The Peter McCormack Show

Logan Bolinger is a lawyer and writer of the Think Bitcoin newsletter. In this interview, we discuss how he became orange pilled after concluding trust in politics is an impossible dream. We talk about how Bitcoin can help fix the broken political system and the problems caused by fiat money. - - - - There are many paths to Bitcoin. Cypherpunks, anarcho-capitalists and libertarians have all been attracted to Bitcoin given its rooted in protecting individual freedom, and its growing value as a powerful check on government control of money. And yet, there is now a meaningful movement of progressives within Bitcoin who have also been drawn to Bitcoin. Beyond the mainstream media narratives that would have you believe Bitcoin is for those on the right wing, Bitcoin is for anyone, and people are finding in Bitcoin solutions to a range of perceived systemic problems. For progressives, it offers a range of mitigations and solutions to deep-rooted issues. Most notably in how to restore trust to the broken political system and help those affected by inequality. Bitcoin is a revolution in that it empowers those who have increasingly been treated with contempt by the state, but had until recently felt powerless. It provides a chance to rebalance the social contract and strengthen democracy. And for those who want to retain the framework of the state, there is power to be drawn from the libertarian cause: rulers act differently when the ruled have a chance to opt-out and rely on a trustless system. Opening up to Bitcoin also offers a chance to look at wider society anew. Going down the rabbit hole means awakening to the fundamentals of money, economics and banking. It brings a realisation that a lot of what activists have been focused on has been the symptoms of issues rather than the causes. Maybe there is an alignment between those on the right and left around Bitcoin as they realise they are both being literally short-changed by the ruling elites. And, whilst being uncommon bedfellows, there is strength in numbers. And maybe the greatest strength of Bitcoin is in its ability to bring those on different sides of the aisle together to resolve some of our biggest issues.

Ryan MacLeod is a Bitcoiner working in the reactor research and safety programs at Canadian Nuclear Labs. In this interview, we discuss the importance and safety of nuclear energy, and how Ryan is trying to orange pill the nuclear industry by showing how Bitcoin aids the economic case. - - - - The growing consensus is that nuclear energy needs to play a critical part in providing society's energy needs. It is both a low-carbon energy source, energy-dense, and (dependent upon operation) reliable. And yet, nuclear only provides 10% of the world's energy needs, down from 18% in 1996. Whilst the IAEA forecasts only a 12% contribution by 2050 in its high-case projection. The issue to date has been the safety concerns regarding nuclear energy. High-profile accidents have clouded the public's perception of the nuclear industry and influenced anti-nuclear policies in numerous countries. The build-out of new nuclear capacity dropped significantly after Chernobyl, an accident that some feared had come close to making half of Europe uninhabitable. The reality is that Chernobyl was an accident unlike any other, which indicated the malaise of a waning superpower, rather than an industry that was inherently dangerous. Since then, reactor technology and the treatment of waste have continued to improve. We are now on the cusp of countries being able to roll out Small Modular Reactors that are cheaper, safer and more scalable than existing designs. It has the potential to revolutionize nuclear power just when we need it. And yet, the economics of nuclear energy are still challenging. High capital costs mean that nuclear facilities need to have a high capacity to make the investment worthwhile. Cheaper energy from solar and wind are adding to the complexity of the issue. There are other uses for nuclear energy that can be monetised, but these have their own specific infrastructure and operational requirements. This is where Bitcoin mining could provide a bridge. It eliminates the concept of surplus baseload generation, bolstering the economic bottom line of both old and new reactors. And it can do this from day one. So, could Bitcoin mining be the catalyst for a renaissance of the nuclear industry? If so, it will be young professionals such as Ryan MacLeod who are helping to lead the change.

Richard Murray is the co-founder and CEO of ORCA Computing. In this interview, we discuss the spooky and baffling effects of quantum mechanics, how ORCA is harnessing these effects to build quantum computers, and why success will be our generation's moonshot. - - - - The post-war period has seen an explosion in computing power. The principle underpinning modern digital computers was developed by Alan Turing in 1936 with his paper "On Computable Numbers". The concept was that programs with instructions would be stored in memory, which would enable the computer to be programmable. Since then, digital computers have continued to evolve at a pace. Gordon Moore (who was co-founder and CEO of Intel) predicted in 1975 (revising an earlier 1965 prediction) that the number of components in each integrated circuit would double every two years. This became known as Moore's Law and has largely held true. Innovative chip engineering has resulted in increases in computational power since the war that can be measured in the trillions. This is why our society has changed beyond recognition. And yet, there are limits to what we can do with computers, and limits to continued progress. A single Dutch company, ASML, provides the ultraviolet lithography machines needed to keep pace with Moore's Law. We are reaching the physical limits of increasing transistors to further computational power. A potential solution to this barrier could be by using the spooky effects of quantum mechanics. Computers work using a binary system, where computation has 2 possible discrete answers: 0 or 1. The effect of quantum mechanics means a computation can dispense with the discrete answer: the solution can be 0 or 1, or any combination of 0 and 1 at the same time. Harnessing this will turn the rapid evolution of computer science into a rapid revolution. When we can access unimaginable computational power what will be possible? In our specific sphere, what does this mean for Bitcoin mining and encryption more broadly? What does this mean for wider society? What are the ethical ramifications? All of these are questions that we should be grappling with, even though nobody can still explain what causes the spooky phenomena in quantum mechanics!

Pascal Gauthier is the CEO of Ledger. In this interview, we discuss how to build and grow a business in a bear market, making the business part of the mission, how nation-states are trying to steal Bitcoins, the vulnerability of software wallets to hacks at scale, and why freedom is not something that we should bargain for. - - - - Ledger is a French hardware wallet manufacturer. Founded in 2014, it is now a market leader, providing 2 of the leading hardware wallets on the market, with sales in over 165 countries. It's valuation is at least $1.5 billion. In July it was seeking to raise $100 million to fund further expansion at the exact time as other digital currency companies were struggling to stay afloat. How has this company continued to grow throughout the recent bear market? The company is clear-eyed about the criticality of the Bitcoin mission: the opportunity to regain personal financial freedoms that have been eroded over time. And freedom has always required security: they are interdependent. It's just that the weapons have changed over time. Today, a state can hold a person captive by denying them access to uncensorable private money. So, today, freedom is nothing without digital security for money. Ledger has made their mission to provide the market with personal security for its digital assets. What differentiates Ledger from other companies is that they see business as the means to achieve the mission: a ruthless pragmatism that acknowledges that without money we will never achieve or retain freedom. This is because security is an arms race. Hacking is now a state-level enterprise: Russia, North Korea, and China are just some of the nations that have invested heavily in developing cyber warfare skills. This has contributed to: 300,000 new pieces of malware being created every day; a hacker attack occurring every 39 seconds; yet, the chance a cybercrime is detected and prosecuted in the US is 0.05%. This means security in the nascent yet highly valuable digital assets industry is an asymmetric balance of power, so those seeking to provide security solutions need to invest and focus. Ledger does both. It invests heavily in R&D. And, it only provides air-gapped hardware that performs a singular security function. That is why they are successful. And that is good for Bitcoin.

Ben Arc is a free open-source software advocate and founder of LNbits. In this interview, we discuss how LNbits helps to decentralize custodianship and how Bitcoin's widescale utility outweighs the environmental FUD. - - - - In April of this year, Arcane Research published the 2nd volume of its "The State of Lightning" report. It showed adoption of the payments system is growing rapidly. Transaction and usage data indicate exceptional growth (e.g. since January 2021 capacity on the Lightning network has increased by 450%). However, they don't provide the full picture: equally important is the flourishing ecosystem. There are well over a hundred companies working directly with Lightning: developing operating systems, node and liquidity services, wallets, payment infrastructure, financial services, rewards programs, gaming, podcast/streaming and social media payment options etc. etc. The investment such companies are attracting is growing: the prize is access to the world's best payment rail. LNbits are providing the services of a Point of Sale payment and accounting technology. Its founder, Ben Arc, started hacking hardware to integrate Lightning functionality after attending the very first Lightning hack day in 2018. Since then he has taken a passion to contribute free open-source software for the community, into a VC-funded business seeking to bring scalable products to market. LNbits already has a free open-source Lightning wallet/accounts system with an array of extensions enabling users to create paywalls, faucets, offline shops, and even a jukebox! But Ben continues to hack hardware: he has created a Lightning ATM that he provided a live demo of during the show. Those who attend Real Bedford should soon be able to see one of these! Ben is looking to help grow the adoption of a technology that can provide freedom through decentralization. This will occur once we make these technically sophisticated innovations easy to use, and equally, easy to develop as open-source projects. Lightning is the innovation that enables Bitcoin to scale, and LNbits is part of the growing ecosystem we need to help Lightning to scale.

Peter Young is the managing director of the Free Cities Foundation. In this interview, we discuss the development of autonomous administrative areas around the world called 'free cities', where new types of governance can be offered to citizens outside the control of existing states. - - - - Paul Romer, former chief economist at the World Bank and a Nobel prize winner, proposed in 2009 the concept of Charter Cities. Romer was trying to tackle the problem of stagnant investment in the Global South arising from bad governance. The solution was to evolve the idea behind special economic zones and create autonomous city-states within existing countries. The autonomy would extend to alternate legal and political systems from the host nation, and to the provision of services by private organisations. An advanced guarantor country would protect the legal rights of residents. The idea was that such cities would become trusted centres predicated on good rules, attracting investment, firms and people, the benefits of which then filter beyond the cities' boundaries into the host country. The Free City Foundation have taken Romer's idea and sought to implement it in different parts of the world. The aim is to provide citizens with alternatives to the status quo: establishing new legal, financial and municipal relationships with residents. The ideology is to reduce the size of the modern state, which is considered to act in its own self-interest at the expense of society. There are a number of different scales of initiatives for the Free City Foundation: from intentional communities to prosperity zones, all the way to Free Private Cities. Prospera in Honduras is a working example of a Free City: a new settlement on the island of Roatán is being developed within its own civil law, regulatory agencies and taxation; although it must still adhere to the Honduran constitution, international treaties and criminal law. But this is only the start: many more examples are being developed across the world. Perhaps the most innovative idea is Seasteading, where independent communities are developed in international waters, outside of the jurisdiction of existing governments. Are these initiatives viable and preferable alternatives to the nation-state? That may be too early to tell, but there is a growing number of investors who think they are the future of civilisation.

Eric Yakes is the author of 'The 7th Property'. In this interview, we discuss the possible Bitcoin banking systems that could emerge when Bitcoin reaches maturity. We consider the forms of banking that developed in the past, and the new forms of banking Bitcoin and the Lightning Network could engender. - - - - One of the major changes brought about by Bitcoin is that it encourages those who discover it to study and question money. It is an awakening, which changes the concept of finance, and the balance of power between the state and individuals. Not only does this upend the confidence in state control monetary systems, it also makes people question state-regulated banking systems. The idea that there are alternatives gives optimism to those who have railed against fractional reserve banking. Expanding the money supply beyond that covered by reserves was deemed by some to have been a primary driver of the global financial crisis. Further, it has given rise to a generation of central bankers who are more comfortable with printing money. The promise of Bitcoin is the return to full reserve banking: a balance between deposits and lending. However, whilst this mitigates the chaos of deleveraging from unsustainable debt, it may also hinder long-term investment. These are the basic outlines of the major economic arguments that have separated the Austrians from the Keynsians, which have defined the push and pull of western monetary policies in the post-war period. Irrespective of the merits of either side of the debt around the usefulness of credit, Bitcoin could be expected to work in a spectrum of societal approaches to credit. The question, therefore, is what banking systems will Bitcoin and the Lightning Network facilitate? Will the nature of banking remain similar to the present, will there be a renaissance of old forms of banking, or will the market evolve new forms of banking? Each scenario is complete with a set of tradeoffs. But, Bitcoin's scarcity, combined with its utility as a digital permissionless uncensorable global monetary system, opens up a world of possibilities.

Obi Nwosu is a co-founder of Fedimint and a board member for Jack Dorsey's and Jay-Z's ₿trust. In this interview, we discuss how Fedimint builds upon various innovations to create community Bitcoin banks, with the aim of fully realising Bitcoin's potential to bank the unbanked. - - - - In 2018, Bitcoin Magazine asked Andreas Antonopoulos to reflect on 10 years of Bitcoin. He remarked that not everybody needs Bitcoin; "the real impact of this technology is on the other 6 billion: the unbanked, the underbanked, the politically oppressed." Whilst Bitcoin has the utility to help those living outside of the financial system, in its current form it still lacks the functionality and scalability to adopt the majority of people who, as Andreas stated, really need it. Bitcoin has multiple constraints, but a principal issue is expecting the unbanked to be able to self-custody. The answer to this problem lay in work undertaken by one of the original cypherpunks. In 1989 David Chaum created Digicash. Despite the venture eventually failing, decades later it helped pave the way for Bitcoin, and, now it is the basis for Fedimint. Chaum's innovation was to create blind mints: digital banks where communities can deposit and utilise digital dollars, and where the custodians have no access to any of the user data. But it was a chance meeting between Obi Nwosu and Eric Sirion at a hackers congress in Prague last year that dusted off Chaum's work and give it new life, with the aim of opening up Bitcoin to the masses. As a result, Fedimint was born in 2021. It attracted the sponsorship of Blockstream. Fedimint operates outside of the Bitcoin blockchain, and the idea is that the custody will be managed by trusted members of a community. Custodial risk is reduced through the ability to have such mints federated, where the operation operates as a multi-sig. Obi believes that after the provision of decentralised censorship-resistant money and payments, Fedimint is the third pillar of Bitcoin. It offers the real opportunity to scale Bitcoin into a global currency.

The Rational Root is a Bitcoin on-chain & cycle analyst and in this interview, we discuss developing & using Bitcoin price models. We look in detail specifically at his Bitcoin Spiral Models, Bitcoin hodl price models and Bitcoin halving & cycle charts. - - - - Bitcoin is currently in a bear market that the vast majority failed to predict. In fact, late last year, there was a lot of talk about $100k, $200k+ bitcoin that clearly failed to materialise. While bitcoin has experienced drops like this before, this time, the cycles played out differently. So why are we in a bear market? Alongside the wider macro environment of the fed tightening and raising interest rates, Bitcoin was dragged down by the collapse of Terra/Luna and the subsequent Three Arrows Capital & Celcius meltdown (amongst others), and in June, the price got as low as $17,500. Since then, bitcoin has been relatively stable, bouncing between $20k-$25k. Onchain analysis shows that since the June bottom, bitcoin has been under heavy accumulation. The question now is, where is the bottom and have we already hit it?

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss her latest paper on the Lightning Network (LN). We focus on the importance of Bitcoin's base layer, how LN compares to Visa and Mastercard, and how LN is connecting the world in new and revolutionary ways. - - - - To understand the Lightning Network, you need to go back and understand money: what attributes does it need to have, and what are the best means of facilitating these attributes? Bitcoiners believe it to be the latest evolution in money. It has the best combination of features of any previous version of money: it is hard, auditable, portable, uncensorable, immutable, fungible, trustless and decentralised. Yet, Bitcoin's Achilles' heel, and the question that plagued its first decade, was how it could scale to become an effective medium of exchange. The capacity of the Bitcoin network is purposefully limited to ensure that the network can remain as decentralised as possible. For Bitcoin to operate as a medium of exchange, a transactional layer needed to be built on top of the network. This is the Lightning Network. It's designed to provide an instant and cheap payment system connecting the world.

Max Hillebrand is an economist and open-source entrepreneur who runs Agora Towards Liberty. In this interview, we discuss the release of Wasabi Wallet 2.0 that he has been contributing to, the importance of CoinJoin, providing easy privacy for everyone, and why the personal risks of facilitating privacy are worth it. - - - - Every year increasing volumes of personal digital data are being leaked. As the general public doesn't perceive the impacts to be immediately damaging, there is insufficient consideration for the risks posed by this creeping encroachment on privacy. But, it is the replacement of cash by digital currencies that is causing privacy advocates real cause for concern. Removing people's ability to transact is perhaps the most potent means of control outside of internment. Monitoring and censoring personal transactions by both private institutions and the state is becoming increasingly common. As we saw in Canada, the temptation to use such draconian measures can be too much for governments of all persuasions to resist. Bitcoin's censorship resistance is therefore the right tool at the right time. However, maximising the privacy utility of Bitcoin requires certain practices to be adopted by the user, and the application of the right tools. CoinJoin is one such practice, which re-establishes Bitcoin's fungibility by breaking the traceability of UTXOs. The issue to date has been that such a technique requires reasonably advanced technical skills. This is where Wasabi Wallet 2.0 seeks to help. It comes with CoinJoin as an automatic built-in function. Privacy as standard. This is a potential game-changer: privacy is obviously easier to maintain when more people are able to remain private.

Ben de Waal is the VP of Engineering for Swan Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss living on bitcoin, what it means to be a libertarian socialist, the issues with capitalism and why Bitcoin should be a home for those on the left and the right. - - - - The last year has been marked by a growing interest in Bitcoin from progressives. A number of high-profile liberal names have emerged from within the community extolling the utility of Bitcoin. But, this is not a new phenomenon: the community has always been a home for the full spectrum of views. Further, there are important reasons why Bitcoin appeals to those on both the left and the right. Bitcoin has garnered a strong libertarian following. This was something Satoshi envisioned: in 2008 he stated in a post "It's very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly." This was successful; there are many who have been attracted to the Bitcoin community for its potential to provide an alternative to state-controlled currency, and thereby limit the size of government. This alignment with the right has acted as a barrier to some on the left. But not all. The original cypherpunks philosophy was predicated on anarchist ideals, to work outside of government controls. This attitude is analogous to those on the left who feel disenfranchised by the current global capitalist hegemony. Bitcoin too offers those on the left a chance to opt-out of what they perceive to be a broken system. Increasing numbers are waking up to this opportunity. The issue is obviously that the left and the right have been at loggerheads for centuries. Over this time debate has evolved into grandstanding. Misconceptions have been allowed to fester on both sides. This has been supercharged by social media where the general aim now is to marginalise an opposing opinion rather than seek to analyse and potentially assimilate different ideas. If Bitcoin really is freedom money, then it needs to be a home to people of all opinions. The issue is that our society has become polarised; a winner takes all attitude has metastasized. We need to reaffirm the basis of a strong democratic system: a pluralistic society that tolerates and supports multiple centres of power. Where ideas are debated, solutions are found, and progress is made. We need the same philosophical approach as the United States' founding fathers.

Mark Goodwin is the director of print editorial at Bitcoin Magazine. In this interview, we discuss the US government's sanctions on Tornado Cash, the upcoming Ethereum merge, and why this is vitally important for the future of Bitcoin. - - - - On 24th August, the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol Support team announced the Ethereum merge is expected to take place between September 10th and September 20th. The event marks Ethereum's shift from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, which would eliminate mining from the network consensus mechanism. However, major concerns are surfacing that move beyond the well-worn battle lines. There is a growing desire for the Ethereum PoW consensus to continue resulting in a network fork. But, Ethereum has effectively been co-opted by USDC and USDT stablecoins. Because these stablecoins are widely used on the network and due to the centralised nature of these stablecoins, the issuers can throw around their financial weight by deciding which fork to censor. And the organisations behind these stablecoins have shown a readiness to comply with state sanctions. What will this make Ethereum? On the same day of the merge announcement, a Dutch judge ruled that the developer of the Tornado Cash mixing service on the Ethereum blockchain must stay in jail for 90 days as he awaits charges. What these charges will be is not necessarily clear at the moment, but it seems that authorities will tie it into hacking and money laundering schemes. The Dutch action was coordinated with (and probably orchestrated by) the US government, which has imposed sanctions on addresses associated with Tornado Cash. The actions by the State Department are reminiscent of the original battles with cypher punks in the 1990s that resulted in the first "Code is Speech" ruling. Do they want to retest that ruling? These events, on the face of things, reinforce the unique position of Bitcoin. But, any rejoicing would miss the existential dangers. The state may be setting a precedent to outlaw code, sending a message to developers seeking to protect privacy which is already having a chilling effect, whatever the protocol. Could we be witnessing the development of a state-coerced digital currency?

Anita Posch is a fellow Bitcoin podcaster, author, advocate, and educator. In this interview, we discuss her mission to educate Bitcoin educators in emerging countries, the challenges Africans face using Bitcoin, and the numerous innovative Bitcoin initiatives happening in Africa. - - - - Bitcoin has a tremendous capacity to help people, particularly those living in emerging economies, but a lot of people associate it directly with scams. A large part of this is due to misreporting within mainstream media. Traditional media outlets have incredible reach but seem to lack the care required to provide authoritative balance. Last Saturday, The Times printed an article with the headline "How the Bitcoin boom led to 'a giant fleecing of ordinary people'". The article focused on the numerous events in crypto over the past few months that have wiped out retail investors. But, at no point in the article is there any attempt to differentiate Bitcoin from the crypto market. The Bitcoin community is therefore lucky to have fearless advocates like Anita Posch, pushing back against the mainstream FUD to educate people on the ground level. This is hard, lonely, but vital work, to provide access to uncensorable money to those who need it the most. It is this type of work that has made the growth and adoption of Bitcoin, despite all the obstacles, a silent revolution. Anita has focused a lot of attention on Africa. She has visited and helped people throughout the continent. Against a backdrop of countries suffering from crippling inflation, corruption and strict currency controls, there are numerous innovative initiatives empowering ordinary people through Bitcoin. These are inspirational stories of normal people doing extraordinary things. But Anita is one person. She is therefore focused on maximising her impact by educating the educators. To this end, Anita has set up a non-profit initiative, Bitcoin for Fairness. Please give generously. That way you can help Bitcoin's silent revolution to continue.

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?