October 23, 2025 • 62 mins
Parker Lewis, renowned Bitcoin thinker and author of the Gradually, Then Suddenly series, joins us to break down why the real economy is broken — and how Bitcoin offers the only viable escape from a system doomed by money printing and ever-growing debt. From the mechanics of volatility to the inevitability of credit collapse, Parker explains why Bitcoin’s fixed supply is the ultimate safeguard for purchasing power, and why most people misunderstand the problem it solves. In this episode, we dig into why money printing distorts price signals, destroys savings, and forces people into imperfect hedges. Parker outlines his three-part framework for understanding Bitcoin: recognizing the problem (monetary debasement), grasping the fundamentals (fixed supply and trustless enforcement), and dismantling common misconceptions (volatility, copyability, criminal use). We explore stablecoins, the “Genius Act,” regulatory capture, and why shifting deck chairs in the dollar system can’t fix the underlying math of debt vs. money supply.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The real economy is broken because of the printing of
money that it distorts the actual operation of money, the
function of money, the price signals of money. Your money
is losing its value. The printing of money is the problem.
Bitcoin is money that can't be printed. It's the solution
for that problem, and it's expressly built to solve them.
It's fixed supply is the source of all fundamental value
(00:20):
in bitcoin. It will only ever be twenty one million detcoin.
It's volatle for the reason that has a fixed apply
and that everyone's adopting bitcoin for the first time. It's
naturally volatile, it's necessarily.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Valt So the volatility is there, the price of bitcoin
going up and down. I think that's a good thing.
But in regards to like being in media a stable
medium exchange today, maybe it's not. So how do we
think about the volatility, as you said, in regards to
payments today versus like an evolution of.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
That great question?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So, so, Parker, you said that bitcoin is the most
important innovation in the world. Why should someone listening to
start this out maybe scaled on the fence. Why should
they right now be dropping everything and paying attention to bitcoin?
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I think oftentimes people look at bitcoin as a solution
in search of a problem, and that the reality of
the situation is that people do not understand the problem
that they have. They might know that they have problems,
but they might not know the root cause of it
or the source of it, and that, in my view,
(01:27):
the most pressing problem that everyone is suffering is that
their money is constantly being debased, and that bitcoin is
the solution to that problem, and that they're seeking out
somewhere on the range of imperfect solutions to bad solutions
for the problem because they misunderstand it, and that bitcoin
(01:48):
solves the most important problem for the greatest number of
people on Earth, and it's still very early and not
well understood, and that once they figure out bitcoin coin
and they can also most efficiently go down that rabbit
hole because it might be complicated, it might be unintuitive
(02:08):
at first, but it's a finite surface area, and all
the other derivative problems that they might perceive in their
life stem from in most circumstances, maybe not all circumstances,
but in most circumstances at least from a financial perspective,
because their money is constantly losing value, and so all
the time and energy they're putting in to accumulate money
(02:29):
or to acquire money to pay for various things in
their life is being destroyed. And biitwin fixes that.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
The biggest problem in the world. It fixes And so
when you solve a big problem for a lot of people,
there's a lot of value created. Let's just push on
that for a second, because what you're saying is it
solves the biggest problem for the most people, which is
their money is losing values. They have to work harder
and harder to maintain their life. But do you think
most people, when we talk broadly the masses, understand that, Like,
do they see that as a problem.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
They see it as a problem, but they don't understand
extent of it. I'd say most people are engineered to
know that their money loses value, so they try to
address it on the margin. They invest in the equity
markets to offset inflation, or they invest in real estate
(03:20):
passively to offset the problem. And one of the things
I like say is like, Hey, if there's a business
that needs to be funded that is going to deliver
a lot of value in the world, those businesses still
need to be funded. If you dig up dirt and
build a piece of real estate that delivers value like
that is a necessary piece of equation because ultimately money
(03:42):
is helping to facilitate exchange and to deliver real goods
and services to the world, which is really what improves
people's lives. But in the circumstance where people know that
their money loses value but not knowing why or that
it ends a lot worse than they think that it's
not just their money losing too per a year, three
percent or five percent that ultimately stops working. And there's
(04:05):
there's plenty of historical evidence, and there's also a fundamental
underpinning it that humans can't work and convert their time
and energy into something that can be easily produced money
being created at thin air. That it's that they know
there's a problem, they just don't know the root of it,
or the extent of it, or how negatively asymmetric. The
(04:27):
end consequence of money being debased really is, I.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Would just go step further. I think most people see
prices going up and things keep getting more expensive, and
so if I don't invest, how will I buy them
in the future, Which is the same thing as you're saying,
But it's the opposite side. Right, the money is being debased,
it's losing value, which is why prices are going up.
But they don't see the money being debased and going down.
(04:51):
They just see the prices going up.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Yeah, safety and amuse. The author of the Bitcoin Center
has a great quote that I consistently see circul We're saying,
the groceries aren't getting more expensive. Your your money's losing
its value, right, and it's the other side of the
same coin. But it's really important framing to shift your
perspective in your understanding of the root problem.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Right. And we saw in the last election that we
just had where Trump won and inflation was probably one
of the one of the hottest subjects going But people
aren't really understanding that the root cause of this inflation
or as they see CPI going up and so yeah,
so not understanding the problem at hand. That's the number
one obstacle to bitcoin. They think of it as a
(05:33):
solution looking for a problem because they don't realize the
problem is that the reason why your life keep getting
more expensive is that your money's losing value.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Or connecting it to bitcoin, that bitcoin's a solution to that.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Right, Yeah, yeah, yeah, got it. So, you know, you
used to write a lot. You've still been writing some stuff.
I want to talk about some of the stuf you're written,
But the big one is that gradually then suddenly, which
is amazing, and you sort of took like a first
principles approach to sort of explaining bitcoin. How would you
put that into maybe like a three step framework for
(06:05):
people to like think about and then maybe go dig
into and research more from there.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yeah, So the three things are the problem the bitcoin's
actually solving. That's that is not a solution in search
of a problem. That it's an express solution to an
express problem, and the problem is printing of money.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
So start there, start there.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
You have a problem. You know, one of the things
that you just mentioned is in the last selection, it's
in the United States, inflation was a big focus area.
I never saw one politician who was talking about it
on the stump. Connecting it to the printing of money.
The printing of money is the source of that. You
(06:45):
have a problem. The printing of money is the problem.
Bitcoin is money that can't be printed. It's the solution
for that problem, and it's expressly built to solve it.
So connecting it to the problem is one frame. The
second framework is understanding bitcoin from a bottom up perspective
(07:06):
as to why it actually solves the problem and how.
And the quick high level of that is that it's
fixed supply is the source of all fundamental value in bitcoin.
There will only ever be twenty one million bitcoin. What
it represents is money that can't be printed, and that
how Bitcoin is able to enforce its fixed supply is
(07:29):
of significant consequence to the equation that it is not random,
it's not by happenstance. It might be complicated or complex.
There's a lot underneath the hood, but you first have
to understand why it's relevant, why a form of money
that can't be printed would be relevant to somebody. To
then be able to go down and connect the dots
as to how the economic incentives are able to be
(07:53):
held together. S has to Bitcoin incredibly enforce its fixed
supply without the need for trust. So that's the second thing,
And then the third framework is all the common misconceptions
about bitcoin, which are that it's too volatile to be money,
or that it can be easily copied, or that it's
(08:13):
just for criminals, which just for criminals is becoming less
of a of a knock on bitcoin. As governments around
the world and corporations around the world are adopting it
as money, it's becoming more difficult for somebody to posit that.
But basically understanding things that are difficult to see. If
you could say, hey, it would make sense that if
(08:36):
there were a form of money that can't be printed,
that everyone would adopt it, adopt it. But how does
that marry with the fact that bitcoin goes up ten
percent in a day or down. That doesn't That's not
how I have known or you know, I say I.
But the person that's evaluating it might look and say, well,
bitcoin can't be money for that reason. And in reality,
(08:57):
if you realize that it's volatile for the reason and
that has a fixed apply, and that everyone's adopting bitcoin
for the first time, it's naturally volatile. It's necessarily volatile.
So people have to work through those mental blocks in
order to come back to the highest level ideas behind
bitcoin to see how they're consistent with each other and
not inconsistent. So the problem the fundamentals the bottom up,
(09:21):
and then the common questions that are logical to ask
but have coherent, consistent explanations.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
So let's dig into the volatility and why it can't
be money. So obviously with you work on bitcoin payments,
that's sort of your life right now with zapp, right,
So I want to dig into that. I want to
talk about stable coins and the Genius Act and maybe
how that compliments or doesn't compliment bitcoin. But let's just
talk about the payments piece overall, and we'll talk about
those things. So the volatility is there the price of
(09:54):
bitcoin going up and down. I think that's a good thing.
But in regards to like being a media a stable
medium exchange today, maybe it's not. So there's today and
there's a future, so like will it ever be versus
the best today? So how do we think through that?
Because if I want to, if I'm in a country
(10:17):
with a failing currency and I could maybe go to
the dollar, I could go to bitcoin, but I don't
have that much money. And if I go to buy
groceries next week but I can't buy as much, that
could be a problem. So how do we think about
the volatility, as you said, in regards to payments today
versus like an evolution of that.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Great question? So one I think that to start, you
have to understand why bit coin's volatile. You have to
understand why it's volatile and why volatility is not a risk.
And when I say that is that volatility can be
a risk depending on what your time horizon is right,
(10:57):
And so you have to be able to explains yourself
first why bitcoin would store value over time despite being volatile,
that it's volatility is actually to your benefit that you know.
One way I would think about it is if only
one percent of the world has any material exposure to bitcoin,
(11:18):
and if you marry that with this idea that everyone
in the world, if they understood that there were a
form of money that can't be printed in that bitcoin
is that, and that it's fixed supply of twenty one
million is credible that ninety nine percent of the world
is yet to adopt it, but they would adopt it
for the very same reason that someone would who's already
adopted it. Understood that it holds value because more of
(11:42):
it can't be created, but it's also necessarily volatile. If
one percent of the world has figured this out, well,
if ten percent were to figure it out, then that
means that nine out of every ten people in the
world that are buying bitcoin for the first time are
pricing bitcoin, are putting a value on it the first
time in their life. Right, Well, if more can't be created,
(12:03):
there has to be price discovery, right. That price discovery
is naturally volatile. But the volatility for people who already
hold it is a benefit because if ten times the
number of people are demanding an asset, even if they're
pricing it for the first time, are having to bid
the price up to deliver value to people that already
do hold it. Again, that is in your benefit. So
(12:25):
first you have to anchor to that fundamental that is
volatile for the very same reason of why someone would
demand it in the first place, and that that is
connected to its ability to store value.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Let me hind on that. So, because it's a fixed
supply and we have more people coming in and maybe
something going down, I mean there's EBB and flow a
little bit, so we get price moving up and down
price volatility because of that. Now, if we look at
the long lens of bitcoin, the price volatility moves to
the upside, and so as an investor, we want the
price to go up, right, We don't want to be
in the stable poin that never moves, and so that
(12:56):
volatility is our advantage. It's a necessary good. I think
it's the point that you're making. Yes, right, So it's volatile,
but volataile tipside, we like that, but depends on the
duration correct.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
So then the way that I would think about that
is and it is this difficult problem. If you have
no savings and you are barely saving more than like
when I say no savings, you have no Yeah, if
your paycheck to paycheck and bitcoin is volatile, then you
(13:28):
still have to figure out how to get savings. And
the form of money that can't be printed is going
to store your value best over time, but you have
to get to that point in time. And so it
becomes the identical equation of saying like, okay, I first
have to produce more than I consume and then I
(13:51):
have to start saving a small percentage. And bitcoins is
that as it's volatile, it doesn't put me back in
that negative position of being paycheck to paycheck. So another
way to say it is someone that has a lot
of savings can more easily adopt bitcoin than someone that
has no savings at all. But everyone has to accumulate
(14:15):
savings to get out of that rat race. To get
out of living paycheck to paycheck. So it becomes a
world to say, well, hey, maybe you need to have
enough dollars or a stap quote stable coin that might
be losing its value slowly but is maintaining its value
day to day better saying I need to cover myself
for a month or two months or three months to
(14:37):
have that security buffer, but then saying well, anything that
is more than three months, I need to be exposed
to the asset that stores value over time. And so
it's marrying the short term needs with the long term
benefits and such that someone that has no savings realistically
(14:59):
like they still need to be saving and bitcoin, but
it might be able to have a smaller percentage because
their personal working capital is non existent and they need
to build that up. And so they still have the
problem and there's no easy way out of it. But
it becomes a function of each month saving more than
you than you spend and putting a small amount away.
(15:23):
But now somebody that has a lot of savings that
doesn't have, you know, a working capital need of six
months or a year that then they start looking at
the equations saying, hey, if I have this in cash
and in a form of money that loses value, that's
engineered to lose value. I need to be thinking longer
(15:45):
than just a month or two months or three months.
I need to be thinking about a year or ten years,
and the more that you can save an asset that's
volatile but stores value better than anything else for very
logical reasons that everyone needs money, everyone needs set money,
and people are adopting bitcoin for that reason. Then it
becomes a kind of time horizon and managing short term
(16:08):
volatility for the benefit of long term purchasing power.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
So to summarize that, then we have to understand that
both dollars and bitcoin are both volatile price moves, but
bitcoin is more volatile to the upside, whereas the dollar
is just always constantly vaulted to the downside. So we
want to look at those over different time horizons, where
think of it as a checking in the savings and
(16:33):
a little bit And depending on my time horizons and
the amount of money that I make, then I want
to be storing in the more volatile asset because it
holds value better over longer periods of time, But I
might be willing to put a little bit into the
less volatile asset that holds value better in a short
period of time.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Right, Yeah, correctly, So you know, I always try to
use it to a tangible examples like, hey, if I
need to go buy beef at the grocery store tomorrow
or over the next week, and there's a possibility that
bitcoin drops by ten percent and I can't then go
buy the amount of beef that I need, I haven't
solved my problem. But if I know that the price
of beef, you know, looking at ground beef, if it
(17:10):
goes from six dollars a pound to ten dollars a
pound to fifteen dollars a pound, that I need beef
in six months too. And if I'm just saving in
this form of money, that is the other side of
that same coin, which we discussed before, like your your
groceres aren't getting more expensive, your money is losing value.
(17:31):
That you need beef next week, but you also need
beef in six months. If you do the same thing
for the next week that you're trying to solve for
in six months or a year, you're gonna end up
in a far worse place.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Yeah, because the dollar might buy you more beef next week,
but it's most likely guaranteed to buy you less beef
in a year. Yeah, let's talk about than the dollar,
but more specially stable coins. So sort of maybe somewhat
historic here in the United States, we just passed this
genius Act, the Stable Cooin Act. Scott Assent, the head
(18:06):
of the Treasury, whose job is to sell US debt, right,
that's his primary job, sell the treasuries. He's some dude
pushing towards these stable coins. He said that he sees
stable coins growing by three points set to three point
seven trillion by twenty thirty. I saw you were talking
about the difference of dollars in that, but I think
I saw you make a tweet something about it being
(18:29):
like regulatory capture. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
So the if you play it out again, this is,
you know, balancing short term of long term. That the
short term benefit is that there's a a positive regulatory
(18:53):
stance towards the digital currency world, which it is. And yeah,
we can say that that's I won't say it's undeniable,
but it's close to undeniable.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
It's like, hey, there's a regulatory stands too.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
That's that's positive, that that's welcoming to this in the
US right now. Yeah, Yeah, And that's better than if
Elizabeth Warren was going out trying to whack the mole.
Everybody working on bitcoin or the broader what people refer
to is the crypto space that you want that that
it's better to have a regulatory apparatus that is friend,
(19:35):
not foe. But long term, if you think about stable
coins that are that are backed by dollars, it's not
actually solving a problem, and that the very same interests
that are helping to instantiate stable coins do not have
(19:58):
an interest in in private versions of the dollar existing.
Long term, they get immense control and power out of
having a digital version of the dollar that's controlled by
the Fed, and that the larger that a stable coin grows,
the more control that the the Fed and the Treasury
(20:22):
or the Office of the Presidency would want to have
over it. Right, it becomes unavoidable, genuinely, and so that
the law in my view, the large interest that we're
pushing the stable coin apt or special interests that wanted
their stable coin to be able to be the winner
because they have seniorage and they will extract value out
(20:44):
of that. And so in the short term it can
feel like a positive because there's you know, women, I'm
picking from a bitcoin lens that there are advocates that
are that are friendly to an adjacent industry, not bitcoin specifically,
and that there might be short term benefits that come
from that, and it would be certainly better than an
(21:05):
active foe trying to go stamp out bitcoin companies. But
the larger that a stable coin grows, the more control
the existing state apparatus is going to naturally have over it,
and the interest of companies like coinbase and usd C
or anyone that interacts and helps move that stable coin
(21:26):
is going to be to you know, use our stable coin,
not that stable coin, and that that's ultimately the root
of you know, tether has worked perfectly well all over
the world without this. Why does it need this? The
only reason it needs this is to ensure that the
state apparats doesn't come to shut it down. But then
the other side of that coin is control. You know that,
(21:49):
you know why, why if the free market has been working,
why not allow the free market to continue to work.
The logical explanation of it is is control surveillance, And
it might not play out in the next week or
the next month, but that's the direction that it's heading
and in my view, we have serious problems they need
(22:11):
serious people to solve them. The fact that bitcoin was
de emphasized for stable coin legislation or market structure legislation,
it just yeah to me, it points to regulatory capture
versus innovation.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Yeah. Part of the Genius Act, there was a couple
of bills that went through. One was also called the
Clarity Act, And that's how I felt about that bill specifically,
because like in America, we're the land of the Free.
We're supposed to be able to do whatever we want
and then laws are meant to tell us what we
can't do. But here they're passing a Clarity Act to
give us clarity on what we can do, which I
(22:50):
thought was kind of weird. So I see that going
that way. But let's just kind of go back to
what you're what you're staying here. So it seems like, well,
number one, the government's not a monolith, right, So there's
like multiple factions that have different interests that they want
to see. I think both Trump and Thescent want to
see the dollar maintain some power around the world. Sixty
(23:10):
percent of FX transactions or something like that. Right now,
we just drop down to a fifty nine percent. The
cent wants to sell treasuries. Who's going to buy the treasuries?
And so by getting people around the world who use
dollar stable coins, it sort of keeps the dollars sort
of demand. And then for the regulatory part that we
make those stable cod in companies by US treasuries and
(23:31):
then sort of de facto you get the people around
the world to buy US treasuries. I mean, would you
say that seems to be what's that play here?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I think that's the that's the line of thinking. That's
a first derivative, that sounds good, sounds right, sounds plausible,
and so people run with it. They say, hey, these
stable coins are great for the US dollar safety and
(23:59):
muse again. He gave a great presentation at the Bitcoin
Conference where he basically explained that it's substitute demand. It's
not creating demand for the treasury. Somebody has to own
all treasuries at all times. If you think about what's
actually happening in the financial system. If somebody is choosing
(24:20):
to convert a deposit at a at a US bank
to a dollar stable coin, somewhere in the background, a
reserve at the Fed is changing from one account to
the other, and that somebody was holding a treasury and
now somebody else is holding the treasure.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Is it and is it the government holding it they
had to print the money on buying their own or
is it someone in Argentina or Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Right, But if somebody, you know, imagine the scenario where
there's a a central bank in Africa and the person
African says, I want to hold a US dollar stable coin. Well,
the dollar doesn't just disappear. So the central bank in
(25:08):
Africa might have bought a treasury. Now the you know,
the private company that issued the stable coin is buying
the treasury. You know, it didn't it changed the treasury,
It changed hand. It didn't create demand for the US treasury.
And so I think that realistically, what it more so
is is it's a new rail to move dollars. I
(25:30):
think about it more as a method of payment. It doesn't.
It doesn't. It genuinely does not create demand. Like as
an example, Blackrock is the largest holder. I think if
it's not the large holder, it's one of the top
two or three holders of US treasuries. If their assets
(25:52):
shift to some other party and say it's a party
that wants to hold stable coins. It's like somebody is
banking blackrock, somebody's back banking the stable coin. That's the foundation.
It's like the stable coin is not creating demand, shifting demand.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
It's shifting demand. But I want to we'll get into
sort of the failing system that we have in a
little bit, But just to talk about this for a second.
If there's a massive demand external demand for US treasury,
is easier for the US to sell the treasuries into
the market and manage the debt. Whereas if the government
has to, as we've seen many times other countries around
(26:31):
the world, have to print money to buy their own debt,
it goes into a deep, a pretty fast doom loop. Right,
So if we have to print money to buy our
own debt, that's a problem. Versus if there's a massive
demand externally for our debt, then it's not as bad.
And so I would say to the point that you're making, Yes,
the Treasury has to whatever debt they need to send out,
(26:53):
they need to send out, so there's the demand. But
as far as shifting the demand, if they have to
print and buy it themselves, it's much worse. Than if
some and I think you said, Zimbabwe, Africa buy is
it right?
Speaker 1 (27:02):
What I'm saying is we all have to accept that
the only way that thirty six trillion or thirty seven
trillion of debt is getting repaid is because the FED
is going to create more of it. Sure, everything else
is moving chairs around on the on the deck. Because
two things are categorically true. The Treasury sets the number
(27:29):
of treasuries that exist, and Congress based on the amount
that they spend. First, the amount that they take in
is in relation to that.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
But the Treasure is the budget.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
The budget the budget. So if you know the report
that came out the other day is that just in
the next two quarters, the Treasury is going to have
to issue net incremental treasuries of one point six trillion.
The debt of the United States is growing by one
point six trillion over the next two quarters. That's the Treasury.
(28:06):
In Congress, the FED is the single entity that sets
the number of dollars that exist in the system. If
the FED is not increasing the number of dollars that
exist in the system, and the Treasury is having to
increase the supply of treasuries by one point six trillion.
It's having to take out money from somewhere else in
(28:27):
the system to replace that demand. Right, so as as
more treasuries exist, if the amount of dollars didn't increase,
it's sucking money either out of the private sector or
out of some other public sector need for money. And
the only way it gets solved, the only way the
(28:49):
leaky ship gets solved, is the FED creating more dollars.
You know, That's why Trump's going to the Fed and
saying you got to increase the interest rate by three percent. Well,
the only way to lower interest rates in terms of
the like the real the real interest rate is printing money. Right,
(29:09):
so more dollars have to exist to release the pressure
of the market rate to borrow.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
But does the Fed have to create the dollars because
the euro dollar market is dollars increasing, well, not the
Fed doing anything.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Well, the same dilemma exists on the euroside, like the
European Centi Bank ultimately has to create more euros to
satisfy euro denominated debt. Well, euro dollars is the intersection
of that.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
But the.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Dollars need to be supplied, I don't say need to
be but the way that the current market is structured,
is that ultimately more dollars need to support more dollar
nominated debt. You can again, like, if the FED isn't
creating any more money, the Treasury is issuing one point
six trillion, there are one point six trillion more deposits
credit claims on dollars that exists out there without the FED.
(30:04):
My point is that the market figures out that the
actual funding currency is becoming more scarce to the amount
of claims on it. That causes interest rates to rise.
The only way to actually solve that is the FED
singularly sets the number of dollars that exists in the system,
the dollars that can move from bank to bank.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
And your a dollar market can't create those.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
They can create more claims on the base money, but
they can't create more of the base money.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
What about if billions of dollars of Argentine pesos convert
into US dollars.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Again, there's a relationship between the actual number of pesos
that exist in the world that are created by their
central bank, and there are the number of dolls dollars
that exist created by our central bank, and then there
are claims on those dollars. So it's like, yes, if
somebody wanted to convert pesos to dollars, creates demand for dollars,
(31:15):
creates lack of demand for paces, which dictates that the
peso issuer needs to issue more pasos or their system collapse.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
So it's Robin, Peter pay Paul is shuffling cars on
the deck.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
But what it's doing, but the foundation of it that
dictates all of it is the central issuer, right, And
if you are creating more debt on top of the
existing money supply, Ultimately people figure out that there are
enough chairs on the deck and they saw all going
to sit down at the same time to get there
the dollars that they need at the paces that they need.
(31:46):
That causes a credit collapse, that causes interest rates to rise,
that induces the acceleration of money printed. There's no way
around it.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
There's no way around it. It's inevitable how that looks,
and the timeframe of those things vary based off of
how good they can shuffle cards around the deck. So
the milkshake theory from Brent Johnson is that all it
puts a lot of pressure on Urgerden payso they collapse
and then the dollar kind of just keeps sucking more
and more, and things keep collapsing faster and faster and faster.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Right, so one system could collapse faster than another system.
But again, if the Treasury is issuing one point six
you know, like using the microcosm of the example that
it's a real example based on their own estimates, they're
issuing one point six trillion more in dollar denominated debt,
that is more, and if the Fed is not increasing
(32:39):
the money supply, that is more claims on the same
amount of dollars. That forces the dollar interest rate higher, right,
you know, so it's like, yes, you know, the dollar
milkshake theory can can be accurate, and that the PASO
could collapse faster than the dollar, but the same dynamic existence.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Just a function of the system.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
It's collapsing slower, it's not not collapsing.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Sure, Sure, it's a function of the system.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
And then ultimately Bitcoin becomes the release valve because as
the market figures out, okay, well, the Treasury had to
issue one point six trillion more dollars, that's more claims
on dollars competing with the same amount of dollars. The
only way to satisfy that demand is to force interest
rates higher. Oh well, now the FED steps in and
prints more dollars. Shit, there is no rate of interest
(33:29):
I can get on a dollar nominated claim that performs
better than just holding the form of money that is
agnostic to this whole charade. And so to come back
to this idea that stable coins create demand for dollars, No,
they just shift from one party, and one party might
be more inclined to buy US treasuries over some other
(33:52):
instrument in the US financial system, depending on you know,
it's moving out of one bank holding reserves to an other.
But it's all like you miss the forest for the
trees if you don't realize that all of that is
just debt chairs shifting. And what really matters is the
(34:13):
total amount of system debt. That isn't just the US Treasury,
it's every private issuer of credit, every state, local municipality
issuing debt. The relationship of the total debt stack to
the actual number of dollars that are in the system
that can support it. Because what happens is for intermittent
(34:34):
periods of time is that debt expands significantly without the
actual number of dollars increasing to support it. The market
figures it out, there becomes a credit collapse, they print
more money twentsand and eight nine twenty twenty, guaranteed to
happen again. And the only true exit valve from that
(34:56):
is to get in the money that is not subject,
that is entirely divorced from the function of credit.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Get off the deck where they're shuffling chairs and onto
something else. So let's talk about the relief valve. So
Howard Lutnik, Secretary of Commerce, before he came into the
Trump administration, through his fund, Cantor Fitzgerald, was jumped into bitcoin,
big zoime right, two point or two billion dollar credit line,
major stakes in micro strategy, major stakes in tether. Now,
(35:26):
with the Trump administration building a bitcoin reserve, maybe this
sovereign wealth fund his son now is deploying billions of
dollars into bitcoin companies. Trump himself just bought two billion
not himself but through his company which he owns control
and interest of bought two billion dollars worth of bitcoin
a week or two ago. Trump seems to have a
(35:48):
way of maybe front running the markets and even telegraphing
what's coming. He said, you might want to buy stocks
right right before the tariff deal was announced. I think
there could be a case where the government wants bitcoin
and gold maybe to run really hot. So we saw
elon musk leave dose. We can't cut. It's never gonna work.
(36:10):
We have to grow away out of it. It's cop
a cent goes on the TV saying we have to
grow away out of it. So we need to let
inflation run hot. Hopefully GDP goes up faster than the debt.
Maybe stable coins can fuel some of that by maybe
getting some money into directly to the market, maybe get
more inflation going. We have to grow away out of it.
But the problem is if we have a lot of
(36:32):
inflation prices going up too fast, people get unhappy. But
bitcoin is this liquidity sponge that seems to be not
seems to be. Is much more sensitive to liquidity than
other assets, and so potentially if gold and bitcoin could
absorb a big piece of that liquidity and go up
maybe faster and higher than most people think, it could
keep the other assets and prices down a little bit.
(36:55):
What do you think about that.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
I think that it's again one of those things that
can sound right in terms of a first derivative that
fails to see the forest for the trees and is
not functionally possible, and that this idea that you have
(37:18):
to grow your way out of the debt. It's like,
first you have to accept that the US credit system
has grown faster than even if GDP is a terrible
metric to measure economic activity, the debt system has grown
grown faster than GDP for the last thirty years. And
(37:45):
you're basically saying, Okay, well that has to reverse. But
what if there's a relationship that dictates, given the level
of debt that it's not possible. So my point is
that there's an amount of debt that exists the world,
and there's amount of dollars that exists in the world,
and to inchor people into what that general relationship is
(38:08):
is no, it's like one hundred and two trillion dollars
of dollar denominated.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Debt to three hundred and fifty trillion, oh to.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
About six to seven trillion dollars. Oh, and there is
a mathematical equation. Now, not all of that one hundred
and two trillion dollars of debt that's owed is due
in a month or doing two months, or a year
or five years. Some's not due for thirty years. But
there's a mathematical relationship between one hundred and two trillion
(38:40):
dollars of debt to six to seven trillion dollars that
actually exists in the system, and that the one hundred
and two trillion dollars debt cannot be satisfied by the
six to seven trillion dollars. So the idea of like,
you know, if you would relate this to the idea
of GDP, like to grow our way out. How do
(39:02):
you grow your way out if you didn't increase the
number of dollars? How do you grow out of the one?
Speaker 2 (39:09):
Well, you don't grow your way out. But could we
go from one hundred and ten to GDP to eighty percent?
That to GDP change?
Speaker 1 (39:17):
So ratio, Well, we'll set aside debt to GDP for
a second.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
The real.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Of consequence ratio is the amount of debt that exists
to the amount of dollars. How do we how do
we de leverage that system? There's two ways. There's allow
the debt to reduce, or there's create more dollars. There's
no other mathematical way right now. The way that debt
(39:44):
is reduced is that as debts become due, they get
repaid and more credits not issued. The problem is that
because of the extent of the leverage that as soon
as that credits is so that credit system that was
one hundred and two trillion went to one hundred trillion
(40:04):
to ninety eight forces interest rates higher. Okay, and basically
the market because because the money that because those are
those are those are dollars that are in somebody say
account that are no longer there. People are tight. So
like the economy starts to shrink, or first it starts
(40:27):
to grow slower. Like basically growth is tied to credit expansion.
If the credit expansion starts to slow or then decline,
the absolute amount of leverage is so high it starts
to feed on itself. One you know, credit contraction begets
credit contraction ultimately induces a credit collapse that induces the
printing of more money. And so it's like you can't
(40:50):
get yourself out of the mathematical equation.
Speaker 2 (40:52):
Like you could.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
You could take a piece of debt that's sitting on
a on a productive asset, say like an oil and
gas well, and say, well, you know, cancel the debt
and now it has a new equity holder. It's just
that we live in a world that's so leveraged that
would create you know, and it ultimately will. There's you know,
it's a catch twenty two. There's no way out of it.
The way out of it is printing of money or
(41:15):
the more accelerated decline of the dollar via hyper inflation
and a credit collapse. So you know, everything else of
like GDP growth, it's like one hundred and two trillion
dollars of debt six to seven trillion dollars. The Fed
sets the number of dollars that exists, and then the
market creates credit on top of that. But every time
(41:37):
since you know, realistically two thousand and eight nine, the
market figured out that something was inherently broken, not everyone
knows the source of it, and guaranteed they print more money,
you know, and there's no there's no chasing it. So
you know, one thing I last one I want to
say is like when people talk about GDP and outgrowing debt,
(42:01):
if you lose sight of the real economy and what
money is supposed to deliver to the economy more goods
and services that and just think in terms of GDP
and GDP growth and relationship of you know, how much money,
more money needs to exist to satisfy it. It's like,
(42:23):
what is actually broken is the real economy, and the
real economy is broken because of the printing of money
that it distorts the actual operation of money, the function
of money, the price signals of money, and we're not
going to get to a more stable world until the
fly is taken out of the ointment. The ability to
(42:44):
print money is no longer exists because governments adopt bitcoin
and then they can't print money, and they have to
be honest in terms of how they finance their operations
because what happens as a natural consequence is that one
point six trillion ultimately gets financed by the creation of
more money.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
Right, the inevitability of the system is we are on
a debt based monetary system, and because of that, the
debt has to always grow, and because of that, we
never pay the debt off, and so the inevitability of
the system is eventually it ends.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
And the real economy gets destroyed because of that.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
And the real economy gets destroyed because of that. Now
we have a solution with bitcoin that that can allow people, businesses, individuals, businesses, nonprofits,
churches and corporations, and even governments start offloading onto another
ship to maybe try to save itself from the inevitable collapse.
I guess I was just thinking more in terms of
shorter term moves. Yeah, the next four years of the
(43:42):
Trump administration, we saw in the eighties, Israel was facing,
you know, triple digit debt to GDP ratios. Let high
double digit inflation happen for three or four years. Inflated
the GDP, which changed the ratio down to seventy five percent.
Speaker 1 (43:58):
But the only way to do what they I mean,
I I'm not an expert in that, about what I
would presume is they printed more money into dealers.
Speaker 2 (44:04):
Sure. Yeah, and that's that's my point. So we're going
to print a lot more money. Trump wants, as you
said earlier, right, he wants Powell or the Fed to
drop rates three points, you know, down to one and
a half. That's going to print a lot more money. Potentially,
we can get there's what three point three trillion dollars
of sterilized reserves sitting in the banks that they could
issue stable coins against and put that onto the street.
That's more money. And so that's a lot of inflation.
Speaker 1 (44:25):
But but yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
It's a lot of inflation.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
It's a lot of inflation. And and again I'm not
an expert in the history of of why More Germany,
but i I know some of the history. And there
is this natural phenomenon that that when they say the
price of bitcoin goes up, you think that you're getting richer.
When the when the value of your stock market goes up,
(44:49):
you think that you're getting richer. But it misses what
wealth is. It misses that the your the day to
day delivery of goods and services that you consume, and
the and the increasing base of capital capital and not
(45:12):
in terms of dollars, but capital in terms of productive
capacity delivering real goods and services to the market. Right,
That that's wealth. That that's the thing that improves the
day to day living of more people. And that when
you know, someone like Trump might buy bitcoin and think
(45:35):
that bitcoin's helping the dollar, he might just not be
seeing the forest for the trees. And that it might
feel good to all of us when the dollar value
of our bitcoin goes up. But if more businesses are
being destroyed than are being created, we're kind of we're
the boiling frog, right you know. And so it's very
(45:56):
easy for people to not realize. And I'm talking specifically
about people that are putting forward legislation or regulations or
even Trump, you know, buying bitcoin and not seeing the endgame,
thinking like, oh, it's a good thing if you know,
the stock market moves up. But like, think about the
(46:16):
craziness of the stock market. I think, really, you know,
reach all time highs or the sm P at least,
and like, you know, it's at an all time high
and Trump is sitting there telling the Fed chair that
he's going to fire him to reduce interest rates by
three percent? Yeah, Like, what good is your stock going
(46:37):
up if the actual you know, fabric of the productive
capacity of an economy and being destroyed along with it.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
Yeah, that is certainly correct. Most people, unfortunately, don't see it.
As we started at the beginning is most people don't
understand the problem. And so part of the CP lie
is to get us confused on prices going up as
inflation and that we don't understand why electronics went down
and this went up, and we don't understand it's the
money supply. I think the average American would much rather
(47:08):
see their home value their retirement accounts go up, even
if gas went up. A little bit then to see
all of their life savings get cut in half and
gas stayed the same. I went down a little bit, right.
Speaker 1 (47:21):
The problem is that they have to consume their house
every day and they have to consume gas that they
have to have both.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
Yeah, and you you've mentioned several times like thinking through
first order derivatives. So if you think through second, third, fourth,
fifth order, where does this go? And then what then
then what you see the impending doom that it creates.
But most people just unfortunately can't see that. Let me
ask one more question then we'll wrap this up. So
(47:50):
we've talked about the impending doom, the inevitability of the system.
It was never going to work, right, it's a function
of the way the system works. But maybe we're starting
to see the world waking up to this reality you
mentioned earlier, you posted a chart of the guilt market
in the UK is like plunging, and if we look
at like the long bond around the world, they're all
(48:10):
like basically making new all time highs. And you mentioned
it's like a regime change. Yeah, a regime change where
maybe the entire world there starting to wake up and
realize that the only way to pay those is printing
lots of money and we have to go find something
else or what was the regime change?
Speaker 1 (48:28):
Yeah, So one way I think about this is that
the academic economists which make up the Federal Reserve or
central banks all over the world think about pulling levers
or pulling you know, basically taking actions expecting certain reactions.
(48:52):
So traditionally the world of academic economists that make up
central banks think, well, if I increase interest rates, I'll
decrease inflation. The person in the real economy realizes that
if you arbitrarily increase interest rates, you're not going to
make goods more abundant. You might destroy someone's ability to
(49:15):
buy a good, but the real way to make goods
cheaper is greater abundance. I say that to them, bring
up the point of well, the consequence of raising interest
rates and let's talk about a real example of the
Federal Reserve of increasing interest rates aggressively in twenty twenty two,
and here we're sitting in twenty twenty five, that the
(49:36):
other side of increasing interest rates is the value of
the underlying bonds declining in value, and that the past
regime was low interest rates manipulated lower for a long
period of time, and it trained this entire class of
(49:58):
investor to say, well, the Fed's gonna print money to
get these bonds to zero. So even if it doesn't
make sense to lend government or money to the government
for a long period of time, say ten years, twenty years,
or thirty years at this arbitrary low rate, I'm going
to do it anyways, because they're going to have to
buy these assets to force the interest rates lower. Well
(50:19):
by keeping interest rates higher for longer periods of time.
There was massive amount of holders of those bonds that
got burned, that lost money doing the quote safe thing,
and it's a fool me once. Shape on you, fool
me twice, Shame on me. The market has learned that
(50:41):
they cannot bet on the fact that the Fed's going
to even if the FED is going to have to
print money, the time duration matters, and they've lost They've
gotten burned. So it's you're not going to fool me again,
and that when the FED starts to lower interest rates
by printing money, or the the Bank of England or
(51:02):
the European Central Bank, the holders of those assets like,
why would I do this again? You know you've already
tried to quote reduce inflation by starving the market. I
got burned by that. So even if you try to
force interest rates lower, I'm not buying your paper. You're
(51:25):
going to have to buy your paper. And so that's
the regime change. That the market has gotten burned, and
they're not going to be quick to become the boil
and frog again to become the bag holder. So that
it seems like, and not in terms of a truly
dislocated way, but that central banks have lost control that
(51:51):
the market is the true set ceenter of interest rate.
The what the consequence is that central banks are going
to have to be more aggressive in buying their own debt.
The only way that they can do that is by
printing more money. Then operation by which central banks buy
the debt of the government is creating more supply of
the base money, increasing that six seven trillion to eight trillion,
(52:15):
nine trillion, ten trillion.
Speaker 2 (52:16):
That's then Alden's nothing stops this train.
Speaker 1 (52:19):
Yeah, And the truth thing that that dictates that nothing
stops to train is the relationship between the debt and
the system to the actual number of base dollars or
euros or yen. And at the level just below that
is that if you have a form of money that
is built foundationally with the idea that it can be
(52:43):
created by a central issuer at no cost, that the
market's going to figure that out and opt in to
a different form of money that has a different set
of rules, being bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (52:56):
All Right, So we've talked about the inevitability system and
where this is all going, and one part I didn't
really want to I didn't get a chance to hit
on is you talked about the volatility of bitcoin and
starting to think about how we're allocating to it. So
we see the inevitability. You've built that up nicely for
us and using maybe some dollars and bitcoin. But I
know you have a company's app, right and you're pioneering
(53:17):
bitcoin payments, and so I'm just curious what you see
from that regard. You know, I see this as like
this evolutionary path. I know you're sort of bringing that forward.
What have you seen since you've been working on payments?
How has the adoption of that been going?
Speaker 1 (53:30):
Well? I think one thing because we talked about this previously,
but then connecting it with this idea of why central
banks are going to have to create more money and
this trade off of short term volatility versus long term
destruction of value. Those are those two things coexist with
each other and everyone within the system has to solve it.
(53:50):
So a lot of people naturally look at bitcoin's volatility
and say, well, how could anybody ever accept it as payment?
And it's a very logical dilemma. I'm looking at the
surface level, but in reality, it's the same dilemma of
buying bitcoin for dollars as accepting it for payment. That
(54:12):
if you think about, you know, one of the strategies
that people employing bitcoin is dollar cost averaging, buying a
small amount every day or every week, and they're taking
a different price. You know, they're buying one hundred dollars
and the price of bitcoins x one day and lower
the next day, and higher the next day, and getting
a little bit more bitcoin one day and less bitcoin.
(54:33):
That if somebody has figured out why, yes bitcoin is volatile,
but why it stores value over time, that it's money
that can't be printed. That and they have a business
that they realize the end game and they say, well,
if I start selling my goods and services for bitcoin, yes,
the price is different. I'm you know, day to day,
(54:53):
and I'm gonna still be pricing goods in or services
in some dollar denomination, or if you're in Europe, you're denomination.
But it's the same as dollar cost averaging. Because when
they turn on the ability to be paid in bitcoin,
one hundred percent of their sales do not magically turn
up in bitcoin. It might be one percent to two
percent to five percent to ten percent. And say that
(55:16):
a business was doing ninety percent of their sales and
fiat and ten percent and bitcoin, well, they were going
to have to convert that ten percent of fiat into
bitcoin because they wanted to save in bitcoin anyway. And
so it it just is a different means to actually
acquire the bitcoin, but in a way that de risks
the business at the same time that is able to say, well,
(55:36):
I can still be paid in dollars and I have
my dollar rails, but now I have this new rail
that creates redundancy and allows me to market my services,
to appeal to people that have bitcoin, and to actually
make the transaction more efficient if people want to pay
me in that way. And so we're still early to
bitcoin payments. So like the way I think about it
is we're early to bitcoin, which means that we're earlier
(55:57):
to bitcoin payments because somebody does necessarily need to understand
something fundamental about bitcoin, like I do not think, as
an example, that somebody that does not know why bitcoin
stores value even while being volatile, should endeavor to accept
bitcoin payments. It's a it's a reverse order of operation.
(56:17):
It's the wrong it's decidedly the wrong order. But if
everyone is on this curve of understanding bitcoin understanding the
problem that it solves that the people that were earlier
to understand bitcoin are increasingly asking to be paid in bitcoin.
So we're seeing growing trends. Is you know, there's a
recognition that it's early to the ballgame, but somebody has
(56:40):
to be early, and that the amount of adoption that
we're seeing feels like, you know, we're you know, an
inflection point. Doesn't mean the majority of the world in
a year or two not just accepting bitcoin, but but
doing more than fifty percent of their sales, but that
there's a critical mass that's more that it's going to
(57:02):
materially accelerate Companies like Square turning on the bitcoin payments,
in my mind, is a watershed moment for everybody working
on bitcoin payments, but also for everyone out there that's
providing a payment service that doesn't have bitcoin incorporated, because
it becomes a differentiation. Yeah, for any platform.
Speaker 2 (57:22):
And we've seen the I mean the best case was
at the Bitcoin conference like two months ago Steak and
Shake and Now so they were going to start accepting bitcoin.
And I think it was the president maybe of Stake
and Shake got up and gave a talk and he
gave some numbers out I forget what it was, but
they increase like per store visits like fifty percent or
some crazy number. You may know that, but I mean
you could see that first move or advantage where all
(57:42):
of a sudden people wanted to go spend the bitcoin.
And of course, as the wealth of bitcoin continues to grow,
people are going to want to spend it.
Speaker 1 (57:48):
So yeah, and you know someone might say, well, why
would somebody spend bitcoin? You know if it's values going
up so much, And it's not really a spending bitcoin,
it's a spending for savings because if you were going
to spend your dollars, you could have decided not to
consume and to buy the bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (58:10):
And so.
Speaker 1 (58:12):
Yeah, and so you know, for a lot of people
that have owned bitcoin for a long time the vast
majority of their savings are in bitcoin. Now that that
is again a small percentage of the population, but for
those people, spending bitcoin is actually easier than converting back
into dollars and spending dollars. And if there's more people
adopting bitcoin, there's more people holding bitcoin, and there's more
(58:34):
merchants that want to accept it. And it's just this
organic process of growth, and there will be accelerations of
it and decelerations and accelerations again, but it ultimately needs
to exist for bitcoin to work long term, and that
when I look out into the future, I think this
shift to bitcoin happens a lot faster than people think,
(58:58):
and we're seeing the amount of blumes of people being
interested in it, and the trend will only accelerate, and
the bitcoin payments might be a small segment of the economy,
but it becomes a massive differentiator for platforms that have
it versus those that don't. And what's becoming clear with
an example of Stake and Shake is that bitcoin is
(59:20):
large enough that you can either service one hundred percent
of the of the economy, the fiat economy and the
bitcoin ecomy, or you can you can service a subset
of it, and it still might be the majority of it,
but you risk being at a disadvantage to one of
your competitors that does accept it, and that will be
(59:41):
a force that also drives acceleration. That bitcoin sales might
be one percent or two percent or five percent, but
if you don't have it, a large share of the economy,
even if it's still small on a percentage basis, is
going to shift somewhere else.
Speaker 2 (59:54):
Yeah. Yeah, I love that. I love what you just
said there because the reframed my brain. It's not a
spending bitcoin. It's a spending question or thought right where
it's like I'm gonna spend dollars, but those dollars good
about bitcoin. Yeah, so it's really a spending problem and
I hadn't really thought about that. That's a good reframe.
Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
Yeah, And there's a there's a thing that Jack Mallers
talked about on the podcast that I think is is
really right that like, when you hold very few dollars,
you think about it as an opportunity cost some bitcoin,
and when you hold a lot of dollars, it's like
I'll go I'll go spend on, I'll go spend my
dollars on anything because because they're loser value, and so
it does as a as a consumption model, it shifts
(01:00:35):
your framing of do I really need this? Am I
willing to spend my bitcoin on this? And there's a
lot of cases in my life just because you know,
I move the vast majority of all my savings are
in bitcoin, where it's a no brainer, I need this.
I need to get the transmission of my car fixed,
I need to spend this vacation money for my for
(01:00:57):
my family. And then there's other things where I'm like,
do I really need that?
Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
Do I need to go spend five hundred dollars on
that dinner?
Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
Or can I cook steaks at home and enjoy and
and enjoy the dinner more? Yeah, not just because I'm
saving because yeah, I'm at home with my family rather
than you know, so it does. It makes you essentially
a better consumer the more bitcoin that you have in
less fiat.
Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
Because better capital alligator. Yeah yeah, yeah cool. Let's wrap
it up with that, Parker, as anything else that people
should be fans in to do. I think you wrote
a new piece recently, right, bick one can't be copied, No.
Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Someone just recirculated that that was that was an older one.
But my blog, I you know, I do write less.
It's kind of like feeling that I only want to
write when I have something that needs to be said.
But I do post kind of from time to time
on my blog. So gradually, then suddenly dot x y
Z my book which is on Safety's web how website
(01:01:54):
the safe house spelled s A I F so the
safeouse dot com. They can get my book gradually than suddenly.
And again I say, if you know, if you don't,
you know, people shouldn't just jump to bitcoin payments. So
they're still exploring why is it? Why are people saying
this thing bitcoin's money? Why is it sore value? Read
a book? You know, there's there's a number of other
great books linn Alden's books on the safe House, Safety's books,
(01:02:17):
But you can get my book there graduate and suddenly,
so there would be where I point people. And if
you're further down that path you understand why bitcoin store
is value. You are a business owner, you should I
would urge people who grock it to realize that accepting
bitcoin is just a more efficient way to acquire it,
and it eliminates risks for your business at the same
time that if you're one of those people, check out
(01:02:39):
our website zappright dot com. If you reach out to us,
I'll likely be the person that's helping serve you day
to day.
Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
So learn about it you know, inquire about it perfect.
Thanks scraping Up
The real economy is broken because of the printing of
money that it distorts the actual operation of money, the
function of money, the price signals of money. Your money
is losing its value. The printing of money is the problem.
Bitcoin is money that can't be printed. It's the solution
for that problem, and it's expressly built to solve them.
It's fixed supply is the source of all fundamental value
(00:20):
in bitcoin. It will only ever be twenty one million detcoin.
It's volatle for the reason that has a fixed apply
and that everyone's adopting bitcoin for the first time. It's
naturally volatile, it's necessarily.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Valt So the volatility is there, the price of bitcoin
going up and down. I think that's a good thing.
But in regards to like being in media a stable
medium exchange today, maybe it's not. So how do we
think about the volatility, as you said, in regards to
payments today versus like an evolution of.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
That great question?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So, so, Parker, you said that bitcoin is the most
important innovation in the world. Why should someone listening to
start this out maybe scaled on the fence. Why should
they right now be dropping everything and paying attention to bitcoin?
Speaker 1 (01:04):
I think oftentimes people look at bitcoin as a solution
in search of a problem, and that the reality of
the situation is that people do not understand the problem
that they have. They might know that they have problems,
but they might not know the root cause of it
or the source of it, and that, in my view,
(01:27):
the most pressing problem that everyone is suffering is that
their money is constantly being debased, and that bitcoin is
the solution to that problem, and that they're seeking out
somewhere on the range of imperfect solutions to bad solutions
for the problem because they misunderstand it, and that bitcoin
(01:48):
solves the most important problem for the greatest number of
people on Earth, and it's still very early and not
well understood, and that once they figure out bitcoin coin
and they can also most efficiently go down that rabbit
hole because it might be complicated, it might be unintuitive
(02:08):
at first, but it's a finite surface area, and all
the other derivative problems that they might perceive in their
life stem from in most circumstances, maybe not all circumstances,
but in most circumstances at least from a financial perspective,
because their money is constantly losing value, and so all
the time and energy they're putting in to accumulate money
(02:29):
or to acquire money to pay for various things in
their life is being destroyed. And biitwin fixes that.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
The biggest problem in the world. It fixes And so
when you solve a big problem for a lot of people,
there's a lot of value created. Let's just push on
that for a second, because what you're saying is it
solves the biggest problem for the most people, which is
their money is losing values. They have to work harder
and harder to maintain their life. But do you think
most people, when we talk broadly the masses, understand that, Like,
do they see that as a problem.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
They see it as a problem, but they don't understand
extent of it. I'd say most people are engineered to
know that their money loses value, so they try to
address it on the margin. They invest in the equity
markets to offset inflation, or they invest in real estate
(03:20):
passively to offset the problem. And one of the things
I like say is like, Hey, if there's a business
that needs to be funded that is going to deliver
a lot of value in the world, those businesses still
need to be funded. If you dig up dirt and
build a piece of real estate that delivers value like
that is a necessary piece of equation because ultimately money
(03:42):
is helping to facilitate exchange and to deliver real goods
and services to the world, which is really what improves
people's lives. But in the circumstance where people know that
their money loses value but not knowing why or that
it ends a lot worse than they think that it's
not just their money losing too per a year, three
percent or five percent that ultimately stops working. And there's
(04:05):
there's plenty of historical evidence, and there's also a fundamental
underpinning it that humans can't work and convert their time
and energy into something that can be easily produced money
being created at thin air. That it's that they know
there's a problem, they just don't know the root of it,
or the extent of it, or how negatively asymmetric. The
(04:27):
end consequence of money being debased really is, I.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Would just go step further. I think most people see
prices going up and things keep getting more expensive, and
so if I don't invest, how will I buy them
in the future, Which is the same thing as you're saying,
But it's the opposite side. Right, the money is being debased,
it's losing value, which is why prices are going up.
But they don't see the money being debased and going down.
(04:51):
They just see the prices going up.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
Yeah, safety and amuse. The author of the Bitcoin Center
has a great quote that I consistently see circul We're saying,
the groceries aren't getting more expensive. Your your money's losing
its value, right, and it's the other side of the
same coin. But it's really important framing to shift your
perspective in your understanding of the root problem.
Speaker 2 (05:12):
Right. And we saw in the last election that we
just had where Trump won and inflation was probably one
of the one of the hottest subjects going But people
aren't really understanding that the root cause of this inflation
or as they see CPI going up and so yeah,
so not understanding the problem at hand. That's the number
one obstacle to bitcoin. They think of it as a
(05:33):
solution looking for a problem because they don't realize the
problem is that the reason why your life keep getting
more expensive is that your money's losing value.
Speaker 1 (05:41):
Or connecting it to bitcoin, that bitcoin's a solution to that.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Right, Yeah, yeah, yeah, got it. So, you know, you
used to write a lot. You've still been writing some stuff.
I want to talk about some of the stuf you're written,
But the big one is that gradually then suddenly, which
is amazing, and you sort of took like a first
principles approach to sort of explaining bitcoin. How would you
put that into maybe like a three step framework for
(06:05):
people to like think about and then maybe go dig
into and research more from there.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Yeah, So the three things are the problem the bitcoin's
actually solving. That's that is not a solution in search
of a problem. That it's an express solution to an
express problem, and the problem is printing of money.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
So start there, start there.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
You have a problem. You know, one of the things
that you just mentioned is in the last selection, it's
in the United States, inflation was a big focus area.
I never saw one politician who was talking about it
on the stump. Connecting it to the printing of money.
The printing of money is the source of that. You
(06:45):
have a problem. The printing of money is the problem.
Bitcoin is money that can't be printed. It's the solution
for that problem, and it's expressly built to solve it.
So connecting it to the problem is one frame. The
second framework is understanding bitcoin from a bottom up perspective
(07:06):
as to why it actually solves the problem and how.
And the quick high level of that is that it's
fixed supply is the source of all fundamental value in bitcoin.
There will only ever be twenty one million bitcoin. What
it represents is money that can't be printed, and that
how Bitcoin is able to enforce its fixed supply is
(07:29):
of significant consequence to the equation that it is not random,
it's not by happenstance. It might be complicated or complex.
There's a lot underneath the hood, but you first have
to understand why it's relevant, why a form of money
that can't be printed would be relevant to somebody. To
then be able to go down and connect the dots
as to how the economic incentives are able to be
(07:53):
held together. S has to Bitcoin incredibly enforce its fixed
supply without the need for trust. So that's the second thing,
And then the third framework is all the common misconceptions
about bitcoin, which are that it's too volatile to be money,
or that it can be easily copied, or that it's
(08:13):
just for criminals, which just for criminals is becoming less
of a of a knock on bitcoin. As governments around
the world and corporations around the world are adopting it
as money, it's becoming more difficult for somebody to posit that.
But basically understanding things that are difficult to see. If
you could say, hey, it would make sense that if
(08:36):
there were a form of money that can't be printed,
that everyone would adopt it, adopt it. But how does
that marry with the fact that bitcoin goes up ten
percent in a day or down. That doesn't That's not
how I have known or you know, I say I.
But the person that's evaluating it might look and say, well,
bitcoin can't be money for that reason. And in reality,
(08:57):
if you realize that it's volatile for the reason and
that has a fixed apply, and that everyone's adopting bitcoin
for the first time, it's naturally volatile. It's necessarily volatile.
So people have to work through those mental blocks in
order to come back to the highest level ideas behind
bitcoin to see how they're consistent with each other and
not inconsistent. So the problem the fundamentals the bottom up,
(09:21):
and then the common questions that are logical to ask
but have coherent, consistent explanations.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
So let's dig into the volatility and why it can't
be money. So obviously with you work on bitcoin payments,
that's sort of your life right now with zapp, right,
So I want to dig into that. I want to
talk about stable coins and the Genius Act and maybe
how that compliments or doesn't compliment bitcoin. But let's just
talk about the payments piece overall, and we'll talk about
those things. So the volatility is there the price of
(09:54):
bitcoin going up and down. I think that's a good thing.
But in regards to like being a media a stable
medium exchange today, maybe it's not. So there's today and
there's a future, so like will it ever be versus
the best today? So how do we think through that?
Because if I want to, if I'm in a country
(10:17):
with a failing currency and I could maybe go to
the dollar, I could go to bitcoin, but I don't
have that much money. And if I go to buy
groceries next week but I can't buy as much, that
could be a problem. So how do we think about
the volatility, as you said, in regards to payments today
versus like an evolution of that.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Great question? So one I think that to start, you
have to understand why bit coin's volatile. You have to
understand why it's volatile and why volatility is not a risk.
And when I say that is that volatility can be
a risk depending on what your time horizon is right,
(10:57):
And so you have to be able to explains yourself
first why bitcoin would store value over time despite being volatile,
that it's volatility is actually to your benefit that you know.
One way I would think about it is if only
one percent of the world has any material exposure to bitcoin,
(11:18):
and if you marry that with this idea that everyone
in the world, if they understood that there were a
form of money that can't be printed in that bitcoin
is that, and that it's fixed supply of twenty one
million is credible that ninety nine percent of the world
is yet to adopt it, but they would adopt it
for the very same reason that someone would who's already
adopted it. Understood that it holds value because more of
(11:42):
it can't be created, but it's also necessarily volatile. If
one percent of the world has figured this out, well,
if ten percent were to figure it out, then that
means that nine out of every ten people in the
world that are buying bitcoin for the first time are
pricing bitcoin, are putting a value on it the first
time in their life. Right, Well, if more can't be created,
(12:03):
there has to be price discovery, right. That price discovery
is naturally volatile. But the volatility for people who already
hold it is a benefit because if ten times the
number of people are demanding an asset, even if they're
pricing it for the first time, are having to bid
the price up to deliver value to people that already
do hold it. Again, that is in your benefit. So
(12:25):
first you have to anchor to that fundamental that is
volatile for the very same reason of why someone would
demand it in the first place, and that that is
connected to its ability to store value.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Let me hind on that. So, because it's a fixed
supply and we have more people coming in and maybe
something going down, I mean there's EBB and flow a
little bit, so we get price moving up and down
price volatility because of that. Now, if we look at
the long lens of bitcoin, the price volatility moves to
the upside, and so as an investor, we want the
price to go up, right, We don't want to be
in the stable poin that never moves, and so that
(12:56):
volatility is our advantage. It's a necessary good. I think
it's the point that you're making. Yes, right, So it's volatile,
but volataile tipside, we like that, but depends on the
duration correct.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
So then the way that I would think about that
is and it is this difficult problem. If you have
no savings and you are barely saving more than like
when I say no savings, you have no Yeah, if
your paycheck to paycheck and bitcoin is volatile, then you
(13:28):
still have to figure out how to get savings. And
the form of money that can't be printed is going
to store your value best over time, but you have
to get to that point in time. And so it
becomes the identical equation of saying like, okay, I first
have to produce more than I consume and then I
(13:51):
have to start saving a small percentage. And bitcoins is
that as it's volatile, it doesn't put me back in
that negative position of being paycheck to paycheck. So another
way to say it is someone that has a lot
of savings can more easily adopt bitcoin than someone that
has no savings at all. But everyone has to accumulate
(14:15):
savings to get out of that rat race. To get
out of living paycheck to paycheck. So it becomes a
world to say, well, hey, maybe you need to have
enough dollars or a stap quote stable coin that might
be losing its value slowly but is maintaining its value
day to day better saying I need to cover myself
for a month or two months or three months to
(14:37):
have that security buffer, but then saying well, anything that
is more than three months, I need to be exposed
to the asset that stores value over time. And so
it's marrying the short term needs with the long term
benefits and such that someone that has no savings realistically
(14:59):
like they still need to be saving and bitcoin, but
it might be able to have a smaller percentage because
their personal working capital is non existent and they need
to build that up. And so they still have the
problem and there's no easy way out of it. But
it becomes a function of each month saving more than
you than you spend and putting a small amount away.
(15:23):
But now somebody that has a lot of savings that
doesn't have, you know, a working capital need of six
months or a year that then they start looking at
the equations saying, hey, if I have this in cash
and in a form of money that loses value, that's
engineered to lose value. I need to be thinking longer
(15:45):
than just a month or two months or three months.
I need to be thinking about a year or ten years,
and the more that you can save an asset that's
volatile but stores value better than anything else for very
logical reasons that everyone needs money, everyone needs set money,
and people are adopting bitcoin for that reason. Then it
becomes a kind of time horizon and managing short term
(16:08):
volatility for the benefit of long term purchasing power.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
So to summarize that, then we have to understand that
both dollars and bitcoin are both volatile price moves, but
bitcoin is more volatile to the upside, whereas the dollar
is just always constantly vaulted to the downside. So we
want to look at those over different time horizons, where
think of it as a checking in the savings and
(16:33):
a little bit And depending on my time horizons and
the amount of money that I make, then I want
to be storing in the more volatile asset because it
holds value better over longer periods of time, But I
might be willing to put a little bit into the
less volatile asset that holds value better in a short
period of time.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
Right, Yeah, correctly, So you know, I always try to
use it to a tangible examples like, hey, if I
need to go buy beef at the grocery store tomorrow
or over the next week, and there's a possibility that
bitcoin drops by ten percent and I can't then go
buy the amount of beef that I need, I haven't
solved my problem. But if I know that the price
of beef, you know, looking at ground beef, if it
(17:10):
goes from six dollars a pound to ten dollars a
pound to fifteen dollars a pound, that I need beef
in six months too. And if I'm just saving in
this form of money, that is the other side of
that same coin, which we discussed before, like your your
groceres aren't getting more expensive, your money is losing value.
(17:31):
That you need beef next week, but you also need
beef in six months. If you do the same thing
for the next week that you're trying to solve for
in six months or a year, you're gonna end up
in a far worse place.
Speaker 2 (17:43):
Yeah, because the dollar might buy you more beef next week,
but it's most likely guaranteed to buy you less beef
in a year. Yeah, let's talk about than the dollar,
but more specially stable coins. So sort of maybe somewhat
historic here in the United States, we just passed this
genius Act, the Stable Cooin Act. Scott Assent, the head
(18:06):
of the Treasury, whose job is to sell US debt, right,
that's his primary job, sell the treasuries. He's some dude
pushing towards these stable coins. He said that he sees
stable coins growing by three points set to three point
seven trillion by twenty thirty. I saw you were talking
about the difference of dollars in that, but I think
I saw you make a tweet something about it being
(18:29):
like regulatory capture. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
So the if you play it out again, this is,
you know, balancing short term of long term. That the
short term benefit is that there's a a positive regulatory
(18:53):
stance towards the digital currency world, which it is. And yeah,
we can say that that's I won't say it's undeniable,
but it's close to undeniable.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
It's like, hey, there's a regulatory stands too.
Speaker 1 (19:07):
That's that's positive, that that's welcoming to this in the
US right now. Yeah, Yeah, And that's better than if
Elizabeth Warren was going out trying to whack the mole.
Everybody working on bitcoin or the broader what people refer
to is the crypto space that you want that that
it's better to have a regulatory apparatus that is friend,
(19:35):
not foe. But long term, if you think about stable
coins that are that are backed by dollars, it's not
actually solving a problem, and that the very same interests
that are helping to instantiate stable coins do not have
(19:58):
an interest in in private versions of the dollar existing.
Long term, they get immense control and power out of
having a digital version of the dollar that's controlled by
the Fed, and that the larger that a stable coin grows,
the more control that the the Fed and the Treasury
(20:22):
or the Office of the Presidency would want to have
over it. Right, it becomes unavoidable, genuinely, and so that
the law in my view, the large interest that we're
pushing the stable coin apt or special interests that wanted
their stable coin to be able to be the winner
because they have seniorage and they will extract value out
(20:44):
of that. And so in the short term it can
feel like a positive because there's you know, women, I'm
picking from a bitcoin lens that there are advocates that
are that are friendly to an adjacent industry, not bitcoin specifically,
and that there might be short term benefits that come
from that, and it would be certainly better than an
(21:05):
active foe trying to go stamp out bitcoin companies. But
the larger that a stable coin grows, the more control
the existing state apparatus is going to naturally have over it,
and the interest of companies like coinbase and usd C
or anyone that interacts and helps move that stable coin
(21:26):
is going to be to you know, use our stable coin,
not that stable coin, and that that's ultimately the root
of you know, tether has worked perfectly well all over
the world without this. Why does it need this? The
only reason it needs this is to ensure that the
state apparats doesn't come to shut it down. But then
the other side of that coin is control. You know that,
(21:49):
you know why, why if the free market has been working,
why not allow the free market to continue to work.
The logical explanation of it is is control surveillance, And
it might not play out in the next week or
the next month, but that's the direction that it's heading
and in my view, we have serious problems they need
(22:11):
serious people to solve them. The fact that bitcoin was
de emphasized for stable coin legislation or market structure legislation,
it just yeah to me, it points to regulatory capture
versus innovation.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Yeah. Part of the Genius Act, there was a couple
of bills that went through. One was also called the
Clarity Act, And that's how I felt about that bill specifically,
because like in America, we're the land of the Free.
We're supposed to be able to do whatever we want
and then laws are meant to tell us what we
can't do. But here they're passing a Clarity Act to
give us clarity on what we can do, which I
(22:50):
thought was kind of weird. So I see that going
that way. But let's just kind of go back to
what you're what you're staying here. So it seems like, well,
number one, the government's not a monolith, right, So there's
like multiple factions that have different interests that they want
to see. I think both Trump and Thescent want to
see the dollar maintain some power around the world. Sixty
(23:10):
percent of FX transactions or something like that. Right now,
we just drop down to a fifty nine percent. The
cent wants to sell treasuries. Who's going to buy the treasuries?
And so by getting people around the world who use
dollar stable coins, it sort of keeps the dollars sort
of demand. And then for the regulatory part that we
make those stable cod in companies by US treasuries and
(23:31):
then sort of de facto you get the people around
the world to buy US treasuries. I mean, would you
say that seems to be what's that play here?
Speaker 1 (23:39):
I think that's the that's the line of thinking. That's
a first derivative, that sounds good, sounds right, sounds plausible,
and so people run with it. They say, hey, these
stable coins are great for the US dollar safety and
(23:59):
muse again. He gave a great presentation at the Bitcoin
Conference where he basically explained that it's substitute demand. It's
not creating demand for the treasury. Somebody has to own
all treasuries at all times. If you think about what's
actually happening in the financial system. If somebody is choosing
(24:20):
to convert a deposit at a at a US bank
to a dollar stable coin, somewhere in the background, a
reserve at the Fed is changing from one account to
the other, and that somebody was holding a treasury and
now somebody else is holding the treasure.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Is it and is it the government holding it they
had to print the money on buying their own or
is it someone in Argentina or Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (24:47):
Right, But if somebody, you know, imagine the scenario where
there's a a central bank in Africa and the person
African says, I want to hold a US dollar stable coin. Well,
the dollar doesn't just disappear. So the central bank in
(25:08):
Africa might have bought a treasury. Now the you know,
the private company that issued the stable coin is buying
the treasury. You know, it didn't it changed the treasury,
It changed hand. It didn't create demand for the US treasury.
And so I think that realistically, what it more so
is is it's a new rail to move dollars. I
(25:30):
think about it more as a method of payment. It doesn't.
It doesn't. It genuinely does not create demand. Like as
an example, Blackrock is the largest holder. I think if
it's not the large holder, it's one of the top
two or three holders of US treasuries. If their assets
(25:52):
shift to some other party and say it's a party
that wants to hold stable coins. It's like somebody is
banking blackrock, somebody's back banking the stable coin. That's the foundation.
It's like the stable coin is not creating demand, shifting demand.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
It's shifting demand. But I want to we'll get into
sort of the failing system that we have in a
little bit, But just to talk about this for a second.
If there's a massive demand external demand for US treasury,
is easier for the US to sell the treasuries into
the market and manage the debt. Whereas if the government
has to, as we've seen many times other countries around
(26:31):
the world, have to print money to buy their own debt,
it goes into a deep, a pretty fast doom loop. Right,
So if we have to print money to buy our
own debt, that's a problem. Versus if there's a massive
demand externally for our debt, then it's not as bad.
And so I would say to the point that you're making, Yes,
the Treasury has to whatever debt they need to send out,
(26:53):
they need to send out, so there's the demand. But
as far as shifting the demand, if they have to
print and buy it themselves, it's much worse. Than if
some and I think you said, Zimbabwe, Africa buy is
it right?
Speaker 1 (27:02):
What I'm saying is we all have to accept that
the only way that thirty six trillion or thirty seven
trillion of debt is getting repaid is because the FED
is going to create more of it. Sure, everything else
is moving chairs around on the on the deck. Because
two things are categorically true. The Treasury sets the number
(27:29):
of treasuries that exist, and Congress based on the amount
that they spend. First, the amount that they take in
is in relation to that.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
But the Treasure is the budget.
Speaker 1 (27:43):
The budget the budget. So if you know the report
that came out the other day is that just in
the next two quarters, the Treasury is going to have
to issue net incremental treasuries of one point six trillion.
The debt of the United States is growing by one
point six trillion over the next two quarters. That's the Treasury.
(28:06):
In Congress, the FED is the single entity that sets
the number of dollars that exist in the system. If
the FED is not increasing the number of dollars that
exist in the system, and the Treasury is having to
increase the supply of treasuries by one point six trillion.
It's having to take out money from somewhere else in
(28:27):
the system to replace that demand. Right, so as as
more treasuries exist, if the amount of dollars didn't increase,
it's sucking money either out of the private sector or
out of some other public sector need for money. And
the only way it gets solved, the only way the
(28:49):
leaky ship gets solved, is the FED creating more dollars.
You know, That's why Trump's going to the Fed and
saying you got to increase the interest rate by three percent. Well,
the only way to lower interest rates in terms of
the like the real the real interest rate is printing money. Right,
(29:09):
so more dollars have to exist to release the pressure
of the market rate to borrow.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
But does the Fed have to create the dollars because
the euro dollar market is dollars increasing, well, not the
Fed doing anything.
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Well, the same dilemma exists on the euroside, like the
European Centi Bank ultimately has to create more euros to
satisfy euro denominated debt. Well, euro dollars is the intersection
of that.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
But the.
Speaker 1 (29:40):
Dollars need to be supplied, I don't say need to
be but the way that the current market is structured,
is that ultimately more dollars need to support more dollar
nominated debt. You can again, like, if the FED isn't
creating any more money, the Treasury is issuing one point
six trillion, there are one point six trillion more deposits
credit claims on dollars that exists out there without the FED.
(30:04):
My point is that the market figures out that the
actual funding currency is becoming more scarce to the amount
of claims on it. That causes interest rates to rise.
The only way to actually solve that is the FED
singularly sets the number of dollars that exists in the system,
the dollars that can move from bank to bank.
Speaker 2 (30:27):
And your a dollar market can't create those.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
They can create more claims on the base money, but
they can't create more of the base money.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
What about if billions of dollars of Argentine pesos convert
into US dollars.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Again, there's a relationship between the actual number of pesos
that exist in the world that are created by their
central bank, and there are the number of dolls dollars
that exist created by our central bank, and then there
are claims on those dollars. So it's like, yes, if
somebody wanted to convert pesos to dollars, creates demand for dollars,
(31:15):
creates lack of demand for paces, which dictates that the
peso issuer needs to issue more pasos or their system collapse.
Speaker 2 (31:22):
So it's Robin, Peter pay Paul is shuffling cars on
the deck.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
But what it's doing, but the foundation of it that
dictates all of it is the central issuer, right, And
if you are creating more debt on top of the
existing money supply, Ultimately people figure out that there are
enough chairs on the deck and they saw all going
to sit down at the same time to get there
the dollars that they need at the paces that they need.
(31:46):
That causes a credit collapse, that causes interest rates to rise,
that induces the acceleration of money printed. There's no way
around it.
Speaker 2 (31:55):
There's no way around it. It's inevitable how that looks,
and the timeframe of those things vary based off of
how good they can shuffle cards around the deck. So
the milkshake theory from Brent Johnson is that all it
puts a lot of pressure on Urgerden payso they collapse
and then the dollar kind of just keeps sucking more
and more, and things keep collapsing faster and faster and faster.
Speaker 1 (32:17):
Right, so one system could collapse faster than another system.
But again, if the Treasury is issuing one point six
you know, like using the microcosm of the example that
it's a real example based on their own estimates, they're
issuing one point six trillion more in dollar denominated debt,
that is more, and if the Fed is not increasing
(32:39):
the money supply, that is more claims on the same
amount of dollars. That forces the dollar interest rate higher, right,
you know, so it's like, yes, you know, the dollar
milkshake theory can can be accurate, and that the PASO
could collapse faster than the dollar, but the same dynamic existence.
Speaker 2 (33:00):
Just a function of the system.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
It's collapsing slower, it's not not collapsing.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Sure, Sure, it's a function of the system.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
And then ultimately Bitcoin becomes the release valve because as
the market figures out, okay, well, the Treasury had to
issue one point six trillion more dollars, that's more claims
on dollars competing with the same amount of dollars. The
only way to satisfy that demand is to force interest
rates higher. Oh well, now the FED steps in and
prints more dollars. Shit, there is no rate of interest
(33:29):
I can get on a dollar nominated claim that performs
better than just holding the form of money that is
agnostic to this whole charade. And so to come back
to this idea that stable coins create demand for dollars, No,
they just shift from one party, and one party might
be more inclined to buy US treasuries over some other
(33:52):
instrument in the US financial system, depending on you know,
it's moving out of one bank holding reserves to an other.
But it's all like you miss the forest for the
trees if you don't realize that all of that is
just debt chairs shifting. And what really matters is the
(34:13):
total amount of system debt. That isn't just the US Treasury,
it's every private issuer of credit, every state, local municipality
issuing debt. The relationship of the total debt stack to
the actual number of dollars that are in the system
that can support it. Because what happens is for intermittent
(34:34):
periods of time is that debt expands significantly without the
actual number of dollars increasing to support it. The market
figures it out, there becomes a credit collapse, they print
more money twentsand and eight nine twenty twenty, guaranteed to
happen again. And the only true exit valve from that
(34:56):
is to get in the money that is not subject,
that is entirely divorced from the function of credit.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Get off the deck where they're shuffling chairs and onto
something else. So let's talk about the relief valve. So
Howard Lutnik, Secretary of Commerce, before he came into the
Trump administration, through his fund, Cantor Fitzgerald, was jumped into bitcoin,
big zoime right, two point or two billion dollar credit line,
major stakes in micro strategy, major stakes in tether. Now,
(35:26):
with the Trump administration building a bitcoin reserve, maybe this
sovereign wealth fund his son now is deploying billions of
dollars into bitcoin companies. Trump himself just bought two billion
not himself but through his company which he owns control
and interest of bought two billion dollars worth of bitcoin
a week or two ago. Trump seems to have a
(35:48):
way of maybe front running the markets and even telegraphing
what's coming. He said, you might want to buy stocks
right right before the tariff deal was announced. I think
there could be a case where the government wants bitcoin
and gold maybe to run really hot. So we saw
elon musk leave dose. We can't cut. It's never gonna work.
(36:10):
We have to grow away out of it. It's cop
a cent goes on the TV saying we have to
grow away out of it. So we need to let
inflation run hot. Hopefully GDP goes up faster than the debt.
Maybe stable coins can fuel some of that by maybe
getting some money into directly to the market, maybe get
more inflation going. We have to grow away out of it.
But the problem is if we have a lot of
(36:32):
inflation prices going up too fast, people get unhappy. But
bitcoin is this liquidity sponge that seems to be not
seems to be. Is much more sensitive to liquidity than
other assets, and so potentially if gold and bitcoin could
absorb a big piece of that liquidity and go up
maybe faster and higher than most people think, it could
keep the other assets and prices down a little bit.
(36:55):
What do you think about that.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
I think that it's again one of those things that
can sound right in terms of a first derivative that
fails to see the forest for the trees and is
not functionally possible, and that this idea that you have
(37:18):
to grow your way out of the debt. It's like,
first you have to accept that the US credit system
has grown faster than even if GDP is a terrible
metric to measure economic activity, the debt system has grown
grown faster than GDP for the last thirty years. And
(37:45):
you're basically saying, Okay, well that has to reverse. But
what if there's a relationship that dictates, given the level
of debt that it's not possible. So my point is
that there's an amount of debt that exists the world,
and there's amount of dollars that exists in the world,
and to inchor people into what that general relationship is
(38:08):
is no, it's like one hundred and two trillion dollars
of dollar denominated.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Debt to three hundred and fifty trillion, oh to.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
About six to seven trillion dollars. Oh, and there is
a mathematical equation. Now, not all of that one hundred
and two trillion dollars of debt that's owed is due
in a month or doing two months, or a year
or five years. Some's not due for thirty years. But
there's a mathematical relationship between one hundred and two trillion
(38:40):
dollars of debt to six to seven trillion dollars that
actually exists in the system, and that the one hundred
and two trillion dollars debt cannot be satisfied by the
six to seven trillion dollars. So the idea of like,
you know, if you would relate this to the idea
of GDP, like to grow our way out. How do
(39:02):
you grow your way out if you didn't increase the
number of dollars? How do you grow out of the one?
Speaker 2 (39:09):
Well, you don't grow your way out. But could we
go from one hundred and ten to GDP to eighty percent?
That to GDP change?
Speaker 1 (39:17):
So ratio, Well, we'll set aside debt to GDP for
a second.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
The real.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
Of consequence ratio is the amount of debt that exists
to the amount of dollars. How do we how do
we de leverage that system? There's two ways. There's allow
the debt to reduce, or there's create more dollars. There's
no other mathematical way right now. The way that debt
(39:44):
is reduced is that as debts become due, they get
repaid and more credits not issued. The problem is that
because of the extent of the leverage that as soon
as that credits is so that credit system that was
one hundred and two trillion went to one hundred trillion
(40:04):
to ninety eight forces interest rates higher. Okay, and basically
the market because because the money that because those are
those are those are dollars that are in somebody say
account that are no longer there. People are tight. So
like the economy starts to shrink, or first it starts
(40:27):
to grow slower. Like basically growth is tied to credit expansion.
If the credit expansion starts to slow or then decline,
the absolute amount of leverage is so high it starts
to feed on itself. One you know, credit contraction begets
credit contraction ultimately induces a credit collapse that induces the
printing of more money. And so it's like you can't
(40:50):
get yourself out of the mathematical equation.
Speaker 2 (40:52):
Like you could.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
You could take a piece of debt that's sitting on
a on a productive asset, say like an oil and
gas well, and say, well, you know, cancel the debt
and now it has a new equity holder. It's just
that we live in a world that's so leveraged that
would create you know, and it ultimately will. There's you know,
it's a catch twenty two. There's no way out of it.
The way out of it is printing of money or
(41:15):
the more accelerated decline of the dollar via hyper inflation
and a credit collapse. So you know, everything else of
like GDP growth, it's like one hundred and two trillion
dollars of debt six to seven trillion dollars. The Fed
sets the number of dollars that exists, and then the
market creates credit on top of that. But every time
(41:37):
since you know, realistically two thousand and eight nine, the
market figured out that something was inherently broken, not everyone
knows the source of it, and guaranteed they print more money,
you know, and there's no there's no chasing it. So
you know, one thing I last one I want to
say is like when people talk about GDP and outgrowing debt,
(42:01):
if you lose sight of the real economy and what
money is supposed to deliver to the economy more goods
and services that and just think in terms of GDP
and GDP growth and relationship of you know, how much money,
more money needs to exist to satisfy it. It's like,
(42:23):
what is actually broken is the real economy, and the
real economy is broken because of the printing of money
that it distorts the actual operation of money, the function
of money, the price signals of money, and we're not
going to get to a more stable world until the
fly is taken out of the ointment. The ability to
(42:44):
print money is no longer exists because governments adopt bitcoin
and then they can't print money, and they have to
be honest in terms of how they finance their operations
because what happens as a natural consequence is that one
point six trillion ultimately gets financed by the creation of
more money.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
Right, the inevitability of the system is we are on
a debt based monetary system, and because of that, the
debt has to always grow, and because of that, we
never pay the debt off, and so the inevitability of
the system is eventually it ends.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
And the real economy gets destroyed because of that.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
And the real economy gets destroyed because of that. Now
we have a solution with bitcoin that that can allow people, businesses, individuals, businesses, nonprofits,
churches and corporations, and even governments start offloading onto another
ship to maybe try to save itself from the inevitable collapse.
I guess I was just thinking more in terms of
shorter term moves. Yeah, the next four years of the
(43:42):
Trump administration, we saw in the eighties, Israel was facing,
you know, triple digit debt to GDP ratios. Let high
double digit inflation happen for three or four years. Inflated
the GDP, which changed the ratio down to seventy five percent.
Speaker 1 (43:58):
But the only way to do what they I mean,
I I'm not an expert in that, about what I
would presume is they printed more money into dealers.
Speaker 2 (44:04):
Sure. Yeah, and that's that's my point. So we're going
to print a lot more money. Trump wants, as you
said earlier, right, he wants Powell or the Fed to
drop rates three points, you know, down to one and
a half. That's going to print a lot more money. Potentially,
we can get there's what three point three trillion dollars
of sterilized reserves sitting in the banks that they could
issue stable coins against and put that onto the street.
That's more money. And so that's a lot of inflation.
Speaker 1 (44:25):
But but yeah, it is.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
It's a lot of inflation.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
It's a lot of inflation. And and again I'm not
an expert in the history of of why More Germany,
but i I know some of the history. And there
is this natural phenomenon that that when they say the
price of bitcoin goes up, you think that you're getting richer.
When the when the value of your stock market goes up,
(44:49):
you think that you're getting richer. But it misses what
wealth is. It misses that the your the day to
day delivery of goods and services that you consume, and
the and the increasing base of capital capital and not
(45:12):
in terms of dollars, but capital in terms of productive
capacity delivering real goods and services to the market. Right,
That that's wealth. That that's the thing that improves the
day to day living of more people. And that when
you know, someone like Trump might buy bitcoin and think
(45:35):
that bitcoin's helping the dollar, he might just not be
seeing the forest for the trees. And that it might
feel good to all of us when the dollar value
of our bitcoin goes up. But if more businesses are
being destroyed than are being created, we're kind of we're
the boiling frog, right you know. And so it's very
(45:56):
easy for people to not realize. And I'm talking specifically
about people that are putting forward legislation or regulations or
even Trump, you know, buying bitcoin and not seeing the endgame,
thinking like, oh, it's a good thing if you know,
the stock market moves up. But like, think about the
(46:16):
craziness of the stock market. I think, really, you know,
reach all time highs or the sm P at least,
and like, you know, it's at an all time high
and Trump is sitting there telling the Fed chair that
he's going to fire him to reduce interest rates by
three percent? Yeah, Like, what good is your stock going
(46:37):
up if the actual you know, fabric of the productive
capacity of an economy and being destroyed along with it.
Speaker 2 (46:46):
Yeah, that is certainly correct. Most people, unfortunately, don't see it.
As we started at the beginning is most people don't
understand the problem. And so part of the CP lie
is to get us confused on prices going up as
inflation and that we don't understand why electronics went down
and this went up, and we don't understand it's the
money supply. I think the average American would much rather
(47:08):
see their home value their retirement accounts go up, even
if gas went up. A little bit then to see
all of their life savings get cut in half and
gas stayed the same. I went down a little bit, right.
Speaker 1 (47:21):
The problem is that they have to consume their house
every day and they have to consume gas that they
have to have both.
Speaker 2 (47:26):
Yeah, and you you've mentioned several times like thinking through
first order derivatives. So if you think through second, third, fourth,
fifth order, where does this go? And then what then
then what you see the impending doom that it creates.
But most people just unfortunately can't see that. Let me
ask one more question then we'll wrap this up. So
(47:50):
we've talked about the impending doom, the inevitability of the system.
It was never going to work, right, it's a function
of the way the system works. But maybe we're starting
to see the world waking up to this reality you
mentioned earlier, you posted a chart of the guilt market
in the UK is like plunging, and if we look
at like the long bond around the world, they're all
(48:10):
like basically making new all time highs. And you mentioned
it's like a regime change. Yeah, a regime change where
maybe the entire world there starting to wake up and
realize that the only way to pay those is printing
lots of money and we have to go find something
else or what was the regime change?
Speaker 1 (48:28):
Yeah, So one way I think about this is that
the academic economists which make up the Federal Reserve or
central banks all over the world think about pulling levers
or pulling you know, basically taking actions expecting certain reactions.
(48:52):
So traditionally the world of academic economists that make up
central banks think, well, if I increase interest rates, I'll
decrease inflation. The person in the real economy realizes that
if you arbitrarily increase interest rates, you're not going to
make goods more abundant. You might destroy someone's ability to
(49:15):
buy a good, but the real way to make goods
cheaper is greater abundance. I say that to them, bring
up the point of well, the consequence of raising interest
rates and let's talk about a real example of the
Federal Reserve of increasing interest rates aggressively in twenty twenty two,
and here we're sitting in twenty twenty five, that the
(49:36):
other side of increasing interest rates is the value of
the underlying bonds declining in value, and that the past
regime was low interest rates manipulated lower for a long
period of time, and it trained this entire class of
(49:58):
investor to say, well, the Fed's gonna print money to
get these bonds to zero. So even if it doesn't
make sense to lend government or money to the government
for a long period of time, say ten years, twenty years,
or thirty years at this arbitrary low rate, I'm going
to do it anyways, because they're going to have to
buy these assets to force the interest rates lower. Well
(50:19):
by keeping interest rates higher for longer periods of time.
There was massive amount of holders of those bonds that
got burned, that lost money doing the quote safe thing,
and it's a fool me once. Shape on you, fool
me twice, Shame on me. The market has learned that
(50:41):
they cannot bet on the fact that the Fed's going
to even if the FED is going to have to
print money, the time duration matters, and they've lost They've
gotten burned. So it's you're not going to fool me again,
and that when the FED starts to lower interest rates
by printing money, or the the Bank of England or
(51:02):
the European Central Bank, the holders of those assets like,
why would I do this again? You know you've already
tried to quote reduce inflation by starving the market. I
got burned by that. So even if you try to
force interest rates lower, I'm not buying your paper. You're
(51:25):
going to have to buy your paper. And so that's
the regime change. That the market has gotten burned, and
they're not going to be quick to become the boil
and frog again to become the bag holder. So that
it seems like, and not in terms of a truly
dislocated way, but that central banks have lost control that
(51:51):
the market is the true set ceenter of interest rate.
The what the consequence is that central banks are going
to have to be more aggressive in buying their own debt.
The only way that they can do that is by
printing more money. Then operation by which central banks buy
the debt of the government is creating more supply of
the base money, increasing that six seven trillion to eight trillion,
(52:15):
nine trillion, ten trillion.
Speaker 2 (52:16):
That's then Alden's nothing stops this train.
Speaker 1 (52:19):
Yeah, And the truth thing that that dictates that nothing
stops to train is the relationship between the debt and
the system to the actual number of base dollars or
euros or yen. And at the level just below that
is that if you have a form of money that
is built foundationally with the idea that it can be
(52:43):
created by a central issuer at no cost, that the
market's going to figure that out and opt in to
a different form of money that has a different set
of rules, being bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (52:56):
All Right, So we've talked about the inevitability system and
where this is all going, and one part I didn't
really want to I didn't get a chance to hit
on is you talked about the volatility of bitcoin and
starting to think about how we're allocating to it. So
we see the inevitability. You've built that up nicely for
us and using maybe some dollars and bitcoin. But I
know you have a company's app, right and you're pioneering
(53:17):
bitcoin payments, and so I'm just curious what you see
from that regard. You know, I see this as like
this evolutionary path. I know you're sort of bringing that forward.
What have you seen since you've been working on payments?
How has the adoption of that been going?
Speaker 1 (53:30):
Well? I think one thing because we talked about this previously,
but then connecting it with this idea of why central
banks are going to have to create more money and
this trade off of short term volatility versus long term
destruction of value. Those are those two things coexist with
each other and everyone within the system has to solve it.
(53:50):
So a lot of people naturally look at bitcoin's volatility
and say, well, how could anybody ever accept it as payment?
And it's a very logical dilemma. I'm looking at the
surface level, but in reality, it's the same dilemma of
buying bitcoin for dollars as accepting it for payment. That
(54:12):
if you think about, you know, one of the strategies
that people employing bitcoin is dollar cost averaging, buying a
small amount every day or every week, and they're taking
a different price. You know, they're buying one hundred dollars
and the price of bitcoins x one day and lower
the next day, and higher the next day, and getting
a little bit more bitcoin one day and less bitcoin.
(54:33):
That if somebody has figured out why, yes bitcoin is volatile,
but why it stores value over time, that it's money
that can't be printed. That and they have a business
that they realize the end game and they say, well,
if I start selling my goods and services for bitcoin, yes,
the price is different. I'm you know, day to day,
(54:53):
and I'm gonna still be pricing goods in or services
in some dollar denomination, or if you're in Europe, you're denomination.
But it's the same as dollar cost averaging. Because when
they turn on the ability to be paid in bitcoin,
one hundred percent of their sales do not magically turn
up in bitcoin. It might be one percent to two
percent to five percent to ten percent. And say that
(55:16):
a business was doing ninety percent of their sales and
fiat and ten percent and bitcoin, well, they were going
to have to convert that ten percent of fiat into
bitcoin because they wanted to save in bitcoin anyway. And
so it it just is a different means to actually
acquire the bitcoin, but in a way that de risks
the business at the same time that is able to say, well,
(55:36):
I can still be paid in dollars and I have
my dollar rails, but now I have this new rail
that creates redundancy and allows me to market my services,
to appeal to people that have bitcoin, and to actually
make the transaction more efficient if people want to pay
me in that way. And so we're still early to
bitcoin payments. So like the way I think about it
is we're early to bitcoin, which means that we're earlier
(55:57):
to bitcoin payments because somebody does necessarily need to understand
something fundamental about bitcoin, like I do not think, as
an example, that somebody that does not know why bitcoin
stores value even while being volatile, should endeavor to accept
bitcoin payments. It's a it's a reverse order of operation.
(56:17):
It's the wrong it's decidedly the wrong order. But if
everyone is on this curve of understanding bitcoin understanding the
problem that it solves that the people that were earlier
to understand bitcoin are increasingly asking to be paid in bitcoin.
So we're seeing growing trends. Is you know, there's a
recognition that it's early to the ballgame, but somebody has
(56:40):
to be early, and that the amount of adoption that
we're seeing feels like, you know, we're you know, an
inflection point. Doesn't mean the majority of the world in
a year or two not just accepting bitcoin, but but
doing more than fifty percent of their sales, but that
there's a critical mass that's more that it's going to
(57:02):
materially accelerate Companies like Square turning on the bitcoin payments,
in my mind, is a watershed moment for everybody working
on bitcoin payments, but also for everyone out there that's
providing a payment service that doesn't have bitcoin incorporated, because
it becomes a differentiation. Yeah, for any platform.
Speaker 2 (57:22):
And we've seen the I mean the best case was
at the Bitcoin conference like two months ago Steak and
Shake and Now so they were going to start accepting bitcoin.
And I think it was the president maybe of Stake
and Shake got up and gave a talk and he
gave some numbers out I forget what it was, but
they increase like per store visits like fifty percent or
some crazy number. You may know that, but I mean
you could see that first move or advantage where all
(57:42):
of a sudden people wanted to go spend the bitcoin.
And of course, as the wealth of bitcoin continues to grow,
people are going to want to spend it.
Speaker 1 (57:48):
So yeah, and you know someone might say, well, why
would somebody spend bitcoin? You know if it's values going
up so much, And it's not really a spending bitcoin,
it's a spending for savings because if you were going
to spend your dollars, you could have decided not to
consume and to buy the bitcoin.
Speaker 2 (58:10):
And so.
Speaker 1 (58:12):
Yeah, and so you know, for a lot of people
that have owned bitcoin for a long time the vast
majority of their savings are in bitcoin. Now that that
is again a small percentage of the population, but for
those people, spending bitcoin is actually easier than converting back
into dollars and spending dollars. And if there's more people
adopting bitcoin, there's more people holding bitcoin, and there's more
(58:34):
merchants that want to accept it. And it's just this
organic process of growth, and there will be accelerations of
it and decelerations and accelerations again, but it ultimately needs
to exist for bitcoin to work long term, and that
when I look out into the future, I think this
shift to bitcoin happens a lot faster than people think,
(58:58):
and we're seeing the amount of blumes of people being
interested in it, and the trend will only accelerate, and
the bitcoin payments might be a small segment of the economy,
but it becomes a massive differentiator for platforms that have
it versus those that don't. And what's becoming clear with
an example of Stake and Shake is that bitcoin is
(59:20):
large enough that you can either service one hundred percent
of the of the economy, the fiat economy and the
bitcoin ecomy, or you can you can service a subset
of it, and it still might be the majority of it,
but you risk being at a disadvantage to one of
your competitors that does accept it, and that will be
(59:41):
a force that also drives acceleration. That bitcoin sales might
be one percent or two percent or five percent, but
if you don't have it, a large share of the economy,
even if it's still small on a percentage basis, is
going to shift somewhere else.
Speaker 2 (59:54):
Yeah. Yeah, I love that. I love what you just
said there because the reframed my brain. It's not a
spending bitcoin. It's a spending question or thought right where
it's like I'm gonna spend dollars, but those dollars good
about bitcoin. Yeah, so it's really a spending problem and
I hadn't really thought about that. That's a good reframe.
Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
Yeah, And there's a there's a thing that Jack Mallers
talked about on the podcast that I think is is
really right that like, when you hold very few dollars,
you think about it as an opportunity cost some bitcoin,
and when you hold a lot of dollars, it's like
I'll go I'll go spend on, I'll go spend my
dollars on anything because because they're loser value, and so
it does as a as a consumption model, it shifts
(01:00:35):
your framing of do I really need this? Am I
willing to spend my bitcoin on this? And there's a
lot of cases in my life just because you know,
I move the vast majority of all my savings are
in bitcoin, where it's a no brainer, I need this.
I need to get the transmission of my car fixed,
I need to spend this vacation money for my for
(01:00:57):
my family. And then there's other things where I'm like,
do I really need that?
Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
Do I need to go spend five hundred dollars on
that dinner?
Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
Or can I cook steaks at home and enjoy and
and enjoy the dinner more? Yeah, not just because I'm
saving because yeah, I'm at home with my family rather
than you know, so it does. It makes you essentially
a better consumer the more bitcoin that you have in
less fiat.
Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
Because better capital alligator. Yeah yeah, yeah cool. Let's wrap
it up with that, Parker, as anything else that people
should be fans in to do. I think you wrote
a new piece recently, right, bick one can't be copied, No.
Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Someone just recirculated that that was that was an older one.
But my blog, I you know, I do write less.
It's kind of like feeling that I only want to
write when I have something that needs to be said.
But I do post kind of from time to time
on my blog. So gradually, then suddenly dot x y
Z my book which is on Safety's web how website
(01:01:54):
the safe house spelled s A I F so the
safeouse dot com. They can get my book gradually than suddenly.
And again I say, if you know, if you don't,
you know, people shouldn't just jump to bitcoin payments. So
they're still exploring why is it? Why are people saying
this thing bitcoin's money? Why is it sore value? Read
a book? You know, there's there's a number of other
great books linn Alden's books on the safe House, Safety's books,
(01:02:17):
But you can get my book there graduate and suddenly,
so there would be where I point people. And if
you're further down that path you understand why bitcoin store
is value. You are a business owner, you should I
would urge people who grock it to realize that accepting
bitcoin is just a more efficient way to acquire it,
and it eliminates risks for your business at the same
time that if you're one of those people, check out
(01:02:39):
our website zappright dot com. If you reach out to us,
I'll likely be the person that's helping serve you day
to day.
Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
So learn about it you know, inquire about it perfect.
Thanks scraping Up
Host
Mark Moss
Show Links
The Mark Moss ShowMark's WebsitePopular Podcasts
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.
Medal of Honor: Stories of Courage
Rewarded for bravery that goes above and beyond the call of duty, the Medal of Honor is the United States’ top military decoration. The stories we tell are about the heroes who have distinguished themselves by acts of heroism and courage that have saved lives. From Judith Resnik, the second woman in space, to Daniel Daly, one of only 19 people to have received the Medal of Honor twice, these are stories about those who have done the improbable and unexpected, who have sacrificed something in the name of something much bigger than themselves. Every Wednesday on Medal of Honor, uncover what their experiences tell us about the nature of sacrifice, why people put their lives in danger for others, and what happens after you’ve become a hero. Special thanks to series creator Dan McGinn, to the Congressional Medal of Honor Society and Adam Plumpton. Medal of Honor begins on May 28. Subscribe to Pushkin+ to hear ad-free episodes one week early. Find Pushkin+ on the Medal of Honor show page in Apple or at Pushkin.fm. Subscribe on Apple: apple.co/pushkin Subscribe on Pushkin: pushkin.fm/plus
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com