The Quiet Part Said Loud: Central banks finally admit why they fear Bitcoin - and it's not about protecting you. Breaking down the latest attacks from the ECB and Minneapolis Fed.
LINKS:
Affiliate LINKS:
LINKS:
- The distributional consequences of Bitcoin by Ulrich Bindseil, Jürgen Schaaf :: SSRN
- ECB's Lagarde says bitcoin conducted ‘funny business’ - YouTube
- Christine Lagarde avoids jail despite being found guilty of negligence
- Blockchain's Role in Mitigating Illicit Finance — CRYPTOISAC
- Unique Implementation of Permanent Primary Deficits? | Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
- Challenging ECB's Bitcoin Critique: a Critical Rebuttal
- Pro-Harris PACs see strong donations from crypto community in September - YouTube
- Crypto PAC Fairshake targets close House races as election nears end
- Bitcoin miners launch ad campaign in swing states to boost crypto-friendly candidates
- Kashkari telling us a few years ago the FED has unlimited money
- Michael Saylor: Why MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin funding is NOT a glitch - YouTube
- The Bitcoin revolution & risks with Michael Saylor (Part Two) - YouTube
- “The Space” | New Bitcoin Citadel in Denver, Colorado
- The future of saving is here: Earn 3.8% on cash. Paid in Bitcoin.
- Natalie Brunell X: Bitcoin is the universal energy currency and a global tool of hope
[00:00:00]
Unknown:
This past Sunday, the Fed dropped interest rates nearly to zero. Then, every day last week, it announced emergency lending programs. It pledged to spend at least $700 billion supporting mortgages, banks, money market mutual funds, corporate bonds, and lending to central banks of other countries, because the dollar is the currency of world trade. We are being very aggressive. And I think our chairman, Jay Powell, has learned from the experience of 2008. We're moving much faster than we moved in 2008. We're being more aggressive. Is there more we can do? Yes.
Is there more we may end up doing? Yes. But I think we're being very aggressive. And I think that's the right thing. Can you characterize everything that the Fed has done this past week as essentially flooding the system with money? Yes, exactly. And there's no end to your ability to do that? There is no end to our ability to do that. Music. Welcome in to This Week in Bitcoin, episode 32. My name is Chris. That intro clip was Minneapolis Fed Prez Kashkari from a few years ago. And I love that clip. We'll get back to him later. But first, a disclaimer, really. I hope you brought some water because once again, it's another salty crisp this week.
The banks really went all in on their Bitcoin attacks. And I say this with all proportionality. Nothing I've ever seen in my history of following Bitcoin since the early days. Have I seen anything this aggressive and this direct? First, it was the European Central Bank. They released a bomb of a paper, followed by the Minneapolis Fed dropping a second bomb, a whopper. And I've read both, so you don't have to. And trust me, you do not need to or want to. I've got the best bits here, and it's so frustrating, and it's so thick. The language, I'll give you a few quotes, but the language is just something else.
So let's start with this ECB paper. They released it recently. It's called, quote, The Distributional Consequences of Bitcoin. It was written by two economists from the ECB. It's 29 pages long, and they published it on October 12th, 2024. So these two institutional economists argue that the rising Bitcoin price would only benefit early HODLers. And they say, quote, it would imply a corresponding impoverishment of the rest of society, endangering cohesion, stability, and ultimately democracy. This is a pretty huge point of view change from the ECB. For years, they've just suggested Bitcoin is worth nothing.
And I think it's also ironic that now they're saying it's going to hurt democracy. That's a bit of a load considering Bitcoin has no central controller or issuer, and it is freely adopted and controlled and run by the people. So it's ironic they call that a threat to democracy. I think we'll get into what they really mean later. But I thought maybe first we should zoom out for a moment, because we all know that they've belittled Bitcoin for years. Just a few years ago, the ECB's Christine Lagarde rolled out all of the standard Bitcoin attacks that the bankers have, just sort of rapid fire back to back to back.
It is a speculative. It's a speculative asset by any account. I mean, when you look at the most recent developments upward and now the most recent downward trend, for those who had assumed that it might turn into a currency, terribly sorry, but this is an asset and it's a highly speculative asset, which has conducted some funny business and some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity. I think that there are criminal investigations that have taken place that I'm sure will continue to take place that demonstrate it very clearly. And there has to be regulations and this has to be applied and agreed upon.
It's a matter that needs to be agreed at a global level, because if there is an escape, that escape will be used. So I think it needs to be to be if anything, it shows that global cooperation, multilateral action is absolutely needed, whether it's initiated by the G7, moved into the G20 and then enlarged. But it's something that needs to be to be addressed. And FATAP is clearly an organization that has expanded in that respect. I find a couple of things ironic about her statements in there. Number one, we just covered the data from the UN itself in episode 30. 0.34%, 0.34% of all crypto transactions were flagged as potentially illicit.
Of that 0.34%, nearly all of them are tethered transactions, with the most of the rest being USDC. Let me tell you, not a great way to do crime. Those are not a great way to do crime. But also, I think number two, the thing that I find ironic is that Christine Lagarde herself was convicted and found guilty in 2016 for a massive government payout scheme to the friend of the former French president Nicolas Garkowski, however you say his name, She didn't go to jail. It was mostly like, oh, well, she was just kind of negligent. She looked the other way.
She was found guilty, though, for funny business, as she puts it. But you heard the core argument in there. You heard her actually say it. She said the quiet part out loud. It's an escape hatch. So the core argument that the ECB's paper puts forward is that, well, they're realizing Bitcoin might not be going away. And well, shoot, if Bitcoin's not going away, maybe it's not a bubble. And so they argue, well, if that scenario is true, if it's not a bubble, well, then we're going to have a problem with rich Bitcoiners because Bitcoiners, you know, they're going to be all this rich kind of like buying Ferraris and not producing much.
They're going to disadvantage all the no coiners out there. And the no coiners that come in later are going to have less coin. And they argue these early Bitcoiners would be potentially less productive than their overall wealth should suggest they are. They write, quote, early adopters increase their real wealth and consumption at the expense of real wealth and consumption of those who do not hold Bitcoin or invest it at only a later stage. So it's obvious. They're saying if you buy an asset that goes up in value, you're going to have more value than those that don't buy the asset.
They have a conclusion, though, because clearly there's a problem here that needs to be solved. From the paper quote missing out on bitcoin is not merely a lost opportunity for wealth accumulation but means real impoverishment compared to a world without bitcoin this redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. So detrimental consequences for society, what might those be? We're going to get to that before we do. Don't you think it's kind of wild that we're sitting here and we have a paper from the ECB right in front of us that tells us that you better get some coin?
You're going to have problems. But what kind of problems? Well, that's the real question, isn't it? I just, it feels like this is, by the way, just the perfect paper that any thirsty, opportunistic politician or group of politicians needs served up for them on a golden platter to run with. Authorities will use a Luddite argument to enact harsh taxes on Bitcoin, if not outright bans. The authors take a distinctly anti-technology stance. They don't look at Bitcoin as a revolutionary breakthrough on par with the internet. They argue rather bluntly and absurdly that early adopters simply increased their wealth at consumption by taking advantage of those who didn't.
That's what they say. They increased their wealth and consumption by taking advantage of those who come later. You know, like when you buy your house, like my grandparents have this beautiful, well, my grandpa, only my grandpa now, my grandpa owns this beautiful place, beautiful place. It's probably, I don't know, $700,000 in value, maybe more now because it's in a nice town here in Washington. They bought it for $25,000 back in the 50s. Now we're $700,000. That asset went up in value. Although if you charter with the S&P or M2, it's a little different story.
But there's no difference there. But they have a bold proposal to solve this new novel problem that Bitcoin has presented, according to them. The paper advocates for laws that would either cap Bitcoin's price or eliminate it completely. So that way they could prevent what they call a division of society. Like I said, I've been holding Bitcoin since 2012. Of all the papers I've looked at in my years following Bitcoin, this is the most aggressive stance I've ever seen taken by a bank. After years of calling it, you know, a bubble or just for drugs, not worth anything. They just have no pretense here.
All the gloves come off. They say we need to either ban it or tax it. They see it as an existential threat and they're willing to fight it by any means necessary. And they never make the argument like how it's any different from being an early Amazon or Microsoft stockholder. You know, they don't really make any arguments about real estate. They dance around a core issue. There's a real issue underneath all of this. They can't just come out and say. But I think all of us have been wising up to their stupid game. Well, it's not so stupid, but to their stupid gaslighting.
You know, they cry for the average no-coiner Joe out there who's going to get left behind. while they have implemented a decade-plus of policy that transfers wealth and assets to the rich. And we've all been watching them do it. Now, the European Central Bank has cut interest rates, dropping its key lending rate to zero from 0.05%. This was eight years ago when the ECB just went to zero and kept it there for years. As part of a package of measures intended to boost the flagging eurozone economy, The ECB also slashed its deposit and lending facility rates to minus-point-4 percent and a quarter of a percent, respectively.
The central bank added it would expand its bond-buying stimulus program by raising monthly purchases to 80-8-0 billion euros from the current 60 and by purchasing corporate bonds. The package of measures is deemed more radical than investors had expected and follows a stimulus measure announced at the end of last year. They can't say the quiet part out loud, which is the reality. Their monetary policy has been hurting the middle class. It has been impoverishing and creating the widest wealth divide in history. They just, they can't say it. Or can they?
Music. It gets even wilder. So then the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis put out a paper just a few days after the ECB on October 17th, 2024, titled Unique Implementation of Permanent Primary Deficits? In the paper, they doubled down on the Fed of Minneapolis's old take that Bitcoin is worthless. We've heard this from them before. It's a sentiment that the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve, Neil Kashkari, has echoed every time he gets a chance, just on October 21st. He was in a public setting doing a Q&A, not about crypto, not about Bitcoin, but just any time he has, any chance he gets to get on his high horse, he takes it. This is just from a couple of days ago.
Well, you're right. There's a lot of activity that's happening. The nature of the economy is changing. And so we're always having to pioneer new data sources to give us insight into what's happening. I don't think crypto, because almost, I mean, I don't want to, you're going to pull my thread on crypto, and I'm going to go off on a little speech about crypto, which I don't want to do. But if you force me to, I'll be willing to do it. But very few transactions are actually happening on crypto. People are buying crypto and they're selling crypto, but they're not paying for goods and services using crypto.
It almost never happens unless people are buying drugs or other illegal activities. Such an old and tired critique. You can tell he's probably a little old and tired, too. He hasn't really updated his take. Like, you know, today, towards the end of 2024, Bitcoin is worth more than the UK pound. It's over a trillion in market cap. Entire countries have adopted or are adopting it. And Kashkari's real boss, BlackRock, their ETF is the most successful ETF launch in history. It's done what it took gold five plus years to do in nine months. But the paper reveals the real concern, not just the blowhardness that Kashkari goes out there and talks about, but what the Fed is really worried about.
And they finally have said the quiet part out loud. Bitcoin creates an escape hatch that prevents governments from running, quote. Permanent primary deficits to using normal debt and continue Markov strategies for primary deficits to payments and debt holders. So in other words, because it is thick, in other words, Bitcoin makes it possible for people to escape from continuous debasement. They go on to talk about the problems Bitcoin causes for forever debt policies, quote, continuous government policies designed for permanent primary deficits cannot eliminate an alternative steady state.
They continue, quote, and the government is forced to balance its budget. They go on to say, quote, a legal prohibition against Bitcoin can restore a unique implementation of permanent primary deficits. In other words, if they ban Bitcoin or we tax the hell out of it, it can restore the government's, quote, unique implementation of permanent primary deficits. So either tax the hell out of Bitcoin or ban it. And if you don't do that, you're not going to be able to run primary deficits that go on forever. And what this paper really is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve is a banker's fantasy about prohibiting assets or, you know, somehow getting regulators, somehow these bankers, you know, are now influencing policy, probably actually a possible thing.
And they're getting great, huge, giant, enormous taxes passed on Bitcoin to ensure government debt remains the, quote, only risk free security, quote, only risk free security. That's the goal. The government debt needs to be, quote, the only risk free security. Bitcoiners have been focused on Gensler, but they probably should have been more worried about Kashgari and this paper. It just lays out once again talking points for a thirsty politician. And the ironic thing is the paper isn't really about Bitcoin at all. I mean, yes, Bitcoin is mentioned, but it's not actually the main focus of the Fed's paper.
Instead, it's a theoretical study that explores economic scenarios that we're obviously hurtling towards. Here's what the paper states, quote, We use Bitcoin as a metaphor for private sector security that is fixed supply and that is not a claim to any real resources. Okay. What they're doing is it's a look at how government deficit strategies are affected when there exists, one, an asset with a fixed supply, that's Bitcoin. Two, that it isn't issued by the government, Bitcoin again. And three, doesn't produce a direct utility flow. Well, I'm going to give that a half thing. We'll see about that.
Bitcoin is the best example they could find when they wanted an asset like this. This is a big deal. That's coming from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. We looked for the most independent free market asset that's hard and fixed that we could find, and we could find no better example than Bitcoin, is what they're saying. And while I hate the conclusions they come to, it kind of does say like Bitcoin is the best hedge against inflation and infinite government deficits there is. And the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis just confirmed that. Like that's just kind of what they just said.
So I think smart traders are going to read these papers and read Bitcoin as the true inflation head that the big banks, the big banks are worried about. Because it says right there, like, this is the best thing we could find. And if we're looking for people that are going to look for an escape hatch and the scenario we see play out, it's Bitcoin. And that's going to make us have to balance our budget, guys. It's actually a sales pitch. Although there will be those that take it and use some of those sentences to attack Bitcoin. No doubt about it. I'll have links to both papers if you would like to read them, including some responses as well.
Let's do a quick macro snapshot. The fiat market is a fickle thing. And just when certain individuals get on a camera and speak, it can move the market in dramatic directions for multiple days. We've had a couple of those this week. And one of them that I'm going to focus on is Paul Tudor Jones. He's, I guess, a billionaire. I think, yeah, he's a billionaire, known for his significant contributions to the industry of finance for years now. He runs a company called Tudor Investment Corporation, a leading macro hedge fund that's been around since 1980.
Paul made tons of headlines for financial win after financial win throughout the 80s. He's also known for rigorous risk management strategies. and he's also considered generally pretty keen and to have a technical understanding of the assets that he trades. And he shook the wider market this week when he sat down with Andy over at CNBC and he talked about the rock and the hard place that the market is in and some of the dynamics that I've been talking about and why I think the election has been spooking markets and keeping things kind of sloshing. President. And I have also, if I'm being honest, primarily because I see the polling numbers have clearly moved in this direction.
You say also, meaning you have, you've repositioned as if former President Trump wins. Yes. I have moved in that direction, for sure. And what does that mean? It just means more inflation trades, which I'd love to get to. But I think it's really important that we frame where we are right now. And where we are is an incredible moment in U.S. History. And what I really want to talk about is the debt trajectory that we're on. So we've gone in the space of 25 short years from debt to GDP at the federal level from about 40 percent to almost 100 percent. 60% in 25 years. And if you look at what our trajectory, what CBO projects our trajectory to be, as well as what we see as, and we're going to project further than CBO.
So I'm going to show you a chart. This is debt to GDP. So CBO says that we go from 98 to 122, I think 124. That's very conservative over the next 10 years. If you extrapolate that 30 years, you get to 200 percent debt to GDP. And so that's that's something obviously something that that can't go on forever. Won't. And the question is, after this election, will there be some point of recognition, particularly with all the the tax cuts that are being promised by both sides and the spending plans? I mean, they're handing out tax cuts like they're Mardi Gras beads, right? We're doing tax cuts on everything from tips to toucans. So it's crazy what's being promised.
After the election, I think the fact that you've got 7% to 8% budget deficits as far as the eye can see, the question is, will the markets allow either candidate? I think under Trump... What he's about to say there, I think, is a great point. So I just will pause because he kind of, he does the weave sometimes. It doesn't seem like either candidate's tax policies will be accepted by the market. They'll react badly. And so the candidates will be dissuaged, I suppose. You know, they're going to be disincentivized from proposing those things. That's what he's trying to say there. The deficit goes up by $500 billion per year under Harris's plan.
It goes up by an additional $600 billion plan per year. I have a feeling all those are just pipe dreams. I think the chances of any of those being enacted are— You mean that the tax cuts that they're putting on the table during the campaign— Those have zero chance of being enacted. Their tax plans and probably their budgets, right? They're probably all fantasy, which is so much of what economic discussion there has been in the election has been, you know, their policies that they probably won't implement. But keep in mind, we're not just talking about the U.S. election here.
What the inflationary forces that he's about to get to affect all of the West. The markets will, the debt markets for sure, the treasury market won't tolerate it. So why do you think that the treasury market continues to tolerate it now? Well, you know, it's so funny because financial crises percolate for years, but they blow up in weeks. That's kind of the history of them, right? And so for me, this election becomes one of those seminal points where all of a sudden, hmm. Let me really think whether this proposition that the U.S. Government is making me is something that I actually want to participate in. And I just want to.
All right, let's pause there for a second. So he shook the market when he started talking about how inflation is going to happen. We're going to have issues. Some of these budgets aren't going to aren't going to really happen. They're not going to pass. But then he lays out what I think is really kind of one of the core thesis of. This podcast. So I clipped it down to keep the runtime shorter on this one for you. But it's definitely worth listening to. Let's talk about taxes. OK, because that's how the money is going to get raised one way or the other. Correct. We're going to we're going to be broke really quickly unless we get serious about dealing with our spending issues.
And unless we only we can either. I don't know if we'll be able to cut spending that much. Sixty percent of our spending are transfer payments that to just to get us to the point where we stabilize that the GDP of where it is right now. Now, here's what you need to do. You need to let the Trump tax cuts expire. That's $390 billion. You need to raise the payroll tax on every single working person, 1%. That's another big slug. You'd have to raise the tax rate on the top, I think, probably everyone over $200,000. Probably have to raise that to 49.5%. If you do all these things, all these things, raise the Social Security from 65 to 70.
If you do all these things, means tests, Medicare, if you do all these things, All you do is you get to a primary balance. What that means is you stabilize debt to GDP. You're still actually increasing your debt. You're still actually increasing it because it excludes the interest costs, which, oh, by the way, the interest bill this year is larger than every single line item except Social Security. It's larger than defense spending, larger than Medicare. I believe it's $1.1 trillion now, so it's actually over a trillion. Given all of the things you're saying, are you off buying gold and Bitcoin?
I think all roads lead to inflation. We're going to end up. But does all roads lead to inflation? Therefore, gold is a good investment? Is Bitcoin a good investment to you? I'm long gold. I'm long Bitcoin. All roads lead to inflation. That's historically the way every civilization has gotten out is they've inflated away their debt. He says, we're going to have a Minsky moment, which is a sudden and significant collapse of asset values that happens after a prolonged period of economic growth and increasing speculation. He's probably right. Bloomberg released a study on October 19th of the 2020 2025 budget.
I guess for the first time I've said that out loud. And it's kind of like a first look of sorts. And in there, they discuss Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's idea for a new metric in which we can evaluate our debt problem and her brilliant metric for our debt problem. Well, interest payments divided by GDP after inflation. So let's get this straight. Inflation goes up and their problem magically improves. The Fed, if the Fed slashes rates and prices soar, that's even better. Your savings becomes worthless? Well, that's part of the plan. You see, destroying the value of money isn't the flaw in the system. It's the whole point.
She's got this whole metric that they're going to cook up, that everybody's going to look at, that just makes the debt look better and better if you adjust GDP by inflation and do these special numbers and bury your head. in the sand. So they clearly have a spending problem. Their own projections show it. So what can you do? What can you do to push back against the ECB or the Minneapolis Fed or the fact that Janet Yellen is going to cook the books on debt and come up with a whole new metric? You can take direct action. In this particular case, you can take direct action. All you have to do to hedge against a basement, to push back against the ECB and their plans to try to ban or tax Bitcoin, hodl through it.
DCA and hodl into your own cold storage. That's it. The more of us that own the Bitcoin directly, the less they can do about it. They can't capture any one entity. They can't have like a BlackRock ETF fork. We've already won. The majority of the Bitcoin is distributed amongst the people. All you have to do is just keep hodling. Stack and hodl. Music. Well, Mikey Saylor likes the coin, really poked the cyber hornet's nest this week during a two-part interview on the Markets with Madison YouTube channel. He said a few things that have gone viral. But I actually think it's provoking a wider self-custody conversation that I want to have with you.
So first, let's play what Saylor said, do a little breakdown, and then get into the conversation that I'm hoping this is provoking. If there is more Bitcoin, Bitcoins held with these third-party custodians, what risk does that pose, having greater supply held by fewer large institutions? Does that increase the risk of seizure and confiscation like we've seen with gold? And is that not exactly what Bitcoiners don't want to happen? No, I think it's the opposite. I think that when the Bitcoin is held by a bunch of crypto anarchists who aren't regulated entities, who don't acknowledge government or don't acknowledge taxes or don't acknowledge reporting requirements, that increases the risk of seizure.
You have an OG crypto community who's very hardcore about it. But if you look at where all the money is, 99.9% of the money is actually in the traditional economy. He's making the argument that traditionally these institutions are already trusted for people's assets. And I think he is talking more in the context of large institutions and not necessarily individual Bitcoiners. It's a little hard to tell, though, with the crypto anarchist comment. Seems a little unnecessary and a little reductionist. But I think the context is he's talking about larger institutions and how, well, we already trust them with our savings and our stocks and our gold, right? If you consider the Great Depression, I mean, people thought that their gold was safe in banks until the executive order of 1933.
So we're not entirely safe. I mean, I know that's kind of a wild thing to suggest may happen again, but history does repeat itself. So people's Bitcoin wouldn't be entirely safe. People say that, but mostly it's paranoid crypto anarchists that say that. See, again, that just seems reductionist. Like, is it that big of a stretch to think that the government might seize a scarce asset if they blow up the budget, which they're already on the path to do and they've done it before? Okay, because it's myth and a trope that goes on over and over again. But first of all, he didn't really seize the goal. People voluntarily turned in the goal.
They didn't go and kick in everybody's door, arrest them, shoot them and take their goal. That never happened. But is the United States on the Bitcoin standard? Maybe we will be soon. But the point really is we're not. It's totally not a reasonable comparison. People have these inflammatory tropes or inflammatory memes that they use. And it's like I say that because I want you to give me your money. If you don't trust the bank, then you'll buy my hardware wallet. If you don't trust this government, you'll move to my country and you'll buy a passport from me. That's the kind of fear mongering to get you to give me your money. Right.
And I use it to sell you a gun, to sell you a hardware wallet, to sell you an account, to sell you a financial advisor, to sell you an insurance policy, to sell you, you know, fill in the blank. I think he actually is selling us something. You know, I think what this is hopefully provoking is the value around Bitcoin's ability to be self-custodied and why that is so critical. Saylor himself has acknowledged the value around that. Churchill seized the gold. Roosevelt seized the gold. If you'd lived in Germany, you would have had your gold seized multiple times. In Japan, they lost it two or three times.
In Russia, you know, count the number of times. So there's nowhere on earth where you could have kept your gold. In fact, you could find lots of clips of Saylor talking about why it's so important that you can self-custody Bitcoin. I think he's got a dream of becoming a Bitcoin bank of some kind. And one day he might just be asking for people to custody their Bitcoin with whatever firm he'll do this with. So like any kind of sly like a fox businessman, I think he's getting ahead of that. He's changing his tune now, so there'll be clips of him saying just this when he announces some sort of like Bitcoin bank program.
You know, it's a shame, though, and it's embarrassing for him because on the first page, in the second sentence of Satoshi's white paper, it says, quote, the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double spending. He says right in there, in the second sentence on the first page, the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required. It's core to what Bitcoin is. And his arguments that no one knocked down doors over Executive Order 6102 are a bit specious. People were compelled to hand over their gold just like they're compelled to pay taxes and follow local laws.
And if they didn't comply and they were discovered, they could potentially spend time in jail. Some individuals did. Others were fined with an inflation-adjusted equivalent of about $230,000 if they were caught with more than just gold jewelry. But the reality is the majority of the gold that was taken, that was confiscated, was taken from institutions where gold was being held. The institutions just handed it over, which is, again, another solid argument for self-custody. Because history does tend to rhyme. And, you know, if you zoom out 30 years, who knows where this thing goes?
They don't even need to physically take it from you, though, do they? I think maybe a rhyme of history would be they require Bitcoin be held by approved institutions. That they keep it locked up there indefinitely, essentially reducing its utility and reducing its value. That would be one way to control it or to tax the hell out of it. But I think you would be doing much more harm to the economy than you'd be doing good. Because this thing could be an engine for future growth. I don't think that means that we have to be self-custody maxis. You know, I mean, I've been thinking about this.
The sailors have been going and getting this has been getting spread around. A lot of people have been commenting on it. Because I'm seriously considering a custody service for Jupiter Broadcasting's Bitcoin. Something that could be managed by multiple people in the company if needed. Or it could be accessed if something happened to me or I retired. Ideally a service that could helpfully generate tax documents when we need them at tax time. Things that businesses need. Multi-custody, that kind of stuff. So I think there is maybe a space for some custodial services.
But what do you think? Is that a mistake? I'd like to know your opinion. Would you please boost in? I'd like to know your thoughts. If you have a staunch self-custody argument for a business or for an individual, please do send it in. or if you got an argument for a custodial service, why maybe some folks should use custodial services, boost that in. I'm considering that as we get closer and closer to the end of the year, what I want to do for Jupiter Broadcasting. Also, I'd love to hear your reaction to Mikey like the coin sailors new tune. Did you think he was Batman and now he turns out to be two face?
Have we let a fox into the hen house? Boost in and let me know. Music. All right, coming up, your boosts, a couple of crazy Bitcoin ads. You won't believe the money that's getting spent. Some project updates, a big one too. Final clip of the week and a state of the network. So shout out to my affiliates, River. I'll have more on them in a moment, but if you're in the States, I think the best company to stack your coins with a secure Bitcoin-only platform where you can verify how many Bitcoin they have on the platform, make sure they have the reserves they have, and you can withdraw over Lightning to maintain your privacy.
And the fees, they're great. Everything's great about River. I'll get more into it in a little bit. But I also want to mention, if you want to spend Bitcoin, holidays are coming up. Maybe you want to blast some sats over Lightning. The Bitcoin Company, use my promo code Jupiter or use the link in the notes. Gets you some sats, gets the show some sats. And it's a great way to spend your sats on Lightning. Super quick into any kind of gift card. They got hundreds of them. That's the BitcoinCompany.com, promo code Jupiter. And you can use those affiliate links as a way to support the show. or of course you can boost in like so many great folks out there do thank you to everybody who boosts into the show and our first boost this week comes from mr pod home himself aka barry with no message but 8 000 sats i don't know if they're supposed to be a message in there thank you pod home appreciate the support it is our hosting platform of choice, open source accountant is back it's been i think a week or two nice to hear from him with 2,000 sets.
I would love a whole episode about how you acquire, move, and secure your Bitcoin. It'd be great to share with local small business owners who are Bitcoin carriers but still can't wrap their head around the process. Hmm. Something that could be consumed by a newbie complete. I'd have to think about that. That would have to be probably a dedicated thing. Maybe a holiday special. Keep brainstorming, open source accountant. I don't know if I 100% have it in my head yet, but I could see it. It could be a nice solution for the holidays, do a little prerecord, something you can share with family around that time.
Let's keep brainstorming. Anonymous comes in with 5,000 sats. You suppose. I heard about the show from the Podfather on Podcasting 2.0. I've been listening to every episode since. Well, thank you very much for sending back some value. Appreciate that shout out to the Podfather. Oppie 1984 is here again with 4,000 sats. If John Deaton and his team were smart, they'd make a political ad with the audio of Liz saying who she wants to keep crypto away from. and then show a picture of each group with American dollars as she lists them. He doesn't stand a chance of winning, but he can at least tear down a bit and maybe limit the amount of damage he can do. I hope so, Oppie.
I think it's a shame that the way Liz has been able to lie through her teeth to people and claim that she's trying to help them while working hand in glove with the bankers and the SEC. It's been obvious to anybody paying attention, but if you're not paying attention to the stuff behind the scenes and you just listen to what she says, she is a top-rate gaslighter. Thank you for the boost. Ace Ackerman comes in with a row of ducks. Just says boost. Boost. Thank you, Ace. Nice to hear from you. Tomatoes in with 9,001 sats. It's over 9,000! Thanks for all the newbie content. It's helped. It helped me get oriented in Bitcoin.
I just put my first million sats through Liquid onto a cold card. I thought I'd weigh in on the question of retirement from a European perspective. Well, first of all, congrats and thank you. He writes, I'm primarily counting on the stage of retirement plan combined with a small complimentary private pension. Oh, state. Right. The state plan. I got you. I have long-term savings in things like stocks and investment plans, which have interesting tax breaks there. Okay. And we own our own apartment, which in a pinch could be sold. Yep. And we bought it with the intention of keeping it to live in though.
So a little bit of stocks, a little bit of property, a little bit of Bitcoin. That seems like a pretty good little distribution there, Tomato. Very reasonable. I think a sensible distribution you might see. A sensible, zesty drink. I need a zesty drink. Thank you for the boost. That's all our boosts above 2,000 sats this week. Yep. It's a quick boost segment, I suppose, so that's kind of nice. So we had eight people boost in. We stacked 31,556 sats with the boost. The streamers, though, did pick up the slack this week. They came in as our champs. We had 43 of you out there streaming sats as you listen.
So together, you all stacked 59,933 sats, which brings this show's total to... Music. 91,489 sats, which not a great week. Not a great week for the show. Maybe, you know, maybe it's a sort of a statement on the episode. So boost in with ideas to get the boost up if you have any. I know that sounds odd, but I'm so heads down on content. I think sometimes I don't focus on that enough. So I could use some help in that area. And I think unless something big breaks, I might take next week off just to make room and I have a super busy schedule and I think, you know, I could be wrong, but I think there's just going to be a lot more election stuff as we get closer.
And I suspect that might've turned some of you off last week because as we get a little bit closer to the big day, it's kind of what the news is all about. And I tried to keep it away from all the top of the show as much as I could, but it even sneaks in a little bit here and there. So I think that's turned some people off. And so it's likely just going to be, you know, more news like that. So I might take next week off unless something really major breaks. It's always possible. You never know. I mean, it's kind of a crazy time right now, but I think I'll probably, uh, I'll probably just be heads down.
Thank you everybody who does support the show though. I do really appreciate it. And if you'd like to boost in, just get a new podcast app at podcastapps.com. You can set up something like Fountain or Cast-O-Matic in no time. Music. All right, let's drive a few more folks away. Although I hope for this story, we can turn off our political brains and we can turn on our Bitcoin historical perspective brains, right? Clonk. Clonk. Did you get it there? Here you go. Wait, you got to push that. There you go. Now it's in place. So this week, the Bitcoin, the Bitcoin, the Bitcoin, geez, I don't know what my problem is.
The Bitcoin Voter Pack, which is the spending arm of the digital coin advocacy group, the Bitcoin Voter Project, launched three digital ads aimed at swing voters in Pennsylvania and Texas to sway races towards candidates who support the mainstreaming of digital assets and, you probably guessed it, Bitcoin mining. The ads represent a total of $2 million aimed at identifying and educating and mobilizing pro-Bitcoin voters in key swing states. So they're spending $2 million in various different places and more. I think a total now of $130 million.
But $2 million of that is just targeting pro-Bitcoin voters in swing states. The funding comes from Riot, Marathon Digital, and CleanSpark. They're the three top, well, three out of the top five miners out there. There's some others, but like out of the top five, they're like the top three, I guess. They're the top three mining companies in the States. And they're dumping money into these very key states. And I got a couple of clips that I thought would set it up for us. And this one gives you an idea of the money being spent and where it's getting spent. Hey, Tyler. So with two weeks to go into the general, fresh election data for September shows that crypto PAC money is focused on close house races as part of an effort to push candidates favorable to the group's agenda over the top.
Now, Fairshake, which is the leading pro-crypto super PAC and one of the top spenders across any industry this election cycle, has funneled a big chunk of its final donations to close house races in eight states, including New York, Nevada and California. And several of those races are considered toss ups by the Cook Political Report. And more than 70 percent of those donations are going to Democratic candidates. Now, all in, crypto groups have spent over $130 million in congressional races for this year's election, including the primaries. And what I will say is that a lot of that money, it's going to Senate races.
Well, I was going to ask you, is the Senate figure in this at all and who's collecting there? So you had $10 million apiece going to the candidates in Michigan and Arizona. And then overwhelmingly, the vast majority of this money, $40 million going to vote out of the Senate banking chair, Sherrod Brown, who hasn't been very favorable to the industry. Wow. Wow. Wow. Yeah, it's almost like it's an industry that's been under political attack constantly. So the Bitcoin pack, the one I was mentioning, just ran a couple of these ads. And again, historical brain, not political brain.
Let's look at a couple of them because they sort of... They do position a candidate, no doubt about that. But they also talk positively about Bitcoin. I think it's kind of an interesting time we find ourselves in. America's financial freedom is under attack, but Texas has a champion in their corner. I want Texas to be the oasis on planet Earth for Bitcoin and crypto. Ted Cruz understands that embracing Bitcoin means giving the people more control over their financial future, not the big banks or the government. Ted Cruz will fight to make sure your money is your choice.
Secure, decentralized and free from the government. Vote Senator Ted Cruz leading the charge for Texans financial freedom. Vote Bitcoin, it says. If the voiceover guy is listening, boost in. I'd love to work with you. You could read like the quotes on the show. You know we just play some epic music it'd be great really help with retention i'm sure so that was their texas ad now here is the ad they're running in pennsylvania it's a little bit of a different take in pennsylvania we're known for our steel our spirit and now our innovation we will ensure that the future of crypto and bitcoin will be made in america and if america doesn't embrace it we're going to be left behind bitcoin means more jobs right here in pennsylvania it's about leading in technology, securing our financial future and keeping Pennsylvania ahead.
And instead of attacking industries of the future, we will embrace them. And by embracing it, we can create great jobs, a great source of innovation. And the national security implications of this are clear. Vote Donald Trump and Dave McCormick for jobs, for innovation, for Pennsylvania's future. Geez, I think they mentioned jobs like three times. National security got mentioned in there. As we count down to the election, it's amazing to see this money get spent. And I have some links in the show notes around all of that. And I'd love to know your thoughts, too, on the coverage of it, my coverage specifically, but also just how you feel about these PACs spending money. Like they're getting in the political game.
They're getting, I would imagine, into a business that most Bitcoiners kind of hate. All right, time for some project updates. This one is so neat. I can't wait to get back to Denver. The Space, which is a member-run Bitcoin hub, has announced they are now a Bitcoin citadel. It's a hub for fostering collaboration, education, and networking for Bitcoin enthusiasts in Colorado. Bitcoinnews.com writes, This member-run hub is not just a co-working space. Well, geez, a co-working space sounds great. They say it's also a thriving ecosystem focused on collaboration, education, network, and networking for those passionate about Bitcoin and the principles it stands for.
So it's The Space, and I'll put a link in the show notes. If you're listening and you're in the Denver, Colorado area, go check it out and boost in and tell me how it is. And next time I'm in Denver, I'm going to have to check out The Space. Now, I mentioned there was also some big news with River. River made some big news this week. They've announced a savings account for cash that earns Bitcoin dividends. So it's interest paid in Bitcoin, essentially. You put cash in an account on River and you earn a 3.8 interest rate that they pay out in Sats. So they're not generating yield on Bitcoin. They're generating yield on the cash. And the cash is FDIC insured up to $250,000.
And of course, the Bitcoin that you generate, that's all held in reserve proved custody. And the user can withdraw the cash at any time. There's no fees, no minimums. And it seems like a pretty compelling program. People are really excited about it. I'll be honest with you, I probably don't have enough cash to make it worth it. But if you are, and I've heard from some of you out there, you're still sitting on a big pile of cash. You might look at this because, while you can't really safely earn yield on Bitcoin, at least with any scheme I've ever seen, there are plenty of them out there to earn interest on cash. And that's exactly what River is doing here.
Try it out. If you do, let me know how it goes, because the feedback I've seen on Stack Your News and on social media so far seems to be pretty excited and pretty positive. And our final clip of the week is Natalie Burnell. She sat down with Charles Payne on Money Matters, and they covered an old prediction by Henry Ford, where he advocated for a currency that is tied to energy. They're saying that Henry Ford actually predicted Bitcoin. He talked about replacing gold with an energy currency. By the way, he also said it would stop wars. So your thoughts on this? The Henry Ford thing is fascinating.
I mean, he essentially understood 100 years ago that if you fix the money, you can fix the world, Charles. And he lived through World War I, and I think he saw the manipulation that happened on what was supposed to be the gold standard. He saw that gold can easily be monopolized by powerful bankers and global elites to essentially fund endless conflicts through inflation. And he believed that energy, which no one can print or manipulate, could instead serve as this stable and peaceful foundation for a world currency. And that's exactly what Bitcoin offers.
It redefines money and ties it to the currency of the universe, which is energy. And by dematerializing wealth, it introduces the incentive for peace and cooperation because there's nothing physical to conquer. So I think Ford would have definitely been a Bitcoiner. Let's look at the state of the network. As I record, the price of Bitcoin right now is $66,320 in the U.S. greenback. Sats per dollar is $1,508. The price since last episode, well, that's down 2.3%. We're down 10.1% from the all-time high. It's been 223 brutal days since the all-time high. There are 19,353 reachable Bitcoin nodes today.
The average fee, as I record, is 12 sats, a V-byte, and the block height, 867,049 blocks. There you go. That is the state of the network. Thank you for listening to This Week in Bitcoin. If you like this episode, links to what I talked about today are thisweekinbitcoin.show. Of course, you can subscribe in your podcast app of choice. I hope you choose a podcasting 2.0 app, as I think they're pretty great. You get chapters and transcripts of this show in a podcasting 2.0 app. And of course, that's also a way you can boost in. Now, I probably won't see you next week. So I'm going to leave you with a banger of a track. It's Stop, featuring Alex Piñata.
Music.
This past Sunday, the Fed dropped interest rates nearly to zero. Then, every day last week, it announced emergency lending programs. It pledged to spend at least $700 billion supporting mortgages, banks, money market mutual funds, corporate bonds, and lending to central banks of other countries, because the dollar is the currency of world trade. We are being very aggressive. And I think our chairman, Jay Powell, has learned from the experience of 2008. We're moving much faster than we moved in 2008. We're being more aggressive. Is there more we can do? Yes.
Is there more we may end up doing? Yes. But I think we're being very aggressive. And I think that's the right thing. Can you characterize everything that the Fed has done this past week as essentially flooding the system with money? Yes, exactly. And there's no end to your ability to do that? There is no end to our ability to do that. Music. Welcome in to This Week in Bitcoin, episode 32. My name is Chris. That intro clip was Minneapolis Fed Prez Kashkari from a few years ago. And I love that clip. We'll get back to him later. But first, a disclaimer, really. I hope you brought some water because once again, it's another salty crisp this week.
The banks really went all in on their Bitcoin attacks. And I say this with all proportionality. Nothing I've ever seen in my history of following Bitcoin since the early days. Have I seen anything this aggressive and this direct? First, it was the European Central Bank. They released a bomb of a paper, followed by the Minneapolis Fed dropping a second bomb, a whopper. And I've read both, so you don't have to. And trust me, you do not need to or want to. I've got the best bits here, and it's so frustrating, and it's so thick. The language, I'll give you a few quotes, but the language is just something else.
So let's start with this ECB paper. They released it recently. It's called, quote, The Distributional Consequences of Bitcoin. It was written by two economists from the ECB. It's 29 pages long, and they published it on October 12th, 2024. So these two institutional economists argue that the rising Bitcoin price would only benefit early HODLers. And they say, quote, it would imply a corresponding impoverishment of the rest of society, endangering cohesion, stability, and ultimately democracy. This is a pretty huge point of view change from the ECB. For years, they've just suggested Bitcoin is worth nothing.
And I think it's also ironic that now they're saying it's going to hurt democracy. That's a bit of a load considering Bitcoin has no central controller or issuer, and it is freely adopted and controlled and run by the people. So it's ironic they call that a threat to democracy. I think we'll get into what they really mean later. But I thought maybe first we should zoom out for a moment, because we all know that they've belittled Bitcoin for years. Just a few years ago, the ECB's Christine Lagarde rolled out all of the standard Bitcoin attacks that the bankers have, just sort of rapid fire back to back to back.
It is a speculative. It's a speculative asset by any account. I mean, when you look at the most recent developments upward and now the most recent downward trend, for those who had assumed that it might turn into a currency, terribly sorry, but this is an asset and it's a highly speculative asset, which has conducted some funny business and some interesting and totally reprehensible money laundering activity. I think that there are criminal investigations that have taken place that I'm sure will continue to take place that demonstrate it very clearly. And there has to be regulations and this has to be applied and agreed upon.
It's a matter that needs to be agreed at a global level, because if there is an escape, that escape will be used. So I think it needs to be to be if anything, it shows that global cooperation, multilateral action is absolutely needed, whether it's initiated by the G7, moved into the G20 and then enlarged. But it's something that needs to be to be addressed. And FATAP is clearly an organization that has expanded in that respect. I find a couple of things ironic about her statements in there. Number one, we just covered the data from the UN itself in episode 30. 0.34%, 0.34% of all crypto transactions were flagged as potentially illicit.
Of that 0.34%, nearly all of them are tethered transactions, with the most of the rest being USDC. Let me tell you, not a great way to do crime. Those are not a great way to do crime. But also, I think number two, the thing that I find ironic is that Christine Lagarde herself was convicted and found guilty in 2016 for a massive government payout scheme to the friend of the former French president Nicolas Garkowski, however you say his name, She didn't go to jail. It was mostly like, oh, well, she was just kind of negligent. She looked the other way.
She was found guilty, though, for funny business, as she puts it. But you heard the core argument in there. You heard her actually say it. She said the quiet part out loud. It's an escape hatch. So the core argument that the ECB's paper puts forward is that, well, they're realizing Bitcoin might not be going away. And well, shoot, if Bitcoin's not going away, maybe it's not a bubble. And so they argue, well, if that scenario is true, if it's not a bubble, well, then we're going to have a problem with rich Bitcoiners because Bitcoiners, you know, they're going to be all this rich kind of like buying Ferraris and not producing much.
They're going to disadvantage all the no coiners out there. And the no coiners that come in later are going to have less coin. And they argue these early Bitcoiners would be potentially less productive than their overall wealth should suggest they are. They write, quote, early adopters increase their real wealth and consumption at the expense of real wealth and consumption of those who do not hold Bitcoin or invest it at only a later stage. So it's obvious. They're saying if you buy an asset that goes up in value, you're going to have more value than those that don't buy the asset.
They have a conclusion, though, because clearly there's a problem here that needs to be solved. From the paper quote missing out on bitcoin is not merely a lost opportunity for wealth accumulation but means real impoverishment compared to a world without bitcoin this redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society. So detrimental consequences for society, what might those be? We're going to get to that before we do. Don't you think it's kind of wild that we're sitting here and we have a paper from the ECB right in front of us that tells us that you better get some coin?
You're going to have problems. But what kind of problems? Well, that's the real question, isn't it? I just, it feels like this is, by the way, just the perfect paper that any thirsty, opportunistic politician or group of politicians needs served up for them on a golden platter to run with. Authorities will use a Luddite argument to enact harsh taxes on Bitcoin, if not outright bans. The authors take a distinctly anti-technology stance. They don't look at Bitcoin as a revolutionary breakthrough on par with the internet. They argue rather bluntly and absurdly that early adopters simply increased their wealth at consumption by taking advantage of those who didn't.
That's what they say. They increased their wealth and consumption by taking advantage of those who come later. You know, like when you buy your house, like my grandparents have this beautiful, well, my grandpa, only my grandpa now, my grandpa owns this beautiful place, beautiful place. It's probably, I don't know, $700,000 in value, maybe more now because it's in a nice town here in Washington. They bought it for $25,000 back in the 50s. Now we're $700,000. That asset went up in value. Although if you charter with the S&P or M2, it's a little different story.
But there's no difference there. But they have a bold proposal to solve this new novel problem that Bitcoin has presented, according to them. The paper advocates for laws that would either cap Bitcoin's price or eliminate it completely. So that way they could prevent what they call a division of society. Like I said, I've been holding Bitcoin since 2012. Of all the papers I've looked at in my years following Bitcoin, this is the most aggressive stance I've ever seen taken by a bank. After years of calling it, you know, a bubble or just for drugs, not worth anything. They just have no pretense here.
All the gloves come off. They say we need to either ban it or tax it. They see it as an existential threat and they're willing to fight it by any means necessary. And they never make the argument like how it's any different from being an early Amazon or Microsoft stockholder. You know, they don't really make any arguments about real estate. They dance around a core issue. There's a real issue underneath all of this. They can't just come out and say. But I think all of us have been wising up to their stupid game. Well, it's not so stupid, but to their stupid gaslighting.
You know, they cry for the average no-coiner Joe out there who's going to get left behind. while they have implemented a decade-plus of policy that transfers wealth and assets to the rich. And we've all been watching them do it. Now, the European Central Bank has cut interest rates, dropping its key lending rate to zero from 0.05%. This was eight years ago when the ECB just went to zero and kept it there for years. As part of a package of measures intended to boost the flagging eurozone economy, The ECB also slashed its deposit and lending facility rates to minus-point-4 percent and a quarter of a percent, respectively.
The central bank added it would expand its bond-buying stimulus program by raising monthly purchases to 80-8-0 billion euros from the current 60 and by purchasing corporate bonds. The package of measures is deemed more radical than investors had expected and follows a stimulus measure announced at the end of last year. They can't say the quiet part out loud, which is the reality. Their monetary policy has been hurting the middle class. It has been impoverishing and creating the widest wealth divide in history. They just, they can't say it. Or can they?
Music. It gets even wilder. So then the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis put out a paper just a few days after the ECB on October 17th, 2024, titled Unique Implementation of Permanent Primary Deficits? In the paper, they doubled down on the Fed of Minneapolis's old take that Bitcoin is worthless. We've heard this from them before. It's a sentiment that the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve, Neil Kashkari, has echoed every time he gets a chance, just on October 21st. He was in a public setting doing a Q&A, not about crypto, not about Bitcoin, but just any time he has, any chance he gets to get on his high horse, he takes it. This is just from a couple of days ago.
Well, you're right. There's a lot of activity that's happening. The nature of the economy is changing. And so we're always having to pioneer new data sources to give us insight into what's happening. I don't think crypto, because almost, I mean, I don't want to, you're going to pull my thread on crypto, and I'm going to go off on a little speech about crypto, which I don't want to do. But if you force me to, I'll be willing to do it. But very few transactions are actually happening on crypto. People are buying crypto and they're selling crypto, but they're not paying for goods and services using crypto.
It almost never happens unless people are buying drugs or other illegal activities. Such an old and tired critique. You can tell he's probably a little old and tired, too. He hasn't really updated his take. Like, you know, today, towards the end of 2024, Bitcoin is worth more than the UK pound. It's over a trillion in market cap. Entire countries have adopted or are adopting it. And Kashkari's real boss, BlackRock, their ETF is the most successful ETF launch in history. It's done what it took gold five plus years to do in nine months. But the paper reveals the real concern, not just the blowhardness that Kashkari goes out there and talks about, but what the Fed is really worried about.
And they finally have said the quiet part out loud. Bitcoin creates an escape hatch that prevents governments from running, quote. Permanent primary deficits to using normal debt and continue Markov strategies for primary deficits to payments and debt holders. So in other words, because it is thick, in other words, Bitcoin makes it possible for people to escape from continuous debasement. They go on to talk about the problems Bitcoin causes for forever debt policies, quote, continuous government policies designed for permanent primary deficits cannot eliminate an alternative steady state.
They continue, quote, and the government is forced to balance its budget. They go on to say, quote, a legal prohibition against Bitcoin can restore a unique implementation of permanent primary deficits. In other words, if they ban Bitcoin or we tax the hell out of it, it can restore the government's, quote, unique implementation of permanent primary deficits. So either tax the hell out of Bitcoin or ban it. And if you don't do that, you're not going to be able to run primary deficits that go on forever. And what this paper really is from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve is a banker's fantasy about prohibiting assets or, you know, somehow getting regulators, somehow these bankers, you know, are now influencing policy, probably actually a possible thing.
And they're getting great, huge, giant, enormous taxes passed on Bitcoin to ensure government debt remains the, quote, only risk free security, quote, only risk free security. That's the goal. The government debt needs to be, quote, the only risk free security. Bitcoiners have been focused on Gensler, but they probably should have been more worried about Kashgari and this paper. It just lays out once again talking points for a thirsty politician. And the ironic thing is the paper isn't really about Bitcoin at all. I mean, yes, Bitcoin is mentioned, but it's not actually the main focus of the Fed's paper.
Instead, it's a theoretical study that explores economic scenarios that we're obviously hurtling towards. Here's what the paper states, quote, We use Bitcoin as a metaphor for private sector security that is fixed supply and that is not a claim to any real resources. Okay. What they're doing is it's a look at how government deficit strategies are affected when there exists, one, an asset with a fixed supply, that's Bitcoin. Two, that it isn't issued by the government, Bitcoin again. And three, doesn't produce a direct utility flow. Well, I'm going to give that a half thing. We'll see about that.
Bitcoin is the best example they could find when they wanted an asset like this. This is a big deal. That's coming from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. We looked for the most independent free market asset that's hard and fixed that we could find, and we could find no better example than Bitcoin, is what they're saying. And while I hate the conclusions they come to, it kind of does say like Bitcoin is the best hedge against inflation and infinite government deficits there is. And the Federal Reserve of Minneapolis just confirmed that. Like that's just kind of what they just said.
So I think smart traders are going to read these papers and read Bitcoin as the true inflation head that the big banks, the big banks are worried about. Because it says right there, like, this is the best thing we could find. And if we're looking for people that are going to look for an escape hatch and the scenario we see play out, it's Bitcoin. And that's going to make us have to balance our budget, guys. It's actually a sales pitch. Although there will be those that take it and use some of those sentences to attack Bitcoin. No doubt about it. I'll have links to both papers if you would like to read them, including some responses as well.
Let's do a quick macro snapshot. The fiat market is a fickle thing. And just when certain individuals get on a camera and speak, it can move the market in dramatic directions for multiple days. We've had a couple of those this week. And one of them that I'm going to focus on is Paul Tudor Jones. He's, I guess, a billionaire. I think, yeah, he's a billionaire, known for his significant contributions to the industry of finance for years now. He runs a company called Tudor Investment Corporation, a leading macro hedge fund that's been around since 1980.
Paul made tons of headlines for financial win after financial win throughout the 80s. He's also known for rigorous risk management strategies. and he's also considered generally pretty keen and to have a technical understanding of the assets that he trades. And he shook the wider market this week when he sat down with Andy over at CNBC and he talked about the rock and the hard place that the market is in and some of the dynamics that I've been talking about and why I think the election has been spooking markets and keeping things kind of sloshing. President. And I have also, if I'm being honest, primarily because I see the polling numbers have clearly moved in this direction.
You say also, meaning you have, you've repositioned as if former President Trump wins. Yes. I have moved in that direction, for sure. And what does that mean? It just means more inflation trades, which I'd love to get to. But I think it's really important that we frame where we are right now. And where we are is an incredible moment in U.S. History. And what I really want to talk about is the debt trajectory that we're on. So we've gone in the space of 25 short years from debt to GDP at the federal level from about 40 percent to almost 100 percent. 60% in 25 years. And if you look at what our trajectory, what CBO projects our trajectory to be, as well as what we see as, and we're going to project further than CBO.
So I'm going to show you a chart. This is debt to GDP. So CBO says that we go from 98 to 122, I think 124. That's very conservative over the next 10 years. If you extrapolate that 30 years, you get to 200 percent debt to GDP. And so that's that's something obviously something that that can't go on forever. Won't. And the question is, after this election, will there be some point of recognition, particularly with all the the tax cuts that are being promised by both sides and the spending plans? I mean, they're handing out tax cuts like they're Mardi Gras beads, right? We're doing tax cuts on everything from tips to toucans. So it's crazy what's being promised.
After the election, I think the fact that you've got 7% to 8% budget deficits as far as the eye can see, the question is, will the markets allow either candidate? I think under Trump... What he's about to say there, I think, is a great point. So I just will pause because he kind of, he does the weave sometimes. It doesn't seem like either candidate's tax policies will be accepted by the market. They'll react badly. And so the candidates will be dissuaged, I suppose. You know, they're going to be disincentivized from proposing those things. That's what he's trying to say there. The deficit goes up by $500 billion per year under Harris's plan.
It goes up by an additional $600 billion plan per year. I have a feeling all those are just pipe dreams. I think the chances of any of those being enacted are— You mean that the tax cuts that they're putting on the table during the campaign— Those have zero chance of being enacted. Their tax plans and probably their budgets, right? They're probably all fantasy, which is so much of what economic discussion there has been in the election has been, you know, their policies that they probably won't implement. But keep in mind, we're not just talking about the U.S. election here.
What the inflationary forces that he's about to get to affect all of the West. The markets will, the debt markets for sure, the treasury market won't tolerate it. So why do you think that the treasury market continues to tolerate it now? Well, you know, it's so funny because financial crises percolate for years, but they blow up in weeks. That's kind of the history of them, right? And so for me, this election becomes one of those seminal points where all of a sudden, hmm. Let me really think whether this proposition that the U.S. Government is making me is something that I actually want to participate in. And I just want to.
All right, let's pause there for a second. So he shook the market when he started talking about how inflation is going to happen. We're going to have issues. Some of these budgets aren't going to aren't going to really happen. They're not going to pass. But then he lays out what I think is really kind of one of the core thesis of. This podcast. So I clipped it down to keep the runtime shorter on this one for you. But it's definitely worth listening to. Let's talk about taxes. OK, because that's how the money is going to get raised one way or the other. Correct. We're going to we're going to be broke really quickly unless we get serious about dealing with our spending issues.
And unless we only we can either. I don't know if we'll be able to cut spending that much. Sixty percent of our spending are transfer payments that to just to get us to the point where we stabilize that the GDP of where it is right now. Now, here's what you need to do. You need to let the Trump tax cuts expire. That's $390 billion. You need to raise the payroll tax on every single working person, 1%. That's another big slug. You'd have to raise the tax rate on the top, I think, probably everyone over $200,000. Probably have to raise that to 49.5%. If you do all these things, all these things, raise the Social Security from 65 to 70.
If you do all these things, means tests, Medicare, if you do all these things, All you do is you get to a primary balance. What that means is you stabilize debt to GDP. You're still actually increasing your debt. You're still actually increasing it because it excludes the interest costs, which, oh, by the way, the interest bill this year is larger than every single line item except Social Security. It's larger than defense spending, larger than Medicare. I believe it's $1.1 trillion now, so it's actually over a trillion. Given all of the things you're saying, are you off buying gold and Bitcoin?
I think all roads lead to inflation. We're going to end up. But does all roads lead to inflation? Therefore, gold is a good investment? Is Bitcoin a good investment to you? I'm long gold. I'm long Bitcoin. All roads lead to inflation. That's historically the way every civilization has gotten out is they've inflated away their debt. He says, we're going to have a Minsky moment, which is a sudden and significant collapse of asset values that happens after a prolonged period of economic growth and increasing speculation. He's probably right. Bloomberg released a study on October 19th of the 2020 2025 budget.
I guess for the first time I've said that out loud. And it's kind of like a first look of sorts. And in there, they discuss Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's idea for a new metric in which we can evaluate our debt problem and her brilliant metric for our debt problem. Well, interest payments divided by GDP after inflation. So let's get this straight. Inflation goes up and their problem magically improves. The Fed, if the Fed slashes rates and prices soar, that's even better. Your savings becomes worthless? Well, that's part of the plan. You see, destroying the value of money isn't the flaw in the system. It's the whole point.
She's got this whole metric that they're going to cook up, that everybody's going to look at, that just makes the debt look better and better if you adjust GDP by inflation and do these special numbers and bury your head. in the sand. So they clearly have a spending problem. Their own projections show it. So what can you do? What can you do to push back against the ECB or the Minneapolis Fed or the fact that Janet Yellen is going to cook the books on debt and come up with a whole new metric? You can take direct action. In this particular case, you can take direct action. All you have to do to hedge against a basement, to push back against the ECB and their plans to try to ban or tax Bitcoin, hodl through it.
DCA and hodl into your own cold storage. That's it. The more of us that own the Bitcoin directly, the less they can do about it. They can't capture any one entity. They can't have like a BlackRock ETF fork. We've already won. The majority of the Bitcoin is distributed amongst the people. All you have to do is just keep hodling. Stack and hodl. Music. Well, Mikey Saylor likes the coin, really poked the cyber hornet's nest this week during a two-part interview on the Markets with Madison YouTube channel. He said a few things that have gone viral. But I actually think it's provoking a wider self-custody conversation that I want to have with you.
So first, let's play what Saylor said, do a little breakdown, and then get into the conversation that I'm hoping this is provoking. If there is more Bitcoin, Bitcoins held with these third-party custodians, what risk does that pose, having greater supply held by fewer large institutions? Does that increase the risk of seizure and confiscation like we've seen with gold? And is that not exactly what Bitcoiners don't want to happen? No, I think it's the opposite. I think that when the Bitcoin is held by a bunch of crypto anarchists who aren't regulated entities, who don't acknowledge government or don't acknowledge taxes or don't acknowledge reporting requirements, that increases the risk of seizure.
You have an OG crypto community who's very hardcore about it. But if you look at where all the money is, 99.9% of the money is actually in the traditional economy. He's making the argument that traditionally these institutions are already trusted for people's assets. And I think he is talking more in the context of large institutions and not necessarily individual Bitcoiners. It's a little hard to tell, though, with the crypto anarchist comment. Seems a little unnecessary and a little reductionist. But I think the context is he's talking about larger institutions and how, well, we already trust them with our savings and our stocks and our gold, right? If you consider the Great Depression, I mean, people thought that their gold was safe in banks until the executive order of 1933.
So we're not entirely safe. I mean, I know that's kind of a wild thing to suggest may happen again, but history does repeat itself. So people's Bitcoin wouldn't be entirely safe. People say that, but mostly it's paranoid crypto anarchists that say that. See, again, that just seems reductionist. Like, is it that big of a stretch to think that the government might seize a scarce asset if they blow up the budget, which they're already on the path to do and they've done it before? Okay, because it's myth and a trope that goes on over and over again. But first of all, he didn't really seize the goal. People voluntarily turned in the goal.
They didn't go and kick in everybody's door, arrest them, shoot them and take their goal. That never happened. But is the United States on the Bitcoin standard? Maybe we will be soon. But the point really is we're not. It's totally not a reasonable comparison. People have these inflammatory tropes or inflammatory memes that they use. And it's like I say that because I want you to give me your money. If you don't trust the bank, then you'll buy my hardware wallet. If you don't trust this government, you'll move to my country and you'll buy a passport from me. That's the kind of fear mongering to get you to give me your money. Right.
And I use it to sell you a gun, to sell you a hardware wallet, to sell you an account, to sell you a financial advisor, to sell you an insurance policy, to sell you, you know, fill in the blank. I think he actually is selling us something. You know, I think what this is hopefully provoking is the value around Bitcoin's ability to be self-custodied and why that is so critical. Saylor himself has acknowledged the value around that. Churchill seized the gold. Roosevelt seized the gold. If you'd lived in Germany, you would have had your gold seized multiple times. In Japan, they lost it two or three times.
In Russia, you know, count the number of times. So there's nowhere on earth where you could have kept your gold. In fact, you could find lots of clips of Saylor talking about why it's so important that you can self-custody Bitcoin. I think he's got a dream of becoming a Bitcoin bank of some kind. And one day he might just be asking for people to custody their Bitcoin with whatever firm he'll do this with. So like any kind of sly like a fox businessman, I think he's getting ahead of that. He's changing his tune now, so there'll be clips of him saying just this when he announces some sort of like Bitcoin bank program.
You know, it's a shame, though, and it's embarrassing for him because on the first page, in the second sentence of Satoshi's white paper, it says, quote, the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double spending. He says right in there, in the second sentence on the first page, the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required. It's core to what Bitcoin is. And his arguments that no one knocked down doors over Executive Order 6102 are a bit specious. People were compelled to hand over their gold just like they're compelled to pay taxes and follow local laws.
And if they didn't comply and they were discovered, they could potentially spend time in jail. Some individuals did. Others were fined with an inflation-adjusted equivalent of about $230,000 if they were caught with more than just gold jewelry. But the reality is the majority of the gold that was taken, that was confiscated, was taken from institutions where gold was being held. The institutions just handed it over, which is, again, another solid argument for self-custody. Because history does tend to rhyme. And, you know, if you zoom out 30 years, who knows where this thing goes?
They don't even need to physically take it from you, though, do they? I think maybe a rhyme of history would be they require Bitcoin be held by approved institutions. That they keep it locked up there indefinitely, essentially reducing its utility and reducing its value. That would be one way to control it or to tax the hell out of it. But I think you would be doing much more harm to the economy than you'd be doing good. Because this thing could be an engine for future growth. I don't think that means that we have to be self-custody maxis. You know, I mean, I've been thinking about this.
The sailors have been going and getting this has been getting spread around. A lot of people have been commenting on it. Because I'm seriously considering a custody service for Jupiter Broadcasting's Bitcoin. Something that could be managed by multiple people in the company if needed. Or it could be accessed if something happened to me or I retired. Ideally a service that could helpfully generate tax documents when we need them at tax time. Things that businesses need. Multi-custody, that kind of stuff. So I think there is maybe a space for some custodial services.
But what do you think? Is that a mistake? I'd like to know your opinion. Would you please boost in? I'd like to know your thoughts. If you have a staunch self-custody argument for a business or for an individual, please do send it in. or if you got an argument for a custodial service, why maybe some folks should use custodial services, boost that in. I'm considering that as we get closer and closer to the end of the year, what I want to do for Jupiter Broadcasting. Also, I'd love to hear your reaction to Mikey like the coin sailors new tune. Did you think he was Batman and now he turns out to be two face?
Have we let a fox into the hen house? Boost in and let me know. Music. All right, coming up, your boosts, a couple of crazy Bitcoin ads. You won't believe the money that's getting spent. Some project updates, a big one too. Final clip of the week and a state of the network. So shout out to my affiliates, River. I'll have more on them in a moment, but if you're in the States, I think the best company to stack your coins with a secure Bitcoin-only platform where you can verify how many Bitcoin they have on the platform, make sure they have the reserves they have, and you can withdraw over Lightning to maintain your privacy.
And the fees, they're great. Everything's great about River. I'll get more into it in a little bit. But I also want to mention, if you want to spend Bitcoin, holidays are coming up. Maybe you want to blast some sats over Lightning. The Bitcoin Company, use my promo code Jupiter or use the link in the notes. Gets you some sats, gets the show some sats. And it's a great way to spend your sats on Lightning. Super quick into any kind of gift card. They got hundreds of them. That's the BitcoinCompany.com, promo code Jupiter. And you can use those affiliate links as a way to support the show. or of course you can boost in like so many great folks out there do thank you to everybody who boosts into the show and our first boost this week comes from mr pod home himself aka barry with no message but 8 000 sats i don't know if they're supposed to be a message in there thank you pod home appreciate the support it is our hosting platform of choice, open source accountant is back it's been i think a week or two nice to hear from him with 2,000 sets.
I would love a whole episode about how you acquire, move, and secure your Bitcoin. It'd be great to share with local small business owners who are Bitcoin carriers but still can't wrap their head around the process. Hmm. Something that could be consumed by a newbie complete. I'd have to think about that. That would have to be probably a dedicated thing. Maybe a holiday special. Keep brainstorming, open source accountant. I don't know if I 100% have it in my head yet, but I could see it. It could be a nice solution for the holidays, do a little prerecord, something you can share with family around that time.
Let's keep brainstorming. Anonymous comes in with 5,000 sats. You suppose. I heard about the show from the Podfather on Podcasting 2.0. I've been listening to every episode since. Well, thank you very much for sending back some value. Appreciate that shout out to the Podfather. Oppie 1984 is here again with 4,000 sats. If John Deaton and his team were smart, they'd make a political ad with the audio of Liz saying who she wants to keep crypto away from. and then show a picture of each group with American dollars as she lists them. He doesn't stand a chance of winning, but he can at least tear down a bit and maybe limit the amount of damage he can do. I hope so, Oppie.
I think it's a shame that the way Liz has been able to lie through her teeth to people and claim that she's trying to help them while working hand in glove with the bankers and the SEC. It's been obvious to anybody paying attention, but if you're not paying attention to the stuff behind the scenes and you just listen to what she says, she is a top-rate gaslighter. Thank you for the boost. Ace Ackerman comes in with a row of ducks. Just says boost. Boost. Thank you, Ace. Nice to hear from you. Tomatoes in with 9,001 sats. It's over 9,000! Thanks for all the newbie content. It's helped. It helped me get oriented in Bitcoin.
I just put my first million sats through Liquid onto a cold card. I thought I'd weigh in on the question of retirement from a European perspective. Well, first of all, congrats and thank you. He writes, I'm primarily counting on the stage of retirement plan combined with a small complimentary private pension. Oh, state. Right. The state plan. I got you. I have long-term savings in things like stocks and investment plans, which have interesting tax breaks there. Okay. And we own our own apartment, which in a pinch could be sold. Yep. And we bought it with the intention of keeping it to live in though.
So a little bit of stocks, a little bit of property, a little bit of Bitcoin. That seems like a pretty good little distribution there, Tomato. Very reasonable. I think a sensible distribution you might see. A sensible, zesty drink. I need a zesty drink. Thank you for the boost. That's all our boosts above 2,000 sats this week. Yep. It's a quick boost segment, I suppose, so that's kind of nice. So we had eight people boost in. We stacked 31,556 sats with the boost. The streamers, though, did pick up the slack this week. They came in as our champs. We had 43 of you out there streaming sats as you listen.
So together, you all stacked 59,933 sats, which brings this show's total to... Music. 91,489 sats, which not a great week. Not a great week for the show. Maybe, you know, maybe it's a sort of a statement on the episode. So boost in with ideas to get the boost up if you have any. I know that sounds odd, but I'm so heads down on content. I think sometimes I don't focus on that enough. So I could use some help in that area. And I think unless something big breaks, I might take next week off just to make room and I have a super busy schedule and I think, you know, I could be wrong, but I think there's just going to be a lot more election stuff as we get closer.
And I suspect that might've turned some of you off last week because as we get a little bit closer to the big day, it's kind of what the news is all about. And I tried to keep it away from all the top of the show as much as I could, but it even sneaks in a little bit here and there. So I think that's turned some people off. And so it's likely just going to be, you know, more news like that. So I might take next week off unless something really major breaks. It's always possible. You never know. I mean, it's kind of a crazy time right now, but I think I'll probably, uh, I'll probably just be heads down.
Thank you everybody who does support the show though. I do really appreciate it. And if you'd like to boost in, just get a new podcast app at podcastapps.com. You can set up something like Fountain or Cast-O-Matic in no time. Music. All right, let's drive a few more folks away. Although I hope for this story, we can turn off our political brains and we can turn on our Bitcoin historical perspective brains, right? Clonk. Clonk. Did you get it there? Here you go. Wait, you got to push that. There you go. Now it's in place. So this week, the Bitcoin, the Bitcoin, the Bitcoin, geez, I don't know what my problem is.
The Bitcoin Voter Pack, which is the spending arm of the digital coin advocacy group, the Bitcoin Voter Project, launched three digital ads aimed at swing voters in Pennsylvania and Texas to sway races towards candidates who support the mainstreaming of digital assets and, you probably guessed it, Bitcoin mining. The ads represent a total of $2 million aimed at identifying and educating and mobilizing pro-Bitcoin voters in key swing states. So they're spending $2 million in various different places and more. I think a total now of $130 million.
But $2 million of that is just targeting pro-Bitcoin voters in swing states. The funding comes from Riot, Marathon Digital, and CleanSpark. They're the three top, well, three out of the top five miners out there. There's some others, but like out of the top five, they're like the top three, I guess. They're the top three mining companies in the States. And they're dumping money into these very key states. And I got a couple of clips that I thought would set it up for us. And this one gives you an idea of the money being spent and where it's getting spent. Hey, Tyler. So with two weeks to go into the general, fresh election data for September shows that crypto PAC money is focused on close house races as part of an effort to push candidates favorable to the group's agenda over the top.
Now, Fairshake, which is the leading pro-crypto super PAC and one of the top spenders across any industry this election cycle, has funneled a big chunk of its final donations to close house races in eight states, including New York, Nevada and California. And several of those races are considered toss ups by the Cook Political Report. And more than 70 percent of those donations are going to Democratic candidates. Now, all in, crypto groups have spent over $130 million in congressional races for this year's election, including the primaries. And what I will say is that a lot of that money, it's going to Senate races.
Well, I was going to ask you, is the Senate figure in this at all and who's collecting there? So you had $10 million apiece going to the candidates in Michigan and Arizona. And then overwhelmingly, the vast majority of this money, $40 million going to vote out of the Senate banking chair, Sherrod Brown, who hasn't been very favorable to the industry. Wow. Wow. Wow. Yeah, it's almost like it's an industry that's been under political attack constantly. So the Bitcoin pack, the one I was mentioning, just ran a couple of these ads. And again, historical brain, not political brain.
Let's look at a couple of them because they sort of... They do position a candidate, no doubt about that. But they also talk positively about Bitcoin. I think it's kind of an interesting time we find ourselves in. America's financial freedom is under attack, but Texas has a champion in their corner. I want Texas to be the oasis on planet Earth for Bitcoin and crypto. Ted Cruz understands that embracing Bitcoin means giving the people more control over their financial future, not the big banks or the government. Ted Cruz will fight to make sure your money is your choice.
Secure, decentralized and free from the government. Vote Senator Ted Cruz leading the charge for Texans financial freedom. Vote Bitcoin, it says. If the voiceover guy is listening, boost in. I'd love to work with you. You could read like the quotes on the show. You know we just play some epic music it'd be great really help with retention i'm sure so that was their texas ad now here is the ad they're running in pennsylvania it's a little bit of a different take in pennsylvania we're known for our steel our spirit and now our innovation we will ensure that the future of crypto and bitcoin will be made in america and if america doesn't embrace it we're going to be left behind bitcoin means more jobs right here in pennsylvania it's about leading in technology, securing our financial future and keeping Pennsylvania ahead.
And instead of attacking industries of the future, we will embrace them. And by embracing it, we can create great jobs, a great source of innovation. And the national security implications of this are clear. Vote Donald Trump and Dave McCormick for jobs, for innovation, for Pennsylvania's future. Geez, I think they mentioned jobs like three times. National security got mentioned in there. As we count down to the election, it's amazing to see this money get spent. And I have some links in the show notes around all of that. And I'd love to know your thoughts, too, on the coverage of it, my coverage specifically, but also just how you feel about these PACs spending money. Like they're getting in the political game.
They're getting, I would imagine, into a business that most Bitcoiners kind of hate. All right, time for some project updates. This one is so neat. I can't wait to get back to Denver. The Space, which is a member-run Bitcoin hub, has announced they are now a Bitcoin citadel. It's a hub for fostering collaboration, education, and networking for Bitcoin enthusiasts in Colorado. Bitcoinnews.com writes, This member-run hub is not just a co-working space. Well, geez, a co-working space sounds great. They say it's also a thriving ecosystem focused on collaboration, education, network, and networking for those passionate about Bitcoin and the principles it stands for.
So it's The Space, and I'll put a link in the show notes. If you're listening and you're in the Denver, Colorado area, go check it out and boost in and tell me how it is. And next time I'm in Denver, I'm going to have to check out The Space. Now, I mentioned there was also some big news with River. River made some big news this week. They've announced a savings account for cash that earns Bitcoin dividends. So it's interest paid in Bitcoin, essentially. You put cash in an account on River and you earn a 3.8 interest rate that they pay out in Sats. So they're not generating yield on Bitcoin. They're generating yield on the cash. And the cash is FDIC insured up to $250,000.
And of course, the Bitcoin that you generate, that's all held in reserve proved custody. And the user can withdraw the cash at any time. There's no fees, no minimums. And it seems like a pretty compelling program. People are really excited about it. I'll be honest with you, I probably don't have enough cash to make it worth it. But if you are, and I've heard from some of you out there, you're still sitting on a big pile of cash. You might look at this because, while you can't really safely earn yield on Bitcoin, at least with any scheme I've ever seen, there are plenty of them out there to earn interest on cash. And that's exactly what River is doing here.
Try it out. If you do, let me know how it goes, because the feedback I've seen on Stack Your News and on social media so far seems to be pretty excited and pretty positive. And our final clip of the week is Natalie Burnell. She sat down with Charles Payne on Money Matters, and they covered an old prediction by Henry Ford, where he advocated for a currency that is tied to energy. They're saying that Henry Ford actually predicted Bitcoin. He talked about replacing gold with an energy currency. By the way, he also said it would stop wars. So your thoughts on this? The Henry Ford thing is fascinating.
I mean, he essentially understood 100 years ago that if you fix the money, you can fix the world, Charles. And he lived through World War I, and I think he saw the manipulation that happened on what was supposed to be the gold standard. He saw that gold can easily be monopolized by powerful bankers and global elites to essentially fund endless conflicts through inflation. And he believed that energy, which no one can print or manipulate, could instead serve as this stable and peaceful foundation for a world currency. And that's exactly what Bitcoin offers.
It redefines money and ties it to the currency of the universe, which is energy. And by dematerializing wealth, it introduces the incentive for peace and cooperation because there's nothing physical to conquer. So I think Ford would have definitely been a Bitcoiner. Let's look at the state of the network. As I record, the price of Bitcoin right now is $66,320 in the U.S. greenback. Sats per dollar is $1,508. The price since last episode, well, that's down 2.3%. We're down 10.1% from the all-time high. It's been 223 brutal days since the all-time high. There are 19,353 reachable Bitcoin nodes today.
The average fee, as I record, is 12 sats, a V-byte, and the block height, 867,049 blocks. There you go. That is the state of the network. Thank you for listening to This Week in Bitcoin. If you like this episode, links to what I talked about today are thisweekinbitcoin.show. Of course, you can subscribe in your podcast app of choice. I hope you choose a podcasting 2.0 app, as I think they're pretty great. You get chapters and transcripts of this show in a podcasting 2.0 app. And of course, that's also a way you can boost in. Now, I probably won't see you next week. So I'm going to leave you with a banger of a track. It's Stop, featuring Alex Piñata.
Music.
Welcome into 32
Kashkari's Best Hit
It's Another Salty Week
ECB's Bitcoin Bombshell
Federal Reserve's Attack on Bitcoin
Saylor Steps In It
Bitcoin PAC Spending Big Money
Bitcoin Voters
Innovations in the Bitcoin Space
Henry Ford's Vision for Currency
State of the Bitcoin Network
