 So this morning, as you can see, I'm talking about investing, trading, and gambling. I'm also at the end going to be talking about users. And the first thing I wanted to speak to you about is what exactly is a Bitcoin anthropologist? I have to credit Daniel Crowitz here for this great art that he made for me. I'll start with saying that I am not speaking today as a historian or as a prophet or an oracle or as an opinionated commentator. I am a researcher and a data collector and a story listener on an immersive descriptive mission. So I am not here to make declarations. I'm not seeking a or the truth. Rather, I'm cataloging the variety of truths already in and coming into existence with an intellectual premise that any sense of a complete truth is always a composite of many stories, often those that contradict as much as overlap. And in order to describe, one must live with or immerse oneself or function as one of the various tribes to the extent that it is possible given space and language distances. So a good or useful anthropologist cultivates an explicit self-awareness and transparency about biases and makes a clear differentiation between personal individual beliefs and practices and the descriptions of those held by and done by others. So my goal is to understand from the inside out rather from the outside in and to describe and translate for others so as to gain a broader and richer view for all of the tribes that participate in the Bitcoin universe. So today I'm presenting from the perspective of both my personal experience with and a study of others' experience with the Bitcoin investing, trading, and gambling tribes, which of course overlap sometimes and perhaps often in the same person. My first observation is an investor mentality is not the same as a trader mentality and both are different again from either gambler or user mentality. And this would appear to be true across cultures or tribes and it especially appears to be true in the crypto and the fiat, in the digital and the analog worlds. So while there is immense variety already within the Bitcoin or crypto or blockchain universe, whichever macro tribe someone belongs to, just as much as in any other human or global wide entity, it's through the universal language of price that all the sects and subsects of all the macro tribes can find a common language and bring equivalent mindsets to aggregate. And this is an idea that I again have to credit Daniel Krowitz with. It's the idea that the best investors are effectively investing in other investors. And this is also true when we're talking about how price can function as a universal language in the game of gambling. So there is therefore a real degree of consistency of perspective and experience regardless of culture, language or other social norms across the breadth of the Bitcoin universe with regards to the spectrum of investing through to gambling. There is one interesting exception to the parallel between strong investing in the non-crypto and the crypto worlds. And that is to do with the emergence of a non-corporate model that needs strong investors to be also convinced and active users in order to validate the investment and make it a strong choice. So I'm talking about layers of mentalities and single human can do and can operate with all three mentalities but only successfully if he or she is able to keep the mentalities and therefore the resulting behavior actions properly siloed off from one another. This is a point at which I say although it may strike some as somewhat pedantic or overly academic to be focused so clearly on the definitions of the words that we use, the definitions of the words that we use are incredibly important to the actions that we then take. So similarly, a single project can entice and reward all three types of interactions those of investors, of traders and of gamblers but likewise only if the differing needs and demands of those three groups are understood and catered to in distinct ways. If a project is unable to tell the difference between the needs and desires of one group versus the other that project will not know how to prioritize one group over the other if and when needs be. I think it's also important to point out here that investing really suggests staying or staying wealthy or preserving whatever wealth you have. Trading is a layer which allows for an increase in wealth whereas gambling presents a proposition where one can get rich or very rich and then convert into wealth or one can get very broke and this would be the mistake layer buffer that Crowitz has spoken about in terms of why you should be careful not to trade or gamble. So investing is defensive and strong investors are loyal first and foremost to their money which means you do not ever put in money that you think there is any significant risk of not getting back at equal purchasing power. Any excess capital that a person realistically neither needs soon nor wants to ever be without is candidate capital for investment. So the first question a strong investor asks of a vehicle is will this exist at whatever date in the future that is my time horizon? Six months, six years, 60 years. Is there a significantly good chance that my capital in the future will at least have power of purchasing power as compared to now? And risk assessment in this context is a lot about time. Are you properly accounting for the risk that you may need the capital invested sooner or more urgently than you anticipate? Are you paying attention to the fact that uncertainty compounds over time? Monitoring risk is about revisiting the defensive thesis that you formed about the vehicle that led you to the investment choice in the first place. And importantly in this context it also means that strong investors do not limit themselves to single investments. Strong investors do not like being put in the position by their investments of having to be either or since strong investor mindset is one of both and. This is due to the primary loyalty that strong investors have which is the ultimate return of their money. So trading is the offensive layer that sits on top of the defensive layer of investing. It is the belief not only in the return of capital but also a rate of return in excess of that needed to maintain purchasing power. And it's the excess rate of return that is the driving force of trading, not investing. Trading is a mindset and it can function with a very long term time horizon. Simply having a timeframe for an excess rate of return in the order of years does not therefore make those set of choices an investment. It is rather the framework of a trade. So a bold trader is capable of sitting with a vehicle as it functions first or intermittently as an investment while waiting for an anticipated swell upwards. In this case, trading requires patience much like surfing. And in this metaphor trading in order to become a trade it has to actually reach the shore and break which effectively means in order to become a trade you have to sell it. So gambling is playing and to play any game well one must play with full abandon. So holding back from embracing the gameness of a game means that a player will fail to win or certainly fail to win as well or as often as they would otherwise. So never ever gamble with more than you assume to lose. It is the way to full engagement and a greater chance of success. If you are more focused on not losing your stake than you are on winning the game you will less likely succeed. So pure risk taking requires pure emotional freedom in order to get the maximum concentration on the elements that influence the gambling game outcomes. Effectively don't play bridge and pretend to yourself or others that you are playing chess. You won't do very well. And it raises an interesting question about successful gambling. I've suggested that gambling is a way for sure to get rich but one has to also ask whether or not successful gambling is to be able to stay in the game and gamble more. The hook of real gambling seems to be most rooted in being successful enough to keep playing because it's the playing that is enjoyable. So digging in a little deeper to what goes into making a strong investor. What are some of the aspects that I've observed in the strongest investors in the space? An important idea is indifference. So strong investors are able to be indifferent to an agnostic about rhetoric and promotional narrative surrounding any given vehicle. Rather, they should embrace the spirit of experimentalism and open-mindedness both in the projects they choose and with regards to their own assumptions, beliefs and theses, which are always time-samped. Whatever decision I make today is always going to be rooted in today. And next week, I may make a very different decision. Strong investors should avoid projects that claim merit mostly on the basis of being not X or the real Y. Being the better X is a different proposition and being the best Y is of course the best proposition. So in the context of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash and other forks, strong investors should first put themselves in a starting position of having been a Bitcoin holder before any of the forks. It means that new people coming into the space to be in the strongest position should seek first a form of numerical parity and mimic the potential current stance of the oldest Bitcoin investors who have and do practice indifference. Another key element to being a strong investor is skepticism. And that is because the key to strength is balance and adaptability. They go together. Life is a dynamic system and constant adaptation, micro and macro is needed to remain in balance. To stand steady on the deck of a boat at sea, your feet have to work all the muscles all the time. You cannot underestimate the risk of becoming cultish to your own way of thinking, which is always a composite of other people's beliefs. Consequently, strong investing means regularly stress testing one's own fundamental convictions about the likely veracity of any given thesis, e.g. the assumptions that led you to make the choice in the first place. This is very different from the assault of self-doubt. And self-doubt comes from weak original assumptions that led to the initial investment decision. And self-doubt is often, often related to the relative size of an investment choice, which can be the failure of accurate time risk assessment. E.g. how long can I feel okay without this liquidity, this amount? The skepticism of strong investors is practiced as a self-initiated and self-directed and self-controlled use of a mental tool. It's less an assault and more embracing refreshing swim through other assumption possibilities. In the process, often of returning to the decisions that you had made in the first place. So the strongest investors are also those that recognize and account for, from the outset, the important role of random and induced luck. Both in the individual case of the investor personally and in the context of luck, good or bad, encountered by the investment vehicle. The smartest players, investment and people in general, are precisely those who plan for luck. As Machiavelli would tell you, human virtue triumphs in the face of divine fortuna when and only if it anticipates, submits, and adapts to the greater force of chance. Fate, fata is of course the combination of fortuna's impact on a person's virtue. This is another way of saying that those who remember on an ongoing basis that forces beyond their control often have the biggest impact on the success and strength of investment theses and choices have the greatest competitive advantage. So turning now to something that is particular and unique about the emerging crypto sphere. And it is the importance of new paradigms, collective capitalism, cooperative capitalism, sharing economies, non-corporate network value propositions. We have non-corporate structures where profits and benefits do not flow to shareholders because there are none having been extracted from users because there's no legal mandate to do so. So we are now seeing a scenario in which in order to be a strong investor, you may also have to be a strong user because users are investors are users and that creates the network value. And so in this context, one has to recognize that strong investors are worthy of strong vehicles, which are worthy of strong investors. Only by being a proper and strong investor can one expect to have or even have the right to have an influence upon the development and conduct of any given project and the associated team. The best projects therefore want to find investors who want them to want to find strong investors. And on both sides, the strong dynamic is to entice and seduce and retain, keep. On both sides, there needs to be an attitude of adaptation and a focus on survival. And with everything in the Bitcoin universe, it really is up to you to decide. So that's my talk and thank you very much. Awesome, awesome way to open up the morning. Thank you. Okay, we have questions. All right, let's go. Hold on a second. Here you go. Thank you for the talk. So where do you draw the line between trader and investor? And especially what is really a Bitcoin holder or a hot layer? A hot layer? Right? Because investing I think means that you get like some dividends over time. With Bitcoin really you don't get dividends. I mean it appreciates in value but you don't really get dividends somehow. There are a lot of traditional fiat based investments in which you do not get dividends where you're really looking at capital appreciation over time. I think one of the key differentiators between investing and trading is the trading framework presumes that you exit, that you sell, that you arrive at either a predetermined or intuitive or however you come up with the excessive rate of return. Okay, more so than just keeping your capital growing at a rate that accounts for inflation so that if I have it in 10 years it's worth the same as it was when I first put it in. Trading is more active, it's offensive. It's a framework in which you have decided that the thing that you've put your money into is safe but it may also really increase your wealth. And if you are a disciplined trader you have predetermined what percentage in excess you would like to capture because you only capture when you sell. And you can then decide what you wanna do with that excess. You can return it to an investment framework which is really about the preservation of capital. You can flip it into a gambling framework where you are making bets on things that have so many unknown variables. ICO, early stage projects, the entrepreneurial gig that your friend down the road has started. Those are bets that may turn out to produce a great deal of riches and can be converted into wealth or can be kept in the game. So following up on that, would you say hodlers or gamblers or hodlers and investors? I think the majority of hodlers, whichever coin they're hodling, have a traditional investment mind frame. These are people who believe that they can, first of all, they've made the time risk assessment. This is capital that I can be without for as long as I have decided my framework is and that at whatever framework point in the future, I am convinced that this capital will be safe. I think that is a primary driver of the majority of people who choose to hodl, much like the buy and hold approach in equities or the purchase of bond and hold it until maturity. I think that's the same framework. Any other questions? Thank you very much for the talk. You've had a look at across the space as a word. What might we learn from, I guess, the ratio of the different mindsets? Is there a maturity curve for any social movement? Is it indicative of anything? So I suppose one of the reasons why I chose to focus on the precision of the language and the definitions is one thing that I do observe is a great deal of slippery use of language. There's a tendency to use the phrase, don't invest more than you're willing to lose. What? And simply because something is considered on a long term framework, whatever that means, because my long term is different from your long term, it's construed to be an investment. I think that there is a broadly applied framework investment to things that are actually more accurately described as gambling. And I am an advocate for good gambling. I think a lot of the reasons why there are sort of moral prohibitions against gambling, anything that is beyond pure luck, throw of dice, is because people do and historically gamble with more than they are ready to lose. And what we really care about are the effects of losing more than you can afford to lose. Not the idea that you might bring an aggregate set of observations and insights and knowledge about the game that you are playing and therefore play better. I don't know if that really answers your question, but. Well, I guess in follow-up, what I'm wondering is identified three cohorts and if you were to say that 33% of people fit into those three cohorts or if it was 80, 10, 10, or can we learn something from the ratio of those three cohorts? I'm gonna go, I'm not gonna play with pretend percentages because one of the things that is really true about Bitcoin Universe is how scarce the data is. We really don't know, so it is always anecdotal and my learning is always increasing. But I would suggest that we have very many fewer actual investor mindsets than we do gambling mindsets and many of those mindsets that are gambling think that they're trading. Now there is that kind of saying that goes something like an investment is a trade that's gone wrong. It's one of those phrases that I dislike massively because I don't think you should be thinking to trade in something that you don't already believe is an investment, otherwise it's a gamble. Any other questions? Any gamblers in the house? Well, thank you very much for your attention because it's the reason why I did not end up dancing on the tables in a Technic Club last night, which I have to return to Coquio to do. So maybe next time I can. Thank you.