 you have in mind something like a Bitcoin future for if money is broken, that's one of the potential fix is something more market based that incentivizes saving rather than debt. The other vision of the future is something of our money's future is something like CBDC, central bank digital currencies. You describe this as a surveillance and control mindset that is gripping much of our ruling class. Can you sketch out what that vision might look like and why it's something best avoided? So over the past century and a half and really more than that, most efficiencies we make with money come at the cost of centralization and more surveillance. So we make money faster and easier, but it gets coalesced into banks and then central banks and central bank digital currencies are kind of like the capstone of that where it's just fully surveilled, it's kind of fully locked in, it's programmable by the state. Privacy is basically just completely lost at that point. And so in that world, it kind of helps maintain the 160 different currency bubbles that countries have now. It makes it hard for people to kind of escape that system. Now, luckily in a world where Bitcoin and stablecoins exist, countries, assets can now pierce each other's borders, which are hard to stop. Stablecoins, the United States could stop easily, but the questions do they want to? And certainly the Argentinians or the Nigerians of the world can't do anything about the fact that stablecoins exist. Bitcoin can potentially disrupt even the biggest currencies in the long arc of time. And so we'll see how, if it's up to that challenge. But basically we have one or two directions. Either we can embrace some of the open source technology and allow more market-based competition. And it's not necessarily a choice. I think there's some degree of technological determinism in the sense that if this technology is robust enough, and desirable enough, it's very hard to overwhelm the market forces of people that would want these technologies. But if it's whatever reason that the technology is insufficient, or if it's kind of like killed in the cradle before it can really kind of fully mature or set back a long period of time, one way or another, then we enter a world of, you know, more centralized control than we've been accustomed to. And then you can, you know, things like you can use narratives around war. You can use narratives around the environment, things like that to control how people spend more on a regular basis, which is a somewhat dystopian future. And it's not hard to imagine that more places could be kind of like the direction that China goes in, which is to have a pretty significant top-down enforcement. I think that should be generally resisted. And that freedom of being able to use whatever money you want, basically freedom to protect your own savings, your own accumulated time and energy, should be rewarded. And I think it's useful for people to understand these technologies, either potentially to use them themselves, or to understand just the macro context, what the existence of these things means. So if things like Bitcoin and stablecoins can pierce financial borders in a way that hasn't been useful, hasn't been possible before, what does that mean for, you know, different countries and their ability to maintain currencies? What does it mean for global assets? I think these are questions that investors and just anyone kind of interested in the subject should be familiar with. But I mean, there's a movement against CBDCs, against central bank digital currencies, but I'm not sure that the average listener or American exactly understands what it is, how it's different than just dollars being digital. There's, you know, a programmable aspect to CBDCs. And that is the really dangerous privacy-violating part. Could you just give a couple examples of why, from your perspective, that would be an assault on liberty? So it used to be that transactions were naturally private, like handing over a banknote or gold coin or silver coin as a private act. But as things kind of coalesced onto bank balance sheets, and then there's like various laws that make those banks constantly give over the information to the government, we kind of, the natural assumption of what is normal has shifted kind of to be an anti-privacy stance. And cash is kind of the last vestige of privacy. And of course, it's fairly controlled. I mean, try to go to your bank and if you've got $100,000 in the account, just be like, yeah, I'd like to take that out. It's my money. You're going to get a lot of pushback trying to take out very large amounts of cash from the system because it's generally discouraged. And because they don't like that much private value going around, even in some countries buying above a little bit of gold gets you basically KYC, like you get identified for having done that. And so there's a lot of, and I think this is to the extent that they attack Bitcoin, I don't think it'll be about things like banning it. It'll be about things like banning the private usage of it or putting restrictions on self-custiding it and saying, oh, just hold it in the BlackRock ETF. Just fully put in these silos, don't hold it yourself. That's kind of the pushback I think that's going to happen. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from my conversation with Lynn Alden about her new book, Broken Money. You can watch another clip right here or the full conversation over here.