Fight Night: Money, the State, and YOU

Welcome everyone to POV Crypto, the only podcast that both pit corners and Ethereum listen to. I'm David Hoffman, here with my buddy Christian. Christian, how you doing? It's been a long ass day and there's no end in sight, so just be a keep rolling and the next few hours will be drunk. So, it's basically one quarter. We've been a company for one quarter. I spent a

hell of a quarter. Yeah, it's been a hell of a quarter. That's for sure. I mean, you granted like, it's not like the company started or the groups of the company didn't start. You know, September, like Ryan started the newsletter even earlier than that. We started the podcast earlier, and that's not like the six-footed outdoor, but still not a bad first quarter. So, I think that's

why he rents the move down from coin debt and, you know, there'll be a time where someone else will have to take up the mantle of the coin I can see. But so far, it's a bunch of runs, for sure. Yeah. And it kind of just makes sense because crypto is getting headlines again, especially in 2020. Like, 2020 is when we saw crypto headlines start to

become a thing again, so it kind of makes sense. The internal media and advertising process and sources, we started to heat up. Anyway, it's Christian. What are we going to talk about today? Should we get into it? Yeah, so I mean, we can kind of talk about prices and stuff, but we've been going back and forth a lot on like, what is the role of government?

Like, how should we organize? You know, we've discussed multiple times that there may be slightly different political tendencies amongst people in the coin space versus people in the Ethereum space versus people outside of crypto altogether. So, sorry, I'm like burping while I'm trying to talk. So I mean, like, it is a new one's conversation. Yeah, yeah. It's something that everyone notices. Like, people tend to gravitate

towards the coin and some other people tend to gravitate towards the Ethereum. It seems to be like they were set on that path. And I even think that perhaps that is also true even before people like get into crypto at all. Right? Certain people gravitate towards crypto and certain people don't gravitate towards crypto and gravitate towards other things. Some people gravitate towards like the opposite of

crypto, which I think is actually like being involved in government, which is kind of how we are getting involved with the Rohan character as an industry. Like Rohan seems to be like the embodiment of like the opposite of crypto. And like, he doesn't, he doesn't, he doesn't track me as like a totalitarian type. He doesn't believe in the straight up power of the government. But he

does believe in the government being the way that we give, as a people, how we give people the funds. I think that he sees that if the people want something, they should turn to the government and the government. And the government should deliver that, which I think is just diametrically opposed today. The whole industry, I think. I think that's a fair statement tonight. What he is

an MMT here, and strangely MMT here is diagnosed a lot of the issues with the current system that crypto people diagnose, Bitcoin or SIGNOS. It's just their solution is like you said, diametrically, diametrically, but just completely opposite of what a someone who would be a free market crypto anarchist type solution, the solution that maybe we would offer is more free to more market based choice. That

even money was an evolution. First, what MMTers think is money is a product of the state. And they really have a stateist centric kind of mentality. Yeah, yeah. And what's also interesting is like we've both sites, both of our industries, the image, the image, the image, the image. MMTers and the crypto people both site books like that the first 5,000 years. We both cite that as

the one part, the story of the genesis of our industries or what money is. What's interesting to me is like. I quite or something like that. I think that's a theory in crypto thing. Oh, interesting. One thing I think is interesting is like, like there are, we've been talking about how there are similarities. Like, Rohan and people in our industry and MMT and what we're doing

here is like, there seems to be like, well, there's big coin maximalist. And then there's a theory of maximalist. And then there's like MMT maximalist. And the thing is like, they are all relatively mutually exclusive. Like MMT maximalist want to like use the coercive power of the state to ensure the strongest brand of the dollar so that the MMT going on is super effective, which means

like Bitcoin can't work because Bitcoin threatens the power of MMT or Ethereum can't work and stablecoins can't work because MMT, which is the thing that protects money as a public good, needs to be all powerful, right, in order to work to its maximum extent. And it can't be all powerful if Bitcoin is an option. Right. And so like to some degree, like the reason why we

can't get along, quote unquote, with Rohan is because his way is means that we can't have our way. And vice versa, if we have our way, we can't also have his way. So like there's maximalism, some degree. So I mean, we assume that there's like network effects to money, but you're right. You know, MMT can't live in competition. It must live in a monetary monopoly, right.

And when you stop tethering money to commodities or like reality. And then it just becomes, you know, a product of the state. Then all of a sudden, once you like tie in anti counterfeit cryptocurrencies that allow you to create tokens that peg to dollars, all of a sudden, you have to start regulating, you know, that activity too, because there's nothing outside of the regulation that kind

of, you know, tether, what is a dollar, what is this money thing to reality other than the state produced it. So like MMT, if anything, it's kind of by nature, it is anti technology. Because whatever technology, you know, you know, you know, you can't get it. But technology and whatever the market produces from a technological perspective, you know, they're going to have to tie in some

sort of analog government in order to maintain the printing power exclusively to the state. Yeah. Now that's all, that's all totally right. One thing I, one thing I'm frustrated by in my main query, Qualm with this character. And like I'm kind of like mentally prepping to interview him day after tomorrow is like some of his conclusions to me point. To inevitable like suffering, right. And I'll

explain what, what I mean by that is like the word node or running a node needs to not come out of Rohan's mouth. Because what that is implying and what he has said on various interviews is that like, you know, he, if, if, if they're, if even if they're decentralized crypto assets like die, if they can't figure out how to stop them, then they'll just go

to the next higher up like responsible party. Right. And so the reason why he's talking about nodes is that he believes that, you know, he does, he, but doesn't believe in like this faceless network of just like peep of like a homogenous group of people in the cloud running this network. He understands that like there are real people in the US running nodes that are processing

the transactions. And because of that, there are people that are responsible for their actions that that can take responsibility. And like my perspective is that even if that's true. And the United States does like quote unquote regulate nodes, it won't actually do anything because all the other nodes that aren't in the US will process the transactions. So what's the fucking point about like, I don't know

what you're ever going to do, but like finding or jailing or punishing people for running nodes. What's the point in that when you know that it's fuel top futile in the end anyways, that's just the essence of totalitarianism. The government can't ban Bitcoin. The government can't ban any open source to send truly decentralized network. All it can do is attempt to ban its citizens and its

companies from tapping into those networks. So it's really it would be a ban on its people. It would be holding back whatever governments people. It would be preventing them from participating in the network, not taking down the network. They would have to have a global reach in order in global totalitarian control in order to take down the network. So if anything, it's just the government being

more of an any state. And saying no, you can't. And I think Pierre Barrapp a really good point is like, is running a node running the network? Or is it just witnessing transactions? Right. It would be kind of a far reach to say it's illegal to witness a crime. Even if it to go as far as saying a crime was committed by taking a transaction on

the network. It would be a pretty far legal reach to say that witnessing a crime is illegal because my my node didn't perform a crime. All it is witness a crime that I have been on the network theoretically, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's a really interesting perspective. And also like to some degree, no one in the crypto space thinks this table act is going to

actually pass. But like I think we just like to talk about it as like an exercise. To me, it's a it's also worth noting that like. This is not at all what this country was like founded upon. This is like complete control of a central government over states rights until I guess states can just like undo stuff. But like it's very much a very strong puts

power in the central government, which and it's anti innovation is anti freedom. It's anti all the things that like America likes to be a proud of. Like it's anti coercion or the table act is coercion. And so like it just doesn't even resonate with like some of the values that our entire country is based upon. A lot of the things that central institutions in America do

the today don't really resonate with what the this country was founded upon. Yeah. That's true. I guess I guess that's kind of a sort of appeal to emotion. I mean, but isn't this kind of the back and forth that mean you had on Twitter? Like what is the right way to assess and contain the coronavirus problem and how do you coordinate all these people? Like my

current perspective at this point is that we need to push the decision making out to the massive masses as far as possible. Yeah. And I forwarded you Vatalox concavers convex dispositions and like in some and what you are saying when you say that is you are illustrating a con. Sorry. One second. I want to get this right because I usually get this wrong. I think that

you are exhibiting a concav. Concav. Concav. I think you're saying that it's out in an in. So the idea is that it's like in the middle is just taking away or it's convex in the middle is additive. Uh-huh. Wait. No, you are people that think in extremes are convex thinkers. I'm going to put this in the cotton. The comments for anyone who's trying to. Oh, wait,

no, I can't do that on your stream. Sorry. Go to Vatalox blog with talox.ca slash general and we'll put in show notes convex and concav. Dispositions. Anyways, one of them one con one style of thinking is thinking in pragmatic terms saying like, okay, here's the one that's like seven different perspectives. Let's take the best out of each of them and then let's formulate an opinion based

on that. And the other one is like, well, let's pick one of the perspectives and let's maximize that one because that's how you get the best ROI. Bitcoiners tend to be the more extreme thinking ones and Ethereum tend to be with the more pragmatic thinking ones. And I think also status would be the pragmatic thinking type and crypto and our case or crypto civilization is or

Bitcoin. No, no, I completely disagree. So I don't know. I know about the Bitcoin reverse ethereum take. I think that that would take a lot more digging into, but I would push back very, very strong that status or pragmatic whatsoever. If anything, status are totalitarian. You cannot leave until you get the vaccine. You must wear a mask no matter what we don't care about the nuances

whatsoever. This is the top down decision. And this is the extreme answer. My answer is saying you don't fucking know we need to get as many opinions. We need to have maximized the amount of choice so we can arrive at the right decision as quickly as possible. Right. It's about maximizing optionality so we can find reality rather than top down decision making. Thank God the United

States has state rights. Thank God that I can leave California and I can go to Utah and that people can actually see other states not burning down to the ground and having different options. Right. So I don't know. I don't know how that fits into the context. I really push back that quote unquote status or in any way thinking about like getting lots of perspectives in

here. If anything, it's about like we've already cornered ourselves into a political decision and now we can't go back on it. There's no, there's no middle finding there at all. Okay, let's back up a little bit. Make sure the listeners are with us because we hopped into a debate that we hopped into the middle of the debate rather than starting at the center. And so I

believe that there is value in collective governance versus things that are really big problems. Big problems require big coordination to solve. And those big things would be like the coronavirus would be like climate change. Would be like pertinuclear proliferation like existential threats need like similarly large coordinated solutions. And therefore when it comes to things like coordinated coordination around coronavirus, top down like rules and laws. About

like certain businesses can or cannot open and people must or must not wear masks or must do something to like participate in society. That is it with specifically regards to a global pandemic, which is a large problem. Top down rules like this are appropriate and maximize value. They maximize is value as opposed to periphery computation risk computation on the periphery done by humans for each, you

know, each individual human calculate. They do their own risk for themselves when each human does that on the periphery. And we know this because this is what we call like a moleauk trap where there's like 10 fishermen around a lake. And the only way that the lake produces sustainable fish year after year after year, if they all agree to only fish 70% of their capacity. And

then, you know, they all agree to do that except for one. And then that one defects from the group and they fish at 100% of their capacity, which means they make all the money and everyone else is suffering. And that guy making all the money. So then they start fishing at 100% capacity and then they overfitch the lake and then the lake dies. Right. If that

is like the coordination failure, that's that top down centralized government tries to stop with laws. Right. And that's what we are trying to get stopped with coronavirus because it only works if everyone does it like public health is a public good. And it only is a beneficial safety net if we all pay into it. And the people that don't pay into it are rewriting off the

ones that do pay into it. Meaning like the people that are extra cautious, like our wearing masks and they're staying home more than others are taking more burden than others who are like out partying in Florida with like everyone else, you know, getting drunk and a pool. And so it's not fair. And so there are some in the same way that we were talking earlier. You

must go on and make them do what you want. Let me finish this off. And in the same way that like we were talking about ethmaxilism and BTC maximum. And then MNT maximumism like people that there can only be one, right? Because the choice to choose one reduces the power of the other. Therefore, it's like it's you kind of have you can't have it both ways.

You have to choose one because it impacts the power. And so when it comes to coronavirus, like we all kind of have to choose to like listen to the state. Because if we don't, there is no option to not do that because it just ruins the whole thing for everyone else. So you think you have the answer of how to coordinate of like what everyone needs

to do, right? I don't know. I've relegated my decision making to the state. That sounds like a personal choice. Okay. So now we need the we need to get everyone to do that effectively in order for your decision making process to work. Right. The state is the shelling point. Yeah. Okay. So but unless the state actually is the shelling point, then it's not a good method.

And nothing like the definition of insanity is doing something that doesn't work over and over again. So I get that you think that this is a good strategy. And I get that you think that, hey, we need to relegate to this maximally. I guess neutral entity that's supposed to organize us all. But guess what? The state has broken down. Guess what? There is no social consensus.

There is no social consensus. There is no social scalability around what the state is mandating. So I understand that it's a nice idea. And that you think it sounds great. But it doesn't work. It is actually broken. And the only way, just like what Rohan is saying, the only way for it to work is to destroy freedoms is to attack is to attack individuality. So and

it's attack rights and ability to conduct business. Look, I have a tweet here. From Republican Eric Solowell, who is he is a dad. He is part of the House Judiciary. Sorry. He's from California. He's a congressman from East Bay. He's part of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intel Committee. And the tweet is from March 3rd. Stop wearing face masks. Period. Hashtag coronavirus. So on

March 3rd, the person who works for the House Judiciary Committee. And the House Intel Committee is top down telling people to stop wearing masks. And this was a blanket initiative by everyone in the government. When the market knew we should wear masks. And then guess what? Then they flipped. They flipped right once they got their masks. Then they flipped. Oh, hey, guess what? You should wear

masks. We were just saying not to do that until we got all our masks for the government. They flipped on it. And then they completely politicized wearing masks. And then it no longer became about. Public health. It just became about totalitarian control. And it no longer became about the facts. And it no longer came about like what is best to. Hey, we need to virtue signal

some politics in order to do this thing. Like right now every single Bay Area City has shut down preemptively because they want to support Gavin Newsom. So Gavin Newsom said, hey, this is the shutdown threshold. And then all the Bay Area cities who weren't at that. But down threshold in order to signal effectively said every single small business go fuck yourself. Like how is that have

anything to do with the virus? How is that have anything to do with the best decision making process? How is that have anything to do with anything other than politics and totalitarianism? Yeah. So like what I was debating is like the theory of the state. And what you are bringing up is like, well, the actual where the actual rubber meets the road, which should like. I

agree. Like that's like you can't you can't like differentiate between the two because like communism is great in theory. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So agreed. Agreed. Um, however, at the end of the day, like let's let's say like, all right, then like fuck the state and state's not working. What we're ultimately going to do. Like and I don't even know what you do after that point.

But I'm assuming you need to after you say a fuck the state. We don't need the state anymore. You end up with a society. Maybe your local like community of people. And then you start to make some rules about how your community engages with each others. And then you're like, well, now we need somebody to enforce these rules. And so you hire like a local sheriff.

And then you just recreate the whole entire United States system from the ground up again. Like so it's actually not a viable solution to throw the state out at all either because like you're ultimately going, this is the rule. This is the system that you live inside of. Like you actually don't get to participate. If you're complaining about the incompetence of the state, you need to

vote in a way that makes it better. Not to say like, well, the state isn't working. So like I'm opting out because you don't actually get to opt out. The state isn't something that you can opt out of. Like you actually have to participate as like a civil part of the way it works. I would argue that best of what Bitcoin did is that made it

that the state is something that you can opt out of. And yes, every single fourth turning has ended with a reconstruction. But Bitcoin just let you opt out your money. Not everything else. You aren't your money. It needs a lot of it. Yeah, because now you're not about whether you're wearing masks are going to restaurants. That you know, but see that is is if a state

chooses to become overly bearing. People can opt out. And the friction to leaving is significantly lower because they can take their value with them. That is the revolution. And guess what? The if you can see like I would argue that what makes America great is not democracy. It's the state's rights. And you can see that people are leaving the blue states and they're going to the

red states. They're leaving totalitarianism. You don't see people flooding into New York. You don't see people flying to San Francisco. People are people are are choosing to take their value and move. And what is it turns the entire world into that. So this bubble that was the United States where people could have inner country jurisdiction. And the arbitrage Bitcoin opens the world up to that. That's

the revolution. That's what Bitcoin did. Bitcoin is not going to open up like mask free restaurants. It's not going to do. But what Bitcoin does is it gives you the option to go somewhere that that gives that option. That it drastically lowers the friction. I mean, if you live anywhere, you can sell everything you have liquidated into Bitcoin and leave. You know Elon Musk and who

is the other one? What's the other one? The other company that moves to Texas? I don't I mean, yeah, Tesla move to Tesla and like one other big big company. Oh, yeah, it was a way out. It was like one tech sales company. Yeah, sure for the for the rich. Like for the rich people that can afford it. That's the silly straw man that you're throwing

at what Bitcoin. I mean, and again, like Bitcoin does this. Ethereum die US DC. They all to some degree democratize it. Oh, like I don't know why fighting against me. This is what technology does. There's just no way in no world is like. It doesn't matter because you move to a new place and you still have the same sort of dynamics that you're always going to

have. There's still going to be community governance. There's still going to be top down control. And there's there's always going to be some human, fleshy element of how we choose to interact with each other. And they maybe sharpen the free market. The dynamics are changed. Sorry. I said, I agree that like the science of how to coordinate humans and humans delegating doesn't go away that I

believe that there will be small governments. It'll just be way more localized. And people again, we'll have the choice to leave. There won't be this kind of like you are stuck in Venezuela and you have to deal with Chavez and his regime, right? And honestly, it's never been easier to leave Chavez in his regime. So I mean, that's the whole point is you know, you now

have optionality to choose. Well, so I feel like with the whole migration out of like the blue states to the red states, there's no big point isn't involved in that conversation. That's just people doing things of their own incentives. Sure. Talk about how Bitcoin is relevant. But like if you're saying that that's a symptom of like the state like reorganizing itself or self correcting to be

what the people want, then that would be evidence for why the state is actually working at least slowly in the long term. Well, the United States in my opinion is one of the greatest nations, not because of democracy, because of states rights, which is a K a inner country jurisdictional arbitrage. Very few states you actually get that. It's just a straight top down decision making and

you can't leave whatever headhuncho says wherever they are. That's all you get in the US, you know, California Gavin Newsom can be an asshole. You can say, FU I'm going to Nevada. You can say FU I'm going to Arizona. Like you actually have optionality. US and what the and the US everyone runs on the dollar everyone runs on this same system. So theoretically, Bitcoin going into

the crypto world that puts you on a universal global monetary standard. And it readically that brings maybe not 100% of the same level of jurisdictional arbitrage to the world. But it brings a lot more jurisdictional arbitrage capabilities to the world. Right. I mean, that would be my argument. Like isn't that the whole point of what we're doing. Yeah. No, you're right. I remember Demetri Confiness was

interviewing a defi guy for Vance Benzer from Framework Ventures on his podcast, Hidden Horses. And he talked about like how he thought he saw the main value proposition of defi is is regulatory arbitrage and the ability to like create stuff on defi that's outside the state. Right. Outside of any sort of regulations. And he says like, like, you know, all the whole like defi narratives aren't

really compelling to us. To him, what's really compelling him is just like the the speed of innovation because of the regulatory arbitrage. So yeah, yeah, I would say we're aligned there. Regulatory arbitrage. So Bitcoin is the innovation, the tool that enables regulatory arbitrage regulatory arbitrage is the revolution. Like you can't question is the evolution. All of this technology, the only thing it does enable individuals, organizers,

organizations to take advantage of regulatory arbitrage in a more cheap manner. It takes the, the guarantees that were once provided by the state, it turns it into a globally neutral protocol. And then it allows people to say, Hey, fuck this state. I'm going to another state because I can rely on this portion of my assurances to come from this protocol, no matter when. That's what and

then that allows you to choose which jurisdiction you want to deal with. That changes the world. That's the whole thing is by sovereign individual. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's right. That's right. It's also kind of why I think like the future of the crypto blockchain world will be a multi polar world because the ease of spinning up new jurisdictions is going to be extremely liquid. It's going

to there's going to be very liquid jurisdictions. And so there's infinite varieties of jurisdictions to migrate to. This is what Bellagio is talking about with his whole like crypto civilization thing. Yeah. Did you read my sovereign company thesis? I did. Yes, I did. I did. Yeah. My main qual, qualm with your sovereign company thesis is that all that infrastructure is probably more attractive if it was

D5. All the same thesis, but D5 behind it instead of Bitcoin. I mean, but that's just a falsity because Bitcoin is a more liquid monetary unit. So if a business needs financial infrastructure, D5 will serve it better than just Bitcoin. All of D5 will serve it better than just Bitcoin. Yes, that's that's not true because all of D5 is not more liquid than just Bitcoin. But

there's more optionality and just tools. That's actually not true because it's less liquid and liquidity is what money is the tool of its it's a liquid. It's a liquidity tool. Doesn't need all the liquidity. It just needs to tap into it. There's nothing. Nothing needs all of the liquidity. Okay. First and foremost, money needs to be half of every single trade. It is a dominant thing

when they take all. Okay, I think we both believe that that's a fact. Secondly, for something to be money, it has to be the most liquid good. Thirdly, if something is the most liquid good, that makes it the most useful. It's a very important thing to do is to have financial instrument in the world today and ever in history and forever moving forward. So again, if

something is money, it will be more useful than whatever financial infrastructure is D5 absent moneyness. Okay. But with all that, D5 like the sovereign individual, the sovereign company thesis is not like exclusive of D5. It's just that you can build on the on the alternative system and exit. Right. Yeah. And infinitely exitable and and intrancible systems. Yes. Sure. Or yeah, you can just establish yourself across

multiple jurisdictions, serve the internet using the global rails and kind of live outside of, you know, any one system or anyone jurisdiction. Yeah, but you're still subject to like police forces and armies. Like depending on how big of a company you'll get like you'll still get like a dude with a rifle knocking on your door. If push comes to shove. I'm not here to say, you

know, what structure will create a super sovereign resistant company, but I do bring up the case study of BitMex and the US didn't take big max down. So it also is BitMex still really alive though. They are so operating everyone who operate that company is free and rich. And I mean, their customers got their funds that like they. They retired on their terms. They retired on

their terms. They did not go down. BitMex is no longer a thing if they retired. BitMex as an institution is not the institution it won't want it once was. Okay, let's talk about the reality of what just happened is the US tried to take an institution down in that institution. Yeah, maybe it is injured, but it is in no way dead, right? The only institutions that

were able to handle that kind of attack prior to Bitcoin. So that was BitMex, a company plus Bitcoin equals nation state status. Okay, so make them invincible. But guess what? It just completely changed the return on violence. The return on violence is completely been is has been neutered. So that's again, this is the am I giving you a a frickin lesson in the sovereign individual? Because

that's the whole thesis. Yeah, yeah, it's important. I have no, you know, as we know it, no longer exists. So like if the goal is to build a anti fragile institution, like I don't see evidence there. I do see evidence for all the incentives to produce something like this. BitMex and then get rich and then also like stay rich, even though the state didn't like that.

That I do agree with. But if you're if you're arguing that BitMex is still alive and healthy, it's like no, it's it's dead. It died. Death that the United States government wanted it to die. Like the United States won that fight. I would say that the United States shot their shot and they showed that they are not as strong as they can appear. And every single

bit, that Max competitor is a lot stronger now because of it. That's probably true. And guess what? And the D5. So if you're talking about is Bitcoin beating the state? Yes, permissionless innovation is freaking winning. Yes, absolutely. So now there's seven other BitX competitors and there's the frickin hydra of and the mother of all shitcoin exchanges, AKD fi. So, you know, it's like, you know, take

down one head four other heads up here. So I mean, why am I? On the side of the sovereign company thesis, why I'm on the side of jurisdictions are not going to be able to stop permissionless innovation. It's because I mean, that's obvious. Yeah. So it's been it only is true for founders like Arthur Hayes, who's like, ready and okay and to not ever go back

to the United States. Like you do lose in in the real world sense because again, there is no getting away from like police force. There's always police everywhere. Yeah, I mean, like, this is why, you know, when I say that, Ethereum's are status and communist that I'm constantly having to defend, you know, free market forces versus state forces. Okay. Yeah. Okay. He has to take the

sacrifice, not coming back to the United States. But guess what? The United States is becoming less and less pleasant of a place to be as the state continues to grow. Yeah. So I mean, it's becoming a sweeter deal. Get more growth by leaving the US. Yeah. I don't, I don't disagree. I'm a yes indeed. Thanks for playing devil's advocate. I think I'm pretty good at that

actually. Somebody who can actually resonate with Rohan Gray, I think I'm actually pretty good at like seeing, seeing both sides. So I mean, like in your mind, right? So obviously like I have an extreme point of view. Right. I think, you know, I think that pushing innovation to the edges is the way to go and that that is an inevitable force that is happening. What does

the next 10 years look like for you? Like you're pushing, you are, you are advocating for permission to send a nation. You're teaching people about it. Know its power. Like why do you think that a centralized institution can stop it or you know, get away? I think I would be a Rohan. I would be like the status government type because I actually once was like before

I was smart and when I was naive, I wore CCCP T-shirts to middle school. So like I do have that, I did have that energy in me. The talent. This is where that that tweet came from. You're wondering. I also didn't understand what it was when I was 13. So don't pat yourself on the back too hard. But I think that's what I'm saying. I think

if the United States or a top down centralized government illustrated faster iteration and quicker movements and more progressive, just straight up innovation in like state management, then I would probably be a government worker. Right. If that's where like the pace of innovation was, then I would be into like proliferating that via the state tools. But that's always happening. Right. I do not believe that. I do

not believe that we are going to be able to vote our way out of our problems. I don't see that as a possibility. One reason why I really like to Andrew Yang for president was because like, I think one vote of voting yes to pay a $2,000 a month dividend would be like a relatively easy vote with a large ROI. And like stuff like that I

think is worth fighting for. That's like state is stuff that I believe in. But when it comes to like long term progress and innovation, like it's not coming from the state. Like the state we aren't coordinating our way. We're going to be able to get a lot of money out of these problems like in a head on fashion. I don't believe the trajectory doesn't indicate that

and show that. And I don't think there's any other alternative other than the state other than like what you're advocating for, which is innovation on the edges, innovation on the periphery. There's only innovation at the center or innovation at the periphery. I don't think there's any such thing as innovation in the middle. I don't know what that is. And so therefore like it's up to the

periphery to solve our problems. And so like I'm interested in expanding the periphery as fast as possible. So problems can start to be solved. All of a sudden it sounds like you agree with me. Yeah, totally. So I guess okay. It's not it's not either or. Okay. So some problems can be solved in a centralized manner. So okay. So this this is where I think you

know I guess I I'll come around to your concave versus convex terminology is I'm saying. Let's stop fucking wasting our time. With this horseshit and like led smooth towards an optimal solution. And although there's compromises in that direction. I understand that's not going to be perfect. You know, that's the reality. But you're willing to play both ends, right? You're willing to say let me go full

status. Now and let me go full market in the future. At the same time. Yeah. There are some things where we can go full status, which are the things that we need to get done so that we can be appropriately enabled and have the capacity to go full crypto and Arcus crypto civilization full innovation on the edges. Yes. Like every every single ID log or ideology,

whether it's crypto andarchy or whatever or a status. Needs to go after the low hanging fruit. And if they all do that, then everything works out. And that's what I believe in. I believe in state low hanging fruit for status and I believe in low hanging fruit for the opposite of that. I'm just trying to be consistent. Yeah. But I have to say I do kind

of come around to what you're saying. It's impossible to be completely one without being an absolute lunatic. Right. Like if you are 100% bit corner, like Bitcoin, Maxi and zero percent status, like literally at the moment with the craziest of extremes where you're like you're not paying taxes. You are like you don't comply with traffic laws. Like you do you turn into a crazy individual. Like

even even Pierre Rashard, like still drives on the right side of the road. And he still stops at red lights. Like he still follows the rules of the state. Like no matter how like crazy Bitcoin or Maxi, you want to become like you're still going to like follow laws. Okay. But our laws because of the state or is laws just a social scalability thing. Right. And

like yeah, you can decide like, Hey, I want to be socially scalable without like quote unquote giving up all of my freedoms. Right. So I mean, it's a nuance. It's a nuance debate. Of course. We've been rolling for a minute here. Do we want to keep going on this? Like again, this is a lot more philosophical. I have one last thing to bring up and then

we can wrap it up. I'm reading this book called Your Next Government. And it starts off with a really compelling intro where it talks about how if you want to ask or if you want to figure out what the most valuable thing in the world is. The answer according to this book, if depending on how you like draft it up is the rule of law. Whereas

like the countries that have established rule of law are the most valuable. And Nick Carter wrote about this actually not too long ago in an article where he talked about just the association with like the way that people follow laws and GDP and GDP growth follows the rule of law. And like one thing I'm bullish on is like a theory of Bitcoin. What are they other

than just like their own native rules of law that people opt to opt into, right? That's what they are. But also the nation state also provides rule of law. And so like it's worth cultivating both the nation state and Bitcoin at the same time. These things can be done in parallel. This is where I would push back is we have entered into the realm where nation

states are also the ones who break the rule of law the most. Right. They break the common law. They break the expectation. Yeah. Okay. So, okay. But okay, then that that's where the that's where the issues emerge. If the nation state was perfectly consistent on the rule of law, then I would agree that, hey, let's call it a rule of law. We can cultivate the nation

state in order to cultivate the rule of law. But no, what we're our goal is to cultivate assurances, to cultivate the like socially show so scalability across time and across people and across generations in the most fair way possible. And I would argue that the nation state, although maybe in some point in time provided that beyond what was available now is the biggest culprit. It's constantly

the one who's violating rule law, human rights, all of those things. So I don't know. Like I personally think that we're getting to post democracy. We're getting to post. We're getting to a new nation state level because technology is driving us in that direction. Well, I think if you think that the nation state is furthest off from from responding and resonating with the rule of law,

then that is actually where we should put our attention to because it's the biggest problem. Like the biggest problem is that the nation state should follow the rule of law and they aren't doing that. And so when it comes to like cultivation, Bitcoin is going to happen on its own. And like we doesn't need cultivating. It's going to march its way into success. The nation state

needs cultivating. And so maybe as like our civic duties as people that inhabit this planet, it's actually our duty to cultivate the nation state because it's the one with the biggest problem. That's what I feel like that's a fair alternative worldview. Is this one that's asking for help? We can just let it burn burn die and start off with a new one, you know. You got

burn it down sometime, bro. You're not wrong. You do have to burn it down sometimes. Alright. Yeah, if you like, if you like, nuanced conversations that go beyond Bitcoin and even our reasonable expertise, subscribe to a POV crypto. Make sure to follow me at ck underscore snarks and at Bitcoin.com. I'm gonna follow me at trustless state, both on Twitter and on thankless. Thanks everyone for tuning

in. We'll you to see. We'll you to see. We'll you to see. We'll never grow in order. We'll never grow in order. Sarah Blan 2