 Hey guys, this is Coin Telegraph, the market report. Welcome everyone for another great show. I'm Marcel Pechman, I'm a writer here at Coin Telegraph. I used to work for multiple banks, including Deutsche and UBS, so I used to be a trader and I joined the crypto industry in 2017 and since then I've been a full-time trader and analyst and I'm joined today by our expert, Sam Borgie. Yeah, Marcel is the reform banker, right? From Wall Street, from the banking sector to the crypto sector, right? From one DGEN to another DGEN, apparently, given the way the industry has gone recently. Yeah, hi everyone, my name is Sam Borgie, business editor at Coin Telegraph. I mostly focus on a lot of the business news around the crypto and blockchain industry. I wrote my first Bitcoin article back in 2012, I think it was, around the whole Silk Road fiasco, so I've been in this space a long time, but nothing could prepare me for what's happened this year, especially over the past three weeks or so, never a dull moment in the sector, as we're gonna see with the articles this week. That's a good question, Sam. I've been here yesterday, I heard that the recent, the drop that we've seen over the past year or so was worse than what we saw in 2014 at Montgox. Do you think this is correct, saying like, well, Bitcoin is down 72% in one year. I think it's down like 76 or 77% from the peak. Do you think it has any resemblance to what I've seen on Montgox in 2014? Yeah, there definitely is a resemblance. Now, Montgox had a bigger impact on the industry as a whole at the time, given how small Bitcoin and crypto trading was, and the majority of the volume at the time was on MT Gox. Now, with FTX, the actual size of the losses are bigger in terms of how much money was lost given the size of FTX, but overall, the industry is more diverse and bigger than it was back in 2014, so logic would dictate that FTX going down shouldn't completely annihilate the sector, but the issue we're gonna have now moving forward is the contagion effect, and we've already started to see that several companies have come forward and stated that, you know what, we have considerable funds locked up on FTX, so that's really where the concern is, is that what's the next domino to fall? Is there gonna be another domino to fall? That's really where the real concern is right now. Okay, so for those who are unfamiliar with the case, I wasn't here in crypto industry back in 2014, but I know that MT Gox had like a 70 to 80% market share, so comparing to what FTX had at its peak, which I think it was like 25% of the volume, it is small, irrelevant, some might say, but the point is in 2014, we did not have so much derivatives market, like the open interest for the Bitcoin futures at FTX, it was like 25% of the market, and when you have such a big loss for derivatives traders, I think that the impact for the industry, I'm not saying for the holders of Bitcoin or the holders of Ethereum who have long-term mentality, what I'm saying is for institutional investors, traders, lenders, and all the ecosystem that has been formed, the venture capitalists that has been pouring money on altcoins and exchanges themselves, I think that money is going away maybe for a long time. I don't think that any reasonable institutional investor will see, okay, I understand that FTX was just an exchange, I understand that Genes, we're gonna get into that, was just a lending company, so I don't see there's a risk in crypto. I think it's just the opposite. The market retail investors and institutional investors will be scared at least for 12 months, so do you think we're gonna see a longer winter, crypto winter because of that? Yeah, you know, Marcel, you raised a lot of really good points about just how short investor sentiment is at that time, at present. In terms of the length of crypto winter, right now, for me, the case remains that we are in four year cycles, and unless I see otherwise, I am expecting things to eventually turn around, leading into the halving, and then eventually another market recovery, but the situation going on right now cannot be overstated. Anybody who comes and says they saw FTX crash coming, you know, that's mostly a load of nonsense. I was always a bit puzzled as to how Sam Bankman freed rose to prominence so quickly and why FTX was so popular, but there's no denying the massive impact that they had on the ecosystem. And it was a largely positive impact if you take a look at the sponsorship deals, how much they were responsible for pushing crypto and Bitcoin into the mainstream. To have them basically go belly up over a 48 hour period is basically what it took, is very concerning. So yeah, I do think that as CZ even said to the CEO of Binance, this probably pushes back the industry a few years, and I'm still waiting for the dust to settle. I don't think the dust has settled just yet. If you take a look at price action, it looks like we could still be headed lower, but overall, I think that investor sentiment has been shattered to the core, and the FTX one in particular, that one is the one that stung the most because very few people saw it unraveling the way that it did. There were a few people who raised concerns about FTX, but the chain of events, nobody could have predicted that. Basically SBF was a fraud, and what he was doing was a complete and utter fraud. No one can really sit there and say they expected that to happen. Those who were advertising FTX US, which is a regulated exchange, they did their due diligence in the sense that they were advertising a regulated exchange. Did they know that the founders were involved in an Enron-level scam or an Enron-level fraud? Unlikely. So, yeah, I think investor sentiment is gonna take a long time to come back. Right now, you basically have the Bitcoin hodlers, the guys and gals have been in the industry for a long time, we're hodling. And then you have a few projects that are building, but beyond that, right now it's not looking good. I agree 200%. I think Celsius and Luna, we can say, well, those were like VC companies or it was a crypto project that was kind of risky. It was an algorithm stablecoin that changed in the way. It was completely centralized. So one can say, okay, those were not directly related to Bitcoin and Ethereum, so should have less impact. But FTX, as you said, it was one of the main gateways fit on an off-ramp. And as I said, one of the main derivatives exchange. But the topic for this week, quick shout outs to the guys on the YouTube chat. We have Renee Montenegro. Epic crash to $10,000 is a week away. We have Capybara. We have Yana. We have FTX by SA. Thanks guys for joining us. It's a pleasure being here. We also have Cardano Green on chat. But Sam, so the topic of this week's show is the Grailscale Bitcoin Trust, the Genesis and GBTC and the event or collapse of those funds being the next, next one event. So first I'm gonna give the viewers what I understand that what DCG and Genesis is. And then you jump in to correct me if I'm wrong or add other stuff. So DCG, DCG, digital group or digital currency group is a holding company, right? They have a bunch of companies owned by Barry Silverth. And they have coin desk website. They have Genesis trading, which is a market maker, OTC and landing firm. They also have the Grailscale funds, which is kind of like an ETF because it's a fund which is traded on OTC markets on nice and US markets. And this fund only holding is either Bitcoin or Ethereum or other cryptocurrencies. So it's kind of an ETF, but it doesn't really have redemption. Once the owner of the funds buys in, the only way to get out is selling to another people on the open markets. So it's not really a good product. It charges 2% per year, but at the peak, it had over $30 billion worth of Bitcoin and over I don't know, but $4 or $5 billion worth of Ethereum. Of course, as the market went down, so did the value of the BTC and ETH on those funds. So Grailscale, the company administers those funds, the GBTC and the Ethereum fund. But the problem is that Genesis, another company from DCG, the market making company is underwater. We don't know, maybe they lost a billion, two billion dollars. So there's a lot of speculation going here that because of Genesis, the company is going bankrupt or it's missing money, it's insolvent. The assets on the Grailscale fund might be sold. So causing a black swan event. Is that what I understood correctly? Absolutely, you nailed that on the head. And I know that it's been reported that even at DCG's recent board meeting, the topic of a potential liquidation of GBTC was brought up. That's what's been reported. I don't want to flood or anything like that. But at least it's been discussed. And obviously that would have a pretty severe impact on the broader market. Yeah, so that's basically where we're at. I know that also DCG recently led a fundraising effort. Reports claim they're trying to raise about a billion dollars to cover the massive hole in their balance sheet that's caused by what's going on with Genesis as you described. So where there's smoke, there's fire. And apparently it seems like I received news that even the about us page on DCG was basically purged team page. So that for me was an eye opening. We can't find the team. Now this was as of a couple of days ago. I haven't checked now. But from what I saw, the team page was purged. So not looking good, I mean, not looking good at all. Adrian Danilo, can you share the news of the GBTC? Black Swan, the one posted on the counter. Okay, so here's the news post on November 21. So yesterday, GBTC, which is the fund owned by Grayscale administered by Grayscale. Is it the next Bitcoin price next one? So can you scroll down a little bit, Danilo, please? Yeah, so there we have a contagion in the world. Everyone leaps as November grinds on just like the terror collapse. The victims were a voyager or Celsius. And now the FTX contagion turns to GBTC. So my questions and what I don't understand is if a fair manager goes bankrupt for whatever reason, what does the fund contents have to do with that? Or is it a special case for Grayscale? What happened here that made people think, hmm, if Genesis go down, the contents of the GBTC fund, the 650,000 Bitcoins might be sold. So what's the difference here? Yeah, I mean, I think that that's a really good point because I know that DCG has time and time again stated that their holdings are secure. They even had a coin-based attestation showing that the contents of GBTC are secure. I think the issue comes from Genesis being a liquidity provider halting withdrawals due to what they called, I think, unprecedented market turmoil. So I think when you have the liquidity provider is potentially bankrupt, I think that's where the issues are arising. But yeah, at the end of the day, it would require someone to come in and actually start selling off their GBTC shares. And I think there was a recent report from Bloomberg, a note that was released very, very recently saying that that's unlikely to happen right now. You know, why would you liquidate such a massive discount given the fact that there's so much market turmoil right now? So the connection isn't very clear, but what seems to be clear is that within the DCG umbrella of companies, there are some issues right now, and that's having some kind of trickle effect or contagion effect on the broader company. That's based on the reporting that I'm seeing. So that's the overview of where we are right now. It looks like between Genesis and GBTC and why everyone is concerned. And why exactly is the funds trading below the contents, the BTC value? It has been going for, I don't know, at least 10 months or 11 months that the GBTC shares were trading below par. Of course, the discount is widening. I think it reached 50%, but do you think that investors are adding you in advance that Genesis had a problem? So what's your opinion here? I don't think they knew. I certainly didn't think there was any issue with Genesis up until recently. I just think this is all a symptom of the brutal bear market that we're in and just a function of supply and demand. I mean, this has been a down only market. This has been a mean market, basically. It's been down only for the past 10 months. I mean, you know better than anyone that during bear markets, we get massive bounces, right? We even caught them back in 2009 during the financial crisis. And Bitcoin and crypto, it's literally been down only. Like if you would have told me a year ago that Bitcoin is gonna be basically a straight down shot for 10 months, I would have thought that would be completely unrealistic. Nothing falls the way that Bitcoin and crypto have fallen this year. So I think that the effects of that are being felt across various asset classes. So I think right now we're starting to see just the downstream effect of a brutal bear market even by crypto standards. I agree. Well, I think that grayscale funds are the elephant in the room right now and an eventual liquidation of those 650,000 bitcoins would trigger further panic. I have no doubt here. What I doubt is that anyone knows the correct answer to what's gonna happen if Genesis goes down. It goes down because Genesis is one company. In grayscale, the fund administrator is another. So one thing is for sure. Managing the GBTC fund is extremely profitable. They are in 2% fees per year. Doesn't matter if Bitcoin goes up or down. So having said that, I think it makes sense for grayscale to sell some of their assets in companies. For example, they could sell grayscale, the fund administering company. But in that case, I don't see why it would trigger an auction for the bitcoins or force them to liquidity to sell the GBTC content. So I don't think that this doomsday scenario is gonna happen. But do you think there could be another company relevant in the industry popping up as a dead body because of FTX? Are there other potential victims out there? Well, we've seen some smaller scale companies. I know that the whole BlockFi fiasco was part of that. Right now, I can't really predict who else could be exposed. I know that it's creditors, it's top 50 creditors if FTX have basically lost billions. And that could take years before that whole bankruptcy process goes through the motions. So I can't predict which other companies can go down. All I know is that the effect of FTX going down has been basically an earthquake on the industry. And the tremors will probably be felt for a while longer. So that's just my general takeaway. It's hard to predict in these kinds of, I think FTX could maybe be looking at an actual black swan in the sense that nobody saw it coming. So, or very, very few did. So that in of itself, the second largest crypto exchange in the world going down, I think is hopefully this is the end of it. You know, hopefully this is the end of it. Or I don't know if I can do another year of this, Marcel. I don't know if I can do another year of this. My body can't take it no more. I can't take more sleeping pills for more than a month. I'll be dead. But in my opinion, the biggest risk right now is the mining sector, because one, those guys are sitting on a ton of hash rate. And if they eventually shut down because of those firms becoming insolvent, I think other players in the ecosystem will also collapse because the miners typically post as collateral for funding to pay their bills and even to pay for acquisition of the ASIC miners. They put those ASIC miners as guarantees as collateral. So once the company goes down, you're gonna hand out those machines to the lender. And what the lender is gonna do with 10,000 ASIC machines in a bear market, nothing. It's basically worthless. So I don't think that crypto prices can suffer even more if those events unfold. So it's gonna drain liquidity from the system and add pressure on the liquid assets, maybe triggering sales on Bitcoin and Ethereum. But in the longterm, it's gonna, I think it could be meaning that miners will no longer be able to operate using leverage, which is gonna be good. But in the short term, lower hash rate will be seen as negative. Do you agree with that? Yeah, yeah, I agree. I mean, I think that the relationship between hash rate and price has always been, there's always been like a debate about that. But yeah, in the short run, definitely. And crypto right now in Bitcoin, we're in the midst of the great deleveraging effect right now, everything is being delevered. A lot of the excess is being taken out of the market. And that also applies to the mining sector as well. So I do think Bitcoin, of course, will survive and Bitcoin is battle tested. The network will survive and thrive. But in the short term, for holders, for investors, for those optimistic about the space, Bitcoin just invites attack over and over again. Because it's very, very rare that somebody can look at an asset like Bitcoin and just be neutral about it. The more you learn about it, the more you develop a very strong opinion one way or the other. So in terms of sentiment, I think the mining issues going on that you described will have a short term impact, but longterm, I think that Bitcoin is still on track. Quick shout out to YouTube floors here. We have Neuromancer. Big question is, what is the next CIFI to upload? Well, Sam already said his opinion is really hard to predict even FTX if we ask it any analyst a month ago, the odds of FTX imploding, no one would say FTX. So I don't think it's worth doing such an exercise. Have Luca Zarifi, great show on discussions today. Congratulations. Crypto Glenn, we are par for the course for the four year cycle. Don't panic, just continue to build positions and projects with great utility. And in 2025, you'll be fine. Exactly what Sam did, we're doing the four year cycle. I think the Bitcoin halving is like 400 days away or so. So the best time historically to buy it's a year ahead of the halving, which is gonna happen over the next 90 days. So I think it's a good time to reposition. Crypto Glenn, the news is doing the thing they do down here, talk about, okay, so some guys are asking for more data. And if I had something to present, well, I can prove that Tether is solvent. I can prove that Binance is or is not insolvent. We would be doing that. And we would be earning a lot of money. But the problem with cryptocurrency, especially with centralized entities is the lack of transparency. A subject that I wanna discuss over the show, I think it's set for later on, it's the proof of reserves, but we can discuss that right now. So recently we saw some exchanges doing the proof of reserves and Binance, for example, had 62 billion dollars, including the BNB token and the BSD, that the stablecoin issued by Paxus or whatever, but held under Binance cold wallets. And this could be seen as a step towards transparency as the viewers are requesting. So yes, we can discuss about it and we can express our opinions on what those exchanges are doing. But it's not the ultimate growl. That's not what's gonna tell us if the exchange or the stablecoin is solvent or not. So what's your take here on crypto's exchanges proof of reserves and? Yeah, like you mentioned, it doesn't really say anything about solvency per se. I think there were even some reports about exchanges sending crypto back and forth to one another to take snapshots to prove their reserves. I think proof of reserves as a concept is very intriguing. I think it's useful as a concept. People wanna know that the assets they have on their centralized exchanges are actually being held in cold storage, for example. They wanna know that they're actually collateralized as opposed to doing what FTX did, which is taking client deposits and basically sending them off to their sister firm Alameda to do whatever they want with it. So proof of reserves as a concept, I think is really important. I think you're gonna probably see more pressure on that moving forward. But what does it say about actual liquidity, about the company's actual health? That's still up for debate, especially the shenanigans we saw last week with certain exchanges sending crypto back and forth to each other around the same time that everyone was talking about proof of reserves. That was a bit peculiar to me. Yeah, Adrian Danilo, can you pull up the news from Cointelegraph? Like CoinMarketCap launches proof of reserve tracker for crypto exchange. I think it's gonna be very helpful for the users, at least to know where to look for the information. I think that's the job that Cointelegraph and us as analysts and editors and writers are doing. Had we, if we had a crystal ball to say, well, this data is good or this data is not reliable, it would be feeble to reach, but it's simply not possible to do that with a lack of information because of centralized entities. So there we got the news from altered by Savannah 40s four hours ago. CoinMarketCap launches proof of reserve tracker for crypto exchanges. The tool allows users to monitor exchanges reserves through displays of total assets and public wallet addresses, along with the balance and the value of wallets displayed. Yeah, so there's the CoinMarketCap post on Twitter. So the new feature of the exchange proof of reserves, I believe that other providers such as Nansen had already been doing that for a couple of weeks, but shout out to the industry. I think it's the path forward, but there's a point that I wanna highlight. Let's take a step back here. So why are those centralized crypto exchanges needed in the first place? We already have smart contracts. We already have digital assets. So sure, one might say they facilitate the fiat on and off ramps, meaning the ability to convert fiat currency into crypto and vice versa. The problem is those exchanges rely mostly on stable coins and external payment gateways. So theoretically, a user can buy USD coin or die or Paxos was in PayPal and traditional fintechs. And from that point on, exclusively rely on decentralized markets, the dexes to trade. So we need to understand that most traders, they are addicted to the benefits of centralization, namely the fake liquidity and the derivatives like we saw on FTX. Even after the second biggest exchange collapsed and was proved Ponzi. So I think that those guys are simply addicted to centralization, even if there are benefits on decentralization. So what's our take here, Sam? Do you think that those centralized exchange will continue be a key driver for the industry over the next couple of years? Yeah, I do think there will be, Marcel. Like I said, centralized exchanges, I mean, look, centralization isn't always horrible. I mean, there's certain benefits to working on a centralized exchange or certain conveniences. I know it's a lot more intuitive and easier for a lot of traders and investors to simply buy Bitcoin on a centralized exchange, especially when there's such a clear fiat on ramp. It's a lot easier, for example, to buy on Coinbase than to create a wallet, a browser wallet, and then connect to a decentralized exchange. So I think the ease of use aspect of it will make centralized exchanges still popular moving forward. I mean, you see it in a lot of other brokerages in the traditional finance world. I mean, they're all centralized and there's not a lot of issues around that. I mean, obviously Bitcoin and crypto, there's a different spirit that guides Bitcoin that's a centralization. Ultimately, look, if you're gonna use a centralized exchange and you're an actual investor who's looking at the disaster classes as a long-term value proposition, you probably wanna buy on the centralized exchange and then withdraw your funds to a hardware wallet. That would be my way of using a centralized exchange. I use centralized exchange. I have a few exchanges that I use, but I'm not storing my Bitcoin on them or if I did have some, they're all coming off now or they've all been off after what we've seen the past few weeks. So use centralized exchanges at your own risk, but at least have a plan. Like if you're gonna use them because it's an easier way to buy Bitcoin, consider taking your Bitcoin off the exchange at some point. So the real issue I think though is gonna be the centralized lending platforms, the yield, the promising. Imagine giving up your keys to earn 5% API, right? Like we saw the risk of that with BlockFi. You basically gave up your keys because you wanted to earn 5% API or whatever the hell it was. Well, look what happened. So I would never touch any of those platforms. And if you can't answer the question, how do they get the yield? Know that you are the yield. So yeah, just remembering the audience that everything that's said here is our own exclusive options. It does not reflect what the company thinks or about the interest to grow on any competitors. It's just our own opinion here. So for the proof of reserves, I think yeah, it's better than nothing but unless each user, each depositant has a hash to verify their own account within the exchange balance, the mechanism doesn't work. So I think it's better than nothing but you can't really say that, yes, financing is completely solvent. It has 62 billion dollars on its cold wallets. Okay, so how much do the clients deposit? 62, 90, 50, we don't know about that. So I see that guys on the chat are asking for some data and charts and I'm gonna show you on the next segment. There's a news analysis that I did yesterday. Data shows traders are slightly bullish even as crypto total market cap falls $800 billion. So Danilo Adrian, can you share the news on Convalier, please? So the total crypto market capitalization has dropped at $800 billion but that highlights a few reasons why some traders are bullish. So can we show the chart of the total capitalization? Yeah, if you can increase the chart please, Adrian and Danilo so the viewers can, yep, yep, there you go. So we've seen that the $800 billion level has been holding for the past three weeks and today we saw another mini pump to 3% getting us above the $800 billion market cap capitalization line. So it seems an important level to keep an eye on, okay? So the causes of the collapse are FTX, Alameda, then DCG, the Genesis, which is the main topic of today's shows that great scale funds with $650,000 Bitcoin and all of these risks of the fund contents being sold. So thank you Danilo, can you scroll down the news a little bit please? A little bit, yeah, a little bit down. So we can show the balance leverage between bulls and bears, a little bit down further please. The next chart, yeah, there you go. So the perpetual conflicts, so the futures also known as inverse swaps, they have a funding rate, which is charged usually every eight hours. So how do professional traders use such data, the funding? So can you increase the size of the image please? Yeah, so if the funding rate is positive, it means that the buyers, the longs are paying the fee. So in order to buy using leverage, you're gonna pay a fee to the seller. If the funding rate is negative, it means that the shorts, those betting on the price downside are paying the fees. So what we saw over the past weeks, this is seven day accumulated data, is the prevalence of negative funding rate. So we saw bears doing leverage bets that the market would go down. So initially we can say, yeah, well, looking from the perspective of the funding rate, we can say that markets were bearish, but that's not the only data point you need to analyze. Because for instance, if I'm a buyer, but I think that the exchanges are insolvent, I'm gonna remove coins from exchange and reduce my leverage. So the buyers could have gotten scared and run away. So to confirm if those investors are really bearish, you should also look at the Bitcoin options markets. So can we show the next chart, please, Danilo, Adrienne? Yeah, there you go. So the options put and call Rachel, that's the chart. What's an option, a call option? It's a right to acquire, to buy the cryptocurrency at a later date. So it's a bull, neutral to bull instrument. And the put is a sell option. So it gives the buyer a right to sell. So it's a protection, it's like you're buying insurance. If the price goes down, you get money from the option. So whenever the chart goes up, it's a put to call Rachel. So whenever the chart goes up, it means traders are getting more bearish. So currently there's like 40% more calls. So more rights to acquire Bitcoin at a later date. So in general, the market is not bearish. So what we saw of the negative funding rate was likely caused by the FTX insolvency and collapse itself. It's more of a systematic risk because the current Rachel of the put and call options does not tell us that the markets are bearish. Yes, it went from 0.53 to 0.55, but still we have more prevalence of call bullish. So the neutral to bullish call options. Thank you, Danilo. So on aggregate, what the article says and it shows data is that there's some resilience among the professional investors. Nobody is willing to short below $19,000. It doesn't seem to make sense on a risk reward Rachel. Do you agree with those professional traders, Sam, or do you think that they could have gotten it wrong? Well, I mean, they could always get it wrong, but the value proposition of Bitcoin continuing to fall below 19K, I guess diminishes. And yeah, I mean, it depends on what your strategy is. I think that we're probably gonna bottom out sometime soon. And where that bottom is exactly, I'm not sure. It could be in the 14s. It could be in the 13s, maybe as low as 10. I'm not making a price target. I am a bit surprised to see a reluctance to short below 19,000, to be very honest, given where we are in the market and where we are in the cycle. But as an investor, someone who's not trading it, I don't really see any reason to nitpick on where Bitcoin could potentially bottom. But I guess these are traders. So I just find it interesting to see that they're unwilling or more unwilling to short below 19K, even though it seems like there's still quite a bit of room to fall before we capitulate for the cycle. Next one event, I don't know if it's gonna be the Grailscale funds or it's gonna be Tetra or it's gonna be Binance or another centralized exchange. If there's another backs one event, we can definitely see even Bitcoin and Ethereum going down 30, 40% from here. But I think that the biggest risk lies on altcoins. I'll give you an example. Solana at the peak had $10 billion of TVL, the value deposits on DeFi and remaining smart contracts applications. And the number went down to $260 million. So from $10 million to $260 million. So the risks for the altcoin is simply losing 50%, losing 90%. I don't think the same risk can happen to Bitcoin and Ethereum right now. I think Ethereum has problems of its own. It's gonna unfold over the next years if they do deliver on or not the promises of low fees and low latency and high security using proof of stake. It's still gonna be proved and Bitcoin has problems of its own like the recent week we saw a huge spike on the network fees because centralized exchange was gathering a bunch of addresses and consolidating in a single wallet. So that can give some users some idea of, well, Bitcoin doesn't work. We need Lightning Network to start working right now. And Lightning Network is not ready right now. Lightning Network is Bitcoins, one of Bitcoins scaling solution. But it's not ready. You can test it, you can play it with a little bit of $100, $200, but no one, no developer would recommend you, yes, put all your money on Lightning Network, it's safe. We just saw some bugs, some major bugs, no money was lost, but the network itself got shut down for a couple of hours. So, but my point is, altcoins currently have much downside risks than Bitcoin and Ethereum. So for the last topic of today's show, Sam, there's Adrian Danilo, if you can show the fidelity news. You asked senators, huge fidelity to reconsider its Bitcoin offers after FTX blows up. So Sam, can you explain to the viewers what is fidelity and what is their relationship with Bitcoin and what are the senators asking here? Yeah, I think this was a table by Elizabeth Warren, if I'm not mistaken, which that's all you really need to know about this. But fidelity is one of the, it's a major mainstream institutional investment firm and under Abigail Johnson, they've been pro-Bitcoin for a long time. I mean, they've been exploring the space, exploring mining, exploring digital assets for several years. And now apparently some congresspeople, some senators are using the FTX debacle to warn fidelity against further expanding its Bitcoin offerings or to seriously reconsider their Bitcoin offerings. Despite the fact that the fiasco that happened with FTX was less about crypto and Bitcoin and more about fraud, okay? That we have laws in place that are supposed to prevent people like Sam Bankman-Fried from doing what they did, right? From doing what they did to customer funds, from doing what they did with a sister firm that is trading funds from another firm. So we have laws that protect investors against fraud, right? But what they're using, they're using the whole FTX fiasco to go after Bitcoin, which is what I predicted was gonna happen. How successful they're gonna be, I'm not quite sure, but the issue that we saw with FTX goes beyond Bitcoin and crypto. There are several crypto-specific risks that we have in the market. The massive spate of hacks that we've seen, for example, that's a huge problem. There are a lot of crypto-specific risks, but the shenanigans of SBF go far beyond that. So it looks like they're trying to urge fidelity to reconsider its Bitcoin offerings and its pro-Bitcoin stance because of what happened at FTX. I guess we'll see if they heed that advice, but I think probably not. Yeah, I think that the main view that we should give to our viewers' audience is that, yes, fidelity is a giant like $7 trillion worth of funds management, but fidelity crypto, it's a separate business, it's small. I don't think fidelity holds more than $200 million for their funds, for their clients in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, but I think it's a good thing for them to have the option. Yes, we wanna invest in real estate. Yes, we wanna invest in Bitcoin, in Ethereum, in gold. So the more investment options available for the general public, I think it's an extra positive. Of course, they shouldn't be exposed to scams and there should be some kind of regulations because they are not buying the cryptocurrencies directly, they are using the ETF or the fund, so there should be some kind of regulations for those kind of investors, people that don't want to invest in cryptocurrencies directly. So, but I don't think that, yeah, I agree with Sam, I think it's Elizabeth Warren and a couple of legislators that have always been anti-crypto, no matter if it was trading at $70,000 or $16,000, they have always been anti-crypto. And I wanna thank the audience for sharing your time with us. I really honestly hope that we answered all of those questions and I wanna advise you guys to log in to pro.cointelegraph.com, it's a full powered trading station, so CoinTelegraph Markets Pro, it's really easy to use, it has a complete dashboard and it uses the same technology of the institutional investors. There's alerts, there's news and there's, you're gonna be a flash science when there's buying opportunity when the coin gets listed. So log in to pro.cointelegraph.com and make sure to use it and get to know the trading station and how it works. Feel free to chat us on Twitter if you have questions, just tag CoinTelegraph or either me or Sam, we're gonna be glad to be able to help you with that using CoinTelegraph Pro. So Sam, any closing talk for today? In a bear market like this, the key is to survive and if you survive, you make it through, there is always light at the end of the tunnel and you'll see in a year from now, maybe longer, we're looking back at this period as a formative period in crypto and in Bitcoin, but survive and you'll be okay. Yeah, I agree with Sam. It's a long-term investment. I do think that governments will run out of money because they are trying to reduce the taxes to stimulate economies or they're trying to keep the rates artificially low so it doesn't cause panic, it doesn't cause market crash, but inflation and energy prices are not going away. So they're gonna be forced to print another trillions and trillions of dollars and that's gonna be extremely good for Bitcoin. So even if you don't love Bitcoin, even if you think it's not the best solution in the world, it's what we have right now. Yes, there are other cryptocurrencies that offer some different experience and some different benefits. If you want and if you study, you should also have exposure, but at least if you're gonna invest in crypto, at least 30% exposure in the biggest cryptocurrency, which is Bitcoin. So that's my tip for today. Thank you guys, thank you guys, thank you everyone. Thank you Danilo, thank you Adrian and thank you everybody at Cointelegraph that makes this show happens. Make sure to like and subscribe. We're here every Tuesdays. Thanks for joining us.