[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] today I have information that is not specifically cryptocurrency related that I will be covering at the tail end of the episode.
I do so out of latent frustration I will talk crypto. That'll be the first part.
Second part will not be crypto related. So I'm gonna warn you.
So if you are disinterested after I talk to crypto you are free to dial out. But I think it needs to get off my mind because it's starting to piss me off quite frankly.
It is a symptom of the young people starting to dominate the narrative but they don't know what they're talking about and many of them are poorly educated. That's my rant, that's I don't mind younger people but I want them to be educated, smart, logical, sensible. And they're not.
So I'm going to speak about it. I've got to cryptos topic. I'm going to say 99% Bitcoin.
There are some articles out that I don't this that I don't agree with conceptually and I want to speak about what's going on, share my thoughts about it. Just bitcoin perspective because it goes to the larger price and the market cap of cryptocurrency overall based on what some comments I saw were saying. I don't know that I agree with them, but I understand their perspective on the matter.
Coinmarketcap.com we are going to zoom out on the month chart for bitcoin because bitcoin is of course our topic currently hovering around the $70,000 mark with a slight upward trend.
Many articles are being published.
Doom and gloom is the way to describe it because they think bitcoin is in trouble. They think bitcoins in trouble because of a, well, what appears to be a pattern of large satoshi era whales dumping out their positions, getting completely out of their crypto, which to them indicates a loss of confidence, faith or trust in bitcoin in the long haul.
This was going back. This has been happening countless times. This is not new but more of them came out and they're larger shares and that got people nervous. But just to kind of give you some historical perspective on some of these. So like 2025 there was like a massive one is like 80,000 Bitcoin.
Now at the time that this whale purchased its bitcoin, Bitcoin's lowest price was a dollar. So you're talking somebody that just they, they were either super wealthy or they just YOLO into it because they believe it's like gambling. You know, they yelled into it. One of the two had to be the truth with that whale.
80,000 Bitcoin at a time that it was like a dollar minimum. I say minimum somewhere, 10 bucks.
So they spent a lot of money. And this was a, I believe a two year span of accumulation for this whale to have that much bitcoin in a short period of time, that's number one. Number two, it's always mind boggling to me.
Massive dump, just total liquidation dump. Instead of piecemeal sell offs. Because the IRS is going to come out to your a, that's number one. But number two, like you could just simply fund your life for the rest of your life doing nothing more than selling, let's say two bitcoin every year, right? Because you're talking a normal salary on the higher end of the spectrum in many areas.
But people get greedy because they see all these influencers with their boats and girls and cars and garbage that you don't need. And so they liquidate all these assets and then the tax man goes after them, assuming they're in the U.S. why, when you could just go out over time like you had won the Publisher's Clearinghouse or something.
I'll never understand the rush to just sell all of it out. Especially when you consider bitcoin's price is roughly half of where it should be, being half of where it should be. And seeing that amount of dump is contributing to why people think that bitcoin is losing confidence. Because if the originals, the OGs, the older holders, all of a sudden no longer have so called diamond hands, no longer feel like they should hold all of it and they're just selling all of it. They're not even holding part of it. There's just a notion that there's something wrong, that there's a fundamental problem. I can't say that there is or is not.
I do think it's abnormal, as I said, that you would just dump all of it out. Why would you do that instead of just sell a little bit of it? Let's say it worse, the guy with 80,000 sell a thousand of it. Like for Christ's sake, like just sell chunks each year and live a lifestyle. Why do you have to dump all of it out. You're dumping it out into depreciating assets. Like, think of it that way.
You take an asset class that is volatile, to be fair, but its value is significantly higher than the equivalent in the US dollar or any other fiat in the world. There's no fiat that is any more valuable right now than Bitcoin. And so you take it and you sell to go to Fiat. Why would you do that? Now here's my tinfoil hat coming on.
I once speculated that the, the entity known as Satoshi might actually be some sort of conglomerate of banking. That they're banks or that they are just wealthy people at the top of the chain somewhere that stayed anonymous. But the invention, and I got a story about that in a second. But that the invention that created Bitcoin was nothing more than either a bunch of banks or a bunch of wealthy people.
You got to consider why there would be such a rush. If these are people that believed, as was the vision, that this bitcoin could replace Fiat, why would you cash out to that same Fiat? It doesn't make any sense. It really doesn't. Now we don't know where they might have done the assets from bitcoin, let's say to USDT or USDTC or to DAI or. We don't know what the train was and whether it went out to an actual Fiat transaction. Could have been it went to stable and it went to other assets. If they're smart, they might have done something like that. I can buy that because I can see logic in selling out of, you know, bitcoin and then getting into the tokenized version of gold. Let's say there's value in distributing into other assets to distribute and diversify the portfolio. I can see that.
I'm saying if it's true that they cashed out, I don't understand it. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Now bitcoin is interesting because many don't know it has origins, roots in Pascal.
I had a chat with my brother the other day and he was back then, so we're talking decades ago, he was back then, eyes over the moon about Pascal. He would say, this is the future. This is going to revolutionize banking. This is at a time nobody was using debit cards that much.
The banks would hesitate to give you one. Like checks were still dominant. You could buy a, a delivery of a pizza with a check. Like, it was a different era. Cash was still king.
It wasn't devalued yet. It was a way different era. But he saw because when he was introduced to, he's so excited about its potential. He kept talking about this, Pascal is going to change banking, it's going to change the world if we can, you know, leverage it. And people didn't realize cryptocurrency has origins or roots in Pascal. So when I chatted with him, I always, I gave him a little bit because I'm like, why did you get out of Pascal if you'd stayed in it? We'd all been millionaires. Because it's true, he was. It's not even the technical skill, it's the awareness, the wherewithal decades before. We're Talking way before 2010 and 2009, we're talking way before Silk Road. I don't even. I think we were still, I think we were still in the dial up era when he envisioned this world of finance and changing it using technology. So I'm saying that if he had stuck with it, eventually he might have stumbled on this group of people and might have been one of the contributing. Right in the beginning where the minting's happening, he gets all these and he gets excited because he sees it. And like I said, we'd have been all millionaires because he had that foresight and he decided to go a different route. But I'm saying from my perspective overall bitcoin, these OG whales, we have to ask the question why they felt that they should get out of it, why they felt they should go away with it, away from it full stop instead of piecemeal or keep a so called moon bag as they refer to it, keep a little bit of it to just see where it goes back up again and do it again and chunk out. We don't know what their motivation is because we don't know exactly. There's one guy that they did identify, Owen some or other where they identified the name of the person. I don't know if he identified himself or they just happen to know who it was, but there was one guy where they did know who the person was. I think he got like $1 billion or something.
But if anybody who's listening to the show Kirch talk to the fam happens to be one of these original whales, whether you're still holding or not. I'd be curious to understand it's contact form to let me know. I'd be curious to understand the logic of dumping all of it.
Because if you believe in the original vision of what bitcoin was supposed to be, certainly you would want to keep some of it. If you no longer believe It'd be curious to know your thoughts and whether that's just based on something you see something you hear something you know.
Is it the quantum computing, like, what is it that's causing that sentiment shift to want to just dump out of an asset that previously believed in? Because I struggled with the methodology and I, to this day, when I see another dump full scale and I see people freak out thinking something's wrong, I can't say nothing is wrong, but it seems odd to me. And I would, I generally would like to understand what's going on, the big picture.
I'm not going to talk about Ethereum. I thought about doing it, but I'm not going to because it's basically following Bitcoin. So there's not much news on that one outside of what's going on. Obviously Iran and the hormones straight and everything else. And these are macro events, they're playing a factor. There's other things like the clarity act and everything else, but people are still confident Bitcoin goes back up irrespective of everything. I just talked about all the different macro events, the major dumps. They're confident everything goes back up, if not only because, you know, strategy. Buying more El Salvador, buying more banks trying to adopt it. I saw an article and they made the case that, well, that's, that's evidence that it's successful because look at all these banks getting in it and doing all this stuff. And I'm going to give you a flip and then we're going to get to my other topic where you can dial out if you want to.
But I don't agree with the narrative that bank adoption means success of Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general. If anything, I actually think bank adoption is a negative for the reasons I said.
If the stock market tries to force adopt it, there'll be halts. You can only trade it during banking hours. You can't do it 24,7 the volatility constraints. It negates the whole value of it. Tracking kyc, aml, there's all sorts of things that then remove the true value of what it is. And we also have to understand cryptocurrency only really has any value because it's paired to fiat. If we continue pairing it to fiat and we entrust it to the banks, you're not getting away from the depreciation of the cryptocurrency assets themselves. Bitcoin itself, they say, well, it's a limited supply, sure, but it's still being essentially paired to depreciating fiat. As long as that stays in place, you're not going to get additional value out of it.
I'm not suggesting bitcoin fails. I'm saying that. I am not saying that the banks and stock adopting it equals success. If anything, it's a step back because they can then influence it and turn it into just another form of fiat with the same restrictions and rigor while it depreciates and limit its viability as an independent asset.
The upside is that if. If that were to happen, and I'm tin foiling, but if that were to happen, presumably somebody would come along and invent the next something and then that would replace it. Presumably. We don't know for sure because bitcoin has become ubiquitous.
So then how long would it take for that new something to be adopted? Many of us don't have that long on the earth, so I am not trying to doom and gloom you. I'm saying that I don't agree with the narrative that bank adoption and stock adoption is a good thing, because we know how they act. They're. They're acting in their interest, not yours. Cryptocurrency's original intent was to act in your interest, not theirs. It was to defeat the big banks. And then what's happened, it's just simply turned into another proxy for the fiat market. That's basically what we've got going on now. I'm going to do my closeout part once again. This is not directly cryptocurrency related, so if that bothers you, feel free to dial off now. Thank you for listening, but I'm going to cover it. It crypto's impacted, but it's not direct crypto. But I think it's important, and it's important I share it. And I'm going to share it here. I'm going to share it on the other podcast, too. I'm going to share it on a blog. I'm going to share it everywhere I can because it's starting to get out of control. It's starting to piss me off, to be quite honest.
There's, for whatever reason, an increasing amount of people who cannot distinguish what is AI and what is not.
AI is very easy to detect. It's very easy to understand the syntax of speech that almost always proves AI. It's very simple, it's very easy to delineate, look it up between a human and an AI.
But people online are not educated as to the difference.
It is this that I wanted to talk about to hopefully help some people Just because somebody formats a writing as in they use bold, they use italics, they use headers, they use bullets. Formatting does not equal AI.
Formatting equals somebody who is well educated. Because formatting's purpose is to make sure it is best readable.
You have to also understand some people who are disabled. They use technology where if you do not format it correctly, it's harder for them to be able to read the screen text. To help them, let's say they're blind and they need to be able to read the screen text audibly. Look it up.
You need to format it properly in order for those technologies to do a good job. Our podcast, CryptoTalk FM, has accessibility features built into it. We automatically transcribe so the written transcript is available. That transcription depends on me speaking clearly, working with positive speech as much as I can, doing well formatted sentences.
It depends on me speaking intelligibly. If I do not, that engine will struggle.
So it's a fallacy. Look it up.
To assume that a well formatted write up is AI, or that a well spoken person is AI, or that somebody who can spell correctly is AI, or that perfect grammar is AI, or that fast typing is AI. These are fallacies. It is true. I had a friend who I would beat at Street Fighter 2 simply because I was that good.
And he did accuse me of playing like the computer, but that's not because of AI. That's simply because I have a style, I have a presence, I have a spot speed, I have a method. I have a practice over years.
And it happens to be that certain AI, I can beat it simply because those AI were trained, and you may not known that, but some of them were trained by lesser people. They were trained by people not as well educated as I might be. So it's easy to beat them. I just did it with the software that was building an application I was testing and it sucked and it got it wrong and burned 20 bucks making error after error. And I had to tell it what it was doing wrong. This is what told me.
When we have people who all they can do is look at something and assume that it's AI, they can't distinguish a human that happens to be well educated from an AI engine that happened to have been taught by somebody moderately educated.
So my impassioned plea to you is this. And again, I'm going to spread this word as much as I can.
Don't assume something is AI simply because it's well formatted, simply because it's spelled correctly, simply because it has perfect Grammar simply because it sounds good. Don't assume that's AI. Assume that's somebody that's very intelligent. AI is easy to detect.
It depends on what it is that you asked.
Depends on what it is that you presented it. It depends on why you presented the topic that you did. When you understand the nuances of everything I just said, you realize how easy it is to detect what is AI. Let's say that I went to some AI engine and I asked it the question, tell me the pros and cons of this 85 inch TV that I say it's going to start out with some sort of platitude to help you feel good. That's a great tv.
Some sort of nonsense like that. It always does. Why? Because AI engines are designed to make you feel good about getting an answer. They're all designed that same way. So that's what it'll do. Then it'll invariably look it up, go through some cycle where it says looking up some information about the TV that you're talking about.
Then it'll come back and say, this TV is.
And it has these features. And people seem to like this over here. People seem not to like this over here. It just breaks it down in very. And they're just statements, they don't have any real context behind them. So if you were having a conversation with somebody and you asked that same question, tell me, what are the good things? Like my TV. It's an 85 inch TV. Tell me, what are the good things about that TV? You're not going to hear that same formality out of me. I would tell you I only got the darn thing because my wall is massive and I need something to fill the wall.
However, it's slim. That's cool.
I do like how the ports are. I do like how reasonably easy was to hang. It's slightly heavy, but not much, but it's reasonably easy to hang on the wall. It's conversational.
I'm explaining it to you from my lens as a user of the product. Not generic things scrubbed and scraped from the web.
You have to understand how to sense the difference. And AI is telling you what something told it or what it scraped from the web. That's all it can do. It's regurgitating stuff that's out there to search that you were too lazy to search for.
Whereas when it's a conversational, it's obvious it's a direct experience based on the same question. It's finite. So if I told you back, okay, my tv, I Got it from. I forget. I think it was Best Buy. Whatever. I got it from Best Buy. It was only $500. I think it was.
The box was not that good. I'm breaking it down in factual, but I told you where I got it specifically. I told you the price I got it for specifically. You can then take that information. You can go to Best Buy, you can see the same price that I just quoted you and get more information about that particular tv.
See the engine, it can't do that for you. It's going to say, looks like it ranges between X and Y. Looks like it's available at these stores and looks like it's available to see at this store. It's just scraping what it sees from the web. That's fine, but it may not be what you want. The more recent experience that I had, I was doing the review of the software I talked about, which is an AI builder of software. So there was an AI tool to build the software. But I'm reviewing the experience now. I realized after I started doing my write up, people are going to think it's AI because I'm quoting what the AI engine said, right? And so if you screen it, you're going to get the assumption it's AI. So I had to interject and say, I read it the riot act, I chastise it. I'm giving words that can only have been spoken by a human because AI does not use those terms.
That's the other way you could detect true AI versus non AI is that words are being used that the AI engine would not use.
You might not even understand the definition of those words. That's fine. There are tools out there, including just right clicking on the word, that help you define words that you don't recognize. The point is, AI will not use certain terms that humans use. So you have to learn to detect when somebody is adding these emotional contexts to what's being said. And that's your clue that it's likely not AI. What you wouldn't be able to easily identify are situations where somebody took an AI response and then they butchered it and added their own context to it to provide a combined response. However, if they did that and they did add their own messaging in a way that made sense, you still have to give that person the benefit of the doubt. What we shouldn't do is tell people everything's AI because it's well formatted, it's well spoken, it's perfectly spelled, it's perfect grammar. Because what's going to happen when you do that. What you're asking people is to write like idiots and write like dumbasses and write like children. And I can't even say write like children because unfortunately the children now are using AI to do the writing. So you can't even use that term. We have to get away from this narrative of assuming well educated speech is AI or indicative of it, because that's a fallacy. All that's doing is short changing the world. We should welcome people who are well spoken and well written. You can go back in time to the 50s, 60s and 70s and look at some of the older interviews. We're not talking to Taylor Swifts of the world. Go back to some of the older interviews and listen to how they speak and listen to how they perform interviews and you'll understand. These are very well educated people at a time before AI. How is that possible? Because education is how you get to well spoken people. That's how that used to be the case.
And we need to get back to understanding. There are people that still are alive that simply were well educated and they know how to speak correctly. Your AI engines are actually kind of stupid. You don't think so because you're overly impressed by their speech and their responses which appear to be directly responding to you, not understanding the times that they get it flat out wrong, which is fooling you into making decisions that are just going to screw you in the end. Because you were never taught how to distinguish between AI and humans to think for yourself. That's why I had to do this rant, because it's important that you learn to speak for yourself and think for yourself and not just trust some technological engine that was built flawed. It was built by people not educated, probably less educated than you. Do not blindly listen to AI. Learn to recognize when it's clearly AI. Don't accuse someone of being AI because they sound intelligent. Might want to pick the brain.
After you pick their brain, you might want to absorb some of that. It should come spilling on you. It makes you a better person. But when you just assume everything's AI because it happens to be well formatted, all that does is make you look like a jackass. You don't want to look like a jackass, you want to look like a star.
Looking like a star is to understand when people just happen to be intelligent once upon a time. And we need to go back to appreciating those people and ideally stop prioritizing AI in the first place so we don't have these problems.
Sa.
