bit of break about it, it's because I thought that they were going to try to keep them from developing.

But once I saw that they're actually encouraging the development and embracing it, then I understood it pretty quickly. Yeah, the AI using money is a really interesting one. Bitcoiners have for quite a long time said that Bitcoin would be the money of AI. And I think it will be for some. But when these are controlled by such large corporate entities, there's going to be people in their area being like, use this currency. And I think Tether, USDC are going to be at the forefront of that.

Do you think, talking of USDC, do you think this is a race that Tether have already won? Because if you look at the sort of the market for stable coins right now, USDC have a lot of the sort of regulated institutions in the US that have been basically forced into this because it's the most, quote unquote, compliant stable coin. But Tether are by far the largest and they're attacking the Global South, which is a ginormous market. Again, maybe less money sort of per capita, but a huge amount of people. Which one do you think wins?

It's a really good question, and I don't know the answer. I will say, I think tether is going to be around. There's a couple caveats. Number one, it's possible that they don't have all the reserves, and it's possible that there's a crisis and tether goes away as a result. But let's just take that as an example. It's possible that if that happens, tether management goes away, but new tether management is installed,

the government makes them whole and says, the people were bad, the technology is great, it's a global good, we're keeping it. That's possible. The other thing is maybe they would use that as an event to say, hey, this technology is amazing, but it needs to have state backing, and it needs to be more regulated,

and therefore we're rolling out our own U.S. dollar coin and, you know, buyer be, you know, the private companies are going to have to be more regulated or have a license or whatever it is. This is a long way of saying. And then I think it's very possible, just if you think back to kind of the whole make America great again, I kind of have a hard time thinking Donald Trump wants a non-American company to be the main player, right? So maybe Tether becomes the big player offshore, but, you know, playing within the rules that the United States has set up and circle or whoever the next one is, you know, becomes the onshore version. But this is why I think people should read the paper for a couple of reasons. Number one, I would love to hear how people think this is going to play out. So if you think I have something wrong, tell me that.

if you think you have an insight of which, you know, and all these different battles going off, which faction is going to win and why, that would be helpful. Because I can see this going so many different ways, but regardless of which way it goes, I think the technology stays. Yeah, I think that first scenario laid out is the scariest. Because while I think Tether is over-collateralized at this point, they own an incredible amount of Bitcoin. I believe they'll be fully reserved. If the U.S. government don't really need a legitimate reason to try and take over a company. Right.

And if this goes from being like essentially a private bank digital currency to being too big to fail and then taken over by the US, it becomes a CBDC essentially. And that to me is the scariest potential outcome. Yep. Yep. But it's going to be interesting. Brent, this has been awesome. I love talking to you.

I saw you're going to be at Bitcoin Vegas. You're going to be amongst the Bitcoiners in the den. I'm looking forward to seeing you there. I'll make sure I link everything in the show notes, but anywhere else that you want to send anyone before we close out. No, you know, I think what I would just say is, so, you know, I do a show every week on YouTube. It's called milkshakes, Markets, and Madness.

If you liked the topic that we talked about today, we do have a special going on right now. If you go to research. ontaggocapital.com and go to the promotion tab, you can get both of the reports that we referenced by signing up for an annual subscription. So these reports are typically for our pro level, which is our higher level service, but because we think it's so important, we're making them available to premium level subscribers for a limited time. Awesome. Well, congratulations to being a gold bug over the last year. Hopefully next time I speak to you, Bitcoin's got one up on you. But I really appreciate it, Brent. Thank you. Thanks for having me.