Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
🚨LIVE: POWELL TO CUT RATES? | INDIA 25% TARIFF | BITCOIN
Recorded: July 30, 2025 Duration: 1:51:39Space Recording
Short Summary
In a dynamic discussion, experts analyzed the implications of recent economic indicators, including a surprising GDP growth of 3% and the Federal Reserve's rate decisions, on the crypto market. The conversation highlighted the strategic economic tensions between the U.S. and India, the potential for Bitcoin to serve as a hedge against financial instability, and the ongoing trends that could shape the future of crypto investments.
Full Transcription
Music Thank you. Music Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. The Thank you. Music all right guys appreciate you guys joining in.
Appreciate you guys listening.
We're back for another space.
Lots to speak about today.
I just want to welcome Adam, Dennis, Simon, Robert, Anis,
sorry, Anis and Eric and Adam onto the space.
I appreciate all of you coming and books thanks
for co-hosting the space with me appreciate all of you guys lots to speak about today obviously
everybody's waiting for a powell to see what the rate cuts are going to be if there's going to be
reports are saying that this is highly unlikely but we'll speak about that we'll speak about the rate cuts why that was the right
decision how that impacts trump who wanted and did push for a rate cut and we also had reports
that the gdp for q2 surged to three percent even though it was expected to be 2.3 percent and trump
wrote way better than expected too late must now lower the rate no inflation let
people buy and refinance their homes it seems like he may not listen to that we'll talk about that
also um the US or Donald Trump placed 25% tariffs on India um and we're going to speak about the
implications that we've got NS here we've got
various other experts on here we'll speak about that but he said quote remember while India is
our friend we have over the years done relatively little business with them because their tariffs
are far too high among the highest in the world and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious
non-monetary trade barriers of any country.
Also, they have always brought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia and are
Russia's largest buyer of energy along with China at a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the
killing in Ukraine. All things not good. India will therefore be paying a tariff of 25% plus a penalty for the above starting on
August the 1st. Thank you for your attention on this matter. So I definitely want to speak to
Ennis about that because I saw some of the posts he did which were pretty golden and informative
and I think it'll be a good opportunity for the audience to hear the ramifications and implications
of what Trump is saying and whether India even has a choice. Do they have the audience to hear the ramifications and implications of what Trump is saying and whether
India even has a choice. Do they have the ability to remove their trade deals with Russia,
especially when a large part of the energy is coming from Russia? So we'll speak about all of
those things, guys. I think it's going to be a golden space. Obviously, power will be live in
about an hour and a half so we'll get
that information live on the space as well so yeah come in so in the meantime guys if you can do me a
favor retweet reshare the space let everybody know we're live that would be awesome and let's go
immediately i mean books any first thoughts before I quickly go to the
speakers? No, man, I'm excited for the Fed meeting. I really want to see what they do,
especially after he met with Trump. So I think this will really explain a lot to us because we
got to keep in mind there's no Fed meeting next month. So whatever happens today, I mean,
So whatever happens today, I mean, you've got to wait till September to see what happens next.
you got to wait till September to see what happens next.
Well, the Federal Reserve is set to announce its decision at 2 p.m. Eastern, which is in about 48 minutes.
Obviously, we'll get that information live.
Obviously, we know Trump has been pressing for a rate cut.
He spoke to Powell. He went to see the building he thought they'd
spent too much money on it 3.1 billion he was saying uh which was a hilarious engagement and
interaction between the two um and he and he said oh Powell said to me I'm doing the economy is doing
really well he said Mr President you're doing a really good job and he took that as saying that
Powell is gonna um reduce the rate.
On the other hand, I did see a report earlier on today
where Scott Besson seemed to suggest that wouldn't happen.
And therefore, then as you said, we might have to wait two months
and likely in September will happen.
Let me bring Simon in on the conversation on this.
Simon, what's your thoughts on this whole thing?
Obviously, what's your,
what's your thoughts in terms of this whole kind of interaction and engagement that's happening
while Trump is attacking him a lot?
And then what his decision is going to be
in you from your perspective?
And then what the ramifications of that are?
Yeah, sure.
So, firstly, I'd be very surprised if there was a rate cut today. I expect nothing to happen. That's my expectations. And I'm not expecting Powell to retire. I think he'll go through his whole term.
personal belief is that this is kind of part of the whole destabilization campaign. I think Trump
wants to refinance a lot of the debt with short-term bills and treasury bills. And so he
would like it to go down by 300 points. But I think what he knows is that it's not going to happen.
We had that humiliation ritual that we become accustomed to, you know, with the president of South Africa.
kind of hinting at this making Powell and the Federal Reserve look like they're squandering
$3 billion in an excessive refurb project. And so Trump has been hitting at Powell hard,
but personally I think it's a lot of theatrics. I think the end goal is that they'll announce
who the next Fed chair is going to be and Powell will be kind of rendered
less relevant because a lot of the decisions in the market will be based upon what they believe
the next Fed chair is going to do. And so I think they'll announce it fairly early.
But I don't expect Powell to reduce rates. You know, We had a slight uptick in inflation at the last CPI print
and then conflicting data with the PPI,
which is the producer price index,
the cost to produce goods as opposed to the consumer price index.
And also we had this growth. I think Robert will cover it a little bit deeper, but it's kind of around the tariff deadlines where there was a big economic decline for one month because they were pre loading up on goods prior to the tariff. offsetting effect. And so obviously Trump will use the number. But in general, if inflation
is going up and it's not bottom to 2% and growth is going up, then I think the Fed and
Jerome Powell has every justification for why they're not going to cut rates. And so
he'll come out with a bunch of normal things that he says,
which is we only make moves based upon data
and we're not sure what the impact of tariffs are yet.
So that's what I expect today anyway.
So I think it'll be a bit of a nothing burger and no change.
It would impact the market if there was a cut or if there was,
because it would kind of discredit the Federal Reserve in not following the data and then you'd expect some reaction in the long-term rates on the
10 and 30 year bonds and I think the market would be very surprised if something did happen
so I think that's what we'd be looking out for that makes a lot of sense
samon uh robert let me bring you in on the uh conversation especially when sam and said that
you're the best person to speak to about this um the u.s gdp for q2 q uh q2 surged to three percent
it was only expected to be 2.3 percent even trump was agilated he did a tweet about it
a what's your thought and
perspectives on that? And what does that say for the economy under Trump and the direction it's
going? Yeah. So it really was just a kind of normalization that we saw this month or this
quarter, this print. So the way GDP is calculated, you have to look at your imports
relative to your exports. Some people call this the trade balance, the balance of trade,
but it's net exports. And so imports are a drag on GDP. So as the corporations were
So as the corporations were beside themselves, rushing, trying to get ahead of the tariffs,
importing all these goods pre-tariff announcement or pre-tariff before they were effective,
our imports surged.
Well, what that did is it blew out the net export number or balance of trade,
and there was a huge drag on GDP. So
the reason the first quarter was negative was because of imports surging due to tariff front
running. Well, of course, that's not going to continue that way. Eventually, tariffs are going
to take effect and imports will go back to a more historical sort of average. And so as that happens, you get the opposite.
So just like the last quarter was a draw, a negative for GDP, having a surge of imports,
well, this quarter, having the imports come way down was a benefit to GDP.
a benefit to GDP. So we got a big boost, actually the biggest on record. So 5% of the change was
So we got a big boost, actually the biggest on record.
due to that net export number. So also, the first quarter had a reduction in government spending,
which agree with it or not, that goes into GDP. We had a bit of a reduction in government spending, so that also kept first quarter
GDP kind of negative. This quarter, it started to tick back up. And personal spending, looking at
the PCE, that's another huge component of GDP. That, in real terms, in inflation-adjusted terms,
real PCE is basically flat to down. So I think that'll be something to watch.
The trade side of it is going to have a ton of noise. I keep saying like, we got to probably
wait another quarter or two to really kind of see where things are going to settle out.
And I would still say that, but it's probably going to take another quarter or two
to really get a kind of accurate picture. But yeah, Trump's incorrect. That strong GDP is, we had inflation tick up,
as Simon said, 20 or 30 basis points. And you have real GDP starting to accelerate. That's good for
the debt service, for that nominal growth relative to the cost of the debt. That's good for the debt service for that nominal growth relative to the cost of the debt.
That's good for the debt burden. But if you cut rates, inflation will move significantly higher.
And his plan is to run negative real rates at the short end and then just issue all of our debt
in short term bills. Well, bills are much less volatile than, say, TLT, right, like a long bond has convexity. So those are
more volatile, meaning they cannot be easily readily levered into new US dollars as the
private banks create new dollars. So issuing more bills is very pro-dollar liquidity. It's
inflationary. It's stimulatory, especially if you're running negative real
interest rates, which means, you know, say they take the federal funds rate down to one,
which is what Trump is suggesting. And, you know, that would be a three month bill would be yielding
about 1%. Well, inflation is going to be three, or maybe even three and a half, which means you're
guaranteed if you are buying that short term bill, you are guaranteed you'll get your money back that you put in the
in the treasury. But inflation is going to run hotter than the interest rate that you're getting
to protect from inflation. So you're actually losing money. Those negative real rate environments
are also very stimulatory because if you think about it, it kind of forces
speculation and return chasing in other assets. So I think it'd be very good for Bitcoin
and probably even out the risk curve into altcoins and stuff. It would be very similar to that kind
of 2021 feel, in my opinion.
But yeah, that, you know, I don't think they're going to cut.
I don't think Trump's going to get his wish.
I think Trump is going to, if they don't cut, I think he's going to do the kind of shadow Fed concept we've been talking about.
And then just have that guy go out and guide, you know, provide forward guidance, which
is the Fed's main tool, main power, provide forward guidance.
Look, I'm going to be the next Fed share. And as soon as I'm in, we are taking rates to zero.
We are doing QE, a hundred gazillion dollars of QE. And if that's what's telegraphed to the
market, the market will price that in and you could actually get uh you know a reduction in rates before that guy ever takes uh actual you know uh office at that pharmacy
appreciate that robert and um we have got a few more questions for you i'm just gonna give people
an overlay of all the issues and then we'll get um we'll get more in depth into a lot of these
conversations anis i just wanted to bring you in on the conversation.
I was looking at your tweets, which are golden, by the way.
And this is specifically about the India tariffs that Trump plans to put on.
You said, I mean, you kind of indicated on these tweets
that that would be a monumentally problematic issue, especially when you look at the trade deals that India has with Russia.
I believe in crude oil, it was around from the top of my head about 45 percent that the Russia get.
Oh, yeah, I've got it up now. Yeah. So it's 45 percent from Russia, Iraq, 18 percent, Saudi, 12% in terms of India's crude oil imports by country of origin.
I mean, if you want to expand on that and explain why, or what's your thoughts on this?
Is this going to be something Trump can actually succeed in?
Or is it just impossible for India to redirect the current way of dealing with oil and energy?
Yes.
Before I start talking about this, I just want to emphasize the point that we have a
lot of people who are emotional about this and they are tweeting and writing about it.
So we get to be very careful with those emotional people,
what they are saying and whatever data they are providing.
The other issue is the media is not helping.
The media basically is literally giving us,
if it's not the wrong information,
it's like the information that are tilted to serve a certain purpose.
I'm going to give you a couple of examples before I answer your question.
The EU imposed 18 rounds of sanctions on Russian oil, 18 rounds.
If the first one, second one, fifth one, sixth one, whatever number is, works,
why we are on number 18.
So you can see where the nonsense is.
But the 18th round of sanctions, basically, for the first time, targeted a refinery owned
by Nayara Energy in India.
About 50% of that refinery is owned by Russia.
So they targeted that refinery.
So what the media is telling us basically is that,
look, those sanctions are effective,
and we've seen tankers being diverted,
and the CEO basically be replaced,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
What is the truth?
The truth is India does not care about the EU.
India does not care about the UK. India does not care about the UK.
India does not care about Switzerland.
So they impose sanctions on certain tankers.
Every single day, India is unloading oil from tankers that are sanctioned by the EU, the
UK, or Switzerland.
They don't care.
So they are irrelevant.
Why the media is going crazy on this?
They say, well, we've seen tankers that are being diverted and the refinery reduced its output and
its operations. That's absolutely correct because there were three tankers that belong to the EU
coming to get diesel for the EU, diesel that is made from Russian oil.
Let's remember this.
And because they belong to the EU, they changed direction.
Now there is no replacement in the coming days.
So inventories went up.
The capacity for inventory is very limited.
So the refinery had to cut production.
The impact is about one week
and that's it why the ceo was replaced it's a technical issue and the reason why because the
ceo is an eu national and since he is an eu national he is subject to all EU laws in the EU. And therefore, if he goes home, he's in trouble.
So it made perfect sense to replace him.
Now, it's been over a week.
Everything is back to normal.
But the media basically is telling us a completely different story.
India continues to import from Russia.
The refinery is operating at full capacity.
And tankers are coming in and they are taking that crude.
So let's go back to the original point.
First of all, the Trump administration cannot afford a recession in India.
I know some people get emotional because I said recession in India.
Well, look, if you cut off 2 million barrels a day of supplies
anywhere in the world, oil prices will go up substantially.
India imports 2.1 million barrels a day from Russia.
Every day, 2.1 million on average.
And it is the majority.
It's almost half of what India imports from the rest of the world.
There is no replacement.
India has no choice, and the Trump administration knows that.
There is no replacement.
Saudi Arabia does not have it.
OPEC members do not have it.
No one has 2.1 million barrels a day to bring up overnight just to India.
It does not exist.
It does not exist.
So if we cut off those 2.1 million with no replacement, oil prices will go up by $40, $50.
We are going to see $100 oil.
That will lead to a recession within India itself and major inflation in the United States.
You guys are talking about the Fed today and inflation.
That will lead to massive inflation in the United States if oil prices go above 100. So the whole issue of India and Russia basically is literally kind of just talk. Let me
be polite here and just say it's just talk. It's not going to happen. We've seen countries again
back to the EU and 18th round of sanctions, and they are
not effective until today. There is no one can stop Russia from exporting its oil. We've been
imposing sanctions on Iran for years and years and years, and Iran's still exporting oil.
Look, sanctions have been on Cuba for 70 years, and the regime in Cuba is still there.
So let's drop all these issues related to sanctions,
et cetera, et cetera.
What about the tariff now?
The issue with the tariff is that it's a trade deal
that they want to reach,
and whether they get what they wanted or not,
the issue here is literally China.
Because the Trump administration
wanted some U.S. companies,
including Apple,
to move its operations to India,
and all of a sudden now telling India,
well, I don't need you.
So where Apple is going to go?
And it's, you know, one of the ironies in the world
that if you look at Venezuela,
as you know, the Trump administration
tightened the sanctions on Venezuela
and then imposed 25% tariff on countries
that are importing the Venezuelan crude.
And then it refused to give
the authorization to chevron to continue production and what we end up with we ended up with the trump
administration asking literally asking chevron to go back why did they do that because some idiot
in the administration told them or literally state department told them
look we don't need the vizuelan oil we can get the mexican oil and then it came to the hard truth
when it comes to crude quality the only field in mexico that provide the same quality crude
is in terminal decline and whatever oil is producing it's been diverted to a new refinery in Mexico,
and therefore the U.S. basically was literally forced to ask Chevron to go back to Venezuela.
So the issue here, the point I'm trying to make here is it's not necessarily that all those moves
and all those stocks are really smart moves or well-studied moves.
We've seen many issues with whatever being said.
So this will bring me to the EU trade deal that they announced on Sunday.
We had a space and we had a long report on this.
And one of the ironies is, if you look at the details, it says that the EU will import $750 billion of energy from the United States over three years.
Well, that's $250 billion every year. The EU cannot literally consume that amount,
and the U.S. does not have that amount. So if the U.S. does not have it,
the EU cannot consume it. Where those numbers are coming from?
Even if we replace all the Russian oil, all the Russian LNG, all the Qatari LNG, all the Saudi
oil, etc., still we will not reach 250 billion a year. And of course, the irony is they focus on $250
billion, which means that if energy prices decline, then they need to buy more.
But the irony here is, again, I'm with too many ironies. The irony here is they said, oh, well,
it includes SMRs, that's nuclear reactors, SMRs made in the United States and nuclear fuel.
Well, that's fine.
The deal is for three years.
It ends with the end of the Trump administration term in 2028.
And the first SMR will be produced in the United States in 2030.
So who, I mean, are they making fun of us?
Well, what the deal is?
Back to you
Yeah, I appreciate that
Anes, I just want to welcome Omar
Onto the stage as well, I appreciate you
As well for coming on, and Eric
Simon, I just
Got to go to you, because I was going to go to them just to get their
Perspective, but I can't
Miss this opportunity, especially when
We know your position and all Of this um like where does this fit in your i know this is more from the
geopolitical situation obviously i you'd like don't need to go too deep into it but from a like
more financial perspective um what i i mean your argument remember we're like very good friends
spend a lot of time on spaces your argument argument is that Trump is working for the BRICS, right?
How does placing these type of tariffs on India when India kind of can't reduce the current deals that they have with Russia,
especially when it comes to energy, how does that fall in or how does that work?
or how does that work or do you think this is just again just uh theater um just just to be clear
Or do you think this is just, again, just theatre?
when i say trump works for bricks um my my my philosophy is that corporate lobbies are incredibly
powerful in america and so all politicians work for the lobbies um in general um And so the lobby, the most important lobby is the, or one of them is military and
financial. And financial, Trump is heavily aligned with the technical industrial complex
and the financial industrial complex. Now, when you look at the most important players in the
financial industrial complex, you've got the asset managers like BlackRock,
State Street and Vanguard. And then you've got the banks underneath them with banks like Goldman
Sachs, JP Morgan, etc, etc. The creator of BRICS as a concept, the promoter of it, the one that
wrote the original paper is Goldman Sachs. So Goldman Sachs has been pushing for a multipolar
world and splitting the world up into regions. And so I think BlackRock is managing a portfolio
that benefits from shrinking America into a technocracy and being a regional power for artificial intelligence and robotics and
the largest capital markets and various other things in the world.
But they want to diversify their profits and that benefits from volatility and tariffs in general was the absolute volatility creator that resets the world
order and you can make blackrock can make through its portfolio can make a lot of money in between
and so with that with that nuance in mind what do tariffs do well tariffs mean that when you inflict a tariff, it incentivizes, if it can be produced
on manufacturers within America, then it incentivizes people to try and find a producer.
So something like a copper tariff, I think it's highly effective for America if they
produce copper.
You know it pushed the price up like wild so it's kind of offsetting.
But if it's more expensive to import copper from a board then you're going to buy it domestically.
The challenge is when you're producing goods that can only be produced offshore
you're producing goods that can only be produced off offshore. And what happens is essentially
India will export their goods, America will import it, and they pay the import. And so
a 25% tariff means that they have to charge 25% on top and factor that into the prices in the imports.
And so all of this to say that it creates a large destabilizing know, pushes everything to the regional model and supports all of these countries going closer to the east rather than doing deals with the west.
And so I personally believe these tariffs are not just a negotiating tactic.
I take them seriously. I think they're real. I think they're going to be implemented.
And I think overall it supports
china um and the tariff policy was the implementation of china already winning the trade war
um and this was just blackrock and goldman sachs execution of the policy with trump as the proxy
implementing it.
So, Simon, that makes a lot of sense in terms of from the tariff perspective.
What about from the perspective of what Trump said that he's going to impose a penalty on India as well for the same thing?
I didn't see that bit. Was it a penalty on what? Sorry?
On India. So he said India will therefore be paying a tariff of 25% plus a penalty for the above.
Shall we read the tweet again just to remind you?
Yeah, please do. Oh, yeah, of course.
So he said this quote a few hours ago.
He said, remember, while India is our friend, we have over the years done relatively little business with them
because their tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the world,
and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers of any country.
Also, they have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia.
And are Russia's largest buyer of energy.
Along with China.
At a time when everyone wants Russia to stop the killing in Ukraine.
All things not good India
will therefore be paying a tariff of 25 plus a penalty for the above starting on August the 1st
which is a couple of days thank you for your attention to this matter Maga got it so when I
hear that I hear India sort your shit out together with BRICS, Russia and China and go closer to them because we're not a friendly region.
That's what I hear.
I mean, that's his concern for sure.
But how does he, based on what Anas said and based on India's current situation where they're not able to remove themselves from Russia and the trade
agreements they have it means the U.S. will put a sanction on how does that bring them closer to
the U.S. if he's going to put further away from the U.S. and closer to BRICS that's what it does
the the impact is is that India is 100 percent dependent I they made, they've become the fastest growing economy in the world by taking
Europe's sanctioned oil and charging, marking it up and exporting it to EU. So the EU sanctions
plus the China extension plus the India penalty and sanctions all says uh please all go work without america and figure out how to
make your economy stronger without us it is the net effect uh okay so your argument is that trump's
done this intentionally to push india even more towards bricks because india's kind of all especially
for a while now has been kind of playing both sides, right? So this kind of pushes them the more to it, is what your argument is.
Well, Trump is making a shitload of money,
and he gets to use tariffs to push a MAGA narrative,
which is a very patriotic, nationalist narrative,
which is very popular amongst his following.
But when you actually work through the implications,
while you get a spike in tax revenue,
and people like Robert that are concerned about boomer wealth,
they want these things to happen with America.
They want assets to go down in value.
They want real estate to become more affordable.
So they're kind of happy
with this vision for America. But it doesn't support those that want stocks to go up and
real estate to go up, which is causing all the wealth inequality. But the net impact of all these
things is it's just making America a very unattractive place to do business with
and maybe we could go to Eric after this he'll have some thoughts as well because he's in Asia
and what the different people are thinking in the different regions but it's drawing them all
closer together where the GCC, BRICS, ASEAN they're all creating these blocks and figuring out how to
create trade-free barriers with each other, including European Union.
Sounds great. Yeah. And let me bring in Eric then.
Eric, what's your thoughts on the very same conversation we're having in terms of these tariffs and the impact it's going to have on India?
And whether it does impact India and India, just ignore. What's your thoughts?
Yeah. So there's the effect and the intention.
So the effect is exactly what Simon says.
Because when you're getting bullied left and right with things that also don't make sense,
you've got no choice but to go more towards the BRICS,
towards the countries which have predictability and, you know,
a proper way, proper mode of operation towards each other,
way, proper mode of operation towards each other, not a random mood of the day.
not a random mood of the day.
And Trump is very moody.
And Trump is very moody.
And here, why Trump is irritated is, and that's a real concern of Trump, he's right about
that.
India has a lot of barriers to entry for foreign firms.
It's very complicated.
It's a big mess.
And they have a lot of these, not only tariffs, but regulations, which make it difficult for
American companies to come.
So Trump wants them out.
He wants to be able to do business very easily in India. regulations which make it difficult for American companies to come. So Trump wants them out. He
wants to be able to do business very easily in India. For that, I understand that he would like
to do that. But the way he's doing it is, OK, I'm going to bully you more. And I'm not happy that
you're taking Russian oil. I've tolerated it. But now I'm not happy that Putin doesn't listen to me
when I say stop in Ukraine. So he's being emotional and say, OK, I'm going to do a sanctioning of that
oil that you're taking from Russia. And I'm going to do a sanctioning of that oil that
you're taking from Russia, and I'm going to tarry a few more if you don't listen to me,
and you better open your markets to me. So essentially, Trump is trying to negotiate in
a very childish way. What will come out of it is exactly what Simon said. All the actors,
Russia, China and India will become closer and closer into their economic integration just because they need predictability, they need stability.
And that's how you develop your economy.
You cannot develop your economy based on a whim of the day.
So Trump is actually cornering himself now by attacking.
He was already against Russia and China.
And India was the one he could have somewhat good relations with and was trying to pull it towards him now he's doing the opposite so this is probably going
to be one of his worst mistake in terms of negotiation because the last country he needs
to push away from him now is india so to me that makes no sense and robert is already gone yeah
back to our finance show i think simon yeah'm going to go over there to ask him a question
because he talked about GDP.
Appreciate that.
That's a little thing.
Didn't Simon say that Trump's doing this on purpose, though?
This is strategic on Trump's part?
Or am I missing something?
Yeah, so Simon's position is that Trump is doing this...
is doing this intense. I mean, Simon, I don't put words in your mouth.
I mean, Simon, I don't put words in your mouth.
Yeah, but Trump works for his lobby.
Trump works for his lobby. And I believe that BlackRock and those global financial institutions
that have significant influence over America, European Union, UK, have made it where governments
are subordinate to their agenda. And so I don't believe that Trump is acting in the best interest
of America, as I don't believe that Keir Starmer is working in the best interest of UK, as I don't
believe that any of the European leaders are working in the best interest of Europe. And
that's my consistent theme when you actually follow the money.
Dennis, what's your thoughts on that?
Yeah, I think Simon's right.
I think, you know, you have these multi-trillion dollar
balance sheets, we're not, the governments are not in control.
It's BlackRock and State Street, Vanguard, et cetera, et cetera.
So, I mean, it's hard to wrap my head around it,
that this is something that Trump is doing on purpose,
that it's strategic, and that he's doing it based on multi-trillion dollar corporations.
But, I mean, I can't argue it. I think Simon's right.
I think it's more it's more feasible
when you don't say trump as well when you say it's the administration and all the members that
are paid for by all the different lobbies and constituents that help them get that's an
important distinction you're right yeah it's not him it's everybody behind the scenes you're
absolutely right no but simon you think it's him as well, right? He's just the kind of face of it.
Well, Trump, he got significant banking backing.
It was his second largest contributor.
And also the technology part.
So Elon was his largest contributor.
And the crypto part.
So if you look at Trump's main contributors, it was the crypto lobby.
It was the tech bros headed up by Elon,
it was the banking headed up by the Mellon banking dynasty, it was Edelstein, which is the Israel first part,
and then there's the crypto bros, which is all the crypto strategies.
And if you look across all of his four biggest backers, that's where all the victories are coming, things that help them. And those are not necessarily, they could be to some degree good for America, but that's irrelevant. It's what's good for those global institutions.
I mean, just look at J.D. Vance. He was under the tutelage of Peter Thiel. I mean, it's all interconnected.
Correct.
And this is good, Sully, because we can be a little bit more extreme
with our finance thoughts as we integrate it with political thoughts.
But we'll try and keep it finance.
No, it's fine. Listen, we don't have no censorship.
And obviously, you're not allowed to have these conversations elsewhere.
I heard your space where you were being shot down and you absolutely
destroyed uh the guys who were basically not letting you speak about this so yeah for sure i
think yeah that was that was my exit strategy silly so if you continue doing finance spaces
i'll be supporting you but i i kind of uh i think i uh am a little bit unwelcome in the in
the in the previous spaces i kind of lost my rag a bit i mean i don't think you lost your rag i
think you you were passionate about what you believe in and like things are important and
there's a hierarchy of things and obviously of course like the genocide that's happening is just
unfathomable um and so therefore any people who are there to harm society, we don't agree with.
And I think one of the points you made on that clip that I saw, that I listened to was,
you said Bitcoin was meant to be, and this is your view, right?
That Bitcoin was meant to be a mode by which you would get away from those in power,
the establishment, it would be a way out
decentralization and clearly um now it's not being used by that or some of these uh bad actors are
now in that in that arena or area as well um so i heard that i mean what's your thoughts on that
yeah i mean i'll i'll you know i to me bitcoin is the ultimate boycott because it's the ultimate show of dissatisfaction of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy.
And holding it in self-custody is the ultimate boycott of BlackRock, Wall Street and the money managers that want you to own your Bitcoin with them.
that you're Bitcoin with them. And not borrowing against it is the ultimate boycott of the banks
because people accumulate wealth and often buy their house outright. And I just believe that
if corporations are doing things that you don't like, most people are distracted with politics
because they think that ultimately it's the Congress, it's the Senate, it's the president, it's the prime minister that matters.
I think they're way less significant than the people that pay their bills, which is the lobbies.
And so what do we do in order to have our voice heard?
I think you impact the share price of the corporation.
So I'm a big believer in
the activist investor. And I think it's where you get most bang for your buck.
And if you, you know, even on the very, very small scale, holding Bitcoin in self-custody
means you just get, it just means your money's not being used by these politicians that are often servicing lobbies that are pushing wars.
And so that's how I see Bitcoin.
And I think if everyone became more conscious with their money and didn't just, in the complexity
of trying to forecast these things, hand it over to the Black Rocks and the very convenient
convenient products, then we could direct the flow of our money. And I think the activist investor is
products, then we could direct the flow of our money.
a spirit that I'd like to reignite in people away from the convenience of just getting money
managers to do it for you and realizing that your pension might be working against what's right for
humanity. So it's an important tool and some will use it you know and that's why all the
financial institutions want to own it for you because they don't want you to own it because
there's no money in them owning it and it and it and it in it in our little micro way it defunds
power um and and i think that's an important thing for everybody to be conscious of with their investments. Yeah, 100%. Look, I'm with you. I believe the people can make a difference. Every individual
can make a huge difference. We've seen it through, as you said, boycott initiatives. We saw it with
pressure in terms of, from a political perspective, whether it was left-wing, right-wing politics,
or whether it's speaking out against the genocide or whatever it is, an individual can make a huge amount of difference. And as you said, you can either do that through
boycotting, you can do that through decentralization, you can do it through a wide range of
things. So yeah, I vehemently agree with you. I think the power of the people is that when they
believe that you can't do nothing is when they continue their power and their control.
Omar, I want to bring you in on this conversation. Appreciate you coming on the space.
We were just talking at the back channel,
and you've been listening to the space for a while.
What's your thoughts on, I guess, this conversation we're having?
Yeah.
Also, if you want to jump in on what's happening in terms of,
what's your thoughts about the market as well?
How is it going, the fact that in terms of the rate?
Go ahead, Omar.
Yeah, so, well, first first of all thanks for having me and thanks for for all you do um i do have i
want to bring it back to to to these uh to global monetary policy and ask simon uh see simon's
opinion on these diversion um interest rate policies between the Fed and other central banks, the
ECB, Bank of England, RBJ. And I want to see how he would think that this would affect
the US dollar in the short and medium term and then indirectly Bitcoin.
Oh, was that the... So I think that there is a deliberate... So I think there's friction
here. I think there is a desire to inflate away the debt. I think a multipolar world
means that there is a repatriation of capital, and so, it is a strategic weakening of the dollar, which may be strategic
for America in a more nationalist agenda. And I think Bitcoin is a two-way bet. It is a bet on
global money supply increasing, which is irrelevant whether it comes from the US or comes from
other places. But I think that a multipolar world brings us closer to an environment where Bitcoin
can have a check and control upon multipolar currencies. And I think that stablecoin adoption
is a bit dangerous because it strengthens the dollar.
And strengthening the dollar means that we move to a more monopolistic, hegemonic environment.
And I believe in competition.
And I think the reason we have much of the wars and problems in the world
is because of the strength of the dollar.
And organizations like the International Monetary Fund,
which creates wars in order to destroy economies, so people end up being dependent upon a dollar.
So I just want to see America become great again by being a piece of a regional power
rather than the global hegemon, because I think it doesn't
deserve the role of global hegemon because it's just been too destructive for the most of the
world. But that's my ideology. But I actually think that BlackRock agrees with that. And so
I see BlackRock investing in a multipolar world. And I don't think BlackRock or Goldman Sachs
or any of these institutions are America first.
So I think they're actually doing it
and they have the power to do it.
So I see a long-term weakening of the dollar,
but there could be this whole QE to infinity,
you know, debt-based Ponzi scheme, stablecoin adoption. And I think that takes us
to a very Orwellian programmable money type of world that we're seeing in UK and European Union
at the moment. And I think that's coming to America if you get this stablecoin adoption.
So just for the audience in simple terms, what makes you think that the, I do agree with you, by the way, but what makes you think So if you carry on with this model and America becomes crypto capital of the world, continues the debt-based Ponzi scheme, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. All the rich are in Bitcoin right now, so they'll pump the shit out of Bitcoin. It will cost the average American a lot. It will really harm the average European and Brit. And the collective West will be just pushed into civil unrest,
but the rich will get richer and Bitcoin will do great.
And the rich have Bitcoin.
But then if we enter into a corrective environment,
whether it's multi-polarity or even a financial crisis,
then I think Bitcoin offers the solution to all of those scenarios.
So the reason I'm so bullish on Bitcoin is because I think it succeeds in every environment,
and I can't think of an environment in which it doesn't.
Simon, my biggest concern, I think I mentioned this to you in the past,
is when I look at Bitcoin and I look at crypto general,
but also this does include Bitcoin as well,
is the level of control that the exchanges and the market makers have.
Now, I know you don't care about the price and that's fine.
But when you look at like real adoption, like if it was to replace fiat and these type of things,
that becomes a huge issue.
Because obviously you can do, I understand yours and Grant's argument
that look you buy it you leave it for 10 years or eight years you just don't look at it wherever
it may be you're going to be wealthy right that makes sense to me but then it's just like saving
right but if it's truly going to be a system or if there's truly going to be a system where it
replaces fiat I have huge concerns about the level of control that it has now i know
and i i know that fiat has much worse issues so that's not what the i don't want like because i
know a lot of like bitcoin guys when i ask this question oh yeah but fiat is worse you know fiat
is fake and i get that but i'm saying doing this kind of comparison thing is one thing but actually
having a legitimate real option is something else that's one of my biggest concerns
with bitcoin crypto generally but also bitcoin falls into that even though it's from a lesser
in a lesser degree what's your kind of counter or your kind of uh thoughts on that yeah so um
bitcoin can only be manipulated when it's a foreign currency. What that means is that if the majority of your costs are in dollars
or pounds or euros and you have Bitcoin, then you need to be concerned about the Bitcoin to
euro, pound or dollar price when you're managing your personal finances. And so the first rule
of managing finances in terms of spending is to not take currency risk because you're
at the mercy of markets. And if the price crashes while you're trying to pay your rent
and you need to sell some Bitcoin to pay your rent, then that could really impact your personal
financial situation for that month. So the only time when speculation doesn't matter in terms of
managing personal expenses is when things are priced in Bitcoin, where one Bitcoin equals one
Bitcoin. And I'm not sure we're ever going to enter into that world. We may enter into a world
where everything's priced in Bitcoin and Bitcoin becomes a global currency. So then you ask yourself, right, okay, well, if Bitcoin, if I'm going to live in
a world where there's a fiat currency, and my goods are priced in that fiat currency,
and I save in Bitcoin, then just as if you save in gold, Bitcoin, euros, any currency, any market,
any currency, any market, real estate, Nvidia shares,
then you're subject to market manipulation.
And we're never going to be able to change that rule.
I see Darkside here.
He's got a different theory around Bitcoin.
But to me, market manipulation is not a problem that Bitcoin solves.
But every asset in the world can be managed,
can be short-term manipulated
by those that control the flows of money.
And so it's not a unique problem to Bitcoin.
However, if you have an asset that is fixed in supply
that no one can print,
then you've created the hardest asset to manipulate long term.
But short term, the price of Bitcoin has always been manipulated.
And then if you're managing your personal finances around Bitcoin and your goods aren't priced in Bitcoin,
then you're going to always be at the mercy of speculation and manipulation.
So, yeah, and Darkly, thanks for coming coming i appreciate you coming into the space
i love your insight into this as well but if i've understood your point right your argument is
basically that whenever you've got some kind of intersectional relationship with fiat you're
always going to have this issue and it's only when fiat no longer exists where you no longer
have this issue is that basically the crux of your argument? Yeah it's um you have to be if a price of
milk costs a bitcoin and you've got a bitcoin then there's no currency exchange if uh if the price of
milk costs ten dollars and you've got some bitcoin you're always subjected to a currency exchange. And so until things are priced in Bitcoin,
then you don't need to care.
But while there is,
it's all about what your goods are priced in
relative to what you've got.
Can I just jump in before DarkSide does too?
Yeah, go ahead.
I thought it was an interesting story that came out yesterday, the day before about PayPal. They're going to let small businesses now accept payment in over 100 cryptocurrencies, including Fartcoin.
MasterCard, Visa, and everything else, I think Simon can speak on this. They're going to,
of course, charge fees. So that's the other thing. When he's saying one Bitcoin to a gallon
of milk for one Bitcoin, correct me if I'm wrong, but there wouldn't be fees involved.
But now with these companies getting involved like PayPal and other merchants, they're going
to charge fees and also inject themselves into the market.
So and of course, they have to do all the settlements and everything like that to the
dollar.
So that's a little bit concerning.
And then it's just to add to that, JP Morgan Chase has just announced that they're now
allowing their customers to I mean, they're about to allow the customers to be able to purchase cryptocurrencies using Chase credit cards and also connect their, I believe if I got the information right, connect their account with Coinbase and be able to basically freely buy and sell.
It's just that this is going to send a very strong signal to those exchanges that want to be more, act more like banks, like Kraken and all them.
They're entering the space in a very strong way and that's going to change the game.
Yeah, for sure.
We just got a couple of breaking news points.
Let me just quickly give them and then we'll get dark into this conversation as well. The first piece of breaking news is the US sanctioned
Brazilian, and this goes to your BRICS, another kind of attack on a BRICS country, but the US
sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexander de Marais. That's happened now. This
was a statement by Marco Rubio, who said, Portis and U.S. Treasury have sanctioned Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexander de Marais under the global Magnitsky sanctions program for serious human rights abuses.
Let this be a one to those who would trample on the fundamental rights of their countrymen.
fundamental rights of their countrymen judicial robes cannot protect you the irony the irony of
Judicial robes cannot protect you.
the people who are like rounding up people on the streets for having an opinion now are basically
attacking alexander dumourai which is clearly political because obviously bolsonaro is very
pro-trump and friendly with him the second um yeah same silly with the south africa side so
you're looking across the whole brick side and you're seeing it's pushing them closer and closer together.
And, you know, the attack that happened on South Africa because they're heading up the genocide case against Netanyahu.
So rates unchanged, I'm hearing.
Rates unchanged.
Rates unchanged.
So that's the other BRIC breaking news that the rates are unchanged. So that's the other big breaking news that the rates are unchanged. And the third
piece of breaking news, and I think you got, we were all expecting this right from the conversation
we had. Trump calls for Nancy Pelosi to be investigated for, this is too funny. I do find
this guy funny in content. He goes, Trump called for Nancy Pelosi to be investigated for insider
trade. Nancy Pelosi became rich by having
insider information i think that's disgraceful she has the highest return of practically anybody
in the history of wall street how did that happen i think nancy pelosi should be investigated
this is from trump who may or may not have partaken in some form of insider trading when it comes to
his meme coin although that's probably not considered insider trading when it comes to leveraging long and short before
certain political announcements were made but dark side i want to bring you in this conversation
um actually very quick quick one on that and then we'll move to dark side but even in the
even in the genius act um it was made where a congress member if they want to launch a stable
coin they um they're prohibited
but it didn't stop the president of the united states from launching a stable coin
well it was a congress and senate simon so there's anyone any politician other than the president of
the united states um and then you mentioned right he's got his own stable coin although it's not
probably doing as well uh i'm guessing he's gonna have to push that but yeah that's uh yeah for sure he's uh he's definitely looking out for number one but i guess
uh from uh from the leverage trading perspective actually dax i don't know if you can answer this
and then do answer the point about the about bitcoin as well but if like for example someone
has insider information from the president of the united States of America in terms of a certain political announcement he's going to make, and then that would impact the crypto market, and then they go longer short.
I mean, is that considered insider trading?
Oh, this is a tough question.
So material non-public information would be considered insider trading.
But insider trading cases tend to be amongst the hardest to prove.
So I guess by the definition it would be, but I think…
Let's talk. It's not a security either.
That's where I was just going to go next, right?
So how do you have insider information on property?
It's very, very difficult to try to bring that case under our system of law.
Okay, we've got some more breaking news.
I haven't tweeted this out yet. But the Pelosi Act, which bans congressional stock trading,
has just passed out of the committee 8 to 7.
So the Pelosi Act has passed the congressional hearing,
which is to ban congressional stock trading.
Dead on arrival, Sully.
Dead on arrival.
No, I don't know. I don't know if you're right i think i think the congress people in congress
are gonna be like listen we don't want to do we don't want to make money we don't want to do
insider trading of course we're gonna do the most honorable legitimate thing yeah i'll take the under
on that bad any day dark so i so, I mean, bringing the conversation back to Bitcoin,
same question to you that asked Simon.
And I guess Simon's argument is that the only way
the concerns you have with Bitcoin is removed
is if there's only Bitcoin, there isn't anything else.
I mean, what's your thoughts on this entire thing?
Because you said that you have some unique position on it.
Yeah, so my position is that Bitcoin will end up destroying the entire concept of paper Bitcoin through my thesis of the big long. markets, perps, perpetual futures, COMEX cash settled futures, IBIT, ETFs, options on the ETFs,
and then over-the-counter derivatives. We have a market that's developing that's absolutely
gigantic, a derivatives complex on an asset that was never designed to support a derivatives
complex.
And that's because Bitcoin, unlike anything else Wall Street has ever seen,
you can't print more of it and you can take delivery of it, right?
Those two characteristics make having a derivatives complex almost impossible to maintain.
So my thesis, Sully, is that in any type of a financial crisis, and you can bet sure as anything, we will have the next financial crisis. You will see institutions flock to Bitcoin
like we've never seen before, right? You will see people removing their money from the banking
system, from the banking rails by buying Bitcoin and self-custodying
that Bitcoin. And when they do that, right, that affects all of the derivatives markets
that underpin Bitcoin. Because in order to have a well-functioning derivatives market on any asset,
that asset has to be freely available to be borrowed and shorted, right? That's how hedging takes place, right?
It's not necessarily economic shorting. It's not shorting that you're betting the price is going
to go down, although that's the net effect of a short, but it's shorting as a means of hedging
volatility. It's shorting as a means of insurance against price rise or price decline. It's shorting as a means of portfolio insurance.
As Wall Street develops their traditional derivatives complex on an asset like Bitcoin,
well, wait until we have a problem and that Bitcoin gets sucked out of the market
and all of those shorts are forced to cover. You'll end up in a situation very similar to GameStop or Porsche
Volkswagen. But in both of those situations, the problem was resolved by in GameStop, they got the
company to issue $3 billion in new shares. In Volkswagen Porsche, they got Porsche to sell 5%
of their stake. But either way, there's really no one to tap on the shoulder in the case of Bitcoin other than to actually go out and start seizing the Bitcoin that belongs to corporations, Bitcoin treasury companies, exchanges.
And in reality, these exchanges and the treasury companies, while they hold a significant amount of Bitcoin, I think if you added up all of the treasury companies and corporations, they're probably significantly less than 10%.
And the exchanges don't make up enough Bitcoin to solve all this problem, at least the U.S.-based exchanges.
problem, at least the US-based exchanges. Also, I would add that the smartest institutions will
see this problem coming and begin to pull their Bitcoin from the exchanges before we get to a
full-blown crisis. So again, the entire construction of a derivatives complex on top of Bitcoin,
it's really a function of the incentive system of Wall Street where traders, derivatives traders, upstairs desks, they're all compensated based on the profits they make this quarter, this year, not based on the risk they put the firm under over a multi-year period.
So that's why we're seeing this derivatives complex explode
is because there's profits to be made in it today.
Unfortunately, similar to 08-09,
they're not taking into account the risk that they're taking.
And they know they're taking this risk.
Any derivatives trader on Wall Street understands
that you need to have a free-flowing,
available for a loan and short market to have a derivatives
complex. But they don't care. And they don't care because they're making money today and
their bonuses are being made today. And it's all a money grab, right? But ultimately,
this money grab is going to end very, very badly. And in my prediction, we see the mother of all
short squeezes. I'll call it the MOAS.
And, you know, it's going to land us in a very, very difficult spot.
And ultimately, we'll crush all of the leverage that's built into the system.
You know, I never forget, too, how Robinhood and others halted trading during that GameStop incident to try to stop the short squeeze. And with Bitcoin, if you're talking about self-custody, that would avoid that whole
thing, right? Right. But the key is to be in self-custody before it happens. Because you can
bet in any type of crisis, they will halt all withdrawals from the exchanges, right? They will
change the rules in the middle of the game. Remember, it wasn't, if you go back to 08, 09,
I mean, you want to talk about changing the rules in the middle of the game, they banned short
selling on financial securities. The largest, you know, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, the large JP
JP Morgan, you weren't allowed to short them. And if you were short them, you had to cover,
Morgan, you weren't allowed to short them. And if you were short them, you had to cover,
right? Like that's, that's how built, I mean, people forget how quick these, you know,
banksters and regulators and government actors are to change the rules in the middle of the game.
But with Bitcoin, you're dealing with an international asset, right? So there's only
so much they're going to be able to do. And you can bet that the largest institutions in the world already have their game plan
for how they're going to pull their money out of the Cayman Islands.
They're going to throw it into international exchanges, decentralized exchanges,
and they're going to take self-custody of that Bitcoin.
That is their exit strategy.
They've already practiced it.
They have contingency plans.
These operations are like small militaries. They've already practiced it. They have contingency plans. These operations are like
small militaries. They think ahead, they continue to plan, and they're ready to go.
So yeah, Bitcoin provides that exit ramp from the system and will suck all the liquidity out
of the system until the system eventually collapses. Just some more breaking news.
The first one is that Federal Reserve leaves interest rates unchanged.
And I wrote, Trump won't be happy.
But Trump had just said that he heard Fed Chair Powell will cut interest rates in September.
So I guess that conversation has happened where he told him, I can't cut it now. Maybe they'll cut it in September. So I guess that conversation has happened where he told him, I can't cut it
now. Maybe they'll cut it in September. That's probably going to keep Trump a bit more happy
with Powell, gives a chance for the market to do a lot more better. But what's your thoughts on
that dark side? I think someone mentioned it on the space earlier that they thought likely
September was going to be when the rates cut. What's your thoughts on it? I don't think it
matters. I really don't. I think the Fed's in a box. If they cut rates, the long end will probably
go higher. That becomes a self-defeating prophecy. Ultimately, I think we end up in yield curve
control. The final tool in the tool chest, the will will throw in the towel and go to the big print
and then yield curve control where they're buying the long end full qe you know the operation twist
they'll come up with new names new acronyms but it doesn't matter right it's a dying system
and eventually the system dies but dark side can i you a question? I've had a lot of these conversations
with Simon, but how does the system die when they're so reliant on the system? So, for example,
you look at Bitcoin adoption by these countries. Okay, there's countries like El Salvador
that have adopted it, but a large number of countries haven't adopted it as significantly as you would need to do that.
For example, US as well, I believe a large part, and do correct me if I'm wrong on this,
but from what my understanding, a large part of their supply is just supply they've got,
and same with UK, but UK, I know it's the case, that the large part of the supply they've got is basically when they take it off other people.
But in terms of themselves, they don't have a huge supply. So how would they
get to that situation? Well, for one thing, remember that governments are always poised
with a choice between bailing out one of two things. They can bail out their own currency,
or they can bail out their own bond markets. And 100% of the time, they choose to bail out
their bond markets at the expense of the currency, which leads to inflation. How does it end? It ends
in hyperinflation with a bond market collapse, right?
If the bond market collapses and there's no buyers of the bonds,
well, then the only buyer left is the government themselves.
We've seen this in Japan.
But if you see that in the U.S.,
with the U.S. being the reserve currency of the world, right,
who's going to want dollars?
Because when you make that move, you do it at the expense of the dollar.
Now, as far as how does the government get their hands on Bitcoin, they take it.
Right. So whether it's micro strategy, the ETFs, whether it's treasury companies, the U.S. government, and they have every ability to save themselves at the expense of others.
ability to save themselves at the expense of others.
Right.
And they will do that.
But look, can they really bail themselves out with that much Bitcoin?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
Sorry, Doc.
I didn't ask you to point in terms of microstrategy.
What do you mean that they could just take all of their Bitcoin out?
What do you mean by that point?
Sorry.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
You know, I encourage everybody to watch.
There's a gentleman by the name of David Rogers Webb.
He's written a book called The Great Taking.
It's also a video.
It's available on YouTube, Rumble.
It's an absolutely chilling description of the rules and regulations that have been put in place since the collapse of Lehman.
And the system has been constructed now for what he calls the great taking,
the ability for the DTCC, they hold all of the securities, for them to actually take the
securities in the case of a bankruptcy of the underlying broker-dealers. So as an example,
if you buy 100 shares of Apple and you use Charles Schwab as your broker-dealer, you don't own 100 shares of Apple.
What you own is a claim on 100 shares of Apple with your broker-dealer, who's Charles Schwab.
Charles Schwab, in turn, owns a claim on the DTCC that holds the 100 shares of Apple.
Apple, the DTCC is the owner of Apple. Now, post Lehman Brothers, there was a precedent-setting
The DTCC is the owner of Apple.
case between Lehman Brothers and J.P. Morgan, where the courts ruled that J.P. Morgan, being
senior to Lehman Brothers, they had the claim on the securities, not the clients of the prime
broker, Lehman Brothers. So what that really sets out, and David Rogers Webb does an incredible job
of laying this out,
that we are set up for what he calls the great taking,
the ability for the DTCC,
in the case of any type of financial calamity,
to step in and recapitalize itself
by taking those securities,
becoming the de facto owner of MicroStrategy or Apple or any other company.
So that one thesis is a great taking as to how it would happen.
There's also some of the 6102 thesis.
That was how the government seized gold back in the 30s.
Look, there's a number of ways in which they can do it.
None of them are particularly good to look forward to.
I'll say that.
But, yeah, I would encourage everybody who's listening
to go out and watch, if you don't want to read the book,
just watch.
It's about an hour and 15-minute video by David Rogers Webb,
The Great Taking.
It's on Rumble YouTube,
and it's an absolutely fantastic thesis on how this plays out.
Well, first of all, what you said is super interesting, right?
And I guess I've got a few more follow-up questions now, as you've mentioned that.
The first thing is, when you talk about the great taking in terms of the way you've laid it out,
I mean, I'm guessing there's going to be a hierarchy of how the great taking goes about.
And people with larger holdings are going to be more at risk.
First of all, how does my boy Simon protect himself?
And then the second thing is, how does an average person protect themselves?
Like, you know, if they can just take your Bitcoin, how do you ensure it's under your control?
You're not in the same situation as MicroStrategy or various others.
Do explain.
So, yeah, Simon's going to be just fine because he owns Bitcoin in self-custody.
Anybody who holds their Bitcoin in self-custody is going to be fine.
It's those that think they have exposure to Bitcoin, but they don't hold the keys.
Bitcoin is a bearer asset, meaning you can take delivery, you can own it,
and it's unconfiscatable. So ultimately, Bitcoin is an asset of love, right? It demonetizes war.
But you need to hold it in self-custody. If you're leaving it at an exchange, or you own
MicroStrategy, or you own Ibit, you just realize you don't own Bitcoin, right? You own
exposure to Bitcoin price. And that's fiat exposure. But if the fiat system collapses,
if you wake up one morning and they tell you, oh, let's just use the global hack.
The banks have been hacked, right? And we can't open the banks. We're going to have a bank holiday
for five days. That's one possibility of how it starts.
Right. And then where do we go from there? Right. We end up in the great taking. Look,
I encourage everybody to watch that video and then use your own imagination of how it plays out.
But, you know, it certainly seems logical to me that we're going to go down some type of road where we have a banking system collapse.
And the reaction of the state is not going to be what people expect it to be.
The reaction of the state is going to be to save itself at the expense of the citizens.
And Bitcoin enables you and I and every other citizen to protect themselves against the state.
Bitcoin is separation of money and state.
That's the ultimate goal.
That's why I'm not in favor of the government buying Bitcoin.
I'm in favor of us buying Bitcoin.
So let me ask you this, Dark.
If we're talking confiscation and you're holding your Bitcoin in self-custody, cold storage.
Okay.
You have your keys.
Nobody has access to it.
I could agree if it was sitting on an exchange, yeah, or IBIT or whatever, it would make it
so much easier for them to just take it from you.
But you having it in self-custody, it might make it a little more difficult, but they'll
know you have it.
And if they can take your keys, they can take your you have it and if they can take your keys they can take your bitcoin sure but they can take your freedom if they know you have it they can force
you to turn it over it's not because you have your keys and and and you would basically resist
turning over your keys that you know nowadays i mean we especially here in the states or in any
western country you're leaving traces behind when you're buying it. We're not hiding our Bitcoin purchases.
We're not buying it peer-to-peer or like in the UAE at an OTC desk.
We're buying it on exchanges.
We're going through KYC.
And they know that we have what we have in Bitcoin.
And as I said earlier, they could take your freedom away
until you turn over your Bitcoin.
That's a great point. But there's 300 million of us and there's 635 of them.
So I'll bet on the 300 million. I mean, come out here to Northern Montana and try to take
people's Bitcoin. You're going to get shot up pretty good. It just depends i i understand that that that line of thinking
but please realize there are 300 plus million of us and there's really 635 of them and i think in
the end the 300 million win i'll give a couple of additions there as well um and by the way
just thinking about what you would do in these scenarios even if they never happen
is kind of the right way to think.
Because you don't want these things to happen, but you can't prepare for them when they do happen.
So I don't want to turn everyone into paranoid wrecks, but great investors are preparing years ahead for things that may never happen.
for things that may never happen. And that's kind of the thinking.
And that's kind of the thinking.
And even if you do this and you learn how to own Bitcoin in self-custody
and you prepare for this scenario, even if it doesn't happen, you'll do great.
So, you know, that's kind of like the why to think of these types of things.
But I'll add a couple of things.
So firstly, we do have a case study from the 1930s of the government, which is not the perfect parallel, but the US government was the only government I'm aware of in the world that made gold ownership illegal because they had to meet their gold obligations against their Federal Reserve notes.
their Federal Reserve notes. And so by executive order, they said that everybody that owns gold
must exchange it for approximately $20 of Federal Reserve notes.
Now, imagine you're in that scenario right now and you say, hold on, I've got my Bitcoin stack
in self-custody. I'm going to be able to leave the country now if I choose, if that's what you want
to do. And so your first scenario is you can take all your Bitcoin value over the borders. It's not
like a stack of gold. There's no counterparty. There's no one that can automatically confiscate
it in self-custody. So I think you're maximum protected
for that scenario if they ever said. And the more likely scenario is they would say,
you give us your Bitcoin and we'll give you this stable coin or we'll give you this central bank
digital currency. And it may create a taxable event. But if we are to use what's happened in the past, which is the 1930s with
gold, you just simply have to exchange. Firstly, you'd have to voluntarily do it, which is kind of
like a war on drugs scenario, a mission that's going to fail. But they could use violence in
order to force you to give up your private key. And they'd have to do that.
That's kind of like the mass deportations.
They'd hire ICE to do something like that.
And as Dark said, the more people that own Bitcoin,
the more impractical that scenario becomes.
And so they'd have to actually stop you from leaving the country.
They'd have to implement a structure for forced confiscation
of assets that you hold, which involves co-opting and ransoming you to give up your private
key. And most likely they would give you a tax-free exchange for a stablecoin and central
bank digital currency, at which point you'd end up probably buying it back, or you'd end up leaving the country with your private key never to return again.
So personally, I believe that owning Bitcoin in self-custody is the maximum level of protection one could have.
Try leaving the border with your wealth in gold and see what happens to you.
and see what happens to you.
Great point, Simon.
Great point, Simon.
And also, just going back to the 6102 on gold,
it was relatively unsuccessful.
There were some high-profile cases where they took people's gold.
There were people that voluntarily turned in their gold.
But for the most part, people kept their gold.
They didn't care, and life went on.
I think that you point out this exchange for a stable coin, the CDBC,
that is David Roger Webb thesis in The Great Taking. By the way, I put The Great Taking up
in the nest. So anybody who wants to go ahead and watch it, just bookmark that and give it a view.
It's an absolutely amazing piece. And I'll just add that I met David Rogers Webb back in early 2000s.
He was a client of ours when he was at Chaker Heights Capital.
He's one of the most down-to-earth, level-headed, calm, genuine human beings I've ever met.
He has no agenda.
I think he's currently living on a farm in Sweden.
He's kind of opted out of the system.
I think he's an extreme visionary.
So I'd encourage everybody to give that a view again it's up in the nest yeah guys do check that out um for sure books uh jump in
i mean as far as like this topic goes i don't't really have much to say, but as far as the Fed
rate, I think, uh, I think we're looking to be lined up for a good, uh, third and fourth quarter.
So what I mean by that is a lot of people are predicting that during the third and fourth
quarter, we're going to see a market pump for whatever reason. Now, if you factor in the Fed rates getting lower,
let's just say we see a quarter, half a point in September,
a quarter, half a point in October,
and then a quarter, half a point in November.
By the middle to end of November,
we're going to be in great shape as far as the market goes.
Now, I don't know if Trump and Jerome Powell
are playing some sort of game with us,
but it sure seems like that.
It sure seems like that.
I feel like this is insider trading in a way
where Trump's kids have been cleaning house with crypto.
Forget about Trump's crypto token.
If we look at Ethereum, if we look at the market and how they've been
Accumulating a whole lot with that whole word world Liberty financial situation. I
Think it's I think it's looking like we're gonna see a bloody August and then the end of this year is gonna be pretty crazy for the market
I'll keep him keep in mind that Q4, we get the TGA rebalancing, which is supposed to pull, I think, over a
trillion dollars in liquidity.
And that should affect the market in a negative way. I'm pretty sure digital assets as well as the overall market
are going to have a tough time in Q4. I mean, I think liquidity getting
a trillion dollars in liquidity getting pulled from the crypto market,
I mean, that would cause a whole lot of issues with certain exchanges that hold a lot of crypto.
And I mean, seeing something like that happen,
it's I think a lot more far-fetched.
Do I think it's possible? Sure.
But I think it's a lot more far-fetched
than us seeing rates cut over September, October, or November
and seeing the market rally.
I mean, if we're able to hold strong throughout August
and early September, I mean, that's going to be the telltale sign of what's really going to happen
when rates start getting cut. Because rates do eventually need to get cut, right? I mean,
if they didn't do it this year so far and they start doing it towards Q3 and Q4,
I mean, the market's definitely going to rally, man. I don't see liquidity really leaving during that time.
If anything's going to happen, it's going to happen in August,
December, January, definitely not during those three months I mentioned.
Well, Trump did come out with a statement saying that he believed that
Powell has given indications that he will cut rates in September.
So Trump's already made that statement.
But also, if everyone thinks that's what's going to happen, it won't have any impact on markets at all.
It's only when he does something different to what people expect.
That's probably the reason he's done it though right he's probably thought
like let me say that so it gets uh it's you know it gets put put into the into the into the rates
of the market the way the market's going as well as the crypto market yeah the people
sorry go ahead yeah the fed has lost control um at these levels of debt and trade surpluses.
Like the Fed does not have the significant power in this market at the moment,
unless it wants to do something radical.
But in this moment, it's kind of a theatre.
I just think him cutting rates, it's just a nothing burger.
Everything's factored into the market that Trump is doing fiscal dominance.
He's increased the debt ceiling by $5 trillion.
He's stimulating a war economy.
It's massive subsidies for large corporations.
subsidies for large corporations and there's going to be the impact of you
know how how America adjusts to these these tariffs and so I think reducing
rates slightly just is meaningless this is this market pump from here until like
something breaks.
I think it's Lynn Alden that always says nothing stops this train.
She was dead right.
Nothing stops this train until something stops this train.
I mean, I don't think that during the actual Fed meetings,
like when they cut rates, increase some or keep them the same.
I mean, during that time,
it's like what you see happens to the market always,
if it's going to pump because of rate cuts,
it's going to pump due to suspicions
or predictions of rate cuts leading up to it
over a week or a couple days or whatever.
But during the actual them cutting it,
I mean, we even see market pullback at times.
We haven't seen rate cuts in a while
to really say what's going to happen now
but we also we have to factor in that this time around trump is president right you've got someone
that's supposedly pro crypto as president so i do feel like it's a little bit different than
the last uh four years when it comes to crypto but we'll see i don't know i feel like i'm sorry
you were talking about crypto market right sorry i was
talking about i was talking about trade market yeah i mean crypto market i mean trump yeah trump
wants these well he wants america to be the center of crypto so where they're going to try and do as
much as they possibly can for the crypto market i don't think anything reverses out under trump he's been buying i mean if you
look at the um uh world liberty financial they've been buying a lot of a ethereum whenever it drops
a lot of bitcoin whenever it drops so they've literally positioned themselves to um to really
uh you know it'll be in their benefit for the market to do well right simon but then
in addition to that if you look at trump trump doesn't care about anything so there's like
he's not he's not simon and his he's not simon who has love with bitcoin and he's gonna hold it
for like forever trump is the type of guy who will literally sell on everyone so what so there's two
questions in that what's your thoughts uh i
don't i don't think so i think um firstly it's trump's family um i don't think trump fully
understands bitcoin but his children certainly do uh eric trump and donald trump um they they get
bitcoin um they trump knows the challenge that the Trump administration has with the dollar.
And if you look at BlackRock, they've made two big plays.
They want as much Bitcoin as possible.
I believe they were deeply integrated with Operation Chokepoint 2.0 in order to crash a market, launch an ETF,
and try and persuade as many people to have distrust in,
you know, traditional players and trust in the ETF. They wiped out all the banks that were
supporting the crypto exchanges. And they're now applying with the SEC to stake all of their ETH
in the ETH ETF, which means that they're going to actually have significant governance control
over the Ethereum protocol.
So I've got, Simon, I've got like a whole conspiracy theory, man,
where I feel like they're trying to push Vitalik out and take over ETH.
Like the Trump family wants Ethereum pretty much.
Like they want to be the Vitalik or the satoshi nakamoto of each which
i don't i don't think is easy to do but it does feel that way because they're not working with
them they don't speak highly of them and it's a very weird situation if you ask it yeah i think
um i think there's definitely going to be a control layer over proof of stake in general
and i think ethereum with these eth Ethereum ETFs as well as World Liberty
Financial like I think there's going to be a power play to make sure that the governance is
controlled in in the hands of a few there's and staking is the perfect mechanism for that and
you know BlackRock got all in preparation for what I believe is this tariff, the tariff policy, BlackRock got all of
their clients into Bitcoin ETFs. So they got, you know, they got, they were out pitching Bitcoin
like absolutely crazy to all of their clients. They now got through the ETF 650,000 Bitcoin.
It's not enough to be concerned about. 74% of all Bitcoin is still held by long-term
holders. 70% is held outside the Satoshi wallet exchanges and the large wallets that are
identifiable. So it's all looking, it's still very good, but there's no doubt about it in my mind that BlackRock wants to own as much Bitcoin as possible
for them and their clients.
And I invested in a company a while back called Securitize,
and then they ended up creating the tokenized BlackRock biddle
and that's all based upon Ethereum and
multi-chains so it looks like all of these stablecoins and real world
assets they're kind of I don't know whether it's going to be an Ethereum play or
they're just going to do what they do in stablecoins or it's kind of chain agnostic
but I think you know there's no doubt that BlackRock
really wants to usher in this
dystopian, tokenized,
programmable, stablecoin,
Palantir integrated,
Elon social credit score
type of dystopian 1984.
And I think he's going to do that
with proof of stake.
Certainly proof of work protects you from that as well.
I appreciate that, Simon.
Just some more breaking news
and I do have a question for either you or Dak or Dennis on that.
It says, and the breaking news is this,
that two Fed governors broke rank.
The Federal Reserve said today is leaving its benchmark lending rate at the range of 4.25 to 4.5%.
But the decision was not unanimous for the first time since 1993.
Fed Governor Christopher Waller and Fed Vice Chair Michelle Baumann cast dissenting votes
for the first, making the first time that more than one
Fed governor has dissented since 1993. They preferred a quarter point rate code instead.
The division among policymakers underscores the extraordinary and uncomfortable moment
the Fed is in. Central bankers want to wait a while longer for additional data to see how the US economy is doing during Trump's trade war.
But they're facing repeated attacks from the White House because they're of the wait and see strategy.
So Dark Side of Simon or even Dennis, whoever can explain that, like, what is it?
So basically the breaking news is saying that we've not had dissenting voices before.
How many people vote on this what happens and when
it comes to this decision and then what does that tell us in terms of these kind of dissenting voices
coming out and being the first time in what is it like 22 years 32 years
uh i don't i don't read too much into it but um essentially the way that it works is the Fed is owned by the regional feds, as it were, and there's 12 of them.
And in each of those 12 regional banks are owned by the banks, the commercial banks, the ones that have accounts at the Federal Reserve.
So personally, I believe that the FOMC meeting is the banks tell the regional bank chairman what they'd like to happen for their bank.
And then the regionals then go up to the chairperson and they sit around the table once.
And Jerome Powell is just a puppet for communicating what the banks want to happen.
what the banks want to happen.
And so if there's any dissent there,
then there may be competing agendas.
And let me put a few theories out there.
JP Morgan has pretty much been really involved
in the Genius Act, which is the Stablecoin Act.
This allows banks to launch stablecoins
based upon their bank account at the Federal Reserve, which is worth about $3.5 trillion.
JP Morgan's already got some of these tokenized stablecoin wholesale assets.
Also, there was lobby pressure in order to allow for the paying of yield to be exclusive on these stablecoins just to banks,
and non-banks couldn't do it.
So maybe there's a bit of a power struggle with the banks that are more supportive of the technical,
the tech bros and the stablecoins.
Maybe there's some kind of dissent there.
Maybe they're trying to pull in some more favors from Trump
get him his interest rate cut
in order to
get some more favorable terms
around these stablecoins
all speculation and conspiracy theories
but I don't read too much
into it
real quick before we
I don't know if anyone here
has heard random people on X or in spaces, say emergency Fed meeting, this is, in my opinion,? Because we don't really normally see that happen. So there's
a chance between now and September 17th, which is the next Fed, we see an emergency Fed meeting.
It's more highly likely now due to this than it's ever been.
Could be a power play as well, right? Around who's going to be the next Fed chair. Someone
could be pulling in something for Trump. Yeah, for sure. Just more breaking news.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell says we have not made no decision about September.
I guess he's going to have to say that he's not going to make it look like a decision for September has already been made when he's not made the decision now.
So that makes a lot of sense.
Cap, you sent me a message about the.
Is it the S digital asset?
Uh, so Bitcoin strategic reserve, what was the,
what was the point you were making there?
Cap.
Okay, cool. Uh, Web3, you got your hand up. Go ahead, jump in.
No, I wanted to respond to something earlier that you guys were talking about with the bills that were recently passed.
And I kind of wanted to go back and forth on that.
But that conversation has kind of already left the station.
So I'm going to just keep quiet here.
Let the convo keep going and jump in where I feel like it adds some value.
Appreciate it. Appreciate it.
And actually, I know now what he's um what he's sent because i was
just checking the news and it is uh the white house released their official digital asset report
and and essentially the framework is the reserve and the stockpile will be administrate
administrated by the treasury uh okay let me read that from the beginning. Okay, yeah, it's about the big
strategic reserve and the framework of it is that the reserve and the stockpile will be
administrated by the Treasury, which will establish an office to administer and maintain control of
the associated custodial accounts. The reserve and the stockpile will be capitalized by forfeited digital assets. In other
words, digital assets owned by the US government. However, forfeited digital assets need to satisfy
statutory objectives will continue to be used for these objectives, including to compensate
identifiable and verifiable victims of crime to support law enforcement operations to be
equitably shared with state and law enforcement partners and to fulfill other statutory forfeiture
program requirements. So basically what they're saying is when the US government seizes Bitcoin
assets, they are going to try and give it back to people if they have been a victim of that crime rather than keep it.
The Bitcoin in the reserve will generally not be sold, generally not be sold.
So it doesn't say definitely.
And will be maintained as a reserve asset of the United States,
utilized to meet governmental objectives in accordance with the applicable law.
Treasury and commerce will develop strategies that could be used to acquire additional Bitcoin for the reserve in a way that a budget that in ways that are budget neutral and do not impose incremental costs on U.S.
taxpayers. Custody will be studied by Treasury and commerce in order to safeguard the assets of the United States of America.
So, Simon, that seems like a good thing, right?
You basically he's saying that he's going they're gonna endeavor to try and buy so most
bitcoin uh there's there's nothing new there so um what what that all means is basically
um america allegedly but unaudited owns 220 000 bitcoin um that were from mainly seizures from silk road um but also 119 000 of them belong
to a company called bitfinex which full disclosure i'm a shareholder in um and um those uh
the recently someone did a freedom of information request.
And the data looked like they only had 28,000 Bitcoin left.
And so then we looked on chain and I happen to know the wallet addresses where the hacked Bitcoin from 2016 that belonged to Bitfinex were.
And they're still on the wallet after being received from the DOJ.
And the Department of Justice has confirmed in court that they belong back to Bitfinex.
And so all this to say is that it's not clear how many Bitcoin the US government owns.
And it needs to be clarified. And then this report has come out today saying that all Bitcoin will be
returned to those that it rightfully belongs to, but the rest will be held in Treasury, which is
significant, by the way, holding it in Treasury rather than the Federal Reserve means that the
government is building a strategic reserve. And a lot of Trump's promise was around auditing Fort Knox
to find out how much gold the Treasury belongs. And there's questions, I believe, that the Federal
Reserve has stolen all of America's gold, or they've written contracts against it, and both
the Fed and Treasury believe that they own it. But the Fed, as I said, is a is a private company owned by banks.
And so there's that controversy anyway. So all this to say is that we're not sure how much Bitcoin
the US government owns, but they are able to purchase it on a tax neutral way. What that
means is that they can't like print money uh put it in a big
beautiful bill and say hey we're gonna use taxpayers money or inflation money printing
in order to buy some bitcoin what they can do is they can take some of their existing assets like
their gold reserves um and some people one of the proposals that that Cynthia Lummis put forward in the Bitcoin Act was to take the gold that allegedly that would need an audit because we're not sure that the US government owns and stores in Fort Knox.
Assuming it's theirs, the last time it was priced, it was priced at $42, but gold's worth approximately $3,400 today. So you could reprice the gold and then you could use those funds
through an accounting trick
in order to acquire Bitcoin.
But they would obviously have to do that
in a way where they don't really announce it
to the market
because you'd get the worst price possible.
So it's a very complicated thing to execute the US Bitcoin strategic reserve.
I'm not sure if anyone else has a dissenting opinion.
I personally am not sure whether they're actually going to end up buying any.
And the whole thing might just be front running for all of the players that want to buy the Bitcoin.
And I'm not sure what they're actually going to do in the end um but there's nothing new in that
announcement everything that was reported there was previously known and i guess the market
the bitcoin market hasn't moved because there's no new information there. There's nothing that changes.
Yeah, let me bring in some precisions and some clarity on what Simon just said.
So the whole idea to purchase Bitcoin on a budget neutral strategy came out initially
from Bo Hines, who simply said that we're exploring ideas to purchase
Bitcoin using budget neutral strategies.
And that's it.
That's all he said.
Then a few hours later on X, a bunch of people came out and started floating the idea that
the US government is going to be able to buy Bitcoin using budget neutral strategies to
bypass Congress, which is false.
This is not what Bullhine said.
This is not what anyone from the Trump administration has said.
The reason he said budget-neutral strategy is basically to specify
that it's going to be at no cost to taxpayers.
That's about it.
Now, even when you obtain some sort of revenue
through budget neutral strategies the revenue from that sell is going to flow into the the
u.s treasury and then in order for you to bring it back out of the treasury it's going to require
uh congressional approval so we have to make sure we understand that the U.S. government cannot buy any Bitcoin without Congress.
So the whole idea that they're being silent, I've been seeing it on X all day today.
The report is not talking about Bitcoin because they don't want anybody to front run them.
They're probably already buying.
They might be buying.
It's not possible because it has to be made public because they have to go through Congress. It can be done in a secret way. And unfortunately, there's not much support within
Congress to get that bill through. And even Cynthia Lummis has been holding onto that bill for
over a year now because she knows there is no support. And she said it openly. It's going to
be very tough. So she's lobbying. She's trying hard hard But I think in the senate there's Barely 12 or 13 senators that
Openly support it
Yep that's it
Yeah that makes a lot of sense
Guys first of all
What an awesome space I appreciate every single
Person who came in the space Darkside
Omar, Simon, Early Red, Ennis Rob or quite a few what an awesome space i appreciate every single person who came in the space dark side omar simon
earlier ennis um rob quite a few other was it rob i forgot his name anyway quite a few people came
they really gave a huge amount of knowledge and information it's been really helpful i think to a
lot of people um so i appreciate every single one of you contributing thanks to books for co-hosting
the space as well we are going to be wrapping up here. I think we've been going for a couple of hours. I'll be back as per usual
on my normal political space tonight
between 5 to 6 p.m. Eastern.
That's when we'll start.
And then other than that,
yeah, well, we are going to do another space.
Likely it's going to be,
we'll give you information.
It's likely going to be Thursday, Friday or Monday.
We'll decide when it's going to be.
But yeah, I appreciate every single person coming in
and I hope you've learned a lot
and I really appreciate the speakers and the listeners
and every single person who contribute to the space.
Thank you so much.
Any last comments, Bucks?
I'm good.
Amazing space today, man.
I had a good time and got a lot of good information.
For reals, for reals.
I appreciate every single one of you.
Right, guys, we are wrapping up there so
appreciate you guys joining in appreciate you guys listening and for sure we will see you
next time thank you thank you
