Podcast Source: Bitcoin Magazine
Organized & Edited by: Deep Tide TechFlow
Guest: Mark Yusko, CEO of Morgan Creek Capital Management
Host: Brandon Green, CEO of BTC Inc
Air Date: March 4, 2026
Key Takeaways
Mark Yusko of Morgan Creek Capital and Brandon Green delve into the differences between Bitcoin’s price and its intrinsic value, explaining why this distinction is especially important today. They analyze how futures markets influence spot prices, reveal the regularity of Bitcoin’s four-year cycle, and discuss why AI agents see Bitcoin as their preferred native currency.
Highlights and Insights
On the “Price vs. Value” Fundamental Difference
- Price is a lie; the price of any asset doesn’t matter and has no relation to its value. It’s simply the result of the last two parties agreeing to exchange a small amount of the asset.
- Market capitalization is one of my least favorite metrics.
- Bitcoin’s total supply is 21 million coins, but some have been permanently lost. So, multiplying the current price by 21 million to get market cap isn’t accurate; it’s a fictional number.
On the “Hardcoded Four-Year Cycle” Logic
- I call it the “3.11 cycle,” based on block count, not the calendar’s four-year periods.
- The four-year cycle is actually embedded in Bitcoin’s code: every four years, the block reward halves. If you halve the reward without difficulty adjustments or other measures, roughly half the miners might exit due to fixed costs.
- Miners don’t sell their Bitcoin. Like oil producers, if the price drops, they don’t sell at a loss; they hold and wait for prices to recover.
On “Futures Market Suppression of Price”
- They buy Bitcoin ETFs and short Bitcoin futures, but don’t have to report these short positions. So, they are essentially dollar-neutral, capturing only the spread in futures markets.
- Buying BTC from now until September is a smart move.
On “Why AI Agents Prefer Bitcoin”
- An AI system with agency needs to pay fees but can’t open bank accounts or use fiat currency. Stablecoins could be an option, but AI agents aren’t part of the fiat system and can’t fully integrate into the stablecoin infrastructure. Bitcoin, with its proof-of-work, is the only system allowing AI agents to participate equally with humans.
On “Cash and Portfolio Risks”
- Cash is actually the riskiest asset. While it seems safe, holding cash daily erodes wealth through inflation. Since 1913, fiat currency devaluation has steadily reduced purchasing power—halving it roughly every 30 years.
- Adding just 1% Bitcoin to your portfolio can increase your risk-adjusted returns by about 20%, with annual compounding gains around 200 basis points.
On “The Permission Society” Warning
- We are gradually moving into a “permission society,” where all actions require approval.
- If your account is wrongly labeled “risky,” governments may freeze your funds in partnership with stablecoin issuers.
- This definition is unacceptable. If economic sanctions are called “starving women and children,” then fewer people will support sanctions.
On “K-Shaped Economy and Welfare Systems”
- Baby boomers control the economy, wield power, and have created the so-called “welfare system.” Essentially, welfare is an unfunded promise that future generations must pay for, operating like a Ponzi scheme—raising the value of stocks and real estate owned by boomers to sustain the system.
Why Bitcoin’s Four-Year Cycle Runs So Perfectly
Brandon Green: Welcome to the Bitcoin Magazine podcast. Today, we’re honored to have Mark Yusko. Mark, if you look back over the past 24 months of Bitcoin’s cycle, how would you describe its evolution? What surprises you, and what was predictable?
Mark Yusko:
I like you mentioning “cycles.” Despite many claiming “the cycle is dead,” I firmly believe it exists.
There’s a lot of debate, but often people talk past each other without truly listening. It’s undeniable that Bitcoin as a store of value is influenced by business cycles and liquidity cycles. That’s a given. Fundamentally, an ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, and a Bitcoin is a Bitcoin. Its form might not be a round coin, but its total supply is fixed.
What’s truly changing is fiat currency. Regardless of what fiat you denominate Bitcoin in, changes in the fiat environment—interest rate rises and falls—cause fluctuations. That’s normal. The core debate—whether the “four-year cycle” has ended—is actually confirmed by the past 24 months’ data.
Some argue institutional money breaks the pattern, but my theory is: the four-year cycle is hardcoded into Bitcoin’s code. Every four years, the block reward halves.
Why is this critical? The block reward pays miners for securing the network. When it halves, without difficulty adjustments or other measures, miners with fixed costs might go bankrupt. But miners behave like oil producers: if prices fall, they don’t sell at a loss; they hold and wait for prices to rebound.
Looking back at the past 24 months, the market’s behavior wasn’t surprising. The only thing that truly caught me off guard was a precise prediction that Bitcoin would turn on October 6. But if you analyze the underlying logic, it’s not so surprising: people tend to apply the “four-year cycle,” but Bitcoin actually runs on block height, not the calendar. The real cycle is about 3 years and 11 months, which I call the “3.11 cycle.”
Historical patterns show that the 2017 peak was in December, the 2021 peak moved up to November, and the 2025 cycle points to October. It all aligns with expectations. The biggest difference is the volatility within this cycle, with market participants falling into four categories: investors, traders, speculators, and hedgers. Investors buy below fair value—say, buying $1 worth of Bitcoin for 70 cents. As they accumulate, prices rise, leading to “crypto spring” and “crypto summer,” where everyone knows assets are undervalued but expect prices to revert.
As prices climb, traders enter to profit from volatility—regardless of whether they’re “good” or “bad” traders, just different styles. Then come speculators, not villains but traders on the other side of hedgers. Hedgers are producers—oil, gold, copper miners, and Bitcoin miners—selling futures to cover costs. They won’t sell below production costs; that’s why Bitcoin has rarely fallen below the cost of electricity.
When prices exceed fair value, buying pressure pushes prices even higher. Conversely, if you’re a hedger and the market price drops below your costs, you won’t sell. That’s why Bitcoin has rarely traded below electricity costs over 17 years: if I have to pay electricity, why sell at a loss?
When prices are above fair value, hedgers sell, and speculators jump in. Today, more speculators are involved because people aren’t going to casinos or Macau as much—they’re betting online, leveraging, and even betting on sports.
Back to the core: in 2017–2018, Bitcoin soared to twice its fair value. What is fair value? It can be estimated via Metcalfe’s Law—used to measure network value—and Bitcoin is a network, one of the most powerful and valuable today. Using this model, fair value then was about $10, market price hit $20.
In 2021, fair value was around $30, with a peak at $69. In this cycle, fair value was about $80, with a high of over $120. So, the premium over fair value was about 50%, not 100%. Theoretically, this means the correction should be smaller: if price is double fair value, a 50% retracement gets you back to fair value. But in reality, prices often overshoot, driven by panic selling, leading to declines of 84%, 83%, and 74%. If this cycle is only 50% above fair value, the correction might be around 33%, but markets often overshoot again, dropping 51%.
I’m not claiming the bottom is necessarily in. Based on my experience, crypto winter lasts about 11.5 months, so this cycle might end around September.
Futures Markets, Arbitrage, and Price Suppression
Brandon Green: But the real pain isn’t just falling prices; it’s the long sideways consolidation. That slow grind in a tunnel is the most exhausting.
Mark Yusko:
Market dynamics are accelerating—this isn’t just Bitcoin, it’s all markets. Capital is weaponized: Robinhood allows 10x leverage, making markets more volatile and faster.
This brings a question. In 2017, CME Chairman Leo Melamed said, “We will tame Bitcoin.” That’s intriguing. He spoke to financial executives like Jamie Dimon, who called Bitcoin a fraud and a threat to banking. Bitcoin’s technology offers “truth,” not trust—potentially redistributing the $7 trillion annual trust cost of the traditional financial system.
Gold is similar. Once at $200/oz, now at $5,000. This reflects currency devaluation, not gold’s intrinsic change. Between 2021 and 2023, gold’s price was stable, mainly due to futures market manipulation.
Futures contracts enable price manipulation. In traditional markets, sellers must own the actual commodity. Futures allow selling “phantom” commodities that don’t exist—like printing money, which devalues the underlying asset. The logic is the same: if I have a million dollars and print another million, the value per dollar drops.
Gold’s price has long been “managed.” It’s been stuck near $200 for years—because of futures suppression—until a breakout triggers short squeezes, pushing it to $400, then $1,000, and beyond. Silver’s even more volatile: it surged in a parabolic move, then crashed.
What does this have to do with Bitcoin? Recent 13F filings show institutions like Millennium and Jane Street hold large Bitcoin exposure. But they might not hold actual Bitcoin—they buy ETFs and short futures. These short positions aren’t disclosed in 13F filings. So, overall, they’re close to “dollar-neutral,” mainly arbitraging futures spreads.
Futures prices tend to be higher than spot because markets are more optimistic about future prices—classic arbitrage: sell futures, buy back at expiry, profit from the spread. This also explains why options expiry often causes volatility and rebalancing.
Arbitrage is about capturing spreads, but it can have unintended consequences. When Bitcoin was first recognized as a non-security, many cheered, but becoming a commodity enabled futures markets, which can increase volatility.
In December 2017, Bitcoin futures launched at a peak. Again in 2021, new futures products launched, and prices peaked shortly after. Now, CME plans to introduce more futures in May 2023, which could lead to a “volatile summer.”
Currently, Bitcoin’s fair value has declined from about $80,000 to around $70,000. Yesterday, it dipped to $60,000 but recovered to $67,000 within 24 hours—volatility investors must accept.
As a risk investor, we allocate about 80% of our capital to infrastructure-related companies—AI, blockchain, chips, data firms—and 20% to protocols, holding long-term without trading.
In our flagship fund, we bought Bitcoin at $5,000 and sold at $100,000 over ten years, delivering strong returns. Now, we plan to buy 5 BTC weekly over the next 20 weeks, because we can’t precisely time the bottom but believe buying from now until September is wise.
Price Is a Lie: Why Market Cap Is Misleading
Brandon Green: Bitcoin’s cyclical nature is fascinating. While the 2024 halving is a key event, the real driver might be the ETF approvals at the end of 2023 or early 2024, which attract institutional investors. Previously, they could only access Bitcoin via futures or other products; now ETFs offer near-spot exposure. Also, some companies, sovereign funds, and national reserves are starting to get involved.
Yet, despite these positive signs, Bitcoin’s price hasn’t surged as expected. Why? What’s holding back this boom? Are long-term investors, short-term traders, or hedgers? Are they buying because of Bitcoin’s long-term potential, or just exploiting arbitrage? Or are they treating Bitcoin as a volatile tech asset for portfolio diversification?
It seems more like the latter. Many see Bitcoin as just another part of their portfolio, using its volatility to generate gains rather than believing in its long-term value.
While Bitcoin’s potential is high, current market behavior is cautious. Many newcomers aren’t “true believers.” They haven’t fully grasped Bitcoin’s significance. They measure success by dollar-based derivatives, not by accumulating Bitcoin itself.
Mark Yusko:
That’s a profound insight. Price is a lie; asset prices are irrelevant—they have no intrinsic relation to value. Some say price reflects future cash flows, but that’s false. Price is simply the last point where two parties agreed to exchange a small amount of the asset. For example, Microsoft stock might be $400 per share, but if Bill Gates tries to sell a million or a billion shares, he can’t do so at that price. Price is just a surface; it’s disconnected from true value.
Market cap is one of my least favorite metrics. For instance, a fake nuclear company called Oklo, run by a couple, has no products but a market cap of billions. If people realize it’s a scam, its market cap drops to zero.
Bitcoin’s market cap has similar issues. Its total supply is 21 million, but some are lost forever. So, multiplying current price by 21 million isn’t accurate; it’s a fiction. Satoshi once said, “Yes, some Bitcoin will be lost or stolen—consider it a contribution to the community.” As fiat converts into this better form of money, its value distributes over fewer complete Bitcoins.
Owning a whole Bitcoin is great, but you can own a fraction. My Twitter handle is “2.1 Quadrillion,” referencing the total Satoshis (smallest units of Bitcoin). It’s a big number.
Brandon Green: Returning to the earlier point, the key is your proportionate ownership in the network. This reflects your role in the larger system—its value is continually traded, stored, and recorded. That’s Bitcoin’s true value.
Mark Yusko:
The most important thing is owning a part of the network. As long as you participate, you share in its value. But why hasn’t increased demand significantly pushed spot prices higher? Actually, there is some new demand.
For example, firms like Bitwise are actively promoting Bitcoin to traditional finance. But “alternative investment” isn’t a great marketing term; people prefer “traditional” things—traditional medicine, education, music—and tend to dismiss “alternative.” So, promoting Bitcoin as a new asset class isn’t easy.
Historically, investment paradigms have faced similar resistance. Before 1982, investing outside bonds was seen as reckless or fiduciary-breach. In 1979, Time magazine ran a cover titled “The Death of Stocks,” advising trustees to avoid stocks. But as research showed stocks offered higher long-term returns, attitudes shifted.
Also, cash is actually the most dangerous asset. While it seems safe, holding cash daily erodes wealth through inflation. Since 1913, fiat currency has depreciated, halving purchasing power roughly every 30 years. Bitcoin, as a decentralized currency, offers a solution.
This narrative is akin to “repackaging gambling as prediction markets”—a clever marketing ploy, but fundamentally still gambling. We must recognize the issues with cash and seek better alternatives.
Portfolio Allocation: Why 1% Bitcoin Changes Everything
Mark Yusko:
In the face of cash devaluation, we diversify risk with bonds, which lowers overall portfolio volatility because bonds and cash are uncorrelated. They behave differently because of different drivers.
Adding stocks, then alternative assets like private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, improves risk-adjusted returns, Sharpe ratio, and unit risk.
Then comes Bitcoin. Adding 1% Bitcoin can boost risk-adjusted returns by about 20%, with annual compounded gains around 200 basis points.
I even excluded the first four years (2009–2013) because Bitcoin was under a cent, and the market was too small for big capital. But from late 2013 onward, real investing was possible, and even with those data, Bitcoin’s performance remains impressive.
More and more people are adopting this view. They see Bitcoin as a diversification asset—maybe 0.5%, 1%, or 2% of their portfolio. That’s a good start. We hope large institutions like Harvard will follow suit, which would be very positive for Bitcoin.
So, why doesn’t spot price reflect this demand step-up? Historical data shows Bitcoin’s price has been gradually making higher highs and higher lows—a long-term accumulation pattern.
As for sovereign wealth funds and national reserves, we haven’t seen large-scale moves yet. Instead, we have the “Genius Act” and “Clarity Act,” which aren’t as impactful as expected. The “Clarity Act,” in particular, is poorly drafted—almost like a CBDC (central bank digital currency)—and we should oppose such measures.
There’s also strong resistance from powerful interest groups who don’t want Bitcoin to succeed. This can be summarized by the famous quote: “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.” From 2009 to 2015, Bitcoin was ignored; few knew about it, and it was seen as “magical internet money.” From 2016 to 2021, it was mocked—tech geeks made money, but most thought it was just a nerdy experiment. From 2022 to 2027/28, we’re in the “fight” stage. We’re in the thick of the battle.
This includes regulatory crackdowns—current measures we must watch—and market manipulation, financialization, and negative news campaigns aimed at weakening Bitcoin’s influence.
I’m not a tech expert or a lifelong crypto enthusiast, but as a finance professional, I see Bitcoin as a better form of money. Once you understand that, you can’t ignore its potential—you get excited.
Regulatory Capture and FUD Wars
Brandon Green: You’re the first firm to discuss integrating Bitcoin into pension funds. How do we shift these new entrants from seeing Bitcoin merely as a trading tool to truly understanding its value?
I wonder if, in the future, hedge funds, financial institutions, sovereign funds, or even governments will hold Bitcoin long-term, gradually breaking the CME’s shorting dominance?
Mark Yusko:
Great question—touches on all key points of Bitcoin’s story. Fundamentally, Bitcoin is the currency of the future. It’s a very interesting concept: a currency that’s an asset with no liabilities. Usually, currencies are gold, silver, or, to a lesser extent, platinum and other scarce assets. Essentially, money must be a scarce asset that can’t be created out of thin air and isn’t debt-backed.
As JP Morgan famously said: “Gold is money; everything else is credit.” We think of fiat currencies—dollars, yen, euros—as derivatives of money, based on debt. They’re supported by government debt. That’s not evil; in fact, fractional reserve banking is one of humanity’s greatest inventions. Without it, we might still live in mud huts.
Fractional reserve banking fuels economic growth—money lying dormant is useless. But many still don’t accept Bitcoin as a monetary layer. Central banks and governments rely on gold as a disaster hedge; gold has been a perfect store of value for 5,000 years—but Bitcoin is better. For example, I have a gold bar, but I can’t send it via computer. Bitcoin can be transferred instantly, almost for free.
Historically, government-issued money was backed by gold stored in Fort Knox. Between 1776 and 1913, the money supply was stable, with no inflation. But the Federal Reserve’s creation in 1913 changed everything: fiat money’s value has been eroding ever since.
Michael’s choice reflects this trend. He converted his fiat into Bitcoin—not only because it’s a superior store of value but also because of its technological advantages. He built a complete capital system with Bitcoin, foreshadowing a future where Bitcoin becomes the foundational layer of money.
Murray Rothbard’s view goes further: Bitcoin isn’t just a gold substitute; it will disrupt the Gresham’s Law. Gresham’s Law states: “Bad money drives out good.” But he proposes an opposite: Good money will drive out bad. Ultimately, Bitcoin could become a trillion-dollar asset.
Gold and Bitcoin: Same Store of Value, Different Timelines
Brandon Green: The recent rise in gold and decline in Bitcoin has led some to question Bitcoin’s theory. But that’s just the central banks continuing their 5,000-year pattern. For example, China is reducing US debt holdings and increasing gold reserves—consistent with traditional currency policies. This doesn’t invalidate Bitcoin’s theory; it just shows Bitcoin’s role as a gold substitute is still early.
Mark Yusko:
Looking at the past three years, Bitcoin and gold have had identical returns. Over five years, Bitcoin outperformed. Over seven or nine years, their returns are again similar. Why? Because they’re essentially the same thing. The main difference is the fiat exchange rate. Some say gold rose while Bitcoin fell, but from 2021 to 2023, Bitcoin rose while gold stayed flat. The key is market manipulation: gold was suppressed for two years, then broke out. Silver was manipulated for five years, stuck between $20 and $30, then suddenly surged. Reports suggest JPMorgan shorted silver twice as much as the market could handle, risking bankruptcy, and also shorted gold—leading to the creation of GLD (gold ETF).
They attack gold because they don’t want its price to rise, which would reveal their wealth is being diluted. We need to view these assets over longer periods. Also, the correlation between stores of value can be temporarily distorted by futures markets, but long-term, they tend to move together—this is backed by data.
The real issue is human belief. People form beliefs based on their environment—parents, mentors, media, religion, admired figures—and tend to gather supporting evidence while dismissing contrary data. If you believe FUD that Bitcoin is evil, you’ll think gold outperforms. But looking at three or five-year data, the facts are different.
I was skeptical at first. When I encountered Bitcoin in 2013, I doubted it. But after deep research, I became a supporter. Almost everyone I respect has become a supporter after studying it. We tend to believe what confirms our beliefs and dismiss what contradicts them. Bitcoin, as a technically superior store of value, not only preserves wealth better but also enables more efficient global value exchange. Data and facts show Bitcoin’s technology and network are the future.
Bitcoin is the world’s most powerful computing network—its processing power exceeds CERN’s supercomputers by 1,500 times. Owning a part of this network is meaningful, but investing in Bitcoin should be gradual, not all at once.
Bitcoin’s volatility is a feature, not a flaw. It’s essential for wealth creation. If all assets were low-volatility, returns would be limited. Volatility reflects market expectations of future outcomes. For example, US Treasuries have minimal volatility because the risk of default is perceived as near zero; assets like Amazon and Bitcoin have higher volatility, with double-digit drawdowns annually, but long-term investors gain enormous returns.
For investment capital, three parts: first, daily expenses—paying bills, keeping liquidity, mostly fiat; second, high-risk investments—aiming for high returns, accepting higher risk; third, long-term preservation—building a diversified portfolio with volatile but uncorrelated assets like Bitcoin.
Bitcoin as a “store of value” is ideal because of its low correlation with bonds and stocks. Over the long term, it diversifies risk. During crises, correlations may rise temporarily, but over the long run, Bitcoin remains a unique asset.
In investing, focus on long-term signals, not short-term noise, to truly grow wealth.
The World’s Reserve Currency
Brandon Green: Summarizing, we’re at a pivotal moment. Gold’s market cap is about $36 trillion, and we can identify all participants. The main factor is central banks diversifying from bonds into gold.
Mark Yusko:
This time, they didn’t choose Bitcoin, but if they do, Bitcoin’s status as a gold alternative will be cemented forever.
The history of global reserve currencies spans centuries. In the 1500s–1600s, Portugal was the dominant power, with its currency as the world’s reserve. Then Spain, then the Netherlands.
How could a tiny country like the Netherlands defeat Spain’s fleet in the 1600s? The answer: the stock market. They invented the stock exchange, created the first central bank, issued large amounts of currency, invested in joint-stock companies, and built armies—defeating Spain’s fleet.
Later, Napoleon’s military genius defeated the Dutch. The Rothschilds moved to Britain, establishing the Bank of England. They leveraged steamship technology to become the global reserve. The US, through the Rothschild network and nuclear/submarine capabilities, became a superpower.
About 15 years ago, China realized the next global reserve currency wouldn’t rely on ships but on chips. A major shift. China’s government aims to dominate AI, 5G, and become a global reserve currency. They’ve been included in SDRs and plan to buy gold heavily, linking the renminbi to gold for full convertibility. China’s trade influence and challenge to the dollar system are significant.
Some argue China’s plan won’t succeed—like a recent Washington Post article claiming future dominance depends on military power, not infrastructure. But that view ignores the value of peaceful strategic cooperation. Providing resources to improve other nations’ lives is a long-term strategy. The quality of such ideas can be judged by their critics.
Future competition will focus on technology. This naturally extends to the transition from AI-led open-source worlds to Bitcoin. Data shows AI agents now hold more Bitcoin than any other token. Why? Because an AI with agency needs to pay fees but can’t open bank accounts or use fiat. Stablecoins could be an option, but they’re centralized and not fully integrated into AI systems. Bitcoin, with its proof-of-work, is the best fit for AI agents to participate equally with humans.
AI Agents, Proof-of-Work, and the Future of Digital Currency
Mark Yusko:
A futurist once described a scene: you’re in the backseat of a self-driving car that parks at a fast-charging station. This automation and tech-driven future are closely tied to Bitcoin’s ecosystem. Bitcoin’s decentralized currency can support this infrastructure.
Imagine a future where your car automatically pays for charging—no card insertion needed. When entering a toll lane, the car pays directly, not via license plate billing. Navigation might prioritize routes with extra tolls paid in Bitcoin, diverting other cars to slower roads. It sounds dystopian, but it’s plausible. In such scenarios, Bitcoin will likely be the payment asset.
Brandon Green: It has to be Bitcoin. It’s digital, not reliant on fiat systems; stablecoins are centralized. Bitcoin’s proof-of-work makes it the only system allowing AI agents to participate on equal footing with humans.
Satoshi Nakamoto, 15 years ago, envisioned Bitcoin as a future currency—especially for AI systems.
Mark Yusko:
Historically, people exchanged chickens and cattle. Then they used coins—engraved with animals or symbols—to facilitate trade. But coins brought risks: theft, robbery. So, they stored coins in banks, and paper money emerged.
With electronic age, money became digital: stocks, assets, bank accounts—all digitized. But centralized systems have flaws: banks control your funds, can block transactions, or refuse cash withdrawals. If your account shows zero, proving funds exist is hard.
In 2012, Cyprus froze accounts during a crisis—two-thirds of deposits vanished. This shows the fragility of centralized finance.
Brandon Green: We’re in transition. Many transactions are digital, but still rely on intermediaries. This centralization risks abuse—freezing accounts, targeting minorities, or political opponents.
Mark Yusko:
The danger is: if regulators can freeze assets at will, it’s a dystopia. The Bank for International Settlements’ head has said regulators should control how people use their money—implying total control. Imagine: you get paid Friday, go out, get drunk, send a controversial message, and next morning, your funds are frozen.
Brandon Green: That’s like science fiction, but it’s happened—during COVID, and recent censorship.
Mark Yusko:
This ties into why AI won’t choose stablecoins. Recent Tether issues show even “stable” coins are vulnerable. US authorities seized Iranian-linked Tether accounts, confiscating tokens. If an AI transacts through such addresses, a simple mistake could lead to confiscation, with no explanation needed.
Brandon Green: This exposes core flaws: AI has no physical identity, and current systems might assign it one that’s “non-compliant,” risking asset seizure. This underscores why decentralization and sovereignty matter.
Mark Yusko:
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, opposing excessive regulation, is called “public enemy #1” by WSJ. He fights to protect user assets. But many tech firms have compromised to government demands, making the freedom of crypto precious.
Today, governments can monitor everything—emails, calls, online activity. Privacy is lost, often voluntarily—by clicking “agree” for convenience.
We’re moving into a “permission society,” where all actions require approval. If your stablecoin account is wrongly flagged as “risky,” authorities may freeze your funds. This society restricts actions and enables censorship.
This creates a tool—a “button”—that can eliminate “bad actors.” Initially, it seems terrifying: erasing “bad” people. But over time, seeing their behavior, some might think pressing that button is justified. The problem: who decides who’s “bad”? It’s subjective. It raises philosophical questions: why is Western morality better than Eastern? Who’s to say what’s “good”?
For example, Canada’s protests—why are supporters labeled “bad”? Such labels are unacceptable. As a friend said, if sanctions are “starving women and children,” then fewer support them. Sanctions are about coercion—forcing compliance through pressure.
Should we allow one nation to weaponize finance? Or build a global value exchange system—uncensorable, unseizable, uncensorable? I prefer the latter.
Brandon Green: During Biden’s term, especially in 2022 with Russia-Ukraine, the US froze assets globally—wiped out oligarch holdings overnight. That event might mark the end of the dollar’s reserve dominance.
This raises a key point: the “button” in a permission society might only be pressed once; after that, it’s useless.
Mark Yusko:
Exactly. When you press it, be precise. If you only remove some “bad actors,” their allies might retaliate. The “bad actor” label is subjective—what one calls “bad,” another calls “freedom fighter.” This relativity demands caution. Who has the right to decide “good” or “bad”?
Over-Bitcoinization, Bear Market Outlook, and Final Thoughts
Brandon Green: We’re in a familiar cycle—end of a bear market. While not as exciting as a bull run, it’s often the start of new opportunities.
In this cycle, we see early signs of hyperbitcoinization. Those who once dismissed Bitcoin are now exploring it—like kids in a sandbox testing, then building castles, creating new applications and value.
Adoption isn’t complete, but time favors us. More people will recognize Bitcoin’s value and become supporters. Like gold, which has a market cap of about $36 trillion, some countries’ central banks may continue buying. Those who already gained tenfold from gold will consider Bitcoin. If China and others stop buying gold and prices stagnate, many will switch to Bitcoin—“the fastest horse.”
Bitcoin replacing gold depends on gold’s total market cap. If gold’s market cap is $10 trillion, Bitcoin’s potential is different than if gold hits $36 trillion. The upside is huge, and the trend is optimistic. As you mentioned, Metcalfe’s Law suggests this cycle isn’t a bubble top or bottom but a steady rise.
Mark Yusko:
Of course, human nature is reflexive—markets peak and trough due to leverage and speculation. But this time, leverage is much lower; most has been cleared out. I feel comfortable with current conditions. Regardless of where the bottom is, excess leverage is gone. The “crypto winter” is halfway through; spring is near.
Bitcoin is often compared to gold, especially as a store of value. But only part of gold’s total value is monetary—central bank reserves, gold bars, and bullion. The rest is jewelry and industrial use. Historically, about half of gold’s value was monetary; now perhaps 60%.
If gold’s market value is $10 trillion, and Bitcoin’s is about $1 trillion, Bitcoin needs 20x growth to match gold’s monetary value. That’s large but not impossible. Bitcoin’s value isn’t harder to carry; it just requires more fiat to buy one.
Bitcoin’s decentralization makes it unique—especially in unstable economies. In Venezuela or Turkey, where currency collapses, Bitcoin becomes a lifeline. It’s a “flight capital,” a “safe haven,” and a way to escape authoritarian control.
In such countries, hyperbitcoinization is already happening. People need “escape funds” to protect themselves from economic chaos and kleptocracy. This isn’t criticism of capitalism but of kleptocracy and dictatorship. Some powerful families control wealth for generations, creating a “K-shaped economy”—the rich thrive, the poor suffer.
The bottom half faces record car repossessions, rising rents, food inflation. But these issues are underreported because elites dominate media. Many Americans—nearly half—own no stocks, no retirement plans, no Robinhood accounts—they’re disconnected from the stock market.
Baby boomers control the economy, wield power, and have created the welfare system. It’s an unfunded promise—future generations pay. It’s like a Ponzi scheme: boosting stock and real estate values of boomers to sustain the system.
Shockingly, over the past five years, the best-performing stock market was Venezuela. Would you want Venezuelan stocks? Only if you live there, denominate in bolívar, and are in power. Same with Zimbabwe—there, a 1 million billion-dollar note buys almost nothing. These countries try to print their way out, but it only destroys wealth.
Wealth isn’t created by printing money; it’s created by human ingenuity. That’s the greatest driver of progress. But as technology advances, many fear AI will cause mass unemployment. In reality, AI is just a tool—like a hammer. It’s meant to make humans better.
Historically, tools—cars, planes, biotech, Bitcoin—have improved lives. They may eliminate some jobs but create new ones. Today, global employment is at an all-time high. Tools empower humans, not replace them.
