Transcribe your podcast

You're listening to Teip. Hey, everyone, welcome to our Wednesday release of the show where we're talking about Bitcoin. Today's guest is Dan Held and he's a Bitcoin OG and someone that was part of the original Silicon Valley Bitcoin Meetup group back in 2013 with other people like the founders of Coinbase Cracken and many other influential founders in the space today. Dan has created some crypto businesses and products that have been acquired by companies like Airbnb and Cracken. And he's a major content creator to the Bitcoin ecosystem.


On the show today, we talked to Dan about his thoughts on the current cycle, his opinions and metrics for a potential super cycle exchange, analytics and bank charters, Bitcoin's future security and incentive structure, lending and borrowing, and much, much more. So without further ado, here's my discussion with Dan held up.


You're listening to Bitcoin Fundamentals by the Investors Podcast Network. Now for your host, Kristen. All right, so welcome to the show. I've got Dan held here and Dan, great to have this conversation. We talk all the time over Twitter, but never in person. So I'm pretty excited to be able to do this with you, President.


I think I actually got covid and we've had to push this back a couple of weeks. So I'm I'm pretty thrilled to actually start recording. It's finally happening. It's happening. We're going to do it. All right, so let's start here, Dan. So there's a lot of things happening, not only with this bull cycle, but everything that's happening in the macro backdrop with just the economy, with interest rates and all that. I'm just kind of curious to hear your just overall overview of your 30, 40 thousand foot view of what's going on right now and kind of where you see where we're at in the cycle.


And then if you have any comments on the overall economy to feel free to throw those in there. Yeah, so I coined this term, I don't know if I did, I used it it about two years ago and it kind of stuck and became more popular. But I use this term called the Super Cycle, and I actually mentioned this back in twenty nineteen for the first time, which is that what happens if Bitcoin goes through its normal micro cycle of a four year cycle that typically occurs around the having and it has a bull and a bear market.


And what happens if that occurs simultaneously while we have a larger macro market bear market that occurs because Bitcoin has largely existed in a big bull run in the macromarkets. So I've coined that term super cycle.


And I think lately people have really gotten into the idea because some of this stuff has started to manifest some of this around, like, for example, Tesla buying Bitcoin and Michael Saler, company treasuries. Buying Bitcoin, I think was a really huge, huge sort of validation that this time will be different. This cycle might be different than the other ones. So for me, we've got a lot of checkmarks here that people go, hey, Dan, what do you look for, for a supercycle or what do you feel are checkmarks for, like being bullish on Bitcoin right now?


First of all, we've had the having that occurred in twenty twenty. This is a typical cycle that we would see play out or Bitcoin has a bull run post having over the next year and a half. And we're starting to see that happen. And then we also have other things like you've got institutions finally validating Bitcoin. You've got big macro trader folks, Paul Tudor Jones and others who say Bitcoin is Gold 2.0. This was an investment thesis that I had when I first entered my Bitcoin position back in 2012 is that Bitcoin is Gold 2.0 and to see it being validated by the market is huge.


So this I would say that's more I'm seeing the mainstream world start to buy into Bitcoin. That's another big checkmark. And we also have very easy ways to buy Bitcoin cash out. You've got cash that we've got, I believe today there is news that Charles Schwab is looking at ways to add Bitcoin to their brokerage. So you've got that. You've got people there's going to be almost an infinite number of ways to buy Bitcoin, which increases the demand surface area.


So more and more demand can flow in. And there's only one really Bitcoin. So that's a big component of Bitcoin itself.


And then the Bitcoin narrative, like we've got your podcast in and other great folks in the space like Peter McCormick and Stefan Lovera. And there's so much great content now. And we shorten that ladder from going, I don't know anything about Bitcoin to I, I kind of grok Bitcoin and they want to go buy it. Atlanta has been much shorter than what it was in the previous cycles. Back in 13 and 17, it took a ton of of kind of self reflection and really digging in to understand Bitcoin.


And now we've made that narrative really, really simple. So we've got all that going on with Bitcoin. And then we had covid hit and covid, I think, rattled everyone's belief in the existing system.


They go, OK, I'm starting to question my government's response to not only covid, but also their financial or fiscal and monetary response to the covid economic crisis. And so people are starting to question the nature of their reality. And this, I think, is a is a huge, huge moment for Bitcoin because it finally brings the lens of Bitcoin matters. It brings it into focus. So covid brings Bitcoin's value prop into focus. I made an analogy that might resonate here, which is that most people don't think about buying like earthquake insurance until an earthquake happens.


And that's kind of like Bitcoin, right? Like Bitcoin has made its value.


Prop Shine's when you start to lose trust in your government and that doesn't happen on a normal basis. Most people don't want to question the nature of the reality and covid kind of force that to happen. So, Dan, you're at Cracken, and recently there was big news on crack and becoming they're going to get a bank charter, which I'm assuming automatically means that they're then going to be FDIC insured for deposits. Is that assumption true? And what does this all mean as far as getting the bank charter?


Yeah, good questions. I'm on the product team leading growth marketing, and we stay pretty laser focused on day to day work. So we're building out spot futures, other financial instruments we're looking at on the banking side. That's a little bit more out there on the roadmap. So I don't spend a ton of time digging in on that. From my understanding is that since it's full reserve, it's a full Reserve Bank, you're able to circumvent some requirements.


I think that might actually be around like I think we we would be FDIC insured. But I, I don't believe we have other requirements, but I'm not exactly sure I'm speaking a little bit out of my expertise here. I do know that we can do we can offer some services like lending and borrowing where it is a full Reserve Bank, but some customers could elect to have some of their funds lent out. So I think some of that stuff is really fascinating.


I think on an infrastructure level, it connects us much more deeply in the financial markets and where we don't have to worry about finding a bank account back in twenty thirteen. This was actually a big, big deal. And if you were a Bitcoin company, having a bank account was like the Holy Grail. Silicon Valley Bank only banked Coinbase. It didn't make any other crypto startup. Coinbase had this incredible, unfair advantage, likely due to their investor base of a hugely unfair advantage in the United States in twenty thirteen and twenty twelve with a relationship with SVP.


So Cracken, I think, has seen Jesse has been around and has been around for a long, long time. We want to build the most stable infrastructure for cracken to survive and exist with the most minimal amount of third parties that we have to rely upon and the most minimal amount of regulatory checkmarks that we have to check off. So for my understanding, that's what Wyoming gives us with the S.P.I license. And then on the customer front, in terms of what value we offer, that's where I'm not 100 percent certain around or not.


But from my understanding, we're creating a full Reserve Bank. So I'm not sure if FDIC would even be something that we would we would need to get. I think that's what's been brought up before.


The kind of the cool value of cracking is that with the cracken bank, we wouldn't necessarily need to have FDIC insurance and its full reserve. You don't need insurance if all the assets are there. As I think through the evolution of not just cracking, but at any bank for that matter, I find it really fascinating that Jack Dorsey had the big announcement with Square and that they're going to become a chartered bank as well. And so if I was going to walk myself a year into the future, I don't think it's far off that people can change whoever their employer is, whoever they're getting their paycheck from and doing their banking today.


They could start routing those paychecks to a crack and or to a square to wherever. And then those deposits could be tokenized. And then these interest rates that we're seeing, call it especially on US dollars, is like anywhere from seven to 10 percent. Do people start to get those types of interest rates for their deposits into these types of banks? Is this happening soon? Yes, so, I mean, those rates that we're seeing, you're kind of referencing like USDS, again, starting point interest rates, these aren't exactly like the same sort of risk profile that a savings account has.


I think these are a little bit different, but certainly this new crypto world, especially with like USCA, USDOT, from my understanding, a lot of the borrow for York University is coming from collateralized borrowing using Bitcoin as collateral. So let's say you want to borrow dollars against your Bitcoin as collateral. My understanding is that a lot of these services offer like actual USD or USB tier UCC, and that's where the demand for borrowing in DC is coming from.


Is the demand to take a margin position with your Bitcoin. So borrowing against Bitcoin as collateral. And so from my understanding, there's a dollar shortage with that trade or with that with that sort of setup. Currently I pay 10 to 11 percent with my untrain capital loan, which is in dollars. But I noticed, like on Blackfire, if you borrow against your Bitcoin as collateral, that I think you can borrow USQUE. So that's where that really high interest rate is coming from, is there's a dollar shortage when it comes to borrowing, borrowing against your bitcoin as collateral, which I'm not exactly sure why that exists.


Bitcoin is a pristine piece of collateral. It's a phenomenal piece of collateral that if we look at other collateralized loans, like if we look at interactive brokers and how much it cost to borrow against your securities, if you borrow, I think like a quarter million like in USD against your securities as collateral, your borrow rate is seventy five bips. So like less than one percent, I would expect bitcoins being able to borrow against Bitcoin as collateral like that. Our rate should drop down to something equivalent to that bitcoins, a pristine piece of collateral that I can take.


And if I'm the lender, I can take that collateral and go sell it at a bunch of different venues instantaneously. And it's fungible. So I can sell it to even with like one bitcoin equals one bitcoin. It's not like a piece of property where, for example, like my home isn't one home, doesn't equal another home and there's maintenance cost and everything else. So I think that's where the higher rate of yield is coming from for those stable coin dollars.


That's what I've heard is like that, plus other borrowing for other types of trading activity. I'm not sure if we can equivalently call that like a savings account. So when it comes to these new banks of like Cracken and Square, I'm not sure if we could call that like a savings account, but it might be more of like people are going to be attracted to that yield and it's definitely going to attract depositors regardless of not being an equivalent risk.


Yeah, it's an interesting point that you raise on the risk, because if the deposit is being over collateralized and you're in a 24/7 market, like, the risk is really just the management of the keys at that point. Yeah, well, depends on on how the coins are being. What if you're lending out, let's say you're a lender of USD or USD? Depends on what that those coins or what what those stable coin dollars are being used for.


Yeah, yeah. Certainly a very low risk, very low risk operation would be lending to over collateralised positions. I mean, that's no risk. That's why I think that rate is going to go down over time. I think that's just a phenomenal risk profile. I was talking more of like if you're lending USD, see for folks taking advantage of arbitrage trading opportunities or other activities which glorify in Genesis Capital these other big lending shops, we don't know exactly what that counterparty mix is.


Some of that counterparty mix, our folks, they've got over collateralized Bitcoin positions and they're borrowing dollars, which that's a pretty low risk endeavor. But then there's also a much higher risk ones, which are different types of trades that they're facilitating that aren't necessarily over collateralized.


Correct, yeah, it could be partial collateralized with some of these some of these desks, they accept 70 percent collateralized. So some of these aren't fully collateralized.


So this is one that I really wanted to talk to you about. And I think it's important for you to kind of describe this first to my audience, because I don't think a lot of them fully understand this idea of using lightning pool to capture yield in the future. So describe this whole layer Two to them and kind of get into this lightning pool. And then after we kind of get into a lot of that, then let's compare it back to this borrowing and lending markets that that we were just talking about as far as what kind of yield you kind of expect in the future and what this might all mean.


Yes, so I'll try my best to cover some of these Yehiel generation activities with directly with the Bitcoin network, which I would consider lightning bolt to be one of those in coin joints as well with Choying Market. So I'll speak to the best of my ability. I have not done a lightning pool trade myself. I have not lent any coins to lightning channels, so I have not actually done this myself. I just talked to DM's Ryan Gentry a few days ago.


He's with lightning left. He told me there's a gooey now, so I didn't realize that I've been so busy with work I haven't put my head up and realized it was actually going out because I'm not technical, I'm not an engineer. So I plan on playing around with that very soon. So I'll cover some of the basics. But I'm speaking from kind of a very high level here.


So we're playing pool for my understanding is that you are providing liquidity for lightning channels to be opened and closed in a certain fashion and you were being compensated for providing liquidity for others to be able to facilitate the routing and movement of coins through different lightning channels. Dan, first get into what lightning even is, because there's a lot of people that are probably listening to my show that don't even know what that is when we're talking about the second layer on top of Bitcoin.


That's a great point. So Bitcoin's community and developers have decided to approach scaling a sort of stacked architecture. And so what we refer to as layer one would be bitcoins like a transaction on layer one, and that would be a Bitcoin transaction on the Bitcoin block chain that we call layer two and layer three or these stacked layers on top of Bitcoin. What these represent are scaling layers where a lot of times what happens and what happens, like a lightning transaction, a lightning channel is open between two participants and the channels originally open with an unchanged transaction on layer one and close with an arm chain transaction on layer one.


So two transactions to open and close a lightning channel. And the way that it works is that the person A and Person B can transact very rapidly and very cheaply on layer two, which requires less settlement assurances because the values are smaller and it's going back and forth very, very quickly. So while the Bitcoin base layer can only handle X amount of transactions like a very small amount of transactions on layer two, we're talking like X to the tenth power 20th power.


We're talking like a huge magnitude. More number of transactions can occur on these layers above Bitcoin and lightning is one of those.


Lightning requires only two on chain transactions, the opening and closing of a lightning channel. It gets more complicated than that. But I'm just boiled it down to as simple as they possibly can here without leading to a bunch of nuance.


So, for example, we could have millions of transactions that happened between party A and party B and that net value. So let's say we each have ten dollars and we just shuffle that back, back and forth a million times. And then the net value is I have two dollars in, the other party has eight dollars. That net value is then closed out with with that second on Cheen transaction. So Nick Carter calls that as economic density. So what lightning provides us is for Bitcoin to be able to support many, many, many more transactions on the second layer.


And it's very economically dense because all those transactions are essentially the net value is then printed on the on the bass player one. So to facilitate that, the routing of a lightning transaction between different parties, it gets much more complicated than between party and party B, C and D, and they have lightning channels that they've opened up as well between each other. And then things can get really complex with that where it's sort of you can think about it like different like a canal, like those locks that you see for boats when they're going between two different bodies of water that are at different altitude or different levels.


These locks allow for that water in that boat to proceed from one body of water to another. You can kind of think about a lightning transaction occurring as many of these different locks between many different pools of liquidity. And you can imagine that to get between these different pools of liquidity, you have to find the right route if you have to have the appropriate amount of water in the locks.


And so that's what lighting pool helps with, is it helps these channels balance and make sure that they have enough liquidity to facilitate the proper routing of transactions through these different locks. That's the most simple way that I think. I think I can describe it. And the big advantage that we're really getting by stepping into this layer two of lightning in layer one, it takes 10 minutes for these blocks to occur. So like you might, let's say you were trying to go to Starbucks, pay for your coffee on layer one.


You'd have to stand there for 30 minutes to get three blocks to clear in order to pay for your five dollar coffee. But if you're if you have a lightning channel that you've opened up now, the payment of five dollars can immediately go through. They can immediately see that the transactions complete and it solves this whole speed and immediate clearance. The second one. So we're talking about the when you're talking about lightning pool, taking your bitcoins, putting them into a pool on this second layer and then receiving an interest rate on top of it, what are some of the numbers that you're hearing this might evolve into?


Because right now, today, it's really almost meaningless. But in the future, when we all expect this to be used, what are some of the numbers that you're hearing, Dan?


It's pretty hard to nail down what a long term interest rate might be that you would earn on lending your coins to like being cool. I mean, if I were to guess by being cool, is trust minimized? Which means, like, I don't have as high counterparty risk when I'm providing liquidity to these channels versus the counterparty risk that I might have lending coins on Gen. Block, letting you know those are facilitating certain types of arbitrage trades and whatnot, which incurs, I would say, a much higher counterparty risk.


So I would expect that a lot of supply would be willing to lend to these lending pools. I'm guessing demand to pay this interest rate, to borrow these coins, to facilitate these channels. I would guess the demand is probably lower than supply and demand and supply dictate everything in this world. So I would imagine that there's a lot of supply chasing, much less demand due to how low risk this would be. So my assumption is probably under one percent long term, like a one percent annualized yield is probably what I would expect from this.


We see a similar level with coin joints. So with coin doyennes, coins are a way to obfuscate your bitcoin transactions on layer one. Essentially, you are mixing your two complicated using terminology like UTX, but you're mixing essentially mixing your coins in a function to obfuscate the history of them with other people's coins and with the joint market. Joint Market is a software that doesn't have any centralized counterparty and you coordinate gear and with that you are able to there are folks who want to mix the coins right now and are willing to pay for that convenience.


And there are individuals who have coins readily available to mix. And you pay them for that convenience of mixing your coins at this moment. For example, let's say you wanted to mix half a million dollars of your coins to obfuscate the transaction history. You need to find a counterparty who wants to mix that amount right now. And so you pay them for that convenience.


And so annualized yield on coin Joynes, which coins have been in operation for five years? It's it's pretty robust software. There have been, from my best of understanding, there hasn't been a zero day founder, any sort of flaws or exploits, and it uses the Bitcoin base layer. So it's a pretty trust minimized way to earn yield from my understanding. Now, it's really difficult because if people are getting paid to mix the coins, they're not exactly talkative how much yield they're earning because you're being paid to mix coins with other folks.


So from my understanding, like we're talking like between 20 and 80 pips, so less than a percent as well. They're due to very low risk with the coin joined markets. You're also being paid to mix your coins. So you're obfuscating your own transaction history. So it's kind of an added benefit of earning yield there. So I would expect a lightning will probably is a similar function where there's a lot of supply willing to provide liquidity to these channels, to provide liquidity to the pool.


And it's probably not as much demand for it. So rates, I would probably expect long term to be under one percent.


Let's take a quick break and hear from their sponsor.


Wish you were in early on some of the best performing IPOs of twenty, nineteen and twenty twenty. Our crowd investors were and now you can join them in what's next with our crowd. Accredited investors have access to invest directly, easily and most importantly, early.


Our crowd investors have benefited from our crowd company's IPO going like beyond meat or being bought by companies like Intel, Nike, Microsoft and Oracle. You'll definitely be at ease knowing that the investment professionals at our crowd have already reviewed thousands of companies, invested hundreds of millions of dollars, closed investments in over two hundred companies, and chosen dozens of companies that have made exits.


Today, you can join our crowds investment in Nekesa 3D, a 3D manufacturing innovator that's shaping the future of a projected one hundred and fifty billion dollar market next to 3D.


Best in class solutions give customers a productivity advantage of twenty times their competitors at up to eighty five percent lower cost you can get in early on. Next, a 3D and other unique opportunities at our crowd dotcom study.


The our crowd account is free. Just go to oh you are s.r.o.. W.D. Dotcom study.


Managing your money is typically been complicated, time consuming and costly. Right, but this year you can do better with M one and one is the finance super app that's making money management easier and smarter than ever with anyone. You can invest how you want with access to fractional shares and zero management fees, you can borrow against your investments at super low rates two to three point five percent apart with one click and you can spend from a checking account that's integrated with your portfolio.


It's no surprise that in twenty twenty Investopedia rated M one No. One app for sophisticated investors and for low cost investing joined more than half a million investors who've opened accounts with MEONE to. Automate their finances when you switch to em, one from another brokerage, you can earn up to twenty five hundred dollars for transferring over your investments. Sign up for free today and get ten dollars. Visit the investors podcast Dotcom MeOne again. That's the investor's podcast. Dotcom meone terms and conditions apply.


Borrow rates may vary. Let's get back into the podcast.


Talk to us about some of your thoughts on non-financial uses of block chains. Are there any insurance identity and do you see that being built on top of Bitcoin? Do you see other platforms? How do you see a lot of this moving forward beyond just Bitcoin as a token of decentralized currency or. That's a great question, so I always think about it from a kind of more product mindset of Satoshi build lockshin tech to build Bitcoin blocks. And technology has a pretty minimal surface area of what is what it is useful for a similar to how a shovel is useful for very few things in the tank, for example, isn't useful for ride sharing or picking up groceries or dropping off the kids at school.


Everything in this world is special purpose built for a certain function lockshin is the same thing with parching technology. I think that if we look at how it functions, there's a lot of things we can eliminate that it could potentially do. For example, having real world assets on a block chain I don't think makes a lot of sense. And here is why. Let's say I tokenized my house and I take my house and I take the the deed to my house and it's now been digitized.


OK, well, let's say that that deed that I own on the block chain is is transferred to someone else because they hacked my account and moved it. Also in the real world, the US government, which enforces the title and the title, other parties as well, like I think there's like different I don't own a home, so I don't know that there are a title folks. There's like title insurance and there's title transfers and whatnot. They don't recognize the legitimacy of that transaction on a block chain.


In the real world, they're the legitimate recognized party that that deems who owns what. And the government enforces that physically in the real world so that any tokenized asset on a chain may or may not be recognized by authorities as a legitimate transaction. Furthermore, enforcement of that again falls onto not only the not only the recognition, but the enforcement, as well as on to the local physically present individuals. If someone stole the title to my house on a block chain, I'm still going to live in it.


Good luck getting me out.


So I think these real world assets have a it's a big problem bringing them on chain, because when you've got the physical beast authorities who don't recognize it as a legitimate way to transfer assets that exist in the real world, you also have the problem of validating that the asset is on chain.


So if you tokenized something like you tokenized an apple and put it on a chain, you still have to rely on some trusted party to verify the the the physical nature of it, that it exists in a certain location and not so well. All you've really done is added a wrapper like a digital wrapper around a real world asset. Put that on a chain, but you still have all the problems that you would with any centralized system of validation that this real world asset exists.


I think that only digitally native assets like Bitcoin itself, the token that's digitally native to the chain is the only asset you can truly, truly own and utilize boxing technology for. So that's that's my opinion on watching tech in terms of the assets that you can have unchained. I'm also a I would say a Bitcoin realist. So when it comes to Bitcoin versus other types of cryptocurrency, do crypto assets and primarily just a Bitcoin, I think Bitcoins block chain was created to solve the problem of storing value to being goal 2.0.


And there are other hypotheses, use cases of batching technology or other hypothesized assets that could be alternative stores of value. But I find it very unlikely that Bitcoin will be taken out of its number one seat as a globally recognized store value. I think that, you know, for example, Bitcoin or Dogecoin would never replace the trust that people have in Bitcoin, in Bitcoins origin and Bitcoin governance and other issues that it's gone through that demonstrate the resiliency of the agreed upon social the social contract that we have with the Bitcoin block chain, for example, like the enforcement of the twenty one million hard cap and for Bitcoin cash, hard for these demonstrated bitcoins resiliency and demonstrated why it deserves the title of digital gold, whereas these other assets I, I don't think deserve that.


And I think long term investors will likely realize that. And so I think Bitcoin being challenged in that store value asset category is very unlikely. So some people go, oh, is Bitcoin, MySpace or Facebook in? And in this case, when Bitcoin is being a new digital gold and new store value, it's unchanging. Nature leads to confidence being built in its longevity over time. This is called the lendee effect. And so I think that Bitcoin is basically unchallenged in the store value category.


So you were talking a little bit about physical items being terribly difficult to really kind of put onto a block chain, and one of the things that's a really big thing in the space right now are NFTE or non fungible tokens. First, explain what these are to to the audience and then give us your thoughts on NFTE. And non fungible tokens, fungible, by the way, would be one bitcoin equals one Bitcoin. So the item I have is interchangeable with any other.


Exactly similar item. A non fungible token would mean that the item is uniquely different than any other item. That's why we call it non fungible tokens.


You can actually tell an engineer came up with that term versus a marketer because it's a bit technical for for a normal person to take. You know, it's fungible is in a word people use very often.


So NTIS have risen in popularity recently. And if these are not a new idea, by the way, Infosys have been around since around twenty fifteen with I think rare Pepi's on the what was that called a counterparty block chain.


So enough T's have been around for a long time and what they represent, they represent a certificate or a certificate of ownership over a graphic asset, typically a graphic asset.


As people like to say. You can kind of think about it like you don't own the Mona Lisa, you own the certificate that validates the Mona Lisa, essentially. And that's what NFTE is. The graphic asset typically is not stored on chain due to how much data due to the bloat that would occur if you were storing all these graphic assets on chain.


You don't have to be graphic assets there.


Just it just makes it easier, I think, for your listeners to kind of conceptualize what we're talking about here. So most of the time, those what you really own is essentially like a hash, a hash, which represents the certificate essentially of ownership over this digital asset.


So different types of assets here that we're talking about like to use real life examples. There's the NBA. I think I think Hot Shot is what it's called. So like different NBA clips, so from basketball, different different video clips of different moments. You can technically own that moment. Now, again, you just on your own the certificate that validates that that that's the moment anyone else can can download that moment and own it in their own form on a computer or anything else.


It's just recognize that subjectively recognized on other participants on a certain block chain that you have the certificate. This would be for licensing the clip to prove that you have the certificate of ownership so that you could license it. I don't I'm not even sure if you have licensing rights, I'm pretty sure it's probably very limited. I assume that the NBA would not give out licensing rights to this to these different NTIS that just want that's just one example of types of things that you can go on.


For example, there's an artist called Three Liow and three. Liow is a musician and he created some pieces of art that you can own as well. Three, Liow sold 11 million dollars worth of this art in the form of NFTE that individuals can own. It's really interesting dynamic. If you're not licensing it, then like, why would you want to own the certificate or why would you pay these outrageous prices? Look, I mean, I'm personally not buying this, I remember describing I think I'm describing how they work and I'll get into a little bit of that what I think is going on psychologically with the ownership of these.


So what happened during twenty seventeen? I'm going to take a step back and then we'll go back to lefties here real quick. Yeah. What happened in twenty seventeen with Ákos was demand in the markets. So individuals who wanted to hold ákos demand became so large that supply printed as much as demand wanted. So with ICAO's you can think of them as a black Sholes model of every possible narrative you could append to an investment.


You want Zober on the block chain. We got that for you. You got disruptor of Amazon HWC. We got an echo for you. And so these ICAO's produced as much supply as demand want. It is demand. Combine it.


And so people are like, sure, I'll come up with an IPO to solve cancer or whatever bullshit.


And so to the tune of tens of billions of dollars of supply and demand. Kept eating it up until it didn't, until demand eventually started to evaporate. And the only reason why demand existed for these assets. Ninety five percent of the time, people didn't give it about the narrative. They're like, OK, cool, I don't care what this coin does. They just wanted to flip it. They just wanted to buy it and flip it to the next purchaser.


So it was essentially I'm hoping to pump it down. That drove most of the demand.


The IPO space was purely driven on the idea that I can flip this to someone else at a higher price, because almost none of these had anything, anything resembling a real product or anything resembling something real that there was solving a problem. Now, when we look at NFTE, they're a little bit different because they're collectibles and more art based, which is highly subjective, but it feels a little bit of the same vibe.


And Charlie Lee had a tweet strong today where he had a couple of great points. I recommend everyone check that out. He had some great points around how some other resemblance that he sees between Axios and enough to ease the way that I see it resemble the artist will produce as much NTIS as many SFD as you want as long as you keep buying them.


If an artist can make eleven million dollars, which makes this artist like them one of the most highly paid artists in the world, artist as a musician artist, it makes him makes three out of the highest paid musicians in the world.


Every other musician will print as much supply, as much as demand will be willing to pay. These pieces of art are extremely cheap to create relative to the value that's being generated for the artists selling it. So I think what we're going to see is, is a lot of folks and I think a lot of the folks buying in AFTRS, I think a lot of them aren't buying it because they love three Liow. A lot of them are probably buying it because they think they can flip it.


I'm not personally a fan of three that I listen to his music. I've got some of my own favorite artists that I'm, of course, early into. I'm not going to go pay a million dollars to have the not for a song. And by the way, you don't actually own the song. You just own like the certificate of the song.


So I think what we're seeing here in the market is another frothy market where folks think that they can buy the scarce asset and expectation that they can flip it to someone else at a higher value later.


And there will be an infinite number of fees created. There will be sports in which is what we've seen already. There will be maybe pawn in fees. Right. If the list goes on, it becomes near infinite of the number of certificates you can sell, someone you could have in fees for literally everything.


And so that's what I think we'll see. What we'll see here is a black Sholes model of pretty much infinite number of NTIS. As long as demand is there and in fees will be printed until demand is fully satisfied. And then I think they'll be a turning point where people go, OK, wait a second, why am I paying a million dollars for this NFTE and then that sort of spiral out just like we saw with Ákos or people are like, wait, OK, no one's going to buy this from you at a higher value.


I'm going to stop by Mufti's or I'm going to stop buying axios and then demand starts to really dry up. So I think we're going to see the same sort of function happen with the fees as well. Where, yes, it's a novel. It's a cool idea. I find it very unrealistic that the output, graphic output from a musician is worth eleven million dollars. This is totally crazy to me because my understanding of of the certificate was, or at least my assumption when I saw some of this taking place, is that then you become the owner of whatever if it's if it's a song and you buy the song, you get the certificate digitally over a block chain or however they're they're managing these notes.


And then you could then be the owner of of all the income that that song could then generate if it's played. But it doesn't seem like that's that's you're saying that's not the case. I believe that most of these do not have a royalty component. I'm sure some might try to configure it, but I'm pretty sure most don't. Wow, crazy. All right, you wrote an article, it's called Bitcoin Security is Fine, and this is a really interesting article because what you're getting at is this idea that right now people I think are really familiar with how there's a block reward for every ten minute block that is mine.


The miner that that find that solves the puzzle gets their block reward. But they also get some transaction fees that people are competitively bidding to get their transaction put into the next block. So as time goes on and we march much further into the future, these rewards start to actually be larger than the block reward that the protocol automatically supplies to the person that finds the next block. You talk about this crossover. You talk about what this is going to lead to.


And there's a lot of people that try to make the argument that there's not going to be enough miners that are going to want to capture just the transaction fees as their reward. And it could lead to a block chain that's not nearly as secure as we see it today or expectations. Talk to us through how you lay out this this argument and kind of where you think that this is going with respect to the security of the block chain in the long term.


All right, well, if you're listening, you might either want to grab a cup of coffee or grab a drink because it's going to get a little technical here. Go for it.


I'm real curious on this. This is really a fascinating subject. Yes, so this is where, as I've know, I wasn't as familiar with this until a couple of years ago and I started to spend more time researching it. This is where once you come to realize how intricate proof of work is, intricate Bitcoin security model is, you understand how very narrow use case for a block chain can be. So it's in these moments when I've I've continually fallen down the rabbit hole of Bitcoin and fell more and more in love with the architecture and also a little bit more negative around other use cases for block chain technology.


So the way that Bitcoin secures itself is Bitcoin issues, something called a block reward to Bitcoin miners, bitcoin miners through the proof of work function, expend energy and work and expend energy in the form of proving that they did the work and they are compensated with the network through this block reward. Now, why is this important? Why do they do this? So miners purchase the equipment, they pipe in energy through the equipment, and then they are given a validation that they've done the proof of work and they interact with the Bitcoin protocol in Bitcoin, then gives them a certain percentage of the block reward now per block, it's randomized.


So you can think about it more like a lottery. So I'm a miner and I represent 20 percent of all the hash rate. On average, I will win one out of five blocks. So it's not a it's not a percentage per block.


It's on average, I keep mining and in my percentage of the hash rate or my percentage of my proof of work relative to the rest of the network is the probabilistic percentage of all the block rewards during the time period that I that I operated within that will receive what the miners are doing when they when they find a new block. The new block consists or each block consists of newly minted bitcoins called the block subsidy and transaction fees. So the miners are performing a couple of functions here.


When they're when they're finding a new Bitcoin block, they're not only issuing new units. So the block subsidy, they're also validating and including transactions in that 10 minute block.


So that's a function of protecting the ledger, if you will. We can think about it in the way of that. These miners are receiving this block award, which is comprised of the newly minted bitcoins that the block subsidy plus transaction fees that people attach their transactions to be included. It's what they pay the miners to be included in that block. And that total some value called the block reward is what incentivizes miners to behave properly. Miners have spent all this money buying these specialized computers that are only useful for mining Bitcoin.


They've piped electricity through it and they are ordering these blocks in a sequential fashion and they're being compensated with the block award because they're doing it properly. That is what secures bitcoins, linear time, if you will, of the series of transactions that occur. We we know definitively that the ownership of this coin is owned by this Utako, because it occurred at a certain time and that is recorded in this ledger, this chain of blocks, this block chain.


We know that, OK, that ownership of these coins exists to party and party B because that transaction occurred later.


So these miners are compensated with the Blocher were to behave properly. You get all these transactions ordered in the right sequence and they could, you know. Fifty one percent attack could occur if miners are are willing to behave improperly. Now, the miners have already bought the equipment and piped electricity through it, which costs a lot. And so the miners would have to be willing to sacrifice the block reward in order to mess with the order of transactions, because what would happen is that people would become less confident in Bitcoin if miners started to behave improperly, which means that the value of the block reward would drop.


And so the miners would be shooting themselves in the foot, essentially. And they've already expended all their money buying these these specialized equipment that can't be used for anything else. So that's the fundamental game theory that protects the not only issues new Bitcoin, but also protects the ledger, is that these miners are financially incentivized to behave properly and do their job of ordinary transactions in the right direction.


The total cost, the total like annualized block reward value, I think right now is at around eight billion to ten billion dollars. So you can find a pretty raw aggregate metric here to quantify how much money it would cost for someone to attack Bitcoin, because someone has to not care about the money. They have to be willing to burn the money because the only way to perform this attack is to buy the equipment, run electricity through it, and then start to misbehave, which makes the value that you receive in the form of block reward is worth a lot less.


You have to be essentially willing to burn the money. The concern is that over time, the subsidy inside the block or the subsidy being the newly minted bitcoins through Bitcoins issuance schedule every four years, the number of newly. Bitcoins being produced in a block drops in half, and the worry is that over time, transaction fees will not rise to compensate for the drop in the black subsidy. So essentially what's happening is the the issuance of newly minted bitcoins is slowing, slowing down.


And the worry is that people won't pay more and more money in transaction fees in order to continue the same level of security spend or the same level of block or spend as there was historically. So there's a couple of ways to think about this. One is that we don't know what an appropriate level of block chain security spending should be. We don't know if that's one billion, five billion, 10 billion or hundred billion. The way that we phrase that or the way that McArtor phrased it is that is a threshold security model.


There are some sort of threshold in which there's a level of 10 billion dollars, one hundred billion. And once we get over that, bitcoin is super secure, even against state level attacks. There's the stock and flow models which are more around security spend as a percentage of Bitcoin market cap. And then there's also the flow valuation method of looking at what's our security spend per amount of money flowing out chain, how much value flowing on and how much security spending, spending.


I think that no one knows because bitcoin.


And so here's the weird thing, is that bitcoins security spend. So the amount of money paid to miners in the form of a block reward over over time has increased exponentially. Bitcoins total annualized use annualise because it's easier some to come up with it. Just to think about it. We're talking back in twenty thirteen. We're talking tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. Annualized would be the amount in the security, the security spend and now are in the tens of billions.


So Bitcoin has while the subsidy has been decreasing through having the total value of the block, reward has increased exponentially due to the appreciation of the price of Bitcoin and the rise of transaction fees being paid per Bitcoin transaction.


So over time, we've seen the total block reward value go up a whole bunch and in Bitcoin hadn't been attacked before when the total value was worth much less. And so it's really hard to know are we secure or not? And so it's a very subjective thing. I do think a 10 billion dollar annual security spend is high. There's only a few attackers who'd be willing to spend that sort of capital during volatile times.


Institutional investors seek the tangibility of private real estate and distressed commercial real estate assets. With equity multiple. You can join them, starting with just ten thousand dollars. Equity Multiple is the only real estate investing platform that brings you institutional asset management. Once you invest equity, multiple delivers transparent performance reporting and works to ensure favorable outcomes for your real estate investments. Equity Multiple brings you access to a diverse array of exclusive, professionally managed real estate assets that have undergone extensive due diligence and structure to provide maximum investor protections, starting with just ten thousand dollars.


Invest across a range of risk, return profiles, markets across the country and property types, including recession resistant assets like self-storage and workforce housing. With equity multiple, you can mirror the asset allocation strategy of the world's most successful institutional investors, diversify into high yield private market commercial real estate, starting with just ten thousand dollars. Visit the investors podcast. Dotcom slash equity multiple. That's E cucu it. Why MTel typically simple, accessible and transparent for the self directed investor.


The Investors Podcast Dotcom Equity Multiple.


All right, back to the show. I think another important point to kind of add to that is just the production of hardware and the consolidation of hardware in the time that would be required to do something like that without anybody in the market noticing or raising a red flag saying, hey, I think there's some issues here. Why is why are mining rigs getting so expensive all of a sudden and why is there such a substantial delay in delivery because somebody or some entity is acquiring all this hardware.


So I think that there would be a lot of signaling that would occur in the marketplace just for hardware. Well, in advance of something like that, just coming online out of nowhere. Yeah, I mean, this topic is really nuanced, a surprise you brought it up because there's a lot of different rebuttals to this. What you're talking about is, for example, there's only so many number of foundries or chip manufacturing facilities that can produce these ASICs in this specific machinery that's used to mine Bitcoin.


And, yeah, we would be able to see this activity occurring far in advance because we'd see the price of these assets start to skyrocket.


Yeah. And we would go, oh, OK, well, well, who's who's buying all these? Which is funny because then that actually might send a signal to the market that maybe everyone starts to buy the ASX and then maybe more foundries are created. So, you know, the game theory behind Bitcoin is really interesting. I wanted to cover the basics at the blackboard function and the circumstance that was happening with the decline of the subsidy, because that's where people are worried that transaction fees won't compensate.


But, yeah, there's even deeper game theory that plays out here of like what happens if someone actually attempts to do this. So this raw number of currently around like ten dollars billion worth of annualized spend in the block reward this. This is again, like I mentioned earlier, we don't know what an appropriate level of security spend is. There's a lot of other ways to counter an attack like this. So it isn't a guaranteed successful attack. This is just a way to disrupt the tip of the block chain.


And remember, there are other good miners here, too. So there's all sorts of games that can be played that get really, really technical. So what I did is I looked at I am I'm a product guy, so my background is and growth both on product management and growth marketing. And I've worked at companies like Uber on rider growth and the growth marketing team. And it's a group of startups currently. What I do over at Cracken, I lead growth marketing and a little bit a little touch of gross product.


So the way that we look at how to build products as we develop KPIs, key performance indicators to calibrate all of our actions, why am I building this new feature? Well, this new feature will get us more users or the users will become more engaged with the product. And ultimately, both of those drive more revenue we use. KPIs is the alignment mechanism to align our efforts.


When we look at a KPI or a way to monitor performance for Bitcoin's security model, a good way to look at it would be transaction fees over the block subsidy. So what that metric gives us in glass node, by the way, has this metric, which is really awesome. And so with this metric shows us is our transaction fees replacing the subsidy over time. And what we're seeing is that they roughly are now Bitcoin has many, many, many having ahead of it and a lot of price appreciation, which we all hypothesize with, that we've got a lot of time for this to be figured out.


It doesn't have to be figured out immediately. We've got like 10 to 15 years before we see signs that there might be an issue. And what we're seeing is over a very long period of time, transaction fees indeed are replacing the block subsidy, which they're worrisome moment that transaction fees won't be large enough in value to properly incentivize these miners. I don't think we're seeing that. First and foremost, we don't even know what that value would be. So when people go, oh, we have Bitcoin, long term security could be poor and cool.


What value is that? Because that's totally subjective. Number two, if we look at the primary KPI, that would indicate if this is trending in the right direction, things look fine. I think Bitcoin as of this moment. All right, Preston. So I just pulled up last no data in a percentage minor revenue from fees for Bitcoin is around between 10 and 15 percent. So and if we look at it on a log chart over time, again, anyone can look at this data on their own, on glass node.


It's it's very much trending in the right direction. Now, I'll go ahead and preemptively address some of the concerns that people throw up because of debated dozens of people on this topic. What the claim is that the price elasticity, that the transactors affinity to go a higher fee or how price inelastic they are, there's concerns that people will choose not to pay higher and higher transaction fees on Bitcoin's block chain. So that's where they go. Oh, cool.


Well, you're seeing transaction fees as a percentage of minor revenue go up, but it's going to get capped out because people at a certain amount will stop paying that. I think we're pretty far away from that. And what I used was real world comps to calibrate how much people might be willing to spend on a Layer one transaction. So we have a couple different ways to think through this one. We've got US dollar wires. Those are between 20 and 40 dollars round trip, and people pay those every day.


People are very willing to pay those as a way to settle large amounts of value. And so Bitcoin transaction fees could hit a median. So not just like, you know, not just like a peak, but like the average transaction or the median transaction could be around twenty to forty dollars.


And I don't think anyone would bat an eye, but I think we can go much higher than that as well. Bitcoin is in just a wire. Bitcoin is like an offshore bank account. It's like a physical gold settlement. Physical gold.


Saltsman's is extremely expensive in terms of a dollar value.


It's so prohibitively expensive to physically settle gold that it occurs very rarely. But when they do do it, they've got like Brinks security trucks, security individuals. In Germany repatriated its gold from the US and the U.K., it took like three years and a 10 million dollars. And so we've got that so physical gold settlement. And then we have we've got a couple other transaction types. We have offshore banking and offshore banking to set up an offshore bank account is at least in the thousands of dollars in addition to wiring money on occasion where you're paying international wire fees of 40 to 60 bucks.


So people are willing to pay thousands of dollars. And there's also a management fee with a lot of these banks in offshore banking to manage your money.


So people are paying thousands or tens of thousands or millions of dollars to facilitate the movement of large amounts of capital. Then we also have like a real estate transaction. You've got like title insurance for a real estate transaction. You've got broker fees. You've got all these fees associated with it.


So Bitcoin as a store value asset to pay what I would estimate, like long term transaction fees around like fifty to one hundred dollars per transaction seems pretty reasonable to me, especially compared to these other real world transaction types that are closely equivalent to a Bitcoin store value transaction. I think this is why I get very annoyed with the payments narrative. And not only is it is it damaging to Bitcoins adoption because you're you know, we you saw the Bitcoin cash hard for, which was due to a misperception that Bitcoin should be used as a cheap PayPal.


You also lead to a circumstance where people become very disenfranchised with Bitcoin. Fees will rise. We have essentially a fixed amount of block space for for just the easy, easy math. It's basically fixed and we have a lot of demand that will increase for this block space. So block spaces is this space that transactions can be put into a block. And so we have a it's like a fixed parcel of land and we get a lot of people coming in.


And so transaction fees will naturally rise. And so these payments narrative to folks. I find it really disingenuous because I'm like transaction fees for Bitcoin will rise. We we can all see it. It's a supply and demand function. And this is good for Bitcoin because it means that the long term security will be great. Well, it also doesn't prohibit from being used as a payment mechanism, at least on the layer to like we were talking about earlier.


So although a person might be listening to this and saying, well, that's crazy, no one's ever going to use this thing on a day to day basis if the if the transaction fees are 20 or 30 dollars. But I would tell you, if you're doing any type of meaningful amount of ten thousand dollars or more, which those types of transactions are happening all day long all across the globe, and so are your ten dollar transactions, which would be happening on the second layer for near nothing and fees.


And and you have immediate settlement, so. That's a good point around delayer to facilitating those lower value transaction types, but I think it's that when I talk about disingenuous with the payments folks, it's because they promote later one being used for that and like, well, that's not going to happen. Nick Carter, again, Carter's a great leader in the space.


He's currently in a battle with a guy named Iraj to get to one hundred thousand Twitter followers. So if you're listening to this, followed Nick Carter on Twitter.


We got in a rush for sure. Nick is brilliant.


Yes, Nick has a great way of explaining this, which is that Bitcoin layer on transactions. That's a cargo ship. The containers are like layer two. You put a bunch of containers on a cargo ship and move it into layer one transaction. You don't try to move those little containers, one one little container and an entire cargo ship. You put a whole bunch of them on there, like we talked about before with lightning. There's a lot of economic density there.


There's a lot of smaller value transactions on there, too, that occur. And those net out on layer one is the reason why we use layer two is it's a proper skill, a way to scale that. There's a lot of different reasons why. But the TDR is that trying to scale and layer one essentially would make Bitcoin equivalent to a visa where you've got three servers in the world. We can facilitate a lot of transactions, but it's a very decentralized and so bitcoins box based on layer one needs to remain small and compact.


And that's where we push scaling solutions to layer to where we don't need a completely trust, less environmental trust and minimize environment.


We sacrifice a little bit, a little bit of that for speed and cost. And that's what these these layers upon Bitcoin provide with, like layer to like like me. When you think about the technology adoption curve and so, folks, it might not be intimately familiar with this, you have the early innovators, you have early adopters, then you start getting into early maturity, late maturity and then the laggards. We're at a trillion dollars right now in market cap for Bitcoin.


Where do you see where we're at in that technology adoption curve? That's a really good question. I mean, if we look at if we look at some of the raw numbers of market penetration, so percentage ownership depends on the country, depends on, you know, a lot of like Western like a lot of European countries, the United States have higher penetration in terms of ownership. Some countries like Korea, I think during twenty seventeen had double digit percentage ownership of crypto.


And so I think on Bitcoin's adoption curve, you know, I'd say we're still very early stages. I think like the number of the estimated number of unique bitcoin, hodler is probably around one hundred million. And this is a guesstimate from survey data from people compiling unique user numbers from Coinbase and Cracken and other companies, other exchanges, brokerages. So I think one hundred million is probably a reasonable it's a simple, easy math here. Right. So you've got around seven point seven billion people on Earth.


So we're talking a pretty, pretty low percentage on Bitcoin. And so I would say we're still in the very early sort of adoption cycle of Bitcoin and a trillion dollars.


So that's one way to think about it, is the number of unique holders compared to the world population. And then you've got a metric which should be around like valuation, sort of market capitalization, the total value of all Bitcoin to Bitcoin as an asset.


One trillion dollars was a huge moment for Bitcoin. I, I thought that was incredible. One trillion dollars solidifies. Bitcoin is a real asset, a mature, real asset that can be taken seriously by institutional investors. And a trillion dollars, though, isn't that big. And if we look at other store value assets, bitcoin I think has a long way to run. Gold itself is worth around 10 trillion. We've got other store value assets like real estate in the hundreds of trillions, for example, like in a bucket real estate into that.


Some people are like, why are you talking about real estate as a store value asset?


Well, you're the real utility of your home. A very low percentage of the value of your home with a real utility of the home.


A lot of the value of the home is in the is in the owning a fixed parcel of land or a fixed amount of space that can't be easily printed.


So scarcity of the land, hence why we see you've got cities like New York City in London that are used in some of these homes are purely I mean, basically purely used as a store value asset where you've got wealthy Saudi Arabians or Russians who purchase a 10 million dollar home in London. And I've never lived there. So that's why I bucket's real estate interest or value or another type of asset that Bitcoin competes with. You've also got like essentially broad money metrics around, like how much fiat money is out there.


You've got you've got sovereign bonds which are like one hundred trillion dollar market. These are a little bit rounded. I'm sure these numbers aren't exact. So don't take these verbatim as far as exact metrics here. But these are directionally accurate in terms of size of market.


So what I'm trying to say here is that Bitcoin, a trillion dollars is a very small store of value asset relative to all these other store value assets out there. And I would say it has a supremely superior, supremely better characteristics as a store value asset. And so Bitcoin is and then also the supply of gold is unknown.


We don't know how much gold has been mined. We don't know how much gold will be mined with Bitcoin. We have extreme mathematical precision over its supply and it's instantly transferable to any one in the world. So Bitcoin is definitively a superior asset relative to gold. And then when we look at real estate, as we mentioned before, one home does not equal one home. There are maintenance costs because the real estate exists in the physical world, which has weather and and all sorts of other mechanisms that erode its value versus bitcoin, which can be stored on a piece of metal and locked away somewhere super cheap for eternity.


So Bitcoin as a store value asset is incredible in terms of its characteristics.


And that's why I think Bitcoin will very much e gobble up the gold market capitalization, fiat, sovereign bonds and likely some of real estate, which puts it in the tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of value. What are your thoughts on some of the on chain data that you're seeing right now compared to previous cycles? That's a good question, I'm not passing through on analytics like super often there are some interesting ones that I've heard about in terms of like I hear about it on Twitter and through through my personal network.


One would be like supply of coins held on exchanges. I think this is a really interesting metric around. People can look at the aggregate number of Bitcoin that are held on centralized exchanges, like the company I work at, Cracken, Coinbase, et cetera. And the total value of Bitcoin held. The total number of Bitcoin held by these exchanges is dropping over time. And people hypothesize what's occurring is that institutional investors are buying it and then either self custody in it or moving it in case you need it elsewhere.


People think that this is a bullish thing because it reduces the amount of supply on exchange, which has the potential to reduce cell site pressure. The only way people can buy Bitcoin is if someone's willing to sell it. And if there's less and less sellers and there's more demand, no go up. That's the TDR of that that idea. I think it's pretty interesting. I do think the twenty one million hard cap is such a brilliant, beautiful thing of that.


Twenty one. I mean there's only twenty one million. There's no supply response. So with gold, if gold becomes more valuable, we can dig deeper into the earth to find more and more gold. But we can't do that with Bitcoin as demand increases for bitcoin supply. Do anything.


Supply is like cool. All right. Ten times the number of people, one, bitcoin, tough luck. And so that's what leads to Bitcoin volatility, which is a good thing, leads to volatility in Bitcoin's exponential rises in price. So I think it's I think the supply at exchanges definitely demonstrates less and less Celsi pressure. So I think that's a bullish metric that I found particularly interesting. All right, so rumor has it you're making a documentary, I'm kind of curious how that's going and then talk to us about the methodology of how you're going through the like the layout of how you want to present your documentary.


I'm actually participating in two, so these are other individuals documentaries on Bitcoin in the ecosystem, and I've been asked to participate in two of them. So that's what I tweeted about the other day. Now, there is something I will bring up that I am working on, and that's a video project. So I have stood up a YouTube channel. So I first got started with my personal brand on Twitter and I've got about one hundred and forty thousand followers on Twitter.


I'm at and then held on Twitter, by the way, for folks who want to check that out. And I recently started to spin up a couple other channels, so I spun up my newsletter. And so if you want to know some of these longer form topics, check that out as well as Dan held substract. If you Google that, that you'll find it. It's called the Health Report. And the Health Report started to make some money because I, I write this weekly.


It's kind of my more intimate thoughts around Bitcoin and different topics within the Bitcoin ecosystem. Like I go deep on price, I go deep on Bitcoin versus Ethereum. But what I really love is video. Video content is super cool. And I spun up a YouTube channel about three months ago. And so I've just started to build that up, which has been really fun. I fly drones for fun and I've taken that footage and I've had to use Premier Pro and cut it up and craft narratives.


I think video is an extremely compelling medium to convey topics about Bitcoin. So what I'm doing is I'm working with my animator to try to build out a video series of very compressed ways to talk about Bitcoin and how Bitcoin works. That is me walking you through it. Combined with visual imagery that I hand crafted with my designer, Sven, Svend knows after effects and he knows how to animate all of this. And so what we do is I sit down and I sketch it and sketch out a time series essentially of what this visualization will look like.


And then we think through how it's going to be rendered in him. And I work together on it. So I'm really excited to bring this up because it's it's something where him and I are just now working on this. It it takes a ton of time to not only script it, so you've got to write a script for the video. You've also got to have, for example, like in the video, a point in animation forms. So I have to time it very precisely.


I'm very, very particular with animations that I create.


So Sven and I have created a bunch before.


If you've seen a black and white gif on Twitter that has to do with Bitcoin, it's probably one of mine. And so we've already done this with different Bitcoin topics. And so I'm trying to compress Bitcoins narrative to the maximum compression in simplicity as possible.


So I'm really excited about video content. It's really cool because you can repurpose it. So if we build it for YouTube, we can also take it and put it on LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter. And so I'm really stoked about that. So yeah, I'm not doing a documentary. I'm participating in two documentaries, but I am producing a series of videos and I don't have an exact date as to where these come out. I want to get it done in the next three months, but we'll see if that actually happens to video content as a lot of work.


It's a lot more than audio work, that's for sure. Audio's a bunch of work, too, I mean, Prestons probably has a couple support people that help me out on stuff. And so, you know, even audio, you know, you got to sit down, take time to record with me precedented. You got a bunch of great notes and homework. And I know you asked your followers if they had questions for me, too.


So, yeah, video content is the maximum amount of work is. You know, I've got a full time job and I also have to keep my girlfriend happy and I still have friends, you know, so I am going to try to get it done in the next three months, but we'll see if that actually happens.


Well, Dan, we're going to have links to all the things that you mentioned in the show notes, is there anything else that you wanted to highlight or point people towards? I think that's it on almost all my content free, my paid newsletter, if you want to get it first. That comes out Thursdays. A couple of days later, I tweet about it because I want to bring these topics out that everyone can hear. But if you really like the way that I explain things, if you want to support me, that's the best way to do it.


I think Twitter is where you're going to get kind of Twitter in the newsletter. Are you going to get the raw held? So on Twitter, I'm pretty unashamedly speak exactly how I feel about Bitcoin. And same with the newsletter. For example, today I wrote about Bitcoin versus A.M. and this was a topic that had been highly requested. I sent out a survey at the end of every newsletter I write to my readers, and this is the one that they voted for as the number one requested topic.


So this one was a kind of a meteor one to dig into. But I give my kind of very raw feelings about exactly how I feel about Bitcoin in theory and especially compared to each other. So, yeah, I'd say Twitter in my newsletter, the two best places to kind of stay up to date with what I'm talking about. That's where I hang out the most. Dan, we really appreciate this and what fun to finally be able to talk in person instead of on the keyboard like we have been for four years at this point.


So, Dan, thank you for making time for us.


And thanks for having me. And hopefully come back on again and we can cover more topics.


You bet. Hey, so thanks for everybody listening to the show, if you enjoyed the conversation, be sure to subscribe to the show on whatever podcast app you're using. We really appreciate that. And if you have time, leave us a review. So thanks for joining us this week and we'll catch you next Wednesday. Thank you for listening to Tity to access our show notes, courses or forums, go to the Investors podcast Dotcom. This show is for entertainment purposes only before making any decisions, consult a professional.


The show is copyrighted by the Investors Podcast Network written permission must be granted before syndication or before casting.