[00:00:01] Speaker A: Welcome to Crypto Talk radio, the podcast for everyday investors like you. Visit us on the
[email protected]. And now here's your host, Leister.
[00:00:13] Speaker B: Thank you for that, Bailey. And welcome, everybody out there in crypto talk radio
[email protected] Vivek Ramaswami quits the presidential run run that he was going on. He was the spokesperson for the young elitists out there, the youthful people that wanted something different, wanted somebody that spoke like them. Now, let's be fair. Vivek Ramaswami was very, he is a very educated individual.
He speaks very well. He's a very eloquent speaker. So he's in no way representative of the youth of America. I digress. It was surprising to see him pull out, not because he was behind. He was in the last place, arguably. That's not why I was surprised. I was surprised because he struck me as the person that wasn't going to give up and was going to keep on pushing. But I did hear him say on multiple occasions he would keep on going until he couldn't and he would listen to whatever the people said. If the people largely leaned not in his direction, he openly said, I'll pull out if that's what it's going to be.
[00:01:19] Speaker C: And with what the nonsense that happened.
[00:01:21] Speaker B: In Colorado, he said, if this doesn't change, I will eventually pull out. And I call on the rest of you to pull out because that's crap of what you guys are doing. And if you didn't follow the story, kudos, by the way. But what happened is that Colorado, arguably against all precedent, pulled Donald Trump off to where he is not eligible to be voted for. Well, that's Colorado saying, voters, your voice doesn't really matter. We don't care who you want. We're not going to allow it. Which flies in the face of tradition. So it all is around this word of insurrection. And when Vivek was able to stand up and said, look, this is how I'm going to stand. I'm going to pull out, I have a newfound respect for him. He's not clean 100%. There's some things in his past that were kind of shady. But the reason I bring him up, he was one of the select few that was even anywhere close to mentioning a new framework for cryptocurrency support and advocacy in the future. So losing him brings back questions about supporting cryptocurrency going forward. I'm not suggesting that we're going to regress all the way backward I am saying that he was the closest to it. Donald Trump, I like the dollar. He has his nfts. He has that stuff. The man doesn't, he's not directly said.
[00:02:38] Speaker C: He supports cryptocurrency in any message I've ever heard from him.
[00:02:42] Speaker B: He's kind of ambivalent about it. He doesn't really take aside.
[00:02:45] Speaker C: Right. And that's cool.
[00:02:47] Speaker B: That's his prerogative.
[00:02:49] Speaker C: The thing is, there are people waiting on the sidelines to support the candidate that will support cryptocurrency and healing it. And if we don't have that, we.
[00:02:57] Speaker B: Damn sure are not going to have.
[00:02:58] Speaker C: That on the Democrat side because none of them really do. So if we don't have Vivek, who was arguably the one supporting the framework, and Donald Trump has not openly said he will support it yet, then it raises questions with this run that we're in the midst of. We don't know what's going to happen because 2024 is when we are supposed to elect a new president. If the person that goes in there happens to be anti cryptocurrency, it might stymie the very run that we're looking for. Now, there's two ways to look at that.
[00:03:29] Speaker B: That my friends. And by the way, if you're new, welcome. My name is Leister. I'm your host, and I am sharing thoughts up front before I get to the real numbers and the meat of the matter. But I'd like you to consider what this might mean. Might surprise you to think I considered that this may be a bullish thing, not that he dropped out. That's not bullish, but the potential of what it might mean, given what the potential options are for a replacement for him. Right. When we look at the other side of it, then we got to think about what would be the reaction, what would be the natural reaction from some of these wealthy mother fathers. In the event that we don't get somebody who's openly supportive of cryptocurrency, what is most likely to happen? And that is what I want to.
[00:04:18] Speaker C: Kind of dig into.
[00:04:19] Speaker B: So I'm going to start with the.
[00:04:21] Speaker C: Numbers as they stand today and some of the sentiment things that I think.
[00:04:24] Speaker B: Took place, then we're going to spin over into, just kind of scope it out and speculate and see what we end up with. And I think I might just very well surprise you with what I come.
[00:04:33] Speaker C: Up with.
[00:04:40] Speaker B: On this absolute frigid day. Let's go ahead and check out some numbers. Coindesk.com and I'm going to zoo out to the month chart. And I'm going to start with bitcoin because I noticed something very peculiar, but it ties to what I'm going to talk about later. Bitcoin is way more red than green. Had a major dump that happened, and some people started putting out some speculatives about what was going on. And it ties to the whole etfs, but it also ties to the general, the way that the rich at mother fathers, they play the game. It's all a game. And that connects then to the whole Ramaswami and supporting a cryptocurrency and who gets in office 2024. It's all tied together. I share that opinion. So bottom line, though, we see more red than green on bitcoin. We speculate that bitcoin is going to have a little rough time. And I've mentioned if you're not new and you've heard me a while
[email protected]. Have heard me say we had some volatility coming our way. That's the middle of what we see. And that's simply because there was going to be some sells, there were going to be some buys. Some people had some really interesting speculation that I wanted to talk about and dig into because I do support and share some of what was said. First of all, they speculated that this was intentional. The whole sell the news portion was intentional, was planned, that they were waiting, just waiting in the wings to go ahead and dump that bad boy.
But there is something to it. Some people thought that the dump was really just taking profits, was just getting the money out, was just getting away and being done with it. People did a little bit of digging, a little bit of sleuthing on blockchains and otherwise, and they found a rather peculiar pattern. The pattern told them that it might just very well be, and I am not giving a statement of definitive fact. I'm sharing simple speculation. So you can kind of chew on it and think about it yourself or be tinfoil like myself.
[00:06:27] Speaker C: The theory was that what they were.
[00:06:30] Speaker B: Trying to do was trigger dumps and maintain dumps, not because they were trying.
[00:06:35] Speaker C: Necessarily to stack bags, although stacking bags comes along with territory. Rather, it was to try to entice.
[00:06:41] Speaker B: People to sell to FOMO.
[00:06:43] Speaker C: Sell. Seeing a bunch of red, thinking that we're trashed, we're done, this is it. The end is near. Like the WWE song that we were.
[00:06:51] Speaker B: Toast and we were just going to dump out, and it would trigger FOMo sells, which, if you think about it.
[00:06:55] Speaker C: That'S exactly what people do.
[00:06:57] Speaker B: They shouldn't, but that's what they do. They see a bunch of red, especially.
[00:07:00] Speaker C: This deep of a red, from 48,000 bitcoin down to 43,000, as I record. This would naturally cause people to dump off. And these are retail people, so it's not like they can cause significant harm. The rich people, the rich mother fathers are still in it. The rich mother fathers are still buying. That's the reason it didn't go very much further than 43 people speculated that it might go as low as $32,000, but probably not too much lower than that. Do you know what that means? That means that the floor is being held. The line is being held. That means the rich mother father is not going anywhere. But it might be strategic. And I, on the previous episode, did allude to the possibility that this might be strategic with the vanguard situation. So people are kind of churning. We think this is smoke and mirrors.
[00:07:45] Speaker B: This isn't real. This isn't the end. This isn't the down. This certainly isn't the bottom, but it's going to jump. And once it jumps, they're estimating it goes as high as 50,000 and beyond, but that by the time it hits, the 50,000, people will then fomo back in, which causes more of a run up. Now, this is obvious in why that logically makes sense. It's because it's nature, human nature. It's what they do. They do the opposite of what you're supposed to do. They sell when they see red, they buy when they see green. Even though it's the polar opposite of what you're supposed to do, it's arguably what makes the industry continue to work. That's just how it is. So people did more analysis, and they found the vast majority of this trigger activity is coming from two primary exchanges, binance, as in binance.com and okX. Now, when you think about binance, Binance arguably holds the vast majority of trading volume for any cryptocurrency that gets listed on there. So if we see the vast majority of trade around bitcoin, coming around bitcoin or, excuse me, binance itself, what does that tell you? Tells you that there's going to be significant price shifts just by virtue of volume and accessibility to binance. That also tells us the vast majority of this activity is not happening in the United States. It's happening overseas, because Binance.com serves overseas. Well, what does that tell us? It tells us that rich mother fathers arguably are pushing and pushing and pushing.
[00:09:11] Speaker C: To get that price down, not necessarily to stack, even if that's a byproduct, but to entice more people to sell.
[00:09:18] Speaker B: Possibly to entice us people to sell.
[00:09:20] Speaker C: Because us people are more likely to sell. That then gives them a greater position or at least allows them to stack bags in addition to when it goes on a run up, triggering the FOMO to buy back in when it's a higher price. We saw the same thing happen, though, in late 2020, 2021, early, we saw the same thing happen, and it may simply be history repeating itself. And what I'd like you to do, my call to action, is to remember that I said that. Remember that I shared that speculation. It didn't come from me, it came from other people. Remember I shared that speculation. Check back in and see how right we may or may not have been. Because it wouldn't surprise me if that's what they're doing, because that's a smart strategy. It's very brilliant to do that.
[00:10:00] Speaker B: On another, different, unrelated, although connected cryptocurrency. I wanted to talk about Makerdao. The maker token MKR went on a major run very recently. Maker was as low, I want to say it was like, what, 700, $500. And right now, as I record this, it's up at $2,000, estimated to go amazing levels. Maker, its price is estimated to go even higher than Ethereum at some point. Its price is estimated to go somewhere near bitcoin at a point. It has a heavily constrained supply, and it seems to be going through these waves of pumps and dumps. So it's a highly volatile asset for sure, but it seems to always regain what it lost as it goes up. I'm talking about Maker because it's starting to intrigue me more and more as I watch it. There's a general bullish sentiment around it that I'm going to be paying more attention to. And at some point in a future episode, I may dedicate an episode to covering that ecosystem a little bit more depth, because I've not given it the.
[00:10:59] Speaker C: Time and attention that I think that it deserves, and I want to change that.
[00:11:04] Speaker B: The IRS here in the United States came out and gave some, I believe it's good news, but some good news, saying there was a point, and this was roughly about earlier in the year, I had talked about how the IRS was going to try to tax you mother fathers a little bit more, mostly around businesses and rich people, and they were going to do a $10,000 rule. So basically any transaction in cryptocurrency over $10,000 to be reported like cash. They came out and gave an update and basically said, it's not ready to go yet, so don't worry about it, which is good. And that probably freaked a lot of people when they announced it, because at the time, it was jail time that you could incur if you duck this tax. And so people that may have contributed to some of the bearish sentiment that we saw, but they came out and kind of allayed the concerns. Quote, businesses do not have to report the receipt of digital assets the same way as they must report the receipt of cash until treasury and IRS issue regulations. This particular provision requires treasury and the IRS to issue regulations before it goes into effect. Stop. So in other words, what they're saying is that it's not ready to go, it's not approved. It's out there, it's proposed, but they haven't finalized it.
[00:12:13] Speaker C: And the finalized means that the Treasury Department, United States Treasury Department and the.
[00:12:18] Speaker B: IRS would need to put an announcement.
[00:12:19] Speaker C: Saying, this is what it is.
[00:12:21] Speaker B: Here's the effective date, because it's going.
[00:12:23] Speaker C: To be a future dated effective date.
[00:12:25] Speaker B: And here's what is involved in this business. So now that means that if you were ducking your stuff, holding off, ducking your stuff, you're safe, at least for another year. We suspect that there's going to be.
[00:12:38] Speaker C: A little bit more shift and possibly an effective date of 2025 is my guess. I said before that when you talk about trying to treat cryptocurrency equivalent to fiat, you're running into all sorts of problems. Because when you think about the recipient and the sender of cryptocurrency, there's all sorts of uncertainty that goes into taxation and the consideration of taxation of fiat that cannot apply on the crypto side. For example, I was trying to sell.
[00:13:07] Speaker B: One of my cars, and I told people, look, I would prefer you paying cryptocurrency because it saves you a lot of headache. It saves you carrying thousands in cash. It's a quick transaction. It's mostly anonymous.
And nobody took it. Nobody took a bite. But it got me thinking. It's like, okay, here on the tax reporting, they're going to ask, who was it that received the money? What's their address? What's their state? Because there's usually state level laws in addition to it, as well as different percentages based on the dollar thresholds. So it would have been a nightmare to kind of track all these personal transactions of cryptocurrency. The additional part of this is that you cannot right now, attribute a price to cryptocurrency until you sell it, because it doesn't really have any value until you transact it. Once you transact it, it's whatever the value was according to the transaction. The other part of this is, well, how are you going to be able to document Social Security number which is required in taxation of the person who was the recipient or the sender of the transaction? You can't, because in descend, none of that information is collected on purpose. It's supposed to be anonymous. There's all sorts of problems and things that they were never able to solve and that, I think, contributed to some of the delays. There is also pending lawsuits out there to try to stop the train from going too far. And I said, I don't think it's going to fly. I don't think they're going to make.
[00:14:24] Speaker C: It happen because there's too many.
[00:14:26] Speaker B: It sounds good, right, of we're going to get all this money. They were going to make it happen. Certainly not in the short term.
[00:14:32] Speaker C: Long term, they may pull something out which I believe is impetus behind trying to legalize some of this access to cryptocurrency, because they know that it opens the door to taxation.
[00:14:44] Speaker B: The spot bitcoin ETF, I believe, was.
[00:14:46] Speaker C: The first step in a multitude of steps yet to come that are designed to enable collection of taxes. I believe that tinfoil me as you care. I believe that's the impetus behind it.
[00:14:58] Speaker B: It's not of the good of their heart.
[00:14:59] Speaker C: This is the government. They want that money, money, and they're.
[00:15:03] Speaker B: Going to do anything they got to.
[00:15:04] Speaker C: Do to get it. And if they have to legalize some of it, they'll happily do it. You can have Warren and all these other people talking about how it's done for illicit activities. They have no argument because fiat arguably is used for more illicit activities than crypto ever could be. And she knows that.
[00:15:20] Speaker B: She's just trying to keep her name.
[00:15:21] Speaker C: Up in the news, and that's what it is. So what I'm saying is, for now, you're safe from this whole tax shift. If you are freaking out about 2024 taxes, you're safe for right now. Long term, it's going to come back around. It's going to come bite us at some point in the future, and you're going to see a parallel to the legalization and accessibility to these cryptocurrency things that then opens the door to more taxation in a distant, or even possibly near future. So be careful. Make sure that you're documenting everything that you do. If you're trading cryptocurrency, make sure you're documenting everything that you do, because if you don't, you're going to run into some problems and I wouldn't want to see somebody get completely smashed or whatever. On the financial side, I'm going to.
[00:16:06] Speaker B: Briefly talk about the Shib ecosystem. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it because these are a bunch of numb nuts and I don't want to give them a lot of energy. But I think it's important I speak about it as allegedly a bone. Well, that I happen to be the shib, as in the Shib token Shiba Inu burn rate has been increasing over time. Price was reflected as a downward at a point and then started to go back up again. Testing resistance has not gone, and I want to stress has not gone anywhere near its all time high. Even now, however, the increase that we're seeing in the burn rate did have an effect on the price. What didn't have a significant positive effect on the price is yet another damn newsletter from these idiots that nobody's going to read. And I did skim it. To be fair, there's a bunch of garbage in this that nobody cares about. They don't seem to understand what the community wants to hear about. What the community wants to hear about is what they are specifically planning to.
[00:17:04] Speaker C: Do that is going to have a direct correlation to positive price movement.
[00:17:09] Speaker B: Yes, it's a problem with identity theft and all these breaches and everything else. Yes, there is a possible application for digital identity right now. You don't have the fundamentals to do all the rest of it. So you shouldn't be focusing on the next shiny because you're coming across like the libero and thorium ecosystem.
[00:17:28] Speaker C: When you do that, you need to.
[00:17:29] Speaker B: Focus on the fundamentals that you've let slide for so damn long because your tokens are slipping in price and you're waiting, I know, for this run that we expect is going to happen without.
[00:17:40] Speaker C: You doing anything for some price movement.
[00:17:42] Speaker B: So you can sell. I got it. What I'd rather see from these idiots is some actions, specific actions, designed to improve the price of all of the.
[00:17:52] Speaker C: Tokens in the ecosystem.
[00:17:54] Speaker B: That is what I do not see.
[00:17:57] Speaker C: I don't know if it was Satoshi.
[00:17:58] Speaker B: Or somebody else, but I know somebody.
[00:17:59] Speaker C: Went on a rant about the work that they had done up that point and they're not getting credit and everybody's complaining. This is bubble because they're not understanding why the complaints are what they are. The complaints are what they are because they don't see that these actions are correlating to strong positive price movement that is sustained. And they expect that you continue with the pattern that you started after the Cologne scented book nonsense when Shabarium launched. You haven't gotten more on board with shabarium. You haven't convinced exchanges why they should integrate shabarium.
[00:18:31] Speaker B: You've not convinced top tier exchanges to.
[00:18:33] Speaker C: List bone and or leash. You haven't done actions that contribute to the positive price movement of the tokens. And the reason it's important is if.
[00:18:43] Speaker B: You don't do that, you're not going.
[00:18:44] Speaker C: To convince any of these developers why they should go on shabarium. Because I would remind you, you still have pulse chain sitting out there. That's just as appealing to those people. Pulse chain is way more active than you are. How can you justify that? I'll tell you how, Richard Hart.
[00:18:59] Speaker B: Say what you will about the man did a stellar job of selling people on why they should develop for that chain. That's what it was. It didn't matter. If they don't sustain long term, the price reflects itself.
[00:19:12] Speaker C: Hex.
[00:19:12] Speaker B: If you look at hex for what it does, which isn't much, hex is by far and away superior. And the people in the Shib ecosystem see that. They see these other tokens spin up, that catch their eye. And maybe the team behind Shib doesn't get it. Money is simply shifted from project to project. So if you can't sell people on why money should come to your project, it's not going to come to your project. So if that's cool with you, great. But that means you're going to lose a lot of investors if you don't change gears. And you can start by stop sending bullshit, sorry, newspapers that nobody's going to read with information that does not directly correlate to positive price movement.
Coinbase recently came under a little bit of scrutiny, allegedly.
So there's bitcoin ETF vaults. So these vaults are where inflow of bitcoin comes in and then they're made accessible, allegedly. Eight out of eleven bitcoin ETF vaults are owned or managed by Coinbase. Which is what centralization, which does what contradicts a decentralized world. I want to clarify a couple of points here. First, I want to quote what was said in the analysis. Quote, by design, our financial market infrastructure is segregated into different roles. When you have one entity that's responsible for the entire lifecycle of the trade, I think that causes concerns. That comes from David Schwed, CEO of Halburn, which is a cybersecurity company. Here's where he's right and he's wrong. Here's where he's wrong.
In a true descent world, he is 100% correct. An ETF, by its very nature, cannot be decentralized. Let me repeat what I said. An ETF, by its very nature, cannot be decentralized. It cannot be decentralized because an ETF, by definition, is a pool of assets. Someone must manage that pool. It is not a decentralized pool. It is a pool that is managed.
[00:21:14] Speaker C: Some management happens to be, in this case, an exchange. Some management might be some other entity.
[00:21:20] Speaker B: It doesn't really matter. The centralization, you cannot avoid it by.
[00:21:23] Speaker C: The nature of what it is for the etFs.
[00:21:26] Speaker B: And so then he went on and he was talking about, well, this is a risk, and this, again, centralization is going to happen no matter what.
What was called out by other people when they asked about this, and they said, well, I think it's a problem what's going on here? Why did the SEC approve this? And isn't this a conflict and isn't this a problem?
More analysis was done, and they determined that fidelities specifically appears to have been differently done.
Now, in etFs, you identify, normally, you identify what's referred to as a custodian or has custody of assets. The reason people are freaking out is because in some cases, that custodian is a single exchange. That's say, coinbase, right? In some cases, the custody custodian is themselves, and in some cases, there is no custody. Now, when you look at the money flow and money access and safety of the money and security of the money, as well as when you audit, if you need to audit some of these things and access, easy access to money, what is the goal when you spent the ETF? It is to facilitate access to and from.
The best way to do that is to be an exchange.
When you don't have a custodian, it actually makes it harder for that access.
If it's custody of themselves, as in they hold the access, they don't allow anybody else. It's a single point of failure.
Because what happens if that organization, let's take or, you know, circle, circle is a great example, single point of failure. Circle right now can block your access to things. They can do all sorts of crazy stuff. Coinbase can do the same. When you go to this custodian versus a self custody, my point is, it's a single point of failure when you're doing it yourself, nobody knows what you're really doing with the assets. If you don't have a custodian, perhaps that's the most secure in terms of you and distrust of you. But it's not necessarily the most accessible because there's no throat to choke. All I'm saying is it doesn't really matter who the custodian specifically is. It doesn't really matter.
[00:23:52] Speaker C: I think the most important thing to understand when we're dealing with an ETF.
[00:23:55] Speaker B: Is the whole point is to facilitate.
[00:23:58] Speaker C: Access to and from the assets within the ETF. By its very nature it is centralized because it's a pool of assets no.
[00:24:05] Speaker B: Matter what, and the price is reflective.
[00:24:09] Speaker C: Of the accessibility factors. So I, as an example, I bought a little bit on the fidelity side.
[00:24:15] Speaker B: Because I wanted to watch that price movement. Its price hasn't gone hardly anywhere. I haven't checked all the rest of them, and I do plan to, and I'll do a follow on. My point is, you got to think about what is the single point of failure principle? What is the risk principle and accessibility principle. These are important. It's not just, well, this one person has it, because we're not dealing with cryptocurrency, we're dealing with an ETF, which is a pool. You're banking against the pool, you're not trading the crypto itself. Thus you can never have decentralization. That's my point. It doesn't really matter beyond all the rest of it. I will go through the due diligence and watch and see what's going on with the other etfs and see if there's any appreciable value difference in their so called quote, centralization as opposed to fidelity. Since I have fidelity, I can copy and paste and see what that looks like.
True. USD very recently had a DPEG event. This seems to happen a lot more frequently, a lot of these so called, quote, stablecoins, but had a recent DPEG event. And of course it's yet another of these projects that Justin sun is associated with having peg issues.
I'm not going to make the pun, I will refuse to do that, but one is in DPEG event. This happened like literally a couple of hours ago.
[00:25:35] Speaker C: As I record this, allegedly what happened is they swapped accounting firms and then.
[00:25:41] Speaker B: All of a sudden they had a.
[00:25:43] Speaker C: Whole bunch of deepgging activity and instability happening on chain. And people were noticing, okay, this is just going down. Usually it's about ninety nine cents is like the lowest you'd see it went as low. It's like very close to didn't go to 97, but close to record this, it has not fully stabilized. I don't know exactly if this was a people only type deal or there was something that was found with respect to the reserves and the money that's behind it. The theory that's spinning around is that there may have been something going on with third parties where some third party somewhere has either faltered or failed or otherwise that caused or exacerbated. I can't say for sure. I will look deeper into it. I don't trade chew USD, but I will look into it and then I'll do a follow on episode for Thursday, probably on what I find because I'm curious myself, frankly.
[00:26:39] Speaker B: The last bit, I want to talk about this one.
I'm hesitant to talk about it, but I think it's important to discuss it because right now I'm seeing worse. It's a throwback to what we had in 2021 and I want to just catch it and nip it in the bud. What happened is I was doing some trades earlier on, this is on Ethereum and something's weird with one of my wallets where it simply will not approve any Ethereum transaction. I don't know why. I can do a different wallet, no problem, but just not this other one. What I noticed on the one that did work, gas prices were way out of whack. It wanted $70 to do a trade. The trade was only $200. It wasn't worth it, but I was able to negotiate and get something else and get a 50. But still, the gas prices are way out of whack. Considering we did the Ethereum proof of stake that was supposed to help alleviate this, it didn't seem to work very well. And I'm noticing that prices are increasing for gas transactions. Just like we saw when Ethereum's proof of work, which in my mind may lend itself to a general bullish indicator, as in it may be because there's more activity on chain, we may be on the route up, we may be heading back up, maybe positive. So between that and what happened with Vivek Ramaswami, like I talked about at the very beginning, I said that this all could be bullish, this all could be good. This whole, the drop from 48 to three to 43 could be strategic, Vivek dropping out. And of course I like to dalla being the front runner in Donald Trump. It all could be bullish. You might be wondering why I said that.
[00:28:17] Speaker C: Now.
[00:28:17] Speaker B: I'm going to explain that at the end of the episode. The reason I think this all might be bullish is consider is it possible that people might be cramming and rushing to do everything that they can in cryptocurrency, including buy and sell, both because.
[00:28:32] Speaker C: Maybe they stack right in anticipation of another winner, or they sell and then price goes down and there's certain other people that are just so vehement about it, they're just going to buy in and buy in and buy in. That's all general bullish sentiment.
[00:28:47] Speaker B: So if you get somebody or we.
[00:28:49] Speaker C: Anticipate that we're not going to have somebody that supports cryptocurrency in the long run, is it possible that certain cryptocurrency basically just goes back underground, but you still have access to it, you still have access to fiat conversions for it, you still have transactional things, simply that it's not as mainstream or certain of these countries that have embraced it embrace it even more because they know that the United States isn't going to do it. And if you didn't know, most of these countries are in competition with us. They don't want us to be front. They want themselves to be front, especially China. They want to be the front runner. So it's possible that the very bull run that we don't see right now might show up based on not having somebody in office that's helping support cryptocurrency adoption widespread.
[00:29:33] Speaker B: But as I said, it's also possible that we are seeing a push towards cryptocurrency adoption step by step because they want that tax money, because they know that that's more tax revenue. Time will tell. It's an intriguing set. Be careful no matter what you do, because I don't know exactly what's going to happen. I do know right now upward is the direction that we see and upward is the direction we anticipate. And I don't see anything coming contradictory to that statement. Don't.
