The Peter McCormack Show

Erik Hersman is the co-founder of Gridless, & Marshall Long is the Head of Architecture for Rhodium Enterprises. In this interview, we discuss Bitcoin in Africa: the need, the use and the support the wider community can give. We also talk about energy poverty in Africa, Bitcoin's role in supporting mini-grids, and how Gridless's business model & Marshall's financing plan accelerate this process. - - - - There are around 800 million people in the world without access to electricity. Around 75`% of those live in Sub-Saharan Africa. Given populations are distributed over vast areas in Africa, and governments have limited access to capital, grid connections can be economically unviable. But mini-grids are also challenging because of the difficulty of getting a return on the high initial investment costs: demand in these poor communities takes time to build. To date, the only option has been well-meaning but unsustainable charitable ventures that can have unintended negative second-order effects. But then Bitcoin mining showed how curtailed energy can be monetised, and a problem has suddenly become an opportunity. It is estimated Africa could produce 2.5 million terawatt hours of wind and solar energy per year (the US uses around 4,000 terawatt hours of energy per year). The business opportunity is huge. In the fascinating interview, Eric Hesman of Gridless discusses how his company is partnering with communities in need of energy to provide subsidised power. Marshall Long sets out how his family office is helping with much-needed finance for energy projects in Africa that utilise Bitcoin mining. Together they set out the transformational impact such initiatives could have for the continent.

Alex Gladstein is Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation & Natalie Smolenski is an Executive Director of the Texas Bitcoin Foundation. In this interview, we discuss Alex's new book: 'Hidden Repression: How the IMF and World Bank Sell Exploitation as Development'. We talk about debt traps, western support for dictators, US and UK culpability, and what freedom means. - - - - The IMF and World Bank were originally created to stabilize exchange rates and fund infrastructure in war-torn countries. Alex Gladstein's work found that there was a pivot in this mission in the late 1960s. The new mission was to target and exploit poor countries for the benefit of the West, neocolonialism replacing colonialism, debt replacing the sword. These institutions have been incredibly harmful to poor countries, but also incredibly beneficial for the West through interest payments, extraction of resources and labour, and control of markets. This has been done with only a limited need for military intervention and subjugation through physical means. The wheels of this process have been oiled by the co-option of dictactors in on the steal. Bitcoin is a way out and may bring some justice. However, there must also be a reckoning with the damage done to poor countries by these exploitative policies. The IMF and World Bank have repeatedly prevented free markets from working normally in such countries forcing them deeper into debt. And when the country has inevitably defaulted, damaging structural adjustments have been imposed limiting government expenditure and hurting the most vulnerable. As Alex Gladstein asserts, changing the monetary paradigm, with the growth of Bitcoin, could break the current system and give hope for a more sustainable future. But in that process, we have to be clear about what we need to repair. As Natalie Smolenski states, without a programme of debt cancellation then we could enter a period of significant geopolitical stress.

Allen Farrington is a professional investor and the co-author of Bitcoin Is Venice. In this interview, we discuss the problems with fiat, or as Allen characterizes it "fiat fuckery". We talk about how money printing leads to inflation and a misallocation of capital, the complexity of the fiat system hiding the resultant theft of capital, the slow demise of pension funds, and the confusion around what growth is and isn't. - - - - Fiat currency experiments started centuries ago often resulting in catastrophic failure; since fiat has been ubiquitously assimilated into national economies. Whilst Bitcoiners are well versed in the inherent weaknesses of fiat currencies, there is a general ignorance of the long-lasting consequences for economies and citizens of maintaining an unbending faith in fiat money. Reducing this ignorance is perhaps the best way to grow Bitcoin's adoption. The obvious problem with fiat currency is the tendency for governments to print money to tackle economic exigencies. The impact of this money printing is often inflation, in which prices rise faster than wages and the purchasing power of money is reduced. Eventually, the currency can be debased, causing individuals to lose money without even realising it. There is cruelty at the heart of this process: the complex nature of the fiat economic system means individuals can easily lose money without even knowing it. Many investors make decisions that are far too complicated for them to understand, and so it is easy to get caught up in financial schemes that value money to the detriment of the individual. But, it is the second-order effect of this inflationary impact that is most pernicious. Businesses and investors are seeking to add value, and the inflation rate is the baseline for any return. When inflation increases, this puts pressure on those seeking investments to match or exceed it. The result is investments made in increasingly more speculative projects. This is the misallocation of capital, which starves more productive uses of capital. The obvious topic of conversation following this is how Bitcoin mitigates these problems. This is a question to be debated with Allen Farrington for a future episode. However, understanding what Allen calls "fiat fuckery" is a sound basis for building the why of Bitcoin.

The Rational Root is a Bitcoin on-chain & cycle analyst. In this interview, 9 months on from our last interview, we look into the various Bitcoin price models Root has developed. We again review his Bitcoin Spiral Models, Bitcoin Hodl price models and Bitcoin halving & cycle charts. We discuss the growing evidence of Bitcoin scarcity, and bullish cases as we approach the next halving. - - - - In his first interview on What Bitcoin Did last August, the Rational Root made prescient predictions about Bitcoin bear market lows that occurred a few months later. The caveat is that he also stated "You always have to be a bit sceptical about models that predict the future, they can be wrong." Nevertheless, the models Rational Root has developed have some conspicuous patterns that are worth consideration. The Bitcoin Spiral chart Rational Root uses is incredibly powerful. It clearly shows a correlation between Bitcoin's price and the halving events. Extrapolating this pattern forward suggests we could be on the cusp of a new bullish price triggered by next year's halving. This phase is predicted to see a material price appreciation between $100,000 and $1 million in the next cycle. We also debate whether Bitcoin is now correlated with other more significant asset markets, in particular the S&P 500. In essence, is there a correlation between Bitcoin's price and risk appetite in the investment market? If such a link has been established, and a rescission occurs, this could lead to a deviation from the Bitcoin halving cycle patterns. But perhaps the most bullish analysis Rational Root has undertaken involves the assessment of demand and supply indicators, such as his "Hodl Model", which predicts the growth rate of illiquid supply in Bitcoin. It's simple economics that price is affected by the relationship between demand and supply, and, as Rational Root states "Bitcoin is becoming more scarce, and this data is not being paid attention to by many people."

Matt Corallo is a Bitcoin Core developer and open-source engineer at Block/Spiral. In this interview, we discuss the nexus of ordinals, mining rewards & decentralisation risks. We also talk about the impact of a permanent high fee environment on digital transactions, the challenges faced by Bitcoin wallet developers, and the new wave of talent working on Bitcoin Core. - - - - Bitcoin has come a long way since its inception, but it continues to evolve. The past few months have seen significant discussion regarding the recent development of ordinals, mining rewards, and the challenges of maintaining mining decentralization. In essence, there is a continual battle to ensure Bitcoin's infrastructure is fit for purpose in enabling an uncensorable, trustless settlement of transactions. These challenges are an inevitable part of the development of innovation. Each issue requires a solution, which in turn, leads to new issues. For example, the impact of a high fee environment has been to highlight limitations and risks with the Lightning Network. Then there are the UX issues associated with wallets and issues in relation to compatibility across different protocols. Whilst each of these technical issues requires discussion and understanding, the wider perspective is that there is a perpetual need to improve Bitcoin's infrastructure and continue to maintain its security and decentralisation. Therefore, we need the right environment for developers to learn, collaborate and deliver. And, the wider community needs to be supportive and nurture this talent, protecting them from toxic attacks and iniquitous litigation. There are certainly a number of big organizations out there who understand this and are modestly and diligently working to support people like Matt and others, to allow them in turn to support Bitcoin and the needs of the whole community. And it is certainly encouraging to hear that there is a new wave of developing talent being brought into the Bitcoin Core "team". Whilst this interview reinforces the fact that we can never take the huge efforts being applied for granted, it is still amazing to see the strides being made in the world's most successful open-source project. That we can collaborate voluntarily across the internet to change the world of money, in the face of massive challenges, should leave us all in awe.

Peter St Onge is an Economist at the Heritage Foundation and a Fellow at the Mises Institute. In this interview, we discuss the differences between Keynesian and Austrian economics, the role of marketing in shaping public opinion, and the potential of Bitcoin to displace central banks and cut off one of the main channels that governments use to seize people's resources. - - - - Keynesian economics developed in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Its aim was to stabilise the volatility caused by market forces through the application of government and central bank resources. Its critics state it has opened up a range of tools that governments have exploited for short-term gain, whilst building up ever greater problems for future generations. Keynes was mocked by major contemporary figures. Winston Churchill, who didn't believe that state borrowing and expenditure could provide permanent additional employment, famously once said "If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three opinions." And yet, governments, on both sides of the political debate, seem to be currently addicted to greater monetary and fiscal interventions in the economy than at any time since the 1930s. Such actions started in 2008, but have continued apace since. They are a major factor in why global debt now stands at an eye-watering $305 trillion. Hayek, the famous Austrian economist, foresaw the coming crisis, concluding that monetary policy only does harm to an economy. In 1976 he called for the denationalisation of money. In a famous 1984 interview, he stated "I don't believe that we should ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government… all we can do is by some sly or roundabout way introduce something they can't stop." Hayek essentially foresaw Bitcoin. Unsurprisingly, Bitcoin's trajectory, as an incorruptible digital hard money, started as the deflated global economy was patched up with Keynesian policies in 2009. Over 14 years later, as these policies become ever more unsustainable, it seems like we're on the cusp of a swing of mainstream opinion away from Keynesian policies, to policies predicated on Austrian economic principles. And Bitcoin could be the centre of this new paradigm.

Jeff Snider is Head of Global Research at Atlas Financial Advisors and Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, they debate whether QE is money printing, if the Treasury market broke in early 2020, dollar shortages, whether there's an ideal form of money, the importance of Bitcoin, and the problems with central and commercial banks. - - - - Lyn Alden and Jeff Snyder are two of the popular economic experts in the Bitcoin space at the moment. They bring much-needed clarity to discussions on economic and financial systems that are lacking in mainstream media. They do, however, disagree on some fundamental issues. This show is a fascinating discourse between two heavyweights who are at the top of their game. The discussion starts with a debate on the mechanics and implications of quantitative easing (QE), and the role of central banks and commercial banks in money circulation. Lyn and Jeff explore whether QE constitutes money printing, the impact of fiscal deficits on inflation, and the liquidity problems in the treasury market. The discussion then focuses on the emergence and acceptance of different currencies in the global market (including Bitcoin), the role of central banks, the importance of a currency's availability and infrastructure in its acceptance, and the challenges of achieving a self-contained monetary system without central banks or authorities. Lyn and Jeff cover the relationship between debt and economic growth, the concept of a "bail-in," and the need for a sensical monetary structure with the right rules and parameters. They also consider whether there is an ideal money, or, whether the monetary system needs to be dynamic such that it can evolve and adapt to a changing world where new demands arise.

Troy Cross is a Professor of Philosopher and Fellow at BPI, and Harry Sudock is Chief Strategy Officer at Griid. This interview was a live recording made at the Bitcoin 2023 Conference in Miami, where we discussed Bitcoin mining: the industry's rapid evolution, how it's optimising other markets, and why its relentless search for cheap energy will facilitate human flourishing. - - - - Bitcoin mining has been the subject of much controversy and debate in mainstream media. The infamous New York Times (NYT) article in April still casts a shadow over the industry: the piece characterised Bitcoin mining as an exploitative parasite feeding off cheap energy at the expense of local users and the environment. And yet, Bitcoin mining is the exact opposite. As Troy Cross states in this live interview, when people get to hear the truth about Bitcoin mining's impact on energy systems it "blows their minds!" Harry Sudock adds more colour by explaining how Bitcoin mining is a black hole that sucks in economic utility and spits it out in its most efficient form, making it a revolutionary tool for human flourishing. Both speakers criticize the media for pushing a biased agenda and cherry-picking data to fit a preconceived narrative. They argue that the truth about Bitcoin mining's impact on energy systems is more complex than the media portrays, but, this doesn't provide the clickbait media outlets are after. The irony is that the NYT's mission is "to seek the truth and help people understand the world." However, we are optimistic that the tide will soon turn. With this show, both Harry and Troy have been on What Bitcoin Did now a combined 13 times (lucky for us!), and they continue to blow our minds with their tales of the possible worlds opened up by the race for cheap and abundant energy. The other side just doesn't have the calibre of persuasive, authentic and enthusiastic voices we have.

Jason Maier is a teacher and the author of 'A Progressive's Case for Bitcoin'. In this interview, we discuss the importance of teaching money and Bitcoin in schools, the future of education in the shadow of AI, and the challenges of having a public persona. We also talk about the feedback Jason has received since publishing his book and Bitcoin's potential to bring people together. - - - - It is a common feature of any orange pilling exercise that most people are blissfully ignorant of the inherent weakness and structurally unjust nature of the monetary system. And yet, school curriculums are shockingly devoid of requiring schools to provide even rudimentary information on how economies, money and individuals interact. We are a financially illiterate generation. Then there is the impact of technological changes on students. AI is rapidly changing the world in ways forecasters are struggling to predict. It is obvious that most schools aren't equipping students to enter a world of constant technological revolution. A world in which Bitcoin may play a significant role. Therefore, as the world continues to evolve, the need for education that prepares students for the future is becoming increasingly essential. Students are generally receptive to new ideas and have the agility in being able to develop the skills required to exploit new opportunities opened up by technology. The issue is with the conservative nature of the education system, which in turn is heavily influenced by biases and misconceptions. In this podcast, Jason Maeir shares his experiences in educating students about Bitcoin, and the influence of the emerging properties of AI upon education. There is a fundamental need to change educational principles away from rote learning (i.e. knowing stuff) to developing more holistic skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving and creativity. These have been traditionally seen as 'soft skills', but they are in fact the bridge between technology and humans. The goal is to improve productivity and intelligence in a society that is more equal and fair. And it all starts with improving our education.

Nic Carter is a Partner at Castle Island Ventures and co-founder and Chairman of Coin Metrics. In this interview, we discuss Real Bedford, ordinals, the Bitcoin fee market, Bitcoin culture wars, layer 2 innovations, Chokepoint 2.0 and the 2022 banking crisis, and how people can stand up for Bitcoin against the current US administration. - - - - In categorising a covert attempt by the executive branch to restrict access to Bitcoin and crypto as a modern iteration of Operation Chokepoint, Nic Carter has brought much-needed attention to an otherwise nebulous sense of unease. Nic has clarified the meaning behind a series of different events, tying together inconsistent messages and suspicious decisions. His explicit analysis has even garnered the attention of a presidential candidate, Robert F Kennedy Jnr. At face value, Chokepoint 2.0 is about the government's hostility towards the crypto industry in the wake of FTX. That Bitcoin will be ensnared in this dragnet is of obvious concern. An innovation that could revolutionise and democratise money and energy could be restricted within the world's leading economy. However, there is a bigger issue here: the circumvention of democratic norms. These restrictions are occurring without debate or scrutiny. Then, to add import on top of import, there is the underlying rationale for these restrictions. In a week when the debt ceiling is again the subject of political horse-trading to allow sovereign debt to continue to grow to evermore eye-watering levels, these restrictions are an implicit imposition of soft capital controls on the American people. So, we have unprecedented restrictions on people's freedoms to protect stores of value being done behind closed doors. Put bluntly, the US government's attempts to restrict the growth of the crypto industry by leaning on private banks are unconstitutional and violate due process. The social contract is being broken. Nic has suggested that injured parties should join efforts to sue the government to enable legal oversight of these decisions. In his opinion, this is a lawsuit that can be won.

John D'Agostino is the Institutional Lead for Advisory and Strategic Partnerships at Coinbase. In this interview, we discuss his background working for the New York Mercantile Exchange, seeking out enjoyment, and the flip side of getting kidnapped. We also talk about the maturity of the Bitcoin market, covering both the regulatory threats and institutional appetite. - - - - John D'Agostino is certainly a unique character. He was the subject of a best-selling book back in 2007 after he set out to open up the first oil exchange in the Middle East, which acted as a catalyst for capital markets in the region. However, his life has produced enough for more than a single book: he is the first person I have spoken to who has been kidnapped. As someone who seeks out new exciting opportunities, it's not a surprise that John landed a prominent position within the digital assets industry. As a senior advisor to Coinbase, he's well-positioned to reflect on the state of the industry as it navigates a period of uncertainty. Post FTX, what is the direction of government regulation in the US and abroad? Furthermore, what are institutional investors waiting to do? John sets out what he sees as a huge gap between the US and the rest of the world in terms of digital asset regulation. And yet, not least because of the popular support for digital assets among the electorate, he views this as being a temporary situation which provides international players with a headstart over the US. John is strongly optimistic about the future of Bitcoin and other digital assets, particularly because of the potential to unlock value through programmable and immutable instruments. He's also seeing the backed-up demand from institutional investors, just waiting for regulatory clarity. He's been part of shaping change in the financial world once already. Who'd bet against him doing it again?

James Seyffart is an analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence covering ETFs. In this interview, we discuss the how and why of ETFs, Grayscale's legal battle with the SEC over the approval of a Bitcoin ETF, and the complexities of Grayscale implementing a redemption program for GBTC. We also talk about the role of the SEC in regulating Bitcoin and Gary Gensler's political ambitions. - - - - In two months' time, it will be the 10-year anniversary of the Winklevoss Twins making the first submission to the SEC for a Bitcoin spot ETF. When the SEC rejected this in 2017, it seemed as though it was a temporary blip, and that a US Bitcoin spot ETF would inevitably be approved. And yet, the SEC has rejected a raft of subsequent applications, and many more sit in Gary Gensler's inbox awaiting a decision. Grayscale has decided to test the SEC's stance in court. Whilst there are various opinions as to the underlying motivation for Grayscale taking on this case, there is no doubt that this is the best test of the SEC's current intransigence in relation to a Bitcoin spot ETF. Bloomberg Intelligence's James Seyffart, an ETF expert, provides his informed opinion on the current status of Grayscale's case, the likelihood of the SEC losing the case, and whether this will affect the SEC's position of a Bitcoin spot ETF. He also sets out why the SEC is so reluctant to approve what many in the community believe would open up Bitcoin to a new massive wave of adoption.

Arthur Hayes is an entrepreneur and the former CEO of BitMEX. In my first interview with Arthur, we discuss the state of the world at the moment: what happened with FTX, money printing, the coming collapse, debt jubilees, the need to acquire assets outside the system like Bitcoin, good and bad AI scenarios, and a powder keg of issues that'll hit the markets this fall. - - - - Arthur Hayes was the co-founder and former CEO of BitMEX, which was one of the largest crypto exchanges and derivatives platforms. In 2021, its average daily trading volume was over $2 billion. Hayes was famously charged in the southern district of New York for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. He got 2 years probation and a $10 million fine. But Hayes remains an authoritative voice within the crypto and Bitcoin communities. Nic Carter called him "One of the good guys of crypto." He now has a mission to help spread financial literacy and educate investors, which he does through regular medium posts, columns in leading journals and interviews with podcasters. And, he has a knack for calling the market. In this short interview, we pack in a surprising number of issues: Hayes's investment strategy, and views on crypto and Bitcoin; opinions on the FTX scandal; fragility in the banking sector; historical currency debasements and the inevitability of a coming collapse; the use of debt jubilees to right society; investing in assets that can weather the coming storm; the impacts of AI; and the debt ceiling.

Tor Ekeland & Mike Hassard are defence attorneys representing a Swedish-Russian national, Roman Sterlingov, arrested in early 2021 by the IRS at LAX. He was accused of creating and operating the Bitcoin Fog mixing service to launder over $300 million. He had his assets seized and was incarcerated. He's awaiting trial. Tor and Mike are still trying to find corroborating evidence. But they've uncovered conflicts of interest within the DoJ. - - - - Roman Sterlingov has been accused of running Bitcoin Fog, a Bitcoin mixer, and laundering $334 million. On a prima facie basis it seems like a case of the state acting to crack down on nefarious darknet activities. But, delve deeper, as Roman's lawyers Tor Ekeland & Mike Hassard have done, and it raises serious questions about what the DoJ and various companies are willing to do for selfish motives. Firstly, there is a distinct lack of evidence against Roman. No evidence has been found on any computer, thumb drive or server that links Roman to the crimes he's accused of. The evidence that does exist has been produced by the blockchain forensics company Chainanalysis. But as yet this evidence is not open to scrutiny, and, such evidence has never been challenged in court. Secondly, the case highlights numerous material conflicts of interest within the DoJ and Chainalysis. A revolving door between the DoJ and Big Tech is a well-known issue. Then there's the use of cases such as Roman's to help build the reputation of Chainalysis, helping it to gain a multi billion dollar valuation. The profit incentive has and does skew criminal prosecutions in the US. And lastly, there's the overreach of the DoJ, and the tactics it is employing to arrest and prosecute individuals. Roman's case is a high-stakes situation for both Roman, the Bitcoin community and the wider public. If Roman loses, he could face 50 years to life in prison. If unchallenged, it could also set a dangerous precedent and allow the government to expand its jurisdiction globally through the internet.

Pascal Gauthier is the CEO of Ledger, NVK is the founder of Coinkite, Matt Odell is a podcaster and Bitcoin educator and Harry Sudock is Cheif Strategy Officer at Griid. In this interview, we host a group discussion, regarding Ledger's Recover firmware update. We talk about the questions this update has raised about the trade-offs between mitigating seed recovery risk over state seizure risks. - - - - Full disclosure, Ledger is a sponsor of the What Bitcoin Did Podcast. Just under a week ago, Ledger launched a seed recovery service called Ledger Recover. There was an immediate backlash on Twitter, with various prominent voices raising concerns about the security implications. Fundamentally, does this feature open up users to hacking or state seizure risks? Or, is this a useful service that will support efforts to get more users to self-custody? The purpose of this show was to enable Pascal Gauthier, the CEO of Ledger, to explain the aims of Ledger's seed recovery service, and the methods employed to protect users. The show then enabled trusted independent and prominent voices within the community (including a Ledger competitor) to set out their concerns and discuss them openly with Pascal. Should security for Bitcoin be provided using open or closed-source software? Given the challenges in providing robust security, are there any acceptable trade-offs? Can we afford anything less than full transparency from commercial companies involved in Bitcoin security? The rudimentary issue is whether Bitcoin security should be regarded as a binary choice. Should we as a community should aim for a minimum expectation of security? Or, should we take the world as it is and pragmatically make incremental improvements to people's security? Can we afford as a community to have the majority of people custody on exchanges? Or, do we strive for higher ideals than seeing self-custody as an end in itself?

Jason Lowery is a Major in the US Space Force and author of Softwar: A Novel Theory on Power Projection and the National Strategic Significance of Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss how he is building the case within the US Department of Defence that Bitcoin represents a new form of digital warfare that the US government needs to embrace to secure its power projection in cyberspace. - - - - Jason Lowery burst onto the Bitcoin scene in August 2021. When a senior member of the US Space Force enters the Bitcoin debate it tends to turn heads! But, it was his novel projections of what value Bitcoin presents to society that generated interest and controversy. Bitcoiners have long espoused Bitcoin as a peaceful revolution. Jason thinks Bitcoin can be used as a tool of warfare. In Softwar, Jason's recently released book on the national strategic significance of Bitcoin, he explains the background of modern warfare, tracing its roots back to the struggle for survival in all forms of life. From single-cell organisms upwards, all of life is involved in a fight for control over resources and territory. Competition has resulted in an ecological arms race manifested through evolutionary cycles of improvements in physical power and the projection of that power. Softwar explains that humans are just another life form involved in this competition for survival. Humans, however, have become increasingly efficient at power projection techniques, from wielding fire to using nuclear weapons. Now, as we accelerate through the digital age, humans need to develop and harness new and innovative methods to maintain their advantages over adversaries. In his role within Space Force, which is developing the means to project power beyond our planet, Jason has been contemplating what other tools will be required as another arena for competition opens up: cyberspace. Jason argues that Bitcoin has the potential to be a revolutionary cybersecurity system. Proof of Work is an innovation that moves the fight to the enemy, imposing a cost on those wishing to undertake an attack. Softwar is a call to action for the US Department of Defence to adopt Bitcoin as a tool of warfare in the new cyberspace battlefield. Whilst designed to secure money, PoW can in theory be used to secure other forms of data. Whether you agree with this assertion or not, Jason is making progress within the DoD in arguing Bitcoin's utility makes it too important for the Department of Treasury and Federal Reserve jurisdiction. And who would bet against the DoD in a fight!

Michael Saylor is the CEO of MicroStrategy. In this interview, we discuss his 10 rules for lfie, the opportunities and threats of AI, the importance of Bitcoin in an automated world, the strength of ossification compared to accelerating change, and the criticality of Bitcoin miners to the Bitcoin network. We also talk about Michael's navigation of the bear market. - - - - Chat GPT was released a little over 6 months ago. It is arguably the most significant tech innovation since the internet. People are now routinely using chatbots to interact with technology and access information tailored to very specific needs. Whilst the impacts of this are yet to be fully understood, it is widely accepted that we have entered a new exciting and equally frightening paradigm. The issue at hand is that the world is becoming increasingly automated. As a result, human beings are being viewed as a constraint on productivity, which AI technology can mitigate. Where does this leave humans? In a world predicated on code and efficiency and automation, what controls are in place to ensure these systems are secure such that they can not be centralised and exploited such that the general population suffers rather than flourishes? Michael Saylor is of the opinion we need an automated tool that is secure and outside of any centralised control. Bitcoin, in this scenario, is the tool that can compete with new digital advances, but, enable humans to retain some control of their lives. As such, it is imperative that we protect the integrity of the innovation such that its utility remains available for both existing and future generations. The question then becomes how do we best protect Bitcoin? Saylor argues that it is the Bitcoin miners that are Bitcoin's "fortresses": they provide brute force security, a cryptographic defence, and the means to marshall the means to advocate effectively for Bitcoin within the corridors of power. Bitcoin miners, therefore, need protection to ensure they continue to act as Bitcoin's standing army. We do this by ensuring stability: ossifying Bitcoin's base layer protocol.

Rune Østgård is the Author of 'Fraudcoin: 1000 Years with Inflation as a Policy'. In this interview, we discuss inflation's historical introduction and use as an exploitative tool by elites and how, in various phases of history (most recently, the early 20th century), inflation was not viewed as a required economic phenomenon. To Rune, there is no more important subject to understand than inflation. - - - - In the 1700s, Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith was the first to use the term "inflation" in his book, "The Wealth of Nations." Smith argued that inflation resulted from an increase in the amount of money in circulation, which caused goods and services to be more expensive. But inflation is not a modern phenomenon. It has been in existence for centuries. And historical analysis shows that it has been used as an exploitative tool by elites throughout the ages. Rune Ostgard has traced the use of inflation back to its use in his home country of Norway in 1050 AD, its use by a tyrant King, and its role in the effective ending of the Viking era. Rune states that it is this historical knowledge that shows firstly how ruinous inflation can be and, secondly, why it is not an inevitable or necessary feature of economic systems. Famously during the 19th century, there was a sustained period when deflationary growth occurred in the United States. And yet, for the past 100 years, we have been conditioned to accept inflation as an essential economic driver. Its insidious nature has been hidden by a period of low rates of inflation. Now, however, with inflation rising to double-digit levels across many parts of the world, its destructive compounding impacts are more apparent. We are now, therefore, at a time when it is necessary to question inflations societal value and whether there are other ways of managing our economies. Whilst Bitcoiners have a viable future mapped out, Bitcoin is still viewed by many with suspicion. But, as the fiat system continues to unravel, the value of Bitcoin becomes ever more easy to explain.

Obi Nwosu is a co-founder of Fedimint and a board member of Jack Dorsey's and Jay-Z's ₿trust. In this interview, we discuss the mission of Fedimint: empowering communities around the world by allowing them to take control of their money. We also talk about the importance of trust models in relation to storing Bitcoin in Fedimint. - - - - It's hard to believe that Fedimint is only 2 years old. Its development is a regular topic of exciting conversation within the community. It is one of a number of important projects that are leading many to believe we're on the cusp of a wave of innovation within Bitcoin: Blockstream Developer Neigut expects there will be a 'Cambrian Explosion' of Bitcoin Layer 2 Protocols in the future. Obi Nwosu came back to provide some valuable demonstrations of how Fedimint will work in practice. Lightning transactions, encrypted chat and offline payments are just an example of the developments that the Fedi team have been working on bringing to the Fedimint protocol. All of these back and reinforce the Chaumian mint functionality and multisig custody solution on which Fedimint is predicated. It is now garnering interest from those looking to use it in anger, with a number of Beta applications being tested. Once officially launched, it has the potential to democratise access to financial systems for millions of communities, providing efficiencies and cost savings currently out of reach. Further, it can make the Lightning Network more efficient whilst opening up access to Bitcoin.

Bradley Rettler is an Associate Professor of Philosophy, and a member of the Resistance Money, a philosophy research collective focused on Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss the potential ethical implications of AI, philosophical reflections on money creation and governance, the importance of financial literacy, and combating misinformation about Bitcoin. - - - - One of the important groups to emerge within the Bitcoin community over the past few years has been the philosophers studying Bitcoin, led by members of the Resistance Money collective: Andrew Bailey, Bradley Rettle and Craig Warmke (with Troy Cross as an honorary member). They have added academic weight to the consideration of the importance of Bitcoin in the context of fundamental questions regarding money's role in society. The Resistance Money collective has been examining Bitcoin from various angles. In the episode, Bradley discusses moral dilemmas posed by a material global transition to this new form of money: the transfer of wealth, energy consumption impacts, the acceptance of privacy for bad and good, and usage by enemies. In addition, considerations about the benefits provided by fiat currency that could be lost: e.g. is there a useful societal function provided by money printing? But this is where philosophical tools are extremely useful. In a previous episode, Craig Warmke explained the usefulness of the 'veil of ignorance' thought experiment, where one assumes they have no knowledge of what position in society they would have, and, from this position, they then determine what monetary system would best serve society for the great good. It is this perspective that is used to establish the Resistence Money thesis on Bitcoin. In a scenario where you could fall into any position in society, it would obviously be better that Bitcoin existed. It is the philosophical equivalent of checking your privilege. Whilst Bitcoin's potential impact on society is complex and uneven, it is far easier to understand how Bitcoin acts to mitigate global inequality and inequity when assuming a scenario where you need it and it doesn't exist.

David Bailey is the co-founder & CEO of BTC Inc. In this interview, we discuss the upcoming Bitcoin Conference in Miami, the ongoing saga with Genesis, Grayscale & DCG, as well as the Redeem GBTC campaign that David has been spearheading. - - - - Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) is a trust product offered by Grayscale, a company owned by Digital Currency Group (DCG). GBTC allows investors to gain exposure to Bitcoin through more traditional investment channels, and currently, Grayscale manages approximately $18.1 billion across various funds. However, Grayscale is facing some significant issues. Since early 2021, GBTC has been trading below its net asset value (NAV) at a discount rate of around -36%. GBTC holders are unable to redeem their shares for the underlying asset and must accept this discount if they want to sell their shares on the open market. To address this, David Bailey has set up the Redeem GBTC campaign to push Grayscale to open withdrawals and allow GBTC holders to access the underlying Bitcoin with minimal impact on the Bitcoin market. Allowing redemptions could also potentially bring the heavy discount to NAV back closer to par.

Lawrence Lepard is an Investment Manager and Austrian Economist. In this interview, we discuss gold and Bitcoin, comparing their relative benefits as assets over short and long time scales. We also discuss inflation, the potential threats to Bitcoin, inequality in society, and the challenges of finding credible leaders in politics. - - - - As the world grapples with an uncertain financial future, it's becoming increasingly important to diversify your investment portfolio. The two obvious assets designed to weather the coming economic storms are Bitcoin and gold. Whilst the relationship between gold bugs and Bitcoiners has been adversarial over the years, the two assets are two sides of the same coin. There are important differences between the two: Bitcoin is digital gold, which enables it to be used in ways beyond the capacity of gold; but gold has a 5,000-year head start on Bitcoin, and can therefore provide less volatility in the short to medium term. But, the primary demand for both as a store of value is predicated on the same thesis of limited supply. They both, therefore, serve as a hedge against inflation. In essence, the investors in both assets are well aligned in terms of their concerns about the global economic system. Goldbugs and Bitcoiners understand the value in sound money, and the risks posed by the current fiat system. Rather than being suspicious of each other, there is much to be said about orange-pilling gold bugs, and similarly, Bitcoiners being open to investing in gold. The big picture is that both gold and Bitcoin present a risk to the current economic system. It is likely that they will both be subject to attacks and controls by those seeking to reinforce the current system, as the cracks and fissures widen. Any meaningful divisions can and will be exploited: divide and conquer is a military tactic as old as politics and war. We, therefore, need alliances. Lawrence Lepard is one of those seeking to build a bridge between the two groups.

Freddie New is the Head of Policy at Bitcoin Policy UK. In this interview, we discuss how his childhood experiences living in Zimbabwe and Syria have shaped his understanding of Bitcoin's unique properties. We also discuss his amazing efforts in setting up Bitcoin Policy UK, a new and much-needed advocacy group promoting Bitcoin to policymakers and the wider public in the United Kingdom. - - - - Danny and I have been very fortunate to travel to a vast array of countries in making this show. In the process, I have been exposed to ideas and experiences that reinforce the importance of Bitcoin. But what strikes me the hardest is coming back to the UK. There is a general lack of interest and consideration for this innovation. It's an attitude that borders on outright suspicion and derision on occasions. Freddie New is one of the main people behind a new advocacy group: Bitcoin Policy UK. It is a lobbying and educational non-profit that the UK has been in desperate need of. This speaks to the difficulties of getting funding for such initiatives more than anything else. But, as the Bitcoin Policy Institute and Coin Centre attest, it's about getting the right people to work in such organisations. Freddie is such a person. Whilst he speaks like a typical London professional (which can open many doors in the UK!), his experiences in growing up and escaping Zimbabwe were anything like the typical insular upbringing of many in the UK. At an early age, Freddie was forced to acquire valuable education on the importance of the properties that Bitcoin provides. It is a story that makes you catch your breath. Bitcoin advocacy is about looking beyond the investment potential of the Bitcoin asset and expressing its value as a technology that can protect people. Advocacy needs to be authoritative and tell powerful stories to persuade people who are blind to the economic transition coming down the road. Having someone who can eloquently attest to the need to have means to protect sovereign wealth could be the lightning rod for Bitcoin advocacy in the UK.

On the 14th of April What Bitcoin Did hosted a live show in Bedford. The guests were the founder of LNBits Ben Arc, CEO/Chairman of Ego Death Capital Jeff Booth, Investment Manager Lawrence Lepard and Macro analyst James Lavish. Across these interviews, we discussed Nostr, censorship-resistant marketplaces, hyperinflation, debt, deflationary economics, Bitcoin and AI. - - - - I have taken the What Bitcoin Did podcast all around the world: across the United States, South America and Europe. However, I have always dreamed of hosting a live event in my home town. Never would I have believed that I could have been lucky enough to have 4 of the best voices within the community come to the inaugural What Bitcoin Did Live in Bedford event. The show covered the main issues affecting not only the Bitcoin community at the moment, but the wider economic and social landscape. We discuss the development of the decentralized censorship-resistant social media network Nostr with one of it's inventors, the amazing Ben Arc, and his work in expanding its application to develop censorship-resistant marketplaces. Lawrence Lepard and James Lavish set out their analysis of the macroeconomic environment in which the current sovereign debt and deficit situation could result in triple-digit inflation in Western economies within the next few years. We discuss balancing mitigating the resultant risk with investment strategies focused on both gold and Bitcoin. Finally, Jeff Booth explains his deflationary thesis, where an unmanipulated economic system allows technology and competition to provide productivity gains to flow through society, how Bitcoin is the only way to measure the productivity falling in a system with monetary inflation, and, the potential for AI to create a superintelligence that will be smarter than humans.

Jeff Booth is the Author of The Price of Tomorrow and CEO/Chairman of Ego Death Capital. In this interview, we discuss the effects of prices falling to the marginal cost of production, Bitcoin and its role in a deflationary economy, how inflation and debt distribute wealth unfairly, and the deflationary influence of AI and its impact on the future. - - - - It is the natural order for prices to fall to the marginal cost of production over time, and this principle applies to all industries. The fiat system works against this by artificially creating scarcity. And it has to work against deflation to maintain its dominance, through manipulation of the monetary system: debt, inflation and an ever more narrow concentration of wealth. As the fiat system falters, could the concept of a deflationary economy take hold? Whilst it involves a massive shift in economic value that is hard to comprehend, as innovation continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, and AI comes of age, a deflationary economy becomes very more likely. Jeff Booth argues that it makes logical sense as a system to enable society to continue to expand. The common narrative is that we need inflation, and deflation would harm living standards. However, Jeff argues that whilst prices will fall in a deflationary economy, wages are sticky: people are not willing to accept wage decreases as fast as prices are falling. This would result in a massive transfer of wealth back to productive members of society. Jeff also promotes Bitcoin as part of an investment strategy as we transition into a deflationary economy: its monetary policy is designed to weather the current inflationary system, it's outside of anyone's control and it has no counterparty risk. Further, in a new period of abundance, a reliable fixed currency will become a necessity. It will be the new measurement for productivity and progress.

James Lavish is a Bitcoin advocate and writer of the Informationist newsletter. In this interview, we discuss central banks' manipulation of the monetary system, the eye-melting bailouts to come, an inevitable credit event the Fed will be unable to rectify, why BRICS pressure doesn't currently threaten the dollar, and how the US rejecting Bitcoin may lead to hyperbitcoinisation. - - - - Last month US Treasury yield curves witnessed their deepest inversion for over 40 years. This means holding bonds over the long term results in a lower return than shorter-duration contracts. It is a classic signal of a looming recession. It is the market expectation that future interest rates will be cut in order to stimulate an economy. Whilst there are historical precedents for this situation, what sets the current paradigm apart is the level of unsustainable government debt: increasingly, countries are having to deal with debt levels in excess of their respective GDP. Whilst high inflation provides a way for reducing these burdens, such levels of inflation are politically damaging, and further, risk damaging economies and thereby tax income. Moreover, they risk damaging critical banking infrastructure. Interest rates, as a result, will oscillate: they have accelerated to reduce rampant inflation, then, as is being forecast, they will need to be cut to stimulate a stagnant economy. All the while, commercial banks will be forced to search for yield. And some of these banks will get on the wrong side of the trade. Recent events have shown how quickly such situations can spiral out of control. But, for how long can governments keep bailing out the banks? James Lavish, a leading market analyst, predicts a precarious situation. For a variety of reasons, the US can't afford to go into a deep recession. As a result, James predicts a "face-melting print" by the Fed to avoid this situation. But, then, at some point the music will stop, and there could be a watershed credit event where the Fed won't or can't step in. The real question is, what comes after this event?

Jason Brett is a former FDIC regulator who worked through the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. In this interview, we discuss the Restrict Act, a proposed piece of US legislation that could enable the Secretary of Commerce to shutter access to Bitcoin. We also talk about Operation Chokepoint 2.0, the banking crisis, and whether Bitcoin is a threat to the banks. - - - - Last month, a bipartisan group of United States senators introduced a bill called "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act", which is being referred to as the RESTRICT Act. Principally aimed at mitigating foreign technology threats, the legislation would empower officials to police and restrict Americans' domestic access to a range of technologies, including Bitcoin. Whilst not principally aimed at cryptocurrencies (it has been drafted with the aim of banning companies like TikTok from the United States), the bill has been widely criticised for its broad language. It would enable the secretary of commerce to take action against any information and communication technology connected to a foreign adversary that posed "undue or unacceptable risk". The US has recent experience of the original intent of laws being stretched to limit American citizens' rights: the 2001 Patriot Act has been used for increasingly pervasive monitoring and surveillance of Americans that included the implementation of bulk data collection programs by the NSA affecting millions of people. The issue at hand is that Bitcoin presents a real and present danger to the Fed: it is both a viable alternative to commercial banks, and Treasury debt as a global reserve asset. History shows decision makers will use any tool available to restrict what they view as an undue and unacceptable risk. Whilst Bitcoin is not the primary target of the Restrict Act, it is feasible that one day it may be used to stop access to Bitcoin for Americans. Prepare accordingly.

Lane Rettig is a core developer for Spacemesh. In this interview, we discuss the much-criticised New York Times article that attacked Bitcoin mining, specifically focusing on its strange attacks on demand response and the strange use of marginal emissions accounting. We also talk about the difficulties of finding truth in a world with misaligned incentives. - - - - On April 11th, The New York Times (NYT) published a piece of investigative journalism by Gabriel J.X. Dance entitled "The Real-World Costs of the Digital Race for Bitcoin". The piece stated Bitcoin mines "cash in on electricity — by devouring it, selling it, even turning it off — and they cause immense pollution. In many cases, the public pays a price." As Margot Paez stated in a brilliant review of the article for the Bitcoin Policy Institute, The NYT's hit piece is "Absurd". The article had been long expected as a number of prominent people within the community have been interviewed for it. What transpired was that any pro-Bitcoin information provided had been ignored. The flip side was the biased representation of Bitcoin mining using flawed analysis, false equivalences, wild extrapolations and incorrect deductions. It is an exemplar of confirmation bias writ large, where the conclusions preceded the investigation. That Gabriel Dance has no experience of Bitcoin or crypto in any of his previous work is neither here nor there. Any journalist worth their salt knows the basic tenets of reporting: a clinical gathering of evidence, cold interrogation of facts, and an unbiased and clear interpretation of the results. The NYT put's it best in its mission statement: "seek the truth & help people understand the world". So, what has happened? A commissioning editor would have signed this off following a modicum of independent fact checking. That it has been published whilst being riven with distortions and mistruths suggests either a corruption of the journalistic practices at The NYT or that their internal systems have been stripped to the bone and the drive for clickbait trumps everything else. Either way, we have a problem, as mainstream fake information spreads like a virus.

Calle is a Bitcoin and Lightning developer contributing to LNBits and the Cashu ecash system. In this interview, we discuss Cashu's mission and development, undertake a live demonstration of it in action, the importance of privacy, removing ideology from Bitcoin, and the future of AI and robots. - - - - "By providing a high degree of privacy in payments, cash helps to slow the growing information asymmetry between consumers and companies… between citizens and public authorities… privacy is crucial for individuals to safeguard their position when dealing with organisations which are more powerful than a single person." Not the words of an anarcho-capitalist, but a prominent Deutsche Bank economist from 2019. It is a truism that privacy is the bedrock of democracy. The problem is we're sleepwalking into a cashless society where digital payments are tracked, recorded and stored. You can learn everything about someone through their transactions. Privacy in other areas means nothing in this environment. The issue has been how to replicate the utility of cash in the digital world. David Chaum solved this problem in 1982: his dissertation "Computer Systems Established, Maintained and Trusted By Mutually Suspicious Groups" was the original blueprint for blockchains (excluding the proof of work consensus mechanism). His company Digicash launched ecash in 1995, predicated on Chaum's blind signature innovation. For various reasons, ecash did not take root. Until now. Amongst a small number of initiatives aiming to revive ecash under the Bitcoin umbrella, is Cashu, which allows for private ecash payments over the Lightning Network. It is essentially digital cash, backed by Bitcoin. It requires no accounts or personal information, and everyone involved in the system is blind to other users' transactions. There are tradeoffs: it's a custodial system where sats are deposited in 'mints' to create ecash. The creator Calle, a respected Bitcoin and Lightning Network developer, is working on technical solutions to overcome concerns. Even so, given how well the test version of Cashu is working, Cashu could be the go-to digital cash feature we're all using very soon, and the feature that enables the next cycle of adoption.

Luke Gromen is the Founder and President of Forest for the Trees (FFTT). In this interview, we discuss how governments can navigate the first busting global debt bubble in 100 years. We talk about historical precedents: namely the Weimar Republic in the 1930s and Israel in the 1980s, and how governments may be forced to allow for a compressed period of triple-digit inflation. - - - - Israel in the mid-1980s faced an existential economic crisis. After a decade of stagnation and rising government expenditure fuelled by money printing, commercial banks started to buckle. Further, the inflation rate was skyrocketing. In 1979 it had reached 111%. By 1984 it had grown to 450%, with fears it could exceed 1,000% by the end of 1985. Despite the real risk that the sovereign debt bubble may soon burst leading to unprecedented levels of inflation, those in the west have become inured to a belief that very high rates of inflation only happen in developing countries. And yet, the experience of hyperinflation in an advanced democratic country was felt much more recently than most people think. It is important therefore to consider the lessons from Israel's inflationary crisis of the 1980s. The policies enacted by Israel to mitigate the situation were socially bruising. Markets were liberalised, government spending was significantly cut, wages were controlled, the Shekel was sharply devalued, and interest rates were raised to punitive levels. The result was a recession in the 1990s with high unemployment. But inflation was tamed. And Israel did not fail as a state. Nevertheless, the taming of inflation in Israel benefited from various fortuitous factors: high levels of cheap immigrant labour, the technology boom, and the peace process opening up new markets. There aren't any such obvious pressure-release valves for the west. Furthermore, will those in the West feel as culturally tied to their home nation to stick through such periods of pain? In essence, is Israel a useful case study, or a distracting aside? We may hope it's the former. Otherwise, we may be entering a period for which the precedent goes back to the 1920s Weimar Republic. Or, even more worryingly, we may experience a crisis for which there is no historical precedent. Prepare accordingly.

Matthew Mežinskis is the creator of the Crypto Voices podcast and Porkopolis Economics website. In this interview, we discuss why free banking has always failed due to central bank interference, and how Bitcoin changes the rules of the game. We also talk about how credit is a natural economic phenomenon, and why narrow banking is centralising in nature. - - - - The history of free banking goes back over 1,000 years and it has existed in over 60 countries. It was widespread in the 19th century, but from the early 20th century onwards it was supplanted by central banking in modern economies. However, despite some common narratives, it's demise was more to do with pressure from governments to create monopolies for currency issuance, than inherent weaknesses in the free banking system. The idea of free banking is re-emerging as a response to the failures of central banks. It is well documented that monopolies often result in market failure due to their constraining of efficiency and innovation. Further, without competition, those running monopolies distort prices and capital through subjective and misaligned priorities. A sovereign debt spiral is a symptom of such centralising control. Matthew Mežinskis is able to bring colour to this issue through his peerless analysis of the different types of money flowing through the economy, and how these are currently out of kilter with the economic system they are intended to support. At the root of the problem is that central banks control both the base money (i.e. the money supply) and the credit supplied to the economy through commercial banks. These tools have been abused. Further, commercial banks have been allowed to get around the rules of the system for decades. As a result, bailouts for commercial banks are happening with alarming regularity. As Matthew asserts in the show: "In the last 100 years, the central bank, the premier banking institution in the United States, has gone to three extremes; [this] never ever has happened in recorded history." Thank god we have Bitcoin.

Eric Wall is a researcher and investor, and in this interview, we discuss how Eric became a notable critical voice within the HEX community, his ongoing fight with prominent Bitcoin maximalists, and Taproot Wizards. - - - - What Bitcoin stands for and should be is a debate that has been raging since 2009. Bitcoin's unique characteristics have drawn many people into its gravity. The realisation that its immaculate conception may never be replicated has resulted in many of those same people guarding Bitcoin's development with uncompromising zeal. The result has been the rise of Bitcoin Maximalism. Maximalist ideology can be a fuzzy concept: there are no clearly agreed rules or principles; there have been various iterations with different priorities over time. However, it is clearly characterised by conservatism over the development of the protocol, and intolerance for those with differing attitudes. Nevertheless, that is not to say that Bitcoin development can forever remain in stasis. There are and have been pressures requiring upgrades both to the base layer, and in the development of additional layers. This means there is always a creative tension on what changes are required, and how quickly these need to be implemented. Further, as Bitcoin has no leader, it has engendered an ecosystem where advocates organically emerge, who can gain traction and have an outsized influence on the community. This creates further tensions as Bitcoin's purpose is being proselytized using competing and sometimes muddied beliefs. Thus, it is important that Bitcoiners enable an open dialogue where all ideas are questioned, scrutinized and tested. And such debates should be open to all Bitcoiners, without fear or favour to any powerful interests. Is the question therefore how intolerant we should be of those with differing views? And, can we live without trolling, or is this a necessary defensive tool?

Ahmed Gatnash is an author, activist and co-founder of the Kawaakibi Foundation. In this interview, we discuss how the hope of the Arab Spring has been ruthlessly suppressed, meaning the middle east is further from democracy than ever. It's a breathtaking story of brave activists fighting Twitter's exploitation, Jamal Khashoggi's murder and the blackmailing of Jeff Bezos. - - - - The history of the Middle East is a modern tragedy: the cradle of civilisation has been exploited by powerful Western interests that have enabled corrupt and cruel authoritarian rule to dominate the region. Democratic movements have long struggled to gain any traction. However, a wave of optimism spread through the region in 2011 as the Arab Spring saw numerous popular uprisings. The ruthless response indicated that the region's path to freedom will be a long one. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Except in the Middle East. The wave of protests predicated on the pent-up anger at decades of corruption and economic stagnation heralded an era of extreme brutality against citizens throughout the region. The cruel irony is that the Western social media technology that enabled the coordination of demonstrations, has now been effectively harnessed by those seeking to protect the established centres of power. The cruelty lies in the knowing actions of those directly involved in the violent repression of dissent. It also lies in the wanton ignorance of those living in the West. Those who marginalise a continent of people. Those who prioritise profit over other considerations. Those who talk of freedom but know nothing of those who are staking their lives for freedom in today's world. This is a tale about brave activists fighting for the rights we in the West take for granted to be provided to their peers in the Middle East. It is a story of an outsized fight where those fighting for democracy are facing entrenched and ruthless authoritarians, self-interested Westerners and a largely indifferent media. It is an interview you need to hear. We all need to check our privilege.

Dan Tubb is a podcaster and former venture capitalist. In this interview, we discuss the problems with fixing the sovereign debt problem in the context of broken media, broken politics and broken international institutions. We talk about the general ignorance of the problems facing society, and how this compounds the difficulty of resolving the situation. - - - - The last show with Dan Tubb was extremely popular. Dan set out in clear terms why the current economic system is at a crossroads: continuation of the accumulation of debt without rebalancing fiscal commitments is unsustainable; equally, there are no easy solutions. But when debt payments become one of the main government expenditures it's well past the time to act. In this follow-up show we discuss the causes, ramifications and potential mitigations with Dan. How did the boomer generation unintentionally fuel the current economic problems, and why are they reluctant to change tack? Why is government becoming increasingly dogmatic and coercive in their policy application? Can AI provide a source of growth for the economy that averts the debt spiral? Should we expect the government to resolve all these issues? These aren't theoretical concerns; there is evidence abounds that society's relationship with the state is shifting: Macron's difficulties in reigning in state spending in France; the growth in power of the Dutch farmers; Brexit. For too long those in government have taken the electorate for granted, whilst feathering their own nests. However, the issue is whether this break between the people and power will only exacerbate problems. The solution surely has to be in more direct engagement between decision-makers and citizens. States rights in the US have long served as a beacon of governance for other parts of the world: bottom up democracy that provides for competition and innovation. It's not that we need less government, it's that we need more representative and localised government. Further, if we want a functioning democracy, we need to entice the best back into government.

Jan Čapek and Pavel Moravec are the co-founders of Braiins, a Bitcoin Mining company. In this interview, we discuss Braiins update to their updated Stratum V2 protocol software for pooled mining, how it helps solve Bitcoin mining's centralisation problem, and why Braiins has given the Stratum software away to the community as open source. - - - - The development and growth in pooled Bitcoin mining has been a critical part of maintaining Bitcoin's security. The synergies of scale were always going to affect Bitcoin as it transitioned into a more mature technology. However, centralisation is an existential threat to Bitcoin. Mining pools, started in 2010 by Jan and Pavel, therefore enabled small-scale miners to continue to gain value from limited hash power, which thereby strengthened the network's security. Nevertheless, just as the rise of the mega miners concentrated the hashrate, so did the rise of major mining pools. In February over 52% of the hashrate was controlled by just 2 mining pools (Foundry USA and Antpool). This is not to state that these mining pools have malevolent intentions. But Bitcoin must always guard against an attack through trustless mechanisms. Marathon's flip-flopping over filtering non-OFAC-compliant transactions in 2021 was a warning. The solution to the problem lies in the communication protocol used to connect miners with mining pools. The existing protocol, Stratum V1, was developed and distributed as open-source software by Braiins in 2012. Whilst it has successfully supported Bitcoin mining pools since then, it was in need of an upgrade for a series of reasons. Such an upgrade enabled this centralisation issue to be tackled head-on. Stratum V2 transfers the power for writing new blocks from the pool operators and into the hands of individual miners. This is enabled by a sub-protocol within Stratum V2 called the "Job Negiotator". The incentive for adoption is that the other updates enable faster (i.e. more profitable) and more secure communications. It is an elegant solution built with the same technical and community-facing ethos as Bitcoin's open-source code. Děkuji Braiins!

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss the recent run of bank failures: the causes, the impacts on the banking sector, federal support and exposure, and the likelihood of continued stress in the system. We also discuss a coming decade of recurring inflation and the emergence of reserve currency competition in a multi-polar world. - - - - "The vast majority of commercial banks that have ever operated in the U.S. have disappeared… the slow and steady decline in bank numbers continues." This 2021 analysis by a St Louis Federal Reserve economist is as applicable now as then. Whilst the dramatic decline in bank numbers (from over 30,000 in 1921 to circa 4,000 now) mostly occurred in the 1930s, the past 3 decades have been characterized by a continued contraction that shows no sign of stopping. There are obviously inherent risks in banking centralization. As we have seen in recent years, governments are delegating more regulatory authority to private banks, bypassing democratic norms in the process. As banks require central bank permission to operate, they have no incentive to resist such demands. Nevertheless, banking centralisation is a symptom of a more fundamental issue: a fiscal spiral that's creating an increasingly volatile economic environment. Unsustainable levels of debt are hampering central banks' ability to address growing inflation. Restraining economic growth decreases the ability of governments to reduce deficits. Further, the political cycle results in difficult but necessary policy decisions around fiscal constraints being deferred. The result is a yo-yo-ing of rate rises and bailouts. This increases the risk for all types of investment, even traditional safe havens. Banks struggle, and depositors run. A situation that begins with investors seeking safer banks, if not resolved, can lead to investors seeking to divest themselves of sovereign currencies. This is where capital controls kick in. The fundamental issue is that governments will seek to protect the system, not the individual. The denial of licences for narrow banks is part of the same toolbox that includes gold seizures and potential restrictions on Bitcoin. Prepare accordingly.

Aleks Svetski is an entrepreneur, author and Bitcoin advocate. In this interview, we discuss his upcoming book "The Bushido of Bitcoin". We cover the negative impacts of wealth, how Bitcoiners can mitigate such negative influences by becoming virtuous and disciplined, and why famous warrior classes are examples to follow. - - - - It seems like we're entering another bull run. If it is sustained and we enter another cycle, Bitcoin's price appreciation will be matched by reappraisals of the hyperbitcoinisation thesis. Can it replace the role of stores of value? Can it become a new global monetary reserve? Will it become a prevalent medium of exchange? Whilst all these questions are important, there one area of discussion doesn't get adequately debated: what do Bitcoiners do if and when their place within society becomes elevated? Material personal benefits will be offset by newfound responsibilities. If they are to be the flag bearers of the change Bitcoin promises, how should Bitcoiners behave? Aleks Svetski tackles this issue in his soon-to-be-released book 'The Bushido of Bitcoin". Bushido is the samurai moral code. The word literally means "warrior way". The samurai were Japanese nobility, and Bushido adhered them to follow various virtues (honour, honesty, self-control, loyalty, compassion, respect, righteousness and courage). It has had a lasting impact on Japanese culture. The importance of Bushido in the modern context is that elites now operate outside of any moral code. Post war liberal society has developed a system of norms, where expected behaviours have not been codified into law. Increasingly, elites have exploited these norms: if it isn't illegal, then it's okay. The roots of societal decay can be extrapolated from this situation. What is needed is a new moral code. It could be argued that Bitcoin maximalists have been developing such a moral framework for Bitcoiners. But, it is important to take a step back and understand the tenets of a moral code first before defining which actions should be encouraged or discouraged. In essence, what should the Bushido of Bitcoin be?

Izabella Kaminska is a journalist and founder and editor of The Blind Spot. In this interview, we discuss the failure of current mainstream journalism to cover subjects properly, why the destruction of the middle class is dangerous for democracy, the endemic problem of corruption in politics, and the need for an honest economic orthodoxy. - - - - In a lot of ways, we are in a gold age of media. There have never been so many different ways to consume news and opinion. This has been triggered by many factors: deregulation, technology and the atomisation of modern society. But, this also creates a significant number of problems. Principally, whilst there is more freely accessible information, it is now harder to discern fact from fake. The commercialisation of news has resulted in a race for clickbait: polarising reporting, increasing sensationalism, and relegating in-depth examination. Conversely, those organisations seeking to remain impartial such as the BBC, end up getting lost in a sea of conflicting missions. This has resulted in the BBC failing in its main mission to inform, educate and entertain. This is why new media brands are becoming important promulgators of information, increasingly at the expense of traditional media organisations. Amongst all the noise, people are looking for honest and relatable brokers of news. Further, people are craving more intellectually curious, nuanced and detailed analysis. This is the demand Izabella Kaminska's The Blind Spot media venture is seeking to fill. A demand that mainstream media is unwilling or unable to satisfy. It's hard: building a new brand takes time. But, without such content, groups on both the left and right will continue to mischaracterize issues that require understanding, trade-offs and proportionality. This will exacerbate the problems of polarisation and the veiled promotion of corporate interests. We need more journalists like Isabella willing to report the truth.

Sergej Kotliar is the founder and CEO of Bitrefill. In this interview, we discuss enabling Bitcoin circular economies, the mission of Bitrefill to be a financial empowerment company, the risks and rewards of using zero-confs for processing transactions, and the many different cultures and communities Bitcoin has spawned. - - - - Bitrefill is the largest crypto e-commerce platform in the world. It aims to facilitate the development of crypto circular economies. Whilst Bitcoin makes up a significant portion of their business, they are not a Bitcoin-only company. The mission is aimed at empowering people to undertake transactions on the internet that would otherwise not be possible for them. To that end, they pragmatically enable the use of Bitcoin, stablecoins, and a limited number of altcoins. The argument in favour of their strategy is compelling. Not everyone will respond to ideological arguments in favour of Bitcoin. Whilst there are many who will get drawn in by Bitcoin's compelling theoretical roots, there are many others who are more concerned with prosaic day-to-day concerns. To maximise efforts to increase adoption we, therefore, need to appeal to a range of visions for Bitcoin. One important vision is focused on Bitcoin's dry technical utilities. In our discussion, Sergej refers to the increase in the use of the internet and other technologies such as VPN. The widespread growth in the use of such technologies occurs as a result of a practical benefit being provided to users, not because adopters are seeking to mitigate a certain political or ethical concern. That's not to say that selling Bitcoin as freedom money isn't critical. Rather, we need to augment it with other strategies.

Max Hillebrand is an economist and open-source entrepreneur who runs Agora Towards Liberty. In this interview, we discuss fiat money's fundamental weaknesses, the teachings of Austrian Economics, the importance of privacy, and how nano cameras mean privacy technology will need to keep evolving. - - - - Whilst the Bitcoin innovation was primarily predicated on the technical needs for enabling permissionless and uncensorable digital peer-to-peer transactions, its development was heavily influenced by the Austrian school of economics. At its root, Bitcoin is tied to the ethics of money production, where money production should be decentralized and not subject to the whims of a central authority. The long-held fear of Austrian economists was that centralized control of money production would result in monetary inflation: governments would be unable to resist the temptation to print money as quick fixes to crises. This obviously impacts the value of the money being inflated, violating one of the core principles of money to be a reliable store of value. The problem for governments, as we're seeing, is that the power to print money becomes an uncontrollable force. Despite the inevitable fragility of fiat currencies, an alternative sound monetary system can hasten the collapse of fiat currencies during periods of loose monetary policy. This incentivises governments to constrain or ban access to such alternatives. See Executive Order 6102. This means that privacy for such alternatives is paramount. This is why Bitcoin privacy is vital. Because, when fiat currencies collapse, governments will come for people's Bitcoin.

Trey Walsh is a nonprofit director and progressive Bitcoiner. In this interview, we discuss the problems facing Gen Z: climate change, high education and housing costs, wider economic problems constraining opportunities, the erosion of democracy, and social media-induced mental health challenges. We talk about why Bitcoin could provide hope to this hopeless generation. - - - - Gen Z is suffering. They have been excluded from the growth in asset prices over the past few decades, but are facing the dire consequences of spiralling debt on the provision of public services. They are being excluded from discussions about climate change, yet they will be expected to front the response in the coming decades. They are being told they are too woke, ignorant and lazy by those under whose watch democracy has been allowed to crumble. And whilst there is a dearth of ethical and inspiring leaders charting a path for this disillusioned generation, there is a significant amount of vitriolic noise in the media, exploiting the fear in return for eyeballs, clicks and likes. Gen Z's hopelessness is manifesting itself in a mental health crisis: compared to other generations Gen Z has lower feelings of emotional well-being. The response of older generations is that Gen Z-ers are snowflakes - they need to toughen up. This is cruelly counterproductive as Gen Z is least likely to seek help: they are 3 times more likely to consider suicide than other generations. Into this void of despair comes Bitcoin. There has been a timely reappraisal of the "Bitcoin fixes this" meme over the past year. Obviously, Bitcoin is not a panacea for all of the world's ills. But, it is a technology that is providing hope to those developing material mitigations to some of the most deep-rooted problems in our society. Trey Walsh strongly believes that Bitcoin provides hope for the environment, for a more socially-just economic system and for democracy. It offers this as politicians and decision-makers continue to peddle obvious self-serving fantasies. As Trey asserts, "Gen Z deserves the opportunity to be presented with the stories of hope in Bitcoin." This is why we should be working for Bitcoin: it provides "hope for a generation found hopeless."

Doomberg is an anonymous collective producing the world's most popular financial substack. In this interview, we discuss coordinated action against the crypto industry being undertaken with limited congressional approval or oversight. We talk about historical precedents, what this could mean for Bitcoin and Bitcoiners, and why we need a financial bill of rights. - - - - Mark Twain once said that "History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." Therefore, Bitcoiners should be extremely wary of the recent precedents of a ruling US administration being willing to de-bank business verticals antithetical to certain political beliefs. In 2011, the Obama administration targeted selected online poker businesses. In 2013, the same administration used the DoJ to lean on banks doing business with firearm dealers and payday lenders. The problem is simple: a legitimate business and/or technology is kneecapped by a ruling body for subjective political reasons. Public-private institutions, such as banks, are lent on to hamper the functioning of businesses earmarked as being problematic. The fundamental issue is the methods applied are anti-democratic. There is no open debate or examination. A decision is made behind closed doors, and people, institutions and businesses are pressured to comply. We are currently witnessing coordinated illiberal action against crypto-aligned companies. The intent is clear. Yet, there has been no debate. And whilst Bitcoiners may gain comfort from the actions being taken against crypto, the problem is politicians haven't revealed their full intentions yet. It is highly likely that Bitcoin is also in their crosshairs. As Doomberg asserts "eventually they'll come for your Bitcoin too." What this lays bare is the willingness of those in control to de-bank perceived enemies. De-banking at face value may seem like an annoyance, but it actually strips an individual of agency. A person without access to the financial system is effectively neutered. It is a malevolent, silent and effective means of control. And, the methods applied a decade ago are being reapplied to control first crypto, and then Bitcoin. Be aware, be prepared, and raise hell.

Caitlin Long is the Founder and CEO of Custodia bank. In this interview, we discuss the events that have led to three banking failures within a week, one of which saw the biggest bank run on record. We talk about anti-crypto coordination involving the US government, the inherent instability of the traditional finance system and how this is another signal that the game is up. - - - - As the saying goes, to lose one bank may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two banks looks like carelessness. How should we regard the loss of three banks within a week? To the uninitiated, this may look like a contagion, but it's the impacts of two different systemic problems affecting two different markets: crypto and fiat. What it lays bare is the hypocrisy and instability of the traditional financial system. The failures of Silvergate and Signature are rooted in the 2022 implosion in crypto. Precipitated by the collapse of Luna, we all know what followed: a nest of over-leveraged, hypothecated and fraudulent investments that fell like a house of cards. Who knows when it will end. Regardless, more recent failures seem to have been expedited by coordinated government action. The obvious signal from the levers of power is that crypto is bad, and traditional finance is good. But what should have been an opportunity for the government to present the perceived weaknesses within digital asset markets, was significantly undercut by the biggest bank run in history: Silicon Valley Bank's customers were withdrawing more than $1 million per second for 10 hours straight a little over a week ago. The sorry mess is actually a clear vindication of Bitcoiners' assertions that both crypto and fiat are both fundamentally unstable. The search for yield is endemic. The management of risk is too often criminally deficient. The argument is that narrow banking (full reserve banking) will suck deposits from risky banks, making risky banks even riskier, increasing systemic risk. However, the system is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. Moral hazard seems endemic. Increasingly large bailouts are being used to keep the game going. The aim is to maintain the illusion that the financial system is stable. It is anything but, and everyone knows it. We're entering a period on unknown risks. The time to change the rules of the game has long passed.

Dan Held is a Bitcoin educator and marketing advisor at Trust Machines. In this interview, we discuss how to get involved with Bitcoin: how to buy and store Bitcoin, how to spend Bitcoin, how to avoid scams, how to engage with the community, and the best Bitcoin-related books, podcasts and Twitter feeds to follow. - - - - This is the third in a series of special What Bitcoin Did shows aimed at opening people up to Bitcoin. In the first episode, we learnt that Bitcoin is a new form of money. In the second episode, were learnt what Bitcoin is and its technical features. In this episode, we discuss how to buy and hold Bitcoin. To those new to Bitcoin it can feel overwhelming. Its ideological and technical basis can seem impenetrable. Actually acquiring Bitcoin is another hurdle that requires an appreciation of new concepts and implementing disciplines distinct from other types of investment. But, the technical skills and behaviours required are actually well within the capabilities of the majority of people. To invest one must first learn about changing your time preference. Bitcoin is about discipline over a longer time frame. Volatility exists, but Bitcoin is volatile to the upside. In contrast, other over-hyped digital assets advertised as offering better returns hide extreme downside risks. Those who stay humble, hold (referred to as hodl) Bitcoin and avoid the human desire for quick returns, are best placed to benefit over the long term. Then one must appreciate the risks associated with custody. Most people are overly confident in third parties keeping their assets. But, in both traditional finance and cryptocurrencies, there are many examples of such trust being broken. There is a famous Bitcoin mantra: "not your keys, not your coins". In essence, if you don't hold your Bitcoin, you don't own the Bitcoin. Taking ownership of your Bitcoin means having to be disciplined in how you secure that Bitcoin. But again, these are new behaviours to attain, not difficult skills to learn. And they are reinforcing. Self-reliance is what Bitcoin ideology is predicated on. It is part and parcel of becoming a good Bitcoiner. Further, these habits will naturally bleed into other aspects of your life. Becoming a better Bitcoiner is synonymous with becoming a better person.

Harry Sudock is Chief Strategy Officer at Griid. In this interview, we discuss what Bitcoin is: specifically, on what ideological foundation was it developed, what problem was it designed to solve, how it solves that problem, and why is it the best technical solution for solving that problem. It's a tl;dr of the basic technical features underpinning Bitcoin. - - - - This is the second in a series of special What Bitcoin Did shows aimed at opening people up to Bitcoin. In the first episode, we learnt that Bitcoin is a new form of money. In this episode, we discuss what functions Bitcoin performs, which differentiates it from other forms of money. We then discuss the technical innovations that enable it to achieve these functions. In essence, this show focuses on what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is rooted in the cypherpunk movement that developed in the late 1980s centred on the US. As digital technology started to proliferate, its capacity to track and record digital activity became readily apparent. Concerned computer scientists, mathematicians and cryptographers acted to develop systems aimed at protecting individual privacy, despite a concerted government that sought to control the development of privacy-providing technology. The cypherpunks movement included extensive work by many to develop anonymous digital cash. But, despite some incredible breakthroughs, none of these efforts had any material success. It was not until the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto brought numerous strands of all this work together that a viable anonymous and uncensorable digital currency was born. The innovation centres on four key pillars: a clear and immutable monetary policy ensuing both scarcity and transparency; a proof of work consensus mechanism that provides decentralised security to the system; a difficulty adjustment, which ensures the issuance rate is highly predictable; and finally, its design considerations aimed at prioritising decentralisation. To the uninitiated, these four key pillars may seem as merely interesting innovations. But, once comprehended, the effectiveness and elegance of Bitcoin's design is truly breathtaking. The software has worked, day in and day out, for over 14 years, without being hacked. And, it's all without a leader, or a clearing house, or a central committee dictating policy. Quick, uncensorable and private global settlement. By open-source code. Satoshi Nakamoto is the genius of our times.

American HODL is a Bitcoiner who has been promoting the innovation for over 8 years. In this interview, we discuss why is Bitcoin important: what makes it an improved version of money, why society needs it, how it improves inclusion and thereby the world, the proof we have that Bitcoin can work, and how the world will look in the future with and without Bitcoin. - - - - This is the first in a series of special What Bitcoin Did shows aimed at opening people to the basic principles that underpin Satoshi Nakamoto's innovation. Bitcoin has been in existence for 14 years. Whilst the adoption rate is tracking other paradigm-shifting technologies like the internet, we are still very early. Most people still don't own Bitcoin. And, for those that do, a lot are still to fully properly grasp its properties and potential, and therefore understand why it's important. The majority of people are yet to comprehend Bitcoin's capacity to better individuals and the world for a number of reasons. It is an innovation rivalling the disruptive power of any technology that has come before it. Those who grasp it are still in awe of its elegant and revolutionary design. But, because it risks upending the balance of power between individuals and the state, it rarely gets a fair representation in the mainstream media. Further, Bitcoin touches on many fundamental tenets of modern society. Firstly, it is a new form of money, purposefully outside of the scope of centralized control. So, to understand Bitcoin, one must understand the principles of money and trade. Secondly, it has been developed to account for the manifest risks of increased surveillance of individuals in the electronic age. So, to understand Bitcoin, one must understand why privacy is the bedrock of democracy. Bitcoin also requires an appreciation of cryptography, the internet, game theory, economics, politics, philosophy, and energy. It's the analogy of peeling an onion, where awareness at one level enables the next layer to be peeled away revealing hidden characteristics. Someone on this journey of discovery is said to be going down the Bitcoin rabbit hole. It takes time and effort. Those embedded within the Bitcoin community know that understanding Bitcoin is a process. But further, they know the profound awakening that comes to those who open themselves to it. The period of time before you properly understood Bitcoin will be manifestly distinct from the period of time after. This is when the hyperbole from those advocating for Bitcoin suddenly seems understated. Asking why Bitcoin is important is the start of that journey.

Thomas Pacchia is a Bitcoin entrepreneur and the co-owner of Pubkey, a Bitcoin bar in New York City. In this interview, we discuss how a desire to revive a local bar after Covid inspired the establishment of Pubkey, its importance as a focal point for Bitcoin in New York City, and how its success could inspire more Pubkeys in more cities. - - - - The leisure industry has taken a battering during Covid, and many businesses have fallen by the wayside. These places are hugely undervalued: bars in particular are relaxed locations that can cement neighbourhoods, providing spaces for people to interact outside of the pressures of work and family. And once they're gone, that's usually it. However, bars don't only work for localised communities, they can act as a haven for disparate communities bonded by a shared passion, heritage or sexual orientation. Heavy metal bars, sports bars, Irish bars, gay bars: these can be vital meeting places for those seeking like-minded people, particularly in an atomised international city. Well, now you can add Bitcoin bar to the list. Whilst many of us were slowly trying to make sense of the post-Covid world, Thomas and his wife decided to be the change they wanted to see. They saw a chance to take on a local dive bar and create a haven for Bitcoiners in New York. In a few short months, they have turned that pipe dream into a reality. It is now the go-to venue for Bitcoiners in the Big Apple. Built from the principle that it must first and foremost win its reputation for service, food and ambience, it has also forged a strong and unique Bitcoin-centred character. It hosts regular BitDevs, mining and Lightning meetups. It also hosts events such as live podcast shows! As a result, it has become a very popular haunt. And there are plans for other Pubkeys in other cities. So, what's the secret sauce? As a regular punter put it in a recent Bloomberg article about Pubkey "I like drinking and I like Bitcoin". Simples.

George Kaloudis is a senior research analyst and columnist for CoinDesk. In this interview, we discuss the validity of Bitcoin ideology. Can it replace governments? Does it promote individualism? Is Bitcoin's distribution fair? Can Bitcoin fix the world? We unpick popular Bitcoin maxims to sift genuine slogans of change from the hyperbolic froth. - - - - Bitcoin maxims are powerful, persuasive and effective: "vires in numeris", "don't trust, verify", "not your keys, not your coins". These slogans have been the maximalist rallying cries used to champion and defend sound investment principles through many cycles. They have been, are, and will continue to be the bedrock supporting Bitcoin's ongoing resilience. Meme theory works. However, there are some maximalist mantras that are counterproductive. The "Bitcoin fixes this" slogan is perhaps the one that is more lazily applied than any other. Bitcoiners know that the genius of its design is that it can rectify long-standing weaknesses within the current fiat system. It can make banking fairer for all. Bitcoin, therefore, has the power to fix a lot within our society. But, it does not fix everything. Far from it. The problem is that "Bitcoin fixes this" has been applied to all manner of issues, which are manifestly not fixed by the presence of Bitcoin. This causes the power of the original slogan to wane, and, calls people to question the validity of other maximalist propositions. Rather than act as an effective rallying cry, this slogan has become a signpost of hyperbolic froth. It is therefore productive to go back to first principles and query what it is that Bitcoin actually fixes, or, helps to fix. And then, question the other assumptions that people make about Bitcoin. Whilst Bitcoin has tremendous potential to help create a new and fairer system, real change still requires human agency. Bitcoin will fix very little unless we all learn to work, interact and collaborate in new and sustainable ways. Bitcoin helps us fix this.

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss her latest article: How the Fed "Went Broke". Lyn explains how for the first time in modern history the Federal Reserve is operating at a loss. We talk about the ramifications in terms of continuing high inflation, the bankruptcy of government agencies, and the impacts on the Fed's independence. - - - - Bitcoin was born when the global economic machine was showing signs of a terminal illness. Since then, governments around the world are trying to keep the system alive, using measures that will in fact hasten its demise. Due to misaligned political incentives, greed and ignorance, the world's economy is now entering an unprecedented period of serious economic trauma. Government bailouts are not new. Alexander Hamilton in 1792 used federal funds to prevent the collapse of the securities market. However, it was the use of Quantitative Easing (QE) to prop up the financial system during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) when the Rubicon was crossed. The Fed bought over $2 trillion of commercial bank assets in 2008/9, paid for through an increase in the monetary base. The main problem with the GFC was governments became tolerant of the new drug of choice: QE leading to an erosion of market discipline. QE3 started in late 2012, was nicknamed "QE infinity". It result in $4.5 trillion of commercial bank assets being bought by the Fed. QE4, in response to the Covid pandemic, resulted in the Fed purchasing another $2 trillion of assets. Since 2008, the monetary base in the US has increased by 750%. The inevitable result is inflation. The response by central banks is to increase interest rates, a tool that doesn't apply to the problem at hand: unsustainable levels of debt. Higher interest affects the cost of their liabilities, such that they are now, for the first time ever, in negative equity. They are "broke". What the markets know but politicians aren't willing to accept is that this is a new paradigm. The UK Prime Minister Liz Truss was ousted after only 49 days when markets decided unfunded tax cuts with debt to GDP over 100% were irresponsible. The growing realisation is that budget deficits need to be cut. Smaller governments are likely whether people want them or not.

Junseth is an OG Bitcoiner and the former co-host of Bitcoin Uncensored. In this live interview, recorded at Pubkey in New York, we discuss the latest Bitcoin phenomenon - ordinals. We also talk about the philosophy of Bitcoin: what it's for, what it can be, and how it's still the only blockchain that adds value to society. - - - - This was the second ever live What Bitcoin Did show, hosted at the excellent Pubkey in New York City. And, for a live show, we needed a combination of an OG Bitcoiner, with strong opinions, who could sing…luckily Junseth was available! Junseth is obviously a Bitcoiner who's happy to tackle hot topics. So we began by discussing the good and the bad of ordinals: it has certainly strengthened Bitcoin in terms of node usage and transaction fees, but are inscriptions the best use of the blockchain? And, as Junseth espouses, should we get too concerned about tests of Bitcoin's anti-fragility? Further, we talked about what, for an OG, Bitcoin represents both today and in the future. Can Bitcoin fix everything? If not, what is Bitcoin's lane or lanes? How early are we? Why people need to shitcoin before finding Bitcoin is the only blockchain. How it strengthens American democracy. And what it will take for Bitcoin to change the world. Finally, Junseth took some excellent questions from the crowd. He covered economic degeneracy, Bitcoin's limitations, how Bitcoin supports democracy and American values, and whether we should be hodling or spending Bitcoin. He would have given us golden material on every subject under the sun if we'd had the time! We were very grateful to have a sell-out and supportive crowd, and thanks again to our amazing hosts Pubkey! It's been a long time since we did a live event, but there will definitely be more to come this year. In fact, we have 2 shows scheduled: in Bedford on April 14th and in Miami on May 17th.