All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2026 - Viva & Barnes
01:15:03
Live from Plan B Conference in El Salvador with Erik Cason

Live from Plan B Conference in El Salvador with Erik Cason

|

Time Text
Cypherpunk Values 00:02:29
Of the day, right?
All right, this is the last talk presentation of the day, and it's going to be amazing.
If you don't know yet who I am, Viva Fry, David Freiheit, former Montreal litigator, turned current Florida Rumbler.
And what's great is whenever I get to do these interviews live at these events, I get to learn a lot about someone who I did not know a lot about before.
This is Eric Kayson.
And if you don't yet know who he is, although I suspect everybody at a Bitcoin conference knows who you are, you're going to know him.
You're going to love him.
I've been watching a lot of podcasts with you for the last, I say, four or five hours, boning up on my homework.
But if you could, because I won't be able to give an adequate 30-second summary of who you are and what you're up to, could you give the one you just gave to us backstage?
Yeah.
So, hi, my name is Eric Kayson.
I'm a longtime Bitcoiner.
Got into Bitcoin around 2012, worked at a number of startups.
It became very clear to me that Bitcoin had a deep philosophical essence to it.
And so I wrote a book called Crypto Sovereignty.
And today I'm working with my best friend and building on what we're calling a fiduciary AI startup so that we bring the ethos of Bitcoin to AI so that you'll own all of your data, weights, and parameters, and everything that you've done to train your own AI belongs to you.
So, all right, we're going to start from the beginning.
If I may, I'd like to look up the childhood life experience to understand how entrepreneurs, like thinkers, got to where they are.
Where are you from?
Like, what was childhood like?
And where were you born and raised, that type of thing?
Yeah, grew up in Northern California, poor family, parents divorced when I was pretty young.
Money was always an issue.
And so as I got older, that was always kind of something front and center.
I was very motivated about kind of social justice and good issues.
And then when I joined the Occupy Wall Street movement, it became very clear to me that as much desire as there is towards that, it is not functional.
And someone at the Occupy Wall Street protest told me about Bitcoin, which is kind of my own rabbit hole journey towards really understanding Austrian economics and why Bitcoin is the answer that people are really looking for, whether they know it or not.
All right, that's amazing.
And I've asked this question of pretty much everyone that I've ever had these discussions with.
I'm not going to ask you about Bitcoin, what makes it singularly unique.
I think everybody here understands that.
But one thing I don't yet know what it was, or I learned it today.
What is cypherpunk?
Cypherpunk is really the values that you should always be able to own all of your own data and that privacy is really about a choice that has a lot to do with individual humanity.
Anonymity's Dilemma 00:15:21
And it's really about what makes us human on a whole.
Because without the ability to be able to selectively choose what information we reveal to whom, we essentially live within a gigantic surveillance system.
And this has really been something that's been known by the cypherpunk movement since the early 80s.
And specifically kind of around when Cham wrote his thesis around Big Brother surveillance in 1985 that it became pretty clear.
Now, this is the broader question.
There's the stats that like the new generation of, I don't know what's, are we on Gen Z now or are we on like that Gen Z or Z, I think I revealed by Canadianism, they don't care about privacy.
My concern or my thought is, are we not post-privacy already?
Like is there no going back now to travel?
You got to give your biometrics if you want to leave the country.
You got to have a passport.
You got to have real ID if you want to go places.
You don't even have to have a Facebook account to be identified on Facebook because of information other people post.
Are we not past any realm of a privacy-driven or privacy-focused society?
No.
And like this is kind of one of the most important things is that my good friend Rockstar yesterday gave a talk called No Privacy, No Freedom.
And he really highlighted and emphasized the point that even though he was wearing a mask and if people really took the time and effort to try to understand who his physical identity was, he was still making a strong statement that he is allowed a choice about who he chooses to reveal his identity to.
And through that choice, there's the ability for people to really actually understand that there are various identities that we get to have that aren't necessarily holistic with the government one that we have.
And through that, we get to actually make a decision for ourselves about how we participate in various communities.
But we can also presence other people to why that might be necessary.
And so I think that it's really important to understand that while Gen Z might be like, well, I have nothing to hide, so why shouldn't I just be open?
And like, it has nothing to do with openness.
It's about creating a dossier for that when somebody has made a decision that you are an enemy of the state or even just powerful entities, that they can essentially make an entire repertoire of everything that you've ever done and pick and choose the things that you've done that are illegal.
Because with kind of the rampant expansion of the state over the last 50 years, it's became very clear that we'll all break laws every day all the time.
And it's simply a matter of whether or not we're pressed on whether or not those things are charged against us.
The guy wearing the face mask, he was here today, right?
Yeah, yeah.
I died to say, well, and my immediate reflex is when I see someone covered with their face below their nose, I think Antifa.
And I thought, and that was my initial reaction to seeing the guy.
But even he, when he travels, when he has to take a government-issued ID picture, he's going to have to identify himself.
When he's online, I presume he already has, unless he's got the best security on earth, his data points are already out there.
And maybe some might say wearing a mask in public is illusory in terms of giving a semblance of retaining any sort of privacy.
Yeah, well, and it was funny because he had a slide that he put up of a woman who was like on Twitter who was talking about, she was like, oh, you know, like you can only be an entrepreneur if you're doing all these beautiful, lovely things and working 14 hours a day and raising kids and all these other things.
And the last line was like, you can also only do this if you're a liar.
And his whole point was that like the way that she was projecting herself through social media was much more of a mask than him simply having the selection of privacy towards himself.
And somebody asked him directly about like, well, how do you travel?
And he didn't answer the question directly.
So I couldn't answer for him.
But I still think that there are cracks within the system that allow for people to protect their privacy.
And I also think that it's a total misnomer that trying to make a totalitarian society where all things are monitored and surveilled everywhere protects us.
I actually think it makes it a much more dangerous society because very similar to the Chernobyl incident where it was very clear that there were malfunctions that were going on within the nuclear system because people didn't feel empowered to speak up and that they would be protected by an anonymity of them just reporting on what the truth of the fact was, there becomes a much more dangerous feature that comes out in society when the totalitarianism of monitoring and surveilling everybody becomes the preeminent way that society organizes.
Yeah, I do forget what the stat is that any person commits an average of three to seven felonies a day.
And like you say, the post you put up was Hunter S. Thompson.
You put it on Twitter.
I don't want to mangle it, but it said, in the world where everyone's criminals, the only sin is getting caught.
And then it had to do with being stupid.
What was the second part of that?
The final sin is stupidity.
And so, I mean, you're right.
We live in that world already.
I think to some extent, I'd argue we always have, where 50 years ago, people would get away with crimes.
And if they became politically relevant, and you can think of Martin Luther King, for example, they would find the things that they've done and then use it against them.
But if they were allies, they would let it slide.
That's, you know, in just today's day and age, it's that on steroids.
And I don't know that anybody wants a full surveillance state or believes it makes anybody safer, but I don't know that there's any going back.
What is the solution to what is the current reality?
Well, I think one is that we're finding in the internet today is that there are real autonomous spaces where people can still maintain anonymous identities.
So I'm a big fan of the Noster protocol.
I hope that anybody here is actually using Noster as a meaningful and thoughtful way to create new social identities and a decentralized social platform.
But there's a developer on there, Callie, who, as far as we know, he has maintained full forward secrecy and privacy.
And he's been building some amazing tools.
And it's because Noster is a protocol that is built on top of the same sort of key set for cryptography that Bitcoin is.
But it means that now you can go out, you can actually have interactions with people online, and you're not forcibly identified.
And that's really important because when you start saying things that are dissidents that go against the grain of contemporary society, there's a very real danger of being canceled.
And I think that was one of the things that we saw in 2020 was when there was anybody that was saying things that were against the grain against the medical establishment, it became very dangerous for them to openly say, hey, I'm not sure if this actually is as safe or as effective as you might think.
And whether or not you agree with that, you had many people that were canceled, had their medical license taken away from them or other things, when, lo and behold, it turned out that there may have been more truth to that than there actually was.
So I think that the ability to be able to protect people's identities so that they can speak truth to power first and foremost is a really important thing for society on a whole because if we're not allowed to speak truth, there becomes an extraordinary danger of where we're all just happy to lie to each other and be satisfied with it.
I'm playing devil's advocate, so forgive me, audience.
What if someone is going to say, well, if you can have true anonymity because it empowers people to speak truth, Big Brother is going to say, we can't have true anonymity because people are going to use it to threaten, harass, dox, and commit crimes, and it will be very difficult for us to hold them to account.
Absolutely.
And that's the very path that we're going down, particularly with AI in the way that, as powerful as models as they are, we've also been told that if governments don't have power over these models in the ways that we think, that they're going to become dangerous weapons that could compromise humanity itself.
But I'd also point out that there's a long history of governments telling us that they need to have more power for our safety and security when it turns out that they're just using that very power to actually strip us of any real safety and security so that when it comes time for them to hurt us, imprison us, or do even worse things, there's no way to actually stand up and resist in a meaningful way.
And so a lot of my work in crypto sovereignty deals with this idea called the state of exception, where essentially it's about once you've identified an enemy class, you can actually strip them of all political rights that they deserve.
And it's once you've stripped them of all political rights, very similar to Jews during the Holocaust.
They were stripped of German citizenship before that they were actually shipped off.
And the explicit reason was that meant that the Nazi regime wasn't performing an actual crime because they weren't murdering citizens.
They were murdering non-people.
But that's also the path that we go down when governments are given radical powers to choose what is or is not legitimate outside of the purviews of what could be called truth.
What you're describing also, it sounds a little bit like, I don't want to say anonymous.
I'm not sure if they are now what they were back in the day.
But if you have genuinely bona fide anonymous accounts that could be used for criminality, it could also be used to hold what I genuinely believe more often than not to be a criminal government to account in, say, Canada, for example.
Is there, in this realm of anonymity, is there a battle among the anons to, on the one hand, enforce the law and go after those who would abuse of the system of anonymity to commit things like crime, extortion?
Is there like a war between good and evil, even within the ecosystem of those who want full anonymity on the internet?
Yes and no.
It's a weird yin and yang thing.
And it's kind of like at the most extreme ends, you have the very people being like, well, anonymity is the very thing that's going to allow for people to be able to release bioweapons and destroy humanity.
But in that same subset, it's the very people that are allowed to be able to anonymously leak information saying, yeah, actually, it turns out that there are weapons labs in Wuhan that are actually doing gain of function research.
And if I revealed that to you with my identity attached to it, I'd probably be murdered.
So I should probably do this with full anonymity so that I do protect my identity.
And this reminds me of the Panama Papers that came out in, I think, 2016 of that, like, the individual that leaked these documents that clearly showed the amount of tens of billions of dollars of money laundering, they were a completely anonymous actor who never revealed themselves because they knew that they would be murdered, very much like how the journalist that reported on the Panama Papers was actively murdered by a car bomb because their identity was attached to it.
Anonymity is something that is the final gap stop that allows for people to protect themselves when they speak truth to power that is so radical that the people in positions of power say, we can't let whatever this person's saying be out there.
We need to kill them.
So what are you working on?
I mean, it's amazing.
What are you working on, and how are you going about empowering individuals with true anonymity?
So we're working on a system that we're calling Vora.
And the purpose of Vora IO is to be fiduciary AI so that you will be able to own all of the weights, parameters, all of the training data, everything that goes into your personal and private AI so that it can become the most intimate piece of technology that you've ever had because it will have a relationship to you very much like the closest personal servant, advisor, or individual in your life.
You should be able to share your email, your passwords, all of your private data and information with it.
And you should know that it's never going to interact with the internet.
No one else will ever get access to that data.
And also because you've trained it specifically around your personal preferences and what things are important and valuable to you, it should be able to surface information to you that's more valuable than any frontier proprietary AI could ever provide to you.
And so the idea in terms of how nobody else can access that information, that data, is encryption the same way as with Bitcoin.
Yeah.
And so me and my co-founder, we both have a background in Bitcoin.
He was one of the key architects of a number of very sophisticated cryptographic security systems.
And so he comes at this from a security angle.
And so he's built out a specialized cryptographic system for both encrypting the data and information and also a robust recovery key system that allows for a number of different pathways of being able to recover your information through encrypted cloud data storage, but various backups that also actually have a legal backup as well.
So that if you lose, say, seven out of the eight of the keys that you've done with the single remaining key and a number of other proprietary methods that we've developed, you'll be able to recover all the information and data that you have.
So the idea is that in 2035, when you've spent a decade training this personal AI that knows you more intimately than your partner, children, or anybody else, that no matter what, you'll be able to retain access to it and that only you and you alone should be able to retain access to it.
Have you seen the movie?
I have not seen it, but it sounds like the plot for the movie Her, if you're developing AI that knows you more intimately than anybody, and I'm trying to be funny, but it sounds kind of scary.
Does it interact with you as a human?
If you wanted it to do that.
And I mean, like, this is kind of some of the weird stuff we're getting into, is that there's a number of people that really enjoy the idea of having AI partnership.
And if they choose to develop their AI in that way, they should be welcome to do it.
And they should also know that they can share all the different desires and kinks that they want with it and not have that leak to OpenAI or Google or any other proprietary platform that if they became a dissident in the eyes of the state, they would absolutely use that information against you.
And that's one of the reasons we think this information needs to be private unilaterally.
I love this.
I mean, whenever I hear anything, I hear it from the mind of someone who's conspiratorial, who sees things negatively and says this is going to contribute to depopulation by creating artificial human relationships with AI.
Men are going to relinquish off to this personal design thing that nobody's going to know, but they can make it into the love of their lives and then basically tune out of society.
How would you even avoid that nefarious potential consequence, even if it wasn't the objective in the first place?
I think this really comes down to actual human relations between people.
And I personally know many people that are in their 30s and haven't had intimate relationships with another person.
And that's much more of a consequence of their own belief, the way that they interact with it.
And while you can find comfort in things like AI, I think ultimately we have a responsibility towards the future and actually having children.
And so as much as you might want your AI partner to be able to birth children for you, that's definitely not on the horizon or timeline at this point in time.
I'm just imagining a way Elon's going to say, I like your technology.
like my robots, we're going to make a super we'll design it however you like and it'll be the perfect partner.
How far into this project are you as of now?
So we've been working on this for about a year.
It was about six months in that we really made a pivot and decided that, because originally this was going to be like the paranoid schizophrenics crypto vault that you would be able to generate keys from that no state could ever steal no matter what.
And as we look deeper into the project, we're like, oh, we really need an AI model for this.
So like as we got deeper into it, we're like, oh, we need to start with the AI model first.
AI's Role in Home Loyalty 00:07:39
We need to make sure that it is completely locked down, that you train all of it.
There's no way that it could change its weights or parameters without your knowledge.
And once that's locked down, we're then going to build another component even deeper in the system called the Vault, which will be able to generate cryptographic key pairs.
And it's not just for storing your Bitcoin, but eventually you're going to have a robot in your home.
And do you really want the state or OpenAI to have access to that robot that's doing your dishes?
I sure don't.
And so I want to be able to have a robust cryptographic key storage that I know is in my control so that if for any reason I need to turn off my dishwasher or I need to put my dishwasher onto home invader mode and you should use glasses from the dishwasher to stab people, I can do that.
And now, just a purely technical question.
I often hear that AI requires a lot of energy for the search engines.
If you're going to be having this level of search engine requirement within your own home, what type of energy requirements are going to be needed for it?
Well, and so this is interesting is that AI on a whole requires a ton of energy because it's not just my private prompts alone.
It's yours and mine and 80,000 other people all prompting at the same time.
So this scales up to industrial levels.
But when it's just me privately, all that I need is a robust piece of computer hardware, which is what we're already building off of.
We have a small mini computer.
Costs about $3,000, which is expensive, but because we're using integrated chips that have VRAM, costs should go down over time.
But what's really cool is because, so like my personal prompts on that computer, while it's using the same electrical energy that it's plugged into the wall socket, I'm not using it most of the time.
So one of the plans is that through using Noster, there should become a methodology where we can actually, through the social network, say, hey, I have all of this compute that's available.
If you would like to actually run encrypted compute on my computer, you can stream me 300 stats in Bitcoin.
That'll pay for you to provide the compute and I'll send it back to you very similar to a cloud storage provider.
But so the hope is we're eventually going to build out a network that we're calling the CT network.
And CT is a group of honey badgers.
It's like the den that they live in.
And our product called Vora means Melavora Compensis, which is for the honey badger.
And so the idea is that this is very similar to the den where all the badgers live.
You can go here to do your compute and it'll send compute back to you.
So while compute is something that it is very energy intensive on an individual level, it's much lower than it is than say for proprietary AI needs.
And now last question on the business.
What is the what's your objective?
What's your end goal?
You want to have this ready for market, ready for download, what, by the end of the year?
How long does it take?
Yeah, so we're hoping to be shipping our alpha units by the end of Q2, and then we want to actually be opening up beta to be pre-selling and shipping units by the end of the year.
We really just want to make sure that this product's totally dialed in, that you'll never lose any information no matter what by having that dialed in so much.
And so the long-term hope is that very much like how Steve Jobs saw the need for people to have personal computers in the home in 1975.
And that was kind of an insane idea.
But by the year 2000, that was actually true.
We see a vision that by the year 2050, we believe that everybody should have a personal AI in the home that they can trust as their own personal assistant that is unilaterally loyal to them and nobody else.
And so that you can put your family photos, your private information, everything that you'll ever want to have of your digital life in there, and you'll have complete surety over knowing that that information belongs to you, you alone, and you'll always be able to recover it.
I'm sure you've thought of this.
If I've thought of it, you have to have thought of it a long time ago.
It sounds like you could design the perfect teacher for your children.
And we were talking earlier, I'm homeschooling my third kid, not the first two.
And I was thinking, like, you know, it's a tough thing to make sure they don't get taught the wrong stuff.
And certainly what they are getting taught at schools and especially public schools, but all schools is brainwashing, to put it politely.
You could use this to create curriculums for your kids and eventually in the future even have the robot teacher.
And I'm not even saying in a negative way.
You'd be able to design a curriculum that would be free of, either free of political bias or at the very least leaning with your own political thoughts and in theory make it totally free of political bias.
Absolutely.
And through the network component as well, there's going to be an entire app store where maybe you follow a podcaster that has particular viewpoints that you really like or maybe they've brought up educational ideas that you really appreciate.
You should be able to go and download specific agents that they've designed to be able to teach your kids' curriculum around science or math or history or whatever you want.
But the most important thing is that you actually get to look at the weights and parameters.
You get to test it out.
You get to actually have knowledge of how it'll answer your questions, why it'll answer your questions that way.
And there's never going to be updates that are pushed to it that you don't approve of directly that aren't very clear and apparent.
Because we really govern from this first principle of that it needs to be loyal to you and you alone first and foremost.
And that if it has any sort of corporate loyalties or governmental loyalties before you, under duress and pressure, it will always collapse to defaulting towards those defaults that don't belong to you because you don't own it.
I don't know if you can dumb it down enough for someone like me, but when they say that AI is only as good as the information it's fed, it's only as good as the information it's searching through.
I mean, even if conceivably it had access to the entire database of humanity, how do you program it to filter fact from fiction, lies from truth, and accurate information from what was written as historical bias only because it was written by the victors quite literally?
And that's precisely sort of the question is right now, we don't have any power or governance over that very feature that makes for anthropic AI, open AI, Gemini, whatever model you want.
It is all in the hands of a particular subset of people who you don't know.
They have no relationship to you.
And they get to decide that when you ask, what's the most horrific crime that ever happened in human history?
Well, why would you have the answer of that the Holocaust was worse than what Mao did during the Great Famine?
And it's not to say that there's one good answer over another, but if you can actually look into the substrate and say, oh, well, it understands that these sort of modules and reasonings were worse than others, that maybe direct violence against people is worse than direct death count.
But it's actually looking into the substrate that creates the weights and parameters and being able to decide, hey, like that's something that's very important for me.
Or that conspiratorial thinking.
Like maybe that's something we actually do want to include in the model.
Or maybe it's something we want to make sure that doesn't get into the model at all.
But it's about being able to fine-tune the model at the substrate and being able to observe what and how its answers are.
And then people collaboratively getting to share all of those different models with one another.
So that, like, if, let's say, you have a bias towards homeopathic medicine, maybe you choose to have a model that has a bias towards homeopathic medicine.
Maybe you think that's crackpot crazy shit and you only want stuff that's been verified through Harvard and Yale.
You can choose to have a model that goes towards that.
But it's ultimately about the subjectivity of a choice and you choosing how your model is going to govern itself and why it has made those choices and you get to own it for yourself.
Why Bitcoin Beats Fiat Currency 00:14:45
That is, I mean, it's fascinating and I kind of want it already.
Now, I know you've said, just to shift to crypto and Bitcoin a little bit, that Bitcoin would effectively bring down, I don't want to say bring down a nation state, but it would be the citizen's way to freedom from state oppression, state tyranny.
Again, it might be a stupid question, and I'm just thinking as I've experienced this now, in El Salvador, we can freely pay for things with crypto here.
It's kind of amazing, but you have to have crypto to be able to pay for it.
With a limited issuance, 21 million and whatever additional mining is going to be going on, what would it look like to actually get crypto into every person's hand?
And then what impact would that have on, I don't know, inflation of the value of crypto to the point where you have the same realities that you have by effectively printing money?
Well, I think a couple of things is that the affects of printing money will never be the same within a Bitcoin circular economy that it would be within a fiat economy.
Because the Cantonalon effect, which is the idea that those who are closest to the money printer will benefit the most greatly from it, that today, if the United States government was to announce that they were going to unilaterally double the amount of money that was in the monetary system, those who would benefit unequivocally from that would be the banking system and financiers, while most normal citizens would be left out of it and they would be holding the bag with inflation,
very similar to how we've seen the 30% inflation that's hit most normal Americans since COVID because of the amount of money printing that's happening.
Whereas in a system like Bitcoin, as everybody gets on board, it's essentially like a rising tide lifts all boats.
And because everybody is getting in at the same time, everybody understands why the fixed currency base of the currency is a valuable thing, it allows for those rising tides to meet together.
But the biggest question right now is the development of class consciousness.
Most people just think Bitcoin is some other currency.
It's like a dollar or a peso or something else.
They don't realize that when you hold the private keys to your Bitcoin, it doesn't matter if you've been accused of the most heinous crime that's ever happened in humanity and that you've been cut off from every banking rail that exists.
You still own that money.
And so in 2013, when Edward Snowden revealed in the Snowden files the sort of abuses that the NSA was doing, he was immediately cut off from every single banking relationship that he had.
His passport was cut off.
It was very clear they didn't want him to escape.
And there is one single reason why he was able to escape the United States.
And that is because he owned Bitcoin.
Because he owned Bitcoin, he was able to pay for tickets that got him transit to Hong Kong, which he then used a different identity to get himself through Hong Kong and got himself to Macau.
He only did that because he owned Bitcoin.
And Bitcoin is powerful because it is a truly peer-to-peer network that no nation state has power or control over.
So as more people get onto a Bitcoin standard and realize that no one has control over it, it also means no one can just print out more Bitcoin.
And so the only way that the value of Bitcoin can rise is through more people choosing to use it and hold it and have it as their personal currency.
But that's the issue.
This is where I get into a mental block on this.
That Bitcoin, true, nobody can cut you off, but it needs to be converted to what we now conceptualize as fiat currency.
Because if the ticket has a price.
Nope, like I will happily and readily accept Bitcoin services directly from other people today.
I'm not interested in converting it.
I'm going to hold it in Bitcoin.
And that's what a true circular Bitcoin economy is.
You're not looking for dollars or pesos or gold.
You're looking to get more Bitcoin because you understand the value proposition of Bitcoin.
And so in my local community back in Northern California, I buy my fruits and vegetables from people in the community that actually I know that they hold the Bitcoin.
When I buy it from them in Bitcoin, I know they're not using that to get more dollars from Coinbase or somewhere.
They just hold it.
Well, no, and what I mean is not converting it to fiat currency, I mean, literally, but to value the good.
So you're going to pay 4,000 Satoshi for a dozen apples.
You have to nonetheless correlate it to what is the equivalent of fiat currency for the purposes of trade.
And so, I mean, I guess the question is like, how do you do?
How do you value goods without inherently comparing it to what is current fiat currency?
So at what point do we no longer need the measurement stick dollars or I'm not selling you an apple?
It's going to be one Bitcoin for a bag of apples.
Like, well, I'm not paying that.
That's $80,000.
So it'll be $10,000.
I'm not paying that.
That's too much.
It's all relative to the baseline fiat currency.
Absolutely.
And so because that tends to be the measurement that we choose to do things in.
So probably dollars for me, like moose knuckles for you or whatever you guys use in Canada.
And same thing like some people might prefer pesos.
That tends to be our unit of measurement, very much like how, again, as an American, I'm going to measure things in football fields and you're going to measure things in the number of mooses long that they are.
We go, it's moose heads up in Canada.
There's even a beer named after it.
So that's the measurement, but within that, we can also make subjective choices.
So anytime that I do deals with people in Bitcoin, I always tell them, look, if you're going to do contracting work for me, I'm going to give you a 10% discount if you let me, like if you pay me in Bitcoin, or if I can pay you in Bitcoin for the contractual work, I'll pay you 10% more because I own Bitcoin, I like using Bitcoin, and I think it's important that you own Bitcoin.
So I'm happy to pay extra towards you if you're willing to accept it.
And so I think it all becomes about the subjective value preference that we have of knowing and understanding what the value proposition is.
And so to me, collecting more Bitcoin and knowing the value proposition that I can use Bitcoin anywhere in the world and nobody can stop me is way more important than me getting more dollars in my bank account.
Now, going back to the conceptual question, how do you get it into the hands of every person on earth?
The immediate thought is, okay, if the governments want to make their society Bitcoin-friendly, they have to buy up Bitcoin and then disperse it.
But if anybody on the ground wants to buy Bitcoin, they have to have the money to buy it in the first place.
So if this is going to become the replacement of fiat currency, how do you conceptually get it into the hands of everyone on earth?
And in doing so, would that not just drive the price up?
I appreciate the rising tide.
It'll lift all ships, but it'll make some people drown in the water because they won't be able to get to the surface because of the rising cost or the price of Bitcoin.
How do you get it into the hands of everybody without the price not inflating but rising to the point where people or the people who you want to get it into their hands can no longer afford it?
Well, so I've always rejected the notion of that Bitcoin is for everyone.
I believe Bitcoin is for anyone, but I do not believe it is for everyone.
And so it's very similar that I've been trying to educate people about Bitcoin for 10 years.
And there are many people that I encountered back when Bitcoin was worth a tenth of what it is today that they were like, this is stupid.
It won't work.
It can't help.
And then they had to come back to me later and go, wow, you saw something that I didn't.
And I'm not entirely sure why, and it was because they weren't ready for it, and that was fine.
And so, I think anyone who is willing to actually do the homework and understand why Bitcoin is sort of the final choice of all currencies, including better than gold, but that demands that they actually need to do their own homework and understand what is value, what is money, why should we have it?
And then there's another component of essentially the development of class consciousness: why would we want to have that here?
And I think here in El Salvador, the fact that they had a Chivo wallet, anyone in the country could download a Chivo wallet and get $30 for themselves, which is a substantial amount of money for themselves, I think was a wonderful project.
And even with that, you didn't find a majority of El Salvadorians doing that, despite the fact that they were giving them free money to do it.
And it has a lot to just do with empowerment and education.
And it's the very real reason why most people are going to default towards ideas and methods in the world that aren't necessarily going to favor them, but exploit them.
And so, like, I very much believe that Bitcoin is a currency that empowers people directly because of that radical personal empowerment that they get from it.
And the question is: how much does that benefit usually organizations that are going to try taking advantage of them in different ways?
And so, again, I believe that is for anyone, and that if anyone wants to do the homework and understand what the value proposition is, they'll get it.
But if we try to force it on to everyone, particularly people who don't understand it, very similar to my own personal experience of that, they'll buy it, they'll maybe appreciate 10%, and they'll immediately sell it because they'll go, whoa, I made $10 because I sold my extra Bitcoin.
It's like, well, yeah, if you held it, you would have quadrupled that amount within the next three months.
But that was your choice.
Now, this is a question I asked someone, and again, I don't know if it's stupid.
Philosophically, I think it makes sense.
People say that Bitcoin is inflation-proof because it's got a limited issuance, so you can't just print it like cash.
And my philosophical musings were: if you can infinitely subdivide it, that's pretty much the same as being able to infinitely print it.
And so, if one day, one Satoshi is worth one Bitcoin today, you're going to have to subdivide into your smaller units to make it transactable.
And so, by virtue of it being, is it in fact infinitely subdivisible?
Sure, yeah, we could, yeah, it is infinitely subdividable well beyond the number of satoshis that there are today.
Each Satoshi can be subdivided into 100 million units itself.
Okay, so then, so then, is that, I mean, is that not conceptually exactly like the inverse but equivalent form of inflation?
Continual subdivision so that the subdivided amount becomes worth more and it effectively becomes like not paper money.
I guess it still has value regardless of how much it grows.
But if you can continually subdivide it, it just seems that that doesn't resolve the issue of inflation.
Well, it's a great question because this gets into the very nuanced issue between the difference of Bitcoin as a payment network versus Bitcoin as a storage of value network.
And so, it's that if this table here ends up being the totality of all economic activity that we have, we can continually subdivide it as much as we want forever.
And if it's only the size of this table, well, each subdivision unit is just one more of that.
But if we also made this the size of the entire world and we're subdividing it because we've inflated value into that, each subdivision of it becomes worth all the more.
And so, like, it's a very difficult and nuanced economic question that I feel Austrian economics is kind of the best to answer because it's very similar to gold: of that, like, the only way we can create new gold is by expending real economic energy, extracting from the earth, and including that into the supply.
And so, like, gold is inflationary insofar that, like, we can add maybe 2% to 3% to the total supply of gold over time.
But, very similar in the last year, gold's gone from, what, $2,500 to being worth more than $5,000?
It was ridiculous.
It was shocking.
I mean, the silver spike was even more shocking than that because I hadn't paid attention to it in about three years.
But the flip-side argument to that is someone's going to say, well, gold nonetheless has inherent industrial value, where I think the only risk to the value of gold would be finding out a way to make molecularly identical gold the way they did with diamonds, but that didn't even kill the diamond industry.
But there's no inherent industrial value to this digital asset that exists nowhere but on ledgers.
And so there's something fundamentally different between gold that had historically an industrial use and an industrial value versus Bitcoin, which doesn't exist.
Yeah, and so, well, one is that if we actually look at the industrial value of gold, it's about a tenth of the totality of actual value of gold itself.
So if it was just used for the industrial value of itself, it would have something a lot closer to like $500 per ounce for gold.
Now, the big question of Bitcoin is wasting a ton of energy, wasting a ton of energy in order to secure this Bitcoin network.
So the real question is, is that actually a waste?
Because while there is huge amounts of exahash that is going into actually mining and securing the Bitcoin network, the securing component is really important.
So that when you have, whether it's a dissident who owns Bitcoin, who has purchased Bibles for people in Pakistan, or a human rights activist that is getting people out of human slavery in places like Togo, their wallets can't be actively stolen by their government because of the energy that is being expended to secure it on the Bitcoin network today.
I subjectively believe that is a very real value proposition that makes the expenditure of energy for that that valuable.
Much more so than it is today.
Whereas something like gold, sure, might have industrial value, but at the end of the day, if you have a brick of gold, that can be physically extracted from you.
If you have Bitcoin stored in multi-signature private keys, there's no way that that can get physically extracted from you.
You got to go to all the physical points and collect up the key shards in order to be able to extract that gold or extract that Bitcoin.
I think that that's a really important feature that's never been available in any form of economic currency in the world before.
You're 1,000% right.
And the litigator brain of me goes to the immediate worst case scenario.
They don't need to extract your Bitcoin in order to deprive you of freedom.
So you can have your Bitcoin, but they can lock you up literally.
And it leads me to the fear, the concern, the question, what could the government do by way of regulation that makes any empowerment of not having an extractable asset become a totally useless asset?
What could the government, in theory, hypothetically, do to kill Bitcoin?
I mean, and I think they've done a lot of things towards exactly this to try to do it, is have very clear draconian regulations around things like the ability to be able to mix your coins.
And so, like, poor Kinon, he's in federal prison today because he created Samurai Wallet that allowed for people to freely mix their Bitcoin currency.
And that's had a hugely chilling effect that developers now know and understand.
If you create software that allows for you to obfuscate identity, you may very well be held accountable by the U.S. government.
Chilling Effect on Bitcoin Development 00:07:28
I wasn't fully aware of this until actually I was talking about with someone today.
Could you flesh out what happened in that circumstance?
Yeah, so a brief synopsis is that there's been a number of different coin joining protocols over time that essentially it allows for you and me to mix UTXO sets.
So if I have a Bitcoin and you have a Bitcoin, we'll say, hey, let's both put our Bitcoins in this jar.
We'll shake this jar up and we'll both pull a coin back out.
I don't know if it's my coin.
I don't know if it's your coin, but we can prove to each other that we both put a coin in, we both pulled a coin out.
We just don't know whose coin it is.
There's been a number of protocols that have done this, but because the individuals that controlled Samurai Wallet, despite the fact that they never controlled anybody's funds, like I always had full purview over my funds, you had full purview over their funds, they simply provided the coordinating network to be able to do that.
So within sort of FinCEN financial regulations, that means that they never had custody of the funds, so they should have never been held accountable in any way for being responsible for what is done with those funds.
Despite that, the U.S. federal government said, hey, you guys have performed the crime of money laundering despite the fact that you never controlled anybody's money.
And that was their whole argument is they were like, well, we never controlled anybody's money.
We coordinated them, but we never controlled their money.
It kind of sounds equivalent to Ross Ulbricht and the Silk Road.
I mean, what year was this in?
So the service, I think they started in 2016, and I think ultimately charges were levied against them in 2022.
And it was over the last year or so that the entirety of the judicial process came out where Kenan, he was very active in doing everything that his lawyers advised him and working with the government directly and saying, hey, here's the information we have.
We want to work with you.
We'll plead guilty.
And he thought that he was going to get a light sentence, but they actually threw the heaviest sentence they could at him.
And so now he's in federal penitentiary for the next six years.
And if anybody out here cares about prison rights, please feel free to write to him.
You can find his information on Bitcoin Magazine's website and how to contact him.
Has there been any discussion about looking for a pardon from the current administration?
Or did the sentence ⁇ the sentence came before the current administration?
Yeah, the sentence came from before the current administration.
It was part of prior administrations, but also like it.
There's been ideas of very much in the way that Ross Ulbric was pardoned to try to get Donald Trump to do a pardon for Kenan as well.
That's something that's being actively worked on by a number of activists who are well familiar with his case and his wife.
But I think it's an important thing to highlight because it's pretty clear that the government, as much as the current administration might seem like they're quite pro-Bitcoin, there are some alarming considerations such as this case that would show they don't seem to really value people's privacy when it comes around to things like privacy, self-ownership, and the ability to be able to obfuscate the origins of your funds.
I've got a shirt that says politics ruins everything and this should be as apolitical as humanly possible, but politics does infiltrate and ruin everything.
But I may have just found the next deep dive that I'm going down to see.
It's true there's been some bizarre contradictory behavior from the current administration vis-a-vis their stated position on Bitcoin, which is to favor it to some extent.
So government can effectively kill it by doing things like this and locking you up and good for you, you've got your Bitcoin and the government can't touch it, but you haven't got your freedom to use it.
The million dollar question and not about the price of Bitcoin.
Nobody can tell.
What's the future?
And what do you see the future being?
Do you see more cities, more countries adopting a sort of very Bitcoin-friendly approach like El Salvador?
Do you see the administrations of Western democracies coming down harder on this because they do want to maintain control over their population?
Yeah, I'd see both of those.
In all honesty, I think the only reason that this administration favors it is like the Bitcoin has been extremely beneficial towards Donald Trump personally.
I don't know how much of a benefit it has towards the United States directly, considering that we have extraordinary privilege within the general monetary system.
And so I've always maintained personally, Bitcoin is for the global south.
So out of the 220 global countries that exist in the world, about 180 of them have inflation rates that are over 15%.
And that's because they don't truly have any form of monetary independence.
They are subservient either to systems in the EU, like former French colonies, most of them actually have to pay the French government directly for the privilege to be able to actually be part of the international banking system.
Or you have other countries like Zimbabwe, who their government is so extraordinarily corrupt and incompetent that you're going to have things like a billion percent inflation rate.
And so Bitcoin, in my opinion, has always been designed for the global South and the people that have to suffer under regimes of inflation where you will lose half of your purchasing power over the year.
And like that's a truth for most people who live in the world.
And so to me, like I personally don't really give a shit about governments, which like fuck the state.
Who cares about them?
I don't think they're a valuable apparatus.
I think they're hateful and violent.
But I do believe that Bitcoin is a really powerful tool and vehicle for individuals to be able to liberate themselves from the circumstances that they're in.
And so I've met a number of people from places like Afghanistan or Pakistan who, because they were sold into sex slavery, they were able to actually acquire a Bitcoin wallet and escape from those circumstances because they had true independence with their money.
So whether or not states in the global south choose to adopt Bitcoin as a way to resist being part of the international monetary system or not, I think it's pretty much a non-issue when you sort of look at what it means to be under a global inflationary regime that's not part of the global north.
And in terms of it being not a flash in the pen, but one of my other observations is that Bitcoin has the value that the Bitcoin community places in it.
And if people lose faith in it or it fizzles out, it becomes an artifact of an era.
Any plausible realistic risk of that happening, or has it attained a certain critical mass where at least among a niche community of, say, millions of people, which is still enough, it'll inherently always retain a certain value.
Well, I think, first of all, that's really a question for us all here personally and why we come to a Bitcoin conference and participate.
And what are the real value sets that we have with this and how and why we want to choose to push it forward?
And so we could allow for this just to integrate into the general financial system.
It becomes another asset.
There's nothing unique or important about it.
And very similar to how there were internet conferences in the 1990s, maybe this will become an artifact like that.
But also, I believe that there is a very real, deep, and powerful class consciousness that's at the bottom of Bitcoin.
And that the reason why I hold and use Bitcoin is because that makes me part of a global class of people that has solidarity with distance in China, people in North Korea who are trying to escape, individuals in Iran who want a freer life, or individuals in a place like Zimbabwe who want to escape inflation.
And that like I believe that this is the true first instance of a true classless society that realizes that by us having economic solidarity with one another first and foremost, there's an opportunity to create a freer and better world for all people.
Class Consciousness in Bitcoin 00:03:00
And that starts with us having economic solidarity first and foremost as the prerogative of how we choose to live our lives.
Right.
And now I'm going to ask you one question, but after I offer this, if anybody, we haven't done this before, but if anybody has any questions, we could do something of a Q ⁇ A because we have the technological ability to do so.
Oh, his name is Eric Kaysen, C-A-S-O-N.
Eric with a K.
And if anybody's got a question, come up to the front and ask it, but I'll ask you a question.
I was listening to Peter Schiff talk about the people call it a crash, and I say you can't call something a crash after 35% crash, the worst day in Silver's history after the best three months in Silver's history.
I did see people saying online, and I take it with a grain of salt with things that I can't verify or don't fully understand, that BlackRock is selling off Bitcoin to drive down the price.
And then some people are suggesting, why would BlackRock own crypto?
Why would it own Bitcoin in the first place?
Is there a possibility of that type of market manipulation with Bitcoin?
And what would that do in any event, driving down a price for making it easier to acquire for those who might have been priced out?
Is there truth to BlackRock owning and trying to sell off to drive down the price?
And what would be the strategic advantage in doing that other than trying to buy it more up at a deflated price?
Well, so I don't have any connections with BlackRock or otherwise.
I'm pretty sure they have exposure to it through ETFs.
I presence it to the fact that BlackRock is a banking institution first and foremost, and they are financiers first and foremost.
And financiers make their money through financial trades that are advantageous and gain for them.
And so they tend to be extremely astute about the way that they operate in markets.
And so when you have a long-term bear market and you sell into that large amounts that can affect the actual price liquidity, it makes a lot of sense to me that they would do a large sell-off in order to try to trigger a cascade of events that would cause for there to be greater liquidity to come into the market and collapse it and then buy up more later on.
So like, sure, I think that's an interesting thesis.
And then in regards to gold and silver, like I saw somewhere online that someone was trying to corner, very much like the Hunt brothers in 1982.
They were trying to corner the gold market in New York.
They were trying to buy up like a third of all of the gold.
And essentially like, or I mean silver.
And like silver dealers in New York essentially like full stop were just not selling anymore.
And so like gold and silver will always have this classic issue of physical custody itself becomes very problematic in events very specific like what we're seeing right now.
Whereas Bitcoin being a digital asset that can be easily and quickly exchanged online and we've seen people literally be able to transfer billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin quickly and like it's totally secure and that they've been able to do that.
Orange Pilling and Lightning Networks 00:06:42
That's a very real advantage.
And I'd also say on that point, we've also gotten into the age of AI where like AIs need a way to actually pay one another.
And like does it make sense for them to have a gold token that is like a physical thing?
Or does it make more sense for them to have an electric cryptographic token that is cryptographically verified and proved that they can pay each other in?
And so I don't know if you followed the Claudebot stuff, but like Claudebots seem to be Bitcoin maximalists and they seem to be very thrilled about orange pilling one another and paying each other to be able to provide goods and services to one another.
We live in weird times.
And now we don't have much time left and we didn't get into a lot of other political thought that I was listening to earlier on today, but I had Roger Veer on the channel a couple times back in the day and it seems his trouble got his trouble began when he became a libertarian and had some dissident things to say about intelligence agencies, the FBI, the CIA.
When I'm listening to you, I'm like, I hear a little bit of, I hear some of the same type of, I don't want to say anti-government, but it's the government Government cynic and it's the government realist rhetoric.
Have you had any issues in terms of becoming a target of a government that might not like the things you say having the influence that you have?
I'd rather not comment on that part personally.
I'd just say I have strong opinions that while I wouldn't identify them as being anti-government, what I'd identify them as being is pro-American.
I believe that our constitutional rights are something that are afforded to us as individuals and peoples, and that that document was created very explicitly understanding that governments have and will abuse power, and that the rights that I was given to me by decree of being born as American belong to me, and that there is no government agency that is entitled to stealing those from me simply because they say safety and security takes priority over this.
That is a lie that we've been told to accept, and I think all Americans have a right to reject it.
And I should have said critical of the government and not anti-government, because that definitely has a connotation to it.
And Bitcoin maximalist, government minimalist.
I can actually see that on a shirt one day.
That's been copyrighted, people.
I own that.
Nobody can take that.
If you want to enjoy a political thing, me and Tulsi Gabbard, we had an hour-long dialogue together that you can find online.
I'm good.
Amazing.
And I know this is a Bitcoin conference, and I'm not going to ask to judge Bitcoin versus others.
It seems now, if you had any recommendations, the interface between Bitcoin and Lightning transactions, where do you see that market going?
And what do you see being the players that are going to facilitate microtransactions between Bitcoin as a long-term holding and as a daily transactional quasi-currency?
Yeah, I love the Lightning Network.
I'm a huge maximalist of the Lightning Network.
Like the office I work within, like the Lightning Dev Kit guys work out of there.
So they are constantly giving me updates about how they're doing it.
And really with Noster and how Noster has Lightning integrated into its back end, to me, Noster is the killer app.
As much as I enjoy the hateful diatribe and brain rot that is X, it's clearly highly destructive and I don't control my algorithm.
Whereas on Noster, I actually know and understand how my algorithm is being used and operated.
I have a clean feed that is just about the timeline directly.
And when people say cool stuff, I can zap them 20 bucks directly.
They can zap me.
Like I think the most money I made on a post was like $80 and it was like me really high at night just diatribing about like my thoughts about aliens or something.
I know I'm just looking at my chat now to see what the audience is saying.
You wrote a book.
Tell everyone what the book is because I know you're going to be a new face to my crowd and I know they're going to love you.
What was the book?
My book is called Crypto Sovereignty.
It's about the hidden political destiny of Bitcoin.
And it's really just about when you get deep into continental philosophy and about the question around being and what does it mean to be human in the digital and technological age, cryptography itself becomes this radical new power from which there's a possibility of creating a new form of what I would call the political.
And so it's not about politics, but it's about sort of very similar to like what the founding fathers were about.
There's a possibility for a totally new political structure that allows for all people everywhere to sort of ensure their rights, freedoms, and dignities through what the internet offers and the guarantees that cryptography can provide.
You're working on another book?
I am.
It's been longstanding because it involves some pretty deep philosophical stuff that has really up until I've been working with my private AI much more.
And this is why I'm building the private AI is like I haven't really had the ability to be able to answer all these questions until I had a strong artificial intelligence system that I had full control over.
So that's kind of part of why I'm building what I'm doing is so I can write my second book.
Amazing.
Nobody has any questions in the crowd?
Oh, there's a few here.
Come on up here.
Think we can do it this way?
I got short arms.
Hi there.
Hey, man.
Win Bitcoin Orange Party.
Orange Party is almost like an on-running joke at this point in time.
I'd love to do it, but like I have my own life, my own investments.
I'm like hoping somebody else grabs it and runs with it, and I'll totally support them for it.
But I do think it's time that as Americans we realize that the red and blue parties have radically failed us and that we need essentially a new party that is going to be technologically forward, is going to honor and respect the ideals of people on both sides of the aisle and really make it about using technology to make the American values that are instilled in the Constitution something that has seen that transfers over and into the digital age.
Thank you.
I heard you say right now.
Yes, so the answer is right now.
You're responsible for that.
So please take that and run with it.
We're having Mike Wars up in the front.
Sorry, I joined in midstream.
The AI, the private AI that you're making, will it be accessible by subscription?
So the idea is that we're going to be selling a piece of hardware.
You can actually upload the model into that directly.
But because it's all open source, we're going to be providing the model and the ability for you to run the instance on your own hardware privately if you want to.
Banned from Blue Sky 00:03:29
One of the reasons that we're doing the hardware not only is to be able to provide compute, but we also want to be able to make sure that people are running a paired down OS that's specifically designed off of Linux that has very strict security controls so that you don't pwn yourself as we're watching a lot of people doing with ClaudeBots today.
Thank you.
Wonderful.
Absolutely.
I think there was a lady in blue?
No, no question, all right.
Where can people find you on social media?
On social media, X is the best place to find me.
It's just my name, Eric Kayson, E-R-I-K, C-A-S-O-N.
If you're on Noster, please find me there.
Same handle.
And also, if you're interested in what we're building at Vora, you can just go to Vora.io, V-O-R-A.i.O.
What was the other platform?
The other platform is Noster, N-O-S-T-R.
N-O-S-T-R.
Yeah, and so look that up.
That's another rabbit hole you need to go down because decentralized social media, I think, is one of the most important things of our age.
I had that discussion with someone.
We touched on it in Lugano, but I say that you take for granted, I mean, I think there's a lot of the audience watching right now on Rumble who might not have heard of Noster, and there's no algorithm alike the one on X. Say that again?
Is there an algorithm that feeds you...
The benefit to Noster is that it is algorithm-free, contrary to...
It's not only algorithm-free, but it is a censorship-resistant platform.
So it's based on the same protocol that Bitcoin is based on cryptographically.
And so the idea is that I can say whatever I want on the platform, and nobody can stop me from saying it.
You're welcome to stop listening to what I have to say, which is important, but there's no way that you can stop me from saying it, which is it kind of flips how it operates from traditional social media.
That like if you say naughty things, they'll ban you and you can't be there anymore.
And having not had any experience with it, does it not just turn into something of a cesspool as we've seen with other types of platforms that had that same concept that seems to attract a certain audience?
This is the funniest thing.
So two reasons.
One is it operates through something called a web of trust, very similar to a classic web of trust on the internet.
But so you would think it would become like a hateful cesspool full of people like saying hateful shit.
But you pretty much get one pass on that.
People come through, they'll say something hateful or stupid, and you'll pretty much be like, This person's a moron.
I don't want to listen to them anymore.
And you'll realize everybody else thinks they're a moron too, and they don't listen to them.
And they've essentially farmed themselves out of the network.
So, actually, I get on noster.
Like, noster is where I go to for my social media fix without like the brain rot of something like Twitter.
So, like, it's way more healthy, it feels good, and most people just say good morning, and I love you, and it like leaves me feeling good.
It sounds like a meritocracy of sorts.
You see, there's too many platforms out there.
We're big on locals, we've got a nice community, viva barnslaw.locals.com, where it's sort of the same thing.
Like, anybody can sign up, be a member, and if people are foul and toxic, they suffer the standard social consequences, but not necessarily a form of censorship.
It sounds interesting.
Yeah, same thing.
And so, what's interesting is that, like, with Noster, they still get to exist.
Nobody listens to them.
Whereas, like, if you do that stuff on Twitter or Facebook, like, you're you are banished and destroyed from existing on that platform.
I've never done it, but apparently, if you go to Blue Sky and you say there are only two sexes, it's an auto-ban and you're off the platform.
Platform Governance Matters 00:01:02
You know, and like, that's how they choose to govern the platform.
I really like Noster because it's a protocol-based thing, whereas things like Blue Sky and other things, they'll ban you if you say things that are incorrect.
Eric, we're out of time, but is there anything that you absolutely wanted to say that I somehow did not prompt by way of a question?
I think at the end of the day, like, thanks everybody for being here, and thanks for believing in Bitcoin.
It's a really important task that we have in front of us, and we need to continue knowing and understanding that Bitcoin on a whole has a massive value prop for humanity on a whole, and that there's a real opportunity that we have right now to continue to make Bitcoin to be the preeminent global asset for all people everywhere.
And if we do this right, if we do it correctly and actually have people understand that the value proposition of Bitcoin is really about freedom and liberty and not about number go up, there's a possibility to make a better future for all people forever.
That is one good way to end the day of the conference.
Eric, thank you very much.
That was fantastic.
Export Selection