It seems that the EU is constantly coming out with bad new regulations that will impact Bitcoiners and Bitcoin miners. Joining me today is Lyudmyla Kozlovska and Bota Jardemalie from the Open Dialogue Foundation – Bitcoin and human rights advocates. We talk about:
- EU bureaucracy and ECB threat to Bitcoin
- Why engage with these people at all?
- Attacks on Bitcoin’s Proof of Work
- Threat to self custody and sovereignty – AML
- Bitcoin as bank of last resort
- How you can help with testimonials
Links:
- PoW submission: https://en.odfoundation.eu/a/724499,defend-pow-submission-to-esma/
- EU AML submission: https://en.odfoundation.eu/a/578069,can-the-eus-anti-money-laundering-reform-help-dictators/
- Site / Support OD Foundation: https://en.odfoundation.eu/how-can-you-help/
- Lyudmyla on X: @LyudaKozlovska
- Bota on X: @jardemalie
Sponsors:
- Swan.com (code LIVERA)
- CoinKite.com (code LIVERA)
- Mempool.space
- https://nomadcapitalist.com/live/
Stephan Livera links:
- Follow me on X: @stephanlivera
- Subscribe to the podcast
- Subscribe to Substack
Podcast Transcript:
Stephan (00:01.129)
Lyd Miller and Bota, welcome to the show.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (00:03.524)
Hello, hello, thank you so much for us.
Bota Jardemalie (00:06.701)
Hi, very nice seeing you.
Stephan (00:08.071)
So we’re gonna, yeah, well, good to see you. And we’re gonna talk today about defending proof of work, as well as Bitcoin and human rights advocacy. So just for people who don’t know you too, can you please just give us a quick intro?
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (00:23.621)
Yeah, sure. I’m a human rights defender, originally from Ukraine, but I live and work in Brussels. We work in many countries defending those who are politically persecuted inside the countries and also those who are persecuted like political refugees, dissidents outside of the countries. And our organization was deprived right to have financial services because of actually this human rights work. So at some point, being in Europe, in the heart of EU, we were deprived right to have me personally deprived.
try to have financial services, banking accounts. And during this time we were explaining regulators what happened with us. We were using Bitcoin. This is how we met with Bitcoin and this is how we also started to advocate explaining regulators why this is the only actually tool for us once you’re under attack of transnational repression.
Bota Jardemalie (01:12.877)
And I’m Botya. I’m just like Luda. I’m a human rights defender and I’m originally from Kazakhstan.
but right now I live in Belgium where I have political asylum because I’ve been politically persecuted by my home country Kazakhstan. And we’ve been working together with Luda for, I don’t know, more than 10 years is for sure. And just as what Luda mentioned, I was…
I was subject to many many politically motivated attacks and at some point I Was de risked de risk it means basically all banks accounts in Belgium were closed for me And after that you look at your options you see what’s happening and this is how we discovered Bitcoin is basically a bank of last resort and then what kind of our de risking happened in parallel with Ludo with
Open Dialogue Foundation. So we started looking around and started looking who else is facing the same problem. We started looking at the root of the problem and we realized that is actually a quite general problem and it’s a growing trend that more and more banks, they don’t want to deal with difficult clients, especially if they are subject to politically motivated smear campaign online. They prefer just get rid of such clients. And we found
that it’s happening with people around the world, not only in Europe. So that’s how we discard Bitcoin and created BTC coalition. Luda, you can talk a little bit about it. Yeah. Yeah.
Stephan (02:49.833)
I see.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (02:57.815)
Building True Change Coalition, yes. So BTC Coalition is actually a of activists, Bitcoiners, and everyone basically who wants to explain to regulators and legislators why we use Bitcoin, peer -to -peer transactions, you know, even mixers for our privacy to defend our activists in authoritarian states against abuse of anti -money laundering counter -terrorism regulation. It’s one thing. Also, we…
trying to do all possible efforts and explain the regulators of G7 countries why financial action task forces has to be more open, more transparent institution because it shapes all of our reality. And this is something what we have to keep in mind. We shouldn’t abandon our right to participate in legislative process which affects our lives directly. So this is also our work and also we defend proof of war because of the current ongoing attack in European Union.
Unfortunately, there is very wrong perception and narratives against proof of work and this is what we want specifically underline and bring attention of Bitcoiners from different countries. We just need your support to define proof of work.
Stephan (04:13.339)
Okay, so let’s talk about that. So if you could spell out for us, just for people, what is the current threat, just at a very high level in simple terms, what is the current threat from the EU, the bureaucrats and the regulators and the FADF?
Bota Jardemalie (04:16.14)
Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (04:28.108)
Yeah, there are three lines of fatah.
right, on Bitcoin and proof of work. One is something that we already mentioned. This comes from kind of a higher level, from the recommendations of financial action task force, and then trickles down to jurisdictions and came to the European Commission. And this is attack on Bitcoin as an instrument for money laundering and financing of terrorism. This is one line of attack. Another two lines of attack, this is related more to the
issues of energy security in the EU and environmental and sustainability goals of the EU. And there is a big problem. The European Commission perceives Bitcoin and proof of work, like specifically proof of work, as an energy -wasted mechanism. And this is specifically labeling proof of work as such in its action plan to digitalize
the energy sector of the EU. And this is very important because this action plan is being implemented by the European Commission right now and as a European institution. And the European Commission also labels Bitcoin as proof of work, as an outdated consensus mechanism that is harmful to the environment. And the European Commission now is in the process of developing sustainable
labels for digital assets. And so as you can imagine with the language as such, with the perception that it’s energy -based mechanism, especially European Commission always compares proof of work with proof of stake. And they consider proof of stake, Ethereum’s proof of stake, they specifically kind of spell it out in the documents of the EU as the golden standard for the blockchain.
Bota Jardemalie (06:30.461)
ecosystem and of course proof of work for them it’s an energy -vasted mechanism and we consider this this is very serious attacks because we see how they’ve been developed right now in the regulations of the European Union.
Stephan (06:50.569)
And then you mentioned the third, what’s the third line of attack you were mentioning there?
Bota Jardemalie (06:55.275)
So first it’s AML, second is energy threat, and third is an environmentally harmful mechanism. That’s kind of a nutshell. But we can talk about it for hours, to be honest. Yeah. Yeah.
Stephan (06:59.657)
Okay.
Stephan (07:09.13)
Gotcha, okay, yeah. Yeah, of course, of course. I’m just trying to spell out at a high level what the concerns are and then we can sort of dig further into those. Now, there will be the question, I’m just gonna ask the question, I don’t necessarily agree with this view, but there’ll be some people who say, hey, as libertarians or cypherpunks, why bother engaging with these people at all, quote unquote, cypherpunks write code. What would you say to that?
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (07:15.417)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (07:23.883)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (07:35.013)
We have to understand that as human rights defenders we kind of have to ask for European and US other democratic politicians for support. So every time we come to them and ask them, listen guys, you need to help us according to the international human rights obligations, support this and those political prisoners, politically persecuted people. And if in general narrative.
Bota Jardemalie (07:35.979)
Luder maybe.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (08:00.389)
The risk perception that we use as human defenders mechanism assumed in regulation, included in regulation with label that it’s instrument for money laundering, it’s terrorists, that is very bad for environment. It’s make weaker our position as human defenders who is always under attack both by authoritarian regime, even if we live in democratic countries, but also not every democratic government will be able and want to support us. This is the first thing.
Second thing, we as NGO survive and actually exist thanks to private donations. In various narrative, if there is perception in general in society and also unfortunately inclusion in regulation that Bitcoin again, environmentally bad, used by criminals terrorists. Who is going to support us with donations through this mechanism? And right now for us it’s a key instrument.
You cannot use traditional financial instruments in authoritarian states. So this is the reason why we defend it in front of regulators. We cannot wait 50 years. We cannot wait when market will win. We need to defend it right now because for us it’s means to support people who are important for us, who are our activists, who are family members in many authoritarian states or emergency territories, for example, like in Ukraine.
I cannot allow that instrument which helps to save so many of my friends and relatives, especially during first hours of Russian full invasion to Ukraine. We actually were able to transact and save people’s lives. The second day of the war we were delivering hundreds of bulletproof vests, helmets, medical equipment. We would not be able to do so with normal transactions of a banking system. So we cannot, not morally,
not objectively allow regulators to label it and we cannot just look at cyberpunk. We respect their position, but our situation is that we need this tool to be defended and to be legally used, not in grey zone, right now.
Bota Jardemalie (10:08.81)
Yeah, and we just to add a little bit.
Stephan (10:08.841)
Mm -hmm. And, uh, go on, go on, Berta.
Bota Jardemalie (10:12.264)
Yeah, we look at Bitcoin not as an investment instrument. We are not looking at something that we put our money in and wait for a long time. We are looking at it as a payment instrument. We would like to promote use of Bitcoin in our communities around the world in authoritarian countries where we use Bitcoin, for example, to deliver humanitarian aid, as Luda mentioned, or to raise financing for families of political prisoners. And we want…
able to do so if it’s banned in the EU. And don’t forget, the EU is 27 countries, 27 key countries. And at the same time, the European Commission mentioned that it should tackle the problem with kind of wasteful energy consumption by Bitcoin miners on the globally impactful way. This is the event which I quote, like, globally impactful way. It means that they will be pushing
other countries to adopt similar requirements, similar labouring, it’s something that will be spread around. It will be not contained only within the boundaries of the EU.
Stephan (11:24.393)
Yeah. And yeah, I mean, as probably my listeners will know, I’m a libertarian. Of course, I’m anti the state and these regulators, but I also see a role for trying to push back in ways that we can do this. Now, the question, the other question people might have is, can these people be reasoned with? Can we actually do something here? What’s the pathway to actually try to do something here?
Bota Jardemalie (11:28.874)
Uh -huh.
Bota Jardemalie (11:36.714)
Uh -huh.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (11:47.269)
So yeah, of course we can and we should. I mean, we have privilege as people who reside in democratic countries or who are citizens of democratic countries to use your voters, right? To use your contacts for your politicians and regulators to demand them actually to respect your recommendations. How you can do it? You can go together like we’ve done, for example, the last two years when we invite, for example, Obinvoss or Mark Morton and other Bitcoiners to go with us. Human Defenders plus Bitcoiners.
And we educate over 200 members of European Parliament, national parliaments, regulators, European commissions, high level. We met also with representative of financial action task forces with clear recommendations and actually argumentations why we cannot use, for example, traditional financial instruments in authoritarian states, why peer -to -peer transactions plays key role for us to fundraise, to actually provide support for families of political prisoners.
as the only payment instrument and fundraising instrument. And why, for example, crypto asset services providers and traditional financial instruments like banking system, PayPal, just unsafe for us, even if we live in democratic countries. In my case, Bota case, some other members from Turkey, Palestine and other countries, they show clearly our banking data can be weaponized. And when you speak with these kind of languages, what you achieve?
First of all, we have clear recommendations, for example, of organization for cooperation and security in Europe, which is umbrella for 57 member states, including North America, so it’s US and Canada, European countries, and also Asian countries, that they have to reflect in relevant regulation how we basically deprive the right to have financial services because of abuse of anti -monopoly counter -terrorism regulation and…
how we use Bitcoin and stable coins for humanitarian aid and for human rights. This is something what we achieved. We also achieved in European Union, for example, acknowledgement that crypto assets used as a payment instrument, as fundraising instrument. For example, in US it’s commodity. So there is no this kind of acknowledgement. Again, we were able to get it because we were educating.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (14:07.433)
regulators and legislators, and they were able to ask us on private meetings, for example, what is Bitcoin? Of course, no one from politicians don’t want to ask this kind of question publicly, but we make it comfortable, this dialogue, when they can ask questions and we can ask them questions. So we try to build these bridges whenever you like it or not, but we have positive effects and we actually want to defend Bitcoin as our technology.
Bota Jardemalie (14:20.072)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (14:37.411)
But you want to add something maybe about European Parliament and other.
Bota Jardemalie (14:38.344)
Yeah, and it’s, yeah, I would like to.
Yeah, I would like to add something. You know, there are two types of people in politics. This is some politicians, bureaucrats, not elected bureaucrats. And this is usually those who work for the regulator, right? For European Commission, for executive bodies. And then you have politicians that were elected directly by people. These are members of parliament.
of local parliaments of the member states and the European Parliament. And it’s very easy to approach to meet those who are members of the parliaments because they are politicians, they’re used to talking to their constituents, to their voters, and educate them about use of Bitcoin because what we see is basically they don’t know much about it. The information they get is usually from Bloomberg, from newspapers.
from somebody mentioned something and from the European Commission. With the European Commission it’s a little bit tricky because the bureaucrats they have their agenda, there are some you know high level industry interests involved. So we have to meet with them anyway and explain our position because very often when we come to those meetings they get surprised they say oh we didn’t know that you exist, we didn’t know that Bitcoin can be used in a way that you just
describing. So we educated in one way, on another way, in the end of the day the regulations are adopted by the parliaments. Positions really have to be adopted by the parliaments. So it’s very important to work with them, educate them, and then they will ask uncomfortable questions. They, the Commission and the regulators, and they will question their position. And this is how you work. And this is a democratic tool.
Bota Jardemalie (16:41.642)
that we’re trying to have in our countries. We kind of are putting jeopardy our lives. And all the people sitting in jail to have these instruments. And here in the Western democracies, people just neglect them very often. And we consider it’s very sad we should use these mechanisms.
Stephan (17:02.185)
Okay, so let’s walk through some of these threats in a little more detail now. So as you mentioned, I guess we can maybe at a high level say there’s the kind of, there’s the threat at the mining side, at the proof of work side. And then there’s also the threat at the, let’s say self custody, AML, financial transactions regulation side. So let’s start with the mining side. What is the main regulation that’s, you know, being debated here? Is it MICA or is it some other regulation and
Bota Jardemalie (17:08.328)
Uh -huh.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (17:13.253)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (17:14.448)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (17:17.325)
Exactly.
Bota Jardemalie (17:19.31)
Yes.
Stephan (17:31.305)
What if you could expand on a little bit of the exact threat that the EU is facing?
Bota Jardemalie (17:34.888)
Yeah. Micah? Yeah.
Myka market and crypto assets regulations has been already adopted by the European Union, right? So it just in the process of kind of getting into force, it will get into force this year in 2024. But there was a discussion during its adoption about banning of proof of work and we’re going back to 2022 when it was actively debated.
at the European Parliament. And sometime in March of 2022 there was a consensus that there will be no banning of proof of work and everyone exhaled. Everyone thought that that’s it, the issue is done, victory, we can move on and forget about those stupid regulations. But at the same time, as time passed by, in October 2022 European Commission already, when
and it was adopting its action plan on energy security, they put this language, you know, that action plan was adopted as a kind of response to this energy crisis in the EU after the full invasion by Russia of Ukraine. So they needed to justify their failed policies and one of the scapegoats became a proof of work, right? And,
as the energy like something that jeopardizes energy security in the EU. And so this is the action plan is adopted and now you know it’s kind of being implemented through different mechanisms and Luda you probably should talk a little bit about it.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (19:26.693)
Yes, so yes, exactly. A part of what European Commission is doing, there was of course European Commission tender, which was already defined very negative indicators against proof of work. So it was specifically focused on negative externalities of proof of work. So entire study cost 800 ,000 of euros focus to prove why proof of work is bad, to put it simply.
Bota Jardemalie (19:32.742)
Uh -huh.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (19:56.645)
Then we have, of course, post -MICA reports and discussions in European Parliament, which also identify the same problems, let’s say. So from one side, they attack proof of work, the same language like European Central Bank and European Commission. And also we see the same language repeated was in European security and market authority. So this is so -called ESMA, which is a doer.
implementing decisions by European Parliament and European Commission demands. And this is also an institution where we submitted voices of both proof -of -work miners and also human rights activists and those who use Bitcoin, for example, to defend the results of votes in Guatemala, like Rafael Cordon, developer of Simple Proof.
So we collected all of these testimonies and tried to explain all institutions, basically the entire EU bubble, why they are wrong. But they not unfortunately alone taking this decision. I can understand you, Stepan, that you don’t like EU bureaucrats because they’re quite numerous. And imagine…
You have to go down, like for example, you have to go to national level on national parliaments, key country expert on this regard, because European Parliament, European Commission, they all go into elections. So we have really short window for opportunity where we can implement kind of our strategy and impact on opinion and narratives, changes narratives. Once again, like we’ve done it during Mika drafting debate. So we have to repeat the same.
Bota Jardemalie (21:33.512)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (21:36.457)
and do it both on EU level, like Brussels level, but also go to specific countries to educate these key parliaments like Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, Belgium, because Belgium now president of, runs presidency of the European Union. And we need to explain the key members of these parliaments, why actually proof of work is beneficial for society, how it’s empower society, how it’s actually protect rule of law.
And what’s happened right now, today in Guatemala, it’s clear example how proof of work and actually Bitcoin, blockchain can help to defend democracies, not just like repayment instrument, but actually also protect democracies. So I think it’s huge victory for everyone who contributed for making this possible. And we need to change this narrative. We live in a…
world of narratives and perceptions. Perceptions are unfortunately reality so we have to shape it and took it our responsibility for all of this what’s happening around us and specifically how bitcoins defined in the eyes of both societies but also regulators and legislators.
Bota Jardemalie (22:35.368)
I don’t know.
Stephan (22:49.993)
Yeah. And as I was looking through some of your documents, I noticed one of the threats is also that they, some of the regulators and bureaucrats are trying to use this ESG narrative to try to discourage proof of work exposure from an investment perspective, that they might try to influence, let’s say banks and financial institutions to say, don’t lend to somebody who’s doing Bitcoin, proof of work mining, this kind of thing. So can you spell out a little bit around what…
Bota Jardemalie (23:02.312)
Yep.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (23:09.865)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (23:11.784)
Yep.
Mm -hmm.
Stephan (23:17.321)
the threat is there, what would that mean if somebody is trying to do Bitcoin mining in the EU?
Bota Jardemalie (23:20.04)
Yeah.
This is exactly what you said. You know, it’s that they are trying to create a mechanism.
that will discourage investors to invest into Bitcoin. And you know, it’s kind of sounds strange if you live in a Bitcoin bubble, let’s say, because Luda mentioned the EU bubble, that in Bitcoin bubble, you know about KPMG report, you know about updated version of Cambridge consumption in the energy index, you hear how large institution invests.
change their opinion about Bitcoin, but this is happening in parallel reality. What’s happening in Brussels, in the so -called EU bubble, this is, they live in the world where Ethereum’s proof of stake is a golden standard and where…
proof of work is something that should be discouraged. And this is the labeling. This is the standards, methodology to calculate sustainability impact that European Commission is now developing. And considering that all of this negative perceptions that European Commission has is basically what they’re going to do. They’re going to give very low sustainability
Bota Jardemalie (24:53.99)
index to proof of work. This is they basically gonna end up saying that yes, we prove that proof of work is bad for the environment and that’s it with this EHG imperative and right now there is a pressure on the banks from European Central Bank to put this you know
Green Deal kind of objectives of the European Union. The banks go into land, taking into consideration ESG criteria. So they will definitely look at mining and if it’s labeled bad in terms of ESG, then it’s not gonna be very appealing to us to invest. This is how it works.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (25:48.714)
Yes, and what we actually, yeah, what we actually, we are quite worried that it’s discriminative approach. We also mentioned it, our submission to ESMA, that we don’t think it’s a great idea to grant basically European Central Bank, which issued specifically very negative attacking against proof of work reports.
Stephan (25:49.513)
Right, so some people might be… Go on.
Bota Jardemalie (25:50.752)
Mm -hmm. Yeah. Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (25:57.952)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (26:11.754)
that actually European Central Bank is going to have a specific power to include risk linked to climate change and actually define what crypto assets it’s worth to investment and what not. We think that it’s clear competition. I mean, it’s two industries which compete. So how this European Central Bank as one of the most competitive actor in this field can decide what should happen.
with other industry. This is something that has to be absolutely discussed on a level that’s, for example, European Central Bank representative, crypto assets services representative, Bitcoiners, civil society, members of the parliament, members of European Commission. We have to sit on one table and actually discuss all of our arguments why we think it should be or shouldn’t be. And I think we need to work on our strong argument why it’s actually discriminative policy and it shouldn’t be happened.
Bota Jardemalie (26:48.834)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (27:09.769)
Because if it’s just allowed to happen like now, it’s already discussed, it’s already developed, it’s developed not the first year, it’s actually at the stage of announcing and then adopting. It’s going to be like this. So why we should allow European Central Bank define, do you have right to buy Bitcoin, do invest Bitcoin or not? I think it just shouldn’t happen.
Stephan (27:35.945)
Right. And I guess one other argument to lay in, or at least one thing that could happen here is if we think about a micro strategy or some large company buying Bitcoin and holding Bitcoin, that might be harder for, let’s say, an EU company, because if ESMA, this European Securities and Markets Authority says, oh no, proof of work is bad, you’re not allowed to do this kind of thing, then maybe it becomes harder for Bitcoin adoption even at that level also. So I think there’s also an argument to be made around that.
Bota Jardemalie (27:36.418)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (27:58.761)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (27:59.266)
Yeah, absolutely.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (28:03.881)
Yes, but they want to give European Central Bank even to define it, not even to ESMA, to European Central Bank. So the institution which is directly initiate attacks against proof of work in Bitcoin is going to define should you be able to invest or not, you know, in Bitcoin on cryptoasset services providers projects, you know.
Stephan (28:04.809)
Um, and yeah, go on.
Stephan (28:11.623)
Right.
Bota Jardemalie (28:14.434)
Is it?
Bota Jardemalie (28:22.998)
And this is a clear conflict of interest. A clear conflict of interest and unless we say something, unless we say something, you know, nothing will change. This is the issue. But you know, we should stay optimistic and we should always remember.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (28:27.529)
Yes.
Stephan (28:28.393)
Right. They’ve got their own CBDC product coming out.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (28:41.671)
you
Bota Jardemalie (28:43.165)
Even if we have a little bit of time, you know, because they are plants, they are set for 2025, kind of as a kind of key date is one of the key dates, but we still have time and we really need to unite and start working together, try to convince both regulators and the politicians that there are issues, there are problems, because if we are quiet, then it’s easy to say, oh, this is the government, it’s
always against us, they always accepting these stupid policies. But you know, you never defended your position, you never even articulated your position, how they supposed to know. Other industries working very hard day and night to make sure that their positions are in front of the regulator.
Stephan (29:33.231)
Yeah. And on this issue, what can, if there are listeners now who want to help out on this particular proof of work issue, what are you looking for? Are you looking for testimonials? Are you looking for help in some kind of way? What is the ask?
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (29:42.538)
Exactly. Yes. Yes. On the website of Open Dialogue Foundation, you can find a BTC campaign where we published also our ESMA submission. So this is an example how we want to shape your basically experience into understandable for regulators and legislators format. So they understand.
your first -hand information, how your business operates, how you as a miner operate, what you give local communities, you know, benefits, how civil society benefits from it, and how actually environment benefits from it. These are three aspects. We call them positive externalities, positive indicators. We also mentioned in our submission that European institutions should not only focus on negative aspects of proof of work,
but actually they have to include positive indicators, especially social impact indicators, because if you remember that most of the countries in this world are authoritarian and people deprived right to have financial services, then you understand the social impact of Bitcoin specifically, where it’s the only instrument to operate quite oftenly, if we speak about those who are under political repression. So this is something we have to take into account, and this is our strongest argument.
And we need to come together, give these testimonies, run this campaign, educate over 200 next members of parliament, key people from the EU regulators, and defend proof of work. This is what we need to do. In the current situation, the next six months, when this perception and narratives is shaping also in the reports of EU bubble institutions.
Bota Jardemalie (31:23.488)
Okay.
Bota Jardemalie (31:32.608)
Yeah, and we need help. Yeah, I’m sorry.
Stephan (31:32.623)
Great. OK, so for listeners, make sure you check. I’ll put.
Yeah, just so listeners make sure you check in the description, I’ll put the link, but it’s odfoundation .eu, there’s a section around defend PAL submission to ASMR. So I’ll put the link there in the show notes. Burr tuck on.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (31:47.146)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (31:48.766)
Yep.
So we’re really looking for miners who use renewable energy for mining, right? Especially if we can find those in the EU, that would be absolutely brilliant for us. And if we can bring them to the politicians and demonstrate how Bitcoin mining can actually facilitate adoption of renewables, how it stabilizes the grid, things that have been discussed in the US for years, right? And people on the Hill know about it.
it but nobody here in Brussels knows about it and we really need to bring those people to the parliament, to the European Parliament.
And we also need people from the academia. Yeah, sorry. We would like to have, of course, it would be wonderful to have proper reports. It would be wonderful to have proper studies on Bitcoin mining, not biased, preferably peer -reviewed if it’s possible, and to kind of back up the position that Bitcoin community has. That would make our lives so much easier.
Stephan (32:29.559)
Okay, great. So yeah, as I said,
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (32:58.25)
Yeah, and we’re super great.
Stephan (32:58.288)
Right. And I just want to point out as well that there’s a lot of misinformation has gone on in the mainstream press, in years gone by, about proof of work. You see these ridiculous, because people will take some ridiculous statistic that’s exaggerated or just not correct from Digiconomist or someone like that, and then extrapolate it in a way that doesn’t actually work to extrapolate, and then say, oh, look how much.
Bota Jardemalie (33:07.135)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (33:07.934)
Exactly.
Bota Jardemalie (33:09.983)
Oh.
Bota Jardemalie (33:22.461)
Mm -hmm.
Stephan (33:25.077)
energy Bitcoin mining is using or look how much whatever water is being used or something or other in a way that just doesn’t work. And if you look through some of the arguments, really it actually does not. And there are people out there doing the work to try and debunk some of these arguments, but it takes time and work. And so I think that’s what we’re trying to get at here as well. And people can see that as well if they look in that particular link. Some of that is…
Bota Jardemalie (33:27.679)
Uh -huh.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (33:40.106)
Yes.
Stephan (33:49.231)
quite clear and I think those of us who are deeper into the Bitcoin world, we sort of know this stuff already, but there are people who are outside this world who have very little concept of these things and they just see Bitcoin bad, right, in their mind. Okay.
Bota Jardemalie (33:50.783)
Uh huh.
Bota Jardemalie (33:56.191)
Yeah, you should never assume, yeah, yeah, yeah, you should never assume that somebody knows the same, has the same information as you. So you, like, we need to go to the police, we need to understand. If you complain about their stupid policies, you should think, why they’re stupid? Maybe they have agenda, it’s one thing, and we can deal with that as well. Or maybe they just don’t know.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (33:56.554)
they don’t.
Bota Jardemalie (34:25.055)
Maybe they just don’t know and they’ve been manipulated by the media, by other interest groups, and they adopt the decisions that they adopt.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (34:34.858)
And I want to thank there specifically to Troy Cross, Daniel Button, Eric Herzman, Mark Morton, Bert Groot, Kristaps Skitoos and BrainsMining, because they actually part of our submission, they’re part of our campaign to support. We need more this kind of first -hand information. So whenever politicians or regulators ask us, okay, you get it just from somewhere, you know, website or no, we have actually first -hand information and this is a value, value of first…
Stephan (34:35.023)
Yeah, OK. All right.
Bota Jardemalie (34:41.619)
Yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (34:45.311)
Yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (34:49.255)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (35:03.338)
hands testimony. This is so important that Bitcoin miners actually first hand information provide and participate in this kind of meetings, submissions and advocacy campaigns. So guys, we need you no matter where you are because you is going to produce their crazy recommendation with a global approach. So we also have to produce our submissions and testimonies with a global approach. So whenever you are, you do good for communities.
Bota Jardemalie (35:06.047)
Yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (35:17.331)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (35:33.63)
mining Bitcoin, please share with us your experience.
Stephan (35:38.702)
Great, okay. So let’s call that the PAL section, or proof of work section. Let’s now talk about the other aspect of this, where we’ve got, let’s say, the AML, self custody, FATF aspect of this. So can you spell out for us, what are some of the main threats here? What’s the main regulation that’s at play here?
Bota Jardemalie (35:42.367)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (35:47.53)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (35:49.149)
Yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (36:01.375)
Yeah, so, yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (36:01.706)
We need to remember that all of this… What do you want? Okay, you go. No problem.
Bota Jardemalie (36:07.431)
No, Lyuda, keep going, you already started.
Stephan (36:11.18)
Luda, you’re gone.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (36:12.522)
Okay, so we need to remember that all of these attacks for basically Bitcoin and first of all peer -to -peer transactions, they unfortunately coming from financial action task forces. And where they start? They start from a communique issued by G7 countries and we have to look into May 2023 where the main messages were that peer -to -peer transactions, crypto assets transactions,
can be perceived as a threat to financial integrity and security. And our main goal, I mean, we took it very seriously and afterwards we see that main recommendation of financial action task forces, they’re repeating it. Then we went to post -MICA reports of European Parliament and see the same, unfortunately, messages that the next step…
what has to be regulated and what kind of approach has to be taken that self -hosted wallets and peer -to -peer transactions perceived exactly as G7 countries said, as a threat to financial integrity and stability and security. So we should not allow, I mean, simply to happen so, because for us self -hosted wallets is the only instrument how we can operate fundraising or…
keeping my money safe from the dictators. Of course, there are also a lot of difficulties, especially right now with the cost of transactions and speed of transactions with Bitcoin. But anyways, in case of financial institutions, you would never receive this money. They will be immediately simply, you know, this information weaponized against you, arrested. Yeah, exactly. And for example, I want to show my one example. When I’m…
Bota Jardemalie (37:56.485)
Arrested, seized, yeah. Yeah. Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (38:05.427)
I’m quite known activist. I have support, political support, because of attack of at least several authoritarian regime. I also got protection in European countries like European Parliament, Inter -Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Cooperation, Bundestag, French Parliament, Belgian Parliament and many others. They supported me. But at the end of the day, when Kazakhstan, Poland during Kaczynski time or Moldova during Plachatnuk time,
they cooperated in order to get me out or block me, they use my banking data and prosecuted everyone who was donating me through traditional financial institutions, those who received our donation. Some of people were even sentenced in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan just for cooperating with us. And for example, all of our donors and recipients, our volunteers, our even cleaning lady, all of them were under attack and interrogation just because these regimes were able to get my banking data.
But even worse situation was in case of Bota. If you can explain what’s happened with your brother and also with you.
Bota Jardemalie (39:08.957)
Yeah, in my case, my banking data in Belgium…
Was seized by Kazakhstan as well and banking what is banking banking banking? Data is Roadmap to your life, right you they can see everything about you. They can see your connections They know where you go. They know who you basically dealing with and then it makes you very vulnerable and I was already kind of an subject to a Kidnapping friends on the territory of Belgium free people were arrested by Belgium Federal police and sentenced for that
here in Belgium, but Kazakhstan goes and gets my banking data and then weaponizes it and attacks my family in Kazakhstan and I had my brother my older brother arrested in Kazakhstan and Tortured and it took two years for us to actually to have him released Because they took him as a hostage trying to force me to go back to Kazakhstan from Belgium and It’s actually not happening. Unfortunately to me
but it happens like in in countries like Kazakhstan and it happens in Russia and Belarus in in many many other countries around the world and Like for example in Belarus You know a lot of activists outside of country and the people who left Lukashenko regime They’re raising financing and trying to help victims of torture and political prisoners in Belarus and At the beginning they were just transferring money for the benefit
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (40:21.035)
Turkey, yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (40:43.007)
system and then Lukashenko regime just would simply arrest those funds and then people the recipients of those funds they would be charged with participation in terrorist activities and those who transfer money they are charged with financing of terrorism activities and so that makes impossible to help civil society in the country so that’s why activists started using peer -to -peer transactions.
but it’s a bit strange to see that the European Union wants to follow the steps of Belarus where right now they are working and they are already developing the regulations to ban peer -to -peer transactions. And so Belarus is going to ban it and then the European Union is a bit ridiculous, but you see EU is going to do it under this pretext that this is something to protect financial stability.
and to fight anti -money laundering regulations and terrorist financing. But in countries like ours, we’re all labeled as terrorists and extremists and money -wanderers. So this, yeah, and threat to national security. So this all comes from financial action task force recommendations, but then when they’re being implemented, and especially implemented in the systems where you don’t have independent judiciary, where you don’t have independent legislation,
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (41:53.867)
Twitter National Security, Money Launders, yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (42:12.791)
legislative branch. They basically used as an instrument to destroy civil society, to destroy NGOs and opposition. And unfortunately, this is something that can happen anywhere around the world. If you have this mechanism implemented, this is a danger to democracy as well. Because why peer -to -peer transactions should be banned? This is something you write to financial privacy. It seems
to cash transactions, but we see right now this attack on cash and we see attacks on P2P transactions. So this is something that we really need to defend. People don’t defend cash. For some reason, you know, it’s just convenient, especially young people, they don’t care about cash already. They give up that right so easily. And right now we see if we don’t say anything, we will give up that right to have P2P transactions thinking that we can do it.
elsewhere in some kind of in gray zone, but you know people like us we need to have an app readily available in App Store, right? If a wallet is banned, how are we going to get access to that? We are not cyberpunks. Then it means that we will be excluded from basically Bitcoin world. That’s it.
Stephan (43:39.537)
Yeah, okay. So let me just spell some of this out. So there was a lot there. So let me just try to, let’s say, summarize some of the key arguments just to make sure everybody’s following along. So what we’re talking about here is essentially AML and counter -terrorism financing regulations. Now, obviously, now personally, I’d rather abolish the lot, abolish FATF, abolish AML, but they do exist. And now some of the consequences of these laws are that banks and financial institutions are required to collect and…
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (43:39.679)
Yeah, it’s not only you. Yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (43:41.723)
Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (43:45.177)
Oh.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (43:47.915)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (43:49.945)
Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (44:03.675)
Mm -hmm.
Stephan (44:08.145)
store a lot of information on your transactions. That allows, in the European context, or even in a global context, what we’re seeing is this kind of transnational legal assistance frameworks where maybe one country is allowed to request from somebody else, hey, I want that data. And if Stephan or if Luda or if Bota has been doing unapproved political things, then that can have a chilling effect on.
Bota Jardemalie (44:25.723)
Mm -hmm.
Stephan (44:36.177)
you know, pro -freedom advocacy, because now you’re worried about every time you tap your credit card, hey, who else is going to get this data? Not just me and my bank and the credit card company, but this other hostile government potentially could be getting that information. And then the other angle you’re pointing out as well, and which is also in the paper, so people check out in the links, so it’s odfoundation .eu and you can see, can the EU’s anti -money laundering reform help dictators? Right, so that’s the link in the show notes.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (44:43.572)
Exactly.
Bota Jardemalie (44:45.123)
Yeah, that’s exactly.
Bota Jardemalie (44:50.745)
Mm -hmm.
Stephan (45:05.521)
But the other one there is the de -risking aspect, right? Because what’s happening, and I believe Bota, you mentioned earlier in the conversation, this happened to you. So de -risking has become this term that we’re hearing in financial services where maybe there are certain customers who are maybe not that profitable for a bank and they would rather just get rid of you. And they can just use the AML laws to just sort of, well, hey, you know what? This person is working for some kind of not for profit organization that’s high risk in our AML tables. We’re just going to…
Bota Jardemalie (45:09.379)
Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (45:14.041)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (45:32.908)
Exactly.
Bota Jardemalie (45:34.562)
Mm -hmm.
Stephan (45:35.235)
evict that customer, off you go, we’re not going to bank you. And so, you know, people were talking about this even recently with Nigel Farage, I think, you know, last year, there was a big, you know, big thing about this. But essentially, this de -risking is happening out there to people. And so what I think a lot of people, and this is probably something where we as the Bitcoin advocates can do something here is try to help change this perception, right? So the perception is, oh,
Bota Jardemalie (45:37.26)
Yep.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (45:44.044)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (45:44.172)
Yeah, yep.
Stephan (46:03.097)
AML laws are not strong enough. We need stronger AML, right? And so what does that mean in practice? It means, yeah, right? That’s what they think, right? They think, oh, we need stronger AML laws to stop the terrorists and the criminals. And in practice, what’s happening is actually a lot of people are getting financially excluded.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (46:06.856)
No.
Bota Jardemalie (46:10.392)
I’m
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (46:11.084)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (46:13.42)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (46:20.14)
Exactly. This is what we have to say and we need more and more voices. And this is exactly what we’ve done, for example, in meeting and bond with representative financial action task forces. This is exactly what we’re doing explaining German regulators, one of the most strongest also financial action task forces representative. We did also submission as a civil society coalition and as the victims of so -called false positives. We are not false positives, it’s our lives. We were
Bota Jardemalie (46:21.112)
Mm -hmm. Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (46:49.404)
directly affected of abuse of anti -money laundering counter -terrorism regulations. So they cannot say that something abstract. We, life example, when we talk to them that, listen, we are from all over the globe. We from Russia, we from Belarus, we from Kazakhstan, Palestine. I’m living in Brussels. I’m originally from Ukraine. And all of us, like a lot of people from other countries, Turkey, you know, African countries, all of us, we are victims of transnational repression.
Bota Jardemalie (46:49.794)
Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (47:17.818)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (47:18.156)
we deprive right to have financial services as immigrants, as refugees, as NGOs. And this is a result of unfortunately stronger and stronger anti -monopoly regulation. We understand that it’s need to be kind of provision to fight against organized criminal groups. But looking to the results, the results right now, if we don’t fix it, we…
we became a subject of this attack. It became a weapon, very easy and effective weapon for dictators, which can easily get all of our data without any remedies. So till nowadays, there is no remedies how to protect your banking data or your crypto asset services data. So if someone wants to take your business, if you are not activist, if you’re just successful business person and some of your competitors want to basically destroy your business, it’s enough for him to know how actually,
Bota Jardemalie (47:58.491)
Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (48:09.42)
these IML rules operate, to organize smear campaign against you, or just to order you to place in some database which bought by financial institutions, you know, and that’s it. End of your business. You will be lost to your banking services.
Stephan (48:23.665)
Yeah, yeah. Right, at one point I think I just wanted to highlight that, so as you mentioned, this smear campaign, just to kind of spell it out, and you spell this out, it went very well in the submission here, but this smear campaign idea, right, if somebody doesn’t like you, and if they can get negative press shared about you, that could cause your existing bank to, quote unquote, de -risk you, right, because now, because what’s happening, and so again, some of the context for listeners who don’t know, right,
Bota Jardemalie (48:24.475)
Yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (48:33.241)
Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (48:38.969)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (48:45.844)
Exactly.
Bota Jardemalie (48:47.641)
Yes.
Stephan (48:53.201)
And sometimes it’s not even the quote unquote fault of the bank teller who you’re talking with. It’s actually some automated system that’s going in the background searching you or the company name for some kind of negative press. And if negative press comes up, oh, boom, now there’s a flag. Now maybe some compliance analyst in the compliance department of the bank has to review your account. And then now they say, hey, Luda is associated with this particular thing or Stephan is associated with this thing or Bota is associated with this thing. Boom, cut their account because we’re just going to de -risk them.
Bota Jardemalie (49:12.985)
Mm -hmm. Yeah.
Stephan (49:20.657)
And so there’s some of this stuff that’s happening at an automated system level and some of that has been driven at, you know, if you trace it back enough, it’s because of AML regulations.
Bota Jardemalie (49:29.787)
Yeah, no, it’s actually the oldest.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (49:29.804)
Yes, and I will say even more. For example…
Bota Jardemalie (49:35.099)
All these mechanisms, yeah, all these mechanisms, they were adopted, like all these compliance mechanisms, automated compliance mechanisms. At the bank, they were adopted, pursuant to the financial action task force recommendations, right? It’s a part of this anti -money laundering requirements that each bank should have. But it now became like this beast on its own, because how bank compliance works, it’s a black box, right?
Stephan (49:35.695)
Go on, Bertolt.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (49:35.788)
Yeah, if I’m –
Bota Jardemalie (50:05.053)
We really we deal with the bank with the front office, right? With some nice lady or a gentleman that friendly to us trying to be helpful. But then we receive letters that, you know, there is a decision to close down your accounts. Please take your funds within like this number of days. And that’s it. Right. So what happens in that black box of compliance? Really, it’s for regular customers is not known.
But there is a mechanism and right now it’s more and more it’s not really becoming less human, more AI mechanism, right? That all this data is picked up. And when we say smear campaign, it’s not necessarily some kind of negative press in respectable media, right? That’s something that we’re investigating, journalists discovered some corruption scandal. No, it’s very often like in our cases and some absolutely
Obscure websites that exist only to spread this propaganda. It’s done in various or the languages languages that like Luda was attacked in 27 languages, but what 27 languages and they know not Languages. Yeah of the member states. It’s like some Hindu why she’s attacking Hindu like what is it? Yeah, what is the public interest or like there was a newspaper in pocket in some website in Pakistan in
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (51:16.748)
Yes, imagine all possible languages exist.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (51:24.284)
Indian, you know, yes.
Moroccan.
Bota Jardemalie (51:34.749)
Why? Why this people who read an Urdu needs to know about some Ludmila Kozlovska, they won’t be able to pronounce your name, right?
This is done only to be picked up. So this is like a situation, right? It’s something the idea is like, you know, you throw mud, something will stick. And this is what happens. Something will stick, definitely it will get picked up. And then all this negative press. So the bank has this dilemma. Should they read, translate and read it and analyze and ask a client questions? What it means? How are you going to address these allegations? Are they really baseless?
there is something into that.
it’s going to be too expensive. It’s easier for them just to kick out the client like that. And unfortunately, this is we are saying that it happened to us. Some people say, oh, we are rare examples, et cetera. But this is happening more and more in the US. We see how it’s happening with the public figures, people that are attacked by mainstream media and for their political views, right? And we should not look at what their political views, whether it’s Kanye West or Nigel Farrell. We don’t care, right, about the
We are care about this mechanism Why some bank decides whether this person is worth is a client on the basis of the political views of that person? This is an absolutely ridiculous mechanism, but you have to look at that kind of wider. This is a real mechanism for censorship Political censorship, so it’s already exist in the West and if we just don’t say anything it’s gonna work more and more later and
Bota Jardemalie (53:20.765)
when everything is going to be automated, then we won’t be able to find who is doing what, and whether it’s a bank or somebody else, because all this compliance is going to be outsourced elsewhere, somewhere on the cloud. And that’s it. And so some mechanism going to decide who’s going to live and who’s going to die. This is quite a dangerous trend.
Stephan (53:44.753)
And one other thing around, I guess there’s also stuff around the travel rule and some of these other aspects that are coming as well. So that will also make compliance more difficult and it will also become maybe a little bit harder to actually self custody your Bitcoin. So obviously most Bitcoiners we care about, not your keys, not your coins. So if you could spell out for us, what is the threat there?
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (54:10.445)
Exactly. I mean, you actually pointed out very, very well. I mean, what’s happened with us and why we care about Bitcoin, we call it Bitcoin, it’s human rights. Now, when we see that financial institutions use as a weapon against civil society, against the opposition, Bitcoin is a human right. And when we see that all crypto assets services providers going to be operating just in the way how traditional financial institutions, we understand,
Bota Jardemalie (54:11.099)
Good? Yeah.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (54:38.859)
that crypto assets services providers, unfortunately, going to be the same weapon for regimes, just as traditional banks. And that’s why, of course, we defend everything around self -hosted wallets, peer -to -peer transactions, but not only. For us, it’s also important to defend coinjoin and also mixers, because this is something which should protect our privacy. If regimes know and can identify with their very sophisticated tools, everyone on blockchain, and stay this information forever.
all of us expose as activists. So we need to have privacy tools to be able to protect. We don’t go outside and just expose how much money we have in our pocket. The same should be with our self -posted wallets. We should have just like general tools to protect our privacy and our security even. So this is a basic right. And again, if we don’t explain, of course,
Bota Jardemalie (55:07.937)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (55:30.687)
Unfortunately, by bureaucrats who perceive everything with the easy approach, we need to overregulate everything just because we need to escape all criminals. And at end of the day, who is using the biggest financial institutions in third -artisanitarian countries? Dictators. Who support organized criminal groups? Dictators. So we need to look at what real instruments transacted with billions of dollars and other currencies used by organized criminal groups.
and how to deal with it, not just blaming and making a scope go to actually Bitcoin, which the only complicated, I have to say very complicated, but the only one human rights tool for activists right now, because we don’t have others instruments. That’s it.
Bota Jardemalie (56:07.256)
Yep.
Stephan (56:17.425)
Okay, so look, we’re getting close to time, but let’s summarize a few of the key concerns. So as we’ve spoken about, I guess there’s two main categories here. You’ve got the kind of the proof of work attacks and then the attacks on self custody and, you know, privacy and security concerns. And so we are looking for people who have useful stories in terms of proof of work mining or on the financial exclusion.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (56:28.269)
Yes.
Bota Jardemalie (56:33.337)
Mm -hmm.
Stephan (56:46.769)
side of human rights stories. And I think there’s also a public battle, right? It’s like a social and cultural battle, right? We can’t let there be this perception of, oh, Bitcoin is only for criminals and drug money kind of thing. No, actually, it’s a good thing. It is a normal thing to want to save with Bitcoin and to use Bitcoin. And whether if you want to use Bitcoin without
Bota Jardemalie (56:51.447)
Mm -hmm.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (57:00.173)
Exactly.
Bota Jardemalie (57:02.283)
Absolutely.
Stephan (57:15.345)
third parties if you want to be out of self -custody it’s an important thing so I think those are some of the angles that you know if you’re a listener of the show make sure you share this out especially with other EU Bitcoiners because it does impact you so any closing thoughts there from your side and yeah just I guess finish up with any thoughts on you know the ask from listeners
Bota Jardemalie (57:17.089)
Mm -hmm.
Bota Jardemalie (57:35.769)
No. Just…
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (57:36.621)
Yeah, we need as much as possible support and testimonies.
Bota Jardemalie (57:41.561)
Yeah, and especially, you know, in the area of an…
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (57:42.477)
what I’m going, yeah.
Bota Jardemalie (57:46.049)
of de -risking because it’s very hard to… We actually know a of people that had their bank accounts closed and lost access to the financial services. And when we say de -risk, it basically means people lose their bank accounts, they have problems obtaining insurance, mortgage, like your name, right? It’s all financial systems. So we’re looking for people like that who are willing to give testimonies because…
there is a certain stigma attached. Nobody, when people encounter de -risking, they don’t want to speak about it because it’s kind of shameful. I’m not a criminal, why I got kicked out by my bank. There can be a number of reasons and you probably don’t even know about them. You have to raise these questions, you should be open about it. This is one aspect, right? We definitely, as we spoke already, we need more miners especially.
especially those who use renewables.
that’s for us kind of key people because we cannot address any technical issues on our own. We have expertise from a different angle. And then I just want to say that, you know, on behalf of both of us, we as human, like Luda said, that Bitcoin is a human right. And you know, you hear a lot in the Bitcoin community that Bitcoin is freedom, right? But we are human right defenders. We know that both,
freedom and human rights. They should be defended and you have to fight for human rights and for freedom because it’s very easy to lose both. And this is the same with Bitcoin. You have to fight for this privilege to use this instrument. So join the fight. Yeah. Yeah. Join the fight guys.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (59:26.903)
Exactly.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (59:39.021)
Yes, we need people who will go with us. Yeah, exactly.
Stephan (59:39.921)
Okay, well great.
Stephan (59:44.689)
Okay, great. Well, I’ll thank you both for joining. As I said, links are in the show notes and Luda and Bota, thank you for joining me today.
Lyudmyla Kozlovska (59:51.917)
Thank you, thank you, Stephan. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for listening to us.
Bota Jardemalie (59:52.249)
Thank you.
Stephan (59:57.361)
Okay, just a sec.