Bad Options For the Fiat Debt Problem & Why Buy Bitcoin

Hi and welcome to the Stefan Livera podcast, a show about Bitcoin and Austrian economics. Today for episode one hundred and fifty-seven, we talk about some of the bad options on the menu for dealing with the fiat debt problem and why buy Bitcoin. This show brought to you by Kraken, one of the world's leading Bitcoin exchanges with a really high quality platform offering one of the most liquid platforms on the market. On Earth for Bitcoin trading with high trading volume and low fees, Kraken offer twenty four seven support, they're consistently rated the best from a security standpoint, and now it's even easier for active traders and institutions to avoid friction when executing orders with the launch of nine new foreign currency pairs, a combined offering that allows clients to be more agile and sophisticated. Don't forget there's Kraken Pro mobile app delivering all the security and features you love about the Kraken exchange. There's the Kraken OTC desk, there's Kraken Margin up to five Five times leverage and Kraken futures up to fifty times leverage. Go and sign up at kraken dot com or find Kraken Pro on Google Play or Apple App Store. Next up, Unchained Capital, Bitcoin financial services done with multisig. Are you looking out for the security of your Bitcoin private keys? Are you using something like collaborative custody? With Unchained, you can have a two of three multi-signature vault. You can keep two different keys, say one Trezor, one Ledger, and the third key can be held by Unchained, and that's a good A good way to help secure your Bitcoin and split up your keys. If you need liquidity, if you need USD, you can put up some Bitcoin as collateral and borrow against it. It's stored on chain, dedicated multisig, and it's never rehypothecated. Unchained are producing really awesome content and open source contributions such as Hermit and Caravan. You can check out your multisig and test it on there. I think you'll enjoy partnering with them. Go and learn more at Unchained Dash Capital dot com. Next up, Swan Bitcoin. Bitcoin is better money, and you Stack it regularly without manual processing, right? If you're in the US, look up swanbitcoin dot com. You can link any major US bank account via ACH and auto buy weekly or monthly. The Bitcoin is delivered to your wallet or stored with a licensed and regulated custodian. Swan Bitcoin's focus is on education and Bitcoin advocacy. Jan Pritzker, author of Inventing Bitcoin, is their CTO, and Brady from Citizen Bitcoin is head of education. I'm involved as an advisor with a small equity stake also. So there's givebitcoin dot io for your Bitcoin gifting and Go to swanbitcoin dot com for your automated Bitcoin stacking. Last but not least, Cyphersafe, cyphersafe dot io, producing the Cypherwheel product. Have you invested in a Bitcoin hardware wallet or are you using a multisig with multiple hardware wallets? Well, you've got some twelve or twenty-four word bip thirty-nine seeds that you need to back up, and you need to back them up in a way that's fireproof, waterproof, rustproof, petproof, and tamper evident. The Cypherwheel is compact, comes in a wheel shape, masks the words of your Make sure that you or your loved ones have access to your bitcoins if an accident occurs. Orders are going out now, go and check out cyphersafe dot io. This is a great episode continuation on from my earlier episode one o nine with Preston Pish, and Andy is a cfa and cfp who has been writing about Bitcoin from an investment standpoint, and we have a really interesting conversation in this interview around the fiat money debt problem and the bad options on how we get out of it. I think it's actually quite relevant. Given some of the recent action on the market as well, so I'm sure you will enjoy the episode. Here is the interview. Andy, welcome to the show. Thank you, Stefan.

Glad to be here.

So, Andy had the chance to meet you in, at, rather at Bitcoin 2019, at the conference, and also had a chance now to have a look through your book, Why Buy Bitcoin? I think it's great. and I think you've got an interesting background because it's not the typical, background. So tell us a bit

I don't mind, I, I wanna cover one or two things first. the first is the usual disclaimer, which is, no, no, this is investment advice and all opinions are my own and not those of, my employer, Westcap Group. So that's one. And the second thing is, you know, I'd like to start by observing that I've, I've noticed that a lot of, a lot of Aussies do quite well in Bitcoin, and, so I was wondering if, you know, I was wondering if an accent would, You know, I was thinking about Stephan Livera and Frya Hess and Alex Vitzki and The Wizard of Oz and, you know, this guy Bruce walking he's this baby boomer and he walks around miles a day and he, he, he tweets about, about these podcasts he's listening to in Bitcoin. Therefore, I've been, I've been working on it, working on the, the accent. So I've been working on saying things like "give Bitcoin," and "buy Bitcoin," and "save Bitcoin," and "stack sets," and "orange coin good number go up." I'll

tell you what, your accent is, it's sounding very close to the Kiwi New Zealander accent. yeah.

Busted. Busted. the funny thing is, is I have been to Australia, but it was over twenty years ago, but I did go to, to New Zealand, and that trip was more recent, so, I think I failed. Anyway. yeah. So quick, quick background on me. grew up in LA, went to school in Massachusetts, started my career on Wall Street, worked, Sachs doing investment banking, and, I did private equity next, and then I worked for a hedge fund, in LA doing, wide range of stuff, distressed debt and, and equities and, and private debt and private equity, and, I was on Wall Street before the financial crisis, and then I was doing, doing the investing, after the financial crisis, and then I, I joined my family firm, which is, which does wealth management, and that was seven years ago And, and I got, you know, I got excited basically about growing that business and, and helping out clients rather than investing for faceless institutions. And, yeah, so that, so that takes me to today, and obviously that doesn't talk about the Bitcoin part, but I'm, I'm sure we'll get to that.

Excellent. And I, I find that interesting because in Bitcoin, it's arguably, you could say, at least in the first few years, it's been very retail, just individual level hodlers driven. And, you know, over the last few years, there's been a bit more of talk of the so-called institutional money and so on, but in some ways, I actually prefer Talking to individuals and, you know, treating it like a bottom-up revolution. tell us a bit about your, your work, as, you know, working, you're a CFA and a CFP and w-working at Westcap. Tell us a little bit about that and how you've been teaching your clients about Bitcoin.

Yeah, sure. So I get it, man. I, I think the grassroots, you know, sound money, perspective is actually the most important one. however- However, this f-for Bitcoin to reach its potential, it has to get adopt-- Well, I shouldn't say it has to get adopted as an investment, but I think it, it would help an awful lot. so there, so there's that piece. I come at it from both angles, right? I'm a big believer in sound money that is, uncensorable and hard to confiscate, and, but yeah, I'm also an investor. So Explaining it to clients, you know, the story of the book was, I knew I was gonna have to explain it to clients after I'd figured it out as a fiduciary, right? I'd figure it out, oh, okay, this is a, this is an investment that has huge potential upside, and when I probability weight that upside and compare it to the price, I say, "Wow, I gotta, I gotta own this, and anyone should own this, at least a little bit." And so then I gotta explain it to clients, and, the first conversations I had were

Knew what was in the mainstream media, which is the, the usual fud and, and the bad coverage and, and literally, you know, factual errors that, that most of the mainstream media serve up to us. And so, yeah, it was, it was a challenge, and, and the book was in large part an effort to, create something that I could push to my clients and say, "Look, I thought really hard about this. Please read it, 'cause it's very readable, and, after you've read it,

Yeah, and also in terms of coming from the Wall Street world, were you already into Austrian economics and more like a free market libertarian yourself, or was that kind of a journey that you went on, while learning a bit about Bitcoin? I wish

Stefan, Stefan, where were you, a few years ago when I needed you? The, the answer is actually you were, you were doing your thing and educating, educating people before almost anybody, at least, you know, in this format. No, I had no Austrian economics I wish that I had had exposure to that stuff. I was, I was born and raised a Keynesian. I was an econ major in, in college, and, yeah, God, I wish I'd, I wish I'd had that education. And so yes, Bitcoin was the forcing function for understanding what is money and therefore delving into the Austrians.

Yeah, and that comes through in your book as well, because you talk about Carl Menger and, you know, some of the, the Austrians like Mises and Rothbard and so on, people Every episode, right? That's right. But I found that interesting as well, because some people come into it and then, you know, they learn about Bitcoin and then that's their reason for learning about some of these other things that they wouldn't have seen otherwise. So can you tell us a little bit about that? And do you find that a challenge when you're speaking to your clients, because they may not have learned about these ways of thinking either?

Yeah, it's definitely a challenge. my experience is that very, very few have had any exposure at all to the- Austrian school, and that's unfortunate. So, yeah, it's, it's an uphill battle in that regard. I certainly can't tell my clients to, you know, stop everything and go read Human Action. Of course, of course. It's not gonna fly. so, so yeah, you, you know, I do my best to, I do my best to summarize. I think the good news is, you know, and some of these stats are in the book and the graphs, right? When you present, when you, when you approach it from just, you know, the, the ratio of debt to GDP, right? Just debt levels in general, and you argue that, okay, maybe this can't literally go on forever, That's at least a reasonable, I think, starting point. that would have been a really hard, argument, I don't know, a decade, well, a decade or two ago, but now it's, now I think it makes more sense to people. But yeah, man, it's a, it's an uphill battle. people don't-- People have not been exposed to Austrian economics, and, I applaud the work that you do and that others do in that, in that regard.

Well, thank you for that. And, I think His book. I think some of this material, in some ways, is like a continuation from one of my earlier episodes with Preston Pish, episode one o nine, where, again, he's coming from an investor perspective, and the typical investor is thinking, "Okay, but what's the yield on this thing? Where is my dividend or what is my interest income from Bitcoin? And Bitcoin doesn't have any of that, so why would I buy it? " And so what's the typical way you would explain that to someone coming from, what we might say is a traditional investor mindset?

Yeah. personal journey. And so, I was raised, I guess, a value investor, and so this notion of something that doesn't generate cash flows having value is like, or was anathema, basically, right? And it was anathema actually, hats off to my former coworker, colleague, Matt Fair he some years ago, you know, tried to, tried to pummel me with some good, good arguments about, about sound money and particularly gold. And it didn't really sink in, but I think he probably sowed some seeds, there, in my mind. it was twenty sixteen when I started paying attention to some of the, more capable major macro traders like George Soros, like Stan Druckenmiller. And they were going long gold at the time, and I thought to myself, "Okay, that's interesting. Like, these guys are way smarter than I am. they have better investment track records than really anyone in the investment business, you know, including Warren Buffett. maybe I oughta pay attention to these guys." So that was the point when I did some homework and started to understand the value of sound money and the, and the possibility that it's something, that didn't generate Cash flow could, could accrue some value. And that's actually when we first got our clients involved. So interestingly, my firm is now over thirty years old. I haven't been there thirty years, right? My, my father and his co-founder founded it that many years ago. But never in the history of the firm had we invent-- invested in gold until I brought it in, in twenty sixteen. And it was a small position, but over time, actually as I paid more attention to the Austrians, including through my learning pro-process with Bitcoin, I then, started sizing up the gold position, you know, as well as taking the Bitcoin position. So I don't know if that answered your question, but, that's kind of how I, how I came at it. Oh, well, actually, so to your question about, you know, how it's hard. I mean, I actually do use the Menger, the simple Menger framework of three kinds of goods: consumption good, capital good, monetary good, and the monetary good doesn't generate cash flows and it doesn't generate utility except for the utility of transacting. And, you know, I, I don't, I haven't come up with a better way of, of explaining it than that. You, you probably have. I'd like to hear what, how you, how you pitch it.

Well, I mean, that is the canonical Austrian way of thinking as well, because you've got consumer goods, which are things that you consume right now, you have capital goods, which are used to make those goods, and then you've got money

In episode fifteen with Stephan Kudceller as well, where we were talking about this idea that Mises spoke about money as being sui generis, it's one of a kind, it's unique, it's not meant to be like the other things. And so I think that's basically the typical way I would answer that question, which, again, it might be difficult to articulate to somebody who's coming from a traditional investor mindset, and so let's move into the characteristics of a good money, because this is one of those things where you can find lots of different- Different articles or essays or books that have different, I mean, it's kind of like people just have their own way of coming to the same conclusion. but give us your ideas on how you spell out what makes a good money.

Yeah. So I have, unfortunately, I have, fourteen of them. And one of my, you know, one of my personal sort of frustrations with learning about Bitcoin and learning about money in general was people were talking about, I don't know, four or five or six or seven characteristics Six of money. And I couldn't, I couldn't get my head around there being less than ten, and I thought really hard about it, and I, and I came up with this list. And so the list is identifiable, transferable, durable, divisible, dense, scarce, short-term stable value, long-term stable value, fungible, unseizable, censorship resistant, private, required for some important purpose, and then backed by a powerful agent. And I can talk about any of Those, but I think it's important to note that each of those is important, they're not necessarily equally important, and no form of money scores well on all those characteristics. By the way, none of those is binary, right? They're each sort of a continuum, a sliding scale in their own right. and then of course, different people value different characteristics, you know, more than others. So, so there's a lot of, shades of gray in there. But those are the fourteen that I came up with, and, You know, I'm, I'm interested in your, in your, you know, perspective on, whether any of these are, are illegitimate or whether I, I missed any.

So I think mostly that all sounds It, it all makes a lot of sense to me. I think it's almost just like you're coming at it from a different way of explaining, and perhaps you're putting it into the context for a person living in twenty nineteen or twenty twenty of, "This is how you can think about money." the only one I'm not quite clear on is the, and you, you might know this as well, the "backed by a powerful agent" part. I'm not clear on why that is kind of needs to be, an important characteristic of money. But what's your view

there The fact that so many people today talk about the primacy of the dollar and then they talk about being backed by the US military, right? And I think that's real. I mean, I do think that the history of geopolitics and conflicts, you know, wars recently fought by- This country, you know, over the last several decades, indicate that countries, you think about the petrodollar, right? Countries are more willing to, let's say, use the dollar, denominate, you know, oil contracts or, other economic arrangements in the dollar, in part because if they don't, the, you know, the boot, the jackboot of the US is gonna come down on their throat. So I would say that's the, that's my pers- perspective on why the backing of a powerful agent, and in the modern era, that's the US military,

is important. Right. I see what you're saying. And I think that to me, I'm thinking more from, again, so coming from like an Austrian perspective, I'm thinking of, say, Dr. Joseph Schumpeter and his explanation on sound money, and part of his explanation is actually, you know, being free from government interference, right? And so it's kind of-- And again, it's not like bringing an ideological blinder to it, choose. And I think even if you look back at Mengo and so on, he would spell out, okay, what were some of the political or social impositions upon what we use for our exchange and our, consumption? Because if there was some kind of big societal taboo about using a certain thing, then maybe that wouldn't be, the money that we choose. And so I think to some extent, maybe this kind of backed by a powerful agent, I think maybe that part is, it, it sort of bends and shifts a bit. And with Bitcoin, again, as I It's, it's like this asymmetric defensive technology, and the question is, will, with over time, will that be, it proven out to be enough of a defensive technology that you don't need a backing by a powerful agent?

Yes. Now, I like that framing a lot. I mean, there's no question that if you return to first, first principles about, you know, what is the best money in a vacuum, right? Then I agree with you a hundred percent, and I agree with you about those, You know, those guys and their perspectives, like, you know, starting with a blank slate, what would be the best money? And so the backed by a powerful agent, yeah, is only-- it's only relevant because of, I suppose, because of the network effect factor and this ability of some p-- power to, you know, impose this, this system after having left the gold standard. You know, there's, if the US military didn't exist in its form of the last few decades There's little doubt in my mind that the dollar's primacy would have been, you know, severe-- well, significantly impacted and, you know, perhaps we would have moved on to something else. I don't know, perhaps we would have moved back to gold, perhaps we would move to Bitcoin more quickly. So yeah, it's this sort of, it's this sticky, human and government-created, thing that causes us to, or let's say, delays us from moving toward the absolute best money, and we arguably would have had a faster transition if not for, the existence of this factor. Yeah. Yeah.

And I think it's a fair point that you, you were saying here, like in that stipulation, you're saying if we, if there weren't a US government military, but then let's also remember that if it wasn't the US government, it might be some other government, and so it's, it's kind of like it comes down To what, what technology do humans have that enables them to defensively protect their value against an outsider, inflationist, or an outsider controller, let's say? Agreed. Agreed. Yeah. And so-

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, go on. No, no, I was gonna say, 'cause you made a point about, you know, how this, this new, newly- Hard to control and unconfiscatable asset, you know, is better money, and there's no doubt in my mind that it's better money. I mean, one of the things I do in the book is I, you know, I score the dollar and I score gold and I score Bitcoin as they exist today in my, you know, as I see them, and then I score them, I score Bitcoin basically in the future. In other words, how it's developing over time and the direction it's likely to go. And, and Bitcoin clearly, you know, has characteristics that are head and shoulders dollar. And, you know, we could delve into those, but, but it's also catching up on some of the o- other characteristics, as, as time goes on.

Yeah. And I also think it's fair to point out that the situation has changed over time. So when Karl Menger was writing in the eighteen hundreds and Mises was writing in the early ni- early and mid nineteen hundreds, they wouldn't have foreseen the things that the US government would later come to do or that gold became somewhat neutral. By the government because the way it's stored is very centralized. And so I think that's also an important factor as well that, people have to be cognizant of the historical situation that the world was living in and what were the typical ways that money got controlled.

Yeah, agreed. Which, which is- And, you know, if you advert that, you, you-- it, it makes it all the more amazing and impressive that the framework that they applied or that they created, you know, so many years ago, still basically, you know, governs, I would say, right? I mean, I haven't found- I haven't found much, I mean, like I say, I can quibble about sort of what are the characteristics that they identify versus the ones identify, I identify, as you say, in a world where new characteristics are possible or characteristics that didn't exist then, you know, could exist today. But yeah, the basic framework they laid out, so many decades and centuries ago is, you know, still governs. These guys were brilliant. There's no wonder, no wonder you've been studying them for so many years. I wish I'd found them earlier.

don't Real, I think the other big one that comes to mind, and so this is a very common question, oh, but isn't Bitcoin volatile? And so in your characteristics, you've got two there, you've got short-term stable value and long-term stable value. So what are you getting at with that? With

that? Yeah. I think this is an important distinction because people, as you say, get, they really get hung up on this all the time. And, yeah. So here we go to the The question of what is money, and I go to the, medium of exchange across space and time. And the medium of exchange across space is, you know, the actual transacting in real time, and then the medium of exchange across time is the store of value concept. And I, and there, and that's where the bifurcation exists, you say, okay, the store of value, the medium of exchange across time, is the characteristic of not getting inflated away over time. And that's where things like gold and Bitcoin are strong and the dollar and fiat currencies are weak. Versus the medium of exchange across space, sort of in short term time, is the short term, price stability characteristic, whereby, yeah, whereby things don't get repriced all that frequently in dollars. You know, the, the price of the sandwich today is more or less the price of the sandwich tomorrow, even if it goes up over, you know, a period of a year or a few years. And that is an important distinction. That people get hung up on, I would say most people get hung up when they discount or they, or they downplay the moniness of Bitcoin or the ability of, of Bitcoin to realize the potential of becoming the world's money. They focus on that short term price stability and, yeah, you know, that's actually one of Bitcoin's weakest characteristics today, in my opinion, it is that, short term price stability, and I believe that We will, if Bitcoin realizes its potential, if and when, which is probably, you know, two orders of magnitude away on, on price, right? then we'll have more stability. I do think that because of the limited supply, it'll never be as, stable as, quote unquote, stable, short-term stable as the dollar. And, you know, it's got the likewise the same thing with, gold potentially. it actually could become more short-term stable than gold because it becomes so much larger than gold, But yeah, that's, that's kind of the framework, the framework that I apply.

Yeah. And, I actually think, in some ways, because the supply is more predictable, it might actually become even more stable and more predictable in that way. but I think in some sense, it might just be that it's like central banks try to hide a little bit of the danger and the volatility, and at the risk of creating like the more big, you know, black swan kind of volatility. And I think if we were to-- let's say we did live For a Bitcoin standard, maybe it's more just like we would more accurately perceive the little supply shocks and, you know, natural, emergencies or disasters that occur and so on that change maybe people's propensity to hold money and so on. But that would be almost more like a true, perception of what consumers, demand to hold money is. So that's, yeah, I think that's one idea. I think

that's interesting. The, the, you're right, it would be, it could be more true and more real. And I guess the question Are you suggesting that it would therefore be less volatile, or you're just saying that it would be a more accurate reflection of, you know, human action, basically people's preferences? Yes, a more

accurate reflection of human, preferences. And I think to some extent it's like these central banks and these governments who intervene into money, they're kind of selling us this false promise that, oh, let me control the money and I'll keep it stable for you guys, when it's no-- it's more like, no, actually, there is no such thing as monetary stability. So that's how I tend to agree.

I mean, you go back to the question of, you know, price gouging and, you know, volatility in times of scarcity and shortage, and why not apply the same to the monetary good or, I guess, consumption goods as the, as the inverse or the other side of the, of the exchange rate with money? Yeah, why shouldn't, why shouldn't prices be more volatile? If more people wanna buy the, you know, particular consumption good or capital good, this price should go up, and if the next day not As many people wanna buy it, its price should go down. I, I, I'll buy it.

Yeah. a-and so you're also involved with, you know, professional money management. Another important aspect of that is returns. The only, you know, let's talk about returns that you can eat, meaning after taxes and fees and so on. So I think taxes is an important one because you're in, you're in America that has a capital gains tax. I'm in Australia, there's a capital gains tax. That will, at least in the short to medium term, impact the Use Bitcoin as money. But what's your view on the tax situation and potentially how that changes maybe over the long term?

Yeah. Yeah, tax, I agree with you entirely, is one of the, one of the bugbears that we're dealing with right now, with the monetization of Bitcoin. I guess I could look at it a couple of ways. The way I presented in the book is, you know, I asked the question, "Is Bitcoin money?" And yes, Bitcoin is money, but on the other hand, as an investment, it is an investment in an asset that is becoming money. In other words, it hasn't fully monetized. By the time it does fully monetize, well, then, you know, the value will be much higher. So, you know, am I, am I that focused? Right now on, making sure that people can transact and, you know, buy a cup of coffee, I'm not that focused on it. I do think it has to happen ultimately, but I think it would actually sort of be okay, you know, if it's years from now. It would be great, if it happened sooner, of course. and there's no doubt that, there's no doubt that tax and tracking tax is an impediment to, you know, current, you know, medium of exchange use today. It would be interest- it's interesting Interesting and unknowable, right? We don't know the counterfactual. Well, maybe we do. I guess there are, there aren't, isn't Germany? I'm trying to remember. I think there are some countries where it's basically not, you know, taxable, as a capital asset.

Right. But Singapore, Portugal, Switzerland, Germany, if you hold for one, more than one year, there are a few off the top of my head that I know of.

Yeah, there you go. So I guess you could sort of-- It would be an interesting study to compare,

to transact today. I suspect that the transaction volume isn't that much higher, in those countries yet because of what you know and what I know, which is that the potential value of this thing is so much higher that, you know, I'd be crazy basically to, to part with it. I'd rather just, huddle strong. I'd rather just hoard it. So, yeah, I, I think it's a problem that has to be solved in the long run, and I hope it gets solved soon. But if it doesn't get solved soon- You know, I don't know that it matters all that much for this phase. Right, and-

Right, exactly. And I think, if you project out into decades in the future, if it really does become commonly used money, well, then I think governments of the world will have to change the tax rules around it to not treat it like a capital asset every time you spend some of it, right? Because then it just becomes completely unwieldy for anyone. So, yeah. and also, I think when we're thinking of traditional investment, right? So I like to read a So much nowadays, but I used to read a lot of those, and some of them, some of those books would talk about, you know, if you read, say, "Bogleheads," or, or some of these books about, you know, buying into ETFs and stay the course, right? Just buy and buy and buy. I, I wonder how much of that is being driven by central banks pushing asset prices continually up, such that a lot of the traditional investment world are just thinking, "Oh, well, just keep buying and over the long run, it'll just keep going up anyway." But how's, how is coming into this whole Austrian rabbit hole changed your view there?

Yes. So,

In 2016, I put out a memo to clients saying, "Based on where valuations are today, you should expect significantly lower returns in the future than you have in the last several decades." So And I still believe that. so that tells you that, yeah, I agree with you 100%. There's no question in my mind that money printing by all the central banks, especially the Fed, has flowed into both, capital assets and consumption goods. And then the problem, well, I shouldn't say the problem, but the countervailing force there is-- there is no countervailing force in capital goods, you know, in capital assets, right? So stocks go up, real estate goes up, you know, all risk assets are, are driven by that money printing. And then on the, on the consumption goods side, it's more complicated because, yes, you have money printing, which some of which is no doubt flowing into those, but you've got the countervailing, you know, forces of automation and free trade, at

That have been holding those prices down. But yeah, I agree with you a hundred percent that when you look at, people who are saving and investing today and thinking, well, and looking at recent history and saying, "Oh, wow, you know, just indexing, you know, basically buying the index has made tons of money," that is, that is the dangerous trap of, extrapolating the, the past into the future. And yeah, people really ought to be careful about that and They ought to have significantly lowered expectations about, future returns in both equities and real estate, especially, yeah, compared to the, to the past for sure.

Yeah, and I think it just is a difficult thing to try and explain because people who've tried to call tops have, over the last, let's say, seven, eight years, let's say, have consistently been wrong because up until now, it's just, it's just been continually rising higher and higher, and they, they, and- And then, so then the opposing view might just say, "Oh, look, you guys are just perma bears, you guys don't understand. See, the central bank is riding to the rescue. How do you think about timing and, is it just essentially sizing of your position? So, is, is that the way that you try to manage that?"

Yeah, it is sizing the position. So we're global asset allocators, and, you know, anything that's publicly traded for the most part, you know, we own for our clients. And then the question is, yeah, what You know, do you overweight or do you underweight? Do you ever go to zero on any asset? And we're reluctant to go to zero on just about any asset, except for when it's, you know, extraordinarily, you know, obviously overvalued. And so yes, at the margin we, we adjust. And so we adjust over time toward assets that are cheaper, in our estimation, and we adjust away from, or we rebalance away from assets that are more expensive. But it's- As you pointed out, you can have very long periods of time where a particular asset class significantly outperforms others and it's durable, it's like, you know, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten years. It's been interesting, US stocks, especially large US stocks, especially, you know, the internet giants have crushed all the competition in terms of performance, for literally a decade now. It's been, it's been dramatic And so, you know, we wish that we could foresee the outper-- those assets that are gonna significantly outperform over literally, you know, half a decade or a decade of time. That's extraordinarily difficult to do. so, yeah, we, we remain diversified and we size according to expectations, but you can, you know, it's been a tough period to be a globally diversified investor, right? If you're an American you would have been better off just buying and owning the S&P for the last decade.

Right. And then that's also a funny feedback loop there, because if you are a professional wealth manager and you, quote unquote, did the right thing, but you made less money than, say, some other wealth manager who, quote unquote, did the wrong thing. Then customers will switch over to that wealth, that money manager, and so that is a-- that's kind of a difficult conversation as well that I presume you must be having as well when, or that, you know, that's a general problem that you would face. That's right, yeah. People,

people chase performance. they look at recent history. People have really-- they have difficulty looking at longer time series, right? They have difficulty thinking about-- I mean, this, this is probably the single biggest reason why there hasn't been a crack-up boom Let's say, to use the Austrian term, yet, at least in, in modern history or recent history, is because people do extrapolate. And so a reasonable analyst, and there are some who've been noticing that debt levels are too high and that they already were too high, you know, last year and five years ago and ten years ago, have been saying, "Yeah, that the, that the crash is gonna come." Well, if the rest of the population just extrapolates, you know, like lemmings, they look at the past and then they, and then they keep Keep rolling, and there's enough dollars, or there's enough, at, you know, asset value that, that continues on that march, well then, we can suspend disbelief, longer than we think, right? And, yeah, I think, I think that's arguably, where we are. I think that's where we are.

Yeah. And so it's a funny thing because, a common example I mention sometimes is, we knew communism is a terrible system, but communism, USSR still took like six decades, right? So great. Kind of, you can't call a top because you just never know exactly what-- there are so many variables and so many moving pieces here that you can't just say, "Okay, twenty twenty is the final one, this is it, guys, it's coming now." And I end up like, "Well, you don't know." I

like, I like, one of the frameworks I like, by the way, is, is by Ben Hunt, from Epsilon Theory. he's been, you know, on top of-- he's been on top of the coronavirus stuff

People have been paying attention to. And the framework he uses is what he calls common knowledge, which is, it's not what everybody knows, it's what everybody knows that everybody knows. And when you talk about communism, you talk about, okay, people- Arguably a significant portion of the population, you know, knew it was a bad system and knew it was BS and knew that it wasn't, the right system to maintain. But until you had a critical mass of, of people realizing that the emperor had no clothes, it just perpetuated. And so, and, and this explains number one why these bad systems can persist for so long, and number two, why the tipping points are, you know, can't be anticipated in advance. Because there's this phase shift of people looking at each other and realizing, "Oh, not only do I know-- realize that the emperor has no clothes, but you realize it too, and enough people realize it, so, you know, now it's revolution or now it's, you know, regime change." And, that's human nature, we're social animals, and, that ability to, tell stories that aren't true and perpetuate untruths, is, you know, is useful when it allows us to galvanize in a particular Particular movement and, you know, move, move the team forward and, and conquer where we otherwise wouldn't be able to. But yeah, it can be, troublesome and pernicious, and it can allow, it can allow un-- well, it can allow basically negative, frameworks and regimes to persist longer than they should.

Right. And I, I, yeah, it's a great way of, spelling it out, and I think it's very much like that idea that people talk about, you know, gradually then suddenly, right? Yes. So how people were all because of coronavirus and all these people were panic buying toilet paper, and I was joking that, you know, someday, a day will come when people panic buy Bitcoin way harder than they're panic buying the toilet paper, right? Because it'll just reach, it'll just hit a point, but we just, we can't say when. So- Yeah,

I think that's right. I, I have mixed feelings about that point. Yeah, that's the, you know, hyper-bitcoinization, flash point, and it may happen. And I, part Hopes that it's more gradual, 'cause that may be, you know, better for the average person. But yeah, it's, it's very possible that you get that, you know, sort of speculative attack, as Pierre Rochard suggests, and, we'll just have to see.

Yeah, right. And so look, we, I think y-you and me and most of my listeners would agree we're in an unsustainable situation. So we've got this massive debt problem. Governments all around the world, you know, the US government has a massive debt. What are some of the potential scenarios? And you, you spell out some here in, in terms of the, the fiat endgame. So what are some of the scenarios that we might,

yeah, that's right, that's right. So I've got a menu, the menu of bad options for, resolving the debt problem. And I have, I have six, six items on the menu. So item one is austerity. Well, first I'll just list them. So item one, austerity. Two is mass defaults. Three is, is jubilee or debt cancellation. Four Evolution five is financial repression, and then six is inflation, consumer price inflation. So I'll just, I'll just go through them. So austerity, also known as belt tightening, basically means, you know, cutting consumption and not living beyond your means. And, you know, this means that you can actually save and you can reduce the debt burden over time. unfortunately, this is painful. Nobody likes doing it. You know, it's like dieting, it usually fails. And, we've seen Seen governments attempt it, and it basically, it almost never works, mostly because of politics and the fact that politicians are elected on two and four and six year cycles, and if as a politician you don't deliver the goodies, somebody else will get elected that will. So, you know, the, the sort of, the modern case that's interesting to watch, I think now is Greece. Greece has been in a recession slash depression, you know, since twenty eleven, basically. I mean And yes, it's been better the last few years, but they've actually sort of stuck with austerity, and we'll see if they continue to. I kind of doubt that they will. I would argue that the only reason, you know, that they haven't, printed money and devalued is that they're in the euro. But for the most part, yeah, austerity doesn't work. People can't stick to it. So option two is mass defaults, and, You know, arguably this is as painful as austerity. anyone who holds debt as an asset, loses value. It's great if you're, if you're a borrower, but if you're a lender, a default is terrible. And we saw this play out more or less in the Great Depression, and that's why it won't happen again, because politicians, politicians and economists, you know, know how that turned out and it was terrible. And, it's unlikely that, that we'll, that we'll tolerate mass debt. Defaults.

Yeah. let's explore that one just for a little bit. So when, when you've got this mass default situation, and I guess think through for the listeners, think through like the typical retail bank, right? They've got a lot of home loans on their asset side, and then what happens when there's mass defaults? It means that bank's assets are massively just credit collapsing. That's right. What's the, yeah. What's the scenario then? Agreed. So, so,

yeah. So in this fiat money system that we've got, most of Is actually, bank, you know, bank debt, right? It's, it's, yes, you had, you know, ten dollars of cash deposits of M zero, you know, into the bank account, but then the bank, you know, lends ten times as much against that cash deposit, or that cash reserve. And so, yeah, so there's huge leverage in the system. And as you say, you know, if there's, if mortgage borrowers, you know, can't pay their mortgages then the bank isn't getting paid, the bank can't lend money to new borrowers, also the bank can't lend money to companies. You know, companies face maturities on the debts that they gotta pay, they can't refinance, so they fire people, and people, you know, can't pay their mortgage, and you get this multifaceted feedback, feedback loop or the spiral, you know, downward, which is a deleveraging, in which basically Hopefully everybody gets hurt, both on the asset side and the borrower side. Yeah. It's ugly, it's not, it's not fun. You get bank runs, you get mass unemployment. Yeah, that was, that was the depression, that was, that was the 1930s. Right. And, yeah,

go ahead. Yeah, I was just saying, and then like I guess from an Austrian perspective, you would say, well, that's the, that's going to rehab, you know, that's the readjustment. and so while that may be Many people, it's kind of like we have to go to rehab, right? but unfortunately, it's sort of like we've got a drug addict and they don't wanna go to rehab, they just wanna keep getting more drugs, right? That's right. That's right. And,

and I would agree with you. I mean, it may actually be the right way to, to atone and cleanse and, you know, basically get on the right path. But because it's so painful and because it is-- it may be in the power of politicians to avoid that outcome, they will avoid it. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, I think so as well. So it's one of those things where it's politically unlikely to happen that way. So exactly. what's next? You've got a debt jubilee next.

That's right. Debt cancellation or jubilee, the, the, the- The Jubilee term comes from biblical times, and it comes from this idea of when there's a new ruler, there's a new king who ascends the throne and, in celebration announces the cancellation of, of debts across the kingdom. And this is great, it curries favor, with the average, subject because the average subject is a, is a debtor, not a creditor. And, this kinda looks similar to mass defaults because, you know, if one man's debt is another man's asset, then, you know, anybody who is a lender and now gets their, this debt extinguished, you know, feels a lot of economic pain. Most of those lenders tend to be, you know, wealthy folks who are also capitalists, they're industrialists, they're the people who run companies that employ people and have, and have, you know, equity value that, that depends on, on that credit system. So same, you know, similar situation basically, it's, it's significantly disrupt, disruptive to the- Economy, and it's, and it's especially pro-problematic because if the sovereign can just declare a debt null and void, well, that puts a real dent, into the confidence of ideas of rule of law, contract law, and property rights, because if the ruler can just sort of capriciously say, "Oh, this debt contract is now null and void," well, then as an entrepreneur, you're saying to yourself, "Hmm, you know, what are my real property rights?" And, am I actually going to, be able to capture the fruits of my labor and the risk that I take, if, you know, this guy who's in charge of the kingdom can basically just change the rules on me. So yeah, very problematic. And I'll tell

you one, reflection as well on that, and just adding to that point is, something I've seen Nick Szabo speak about, which is deep safety versus shallow safety. And so one of the points that I've seen some people on Twitter saying is, "Oh, didn't you, Bitcoin people say it's a safe haven,

To think of Bitcoin as deep safety, and what's deep safety, it means think about the underlying institutions that you are living under, and if in your example, the king can just unilaterally declare, "Oh, that-- it's a debt jubilee," but Bitcoin isn't like that, and Bitcoin gives you some kind of protection against that, doesn't it?

Yeah, I like that, I like that framework a lot. I like the deep safety. Absolutely. It, if most assets in the economy- Depend on rule of law and depend on contract and depend on the, let's say, fair behavior of those in power, then yes, Bitcoin is this uniquely, this, the system that is uniquely resistant to malfunctions in, in that other established, regular way system. Totally agree.

Yeah. so yeah, so and then the next one you've got here is redistribution.

Yeah, that's right. so we just finished items one, two, and three. That's the top of the menu. Now we're getting to the bottom of the menu, which I think is where, we're more likely to order from, so to speak. yeah, redistribution is just, is just tax and, and spend, right? It's, it's taxing the rich more, In various forms, you know, that can be higher regular income tax, can be higher capital gains tax, it can be a wealth tax, it can be any number of things. the, the wealth tax is, is a conversation I have to-- that I have with clients with some frequent frequency. They're like, "A wealth tax? That'll never happen in the US." And I say, "I hope you're right, but, but, we'll, we'll see." so yeah, I think that when you look at the, at the- The political conversation today, you know, it's, we're in an election year, I don't know what the outcome will be. However, if either, you know, if either you get a democratic victory and/or a democratic sweep in this election, for sure we'll see higher taxes. If that doesn't happen, you know, maybe it's not this cycle, but I have some confidence that in the next cycle or the one after, we're likely to see, we're likely to see more, tax, tax burden On the wealthy and redistribution to, to the less wealthy. Taxing the haves and, and giving to the have-nots.

It's a very "soak the rich" style, and we're seeing a lot of popularity for politicians who come out with that kind of idea. So definitely, one to watch over the next five to ten years, let's say.

Yeah, no kidding. absolutely. so yeah, so the, so the next, you know, fifth category is financial repression. this is a term that was coined by two Economists, Edward Shaw and Ronald McKinnon, I think, in the nineteen seventies, and it describes, you know, a set of government policies that primarily includes You know, lowering interest rates and thereby penalizing, penalizing savers, right? And so, however, you know, capital being mobile, it can, it often needs to be coupled with capital controls, right? That's somewhat what we see in China, you know, s- interest rates on bank accounts in China Still aren't and have been extraordinarily low. one of the results of that is you get, you know, capital shifted to other parts of the economy, like you get a, you know, property bubble, a real estate bubble. But in the case of China, you know, the capital controls have been, let's say, somewhat effective. Now, of course, you don't need capital controls if all central banks financially repress and lower interest rates at the same time, right? I mean, you look at the situation we're in with Jap, you know, with Japanese interest rates being zero or negative, with German and several other European countries, you know, being zero or negative, and then now most recently with US rates approaching zero, we're not there yet, but we're pretty close. there's sort of nowhere to, nowhere to hide. But, but yeah, that's the, that's the financial repression situation. And, and lowering rates that way does, for a while, allow, governments to- Borrow more and, run deficits and, and basically play out this, play out this house of cards for a much longer period of time than they would be able to if they didn't have those tools, available to them.

Yeah, and it just-- it, it just kind of reminds me that We should expect that governments will try to keep doing what they can to keep the party going, and so I think that's, that's probably the intuition there. And I think, coming to our next one, which is consumer price inflation, I think that's also another very much in line with probably a more, a very likely scenario. So tell us what sort of-- what does that scenario look like?

Yeah, so this is the consumer price inflation scenario is the one that I think is most likely. And by the way, I'll say that These six, scenarios or outcomes are not sort of mutually exclusive. You know, I-- my best guess is that we have a com- a combination of the, of, the last three, right? Right? We have tax and redistribution, we have financial repression. I mean, clearly the financial repression is, is ongoing with low interest rates and falling interest rates. and then the eventual outcome is likely consumer price inflation. And so when we think about, okay, what's-- how can we reduce the re- real burden of debts. Well, other than, you know, cutting them and slashing them outright in those, methods we discussed earlier, the sly-- I hate to say sly and roundabout way, but I'll invoke that term. The slightly more sly and, and roundabout way of reducing the debt burden is just by, yeah, printing money and reducing the real burden of those debts, by inflating everything else over time. So that seems most likely to me, we haven't seen significant consumer price inflation generally across the world, at least in developed countries, in rich countries, for decades now, and I think that's in large part because of those couple of factors I mentioned earlier, like automation, like, free trade. Which brought, you know, very cheap labor and therefore lowered costs, on consumer goods. And then there's also the issue of, well, what is, what is the real, you know, level of inflation? And that's a whole other, can of worms, which I discuss in the book. primarily those, those couple areas of consumer goods that are also quasi-capital goods, like education and especially like housing, where Yes, in-- you know, inflation as measured and declared by the government is low in housing, but, although rents have been kept low because interest rates are low and therefore, you know, real estate can be, acquired Well, can be, can be acquired and you can support that level of capital with a low, with a low rent. it also jacks up the value of the asset and prices a whole generation out of the ability to, to buy that asset. And so, yeah, it's great news if you're a renter, it's terrible news if you ever wanna- not be a renter and actually own your home, right? And this is what millennials, are figuring out and living right now, is their inability basically to, to climb onto the property, property ladder because the average home in a city is, you know, multiples of income. You know, it used to be, you know, three or four times annual income, and now it's ten times annual income. And it's out of reach. So, yeah, so that's, that's what I'd say about, consumer price inflation is-- and, and by the way, for, for my clients, the major, the major, one of the major adjustments we've made in our portfolio allocation is to account for this, right? And that's, that's the-- for the first time investing in gold a few years ago and continuing to add to that position in the last few years, as well as adding a small amount of Bitcoin and, you know, in my estimation, we're, we're more likely to add to that position over time rather than, rather than, subtract from it.

Right. Yeah. And it's, the thing, again, this is one of those things where, again, the doomsayers and like the perma-bears and so on can come out and say, "Oh, look, we're gonna have high inflation and stuff," and maybe they were a bit early on that call, right? Not just a bit early, but, yeah. And in reality generation, and then it, it just is more like, that's an eventual outcome, right? You just keep on this track, well, that's eventually what'll happen, but no one really knows exactly when that tipping point happens again.

That's right. And this, and this gets to the, you know, the, well, as investors, you know, this gets to the portfo-portfolio management question, you know, yeah, if I could, if I could anticipate when that inflection point in inflation is gonna occur, you know, man, I, I could It's unknowable, it really is unknowable. I will say that, you know, my confidence has grown, especially recently, I read about this in the book, so, so, you know, the, the Fed has this two percent inflation target, and by the way, it's two percent as they measure it, and as we know, as we just discussed. There are several reasons why their measurement is flawed. Nevertheless, the Fed has, according to their own math, been undershooting their inflation target of two percent for years now. And they actually went on record last year, it was May, May of last year, and they specifically published a note talking about how the inflation target is, target is quote-unquote symmetric, right? What do they mean by this? They mean that for every year that they undershot the target, it would be okay if they overshot the target, right? So they've already told us, it's in writing, right, that- They're okay with higher than two percent inflation. Now, we don't know when that'll happen, you know, we don't know how much higher than two percent they're comfortable with. But when I look at the debt burden and I, and I think about, you know, what, what's the, what's the likely path out of this thing? And I wrote this in the book, you know, I think we see five to eight percent consumer price inflation before we see any really serious follow-through attempt to raise interest rates, because if you quote-unquote normalize interest rates, right? If you get to seven, eight percent, you know, on a thirty-year mortgage, you know, and you get to, I don't know, five percent on the Treasury, on the ten-year Treasury, you know, it's gonna be a very severe recession. so central banks When put to that, you know, trade-off, they say, "Eh, deep recession or a little higher inflation when we've already been undershooting, you know, our inflation target. we'll take the higher inflation."

Right. And it's the more politically palatable option. It's, it's the one that makes them more popular. We should anticipate that that is the option, that is the pathway that they would preferentially choose. That's right.

And nothing is a hundred percent, right? We only, we only think in probabilities, but when I look at that, that out of too much debt, I think that clearly the inflation option is the most attractive, yeah, for the powers that be in government.

So let's say the, the listener now is, they're convinced about this idea, they're thinking, okay, well, okay, maybe I'll take a small position in some Bitcoin. What are some typical ways you would, Say when you're thinking about position size for Bitcoin.

Yeah. So I still stick with the rule which actually applies to every asset in which you invest, which is don't invest any more than you can afford to lose in a single asset, because any asset can go to zero. you know, there are those who will argue against that, but the reality is any asset can go to zero or near zero. So that rule is no different for Bitcoin than anything else. so that's one piece. And then the second- piece is well, how much do you need basically to have a hedge? we've started small with clients, I mean, we've started under one percent. there's also then the layering on of the psychological element, which is people do struggle with the volatility, the short-term volatility. They really have difficulty getting their head around The possibility that this asset may have legs in the long term, despite the fact that it sometimes loses eighty percent of its value, right? Or eighty percent of price. So, so these are the factors that, you know, that we consider. And then of course, you know, you look at the data, as in the book too, you know, about the last, you know, ten years. Of performance, and historically you've been able to add, you know, two to three percent annual return with a very-- to a portfolio, a diversified port-- portfolio with a very small allocation to, to Bitcoin. So, so those are some factors. I mean, it, it-- it's clear that zero is the wrong number, and You know, for many people, it's, I don't know, one percent or a little less, and then for those who are comfortable with it and understand it and can get past the, you know, just the negative perceptions and all the FUD and, you know, the mount gops and the money laundering allegations, you know, which are false, but- For folks that can get past that, then, you know, several percentage points can make, you know, can make more sense. I'm talking about, you know, for clients now. And then for those who have really done the research, you know, I mean, I see people on Twitter who are, who are all in and levered. I definitely don't recommend that. Leverages, leverages, is problematic with a, with a, with an asset that can, on occasion lose eighty percent of its value. You really don't wanna get liquidated, and you really wanna have enough cash and income, you know, to, to support your ongoing expenses without having to sell that, that precious sweet Bitcoin. But, but that's what I'd say.

Sure. Yeah. No, I think that, makes a lot of sense for considering the, the type of clients that you would have. I think the other thing that's Hit as a topic is recognition of what Bitcoin is, right? It's not the same thing of like just put it in like the ETF and just hold it, like part of it is really appreciating it as a bearer asset as well. So, h- what, what are your thoughts there on teaching that aspect to people?

So, I think that's important. So there's two, there's two answers to that. There's what am I doing today for clients and, and, and what might I do in the future? So today, you know, we hold Bitcoin In vehicles that don't entail the client holding the keys or us holding the keys, right? So it is a third party custody, and that is, you know, just a decision that, hey, we want to own an inflation-proof or inflation-resistant asset that we think has tremendous upside and is uncorrelated to the rest of the portfolio, and that's an investment decision, full stop. So then there's your question of, well, you know, what about, yeah, learning to hold the keys? I have made the offer, you know, to my clients that Hey, you know, I'm here to educate you and help you, you know, when you're ready basically to, yeah, to, to literally take the keys, right? And so, I- I, I am interested in people learning to do that for themselves. I think people should be sovereign, they should be sovereign individuals. They should at least know how to, even if they don't wanna do it, you know, with all of their Bitcoin holdings, they, they still ought to know how to do it. and they ought to do it with at least some of their holdings, and hopefully over time they do it with more, you know, rather than less. having more and more skin in the game and putting, you know, taking more and more control over time, I think makes a lot of sense. and I'm also, you know, excited that the teaching and the educational tools in that respect, are, are, you know, are getting better. I think in fact that, I think you've been doing, I think you've been, Hard, putting together, you know, educational tools for people to, to learn, gain confidence, not screw it up, you know, practice and, yeah, learn to, learn to securely hold their keys. And I think that's-- I think that's an important life skill. By the way, I'll extend this further. I had this debate actually with my dad the other day, and, you know, we were kind of sparring on, you know, this issue of can you, can you really keep, you know, private keys safe? Can you really keep, you know, a cryptographic key safe? And my response to that is, this is a civilizational, skill. It's basically a life skill for the next several decades, right? We will, we all will have to either figure out how to do it ourselves or delegate it to someone we trust. it's just gonna be something you have to learn how to do. And so, yeah, the more that we get comfortable-- sorry, the more that we get people comfortable, the more we educate them, the more we encourage them to play around with it, practice it, you know, do some with a little bit of skin in the game and a little, value at risk, and then step it up over time, the better, 'cause this- This is just, you know, this is one of those things you're just gonna have to learn how to do. It's like learning how to do basic math or, you know, learning how to write or, you know, learning how to code. It's just gonna be a critical life skill.

Yeah, I think so. I think it's one of those things where, you know, yes, yes, we're not at the stage where, you know, grandma can use Bitcoin and so on, but, you know, right now, grandma can pick up an iPad and write an email, right?

Actually get Bitcoin custody to that point where, yeah, look, there's a little bit you have to learn, but most people can achieve it, and I think that's, that's ideally where we wanna get it to. But I think in these early days, it's very important as well to stress that idea because, Bitcoin is special and it's important that we use it in the way that, you know, we were, it was, intended and able, and that's the way that m- is much more stronger as well.

Yeah, I agree, I agree with you You know, how many people do we need independently running nodes, you know, on the network to keep the thing secure? and that's also very important. So I support, I support any and all efforts, you know, by you and others to educate people on how to do as much as possible and be as Sovereign, else self, self-sovereign and supportive of the security and the secure use of the network, as possible.

Yeah, of course. And I mean, for me, I'm not expecting people to go zero to hero straight away, right? It's a, it's a progression journey, and you start small and you, like you said, step it up over time. Yep. but yeah, look, I think, that's pretty much it for today. But have you got any closing thoughts on, you know, why buy Bitcoin and

You know, I wrote the book 'cause there was a gap, I saw a gap in the market between, between the Bible, which is the Bitcoin standard, right? And, which I love, but, y-y-but, you know, but I wanted to write something shorter, you know, and then some of the, you know, much shorter, more simple books. and so, yeah, I designed it to tell all the pieces of the story, and explain all the pieces of Bitcoin that I thought were necessary, to get off the And, so that's, you know, so that's the, the goal of the book. and I also obviously, like I say, I wrote it, I wrote it to explain it to my clients and also to be able to hand to, to someone and be like, "Look, read this, and, once you've read it, you know, I'm happy to talk to you and, and answer questions." so yeah, you know, I guess, you know, follow me on Twitter. I'm, Edstrom

It's been a fun, fun dis-fun discussion and fun chat, and, you know, I welcome people's, feedback and, and criticism. You know, tweet at me, tell me what I got wrong. Hahahahah, yeah, I'm probably gonna regret saying that, but, we'll see what

happens. we'll see, we'll see. But, no, I will say though, I think it's a great book to give to a person who's coming from a traditional investor mindset. Having read it, I think it would make sense to give that sort of person this book. So definitely, listeners do consider having a look at the book and, gifting it to your friends who are more on the investment side of,

thinking.

So

Episode with your friends who are curious about Bitcoin from that investment standpoint. Find the show notes and the transcript at stephanlivera dot com slash one five seven. Also appreciate any reviews that you can leave on iTunes and subscribe on YouTube and all those things. Thanks guys, see you in the citadels.