#866 Bitcoin Is A National Strategic Defense Issue w/ Jason Lowery

Jason Lowery is a member of the U. S. Space Force and is a National Defense Fellow at M. I. T. In this conversation, we discuss Bitcoin, its role as a National Defense strategy, and how it all relates to the current conflict overseas. ======================= Bitcoin 2022 is the LARGEST Bitcoin event in the world that takes place April 6th - 9th in Miami Beach, Florida. All four days will be jammed-packed with exclusive content, exciting announcements and an incredible lineup of bitcoin speakers, artists and leaders. Day 1 is INDUSTRY DAY for enterprising bitcoiners who are looking to build a business or career within the ecosystem. Days 2 and 3 are general conference days featuring speakers like El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, CEOs like Michael Saylor, Elizabeth Stark, Jack Mallers, Adam Back and hundreds more. The conference caps off on the fourth day with the world's first and largest Bitcoin Music Festival - Sound Money Fest headlined by rapper and fellow bitcoiner Logic, featuring artists K. Flay, MØ, Royal & the Serpent, Apashe, Asadi and more. Stay tuned for the upcoming lineup announcement! Last year’s conference SOLD OUT and this year’s is on pace to be 3x larger so make sure you grab your tickets before it's too late. Visit http://b.tc/conference to learn more. Ticket prices increase on JAN 14th, use promo code POMP for 10% off and I will see you in Miami!ire ecosystem bringing utility to #NFTs. ======================= Brave Wallet is the first secure crypto wallet built natively in a web3 crypto browser. No extension required. Store, manage, and grow your portfolio, get NFT & multi-chain support, and more. Download the Brave privacy browser at brave.com/Pomp, and click the wallet icon to get started. =======================

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:02Anthony Pompliano?

  What's up everyone, this is Anthony Pompliano. Most of you know me as Pomp. You're listening to the Pomp Podcast, simply the best podcast out there. Now let's kick this thing off. Jason Lowery is a US National Defense Fellow researching Bitcoin. He's also an active member of the United States Space Force. In this conversation, we talk about Bitcoin, national defense, proof of work mining, and the importance of Bitcoin in a changing geopolitical landscape. Jason's one of the great minds of Bitcoin, and I'm glad that he's here in the industry and publicly sharing many of his thoughts. I really enjoyed this episode, and I hope that you enjoy it as well. Before we get into this episode, though, I want to quickly talk about our sponsors. This episode is brought to you by FTX US. FTX.us is the safe, regulated way to buy

• 0:45Anthony Pompliano?

  and sell Bitcoin and other digital assets. You can trade crypto with up to 85% lower fees than top competitors. There are no fixed minimum fees, no ACH transaction fees, and no withdrawal fees either. FTX.us is also the only leading exchange that supports both Ethereum and Solana NFTs. Download the FTX app today and use referral code Pomp to earn these free crypto on every trade over $10. The more you trade, the more you earn. Go download the FTX app today and use referral code Pomp. Today's episode is brought to you by Brave. Brave Wallet is the first secure crypto wallet built natively in a Web3 crypto browser. What's Web3? Web3 is freedom from big tech

• 1:27Anthony Pompliano?

  and Wall Street. More control and better privacy. But there's a weak point in Web3, your crypto wallet. Most wallets are browser extensions, a Web2 technology. That means the same old risks, app spoofing, phishing scams, and theft. Brave Wallet is different. Brave Wallet is the first secure wallet built natively in a Web3 crypto browser. No extension required. With Brave Wallet, you can buy, store, send, and swap assets, manage NFTs, even connect other wallets and dApps, all from the security of the best privacy browser on the market. Whether you're new to crypto or a seasoned pro, it's time to ditch those risky extensions. It's time to switch to Brave Wallet. Download Brave at brave.com/pomp and click the wallet icon to get started. Again, go download Brave.

• 2:10Anthony Pompliano?

  At brave.com/pomp and click the wallet icon to get started. Today's episode is sponsored by the Bitcoin 2022 Conference. Bitcoin 2022 is the largest Bitcoin event in the world that takes place April 6th through the 9th in Miami Beach, Florida. All four days will be jam packed with exclusive content, exciting announcements, and an incredible lineup of Bitcoin speakers, artists, and leaders. Day one is Industry Day for enterprising Bitcoiners who are looking to build a business or career within the ecosystem. Days two and three are general conference days featuring speakers like El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, CEOs like Michael Saylor, Elizabeth Stark, Jack Mahlers, Adam Back, and hundreds more. The conference caps off on the fourth day with the world's first and largest Bitcoin

• 2:52Anthony Pompliano?

  music festival, Sound Money Fest, headlined by rapper and fellow Bitcoiner Logic, featuring artists K. Flay, Mo, Royal, and The Serpent, Apache, Asadi, and more. Stay tuned for the upcoming lineup announcement. Last year's conference sold out, and this year's is on pace to be three times larger, so make sure you grab your tickets before it's too late. Visit b.tc/conference to learn more. Again, that's b.tc/conference to learn more. Ticket prices increase on January 14th. Use promo code POMP for 10% off, and I will see you in Miami. All right, let's get into this episode. I hope you guys enjoy this one.

• 3:28Speaker 01

  Anthony Pompliano runs Pomp Investments. All views of him and the guests on his podcast are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of Pomp Investments. You should not treat any opinion expressed by Pomp or his guests as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression of his personal opinion. This podcast is for informational purposes only.

• 3:51Anthony Pompliano?

  All right, we've got Jason here with us. Jason, what's going on, man? How are you?

• 3:55Speaker 02

  Good. Hey, Joe. Hey, John.

• 3:56Anthony Pompliano?

  Jason, how are you? We're super excited, man. We've got a lot to go through. You ready?

• 4:01Speaker 02

  Yeah, I'm ready if you're ready.

• 4:02Anthony Pompliano?

  All right, let's start first with, I want to kind of set the scene before we start talking about some of the nuances of Bitcoin, proof of work, national defense, etc. Obviously, this stuff's really hard to talk about. It's complex, there's all sorts of nomenclature that is very specific. People interpret different terms, different ideas differently. Help us understand just like how you think about talking about this stuff and the language that's used as we kind of go into the conversation.

• 4:30Speaker 02

  Yeah, so this is where my background comes in really handy. So I'm an astronautical engineer in the Space Force. And my and also a National Defense Fellow at MIT. So my job is quite literally to understand the emerging technologies out there and how they could affect national security in the future. And in previous jobs, for example, when I worked at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, my job would be to basically reverse engineer foreign electronic warfare systems, explain their significance to diverse audiences who who don't have backgrounds in electronic

• 5:13Speaker 02

  warfare, to include the POTUS Daily Intel Brief. So I know a thing or two about explaining the strategic implications of emerging technology to policymakers. And so when I came to MIT, that was my goal from the very beginning. We were, as a National Defense Fellow, I'm required to understand or write about the strategic implications of emerging technology. And I chose Bitcoin specifically for reasons that we'll talk about during this podcast. But the bottom line there is, when it comes to explaining any technology, even the easiest and most simple technology, it's actually really, really awkward and really difficult to do.

• 5:58Speaker 02

  And I have, I thought it would be fun to to prove this, to prove how awkward it is to explain how technology works by basically quizzing you, if you'll let me.

• 6:08Anthony Pompliano?

  I mean, I don't think I could say no. I didn't know we were gonna do this, but let's try.

• 6:12Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 6:13Anthony Pompliano?

  This, by the way, is me getting absolutely demolished. I'm gonna call it in advance of an MIT National Defense Fellow and a active Space Force. Now I'm interested in seeing what Jason pulls up here. Go ahead.

• 6:28Speaker 02

  So all the brothers should participate in this.

• 6:31Anthony Pompliano?

  Okay, so here's. Little game show. There you go, smart asses.

• 6:34Speaker 02

  So I just went around to my house and picked up some technology, and I want you to explain to me the significance of this technology. So here's technology number one.

• 6:43Anthony Pompliano?

  What is that, sugar?

• 6:46Speaker 02

  This is, it's cinnamon and sugar inside.

• 6:49Anthony Pompliano?

  All right.

• 6:52Speaker 03

  Basically, it makes the food taste well, uh, taste good and, and also preserves the food for long periods of time.

• 7:01Speaker 02

  So you're describing what the technology does. Explain to me what this technology is.

• 7:06Speaker 03

  It is a cylinder with a hole, with a cap that has holes that gradually let the substance through.

• 7:14Speaker 02

  Okay. So that's, that's better. That's better. You're talking about the form of this technology. It's a clear cylinder. It's a clear container of some kind with holes in the top. And what's the purpose of the holes?

• 7:26Speaker 03

  To let the substance flow through.

• 7:28Speaker 02

  When I turn it upside down, it'll come out and it'll make a mess. But you'll notice that when it comes out, it's a gradual flow, right? By constraining the flow, when I turn this thing upside down, it comes out at a smooth, predictable pace. So what's the value of this technology in our life?

• 7:44Speaker 03

  Well, it depends on what the economic output is that you get from using it.

• 7:48Speaker 02

  Yeah, it has different values.

• 7:52Speaker 03

  I'm one for two.

• 7:54Speaker 02

  It has different value to depending on how you use it for. If I fill this with salt, it has different value. If I fill this with pepper, it's got different value. If I fill it with cinnamon and sugar, the value that this brings to my life is it makes a nice even flow of cinnamon and sugar on my toast. But, but if you didn't have history to tell you this, and, and this was the first time you'd ever seen this technology, it would have been harder. So that was test number one. I'm going to test you again.

• 8:23Speaker 03

  Fantastic.

• 8:24Speaker 02

  Same technology, same form. Now explain this to me.

• 8:29Speaker 03

  Oh, that's time.

• 8:31Speaker 02

  What are you talking about? What, what is this technology? Describe what it is, not what it does.

• 8:35Speaker 03

  It's two symmetrical cylinders that allow another substance to flow through at an even rate.

• 8:43Speaker 02

  Okay. So what's the difference?

• 8:46Anthony Pompliano?

  Number of holes is the difference, uh, shape is a difference. Made out of the same material for the most part.

• 8:53Speaker 02

  Yeah. So instead of a bunch of holes, it's got a single hole. And that hole is created by basically pinching the container. And so when I spill this upside down, it falls on the floor or on my toast because I want it to. When I turn this upside down, that flow of particle on the inside is captured. Okay. So obviously the value that this brings to our life versus this is that we don't lose what's in here. Right? That must be the value. Cause that's the difference.

• 9:25Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 9:26Speaker 02

  But is that actually the value that it brings to our lives?

• 9:28Anthony Pompliano?

  No.

• 9:30Speaker 02

  What is the value that it brings to our life? How would you know?

• 9:34Anthony Pompliano?

  It's how they're used.

• 9:37Speaker 02

  Okay. Keep going.

• 9:39Anthony Pompliano?

  I, I don't know, man. I got C's and D's in school.

• 9:44Speaker 02

  So, so these are basic technologies and it's awkward, already awkward.

• 9:49Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct. It's difficult. It's difficult to unpack, not just in the way that we talk about in everyday life, but actually to, in some way, uh, view them both from an engineering standpoint of the actual technology form factor, but also in the application of that engineering.

• 10:07Speaker 02

  By taking this, by putting one hole and capturing it on the other side. We, the value that this brings into our lives transcends the parts. It's more than the sum of its parts. We create this magical property where we can now partition time itself. We can transform sand into time itself and track the passage of time. Time to come and time past. That is amazing. That is miraculous by just this simple thing. But if you go around and you talk about what technology is, literally what technology is, and not the emergent property of that technology, the value it brings to our lives,

• 10:49Speaker 02

  you will draw very different conclusions about what this technology is useful for. Would you agree?

• 10:56Anthony Pompliano?

  I would definitely agree.

• 10:58Speaker 02

  And so now take this problem, but take it away and make it software. So it's invisible. Now you have to describe how software works, what its form, what its emergent properties are. And that gets really freaking hard, really fast.

• 11:12Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 11:13Speaker 02

  Right? It becomes triple awkward because technically, the function of all software is identical. It is simply to sell, to tell a discrete state machine what state to be in, zero or one. That's what all software does, right? That's, that's exactly its purpose. Okay? And technically, the form, so not only the form is the same also. So the form of technology is just a set of instructions to tell a state machine what to do. So that gets super confusing, right? And, and by the way, everything, everything that we use to describe software, to include programming language,

• 11:55Speaker 02

  to include this idea of while loops and for loops and routines and subroutines and clouds, right? Or containers and all the things that we use are just abstractions. They're just metaphors because the literal form of software is just instructions that tell a discrete state machine what to do. So we have to formulate these abstractions, which may not be accurate. The cloud is not really a cloud.

• 12:20Anthony Pompliano?

  Just someone else's computer.

• 12:21Speaker 02

  It's just how we deal with that complexity. Okay, so there's two more technologies that I want to quiz you on. Are you ready?

• 12:29Anthony Pompliano?

  Yeah, I guess.

• 12:30Speaker 02

  Because we're gonna, we're gonna take the awkward game up a notch.

• 12:33Anthony Pompliano?

  Okay.

• 12:34Speaker 02

  Because we're gonna get into a politically sensitive technology.

• 12:37Anthony Pompliano?

  Oh, amazing.

• 12:38Speaker 03

  Fantastic.

• 12:39Anthony Pompliano?

  There's not a controversy we didn't like on this show. Go ahead.

• 12:42Speaker 02

  Explain to me what this does.

• 12:45Anthony Pompliano?

  Oh, that's a killing machine.

• 12:49Speaker 02

  That's one way to look at it.

• 12:51Anthony Pompliano?

  Right now.

• 12:51Speaker 03

  Well, it's a sharp blade that has a multitude of.

• 12:55Speaker 04

  It's a sharp blade with a, what is that, a rubber handle or something?

• 12:58Speaker 02

  Yeah, hard plastic.

• 13:00Speaker 04

  Hard plastic, yeah.

• 13:00Speaker 02

  So do I use this to chop up my salad?

• 13:04Anthony Pompliano?

  Probably not.

• 13:05Speaker 02

  Right. What do I use this for?

• 13:07Anthony Pompliano?

  I mean, violence.

• 13:09Speaker 02

  So if I'm, I used to live in Vandenberg, if I'm taking a hike in the mountains of Vandenberg, you want this thing on your side because you're probably gonna see a mountain lion while you're out there. So, okay, so, so first of all, let's describe what this technology is.

• 13:27Speaker 02

  It's a hunk of metal.

• 13:28Anthony Pompliano?

  Yep.

• 13:29Speaker 02

  And if you apply energy to it, it converts energy into what we'll call property defense.

• 13:36Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 13:37Speaker 02

  So this is a hunk of metal. I apply some energy to it with my hand and I have a way to physically stop attackers, whether it be a mountain lion or whether it be someone else, a person, right? Would you agree that's an empirically accurate way of describing this technology?

• 13:53Anthony Pompliano?

  I would.

• 13:54Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 13:54Anthony Pompliano?

  I'm also impressed that you're gonna fight a mountain lion with a knife, but.

• 13:59Speaker 02

  Well, let's be real, I'll lose.

• 14:01Anthony Pompliano?

  Keep going.

• 14:03Speaker 02

  Maybe if it's like really small or something.

• 14:06Speaker 02

  I'm in the Space Force, I'm not in the, I'm not in the Army. Let's just put it that way. So, so, uh, but the point is, this technology has a form. The form is a hunk of metal. I apply some energy to it. I'm able to not only physically stop attackers, but also deter them. I flash this thing and maybe someone will back off because they know I'm in, I'm threatening harm to them, or I, I'm, I'm showing that it will be cost prohibitive to try to attack me. You might be able to succeed. The mountain lion might be able to get me, but not without a couple of cuts along the way.

• 14:39Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 14:40Speaker 02

  Okay. Explain to me what this technology is.

• 14:44Anthony Pompliano?

  Geez, that is a, uh, a piece of metal that has a lot of energy applied to it very rapidly and seems to be unstoppable in many cases.

• 14:57Speaker 02

  Okay. Would you agree this is a hunk of metal that converts energy into property defense?

• 15:02Anthony Pompliano?

  Yes. Very, very accurate. For those who are just listening, by the way, he's holding up a gun.

• 15:11Speaker 02

  Okay. So I put some energy into this thing. Energy is contained, not in my arm, but contained in this capsule.

• 15:17Anthony Pompliano?

  Yep.

• 15:17Speaker 02

  Right. I put some energy into this thing and I can stab people with the, with the bullet at the front of it, right? So it's.

• 15:24Anthony Pompliano?

  It's basically a knife at, uh, arm's length away.

• 15:28Speaker 02

  Yeah. So, so now in this awkward conversation of, of trying to explain how technology works, even when we can see it, even when it's clear, even when we have intuitive understanding, because this technology has, is older than all of us. So we, we were born and raised understanding what this technology is for. It's still hard to describe.

• 15:45Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 15:46Speaker 02

  Because these have the same function, but they have completely different form.

• 15:52Speaker 02

  Okay, so is the knife the same as the gun?

• 15:55Anthony Pompliano?

  In form, no, but in the function of defensive property rights, it is.

• 16:00Speaker 02

  Exactly. So now I've shown you two examples.

• 16:03Anthony Pompliano?

  MIT needs to give me a freaking degree.

• 16:08Speaker 02

  Right? Similar form, very different function. Would you agree?

• 16:12Anthony Pompliano?

  Yes.

• 16:13Speaker 02

  Okay. Similar function, very different form. Would you agree?

• 16:18Anthony Pompliano?

  Yes, the gun and the knife are very similar functions, but different forms.

• 16:23Speaker 02

  Okay, so when that happens, we give it another name. Let's call this a weapon. Would you agree they're both weapons?

• 16:28Anthony Pompliano?

  Yes.

• 16:29Speaker 02

  So we use the term weapon to show that these things have similar function, albeit different form. Now, have you ever heard the term, "Don't bring this to a this fight"?

• 16:41Anthony Pompliano?

  Yep, don't bring a knife to a gunfight, of course.

• 16:43Speaker 02

  Why? Why is that an idiom? Why do people say that?

• 16:46Anthony Pompliano?

  Well, the gun may be a little bit more effective at the violent conflict than the knife is.

• 16:52Speaker 02

  So let's use less politically sensitive terms, because when I say the word violence on Twitter, things don't go well.

• 16:59Anthony Pompliano?

  Yeah.

• 17:01Speaker 02

  So which one is cheaper?

• 17:04Anthony Pompliano?

  Which one is cheaper? Well, it depends on what gun you buy, but probably the knife.

• 17:08Speaker 02

  This is about 100 times more expensive than this one. Which one uses more energy?

• 17:13Anthony Pompliano?

  The gun does.

• 17:14Speaker 02

  So it's more expensive and uses more energy.

• 17:18Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct, but it's more effective.

• 17:20Speaker 02

  Right, and so we can measure that effectiveness through a term that we call power. We can literally measure the watts that I can project by stabbing, and I realize how ridiculous I look right now.

• 17:34Speaker 02

  I'm looking forward to the thumbnails on this.

• 17:39Speaker 02

  But, but the point is, this is way more powerful than this.

• 17:42Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 17:43Speaker 02

  Which is why you would never want to bring this to a this fight, right? You would never want to bring a knife to a gunfight, especially if your adversary, especially if someone else is trying to, who is trying to take your property from you, is carrying this, not a knife. Okay, do you understand that concept?

• 17:58Anthony Pompliano?

  Yes.

• 17:59Speaker 02

  Pretty straightforward.

• 18:00Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 18:01Speaker 02

  Okay, so, so some might call these, I think it's also an accurate way to call this a denial of service countermeasure. If someone's trying to deny you service to your property, this is a countermeasure against it. Would you agree?

• 18:15Anthony Pompliano?

  Yes.

• 18:16Speaker 02

  It's, it's, it's pretty effective.

• 18:18Anthony Pompliano?

  Hopefully only used in a time where the denial of service is very, very, very serious. Not just John can't get McNuggets at McDonald's.

• 18:25Speaker 02

  That's a great point. So let's talk about that. If you want to defend something, you've got three options. The first option, the most energy efficient, the most cheap option to defend your property is a concept we call trust. I will simply trust my neighbor.

• 18:42Anthony Pompliano?

  Yep.

• 18:43Speaker 02

  Not, right? It's very energy efficient to do that. That's why, that's why trust is so important in, in societies. If you have a, a high trust society, you have a very efficient society. But, but there's something wrong with trust. There's a security flaw with trust. Okay, it's if, if your neighbor decides to break your trust, you have no way to defend yourself. You have to find a way to project power to defend yourself. So your other two options for defending your property are you defend yourself through this technology or you hire someone to defend you through this technology.

• 19:22Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 19:22Speaker 02

  Does that make sense?

• 19:23Anthony Pompliano?

  Yep, either self-defense or you have police, security, whatever it is.

• 19:27Speaker 02

  Exactly. So this to me, the reason why I'm carrying this is for self-defense. I don't trust my neighbor. Actually, let's say this, I do trust my neighbor, but this is how I verify, right?

• 19:37Anthony Pompliano?

  Yes.

• 19:37Speaker 02

  Right? If, if they break my trust, to your earlier point, if they break my trust, this is how I verify that I still have the means to defend myself. Okay. And, and it's not just a deterrence mechanism. I can literally physically stop the attacker. I'll give them one courtesy shot over the shoulder out of respect for their life. But the second one's not going over the shoulder. That's how you can guarantee that you are in a zero trust position. You have zero trust and egalitarian control over the property that you're trying to defend. If you do not have this mechanism or some other form of the same mechanism, you do not have zero trust control. You must find a hunk of metal that converts energy into defense.

• 20:20Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 20:21Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 20:23Speaker 02

  So explain to me, this is the final, final challenge. Are you ready?

• 20:28Anthony Pompliano?

  Yeah, I can't wait.

• 20:30Speaker 02

  Okay.

• 20:30Anthony Pompliano?

  The last time you did this, you pulled up a gun.

• 20:34Anthony Pompliano?

  Oh, this time you pulled up a digital defense mechanism, which is a Bitcoin miner. What is that, a Bitmain? What is that, S19?

• 20:42Speaker 02

  I don't actually have a real one, so I had to print off a picture. If anyone wants to donate me a broken one for my, for the school, you're welcome to do so. But this technology, would you agree, it's empirically valid to say this technology is a hunk of metal that converts energy to property defense?

• 20:58Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct, and probably does it better than anything else in the world.

• 21:02Speaker 02

  Okay, so what do we call something that has the same function, but a different form?

• 21:06Anthony Pompliano?

  A weapon.

• 21:08Speaker 02

  I'll let you decide.

• 21:11Speaker 02

  Because when I, when I wear, you know, when the US National Defense Fellow goes on air with approval from the Pentagon, wearing a uniform, to talk about Bitcoin as a weapon system, it's extremely controversial to do that. I'm the first and only one that I know of in any academic institution that is treating Bitcoin this way. And I started this well before the national strategic military implications of this technology showed itself on the world stage so clearly.

• 21:44Anthony Pompliano?

  So what are those? Hold on a second. This is important. Explain a little bit about, without getting into any one of the current situations, explain a little bit as to how you think about the national strategic defense implications of Bitcoin itself, from like a US perspective?

• 22:03Speaker 02

  Well, this is where it comes down to this conversation that we talked about earlier. Form, software is tricky. Everything about software is hard. It's invisible. It's inherently unintuitive. It's complex and confusing. The size and complexity of software scales to the point where it can have infinite states. It can be, it's like Proteus, it can take any shape and it can run through, like every time a software runs a new subroutine, it's technically a wholly different thing. And you can have thousands of subroutines in a single piece of software. Two people can have two different abstractions and both be correct when they describe the form and function of software, remember? Because these are just abstractions.

• 22:45Speaker 02

  Like, software is only a set of instructions that tells a discrete state machine what to do. So if you call it gold, but I call it a gun, neither of us are technically incorrect. More importantly, software can perform two functions at once.

• 23:00Speaker 02

  Okay, so I get accused all the time of being a hammer that looks like, that looks at Bitcoin like it's a nail.

• 23:06Anthony Pompliano?

  Hmm.

• 23:07Speaker 02

  And but, but the implication being, well, obviously, it's a monetary system. So, so the screwdrivers are calling it a screw. The hammer's calling it a nail, and people don't understand that it can be both things at once, at the same time. It's software. That's how.

• 23:22Anthony Pompliano?

  It is both things at once.

• 23:24Speaker 02

  Well, so, and so, so, you remember, your question was about explaining the national strategic implications of Bitcoin. If you want to understand it, don't look at the software. Look at the hardware piece. Look at the thing that everyone can see. Okay, this is how you describe the national strategic implications of Bitcoin. This is how you explain why there is no replacement for Bitcoin. People, both animals and people have been trying to search for a substitute for this. Humans have been doing it for 200,000 years.

• 23:57Anthony Pompliano?

  Hmm.

• 23:58Speaker 02

  Okay, a way to defend their property more effectively. And by the way, the more energy you use, the better your defense is. That's why you don't want to take a knife to a gunfight. Energy is good. The power that you project, the more powerful a hunk of metal is that defends your property, that protects it against denial of service attacks, is good. And by the way, this allows you to actually physically stop an attacker, a denial of service attacker. It's not just a deterrent, like proof of state. This is ability to physically stop the attacker.

• 24:33Anthony Pompliano?

  So when you think of that, or go ahead, continue.

• 24:36Speaker 02

  So, my goal from the very beginning when talking to policymakers, this is what's super frustrating. Like I said, I'm an astronautical engineer in the Space Force and a US National Defense Fellow at MIT. My job, what you pay me for, is to understand what this form will be in the future and to posture this country to make sure that we have the most powerful thing, that we're not taking a knife to a gunfight in the future. And so, it's super frustrating when people are talking to me about Bitcoin as if it's strictly a financial system or strictly a monetary network, and acting like me that I'm not qualified to be talking about this kind of stuff. And it's also super frustrating to watch a bunch of bankers, a bunch of business people,

• 25:21Speaker 02

  a bunch of finance people try to explain it because then they get confused and then they say, "Oh, it's the digital version of this." And it's like, you could have a PhD in economics and not understand the socio-technical implications of this. In fact, most of them don't.

• 25:37Speaker 02

  And then, or they'll go, "Well, okay, it's digital energy. You see, we take a state machine and we digitally partition it across a distributed ledger and the people who are allowed to write on it are the ones that find the knots and it's like miners searching for gold." And then we act surprised when a bunch of people get freaking confused about what you're doing. Or if you treat it strictly as a property, they're gonna say, "Why, what makes Bitcoin different? What makes Bitcoin different than any other type of digital property or digital asset out there?" So, so my goal is to just take this complex technology and boil it down to something that

• 26:21Speaker 02

  anyone with no background can understand and then make informed policy decisions on it. Because if you treat it like a digital version of this, your policy is going to look very different than the digital version of this. Because if you think it's just digital property, then you might say, "Okay, well, maybe it's a threat to USD hegemony or this or that." But if you realize that this is the future of warfare, what happens when we just, when we scale this up? And it's not just me, but now it's an entire army of people. What do we call that? War? It's called war, okay? Nations live and die and are created and are uncreated by their ability to understand what form this will take and to be good at that game in the future.

• 27:05Speaker 02

  This is how we defend everything that we value. People forget this. And if a new technology emerges, if a new one of these emerges, banning it is not an option. You can't ban your adversary from using this, right? So when Orbin, the engineer, creates cannons, he was the guy that invented this. He figured out how to iron cast cylinder, fill one end with gunpowder, fill another end with a bullet. He takes that technology to Constantinople and he offers it, offers to build it to Constantine. Constantine turns him down, says he can't afford it. You see the logical flaw there?

• 27:37Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 27:38Speaker 02

  Because, because Orbin goes to a 19-year-old kid, Sultan Mahmed, and within a year, they're shooting down the walls of Constantinople. The only, you don't get the option, right? You have to buy it. You, if you can't afford the cannon, you buy Orbin. You buy Von Braun. Okay, so, so these are, this technology has multiple shelling points in history. We use it for warfare. We devise mechanisms so that people pay fees to other people to wield this technology on their behalf.

• 28:10Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct.

• 28:11Speaker 02

  And that's precisely what we're doing with this technology. People who buy Bitcoin are subsidizing the development of a new weapon system, a new defense industrial complex. And which one do you think is more ethical?

• 28:25Anthony Pompliano?

  Well, definitely the Bitcoin mining. The digital protection of property rights is not only more ethical, but it's also, I would argue, much more effective in achieving world peace. Because at the end of the day, you end up actually knowing with almost a high degree of certainty, or actually with a high degree of certainty, it is impossible to penetrate versus as we are watching right now in certain areas of the world. Some people are confused as to you can use the gun and those types of weapons. And there's a question, can we actually overpower another region, another army, another

• 29:08Anthony Pompliano?

  kind of citizenry? And when you look, get into the digital world, you know that it can't be penetrated.

• 29:13Speaker 02

  In every way that you look at this technology. What is the current conversation doesn't make sense. What is being discussed at the national strategic level is incongruent to what this technology is and what it represents. Obviously, the thing that projects more power, the defense technology that uses more energy is a better defense system. Obviously, the technology that can preserve citizens' private property rights without spilling blood, without the unfortunate side effects of this, is more ethical. And obviously, trying to ban this from your country is only going to give your adversary an advantage over you. Read history.

• 29:57Speaker 02

  Read what happened when Whitehead goes, invented the torpedo, and the Royal Navy, the powerful Navy, turned him down and said, "I'm not going to invest in this technology because it represents a threat to my naval hegemony." You don't get the option not to part, to turn where this technology takes you.

• 30:16Anthony Pompliano?

  All right. So let me ask you a couple of questions. I want to take this from, conceptually, this is a really, really big idea. I don't think anyone else has been able to, one, identify, and then, two, articulate this idea the way that you've been able to do it. Obviously, your background, the current seat you sit in, there's a number of things that make you uniquely positioned to talk about this. The first thing is weapons can be used for offense or defense. And last time, we talked about this idea that certain situations are deemed as offense or defense based on who you ask. And so, some people may look at an offensive move and say, "Oh, we're offensively going and doing something." And somebody says, "I'm engaged in this conflict because I'm defending against somebody else

• 31:01Anthony Pompliano?

  who is doing something offensively." So putting aside offense versus defense, the United States, looking at this technology as a national strategic initiative, buy miners? Buy Bitcoin? Buy it all? Like, what is the way in which they should be thinking about as a policymaker? There's a lot of politicians who watch this show. There's a congressman literally coming on right after you. How should they be thinking about Bitcoin in terms of what they can actionably go do?

• 31:33Speaker 02

  The most important question to ask yourself about how to form your policy surrounding Bitcoin is not what you think about it, it's what other countries think about it. Put yourself in the shoes of any country that isn't NATO, that isn't China, that isn't Russia. They're being forced into a position where they effectively have to choose which nuclear power they should subscribe to to allow those people to denial of service attacks them. So if Russia and China reprice their exports in digital yuan and get people to join the digital yuan network, that doesn't solve their denial of service vulnerability. They just choose a different network, a different sovereign power to have the ability to denial service attack them.

• 32:16Speaker 02

  So it's in every country's best interest, and El Salvador knows this, to make sure that you build an army of this, to make sure that you have a hash force so you can verify, you can physically prevent anyone from denying you access to your sovereign wealth. It's only a matter of time until everyone figures this out. The only difference between this and a war is how many countries subscribe to this protocol. And El Salvador is literally raising bonds for people to fund the development of their hash force. They're already starting. The game theory has already begun. And so knowing that the United States' number one export is property defense as a service,

• 32:59Speaker 02

  knowing that this is the future, that could be the future of property defense as a service, you must realize that this is something that must be in your inventory if you want to continue to be a leader in property defense as a service. And if you're afraid, if you're going to sit there and think that this technology is a risk to your power projection hegemony, then the answer is you buy as much of it as possible to make sure that it's expensive for your adversary to join this network and to make sure that when they do, their capital does fly out, or when they do reprosture themselves strategically, that we stand to benefit the most. And so these decisions like EU almost banning

• 33:43Speaker 02

  Proof of work because it uses too much energy is literally then voting or not whether to disarm themselves and posture themselves for failure in the future when other countries, not your country, when other countries realize that the best way to reduce the attack surface on their sovereign wealth, the best way to have sovereignty, period, is to verify that no one can take your stuff.

• 34:08Anthony Pompliano?

  When you think about Bitcoin through this lens, bullets, guns, missiles, tanks, name your weapon of choice, we can create more of them. If it may cost us money, it may take time, it may require us to plan correctly, etc. But if we want to go to war, or we want to defend ourselves from war, there's an unlimited number of bullets that could be created given enough time and money. Bitcoin is not that way. Bitcoin only has 21 million as the total supply. How does that change the analogy? Or how do you think about a finite supply versus a seemingly unlimited supply of some type of weaponry?

• 34:49Speaker 02

  It means that if you move first, you stand to gain disproportionately over the other ones.

• 34:54Anthony Pompliano?

  It's the power law.

• 34:55Speaker 02

  And it's very significant because not only does this reduce the amount of bloodshed that's required to defend our private property, it doesn't reduce it all the way. I'm not saying that this will replace war. I'm saying it's a supplement to war. We're still gonna need the old, we're still gonna need this stuff to defend the people who do this. But, but at the end of the day, if nations start converting, effectively subscribing to this decentralized military, all these decentralized property defense industrial complex, and that, and you're buying stock, you're effectively buying shares in this industrial complex, and those are purely limited,

• 35:34Speaker 02

  and that scarcity is enforced through the same mechanism, then those who move first over the next 10 years, and if this truly does become the new property defense protocol that everyone subscribes to, then you are posturing yourselves for

• 35:51Speaker 02

  To become a superpower for the next thousand years. The asymmetric advantage of the first mover cannot be understated if it's true that this is going to be the premier property defense as a service protocol that replaces or supplements this.

• 36:09Anthony Pompliano?

  When you think about the United States, one of the things that the US hangs their hats on is obviously property rights, but also the Second Amendment, the right for the individual to bear arms. How does that play into our evaluation of this? Does that make us more likely to go ahead and understand this perspective and act on it? Does that actually put us in like an innovator's dilemma type situation where we say, oh, we already have property rights, we already have individual right to bear arms, and therefore we don't need, you know, kind of more? How do you think about that?

• 36:40Speaker 02

  First of all, for the innovator's dilemma, the problem is you get disrupted. The incumbents get disrupted because they have the most, they have more to gain by continuing on their path than by pivoting and accepting the new technology. That's not true for Bitcoin. The United States has the most to gain from this, so it's not an innovator's dilemma. It's just stupid not to do it. Right? Like, I studied competitive strategy at MIT, you know? So anyways, but I forgot what the other question was. Oh, Second Amendment.

• 37:13Anthony Pompliano?

  Yeah, Second Amendment.

• 37:14Speaker 02

  So what is the purpose of Second Amendment? Why did our forefathers put it in there? What was the intent? Do you know?

• 37:20Anthony Pompliano?

  To allow us to protect ourselves from the overreach of anybody, whether it's our neighbors, our government, or anybody else.

• 37:26Speaker 02

  Our forefathers recognized that you need to decentralize this, because if you don't, then you put yourself at a systemic vulnerability where the people who wield this can denial of service attack the citizen's property. So if only the state is allowed to own this technology, then that's a security vulnerability for the citizens. It's a denial of service security vulnerability for your property. So to protect people against that, they allow us to hold this technology to help decentralize this power projection so that one... Organization doesn't have 51% control over, or at least to decentralize it somewhat. And so to that end, the right to mine at your house, it should, in my opinion, be protected

• 38:11Speaker 02

  under the Second Amendment.

• 38:12Anthony Pompliano?

  And then how does the idea of software as free speech play into this, right? Which is another kind of core tenet of the American experience or American democracy. There's plenty of precedent where software has been deemed free speech. Bitcoin, as the asset, is obviously software. And so is there not only protection for things like miners under potentially the Second Amendment, but also the First Amendment protects your right to exhibit or exercise your free speech in using something like this?

• 38:47Speaker 02

  So, again, software can be multiple different things at the same time. It can be a weapon system. It can also be a language that should be protected under free speech. The problem you get with this is the government could say, you still have the right to free speech because we're still letting you use cryptocurrency. It's just now you're using our CBDC. So, you have to look at the, you have to take a kind of adversarial viewpoint. Again, military officer, I'm going to take this viewpoint. When you raise, when you, when you have like Michael Saylor and Nick Carter and all these awesome people trying to fight off the ESG FUD by pointing out how green the energy uses is, they're effectively Sisyphus.

• 39:32Speaker 02

  They're just trying to roll this ball uphill, doomed. Because, because that, that argument will never defeat the Bitcoin uses too much energy argument. Because you could say that Bitcoin is powered exclusively by the magic of carbon captured unicorn farts, and people would still say it uses too much energy. People would still say it wastes too much energy because they're viewing it as this... And they say, well, there's a lot more inefficient ways or a lot more efficient ways to have that than they view it at like this.

• 40:04Anthony Pompliano?

  Yeah, no one complains about the energy consumption of the US military.

• 40:08Speaker 02

  It would be really stupid to say our military is too powerful because that's the point. It would be really stupid to say our military is in it is expensive because that's the point, right? The fact that you aren't being attacked, it makes it look expensive because you're not using your military. They're just like training and and practicing. And then you would be like, why are we paying them so much just to stand around and train and attack? But the fact that no one is attacking you is proof that all the energy that goes into training, all the money that goes into building the military is not wasted, just like the energy that goes into defending Bitcoin against denial of service attack from people taking advantage of the

• 40:49Speaker 02

  systemic vulnerability of the longest chain is valid chain consensus protocol. The fact that that isn't taken advantage of is proof that the energy spent to defend it from denial of service attack isn't wasted. And so so step number one is if you try to take the ESG, like it's more efficient, then it's you're Sisyphus, you're rolling the ball uphill, just like if you try to take the well, it's protected under free speech, you're still Sisyphus, you're rolling the ball uphill because you aren't addressing the most important part about Bitcoin, the thing that makes it different than anything else. All these other technologies don't have this. And they'll say, well, we can still protect your right to free speech, but use altcoin, use Pompliano coin instead of Bitcoin.

• 41:34Anthony Pompliano?

  No, we don't have that.

• 41:37Speaker 02

  But do you see the point? Like, I can sit here and I can make like, give me like a couple of minutes and I'll make a scarce digital asset.

• 41:46Anthony Pompliano?

  Yep.

• 41:47Speaker 02

  It ain't gonna be like more powerful than that. Like it, the value that makes Bitcoin special is not the digital asset. The value that makes Bitcoin special is the enormous defense industrial complex that preserves zero trust and egalitarian control over the digital asset, because no other digital asset has that, especially not proof of state assets.

• 42:13Anthony Pompliano?

  Correct. Joe, John, what questions you guys got?

• 42:15Speaker 03

  Jason, if you were able to wave a magic wand and when you talk to these policymakers, they understand it right as a weapon instead of a monetary network or system, what would be like some of the first things that you would implement if you were in their position?

• 42:28Speaker 02

  If I were the king for the day, that's the question.

• 42:31Speaker 03

  Pretty much.

• 42:31Speaker 02

  I mean, at the very least, like I would try to do whatever I can to make people understand that the people who are taking the risk, the regulatory risk, to stand up hash forces, commercial hash forces across this country are heroes. They are defending our private property rights and we should recognize them as such. And they're taking the risk despite all the FUD, despite all the threats of EU banning stuff or POTUS executive order banning stuff, they're, they, they understand and appreciate the importance of this technology and they're taking that financial risk. And so king for the day at the very least is like, stop calling them, stop villainizing them as being like anti ESG or something like that.

• 43:16Speaker 02

  Because like ESG also means not just energy, but like the value to society. And the value to society of defending your property with this is way more. So that would be step number one. Step number two is then we have to figure out, okay, now that we recognize that this is very, that this could very well be the future of power projection, the future of warfare. So now we've got, you know, we've got Space Force, we've got Air Force, we've got Navy, we've got Army, do, how do we make sure that, that all countries have the maximum property, digital asset property to defense as well? And so that's a tricky policymaking question, but that's a much different policymaking question than what the current conversation is.

• 44:01Speaker 02

  Cause the current conversation is a bunch of people who don't understand software getting confused, right? Like, we're not even close to the point where we can actually have an informed discussion on what the proper policymaking response to Bitcoin is until people understand it for what it is and what makes it special compared to everything else. And, and so I'll, I'll explore a little bit of this in my thesis. I'm, I'm going to try to like, think about, okay, well, if we live in a future where all countries have what are effectively hash forces, what might be, what will probably be mostly commercial hash forces, hopefully mostly commercial hash forces to kind of protect against not 51% attacks, but. In that future, do we as a country need to do anything to make sure we can still

• 44:44Speaker 02

  secure these people the old fashioned way? So to put it bluntly, in a future where all the nations have hash forces, you might get enough, if there's ever a bad guy that would try to denial of service attack Bitcoin by 51% attacking it, their fear shouldn't be, oh, well, you know, people might build this to physically stop me. Their fear should be NATO will drop a version of this on top of their mining farm if they try to attack this network. So these are the kinds of questions that you have to start actually thinking about. And I know saying this stuff is super controversial, but we don't have time.

• 45:28Speaker 02

  I thought I would have way more time. And in just the six months of starting to talk about this, it's already, there's already a POTUS CEO about it and we already see it on the world stage.

• 45:37Speaker 03

  Gotcha. John, what do you got for us?

• 45:39Speaker 04

  Jason, when you think about our government and specifically, what is the gameplay here? Is it just accumulate as much as possible? Is there an infrastructure play? And then if the US or another country does this, what like, what is the opposite? What do every other country do?

• 45:54Speaker 02

  So if you ban Bitcoin, you give every other country a head start. You see their development of this and you benefit them to your expense. Okay. So, so every country is already asking themselves, should we exit this denial of service network that is very clearly a denial of service, that is very clearly weaponized? And, and so that represents a, a big old capital flight risk. Now, and so it's important to remember, technology is part of the environment. The architects of the US financial system don't get to control the environment. They can only control how they posture themselves and their systems in response to an environment.

• 46:36Speaker 02

  So if, if Bitcoin is part of the environment, if it's a mountain. And you're and the policymakers are flying an airplane. At the very least, don't the play shouldn't be point your airplane at the mountain and then blame the mountain for the the crash, right? At the very least, posture yourself to not hit the mountain, or if you hit the mountain, you benefit the most. So what I mean here is imagine that everyone in the current financial system is in a burning theater. We're having our monetary savings being burned or a little bit by the inflation, or we're now facing a risk where other nations might exit the theater en masse. So that's a capital flight risk. How do you protect yourself against that?

• 47:20Speaker 02

  You buy the thing on the opposite end of the exit door so that when that capital flies out of the system, you recapture that purchasing power on the other side. So the United States, at the very least, the only play that makes sense is you buy as much Bitcoin as possible, because if people exit, then at least you end up on the the positive end of of that outcome. And we're in this like perfect window of opportunity because because you've got the Chinas, you've got the Russians who don't see this yet. They they they have the opportunity of a lifetime to switch to Bitcoin and and force people out of the US financial system into their system.

• 48:05Speaker 02

  But they're making digital want, so they're creating all the same problems over again. And every third-party country that isn't China or Russia hopefully will be smart enough to recognize that. And so the question for these third-party companies, third-party countries is not which sovereign financial system to pick. The the question is, how much do I want to hedge with a non-sovereign financial system? And so the United States better posture themselves to benefit from that. And you do that by buying Bitcoin, so you capture disproportionate value when people flood into it. But you also make sure that your property that you own isn't under threat of denial

• 48:46Speaker 02

  of service attack if you buy it, which you which you insure through the same way you defend your legacy physical property. So the play is buy Bitcoin and especially banks, you should be buying up this as much as you possibly can, recognizing that that this is the future of your number one export of property defense as a service.

• 49:07Anthony Pompliano?

  When you think about this, Jason, the last thing I want to talk about is these third-party countries. So not the US and kind of what we'll consider the dominant Western system, and not China and what is probably now considered the dominant Eastern system. How much intellectual humility? So get out of the technology, get out of the financial implications, but the actual clarity of thought, intellectual humility needed to say, "Hey, I cannot control the global reserve currency or this monetary system, this financial asset." And so the second-best option is to then be in a system where nobody controls it, and there's this sovereignty that has returned to me. Is that just literally you

• 49:50Anthony Pompliano?

  need your leadership, if you're in one of these countries, to have the intellectual humility and clarity of thought? Or are there things that people can do to help their leadership understand what's kind of playing out right now?

• 50:02Speaker 02

  I've got presidential advisors in my class at MIT, and I've talked to them about this. And it isn't really intellectual humility, because you can be intellectually humble and view Bitcoin as a financial system and draw these same conclusions. It's rational to think, "Maybe I should ban this technology because it represents a threat to my USD hegemony." And so you can be intellectually humble and still draw the wrong conclusions simply because you're viewing the technology incorrectly. Again, the most intellectually humble person that views Bitcoin as a financial system will draw a very different conclusion

• 50:42Speaker 02

  than the intellectual person who views Bitcoin as a weapon system or a property defense system. And that's really what's key. I'm willing to stand up here and take all the flak for posturing or for trying to describe Bitcoin in this light, because I want to show people that

• 51:06Speaker 02

  That this is a valid empirically valid argument that we should be taking very seriously. And and it it doesn't have to be this like ridiculous thing where we view this as like, you know, the threat to the United States power. It's just, it can be the continuation of this thing and you just and but, you know, again, the screwdriver is going to look at it like a screw. So the bankers are going to look like it at look at it as screw. And even with intellectual humility, humility, they're going to draw the wrong conclusion. And the policymakers are going to look at it like a screw, and they're going to draw policies that treat it like a screw.

• 51:48Speaker 02

  But software can be two different things at once. And maybe it is a nail. And if it's a nail, holy crap, we don't have much time.

• 51:57Anthony Pompliano?

  Yeah. When when you think about this, if you had to answer in two sentences, you gave me a quiz, and I'm gonna give you a quiz. Hopefully, you you perform better than I did. If you had it in two sentences, every single person watching this, when they talk to, whether it's a congressman, a senator, a local mayor, a state governor, or if they even get to talk to somebody close to the president at the national level, what are like the two sentences of what they should say?

• 52:26Speaker 02

  Keep your sword in front of you. Your swords and your shields are fully sufficient and will prove very effective in battle. That's what I would say. Those are some of the last recorded words of Emperor Constantine XIII during the final siege of Constantinople and the end of the Holy Roman Empire as we know it. He was telling his soldiers, as the cannons were ringing out very loudly and shooting down their walls, that their knives were fully sufficient and will prove very effective at battle. And every single one of the officers he was talking to knew exactly what that technology.

• 53:07Speaker 02

  Was because a year earlier, the engineer who built it came to Constantinople and met with them and offered to build it for them. So, we cannot forget how history plays out. We cannot forget that power is everything if we want to defend what we hold valuable. And, and so hopefully, we can convince the people who are in charge of policymaking, this is the goal of my research here, that they, they, they should at least take this seriously. Because we don't want to be how the end of the Holy Roman Empire ended. We

• 53:49Speaker 02

  want to be the superpower of the future. If this is the power projection play, cyber, if this is how you achieve zero trust, egalitarian control over cyber property, we want to posture this country to continue to be a superpower.

• 54:03Anthony Pompliano?

  I think that there's a lot of people who are paying attention, starting to understand some of the things you're saying. So I appreciate you continuing to, to beat the drum, regardless of how much shit you get. Just remember that the haters, they usually aren't punching down. And eventually, they're just future fans. So, keep up the, the great work. Where can we send people to, to find you on the internet? Where's the best place to send them?

• 54:26Speaker 02

  By the way, Pomp, you're a great example of that. Because I watched you get punched a lot over these last couple of years. And then when they flip and do a total 180, you treat them gracefully. And so you're kind of a role model for me. But anyways, you can find me at @JasonPLowry, L O W E R Y on Twitter. I use Twitter to, as part of my thesis methodology, where I develop core concepts and test those concepts for empirical validity. So like, all these things that I was telling you, hopefully, I'll get a bunch of comments. And hopefully, I'll get a bunch of people that say, you're wrong here, or you're wrong there. And I'll read those. And I'll formulate the counter arguments, or I'll include those in my thesis when I, when I finally write it all up.

• 55:06Anthony Pompliano?

  I can't wait. I'll be the first one to read it. And then we'll bring you back. And we'll do a whole, a whole deep dive on the thesis. And the haters can watch from, from the sidelines. So, I appreciate you coming on. We'll definitely do this again in the future.

• 55:19Speaker 02

  Thanks, Pom. Thanks, Joe, John.

• 55:21Speaker 04

  Thanks, Jason.

• 55:22Anthony Pompliano?

  All right, later, buddy. Thanks so much for listening to today's episode. I really hope you guys enjoyed this one. Make sure you subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or your favorite podcast player. And if you're looking to try to transition to get a new job in the Bitcoin or crypto industry, we've got you covered. Head over to pompscryptocourse.com. We've developed a curriculum with the top teams across the industry. It's a three-week intensive training program with over 50 events packed into that three-week time period. Go to pompscryptocourse.com to learn more, and I'll meet you guys for the next episode.