Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
IT'S A BULL MARKET w/ RAOUL PAL #CryptoTownHall
Recorded: July 4, 2023 Duration: 1:35:01Space Recording
Short Summary
The conversation covers significant growth in the crypto market, with the establishment of a major daily platform and a bullish market sentiment. Emerging trends include the integration of AI and technological advancements, while regulatory developments such as the potential approval of a Bitcoin ETF highlight ongoing changes in the industry. Despite regulatory challenges, the trend of technology adoption remains strong, indicating a resilient and evolving market landscape.
Full Transcription
Mario!
Ran!
Ran!
How are you, sir?
Good, man. How's your show?
Fantastic.
I was just telling Fred how much I hate your life, especially after seeing your tweet today.
Which one is that?
The tweet today, the one I retweeted.
Yeah, it's not...
About you being... Your intention was to show yourself as a hero, as a hustler working hard, but I'm like, man, this guy has a depressing life.
Nei, det var faktisk ikke å gjøre det som det var.
Når vi bestemte oss for å samarbeide på Twitter Space,
var det en massiv beslutning for oss.
For de som ikke har lest tweetet,
Det betyr at jeg har en kvartal kontentkvartal hver morgen, og hele kompetens er på kvartal, og så forbereder jeg spesien i showet, det tar meg ca 2-2,5 tider.
Da gjør jeg showet, som er en tider, og da gjør jeg spesien.
Så jeg broadcastar for 6,5 tider i dag, og det betyr at 6,5 tider i dag, det er før jeg begynner å runne businessen.
For me, every day I start off at negative six and a half hours,
and then I start building a business.
You're pretty much the same, because Mario, you're on the spaces like,
I don't know, six hours a day, seven hours a day,
so it's very hard to run a business and be a host at the same time,
and make content at the same time.
But I chose it because I thought this platform would be amazing,
and I think yesterday, when we get...
Space is like the one we did yesterday, then it just reinforces why I did it.
Because I think we've built, between you, Scott, and I, we've built the biggest daily crypto platform in the world today.
Which is, I think, it's a huge feat.
You enjoyed the feedback you got after yesterday's Space?
Yes.
i've got a lot of credit man i've got a lot of credit a lot of feedback i've got a lot of
journalists calling me and i've got a lot of friends calling me i got just a lot of them
said it was one of the best spaces i've ever heard so and i really enjoyed it actually i actually
actually you probably know you probably felt that i was
I was really enjoying that space.
Yeah, no, it's very rare for you to pay attention for that long,
I'll be honest.
And I'm sure you agree with me,
you know what I'm talking about.
Because you just lose interest really, really quickly.
But there's something about those spaces
where it's like a personal discussion.
Like I enjoyed the one,
I got similar feedback to the one with Imran Khan.
And the reason I got it is that
it just became like a personal conversation
Chat, like you're literally sitting on a coffee table at night and just having a very sincere discussion.
I've had a few of them obviously because I've done so many spaces.
But that's the cool thing about spaces.
There is no camera.
There's no setup.
There's no setup.
Og da åpner folk mye mer, for de føler at...
Robert alltid sier, kaller på området en kall.
Som, kan jeg kalle på kallen? Eller, hvornår er din kall?
Eller, er det en god kall?
Og kallene er mer personlige, det er som om du snakker med noen i ansiktet.
Så det er denne fjellet av Audiorooms.
Det føles som en kall på en en en.
Og du så denne fjellet i denne området.
You know, also to be honest, like I really like the story of,
I liked yesterday's story.
The reason why I liked yesterday's story is because,
you know, you're dealing with,
I my opinion, an entrepreneur who tried really hard to make money and succeeded.
I mean, you know, you take any guy that's taken $20 million and turned it into $5 billion.
Regardless of whether you like him or don't like him,
and regardless of whether he at the end of it succeeded or didn't,
at some point, the guy took $20 million and turned it into $5 billion.
And that is a huge success.
And then listening to how it all collapsed,
now, I know what it's like to lose much less than that.
And the fall from grace is hard, it's difficult.
I can't imagine what he went through.
Also, to be honest, it was kind of nice to...
I respected him for facing such a large audience,
which he didn't have to do,
and he faced a large audience, which was really good.
I...
Jeg har en annerledes kredit. Dette er ganske vanskelig. Han gjør det et år etter incendiet, et år og en halv år.
Det er ikke hans jobb. Han gjør det for å skjelde sitt nye projekt.
Dette vil jeg ikke ta. Men jeg har en annerledes kredit.
Korrekt.
Da han hadde tid til å møte musik, var han satt i Bali på balsen.
Og igjen, jeg er ikke saing dette for å være kritisk, jeg er bare realistisk.
Skal jeg gjøre det samme? Skal jeg møte musikk?
Eller skulle jeg bare la det løpe?
Han har kanskje gjort det rette besluttet av å la det løpe,
men jeg vil ikke gi ham kredit for å kjøpe på nå når han har en ny utstilling.
Ja, jeg liker historien mye.
Som du vet, jeg er en investerende utstilling, jeg ønsker dem det beste av lykken.
Jeg er ikke saing at det kommer til å fungere, jeg er ikke saing at noen bør investere.
Jeg ønsker dem det beste av lykken, jeg ønsker dem...
I'd love to hear the story of how they bounced up again, and you know, they've got some good things where they say they're going to make good for the old creditors, with no real obligation to do so.
I prefer to have that sentiment, like again, I tend to be more objective and a bit less critical, but I'm being critical just kind of, not only to balance it out, but
Jeg vil si at jeg er mer empatisk med projekter som vi bygger på i byrjemarkedet,
og de har blitt kramt, og VCs ikke ber om dem.
Fordi de er entreprenører som jeg tenker på å oppfatt.
Dette menneskene sitter fort på mye penger, og de har gjort mye penger i en kort tid.
Det jeg liker mest om space er hvordan du har brukt ned deres hele reise, og mer viktig,
som lagt det på audiense på hva de kan lære,
fordi de har laget en stor del penger på kort tid.
Hva er læringsteknikk som vi kan anvende oss selv?
Og hva er læringsteknikk som kan forbedre den implosjon som du har gått tross?
Det er det jeg liker, og den måten du har strukturerat det,
fra begynnelsen av deres reise,
til implosjonen, opp og ned.
Så det er...
Ja, læringsteknikken er at om du flyr for nødvendig med solen,
du vil utvåne, uansett hvem du er, uansett hvilken nivå.
Jeg trodde Rand hadde en absolutt utrolig jobb.
Jeg tror at vi alle har fått endelig feedback i bakgrunnen.
Raoul, la oss ta en liten kjøp.
Raoul, hva er dine tanker?
Hade du hørt om i dag Space?
Eller om ikke, det skulle være en bummer.
Sorry, it's a bummer.
It was one of Rand's better spaces,
because he really enjoyed it,
and it was just a discussion between him and Kyle from Three Arrows Capital.
But it was probably their deepest conversation, at least that I know of,
since the implosion.
It got a bit personal as well, but it's a shame you didn't hear it.
Yeah, all stories are complicated.
There's one side's narrative,
protagonist-narrative,
and then somewhere in the middle is the truth.
And that always makes these,
A, very interesting,
but also very difficult to know
where you lie on the emotional line
when you hear stories.
Do you remember Raoul, do you remember the witch hunt that we saw back when Three Arrows fell, Luna fell and FTX fell?
People were calling for the death of these people and obviously they were receiving death threats.
But it was insane times, the amount of animosity and hate towards those people, I'm not saying it's warranted or not warranted, was just mental.
It was such an emotional time, especially when FTX was collapsing.
Ja, men også, som du slått, de har ikke hjulpet seg selv med å flygja ut av scenen.
Det var investeringar som ikke stod opp og sa, hør, det er det som har skett.
Jeg har forstått.
Det er det som skaper angst.
For, se, alle kan falde.
Falder er en normal del av livet.
Men det er hvordan du falder som er den viktigste delen.
Ja, Rala, jeg må si at jeg har en anbefaling med deg.
Jeg mener, se, ingen er perfekt,
jeg er ikke på stande for dem.
Jeg tror CZ har en god anbefaling,
at han alltid har vært veldig transparent,
selv om før denne fallet han blir transparent.
Jeg tror de har adoptet den andre siden av det,
som var komplett stående.
En ting jeg faktisk har quizet,
Karl-Arne, jeg sa, se,
han sa, når hele det gikk ned,
han gikk og satt på en beach i Bali,
og jeg var sånn,
I can't imagine just having lost so much money
and then just going to lie on a beach.
I think if anything, I'd lie in a mental institute
and if not in a mental institute, I'd try and...
I don't know, I just can't imagine...
I think the sitting on the beach is...
The beach is my mental institution.
Exactly.
When I'm having a tough time, I go to Little Cayman,
my house over there, walk the beach,
there's nobody there,
and some sort of calm comes over you.
It's a meditative place, so yeah, I get it.
I agree with that, but if you recall at the time, Suzu was also tweeting about lessons learned in Zen philosophy of surfing.
See, here's my problem. I agree with everything that everyone said, where my sticking point is that there's still zero remorse for the retail side of it.
And I get that they're institutional facing and all of that, but...
The fact that they're not cognizant of where that came from
and whose money, I think at least
there has to, at some point,
I feel bad about that.
I'm going to push back because I think you're emotionally
invested because you had money in Voyager
and you lost it.
I'm not emotionally invested, but please do push back.
Okay, so I'm going to push back.
I'm going to say, look,
They didn't take money from retail investors, they took money from lenders.
Lenders have agreements with retail investors which are not really their problem.
And the lenders, in my opinion, the lenders here were super negligent and super greedy.
And that's got nothing to do with Sue and Kyle, in this case.
I think they're...
No, I don't agree, Scott. No, no, you don't, Scott.
No, no, no. I agree that they are not responsible for the losses themselves.
direkte av de deras, fordi de bare tok penjar.
eller se en sammenheng som de gjør.
Også med facilitasjon, Scott.
Hvis du kjøper ...
Så om noen annen er på hostning av en show og promoverer skamprojekter,
du vet at det er skamprojekter.
Du kan bidra som en speaker og ta vare på det,
men si hei, jeg er bare en speaker,
og jeg er der for å snakke om en specifik punkt.
Når jeg tar vare på en skammer, det er ikke mitt problem.
Det er ikke en direkte sammenligning, men de har spilt en rolle i messet.
Ja, han var egentlig sånn at vi lenderet til Celsius Voyager disse kredsfondene.
Det var det han sa, du vet at det ikke er kredsfond.
Men nå vet vi at det var kredsfondene i den tiden. Kanskje han ikke var kredsfondene i den tiden.
At the time, no one knew the situation at the time.
At the time, you know, and also to be honest,
the reason why I'm sticking up specifically on this point is I'm saying
what we got out of it yesterday,
Og in stedet vi hører noe annet, er at de ikke gjorde noe fraudulent eller skammig.
De bare overgav det.
Det er klart, det er klart.
Det er klart, det er klart.
Det er klart, det er klart.
Det er klart, det er klart.
Det er klart, det er klart.
Det er klart, det er klart.
La oss, la oss.
La oss, la oss.
La oss, la oss.
La oss, la oss.
Og når noen er så stort at du må spørre hva de er gjennom,
og leverandet de brukte til å jobbe med deres strategier,
som tre kapitaler, var obscen.
Og når noe gikk feil, unnabla hele det,
unnabla hele finansialt systemet,
og Føderalreservet måtte komme inn og kutte uttrykk.
Det interessante var at på Real Vision vi hadde Victor Hågani,
en fin mann som var en av founderne av
langtidig kapital, Zero Remorse.
And also, you know, John Merriweather, who set up Longstown Capital, then set up another fund afterwards with kind of zero remorse, even though it did hurt a lot of people.
It's also kind of a function of financial markets where you have winning trades and losing trades.
It's weird. Again, I don't think it's right, but it's not, I don't think it's their fault.
Yes, their fault is they should never have used the leverage that they did, and it really is the fault of the CIFI platforms for using leverage in the way that they did.
It's the fault of the CIFI platforms.
And the system as a whole.
One level up.
Det er en fel av reglatorne for att ikke ha reglering i stedet,
Det er alltid...
Det er alltid ennås meg, ikke med Uran, men med krypto i generelt.
Det er som når reglatorne kommer inn under en bullmark,
som sier, hei, la oss alene, la oss gjøre vårt ting, vi vet hva vi gjør,
ikke rådgjør det for oss.
Og da når markedet krasjer, så er det som, hei, hvor er du?
Du er den grunnen til at markedet krasjer.
Jeg er ikke refererende til Uran, jeg refererende til generell narrativ.
It's happened in 2017, 2019, 2020.
But let's...
I was wondering when we would pivot to the actual topic.
Yeah, we're about to now.
Let's talk about today's topic,
and I think a good place to start with today's topic is,
I just finished my show,
and I did the show very simply saying,
you know, we're in a raging bull market,
you can choose to look for reasons why we're not,
and you can choose to talk about this recession
that may or may not come in Q4,
Eller du kan bare akceptere faktet at vi er i en rådgivning av bullmarken og bestra din portfølje på grunn av det.
Og jeg gjorde mitt show i dag om å akceptere faktet at vi er i bullmarken.
Og du kan bare bestra deg på grunn av det.
Og denne bullmarken er veldig annen enn den tidligere bullmarken.
Og jeg tror at Ralsch har den samme sentimenten.
Jeg tror det.
Ralf, am I right?
Very much.
And I've shared that same sentiment over what I think of as the bottoming period,
the end of crypto winter, which started in June after the three hours capital and Luna,
and then was kind of confirmed in November,
uh with ftx and eth not making a new low a bunch of the indicators that i look at which
is forward-looking liquidity indicators were starting to turn higher crypto i find
tends to be a leading asset as opposed to a lagging asset so it along with technology
stocks tend to lead uh the cyclical bull market coming out of these kind of
negative cycle episodes.
I noticed that it kind of kissed the long-term uptrend.
Things were kind of two standard deviations oversold
versus the monthly kind of log channel.
So everything was in place.
Now the narrative has remained negative
most of the way through.
But that's pretty normal, right? It's the wall of fear.
That's the first part of a bull market, which we might call crypto spring,
is when there's the denial phase.
Or the PTSD.
Always.
That's the PTSD phase.
It's the PTSD phase.
People can't accept the fact that we're in a bull market
because we've been so badly beaten in the bear market.
That's right.
And, you know, if you look at many of these tokens that are up,
of the major stuff that I focus on,
they're up over 100%.
fra de lånene,
ok, 100% i krypto, 20% i
ekvitalitet,
denne typen av, for den differens i volatilitet,
det er i lignende med det som sker i Nasdaq,
som er også en massivt hatet markk,
som går opp hver dag, fordi folk ikke vil tro det,
fordi de prøver å tradere makrodata på dag,
da det faktisk var alt prissatt i den tidligere.
Og jeg har prøvd å spente mye tid å forklare til folk,
men folk ser det ikke,
det er at det finnes relasjoner mellom asett og business cycles,
And we found that most things like the Nasdaq priced in a full recession last year by November, a full and deep recession.
So therefore, if it's already priced in, then the marginal rate of change has to be more positive.
And rate of change drives markets and it's driven positive.
So I'm just, you know, I'm just in the basic buy and hold mode.
And, you know, if I get liquidity, I add to stuff.
And other than that, I don't do anything.
So I must say, Raoul, you've been on my show a few times, and I follow your stuff.
I've actually just recently, I'm a subscriber to your Real Vision platform.
By the way, just for anyone who's listening, we will post a link to Raoul's channels,
but it's probably the best subscription that you can make,
is to subscribe to Real Vision and to Raoul's other platforms.
I've been following the platforms, Raoul's 100% right, that he did actually call
The recession.
And I think that that's the main point here.
The main point here is that I think the market is seeing right through this potential recession.
So, yes, we may have a recession in Q4.
Maybe, maybe not.
Maybe it's going to be mild.
But the market's already seeing right through that,
because the market doesn't work two quarters forward.
The market actually works a couple of years forward.
Now, one of the things that I spoke about on my show,
and I'd love to hear what you think about it.
What do you think about it?
I listened to everything that you said.
I think the one thing that the market is really starting to price in now,
and you can see it in the NASDAQ,
is the market is starting to price in AI.
And what I likened it to on my show was I said,
AI is one of the biggest revolutions that we've seen in our generation.
So it's probably as big as no electricity and then electricity and stuff like that.
I think the effects of AI, I think the market is looking at this and going,
we've just seen, we've scratched the surface of AI,
and we're realizing how much more efficient and how much more productive it makes the economy.
And then...
I think what's going on, if you look at the Nasdaq up 50% this year, I think what the market is telling you is that we're in the middle of a technological revolution.
And whether or not there's a recession in Q3 or Q4 actually doesn't even matter.
Again, all of these assets were down like crypto.
The growth end of tech was down 80% last year.
It was priced in last year.
Så alt vi ser nå er rebounden av det låta.
De stående företagene, ja, de gjør alltid høje.
Og det bør få folk til å betale for.
Jeg tror AI er memeet av denne partikulare bullmarken.
Men det er egentlig den pågående utformningen av teknologi versus...
other equity assets.
And that's been an observable trend
for a significant period of time now.
And that makes sense, because
in a world of limited growth, you want
to own things that grow, because they're
scarcer, and technology is growing
because it's endless reinvention
of itself. Every technology
bull market has a different
narrative to it, and the narrative
of this one is AI,
but I think it will also be EV.
I think it will also be
Probabilitæt robotik.
som alle kommer i spil samtidig.
Det er en mulighet, en probabilitet,
at dette blir en spektakulær, bubble-style marked,
fordi narrativet er så kraftig.
Hold on, guys.
Den reflexiviteten er viktig.
Raoul, først, først,
om AI eller om vi går på,
Du er både veldig fornøyd, og jeg har samtidig med de fleste av det du sa,
særlig om det fakt at markene er fornøyd, det er galant hvor mye folk fortsetter å forforstå det, det er utrolig.
Men min spørsmål er at markene er fornøyd basert på det vi kjenner og det vi forventer.
Hva er noen ting som ikke er forventet som kan forandre din hele utsikt?
Well, I think the unexpected, I mean, Mario, I think the unexpected is you get another Black Swan event, you could have another COVID, you could have a...
Not to that extreme.
Yes, I think these are extremes.
Like, what is something that...
So, let's say you don't expect interest rates to rise any further, you expect inflation to fall.
What are some of these expectations that are a bit shaky and that could change you?
Could there be more dominoes to fall?
Could there be more cracks in the banking system?
Well...
Look, I'm going to pass this to Robert.
I want to pass it to you in the form of a question.
So I think for me, the rate hiking cycle is pretty much done.
There may be one rate hike,
and maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe two.
But as far as rate hikes for inflation,
to fight the inflation,
I think both inflation are a thing of the past.
Rates, hikes and inflation are now both a thing of the past.
There is one cloud in the sky that I am watching,
and I'm very keen to hear what I'll take here,
and that is the Treasury General Account,
which was depleted before...
Before you move to that,
you said rates, hikes and inflation are a thing of the past,
and before going to the second point,
I know you had a question for a while,
I want to get different perspectives of that particular point,
because I don't want to move away from it as if it's a fact.
Peter, Michael, Dave, do you guys agree...
at inflation and rate hikes are a thing of the past?
That's a pretty big statement, it's a ballsy statement.
It's kind of a depends, right?
So it's the type of thing that if they keep the economy crushed down
by not lowering rates and not putting a risk on environment,
then inflation will be a thing of the relative past for a short period of time.
But as soon as it goes down, inflation is going to go back up.
But I think they have to kind of keep the hammer on because
They can't afford to be issuing new T-bills when nobody other than the government itself is buying them.
China is not buying them.
Or otherwise, we'll just be in a 300% GDP worse than Japan situation.
Dave, I think you were jumping in on this point as well.
Ja, jeg mener at du må forstå at definisjonet av inflation ble utforskjåret, og vi kom inn på dette fordi folk fortsatt ignorerer faktet at inflation er monetær, men det er to typer av inflation.
Og dette er en oversimplifikasjon, men det er naturligvis en liten måte å tenke på det. Det er asettinflation.
By the way Dave, your asset inflation and consumer inflation, as you explain both of them, and then I want to give the mic back to Rand, but your audio, I know you're probably out, but not sure if you can improve your audio, because it's a bit hard to understand what he's saying, sorry.
Ok, I'm trying again. Is that better?
It's a bit better, yeah. Go ahead. So asset inflation and consumer inflation.
And asset inflation, which we've had for 30 plus years, until they decided to do helicopter money to people during the pandemic, at the same time supply chains got constrained. Both of those things are gone now.
And so if you look at what's going on, it is entirely reasonable to assume that if you continue to not do the things that cause consumer inflation, and you see it, as Michael Blom points out, in the collapse of commodity prices, which will feed through to consumer inflation,
The idea that consumer inflation will come back is based upon inflationary expectations and wages being demanded.
As long as that is kept moderate, and the Federal Reserve is totally focused on that,
Powell has said it many times, it's entirely possible that it doesn't come back immediately.
And we end up with a resumption of asset inflation as they start to reflect their money supply and do what they need to do on the back end.
Because exactly the reason that someone was just talking about, which is the federal government has immense borrowing needs and needs to make that cheap.
And Michael Green, do you want to add anything to this before I go back to Rand?
I actually agree with the observation that the confusion around the definition of inflation and failing to separate it into scarcity components versus monetary components has played kind of a critical role in this.
I think the challenge is that we've chosen to address the inflation by trying to crush demand.
What that's really leading to is a contraction of supply additions.
så alt jeg ser sier at vi har reintroducer inflation og kraftnivåvolatilitet.
Det kan gå bort, men om vi reaccelererar, så vil det sannolikt rematerialisere
i en utrolig måte fordi vi valgte en dårlig måte i tanke på hvordan vi skulle ta av det.
Samtidig.
Rana, jeg vil gå tilbake til deg, og bare for publikum,
før jeg forbereder.
Om du er en investerare med portfølje-verk,
eller om du er en projekt,
kjenn bare de pinne tweetene på denne.
And it talks about coming on as a partner to work with Ancubator, but more importantly to come on our Shark Tank show for pitching or as a sponsor of the show.
So you can hit us up, there's an email in the pinned tweets, or just DM us, DM me, because the guys don't check Twitter, or Ran, but Scott doesn't.
So just DM me or Ran, or the email in the pinned tweet, which is preferable.
Ran, I took the mic away from you, so go ahead, I think you were moving on to another point.
Ja, en av de tingar som jeg vil forstå er at en av de tingar som jeg ikke er veldig klar over er denne Treasury General Account,
som effektivt er Treasury Bank Account, som ble utfølget før de la ut de krediteilene,
og en av de bekymringene i markedet var at for å oppfylle accounten, i andre ord,
for å få mer krediteil inn i Treasury Account, at de skulle sälje mer krediteil og ta krediteil ut av markedet.
Så, jeg er bare spørt av Ralf, hva tror du om å oppfølge denne akkønnen?
Jeg tror generelt, når Twitter pratar om noe som, åh, de kommer til å oppfylle denne treasurære-general-akkønnen,
og de ikke vet engang hva det betyr, tre uker før.
Jeg var om å forklare det, for å få deg til å definere det.
Well, it's basically the account for the treasury,
their general account, their bank account.
And what they have, they'd like to have liquidity,
as all of us does in the bank account,
so it gives them flexibility to do certain things,
for spending programs, etc.
So it had been depleted because as you went into the debt ceiling talks,
they weren't allowed to increase the treasury general account.
So the idea was, oh,
Oh my god, they're going to add a trillion dollars,
and that's going to take liquidity from the market,
and everyone's going to blow up, and it's the end of the world.
That was the general narrative.
What actually happened was there's another part of the equation called the reverse repo,
which is where banks and money market funds park money at advantageous rates with the Federal Reserve,
and what happened was they drained that, and that's got like two odd trillion dollars in it,
and so the money just went from that straight into the T-bills that the government was offering,
so there was no net increase in liquidity.
There'll be some, but it's pretty marginal, and that's...
Dei har styrtet, jeg vet ikke, 400-stor billion i ca en uke eller to.
Så, du vet, om de fortsetter på denne stigen,
og de kan dråne denne reversa repo,
så har de fått en zero-liquidity effekt på markedet,
regjeringen har sortet det ut,
og denne reversa repo, som var trapping mye penger i det,
betyr at det i slutända, i slutända,
kanskje har merkt merkt likviditet i bondmarkedet,
som har vært et problem.
Så det er en slags win-win for alle.
Ingen tar æg på høyden av at alt har falle,
fordi regjeringen prøver å re-fyll koffer.
Så i all fall,
jeg tror at det har vært en relativt nødvendig event.
Nå, markederne har visat at det er en nødvendig event,
men det er igjen en av de slags narrativer
som Twitter blir styrt på,
fordi det har så mye fyr rundt.
Vi har gått gjennom de herrena av TGA-replikårene før,
og periodisk blir folk påverket av det.
Å, min Gud!
Men generelt, ingenting har aldri skett.
Så Raoul, du sier at du sitter tilbake og du har bestått deg bra før ballmarkedet,
og nå sitter du tilbake og du har bare lyst til å ha denne reisen.
Men holda, Raoul, før du spør en spørsmål,
bare på forståelse av at du ikke, og Noel jeg ser at du har hendt deg opp,
men har du ikke snakket om, korrekt om jeg er feil, for jeg har alltid tatt på dine videoer
og kjører ut til Real Vision også, som Raoul, jeg har vært en abonnator i lang tid.
Men din du ikke snakke om en supercykel tidig?
Jeg tror du korrektet det senere.
Var du forberedt for den nye marktmarked vi har?
Og hvordan har det påverket deg?
Og så går vi til Rands spørsmål, som er hvordan du har posisjonet i forhold til.
Ja, jeg har ikke gjort noe.
Min thesis har vært...
Folk blir så forståelig med tidsopstående.
Min thesis har essensiellt vært
innen enden av denne decennia,
så jeg har ingen grunn til å gjøre noe
uten å addere når markedet sælger av.
Og har vært i denne området
siden 2012, 2013,
har jeg gått gjennom
flere av disse store
drawdown-fases,
og jeg har lært at
om du adder in disse store drawdown-fases,
du kompannerer over tid.
it's you just need to zoom out and it's a matter of you know can you accept volatility you know
how much you need the money that kind of stuff so that's a personal decision and time horizon is the
other decision so i've done nothing i've just literally done nothing but wouldn't you like when
you see remember the meta hype where everything that had metaverse was seeing the same thing with
ai now but when things just look way too frothy when every single project launching is doing 10 20 x
It's very obvious for all of us that we're at or near the peak.
It's impossible to time, and that's why we still participate.
But at times like these, why don't you pull out for a sec and say,
hey, I'll come back in, let's say, in six months.
So I've learned this, right?
So the 2013 to 2016 cycle, I did nothing.
And I bought Bitcoin at $200.
Og så kom vi inn i den 17e cyklen, og jeg trodde at dette var ålre ut av kontrollen.
Det var alle disse negativt narrativ om forking av krav.
Jeg sa at jeg ikke egentlig forstår dette.
Og så var jeg sånn at jeg er oppe på 10x, så jeg kommer til å ta utsikring.
Det gikk opp en annen 10x etter det.
Så jeg tog utsikring på 2,000, 2,500.
Det gikk opp til 20,000.
Det gikk opp til 20,000. Det gikk opp til 20,000. Det gikk opp til 20,000.
and i actually went back and looked at what would have been the best outcome for me the best outcome
would have been kept my original bet and double it every time it gets to and it wasn't a very big bet
at the time double it every time it gets to these big cycle lows i'd about performed me buying and
selling because i got back in at like six and a half thousand to the sell-off so it was it's been
it's been a lesson for me that if you've got the long-term time horizon use the time horizon to your advantage
People aren't, you think you can catch the top, you can't.
You think you can catch the bottom, you can't.
So I think it's just to be more cautious around that stuff.
Noel and Peter, Irvain I'll give you the mic back, but Noel and Peter, on that particular point of trying to time the market, like investing 101, I remember as a kid, I'd read all the beta, intelligent investor and listening to Warren Buffett, it's like timing is something you should not even try.
But in crypto, at least in crypto, it's just, sometimes it's just, I know in hindsight, it's not in hindsight, like things look obvious.
Yes.
Du vet når det er blod i vattnet, som vi er nå, eller i de siste 6 månedene, men du vet også når ting er for mentalt, for ganske.
Skal folk egentlig forstå tidning i markedet?
Mario, før du svara på det, er tingene for krasse eller ikke for krasse?
Det er noe i midten.
Hvis du spør meg om det i FDX Collapse, så svarer jeg det i de spesiene.
Noel, jeg vil bare avsluta når du talar, fordi du har fått noe feedback.
Men i FTX sai eg at det er blod i vorene.
Det betyr ikkje at det kan bli verre, og det ble verre.
Det betyr, eller i alle fall det kom til de nye nivellene,
at det betyr at vi er enten nede eller nede.
Og om eg spør deg, eller om jeg spør deg,
eller om jeg spør noen med en hjerteskap i Boonmark,
noen år tid siden,
Hei, er vi nede eller nede av peaken?
Ansvaret blir ja.
Vi vet ikkje om vi er nede av peaken,
og det er derfor det er verdt det.
Det kan være litt mer oppsida til høyre,
But there's no way 10 and 20x's every day is a normal market.
I go as far as to say that it's always crazy in crypto markets.
I don't remember a time when prices are stable,
which is relatively scarce.
In terms of can things get worse, they can always get worse,
as you said, Mario, that's totally right.
But even now, I don't agree that we are in a raging bull market yet,
precisely because of that.
There are some very important shoes
that have still to drop in the crypto markets,
and we know that the market does look 12 months ahead.
For good news, it doesn't look 12 months ahead.
for bad news, it tends to react pretty sharply on that, especially given the liquidity, the thin liquidity.
That's a good point. By the way, Noelle, I interrupted you just because your mic is really bad,
but you did make a really good point, so I want to kind of repeat it. I'm not sure if you can fix
your mic in the meantime, but you just say that the... Actually, I don't know if I want to agree
with you, like the markets are forward-looking when it comes to good news, but they're not as
forward-looking when it comes to bad news. Is that what you said, or did I misunderstand?
Ja, det er exakt det jeg sa.
Det var et punkt som Rand var på.
Det var som om markedet var prist inn,
og jeg tror at Rand eller Raoul har gjort det,
at markedet var prist inn i en sever resesjon.
Er du i forhold til det?
I do disagree with that. It priced in what it thought would be a recession, not even a particularly bad one, a few months ago.
It then decided that we weren't going to have that. The soft landing data was coming in thick and fast, is still coming in thick and fast.
I mean, we saw this last week with just the GDP revision and then the PC figures.
The economic data is surprisingly resilient. We are not yet, we have not yet seen the pricing in of...
unemployment at 7%.
We have not yet seen the pricing in of
more bank failures. We saw how fast
the market reacted to the bank failures that we had
back in March.
But that's more of a black swan event
versus a recession which is like being
talked about non-stop.
Well, maybe black swans, I mean, they were relatively predictable.
We didn't know when they were going to come,
but the fact that they were coming was not that out there.
Black swans are totally out there,
and of course there are indeed some of those possibly in the waiting,
but there's a lot of bad news ahead,
and that's not even taking into account some of the geopolitical tensions
that we could see in the second half of the year.
That's not taking into account the impact on energy prices
that any of those would have,
and that's not taking into account the impact of a worldwide
sommer eller kolde vinter
på energistocker.
Men du sa at når noen
før du kom inn, og nå
jeg vil gå til Peter,
jeg vil si at når noen sier
at markedet ikke faktorerar
bla bla bla,
When I hear that, doesn't that actually mean the opposite?
It's like, because we're talking about it, that means the market has already factored it in because we're thinking about it,
unless you're saying things that no one else is talking about.
So that would be, like maybe Ryan, a good time for you to jump in, and Noel, I'm not sure if you could fix your mic.
And for the audience, while Ryan is speaking, give us your thoughts.
Do you think we're being too optimistic, or at least Ryan and Raoul and I tend to agree with them?
Yeah.
Or are you more on Scott's side, and Scott is always pessimistic, but are you a bit more pessimistic, and do you think the markets are as forward-looking, or at least, if they are forward-looking, are they efficient?
Because being forward-looking but inefficient means the fact that they're forward-looking is just not that interesting.
Ran?
Yeah, I must say, I agree with Noel that...
at the banking collapse wasn't the black swan.
I think it was very much expected.
And also I think that the way that they fixed the banking collapse
was also very much expected.
You're going to have a banking collapse?
You know, the one thing that the Fed and the governments do really well
is they know how to deal with the same things twice.
Og om du ser på, de vet at når det er en bankkollaps, FED må bare steppe inn og garantiere dine lån, og alt er fint.
Og det er exakt det de gjorde.
Så snart det var noen signer av krakk, de kom inn og de sa,
«Å, vel, vi er åpne alle depositene som helst, i hvilket fall det ikke er mer bankruns, og det ikke er mer bankkollaps».
I think, you know, let's differentiate
black swans versus non-black swans.
And I think I agree here to say that
a black swan is an event that
You really can't anticipate.
It's so unlikely that you wouldn't anticipate.
Black Swan would have been
COVID. COVID was a
true Black Swan. How many of us
would have thought that a virus that was
manufactured in a lab would hit?
That was a real Black Swan.
The banking corruptions and all that, that's pretty much
anticipated, and all those things are potentially
priced in, and I don't see any
of those surprises, and I think I'm in the camp.
I'm in Ralph's camp here, where I say we
We're in an age of technological progression that is unlike anything that we've ever seen.
I don't know, and I want to go to Raoul right after Peter,
because I want to get Raoul's thoughts on the whole metaverse discussion,
because I think the AI discussion we're having now is,
I want to say it's similar to the metaverse,
it's just a lot more impactful and adoption is a lot faster.
But I've got a question on the metaverse topic, Raoul,
because I was and still am a big proponent of metaverse,
I was traveling the world and I would take bits and pieces of things you say and use them in my speeches.
It's funny how no one is talking about the metaverse now, but everyone was talking about it before.
Peter, I want to go back to the point that Rand and Noel were discussing regarding the efficiency of the markets and whether timing is even a thing any of us should try in crypto.
Yeah, and I think there's kind of three quick things I want to hit on here.
One, talking about your AI point,
I think the one thing that I keep hearing
AI, AI, AI, I agree
it's going to be transformational, but so
far the benefit has largely accrued to the
companies that supply the AI.
So either AI is really going to work
and I think it's actually going to be very
supportive for the broad markets. You could
CPI ratios or everyone to find it really rise, right?
If AI truly works, the efficiencies aren't going to accrue to big tech.
They're going to accrue to all these smaller companies
and mid-sized companies and traditional manufacturers.
So I think the next leg of the AI rally is going to be far less about big tech
and far more about actually deciding to price into the economy,
to markets, to these companies that they will actually benefit from AI.
So I think that's kind of where we're at.
This fulcrum is if AI truly works,
The rest of the market should actually be benefiting probably more so than the big AI companies because so much is already priced in.
So that's an inflection I'm waiting to see how it's adopted.
I think we'll get a lot about earnings in that respect.
When I look at crypto right now, and you know, I was wrong when we went through 20.
I thought we'd get to 10 before we got to 30.
So here we are at 30.
So I have to reevaluate.
You know, I talked to a lot of my customers, large asset managers in particular, and I think
The excitement just isn't there like it was the first time we kind of broke through 30.
And people are still questioning, you know, what's the validity of here?
They're looking at these thin markets. They're looking at these large moves.
And yes, we're getting the data coming in.
We're getting, you know, responses in terms of fidelity, working on making it more accessible.
But I think there's a lot of skepticism of whether this time it's...
everyone frant ran this again and we do a pullback,
or people are going to have to adopt more and more.
And I would say right now, I'm kind of very neutral.
I'm not getting the sense that we're going to see this next wave of people piling in.
I'm looking for that. I'm trying to see if conversations will change.
If so, then I think you want to be buying this,
because we have a lot more upside if everyone starts really allocating that 1% or 2%.
If it kind of fades, I think we go back to 20-some-odd thousand
just because so many people have frontrun the good news and priced in the good news.
expecting people to get sucked in, and I just don't feel the sucking sound.
And then the last kind of wild card I'll throw out is,
I think the one thing that we're not talking enough at all about,
and there's lots of signs of this, is
And this is a real risk, I think, to the U.S. economy and the markets, is that we see a shift from made in China to made by China.
And this has been one of our big themes, is that China is going to start trying to sell their brands globally to compete with us.
All the nations that they have trade deficits, where they're securing natural resources at a better pace than we get natural resources,
they're going to turn around and try and sell their made products.
by China companies goods into those countries,
and I think that could be very disruptive for the dollar,
it could be very disruptive for companies,
and you look at Huawei as the example.
The product was probably 80% as good as what you could buy,
you know, using Western Europe or American technology,
but the cost was 40%.
It attracted a lot.
So, to me, that's my wild card on the horizon
that I don't think anyone's talking about,
yet there's plenty of signs that it could be a risk
to markets and the economy in the next year or two.
Raoul, jeg ville å fortsette til metaversen.
Jeg vet ikke om det er noe som Raoul vil snakke om,
men jeg ville virkelig ha denne diskussionen med deg.
Vi er både proponenter av metaversen,
meta startet denne bullrunnen da,
det var det neste som fikk stå på et hype.
Så alle gleder Meta på deres beslutning om å re-brande på Facebook.
Og så en par måneder senere er det det annerledes, alle gleder seg på metaverket,
hypen, og Marks beslutning om å re-brande på Meta.
Er dine tankar på metaverket nå? Er det nå ny nyhet, AI er ny ting,
og vi vil aldri se en metaverk-hypefase igjen?
Eller er det bare å varme seg opp, og det kan spille en stor rolle i neste bullmark?
Lysen, den største observabla trenden på jorden er digitalisering av alt.
Mark Andreessen har en kvote om software som er en av de mest profonde tingene i verden.
Og om du tenker på digitalisering av alt, det er en super trend.
Så alt rundt oss blir digitalisert mer og mer snabbt.
Vi er alle involverade i digitalisering av penger, finansielle marknader, kontrakts,
kjøp, alle slags ting, som er kryptomarknaden.
Metaverset selv er den bredaste digitale rendisjon av denne livet vi lever i, som er digitalisert.
Jeg svarer at Zoom er en tidlig basis for metaverset, fordi jeg har nå spennat min hele dag,
da jeg skulle ha vært i møtene, i digital format, med en digital person noe annet i verden.
And so that super trend is not going away.
Apple massively moved the game forwards
with spatial awareness,
with spatial compute,
which is basically augmented reality.
There are many, many people working in VR.
I think people have an anchoring bias.
They have an anchoring bias on Ready Player One
or Snow Crash.
And so they think,
well, it needs to be this world
that we kind of fully live in.
I don't see it as that.
I see it as the interconnected connection
digital activity of humanity.
And the more and more we become digitized, the more and more the spaces around us integrate with this digital world.
And I think AR is a big breakthrough.
So no, I don't think it's gone away.
But what about an open metaverse?
So in other words, a metaverse with the concept of digital ownership.
So where NFTs kick in.
So there's two ways of looking at the metaverse.
And the way I would describe it is like a Web 2 metaverse and a Web 3 metaverse.
The Web 2 metaverse is what you're talking about.
It's like the entire experience, VR, AR...
And we're heading in that direction, whatever term you want to use.
But then the other metaverse, the open metaverse, or the Web3 metaverse,
is essentially the ability to be able to own digital assets,
and that allows for entire economies, decentralized economies,
or like a real replica of the physical world we live in,
without predetermined physics, to exist.
Er det noe som interesserer deg, særlig når det kommer til gaming? Er vi for tidig å betale på det? Eller kan det være en god narrativ for neste marked?
Når ting blir digitalisert, går de i valutasjon til zero, fordi kostet for å skapa en ny er zero. Vi ser en massiv krasjende klang som kommer ut av digitaliseringen.
megatrend.
Så det er et riktigt problem
om vi lever mest av vårt liv i en digital world,
så ingen aset holder noe valut.
Så det som Blockchain gjorde var å løse
det ene til meg.
Det er en veldig, veldig stor ting.
Nå er det ton av andre applikasjoner,
men det er en veldig stor ting i dette metaverskonteptet.
Nå, vil Apple eller Facebook bruke NFT-er som en måte å anker valut i deres metaverser?
Min stånd er at om de vil behåndta valut uten å ha denne erfaringen eller tilkommelsen, så vil de.
Fordi det aldri har mye skjønne, fordi man ikke kan bevare seg i denne verden og vare ting i den digitale verden.
Vi ser store bevegelser av fashionhusarer og andre i denne specifika området med forståelse av at digital skarhet er det samme som fysisk skarhet.
For humans are humans, and they will attach their full value to it.
So I think all of this happens together.
It's the battle for the internet, it's the same.
And it's how far across the central line
do we get the decentralized version of a metaverse
where it becomes interoperable.
There will be walled gardens too.
So there's places where we won't be able to take our digital assets.
So I just think it's a broad mix of everything within that.
And that's the way the world works.
I mean, Punk 6529's...
crusade if I call it that, is to keep the metaverse open, because control within a place where we live our entire digital lives is even more powerful than when Facebook were, you know, five years ago, and Google are today, etc. And, you know, his argument is, we can't let corporations control us.
our lives in a way when the metaverse becomes more important to us,
and that having things on blockchain helps us retain some elements of freedom and ownership.
And I think that's absolutely dead right.
That's a fight that's got to come, and that's a fight that will play out over a decade.
I think we'd reach unprecedented levels of centralization as we digitize, unless...
The open metaverse gains traction.
And that's the same problem with the AI as well, right?
Yes, exactly.
And I want to get onto it.
The all power of to give some of these giant tech companies,
not only a metaverse to live in,
but basically the system of intelligence for the metaverse,
You're pretty fucked as humanity at that point.
So it's really important that we have open AIs.
It's really important that there are,
that it's not a walled garden that we get forced in by regulators
saying Microsoft good, anybody else bad,
because we trust Microsoft.
Because that assimilation of power in three or four places is not good.
Mike, I think we're still waiting for the uncle milty of the metaverse, right?
So the first hype phase came in a bull market that NFTs were still relatively new, the term
Web 3 was still relatively new, and there's a lot of, when it goes up, it went up exponentially
with Bored Apes and everything else, and then it went crashing because nobody had really
built anything yet.
and what we need in this next wave,
and I'm sure there'll be a fun thing around to do it,
and maybe it's the other side,
maybe it's something we don't even know about.
There certainly are a lot of celebrities
that put their name into various efforts,
but if one actually launches either round,
probably multiple celebrities
that people actually tune into
and actually engage with,
I think this next time you're going to have hype
based on a reality of having celebrities
Hundreds of thousands of users, and that's the 75 people at a time that you have on Decentraland.
Kanskje, medan du tog på NFT-marketer, og du og Michael har ditt Ape,
jeg har flyttet ut av min punk om en uke eller to, men jeg har det.
Så jeg har flyttet det ut, fordi jeg gjør mye politiske områder.
Og jeg kan ikke gjøre det med en punk.
Jeg blir mokt mye.
Men spørsmålet er, hva ser NFT-markedet ut i dag?
Vi har sett mange projekter kapitulere.
Rand, du har snakket om dette i din show, kapitulering av en masse projekter,
og ånding av NFT-markedplats-tokener.
For me, the thesis is that all technologies go through a V1, and the V1 is not really successful. Most of the time, the V1 is just an experiment.
Except for Bitcoin, it's one hell of an exception.
Ja, bitcoin er,
well, actually not really,
because there were attempts before that
to make digital money.
They just didn't stick.
But in this case,
I think NFTs...
I think the technology is here to stay.
I think the collections,
I wouldn't be,
I don't bet on the collections
just because I think that,
you know, the thesis that we had
that all these punks and all these apes
were going to give you culture
and you were going to be part of these clubs.
Not sure that that's exactly the use case,
but I do know that NFTs as a,
as a technology is going to change the world.
And for me, when I see those kind of things,
and what I want to be holding is I want to be holding the exchanges.
Do you actually own any NFTs, any punks, any apes?
I'm curious. I've never asked you.
i own nfts i don't own punks and apes because i just couldn't get my head around it i do own nfts
i'm going to be completely blunt and honest i don't think i've ever made money on an nft ever
like i think i'm the one person in the world that has never ever no i admit i'm the same bro so
you're not alone and probably scott so all three of us have i've never made money i don't think i've
ever sold an nft at a profit uh but i've always like i've probably put less than half a percent
of my portfolio into entities always because i just did i never believed in the thesis of buying
jpegs to be part of a club and spending millions of dollars doing it um but i do believe in the technology so for me one of the big bets that i'm actually making now is i'm looking at who's going to be the nft chain and and who are going to be the nft exchanges and right now when when it feels like things in nfts are capitulating
that's probably going to be a good time to say
alright, let's pick up the exchanges and let's pick up
the chains that I think
are going to support the NFTs.
What about the blue chips though?
I don't believe in the collection. I just don't believe in any of the collections. I don't believe in apes, I don't believe in punks, I don't believe in dogs, I don't believe in that shit.
I just think, you know, I think a lot of people who paid a lot of money for these punks are now sitting deep underwater.
That applies, but that's unfair, right? That applies to everything in crypto.
Yeah.
like
yeah
what do you mean
what's not sitting
what's not in the red
anything that's new
anything that didn't exist
bitcoin isn't
anything
yo yo yo
I just said anything that's new
you can't talk
yeah but anything that's new
any NFTs are new
you can't compare them to bitcoin
and ETH
but look
let me
Raoul, maybe you could disagree with Ryan, because I think his position is a smart position, by the way.
I like having NFT marketplace tokens, it makes a lot of sense, and it's a great way to hedge your risk for any new asset class.
But,
Just the argument that he doesn't believe in blue chips, especially after what they've been through.
For them to survive the bear market we're seeing, and to have people like yourself and Michael and others, I'll even cut myself off.
Well, they have to have use cases, and the use cases are probably less recognizable on the bear market.
But first of all, two of the best known ones, the punks and the apes, are now owned by Yugo Labs, effectively.
And so a lot of the future values
can be dependent on them really fulfilling
the promise of their metaverse, right?
So the two are related here.
And I think they've made very few
bad steps in their entire history, right?
So I think that if they're able to go in
and, you know, be able to go...
I mean, there were so many...
people cramming in and
begging to get tickets to see when
Eminem played at AbeFest and those types of things.
They're just kind of laying low right now, but
you take that to the next exponential
level of where I think they need to go,
and remember, they got as an equity play
a $5 billion valuation
from
A16Z, so I think that
there's only a handful from this last wave
that will remain blue chips, but I would
not write off the entire category, and I think the next
group of
Bluechips are going to be around Web3 gaming
as they're going to be the electronic arts
of the social world.
Hold on.
I want to say that I want to be
full disclosure Mario.
The one token that I am holding
in the NFT space is I'm holding the 8 token.
And every day I wake up in the morning
thinking to myself it's time to sell this thing.
It's time to sell this thing.
And I hold on to it because it's really
the one NFT player that I've got other than
exchanges. So
Listen to this.
Listen to this.
Actually, I'm not going to do it. I'm actually going to ask Raoul
to do it. Raoul, can you maybe touch
on, obviously respond to everything that's been said,
but talk about gaming NFTs,
which to me has been during the bull market
and continues to be the most exciting
asset class in the entire crypto
space. And to me, it's
er merkeksivere enn å decentralisere AI eller å decentralisere aspekter av AI.
Så Raoul, kanskje du kan snakke om eller berita om gaming NFTs?
Ja, først vil jeg snakke om NFTs mer bredt.
Så den slags NFTs som vi har snakket om, om det er high end art eller de mer kvalifisere PFP projektene som Punks,
hva de er er asetter in et ekonomi. Det er ganske rettførende.
And people buy assets when they have excess savings or excess returns.
So i.e. when the economy is thriving, the ETH economy is thriving, people have gains, they tend to buy assets for status.
This is a human trait, which is very interesting because when you look at the chart of Rolex watches and Patek Philippe,
it's basically the same chart as Bordeaux Yacht Club or Punk's.
and it's exactly the same mechanism so when you're feeling a bit flush you've made some good trades
your bank account is looking okay you're feeling confident about the future
you reward yourself with a trophy asset that's what humans do it's a very typical traits while
we buy you know a bmw versus a toyota all of those kind of things it's the memetic
vision that we have the stories we tell ourselves about our status and how successful we are
Så, det samme er sant med kraftføring av kraftpriser, det samme er sant med kraftføring av egenkjøp.
Så, når vi får ekonominnene til å stå igjen, ny kapital som kommer inn i landet,
som er utenlandske investeringer, ny aktivitet,
hva vi finner er at folk kommer til å gå til det de tror er de kraftføring som gir dem status.
Noen av de kraftføring som folk trodde gi dem status denne tideren, ikke.
and others will what what what those are i don't really know but punks is probably a great example
because there's no utility to it so it's just a punk is a punk punk and it's an identifier
a status identifier i think probably remains so well i think you may be wrong yeah and i
think i'll tell you why i think the way i see punks and apes i see them like fashion
And when I look at punks and apes,
do you remember true religion jeans?
Do you remember the phase that everybody went through
wearing true religion jeans?
When I look at punks and apes,
I see true religion jeans.
It was a fad.
It was great.
It was cool at the time.
And I think that in the next,
I fully agree with your thesis.
I fully, fully, fully agree with your thesis
that people will spoil themselves
earning assets, but I think
that the nature of the asset is going to change.
I think that all these,
including, with respect, also your ape,
I think that all of those will be
one of the assets.
The question is, Ran, is which fashion
brand are you buying, right? So I don't think
punks is so much of a fashion brand.
It's more like a Rolex watch.
But let's say...
Apes is more of a fashion brand.
I don't think so.
I think a Rolex watch,
the reason why it is a Rolex watch is because
it was very, very, very high quality
and it stood the test of time.
Versus most watches.
I mean, the technology in a Rolex is no better than anything else.
It's just a watch, right?
It tells the time.
I can do it on my phone.
I don't actually need it.
It's just a trinket.
It's stood the test of time.
It's stood the test of time.
But I don't think that Punks is going to stand the test of time.
Well, it has.
It has.
I think the last year is like decades.
Yeah, that's like 30, 40 years in traditional world.
And you might be right, Ran. I have no idea. There's no crystal ball here.
It's a bet that I'm taking. I've probably got 10% of my ETH portfolio in a bunch of NFTs.
I'm not a DJ and I don't trade them a lot.
I like NFTs for utilities, parsers and stuff like that, stuff we've been experimenting with with the Royal Vision Collective.
The Yuga thing is, can they build a larger brand and can we accumulate benefits from the larger brand order?
Or does it end up being true religion as opposed to being Hermes?
We just don't know.
Go ahead, Joe.
Sorry, go ahead, Michael.
And Joe?
Yeah, I would say the one place where the true religion genes comparison breaks down
is that true religion genes are not in limited supply.
There will only ever be 10,000 apes, just like there will only ever be 21 million bitcoin.
And as Web3 grows cycle by cycle, even as people just, like, look what happened with the Ethereum rock.
I mean, it came out of nowhere and, like, went up in value because it was one of the oldest, earliest ones.
So when there are 4 billion people in Web 3, people are going to want to have a...
Limited supply.
Yeah, but most of this stuff will go to zero, right?
Most of it will go to zero by definition.
Yeah, which is exactly why...
Limited supply only matters.
Which is why the time...
Limited supply...
Guys, y'all are...
Limited supply only matters when there is demand.
Yeah.
There is demand, yes, but there is demand.
There is demand.
I don't know.
No, but limited supply and unlimited supply, both only matter if there is demand.
But I think the point that Michael's making is that limited supply,
you made a comparison to an asset, the jeans, that is not limited supply.
So you're just saying that limited supply is better than unlimited supply,
but both need demand.
So maybe...
But Joe, I'll let you jump in, and then I want to kind of move to gaming NFTs,
because...
for selfish reasons because i'm so passionate about it and if ryan if you're bearish on gaming
nfts and we will not be talking for a while but joe go ahead yeah i was just going to jump in a
couple minutes ago mario because you were asking the question which i think is central here right
about you know timing the market versus time in the market and what you see
in the vast majority of the space in all of these ten thousand plus tokens
er at de darlings av den forrige cyklen aldri rekvarerar der all-time høghe.
Så du har en handfull av dem som aldri gjør en ny høghe i USC-termer.
Den største majoriteten gjør aldri nye all-time høghe i bitcoin-termer.
Og det er det punktet.
Har noen faktisk gjort, og det er for deg Joe,
fordi jeg har interrumpert deg, men har noen faktisk
Dan, jeg er sikker på at det er forskning på hvor mange av projektene som lanserte i den siste bullmarkedet, 2017-2018,
faktisk kom tilbake og reiste til nye all-tidige højder.
I dollar-tons eller bitcoin?
I bitcoin-tons.
Percentage.
Jeg vil si bitcoin-tons.
Jeg mener, hvilken percentage av projektene som lanserte i denne bullmarkedet faktisk kom tilbake i den neste bullmarkedet versus døde?
It's great. It's a great one. In Bitcoin terms, it's two. You had two that made a new all time high against Bitcoin. Dogecoin, which we obviously know had Elon behind it, promoting it on SNL and so forth. And you had BNB, the unregistered security launched by Binance. So you've got those two. That's it.
ut av all the tokens.
That's crazy.
And then if you take USD terms,
I think the number expands to 9 or 10.
So the vast majority of these things, right,
you enter into what you said.
You have to time it.
If you're going to play in the altcoin space,
and sophisticated people in the altcoin space know this,
you catch the darling of the cycle,
and you sell your for profit.
You don't hold these things.
I mean, the comment made earlier,
I think by Raoul,
about how you just average down on these.
Okay, how did that work out for Stellar Lumens?
If you average down during the entire 2018-2019 bull cycle, you never made it to an all-time high.
Even projects that were, you know, the top 10 on CoinMarketCap 2018-2019, they never made new highs.
So the notion that like, oh, you can just average down on these things which were popular yesterday and they'll recover is just flawed, I think.
So how many of the...
Yeah, but that's not what I study.
I'm talking about the one or two of the largest assets in the space.
Bitcoin and Ethereum.
I'm not talking about...
Yeah, I mean, the rest I don't really care about.
Yeah, I've got a position in Solana, but I don't really care about that stuff.
For me, it's the representation of the growth of the space over time.
It's not, I'm not a trader, I don't choose a lot of tokens.
Yes, I've got a few bits of...
of shrapnel here and there of stuff just to keep my eye on it but other than that yeah yeah that
makes sense but i think when people hear that when you hear you can just average down they're they're
thinking that's going to be true of their favorite altcoin which is going to zero most likely
Ja, vel, vi kan ikke hjelpe alle i alle uttrykkelse av alle uttrykkelse.
Så, Raoul, jeg vil legge det til spørsmålet. Først, har du gjort mange VC investeringar i den siste bullmarkedet, Raoul?
Og så kan du kanskje svare på det medan du går på gaming-NFTs, om det er ok.
Sorry, I've just got somebody at the front door, but no, I don't do VC, I have no edge, I don't know, everything that sounds amazing to me is usually a zero, and everything that sounds zero to me is usually amazing.
And I've got no edge in gaming, I've never been a gamer, so I understand there's a lot of people passionate about it, but I'm not one of the people who really closely follows that space.
I'll let you check the front door, Rand, do you want to go before Dave?
Okay.
Ja, jeg mener, Amara, jeg må være ærlig.
Jeg er veldig, veldig, veldig bølg.
Plåg til å vinn gam.
Jeg er veldig bølg.
La oss kalle det NFT-gaming.
Men igjen,
My thesis here remains the same.
I will not invest in individual games.
I'll invest in the studio.
Hold on, you're not invested in any individual?
I am.
Okay.
I am, no, no, no, I am invested.
I'm not going to make any further...
I mean, what I invested in the last bull run,
you know, I invested in narratives,
I invested in waves.
Det jeg ikke gjør er å ikke investere i specifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifikke spesifcke spesifcke spesifcke spesifcke spifcke spifcke spifcke spif
So I think like, if you think about video
games in general, the chance of a video game
succeeding, one in a thousand, one in ten thousand, one
in a million, that's
how many games actually make money. It's the same for
the film industry. Like, you know, you see
the couple of films that actually end up making money, but the
majority of films actually lose money.
And it's going to be the same thing with games.
And so, to me, if I'm looking to invest
in these
narratives, short of
a real bull run where I'm
surfing the wave, then
så alt jeg vil gjøre er å investere i den beste studioen med de mest talenterende menneskene,
og la det hende.
Og jeg tror at jeg bare vil gjøre en punkt her,
som mange mennesker ikke vet om kryptoinvestering,
men når du forstår dette om kryptoinvestering,
du forstår bare hvor risikant kryptoinvestering faktisk er,
og det er en veldig, veldig, veldig viktig punkt.
Og jeg vil prøve å gå gjennom det så lurt som mulig,
fordi jeg tror at det er et veldig vanskelig koncept å forstå og forstå.
Men jeg vil begynne med å si at
når du investerer i en fag,
når du investerer i en kjøkken,
You're investing in a bunch of people, and you're investing in a bunch of people that pivot and make decisions based on the competitive landscape and the conditions of the market.
So if you take a startup and you invest in a startup, and the market conditions change, or the narrative changes, or the thesis changes, then what you're doing is you're investing in those people and their ability to be able to pivot accordingly.
and keep your money safe and keep the investment safe.
And very often when you invest in a startup,
the business that you invest in on day one
and the business that you land up holding three, four, five years later
is a completely different business.
Completely, completely, completely different business.
Now, in crypto, the rules of that game change.
And I'll explain to you why.
If you invested in, I'm going to use the word Solana or Ethereum,
You invested in a layer one blockchain that was designed in proof of stake, for example.
And that is what you invested in.
And if the winds change, or the narrative changes, or the market changes,
the people can't pivot the business 180 degrees and do something completely different.
Because it's a protocol, it's not a business, it becomes reliant on a DAO, and it becomes reliant on a vote.
And that makes investing in crypto much, much, much, much, much more dangerous than investing in normal companies.
That's a really interesting point, but most projects you invest in, if you're doing early investments,
De start out centralised, which gives them the flexibility to pivot,
and then they slowly decentralise and get to a position where they cannot pivot anymore.
They do, but you know what, if you look at the real project,
you know they start off centralized because they have to but the real project decent the good
projects decentralize really quickly i'm not talking about centralized projects that sell tokens
as a substitute for selling equity and effectively are selling unlicensed illegal securities i'm
talking about real protocols like let me give an example if you invested in something like an arbitra
Så du vet at du investerer i en layer 2 på Ethereum som fungerer på optimistiske grådøver.
Jeg vet at det klokker teknisk, men jobb med mig her.
Nå, om markedet forandrer, eller thesisen forandrer,
og layer 2-er er aldri kvar på Ethereum, eller noe sånt,
ditt penger er galt.
Whereas if you had invested in a centralized company,
and the thesis changed,
and layer 2s weren't required anymore in Ethereum,
you would have backed a management team,
and that management team,
you would have backed them to pivot into something else.
Now in crypto,
in the true sense of crypto,
that doesn't exist,
because you're investing in a protocol,
and you're not investing in a team that can pivot and do things quickly.
And that's what most people don't understand about crypto investing.
It is a hundred times more risky than investing in stocks, in equities,
because you're not backing a team,
and you don't have the flexibility and the ability to change the structure
and to change the narrative and to change the focus of the project.
So I want to ask a question to Raoul if he's back about AI now.
But before doing so, I just want to remind the audience first that
If you all look at the stage right now, you'll see on our stage we have a beautiful, it's not beautiful, a pretty ugly looking circle.
That's the new account we'll be using to start hosting the channel.
So make sure you follow that account so you get notified moving forward because we're going to move off my account finally.
So make sure you follow that ugly red circle that's putting out love hearts right now.
In the meantime, if you are a project or a business,
or anybody really that wants to sponsor the show or work with our incubator,
just hit us up in the pinned tweet, or just DM me or Ran,
and then we could come back to you.
Preferably just email us in the pinned tweet.
But are you back, Raoul?
Yep, I'm here.
AI. I'll keep the first question very, very general.
Your thoughts, especially when it comes to the intersect between AI and blockchain?
My thoughts on AI is it is one of the most fundamentally groundbreaking technologies that humanity has ever come up with.
Og folk ser på det nå og sier, det er ikke det nå, men hvor går det over tid?
Jeg tror det er massivt viktig. AI åpner enormt mange problem og enormt mange muligheter.
Jeg tror det kan ha potensialet til å forandre produktiviteten,
når du begynner å anvende det på robotik, på biljett, på alle slags ting.
as we see this aging population around the world.
So I think it's a fundamental game-changing opportunity
that forms part of this exponential age thesis
where it all comes together.
The blockchain part of this, how does this connect?
I know people are desperate to connect narratives
and can blockchain benefit from the AI boom?
Really, at the core of it,
is the scarcity in the digitized world.
My ID should be scarce,
because if not,
kan gjøre meg en representasjon for infinitivt,
og det blir en stor problem.
Så en form av digital ID og kontent ID som er blockchain hjelper virkelig.
Og jeg tror vi må ta fram mot det.
Vi går in i USA-eleksjonen, vi ser allerede denne impakten av AI.
Kontent vi ser, vet vi ikke om vi kan tro på heller,
selv om vi er fra våre mest trodde ressurser.
Så jeg tror at det nexuset er det viktigste nexuset
av bruk av blockchain og AI.
Også tror jeg at tokenisering av denne komputeringen
er en interessant mulighet for de åpne nettverkene.
Øverst, AWS, Microsoft, Azure og alle andre vil bare
som normalt er utgjord, men det er en måte å distribuere dette,
fordi jeg er veldig nervøs av at noen store businesser
kan samle alle profiter i det som er en fundamentál teknologi,
fordi det du gjør er at du har nå gått fra skarhet av intelligens
til en abundans av intelligens,
og det er noe som humanitet aldri har gått tråd med før.
Og igjen, det er fortfarande i tid.
Så jeg tror at om humanitet kan partisipere,
i disse nettverkene som de gråter,
er at folk kan bidra i en ny finansiell system
i en måte de ikke kunne gjøre før.
Så, jeg tror at det er ting sammen,
men alle skiljer seg, render token eller hva det er,
det er som om, jeg tror ikke det er den store historien her.
Jeg tror at det er integrasjon av disse teknologier
på fundamentale nivåer som er mer viktig
enn å prøve å finne en token som kommer til å gå opp.
Ok, så...
You mentioned something really interesting, kind of related to a tweet I did today.
So when I ran, we were talking about the space yesterday,
and I was giving examples of spaces I really enjoyed.
One of my favorite spaces was when we did truth GPT versus chat GPT space.
A few months ago now, we had Sam Altman and Elon listening into the space in the audience,
and we're just kind of comparing the two and the pros and the cons of each.
And then one big point we were discussing is that
How will AI determine, who or how will truth be determined?
I was doing a tweet today about how the whole Gary Gensler rumor, that we were making fun of it yesterday,
that was actually generated by a website that has only been a week old, that used AI to generate it.
And then the person that spotted that this is fake news used AI to be able to deconstruct the fake news
and found out that AI was used to create fake news.
It was like AI was used to determine...
en piste informasjon som en annen AI har kjent, var feil.
Og alle kjenner den hele Gary Gensler-rumoren forra døgn,
fordi du var nokre alle kjent da du først så den.
Og Ryan ganske gjorde en video om den.
Så mitt spørsmål til deg, Ryan, er
hvordan blockchein kan hjelpe å sikre at...
Jeg vet ikke hvilken term man kan bruke,
men informasjon, eller den korte basen av infrastrukturen,
First it's not centralized among certain entities, and then the fundamental truth is embedded in a way that cannot be manipulated.
Could blockchain be a solution to that problem?
Raoul, you're muted.
Order the space crash.
Ah, you're there. Perfect.
No, I'm there, but sorry, you were cutting in and out on me.
Oh good, so I'll kind of make...
You gave me a too long difference.
Yeah, of course.
Applications of blockchains, so kind of digging into the applications of blockchains when it comes to AI,
because there's one way of looking at it is there's two hype terms being put together just for some projects to launch,
launch a token and pump, versus actual applications that make sense, at least in the short term.
Ja, jeg ser inga applikasjoner enda som er virkelig grånbrekende.
Jeg vet at folk er på grå, folk har noen ideer.
Det er virkelig super tidlig, fordi AI bevæger seg snabbere enn krypto-spacet nå.
So I don't think the space is caught up.
So I'm super wary of everything, but observing anything.
Just to try and see, okay, what traction, what things.
It's all well and good, but like 50 projects say,
we've sold digital ID. Amazing.
How do you get that out to 8 billion people?
Unless you've got a distribution plan at scale, it's not going to work.
So I think just be very, very careful of that.
av wat du invester i, basert på denne thema,
eller du kan bare akceptere en meme
og prøve å kjønne ting som kommer opp.
Det er ikke min modus operandi.
Andre mennesker liker å degenere
rundt mindre tokener,
og det er den veien de gjør det.
De kjører den meme.
For meg, jeg ser ingenting fundamentalt enda.
Jeg vet at det kommer.
Så jeg holder min...
Eyes and ears open and just monitor the space and look for things that get traction.
And I'll kind of wrap it up with one last question, Raoul,
and anyone could add on to this question afterwards,
because it kind of summarizes what we've been talking about for the last few weeks,
and that's the SEC action against Coinbase and Binance,
and of course what they consider to be securities,
and the whole bunch of tokens that were considered securities
that the market didn't respond too well to.
Så jeg vil gjerne få dine tanker på det, Raoul, og Gary Gensler's approach to crypto,
og så kan jeg linka det all the way to the ETF filings that we saw over the last few days and weeks.
Vi vil gjerne få dine state of the market based on the news we saw in the last few weeks.
Så tofold. Først, tre av oss på kallet ikke bryr seg om at USA kaller dem sekuriteter,
fordi vi ikke er USA-stående.
Så det er en ting å forstå. Dette er en global problematik.
en global teknologi, og det vil flytta rundt, og fordi det er finansiering og har mye penning med i det,
det vil flytta rundt til store finansielle senter, og jeg har snakket mye om dette,
London er på platt, Singapore, Hong Kong,
selv om Europa har gjort en god del reguleringer.
Så Gary Gentzl han selv, det ser ut som om det er en skyldighet for USA systemet.
Vi så dette i forfattet med FX-markedet, med euro-dollar-markedet,
en del ganger har vi sett at USA blir veldig skyldighetsfri,
og Gary ser ut som om han er i krig med det.
Og sin idé så länge er å forstå at alt er en sikkerhet,
vi har alle snakket om dette ad infinitum,
og nå må vi gå gjennom kvartalen for å prøve andre.
Men det ser ut som om politisk press har stått på.
Og det tror jeg er den viktige punkten.
Den politiske pressen stått på for å si
at man ikke kan stoppe all innovation.
Så det viktigste målet å gjøre det er, han har allerede laget bitcoin,
å si, hør på, jeg tror ikke bitcoin er en sikkerhet,
derfor vil jeg erbevare ETF.
Og det tror jeg han håper
at det vil redusere varmen på ham.
Og derfor kan han fortsette med sin krusade mot alt annet.
Jeg tror BlackRock og alle andre har fått nodet,
det er som om vi vil akceptere dette,
fordi politisk vil vi akceptere det,
fordi vi har en valgstid neste år,
og vi vil ikke lose hver eneste unge valgstider
som har vært involverd i crypto de siste tre årene.
Så jeg tror det går tross,
I do think that it attracts new capital into the space that spreads throughout the whole space.
It's not a Bitcoin-only story.
You're just bringing it into the new digital economy, and then it spreads out.
Most of the institutions who invest in the space are really driven by price.
So as price rises, their propensity to get in goes up.
So, you know, it's a function of that as well.
But overall, it's politics right now, but the big fight is still to come.
You know, Brad Garlinghouse, Brian Armstrong,
you know,
and a few others have a big fight to still have.
And that fight is incredibly important for people in the United States
and for innovation in the United States within this particular technology.
My guess is the AI space will have the same fight at some point as well.
We have to see how all these play out.
But somehow, Congress needs to set a set of guidelines,
and that's what everyone's trying to force here now,
is we need a proper set of guidelines driven by Congress,
as opposed to the SEC and one man's idea of it.
So look, it's a fascinating time.
I think it's actually noise for the longer term space.
We've seen China ban, we've seen India ban,
we've seen all sorts of changes over time,
and in the end...
It doesn't stop anything.
Because the technology is like water.
It flows everywhere.
People find use cases for it,
find opportunities,
and over time it gets adoption.
So my general thesis is,
it's all noise.
Some way they will be, because it's politically unacceptable to shut out a large part of the young population,
they will acquiesce to certain terms and conditions.
It also helps that the UK, which has been the largest competitor of the US in financial market terms,
and in fact has generally been the leader when the US has stumbled,
is hot on the heels saying, well if you don't want them, we'll take them.
And with a...
A land that has proven regulatory arbitrage over time, and how they can bring trillions of dollars to the UK, they will pursue that relentlessly.
And I think the US will pay attention to that as well, because I don't think going through an election, people want to see a whole technology leaving.
Dave, jeg så deg gi en klap som Raoul sa, og Joe, jeg så deg gi en tømme.
Så kanskje Dave og Joe, jeg vil få deg å respondere til det Raoul sa før jeg endte denne showen.
Dave, vil du gå først?
Ja, jeg kommer ikke til å kommentere på ETF-tjenet.
Joe og jeg har disagreert med det, og vi har kjøpt om det på andre steder.
La oss bare la det være live.
Men jeg tror det er en stund av ting...
Hva er utgiften av kvelden?
Dave, hva er utgiften av kvelden mellom deg og Joe?
En stund.
The SEC, that Gensler is going to try to take a win
by claiming that he's gotten the security,
you know, the surveillance sharing that he wants.
And I think Raul is essentially going to end up being correct
that it's going to be driven by politics,
not by anything else.
But I think that a couple of things that Raul said,
which are very profound,
that you guys were kind of dancing around it.
You know, when you look at,
and I just go back to the beginning of the space
when he was talking about stuff,
the fact is there's a difference between confidence,
and how that affects the crypto markets is really important.
So like Nasdaq recovered the all-time highs, crypto didn't,
because Nasdaq didn't have Luna and all those failures and FTX.
We are still in, we are now seeing the people who put their heads in a coin route, you know, we service institutional traders and help them trade better, right? So, you know, we were kind of a ground zero for this. We saw a huge number of people who were, you know, major players pull back and say, I'm not going to touch this. And
And every one of them that didn't go bankrupt now is retooling and getting ready to restart crypto trading and crypto investing.
Those green shoots of confidence have oomph to a crypto rally where it could catch up to where Nasdaq is.
That's generally my bull case on top of what Rahul said.
And when you talk about, you guys were talking about coins and tokens, and by the way, I'm with Rand.
on the infrastructure play, trying to pick winners and losers.
The fact is, is the other big point here is people over,
someone was talking about how you could pivot,
and Randall, one place I disagree with you is,
companies don't pivot very frequently,
and most of the time when they pivot, they die.
But an open source movement can be very resilient.
And so if you build a true open source platform,
which is what we need in AI,
then that will be something.
The problem is there isn't one there.
And that's why the market structure in crypto
and the ability to make and fund open source and bootstrap
to compete with big tech is such a big deal.
But anyway, those are big meta-conversations
which we can explore in other ones,
but I just want to kind of get those ideas, teasers out there.
Joe?
Yeah.
Ja, så tack. La mig responde på det här.
Så først av, jeg har lagt av med Raoul om at jeg tror inte at dette er det.
Eller at du ikke kommer til å se mer av disse tokenene å bli lagt og utgjort,
og andre asetninger, digital asetninger, utgjort.
Det er ikke egentlig mitt forklaring heller.
However, regarding the ETF, I don't think the logic really holds up that you've primed the pump for an approval, and there's a couple reasons why.
Number one, we got a piece of information just last week in a rather unprecedented way.
The SEC, through leaked sources apparently to the Wall Street Journal, basically said that the current applications are not sufficiently detailed enough.
That is bizarre that they would take the lengths to signal to the market at that length that they don't believe the applications are sufficient.
The only reason is to tamper down expectations for the ETF.
There's no other explanation for that.
So if they were going to take a political win and greenlight this,
you would not have them go through unorthodox channels to push this into the market.
They would have just let it continue to fester and, you know...
while they position themselves for what will be a rather significant policy shift.
The other issue is, I think you've got to remember,
the SEC is in active litigation as we speak,
still waiting on a decision in the Grayscale case.
The Grayscale is trying to convert to an ETF,
the GBTC is trying to convert to an ETF,
and for them to come out and approve
competitive actors
in the space and be seen as showing
favoritism towards BlackRock and other entities
while you have a major piece of litigation
that is pending an appellate court ruling.
I don't know how that makes any sense
from a litigation perspective. I don't know why
enforcement at the SEC or
Any other approval division would allow that to happen.
It seems like a completely contradictory policy.
If your plan was, as Raoul suggested, to greenlight the ETF
and use that for political purposes as a win
to pacify segments of the population interested in Bitcoin or crypto at large,
then why wouldn't you file a simple pleading saying,
you know, we're reversing our policy position on this
and backing down in the appellate court,
rather than take a big loss,
which could theoretically still come in the greyscale versus SEC suit.
So that doesn't make a whole lot of sense logistically.
And finally...
The thing I think is most problematic is you've got active litigation in the SEC versus Coinbase suit,
where the SEC has taken the position that Coinbase is not a broker-dealer,
they're not a registered clearinghouse, they're not a registered exchange.
Now, if you point to the BlackRock filing as somehow being acceptable to the SEC,
and that will eventually go through,
why would they take a position that the very custodian and surveillance sharing agreement and exchange is not...
licensed to operate in the United States,
that will somehow pacify their concerns
about a surveillance-sharing agreement of sufficient market size.
So there's too many things that don't add up
with a train of logic that this is
Gensler's way of priming the market
or somehow pacifying
the market by letting something go through.
I think it doesn't make sense.
Vi går til å rappe opp med to bitcoin, vi bruker ordet maxi for å ha en bedre term.
Harald og TXMC, godt å ha dere.
Jeg tror det er første gang på Crypto Town Hall.
Fynale kvickord, dine tanker om det som har diskutas så fort,
før jeg takker våre kvester og speciale kvester Raoul,
og rappe opp for space.
TXMC, vil du gå først?
Sure, Mario. Thanks for having me up here. I'll get up on the stage because of some conversation earlier that it's now transitioned more to be more crypto specific, but you guys were talking about earlier recession risk and markets being forward looking and pricing those things in and.
You know, the events of last year and how, I think it was someone on the stage here, Rand or Mario, someone expressed a view that that was the market pricing in the risk of recession and looking ahead and building all that into the price.
And I didn't hear anyone present the view that I have, which is that that is ridiculous.
And...
I think what happened last year was not the market pricing in a recession.
We did have a couple of negative quarters of real GDP at the beginning of the year,
which makes some people question if it's a recession,
but I think we can all agree it wasn't one.
But it came at the same time as the end of zero-rate policy
in an inflationary environment.
And so what did we get?
We got the light-speed repricing of all assets globally at record pace.
Stocks and bonds, everything, correlation won, and it went down.
That was not the market pricing in a recession. That was the market pricing in the end of zero rates and higher inflation, and what that means for valuations, as well as the shock from the Ukraine war and whatever else was going on with energy prices. But that's not my point. My point really is that if we're going to talk about a market being forward-looking...
And a market pricing and recessions. And you know, a lot of the talk in these spaces, particularly around crypto, is around market cyclicality and the patterns of history.
And I don't think there's enough people doing the research for what that looks like in the economy, which has its own cycles and its own patterns of history.
Og når du ser på det som skjer, når du ser på målen i USA-ekonomin,
de sykliske aspektene drager ned.
Det er de steder som generelt leder oss inn i en resesjon.
Ting som industriell produksjon, reelle fabrikssale, reelle retalsale.
Disse ting er alle, de har peakt, de har gått flat,
og andre aspekter av ekonomin ser fort ut.
Ting som arbeid, folk er veldig fokuserade på disse aspektene.
Men jeg har gjort mye jobb de siste åren for å forskja på dette fenomenet av recessions, hva de ser ut.
Det er mye konsistens i dem.
Og jeg tror at en av de største takkene, når du faktisk ser på dataet, og du ser på kartene,
er at det ikke er noe exempel i historien av marken som var kvalitativ i en recessions før det kom hit.
Det hender ikke.
The market is forward looking based on the information it has today and what it can glean about what the future looks like.
So it prices things in based on that.
But it is not capable of pricing in significant economic downturns.
And what I find hard to stomach is the idea, and it's not an attack on anyone on this stage,
because I think this is a pretty common belief, but people don't maybe take the time to really look into the validity of it,
is...
This idea that the market can know that a recession is coming, visualize how bad it's going to be, and price that into everything, the asset values go down, and then we all just move forward and people just begin buying those same assets again, when we haven't actually had the recession that they priced in.
I just think it's kind of a...
ridiculous idea.
And so if you look back,
all the way back to 1920...
So essentially what you're saying,
so what you're saying,
and that's interesting,
because I do want to wrap up
and maybe get a whole lot of thoughts,
but that's a good point,
or actually at least an interesting point,
is that the market is forward looking,
but what you're saying to XMC
is that people are just funding
Fundamentally not able to tell the future.
So even though the markets are forward looking,
the markets are made up of many people,
but people were not designed to be able to tell the future.
Is that what you're kind of implying?
They're not designed to tell the future,
but also people are just not looking in the right places.
And...
we're on a path
that all prior recessions
have followed, and in fact
the window of time for it to happen
is still considerably further out
in the future. We have another year of
time where we have
where history is replete with
examples.
av nedstående som har skett i denne vindunen av tid.
Og denne vindunen er valid for minst en annen år,
hvor vi har solide eksempler.
Og jeg tror at alle er virkelig ægre til å forstå
fra eventene av siste år,
til å bestemme dette som en bullmark,
som er titlen av din sted.
Men om du ser på markene i recessions,
først og fremst, S&P er ikke en harbinger av ekonomin.
Det er ingen priser på S&P
som vil si at vi ikke har en recession.
8% from the all time high in May of 2028?
I'll wrap this up. I'll land the plane here. The only time, in every recession since the Great Depression, the bottom of the market came during the recession, not before. There's only one time that that wasn't the case.
Since when? Since when is that the case? Since when...
My research goes back to 1929, and in literally every single recession, with one example that I'm about to tell you,
the bottom was during the recession. It was not before, because markets do not price them in.
The only time that that was not true was 1945, and the reason we had a recession is because the federal government
cancelled war spending, because we won the war, and we had a massive public side deficit.
Right.
But the private sector continued to grow, and we didn't have unemployment.
And the market rose the whole time.
But every other example...
Yeah, hold on, let's do XX. Yeah, so Joe, go ahead.
Real quick, just one thing.
If the market's forward-looking, why in May of 2008 were we 8% from an all-time high
after Bear Stearns had already collapsed, after you were on the verge of systemic risk in the banking system,
or 8% after a massive rally?
Okay, so explain to me how the market was forward-looking in May of 2008.
Tell me how it was anticipating another bull cycle.
Right, so you brought me up here as a Bitcoin maxi, but really I wanted to talk about the economy, because I don't think enough people have done it.
I appreciate it.
And there's actually a lot more we can say about this.
Yeah, jump in, jump in. Yeah, we do this daily, so jump in tomorrow, man.
We'd love to get your thoughts.
And we do a finance space before this one, I think about 8 a.m. ET, so jump into that one, EST.
Harald, kind of wrap it up with your thoughts on Bitcoin before, and I see Michael jumping in.
Just quickly, we'll wrap up the space. Harald?
God to have you.
Yeah, hey Mario.
Mario, I'll be brief.
I appreciate that.
I know you're trying to wrap the space.
So, you know, I wanted to say that, strangely enough,
I agree with Raoul about the trends that are happening
in both identity and crypto going offshore.
And the thing I want to put out to your space,
since I know you guys are mainly crypto maxis,
and, you know, we're Bitcoin maxis,
The thing I'm worried about is the social credit score coming to Ethereum.
I think Ethereum, because it's not state resistant, is sort of racing towards state capture.
And I'm worried deeply about the design principles that are going to be in these Ethereum identity systems.
Så, jeg svarer at dette er en trend.
Den europeiske unionen ønsker det.
Den amerikanske regjeringen ønsker det.
Den worldeekonomiske forum ønsker det.
Alle ønsker en drivårdslisens for internett.
Og Ethereum vil gjøre det.
De vil gjøre det, i min mening,
decentraliseret i namn.
Og det blir basicvis en backdoor-system
for social kontroll av Vestlandet.
Så jeg vil virkelig ønske at dere tenker på det som investerare.
Jeg vil prøve å sikre at det ikke slutter en debatt, men det er kanskje noe vi vil ta med i en fremtidig tidsspas.
Og det samme invitet jeg sendte til TXMC, du er velkommen til å klippe i vår tidsspas, det er en flodig nødvendig å ha deg.
Jeg vil åpne tidsspasen, Marco har du noe å tilby, særlig om økonomi, før jeg slutter tidsspasen?
Ja, jeg skulle bare ekko på det som sa TXMC, at markedet ikke faktisk skjønner forvandlinger av en resessjon.
De skjønner staten. Vi ser dette i alt, avgjørende fra politik av intresset, hvor headlinen er at markedet priser i X nivå av skjønner,
Det er ikke egentlig det som er kvalitet, markedet er kvalitet for 16 kuts med låg probabilitet og 0 kuts med høg probabilitet.
Michael, som Noelle sa, har markedet kvalitet i bullmarkedet, eller i de største fasene, kvalitet i gode nyheter?
For Noelle snakket om markedet kvalitet i gode nyheter, men kvalitet i negativ nyheter eller recessjoner.
It doesn't do either, right?
What it responds to is flows.
So if I give money to somebody who is inherently bullish
and wants to allocate to technology...
they're going to buy stocks and invest in technology if i give it to somebody who is going
to be bearish and invest in bonds and hold cash then that money is not going to make it to the
stock market if i withdraw because i'm facing a loss of job etc that's going to show up in the
prices and if as we have right now you have a situation which those who are facing mark to
market losses for example commercial real estate or uh spac investors or anyone else are desperately
trying to avoid realizing any loss
then the markets will price that in very very slowly no cool uh well michael appreciate wrapping
up the show everyone we'll see you again tomorrow i just want to thank our special guest raul paul
for jumping in again ralph's been a pleasure and um you know always got an open invitation
to the show thanks for dropping by and um for the rest of the panel appreciate you
all joining we'll see you again tomorrow and for the audience
Just, do you like to check the pinned tweet?
So just DM me or Ran
if you want to jump on the show,
work with our incubator or sponsor the show.
Just hit us up via DMs.
Otherwise, we'll see you again tomorrow, same time.
Thanks a lot, everyone. Bye, everyone.
