 Okay. Hey, this is Stefan Kinsella. This is Kinsella on Liberty. This is a rare, one of my rare podcast episodes where it's original content. Usually, as everyone knows, I just do podcasts with other people and put them on my feed. That's the purpose of my feed, just to collect things. Every now and then I do an original interview. And so today I've got one of my good buddies, Aaron Waseen. He's a fellow libertarian and Bitcoiner and actually one of my smart friends. You know, I'm impressed by intelligence. And so we have a private list and we've been arguing over something so I thought we would talk about it today and I'll get to that in a second but today I'm trying my blue Yeti for the first time. I've had it for three or four years but I've never been able to get to work right. So I'm trying it now. I've got the little shock stand that I've got my background. Anyway, I've got the shock scan because it was always making too much rumbly noise but anyway, I'm trying this today. How's the sound, Aaron? Sounds pretty good. So yeah, I'm using my MacBook Air laptop microphone. Well, I'm always annoyed by anyone who doesn't use a direct mic. I don't care if it's a cheap earbuds but as long as you're close enough to it, do you have any earbuds you could put in? I can try them. They've been acting up so tell me if they sound better or worse. Wireless or wired, I don't care. All right, can you hear me okay? It might be the same actually. I don't know if you changed anything. Anyway, I can hear you okay. So I'm going to lay out, say again, taste test. Worse. I can't tell. Well, we'll keep going this way. You sound like you're across an air gap. In other words, the laptop. Maybe just get as close to it as you can. How about that? All right, that's fine. I think we'll go with it as long as I can hear my dulcet tones. Okay. So what we were talking about, and usually I talk about libertarian theory and all this and I am an amateur on Bitcoin. And you and I both are interested in Bitcoin but we both don't have any because we both lost ours in voting accidents, right? Yeah. You're quiet for some reason I don't know if that's working or not. Yep, I'm hearing silence. Okay. Yeah, that's better. So here's my thing. I've been thinking about Bitcoin. Oh, now I'm hearing feedback. Okay, test test. Fine. Okay, let's get going now. One. So I'm enthusiastic about Bitcoin. You and I both are. I'm hopeful of a world where Bitcoin is the only money and everything's better. Right. I always noticed that the Bitcoiners seem to imagine that what this would look like would be. I have COVID right now by the way so I'm going to be pausing so I can cough that's all my final main symptom is a cough so I might hit the cough button on my, my yet. Are you making a joke or do you really have it. No I have COVID right now. Oh geez. We were just in one and I were at pork fest in New Hampshire and. There was a unvaccinated libertarian buddy of mine actually who apparently spread it to lots of people. I don't know over a dozen or something now. So I noticed it when I got back home and I've been quarantining for the last several days and several more to go upstairs. So it's fine. It's like a staycation for me. I know people hate it. People hate it when you enjoy COVID. I enjoyed COVID. But to me it's not a big problem in the movie room I got my study I got my balcony spoke my pipe. My wife and son have been bringing me lunch. So, you know, just waiting it out anyway my symptoms haven't been bad but I'm coughing every now and then so anyway. So here's the thing. The reason is that in today's society, because if you hold your savings in form of cash, it's always eroded by inflation. And so people are desperate to maintain their purchasing power or make a little gains so they fly into riskier things like the stock market so every all you know our average mom and pop keeps a lot of money and 401ks and then IRAs in, in mutual funds and index funds in just a hope to maintain preserve the power, the purchasing power of their savings right. And the Fed like, you know, intentionally tries to create that situation and actually manage how quickly that happens right by, you know, lowering interest rates and inflating, you know, these, these asset bubbles. When there's, when there's a downturn and things start going in the wrong direction they, they lower interest rates and start trying to print more money to reinflate these asset bubbles and the way they do that is by, you know, convincing people to stop holding dollars and buy these assets instead because they're going up in value. And I agree with all that and then but but so then the Austrians and the Bitcoiners say that okay well so people have an artificial incentive now to not hold cash and to invest in riskier things that they don't have any business investing in because they're not really experts and I kind of agree with that. So what happens is people start counting on the returns of the stock market which the government automatically artificially inflates right with policy. And then when there's a crash everyone screwed and they were their savings are wiped out I mean it's just and then the government has to bail them out and the problem keeps compounding and getting worse and worse. So the idea is that in a sound money world. Your average investor wouldn't have that artificial, they would need to chase returns by investing in things they don't understand. So the idea is that the stock market would be left for professionals or something like that. And so then the picture that Bitcoiners seem to have is that your everyone or most people would just have their savings and cash that we just hold their savings and cash. And that concern. Go ahead. I was going to say I think there's like there's there's definitely like two types of investing right there's there's speculation where you know you have stock traders who are trying to speculate in the market and trying to anticipate moves in the market and they don't have money by, you know, obviously, buying low and selling high and in doing so they raise the low prices and they lower the high prices by buying into one and selling into the other, and they help, you know, flatten out the market. And in doing that they're, they're, you know, that is a specialized thing and you know you wouldn't see. I think if you get a hard money economy. The people who do that would be people who had special knowledge about, you know, future prices, maybe insider information or whatever, who could help, you know, reduce the volatility in the market. And those people with special knowledge would be the ones who would make money and those who didn't would just be gambling and they end up losing. So they're essentially getting paid because they have something that to add to the process by making the market more efficient by contributing their knowledge, whereas your average mom and pop who just throws money at the, at the, at the, at some index fund is just doing it. They don't know they're not adding anything and so. Yeah, correct. So, what troubles me about this idea is that first, and you and I debated about just disagreed about this. I thought, well, first of all, just because you can. So let's imagine. So you have your, you have a million dollars of savings. Bitcoin, that Bitcoin amount of that like, and let's imagine Bitcoin's worth 1012 million bucks per coin. So we're talking about a tenth of a coin. So you some guys saved up a tenth of a Bitcoin. And every year because global productivity keeps increasing and the number of people keeps going up. The number of goods and services expands every year so it's bidding against a fixed number of Bitcoin so every Bitcoin becomes more valuable so the purchasing power of your Bitcoin that you hold goes up every year let's say by 5% something like that. So that's equivalent to a 5% return. If you just hold cash, your Bitcoin will buy more every year. Would you agree with that kind of way of putting it? Yeah, that's assuming that the economy continues to grow. Correct. You know, technology keeps advancing and correct in productivity gains and or the population grows and so there's more, you know, later being added to the market that kind of thing. Assuming that the economy is growing then you and you have a fixed amount of total amount of Bitcoin, 21 million Bitcoins, then you have more and more goods and services chasing the same amount of Bitcoin. So the value in relation to those goods and services of the Bitcoin is continually increasing in that in that scenario. Yeah. And so Bitcoiners say okay so everyone's going to get 5% returns automatically by holding cash and that's quote good enough so they wouldn't have an incentive to go invest in an IBM or Apple, or Amazon or or the index fund for this for the Dow Jones industrial average. And I'm thinking well that's just ridiculous people are greedy, just because you can make 5% from cash, if you can make 7% or 10% or 12% in the market you're going to do that. And then your counter was well that's impossible because you can't beat the market, especially if you don't have any extra knowledge, special knowledge because the average profit of the Dow Jones or all are capitalism in the general or the stock market in general has to be the same as the deflation returns to Bitcoin because everything is denominated in terms of money and I'm still wrapping my head around that. And I don't really want to argue too much about that but that was kind of one debate we had so I'm thinking you could beat the market if you just put your money in say the doubt, like VTI or one of these index funds. But if you have a risk tolerance and you're willing to hold over 20 years, certainly the stock market would beat the rate of deflation and your argument is that that's wrong. Right, because, you know, you still have the only way that could work is if the stock market became a larger and larger proportion of the economy. So like the the ratio of the stock market to everything else in the economy would have to continually grow for the price of the stock market, like the total value of the stock market as denominated in Bitcoin to continue to go up. So like if there's a fixed amount of money, and that's in the stock market is a certain percentage of the economy, then the total value of the stock market as denominated in Bitcoin is going to stay the same it's going to be roughly zero on average. Right. And I can't quite see why you're wrong, but it seems wrong to me because if you're right, I can't understand what the purpose of the stock market is or why anyone would ever invest in anything like why wouldn't everyone just put everything in cash. But if everyone did that we would have no investment and we would all die. So I can understand where the balance would be reached and how that would work. So you seem to think some people with specialized knowledge would invest like if I want to start a direct cleaning company or or or something like that I would do it. But I guess the question is what you think about the extremes right so if nobody invested, then the economy wouldn't grow returns in Bitcoin, and also, you know, anybody who did choose to invest then like the beating the average rate of return would be easier. If nobody was investing and you had an investment opportunity then it would be easier for you to beat that that average. I don't know because by your argument, the average rate of return is to dominate in terms of the money, and that can then the deflation it so I don't know. I mean, here's my. So it specifically in that situation I think what you would be seeing is that the the rate of like, like what I mentioned that the, you know, it's only zero if the ratio of the stock market to everything else in the economy stays the same. In that situation, you could actually grow the size of the stock market relative to everything else. Okay, so while the stock market is growing. But then when you're when you when you level out right when you reach a steady state or some equilibrium point or something like that it would not grow anymore. And at that point, the average returns. So, so here's my here's my problem, even if you assume mom and pop never do this because they know that they're going to be burned, or they can't hope to beat the market. That seems to be true even for professionals even they can't beat the market on average so why would anyone. You know why would I put if I have a million dollars saved why would I put it in my in my pizza business, or my restaurant, instead of just putting in cash, why can I hope to beat the market with was a particular investment. So, yeah, you'll eventually, if the market is small enough than any investment at all is going to, you know, cause the market to grow and then once you hit that that equilibrium point is where you have the same number of people who think they can beat the market. You know, the people who think they can beat the market and are willing to take that risk is going to equal the number of people who, you know, think they can beat the market and take the risk and fail. So there's going to be people who are entrepreneurial and to invest and lose their investment right. So on average is going to be zero, but it'll be zero some but you know people play zero some games all the time. I guess if if if if the so called professionals are willing to do that and play that game, knowing that on average, the house always wins. Why wouldn't mom and pop do that too, to some degree. And they might and mom and pop will probably lose their money to the professionals right and there's a second born every minute and the professionals will keep taking advantage of new people who think that they can. Right, they can beat the market and, you know, on average it'll it'll balance out. So I still can't wrap my head around this because I'm just not good with these kind of numbers but you may be right about all this but the more interesting thing was a secondary thing. Okay, so here's the secondary thing so I started thinking well. So I'm imagining a future world. And it seems to me. You don't need you don't need to and you probably would not want to keep all of your wealth, your savings in cash for a couple reasons number one because I think you could outperform the market which you think you cannot, but also because of your knowledge. Correct. But the purpose of the purpose of cash is just to have liquidity on hand right. So you don't need all of your wealth and cash for liquidity purposes you just need enough for for spending regular needs on annual basis or something like that right. I would say that if you are producing more than you earn. If you are producing more than you spend rather. And you have excess income. You need to put that somewhere you need to save it right there in an investment or in cash and you got to find a place to put it. And I think it will end up in cash when there aren't better places to put it. No I know but what I'm saying is one reason to keep it in cash as opposed to other things is for the liquidity advantage but for that part you don't need it all to be there because you don't need to be liquid at all times. And then the second the second reason is to get some return so that you don't lose to inflation or so well of course in a Bitcoin world there wouldn't be inflation but to have some returns and you could get returns just by holding in cash, say 5% or whatever GDP or whatever the the relevant growth factor is that mirrors your, the increase in your purchasing power every year so 5% or something like that right. But I'm thinking that you're going to consume some of it so like even even if it's going up in value, the actual nominal number is going to decrease over time as you consume it. Correct, you have to spend some but but but the numbers psychologically that number is always going down. Right, well, maybe, because you're saving because you're, you're earning more than you, than you consume so you have an excess and that's what you have to. If you have an income you might not be, you might just be saving but finally when you retire you're going to have a nest egg and you need to use it, although some Bitcoiners think you can always for loan it out forever I don't see how that works mathematically but whatever. But so here's my here's my here's my way of looking at it. As an Austrian of a certain type. I believe that there are goods, and there are two types of goods capital goods are, are producers goods and consumer goods or consumption goods. They're both different, but they have the same nature in that because it's a good. What that means is there's a stock. There's a stock of a supply, there's supply of this good and the more of it, the better. That's what a good means. If you get to the point where you have too much of it then it becomes a bad like then you have pollution you know like you want some oil but if it's if it's your whole properties submerged in oil then it's bad. But there are thoughts associated with storing it right so like right. So a certain point the character of the good as subjectively valued by the user changes from a good to a bad but so long as it's a good and has a has a has a homogenous fungible quantity. The more the more of it the better although with marginal utility the every extra unit is worth less. The next diamond is worth less than the last, however, the more the better the more the more great example like if you have oil reserves that are under the ground and easily accessible, the bigger they are the better because they don't cost you anything to just let them sit there. Right underground at the better. Correct so the more so a good as a character, a good is a representative of wealth because the more of it you have the better off you are the more wealth we have in the world. Money is what some Austrians call a sui generis or a unique good, because it's not like consumer or capital goods because if you produce more of it you don't increase wealth. I mean this is just obvious. Now there is, there's a wrinkle there because up until Bitcoin most money was a useful commodity like gold, or something else, and that itself has a non monetary use and so it is wealth for its non monetary characteristics so producing increasing that good would increase wealth but not because you increase the money. And so if we say that the value of gold, when it was money was predominantly the monetary aspect of it, then increasing its supply was kind of a waste, right, like all the mining and all the minting and all that is a waste just to get more coins because some guy finds gold and produces more gold he's not producing more bananas or more clothing or more houses for people he's just shifting resources from people that own it to himself, not that it's illegitimate but it's still not for increasing wealth. Would you agree with that. The monetary value if you think about it like the monetary value of all the gold doesn't come from like some, you know, it's like intrinsic value correct like that it comes from the fact that that people want to, there's a demand to hold purchasing power and reserve to save and whatever the demand is that gets, you know, it's like the value of any particular unit of gold is a function of the total demand in the economy to hold purchasing power and reserve to save divided by the total amount of gold. And so if you increase the amount of gold all you're doing is just making every piece of gold worth a little bit less right redistributing that value you're not creating any new. And you can see this in countries that have high inflation, you know, they just add a zero to their bill sometimes and that doesn't make people 10 times as rich it just redistributes purchasing power. Turkish lira is is one of my favorite examples is that they, they did a million to one redominated re denomination where they took one million old liras and overnight made it worth one new lira. And this did not decrease, you know, everyone's, everyone's cash holdings by, by like, you know, a million but didn't remove, you know, 999,999 of like everyone's savings everything just continued on as if normal there wasn't a massive deflationary event or anything like that all they did was just re denominated. So, I'm a bad host I'm a professional I didn't even explain. Let's just interject this, explain who you are. What do you do. Okay, so I'm Aaron voicing I am founder of a Bitcoin wallet company used to be called bread wallet and now it's called BRD. So that's that's what I do for, for a job I've been really interested in Austrian economics and hard money economics since around, I guess it was Ron Paul in 2008 that first introduced me to the idea and I started, I thought it was kind of kooky at first and I thought it was better. You know I respect him enough to learn more about this and then I kind of fell into the world of Austrian economics and just became really fascinated with it, especially with the global economic crisis that was happening at the time, and trying to understand what in the world was happening. And, and then when Bitcoin came out. I became convinced that this was something that had at least the potential to completely change the entire way that the global economy functions and I became obsessed with it and, and fascinated by it and ended up starting a Bitcoin company to try to help, you know, help that happen and help, you know participate in what I thought was going to be a super important development. Right. Okay, should have done that in the beginning. And you're, you're pretty libertarian too right. Yeah, although you won't like to hear this I'm kind of turned more mold buggy and recently but yes, I've been a libertarian for a long time so. Okay, yeah we were at the Bitcoin conference in Miami together to that was fun. So, the reason I was talking about this is the unique thing of gold is what what my idea is this, because it's not a good, like other goods. It doesn't, it's not itself wealth, it represents wealth it lets you obtain wealth like the whole basically everything's about consumer goods right so you want producer goods they're valuable because they can make consumer goods. And you want money because it can help you obtain producer consumer goods basically correct. What's unique value in itself it's just a representation of value. Yeah, and it like you can't consume it it doesn't, it doesn't help you do anything except you know when you trade it to somebody else. And so it seems to me that there's a unique risk and holding your wealth, or your savings in cash because, although it's liquid which is good and although it does appreciate if it's going to fix supply, which is good. It's unique in terms of purchasing power that is. It's, it's uniquely, it's got a unique risk of being of you losing it because it's based upon a network effect. And so if, if somehow, let's say Bitcoin was the world's money. So let's say number one, Bitcoin to comes along is improved and for some reason people switch to it like people switch from AOL to other things or they switch from copy served to AOL or they switch from my space to Facebook. They switch from one or the you know from from one network to the other, then it would just disappear it could go to zero and value theoretically. And so theoretically possible but it wouldn't be instant probably wouldn't be instant but it's possible right. It's certainly possible I mean there could be a you know a bug in the protocol or correct. There could be a technical problem that could be a crash there could be a government crackdown, or they could be a replacement technology right that could happen. Those are all possible. And that's why Bitcoin right now isn't the global reserve currency right because it hasn't earned that that right. But but but let's see let's imagine 50 years from now Bitcoin's the only one it's been it's been chugging along for 60 years. That risk would be lower, but it's still not zero because there could, you can still have a replacement you can have a crash you can have an alien invasion I don't know you can have meteor hit the internet wiped out. Zero, I mean, like, think about it like, but but the way I think about it is like, you know, right now people just assume that the internet is going to be around like they're they're not like, they're not worried that the internet is going to go away. No, but but but they might but they might not put all of their wealth in it. Like, they might bet they might not bet all of their wealth on the proposition it will never go down ever. Okay, that's fair. I'm not saying the risk would be high I just think it's categorically categorically different than the risk. So if I hold some of my wealth in Apple stock. There's a chance that it could crash to, or if I hope some of my wealth in real estate that I own there's a chance that the value could go down, but it's a different type of risk and then the risk of my money value going away for network effects disappearing, because the land that I own is not going to disappear. So, you know, the Apple orchard that I own will not disappear. Yeah, it could be it could burn down. Correct. But it won't but it's a different type of risk than faced by so all of so my proposition to you was that I think that, you know, like so right now Bitcoin is appreciating in value, because it's being adopted. So we're in this weird phase for, I don't know the next 10 years or how long it's going to take about the risk I want to make the comment that risk is relative right what matters is that it's less risky than the alternatives. That's what I mean you're going to put your money in the safest place and nothing is 100% but you have to put it somewhere. But my point is, so right now I think it makes like it makes sense to be a hotler and not to sell your bitcoins because you're selling it low because it's going to go higher according to us. I think it's going to happen yes, but it's still that you're taking a risk that it could crash on the way up and then you could lose everything but so we're taking the gamble that okay, let's hold until it gets it reaches the point of adoption. Now when it reaches the point of adoption presumably it won't be increasing in value 200% a year every year it'll be 5% something like that right when it finally reaches that point. So when we reach that point eventually hit like a saturation point correct they've saturated the market and we're far from that in Bitcoin but eventually will hopefully get that far. So right now if you're if you're a greedy hodler you're hoping you're willing to take the risk of some kind of catastrophic crash because there's no other alternative out there there's no other way to be part of this new system, other than to sit and hold and wait. But once it finally reaches that saturation point, and it's now the money of the world and all that. I think I personally and I think other people would be thinking like me, you know, if I've got a million dollars in Bitcoin. I'd be worried that maybe it would, I would lose it all if there was a crash, or if there was a replacement, or if there was a government crackdown. So I don't need all of my money in cash, and I can make my 5% returns in other ways. So I would take 95% of my money or 90% and I would, I would buy index funds I would buy Apple stock I would buy Amazon stock I might buy some bonds. I might buy some real estate I might invest in my brother-in-law's pizza business. So I would make investments with the rest of it. And maybe you're right in your first point that I can't beat the market, but maybe I can get something similar, you know, the, you know, if I buy an index fund it might be something similar to the deflationary returns of Bitcoin so if I'm making 5% on Bitcoin I can also make roughly 5% from an index fund. So the point that that I was going to make relative to that is that if a lot of people feel the same way. Then what you're what you're going to end up with is this monetary value this kind of demand hold savings to hold purchasing power and reserve is going to flow into these other markets. Due to, you know, people who think just like you that, you know, this isn't safe and I want to put it somewhere else I want to put that that somewhere else and they're going to bid up the price of those assets. So, like the savings energy this demand to hold purchasing power and reserve has to go somewhere. And there's a certain amount of it in the economy. And, you know, what typically happens with network effects is that you get one big winner, and we're talking about okay if that becomes Bitcoin and Bitcoin shoots up in value, and it becomes money. It has a monetary premium. Yes, it has and hopefully it has, you know, nearly all the monetary premium but what I'm saying is that there's a monetary premium in the market you mean in the market you mean so so let me let me be clear here for a second. So if we have gold as money. Let's say the majority of gold's value is the monetary premium. Yes, but not all of it because it has some non monetary uses, but Bitcoin basically has no use except for money so basically 100% of Bitcoin's value is its monetary premium but what you're saying is that in the economy as a whole that you want 100% of the monetary premium that's in the economy to be in the money of the economy that's what you're saying right. That would be the that's kind of the natural tendency is for, you know, because of network effects kind of like, you know, we have one internet protocol because of network effects. We don't have all these other competing network protocols just disappeared. I think right. That's what you'll eventually see with money and if there's like a monetary kind of inflationary bubble like in the stock market. I think that you'll see people, you know, as Bitcoin becomes money I think you'll see that bubble deflate and correct. I agree with all the real estate prices also because people won't need to park their money there to get some returns. But still, so I might agree with you on your first point that you can't beat the market I'm still not sure but maybe you can't beat the market, but I still think you could approximate the market with an index fund. And I just, it's like everything I suggest you want to you want to you want to be one of these bit coiners who imagines a world where everyone except for certain specialists basically has all their savings in cash and that's it. I would disagree with that characterization. What I've said a few times in our in our email discussion is that, you know, I think it's certainly possible that the stock market as a whole could be worth to say double, you know, all the Bitcoin in the world. And what matters is that is the the returns that of these businesses like when you buy a stock because the company has earnings, and the, the time discounted future expected earnings of that, that company is what the is what the market cap at the stock should be worth. Well, why why should but should be why according to modern finance theory. If you're not buying it as like let's assume that all the savings energy all the monetary premium is in Bitcoin. Then why would somebody buy a stock well they why would they invest in a business well it's because that business is going to have future earnings, and they're taking some chunk of capital now to buy that future earnings stream. Let me let me put, let me add something see if you agree with this. I had an argument in law school with a guy about this, like I was trying to argue get down to the essence of what stock ownership means, and why, why do stocks have a value. And he fought me because he was a conventional thinker but I basically said the only reason a stock has values because of the ability to the prospect of receiving dividends in the future. He said his answer is a stupid will know because lots of companies don't pay dividends and they have a value. I mean he missed the point right. Well, so, so I would, I would say that that's that's the way that it's, it would work in a hard money economy but in an inflationary economy. Basically, you're you're kind of buying into an inflationary bubble people buy stocks in order to speculate on the future price of stocks. Correct, correct but but but but even in an inflationary economy like ours. If you had a stock joint stock company or corporation, which had some kind of permanent inability or policy where you knew that they could never ever ever pay a dividend. And by that I also include the value the assets because that like. I mean stock ownership has has three rights associated with it. Number one is the right to vote for directors. If you have voting shares, which is not inherently worth anything. And then the other two rights are number one the right to receive dividends on a prerate basis, if dividends are paid. So you don't have a right to get dividends but if they're paid. The company has to distribute them pro rata to all shareholders right. And number two, if there's ever a winding up, or a liquidation, like a sale, then whatever assets are remaining get distributed pro rata. And you can think of that final one company. Yeah, what's that you own a certain percentage of the assets of the company so if they if they are sold then then you get that. Yeah, I don't think I actually don't think it's correct to say you own them. In theory, I think because you can't control them, but you do have the right to get a payment based upon the sale of those assets in a winding up or a liquidation, which you can think of as a final dividend payment or residual dividend payment. And that might be a, you know, splitting hairs but I guess I, if it's not actual ownership then then the intention is to simulate ownership or something like that and using some kind of legal frame. What I say it's not ownership is because you know, if you have Google shares you can't go, you can't go use their headquarters for a birthday party you can't fly their corporate jet you don't, you don't have the right to control those resources. The only right you have is the right to vote for the board of directors. Right, yeah, because you can as a shareholder you will of course when you buy in you're agreeing to the, you know, whatever the agreement says. Yeah, we can get it's not that. But the point is, so from a financial point of view, being a shareholder means you have the prospect of receiving money in the future the money can be in the form of a dividend, or like a final payment, which is the liquidation of the assets. Okay, so but if you knew that a company could never pay you anything, it would, I don't think the stock would have a value. It'd be a curiosity wouldn't have value even in an inflationary environment. So, ultimately the value of the stock on the stock market is based upon the possibility of receiving a dividend. I'm actually agreeing with what you're saying I just don't think people think of it in those terms. It's a way of explaining why things have value. They have value because they might result in a future, a future gain. Yeah. So the, I guess the counter example would be something like the South Sea bubble, right where people were pretty convinced that they would never get any like for a while that they would never get the dividends and they would never get, you know, anything like what they were paying for the stock in assets. If the company were to be sold off or something like this, but it was going up because it was going up. I think they were trying to trade they were trying to trade on other speculation, but so you have these waves of up and down prices, but it's based upon a foundation has to have a value in the first place and the value has to come from the possibility of receiving some kind of payment in the future. If the company was like there was a law pass saying no company, no, no German company can ever pay any shareholder a penny and if when they were liquidated all the assets go to the government. They would have literally zero value. Yes, I would agree with that. So anyway, so your argument is this one which I'm having trouble or I don't want to believe it. So what you're saying I think let me characterize it and you tell me if I'm right. So your argument is this and by the way, you say it so so certainly like I thought you were getting this from someone else but as far as I understand is this your own theory or do you think others. It's so I think I maybe I've thought about it and articulated it and maybe refined it a little more but I will say that this is a lot of this comes from, you know, kind of courtesy Arvin's writing on on the Bitcoin and But this is not like standard conventional now this is sort of your take on it but you seem to think it's pretty uncontroversial to even though it is pretty original. That's just how I presented. Yeah, I'm fairly confident that that I'm right and I, you know, I feel confident that that I got this right but so here's what you so here's what here's where your theory is. So let's suppose, let's just imagine everyone's got all their money in Bitcoin. Okay, and some some people someone like me says, Well, damn I don't want to risk it for a network collapse. I'm going to buy this index fund in the stock market and even though I don't know anything about the stock market. These specialist people are in there. These stocks have a value. And so I'm going to put half my money in in VTI and presumably it'll make about 5% returns to on average I won't beat the market but it'll make about what the market makes and so I'll be making roughly the same returns. I don't need that much liquid but I don't need that much liquidity, but if, if Bitcoin crashes at least I have my wealth will still be in the stock market and I won't be wiped out. Now your argument is that if more and more people do that, then they start they have to, I guess basically there's an increase in demand to hold that stock that comes not from not from the desire to get the future dividend stream, but in the desire to hold it as a store value. So then you're artificially inflating supply of that stock, which means it's basically in a bubble and it's going to pop someday. That's your idea. So like, so what you said is like, if I can get 5% then I'll buy it and that makes perfect sense of course you would. But the problem is that if a lot of people start doing that you bid up the price and then the return relative to the price is not gonna be 5% anymore. Right. It's going to be 4% and then 3% and then 2% you know as as the relative to the price that you paid. But but then, but then that would affect it would you have a negative feedback that would automatically. I mean, and VTI would I mean there's the entire world outside of cash there's everything every other asset other than cash is things you can invest in you can invest in land you can invest in your own companies. You can buy debt, you can do lots of that you know by bonds. You can buy things maybe would be worth, you know, like I said like the stock market could be worth more than all the Bitcoin in the world and what you're saying is okay so so everything is worth more than. Well, in a sense everything has to be worth more than money because money is only worth what everything else is worth in a sense right. I would say that's that's actually not true that's intuitive but I don't think that's right I think it's worth the demand to hold purchasing power and reserve, which is different like you can have like, let's say all the land in the world be worth five times or 10 times all the money in the world. If there's, you know, if the land is productive. You know, and that money is cycling through let's say, oh yes, excuse me yeah I don't mean that it's worth. Okay yeah you're right. dumped all the land on the market at the same time, then it would have to be only be worth all the money in the world. Okay, but the point is, we imagine all the assets in the world, the entire earth. Okay, all human assets. They're worth something. And what you're saying is, when people start holding any of that in sort of a systematic way as a store of value, then you start pushing that 100% of purchasing of monetary premium that was in the money system, you push it away from you start making, you start diverging from the ideal which is that all the monetary premium is in the money, and none of it is in the other assets, but if people start holding the other assets for a store of value. You start deviating from that and building a bubble, not in, not in the index fund or not an Apple stock but in everything in the world like the whole the whole world economy becomes a type of bubble. That's unstable. Yeah, I don't, I don't think it happens in in like where it's evenly distributed across everything I just think. No I'm not saying evenly but still is a general matter compared to compared to the money everything is in a bubble. Right, so what the way it actually seems to play out in practice is that you you get bubbles and particular asset classes first it's not like evenly distributed. Yeah, it's so it tends to focus where you get okay going up and people are buying it because it's going up and you get you get well yeah and let's take for simplicity let's just assume everyone puts it in DTI and index fund. Okay, so everyone puts it in there so that would be inflated, and it would be not able to return enough dividends, justify the purchase price that's what you're saying right. And then there would be people who who noticed that who maybe had the VTI before and they're sitting on games they're like hey I can get way more than what the dividend stream is worth by selling it right now. And I can get a big chunk of cash and I can trade that for some other assets a real estate. And if a bunch of people start doing that, and then you know instead of holding the cash they buy real estate instead then you push up the real estate price, and then they're then people But why couldn't this settle out instead of having a bubble why couldn't it just be a permanent sort of like people so if you have excess income right you have savings. You have you could hold some of them cash you could spend some of it, and you could invest some of it. There's always going to be a proportion between those things party partly your interest your time preference affects that and partly your your desire to hold cash affects that as a relative. So you have these ratios like so some of your wealth is in cash. Some of it is in investments, non cash investments and some of it you consume you spend those ratios are always fluctuating but why couldn't you have. Everyone have a certain amount of risk aversion where they don't want to keep all their wealth in cash because of this risk that I've identified. And so they would prefer to have half of their wealth in the stock market, even if they push a premium over there, meaning that the dividends won't be in. So in other words basically I guess it would mean, I make 5% from cash, maybe I make 3% from from VTI because I've depressed its ability to return, but I'd rather have 3% than 5% because the 3% is a hedge basically why is that why is that not possible. Well, I think I think it is possible and what you're talking about our risk adjusted. Correct, correct risk in Bitcoin. In Bitcoin will be worth, you know, less than 100% of all the monetary, you know, premium in the economy by that by that level of perceived risk, but then that monetary premium is going to have to go somewhere else. And what you'll typically see what what I, what I expect or what I believe happens is that if there's perceived risk in Bitcoin. Then people will speculate on well okay so Bitcoin collapsed what would replace it. Yeah but I mean I mean I'm not talking about like some, some dangerous thing that should alarm us. I mean, Bitcoin is risky because nothing is not risky in the world I mean the risk will always be there. What is the risk the risk is that it collapses and something else becomes money. Correct. So then the speculation is it's not like just kind of this generalized risk it's like a risk of something specific happening or the or crashing like the network crashing actually and then we, we, you know, we forget our relative. The whole point of these money holdings is to is to have relative is to assign relative wealth among all the people on the earth you know someone who's got one Bitcoin is 10 times as rich as someone with one 10th of a Bitcoin. Yeah. So if the network collapses everyone's equalized again so the rich. So it would be a wealth transfers what what would happen, and people don't want that to happen that have any. And so I just don't understand why. Well what is your what how would you if you had a guest as a science fiction writer. What would it what would it look like so let's say you have some retired school teacher who saved up a million dollars with a Bitcoin or some retired truck driver who's got $3 million worth of Bitcoin. Would it would most of these people have literally 100% of their savings in cash all the time until they die. So I would say that. No, I think they'll certainly be a mix. And if somebody who's retired maybe they have their, they're feeling pretty secure, and they have low time preference, let's say, right, they lower than average time preference. So if they have lower than average time preference then the time discounted returns of a stock or a piece of, you know, rent property or something like this will be worth more to them than the time discounted, you know, the market average price for those time discounted returns. So give me an example so you got some retired trucker truck driver. He's got 3 million bucks. Where is it. So he's, let's say he's been saving in Bitcoin. And now he looks at the stock market and says hey I can get, you know, I can invest in Coca Cola, and I can get these dividends paid out. And the dividend stream over, you know, is worth more to me than this big dollar worth of Bitcoin. I can get let's say, let's say, you know, what you said 5% or something per year. So I can get, you know, what is that 50,000 something like that per year by investing a million dollars in Coca Cola. So I'm going to go ahead and do that and get that in exchange, you know, a million dollars in Bitcoin right now for this dividend stream of, you know, of $50,000 worth of Bitcoin per year. And, and you know, if Coca Cola doesn't grow at the same rate of the as the rest of the economy, then the value of that million dollars might start to go down, right with the value of the stock might start to go down. Well, I mean, so your vision people having a mix which is my point all along. So I don't know if we disagree so you there would be a mix. So if, if his time preference is lower than average. Well, but I'm asking you what would your typical retiree or saver. In general, or even saver someone who's halfway through their career they're saving. Where would they keep their savings I'm asking, were they keep it all in cash, or some of it in cash, that's what I'm asking. I think younger people would, you know, if I'm just thinking about this off the top of my head, my guess is that older people who are retired have lower time preference than the average person who's like let's say in their, in their career, they're trying to build wealth, right. They're people who are younger are going to be more willing to take higher risks. So that's low, that's low time preference with who's taking higher risk the old people the young people. No, the young people take higher risks to try that's that's lower time preference right. No high type preferences when you want money, like you want to take a big risk to get lots of money right now, like I time preference I prefer having high time preferences I prefer having more right now. I think you risk is an example of high time preference. Yeah, am I am I wrong about that I think so. I don't know because if you're young you tend to have a longer time horizon you're willing to wait longer. I don't know if it's a higher time, but, but I guess I'm just so you're imagining a lower time preference but they I think in practice younger people take risks. It's just right and I don't know that I don't that means high time preference to take risks. I mean it seems to me that basically what you're saying is so if you're a saver, if you're in the middle of your career or if you're retired at the end. You're saying you think you would have a mix you would have some of your investment, but so here's what I understand so you'd have a mix right you don't think people would have 99% of their stuff and in Bitcoin all the time. So, not necessarily right like what what will happen is that there's an average time preference for like these investments that are, you know, that have a return. And maybe that return on like the stock market or renting out real estate right it's possible that all the stocks in the world or all the real estate in the world could be worth more than all the Bitcoin in the world. What matters is that once you hit that equilibrium where the time discounted returns is equal to the price, then everything after that is going to end up in money and everything after that's going to end up in cash because it has to go somewhere. And if it goes into stock markets then then you're going to reduce the returns of the stock market relative to the price of the stock. If it goes into real estate then you reduce the rental income returns relative to the price of the property. And so people will stop doing that and then they they're going to search around where can I put it where unless unless they're willing to take have a risk adjusted return in other words they're willing to take a slightly less. So, like the example you gave earlier like you take a million bucks and you buy Coca Cola stock for the dividend. So your earlier argument was that if people do that, then they're going to pump up the price artificially, so that you won't be able to get your, your $50,000 dividends, it won't we won't be able to justify that so I don't see how that's only I qualified it I said he would only do that if he has lower than average time preference. Okay, well half the half the country is going to have have lower than average so you say half the country would have some of their wealth and Bitcoin and the rest and basically investments. The people who have lower than average time preference will be the ones who are purchasing these, these, you know, right right but but if half the country does that that's still an additional demand is going to bid the price up higher than what it was before. And so it still won't be sustainable won't be able to give you 50% 5050,000 won't be to give you your 5% returns. You're right I think will end up being where the risk adjusted time discounted future returns on average end up being zero. Right and when it hits that equilibrium point where it's like a toss up do I put it in Bitcoin or stocks, and then that's when the price will stop going up for those stocks. Okay, so still, after all this, all this reasoning, let's say everything you've been saying is right. What's it look like. Tell me what the world looks like. We have a budget we have America, we have a bunch of people that are saving well, we're prosperous. So you got some people above average, some people less than that. Time preference where where how is their money invested for their savings what what do these investment advisors they recommend people do. Hey, keep 95% of your stuff and Bitcoin you don't have to hire me go away. Or is it like this like now advisors will say you want to trade it a lot so I get fees but okay, but what will they do. I might be disappointing a little bit saying that I, I don't know what it'll look like but I think what we can what we can know is what will look like relative to where we are now with an inflationary economy. Right now, most people don't hold cash, right that's dumb why would you hold cash you you want to put all your money in in stocks. I agree that they're chasing returns I totally agree. And so I think what you'll see is that most people, at least a lot more let's say, most is not the, a lot more people than today will hold, you know, most of their savings in cash. No, that's only that's only set or spare of us that's only other things being equal I agree with you that they would tend to, in that respect. On the other hand, what if everyone's 10 times as wealthy. What I think will happen is that the like, like I said, this monetary demand that's currently being flushed into these stock market bubbles and real estate bubbles all of that value will end up in Bitcoin. Okay. So I think you'll see Bitcoin becoming worth, not just as much as gold, not just as much as, you know, the dollar in the yen, and the euro, but that it will be worth more than all the money, all the fiat, you know, government money that's in the world today. I think Bitcoin will consume all of that value. And then on top of it consume all of this inflationary bubble value that's currently in the stock market and the real estate market and other these other kind of investment assets that people are buying just to get out of out of the dollar and the and the euro. I think we have to compare, like, so imagine imagine someone today who has 250,000 bucks because that's all they can save. And they're, they can't retire on that so they're desperate to get some return so they're, they're putting it into the stock market right they're desperate. Now let's imagine the same person in a Bitcoin world they might have saved $5 million because the world's free market. Now they have 5 million. So, number one, they don't need to put that money in the stock market to get returns because they can make 5% from cash. On the other hand, they have way more excess savings than they did. They might have their time preference right. Well it also might have, I mean yeah they might they might say well hey I can I can afford to invest some of this in my brother-in-law's restaurant chain and take a risk. Maybe they would maybe they'd invest more in investments because they have more money. What I'm saying is it's all these. So what I'm saying is that the desire to invest isn't going to increase the value of those investments. What determines the value of the investments is what kind of returns they generate. No, but it would affect how people hold their wealth. So I'm just trying to imagine. I just want to see do you guys picture a world where everyone holds, because this is what drives me nuts about Bitcoiners. They imagine everyone's holding basically all their wealth in Bitcoin. And you're saying you don't agree with that now that you think people that have lower than average time preference won't do that. Yeah, so that's the thing like I personally I think that most people will just hold like almost 100% of their of their savings. So you do. So you do think that I do think that but I can only justify. Why would they would not be worried about my concern about the market, the money crashing you think they would just think that's that's unreal. That's that's an unlikely risk. I think it's just like, do people go around worrying about the internet crashing. I mean, maybe some do and they're no because their wealth is not dependent upon that though their their entire life savings is not dependent upon that not happening. I don't know I think I don't know if the internet crashes I assume within a week it'll be back up and then I still have my house and I have my savings and I can I can rebuild but if, if, if, if the internet crashes one time for for three hours and that means I lose everything, then I would want some insurance policy against the internet crashing. Sure. And people who most people aren't going to think about it that deeply they're just going to think everybody wants Bitcoin I want Bitcoin. If it happens one time they will, if it happens the first time they will learn their lesson. I remember that first digital currency we had in the last 30 years and then everyone got wiped out. I think that that that if that happened, then it would be a huge disaster and confidence in Bitcoin would be shaken and then you know people would would you'd see alternative monetary standards like gold for instance, shooting up in value. I think you'd have another one you would just you'd have Bitcoin to just people would say I'm just going to keep 10% of my wealth and Bitcoin, sort of like with lightning right now I mean, you know if you have a risk right like if they think there's a 90% I think that Bitcoin only has a 10% chance of being the ultimate successful money then they'll keep 10% of their, you know, access after, after, you know, finding all the investments they can find that makes sense. They'll keep the, you know, the remaining 10% in Bitcoin only if they have 10% confidence in Bitcoin. So what I here's what I think based upon all this. And I think that people would hold your average person would hold most of a lot of their wealth and cash. But probably not more than 30% something like that that's my guess and the rest would be another investment. It all depends on those other investments how much they're worth. Right, if they, they're not. And I think they'd be worth roughly the same as Bitcoin I think they would be generating returns to it wouldn't be a science so I think you'd have some money in index funds you'd have some money and in real estate you'd have some money in your own business. You'd have a mix you'd have a mix of assets you'd have diversification basically. I think you'd have people picking stocks. Yeah, add information to the market, but an index fund would holding an index fund is like, in theory it should have, you know, zero returns it wouldn't. Well then why does Bitcoin have because holding cash is like holding the ultimate index fund. You're not adding, you're not adding information to the market when you hold cash and yet you get 5% returns. And you're, you're getting rewarded for that for, for what being from consuming. Yeah, but if I've had money in index fund numbers, I'm not consuming either. But you are you're you're you're bidding up the price of those stocks, and you're lowering the return that those stocks have relative to the price of the stock. See I think that I think that if you're right there's something that some bright economist. Because I don't think you want to do it. Right code. Yeah, someone who writes someone knows how to write footnotes, instead of code. We need one of these bright young Austrians to take this and run with it and figure this stuff out. So there's definitely a huge lack of like, at least I've never come across anything except for a few things that, you know, Curtis yarn has written about, you know, thinking about what would a fixed money supply economy. Right. And this, this also plays out in this, this issue of loans which another thing I'm having trouble wrapping my head around like, how would interest rates and the loan market, look in a fixed money supply world. I also I think you're right that this kind of wild speculation by amateurs would would be cease and the premium that real estate and these other things have now because people have done that to escape inflation would would go away. And I, but I also think that in a, in a Bitcoin world. A lot of our cultural and social habits would change because, you know, it's, oh yeah, time preference has been totally distorted and changed in people's habits. And I also I'm also almost of this kind of, I don't know this old fashioned view that credit would almost disappear like the entire, the entire consumer credit definitely. And even business credit I just tend to think why would you have loans at all. The only thing I can think is you would have to have an interest rate for when someone has an involuntary debt, you know, if you run someone over with your car, then you owe them money and you can't pay them right away you have to. Like, like a business bridge loan where like you have, you need to borrow some money, a factor of factoring you mean. Yeah, like you'd say you've got some income coming in but it's, it doesn't match up with your with your out go but I just think that people would just save up just save up enough capital to fund your own business I mean I don't. Maybe I'm maybe I'm wrong but it seems to be like, go ahead. When we had a, you know, kind of, you know, more of a, well there was all kinds of issues why the gold standard wasn't actually like the real, you know, wasn't what you think of as like a hard money gold standard. But in any case, when you know inflation wasn't when they weren't printing money willy nilly and it was somewhat tied to gold. You know you did tend to see, you know, things like 30 year mortgages like that that just didn't make sense that wasn't a thing. You know, that I don't think you'd see 30 year mortgages that doesn't make any sense at all why would you. Oh, I totally agree. I totally agree with all that. Yeah, all that's going to disappear. Yeah, I think that. Money to buy a car they wouldn't, they wouldn't get car loans, you know, correct. I think people would, I think you'd get out of college or whatever and you'd start earning a living and you would live in an apartment you pay rent, and you save up money and when you had enough money, you just buy a house for cash. And you live in the house. That's what that's what people and houses would cost a lot less correct be worth what you could, you know, whatever the time discounted, you know, rental income stream would be worth. You wouldn't have people wouldn't be holding $20,000 Visa card credit all the time debt all the time. Makes me kind of wonder though how these because I've often thought that you have to have some kind of side change for payment systems for Bitcoin so lightning is one. I've always thought that pay the visa or the mastercard network and just step in, but they're only they're only going to do that they get interest payments you know, or I guess maybe they get fees from the from the vendors. They get transaction fees so because I think people would pay their Bitcoin balance off every month they wouldn't be holding their debt and the merchant, the merchant pays for that. Correct. Yeah, but they make money off of interest too so. The bank makes money off interest but I think the visa network is literally just the payment. Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, bank that issues the visa card that they're the ones making the money on the on the interest on the loan. I believe I have to double check that but that's my understanding. Okay, I think my list of doing the killing if you don't give an answer to my question that before we go. So how do you, how do you so take a take a take a take a just a sample of say 10 representative sample of 10 people in America like your your your professional like doctor or lawyer who's got some money, your banker, your business owner, and your, your, you know, your retired school teacher and welder, you know different levels of income but they're all savings. Right now they all have 401ks and they have their money in the market right. That's what we have right now. Best guess is eight of those 10 are going to have basically everything in Bitcoin and maybe, you know, one or two of them are like gambling in the market and going to lose some money trying to speculate. Okay, okay. And then you are going to like purchase, you know, some real estate or some stocks for the dividend stream and the rental income. And, and then the, you know, the first eight are just going to have everything in Bitcoin. Okay, so let's take let's take you for an example. Let me abstract a little bit to not make it too personal. Let's say you yourself or someone like you. 10 years from now, we're mostly a Bitcoin world. Let's say you got 10 million bucks. Okay, worth of worth of savings. Where would you have that yourself. Where do you think you would have that $10 million of Bitcoin. Let's say it's one Bitcoin. Where would you have that one, that one Bitcoin worth of wealth would it be all in Bitcoin or what would you do with it. Well, I, I'll just preface this by saying I'm not a representative sample. Right. I know, but you know yourself. I'm a Silicon Valley entrepreneur. I would be either, you know, I would take probably half of it and keep it in Bitcoin and the other half I would take, you know, some kind of crazy risk with and do like venture capital angel venture capital. But you'd be trying to beat the market. You'll be trying to be the market. I believe that I'm, I can, I could be, you know, I'd say I look at all the companies out there and I see how badly they're mismanaged and I think I can, I can do that. Correct. Okay. All right, that's interesting. But for the, for the part that you want to just save you would you think you would just use Bitcoin for that you wouldn't say I'll put 25% Bitcoin and 25% would be in BTI. No, no, no, I would put everything I wanted to save in Bitcoin and then I would, and then I would take some the other, you know, I would, I would go for some high risk, high return, like venture type investment or entrepreneurial activity because that's just, I have a high risk. Okay. That's, that's what I do. And I think I'm better at it than average. Well, I think you've confirmed, I think my suspicion has been right that Bitcoiners do envisage, envision a world where most people that are savers basically save in Bitcoin and the reason I think that is because they discount the risk that I've identified. And they also think that they're artificially investing in other things now that artificial aspect would go away, which I agree with that too. I think I touched on that briefly, but I wanted to reiterate. So if there is perceived risk around Bitcoin, that doesn't mean that that that that, you know, that monetary premium that is not going into Bitcoin because of the perceived risk is going to be spread out evenly over other assets, I think it's end up being all the people who, who are suspicious or doubtful of Bitcoin are going to have an, still a network effect and still an incentive to all standardize on some alternative. And that alternative then will have like a value maybe one 10th. I don't, I don't, I don't know if I agree with that. So what you're saying is it'll be like silver and gold, right? No, I understand. Yeah, but the silver and gold thing happened because we had physical money and you needed small change. I know. So here's what I would think. I think more of like today that there's a lot of people who, you know, are like libertarian hard money investors who don't, who aren't putting their money in Bitcoin and believe in precious metals. Correct. And then, you know, there's some subset of them who think, well, gold is being manipulated by correct and stuff like this. And so I'm going to put my money in silver. Correct. So all those people who don't trust gold for whatever reason, correct. I'll have an incentive to standardize. No, I get it. Yeah, I get it. I still don't agree because so what you're, but that's because silver and gold used to be money. So they have this money remnant. So they both have a monetary premium perceived right now. So that creates what's called a game theory a shelling point. It's like, okay, it doesn't matter what you pick as long as you all pick the same thread and silver is the obvious choice because it's the, you know, yeah, first think of when you reject correct next silver. Yeah. So what what the way I interpret all this is according to your views. Well, according to my view, there's always going to be a risk of Bitcoin because the nature of money itself is a risk because it's based on a network effect and that can always disappear. Because it's not wealth itself. So money has an inherent risk that will never go away. And because of that, I don't think everyone will keep everything in money all the time because of that risk, which means I agree, but I think it'll be a small fine. Well, whatever the amount is that perceived risk, right, which that perceived risk is going to be very small. And you know, unless, unless something happens to make people think, oh my God, this other thing is going to replace Bitcoin and then you'll see like a shift. Yeah, I agree with all that but and I don't know what the percentage would be I don't think it's quite as small as you think but so I think that so because of the risk you will always have Bitcoin, even if it's the dominant money will never have 100% of this monetary premium you're imagining there will always necessarily be some of that monetary premium, which will be distributed into the non monetary assets of the world. I agree with you it won't be evenly distributed but I don't think that means that there will be one other thing that will become a secondary shelling point type thing, like a secondary like a lingua franca or something I don't think it will be I don't think any particular asset necessarily needs to become the second main store value. That's the safe harbor from the perceived tiny risk of Bitcoin. I just think it would be a general thing where people would hold most of their stuff in cash, but they would keep some of it in basically other assets and that would be just some of their circumstances and their values and what they know. So some would be in the real stock market so being index funds so being particular stocks so being in loans and bonds some would be in real estate some would be in other things. I just think it would be distributed all over and that would just be the permanent state of the world. In other words, Bitcoin would have 92% of the monetary premium and 8% would be in the rest of the world something like that. Yeah, I think that you're right that there, you can never hit 100% exactly right so it all I will say is that it will approach 100%. I don't know, I don't think it will approach it I think it'll approach something less than 100 because the risk is there's always a real risk of this, the special, the special good the special monetary network. So it won't approach it might approach 98%, but it won't approach 100. I just, I think that that's, you know, you grew up before the internet and right or the stuff and and like maybe for our generation that'll be the case. Right. It's kind of like, you know, like the old guys who like, we're holding gold and they didn't trust this right, you know paper bank money. Right. Right. I'm not saying I have a special distrust of Bitcoin or I think it's in a special risk. I'm saying that money itself by being a non wealth, like it's not wealth itself and it's based upon a network effect. It has a unique risk, and that is, it could collapse and and the race everyone's relative holdings. I agree that that risk is not zero. Correct. That's all I'm saying. Yes. So the technological digital money, the risk is even higher in a perceived way than for. I think so like, so for instance, gold right the risk, the personal risk with gold is confiscation. Correct. Right. You could get robbed you could like the so that's a risk. Correct. You know, you're not worried about like, you know, the whatever the fundamental properties of physics changing and having the gold, you know, you know, decay or something like this. But you could be worried about technological innovation and someone being able to make gold in a cheap way. There you go. That's a that's a great example. Yeah, like what if what if they, you know, get nuclear fusion working and then they can just extract gold from seawater right right. And then all of a sudden your gold is worthless so that that is a risk right and the risk is not zero and so to hedge against that risk you're going to maybe maybe you believe in gold that is going to become this going to retake its position as a global monetary standard. But you know just to hedge against these technological risks you buy a little bit of Bitcoin just in case that kind of thing. Yeah. Okay. I think that's enough food for thought. And I just want I want some bright young Australians to go figure all this out. Okay. Okay, cool. That's your task. Anything else. Well now before we go. So, what's your handle on your handle on Twitter is voicing right. Yeah, just my last name VOI si any. How'd you get that. I was early. How early early. I don't know I guess you could look at my first I think it was like 2007 or eight or I was I think I was around six I was pretty early but yeah. It's a unique enough last name that usually I write to get that that that handle on most tech kind of social media platforms because I'm also a techie and so I tend to be earlier to these things than than most people so. And what's your position at BRD bread wallet. I am founder and president. And you want to give a plug for it here. It's just a BRD.com. It's, it's a great cryptocurrency wallet app. So we're closing in on 10 million users. So I'm pretty excited about that. All right. Well, thanks for chatting with me today. Anything else you want to add before we go. I think that's it. Great talking to you. Okay, thanks Aaron. All right.