Samuel Armes - Pioneering Business and Political Strategist

https://samuelarmes.com/
X: @SamuelArmes

Can local civic engagement turn the tide for cryptocurrency advocacy? Our guest, a prominent Bitcoin and Web3 advocate, shares his journey from an economics background to establishing Florida's largest Bitcoin advocacy firm. We explore the weighty influence of state-level organizing and lobbying, shedding light on landmark moves like the anti-central bank digital currency bill and the strategic political coordination that parallels efforts like overturning Roe v Wade.

Imagine a dinner at Mar-a-Lago where Trump, once a vocal critic of cryptocurrency, suddenly shows his support. We recount that astonishing evening and delve into how interactions with the crypto community, including the founder of Polygon, may have reformed his views. The political divide in cryptocurrency support is laid bare, contrasting the backing from Republican states like Florida and Texas with the opposition from Democratic bastions such as New York and California, driven by financial entities feeling threatened by the crypto revolution.

Lobbying and political influence are dissected, likened to venture capital funding, where early investments in candidates yield long-term sway. The episode emphasizes the power of local political engagement, recounting real-world scenarios where tech-friendly policies could boost local economies. Finally, we round off with a rapid-fire session, offering swift reactions on a myriad of topics from Bitcoin and Elon Musk to Greta Thunberg and Saudi Arabia, ensuring an engaging and enlightening listen.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
you're now tuning in to the brandon davis show on the
r2r network, where news, cryptoand politics collide.
Get ready for raw, unfiltereddiscussions, fearless insights
and a relentless pursuit of thetruth from the shadowy corners
of the blockchain to globalpower plays.
Join us on this journey ofdiscovery and defiance, and

(00:25):
remember the only thing we aimto change is your mind.
This is the Brandon Davis Show.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Sam, we'll go ahead and just kind of get started
here, Just kind of roll into it.
It's not a big deal.
First off, man, appreciate youdeciding to take this interview.
I spoke to Gary, yourcounterpart, maybe three or four
weeks ago.
Really good conversation thereand he absolutely encouraged me

(00:53):
to speak to you.
Apparently he likes you orsomething.
I don't really get it.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
It is what it is, I hope, so we work together so
much I hope he likes me, so youguys do like Twitter spaces
pretty regularly yeah yeah, wegot one tonight at five uh
awesome and we're going to betalking about the elon musk uh
trump interview actually, sothat'll be a good one goodness,
gracious man, yeah, that'scoming.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
And, um, man, I I saw the the eu man.
They're really coming afterelon, right now too.
Yeah, I mean they are doing itElection interference.
Yeah, the free speech is underattack and you know, I just kind

(01:41):
of shudder to think what thenext five years in politics
could be like.
If the wrong people take power.
A lot of damage can be done infive years and then you can claw
back a lot of power in fiveyears.
So, eu man, they want to shutdown free speech.
They hate the fact that peoplecan talk to each other without a
middleman.

Speaker 3 (01:54):
Yeah, what does that tell you?
What does that tell you?
That they hate that you cantalk freely.
That's not a good sign.

Speaker 2 (01:59):
No, you know, they've got to be that filter.
They got to be the filterbecause they have the narrative.
And you know, what'sfrightening too, is the amount
of coordination.
I was listening to a politiciantoday that I hold in pretty
high regard, believe it or not,of legislation that is proposed

(02:23):
and even passed between housesyou know, the house of congress,
and then also overseas anddifferent legislative bodies and
what they were trying to askwas like who's the person that's
coordinating all this?
Like, in some cases, thesebills are almost identical, even
in the name, the verbiage andall that.
Do you have any insight intothat at all?

(02:43):
Well, I can say, at least inthe united states.

Speaker 3 (02:44):
I meanbiage and all that.
Do you have any insight intothat at all?
Well, I can say, at least inthe United States.
I mean, you have the RepublicanParty and the Democratic Party,
and those institutions aregoing to coordinate with their
counterparts all over.
So, for example, overturningRoe v Wade and this is a
strategy that both partiesemploy.
But okay, so you want tooverturn Roe v Wade?

(03:06):
Republicans had to do what theyhad to wait for the Supreme
Court to be in their favor,which took years of coordination
.
But then they had to producelaws which created lawsuits in
multiple states with the hope ofthat lawsuit reaching the
Supreme Court.
So you pass, you know,anti-abortion laws in five to

(03:28):
ten states, and one of them willstick and land at the SCOTUS,
and then you can overthrow Roe vWade.
So that happens in othercountries.
But the key is there'scoordination, essentially around
people saying here's differentpolicies, here's the objective,
here's how we're going to get tothat objective, and it's going
to be by passing different typesof legislation which

(03:52):
essentially all say the samething, but maybe with slightly
different targets, so that youcan get to where you want to be.
So both institutions, bothRepublicans and Democrats do
that all the time.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
And then I guess there's global organizations
that kind of connect theseparties together with common
goals and interests, correct?
And I think people fail likeyou're illustrating this right
now, people fail to understand,I think, how coordinated this is
, but all the strategy andtactics involved, like they're

(04:27):
not just thinking about nextyear, this is multi-year, this
is multi-decade strategy to beable to shift and shape the
world in the direction that youwant to go.
And I think having you on rightnow is really interesting
because I think you're going tokind of bring that perspective
about how public policy isshaped and formed and all that.

(04:50):
So tell me and tell theaudience here, like who are you,
yeah, and what do you do, man?

Speaker 3 (04:59):
Yeah.
So as soon as I got out ofschool, I started Florida what
is now Florida's largest BitcoinWeb3 advocacy firm.
So I created a lobbying firm ina chamber of commerce, all
because I just I've always lovedpolitics.
It's funny because my degreewas in economics and
international finance, with someintel in there, and I can go

(05:20):
over my intel background too,but I've always loved politics.
I come from a very politicallywatchful or mindful family and
in 2017, it was kind of thatfirst, I would say, real wave of
adoption where politicos weretalking about crypto and Bitcoin
and focused on it.

(05:40):
So I saw an opportunity in thestate of Florida because I
didn't want to move to DC toessentially start organizing
people here, and that's exactlywhat I did.
I traveled to every majormeetup in the space, met with
all the major businesses andplayers here and said, hey, why
don't we channel that energytoward Tallahassee, which is our
state capital, where all thelegislation is made and passed?

(06:01):
So I did that for about five tosix years and I stepped back
just recently.
I was the executive director.
Now I'm simply a board memberand trying to transition it to
other leadership.
So it's still self-sustaining,but we've passed in that five to
six years over five pieces oflegislation all kind of Bitcoin

(06:23):
and Web3 related with ourlandmark legislation being the
anti-central bank digitalcurrency bill that we passed.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
What was that all about?
Talk to me about that.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well, everyone, most people, know what a CBDC is a
central bank, digital currencyand it was my opinion that, and
still is my opinion thatefficient money is fine, right,
we use credit cards, debit cards.
Most of our money is electronic, although I'm not anti-cash.
But efficient money isperfectly okay, right, to be
able to transact quickly, Ithink, is a good thing, but

(06:57):
authoritarian money is not, andauthoritarian and efficiency
sometimes go hand in hand andefficiency sometimes go hand in
hand.
And I think what some of thepowers that be realized is you
can't take away human rights inAmerica because of the Bill of
Rights, like freedom of speech,even though they might try.
But what you can do is you cancircumvent the Bill of Rights

(07:19):
through money, because it ismandated that we as citizens
have to use the dollar.
Right, of course, we can usemaybe other forms of currency,
but you have to use the dollar,and so if you just turn the
dollar into an authoritarianvehicle because you have to use
it, you can start subvertingsome of our constitutional
rights.
So, back in, I guess I want tosay 2023, right, but really

(07:45):
maybe at the end of 2022, youkind of hide this idea of a CBDC
coming into prominence.
I believe like you had theFederal Reserve talking about
FedNow, which isn't necessarilya CBDC, but essentially like
quicker payment rails for the USdollar, and then you had the

(08:08):
Republican presidential primaryright and so you had people like
Vivek and DeSantis essentiallytrying to stay competitive, earn
votes, and Vivek was always apro-Bitcoin, pro-crypto
candidate and so, in kind,desantis kind of responded and
still, being our governor, isable to actually pass
legislation.
So we were able to kind of usethe presidential election cycle
to pass language that said CBDCsare banned in the state of

(08:33):
Florida, which then obviouslybecame a huge deal, ended up
influencing Donald Trump'scampaign to where now he's
anti-central bank digitalcurrency, and then other states
soon followed suit and passedsimilar language.
Yeah, um, so that was kind ofthe culmination of, you know,
building relationships in dc andin tallahassee and in other

(08:54):
states and other institutionsfor about a five-year period so
now, this is interesting.
I went down to um, I went downto Mar-a-Lago for Trump's NFT
dinner this past summer, thefamous one where the kid with
the sunglasses made that videogo viral.
Was that the same one?

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Very cool, yeah.
So I was there and you knowthis was really before Trump
really had come out in the mediatalking positively about
cryptocurrency.

Speaker 3 (09:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
So, like he's up there giving his speech and he
kind of pauses and, uh, you know, he says, uh, he says something
.
The fact he says, uh, should Isupport cryptocurrency during my
presidency?
What do you guys think?
And of course, this is a roomfull of cryptocurrency people
and everybody cheers and jeersand this and that yeah.
But I took a step back andrealized that you know, of

(09:46):
course, he had that veryinfamous tweet about Bitcoin a
couple of years back, you know,kind of compared to the US
dollar and this and that.
But he changes his worldviewsand I realized that he has
raised millions of dollars withNFTs.
I think this is the thirditeration of him fundraising
with NFTs.

(10:07):
Come to find out.
I think he was on a plane ridefrom New York.
This is during that whole timewhen he was caught up in, you
know, the felony counts 32felony counts.
He's going back and forththroughout the country.
He had to be in New York at theend of every night, so he'd fly
down to Florida and come back,but I think he flew down york at
the end of every night, so he'dfly down to florida and come
back, but I think he flew downto florida with the founder of

(10:28):
polygon, on the airplane.
I didn't know that, no way yeah,and, and that guy was out there
in front and talking too, andtrump was just like you know.
I thought it was a charade.
I thought he was just sayingthat for votes man, but the way
that he talked about it reallyindicated to me that he had some

(10:48):
sort of understanding of whatBitcoin was, what cryptocurrency
was, and he was smart enough toutilize that to his advantage,
and I would estimate that he'sgot a lot of money.
But at the same time, new Yorkwas really trying to lock him
down and I think these fundswere pivotal for him.

(11:09):
I think he saw the cryptocommunity come together and kind
of help him out in that way.
So I think that there might besome sort of loyalty Maybe
that's too strong of a word tocryptocurrency, but he sees it
as a positive thing because itreally helped him out.
My question to you is do youthink that?

(11:29):
Do you think he like CBDCswe're talking about?
Do you think he actuallyunderstands what a CBDC is?

Speaker 3 (11:38):
I think he probably does in like the grand concept.
I mean I also like I don't holdtrump's negative quote-unquote
bitcoin views is a big issuebecause a lot of people forget
one the marketing was terribleand it still is kind of terrible
sometimes.
But the marketing when trumpwas president was we want
bitcoin to overthrow the usdollar.

(11:59):
Okay, no president in americawants.
The largest geopolitical toolat our disposal is the dollar.
So any president coming out andsaying I hate the dollar is
stupid Geopolitically and justfrom a voter sentiment base.
No voter wants to hear that,especially if you're a boomer,
right.
But then on the flip side,people also kind of memory hold

(12:20):
that Meta tried to launch atoken and that was a very big
deal.
And Donald Trump and Zuckerbergdo not like each other, right.
Facebook was one of the largestfunders for Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
They were a big funder for JoeBiden's campaign.
So everything in crypto inTrump's eyes was, hey, this is

(12:42):
not going to help me and in fact, some of these crypto people
are trying to sink my campaign,right.
That all changes, I think, post2020, where the Bitcoin
community essentially startssaying, ok, well, we need allies
because Elizabeth Warren doesnot like us, right, they kind of
pick Trump and if you look atthe tea leaves, the Republican

(13:04):
states were always the onesleading on Bitcoin policy.
It was always Florida andalways Texas, whereas you had
New York and California andIllinois trying to either ban it
or make it unusable.
Like Illinois had a KYC lawthat was applicable to mining,
which would essentially havemade mining illegal, in Illinois
.

Speaker 2 (13:23):
Why is that, dude?
I don't want to let you keepgoing.
Just who?

Speaker 3 (13:26):
their funders are Just who their I mean, some of
it's very simple is Bitcoin andcrypto are a new tech industry
with new players that will hurtcertain other players, right?
Like money is not universal, Idon't think, right.
Sometimes it is a zero-sum game, and when you innovate, whoever

(13:47):
is being held back is not goingto want you to innovate because
it hurts their bottom line,right?
So I think there was someperceived threat that Bitcoin
and crypto were going to be badfor the democratic donor base,
and I'm sure some of thembelieve that it was only used
for criminal activity, right?
So maybe, if I'm giving themthe benefit of the doubt, some
of them believe that it was onlyused for criminal activity, um,
right, so maybe if I'm givingthem the benefit of the doubt,

(14:08):
some of them did not, that's aweak art.
It's the weakest argument forcrypto that there is it is the
weakest argument, uh, but thatdoesn't mean it's not.
It's the weakest argument onpaper.
It's the best sounding argumentpublic for those who need
correct exactly.
So you know, and that's only ifI give them the benefit of the
doubt.
Otherwise I would just say youknow it was in their interest.

(14:29):
Like Elizabeth Warren, some ofher biggest donors are who, the
big, large financialinstitutions.
And to be clear, it was nevermy opinion either that they were
trying to ban it.
I think a lot of them just wantit harder for retail to get
access to, so that they can buyit up and hoard it and just keep
it to themselves.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
So, yeah, so is what you're going to see now.
You're living in twointeresting worlds, I think,
because you're able to appeal tothe Bitcoiners, you're able to
bring that knowledge andeducation to businesses, and
then you're able to kind of talkto lawmakers.
But then there's this wholeother world that Bitcoiners look
at, and that's the you guysrefer to it I wouldn't say you

(15:09):
guys generally referred to asthe crypto world, which is
everything else but Bitcoin.
So I guess my question to youis it difficult in any way to
balance talking to those twofolks, because there's a lot of
animosity on both sides towardsone of each other?
Charles Hoskinson, he went toCapitol Hill what two years ago,

(15:33):
yeah, and he finds out thatthere's a lot of congressional
staffers that are working tocreate legislation to shut down
crypto, decentralized finance,and then he kind of reported on
that and talked about that.
So have you found it difficultto kind of be in both worlds or
kind of what's your secret tobring those together?

Speaker 3 (15:54):
Well, as far as navigation goes, it's the
communities that kind of makethe division, but the people
with money in the matter don'treally care.
They kind of view it all thesame way.
So like, for example, you justhad the XRP lawsuit finally kind
of come to a conclusion, unlessthe SEC appeals again.
But it's the community of theXRP people versus the Bitcoin

(16:17):
people that are jabbing eachother.
The people who are fundingthese lobbyists they're all
using the same lobbying firms,they're all using the same
chambers of commerce.
So the Bitcoin companies andthe XRP companies or the XRP
itself are funding sometimes theexact same people on Capitol
Hill.
So there's no issue when itcomes to advocacy.

(16:39):
Now to your point.
There are always sometimesmisaligned incentives.
For example, you might have abill that is great for Bitcoin
and kind of kills a little bitof the DeFi aspect, and the
people just in Bitcoin might gowell, we just want the win,
right, so we're willing to throwDeFi under the bus just to get

(17:00):
the win for Bitcoin.
Maybe they don't care aboutDeFi, so there will be some
division there, and that's kindof like with any industry.
So of course you want tobalance that and that's where it
kind of takes a reallystrategic perspective, because
you always want to manage.
Okay.
Well, who do I represent?
What do I think is best for theindustry?
Do I take a win that might nothappen at all because it's so

(17:24):
hard to get a win?
Do I take a win and sacrifice alittle bit on one end, or do I
say no?
I want the complete package andI'm willing to delay, you know,
five to 10 years for goodpolicy, because I'm standing
pure to what I believe right.
Both approaches work and bothhave negatives and both have

(17:45):
positives, and, you see, bothcarried out by political
strategists all the time.
So I think to me it's kind ofwhatever the moment is.
For example, the CBDC bill.
We were at a great moment.
We had a very hot, contestedpresidential primary for the
Republican Party and you hadpeople like Vivek and DeSantis

(18:07):
the two most likable candidatesbesides Trump talking about
crypto.
So we had a really niceopportunity to say this is the
perfect piece of legislation topass in this moment, right?
So sometimes it is just well.
What are the politicians seeingon the ground?
What's the media saying?
And so if the media and publicopinion is drifting toward one

(18:28):
way, it's your job to go okay.
Well, if this is where it'sdrifting, do I have a bill that
I can kind of float that fitsinto that current narrative?
That is good for the industry.
So it's, you know, it'spolitical chess.

Speaker 2 (18:42):
Yeah, man, jeez.
This is probably a good segueto get into this part.
So you've got Bitcoin, youreally love it, you believe in
it.
Let's say you're in thebeginning, the heydays here, and
you decide that you want tostart creating legislation, and
this doesn't just have to beBitcoin, it can be any cool idea

(19:03):
or any idea that you care about.
The thing that most peopledon't know how to do is to kind
of get involved in thatlegislative process.
So if somebody has an idea orsomething that they're
passionate about and they've gotan idea for legislation like
where do they start?
Where did people in cryptostart, like how does all this

(19:24):
work behind the scenes?
Well, it's a good question.
I guess I'd say they start.
Where did people in cryptostart, like how does all this
work behind the scenes?

Speaker 3 (19:26):
Well, it's a good question.
I guess I'd say they start onTwitter, right.
But I've actually moved myfocus because when I first
started my organization, my goalwas kind of to be a NRA type
organization or like an Act Blue, where you're moving people on
the ground, you're getting smalldollar donations and you're

(19:48):
raiding politicians.
But I soon realized that a lotof people on Bitcoin and the
crypto sphere as a whole don'tlike government, don't want to
talk to government and are moreconcerned about kind of
themselves and like making a bag, so to speak, than influencing
policy.
And I talked to Bitcoiners eventoday who aren't going to put

(20:11):
up a fight, they'd rather justleave.
And that's still a commonmentality.
It's especially common inlibertarian circles where
instead of fighting, you'drather just get out.
And so I was like, well, that'snot going to work right If I'm
going to have a politicalorganization.
So that's when I made the shiftto businesses, because
businesses it is harder to moveright, they normally have a tie

(20:33):
to their community and they havemoney and skin in the game, so
they take it more seriously.
And when I made that transition, I also understood that well,
the businesses know the exactlegislation that's hurting them
and that's why they want to bein a chamber of commerce to talk
to other businesses and say,hey, what's something good that
all of us can get rid of?
Maybe there's one or two taxesthat are preventing us from

(20:55):
being profitable of us can getrid of.
Maybe there's one or two taxesthat are preventing us from
being profitable, right, likethat's kind of.
Where the legislative processstarts is really with these
business leaders who aredirectly impacted, say, by the
SEC or say, by your state'sfinancial office, because
they're actually getting hurt bythe expenses of the red tape as
opposed to getting hurt by theexpenses of the red tape as

(21:18):
opposed to.
You know, I might be a DeFitrader and I might be using
Uniswap, but if I suddenly can'tuse Uniswap on my computer, oh,
what do I do?
I get a VPN or like I just findsome workaround, whereas a
business, you're not going torisk that right.
You want to be in compliancewith the law, you're not going
to go to jail for that right.
So I think the best place tostart really is looking at the

(21:40):
business community and thenfollowing what they're doing and
seeing okay, well, what are theactual needs?
That's why you're seeing rightnow.
I think one of Trump's talkingpoints is self-custody.
Self-custody is a big issue fora lot of these Bitcoin
companies and if you're notallowed to self-custody
Self-custody is a big issue fora lot of these Bitcoin companies
and if you're not allowed toself-custody, a lot of these
exchanges and a lot of theseBitcoin companies are probably

(22:03):
going to fail, if not just havea very overburdened some
regulation that they're going tohave to deal with.
So obviously it's in theirfavor to want self-custody to be
allowable, as opposed to not.

Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah, there's quite a bit to talk about there.
I'm going to just kind of recaphere real quick.
So when you first set out onthis endeavor and I explained
this with the NRA, secondAmendment stuff Second Amendment
is more entrenched in thecommon day every man man

(22:36):
individual's mindset in America,so it's probably easier to kind
of rally people to a centralfocus with that sort of thing.
But you found with what youwere trying to do it just didn't
work too well and you pivotedover to business.
I imagine you were running allover the state going to meetings
and things and probably didn'thave too much traction initially

(22:59):
until you started focusing onbusiness.

Speaker 3 (23:02):
Well, you know, people are lazy and people love
the idea of change, but no onewants to commit to the change.
They always want somebody elseto do it, which is perfectly
fine, but that's human nature.
That's why media and electionsis so important and we can get
into that.
But, like I, would go tomeetups and some of these
meetups they'd be like well,bitcoin doesn't need government

(23:24):
to succeed and we don't believein government, even though we
live in the state of Floridaunder a state and federal
government.
We don't believe in government.
Why would we want to talk aboutit?
Right, and a lot of peoplestill believe that, and I've
never believed that.
I've always held the opinionthat everyone should be
politically active and involved,because you either have a say
or you don't.

(23:44):
And I think there's acorrelation between the people
who have gotten stuff done ingovernment and their belief in
government and the inverse.
So I think a lot of people arejolted because they've never
actually been involved at acommunity level, to see what can
happen with government.
Like you can get a lot done asan individual at the county or

(24:07):
city level, right, like itactually doesn't take much to
get involved and really createissues for people if they're not
representing you correctly.
Give me an example.

Speaker 2 (24:15):
How would you create issues for for people if they're
not representing you correctly?
Give me an example.
How would you create issues forfor some asshole?

Speaker 3 (24:20):
oh well, yeah, the city council, the city council,
has to meet sometimes, at leastonce a month, and you can show
up to every individual meetingright, and you can call them out
to their face yeah right, it'snot like congress.
Like, how often do you get tomeet your congressperson, right?
Uh, you can book a meeting whenthey're in their district.
What are you going to do?
Go to dc, like they're?
So they have so many morepeople that have to meet with

(24:41):
them per district.
Uh, they're more out of the wayto get a hold of, whereas your
city council member has to livewithin your township, within
your neighborhood and it's greatcontent.
It's recorded.
Yeah, correct, correct.
So there's just moreopportunity and it's the most
tied to local businesses, whichyou're more than likely shopping
at right.

(25:02):
A congressional district can bepretty big and there might be
parts of the congressionaldistrict that you have never
even been to.
Right, it's just a bigger gameat the congressional side where
money is a bigger factor moneyand influence, with bigger
companies participating, asopposed to the city level.
Don't get me wrong.
City depending on the city canbe very expensive and get very

(25:22):
involved, but you're stillcloser to the ground floor,
you're still closer to thepeople and no one votes in city
elections.
So 100 votes could make a hugedifference in a city or county
election.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
And that takes a whole lot less human energy to
collect those votes right,correct, and financial energy,
I'd imagine, as well.

Speaker 3 (25:41):
Yes, correct.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
So all right.
So I'm in front of a city hallor a city council and I'm
passionate about cryptocurrency.
Whatever that may be, yeah.
Whatever that may be, yeah.
How can cryptocurrency benefita state or local or regional
area?
What would I be presenting tothis city?

(26:08):
For Bitcoin to benefit the cityor for some crypto Ethereum to
benefit the city, whatever thecase may be.

Speaker 3 (26:12):
There's all kinds of nuance and the funny part is a
lot of it is just marketing andshowing that you're crypto
friendly so that people want tolive there.
I'll get specific and then I'llget general.
Specifically, for example,there is a bio waste reactor or
a dump in Orange County, florida, that has been fined multiple
times for excess methaneemissions.

(26:32):
So I have gotten people andthey're actually running for
election right now toessentially propose hey, what if
we capture the methane and useit to mine Bitcoin?
So, instead of getting finedand I'm going to pay the fine
because of excess methaneemissions we're going to capture
it and actually produce revenuefor the county.
Now, how likely is that tohappen?

(26:54):
Well, that's a pretty toughclimb still, just because people
are like well, you're going tobe mining Bitcoin, whatever, but
you're doing two things You'recapturing methane, which you're
getting fined for, so now you'renot going to get fined.
So you're turning a negativeinto a neutral and then you turn
the neutral into a positivebecause hopefully you'll be
mining Bitcoin with that.
A lot of municipalities operatetheir own waste infrastructure

(27:17):
and their own electricity.
Right, I think in the state ofFlorida, you might have upwards
of 30 different municipalitiesthat have their own electrical
grid or I shouldn't say grid,electrical powerhouse, power
generation and so you take thoseand you say, well, the city
council are the people who haveauthority over that.
How can I influence my citycouncil to say, hey, I have a

(27:40):
solution for you.
And the flip side, on just themarketing side, it can be very
easy.
It could just be telling yourcity council members hey, I'm a
business owner, I employ 20people, I'm in crypto.
Be nice to my industry becauseI'm bringing you guys jobs.
Yeah, right, no one needs tounderstand Ethereum.
No one needs to understandBitcoin.
If you're an elected official,you just need to be like oh,
you're supporting a family, oh,you're creating jobs, that's

(28:02):
great, right, like, that shouldbe the main talking point,
because that is real.
They don't need to understandBitcoin mining.
Why don't I show you myfacility and have all my
employees which maybe there'sfive or 10, stand outside and
have you shake their hand?
Right, that makes it a lot morereal.
We had in my hometown.
We actually ran into thisproblem because we were trying

(28:25):
to get a crypto company to movethere and the crypto company
actually wanted to buy therights of a local stadium there,
which was going to be awesome.
But the county commissionactually did not allow them to
buy the rights of the stadiumbecause there was a larger
company that didn't want that tohappen and didn't want my
hometown to be known for crypto,I guess.

(28:46):
So it ended up getting quashedand then that company then moved
to another city in Florida,which I was happy that they were
still in Florida.
But it shows you, man, if thatcounty commission would have
just said you know what they'rewilling to pay for the naming
rights of a small stadium here,why not?
They could have gotten at least20 more jobs in that area and
started trying to show like, hey, we can attract tech here.

(29:08):
So that's kind of the politicaldynamic on a local level.

Speaker 2 (29:13):
And then also, I'd imagine that many of these folks
sitting on town council andcity council all across of
America they have no clue howcryptocurrency works.
So if you have a tactful way toposition that information to
them without kind of, withoutstealing their dignity or making
them feel stupid, you're alsodoing them a service.

(29:35):
You know it might not be yourthing that causes the whole
concept to click in their head,but you know they might think
back three or four or five yearsfrom now when they've been in
contact five or six times withthe industry and they say, okay,
now it makes sense.
Cool, let me go call that SamArms guy.
He was talking all about thisback then.

(29:57):
He lives in the city Right Umall right, so, uh, so you talk
to city council and uh, and, andyou get some sort of visibility
.
Okay, and then you know yourealize that you want to do more
.
You want your government to beinvolved more in crypto.

(30:20):
You're super passionate aboutit for all of these reasons.
Okay, what's the next level upfrom, I guess from a state
perspective, you've gotcongressional leaders, and kind
of, how do you even approachthat?
Do you hire a firm?
Do you knock on somebody's door?
Do you call in?
What do you do?

Speaker 3 (30:39):
It really just depends on what you want to do
and what your strategy is so.
I've worked with lobbying firmsin the past.
I've done a lot of the workjust myself, through
relationships that I've built.
That sounds bad.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
Lobbying firms?
A lot of people don't.
It's like a negativeconnotation.
Maybe you can provide someclarity on that before you move
forward.
What are lobbying firms?

Speaker 3 (30:58):
It's always a great conversation because I love
getting people a little riled up, because essentially, as long
as you have a democratic system,you're going to have lobbying,
and so anytime someone'scomplaining about lobbying,
they're really just complainingabout democracy, which is
perfectly fine, but that'sreally what it is.
So what is lobbying?
Lobbying is you have B2Cbusiness to customer, you have

(31:19):
B2B business to business andthen you have what I call B2G
business to government.
So lobbying is marketing towardthe government.
You as a CEO or as a person,don't have the time to know
what's going on at thegovernment level, who's friends
with who, what bills are comingup.
There's so much that happensfrom government as an
organization, a lot of peoplewill hire someone to say, well,

(31:41):
just tell me what's going on.

Speaker 2 (31:42):
So these people, in a nutshell, they are the people,
they're the watchers of thepolitical system.
They go between a businessperson or a regular person and
government, so they're kind ofthat middleman they're the
watcher?

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Yes, and they have the relationship, and that's the
most important factor.
So, unfortunately, orfortunately, relationships are
still the backbone of Americansociety.
Everything is about trust,which is why they say there's a
revolving door between politicsand lobbying, because what will
happen is I run for office, I'min office for two years.
My two years in office I knowevery senator, every

(32:18):
representative, some of them mybest friends, some of them my
worst enemies.
But I get to know and work withall of them.
When I leave, that Rolodexdoesn't go away.
So then I can say, hey, actuallyI have at least five friends'
phone numbers.
I can start a lobbying firm andcall up Steve and say, hey,
steve, it's Sam, I got a clientwith a bill.
Can you at least meet with him?

(32:38):
Would you entertain sponsoringthe bill?
Right, and me and Steve havebeen friends for two years.
I probably helped Steve withsomething in the past or he kind
of owes me a few favors.
And so Steve goes, yeah, sure,why not?
And then I tell my client I gohey, so Steve is a good friend
of mine, but we should donate tohis campaign, because once
Steve likes my client, thebusiness.

(32:59):
I want to keep that relationshipgoing.
And now that Steve and theclient have a good relationship,
it's in the client's incentiveto make sure that Steve stays
elected.
Because why would I wantsomeone new when I've spent two,
four, six years building arelationship with a politician,
which is why, more often thannot you will notice these people
stay in office, because thepeople who have been working

(33:21):
with them so long don't want anew person.
Because that new person meansrebuilding relationships.
That new person is going tobring in their own relationships
, which means you're not apriority anymore, and all this
is just simply the democraticprocess.
You may hate what I'm saying islobbying, but this is just
simply the democratic process.
You may hate what I'm saying islobbying, but this is just how
democracy actually works.

Speaker 2 (33:38):
Yeah, so yeah, oh, go ahead.
I didn't mean to cut you off.

Speaker 3 (33:41):
Well, I was just going to say people have finite
time and finite resources, andso lobbying essentially fills in
that gap of finitude for youraverage person or business that
can't afford to pay attention orhave these relationships.

Speaker 2 (33:56):
Got it.
So how robust is, I guess, therules and regulations with
regards to lobbying?
Because I think most peoplethink just it's a corrupt, you
know this or that.
That's just the general notion,but obviously not everybody is
corrupt in that way.
So kind of what's that looklike?

Speaker 3 (34:16):
everybody is corrupt in that way.
So kind of what's that looklike?
Yeah, I mean, define corruption, right?
I mean I love the graph that itshows bribing or bribery all
over the world.
In the US, you know, there's nobribing here because we call it
lobbying, right?
So it's pretty much the same.
And where it gets corrupt isjust the different ways that you
can move money around.
So one example I give is everypolitician launches a book.

(34:38):
Why do they launch a book?
Because the publisher can finda way to get revenue to the
politician.
Like, politicians don't createbooks for marketing although
they do but a publisher can buythe first 50,000 copies of the
book they publish to create acash injection for the person
who wrote the book, who can thenuse that for campaign finance,

(35:01):
right?
So Obama was very famous for alot of his book deals, and you
know this could have beenhappening before Obama, but
that's when it kind ofregistered in my head that book
deals are a great way to raisemoney for a campaign, right,
that book deals are a great wayto raise money for a campaign,
right.
When you see politicians makean appearance in Hollywood, you
don't know what they're paid,but it's a paid position that

(35:22):
then can be directed towardcampaign finance.
Normal people, or your averageperson, just thinks of like PACs
and super PACs, which are justC4s or C3s, where I want to give
money to a candidate, so Idonate to a PAC, and then that
PAC spends money on ads andmarketing on behalf of the
candidate.
And, okay, the biggest donor tothis PAC was an oil company or

(35:44):
it was an environmental solarpanel company.
So then obviously, the personwho is being supported by that
PAC is going to have positionsfriendly to that industry, right
?
That PAC is going to havepositions friendly to that
industry, right?
I know that sounds dirty, maybeit is dirty, but it also.

(36:06):
It's just the way this works.
It's the way it is, and theonly way to limit that is to
essentially encroach upon whatwe would call democracy in our
current republic, which is thefreedom to voice your opinion,
not only through voting andthrough speech, but through the
use of your funds.
So that's where everything getsreally hairy.
A lot of people point to likeCitizens United where it's like,
okay, well, how much can acorporation give?
Can we set caps on what they cangive?

(36:27):
But money always moves.
And if I go back to my examplewith the book deals, I mean,
okay, so you set caps on what asuper PAC can give, maybe?
But then I just find a creativeway to say, well, will you be
my advisor on the board of thiscompany?
And the advisor for thisposition gets paid a million
bucks a year.
You know what I mean.
So it's very tough to regulatecampaign finance because it's

(36:52):
hard to regulate what should bea free market.
And as long as there's a freemarket, people are going to
gravitate toward giving those inpower money to coerce them into
favoring their company oversomebody else's.

Speaker 2 (37:04):
Yeah, it's a problem.
It's a problem that has existedfor a very long time, that's
thousands of years here, okay,and I don't think that we've,
you know, I don't think thatwe've been able to solve it.
Nobody's come up with a bettersystem at this point, I think.

Speaker 3 (37:19):
And that's why I would say, I don't even know if
it's a problem, as much as humannature is a problem.
And that's where it gets trickyis.
I'm like okay, how do you solvehuman nature?
I mean, that's the question,isn't it?
I don't know how you solvehuman nature.

Speaker 2 (37:34):
Well, capitalism, how do you solve crony capitalists?
You know late stage capitalism,how do you?
You know all that Correct.
But we do create.
You know we strive to createsystems that find a way to
combat human nature, which is wecan be broken and sinful and we

(37:55):
can be greedy and we can becorrupt.
So the system in and of itselfisn't corrupt, but the people
running it are.
So you know it's a it's adifficult thing to tackle,
especially when it's soentrenched, I think, in American
politics.
Good things come out of itundoubtedly, but it's also a

(38:18):
sticking point for a lot ofpeople in a frustrating way.
Let me.
Okay, so I think that we've gota pretty good idea of what
lobbying firms are now, right,yeah, so let's get back to it
where I asked you.
You know how do we go to thenext level, and you kind of you
talk about lobbying firms toreach to those upper echelons of

(38:39):
legislatures, like where do yougo from there?
What do you hire them to do?
Like, what do you tell them todo?

Speaker 3 (38:45):
Well, once again, that depends.
So a lobbying firm you wouldsay, you know, you'd shop around
and you'd say I want to passthis legislation or I want to
stop this legislation frompassing.
And so you shop around.
Different lobbying firms aregoing to give you different
rates and costs and how do theyguarantee do?
They guarantee this stuff?
No, and you can never guaranteeit because it's, it's chance.

(39:06):
For example, one thing I teacha lot of people is that politics
, or like elections, are like VCfunding.
So, one of the best ways thatlobbying firms and individuals
can build politicalrelationships to then use for
lobbying is getting involved inelections, because no one needs
more help than someone trying toget elected and, like VC firms,

(39:28):
the earlier you bet, the biggeryour reward if you win.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (39:33):
But you can still lose, right?
If you were to give DonaldTrump in 2015 a million bucks,
that says a lot more than givingDonald Trump now a million
bucks.
Right, because you bet earlyand you bet hard.
So now a lot of people who betearly on Trump are still in his
circle and very powerful.
So if you're looking at apolitical dynamic, a lot of

(39:56):
these lobbying firms will bet onsomeone and say, well, I'm
going to donate a lot of moneyto this candidate and if that
candidate wins their electionnow the lobbying firm can say,
okay, now I have a goodrelationship, I have a little
bit of control.
So now they have to figure outhow do I monetize that
relationship.
And that's what lobbying reallyis.
It's monetization ofrelationships, like any kind of
consulting, right?
What do you know, who do youknow and how do you know it?

(40:17):
And so they will go okay, youwant a pro-crypto bill passed.
I did some pretty good bettingon.
You know about 10 differentpoliticians, so I'm going to
charge you X amount of money forthe chance that your bill is
going to get passed, and a lotof times they pocket about 75%

(40:38):
of that money and then the other25% they put back into the
campaigns of the people thatthey're trying to get to pass
the legislation so that they cancontinue the favoritism and
hopefully next year get themreelected.
And so when you're thinking,okay, how do I get involved on
the federal level?
What's the next bill that Ipass?
That's why Chamber of Commercemodels become so effective,

(41:02):
because you have 20 differentcompanies that join together and
say we all support A, b and Cpolicy proposals.
They can all donate through thechamber and have the chamber
give money so that they can saytheir unified voice, or they can
all give individually, butessentially creates an industry
group that says here's what webelieve, here's what we're for,

(41:25):
and you've had that in cryptonow for quite some time.
You have quite a few DCindustry groups, groups and even
dc, uh, crypto focused, uhlobbying firms that essentially
push those agendas huh.

Speaker 2 (41:38):
So it's very um, this is very interesting to think
about.
It's like, uh, to affect changeon a local level, it's pretty
easy just to show up to the, tothe events, but to affect change
on the larger levels, you haveto have a bigger part.
You got to have people together.

(42:00):
They have to rally together,they have to be represented by
one voice.
So that way, when these peoplego to legislators and lawmakers,
these folks realize that, hey,there's more on the line here
than just telling one person no.
Now I'm telling 150,000 peopleno, and those 150,000 people

(42:22):
know 10 people that they'regoing to trash me in front of
during the holidays, for example, and that 150,000 is actually a
10, x or 15 or 20 X difference.
So I had to be very, verycareful.
I have to be very political inmy answers.
And how am I going to say yes,or am I going to say no in a
tactful way?

(42:42):
Am I going to give them somesort of concession but not
giving them everything that theywant?
So that's uh, that's very, it'svery interesting to think about
here.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
I walked in on a politician.
We had a bill that lookedpretty bad.
I called it a mini-bit licenseand some of that was marketing,
but some of it I did believe itwas a bad bill.
Last year Walked in with a fewcompanies that I represented or
that were part of my chamber.
I should say and we sit down.
And he sits down and I go well,we want to talk about bill you

(43:15):
know one, two, three, four, five, and I just want to let you
know we believe it's a bad billand here's why.
And he cut me off immediately,he didn't even let me finish.
He goes hey, man, listen, Ihaven't read the bill.
I don't even know what's in thebill.
I'm glad you're here, but I wasjust told by my buddy that this
would be good for the industryand that's why I did it.
If you don't like it, that'sfine.

(43:36):
I have no intention of passingit.
I can give you my buddy'snumber and you guys can talk it
out.
That's how it went.
A lot of these politicians arenot reading the legislation and
they can't be experts ineverything.
Some of them will try to pickan expertise in one or two
things, and that's what you callyour champion and that's who
you run through.
But a lot of them are justtrying to get by and try to

(43:56):
become an expert or have atrusted circle around them of
people to trust.
And this guy just happened totrust somebody who, I guess,
wanted to hurt the industry herein Florida for their own gain.
And so it's sometimes thatsimple.
I tell a lot of people man, youjust got to show up right
because yeah, had we not shownup, this guy would have gone
along and been like, wow, I'mpromoting pro web 3, pro crypto,

(44:19):
bitcoin legislation, I'mawesome.
And then I come in and be like,hey, you know, that bill's
terrible.
And he's like what?
No, I had no idea.
I didn't even read it, right.
My buddy told me it was good,so I thought thought it was good
.
Really, it can be that simple.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
Huh, well, okay, so let's talk about the crypto
industry now.
And this is yeah, maybe this isthrough the eyes of a
libertarian Okay, sure, soyou're in an event.
Some guy comes up to you and hesays hey, man, the Satoshi, you
know what the Satoshi whitepaper outlined is completely

(44:52):
different than what we're seeingright now.
You've got you know, you've gotinstitutional guys involved,
you've got BlackRock and you'vegot you know, you've got
MicroStrategy and all this.
Bitcoin is at the very top, isbecoming the supplies becoming
very centralized and a smallamount of wallets so is.

(45:13):
Is that a reason for concern,sam, okay, and that's what the
guy tells you.
Is that a reason for concern?
Are we drifting away from fromwhat it once was?
Should I be worried thatgovernments and and the people
who play ball with governmentsare getting involved more?
What are your thoughts there?

Speaker 3 (45:30):
yeah, I mean, I like to say we all get what we
deserve, and a lot of people inthe Bitcoin community have
wanted adoption and wanted thenumber to go up, and they
haven't really talked about whatthat actually looks like.
But what we're seeing isadoption and the number going up
, and so for a lot of people whogot in early congrats like
you're holding a great asset, doI think it's going to be harder

(45:52):
for people to get in.
Are they going to try to createbarriers to entry?
Probably, because that's whathappens when assets that are new
become adopted.
Is it a worry?
Probably that depends whoyou're worried about.
A lot of these people aren'tworried because they've already
got enough of it, and so what dothey have to worry about?
Right, you have like theMichael Saylors of the world.

(46:13):
The guy's a genius, you knowhe's not.
What's he concerned with?
He's got enough.
Bitcoin MicroStrategy is goingto continue to do well.
Is he worried that it'sbecoming centralized?
Or is he worried that, you know, etfs and government are
starting to regulate it?
No, right, because all it meansfor him is he's made a good
financial investment.

(46:34):
Now, if you're someone currentlywho hasn't gotten into Bitcoin,
well, one, you probably don'tknow that you should be worried.
But if you do find out you'reprobably going to be worried
because there may be a day whereyou can only invest and buy in
the ETF and can't self-custody,or like you've missed the boat
right and you just now Bitcoin'stoo expensive and you've missed
the opportunity forgenerational wealth.

(46:54):
So once again it kind of goesback to like the human nature
side of things is this is kindof just the natural process of
what happens.
I think my goal for a lot ofpeople is to make the best of
what happens naturally.
So obviously I'm never in favorof centralization, but you know
, centralization brings aboutwhat.

(47:15):
It brings about maturity in amarket and it also brings about
higher prices right In the assetbecause we have financial
products being launched.
Financial products, whether youlike them or not, are going to
bring in more liquidity andbring in number go up, which is
all that you know.
A certain subset of people seemto be care, be caring about.

Speaker 2 (47:34):
Yeah, when did that?
When did that change, Like Iguess?

Speaker 3 (47:39):
probably this cycle.
I mean, you can look at videosof me talking to some friends in
uh, maybe 2022.
And even back then, I wassaying this is the last real
Bitcoin cycle where generationalwealth can be created.
After this, it's going to beowned by the institution, so I
think, kind of FTX gettinginvolved, but then, especially

(48:00):
now with BlackRock, is whereBitcoin has officially become
financialized, you know, withinthe Wall Street world, and so it
went from being a product forconsumers or retail to now an
institutional product, whichsome would say that's good, some
would say that's bad.
It depends on your vision andwhat adoption means.

(48:20):
Right, and that's, you know,probably too lengthy of a
conversation, but the fact isthat, yeah, now the institutions
are here, which is whatBitcoiners have wanted for
forever.
Back in 2017, everyone wasstating well, one day, right, I
remember it, yeah.

Speaker 2 (48:37):
Constantly and they have like a graph.
They're like yeah, it's, youknow, this person's going to buy
, and then this person's goingto buy, and then this country's
going to buy, and then UnitedStates is going to buy and yeah,
it kind of went that directionand they thought you know.

Speaker 3 (48:52):
They said you know everyone's going to adopt it.
You won't have a choice.
And they're probably right.
And this is what adoption lookslike.
This is what that process lookslike.
So, people complaining aboutcentralization or, you know,
government getting involved Well, this is actually natural.
This is what you've wanted.
This is what you've talkedabout since when you first got

(49:13):
in, whether that's 2013 or 2016.
And it's always quote unquotethe cost of the next group of
people that get in, right.
So if you get in now, you'reextremely happy, regardless of
what happens, because as long asthe price goes up, you're going
to be excited right Now, nottrying to be doom or gloom or
negative.
This is just general, what Ithink is human psychology.

(49:34):
Of course, you're going to havepeople who are like, well, we
really need to be concernedabout you know, are we funding
bitcoin core devs enough?
Are we really trying to buildout lightning network or an
efficient alternative tolightning network?
Right, like, are we reallykeeping the dream alive?

Speaker 2 (49:49):
and I see some of those conversations on Twitter,
but it's definitely a smallersubset now that the institutions
are involved, I mean how do youI think I mean, if the
institutions have gone throughall this rigmarole you know ETFs
and obviously they're not justgoing out here and buying
Bitcoin they're having backdoorconversations with these

(50:09):
liaisons, banking liaisonsbetween the government, this and
that Wouldn't you think thatthose guys are actually going to
be responsible for creating,maybe, the next iteration of the
Bitcoin core updates?
Don't you think they're goingto take more responsibility for
this code now and push things?
There's a huge financialsacrifice that they put up and

(50:34):
they put their name out there tobe associated with Bitcoin, so
why would they let the networkfail?

Speaker 3 (50:41):
I don't know.
You know I saw rumors a whileback that Michael Saylor didn't
want to support Bitcoin devs.
I don't know if that's stilltrue.
I've talked to Bitcoin devs whohave said we're underfunded.
And then I talked to Bitcoindevs who have told me well, we
don't need to do anything, wedon't need to do any more
updates to Bitcoin, it couldsurvive perfectly fine, as it is
right, this second Right andunfortunately I'm not technical

(51:04):
enough, but even if I was, allthese technical people still
seem to have differing opinionson what works and what doesn't,
you know.
So maybe BlackRock has realizedwell, we don't really need to
be involved.
Or maybe BlackRock has a10-year plan and they go well,
we can do this for 10 years,we'll exit, and then we've made
our buck.
And who cares what happens?

Speaker 2 (51:22):
There's something going on.
I don't know if they're goingto have, like you know, exchange
your Bitcoin for our new thing,or something like that at some
point in the future.
But I'll tell you dude Sam, whatis really going to change
everything in the next threeyears is going to be AI, and
people don't see that traincoming down the road.

(51:44):
Man People just don'tunderstand, and that has huge
implications for thecryptocurrency community as well
.
All these existing blockchainsthat are out there, the ability
for things to be compromised,grow exponentially as we begin
to spend more power or moremoney on power and energy for AI

(52:06):
, I think.
So that's another topic wecould cover at some point.

Speaker 3 (52:10):
Well, that's where you're definitely on the policy
side.
You see AI and Bitcoinconverging, because one of the
biggest policy sides of Bitcoinis Bitcoin mining and cheap,
efficient, reliable energy.
Now Bitcoin miners have acompetitor and that is AI.
Right, the need for compute isgoing to be exponential, never

(52:31):
ending, and both Bitcoin minersand AI companies are going to be
constantly searching for it.
And if we get the policiesright, I mean I think it could
usher in a golden age of energyproduction to invest more in
nuclear and the most efficientforms of electricity known to
man, just so that we can almoststay level and normal with the

(52:56):
needs of a world reserve assetand AI demands, which are only
continuing to grow.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, it's a national security threat too.
They have to spend money onenergy, because if China is
spending 5% or 10% of their GDPon on energy infrastructure,
then we've got to do that too,because these, these AI
civilizations that that aregoing to be around man, it's
like it's like nuclear bombs andyou have to have your deterrent

(53:25):
.
So what's interesting?
I talked to I was talking toGary before and he kind of
brought this up and then I'vebeen thinking about it quite a
bit, which was either you'regoing to have Microsoft or IBM
or Google turn into an energycompany and then kind of bring
crypto together, or you can havethe energy companies come in

(53:46):
and snatch up all these miningentities, because energy
companies get the energystraight from the source.
So from an overhead perspective,it would make a whole lot more
sense for them to be miningBitcoin in the next 20 or 30
years rather than a publiclytraded company who you know.
I guess a lot of their energydoes come from renewable.

(54:08):
At this point I think they'vekind of made the shift towards
that.
But he was talking aboutthey're looking for the exit.
Okay, so the mining companies,they're looking for an exit.
Who better to give them thatexit than the energy companies,
because they can source thathowever they want and use that
however they want and turn aprofit on it.

Speaker 3 (54:28):
Yeah, gary made me realize a few things just
because of his energy expertise.
Like, for example, I neverthought but nuclear energy is
can't be shut off, right, it isalways being produced and the
grid doesn't always need thatenergy, nor can it always handle
it.
So I think every nuclearreactor is going to have Bitcoin
miners to absorb the energywhen it doesn't have to be

(54:49):
needed elsewhere.
And then you're going to havesovereigns like the state of
Russia who can quote unquote getthe energy for free, right,
because they print their ownmoney.
So anything that comes out ofthe ground they have the
infrastructure for, and thenjust go okay, well, we're just
going to use the energy thatwe're paying people for in
rubles to mine Bitcoin, right,and so we can just build this

(55:10):
incredible energy capacity andinfrastructure and essentially
turn it off and on using Bitcoinminers at a whim.
So it becomes this efficientenergy product that nation
states, I think, almost have touse over time, especially if
they want to invest in thingslike nuclear.
So it's very interesting to me.

(55:33):
It's actually one of the reasonswhy I think Democrats are
either going to continue to beanti-crypto because I don't
think, besides hydropower, thatyou can do this with renewables
like solar and wind reliably, orit's going to force the
democratic party to kind ofditch some of their talking
points around like a green newdeal.

(55:54):
Uh, because in order to havethe exponential energy
consumption that is ai andbitcoin mining, you have to use
fossil fuels and I think youhave to use nuclear.
I don't think renewable can cutit.
Uh, and that's my personalopinion.
You know I'm no uh energyexpert.

Speaker 2 (56:10):
Just for what I read.
How crazy this is.
For the first time in my life,I've seen a dramatic way in
which an election will affectpolicy, which was the complete
capitulation by the DemocratParty via the SEC, to stop the

(56:31):
clampdown almost overnight.
Dude, that just blew my mind.
Okay, I haven't seen the.
I've not seen the vitriol fromElizabeth Warren's Twitter
account about cryptocurrencies.
Yeah, they told her to shut up.
Yeah, they told her to shut upand it's because there was a
wave of people and they werecrypto people and they were all

(56:52):
behind Trump and they're tryingto scratch that back.
They're trying to capture thatback.
Do you think at this point,with who you know and who you've
talked to, that Kamala takesthe presidency?

Speaker 3 (57:06):
Oh, okay, that's where you're going with that.
Which, by the way, elizabethWarren, all her power was with
Biden.
So, with Biden out of thepicture, elizabeth Warren's
power is not so great, right?
About a third of her stafferswent to work for the Biden
administration and Biden owedher favors, because she's the
reason Biden won the primary in2020, because she kept it away
from Bernie.

(57:27):
So her power has waned and willwane in a Kamala presidency.
How likely is Kamala to win?
I have no idea.
You know, I think it's 50-50chance.
To be honest, americans haveshort memories and there's so
much that could happen.

Speaker 2 (57:46):
So much has happened in 60 days.
It's been insane, I know right.

Speaker 3 (57:51):
In a month, in 30 days, so much has happened.
So you know, 90 to 95% ofAmericans have made up their
mind on who they're going tovote for.
It's this arguing over this 5%in these small swing states I
should say small, but likePennsylvania?

Speaker 2 (58:08):
Wisconsin.

Speaker 3 (58:09):
Wisconsin, michigan, arizona, nevada quote unquote
Georgia, north Carolina,virginia.
Um, that's all that matters.
Like, florida doesn't matter.
Florida is going to go red,texas is going to go red, utah
is going to go red Right, so itall matters what happens in
those States, with that 5% ofthe population that you know
legitimately swings back andforth between who they're going

(58:31):
to vote for.
Um, you know, I, uh, I really Idon't know um, what is the
future?

Speaker 2 (58:40):
what is the future of cryptocurrency look like under
uh a kamala presidency?

Speaker 3 (58:48):
I think it'll be more institutional and more
centralized.
I think she'll pick herfavorites and try to make the
market cater toward herfavorites.
I mean, no one's going toforget these people who have
backed the Republican Partyright, and they might be the
reason that the Republicansflipped the Senate because of
all the money they put in theseSenate positions, senate races.

(59:10):
So politics is about rewardingyour friends and hurting your
enemies, and so if Kamala wins,I guarantee you she's going to
figure out a way to hurt theindustry.
Maybe that's a promotion ofGensler right to Treasury.
Maybe that's someone worse thanGensler, because she proved
that she didn't need ourindustry to win.

(59:31):
If she does win, so it's.
You know we're taking a bet.
You know the industry is takinga big bet on Trump.
I'm not being doom and gloom,because BlackRock will never let
you know Bitcoin ETFs be, youknow, regulated to where they
can't make money.
Right, institutions areinvolved.
But what does matter is youknow these court cases we've

(59:52):
seen with the SEC and and Rippleand Gemini, and you know any of
these other companies.
So we'll see targeted, we'llsee targeted campaigns, um, and
it'll be very interesting.
I mean, it'll be veryinteresting to see who they go
after and who they leave alone.

Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
Cool dude.
Um, all right, man, man, I'm anhour type of guy here.
I like to keep it right in anhour and I think keep people's
attention pretty well in thatway.
Talk to people about if theyneed to get in contact with you
or want to get in contact.
Do you maybe talk about some ofthe services you provide, if
you do at this point, just kindof talk about that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:29):
Well, yeah, I mean you can just go follow me on
Twitter.
That's probably the best way.
My ad is just Samuel Arms.
Now I've transitioned.
Right now I'm working with GaryCardone on media.
I've gotten him politicallyinvolved, as you've probably
seen over the past month, so nowthat's kind of my full focus is
ensuring that we build kind ofa powerhouse around Cardone
Digital Ventures as far as mediaand politics goes and influence

(01:00:52):
, and so that's kind of my shiftright now.
But it's just as exciting andit's all kind of in the same
avenue and same world.
So, yeah, just Samuel Arms onTwitter.
It's the same on TikTok,instagram, youtube.
You know, just Google my nameand you'll find me easy YouTube
you know, just Google my nameand you'll find me easy.

Speaker 2 (01:01:12):
Awesome.
Let me do one more thing here.
You have to give me your snapreaction in two or three seconds
.
Okay, I'm going to give you aword and you just react.
You ready, yeah?
Yeah, all right, we're going todo like 15 or 20 of these.

Speaker 3 (01:01:27):
Yeah, sure.

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
Bitcoin Great Elon Musk Good guy.
Blockchain, yeah sure, bitcoingreat elon musk good guy
blockchain cool opec opec uhdying ethereum.
Fine donald trump, love themgreta thunberg.

(01:01:47):
Weird Vladimir Putin, intenseSolana.
Funny Carbon tax, stupid MarkZuckerberg.
Also interesting Saudi Arabia.

Speaker 3 (01:02:10):
Saudi Arabia.
What's my reaction to that?
Cool, maybe not cool Depends.

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
Hawk Tua.
No, I'm just kidding, we're notgoing to do that oh yeah, yeah,
right, just picking.
All right, dude.
I appreciate you coming on, man.
Good conversation.
I think we covered a whole lotof topics and, yeah, guys, reach
out to this guy, follow thisguy, we'll put his twitter here,
it'll pop up on the screen andwe'll be good to go.
Thanks, so much, buddy you betall right thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
Thank you.