 So, Anthony, you recently predicted Bitcoin will reach $100,000 by the end of 2021. So what makes you so confident about this prediction? Yeah, the prediction here is simply based on Bitcoin being an asset that has a fixed supply and a belief that supply and demand economics will continue to remain valid. Anytime you have a fixed supply asset, demand increases, then price has to go up. And so that leads to the question as to what will make demand increase. And I think that there's a number of factors that are important to call out. The first is the macro environment. So this is central banks cutting interest rates and printing more money as we enter a new recessive period. Second to that is all of the global instability trade wars. So as we see things playing out with Mexico and China on the trade front, and then also the global instability around Hong Kong, Iran, Argentina, Venezuela, etc., more and more people want to have exposure to an algorithmically driven monetary system, they are not comfortable continuing to expose their wealth to a human-led system in which we know that these leaders and the elites are openly manipulating the currencies and the economies in which we live. And so all we're seeing is an increase in demand because more and more people want that safe haven asset, that predictability, that transparency that Bitcoin brings, that we're just not getting in the fiat system. And so I think anytime we have an increase in demand, fixed supply asset price will go up and my guess is that we'll see 100,000 before the end of 2021 here. So in one of your latest articles, you claim that Bitcoin has the potential to become a global reserve currency. And you also said that Bitcoin is the first currency that is focused on defense instead of offense. What did you mean by that? For sure. The nation state with the greatest military has always controlled the global reserve currency. So if you go all the way back to ancient Athens, if you look at the Roman Empire, all the way on up to today with the United States, that great military superiority has always led to control the global reserve currency. The problem is where we are going in a more cyber or digital world, the bombs, the bullets, the tanks, the fighter jets, et cetera, aren't nearly as important as they used to be. So in that cyber driven world, things that previously have allowed a nation state to control the global reserve currency, military superiority, economic sanctions, et cetera, all of a sudden are much less effective. And what I believe is going to occur is the country or the monetary system that has the greatest defense actually is in a position to dominate. And what I mean by that is Bitcoin has no bombs, it has no soldiers, it has no fighter jets. It simply has the most secure computing network in the world. There is no one CEO to go and arrest. There is no one headquarters to go to and raid. There is no one to send a letter to from a congressional hearing and say, hey, stop. This is a fully decentralized global network that is very, very difficult for an uncoordinated governments around the world to address. And so I think that what we're seeing is Bitcoin's defense first approach actually leads to a great offense and drastically increases the probability that Bitcoin will one day be the global reserve currency of the world. So you said that Bitcoin doesn't have a CEO, but talking about another currency which actually has a CEO, Libra, the Facebook cryptocurrency, this is a currency that you actually welcomed as it's probably going to bring Bitcoin into the mainstream. But still, this currency is not going to be anything similar to Bitcoin in terms of decentralization. So aren't you a little bit concerned about the potential privacy threat that Libra can have on the crypto community? And also, don't you think that Libra could potentially suck oxygen out of Bitcoin? Yeah, so I think it's important to call out why Libra is so bullish for Bitcoin. Facebook made two announcements and one is Libra, which is a somewhat distributed effort among 28 different institutions today with the goal of getting to 100 different institutions around the world. It is a digital currency. It's used to purchase goods and services and to send monetary value between individuals or organizations. The second announcement they made was Culebra, which is a digital wallet. And so the Libra currency, I think, will do a lot of benefit to Bitcoin by helping to educate, helping to familiarize folks with digital currencies in general. And then Culebra, the wallet, today will only support Libra. I believe in the future, it will support Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies. Then it will eventually support tokenized securities. So every stock bond currency and commodity. And then at some point, it's likely to also support data, right? Your digitized data, think of your medical health records, et cetera, all held in one central location, which is that Culebra wallet. It's non-custodial, so you have full control and you permission people in and out, whether it's to your assets or your data. Now, when it comes to Bitcoin, Bitcoin benefits from Libra through that education, familiarization, the marketing, the onboarding. And then on the Culebra side, if Facebook gives a digital wallet to two plus billion people and then all of a sudden adds support for Bitcoin into that digital wallet, that is a massive inflection point when it comes to user adoption and one that I think is likely to occur at some point in the future. I don't think that the data issues that Facebook has been labeled with recently are solely Facebook's issue alone. I actually think that most large technology companies have similar issues. And so what we actually are uncovering here is the users of these internet services have had no clue what data is being collected, how it's being used, et cetera. But in many cases, we've actually signed off on it, right? When we signed terms and conditions, et cetera. What I think is happening in the cryptocurrency world and around Bitcoin specifically is people are much more vocal, right? They're much more aware of how their data is being used, what it's being used for, where it's being exposed, what is the security, do I control it, do I not? And so again, I think that Culebra is going to be held to the same standard that you see Bitcoiners holding different products to on crypto, Twitter, on Reddit, et cetera. And once we actually have that information, I think that the market will decide if Culebra is adopted, it will be because it is a product that provides value. If it's not adopted, it's because it either didn't provide value or somebody provided more value than Culebra did. Over 50 percent of your wealth is actually invested into Bitcoin. So many traders say that when you get into this space, you should never invest more than what you are actually ready or that you can actually afford to lose. So don't you think that putting over 50 percent of your wealth in Bitcoin is quite a risky move? Yeah, I think that risk is relative for every individual, right? And so obviously when it comes to to me personally, the decisions that I make, I have a very clear risk profile that I'm willing to undertake. I understand kind of not only from a portfolio sizing perspective, but also a timeline perspective. I think that there's also an element of education or some level of expertise and experience, given that I spend my full-time job looking at this stuff. And so when you ask me, you know, where is the best place to put my wealth, I would make the argument that having 100 percent exposure to fiat currencies is a really bad idea, right? Because if one of those fiat currencies that you have 100 percent of your wealth in, either hyperinflates or fails, you've got a lot of problems. And so just like there is an encouragement of diversification in other assets, I also think in what I'll call your cash position, there needs to be more diversification. And so that leads to the question of how much should you divert from the fiat currency into Bitcoin or some other digital currency? I think that question has to be answered by each individual themselves. But I don't think that it's really a prescriptive thing where myself or anyone else can can give a number or percentage without actually talking to an individual or an organization about what their specific situation is and what their goals are.