The Bitcoin Group, the American Original. For over the last 10 seconds, the sharpest Satoshi's, the best Bitcoin's, the hardest cryptocurrency talk. We'd like to welcome our panelists, Andy Hoffman from Crypto Gold Central. Oh, thanks for having me. I cannot wait to talk about these topics today. Gabriel D. Vaughan from Future Rant. Hello, Bitcoin. Hello, posterity. And I'm Thomas Hunt from the World Crypto Network, reminding you to give us a like and a share. Moving on to issue one. Issue one, Bitcoin's price was artificially inflated. Fuelings, skyrocketing value, researchers stay. A paper released by the University of Texas this week claimed that tether was used to manipulate the price of... ...sing altcoins. The altcoins were then sold for Bitcoin, which was sold for USD and then for tether again. If this is true, the price of Bitcoin at 20,000 may be false. This has injected much fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the market. Additionally, a paper released by Crypto Medication on Medium that may or may not be true claims that a cartel in Bitcoin was secretly manipulating the price, causing the price to rise to an all-time high of $20,000. Andy Hoffman is this true and what does it mean for the price of Bitcoin? First of all, it's just so funny to be on the show. I always like what you say. Now for the first topic and then you just wait and wait and wait for the first topic. So I always love that. Keep doing it. As for what this whole tether thing and all these articles. Okay. First of all, let's dismiss what University of Texas says. I have no interest in what these academics have to say. It's almost laughable. It's like Paul Krugman's and all these guys. No interest in that stuff. And I don't believe for a second that any market was falsely anything. The market got to what it did, just like the stock market, which is red, gets to what it did, gets to what it does and the gold market, which is red, gets to where it does. Real numbers. And every market is rich. You can't say the market is false. And so funny, all this talk about how prices manipulated and of course, who knows more about price manipulation than me. Why are they talking about price manipulation? Are they going up? Are they not watching all the spoofing on the way down? Are they not watching all the things that have gone on to try to suppress the price of the insider trading? I mean, it's ridiculous. There is manipulation, but it's not one way. I mean, to talk about it as if it's what happened in December is the manipulation. Everything else is real is ridiculous. In fact, I would say this fall more manipulation to the downside. As for this report, because we're talking about the crypto medicine report, which came out, I guess this very recently about tether. Now, I have all along never really fixated on exactly what was going on at tether. I've been very peripherally aware of it. I've read some stuff about it is clearly shady stuff going on between the hacks and the circumstances that created tether and the fact that it's out there in Hong Kong and there's not a lot of auditing, a lot of red flags. Nothing to do with Bitcoin has to do with BitFinex. But because I was in this show, you sent me this article that's right. It's always something attack Bitcoin that has the problem. It's an ever Bitcoin itself. It's BitFinex or cryptocurrency or BTC-E or Coinbase. They always build something on top of Bitcoin. So go ahead. No problem. And in this case, I read this entire report this morning, which is very long. If it's true, and I'm guessing that a large part of it is true, fantastic investigative journalism for one, I have one word in my mind for what I think BitFinex is, which verified in spades what I had initially heard about it and that's Enron. There's clearly unbelievably shady things going on there. But there's no way of proving exactly what is true inside of that article and what is not. Also, the implications, look, as much as I don't like some of these people, it's like a legion of doom of Bitcoin, bad people like the Roger Barras and Eric Bore. He's a lot of it is circumstantial, a lot of it is innuendo. Again, is no real proof, but there's clearly some really shady stuff going on there. But at the same time, it doesn't necessarily prove that that's why the price went up. Of course, they don't talk about why the price went down. So, you know, and as to whether it's fud for now, I really don't think that this is a new story. I think, you know, I was just listening to your fantastic appearance, you and Ansel, we're talking about it on the Bitcoin Meister show. I think the market isn't downtrend. We're still consolidating this, you know, this big bubble jump that we had. And so anything could be taken as far, but I don't think this specific story is anything new, but I do think that anyone who keeps their coins inside of BitFinex is crazy. Especially after BitFinex had the hack printed their own debt token, somehow managed to pay back their own debt token at far less money than they actually lost in the hack, far less debt than they were supposed to pay to their people. And now the tether problem. We do seem to have a lot of problems coming from BitFinex. And you know what I'll say one more thing. You have so many altcoins that only trade on exchanges and you can only hold them on exchanges as opposed to Bitcoin, you can hold offline. And it just screams of how much risk there is of holding A on exchange at all, but let alone holding illiquid securities or we'll get to that later. Illiquid altcoins on exchanges. I mean, seriously, there was so much risk in the sector to start with. That's why I only hold Bitcoin and I hold it on a trade war. That's simple. Gabriel, divine. First of all, I'd like to say excellent lava lamp, Andy, very stoked that you've got that on. I'm even having a chance with the next couple. The cocktail, see my cocktail game table has every game from the 1980s too. Oh, sick. It's the tabletop. I'll play you this Pac-Man when I come to visit Colorado. I hope you do. My daughter will play with you. Fantastic. All right. This is amazing. This is quite a crew we've got here. And you know what else is amazing? The fact that you read through this white paper, that's great. Bitcoin is such a broad and deep topic. There's so many things going on. There's the economics, the game theory, the software side, the political posturing, everything. There's always the new developments. And the old bug fixes and the fights and everything. And it's impossible for one person to keep up with everything. And Tether is one of those things that I've been kind of like watching from the sidelines. It's, you know, as Tom's pointed out, something that's kind of ancillary to Bitcoin. It's related, but it's not certainly not directly part of Bitcoin. So this is great. This is our opportunity to familiarize the audience. Anybody who's not that familiar with Tether, I'm going to ask some newbie questions. Two of you can answer. And yeah, maybe we can all learn something here, except for Andy, who's obviously very well-versed on the topic. So first of all, I'm not well-versed on what's going on at Bitfnix, but I did read this paper. And any layman reading this paper would be scared off. And there's no way you could make up so many lives. Right. Oh, yeah, that's not what I meant. I just meant, you know, being able to understand what's going on in the paper, you have to understand how the basic system is. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to try to explain what Tether is. And I'm probably going to do a bad job. So jump in and correct me when I fuck up. So Tether is a cryptographic token created by the Bitfnix Bitcoin exchange. And point other people, maybe not them directly. It's pretty complicated. Oh, right, right. Some shell comes from the various legal entities. And to the exchange, and that's part of the conspiracy theory is did Bitfnix directly control Tether? Did they tangentially control Tether? Did they have nothing to do with it? I mean, we have to, we need more information. Right. They're at least tangentially involved, whether they're controlling or owning it. And we said just a great comment from Jeremy in the chat. Tether is ether with a T in front. Pretty different than the theory. That's a good joke. But it's actually pretty different from Ethereum, of course. It doesn't have a block chain. There's no miners. It's just what they call a stablecoin, which is it's pegged to another asset. In this case, the US dollar to enable various exchanges, including Bitfnix, I think, to allow trading between crypto assets and the dollar on an abstract basis. So the idea is, I believe, that Bitfnix buys a bunch of dollars, essentially, throw them in the bank, and then create these tokens and sell them to people, essentially, for usually for crypto. So basically, the idea is that it represents these dollars that are in the bank. Now, of course, that's very similar to the fractional reserve system we have now, which is actually completely legal, unlike Tether if they're doing this. But if they're faking having these bank balances, then obviously, that's a problem because then that means that they're creating money out of thin air. What I think, when I heard about this, I thought, well, that's a definite vector for fraud. But it could be also a really interesting experiment for Bitfnix or for whoever's creating it, for example, for Bitfnix specifically as an exchange, they've got a bunch, it's a totally centralized exchange, like most of them are. It's completely what they call custodial, where the exchange is holding all the assets that are being traded in their computers, in their database, and they control all the private keys to your crypto when you send it to them. It's not your crypto, you just have a claim. So that, therefore, when an exchange gets hacked, all the users that were storing, quote unquote, their assets on their lose their money because it's custodial. They didn't have custody of it during that time. So what I've been thinking, and this is maybe beside the point a little bit, but an exchange that creates a token like this can actually do interesting things on an internal level, besides the fraud of just issuing it from nowhere and using that to influence markets and then make bets and be able to benefit off of the price manipulation. You can also do interesting things like even if you aren't doing any fraud, holding some of the gambling and holding some of the value of your tethers in a different asset besides the dollar, such as the euro. We could hedge the dollar and try to make a profit off of it. So let's say you're tether.com or whatever, the controlling company. And you've issued $100 million worth of tether and you tell everybody, hi, we have $100 million in our tether bank accounts. Everyone goes, yay, you've got that. But on the backside, they could other than just only holding 50 million and just faking the rest. They could also hold, say, $90 million in Bitcoin and $90 million in 10 million in Bitcoin and gamble that the price of Bitcoin will go up or something like that. So it's an interesting opportunity for the controller of the tethers to gamble essentially and possibly wipe everything out if they gamble wrong, right? Because then they won't have anything to sell in order to pump or not prompt, but in order to support the peg to the dollar. So that's kind of interesting. But yeah, is that pretty much correct? That's pretty good. I'd say anyone who prints their own money suddenly gets a bunch of power because they printed their own money. So I don't know that tether started out as a fractional reserve. It might have started out as a one-to-one. It's interesting to note it started out on the master coin platform, which is now Omni, which was actually before the ERC20 token. So you might think it's an ERC20, but it's not. And that, yeah, we don't know what happened with tether, but we do know that the exchanges love and want this idea of a stable coin. Like Gabriel is saying, it enables many things other than fraud. It's great for fraud too, though. But you can do arbitrage. You could sell Bitcoin on one exchange for dollars, but the dollars on another exchange by Bitcoin sell it. You could do some kind of arbitrage loop like that, which is legal and acceptable in the market. And the whole point of tether is to allow exchanges that don't have any licenses to have fiat exchange happening on their platform, pure crypto exchanges. It allows them to trade a simulacrum of the dollar and get around those regulations and make things better and more liquid. You're going to be on a decentralized exchange, something that exists nowhere where right now you can go Bitcoin for Litecoin or whatever. Bitcoin for this fiat token is going to be the closest you're going to get to fiat, but you always have to trust someone holding this money in the bank account. When they print more of them, you have to trust them again. We've covered tether before. We didn't have such an alarmist negative market feeling about it. It seemed tangential. We could say things like I like Bitcoin, f tether, I don't like them, but still they affect the rest of us even if we don't like what they're doing. And it seems all these things are connected. So go ahead and. Well, and we'll get to that part after because I'm not sure I necessarily agree with you although I understand that in a bear market situation, all news is bad news. And yes, there's a negative impact that can get into Bitcoin, but that's another topic. But the whole thing is this discussion has brought to my mind. I'm just thinking now about tether. I've always tried to avoid it because I own Bitcoin. I tell people to buy Bitcoin. I tell people to hold their own keys. I really have nothing to do with BitFinex. So I try to have ignored it. But now when I think about it, it's funny. You're calling it, it's being called a fractional reserve. And I'm saying, think of who I am. I spent my entire career rallying against fractional reserve in every market, in whether it's in precious metals or the stock market or banking in general. But to me, fractional reserve is an amazing thing compared to what tether is. Tether is not fractional reserve. Tether is this shady company, which is at all kinds of problems in Hong Kong, no less, with no regulation of any kind is supposedly without auditing through this shell company Polish bank that has no assets is supposedly holding hundreds of millions of dollars and has the authority to make or break these tether tokens like the print them or get rid of them. That's not fractional reserve. That's just insanity. And we don't even know who it is. Is it one person? Is it two entities? This is like a complete disaster, this whole tether situation. Why anyone would hold tethers? Yeah, I know. You want to be able to get out of Bitcoin so you can buy Ethereum or buy a crap coin back and forth. The whole point is there's absolutely no controls on this thing at all and it's run by very shady entities without regulation. I cannot imagine how anyone could hold any of their assets in this tether thing when I read about it. And again, I don't even know what in this report is true and what's not true. Some of it is clearly true. Some of it is proven to be true. Some of it is just speculation. Some of it is in you window. But I mean, this is, it's almost the only reason it's legal is because there's no regulations in the crypto industry. If there was, let's say the SEC, well the SEC has no jurisdiction over Hong Kong. But let's say the Hong Kong exchange or the Hong Kong Secure Regulation people said, yes, these are securities. We're going to regulate them. The first thing they would do would be to audit Bitfinex by mandate and probably find all kinds of terrible things. So it's a huge black eye on the industry in general. But the beauty of it is, it's not to do a Bitcoin. I mean, nothing. To me, because you were saying on Adam's show that you think that it's like something that will keep institutions out of Bitcoin and I don't think really it matters at all. I think it will keep them out of some of these shady exchanges and it will make them think twice about holding any cryptocurrencies on exchanges that aren't strictly regulated like say, you know, the Gemini but two different topics. But I just can't believe this tether is around in this form. It's just vile when you read about what it is. But Andy, what if I was to give you a preview of coming attractions and to tell you that the Goldman Sachs backed circle is now planning USDC, the circle dollar backed token. Basically, the same thing as tether, but this time you trust circle instead of trusting whatever company tether was. I'd probably, again, you know, you talk about flipping my views all around. I would trust the Goldman Sachs token more than I would trust the Bitfinex token because at least Goldman Sachs is a regulated US company. Bitfinex is, what is it? It's in the middle of basically, you know, China with no regulation. We don't even know who owns it. But yeah, no, I wouldn't trust Goldman Sachs either. That's why any Bitcoin I have, I immediately take it away from the exchanges never to bring it back. So that's how bad I think Bitfinex is that I would rather hold my money at Goldman Sachs a thousand times over before putting anything at Bitfinex. And it is a good comparison. It was great that you had to defend Goldman Sachs, but Gabriel D. Vina, any more on this topic before we go to the exit question? Yes. Good to go. All right. The exit question. No, no, I do have something more. You got more? I only have to talk more. I just wanted to say, and this just to quickly extend on what Andy was saying, any fraud in tether and Bitfinex is so, you know, in proportion to, you know, how it relates to Bitcoin is so incredibly minuscule compared to the fraud in traditional old finance that is absolutely systemic from the very core of its entire existence, its basis on central banking. It's fraud from the ground up completely fraudulent from the very roots of the entire philosophical underpinnings to how it's carried out to fractional reserve banking to all the manipulated markets to all the faked, you know, supply of fiat fake supply of, you know, basically what we would call color coins in crypto is basically these, you know, paper certificates that are all kept in one place and, you know, there's total, you know, double spends, quadruple spends happening all the time on these traditional markets. That is, and of course, the size of the markets is whatever, 10,000 or 100,000 times larger. So, this is such a minor thing and it's really hilarious to see all the no-coiners out there, you know, seizing on this white paper like, oh, look, the price went up in organically, it was forced because of this other fraud thing and that's the only reason why Bitcoin went up, which is patently ridiculous. Here we are, you know, floating on this price, 600% higher than it was a year ago. So, yeah, that's all I'm gonna say. I mean, I mean, are people watching, again, you look at what's happening, like looking at the gold market today, right when the comics opened, even for what I've seen, $34 billion of notional paper gold hit at once, $34 billion. That's like multiples of how much gets produced and no one seems to care about that. You know, the ECB comes out yesterday and says, yay, we're going to end QE 18 months from now and we're gonna end NERP, which we've had for four years, negative interest rates, next year and all the other currencies in the world crash. The dollar explodes, the euro goes down a little bit and all the emerging market currencies crash and it was all, they had the inside information on this, of course, they knew that they were gonna do this and of course the stock market never goes down no matter what and the bonds are supported by this QE. But no one seems to care about that, they just care about this and frankly, I don't believe for a second that the Bitcoin price was taken up because of Tether. I think that's a small part maybe, but it's just one, look, it was a massive bull run and every imaginable force on earth was buying it and then when you turn around, every force is selling it and you could say right now, well, Tether is being somehow responsible for the price going down but it's just a part of rigged markets everywhere. Bitcoin is obviously manipulated in some ways, it's a different kind of manipulation and we'll just have to see how it plays out over time. I think that moves well into the exit question, exit question on a scale of one to ten, one meaning absolutely nothing, ten meaning absolute existential crisis. How important is this Tether manipulation story to Bitcoin? Andy Hoffman. Well during bear market conditions, it's closer to a five or six just because everyone's looking for bad news on everything. During bull market conditions as we saw, it's a one, no one cares. Gabriel, Devon. Yeah, let's see, what you said, one is zero effect, why don't we have zero? I can say one. You could choose zero if you want. Okay, well, no, no, I mean, because I think it's, you know, 1.1 let's say, there's a slight, very, very hair of an effect on, you know, the general Bitcoin ecosystem, you know, it might have a little bit more of an effect on the short term price but that's not really, you know, doesn't affect blocks are still being found people, 1.1. The answer is eight, eight, moving on to issue two SEC official pushes back on claims that Ethereum is a security in a shocking announcement this week, the SEC announced that Ethereum was not a security saying in his statement that today, the agency doesn't see a lot of value in treating Ether as a security explaining that according to the SEC, there is no central figure or group responsible for Ethereum. Therefore, the assets may not represent an investment contract. What's so shocking about this statement is while denying that Ethereum isn't a security, the SEC is claiming that other ICOs may be security. However, it seems like they have no legs to stand on. Gabriel D. Vaughan, what do you think was the SEC right? Is Ethereum not a security? You know, there's been a lot of talks about this how we test thing, which is the criteria by which the securities in exchange for commission decides whether, you know, they're edict on whether a given asset is a specific, you know, carries a specific legal definition. I understand why they're doing that. It's because they have to name it stuff in order for law enforcement to then, you know, enforce laws and enforce regulations and force, you know, various companies to do all sorts of stuff and different people to do different things. And you know, really, I think it's just an extension of fraudulent use for law. I really don't think laws should be used to, for anything other than when people's, what they call negative rights are being, you know, are being, how do I put it? When people's negative rights are, what's the word I'm looking for are offended, right? So transgress. So negative rights is, it's the silver rule. Don't do unto others as you don't wish to be done unto you, right? So this is the, this is Blake Anderson here on the Bitcoin group, turn me on to negative rights. They're the rights that everyone can agree on. Everyone agrees on these rights because everyone doesn't want to be shot in the face or, you know, stabbed or, you know, have their car stolen or whatever. Of course, at the edges of that, you do get into gray areas, but I, like securities regulation is so far from that gray area. It's just ridiculous. So my general point is, governments love to create, create more and more and more and more and more laws. You notice they rarely repeal laws because, first of all, obviously, they're, they're power hungry. So they want to, the more laws they are, the more opportunities they have to force other people to do things to their liking. And the other issue is, you know, obscurity through complexity. There are so many laws that nobody could possibly know all of them. And so it's quite often that, you know, you will, anybody who doesn't have huge amounts of money to pay a cadre of lawyers is going to run a foul of XYZ law. And governments love that because then they can choose to enforce the law selectively against their political enemies or against people who might undermine their power. So that's the raison d'etre of the SEC. Anybody who doesn't bribe them properly or doesn't give them the right kickbacks or doesn't give them the job when they leave the office, it's, it's rampant, you know, this revolving door. And you're basically asking to be cracked down on. So Ethereum has, you know, has big backers that got these Silicon Valley Jewish bags that got all, you know, Queen Center and all these, you know, people that are playing ball with the authorities to, you know, that have their back. And, you know, it's pretty, I mean, it's very subjective when you're, especially if you're judging a new type of asset, like crypto assets, whether they fit into some XYZ old, you know, old definition. Look at Ansel Lindner for in his opinion, Ethereum, because it had up this pre mine. So I don't know if you guys know this, but back in, you guys do, but our listeners, not everybody, probably knows this, but back in 2013, 14, Ethereum raised a bunch of money in Bitcoin, raised a bunch of Bitcoin and did a pre mine of like 70 million ether that they distributed to their, to the founders and to the, to the foundation as well, which is a Swiss company. It's a privately held Swiss corporation. That company owns essentially 40% of the current ether supply. So this was, this is basically declared not a security because some guys in suits convinced them that Ethereum is somehow decentralized, even though it has numerous figureheads that have exercised their power quite heavily and caused a hard fork a couple of years ago. But then again, it's kind of our, it's totally arbitrary anyways, because it all depends on how much you've bribed them, who you know. I'm sure there's all sorts of different assets out there that would have passed the how we test if the wrong kickbacks were given the, if somebody had been killed before making the decision, if, you know, if the bribe didn't get through in time, whatever it is. So, you know, this is a systemic fraud situation with SEC. And I don't think their decision is relevant on a, taken on its own level. However, there are broader implications here. They don't, of course, they didn't even consider Bitcoin because it's not even close to a security. That thing, fucking, the, the foundation folded because the, you know, the, all the users attacked it, you know, politically. So, you know, it won't even brook having a foundation represented because we're like, no, you know, you don't represent my needs, get out of my hair. So, but I think it is a relevant decision because it does open the floodgates for a lot more projects and a lot more fraud. But I mean, I think it's a good, anytime the government decides not to act, it's like a, it's an unequivocal good. So, that's nice, I guess, but I don't know, kind of irrelevant in that other sense. Gabriel, I think you're making my point for me here. Ethereum was a Swiss company. They have this strange structure where you have to buy the ether to get the gas to run the smart contract. That's called structuring. They set that up as a legal structure. It's not a technical need. They don't need that. They could just sell you the gas directly, but they structured it because they didn't want to be a security. They went to Switzerland because they didn't want to be a security and they had that huge pre-mind that went to the early people. Those are the leaders. That's the company. That's who you sue. I think it's very unfortunate that the SEC is not doing their job here, that they've decided that it's too big to fail. So, they're walking away. As we predicted on this show, they should have acted sooner when it was not too big to fail. They should have protected consumers because now they have no legs to stand on, attacking other ICOs. I don't see any difference between any ICO and Ethereum. They built the platform. Everyone will build a platform. It's not difficult. I just think it's unfortunate. As I mentioned on the Adam Meister show this morning, John Carvalho, Bitcoin Aerolog of Exotica TV had a couple of tweets about this. He said he could have launched his own ICO, but he thought it would be a security. He thought that the law would come down on him and he did what he thought was the right thing in following the law. Now we have a situation where the people who flouted the law, the people who said, we will do what we want are not getting off Scott free. There was that other tweet I referred to by Barry Silvertway said, the entire crypto community, not myself, the entire crypto community, breathed a sigh of relief when this went through. I wonder why? I wonder if you were doing questionable things. I wonder if you thought that what you were doing was illegal and then got away with it. So I have a lot of questions about this decision. It's not official. This is a statement by an SEC official. This is not in stone, but it shows the direction of their thinking, the direction in which they're heading. Andy, what do you think? Is it too big to fail? Yeah, it is. We'll put it this way. The term that comes to mind when I think of regulation of cryptocurrency is hurting cats, meaning it's impossible. So let's say they said it's a security. Well, so what? What are you going to do? How are you going to stop it? It's not even like it's a US stock that's traded on the New York Stock Exchange. It's traded on like 200 cryptocurrency exchanges around the world. Many of them in countries that couldn't care less. Some of them like cryptocurrency. And I mean, I just don't understand the concept. Crypt, I mean, yes, the initial those sales you're talking about in the past, those were clearly security sales. For what though? I mean, it's like kind of like a nonprofit corporate. They don't really do anything except build a computer program. It's not like they have quarterly profit reports and the CEO gets paid a salary. But yes, it was a securities offering. But Ethereum itself is whether it's centralized or not. It's not a security. And what are you going to do with it? Either way, I mean, you're going to tell Crackin and Coinbase, you can't sell it anymore. They'll say fine, people just buy it somewhere else. I mean, I don't understand. And then of course, the bigger joke is, well, if Ethereum is not a security, then what is Bitcoin? I mean, again, like Gabriel said, I mean, why would you even comment? You would sound unbelievably stupid because it's so amorphous. And it has never had leadership and it has never sold anything. And the whole thing is silly to me. Like you were talking about, though, on Adam's show, again, when you're in these kind of fair market conditions, if they said it was a security, everything crashes because it's so horrible, even though for Bitcoin, who cares? I mean, what does that mean? They're going to regulate it. Are they going to say to Coinbase? People can't buy it on Coinbase anymore. They already have AMLKYC. So what exactly is there to regulate? The whole story is a non-story to me. I'm certainly relieved that they didn't say they're doing something only because right now everyone's looking for excuses to sell. But to me, the whole thing is absolutely decals. There's no way to regulate cryptocurrency. And by the way, you're talking about ICOs. ICOs are even more amorphous. They're all over the world. Of course, there's securities, but they don't have their unregulated markets all over the world. They can be sold by people in all different parts of the world. The whole thing is ridiculous. You can't regulate these things. You can regulate exchanges. And then other ones will pop up elsewhere. Well, and I think that's the SEC's job to regulate exchanges. And you do it just like you do any other criminal investigation. You seize the exchange. You count how many illegal transactions you did. And then you charge them for the illegal transactions. I was not aware that if you get over a million illegal transactions, you get to get out of jail free card. I mean, there's a lot of people doing a lot of other horrible things. Where if, apparently, if they just did enough of it, it's fine. So I just, I worked about that kind of a lot. But I don't think it's a matter of like, letting the criminals get away. This is just, it's a brand new industry. That's like a hydra. Like there's just so many aspects of it. There's so many different things being sold, whether they're ICOs or altcoins or airdrops or forts. There's just too much stuff going on. Much of it has nothing to do with jurisdictions. Like is the B cash fork, which is like this theoretically big tax well, what exactly is it from a tax perspective? Is it even a US event? What if, I mean, the point is that the government is going to find as time passes. I think they already know it. That's kind of why they made this statement that there's not much that they can do about cryptocurrency. And the job, the job owning will only work so much. And in this case, I think they chose the wise decision not to, not to poke a hornet's nest. I definitely agree it would be almost impossible for them to enforce any kind of action on Ethereum and the market. But I'd like to see them try. And just because it's really difficult, I don't think that they have a right as their job to walk away from the law and shrug their shoulders and say, it's difficult. I think either you have to change the laws or admit, like Andy said, that it's not possible. And that's a huge advertisement for Bitcoin and Ethereum. But it's not possible for the government to regulate it, which we've been saying, but they have not said. And with all we go, do we accept that we are talking about, we are talking about US regulators here. They are the criminals. I mean, just to say that we need the SEC and the CFTC who have been allowing unbelievable amounts of market manipulation since the dawn of time more than ever before. Say, we need them to come in and regulate a market. No, what we need is them to disappear completely because anything that they touch turns to lead. And I don't want them going anywhere near any market. I mean, I'd rather watch the scamy ICOs do their thing and let people lose money in them because they're crazy enough to invest in them. That's how real capitalism works. If you're crazy enough to invest in an ICO by some stranger and lose your money, that's on you. The SEC is not going to change that. Exactly, Thomas. I can't believe you're so naive as I think these people have others' best interest in mind. This whole thing was set up for fraudulent reasons. They didn't catch Bernie Madoff for years. And that was so transparent. I've spent my whole life reporting on rigged markets. They've done everything they can. They literally have destroyed the precious metal market. The only sound money alternative that we ever had until Bitcoin came around because the CFTC was complicit in this the whole time. And the SEC with the GLD and all the options in future. It's a horror show. The stock market supported the bond markets with QE. These are the bad guys. The less they say the better. So frankly, I am thrilled that they didn't butt their mouth in. I don't want them touching anything. I would just assume that they all die. Well, I'm not looking to defend a 60 or 80 year old bureaucracy here. And I'm not crazy about any of the recent decisions that you guys mentioned. But I do think back to the beginnings of the stock market, the 1920s and the 30s, when there were these scams and where businesses were out of control and they're ripping off people. And I think that these institutions and laws were brought in to try to limit the amount of damage done to these people. Now, all those deposits were created by the same people so that they could bring in more people to prevent the small guys from doing the frauds. There was a way for them to gain public acceptance of the creation of these additional regulatory bodies so that they could keep the small guys and their political enemies out of the game of creating the frauds and give the green light to only their frauds. Yeah, I mean, look at who the chairman of the SEC. Guess what his former job was. He was the lawyer for Goldman Sachs and guess who his wife is? One of the top portfolio managers at Goldman Sachs. The whole CFTC board was a whole collection of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. The job of these big banks is to run these regulatory agencies like Gabriel says so that they get all the rules slanted toward them. And the reason they don't like Bitcoin is because it's a competitor to a system that they win in. But the beauty of Bitcoin, thankfully, is there's nothing they could do about it. I mean, Jamie Diamond could say it's like tulips and everyone laughs at them because it's just lying. Everyone knows it. But no, these regulatory agencies are the evil. I mean, they are who we are. We should be most focused on as far as who is trying to get us. But thankfully, they cannot attack Bitcoin. And whether you guys approve of them or not, we do look to them to create the new regulations. They created the original regulations. If there were to be new regulations, they would come from these bodies. Whether you'd like them, whether they'd work all of these questions. Well, they still hold the trial thing. I mean, it's still going to happen. Like they're going to pass laws. In the Ethereum law, like Congress, but Congress is going to pass laws. But since when is the SEC the the the the the Ethereum regular? I mean, there are securities in exchange commission. They regulate stock and bond markets. Cryptocurrencies are not stocks and bonds. And these people, by the way, know absolutely nothing about cryptocurrency. I mean, literally nothing about them. So how could they be in charge of creating laws about something that it's like impossible to create laws about in the first place and they don't even understand them? I mean, you know, very few people in the world, look, the fact that I am considered like one of these top cryptocurrency experts. And I know so little. And these guys literally know nothing. So, you know, how could they why would we look to them to create laws? We can't create laws because we don't even have enough experts to create laws. And this is too complicated of subjects. So I'm just happy when they just shut up. And not to get too far into the other topics. What we do look to the FCC to regulate new things like the internet when they used to regulate old things like radio and television. No, we don't not all look to them. I mean, they have this. It's like drones. Like drones are invented. And then we assume that the FAA is going to pass drone laws. I don't assume that the FAA is going to pass drone laws. I look to the Food and Drug Association. No, we're gritting our teeth. Come on guys. Like, what do we, like, you guys are in a row. And it's the definitions of government. Like, I mean government exists. Because M is not how everybody looks at it. Well, it's going to have, I mean, it's like you have to look to the baseball people to tell you about the draft. You're going to look to the FAA to regulate the skies. I invented a flying machine and then I looked to the FDA. I'm just trying to understand what you guys are arguing here. I'm just arguing, I'm just starting with semantics really. Looking to them means that you feel like you don't have permission already. Whereas, you know, the other, in my, in my opinion, the more sanguine approach is to recognize that they still hold that authority whether you like it or not and accept the fact that they have greater power than you. And of course, look, there are some things that are easier to classify. Another is a court flying machine is not a complex thing. I mean, yes, drones have issues with them, but they are pretty easy to understand what they are. Cryptocurrency. And again, you're talking about this Bitcoin and then there's centralized altcoins. And a lot of altcoins, by the way, are a lot less centralized per se. If you're talking about like from a securities description, then you'd like. And then of course, you have ICOs, which is something completely different. So, I mean, you can't regulate everything. The world is becoming more complex. The world of money is becoming, I mean, look, they're trying to regulate derivatives and all these things that they're only a handful of like computer experts understand. A Goldman Sachs. And the government is trying to regulate that. Now they're going to try to regulate this. You can't regulate everything. The biggest problem, the reason we have Bitcoin in the first place, the reason I got it created was big government. The reason that I was in gold all these years and women Bitcoin now, big government is causing all the world's problems. They're the ones who are causing the wealth inequality. They're the ones who are causing the debt, the inflation, all of these things. So to say, hey, here's some more things to try to regulate and screw up. Things that are so complex that almost nobody understands what they even are. Andy. But Andy, in Thomas's world, there are no psychopaths that are all highly, highly attracted to these positions of power at the top of hierarchy. There are no psychopaths. So you can just set up these things and just depend on everybody's good will to do to do right in those positions of power. It's not just that, but you just mentioned big government. It's the gorilla in the room. I'm not going to assume that the gorilla is not going to pass a law. And I'm not going to look next to the gorilla for the law. I'm going to look right at the gorilla and look for the next law. I don't. Oh, I'm going to talk about the law. Thomas is mad at me. And we're looking at ways to take down that gorilla, man. But you might give up in the face of that growling, but we don't. We're looking at the other way. I'm not even talking about whether they're good or bad people, or whether they're sociopaths or not. I'm saying they could have saints in there. They could have a group of mother-terrises in there, but they still have no clue what cryptocurrency is. So you can look and say and do something, but I mean, you were talking about the blind leading the blind. They have no idea what it is. And if they try to regulate it, it's only going to make the situation worse for the government trying to regulate. It's going to just confuse a lot of people, cause a lot of problems. So that's what I think the librarians would say. States got a state. So I do expect them to regulate them. I look to them to regulate them. I expect them to regulate. I don't know what it's going to work. But I don't look to someone else to regulate them. I mean, I look to them. I'm not looking at anybody to regulate nothing. Just it's going to happen. It's like it's all the bad things to me. I want to see you. I'm not looking at anybody to regulate nothing. Look into the future of Bitcoin and imagine all the governments left it alone for a hundred years. Does that seem likely? Or all the governments passed laws about it and they failed. And then there's a period where the laws were enforced and then the laws went away. And then there's an acceptance period. I think we're going to have to go through that. I mean, yeah, absolutely. It's a long period of time. Governments don't sit. But the point is it is a decentralized revolution. That's what people need to understand. We are still very early. We want to believe, hey, we won the war. The price went to 20,000 less year. It's going to go right back and everything's going to be great. There's the whole status quo that doesn't want this to happen. Right. And so they will fight. But fortunately, if you are hobbling on a tracer, there's not much they could do about it. Except cause bumps along in the road. But yeah, this is a whole Bitcoin thing. Is it a fight back against big government? And it will be a long drawn out process. I mean, I suppose if you had a giant, like they lost control of financial markets. And there was a giant like 2008, like crisis now. Then that could really accelerate the movement out of fiat and into it. But without that, it's going to be a bumpy road. And you know, I think you made a really good point earlier. And you know, in a sense, this, you're talking about how they don't understand Ethereum and stuff. And I'm sure there's it's very, very few people. I don't know if it's this. Yeah, they don't know. They don't know. But there might be just enough people that do to have told them, you don't want to try to regulate this because you won't be able to. Even though there's a company in Switzerland, even though this thing is it was a pre-mine and it's basically a security, we can't, well, there's no world, no way we'll be able to really enforce this. Even if we go after the company in Switzerland, it's going to be a losing battle and we're going to lose face. So I think a lot of a lot of the decision was motivated by them just not wanting to lose face. And, and you know, that's, I think that's part of the reason why they're not going after Bitcoin too, because they know that it's not really going to be. I think this blends well into the exit question. Exit question, if Ethereum is not a security, then all ICOs are not a security. Yes or no, Andy Hoffman. Just thinking about the way you asked it, ICOs are securities. And Ethereum was sold at, well, ICOs, a lot of them are meant to be securities. Like this is just a way of getting around traditional markets. So they're literally saying we are securities, we're discarding laws. But Ethereum was not sold. The offering was what you would call a securities offering, because people were paying for something from a centralized group. But what Ethereum does is not accompany. So I don't know how do you classify it. And that's what the SEC is worrying about. But the thing with ICOs is they don't, it's not like you, you apply for them at the ICO. You can be some guy in a basement in China and do an ICO. Especially if it's one that's funded with cryptocurrency, that's just sent over the internet. So I don't really know how to answer that question, but I don't think any of it will ever be regular. Gabriel, Dvon. As a proper goal in the chat pointed out, Ethereum was an ICO. So it is an ICO token. So I'm going to say that they're going to continue to apply the regulations randomly. And according to the wins and bribes that they get. I agree. And we do look to the lawmakers to write new laws. And that's what they have to do. And they're forced to see something they've never regulated before. I agree they don't know about it. Neither did the FCC know about the internet. But they regulated it anyway. So I just see it as more of an eventuality. A hurdle that we have to get over, rather than something that we can avoid by not looking at it or wish it get away. Did you know the World Crypto Network has a podcast? And you can subscribe on iTunes. We've got Bitcoin talk show, J.W. Weatherman, the Adam Meister show, Andy Hoffman, Ansel Lindsay, and much, much more on the World Crypto Network podcast. Subscribe today on iTunes. Issue 3. The CIA can neither confirm nor deny that it has documents on Satoshi Nakamoto. A freedom of information act request from Motherboard was sent to the CIA recently. And the CIA came back with a standard and classic CIA response. They can neither confirm nor deny that they have a file on Satoshi Nakamoto. Does this mean that Satoshi Nakamoto is secretly a CIA agent? Does this mean that CIA knows who Satoshi Nakamoto is? Or does this mean that the CIA has no information and didn't want to say that? Gabriel, divine, your thoughts on the CIA and Satoshi Nakamoto. I'm going to ignore this topic and just talk about conspiracy theories about who created Bitcoin. So the most believable conspiracy theory that I've come across. And I've heard this theory from some insiders as well as from remote viewing people, which I love remote viewing. I think it's so cool. And when you look at new physics and quantum mechanics, it actually makes quite a bit of sense. A lot of people just aren't accepting the fact that consciousness directly affects what we consider to be matter, which is actually just little vibrations and resonances in the ether, not ethereum ether, the real ether, which Einstein admitted that relativity was not possible without any ether in the 20s. Anyways, yeah, we have some groans going around in the chat. You're welcome. So here's my conspiracy theory. This is what I've heard. Three Satoshi Nakamoto is three individuals. The holy Trinity. I'm there. Yeah, no. Exactly. The holy Trinity, they are human males. And we've got three different age groups. We've got the economist as the oldest. We've got a cryptographer who's the middle age. And then we've got a developer as the youngest and computer program being expert or computer science expert as the youngest member of the Trinity. And from what I've heard from these theorists, the old gentleman, it really adds together that this person is the storied financial programmer. I want to give his name right. Yes, Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman wrote tons of banks off to where all the way back to the 60s, total old school, you know, financial economist. Then the middle guy is going to be like 20 years or 20 or 30 years younger, looking at maybe like a way die or a Nick Sabo perhaps, one of the 90s cypherpunk crypto guys. And then the young guy, I'm a little at a loss about that one. I'm not sure maybe somebody in his 40s or something. That I'm not so sure. But that's what I've heard. And also conspiracy people said that they were working hand in hand with the NSA to create this thing. And that the quote unquote, Satoshi's coins were originally considered to be, you know, in the hands of the US government of the NSA. The keys are in the possibly in the hands of the NSA. They have no plans to use the Bitcoin to break anything or anything like that. Perhaps their plan was just in case it takes off. Then the US government can stick around as sort of a in the if you think of them as a private business, which is how they kind of started with the constitution and stuff. There's it's a bit of a all the money was coming from, you know, themselves. There was no income tax or anything like that at that time. It was like a run like a business. So that would be like the starting capital for, you know, for the US government to exist in a crypto world. All right. It's a fantastic movie. I want to green light it. I want to keep the plot going. Great. Who's going to play these leads? I don't know. I'm picturing the old guys. But still I have the plot. So they leak the code illegally. The three of them decide we need to leak this to the internet. Then they realize that the government has stealing the stolen the original keys. And now the government is secretly in control of Bitcoin and their plan to free the people has failed. So they must break back in to the place they work at the CIA or whatever to get back the original code for Satoshi's bitcoins. Then they destroy them at the end of the movie. When you say the original code, the private keys is the private keys. Yeah. For the all this. Yeah. That's awesome. And then they destroy the coins. They burn them. Yeah. Destroy the coins. But then you're always like, did they really destroy them? Don't do it. Green light. It's green light. Yeah. Yeah. It's green light. All right. Andy, we got a conspiracy theory movie and we're going to Hollywood. What do you think about the original topic? Wish was the CIA and Satoshi Nakamoto. Right. Well, contrary to what people think, I hate everything that has to do with conspiracy. So like when I talk about like the gold cartel, I talk about proof. And people don't seem to care as much about that as they do about conspiracy theorists. They want to hear about Rothschilds and stuff like that. Where there's no proof. Facts. Facts are overrated. The week of makeup will be on your facts. Well, you can't you can't have a successful newsletter writing subscription service. If you talk about facts, you need to make up stuff. That's why the web bot. That's why all these things are so popular. If you say that you know something that other people don't, people love it. But yeah. And this really to me, there's this no story at all. The only story is is the the miraculousness. I compared it to the, you know, the the Immaculate conception that this incredible asset, which could wind up dominating the monetary world, was created by someone completely anonymous. We have no idea who it is. People could say all they want. Probably some of the people that are mentioned are very likely to be him or in the circle of him because they were the earliest, you know, geniuses. But no one knows. And certainly not the government. They don't, they definitely don't know. So I don't really know what the story is yet. Moving on to the exit question. We will learn the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto in one year, five years, or never Gabriel Devon. That's interesting. I think longer. I'm going to say, let's see, what's it's 2018 now work. I think I think we might learn. Yeah, I think we're I think we're going to learn that who it is. But it's going to be like 15 years. Andy Hoffman. Now I think it's never, you know, I can frankly, at this point, if there it is a singular person, his or her, and it's I'm sure it's he. His coming out would be devastating public relations catastrophe. This person would never be able to live another day in peace. And the civil wars that break out within Bitcoin over him. I'm trying to think of a movie. There's a movie where we're someone who was supposed to be long gone comes out. He's very important. It causes the whole world to change their their system of beliefs and all kinds of I don't think he's there. And he also can't touch his coins either. So if he's even alive, I don't think we'll ever find out. And I think he knows better than at this point than to to come out. The answer is never, but of course, I never thought we'd know the identity of deep throat. But now we know that it was FBI director Mark felt moving on to issue four AT&T time Warner and Comcast media companies continue to merge as AT&T completed their acquisition of time Warner. Meanwhile, Comcast up their offer to buy Fox and screw Disney to $65 billion. They're fighting over the X-Men, Spider-Man and Sky Networks in Europe. But what does this mean to you? Well, last year when the FCC repealed net neutrality, its chairman claimed that companies like Comcast weren't investing in broadband deployment because of uncertainty caused by regulations. That's proven to be utterly false. And meanwhile, Comcast and others are using that cash to gobble up other media companies and merge into giant media conglomerates, part ISP internet service provider and part content owner. They now have a stake in the game. They have a reason to slow down your pipes. Andy Hoffman, your thoughts on the media mega mergers and net neutrality. Well, this is hilarious because again, my career was Wall Street. I worked 15 years on Wall Street and basically you can consider my 30 years as Wall Street. But I have so stopped focusing on the stock market other than out of curiosity to see, does it go up or down? I wasn't even aware of these things. I had no, I thought, frankly, when you said the second article, AT&T completes time Warner, I thought it was like an onion article because these are like the two most archaic, pathetic dinosaurs of companies in the world who are both famous for screwing up absolutely everything they've ever touched. And it was kind of like last week you were talking about, or maybe it was on vortex show about IBM having comments about Bitcoin, like you're talking about the cutting edge of technology against the least cutting edge. So, I mean, to think of what these two companies are doing, I really don't care. Comcast is also becoming a dinosaur. And let's face it, the story is everyone is trying to compete with Amazon. And they're going to lose. Amazon will destroy all these companies and I really don't care. I mean, I use Comcast because they have good internet connection. That's the ace they have in their whole end up their sleeve. But this is all about fighting against Amazon and Netflix. And ultimately, Amazon will destroy everything. Amazon is really impressive. I read the book about Jeff Bezos and he is just phenomenal. The way they do business is different than anyone else. I would hate to fight them, but I would also hate to work there. Gabriel. Sorry, I got it. I say, although I would like to see how Disney, I mean, if there's one company in America that I have faith that they will create the optimal strategy, how to maximize whatever they got, it's them. Because they are one of the truly great American companies. And this is a personal story for me because I'm looking for Disney who owns Marvel to get the X-Men and Spider-Man back from Fox. So I do have a skin in the game. Gabriel, divine, your thoughts on the media and the mega mergers and net neutrality. I appreciate you mentioning your horse in the race there. That makes sense. I very much have a bias towards the Marvel comics. Sure. Right. Well, I just kind of want to speak about some ancillary issues here. First of all, net neutrality, I think is a totally ridiculous and typical opposite play like what you might say, like say taxation. Oh, we're going to help everybody with this money, but actually, it's a way to draw off wealth from everybody and give them shitty services back. So net neutrality is a similar thing. It's like, oh, we're going to help all of the bandwidth stay great. But actually, it's going to be a situation where Comcast and all these other companies who ever pays the government for the right to do the to push data down their pipes is the ones that are going to have the right to do high bandwidth usage. And I think that we're, it's just utilities, right? Where there's like this idea of the tragedy of the commons. But what I think is that the government should get completely out of the way. And we should be paying, you know, we should be paying these for these services, you know, a little bit more, you know, what would pay more pays you go type of term, you know, like it's like, if they're, if their costs are per data, you know, then we shouldn't be, we shouldn't be paying for a bandwidth. We should be paying for total downloaded, right? And so I think if the, if the, it's the government and regulations that are causing the mismanagement and lack of matchup between customers and the owners of the infrastructure, in addition, it's local governments that are causing monopolies and do opalies around in the Western world. You have a situation where, you know, and in any given neighborhood, you generally only have one choice in most of the states. And that's terrible for the customers. And that's all because the local authorities decided to give the contract. So if we had a situation with more competition, I think that we would see cheaper prices overall and the government completely got out of the way. I think net neutrality is a total red herring and fake, totally fake. It's a way for large corporations to take over bandwidth more than they already have with these massive local monopolies. It's for them to continue doing that. But that said, as usual, anytime you try to suppress a market like that, alternatives are going to arise. And I'm really looking forward to long-range mesh network technologies, you know, contact point technologies where we're going to have, you know, decentralized, you know, you pay it with the lightning network, you pay for your route through. And that's going to finally industrialize internet traffic, which it's totally not right now. So that's going to be great. When we have long-range Wi-Fi, you get 70, 100, 200, 500 mile-range Wi-Fi with anybody can run a node. And this tech is already in existence. Just the infrastructure isn't there. The manufacturing isn't there. The demand isn't there because it's at two rudimentary level to compete with centralized services among ISPs now. But I don't think that'll always be the case. And I have a feeling that that will be on the rise over the next couple of decades to the point where you'll actually be unless you're maybe in a dense city. It won't make sense to run cable anywhere because you're a bandwreld. We're so high, bouncing it off on satellite and paying, you know, Satoshi's per day or whatever for your ultra high bandwidth. It's just my take. All right. I am exhausted being the one lone voice fighting the libertarians on net neutrality, but I will continue. Just a basic recap of my opinion on net neutrality. It was a concept not created by government, but created by engineers. The idea of a level playing field where all bandwidth is equal is the idea of the internet. This level playing field allowed new companies to up-seat old companies. In the new system that they're proposing without net neutrality, you pay for a fast lane. Paying for a fast lane means that when Facebook came along and tried to get rid of my space, my space would be entrenched. They would have millions of dollars. They could afford lots of fast lane. Facebook would be new. They would be small. They would not have millions of dollars. They could not afford fast lane. So this ends innovation on the internet. It makes it difficult for a company built in a garage to challenge a big company and even to overturn them as Facebook is now in the home of sun micro systems, the creators of Java. Additionally, the companies that provide the bandwidth to the internet are not just ISPs, internet service providers, they are content owners. As I mentioned, the time Warner merger, the Comcast merger, these companies own media properties. So it's better for them if you watch Comcast TV than if you watch Netflix. So they make Comcast TV fast, included with your service. Netflix costs more. Netflix goes out of business. The net neutrality creates a level playing field. A level playing field is a socialist idea, but one that we benefit from. It's not a law that the government can change. I keep hearing the government is going to use net neutrality to change these companies. The government keeps a level playing field. Everyone can compete. That's how we built the internet. It's sad to see this happen. We've lost other incredible democratizing technologies such as radio and television to this same slow walk back. At first, everyone had their own radio and TV stations. Everyone had their own web pages. Now, if your web page isn't in the fast lane, nobody's going to look at it. This changes the internet. So Andy, go ahead, more on this topic. Yeah, just very quickly. When you talk about an end of trot, I can't say I have that much to say other than that. I favor capitalism and no government regulation. The internet is not owned by the US government. People could do whatever they wanted. That's fine with me. But to me, what interests me more, Gabriel is talking about the the pay-per-view. Look, that's what's the future. Bitcoin is changing money. Pay-per-view is the future of pretty much everything. It's the future of the blogging industry. It's the future of entertainment, the future of music, everything. These big services, look at ESPN, no one wants it anymore. I might pay a dollar a month for it if I felt like it was 50 cents a month. But these Comcasts and Time Warner's, they better change quickly because they got Amazon and Netflix and a whole bunch of other stuff that are offering things better and more modern. It's going to get even more fragmented and pay-per-view. When you see them spending $65 billion of cash for some RK company thinking that the old business model is going to work in the digital age. Absolutely decals. I was thinking of AOL. AOL, Buying Time Warner, was one of the biggest flops in corporate M&A history. It's the poster child. Now AT&T, Buying Time Warner, 20 years later, made-may-top it. It was a great purchase. The AOL, Time Warner. Eventually, they even dropped AOL from the name. They were that embarrassed about what happened. I think that's about it for the topics. I have an exit question. I think we talked enough about NetNewChallion companies. I go exit question. Are you into the Marvel Comics universe? Do you watch the movies? Have you seen Deadpool 2? Go to Andy and then Great at Gabriel. I'm just into the Star Wars stuff. Actually, what I was told by one of my friends is that the solo movie is so violent that he wouldn't take his kids to it. Obviously, Disney is going down the channel of what Batman did and saying, screw the kids, we want a kid or two adults, which is a bit of a shame. I'm trying to remember. I have a hard judge for violence because I'm not a child or whatever. I didn't think it was that violent. I felt it was more like just a ride. It was just a chase ride. That's what he said. I haven't seen it. I'm dead. But I don't think it was as bad as they're all saying. I love how a movie that makes $100 million can be considered a failure. It's an interesting market. Gabriel, divine your thoughts on the comics and Star Wars and such. Well, Marvel is a great comic house, obviously, that's possibly the most legendary. Got to love a lot of their characters, like the Silver Surfer and Galactus. It's very cool. This idea of the mutants. It's very metaphorical and all the stories. That's quite interesting. However, I do find that the films have generally tumbled extremely in quality from the very first and not the very first, but the new wave of early Marvel movies like Batman is DC. The first Iron Man movie. I walked out of a Marvel flick because it was just so stupid and so bad. Almost all of them are really terrible. I thought Ant-Man was funny. I didn't see Deadpool because I'm looking at... It's also very San Francisco. All of you Bay Area people, I am... Ant-Man is the ultimate San Fran commentary comic book movie. But I didn't see Deadpool because he's got a mask on. That just seems so weird for a main character to have a mask. I can't see his facial expressions. It seems really dumb. For a comic book, it's fine, but anyways, yeah. I feel like they've kind of gone down. I'm sick of Marvel. It is tough. A lot of the movies suffer from that big villain fight at the end, and then they also have this problem where you know Spider-Man's going to live. Yeah, for me, like, yeah. But there've been a good ride. Some of them are breaking out their little different Thor Ragnar and then I think Deadpool wanted two were good. Of course, the big Avengers ones have been pretty good, but yeah, I'm pretty much into the whole series. Thanks, Dan. You know, we appreciate your donation. They're Dan and Dan says we love you, Thomas. And it's true. And everybody here at the World Cup in the country, even though of course we have these fights and everything. Obviously, behind the scenes, everything's very good nature, and we love Thomas too. Thanks for doing the show. And thank God that last question after an hour and 20 minutes was, and tell Andy to give his stance on all of coins. We avoided the alt coins so far, but yes, I am standing up for kind of a traditional view. And I know this is kind of a libertarian audience and conspiracy audience and everyone's calling me a status. That's fine. I mean, I'm just everyone else would be saying these things. So we have to say things like we expect the FCC to regulate things and so forth. But let's go ahead to the story of the week. Andy Hoffman, are you ready? What's been going on this week for you? Oh my god. I forgot all about that. I can do mine if you're ready. I'll do mine. I have no story the week. I'm so exhausted. Just go go to all the stuff that I've written and talked about. I'm exhausted. All right, check out Andy's work. He's been doing some internet. And I got I got to go next. I have to take my daughter somewhere. So it's great, great having me. Thank you so much. Thanks so much, Andy. We'll see you again soon. Great. Great. And Gabriel D. Vine, your story of the week. I'm going with a prediction this week. I predict that tether will implode within the next three years. And I predict that this circle coin, which I hadn't heard of yet, that you see USD that you mentioned on the show. That sounds like it's got more legs. I wouldn't be surprised if that lasts as long as the USD, which I don't believe will last through the 2020s. And my story of the week is that I've been having a great time hanging out with you, the audience. We've been doing Bitcoin talk show all week. You can add us on Skype at World Crypto Network, all one word. People have been calling in telling me what they think about Bitcoin, what it was like when they got into Bitcoin, we've heard from people from Ireland, Turkey, Arkansas, all over the world. So it's been great. Make sure to subscribe down below. Give us a thumbs up and a share. Just a quick check of the price of Bitcoin is $6,500. You're going to put the QR code up. If you'd like to donate some Bitcoin to this show, you could do so right now. If you'd like to subscribe monthly at patreon.com slash WCN, you could do that for any amount you want, $5 a month, $10 a month. We just appreciate all your support and thanks for watching. Until next time, bye bye.