What if the key to a more prosperous future lies in embracing deflation rather than fearing it? Join us as we sit down with Jeff Booth, technology entrepreneur and acclaimed author of "The Price of Tomorrow," to unravel the deflationary nature of technology and the transformative power of decentralized systems like Bitcoin and Nostr. Jeff provides a compelling argument for viewing Bitcoin as a protocol that offers a secure, decentralized alternative to our traditional, inflationary monetary systems. You'll gain a deeper understanding of how Nostr, a communication layer built on the Bitcoin protocol, ensures freedom of speech by preventing any central authority from controlling or limiting your audience.
We dissect the real estate and stock markets through the lens of Bitcoin, revealing how properties that seem to appreciate in fiat terms are actually losing value against Bitcoin. This eye-opening perspective highlights the inefficiency of traditional investments and underscores why Bitcoin-based companies might yield superior returns. Delve into the potential centralization threats posed by Bitcoin's layer two solutions and grapple with the challenges of setting price targets for this revolutionary asset. Discover how Bitcoin has the potential to reshape market dynamics and human freedom on a global scale, offering more efficient and equitable financial systems.
In our final chapter, we explore the staggering global debt and assets figures, discussing the insolvency of current systems and the potential for Bitcoin to reprice these assets fundamentally. We also touch upon the political ramifications of Bitcoin, noting the increasing engagement of politicians with the Bitcoin community to secure votes. As we wrap up, we entertain the idea of Jeff Booth for president and emphasize the importance of following him on platforms like Nostr and X. Don't miss out on Jeff's insightful book, "The Price of Tomorrow," and join us in expressing our gratitude to the audience for their continued support.
The content in this program is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any information or other material as investment, financial, tax, or other advice. The views expressed by the participants are solely their own. A participant may have taken or recommended any investment position discussed, but may close such position or alter its recommendation at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this program constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments in any jurisdiction. Please consult your own investment or financial advisor for advice related to all investment decisions.
Sign up to The Lead-Lag Report on Substack and get 30% off the annual subscription today by visiting http://theleadlag.report/leadlaglive.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
My name is Michael Dyett, publisher of the Lead Lag
Report.
Joining me for the roughly40-minute time period is Mr Jeff
Booth, who I know a lot ofpeople are familiar with and who
a lot of people may not beaware is now on Nostr, which I
don't know all that much about.
I have some rough idea.
But, Jeff, for those who don'tknow about you and have no idea
what Nostr is, introduceyourself and why in the world
(00:29):
you decided to just pivot tothat platform.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
First, I'm a technology entrepreneur that saw
the transition of systemsbetween.
First, I'd say, technology wasdeflationary.
The natural state of the freemarket is deflationary and that
meant everything that wasworking against that was not a
(00:56):
free market, it was a controlsystem.
I wrote extensively about thatin my book the Price of Tomorrow
.
I wrote extensively about thatin my book the Price of Tomorrow
and then found and through thatprocess, really investigated
Bitcoin at first principles tounderstand that it was a
transition.
It was solving that incongruencythrough a different system
(01:18):
change and most people couldn'tsee it but became quite active
in Bitcoin and then started tosee Bitcoin as protocol and
Nostr is just an extension,another layer of that protocol
of communications on top of thedecentralized and secure network
.
And what that means, and Nostrspecifically, is nobody can turn
(01:40):
you off.
You own your audience foreverbecause it's at the protocol
level.
If you want to get, clients arecompeting for you instead of
capturing your attention.
So you're building audiences ontheir platforms.
They're competing for you.
And that means if you want tomove to a different client let's
(02:03):
say, if X was on Nostr, if youwanted to move to X and X
started limiting your views onNostr, you could just switch to
be able to say what you want ina free market, in somebody that
(02:31):
doesn't have centralized controlover you.
Better to trust decentralizationthan Elon Musk is what I'm
hearing from you, yeah, andwhether you like Elon Musk,
dislike Elon Musk, you just havea different leader that tells
you what to do, and all of thealgorithms are reinforced, and
it's amazing to me watching howmany people are convinced that
(02:53):
their guy or their girl is theone that's going to save them.
And it's just a differentflavor of a different leader,
which is a natural function of adistorted market, centralizing
through manipulated money.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So, speaking about centralization, I put a piece
out on the lead lag, where we'retalking about CrowdStrike.
Crowdstrike took place becauseit was a reminder of the power
of decentralization and thevulnerabilities to the system
when you have a bug that bringsdown entire airplanes in terms
(03:31):
of even being able to fly.
I'm curious, just to get yourreaction or thoughts to that
moment in time, if that was sortof maybe a catalyst or light
bulb moment for those that havebeen on the sidelines when it
comes to bitcoin, saying youknow what, there's something to
decentralization and thisdistributed ledger after all you
know, and, and I I don't know,everybody's journey into bitcoin
(03:55):
is different.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Um, and, and I would I tend to look at it as layers
of understanding and a lot ofthrough those layers, you some
people see it as acryptocurrency rather than a
protocol, and then, if you sawit as a cryptocurrency or a new
technology rather than aprotocol, it would make perfect
sense to be able to oh, whichother, which new technology to
(04:17):
that is going to beat that?
And you'd invest in solana andethereum, and you'd be, and
you'd be oh, can you be talkingcryptocurrency?
When you see it as a protocolthat's bounded by energy and is
uncompromising, and it'sdecentralizing in security, then
all of the people measuring theworld through a piece of paper
(04:38):
that's being manipulated, soprices go up.
That makes sense too, and so Iwould say, if you really
understand this, you don'tmeasure Bitcoin in price of fiat
, because that's just anabstract concept, so your prices
don't go.
Bitcoin price isn't going up.
It's the free market and it'sin a form that we've never seen
(05:02):
as humans before.
It's decentralized and secure,and that means all things are
falling in price against Bitcoinand they will forever, as long
as it stays decentralized andsecure and I have nobody debate
me or truly debate me on.
Is the free market deflationary?
Because it is.
We create value for each otherand the output of that value
(05:27):
because we're competing againstthings that came before.
We use the things that give usmore value.
In fact, why you're usingRestream right now and can touch
millions of people where youcouldn't before is because it
gives you more value than whatcame before, and so we're part
of the equation that the outputis to more deflation.
And when you have technologythat's exploding and giving us
(05:49):
more tools to create moreautomation and more efficiency,
then that productivity is fasterdeflation.
So, remember, most people aremeasuring the world through an
inflationary monetary system,thinking prices are going up,
whereas if you're on a protocolthat's bounded by energy that
(06:10):
cannot be centralized, then allprices are falling relative to
that protocol.
And it doesn't care.
It doesn't care If you want tomeasure.
It doesn't care about Trump, itdoesn't care about Biden, it
doesn't care about Harris, itdoesn't care about Trump, it
doesn't care about Biden, itdoesn't care about Harris, it
doesn't care about how manypieces of paper the central bank
prints tomorrow.
(06:30):
It just doesn't care.
It's measuring the truth in theworld because it's bounded by
energy and it's decentralized.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
All right, so let's play with that, because I think
the I'm with you.
Tech because deflationary.
The complication is thatcertain types of tech look like
they're going to beextraordinarily energy intensive
.
I'm speaking more towards AI.
We can debate the Bitcoin,electricity, energy usage for
(07:02):
tomorrow, but how do you thinkabout sort of the link between
technology and demand for energyto actually run that?
Because energy is directly tiedto inflation expectations.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
So let's connect it all together, right?
So, before you just leave me onthe screen because I want to
talk this through.
It's so critical we have anabundant.
We have abundance of energy onthe planet to today.
Um, we have the capital cost toget energy, and the
centralization of energy is whatcaught, what creates the cost
(07:35):
of energy.
And so if you just simply said,do we have?
So we use more energy and weand entrepreneurs find more
creative ways to extract moreenergy, right, that's the
process of energy and energyequals life.
So we use more energy andentrepreneurs find more creative
ways to extract more energy.
That's the process of energyand energy equals life.
So we have an abundance ofenergy hitting this planet every
day that we don't harness verywell and through all human
(08:00):
growth, we've always been kindof short energy and we find more
energy uses.
Human world.
We've always been kind of shortenergy and we find more energy
uses.
Now let's take Bitcoin for anexample, as an example of what
most people would say aboutBitcoin is from the system and
they would say Bitcoin consumesenergy and that's bad for the
planet.
That's insane from a systemthat has to grow forever on a
(08:21):
finite planet by creating morepieces of paper.
So, in other words, we're allmice on wheels going faster and
faster because somebody candistort our time by printing
more pieces of paper toartificially grow forever, and
the output of that growth isactually centralization, because
you're stealing theproductivity from billions of
people that should flow to themto centralize it up.
(08:44):
Now, let's say look at Bitcoinas a free market actor solving
that problem, instead of sayingenergy, because alone this new
system is so complicated andpeople don't understand energy
very well either.
Let's say bread and Michael, youown a bakery and tomorrow I
(09:05):
come into the bakery and everyday you throw out what you can't
use at the end of the day throwit, don't sell at the end of
the day.
And tomorrow I come in and Isay isn't, michael, I'm going to
, uh, I'm going to buyeverything that you can't uh, uh
, can't sell.
I just want a discount for it.
So I'll buy your excess breadand I show up and I buy it the
next day.
You produce two times, I showup and I buy it the next day.
(09:27):
You produce 10 times, I show upand I buy it the next day.
You buy a whole bunch moreequipment and ovens and bread
makers and you hire more peopleto make 100 times more bread.
I show up and I buy it.
(09:51):
Now insert, and so you create anabundance of bread.
Now insert energy for uh, for,for bread, and you create energy
abundance by having a buyer allof the time, 24, seven, that's.
That is unencumbered by whatare the all the centralization,
abundant energy.
And you're creating abundantenergy through Bitcoin.
By the way, I'm on the board ofCore Scientific and what
(10:11):
they're doing is then they'retaking that energy, that they
create abundant energy, and thenthey're selling it to higher
bidders in AI and compute andeven, if you forget, higher
bidders in AI and compute, andeven higher bidders and AI and
compute if you just said Bitcoincouldn't operate, couldn't pay
as much as you would use forturning on your and then they're
(10:34):
selling it to higher forms ofenergy or other people who need
more energy and they're takingthose Bitcoin miners and they're
doing it again and again.
So it's decentralizing energyas well.
(10:56):
And a bigger, bigger idea of thewhole thing is it forces the
free market, forces the freemarket, prices of energy and
everything else on top of thatto the marginal cost of
production and prices fall.
So when people are measuringinflation they should be
measuring it from about I wouldguess about negative 5%.
(11:19):
So the theft in money is notfrom zero, it's from the natural
rate of productivity in themarket, without the misallocated
capital that is being createdto be able to make prices go up.
The centralization function, sothe true rate of productivity
is way higher than peoplerealize.
That means the higher rate oftheft from the, from the system
(11:42):
they're measuring from, is truetoo, and this keeps on going
forever.
So that as long as Bitcoinstays decentralized and secure,
it is repricing the world.
If you want to price it fromyour abstract piece of paper or
a control system, you can, butwhat that means as well is
you're giving the system youhate more energy to steal more
(12:03):
energy from you the system youhate.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
More energy to steal more energy from you.
Let's continue along.
This tech is deflationary themebecause the implication there,
of course, is uh rates are gonnafall across the board.
Uh, and us government can keepon doing its profit spending
because technology is basicallyallowing them to to some extent.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Um, wait, keep going on that and you won't notice.
Right, okay, correct, that'sthe more important thing,
because you're measuringinflation from zero, so you
won't notice how much is beingstolen from you In an odd way,
doesn't that?
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Doesn't that keep the policymakers in power?
It doesn't change the fiatdynamic then at all, because
they can just keep on leveragingand leveraging and leveraging.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Yes, that's why most people will be trapped.
And most people measuringinterest rates and most people
thinking that Powell can doanything, they'll measure
Bitcoin, they'll think Bitcoinis going up relative to the fiat
currency and what they're doingis saying I'm going to trade a
protocol, something bounded byenergy, for a piece of paper so
I can run my life.
(13:09):
That's what they're doing,because they'll they'll falsely
believe that and most people Isay most bitcoiners are still
measuring price go up in fiatterms, which is insane, insane,
which is absolutely insane,because you're you're saying I
want my price to go up in apiece of paper that's going down
(13:31):
.
You're reinforcing.
You're reinforcing the existingparadigm, um, and if all you
have to do is say is the naturalstate of the free market,
deflation and yes or no?
If yes, then the only and andthroughout 5 000 years of human
history, all monies have alwaysbeen centralized and in control,
(13:53):
then you know bitcoin will tryto be.
People will try to centralizeand control too, because human
nature, you can have so muchpower by trying to do that, and
Bitcoin has withstood thatcentralization for 15 years and
is continuing to, and so youhave a paradigm of a whole bunch
of people in the systemmeasuring in the US dollars or
(14:15):
Canadian dollars or Turkish lira, thinking Bitcoin price is
going up when actually allprices against it are falling
and they will forever, whenactually all prices against it
are falling and they willforever.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
So I know it's clearly not an apples-to-apples
comparison, but I thinkeverything you're saying can
apply to, let's just say, stocksor other asset classes where,
yes, you're not bound by a hardlimit in terms of the number of
shares outstanding, but thereare certainly incentives for
buybacks.
There are certainly otherthings that are a threat.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
So do the actual work on this and actually prove the
thesis.
So people are asking when is ithappening?
Well, it's happening.
So this house I'm sitting inright now, in fiat dollars, was
$1.4 million four years ago andis now $2.1 million.
So it looks, it appears, asit's going up.
And so what do people do?
(15:09):
I need to buy real estate to beable to protect my wealth.
And going up.
They're doing the same thingwith stocks.
And look at this house inBitcoin terms, and this house
went from 300 Bitcoin to 22Bitcoin, and in four years, this
house will be worth two Bitcoin, and and so is this house.
And so why do people buy houses?
They're buying houses as astore of value, because their
store of value and theircurrency is a terrible store of
(15:30):
value.
So they're putting their energyinto a house because they think
that it's going up when it'sactually reinforcing what I just
said.
And the same thing for allstocks.
They're actually inefficienttrades against Bitcoin.
They're terrible trades againstBitcoin.
So so all of those games justremember what's happening and
(15:53):
we're biased to believe thatother system right.
All of those trades are are.
You're losing money againstBitcoin.
Why we created a venturecapital company only investing
in Bitcoin companies is becausethe only way to beat Bitcoin
returns is to have companiesthat are profitable and growing
that ecosystem and denominatingtheir Bitcoin balance sheets in
(16:16):
Bitcoin, and so they're growingand you have a venture type
returns on top of venture on thetop of a venture type of asset
by creating the transition ofBitcoin and what we're talking
about.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
The point being made by Andrew on YouTube on a share
on a screen here.
Bitcoin's layer two could bethe attack vector for
centralization.
You know this a lot better thanI do.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
So that's awesome.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Yeah, let's explain that first.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah so love this question and and and and stay
with me on screen just so I'mtalking, uh, with you on on this
.
So so if you knew that, uh,that bitcoin at layer one
couldn't be attacked, it gotmore and more and you can prove
(17:06):
this.
You can.
You don't very like uh, youdon't have to take my words for
it.
You can look at the evidence ofmore energy and more
decentralization on layer oneover the course of the entire,
and it keeps on getting more andmore decentralized and secure
on layer one.
So if you were a governmentstate actor any government state
actor and you said there's noway we can kill this thing and
(17:27):
it removes our ability to usurppower from our individuals,
where they're trapped in oursystem and we're stealing their
economic energy and we'restealing from them, calling it a
political system when it'sreally a control system, and
it's getting worse and worse,and the only way that that
doesn't go, so then we have toconvince them to go to war to
(17:49):
kind of reset this system.
That's the path this crazinessis on, and most people inside
that system think that there's aleader that's going to change
that system, when there isn't.
It just makes it's all theater,right and those highly paid
actors in that theater are paidfrom you stealing that money.
(18:13):
Because if it was just taxes, Iactually have no problem
specifically with taxes myself,but if it, because at least that
was honest they asked thevoters.
But if it, because at least thatwas honest they asked the
voters is the dishonesty of theinflation that's from the
productivity rate, which, as Isaid, probably negative 5%.
It's that bucket of money,which is way bigger than the
(18:34):
taxes, which is stealingpeople's time and energy and
they're so fearful they'revoting for other people within
that system to to who gets moreof the riches that comes from
you.
So if that's the way theworld's always looked and you
had this decentralized andsecure protocol at layer one,
then you would have to expect ifyou couldn't attack it at layer
(18:57):
one, you would have to, andsome of those attack vectors
were kind of the nonsense aroundenergy usage and everything
else you would have to attack itat layer two.
And layer two is, if everyonethought US dollar was the
(19:18):
currency on top of Bitcoin,bitcoin would just look like
gold and then it would becentralized and it wouldn't act
as a store of value.
So that's happening right now.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Speaking of nonsense, that's a good word to
transition.
I have a.
I have this problem where Idon't like price targets, and I
know everyone loves pricetargets.
I always have an issue when itcomes to any discussion around
Bitcoin.
When people say, well, you know, bitcoin's going to reach a
million by year end and thatdoesn't get there, ah, it's
(19:52):
going to be this year, then thisyear, then this year, and it
just seems like it's justextreme talking points to be
extreme to say to be extreme.
Having said that, you can makean argument for a trajectory,
just not necessarily a level.
When you think about bitcoin,you're looking from an
investment perspective.
As I understand it, there areplenty of people that look at it
(20:13):
from a trading perspective yeah, I'm actually not looking at an
investment perspective either.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
I'm looking at it as a as a as a new imposition of,
of a ledger that gives humanfreedom and a free market for
eight billion people to thriveabundance for eight billion
people.
That's what I'm like.
I'm it is as far as aninvestment.
Sure, it's a fantasticinvestment, but, but when you
(20:40):
think about investment, you'rethinking typically you're trying
to trade it for something else,right, and then you're trading
is just a shorter term window onthat investment.
So I just wanted to clarifythat I'm looking at this as a
protocol bounded by energy thatchanges the course of of human
history, the future of humansthat we've never been able to
(21:01):
see before which that which thenbrings with the question of how
do you properly even thinkabout valuing it?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
So I understand what you're saying as far as it being
relative to fiat and it's adifferent mindset, sure, but
presumably there is someovervaluation range or
undervaluation range.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
And again, stay with me for this, because this is how
I never say price targets.
That's why I like you, Jeff.
This is so.
This is how I never say pricetargets, but I do so.
But instead of saying what is,what is the price target of your
current environment and yourcurrent environment you're
living in, and so you're you.
If, if this is true, if thistruly is decentralized it's the
(21:39):
first time humans have ever seenit Um, so that would be really
hard to see for everyone,because you don't have the
mental lattice in your brain tobe able to compare this and all
of our history books are on topof the old systems.
So you have to think in firstprinciples of what this means,
(21:59):
what it imposes to the worldwe've always looked at and all
of our models from that worldthat come from our understanding
of that world.
If this is truly new.
Now, in what I just said,Michael, it's important.
Is this truly new?
Is this truly decentralized?
Is it secure?
But I would say, can itwithstand all of the attack
(22:22):
factors?
This is the part of my workthat I went so deep on to
understand why it truly was,Because lots of hype men over
the histories have said, this istruly new when it turns out to
be the same old paradigm.
But in my opinion, this istruly new.
Then how would you look at it?
My opinion this is truly new.
(22:45):
Then how would you look at it?
We live in a world with $900trillion of kind of asset, $900
trillion balance sheet, but $400trillion of that is debt
globally.
That's without unfundedliabilities.
So, but $900 trillion, $400trillion of debt, the $400
trillion of debt is insolventalready and it's only solvent
because we allow governments toprint more money to pretend it's
(23:06):
soft.
Um, and just before I gofurther, just let me clarify
with you.
Does that sound right to you?
Speaker 1 (23:15):
that sounds roughly as far as the numbers go, sure,
okay okay.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
So we know 400 trillion is insolvent and $900
trillion is roughly numbers.
It's hard to get the exactnumbers, but about $400 trillion
of debt is insolvent.
So what does that mean to howyou would operate your life, in
that you could take the ledgerof $900 trillion and $400
(23:38):
trillion liabilities and youcould say my part of that ledger
is X right If I have a milliondollars, that's how much.
My part of that ledger is Xright If I have a million
dollars, that's how much ofownership of that ledger I have
now.
Now we know as well in thatexisting system that it won't be
$900 trillion in five years andit won't be $400 trillion of
(24:00):
debt in five years.
The $900 trillion will probablybe closer to $2 quadrillion and
the debt might be $1.5quadrillion of it.
Because it has to monetize thatdebt.
It has to drive inflation,which is a centralizing function
, again, and it has to monetizethat debt.
It has to drive inflation,which is a centralizing function
again, and it has to get worseand worse.
We also know most people aremeasuring all of their assets
(24:21):
within that by that same measure.
So if you just did this andtook 900 trillion divided by 21
million to get the purchasingpower of the relative ledgers.
That would be about $43 millionper Bitcoin, and the only thing
to get there and it might takea long time to get there but the
(24:42):
only thing that wouldinvalidate what I just said is
if Bitcoin lost itsdecentralization and security,
if somebody co-opted it.
But otherwise it will repricethat 900 trillion and today's
purchasing power, not value, notprice, because you're measuring
(25:03):
price from the others.
That would be relative to about43 million dollars of today's
purchasing power.
But if you fast forward fiveyears and the the balance sheet
is two quadrillion and just morepieces of paper and more debt
instruments make that go up,then that value of Bitcoin at
(25:26):
that time is that much higherand people wouldn't understand
the relative value of thepurchasing power, just like they
don't understand the relativevalue of a dollar.
Isn't the same dollar as it was50 years ago.
It's lost most of its value andso they're going to have a
really hard time.
And then, tied into that, youcould create a whole bunch of
(25:50):
views by saying Bitcoin is goingto be $43 million tomorrow, and
so that's why I hate pricetargets.
But I talk about the ledgers.
What do they mean?
As long as this is an honestledger.
It is repricing the dishonestone and it doesn't matter what
the dishonest one does, and allof your assets within the
(26:12):
dishonest one are also subjectto that revaluation, just like
my house is.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Since you mentioned the word dishonest, we should
talk about politicians.
Given this, there's a lot ofheadlines around Trump at the
Bitcoin conference and thenthere was that post around
Kamala looking to, in quotes,reset relationships with the
cryptocurrency community.
I'm cynical like you are.
All this stuff, I mean this isjust playing politics to try to
(26:42):
get younger voters?
I think largely, but anythoughts on sort of the way that
the political side now isstarting to more aggressively
communicate around Bitcoin andif it has any implications as
far as speed of adoption?
Speaker 2 (26:59):
yeah, so it's.
This is game theory.
Um, and just the politiciansstarting to mention that means
because there's so manybitcoiners that now know what I
know.
The key part of thedecentralization security is.
Once you know what it means,all of your energy starts to go
and then defend that and createmore technology on top of it too
(27:20):
.
So so there is a giant group ofpeople globally that is
defending this network andinnovating on top of it and
that's coming in now layers andthe.
The explosion of this ecosystem, which most people are
completely detached from, isunstoppable.
That also means that thatbecomes vote.
Those become voting blocks allover the world that you can't
(27:43):
get elected unless you.
You you move to those peoplebecause they don't care about
politics, they care about this,and if a politician is going to
get those votes, they have to beoutside.
So you have this game theoryaccelerating all over the world
to try to gain those votes, theyhave to be outside.
So you have this game theoryaccelerating all over the world
to try to gain those votes andtry to essentially move to
(28:03):
freedom and abundance, becausethose people and and there's
millions strong now all over theworld know what's up.
No, no, that the control systemand what it's doing.
So now, how does that look fromthat control system?
Yes, a lot of those peopleinside that control system are
(28:23):
just trying to play games to tryto appeal to those voters, and
it's more theater.
Or some are how do we controlBitcoin layer two and tie it to
the US dollar so we can repeatwhat we did to gold?
We went from gold to thepetrodollar system, back to
Bitcoin, so we can keep doingthis.
So there's a bunch of that aswell.
(28:44):
Well, at the same time, thistransition is moving to a
currency.
It's moving to a currencyglobally, not just a store of
value, but a currency, currency,and all of the technology
that's being built on top isaccelerating that path.
Um, the.
So if I said in the us politics,the only person who really
(29:05):
understands this right now andwho, if I was in the us, I would
vote it, was rfk, rfk jr, the.
In fact, I was his firstbitcoin transaction and he's
done the work.
He knows how bad the, the kindof the state apparatus is and
he's done the work.
He understands what this means,whether he gets elected or not,
(29:26):
that's, but in time, it doesn'tmatter who's elected.
This is happening anyways.
It's not negotiating with thosepeople now, just just like if
you were in North Korea and youdidn't have the internet.
An elected leader could stopthis from happening within a
country, but they can't stop itfrom happening globally, so all
(29:46):
they can do is hurt theircitizens by not adopting it.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
I got a few minutes left.
I want you to hit on the priceof tomorrow and explain what it
is you covered and talk throughif you're going to have another
book after that.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I wasn't going to have another book, I just
started writing another book.
Uh, that conundrum, that, that,that, that.
How do you move from a systemthat you served all of our
control power and gotcentralized and got worse, um,
and how it had to divide us fromeach other and make a and, and
(30:27):
our division from within thatsystem would drive more views
and more power from within thatsystem, and all of those things
would make it stronger.
How could you move to a systemthat was that was aligned with a
free market, that gaveabundance to eight billion
people on this planet?
How could you move from onesystem to another?
(30:48):
And so I only had bitcoin as asa paragraph in the in uh, at
the end of the book, and I and Idid that intentionally I wanted
to understand the systemproblem from first principles
and then pose it as a questionhow could you solve it when all
of the encumbered interests wereinside the existing system, why
most people wouldn't see it, um, and why, um?
(31:10):
But as I was uh and, to behonest, at that that time, while
I held Bitcoin, I didn't wantto bias my opinions of it I
thought there was at least a 5%probability that Bitcoin would
be centralized or controlled intime.
And here's the irony, michaelit wasn't a 5% probability,
(31:37):
michael, I didn't.
Uh, it wasn't a five percentprobability.
It was my misunderstanding ofbitcoin, that was, that gave it
a five percent probability ofessentially failing in in time.
As I tried to, as I, as I triedto take a steel man to my
argument and tried to argue itfrom the other perspective and
try and what would happen, Ibecame more and more convinced
that this is, this is adiscovery that can never be
(31:57):
discovered again.
It is one, one of those thingsthat is so important, and my
time on it and and and actuallyjumping in and spending more of
my time in it, helping it becomedecentralized, helping it move
to a currency, um was, uh, wasimportant and through it.
So I said, everybody goesthrough their journey and they
(32:19):
see how, uh, where, where thatgoes, and just um, and.
And I understand all thereservations for the system
because I had them too and I waslooking to.
So the book just kind of walksthrough why a new system is
needed to allow the abundancegained from our technology to
flow to us, and then, and then,as I went, deeper and deeper and
(32:43):
deeper.
It means way more than just howpeople are measuring it through
an economic system today andhow much money they're going to
make in bitcoin.
It means so much more.
It is literally human abundanceand freedom described onto this
protocol that's bounded byenergy.
We're eerily in that process.
The next book is going to movedeeper into that.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I'll leave it with this final comment Jeff Booth
for president.
I think he's going to be bornin the US for that, but I
certainly appreciate thesentiment there.
Everybody, please make sure youfollow Jeff Booth on Noster and
, of course, on X.
He's still there, but Noster'swhere he's putting this stuff
out.
Check out the Price of Tomorrow.
Hopefully I'll see you all onanother episode of Lead Lag Live
.
I appreciate those that watchedthis during the.
(33:31):
Thank you.
My name is Michael Dyett, publisher of the Lead Lag
Report.
Joining me for the roughly40-minute time period is Mr Jeff
Booth, who I know a lot ofpeople are familiar with and who
a lot of people may not beaware is now on Nostr, which I
don't know all that much about.
I have some rough idea.
But, Jeff, for those who don'tknow about you and have no idea
what Nostr is, introduceyourself and why in the world
(00:29):
you decided to just pivot tothat platform.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
First, I'm a technology entrepreneur that saw
the transition of systemsbetween.
First, I'd say, technology wasdeflationary.
The natural state of the freemarket is deflationary and that
meant everything that wasworking against that was not a
(00:56):
free market, it was a controlsystem.
I wrote extensively about thatin my book the Price of Tomorrow
.
I wrote extensively about thatin my book the Price of Tomorrow
and then found and through thatprocess, really investigated
Bitcoin at first principles tounderstand that it was a
transition.
It was solving that incongruencythrough a different system
(01:18):
change and most people couldn'tsee it but became quite active
in Bitcoin and then started tosee Bitcoin as protocol and
Nostr is just an extension,another layer of that protocol
of communications on top of thedecentralized and secure network
.
And what that means, and Nostrspecifically, is nobody can turn
(01:40):
you off.
You own your audience foreverbecause it's at the protocol
level.
If you want to get, clients arecompeting for you instead of
capturing your attention.
So you're building audiences ontheir platforms.
They're competing for you.
And that means if you want tomove to a different client let's
(02:03):
say, if X was on Nostr, if youwanted to move to X and X
started limiting your views onNostr, you could just switch to
be able to say what you want ina free market, in somebody that
(02:31):
doesn't have centralized controlover you.
Better to trust decentralizationthan Elon Musk is what I'm
hearing from you, yeah, andwhether you like Elon Musk,
dislike Elon Musk, you just havea different leader that tells
you what to do, and all of thealgorithms are reinforced, and
it's amazing to me watching howmany people are convinced that
(02:53):
their guy or their girl is theone that's going to save them.
And it's just a differentflavor of a different leader,
which is a natural function of adistorted market, centralizing
through manipulated money.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
So, speaking about centralization, I put a piece
out on the lead lag, where we'retalking about CrowdStrike.
Crowdstrike took place becauseit was a reminder of the power
of decentralization and thevulnerabilities to the system
when you have a bug that bringsdown entire airplanes in terms
(03:31):
of even being able to fly.
I'm curious, just to get yourreaction or thoughts to that
moment in time, if that was sortof maybe a catalyst or light
bulb moment for those that havebeen on the sidelines when it
comes to bitcoin, saying youknow what, there's something to
decentralization and thisdistributed ledger after all you
know, and, and I I don't know,everybody's journey into bitcoin
(03:55):
is different.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
Um, and, and I would I tend to look at it as layers
of understanding and a lot ofthrough those layers, you some
people see it as acryptocurrency rather than a
protocol, and then, if you sawit as a cryptocurrency or a new
technology rather than aprotocol, it would make perfect
sense to be able to oh, whichother, which new technology to
(04:17):
that is going to beat that?
And you'd invest in solana andethereum, and you'd be, and
you'd be oh, can you be talkingcryptocurrency?
When you see it as a protocolthat's bounded by energy and is
uncompromising, and it'sdecentralizing in security, then
all of the people measuring theworld through a piece of paper
(04:38):
that's being manipulated, soprices go up.
That makes sense too, and so Iwould say, if you really
understand this, you don'tmeasure Bitcoin in price of fiat
, because that's just anabstract concept, so your prices
don't go.
Bitcoin price isn't going up.
It's the free market and it'sin a form that we've never seen
(05:02):
as humans before.
It's decentralized and secure,and that means all things are
falling in price against Bitcoinand they will forever, as long
as it stays decentralized andsecure and I have nobody debate
me or truly debate me on.
Is the free market deflationary?
Because it is.
We create value for each otherand the output of that value
(05:27):
because we're competing againstthings that came before.
We use the things that give usmore value.
In fact, why you're usingRestream right now and can touch
millions of people where youcouldn't before is because it
gives you more value than whatcame before, and so we're part
of the equation that the outputis to more deflation.
And when you have technologythat's exploding and giving us
(05:49):
more tools to create moreautomation and more efficiency,
then that productivity is fasterdeflation.
So, remember, most people aremeasuring the world through an
inflationary monetary system,thinking prices are going up,
whereas if you're on a protocolthat's bounded by energy that
(06:10):
cannot be centralized, then allprices are falling relative to
that protocol.
And it doesn't care.
It doesn't care If you want tomeasure.
It doesn't care about Trump, itdoesn't care about Biden, it
doesn't care about Harris, itdoesn't care about Trump, it
doesn't care about Biden, itdoesn't care about Harris, it
doesn't care about how manypieces of paper the central bank
prints tomorrow.
(06:30):
It just doesn't care.
It's measuring the truth in theworld because it's bounded by
energy and it's decentralized.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
All right, so let's play with that, because I think
the I'm with you.
Tech because deflationary.
The complication is thatcertain types of tech look like
they're going to beextraordinarily energy intensive
.
I'm speaking more towards AI.
We can debate the Bitcoin,electricity, energy usage for
(07:02):
tomorrow, but how do you thinkabout sort of the link between
technology and demand for energyto actually run that?
Because energy is directly tiedto inflation expectations.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
So let's connect it all together, right?
So, before you just leave me onthe screen because I want to
talk this through.
It's so critical we have anabundant.
We have abundance of energy onthe planet to today.
Um, we have the capital cost toget energy, and the
centralization of energy is whatcaught, what creates the cost
(07:35):
of energy.
And so if you just simply said,do we have?
So we use more energy and weand entrepreneurs find more
creative ways to extract moreenergy, right, that's the
process of energy and energyequals life.
So we use more energy andentrepreneurs find more creative
ways to extract more energy.
That's the process of energyand energy equals life.
So we have an abundance ofenergy hitting this planet every
day that we don't harness verywell and through all human
(08:00):
growth, we've always been kindof short energy and we find more
energy uses.
Human world.
We've always been kind of shortenergy and we find more energy
uses.
Now let's take Bitcoin for anexample, as an example of what
most people would say aboutBitcoin is from the system and
they would say Bitcoin consumesenergy and that's bad for the
planet.
That's insane from a systemthat has to grow forever on a
(08:21):
finite planet by creating morepieces of paper.
So, in other words, we're allmice on wheels going faster and
faster because somebody candistort our time by printing
more pieces of paper toartificially grow forever, and
the output of that growth isactually centralization, because
you're stealing theproductivity from billions of
people that should flow to themto centralize it up.
(08:44):
Now, let's say look at Bitcoinas a free market actor solving
that problem, instead of sayingenergy, because alone this new
system is so complicated andpeople don't understand energy
very well either.
Let's say bread and Michael, youown a bakery and tomorrow I
(09:05):
come into the bakery and everyday you throw out what you can't
use at the end of the day throwit, don't sell at the end of
the day.
And tomorrow I come in and Isay isn't, michael, I'm going to
, uh, I'm going to buyeverything that you can't uh, uh
, can't sell.
I just want a discount for it.
So I'll buy your excess breadand I show up and I buy it the
next day.
You produce two times, I showup and I buy it the next day.
(09:27):
You produce 10 times, I show upand I buy it the next day.
You buy a whole bunch moreequipment and ovens and bread
makers and you hire more peopleto make 100 times more bread.
I show up and I buy it.
(09:51):
Now insert, and so you create anabundance of bread.
Now insert energy for uh, for,for bread, and you create energy
abundance by having a buyer allof the time, 24, seven, that's.
That is unencumbered by whatare the all the centralization,
abundant energy.
And you're creating abundantenergy through Bitcoin.
By the way, I'm on the board ofCore Scientific and what
(10:11):
they're doing is then they'retaking that energy, that they
create abundant energy, and thenthey're selling it to higher
bidders in AI and compute andeven, if you forget, higher
bidders in AI and compute, andeven higher bidders and AI and
compute if you just said Bitcoincouldn't operate, couldn't pay
as much as you would use forturning on your and then they're
(10:34):
selling it to higher forms ofenergy or other people who need
more energy and they're takingthose Bitcoin miners and they're
doing it again and again.
So it's decentralizing energyas well.
(10:56):
And a bigger, bigger idea of thewhole thing is it forces the
free market, forces the freemarket, prices of energy and
everything else on top of thatto the marginal cost of
production and prices fall.
So when people are measuringinflation they should be
measuring it from about I wouldguess about negative 5%.
(11:19):
So the theft in money is notfrom zero, it's from the natural
rate of productivity in themarket, without the misallocated
capital that is being createdto be able to make prices go up.
The centralization function, sothe true rate of productivity
is way higher than peoplerealize.
That means the higher rate oftheft from the, from the system
(11:42):
they're measuring from, is truetoo, and this keeps on going
forever.
So that as long as Bitcoinstays decentralized and secure,
it is repricing the world.
If you want to price it fromyour abstract piece of paper or
a control system, you can, butwhat that means as well is
you're giving the system youhate more energy to steal more
(12:03):
energy from you the system youhate.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
More energy to steal more energy from you.
Let's continue along.
This tech is deflationary themebecause the implication there,
of course, is uh rates are gonnafall across the board.
Uh, and us government can keepon doing its profit spending
because technology is basicallyallowing them to to some extent.
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Um, wait, keep going on that and you won't notice.
Right, okay, correct, that'sthe more important thing,
because you're measuringinflation from zero, so you
won't notice how much is beingstolen from you In an odd way,
doesn't that?
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Doesn't that keep the policymakers in power?
It doesn't change the fiatdynamic then at all, because
they can just keep on leveragingand leveraging and leveraging.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Yes, that's why most people will be trapped.
And most people measuringinterest rates and most people
thinking that Powell can doanything, they'll measure
Bitcoin, they'll think Bitcoinis going up relative to the fiat
currency and what they're doingis saying I'm going to trade a
protocol, something bounded byenergy, for a piece of paper so
I can run my life.
(13:09):
That's what they're doing,because they'll they'll falsely
believe that and most people Isay most bitcoiners are still
measuring price go up in fiatterms, which is insane, insane,
which is absolutely insane,because you're you're saying I
want my price to go up in apiece of paper that's going down
(13:31):
.
You're reinforcing.
You're reinforcing the existingparadigm, um, and if all you
have to do is say is the naturalstate of the free market,
deflation and yes or no?
If yes, then the only and andthroughout 5 000 years of human
history, all monies have alwaysbeen centralized and in control,
(13:53):
then you know bitcoin will tryto be.
People will try to centralizeand control too, because human
nature, you can have so muchpower by trying to do that, and
Bitcoin has withstood thatcentralization for 15 years and
is continuing to, and so youhave a paradigm of a whole bunch
of people in the systemmeasuring in the US dollars or
(14:15):
Canadian dollars or Turkish lira, thinking Bitcoin price is
going up when actually allprices against it are falling
and they will forever, whenactually all prices against it
are falling and they willforever.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
So I know it's clearly not an apples-to-apples
comparison, but I thinkeverything you're saying can
apply to, let's just say, stocksor other asset classes where,
yes, you're not bound by a hardlimit in terms of the number of
shares outstanding, but thereare certainly incentives for
buybacks.
There are certainly otherthings that are a threat.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
So do the actual work on this and actually prove the
thesis.
So people are asking when is ithappening?
Well, it's happening.
So this house I'm sitting inright now, in fiat dollars, was
$1.4 million four years ago andis now $2.1 million.
So it looks, it appears, asit's going up.
And so what do people do?
(15:09):
I need to buy real estate to beable to protect my wealth.
And going up.
They're doing the same thingwith stocks.
And look at this house inBitcoin terms, and this house
went from 300 Bitcoin to 22Bitcoin, and in four years, this
house will be worth two Bitcoin, and and so is this house.
And so why do people buy houses?
They're buying houses as astore of value, because their
store of value and theircurrency is a terrible store of
(15:30):
value.
So they're putting their energyinto a house because they think
that it's going up when it'sactually reinforcing what I just
said.
And the same thing for allstocks.
They're actually inefficienttrades against Bitcoin.
They're terrible trades againstBitcoin.
So so all of those games justremember what's happening and
(15:53):
we're biased to believe thatother system right.
All of those trades are are.
You're losing money againstBitcoin.
Why we created a venturecapital company only investing
in Bitcoin companies is becausethe only way to beat Bitcoin
returns is to have companiesthat are profitable and growing
that ecosystem and denominatingtheir Bitcoin balance sheets in
(16:16):
Bitcoin, and so they're growingand you have a venture type
returns on top of venture on thetop of a venture type of asset
by creating the transition ofBitcoin and what we're talking
about.
Speaker 1 (16:32):
The point being made by Andrew on YouTube on a share
on a screen here.
Bitcoin's layer two could bethe attack vector for
centralization.
You know this a lot better thanI do.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
So that's awesome.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
Yeah, let's explain that first.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah so love this question and and and and stay
with me on screen just so I'mtalking, uh, with you on on this
.
So so if you knew that, uh,that bitcoin at layer one
couldn't be attacked, it gotmore and more and you can prove
(17:06):
this.
You can.
You don't very like uh, youdon't have to take my words for
it.
You can look at the evidence ofmore energy and more
decentralization on layer oneover the course of the entire,
and it keeps on getting more andmore decentralized and secure
on layer one.
So if you were a governmentstate actor any government state
actor and you said there's noway we can kill this thing and
(17:27):
it removes our ability to usurppower from our individuals,
where they're trapped in oursystem and we're stealing their
economic energy and we'restealing from them, calling it a
political system when it'sreally a control system, and
it's getting worse and worse,and the only way that that
doesn't go, so then we have toconvince them to go to war to
(17:49):
kind of reset this system.
That's the path this crazinessis on, and most people inside
that system think that there's aleader that's going to change
that system, when there isn't.
It just makes it's all theater,right and those highly paid
actors in that theater are paidfrom you stealing that money.
(18:13):
Because if it was just taxes, Iactually have no problem
specifically with taxes myself,but if it, because at least that
was honest they asked thevoters.
But if it, because at least thatwas honest they asked the
voters is the dishonesty of theinflation that's from the
productivity rate, which, as Isaid, probably negative 5%.
It's that bucket of money,which is way bigger than the
(18:34):
taxes, which is stealingpeople's time and energy and
they're so fearful they'revoting for other people within
that system to to who gets moreof the riches that comes from
you.
So if that's the way theworld's always looked and you
had this decentralized andsecure protocol at layer one,
then you would have to expect ifyou couldn't attack it at layer
(18:57):
one, you would have to, andsome of those attack vectors
were kind of the nonsense aroundenergy usage and everything
else you would have to attack itat layer two.
And layer two is, if everyonethought US dollar was the
(19:18):
currency on top of Bitcoin,bitcoin would just look like
gold and then it would becentralized and it wouldn't act
as a store of value.
So that's happening right now.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Speaking of nonsense, that's a good word to
transition.
I have a.
I have this problem where Idon't like price targets, and I
know everyone loves pricetargets.
I always have an issue when itcomes to any discussion around
Bitcoin.
When people say, well, you know, bitcoin's going to reach a
million by year end and thatdoesn't get there, ah, it's
(19:52):
going to be this year, then thisyear, then this year, and it
just seems like it's justextreme talking points to be
extreme to say to be extreme.
Having said that, you can makean argument for a trajectory,
just not necessarily a level.
When you think about bitcoin,you're looking from an
investment perspective.
As I understand it, there areplenty of people that look at it
(20:13):
from a trading perspective yeah, I'm actually not looking at an
investment perspective either.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
I'm looking at it as a as a as a new imposition of,
of a ledger that gives humanfreedom and a free market for
eight billion people to thriveabundance for eight billion
people.
That's what I'm like.
I'm it is as far as aninvestment.
Sure, it's a fantasticinvestment, but, but when you
(20:40):
think about investment, you'rethinking typically you're trying
to trade it for something else,right, and then you're trading
is just a shorter term window onthat investment.
So I just wanted to clarifythat I'm looking at this as a
protocol bounded by energy thatchanges the course of of human
history, the future of humansthat we've never been able to
(21:01):
see before which that which thenbrings with the question of how
do you properly even thinkabout valuing it?
Speaker 1 (21:07):
So I understand what you're saying as far as it being
relative to fiat and it's adifferent mindset, sure, but
presumably there is someovervaluation range or
undervaluation range.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
And again, stay with me for this, because this is how
I never say price targets.
That's why I like you, Jeff.
This is so.
This is how I never say pricetargets, but I do so.
But instead of saying what is,what is the price target of your
current environment and yourcurrent environment you're
living in, and so you're you.
If, if this is true, if thistruly is decentralized it's the
(21:39):
first time humans have ever seenit Um, so that would be really
hard to see for everyone,because you don't have the
mental lattice in your brain tobe able to compare this and all
of our history books are on topof the old systems.
So you have to think in firstprinciples of what this means,
(21:59):
what it imposes to the worldwe've always looked at and all
of our models from that worldthat come from our understanding
of that world.
If this is truly new.
Now, in what I just said,Michael, it's important.
Is this truly new?
Is this truly decentralized?
Is it secure?
But I would say, can itwithstand all of the attack
(22:22):
factors?
This is the part of my workthat I went so deep on to
understand why it truly was,Because lots of hype men over
the histories have said, this istruly new when it turns out to
be the same old paradigm.
But in my opinion, this istruly new.
Then how would you look at it?
My opinion this is truly new.
(22:45):
Then how would you look at it?
We live in a world with $900trillion of kind of asset, $900
trillion balance sheet, but $400trillion of that is debt
globally.
That's without unfundedliabilities.
So, but $900 trillion, $400trillion of debt, the $400
trillion of debt is insolventalready and it's only solvent
because we allow governments toprint more money to pretend it's
(23:06):
soft.
Um, and just before I gofurther, just let me clarify
with you.
Does that sound right to you?
Speaker 1 (23:15):
that sounds roughly as far as the numbers go, sure,
okay okay.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
So we know 400 trillion is insolvent and $900
trillion is roughly numbers.
It's hard to get the exactnumbers, but about $400 trillion
of debt is insolvent.
So what does that mean to howyou would operate your life, in
that you could take the ledgerof $900 trillion and $400
(23:38):
trillion liabilities and youcould say my part of that ledger
is X right If I have a milliondollars, that's how much.
My part of that ledger is Xright If I have a million
dollars, that's how much ofownership of that ledger I have
now.
Now we know as well in thatexisting system that it won't be
$900 trillion in five years andit won't be $400 trillion of
(24:00):
debt in five years.
The $900 trillion will probablybe closer to $2 quadrillion and
the debt might be $1.5quadrillion of it.
Because it has to monetize thatdebt.
It has to drive inflation,which is a centralizing function
, again, and it has to monetizethat debt.
It has to drive inflation,which is a centralizing function
again, and it has to get worseand worse.
We also know most people aremeasuring all of their assets
(24:21):
within that by that same measure.
So if you just did this andtook 900 trillion divided by 21
million to get the purchasingpower of the relative ledgers.
That would be about $43 millionper Bitcoin, and the only thing
to get there and it might takea long time to get there but the
(24:42):
only thing that wouldinvalidate what I just said is
if Bitcoin lost itsdecentralization and security,
if somebody co-opted it.
But otherwise it will repricethat 900 trillion and today's
purchasing power, not value, notprice, because you're measuring
(25:03):
price from the others.
That would be relative to about43 million dollars of today's
purchasing power.
But if you fast forward fiveyears and the the balance sheet
is two quadrillion and just morepieces of paper and more debt
instruments make that go up,then that value of Bitcoin at
(25:26):
that time is that much higherand people wouldn't understand
the relative value of thepurchasing power, just like they
don't understand the relativevalue of a dollar.
Isn't the same dollar as it was50 years ago.
It's lost most of its value andso they're going to have a
really hard time.
And then, tied into that, youcould create a whole bunch of
(25:50):
views by saying Bitcoin is goingto be $43 million tomorrow, and
so that's why I hate pricetargets.
But I talk about the ledgers.
What do they mean?
As long as this is an honestledger.
It is repricing the dishonestone and it doesn't matter what
the dishonest one does, and allof your assets within the
(26:12):
dishonest one are also subjectto that revaluation, just like
my house is.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
Since you mentioned the word dishonest, we should
talk about politicians.
Given this, there's a lot ofheadlines around Trump at the
Bitcoin conference and thenthere was that post around
Kamala looking to, in quotes,reset relationships with the
cryptocurrency community.
I'm cynical like you are.
All this stuff, I mean this isjust playing politics to try to
(26:42):
get younger voters?
I think largely, but anythoughts on sort of the way that
the political side now isstarting to more aggressively
communicate around Bitcoin andif it has any implications as
far as speed of adoption?
Speaker 2 (26:59):
yeah, so it's.
This is game theory.
Um, and just the politiciansstarting to mention that means
because there's so manybitcoiners that now know what I
know.
The key part of thedecentralization security is.
Once you know what it means,all of your energy starts to go
and then defend that and createmore technology on top of it too
(27:20):
.
So so there is a giant group ofpeople globally that is
defending this network andinnovating on top of it and
that's coming in now layers andthe.
The explosion of this ecosystem, which most people are
completely detached from, isunstoppable.
That also means that thatbecomes vote.
Those become voting blocks allover the world that you can't
(27:43):
get elected unless you.
You you move to those peoplebecause they don't care about
politics, they care about this,and if a politician is going to
get those votes, they have to beoutside.
So you have this game theoryaccelerating all over the world
to try to gain those votes, theyhave to be outside.
So you have this game theoryaccelerating all over the world
to try to gain those votes andtry to essentially move to
(28:03):
freedom and abundance, becausethose people and and there's
millions strong now all over theworld know what's up.
No, no, that the control systemand what it's doing.
So now, how does that look fromthat control system?
Yes, a lot of those peopleinside that control system are
(28:23):
just trying to play games to tryto appeal to those voters, and
it's more theater.
Or some are how do we controlBitcoin layer two and tie it to
the US dollar so we can repeatwhat we did to gold?
We went from gold to thepetrodollar system, back to
Bitcoin, so we can keep doingthis.
So there's a bunch of that aswell.
(28:44):
Well, at the same time, thistransition is moving to a
currency.
It's moving to a currencyglobally, not just a store of
value, but a currency, currency,and all of the technology
that's being built on top isaccelerating that path.
Um, the.
So if I said in the us politics,the only person who really
(29:05):
understands this right now andwho, if I was in the us, I would
vote it, was rfk, rfk jr, the.
In fact, I was his firstbitcoin transaction and he's
done the work.
He knows how bad the, the kindof the state apparatus is and
he's done the work.
He understands what this means,whether he gets elected or not,
(29:26):
that's, but in time, it doesn'tmatter who's elected.
This is happening anyways.
It's not negotiating with thosepeople now, just just like if
you were in North Korea and youdidn't have the internet.
An elected leader could stopthis from happening within a
country, but they can't stop itfrom happening globally, so all
(29:46):
they can do is hurt theircitizens by not adopting it.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
I got a few minutes left.
I want you to hit on the priceof tomorrow and explain what it
is you covered and talk throughif you're going to have another
book after that.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I wasn't going to have another book, I just
started writing another book.
Uh, that conundrum, that, that,that, that.
How do you move from a systemthat you served all of our
control power and gotcentralized and got worse, um,
and how it had to divide us fromeach other and make a and, and
(30:27):
our division from within thatsystem would drive more views
and more power from within thatsystem, and all of those things
would make it stronger.
How could you move to a systemthat was that was aligned with a
free market, that gaveabundance to eight billion
people on this planet?
How could you move from onesystem to another?
(30:48):
And so I only had bitcoin as asa paragraph in the in uh, at
the end of the book, and I and Idid that intentionally I wanted
to understand the systemproblem from first principles
and then pose it as a questionhow could you solve it when all
of the encumbered interests wereinside the existing system, why
most people wouldn't see it, um, and why, um?
(31:10):
But as I was uh and, to behonest, at that that time, while
I held Bitcoin, I didn't wantto bias my opinions of it I
thought there was at least a 5%probability that Bitcoin would
be centralized or controlled intime.
And here's the irony, michaelit wasn't a 5% probability,
(31:37):
michael, I didn't.
Uh, it wasn't a five percentprobability.
It was my misunderstanding ofbitcoin, that was, that gave it
a five percent probability ofessentially failing in in time.
As I tried to, as I, as I triedto take a steel man to my
argument and tried to argue itfrom the other perspective and
try and what would happen, Ibecame more and more convinced
that this is, this is adiscovery that can never be
(31:57):
discovered again.
It is one, one of those thingsthat is so important, and my
time on it and and and actuallyjumping in and spending more of
my time in it, helping it becomedecentralized, helping it move
to a currency, um was, uh, wasimportant and through it.
So I said, everybody goesthrough their journey and they
(32:19):
see how, uh, where, where thatgoes, and just um, and.
And I understand all thereservations for the system
because I had them too and I waslooking to.
So the book just kind of walksthrough why a new system is
needed to allow the abundancegained from our technology to
flow to us, and then, and then,as I went, deeper and deeper and
(32:43):
deeper.
It means way more than just howpeople are measuring it through
an economic system today andhow much money they're going to
make in bitcoin.
It means so much more.
It is literally human abundanceand freedom described onto this
protocol that's bounded byenergy.
We're eerily in that process.
The next book is going to movedeeper into that.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I'll leave it with this final comment Jeff Booth
for president.
I think he's going to be bornin the US for that, but I
certainly appreciate thesentiment there.
Everybody, please make sure youfollow Jeff Booth on Noster and
, of course, on X.
He's still there, but Noster'swhere he's putting this stuff
out.
Check out the Price of Tomorrow.
Hopefully I'll see you all onanother episode of Lead Lag Live
.
I appreciate those that watchedthis during the.
(33:31):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.