Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Honest Money Show is your guide to understanding what money really is, and where Bitcoin fits in. Hosted by Anja Dragovic, Australia's female-led, Bitcoin-only podcast, it cuts through the noise to explore how money shapes our lives, why the current system leaves so many people behind, and what a clearer, fairer future could look like.
Expect honest, accessible conversations with some of the most interesting thinkers in the space, the kind that take you from "I don't really get this" to genuinely curious. No hype, no pressure, just money, made clear.
Whether you're brand new to these questions or already deep in them, you're welcome here.
Reality doesn't care what you believe.
Reality doesn't care what you think.
Reality is just going to continue to prove these naysayers wrong,
cycle after cycle, after cycle.
You may as well be trying to scream at a rhinoceros.
You really are marking yourself out
as an incredibly clueless and ignorant person.
Welcome back to the show, John. Great to
be back. Thanks for having me, Anja. Well,
today we're doing a very special episode
that was inspired by the tweets I had with
Gerard Rennick on Twitter and realized
that he doesn't understand Bitcoin very
well, which is not going to be of a
surprise to anyone listening. But if some
of you I knew, this is a great reminder
not to feel bad if you don't fully
understand it because ex-senators don't
understand it either. And I had a quick
look online. Gerard actually finished a
Bachelor of Commerce, a Master in Taxation
Law and a Master of Applied Finance. So I
think he understands capital markets
really well, but obviously not Bitcoin. So
maybe let's start with the tweet where he
basically described Bitcoin as unsecured
credit, saying that it's not backed by
hard assets. Well, before we get into that
one, Anja, it's perhaps worth making
mention of something you mentioned there.
You mentioned the former Senator Rennick's
educational background. And one of the
biggest problems with getting people to
understand Bitcoin is getting them to
unlearn a lot of the stuff that simply
only pertains in the fiat economy and
doesn't actually apply to Bitcoin. So
those sorts of people are actually trying,
like, you know, you may as well be trying
to scream at a rhinocerosite because
you're trying to get over 50 years worth
of fiat malincentives and misinformation
and nonsense because they can't seem to
ever get, they can't get out of the
paradigm that they're stuck in. They are
looking at everything that comes past
through the lens of the only educational
paradigm they've known, the only financial
paradigm, rather, that they've known. And
so therefore, when you get at a completely
new paradigm like Bitcoin coming in, it
simply makes no sense if you apply the
rules of a completely different system to
it. By the way, this isn't something that
happens just inside money, or in this
case, between Bitcoin and the legacy fiat
system. It's been a characteristic of
scientific revolutions for centuries. If
you, for example, tried to understand
relativity through the lens of someone who
was only equipped with Newtonian physics,
that wouldn't make much sense either. And
so what ends up happening is a scientific
revolution comes about where the old
rules, the old scientific paradigm, no
longer adequately describes the new
reality. And so eventually enough people
come around to the newer ideas, and these
newer ideas not only encompass everything
that the original system accurately
described, but also takes into account the
information. So, and I strongly believe,
and as do many Bitcoiners believe, is that
Bitcoin is genuinely a new financial
paradigm. I know that that expression is
often used, particularly in the context of
financial bubbles. A lot of people are
always thinking that whatever their new
idea is, is a new paradigm, and it is a
bit of a meme. And 99% of the time,
whenever someone actually does claim to
have a new paradigm, it isn't. The old
system was actually the better way of
describing it. However, I think that over
the course of the many explanations that
have been given for Bitcoin over its 18
-year history, it's demonstrated a
genuinely new way of doing money that not
only wasn't possible before, I've said
this many times, not only wasn't possible
before, but was even thought to be
impossible before, until Satoshi just
released the software, and it was working.
And it has worked every day, 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, without any
downtime, except for, I think, one very
small inflation bug that occurred within
the first one or two years of its
existence, that was rapidly patched, it
has not had any downtime whatsoever in all
of that time. And so I think that's made a
sufficient, a very strong demonstration
anyway, of the fact that this genuinely is
a new paradigm. So back to Senator
Rennick. He is still looking at it,
encumbered with 50 years of legacy fiat
institutional information that simply
doesn't apply here. And more than that,
I'm not even convinced that he is applying
that in a particularly rigorous way
either. I, although I and a lot of people
on this side, in Bitcoin particularly,
agree with a lot of Senator Rennick's
stances on a lot of other social issues, I
haven't found his exposition of those
issues particularly convincing. If I were
a sceptic of some of the issues he stands
for, I would actually find his, what's
the word I'm looking for here, his
advocacy for those issues a turn-off,
rather than actually, rather than an
argument for them. The way he actually
expresses it very often, is sometimes
appear to be some of the dumbest straw
arguments for the position that we hold
that there are, such that if, yeah, if we
were opponents of it, we'd actually be
pointing and laughing at our side. So I
think we have to bear that in mind as
well. Let's not be too enthusiastic about
a particular individual and what they're
saying, just because they happen to agree
or be generally on our side of the
political spectrum. And so I fear that
even if we did have someone like Gerard
Rennick embracing Bitcoin, the arguments
he might end up using to defend Bitcoin,
if he were doing that, may actually end up
embarrassing us by being poor arguments
that end up doing more harm than good.
we're live, but live-ish. Okay. So let's
come back to the statement that Gerard
Rennick made, because I feel like we need
to deconstruct it. There was a few things
going on in that state, but where I felt
were wrong. So first of all, he called it
an unsecured credit. He said to me that he
believes in secure credit as opposed to
unsecure credit. And the second part of
the argument was that Bitcoin is not
backed by hard assets. So where my mind
goes is I want to pick apart him calling
it an asset, first of all, which is a
typical view that some people have. Think
of it that it is just an asset class. Um,
and that's all that it is. The second part
is, yeah, that the whole credit, it's not
even credit, but yeah, maybe over to you.
The first part you mentioned there was the
idea that it's somehow unsecured credit.
Well, it isn't credit at all. Um, the, it
is a bearer asset. So it is an asset in
that respect, but it's a bearer asset.
It's not credit. Um, so if you own the
keys to your Bitcoin, that is the asset.
Unlike something like gold, whereby most
people don't physically hold gold because
that's very cumbersome to do and even more
cumbersome to actually transact in. So in
that instance, people then end up having a
paper instrument that then is backed by
gold that you're promised is, uh, is in
some vault somewhere. And so a paper
instrument like that needs to be backed by
something because the paper instrument is
literally just that paper. Bitcoin on the
other hand, again, and this goes back to
what I mentioned before about this idea of
the paradigms in his paradigm. Everything
needs to have a backing because something
like Bitcoin where the actual monetary
asset and the information are one in the
same never existed before. And as I said,
it wasn't even thought possible because
the normal concept people have of
information is that it can be easily
copied. If my money now is just a string
of digits, just a code, well, then
couldn't I copy that string of digits and
then, you know, and then just keep
spending it? Well, no. The nature of the
system is set up such that although the
information can be copied many times, it
can only be spent the one time. And the
information therefore must be, if you're,
if it's your bearer asset, you need to
keep that information secret. So, so long
as you and only you know this information,
then you and only you own that information
and therefore you and only you can spend
that information. And so that means, and
this is why it's very, very important to
understand this because every other thing,
particularly even other things that are
sort of loosely related to Bitcoin, like
blockchain related things whereby, you
know, there's talk of securing assets,
it's tokenizing assets and putting them on
the blockchain. They are nothing actually
like Bitcoin at all, except for the fact
that they share a particular idiosyncratic
data structure that makes, that is part of
the way Bitcoin works. Because in all of
those other things, the information that's
stored on the blockchain and the actual
thing that's valuable are separate. But
with Bitcoin, it's one and the same. So
this whole idea of credit, this whole idea
of, of, of counterparty risk and IOUs and
any of this sort of stuff is, doesn't
matter. It, it, it's, it's not relevant to
it. And so the whole digital credit
argument is nonsense because it's not,
it's not credit for all of the reasons
I've just mentioned. Um, now to move to
the next thing, um, was the, I believe
what you mentioned intrinsic value. Uh,
intrinsic value is a, uh, something that
is never fails to be brought up. It's
been, it's, it's often, I think it's the,
uh, it's the, it's some, it's, it's the
most common objection we get. And, uh,
really it's the one that's the most easy
to deal with, but, um, I will hopefully
try to deal with it in a couple of
different ways, maybe in a way that some
of your listeners haven't heard before.
The first argument, the first way of
dealing with this is to dissolve the
question altogether and to suggest that
there's no such thing as intrinsic value.
All value is relative. Uh, water isn't
particularly valuable when it exists in
abundance and you, you know, you, you live
near a dam. Uh, you can, yeah, there's
more than enough of it. You're not going
to pay very much for it. But to a thirsty
man dying in the desert, water is worth
more than all of the gold bars in the
world. So all value, this, so this idea of
somehow having intrinsic value, it really
isn't a thing. All value is essentially
extrinsic. It's relative. It's, it's
imputed to it depending on the needs of
the, of the people, um, that, that, uh,
either want it or don't want it.
Boitcoin, you could argue, because just
because something is immaterial, doesn't
necessarily mean that it doesn't have any
intrinsic value. Um, it also has value,
but as a, because of its monetary
properties. So there's that alone. That's
in fact, that's the only, because of what
it is, it's only money. It's not actually
meant to be a thing. It's a thing meant to
express value, not actually have any
intrinsic value. As I said, if that's even
a thing, which I've just disputed. But if,
if you want to go down the route of
insisting that something has to have
intrinsic value, the very monetary
properties of Bitcoin itself are its
intrinsic value. But what I would
therefore, but what, but rather than sort
of take that line, I'd go one step further
and say, forget about all the intrinsic
value stuff. What gives, why Bitcoin is
the price that it is, is because of a
thing called monetary premium. And most of
gold's value, since that seems to be the,
the, uh, the most common thing that it's
compared against when people are
discussing the idea of a store of value,
most of gold's price or value, as it were,
is also monetary premium. Now there's a
certain amount of gold. If you look at
the, the percentages of where gold is used
in the world, a certain percentage is used
in electronics. That's its most, actually
its most useful thing. It's electronics,
um, and, uh, and, and related technical
things, which is a relatively small
slither of the supply. Uh, then the rest
of it is then the next one would be
adornments, jewelry, that sort of thing.
Um, just making things look pretty. Um,
and that again, even that only comes about
because people have already placed the
monetary premium on it. It's kind of like
a flex, but the rest of it is essentially
monetary premium. And, and because what,
and what do people do? We've got this
process whereby we're digging all of this
stuff out of the ground at great expense
and potentially in some countries where
it's not well regulated, tremendous
environmental damage. And what do we do?
We put it straight back under the ground
again, inside vaults. So if you started
off with that as a way of doing money and
storing wealth, it sounds pretty silly
when you put it that way. Um, now what
Bitcoin goes is it just goes one step
further. If you're already going to have
your money where the majority of its value
is imputed to it due to monetary premium,
rather than its intrinsic value or use
case or its practical use cases other than
money, then why not just go the whole way?
And in fact, I want to extend this idea.
And as others have in the past in that
actually extending it the whole way
actually makes it even better money.
Idealized money actually should have no
intrinsic value. It should have no other
use cases. And the reason for that it is,
is because it provides, it allows what's
called a better stock to flow ratio. Take
for example, something like platinum.
Platinum is actually much more rare than
gold and much more valuable. So why don't
we use what? Surely then that is an
improvement on gold in terms of many of
the aspects of, uh, of what makes sound
money yet we don't use it as money. And
the good, and the reason for that is, is
because it has a very, what's called a
very poor stock to flow ratio. And just
quickly, what is stock to flow ratio? That
is the ratio between the amount of the
asset that's already in existence compared
to the new amount of it that is brought
into existence every year. And the stock
to flow ratio of platinum is something
like 50%, I believe, in terms of all the
platinum on hand at any one time that's
sitting in vaults, about 50% more than
that gets mined every year. And that's
because platinum is actually useful in a
whole bunch of other things compared to
the amount of it that exists. So the stock
to flow ratio is very, very poor for
platinum. Now you take something like
Bitcoin where it has no other competing
uses, the entire supply of Bitcoin can
build up in its stock and therefore the
flow. And then on top of that, the flow is
actually diminishing every four years. The
flow is not only, uh, not like gold where
it can be actually increased if gold gets
more valuable, but actually no matter how
valuable Bitcoin gets, the issuance rate
of Bitcoin drops every four years. So it
has a better stock to flow ratio precisely
because it's not competing or it's not
having its stock diminished by its, by its
non-use, the uses of it other than money.
Yeah. There's one other big reason why
having no other use cases for it other
than money makes the perfect monetary
asset. And that is, is if the price of,
let's take the price of, let's look at
what, let's take the Australian example.
What most, the reason for the housing
bubble and the housing unaffordability in,
in Australia is because really what most
people, when investors are buying a house,
what they're really buying isn't so much a
house, but they're invite, they're buying
somewhere to store capital that will grow
at least as fast as the lack, the loss in
purchasing power of their money is. And so
the loss of purchasing power of your
dollar is being most accurately and
strongly expressed in the price of real
estate. And so by buying real estate, what
you're doing is you're sort of locking it
in and keeping up with that. And so
therefore, in a way, people are actually
using real estate as a store of value and
therefore as that part of their use of
money. The problem is with this though,
when people start using things that people
need for other, for their original
intended purpose as money, it drives the
price of those things up. It hurts people.
Even if the, even if we had a situation
whereby the price of gold went
skyrocketing because people started to
store their wealth in that, that would
hurt people. It would hurt, it would, it
would cause the cost of electronics to
skyrocket. And anything that actually
needs to use gold as an essential part of
its, of its process, of its, of its
composition. So, so anything at all that
has some kind of intrinsic value or has
some other use case hurts people when
people start competing with that or
competing for that rather to use it as
money. So again, Bitcoin has none of that.
It can literally, there is no price of
Bitcoin that is more absurd or less absurd
than any other price because the price of
it is purely a reflection of how much
economic potential energy a large group of
people have decided to store in it. And
we're talking millions of people now.
We're not talking anymore about a fringe
group of cypherpunk nerds, um, geeking out
over, you know, over their computers or
their phones or whatever. This is, this is
now a major, becoming a major pillar of
the international economy. It's a, it's a,
it's a $1 trillion plus asset. Um, at one
point we're, we're a little bit down from,
from the, from the, the highest, uh,
amounts of economic potential energy
that's been stored in Bitcoin. But we are
now in the top sort of 10 or 20, uh,
assets in the world. I think at one point
we, we'd, um. We're six or seven. Yeah.
Six. I think we'd eclipse silver. I think
we were about to, to bump out Saudi Armco,
the big oil, one of the world's largest
oil producers for, uh, purely on, uh, on
market cap. So, um, and, and that's the
thing. And that can, there's no limit to
how much that can grow because it doesn't
actually hurt anybody. If there's no
negative repercussions, the bigger that
goes. It's in fact, there's only positive
repercussions because what happens is, is
it, as people see that they realize, yeah,
why am I using something like real estate
to store my money, to store my wealth? Or
why am I using, you know, any other thing
for that matter that's, that drives the
price up of those things for those people
that just want to use it as a roof over
their head. So this can really lead to a
really positive outcome and a real, um,
if, if, if we can get this idea to sort of
really catch on. And I think we still have
a tremendous, um, amount of work to do to
get this, this idea to catch on. Although
we might think that we might look at it
and say, Hey, we're in that, we're in that
sort of trillion dollar league. In terms
of the percentage of global wealth
captured by Bitcoin, it is still
absolutely tiny. Yeah.
So, a lot of people seem to confuse, uh, the
scarcity of Bitcoin with the divisibility
of Bitcoin. They almost think because
there's a hundred million Satoshis in one
Bitcoin that it makes it not scarce. Yeah,
that's ridiculous. We had a few people
embarrass themselves on Twitter last year
with that sort of nonsense. Um, you know,
and, uh, the idea of having to explain to
grown adults that cutting a pizza up into
more slices doesn't create more pizza. Um,
that usually ends that particular piece of
fud, but you'd be surprised how often it
comes up. Um, it's, uh, because the
divisibility of Bitcoin is a very
important point because, um, as I just
mentioned, the idea that if Bitcoin does
keep rising in price, then surely people
are going to look at that and say, well, I
can't afford to spend $1 million on one
Bitcoin. How's that going to, uh, how can
I do that? What if I've only got a smaller
amount of money? Well, that's exactly it.
The Bitcoin is divisible into 100 million
subunits. And even those 100 million
subunits are divisible further by a
thousand units each when it comes to using
the Lightning Network, uh, which again is
the solution to a whole different source
of fud, which we can also talk about
later. But, um, the point here is, is that
Bitcoin as a monetary system has
sufficient granularity, uh, to handle the
number of transactions that might occur in
a 21st century global, uh, digital, uh,
sophisticated digital economy. And so, uh,
the more you divide Bitcoin down doesn't
mean that the total supply increases. Um,
your, whatever, whatever Bitcoin you own,
you own rather, remains that fixed share
of the total supply, which is capped, even
though I think we're, we're a little over
20 million coins since Bitcoin's
inception, inception have been mined.
There's only fewer than a million to go.
So, but 21 million is the absolute cap.
Um, in fact, a good chunk of those coins
are considered lost and unspendable
because people in the very early days of
Bitcoin didn't understand what they had
and didn't take, uh, very good care of, of
their private keys and lost the
information or deleted the hard drive that
the, uh, that the Bitcoin mining software
with the Bitcoin that it mined, um, got
deleted with it. So there's estimated to
be several million Bitcoin missing, but
let's not get bogged in all of that. The
point bogged down in all of that. Let's
understand that there is a finite cap of
21 million, only a million left to be
mined. So your percentage of that 21
million cannot change. Um, and in fact,
there is no way or certainly no, no way
that, that the network would ever agree
to, to even increase that supply. That's
another sort of, um, thing people say.
They say, well, it's software. So surely
software could be rewritten or the debt,
the information changed. Then, um, you
know, surely quote unquote, they, um, can
just, you know, create more Bitcoin or
change the limit. And it's necessary to
remind these people that again, that's,
what's different about Bitcoin. There is
no, they, there is us. There is no, they,
all of Bitcoin is us. That's it. It's us.
We, the people using Bitcoin. Bitcoin. And
if you're running a Bitcoin node as anyone
with a few hundred dollars to put towards
a small computer that can fit into the
palm of your hand, running the Bitcoin
client software, you are part of a network
of people around the world enforcing the
rules of the network. And one of the most
fundamental rules of the network, one of
the rules that actually gives Bitcoin its
value, and therefore is the reason why
anyone would ever want to run a node in
the first place, let alone mine Bitcoin
and let alone store their value in it is
the fact that it's only ever going to be,
that it is of a limited supply. The moment
you, if somehow everybody agreed in the
network to increase the supply of Bitcoin,
then it might happen. But you'd have to
get a super majority of people that being
something like, uh, you know, 85% or
something there about such that you could
totally swamp out a very small minority of
holdouts. Um, you might be able to sort of
fork the bit fork Bitcoin in such a way
that the dominant chain becomes some chain
that has more than 21 million Bitcoin on
it. But who would agree to go off on that
chain when the chain would essentially be
worthless because you would be destroying
what is one of Bitcoin's most important
value propositions. It's digital scarcity.
And so that's why, uh, it's, um, that's
another very interesting aspect of
Bitcoin. The entire thing is built on its
incentives. That's what makes it work.
These incentives that only rely upon
everybody acting in their own most selfish
interests in order for Bitcoin's interests
to also be, uh, best, uh, upheld. So, um,
yes, I think we've covered the, I hope
we've covered the, uh, the divisibility
and scarcity side of that because it is
something we get a lot and, uh, and any
concerns in that respect are very much
unfounded. Yeah. The follow-up I have is
less FUD and more as criticism. And I
would like to hear your answer on it. So
people who are saying that the reason why
the current system is ultimately unfair is
because it is somewhat like rigged so
that, uh, there is unequal distribution.
Um, so if someone wants to enter Bitcoin
and they kind of think it's the same
scenario, because obviously those who got
in early got, you know, a number of
Bitcoins and anyone kind of getting in
today is lucky to get one whole one. Um,
what do you say to that? I would say that
there is nothing unfair necessarily about
an unequal distribution. That's the
fundamental, it's a very sort of, um, you
know, sort of communist idea that somehow
everybody has to have, um, uh, that
somehow everything is equal. The world
isn't equal. People aren't equal.
Nothing's equal. People are, you know, it
doesn't mean to say that people shouldn't
be, it's a totally different thing before
people jump on me here and looking in the
comments saying that, um, that it's, uh,
no, obviously people's rights, you know,
and so forth and the way you treat people,
um, you know, should be treated with equal
respect. But the idea that, that nature or
the world is equal, um, is false. Now,
what though is important is if you want to
consider the idea of fairness, well, then
it's not as though, if anything, Bitcoin
is the most fair thing that there has ever
been, because it's unlike every other kind
of thing in the world, whereby there are
genuinely insiders. There are insiders in
the fiat system that we're currently
settled with, with everything. If you're
closer to the money printer, or you have
friends in high places, or, uh, you are
already a wealthy person who therefore has
a sort of preferred status with a stock
broker and, pardon me, and can get, uh,
access to early IPOs and the best stocks
and that sort of thing. That's where the
actual unfairness lies in the legacy
system. But Bitcoin is the most fair
distribution of anything that there's ever
been. It was just released out into the
open. There was no special barrier for
anyone. I mean, even back in the day, very
early on, kids were running it like as a,
as kind of like a background process on
their computer and, and mining Bitcoin. It
all it depended on, there was nothing
stopping anyone from the very earliest
moment, apart from their own particular,
their own personal curiosity in it, um, to
get Bitcoin at any time. There's been
nothing like that at all before. Because
remember, this thing runs completely
openly. It's completely open source
software. It's completely out there on the
open internet. And you don't need any
permission, anyone's permission to, to,
uh, to, to buy it or to own it or to mine
it or to run a node, um, or to perform a
transaction, any of those things. And so,
um, and again, we haven't had anything
like that before. So, um, and as for the
sort of, and I don't think people should
be, of course, there are going to be
people that may, that came to this
realization earlier, but then there are
plenty of people who just scoffed. Do we
owe those people who just, who scoffed for
17 years now? People like your Gerard
Rennix, who's still scoffed. When that guy
finally gets it, and he will, he'll have
no choice but to get it at one point. Like
reality doesn't care what you believe.
Reality doesn't care what you think.
Reality is just going to continue to prove
these naysayers wrong cycle after cycle
after cycle. And when they get proven
wrong and they finally realize that the
rest of the world is leaving them behind,
are we supposed to go, oh, there, there,
there, it was unfair. You didn't get, you
know, you're coming in late. And so, you
know, um, you know, maybe we have, I don't
know, we need some, I suppose we'll need
some government program to redistribute
Bitcoin to them. Well, good luck with that
because, um, uh, again, one of the other,
um, uh, attributes of Bitcoin is it's, uh,
unconfiscatable nature. So, and so that's
why, I mean, we're doing all we can.
You're doing that, Anya. You're
interviewing, you know, you've interviewed
dozens of people. Congratulations, by the
way, on one year of, um, that, um, just
the other day, um, you're interviewing
hundreds of people that are doing this,
um, all over the world, trying to get the
message out there precisely. So we don't
get people in years to come complaining
that they didn't get any and they missed
out in all of this. Well, Hey, look, the
information's here. We're doing our best
to, um, to get you, uh, understanding this
phenomenon as soon as possible. Um, you
know, take it or leave it. Yeah. On that
as well. I do have a follow-up. Um, so I
have had one of the criticism on LinkedIn,
your favorite social media. Um, it was
something along the lines of you only are
promoting Bitcoin to fill your own bags.
Well, it would be somewhat disingenuous if
I was promoting something or anyone
promoted something that they didn't
believe strongly enough in, uh, to have
backed themselves. What would you, you,
you would be actually, people would have a
much stronger criticism of if, if we were
out here talking about a thing and telling
people to use it as their store of wealth
and as their, and as their, um, medium of
exchange and ultimately unit of account,
if we didn't believe strongly enough in it
and have enough conviction ourselves to
own the asset. So I, I don't take that as
a, as a criticism at all. In fact, um, uh,
I believe it's actually part of the way
the incentives of Bitcoin align. Again,
Bitcoin is all about the alignment of
incentives. That's the reason, of course,
why Bitcoin is going to succeed because
the more people that have Bitcoin, the
more people that are incentivized to
spread the word and tell others about its,
um, its superior monetary properties
because, because it, because ultimately if
enough people hear that and act on it, it
will actually pump their bags. But also
the obvious answer is it probably like one
person putting in $10,000 into Bitcoin,
he's not going to move the price of
Bitcoin. You know, that's the other thing
is that as well, you know, people that say
that often haven't got two cents to rub
together. So yeah, you know, I, yeah,
we've got at this point, yeah, the people
that are saying that are saying again,
we've got massive institutions now doing,
you know, trying to, trying to hoover this
asset up. Um, and I believe me, they're
doing it. They'll be doing it now in the
bear market quietly and accumulating
while, um, many of these people who think
that we need them to pump our bags are
panic selling because they can't weather a
little bit of volatility and a little bit
of a downturn that, that, um, for those of
us who've been in Bitcoin a while, it
just, you kind of become anewed to it. It
becomes sort of, Hey, well, you know,
that's just, that's just the price we pay
for being early. Yeah. By the way, another
thing to address that criticism about
people who get in early, there's nothing
lucky about it. Nothing often very, um,
very fun about it either. When you've, um,
when you have to weather through being
dragged through, you know, two or three
bear markets or whatever each time, you
know, having to suffer a, a, um, a large
correction, um, each time. But is it luck
then that you held, that you had enough
conviction to hold through that correction
until it recovered completely and then
went on to make all time highs like
Bitcoin has always done? Yeah. Um, on
that, is the social stigma worse now when
we're at a time where you feel most people
should really understand that it's like
the awareness of Bitcoin is nearly at a
hundred percent. It's almost no one's not
heard of it anymore. So is it, is it, is
it worse to have critics now than it was
10 years ago? Um, I think the critics now
are just are, if anyone, if anything,
they're the ones that are at greater risk
of being socially stigmatized. I think
you, if you're sort of still at this point
saying that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or
Bitcoin is a scam or, you know, any of
this stuff, um, you really are marking
yourself out as an incredibly clueless and
ignorant person. Um, it, now that's not to
say that perhaps more, some more
sophisticated criticisms, um, uh, aren't
still able to be just like, aren't still
not necessarily justifiable, but at least
you could, like, you wouldn't be a
complete idiot if you had more
sophisticated criticisms. But if you're at
the point of saying that it's a Ponzi
scheme and a scam, um, I think now it's
gone beyond the point where you've got to
do better than that. If you think that
you're going to, um, if you think you're
going to discredit Bitcoin, because this
is not, you know, uh, nothing that, that,
that is one of those things, um, has as
much going on in it for as long and for as
great as, as much reliability as Bitcoin
has for its last 17 or 18 years. That's
just the Lindy effect. I mean, um, so
that's the simplest basic way of
addressing that. It's just the Lindy
effect. The idea that something that the
longer it, the longer it's been going for,
the more likely it is to keep going. There
are certain things, there are certain
systems that behave like that. Living
things, obviously, or complex, some things
have a nature that the longer they go for,
the more they wear out. And therefore they
get to the end of their useful life. But
other things like this that are anti
-fragile, the more they go on for, the
more, the more, the more resilience
they're actually demonstrating. And
therefore the more likely they are to
persist, um, indefinitely. But as I said,
I mean, in terms of social, uh,
acceptability or rather, um, any kind of
social stigma, no, I don't find any social
stigma at all. I, I am relatively, I mean,
I'm happy to come on shows like yours and
other shows and, and talk, um, quite
stridently about Bitcoin without fear of,
um, of having anyone outside the Bitcoin
ecosystem think any less of me for it. Um,
and as I said to you, I mean, all of the,
I think after all of this time, I think
the tide is turning such that, and
particularly with the massive
institutional backing that's coming in.
Now, a lot of people think that that's
taking away from Bitcoin's cypherpunk
roots, and you may well be correct in
that, but ultimately if Bitcoin was the
thing that we always have been saying it
was for the last 10 or whatever years,
then inevitably big institutions were
going to recognize that and want to heed
what we were saying and come in. And so
for normies, the people that might have
once socially stigmatized Bitcoin, for
normies, when you point at these big
institutions, they really sit up and
listen to that. They get it. They're more,
they're more beholden to the opinions of
entities like that than they are. You
know, people like you or I, um, you know,
just, just discussing it, uh, as
individuals. Yeah. And just on the
distribution as well, I wanted to kind of
circle back because there was a study
that, um, showed that, that early
concentration is not going to stay there
forever because early adopters of Bitcoin
are under pressure to sell. Like
eventually they, they do sell and we've
certainly seen that in the last cycle. Um,
hence why the price might not have gone
anywhere. Um, yeah. What do you want to
say to that? Yes. I mean, that's the
thing. There's been a tremendous turnover
of, of early coins. Cause the thing is, is
that, well, just because, uh, some early
adopters sell some Bitcoin doesn't mean
that they've lost faith in the long-term
value proposition of Bitcoin. They've just
decided that, Hey, look, I can afford to
take some Bitcoin off the table, buy those
things that I've always wanted to buy that
I couldn't afford to before, pay off the
house, pay off debt, um, you know, live a,
live a better lifestyle. And I can, some
of those guys can do that and still have a
significant stash of Bitcoin. I mean,
there's no point taking it all to the
grave with you. So no matter how valuable
Bitcoin ultimately might get, there is a
sort of a tipping point whereby you're
going to sell at least some of it, um, to
fund certain things that you've wanted to
do rather than live like, you know, uh,
the wealthiest monk in the monastery for
the rest of your life. It's, um, so that's
all that's going on there and it does, and
that's happening at every level. And so
that means that there is this sort of
redistribution, this turnover of coins.
And we, we saw an enormous number of those
coins turnover during the last cycle. And,
um, but that reaches a limit, of course,
there's only get, again, because of the
fixed supply, there's only so many of
those, uh, of those coins that can turn
over in terms of a particular generation
of people because they buy what they
wanted. They had the lifestyle upgrade.
Um, they buy those big ticket items and
then, and, and then they, and then they
have fewer coins. And so, and then that,
that, that supply then gets turned over to
a new generation of people who, um, who
continue to hold their wealth in it. Um,
and so, um, we saw an enormous amount of
this happening during the last couple of
years, some several million coins, I
believe. I think, uh, James Check is the
best analyst on that. Um, you've had him
on your show, of course, as have, have
many. And, um, you know, you can see the
hard data on this in the, in the Bitcoin
blockchain. You can sort of more or less
see, um, the time in which the coins will
last move. And therefore that gives you a
pretty good proxy for how long those coins
were held and in how, and how large,
sometimes how large the wallets were, um,
that those coins were spent out of and
then get an idea. Yeah. They look like
sort of relatively early adopter coins
that are turning over. So that's happening
at every level, um, right the way through.
So the distribution is improving all the
time. Um, you know, that used to actually
be one of the biggest pieces of FUD that
used to float around in the very early
days of Bitcoin when there were, you know,
I think, um, you know, when there were
less than 10 million coins had been mined
at that point. And Satoshi's supply of the
coins, therefore they're the coins that he
mined in the, because it was only he and a
very, him and a small number of other
people that were mining at that point. And
it was estimated that Satoshi had mined
somewhere around a million Bitcoins. And
so when the total supply of Bitcoin was
only, you know, maybe five or 10 million,
that represented a very large percentage
of the total supply. And so that was
thought to be a rather large threat to the
network because people used to say, oh,
what if Satoshi, um, you know, reemerges
from, um, obscurity and decides to dump
all of his Bitcoin on the market. It'll
just tank the price back to zero. The
order books are simply not deep enough to
absorb that, that, that amount of, uh, of
that amount of selling pressure. Well,
come round to 2025, 2026, we've had that.
We've had that level of selling pressure
from early adopters and then some, and the
market has absorbed it. The market didn't
go to zero. The market has pulled back.
Sure. It's, we're, you know, hovering
around half of what we were at the peak of
the last bull market, but that is a much
smaller drop than previous bear markets
have been. Um, we are, after all, we do
tend to get them every four years. There's
a sort of a, we're still in a kind of
fairly boom and bust cycle with Bitcoin,
but we're in a period now historically by,
by the opportunity for buying more
Bitcoin, um, has never been better. It's
never better than at this, this, uh, stage
of the cycle. But what happened? We, we
were hit with millions of Bitcoin from
early adopters, way more than the original
Satoshi stack. And the market absorbed all
of that with really, you know, it didn't
go to zero. It went to a price that once
upon a time, only a few years ago, people
wouldn't have dreamed of. People would
have said you're, you're nuts. You're
mental if you think that we're going to
get to that, that, you know, we're going
to get to wherever we are now, you know,
$64,000. That's, that's crazy. And that's
in the bottom of the bear market. And by
the way, Satoshi's coins have never moved.
Not a single Satoshi of, not a single
Satoshi of Satoshi stack has moved in 17
years now and may well never move. But if
it did, the market has shown resilience
to, um, very large amounts of Bitcoin, um,
being, uh, being put on the market. How do
you think the market would react? Because
I mean, we are able to track his
particular coins or at least the coins
that we assume are his just by the date
that they haven't moved since. So if some
of those old coins did move now, how do
you think the market would react? Look, I
think the market, I'm not going to be
unrealistic. I think the market would
probably be spooked a little bit, but you
know, um, but I think it would be much
less affected now than it might've been
had they moved years ago. I think that
there will be certainly, there'll be a lot
of people probably trying to generate FUD
about that. That would be the sort of,
perhaps the more damage is the amount of
FUD that the people that want to try to
pull the Bitcoin price down. Because
believe me, there are people that want to
pull the Bitcoin price down, not because
they don't like Bitcoin, but because
they're trying to get a lower entry point.
And so to the people that got in, in the
last cycle, and maybe they bought a little
bit higher than where we are now, don't
let them get your coins off you for, you
know, in this market. If you, if you, you
kind of may as well ride it out now at
this point, because it, because, because
Bitcoin has never failed to turn around,
but there are, because there, but there
are people out there that, as I said,
they're not doing because they hate
Bitcoin. They want your Bitcoin. They want
to, they want to scam you out of yours and
making you sell your Bitcoin at the bottom
of, of a bear market that they've, uh, you
know, tried to jawbone to use that, um,
that expression in Australia that refers
to politicians trying to encourage the,
uh, central bank to change its interest
rate policy. They're trying to jawbone
down by talking about it or saying bad
things about it. It's a Bitcoin price. So,
yeah, look, I think there'd be a lot of
FUD generated. There probably would be,
um, a bit, a few people spooked, but
Bitcoin, but it would recover from that.
It would recover from that and still go on
to make new all time highs all over again.
Yeah. Um, on government, it will get like,
if Bitcoin becomes large enough to start
feeling like more of a threat to the
government and central banks, uh, there's
obviously some people that say the bank,
the government will never allow that to
happen and they can ban it or try
something else. I don't know. Well,
there's a problem with that is that if one
government bans it, then what does that
do? It gives that country potentially an
economic disadvantage to the other
countries that decide to embrace it
instead. So there's a whole nation state
game theory going on there as well. And,
um, and so obviously the ideal thing for
governments and central banks would be
that Bitcoin just never got invented in
the first, that never got discovered in
the first place. And then they could just
go on, uh, doing what they're doing. But
now that it does exist in the world, there
is likely to be at least one country that
decides to say, Hey, you know, if we jump
first, we have a kind of competitive
advantage there and we can build up our
reserve that we can build up our reserves
of this asset, um, before other countries
get on board and start to drive the price
up and make it, make it harder for us to
acquire. And so the moment some countries
start doing that, we've already seen El
Salvador famously was the first example of
this. I suspect that there are other
countries doing this, but they're not
advertising it because if they were to
have advertised it, they would set off it.
The very chain reaction they're seeking to
avoid, but they will quietly do it and
then announce that they've done it after
they've, they've filled their bags as it
were, because the worst position for a
government is to be the one whereby the
other governments did it and then you're
the economy left with nothing. So I
believe that if, um, I, I sadly think for
Australia that we'll, um, with the nature
of our political system here and the, and
the majority of the politicians we're
encumbered with, uh, will be one of the
last countries sadly to come around to
this idea and, and embrace it in any kind
of serious way, be that take it, uh, to
have it just to keep it, um, a, a store of
it as a, as a, as a reserve asset, like,
um, you know, most governments hold gold,
um, as that, as well as a, a, um, uh, a
selection of other world currencies. Um, I
believe that it would be very beneficial
if, for governments to have, to include in
that basket of foreign currencies and
precious metals that they do hold in their
reserve, uh, in their currency reserves to
also include Bitcoin in that. But again,
I, I'm not particularly optimistic about
Australia being among the first to do
that. I mean, we're happy, we're always,
as Bitcoin is happy to, to talk to, uh,
whoever, whoever people are, whether
they're, you know, governments or big
business or, or, you know, your next door
neighbor. I mean, we'll, we're just happy
to sort of, um, explain to anybody what
Bitcoin is and, uh, and hope that they
understand, as I say, the superior money
-to-eat properties and therefore the
necessity of owning it, where it, whether
it be in, as you, as an individual's
personal savings or at the nation state
level as, um, a reserve currency asset.
Well, on that note, I should do a little
shout out. If anyone of influence is
listening and would like to speak to a
Bitcoin or about Bitcoin, I would strongly
urge you to reach out to the Australian
Bitcoin industry body and start a
conversation. We have already had a number
of politicians reach out, which I think is
really lovely. I won't say who they are,
but it is very promising when someone
who's, you know, in some position of power
actually reaches out and has a
conversation with a Bitcoiner to
understand why this advocacy work is so
important to us. No, absolutely. Barney
there is doing, and, and, and the others
are doing tremendous work, um, uh, in, uh,
in getting the message out there and being
that, uh, that touch point as it were for,
uh, uh, for, uh, governments and other
entities to, um, to get a good
understanding of Bitcoin. Because again,
um, nothing was, um, more frustrating for
me for many years to watch when we sort of
lacked the sorts of things like, um, you
know, the, the, the strong scenes we have
now, whether it's, um, whether it's
something like Bitcoin Sydney or whether
it's the Bitcoin industry body or other,
or other kind of, um, um, or podcasts or
any, you know, yeah, any kind of actual
presence that people could, uh, you know,
outside entities could go to, to, um, to
get an opinion on Bitcoin, because where
did it used to come from? It mostly, it
mostly ended up coming from a, a, a CEO of
a shit coin casino or a, um, you know,
someone from the legacy finance world who
very often did not understand or didn't
properly understand the principles behind
Bitcoin. And, and it's, uh, and as I keep
mentioning, it's, um, superior monetary
attributes. They just looked at it as, as
just another, just another, uh, thing to
be traded. It's just, at best, they looked
at it. At worst, they looked at it as like
it was some kind of thing. They almost
reveled in the fact that they didn't
understand it, like as though
understanding it was some kind of, um,
something they were embarrassed about.
Yeah. Um, and so, uh, so that, that was
the sort of thing that we had people that
were, you know, literally literal taxpayer
dollars are being paid to people to
understand these things and they, and they
make a kind of show out of not
understanding it. So there was that, or
you had people that just sort of at best
looked upon it as just another asset to be
traded. This is just a thing, but you
know, it may as well have been frozen
orange juice or pork belly futures or, you
know, whatever. They didn't really
understand the, the reason or the, the, I,
you know, the reason for the thing itself.
And so now, yeah, I mean the, um, so I
love what, uh, Bayani and the team there
at the, uh, Bitcoin industry body are
doing to, um, to spread the word. Yep.
Now, before we wrap up, I also want to
touch on volatility. So a lot of critics,
uh, and I think this is probably one of
the more honest criticisms because, um,
some of them I feel like should have died
out 10 years ago, but this one still has
some merit. So Bitcoin is too volatile to
be a store of value. Well, um, yeah, look,
I understand that Bitcoin is relatively
volatile. It's more volatile than say
something like, uh, well, I was going to
say it's more volatile than gold, but on
the other hand, you know, well, you know,
look, it had a massive pump last year and
then it's pulled back. I don't know
whether you got, I don't have the chart in
front of me, but it's, it's pulled back at
least some sort of double digit percentage
from that. And, and yeah, look, Bitcoin is
volatile, but it's volatile generally
upwards. Now, the key thing is to
understand that that volatility that we
still experience in Bitcoin is the price
you pay for being early because this is
relatively early compared to the size of
the, the financial system that it, that it
stands to displace. So that is a price
paid, but it also isn't necessarily a bad
thing. You can weather it. Now it's bad
if, for example, you have an urgent
expense, you've stored your money in
Bitcoin and you have a very urgent expense
that you need to be makes making straight
after it's made a big, you know, it's had
one of its once in four year larger than
usual corrections. Um, but most people
don't buy Bitcoin at the very top of the
market. Bitcoin is bought at all points in
the market. And in fact, um, a good
strategy for dealing with the volatility
is not to buy, not to lump some into
Bitcoin at the very top of the mania
phase, not to lump some in to be, not to
lump some into Bitcoin at the top of the
market when everybody is talking about it
on the mainstream media, as happens every
four years. If you lump summed into it now
though, I can't, I'm not going to
obviously, you know, past performance
isn't guarantee of future, uh, future
performance, but it's very much less
likely that you'd have to suffer a sort of
50% pullback from here than you would have
suffered if you were buying it at all time
highs. So, and if you wanted to sort of
mitigate that even further, you can take a
kind of dollar cost averaging approach. It
just regular weekly or monthly or whatever
period you like buys as you earn your
money. As you say, so if you're earning
enough that you can be putting some
savings aside, instead of putting those
savings into a bank account where it's
guaranteed to lose its purchasing power.
So therefore it's guaranteed to basically
drop in value compared to virtually
everything else, right? That's the
guarantee, not the risk. And instead put
it into Bitcoin whereby if you average it
out over a longer period of time, the
trajectory is generally upwards. Then you
can mitigate that volatility risk. So, and
eventually that volatility will, will
continue as it has continued over its
lifetime to be suppressed. The bigger the
thing gets, the less easily it is moved
by, you know, a small piece of news here
or there, or a particular person selling a
large amount of it. We have, there's been
cases, there were cases many years ago
where, why one person who was very, very
early could actually move the market and
cause quite a bit of drama, you know,
watching the order books on the exchanges
as the, as the price shifted because of
one person's actions. Those days are gone.
And we're already seeing that the
volatility tamped down significantly on
what it was in the early days. And that's
only going to continue to happen as
Bitcoin gets larger, but that's the price
you pay. If you don't want the volatility,
fine. And you don't want to mitigate it
with any of the other methods I've just
mentioned, fine. You'll, you can buy it at
a million dollars a coin in 10 years time
or something like that. And won't be very
volatile then, but you'll have paid, you
know, 10 or 20 times as much for the
Bitcoin. So, Hey, look, I think you're way
better off with the volatility and
getting, and still being, being, having
those, that potential for gain than buying
it, you know, 10 years, in 10 years from
now. Yep. Now I want to time travel to the
future a little bit. Right. And assuming
that we are on a Bitcoin standard and we
enter a deflationary, I guess, world, what
does that look like? Well, one thing to
point out there is that I'm not one of
these people that's under any illusions
that, that this sort of idea of hyper
-Bitcoinization is going to happen sort of
overnight or next week or next year. Um, I
call that gold bug eschatology because
it's something that when you look at
people who make those kinds of
prognostications, whether even within
Bitcoin, you can take those, you can find
those very same statements from articles
written in 1980. Um, there's always like
this idea that there's always sort of
something about to happen. It's always
about to be announced or some figure
that's about to dip into the red in this
way. That's going to trigger a whole bunch
of staff that's going to bring down the
whole economy and only those holding gold
or Bitcoin are going to survive. And, you
know, everybody else, um, you know, is
going to be left in poverty and misery.
Um, you know, while, while the rest of,
while all those people that are the true
believers get raptured up into the divine
treasury. Um, yeah, look, I, that could
happen, but you don't know that. Like it
could happen, it could happen in a year's
time or it could happen in a hundred years
time. No one knows because the fiat system
does have a way of continually kicking the
can down the road. Just death by a
thousand carts, always kicking the can
down the road, ever eroding your savings
more and more and more and more the whole
time, but doing it just slowly enough so
that most of the time people don't notice
and they just roll with it. They only
notice when occasionally in the media,
someone puts up a flyer from a fish and
chip shop from 1971, you know, showing how
a potato scallop cost five cents. And then
everyone suddenly realizes that, that
they've been totally, that they're being
totally screwed over for the past 58 years
or whatever. Um, you know, so, um, that's
the thing that most people sort of aren't
going to notice until there's actually a
genuine acceleration kind of event that,
that, that, that rouses them from their
torpor. But anyway, um, in a hyper Bitcoin
has days, age future. I think this is
something that will, um, gradually happen
over time as more and more economic
potential energy, as I like to put it, is
bled away from the fiat system and enters
the Bitcoin system to store it. And more
and more people have Bitcoin and the
Bitcoin that people do have and have had,
however long they've been holding it, has
greater purchasing power so they can buy
more with it. And it gets to the point
where rather than the situation we have
now where, uh, people feel, and I'm
sympathetic to the idea, but I'm not sure
how effective it is. People feel an
effect. One method of Bitcoin of angelism
is to go out and encourage, um, merchants
to accept it and shops to accept it as,
um, as a means of payment. The problem
with that is it almost seems like you're
trying to sort of beg someone to take this
thing off you. Um, and that tends to sort
of put people's walls up when they feel as
though they're being asked to take
something that you are trying to, uh, you
know, get rid of in some way. Or, you
know, um, give to them their suspicions
and their walls immediately come off up,
up. Um, it's often, you might have
experienced this in marketing. It's
always, um, when you tell someone that
they can't have something, you know, you
put a fancy thing in the showroom, like
the real fancy, you got all the bog
standard ones and then you've got a fancy
one in the corner and the guy will say,
how much is that one? And the salesman go,
oh, that's not the sale. You can't have
that one. And then that gets the person's
curio. Yeah, but really, no, but I like,
you know, they want it even more and
they'll start, you know, that I think is
the way it will kind of go with Bitcoin is
that it will get that, it'll achieve that
value. Um, more and more people will just
have it. The purchasing power of it will
be there. It'll, it'll, there'll be, and
eventually, um, fiat currency will
diminish, will have diminished rather so
much against the value of Bitcoin that
people just won't want the fiat anymore.
They'll actually demand the thing left
that actually has any value. And that will
be Bitcoin. Not, you know, not, not, not
the fiat money. And I think that's just a,
I think that's more of a gradual process.
It has been a gradual process. I mean,
even where we're at now, that's actually
happened far more gradually than what, um,
um, people who have advocated for this
sort of, um, uh, this hyper-Bitcoinization
approach, um, have suggested. Like the
people pushing the kind of immediate hyper
-Bitcoinization kind of thing, um, they
kind of thought that this would have
happened much more quickly. No, we're
getting, we're actually getting there
gradually. It's happening, but it's
happening gradually. Just through this
process, just doing things like this, you
get another person, here's information.
And that's one more person that
understands the value proposition. It's
one more person that decides, hey, I might
keep some of my money in Bitcoin. And, um,
you know, there's more people coming
around to the idea that way than there are
people somehow getting a hit bump on the
head and deciding to, to forget what it
was, to un-understand it, if you know what
I mean, like to somehow go backwards in
their knowledge. Yeah. Um, no, that's
really good points. Um, before we wrap up,
I also wanted to do a quick shill of
Bitcoin Asia. We'll both be attending
Bitcoin Hong Kong and Origin Soul. I want
to, did I say that right? Yeah. Bitcoin
Soul Origin. Looking forward to both of
those. Yeah. Yeah. So I'll drop, um, the
conference links in the show notes, but
before we wrap up, do you have any final
words that you'd like to share with my
audience? Sure. Um, you can follow me on,
uh, on X on JP underscore technology. And
as well as that, I run the Bitcoin meetups
in Sydney. We have our big monthly meetup,
which is held in the Sydney CBD, uh, which
I usually host. Um, as well as that, we
have a number of social groups around the
Sydney CBD as well. If you want to catch
up with other Bitcoiners in your local
area. Um, and then ultimately, as I said,
they feed into our big monthly meetup in
Sydney on the second Wednesday of every
month. So if you're in Sydney, please, um,
you can find all of that, all of our
events on Bitcoin Sydney.org. So if you
are in Sydney, um, yeah, love to have you
come along and say hello. Um, we've also
got the Bitcoin bush bash again. Well,
we've got, there's a number of those now,
of course. Anya, you've, um, did a great
job with Byron Bay earlier in the year.
Um, Palm Cove just finished. And I believe
there's one coming up soon in Busselton,
but the one that we run and that I'll be
hosting, uh, will be in parks on the, uh,
I believe it's the weekend of the 22nd of
November. I think I've got that date
right. Um, of, uh, of, yeah, so that the
second last weekend of November will be
our bush bash in parks. So that's a big
two and a half day long event where we'll
have speakers, um, and dinners and general
hanging out with other Bitcoiners over the
course of those, uh, over those two days.
So they draw and they draw attendees from
all over Australia. So definitely, um, uh,
if you're, uh, yeah, come, come to that.
We, we generally get over a hundred people
at, uh, at each of those events now. So
that is just to confirm that date. That
would actually be the Friday, the 20th of
November through to Sunday, the 22nd of
November. So, um, and that can, and that
information, um, can be found at Bitcoin
bush bash.info. We'll also, um, probably
put a list an event for it as well on our,
uh, Bitcoin Sydney lead up page too. All
right. Thanks so much for coming on.
Thanks for having me on Anja, it's been
great. Talk to you again. All right. Bye.
Bye. Bye.