The Peter McCormack Show

Matthew Mežinskis is the creator of the Crypto Voices podcast and Porkopolis Economics website. In this interview, we discuss Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the refutation of justifications for the war on the basis of Russia's security needs and threats from Ukrainian Nazis. - - - - On the 24th February, Vladimir Putin ordered Russian troops to invade its neighbour Ukraine. It is the first major conflict in Europe since World War 2, this time pitting East Slav against East Slav. The ramifications of the war will be felt for decades to come. Yet, at the moment, analysts and commentators are still struggling to make sense of the rapidly shifting present. Despite the uncertainty regarding how the conflict will play out, it seemed as though the ideological battlegrounds were clear: Putin, a ruthless autocratic leader in charge of a mafia state, has aggressively and unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation defying international law, destabilising the wider region, and causing significant issues in global energy and food markets. However, some of those who have cast a rightfully critical eye over post-World War 2 American foreign policy, particularly its proclivity for armed combat, looked at Russia's actions through a different lens. To them, Russia had credible security concerns. Does a nation that has been invaded twice in recent centuries by European powers have legitimate concerns over NATO expansions toward its borders? Furthermore, are the alarming claims of powerful ultra right-wing within Ukraine's armed forces fighting along Russia's borders reliable? To those for whom the conflict resonates personally, where TV images show familiar locations and victims with a shared history, these are incredibly emotive subjects. It becomes more than an intellectual disagreement, and there is little room for nuance. But, even for those of us without an intimate connection, Putin's historical record and the evidence that Russia is engaging in brutal atrocities against unarmed civilians of all ages, should bring clarity to our perspective.

Maajid Nawaz is a UK-based counter-extremism activist, author and content producer. In this interview, we discuss his membership of a fundamentalist pan-Islam political group, imprisonment in Egypt, and returning to the UK to work on counter-extremism. We also discuss being forced to leave his position as a presenter on LBC. - - - - Maajid Nawaz experienced first-hand the rise of Islamic extremism through the 1990s. At the time terrorism was not viewed to be a major global issue: it was confined to specific pockets around the world or used by individuals expressing narrow ideological views. This was when Nawaz was a senior member of a political organisation pushing for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Then 9/11 happened, which brought the threat of Islamic terrorism sharply into focus. Nawaz and like-minded people were now perceived to be the enemy by a growing political alliance. Nawaz was in Egypt, arriving a day before 9/11. He was picked up and imprisoned for 4 years in Egypt's most notorious prison. He witnessed torture and was subject to a period in solitary confinement. Following pressure from Amnesty amongst others, Nawaz was eventually released and returned to the UK. Rather than turn to thoughts of revenge, Nawaz sort to break the cycle of violence. He renounced his Islamist past and then co-founded a counter-extremist foundation. He ended up advising leaders around the world, including UK Prime Minister David Cameron and US President George Bush. Nawaz is now a content producer seeking to cover a range of issues: politics, security and human rights, Jihadism, Nationalism, China's ill-treatment of Uighurs, and the Covid lockdowns. His dissenting views on the orthodoxy regarding vaccines led to him being forced to leave as a presenter on the talk radio station LBC and becoming an independent voice. There is a certain clarity of thought that comes from having experienced at close quarters how the geo-political landscape has shifted and changed over the past two decades. Nawaz has clear ideas on how the world works, how institutions and systems behave, and why we must question the mainstream narrative. When all systems lean toward power, it is important for some to lean in the opposite direction.

Matthew Mežinskis is the creator of the Crypto Voices podcast and Porkopolis Economics website. In this interview, we discuss the definition of money, the importance of credit and fractional reserve banking, and how "not your keys, not your coins" equally applies to bank deposits. - - - - WBD528, "Everything You Know About the Economy is Wrong with Jeff Snider", was one of our most discussed shows of recent months. Jeff presented a number of challenging and yet fascinating ideas, that have now spurred a second interview responding to some of the issues raised. A principle issue was Jeff's assertion that the system lacks understanding and control. When asked whether he could define money Jeff replied "No, I actually don't. That's I think that's the general problem. Even the Federal Reserve or central banks, economists, they can't define money either." Matthew Mežinskis respectfully disagrees: he thinks that there are tried and tested specific definitions that make money comprehensible to all. Matthew promotes the idea that money is chiefly a medium of exchange, and that there are two distinct types of money: base money that confers ownership, and fiduciary money which is a claim for ownership. Further, Matthew is of the opinion that, whilst criticism of the Fed is valid, it isn't the ignorant and inefficient organisation some portray it to be. From this cascades a series of additional opinions that are at odds with the mainstream narrative within Bitcoin circles: credit is a natural means of human interaction, that has enabled civilisations to flourish; whilst fractional reserve banking is a necessary part of capital allocation within the economy, and cash use continues to be vibrant. And yet, in line with the truism that Bitcoiners are a broad church, Matthew is a strong advocate for Bitcoin. He sees that it promises real improvement to the current economic system. He just sees it through a different lens. In this worldview is Bitcoin an evolution rather than a revolution?

Junseth is an OG Bitcoiner and the former co-host of Bitcoin Uncensored. In this interview, we discuss how the early days of Bitcoin mirror the issues we're seeing in the ecosystem today: over leverage, unsustainable returns, greed and excessive confidence that the party won't end. - - - - The contagion in the DeFi market over the past few months has seemed unprecedented. Major companies wiped out. Investors rekt. Confidence turned to panic. Commentators have been declaring that the recent events are an existential crisis: this time Bitcoin is really dead. As one of the OG Bitcoiners, Junseth was part of the initial wave who eulogized and expanded on what the innovation could possibly mean for the world before the world had heard of Bitcoin. Then, between 2015-2017, he hosted the uncompromising podcast Bitcoin Uncensored, with Chris DeRose. They exposed false promises and scams prevalent in the space. Past is, as they say, prologue. And the past events that triggered the development of Bitcoin, and its early days, rhyme with the present. Junseth connects the over-leverage within traditional finance, which was the predicate for Satoshi's message in the genesis block, with the excessive confidence and greed that has been the root of the cascading collapse of DeFi companies. In turn, the untenable yields prevalent within the altcoin markets were a practice employed by scammers working with Bitcoin nearly a decade ago. What are the important lessons to learn? Humans are creatures of habit: scams and greed will always follow the money. But, is the more important lesson that the unnecessary complexity of the grift that develops diverts from the principle simplicity of Bitcoin? Is the innovation of digital value the singular utility? Will those motivated by greed, therefore, miss the real purpose of Bitcoin? Should we instead follow the actions of those motivated by need?

Paul Sztorc is an independent Bitcoin researcher. In this interview, we discuss drivechains, his 2015 proposal that's the focus of BiP 300 and 301. Drivechains facilitate sidechains on Bitcoin, providing a bridge to new coins. The aim is to enable developer creativity atop Bitcoin. - - - - In October 2014 Adam Back and other prominent Bitcoin developers introduced the concept of sidechains to Bitcoin's infrastructure. In the paper, they stated "We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own." Paul Sztorc then developed a proposal for a version of sidechains in 2015 that were linked to Bitcoin's mainchain. This proposal would improve on the original sidechain idea in several ways: it did not require independent miners for the sidechains, and further, it did not require a hard-fork of Bitcoin. A principle driver was to enable developers to create innovations within Bitcoin, outside of the need to develop separate token ecosystems. Various features, including a 1:1 peg, and a delayed redemption period, were designed to mitigate the incentive to create new alternative tokens for purely selfish financial reasons, whilst facilitating an ecosystem for innovation. In short, it was designed to remove the marketplace for altcoins altogether, allowing Bitcoin to foster experimentation. And yet, whilst being the basis for two Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, drivechains are still yet to be adopted by the community. This is perhaps not a surprise given Bitcoin's focus on dependability and reasonable concerns about impinging on Bitcoin's robust security. But, are these concerns valid? Of course, the idea that we could retain a fixed monetary supply on a secure base layer, and at the same time have the freedom to experiment with new privacy technologies and programmability seems like the best of both worlds. The question remains why this strategy has not yet been broadly supported and adopted by the network. The "work slowly and build things" philosophy in Bitcoin is a core pillar of the Bitcoin value proposition as a reliable monetary protocol. But can drivechains be a way of enabling Bitcoin to become the gravitational centre for developers? Or, do Drivechains pose an existential choice between security and progress?

Jason Maier is a teacher and progressive Bitcoiner. In this interview, we discuss his inspiration for writing a book setting out his case, as a progressive, for Bitcoin. The public narrative and FUD around Bitcoin are antithetical to progressives, yet, its utility is aligned with progressive ideals. - - - - Bitcoin should be a broad church. The original cypherpunks philosophy was predicated on anarchist ideals, to work outside of government controls. This attitude is analogous to a wide variety of political philosophies, including those on the left who feel disenfranchised by the current global capitalist hegemony. And yet, Bitcoin has historically been viewed as being antithetical to progressives. The mainstream narrative is that Bitcoiners are predominantly libertarian, with explicit views on the need to reduce the size of the state, the coercive nature of taxation, and the importance of self-reliance. In addition, there is significant criticism about the environmental harm being done by Bitcoin mining through its energy demands. Given our polarised society, it's not surprising that progressives are immediately turned off. And yet, there has been a marked increase in the number of progressive voices entering the community over the past few years. These people have risen to prominence given their impassioned and articulate advocacy for Bitcoin. It is a new wave of orange-pilled adoption that has identified broad utility that is aligned to, rather than being at odds with, progressive ideals. Whether it's that Bitcoin is providing sovereignty and security to marginalized communities, that Bitcoin acts as a constraint to unfettered government economic power, or that Bitcoin is actually enabling market-driven solutions to environmental issues - there are many obvious fact-based reasons why progressives should be enthused by the application of Satoshi's innovation. The reason why the increase in left-leaning adoption hasn't turned into a flood is in part due to education. There are a limited number of resources available to those starting on their Bitcoin journey. This is where people like Jason Maier hope to make a difference. Material written by a progressive will provide an authentic message specifically tailored to this audience. This should be exciting for all Bitcoiners. If Bitcoin is to become global money we need as wide an audience as possible to see value in it.

There is a growing a powerful backlash against Bitcoin mining. In the past 2 months: New York's legislative assembly established a moratorium on mining based on PoW; Dick Durbin, the second highest ranked Democrat in the Senate, tweeted that Bitcoin mining uses "obscene amounts of energy"; the European Central Bank indicated that a ban on PoW is likely by 2025. The problem is that the growing movement against Bitcoin mining, specifically its use of energy to satisfy PoW consensus protocol, defies logic. The FUD and the facts don't align. The reality is Bitcoin mining is providing unprecedented utility to society. It is helping to mitigate methane emissions at landfill and oil fields, whilst also providing a unique demand that stabilizes energy grids. The concern is that the FUD is orientated along political lines. The movement against Bitcoin mining is more heavily resourced by democratic and left-leaning groups. Therefore, is the growing progressive support for Bitcoin more than just beneficial to its wider adoption? Could it be vital to dispel the disinformation? Is Bitcoin's future dependent upon a de-polarisation of the ecosystem? Whatever the trajectory of the discussion, one thing is clear: Harry Sudock is one of the most clear-eyed, passionate and articulate voices within our industry. With people of such uncompromising yet pragmatic vision, we have the resources to win the battle of ideas. The Bitcoin community's role is to help circulate the facts amongst the groups spreading the FUD.

Hyperbitcoinization has long been discussed within Bitcoin circles. To some it is an inevitability, to others, it is a pipedream. Notwithstanding the differences of opinion, it is generally assumed the process requires top-down nation-state actions. In the meantime, adopting, using and living with Bitcoin is a 'side hustle' to the practical reality of having to operate within a fiat economic system. However, it shouldn't be a surprise that amongst the growing number of people promoting freedom money, there is a growing community who are going all in on Bitcoin. At the extreme end of 'getting off zero' in terms of Bitcoin adoption, there is a movement promoting 'getting on zero' in terms of fiat rejection. It's hyperbitcoinization at the individual level. But how does one go about using Bitcoin as your personal medium of exchange and unit of account? There are a number of technical issues that need to be addressed: our fiat economic system is deeply embedded into every facet of our way of life. But there are current and emerging technologies that can assist in that process. But arguably more important than the practical issues that need to be surmounted is the change in attitude that's required to make this financial adjustment. Our fiat economy is also deeply embedded into our individual and collective psychologies. A change in mindset is required, particularly in relation to price. This approach is not for everyone. Different people have specific personal needs and responsibilities that make 'getting off zero' unfeasible at this stage of Bitcoin's adoption cycle. It is not a dogmatic and fanatical action, coercing others to follow suit. But at the same time, 'getting off zero' should be applauded as being perhaps the ultimate vote of confidence in Bitcoin.

David Morris is the Chief Insights Columnist at CoinDesk. In this interview, we discuss the contagion that has ripped through the crypto market, and how it mirrors the worst failings of the 2008 financial crisis. Is regulation required for crypto to protect people from getting rekt? - - - - Over the past few months, the crypto industry has experienced a series of seismic events resulting in yet untold numbers of retail investors being wiped out. Those to blame are considered to be, at best, criminally negligent. What the heck happened? By now, the "I told you so" refrain has long been worn out amongst groups of Bitcoiners. Unfeasibly high APRs, complex stablecoin algorithmic pegs, crypto funds attracting huge amounts of capital - this was background noise that many just cancelled out by a blanket rejection of the whole sector. But there were targeted warnings of danger within the altcoin ecosystem. Those with a keen interest in the sector, who couldn't be co-opted, started to investigate the fabulous promises being offered. They found alarming weaknesses, obvious failings and ruinous incentives structures. The red flags were hoisted, but, by this time, too many were caught up in the hysteria to take notice. As we start to undertake the autopsy, on what is still metaphorically a warm body, the obvious questions arise. How did we as a collective let this happen? How can we stop this from happening again? Are we in the same position as the banking sector following the global financial crisis? Do we need regulations to enforce protections for investors?

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss the fundamentals of the current global economy: the Eurodollar system, central banks, money printing, debt, inflation and deflation. - - - - WBD528, "Everything You Know About the Economy is Wrong with Jeff Snider", was very popular with listeners. It raised the concept of the global economy being controlled by the Eurodollar system, an esoteric and opaque financial market outside of the control of the United States. The issues emanating from this theory are manifold, not least that central banks aren't in control. A common request was to have us discuss the issues arising from Jeff Snider's arguments with Lyn Alden. Lyn has written extensively about these issues: her November 2020 paper "Banks, QE, and Money-Printing" is a peer-leading explanation of QE. It clarified why, up to the end of 2020, QE hadn't led to the inflation that many commentators had been warning of since 2007. Jeff and Lyn are aligned on the theory that the Eurodollar system is a critical driver of the global economy, and that the risk of deflation is of concern. The differences in opinion center on the importance of sovereign debt. Jeff thinks we need more debt to unlock liquidity and combat recessionary forces. Lyn's concern is that unprecedented levels of indebtedness, in the context of recessionary forces, are an existential threat. Could the Ponzi scheme fall apart? The warning signs are there: the issues in the repo market in 2019; the breaking of the US treasury market in 2020; numerous currency crises around the world, which include developed economies. If the situation is at risk of collapse, what are the mitigations? There seems to be no official alternative to the central banks' plan to continue printing money to resolve economic problems. But, as Japan may be finding, that approach may have its natural limits. The risks are apparent, whilst the solutions are limited. Maybe we need to have Jeff and Lyn debate in person.

Dan Weintraub is a retired history teacher, author and Bitcoin advocate. In this interview, we discuss how fiat money results in a cycle of increasing consumption to meet our need for stimuli, destroying our neurological systems, and how Bitcoin arrests and reverses this cycle. - - - - Previous societies had been more spiritually centered and had long regarded the roots of materialism (i.e. pride, greed, lust, envy etc.) as being the worst of sins. Then, following industrialisation, materialism has been distorted and promoted as a desirable mindset. The capitalist rationale is obvious: meeting people's needs generates wealth. But, have fiat currencies locked the capitalist system into a dangerous charade? Increased debt within the system means there is a need for increasing economic activity. This can be met by exploiting people to create superficial desires and wants beyond their actual needs. Advertising is now a ubiquitous facet of modern living: a 24/7/365 machine of selling. Thus, it is not surprising that as materialism has grown, so has the reaction to it. It has long been lambasted as being harmful to society: excessive consumption can be at once wasteful, polluting and divisive. However, increasing concern has been raised over its destructive effects on human neurology: our brains are being rewired, and we have lost the memory of an alternate way to live. Materialism enslaves us in an elusive search for satisfying stimuli. A lot of our consumption is driven by an addiction to our brain's chemical reaction: a release of endorphins and dopamine gives us momentary pleasure. With the body's exposure to any drug, we build tolerance. Then, we need a greater high to satisfy our need for stimulation. We're biologically locked in. Bitcoin is heralded as the opportunity for a new and more honest economic paradigm. The question is though whether Bitcoin can reset more than just the economic system; can it reset our damaged neurological systems? Can it enable us to re-establish an understanding of the path to more centered and happy lives?

Steven Lubka is Managing Director of Private Client Services at Swan Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss the true meaning of inflation, the different types of inflation, and why this means Bitcoin is the best hedge against monetary inflation. We also discuss the crazy alchemy of bonds. - - - - Given Bitcoin's fixed monetary policy and increasing scarcity, it has long been promoted as being a reliable inflation hedge. It was one of Bitcoin's principal utilities. Then the consumer price index (CPI) began to rise, Bitcoin's price tracked downwards, and commentators rushed to dismiss the "inflation hedge" theory. This included Bank of America, Mark Cuban, and a wave of financial journalists. However, inflation is a broad term used to describe a range of phenomena within an economy. Generally, people ascribe inflation to increases in the price of goods. Originally though, inflation has been defined as an increase in the money supply. These definitions matter in examining whether Bitcoin has failed as an inflation hedge. Have people used the wrong definition? The failure of the inflation hedge theory relates directly to the decrease in Bitcoin's price whilst the CPI has increased over the past few months. Changes in the CPI can be caused by increased money supply, but they are also driven by supply-side changes such as supply chain shocks resulting from the pandemic and more recently the war in Ukraine. We are going through a period of money supply deflation as the economies of the world are starting to contract. Prices are going up whilst value is going down. Yet, significant money supply inflation has occurred since 2008. Various measures of broad money show that the US Fed has increased the money supply around 3 times since the global financial crisis. Over the same period, Bitcoin was launched, established a price, and grew to a market capitalization on par with some of the world's major currencies. As the money supply has expanded, Bitcoin's value has increased. Now money supply is contracting Bitcoin's price has decreased. So, has Bitcoin actually done what it set out to do and hedge against monetary inflation? Is the real issue people's misunderstanding of the true meaning of inflation?

Pete Rizzo is the editor of Bitcoin Magazine, and one of Bitcoin's leading journalists. In this interview, we discuss Bitcoin maximalism in terms of how it should be defined and rationalised, the moral lens of maximalists, and maximalism's advantages and limitations. - - - - Following our interview with Udi to discuss Bitcoin Maximalism, we now host another interview on the topic with Pete Rizzo. The two shows together designed to look at maximalism from alternative perspectives with this interview attempting to understand if a definition of maximalism possible or is it necessarily opaque and fluid. Bitcoin maximalism has long been discussed and has gone through numerous evolutions. WBD first did a podcast on maximalism 4 years ago. Since then, there has been a new wave of adoption, and with that a new wave of maximalists. Pete Rizzo outlines his definition of maximalism for the current cycle: all efforts should be focused on supporting and improving Bitcoin; investments in other cryptocurrencies should be discouraged and ignored. And the market's best method of policing this is the imposition of moral penalties on those working against maximalism. However, is there a contradiction within maximalism? In seeking to vehemently defend the integrity of Bitcoin, could it harm specific projects outside of Bitcoin that aim to provide unique and objectively useful utility? Or, is Bitcoin's mission so valuable that it can not afford to be nuanced, and therefore collateral damage is unavoidable?

Aaron Daniel is an Appellate attorney and author of The Bitcoin Brief, a newsletter analysing Bitcoin's effect on law and society. In this interview, we discuss the legal arguments around making Bitcoin US legal tender, and whether it would actually confer any meaningful benefits. - - - - It is assumed that for Bitcoin to become widely adopted within the US, it would need to be made legal tender. Without such legal clarity, Bitcoin may continue to be viewed by the general population as an unofficial and risky form of money, liable to be prohibited by the state. Therefore, gaining legal tender status would be a seismic positive shift in Bitcoins development. Attempts to move the country in this direction are often applauded by Bitcoiners. Whether it is US states commencing processes to establish protections for Bitcoin's use (including efforts in Arizona to declare Bitcoin as legal tender), to activists and politicians advocating for the Federal government to consider making Bitcoin legal tender. The assumption is these are worthy actions. But, what is legal tender? What utility and protections does such status provide money? What legal framework(s) would be used to confer legal tender status? And, is it necessarily so that such a classification would benefit Bitcoin and it's users? The consideration of any nascent technology in legal terms is always fraught with uncertainty and interpretation. The constitution and bill of rights are a firm basis for the development of the world's oldest and most enduring democracy. But, the consideration of modern developments through the prism of the 18th-century founders results in legal arguments that need testing. Whist such testing is worthwhile, seeking to make a private digital currency legal tender in the US will be a huge endeavour. And, rushing to develop the legal case misses the more essential policy question: is it beneficial to Bitcoin and its users to mandate its legal standing? Fundamentally, should freedom money remain free: free from state interference, but also free for all people to accept or reject?

In this interview, I talk to Jeet Sidhu and we discuss whether the promotion of obviously deficient ESG standards is a signal of a wider societal malaise: decivilisation, overregulation, political incompetence and consistent policy failures. Is human flourishing on the ropes? - - - - Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) is a framework that was established by the UN in coordination with financial institutions in 2004. It was an attempt to expand the boundaries of the Friedman doctrine, which limits the social responsibility of businesses to increasing shareholder value. ESG essentially seeks to introduce altruistic goals for businesses. The business community's reaction has been both rational and ironic: it has sought to use and capture ESG to maximise profits for shareholders. According to Bloomberg, ESG is the fastest growing asset management class, which is expected to exceed $50 trillion in value this year. Yet, according to EY, ESG is confusing, opaque, and subject to rampant greenwashing. Is this exploitation of a worthy initiative an isolated anomaly that can be corrected? Or, is it evidence of a wider and more malevolent decline in society? The reality is that this isn't the only major fault within our systems. Everyone is aware of the soft corruption of competence and the hard corruption of honesty. These have cascaded and infected our institutions. We now live in a world that has exploited and tainted progressive language: selfish designs are hidden behind worthy declarations. We have rejected hard truths in return for expedient fiction. To what end? Are we more resilient? Do we have more efficient systems? Is society fairer? Seemingly not. This seems like an existential decline. Now is the time for honest new ideas.

Udi Wertheimer is an independent developer and consultant, and an active member of Bitcoin's Twitterverse. In this interview, we discuss the evolved status and definition of Bitcoin maximalism, what success for Bitcoin means, and how Bitcoiners should interact with crypto investors. - - - - Nearly 2 years ago I interviewed Udi to discuss Bitcoin, Ethereum and maximalism. He's an important voice as, whilst being a Bitcoin advocate, Udi also provides valid critical analysis. As the merits and risks of Bitcoin maximalism are again at the forefront, it is valuable to hear his current views. The fundamental issue is whether maximalism is a net positive or negative for #Bitcoin. The difficulties start with defining maximalism, and what unique utilities of Bitcoin maximalists are to coalesce behind. Is it a movement to protect the technical development of Bitcoin i.e. protecting monetary policy, protecting the protocol? Or is maximalism a cultural phenomenon predicated on developing a moral framework that seeks to provide refuge from more brutal capitalist behaviours? Does maximalism need to be unrelenting in its dismissal of other developments within crypto for the purposes of protecting green retail investors from scams? When, if ever, does defence need to become attack? Maximalism has served as a moral check on the development of Bitcoin. Adherents are right to treat manifestations of the status quo with suspicion. However, there is a delicate line to be taken. History is littered with examples of principled movements being radicalized into counter productive factions.

Jeff Snider is co-host of the Eurodollar University podcast and Head of Global Research at Atlas Financial Advisors. In this interview, we discuss the fundamentals of money, how the Eurodollar controls the global monetary system, and signals of a deflationary depression. - - - - The common narrative about the global economy is bleak. Money printing by central banks has been out of control. This new money fed into the economy and resulted in runaway inflation. Years of interest cuts to stimulate economies means cash is now trash, whilst economies are stagnating. Debt is unmanageable. The search for alpha is focused on wealth protection. But others think this narrative is wrong. Our perceived reality is a mirage. Central banks are not in control of the levers of money, they are mere bystanders playing the role of the wizard behind the curtain. The global monetary system is controlled by an opaque and unregulated dollar exchange market developed in the 1950s: the Eurodollar system. The Eurodollar market is sending signals that defy the forecasts that inflation will endure. The market predicts inflation will be transitory. In its wake, an aggressive period of deflation will soon rock the global economic order. Various economists over time have argued that whilst inflation is damaging, deflation is a worse evil. It has been blamed for depressions throughout history. If these forecasts are right, we could be about to enter a period of significant economic stress. Whilst there is consensus on the cause of the current economic malaise, i.e. profligate behaviours within the financial industry, opinions on solutions couldn't be more different. Those who follow Eurodollar signals believe global financial systems need more US dollars in the form of debt. A lack of liquidity is leading to a lack of risk-taking that is hurting the global economy. So, as we stand on the brink of widespread societal hardship, we have a representation of cause and response at odds with conventional wisdom. With the stakes so high, can we afford to reject these emergent opinions?

Eric Weiss is CEO of the Blockchain Investment Group, and the man who orange-pilled Michael Saylor. In this interview, we discuss the current malaise in the Bitcoin price, why regulation will change this and be good for Bitcoin, and why Bitcoin provides value to all Americans. - - - - As Bitcoin continues to track sideways, with a current sentiment of extreme fear and continued reports of its demise, it's easy to lose the bigger picture. In 13 years Bitcoin has come from zero to an asset comparable to state-sized currencies, which is being discussed at the highest levels of government around the world. Whilst the wider industry suffers from its own 2007-style financial crisis, where leverage, deception and greed risk an investor bloodbath, Bitcoins ethos remains morally and ethically sound. Bitcoiners' advice to avoid wider altcoin and Web3 proposals has arguably been vindicated. The maxim to hodl is being tested, but long term investors are holding the line. Why is this? As Eric Weiss states, Bitcoin has grown to become a global phenomenon without a marketing budget. Let that sink in. The growth of Bitcoin has been viral. Individuals have become orange-pilled, and in various forms brought others into the fold. There is no one reason for this, and that is Bitcoin's strength. It has utility for everyone. High worth individuals, the middle class and low income groups are all affected by inflation. Yes, in the current environment, the impacts are more immediate for those with less assets. And, Bitcoin's volatility isn't a theoretical risk at this time. But even in periods of moderate inflation, compound effects mean that the dollar is losing value year on year. Bitcoin advocates are confident in the medium term it is going to beat the dollar. Even Charlie Munger thinks the dollar is going to zero over the long term. What amount of Bitcoin constitutes a sensible scale of investment in open to debate, but, as one commentator opined in Bitcoin Magazine on Jul 13th "there is one clearly unwise allocation size when it comes to Bitcoin: zero."

Adam Wright is a Co-Founder and CEO of Vespene Energy. In this interview, we discuss using landfill methane to power Bitcoin mining, turning waste into an asset, reducing greenhouse emissions, building decentralised baseload energy facilities, and orange pilling local government. - - - - According to the Environmental Defense Fund, a leading environmental nonprofit organisation, methane has more than 80 times the warming power of CO2 and drives at least 25% of today's global warming. Further, it is a short-lived greenhouse gas remaining potent for just 12 years. And yet, for many years climate change strategies focused on reducing man-made carbon emissions. This is changing: "Reducing human-caused methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective strategies to rapidly reduce the rate of warming and contribute significantly to global efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C… Focused strategies specifically targeting methane need to be implemented to achieve sufficient methane mitigation." UN Global Methane Assessment 2021. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a third of US methane emissions are generated by landfills. The EPA recognises that methane recovery is not widespread around the world due to a lack of knowledge regarding technologies, and investment challenges. Last year the EPA issued new mandatory guidelines to reduce these emissions within the US. So, imagine you were a municipal official with responsibility for landfills, and someone told you they would: take responsibility for converting methane emissions into EPA-compliant carbon emissions, pay you for the privilege with a profit share deal, and, for isolated landfills, build out the potential for a decentralised energy facility. In short, they could turn waste from being a liability, into an asset. This is what Vespene Energy is proposing. It is hoping to orange pill state and local authorities with their vision of turning methane into Bitcoin. It is another exciting opportunity that Bitcoin opens up; another demonstrable rebuttal of the environmental FUD - enabling the rapid build-out of energy facilities across the thousands of landfill sites across the US, and then the world, whilst tackling climate change. It really is alchemy.

Gabriel Shipton is a Film Producer & advocate for his brother Julian Assange; Stella Moris is a lawyer & wife to Julian Assange. In this interview, we discuss the unprecedented State assault on Assange's freedom, the effects on his mental & physical well-being, & the threat to journalism. - - - - On March 15th 2006, US forces dropped from helicopters onto the roof of a house in a village north of Baghdad. The mission was reportedly to intercept a member of al-Qaeda who was visiting the dwelling. The US troops gathered 11 family members in one room, handcuffed them, and shot them all in the head. This included 5 children under 6, one of whom was a 6-month-old baby. US soldiers then called in an airstrike to destroy evidence of their crimes. Iraqi police reported the details of the incident at the time, but the US military refuted these claims, stating a fire-fight with insurgents caused the deaths, and that "[US forces] take every precaution to keep civilians out of harm's way." Their investigations ended, effectively neutering any other external examination of their conduct. This was until 2010 when WikiLeaks released a series of classified US documents on the Afghan War, Iraq War, and cables between the US State Department and its diplomatic missions around the world. One such cable was from a March 2006 investigation of the above incident by the UN, which corroborated the Iraqi police's accusations that a horrific war crime had been committed. WikiLeaks releases in 2010 highlighted hundreds of other unreported civilian deaths at the hands of the US military in both the Afghan and Iraq conflicts, including military coverup of the torture (using drills and acid) and execution of Iraqi detainees by Iraqi authorities. Julian Assange is the only person linked to these incidents who has been punished. In August it will be 10 years since he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. During that time the CIA had planned to kidnap and execute him. Then, 3 years ago Assange was arrested in the embassy and taken to the UK's highest security prison, Belmarsh, where he's still kept. All because he published source material, a journalistic practice acting as a bedrock of democracy. US authorities have indicted Assange, an Australian citizen residing in the UK, using their 1917 espionage act; this has never previously been used against a journalist. The US is seeking to extradite Assange using a 2003 UK-US treaty, which was hurriedly brought into law without oversight as a response to the war on terror. The rights of individuals in the UK are limited by this treaty. To compound issues further, Assange will not benefit from US constitutional rights. The full weight of the US and UK states is being used against Assange. His physical and mental condition is deteriorating. Assange's treatment is being used as a warning to others. Whatever your preconceived ideas are about this case, the implications are chilling: the US is seeking to make journalism a crime, and those they accuse suffer.

David Zell is a co-founder of the Bitcoin Policy Institute and Director of Policy at BTC Inc. In this interview, we discuss fighting to make congress aware of Bitcoin's social value, the strategic benefits of Bitcoin for the US and how our rights are being erased in a digital world and Bitcoin's defence. - - - - On June 1st a letter in "Support of Responsible Fintech Policy" was sent to Congress. Purportedly from 1,500 "computer scientists, software engineers, and technologists", it excoriated blockchain technology, stating it "has been a solution in search of a problem and has now latched onto concepts such as financial inclusion and data transparency to justify its existence." FUD in the media is one thing. Direct lobbying of congress using persuasive but purposefully misleading arguments is another. Coordinated attack vectors have affected Bitcoin at numerous stages of its evolution. These attacks are now focused on galvanizing the most powerful of external forces: persuading the US government Bitcoin is of no social value is arguably the most dangerous moment yet. The battles over technical details have now become battles over ideas. And the constituency over which this battle is being fought has grown from an informed and knowledgeable clique of insiders to a less informed but more consequential clique of legislators. But, just as the assaults on Bitcoin have become more political and trenchant, the defensive measures have witnessed significant maturation. Bitcoin has always had persuasive individuals. Now it has powerful institutions. Most importantly it has its own think tank, bringing together some of the most interesting and original voices within the industry. In this new stage of Bitcoin's development, we are lucky to have those who can see the battle that needs to be fought at the nation-state level. And we're also lucky to have those who can develop arguments that are persuasive to those looking for the collective needs of wider society.

Andrew Dessler is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. In this interview, we discuss the settled science of climate change, the polarisation of the climate change debate, our need for more energy, and the market inevitability of wind and solar-dominated grids. - - - - In April, WBD interviewed Alex Epstein who stated humans need access to more low-cost energy. Energy enables humans to survive in otherwise inhospitable climates but also flourish. Epstein stated that energy at the moment is dominated by fossil fuels, which are very hard to replace. Further, he asserts claims of climate change catastrophe are being overstated. Andrew Dessler, who has previously publicly debated Alex Epstein, wanted an opportunity to rebut some of Alex Epstein's claims. Dessler agrees that humans need access to more energy; underinvestment over previous decades has contributed to the current energy crisis. But, humans also need to be concerned about the existential risks of increasing carbon emissions. There is widespread consensus amongst climate scientists that the science of climate change is correct, and the forecasts have been proven to be reliable. The risks are real and significant. There is a fear that attempts to refute the science feed the culture wars, where climate change views are predetermined by political allegiance. Dessler also claims that refuting science is a cynical tactic to avoid moving the debate onto the policy. His rationale is that the case for transitioning to renewables isn't just predicated on reducing carbon emissions, there is also a compelling economic case: it is an energy source with a marginal cost of zero. A strong supply market for solar and wind is powerful validation for this. That's not to say 100% of our energy needs can be derived from wind and solar. Those advocating for increased use of renewable energy are fully aware of the need for reliable dispatchable power from other energy sources. But there is a strong conviction that renewable energy can become a dominant provider for our energy needs of today and tomorrow.

Craig Warmke is a philosopher and fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. In this interview, we discuss the biases and pressures that distort opinions about Bitcoin, and a framework for enabling objective evaluation of Bitcoin's value and risk to individuals and society. - - - - Bitcoin has proved itself to be the hardest money ever created at a time when the world's monetary systems are under unprecedented stress. It also provides an array of unique utilities: it helps vulnerable people; disrupts rent-seeking exploitation and brings pluralism to money for ordinary people. And yet, for the majority, Bitcoin is still funny internet money, or worse, a Ponzi scheme, criminal back channel and/or environmental disaster. Why are so many people still struggling to see what Bitcoiners see? Hal Finney's writings are uncannily prescient. One such example is 'Politics vs Technology': a short 1994 article about cypherpunk responses to the dangers of government overreach. Many believed solutions were to be found in coding new tools. Finney was less sure that technology in isolation would change the world. To him, active engagement is vital: "If we want freedom and privacy, we must persuade others that these are worth having. There are no shortcuts." If education is the magic bullet, how should we persuade those still on the sidelines? Craig Warmke has proposed a framework that enables people to strip away their unconscious bias, subjective viewpoints and peer group constraints. The critical characteristic of the framework is that it requires openness to all of Bitcoin's tradeoffs; bias affects both sides of the debate. It makes the approach a powerful educational weapon: each individual can see the issues through a new lens; and, because both sides are required to confront their partiality, the conversation can become honest and collaborative. It also enables a fair review of the hidden costs of wider Bitcoin adoption, so that Bitcoin's case can be further strengthened.

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss the rise and role of Central Banks: their intermittent role in the US's history, the piecemeal erosion of a gold standard, the new era of easy money, and whether Bitcoin could replace Central Banking. - - - - Central Banks have played such a dominant role in our societies it's easy to assume that they are required institutions within modern governmental systems. The idea that the market can determine a monetary policy and the price for money is well outside of the Overton window. Yet, for long periods in the industrialised era modern civilised societies have functioned, developed and prospered without such institutions. Further, there is ample evidence that central banks are now far from being a steadying force that brings stability to economies. For around 100 years, the international monetary system was pegged to gold; albeit there were debasements, new controls, and periodic abandonments during this period. Then in 1971, the monetary system was taken off any remnants of a gold standard. Its constraints on US fiscal policy had become too burdensome. It led to the development of fiat currencies and a period of easy money. Governments have become increasingly dependent upon Central Banks in creating new money to assist with economic shocks: following the global financial crisis the production of dollars markedly increased. But these events were dwarfed by the injection of new money during the pandemic. Inflation is now catching up, but at a time when economies are stagnating. Cycles of debt accumulation always come to an end. Without careful political judgement, coordination and luck, the resolution of unsustainable debt at the global level can lead to domestic and international conflict. So, we're entering a transformative decade. The question is whether Bitcoin, the strongest form of money ever invented, can enable society to navigate through this unwinding of the long-term debt cycle? Additionally, can it enable the market to again determine the price of money?

Seth for Privacy is a privacy advocate and host of the Opt Out Podcast. In this interview, we discuss how financial privacy protects all other rights, the current limitations with Bitcoin's privacy, and Monero's protocol privacy that some Bitcoiners find beneficial. - - - - Most people have slowly acquiesced to the undermining of personal privacy by tech companies. There has been a trade-off: free access to powerful social media software for the monetisation of our data. The problem is a false sense of security has been allowed to fester: there is a material lack of concern that such transgressions could become more malign and overt abuses of power. The wake-up call for many was the treatment of the Candian truckers. Not many foresaw Bitcoin's privacy weaknesses being exploited by a western liberal democratic power led by a young charismatic leader. But they were exploited. The Canadian authorities were unrepentant. And there was nothing the truckers could do. Once your privacy is compromised that's it. Whilst it is a wake-up (or should be a wake-up call), Bitcoin's fully auditable pseudonymous transaction history presents significant privacy challenges. That's not to say that non-technical users can't improve their privacy using Bitcoin, or that privacy concerns always need to be front and centre of decisions to hold Bitcoin. Rather, there may be another option under certain circumstances. Monero is an altcoin that some Bitcoiners are willing to adopt given its unique out-of-the-box privacy features. It is being used to complement the use case for Bitcoin. And yet, there is still toxicity from some quarters towards Monero and those who advocate for it. Is this healthy? Does Monero deserve to be treated like other altcoins? Fundamentally, should Bitcoiners be open to using Monero? Or, do maximalists who have served the community well express warranted concerns? What are the tradeoffs being made and how do they affect users?

Avik Roy is president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity think tank and a policy Editor at Forbes. In this interview, we discuss the Lummis Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act, inflation's compounding impact on the poor and why Bitcoin provides optimism. - - - - On June 7th Republican Senator Lummis and Democratic Senator Gillibrand introduced the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, which aims to establish a regulatory framework for digital assets in the US. Many Bitcoiners believe Bitcoin is designed to work outside of regulatory oversight. But is this proposal inimical to Bitcoin's potential to positively contribute to society? If Bitcoin is to play a dominant role within society, can it do that outside of the law? Irrespective of Bitcoin, should governments have a role in protecting citizens from the negative impacts of the wider altcoin market? What are the dividing lines between different digital assets? And, could the lack of regulation in the near term actually be detrimental to Bitcoin in the long run? Bitcoin's advocates are heavily engaged in trying to obtain regulatory clarity - they fear continued uncertainty could delay or damage its ability to provide utility to those who really need it. This is particularly for those impacted by the ravages of inflation. The current inflationary environment has resulted in renewed consideration of this economic condition. The issue is that there is actually a deficit of understanding of inflation's regressive impacts. It impacts the poorest in society hardest, whilst benefiting the richest. These impacts compound over time such that inequality explodes even in low inflationary environments. Does this mean inflation as a policy is a busted flush? Should economies aim for zero inflation? These are radical policy shifts that are unlikely to happen anytime soon. This is why Bitcoin provides some with optimism: it's trying to be the hardest money the world has ever seen.

Matt Odell is host of the Citadel Dispatch and venture partner at Ten31. In this interview, we discuss why each additional positive act of privacy protection improves Bitcoin's resilience and value. Perfecting privacy is not the goal; making a start is, as we don't know what the future holds. - - - - Our privacy is continuously being eroded. Current best estimates are that 2.5 million terabytes of data are produced every day. A material amount of that information has extremely lax privacy protection: 98% of Internet of Things data is unencrypted; 83% of companies encrypt less than half the data they store on the cloud; 25% of websites are visited without encryption. Vast amounts of the data we freely shed are stored, analysed and triangulated for commercial reasons. These tactics are so sophisticated that it's not uncommon for people to think companies are listening to their conversations. We are being squeezed for our data in almost all aspects of our lives while cash, traditionally the only semi-private way of transacting, is being removed from society, and CBDCs inch closer to reality. Imagine if companies or governments could access and track your income, store of wealth and all those with whom you transacted. What is currently unnerving behaviour by those who track our data could rapidly become something much more maligned and coercive. Bitcoin is freedom money. But using bitcoin privately isn't an easy task. The vast majority of Bitcoin is bought using exchanges that have stringent KYC/AML requirements. When you pair these onramps with surveillance firms like Chainalysis, using bitcoin goes from being pseudonymous to almost entirely transparent. But there are things you can do to gain good privacy with bitcoin. Tools like coinjoin and non-KYC exchanges like Bisq are getting better all of the time, and more and more people are using the Lightning Network for cash like transactions, which offers improved privacy. Perfect privacy, whether with bitcoin or not, is a pipedream. The goal is to continually improve in protecting a fundamental human right, privacy.

In this interview with American HODL, we discuss escaping from social media echo chambers, stablecoins and altcoins, whether free speech has limits, Bitcoin's current price activity, the need for reasoned thinkers in Bitcoin, and the protocol being a perfect machine. - - - - Bitcoin's volatility remains a persistent feature: all-time highs are followed by precipitous falls and statements of its imminent demise. And yet, many Bitcoiners unwaveringly advocate for people to continue to hodl through these cycles. Whilst their advice has been proven right many times, it's appropriate to be testing such convictions during a bearish period for Bitcoin. Many see the current price fluctuations as a positive sign that the asset is maturing, and it is now subject to the same macro headwinds as other globally significant investment vehicles. Hodlers faith is rooted in a maximalist sentiment: Bitcoin was a "zero to one" moment. Other versions don't and won't match its elegant design, clarity of purpose and first-to-market network effects. The issues emanating from algo stablecoins and projects offering wild returns have vindicated and hardened these positions. But does that mean it's Bitcoin or bust? Stablecoins do have utility for those living in countries suffering currency debasements. So, can stablecoins support people as a short-term fix to economic crises, whilst Bitcoin is the longer-term solution? What about the current state of Bitcoin Twitter and the wider discussions about freedom of speech? Toxicity and unoriginal talking points cast Bitcoin's community in a poor light; can a new wave make a compelling case with an authentic voice? Further, whilst freedom of expression is a pillar of Americanism and a bulwark against the rise of China, should all speech be free? Irrespective of these issues, American HODL is holding the line. He believes Bitcoin will transcend other assets and innovations. He believes it is an unstoppable perfect machine.

Preston Pysh is a co-founder of The Investor Podcast Network. In this interview, we discuss credit cycles depending on increasing debasement of the USD, accelerating inflation, and other signs of the long-term debt cycle ending. We also talk about Bitcoin changing the economic order. - - - - Every day we read new stories about economic turmoil: the UK's cost of living crisis resulting in people missing meals, Sri Lanka debt default resulting in an economic and social meltdown, raging inflation in Turkey, global food shortages, the slide of Japan's Yen, bond funds bleeding billions etc. etc. etc. It is obvious these are not normal times. So what is actually happening? Ray Dalio has spoken at length about the long-term debt cycle: how the economy goes through regular patterns of growth and recession that result in the build-up of sovereign debt, and how over a longer period of time that debt becomes unmanageable and a deleveraging occurs. Many believe we are going through that process now. Preston Pysh is one such person, and he has the evidence to hand. The precipitous rise in the monetary base, capital becoming a liability, global credit cycles being dependent upon increasingly higher levels of USD debasement, the top-heavy state of equity markets - the data is all there; it's happening. The question is how do governments respond? Is it possible to unwind from these situations, or are global debt levels too high? Can nations wean themselves off quantitative easing, or are they locked into a death spiral? And what will be the response of citizens to rising inflation and material impacts on their quality of life? The answers to these questions will impact the direction of our civilisation for centuries to come. The fear is that we repeat the past. The experience of an advanced country going through a hyperinflationary event still casts a shadow over our collective political culture. The destruction of a functioning society and its replacement by a machine of terror, recalibrated the global order for the next 75 years. But we have Bitcoin. Can that see us through?

Harry Sudock is a Vice President of Strategy at Griid. In this interview, we discuss whether Bitcoin's real innovation is the fusion of Proof of Work and the difficulty adjustment. This enables it to exert a gravitational pull that's disrupting money, assets, technologies and organising structures. - - - - Bitcoin's impact on society is far exceeding what anyone could have envisioned. While its properties as sound money are well established, the 2nd and 3rd order effects are still being discovered. Bitcoin is unique. It's centred on the combination of proof of work and the difficulty adjustment. These two fundamental parts of the system incentivise trustless honesty whilst providing security. In today's digital world with encroaching authoritarianism, there is no substitute. Bitcoin's power is having a gravitational pull on the settled cosmos of modern society, drawing more things into the singularity of its innovation. If money touches everything in society, and Bitcoin is the best form of money, it's seemingly inevitable that Bitcoin will change everything. Bitcoin is a black hole.

Peter Doyle is the Co-Founder and MD of Horizon Kinetics. In this interview, we discuss investment in an economic climate marked by accelerating inflation, a debt crisis, an energy crisis, war and the potential for Bitcoin to upend the monetary system. - - - - The world's economic leaders are publicly admitting that inflation is not the transitory phenomenon they were claiming it to be only a few months ago. Some observers think that behind closed doors they never really believed inflation would pass; given the extreme levels of debt, rising inflation makes sense as an unofficial government policy. Irrespective, inflation has to be controlled. But taming inflation is a delicate balancing act. The trick is to achieve a 'soft landing': reducing inflation without triggering a recession. This proved impossible during the 1970s and early 1980s when inflation last ravaged the US economy. The dilemma is the current economic and fiscal environment is much worse than during the 1970s. Interest rates have been at unprecedented low levels for over a decade. These have enabled governments to take on increasingly precarious levels of debt to shore up economies during pandemic lockdowns. Even modest interest rate rises risk triggering both sovereign default and recession. Whilst reducing the size of the state is problematic given its oversized share of GDP. At the same time, there is a limit to what governments can do to control inflation. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has resulted in a spike in energy prices. However, energy costs were already rising due to decades of underinvestment influenced by ESG mandates. This is a systemic issue affecting global markets. The expectation is for a prolonged period of inflation. Investments need to now consider an environment where "cash is trash". However, what is becoming increasingly clear is that investment managers are seeking more than just inflation-beating returns. In the face of possible scenarios where inflation can't be controlled, Bitcoin is becoming part of portfolios designed to protect wealth.

Lane Rettig is a former Ethereum Core Developer who now works as a core developer for Spacemesh. In this interview, we discuss the Terra/Luna crash, trust and the discipline of Bitcoin; the history, theory and reality of current Web3 initiatives; and Bitcoin's future. - - - - On Friday Jack Dorsey's Block announced that it is building "Web5" on Bitcoin. It is purposefully bypassing Web3, which Jack has previously criticized. In fact, Jack stated in a tweet to launch the initiative "RIP web3 VCs". So, why are Jack, and many other bitcoiners, so fiercely against what in theory is supposed to be a revolution of the internet enabling it to decentralise? Maybe it is the same issue being raised about the crash of Terra/Luna, the issue raised about the much-critizsed ICOs and IPOs within the industry, and the issue raised about the motivation for VCs aligned with the "crypto" ecosystem. Rigged incentives and asymmetric risk where the VCs always win? Greed dressed as innovation and utility under the cynical rebranding of Web3? The problem is, by the time these flaws have been realised, the VCs have already exited and made a tidy profit. And as always, it's retail investors who get hurt. Maybe Web5 is just what is required, for the internet, for retail investors, and for Bitcoin.

Steven McClurg is a Co-Founder of Valkyrie Investments. In this interview, we discuss how Steven called Bitcoin's top, watching the Fed for policy indications, protecting wealth against high inflation, how governments should fight inflation, supply chain issues, and inflation hedges. - - - - Today, US CPI data shows that rather than inflation slowing as had been expected, it continues to accelerate. Year-on-year inflation currently stands at 8.6% - the highest in 40 years. Prices in May alone rose by 1%. But maybe this wasn't a surprise for everyone. Janet Yellen, who previously characterised inflation as "transitory", told Congress on Tuesday "inflation is really our top economic problem at this point and that it's critical that we address it." This is happening across the world: the ECB plans a "gradual but sustained" path of interest rate rises; India may need to dampen growth to control inflation; in Turkey inflation is out of control. So, how bad could it get? The great inflationary period of the 1970s? Or could it be worse? Some commentators talk of extreme examples such as when hyperinflation tore the fabric of the Weimar republic apart. Most think this can't be a rational possibility: surely politicians and policy wonks are students of history and they'll stop spending. But yet, there is talk another $5-10 trillion could be printed. Whatever the outcome, we're entering a new paradigm in respect of the cost of living. Whilst there are opportunities in every market, the focus is turning to wealth protection ahead of wealth creation. Is this the time for Bitcoin? It has long been regarded by advocates as an inflation hedge. Yet, its current price performance would suggest otherwise. Maybe we need to recalibrate our understanding of what constitutes an inflationary emergency. Block's recent survey has shown a strong correlation between inflation rates and viewing Bitcoin as a safe haven: Argentina came out top with nearly 50% of respondents stating they saw Bitcoin as protection against inflation. At the time inflation was north of 40%; it's currently 58%.

Michael Moynihan is a correspondent for Vice News and co-host of The Fifth Column podcast. In this interview, we discuss identity politics and its effect on framing issues such as the Russia Ukraine conflict. We also cover culture wars, toxicity, mainstream media, and freedom of speech. - - - - US polarisation has turned society into isolated camps with defined ideologies and narrow cultural perspectives. Issues are expressed in binary terms: you're expected to have a for or against a position. And the determination of which position to take is increasingly made as a reaction to what the other side believes. Politics is tribal. There are obvious issues with this trend. People become increasingly deaf to consideration of opposing views. The Socratic method has been ditched in favour of blind alliance to a given group. Critical thinking is decreasing; vitriolic rhetoric is on the rise. Identity politics is resulting in a balkanisation of our communities, as like seeks like, reinforcing the divide. The impacts are becoming increasingly disorientating, as both sides of the political divide align with beliefs that were previously antithetical to their respective ideologies. For example, the right and left have changed their relative positions in terms of support and distrust of government agencies. And, instead of trying to break down these barriers, our representatives and media are increasingly fermenting and exploiting these culture wars for financial gain. Media is becoming beholden to audience capture, both in terms of the large mainstream media corporations, and the wave of independent voices rising from social media. Real journalism is on the wane. The result is the true nature of life becomes clouded, including events of huge geopolitical significance such as the Ukraine Russian conflict. We're unable now to distinguish fact and spin. The real problem is that people are unable to unite and coalesce around nationally vital policies. And as the world problems become more complex, how will this all play out?

Dan McArdle is co-founder of Messari Crypto and creator of casebitcoin.com. Dan has been in Bitcoin since 2011. In this interview, we discuss the history of Bitcoin cycles and events: Mt. Gox hack, rise of altcoins and stablecoins, Ethereum DAO Hack, and 2017 Bitcoin cycle. - - - - Bitcoin is volatile: its history has been dominated by large swings in both directions; albeit, Bitcoin is volatile to the upside: in 10 years it is up well over 500,000%! But, in each cycle, new adopters can be forgiven for thinking they're in the cycle that finally breaks the pattern. It is easy to question the investment when seeing the value drop by 80% for the first time. This is where experience is vital. Each cycle has seen events that have had the potential to destroy Bitcoin. Exchange hacks and exploits, the proliferation of competing coins with marketing buzz aimed at attacking Bitcoin, the realisation of altcoin failings, scams, bans, FUD. The most recent has been the UST and Luna crash. Each one destroys confidence and value. Yet, the one thing the critiques fail to mention is that each of these events has been external to Bitcoin. Each event has highlighted weaknesses in innovations in the ecosystem that has developed around Bitcoin. But Bitcoin has remained secure - the protocol itself has not been hacked. In fact, the "move slow and build things" ethos has strengthened through each event. This is why long term hodlers who have served one "tour of duty" (a four year Bitcoin cycle) are more inured to Bitcoin's volatility. They have experienced Bitcoin being declared dead, only to reemerge stronger and more resilient. What hurts you can make you stronger. To look forward and speculate about the future it is therefore important to look back and see where we've been. Many believe Bitcoin is a paradigm shift not just because of ideology, but because the technology has been repeatedly tested and passed. That's why it is being considered as an emerging global macro asset.

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss the macro environment. We zero in on the current inflationary crisis, focusing on the demand/supply problems with energy, prospects for recession, and the impact on markets and countries. - - - - The last time inflationary pressures seriously concerned the US was the 1970s. The decade ended with inflation at nearly 15%. Many believe current inflation, real inflation, not the figures provided by the US Dept of Labor, is at least 15% if not higher. And yet, we are in a much more precarious position now than in the period of the 1970s referred to as the "The Great Inflation". Global debt is at an all-time high. US government debt is over 137% of GDP. Unprecedented money printing during the global financial crisis was followed by more extreme money printing during the pandemic. Most countries are now bloated with debt. Further, interest rates are still at abnormally low levels. Economies are precariously balanced. Recession is close at hand. At the same time, there is an energy crisis. Decades of underinvestment in energy infrastructure, poor policy decisions, and geopolitical issues means we have insufficient energy supply and price spikes. In the UK 40% of households could be deemed to be in energy poverty soon. There is talk of oil reaching $300 a barrel. Then there is an emerging food crisis. The war between Russia and Ukraine is affecting some of the biggest suppliers of wheat, sunflower oil, and fertilizer. According to the World Food Programme 276 million face famine. A cost of living crisis is hitting the most vulnerable in all corners of the globe. We are in very uncertain times. History suggests such pressures fuel populism, protest, and conflict. How should we protect our investments in such times? What assets could weather these storms? Who can we trust?

Jonathan Wu is head of growth at Aztec network. In this interview, we pick over what happened when the stablecoin UST crashed, how it linked to the Terra blockchain and Luna governance token, the issues with recursive lending, and the need for financial disclosure in the industry. - - - - Stablecoins have provided financial sovereignty for millions who have been failed by their financial institutions and want predictable value in a currency. So, the failure of a stablecoin that had been financially backed by some of the biggest investors in DeFi has been particularly traumatic for many investors. Unlike some stablecoins, UST, native stablecoin of the Terra Blockchain, was under collateralized i.e. it wasn't backed by another asset. Maintaining its peg to the dollar was (theoretically) stabilized algorithmically: linkage of UST to a governance token, Luna, and a complex dance of creation and burning of both of these coins. In theory, this enabled UST to remain decentralized. In practice, there were some inherent weaknesses in the process. Not only was the stablecoin designed to be a payments rail, but the governance token, Luna, could be staked to derive yield. It was accepted by lending protocols that allowed for recursive lending (rehypothecation), an activity raised as a significant risk to DeFi by many critics of yield farming (e.g. Allen Farrington). Then the house of cards started to crumble. Or, as Jonathan describes it: the death spiral began. The result was a quick unravelling of an asset, which had had a market cap of over $18 billion. An asset that many investors believed, wrongly, was devoid of the risks associated with altcoins. An asset now with an effective value of zero. The story involves large profits being made by major investors, a CEO who overplayed his hand and got some major calls wrong, some shady characters in the DeFi lending ecosystem, complex strategies not many understand, and a lot of people who could ill afford to lose their investments getting seriously burned. The critical issue is this again places Bitcoin in a bind. Its price was directly affected, but its reputation suffers: retail investors are warier to adopt, and regulators are more empowered to pounce. There is a lot for the industry to learn, and learn quickly. The stakes are currently stacked unfairly, and it's the same people who end up losing.

Victor Boutros is CEO and co-founder of the Human Trafficking Institute. In this interview, we discuss the anger that drove him into tackling human trafficking in the US and then set out to prove it could be tackled across the globe. His work literally saves lives. He needs support. - - - - Human trafficking is a hidden scourge. Most of us would assume human slavery is a shameful historical relic. Yet, the market for trading humans is thriving. People are traded for labour and sex in huge numbers. It is estimated that there are at least 25 million victims of this brutal industry, but the true number could be much much higher. Both perpetrators and victims hide in the shadows. Yet, statistics are just dry numbers. It is the stories of individual victims that evidence the evil that permeates human trafficking. Such stories display the cold heartless depravity that enables some to view others as tradable commodities to be exploited. It is these stories that have driven people such as Victor to dedicate themselves to trying to tackle this issue and save lives. Victor learnt and honed the skills necessary to combat traffickers in the US. But, with the knowledge that the majority of human trafficking takes place across other countries, he set up the Human Trafficking Institute. This mission has successfully proved that through thorough investigation, and dedicated enforcement, it is possible to curtail this scourge anywhere it exists. But, this work needs to be scaled, which needs funding. Bitcoiners have shown that they are a force for change, using their funds to help shape a better world in numerous ways. It is Victor's hope that the philanthropic zeal within the Bitcoin community could assist his mission. Can Bitcoin become the driving force behind the effort to make trafficked people free at scale across the globe?

Justin Rezvani is the founder and CEO of Zion. In this interview, we discuss completing Ironman, his near-death experience, recovery and perspectives, and motivations for building a new business. Justin explains his vision to enable creators to own distribution and the future of social media. - - - - Not many of us walk through life thinking any day could be our last. But most live as though we have unlimited tomorrows. We leave dreams unfulfilled, arguments unresolved, our attention diverted to the wrong priorities. For those who experience death, but live to tell the tale, it is a pivotal event that leads to a refocused life. And for those who do get a second chance, they tend to grab opportunities as they arise. Justin came through a near-death experience and traumatic rehabilitation. Once recovered he seized the chance to use Bitcoin to remake social media. Better for creators, and users. Better for the curation and protection of online discussion. Better for the development of communities. The issues with current centralised platforms are obvious to all at the moment. Business models are incentivised to capture attention, not to nurture civil debate. The digital town square has turned into a digital bear bit. And yet censorship has turned into a blunt instrument open to abuse. The rule book needs rewriting. Bitcoin, decentralised identification and other technology offer an opportunity to provide creators ownership of the distribution. Communities will no longer be tied to a platform. There will always be aggregators of content, but creators and their audience will now have the flexibility to move across a decentralised internet if and when they choose or require.

The full interview with President Nayib Bukele, undertaken days after the Bitcoin Law became effective on September 7th 2021, sections of which were included in my film "Follow The Money #1 - Bitcoin in El Salvador". In this interview, we discuss motivation, opposition and legacy. - - - - A few days following Bitcoin being given legal status, I was granted an exclusive access interview with President Bukele for the purposes of my film "Follow The Money #1 - Bitcoin in El Salvador". Following the release of the film, it is time to publish the full interview. It has been over 8 months since El Salvador became the first country in the world to make Bitcoin legal tender. A lot has been written about El Salvador's Bitcoin Law, and a lot has happened since. But what was it like to be at the centre of this unprecedented event? An event that could change not just El Salvador's future, but also Bitcoin's and the rest of the world. The discussion covers President Bukele's enthusiasm for what Bitcoin can do for his country and his people; the incredible timescale within which the law was passed (it was a mere 3 months from being enacted to becoming law); the strategy behind the country's purchases of Bitcoin; internal and external opposition; and the plan behind the articles of the Bitcoin Law. As background noise to all these changes is vocal concerns about authoritarian actions Bukele is taking; he has removed judges, influenced a change in the constitution to enable a potential second term, had troops enter parliament, and implemented stern policies aimed at reducing gang violence. The term "dictator" is banded around. Nevertheless, he is an extremely popular president: he has an approval rating of 85%. Many citizens, sick of the years of violence and corruption, are pleased to finally see a decisive Salvadoran President. Could he become a beacon for the wider region? Could he be the leader of the Bitcoin age?

John Vallis is a Bitcoin podcaster who hosts Bitcoin Rapid Fire. In this interview, we discuss what freedom means, parallels between Bitcoin and religious values, living a meaningful life, psychedelics and their importance, and a new civilisation centred on truth. - - - - Bitcoin provides freedom. Financial freedom; freedom from coercion; freedom of movement. But how should those who benefit from Bitcoin use this freedom? Should they use it to fulfil their own desires? Or are there higher values that Bitcoiners should strive to attain? Should Bitcoiners draw back into their citadels? Or, should they actively engage in trying to shape a better world? Such decisions will be influenced by the values such individuals hold. In our fiat economy, self-interest is deemed to be the principle that supports a functioning and prosperous society. Institutionally driven moral codes have been supplemented by the needs of the market. Religion has been replaced; prayer and faith have given way to data and patterns. It is assumed that science and rejection of the divine have driven a more advanced society. And yet, ephemeral pursuits of money and power seem to be the root of a lot of the problems we face today. Some feel that more sophisticated behaviours were displayed by previous civilisations: humans have previously been more in tune with nature. Psychedelics is thought to have played a part in this process. Many cultures throughout history used psychedelic practices to enable them to break away from their ego. This gave them a wider perspective - a more holistic view of the world around them. Bitcoin shows that current values in a fiat world are misaligned: selfish short term pursuits are failing us; we have lost sight of the truth. Could psychedelics hold the key to helping more people to make that shift to see the fallacy of our current systems? Is the loss of ego needed to determine how best to mould this new world evolving around us?

Adam Back, an original cypherpunk, inventor of Hashcash and co-founder and CEO of Blockstream. We discuss the controversy around BIP 119: the soft fork proposal aiming to add "covenants" to Bitcoin. We also talk about the collapse of Luna. - - - - Flexible smart contracts are a USP of Ethereum and other blockchains. Currently, Bitcoin only enables basic smart contract functionality, such as a timelock that specifies when a transaction can be spent. BIP 119 proposes to add more flexibility for applying restrictions to transactions via a new programme operation code (opcode) called CheckTemplateVerify (CTV). CTV would enable conditions on spending UTXOs that would limit, not when they are spent, but how. These are referred to as "covenants". It is envisaged CTV could significantly enhance Bitcoin by enabling a raft of new and powerful applications to be developed; these could bring new security, privacy and scalability benefits. The concern is that CTV is a significant change and could open up potential unknown security risks, or that if this functionality is desirable, it could be possible be better achieved with a different technical approach BIP119 has been authored and enthusiastically promoted by Bitcoin developer, Jeremy Rubin. It has been around now for 2 years, and whilst Rubin has generated support for BIP119, he has also faced criticism from prominent Bitcoiners for his approach and so far there doesn't seem to be consensus among the protocol development community on implementing the proposal. The consideration, approval and activation of changes to Bitcoin are methodical and slow. Further, such changes normally involve the development of competing ideas, and a collaborative approach to combine the best elements from these efforts. Notable critics feel that BIP119 is being too forcefully promoted and that more time is needed to test and consider alternatives. The pressure to innovate will always be there. The issue at hand is Bitcoin's USP: it has never been hacked. This has been hard-won. So it seems BIP119 isn't going to get a formal consensus at the moment. Rubin, however, could bypass the Core developers and implement a UASF. Could we again be about to test the limits of Bitcoin's rough consensus process?

Will Cole is Chief Product Officer at Unchained Capital. In this interview, we discuss Texas and Austin as ideological centres for Bitcoin, the undervalued importance of state sovereignty in the US, CBDCs being the greatest disaster for liberty and personal freedom, and toxicity on Twitter. - - - - Something is happening in Texas. It has always had an independent streak, rooted in its rich history. The state was born of revolution, and it was initially a republic in the mid 19th century before the Mexican-American War. That thirst for freedom is hard-wired into the Texan psyche. Now it is a beacon to Americans from other states seeking increasingly elusive sovereignty. It is therefore not surprising then that Bitcoin has been adopted and fostered in Texas. From very early in it's history, a strong community of maximalists united and sought to safeguard Bitcoin in this part of the US. That effort is now starting to pay off. The strong affinity for Bitcoin by Texans has evolved such that the state is fast becoming the centre of groundbreaking efforts to integrate Bitcoin and energy grids. The state is arguably spearheading a new adoption wave within the US that includes serious politicians. Could Texas take the next step and create the conditions to orange pill a nation? Those Bitcoiners in the state aren't waiting to find out. They're moving at pace to help Texas and other states continue the outreach, policy drafting and technical buildout to realise the benefits of what is a keenly American innovation. They're also keenly focused on the attack vectors on the horizon, be it CBDCs or divisions within the community.

Rob Hamilton is a programmer and data scientist. In this interview, we discuss the risks associated with a transition to hyperbitcoinisation, the limits to what Bitcoin fixes, the issues of a libertarian world run on a Bitcoin standard, the benefits to the energy grid, and Bitcoin's eternal September. - - - - Hyperbitcoinization, the adoption of Bitcoin as global money, was once a theoretical pipe dream that all but the most hardened Bitcoiners thought would be an impossibility. But we have witnessed a number of unprecedented events in recent years that mean impossible scenarios have now shifted into the realm of the possible. Does this create a new foundation for conversations regarding hyperbitcoinization? The abstract idea of hyperbitcoinization has been enthusiastically supported: it is a fresh new idea that provides hope for a better world. But where such discussions could afford to be utopian a few years ago, do discussions now need to mature as a Bitcoin standard becomes more real? Are there limits to what Bitcoin can fix? Further, does hyperbitcoinization create new issues? Would we be replacing one elite for another? And, if this new world is shaped by a libertarian ideology, who will determine how to organise consensus, solve problems and resolve conflict? The reality of what may be possible certainly requires more sober consideration. The flip side is that the tremendous benefits that Bitcoin has to offer could actually be realised. A better world may be within our reach. The excitement for proponents is that Bitcoin's potential is more than just as a new currency; it has second-order effects such as its use as a payments rail and arguably more importantly, as a catalyst for a stronger and more sustainable energy grid. And all the time, there are new users of Bitcoin who are seeing in it both novel opportunities, and also new risks to be mitigated. Wider adoption, therefore, means that what hyperbitcoinization will become is always evolving. The discussions on what this means have only just begun.

Jeff Booth is an Entrepreneur and Author of 'The Price of Tomorrow' and Austin Hill is a cypherpunk & former Blockstream CEO. In this interview, we discuss the unique sense of hope in El Salvador, the loss of freedom, Bitcoin as objective truth and hope, Elon Musk and Twitter. - - - - Show 500!!! What a ride it's been since I recorded my first show in November 2017. I'm so grateful to all the listeners, particularly those who send their support. Thanks to all the fascinating people I've had the privilege to interview: so many great stories, opinions, and advice. Thanks to my amazing sponsors - you enable my team to make what we think is the best show in the market. And finally, big up to the team, roll on the next 500! This show is as good as it gets in terms of guests and subject matter. Two major figures within the industry who I'm now lucky enough to call friends. And I hope you enjoy listening to them as much as I did. They're as excited about Bitcoin's opportunities as they've ever been. We speak about their recent visit to El Salvador and the unique and inspiring mood of hope within the country. The media are still dubious about Bukele's Bitcoin reforms, and the government is dealing with tough domestic and international challenges. However, it is infectious to hear how inspired two seasoned entrepreneurs are by what they witnessed in the country. Jeff and Austin also talk about the societal issues that Bitcoin is perhaps uniquely placed to mitigate: threats to freedom, not just from authoritarian governments but also from traditionally liberal establishments; pervasive misinformation directed at citizens; and rapid technological changes that will upend society. This is why Jeff and Austin are bullish that UX improvements have the potential to onboard hundreds of millions more to Bitcoin.

Junseth is a OG bitcoiner and the former co-host of Bitcoin Uncensored. In this interview, we discuss government being the logical extent of libertarianism, the evolution of news media, falling for conspiracies, admitting when you're wrong, opinion versus fact, and the return of Trump. - - - - Our lives are full of examples of infective institutions, inefficient governance, waste, want, and an eagerness to wage war. It is hard to argue in defence of the state. Yet, any popular movements against the actions of the state are ignored. In these times, libertarian arguments are powerful and persuasive: the state, shielded by coercion, is ineffective so we need to tear it down. However, we don't need to be fans of the state to be worried about the alternatives. In a world of 8 billion people, with increasing complexity, specialisation, and disagreement, is it rational to think that we can organise ourselves into voluntary and agreeable groups? History lacks examples of such structures working to support advanced functioning societies. So, why are we so ready to accept at face value vague promises that a better world can be achieved through radical means? Is it that uncertainty and nuance aren't rewarded by today's click-bait driven media? Like moths to a light, are we all drawn towards more exciting, adventurous, and confident narratives built on conspiracy and anarchy? In a small way, podcasting is an attempt to provide airtime for the truth. Whilst it's true that those who take extreme positions can build strong audiences, the biggest audiences are drawn to the more honest explorations of subjects. Despite attacks from MSM, the popularity of Joe Rogan shows there is a huge demand for authentic and reasoned debate. People want the truth. The question is, as MSM becomes increasingly unwilling to provide such a service, are we going to have to rely on a community of independent content creators to meet this demand?

Tuur Demeester is a Bitcoin investor and economist. In this interview, we discuss how he was drawn into a toxic online cult, his awakening and leaving, Twitter enabling cultist behaviours within Bitcoin and why it's key to give air to all voices within Bitcoin. - - - - Wisdom is developed through experience: an individual's interaction with other people and events, and their personal reflections on the outcomes, enhance understanding of both the self and the world. Knowledge isn't endowed genetically, and education provides limited direction. Perspective on exposure to our environment is what drives tangible learning and growth. People can easily find themselves developing beliefs, and engaging in actions, with the benefit of hindsight they later deem antithetical to an evolved worldview. Submission to a cult, that is adherence to common belief systems and behaviours advocated by a charismatic leader, is an extreme example of this. People will largely dismiss the idea that they could be susceptible to becoming a cultist. And yet, even the most infamous cults are full of highly educated, principled, and engaging people. People who have then made life decisions that are hard to objectively comprehend. The truth is that we're all susceptible. Commonly cults are cast as people in white robes; collectives holed up in fortified buildings; empty-eyed automatons following a messianic figure. But cults are less obvious and more pervasive than we'd imagine. Today, with easy access to powerful and toxic social media tools, building and energising and channelling an audience is available to anyone with a voice. It's never been easier to develop a cult. So, where are the dividing lines? What's the difference between impassioned rhetoric and dangerous invective? Should we try and conduct reasoned debate using tools that are structurally deficient for such tasks? How open can we be to divergent opinions in a world full of noise and pressure? Could we sleepwalk into a cult, or worse, become a corrupted cult leader?

Michael Malice is an anarchist, author, and podcaster. In this interview, we discuss declining versus flourishing US cities, transitioning away from the state, Ukraine and Putin, conspiracies to cancel, challenges to free speech, and the enfeeblement of the media and education system. - - - - Anarchism has quickly evolved from being an extreme ideology, which was at best a interesting thought experiment, to a political vision whose merits are being given increasingly serious consideration. Even those who believe in the power of collectivism are questioning the effectiveness of our current institutions. But with power comes responsibility. Do anarchists truly believe that tearing down the state and its associated power structures will result in a better world? Or is there a more nuanced and pragmatic approach? Is retention of some collective organisation desirable? Would decreased centralization and dominance of the state be a sufficient victory for anarchists? Whatever the end state envisioned by advocates of scholars such as Bakunin, Goldman, Berkman and Rothbard, there are plenty of power structures that anarchists believe require radical reconstruction. Mainstream media, universities, schools, and rent seeking businesses: they are all targets. Even if some anarchists are changing to think that a better and fairer world does not mean starting again from the ground up, don't think that their objective is anything short of an extensive reordering of society.

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss currency crises, the history of money, the properties of good money, and whether Bitcoin can usher in a new era of programmable, commodity money. - - - - What is money? We are taught to critically question and evaluate the world around us. Yet, most people never query the essence of what is perhaps civilisation's most important tool. We readily accept the money we have and use it without examining its history, characteristics, or whether it could be improved and changed. We are living through extraordinary times. The world around us is in flux: established norms are being upended. Yet, the most extraordinary change is occurring without, arguably, the fanfare it deserves. Money is changing. A viable alternative to fiat currency has taken hold. An open and free, censorship-resistant currency available to anyone with qualities that surpass previous forms of money is carving out its place as the future of money. Coins and notes are examples of money we are all familiar with. Yet, shares, property, or in fact, any tradable item are also forms of money. We interact with various forms of money, and implicity utilise their attributes without proper examination. So, what are the qualities and features of money? Why do we use different forms of money? What is money? It is only through proper consideration of these questions that the unique and revolutionary properties of Bitcoin become apparent. Bitcoin is much more than just a speculative digital asset. It seeks to be the best money ever invented, combining the benefits of gold, cash, and various contemporary stores of value. More importantly, Bitcoin provides new features seeking to protect the individual in the digital age. Bitcoin may be much more than a useful tool, it could be a necessity.

Dan Held is the Growth Lead at Kraken. In this interview, we discuss the splintering and factionalization of the Bitcoin community, trying to be honest in a toxic environment, update on the Bitcoin supercycle, and Bitcoin application (selling, hodling, lending, and collateralizing). - - - - Bitcoin is under almost constant attack, but despite significant pressures, efforts to ensure the technology remains truly decentralised and open have been successful, in a large part, thanks to the toxicity within the bitcoin community. But those who have worked at close quarters to the Bitcoin ecosystem have witnessed a rapid evolution and segmentation of beliefs, business proposals, and market for what is still a nascent innovation. The original libertarian community that nurtured Bitcoin has been diluted by new groups. Conservatives and progressives have aligned themselves to Bitcoin with their own dogmas. In the wake of the maximalist victory in the Blocksize Wars new divisions have arisen based on divergent ideologies. Can we find a unifying narrative to coalesce these factions? Equally, the industry that has developed around the unique monetary and payment characteristics of the technology has resulted in an explosion of new products and features. No longer is Bitcoin merely a static store of value: hodlers can now lend, short, and collateralize their asset. Should we fully embrace the investment opportunities this asset can provide? Finally, the cyclical nature of the asset price has continued to evolve. Macro forces, game theory, and geo-political events are potentially aligning to create a supercycle: a new phase of adoption that could propel Bitcoin into becoming a global reserve currency to rival gold. Will those who have prevised such a future be proven right? Are we finally about to enter a phase when Bitcoin matures and becomes money for all?