Sign in Subscribe

Bitcoin Hardtalk 90-1

Bitcoin Hardtalk 90-1

Bitcoin Hard Talk Episode 90: Summary of Key Points

In Episode 90 of Bitcoin Hard Talk, host Simon Dixon provides a comprehensive analysis of a pivotal week in the world of digital assets, framing it within a broader context of macroeconomic decay and geopolitical maneuvering. The episode's central thesis is that Bitcoin's rise is not an isolated event but a direct response to the systemic failures of the global fiat currency system, which he terms the "proof of weapons network." The discussion covers three main areas: the unprecedented bull run of Bitcoin, the landmark regulatory shifts in the United States during "crypto week," and the bombshell revelation concerning the United States' own Bitcoin strategic reserves.

The unabridged transcript follows below
You can watch the original video here

1. Bitcoin's Unprecedented Bull Run and the Failing Fiat System

The episode begins by highlighting Bitcoin's remarkable performance. Dixon notes that Bitcoin has been hitting new all-time highs with increasing frequency, reaching a price of $122,484. He argues that this behavior signals a departure from the predictable four-year halving cycles, suggesting a new phase of adoption and value accrual is underway.

A New Asset Class King

Bitcoin's growth has propelled it into the upper echelon of global assets. It has become the fifth-largest asset in the world by market capitalization, fluctuating around $2.3 trillion. This places it in the same league as tech giants like Amazon, and ahead of many legacy financial institutions. In the currency world, it has surpassed the Brazilian Real to become the 10th most valuable currency globally.

Dixon emphasizes that this ascent is not happening in a vacuum. It is a direct consequence of the instability of the traditional financial system. He points to several key drivers:

  • The Debt-Based Ponzi Scheme: He describes the fiat currency system as a "debt-based Ponzi scheme" propped up by the "proof of weapons network." Governments, particularly the U.S., are trapped in a cycle of reckless spending, debt accumulation ($37 trillion national debt plus $250 trillion in unfunded liabilities), and money printing. This creates massive inflation and erodes the value of savings.
  • Fiscal Dominance and Stimulus: The passage of a "big beautiful bill" adding $5 trillion to the national debt is presented as a massive stimulus package. This devalues the dollar and forces investors to seek refuge in hard assets with a fixed supply, with Bitcoin being the prime candidate.
  • Loss of Faith in Government Bonds: Rising yields on long-term government bonds indicate that investors are demanding a higher premium to lend to governments, signaling a decline in confidence. As the dollar weakens against hard assets, both Bitcoin and gold are reaching new highs.

Dixon's core argument is that individuals and even institutions are participating in a "peaceful boycott" of this failing system by opting to save in Bitcoin, a network with a predictable, transparent, and unchangeable monetary policy.

2. 'Crypto Week' in Washington: A New Regulatory Landscape

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to dissecting the events of "crypto week" in Washington D.C., where the U.S. government passed three landmark bills that fundamentally reshape the regulatory environment for digital assets. Dixon sees this as a strategic move by the establishment to co-opt the industry while protecting legacy financial players.

The Three Landmark Bills

  1. The Genius Act (Stablecoins): This act creates a regulatory framework for stablecoins. Dixon points out a crucial detail: it gives a distinct advantage to established banks, like JP Morgan, by allowing them to offer yield on their stablecoins while others may not. This effectively allows the largest shareholders of the Federal Reserve to dominate the stablecoin market, turning it into a privatized, bank-controlled version of a digital dollar.
  2. The Clarity Act (Securities vs. Commodities): This bill aims to provide clarity on which digital assets are securities (regulated by the SEC) and which are commodities. It introduces the concept of a "mature blockchain system," defined as one not controlled by a single person or group. Projects can apply to the SEC for this status. Dixon argues this creates a system of regulatory capture, where the SEC becomes the ultimate arbiter, likely favoring projects with powerful lobbies. The act pre-emptively grants "mature" status to Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cardano, a move Dixon links to Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson's significant lobbying contributions. This framework could marginalize smaller projects and consolidate power among a few chosen networks.
  3. The Anti-CBDC Act: While positioned as a move to protect privacy and prevent a surveillance state, Dixon reveals it is not a true ban. It merely requires congressional authorization for the issuance of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). This leaves the door open for a future CBDC, especially during a crisis, and in the meantime, protects the existing commercial banking system (the Fed's shareholders) from being disintermediated by a direct-to-consumer central bank currency.

The Trump Administration's Strategic Pivot

These regulatory moves are tightly linked to the Trump administration's broader crypto strategy. Dixon highlights a rumored executive order that would allow Americans to invest their 401(k) retirement savings into crypto. This could unlock trillions of dollars from the legacy financial system.

However, Dixon urges listeners to "follow the money," pointing to potential conflicts of interest. Trump's family has financial ties to World Liberty Financial, a company deeply involved in stablecoins and DeFi that stands to benefit immensely from the new legislation. Furthermore, wallets associated with the Trump memecoin have been moving tens of millions of dollars to exchanges, suggesting a classic pump-and-dump scheme targeting retail investors. The overall picture is one of an administration creating on-ramps for the public while its insiders position themselves to profit handsomely.

3. The TradFi Invasion and Institutional Power Plays

The episode meticulously details the accelerating entry of Wall Street and institutional players into the crypto space, a trend Dixon refers to as the "TradFi Invasion." These institutions are not just buying Bitcoin; they are actively shaping the ecosystem to their advantage.

BlackRock, Ethereum, and the Stakes of Staking

The surge in Ethereum's price is analyzed as a major event, driven by a massive short squeeze and significant inflows into BlackRock's Ethereum ETF. The key development, however, is BlackRock's filing to stake the ETH held in its ETF. Dixon explains the profound implications of this move:

  • Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake: In a proof-of-work system like Bitcoin, owning the asset does not grant control over the network. In a proof-of-stake system like Ethereum, whoever stakes the most tokens has the most control over governance, validation, and future protocol changes.
  • Centralized Control: By staking the vast amounts of ETH in its ETF, BlackRock is positioning itself to become a dominant force in Ethereum's governance. This could lead to a future where the Ethereum network is effectively controlled by one of the world's largest asset managers, undermining its decentralized ethos. This, Dixon argues, is precisely why Bitcoin's proof-of-work is so vital for maintaining true decentralization.

New Bitcoin Treasury Vehicles and Deep State Connections

Dixon shines a light on the creation of new corporate vehicles designed to hold Bitcoin, connecting them to powerful, and in his view, nefarious, players. The most prominent example is the new Bitcoin treasury company being launched by Adam Back (of Blockstream) in partnership with Cantor Fitzgerald, run by Howard Lutnick.

Dixon frames this as a "deep state" operation, pointing out that Lutnick is a neighbor of the late Jeffrey Epstein and a close associate of Donald Trump, whom Dixon alleges is a Mossad handler. He argues the structure of the deal—a multi-billion dollar SPAC—is a form of financial engineering designed for tax benefits and to allow insiders to leverage the company's stock, turning Bitcoin into another collateralized asset within the debt-based fiat system. He condemns this as the antithesis of the cypherpunk movement, designed to pull Bitcoin back into the very system it was created to escape.

4. The Core Debate: Self-Custody vs. Custodial Solutions

A philosophical debate on how to store Bitcoin serves as a practical guide for listeners. Dixon contrasts the two main schools of thought:

  • The Self-Custody Purists (The Cypherpunk View): Represented by himself and figures like Dustin Stockton, this view holds that self-custody is the entire point of Bitcoin. "Not your keys, not your coins." It enables true ownership, censorship resistance, and the ability to opt out of the financial system. Stockton's personal story of being "debanked" and surviving for years solely on self-custodied Bitcoin is used as a powerful testament to this principle.
  • The Mass Adoption Pragmatists: Represented by figures like Joe Carlasare and Grant Cardone, this view argues that self-custody is a "usability nightmare" that scares away mainstream users. They believe that for Bitcoin to attract trillions of dollars, it must be easy. Custodial solutions like ETFs and exchanges are the necessary on-ramps for mass adoption.

Dixon's conclusion is nuanced. He advises new users to "get off zero" by any means necessary, even if it's through a simple custodial exchange. However, he strongly urges that the journey cannot end there. He believes learning self-custody is an essential future-proofing skill in an age of increasing surveillance and digital control. The ultimate solution for most people is likely a hybrid approach, diversifying their holdings across both custodial and self-custodial solutions based on their needs, but never neglecting the revolutionary power of holding one's own keys.

5. The Bombshell Revelation: The Vanishing US Bitcoin Strategic Reserve

The episode culminates in a shocking revelation about the U.S. government's own Bitcoin holdings. Based on a Freedom of Information Act request, Dixon reports that the U.S. government has sold off approximately 80-85% of its seized Bitcoin reserves over the last four years.

  • A Drastically Reduced Holding: The U.S. government, once thought to hold over 200,000 BTC, now officially holds only around 29,000 BTC. (This figure excludes the ~119,000 BTC from the Bitfinex hack, which legally belong to the exchange and its customers).
  • Geopolitical Implications: This quiet sell-off means the U.S. has lost its position as the largest known state holder of Bitcoin. That title now belongs to China, which is believed to hold around 200,000 BTC. In the emerging game theory of a new monetary standard, the U.S. has put itself at a significant strategic disadvantage.
  • The Ultimate Message of Self-Reliance: This revelation powerfully reinforces the episode's central theme. While the Trump administration touts a "Make America Great Again" crypto policy, the government has simultaneously failed to secure its own position. The conclusion is stark: individuals cannot rely on their government to protect them. They must "make themselves great again" by taking personal responsibility for their financial sovereignty and accumulating their own strategic reserve of Bitcoin.

In summary, Episode 90 portrays a world at a financial crossroads. Bitcoin is emerging as a powerful alternative to a failing fiat system, but the establishment is moving quickly to control and co-opt the new technology. Dixon's ultimate message is a call to action for individual sovereignty, education, and self-reliance in the face of systemic decay and institutional power grabs.

Unabridge Transcript

Well, yields, which is the measure of the price at which governments need to borrow from you, they're rising. And although governments want interest rates to go down at the short term, for the long-term loans, if you want to lend to a government for 10 or 30 years, they have to pay you a significantly higher price now than they have historically in other environments. So at the same time as the cost or the price at which governments need to pay you in order to lend them money long-term is rising, Bitcoin has also been rising and the dollar has been falling ever since we entered into liberation day, which was the tariff policy and the big beautiful bill and this reckless spending that is happening as you need to roll over the debt-based Ponzi scheme called the fiat currency proof of weapons network with more war and violence and debt and fake GDP in order to create a big beautiful bill that adds $5 trillion onto a $37 trillion national debt and $250 trillion of committed liabilities. That is costing a trillion dollars in interest just to sustain itself to the point where America has to grow and engineer fake growth through the government printing fake GDP to buy more weapons, engineer wars with NATO, get Europe to print money so that the proof of weapons network, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics war machines, can sell more weapons and agitate more war through the intelligence networks in order to prop up the dollar and roll over the debt-based Ponzi scheme.

Because the players that know about this, the ones that are not affiliated with America, even though they have their stocks on the American Stock Exchange, and the central banks around the world that are trying to protect themselves from the dollar right now as we enter into this phase, gold is rising too. And on April the 9th, after the 90-day tariff pause, you had these events where the dollar is significantly weakening relative to its long-term bullish cycle. If you read things like the dollar milkshake theory, where the whole world is forced into debt slavery, rather than investing in their own country, they need to hold dollars and they need to hold treasuries and lend it to the US government. So the US government can recycle through the proof of weapons network and blow up your country or regime change your country or politically interfere in your country to install a puppet government that will then ensure that the money from your central bank goes back to propping up the US dollar like the petrodollar and various other constructs like the eurodollar, and the European nations have no autonomy, as we'll be covering this week in macro.

Then when the first big beautiful bill was passed, Bitcoin has now become the fifth-largest asset in the entire world. The largest asset in the world is gold with $22 trillion of market capitalization. Slightly behind that, as number two, is Nvidia which is now $4.2 trillion as it powers artificial intelligence and data centers around the world, as the whole world is guzzling up electricity into both Bitcoin mining as well as artificial intelligence, and it has become the new commodity of the future with these data centers and countries all around the world looking to get data centers in their country and Nvidia providing some of that infrastructure after getting the components of the semiconductor chips from Taiwan that requires commodities from China that keeps this whole network together while the proof of weapons network pretends to agitate wars when the whole system is connected, including the proof of weapons network's share portfolio.

The third is Microsoft's $3.8 trillion of market cap. Apple's $3.1 trillion of market cap is number four. And number five, the fifth-largest asset in the world is Bitcoin, which fluctuates around$ 2.3 trillion of market cap and is kind of head-to-head with Amazon at the moment and fluctuates between the fifth largest and sixth largest asset at approximately $2.3 trillion of market cap.

What about in the currency world? So that's in the asset world. What about in the currency world? Remember, Bitcoin is both a currency when you want to use it as a currency, and it's an asset when you want to use it to own your own money, spend your own money, and have a fixed monetary supply because of that low stock-to-flow of the new supply. But it is also a currency when you want to use it. So in terms of currencies around the world, Bitcoin has now overtaken the Brazilian Real to become the world's 10th most valuable currency in the entire world. So that's number 10 on there. Brazil's Real went down to number 11.

Now, speaking of Brazil, just as Metaplanet did with Japan, they gave people with their pension the ability to invest in a company that then is using Bitcoin as a strategic treasury reserve, which means that all this flow of pension money that's trying to protect itself from the devaluation of the dollar, and Japan obviously has that carry trade where the Bank of Japan is a tool for the Federal Reserve and the banksters that prop up that network that speculate by borrowing from Japan, hedge the currency risks in the derivatives market, and end up buying US stocks and US assets. Now Brazil is doing the same. We talked about this on Bitcoin Hard Talk. Look, I believe that everyone should own Bitcoin, but if you're in a different situation and you need some pension money or your 401(k) money to have some exposure to Bitcoin, and in your country, you may not be able to get Bitcoin ETFs and your provider may be a headache you need to figure out. But people in Brazil now, a company called Malas is the first Bitcoin treasury company in Latin America, in Brazil, that is now launching on the US stock market. So you can have that arbitrage between the liquidity of the US market and the Brazilian stock market, which is similar to what happened with Metaplanet in Japan.

I'm not saying you should invest in these things. I think everybody should own more Bitcoin this month than the previous month and they should self-custody rather than going through these stocks that own Bitcoin and various other things. But that is the trend, and there are going to be more and more of those.

Now it was a big week. The US government called it "crypto week" this week, and this is where the Trump administration is really delivering. They're really delivering on the crypto side. Why? Because the politicians want to protect themselves from the dollar. They also want to issue stablecoins backed by the debt-based Ponzi scheme. They in fact are having an internal struggle between the technology industrial complex faction of the proof of weapons network and the financial legacy industrial complex that has the asset managers and the investment banks and get to create the dollar every time they issue a loan and are in fact the banks that are shareholders in the Federal Reserve system. They know what's happening and they also want to be able to own some Bitcoin as the Trump administration will hedge itself against the dollar by owning as much Bitcoin as they possibly can. So they needed several acts to pass and this week we had in "crypto week" where all the legislators met up and the Congress voted on whether they want these acts to pass.

Initially, there was a little bit of drama. 210 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted against advancing the stablecoin genius act, the market structure act which is called the Clarity Act, and the anti-central bank digital currency act. There was a little bit of politicking in terms of the normal negotiations that happen in passing these acts, and they passed and said that we're not going to advance these three acts. Shortly after, Thomas Massie, who is a libertarian that kind of comes from the Bitcoin standard school of thought and is also a student of libertarian Austrian economics via affiliation with a Ron Paul-type of character and is also anti-AIPAC and anti-lobby and exposes the power of the different lobbies including the Israeli lobby on US Congress in order to push these different bills, came out. Immediately after the rejection of the bill, he said, and I quote, "They blocked consideration of my amendments to the Clarity Act which would have prohibited central bank digital currencies as well." Immediately that was a problem.

What is this act about? They're all about how to classify what's a commodity, what's a currency, what's a security with the SEC, who are they regulated by, what's a stablecoin, and how do they favor the bank lobby over the technocrat lobby, and all the internal politics that happen. The crypto market didn't like this. Now, we distinguish between Bitcoin and the crypto market. The crypto market is a mechanism for fooling you out of your Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the decentralized proof-of-work network that allows us to boycott the proof of weapons network. There are all sorts of things that are built on top of the general crypto market and we don't go too far down there. But Bitcoin didn't care because it reached new all-time highs even though these acts were initially rejected. It's only the crypto market that cares. Bitcoin dominance immediately rose, which is Bitcoin as a percentage of the rest of the crypto market. So, Bitcoin is about $2.3 trillion right now. The entire crypto market and all the shitcoins and the casino and the millions of meme coins and all that stuff comes together to about a $4 trillion market cap.

Shortly after, the acts passed. There was a little bit of politicking around should we do one act, should we do two acts, should we do all three? What are we going to do about central bank digital currencies? If we approve one and then the anti-CBDC act doesn't pass, then Massie would be stuck and various other things. But immediately all three acts passed, and the crypto market pumped like crazy. US lawmakers have now passed three digital asset bills during "crypto week" in Washington. Is this going to be a week that will be remembered forever? Well, Bitcoin doesn't care. The crypto market does, according to the market.

As a quick recap, you now have a functioning Genius Act which will be rushed to Trump to sign, and once he signs, it is implemented. The Genius Act allows for stablecoins, and I've covered that it gives an advantage to banks and the JP Morgan fraudsters, and they'll be able to offer yield while others won't be able to offer yield. But you can actually register to be a stablecoin issuer without having to be a bank. The Clarity Act is around regulations, and I'll be going into some of the implications around what the processes will be and how it impacts Bitcoin and the crypto markets in today's This Week in Bitcoin. And the third does what it says on the tin. It is an anti-central bank digital currency market, which is essentially a surveillance state. Why? Because the banks are the shareholders of the Federal Reserve. So why would the banks want to give all their power over to the Federal Reserve in a centralized entity when they already get to create the digital dollar in a debt-based Ponzi scheme and the Federal Reserve simply administers the system for its shareholders? They get to meet every quarter at the FOMC, and the banksters essentially get to tell and inflict monetary policy in favor of themselves while they lobby the politicians and Treasury in order to implement the fiscal policy that allows for a bunch of those bonds to be owned by the banks that get to earn 10 trillion of yield, as well as the Federal Reserve and the 6% dividend that it paid to its bank shareholders. They don't want that. So they don't want a CBDC. But they are actually exploring, as are the technology companies, launching their own stablecoins.

There was a concept of whether there could be a shadow stablecoin created by a proxy like JP Morgan that is a shareholder in the Federal Reserve, and if they get an advantage, which is exactly what's happening over a stablecoin where they get to offer yield, then essentially it is a shift of power from the Federal Reserve, which Congress has the ability to install their chairpeople and various things that are being debated right now, but instead JP Morgan gets to do it via a shadow CBDC called a stablecoin. So, it's the usual shenanigans that are played between those that can't follow the money. But when you follow the money and you watch Bitcoin Hard Talk, we go deep into the detail, follow the money to make sure that you understand that JP Morgan is the new de facto central bank digital currency via a stablecoin and via its privatized shareholders on the stock market.

But initially, there isn't really anti-CBDC language that is included in the Genius Act because what it actually allowed for it to do—if you remember, Trump issued an executive order which was given to basically transfer all of the Bitcoin to the Treasury, and this was around the Bitcoin strategic reserve. There was also another executive order issued saying we don't want a central bank digital currency. So what was the language that was included in the Genius Act? Well, the Genius Act basically said, I quote, "HR11919 makes clear that the issuance of any central bank digital currency requires authorization legislation from Congress." So if you want a central bank digital currency into the future, then the banksters just need to use their bank lobby in order to upgrade the stablecoin of JP Morgan into a central bank digital currency at the Federal Reserve, which could be done at a time of crisis as a bank bailout if you want to take all of the banks and consolidate them into one CBDC in a 2007-style financial crisis type of event or the next flavor of that whenever that is inflicted upon the debt-based Ponzi scheme.

In the end, there was no real CBDC ban, but there was a congressional process for America having a CBDC, and there was a head start for the banks over the non-banks and the financial institutions that want to issue these stablecoins. Of course JP Morgan and the engineers of the Federal Reserve system, they get to have that extra power in the proof of weapons network for the legacy financial industrial complex, which is who Trump mainly represents. He mainly represents both technology and financial in the proof of weapons network, and that is a bit of a power struggle as well. But anyway, it's not a real central bank digital currency ban because Congress could decide to change it, and Congress is controlled by lobby power.

What else happened this week which was a major announcement as well? Well, if you hold a pension in America, you have something called a 401(k), and America is the largest and most liquid capital market in the world. I don't anticipate the proof of weapons network, even as it steals from the American people via a wealth transfer to those that own the shares, as it does that, as it creates civil unrest around America and forgets about those that are debt slaves to the proof of weapons network, it will surely keep the world's capital market and just turn America into a vassal state as we transition to this world of Bitcoin, AI, and central bank digital currencies.

Anyway, regarding the Trump executive order, there is a rumor, it was reported in the Financial Times, that Trump is going to sign next week to allow Americans to invest their 401(k) retirement savings into Bitcoin and crypto. Imagine that that's coming next. That will unlock the stragglers from the legacy financial system. There is approximately a total market capitalization of… you've now got the proof of weapons network players that are creating all these strange products for your 401(k), but now you should be able to actually earn crypto direct into your 401(k) depending on this executive order and whether it requires you to do it via ETFs or various other products. America holds $9 trillion in 401(k) savings accounts. I'm not saying that all of those $9 trillion are going to be invested in crypto, but you would imagine that a percentage of that is going to eventually end up in this market as the dollar continues to have its supply fixed and you get to protect yourself from the central banksters that are continually inflicting using their lobby pressure over government more and more money printing, which is essentially robbing the everyday American to benefit those that have concentrated the wealth and are closest to the money printer.

Speaking of money printers, the Fed doesn't print all the money. Most of the money is created by the private banks through the credit markets. Every time they issue a loan, they get to create new digital dollars. You get a mortgage, and they get to create new money, and then you have to repay, and they get to repossess the real estate if you can't ever repay it. Then they get to go to the government and socialize the losses or privatize the gains or borrow money in the markets in order to underwrite that risk. So now the regulator of the dollar, essentially the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the bailout insurance policy for the banks, the FDIC—which by the way only has about 1% of all bank deposits, so it's kind of a little scam where it could handle one bank going down, but then you can find a new tool from the Federal Reserve or you can just go to the taxpayer and say you pay for it while we keep the profits, as we have continually seen time and time again—but anyway, the OCC, the regulator of the currency, the Federal Reserve, the creator of the debt-based Ponzi scheme with the banks as shareholders, and the insurance of the bank deposits, FDIC, that in a case of bank distress, they come in and take over the banks, they have reiterated the statement this week that banks may offer custody and safekeeping of crypto assets such as Bitcoin, and that can all happen under the existing risk management framework. So banks, if they want to start using it as part of their asset base, are able to do that right now under the current regime, and they don't have to wait for anything if they want to do that.

Remember, you're going to own your Bitcoin in self-custody. You don't want to be collateral for a bank in a debt-based Ponzi scheme and allow them to take your Bitcoin and earn yield on your Bitcoin because they'll borrow against it and then they'll have discount windows into the debt-based Ponzi scheme so that they can then use the yield in order to buy more Bitcoin or issue their stablecoins or whatever their model is. You want to be able to own it yourself, spend it yourself, and own it in self-custody.

In this transition, because I've covered it on many episodes of Bitcoin Hard Talk, I've talked about the conflicts of interest between what World Liberty Financial is doing, which is issuing its own stablecoin. World Liberty Financial is the company of the Trump family and Steve Wyckoff, the envoy for the Middle East, that is engaging in all sorts of things around Bitcoin, DeFi, and stablecoins, and those that would benefit significantly from these acts passing. In prior weeks, we covered how Trump had to divest through a trust company some of his holdings in World Liberty Financial, but essentially it's for his family as well. We followed the money a little bit as well, and we have seen, remember that Trump memecoin that he launched? I had a little look at some of the wallets, and those wallets from the Trump token have been heading over to the exchanges. There was another deposit of approximately 3.5 million Trump tokens, which at the current price that I was looking at this, was valued at $52.6 million that were sent to exchanges. These exchanges were Binance, which was originally a China-based exchange that then moved to a Japan-based exchange and then moved to European, Cayman, and various other jurisdictions; OKX, which is a China-original based exchange that then moved over to Hong Kong; Bybit as well; and Coinbase, a US-based exchange.

On May the 10th, that's when a new deposit was made. This is the fourth significant deposit of Trump tokens to the exchanges since April the 28th. This basically brings a total number of the Trump token, the memecoin that he dumped that sucked up all the liquidity and has been going down since, from the crazy pump-and-dump memecoin markets that we don't mess around with. People use it to try and get more Bitcoin, gamble, and speculate. You don't need to be involved in any of that stuff. But it was bringing a total amount transferred to the exchanges of 12.5 million Trump tokens from the entire supply. If you take all of the transfers and you value them, this is valued at approximately $120 million. Now, what did the team state that they were sending that over to the exchanges for? They were saying these are deposits in order to support liquidity operations, i.e., market making and market manipulation, and when there is a high demand for the token, they want to provide liquidity. This is the type of self-dealing that normally is segregated. But because we now have this transparency on a blockchain, we're able to trace this, but once it enters into the crypto exchange, it's then in a centralized mess where you don't get to see that transparency. Anyway, large transfers to exchanges normally mean that these are people that are looking to sell those tokens, and if they're not selling them, they're using price volatility and market making. We saw during the Celsius bankruptcy and the FTX bankruptcy and all of the other bankruptcies that these tokens are used for complete shenanigans and market manipulation. In the case of Alex Mashinsky that just went down for 12 years, he was using the CEL token in order to pump the price, hide all the fraud that was happening on the balance sheet of his Ponzi scheme called Celsius, engage in all sorts of crimes, and then borrow against it and steal money through stablecoins and all sorts of shenanigans. Not saying any of those things are happening, but you need to be aware of these things.

Trump's World Liberty Financial is also accumulating lots of Ethereum. Ethereum is the second-largest cryptocurrency. It's a proof-of-stake network rather than a proof-of-work network. What that means is that by owning the token, you get a vote in the governance and validation fees in the network, which is different to a proof-of-work network. By owning ETH, and there was a pre-mine, you get to have significant control over the network. Unlike Bitcoin, whoever owns it, it doesn't matter; by owning Bitcoin, it doesn't give you control over the network because it works off a proof-of-work mechanism. There are different players involved in that.

Ethereum added about $150 billion in market cap ever since July the 1st. The market cap has been increasing significantly after a long time, multiple years of underperforming Bitcoin, and it entered into an overperforming phase. Now, because it was having a very bad market, there was massive short exposure with speculators using derivatives in order to try and profit from Ethereum going down. The short exposure reached record highs, and the net short exposure was approximately 25% above levels that were seen in February 2025. There was a massive amount of short exposure, which means derivatives were betting on Ethereum going down. But this month, around the time that World Liberty Financial was accumulating and all of these acts were passing and various other things were happening, the price of ETH this month surged approximately 70% in less than a month. That created one of the largest short squeezes that we've seen in crypto history. A short squeeze is where you're borrowing the crypto in order to short the crypto on leverage, and then as the price goes up, you need to cover that short position by buying more of it, which creates a self-perpetuating short squeeze where the price keeps going up in order to cover some of those leveraged short positions. As a result, we saw billions of dollars in liquidated shorts. It wiped out many of those short sellers.

Heading into July the 1st, BlackRock's ETF was adding more and more Ethereum. In fact, during this period, 29 of the previous 30 days were net inflows, which leads to buying more shares in the Ethereum ETF, which means BlackRock has to buy more Ethereum. BlackRock has been accumulating their position leading into this short squeeze as well. And then what did we get? Announced on the stock market was an ETH treasury company headed by, I think his name is Tommy Lee. Suddenly he's an ETH maxi, and we start to get these big price increases in stocks that are holding ETH on their balance sheet, like a Bitcoin treasury company.

Then what do we get? We get an announcement around the time that these acts are passing that BlackRock is now filing with the SEC to take all the Ethereum that is held in the Ethereum ETF and stake it. Because proof-of-stake means those that hold the token, even if for somebody else, and stake it, then they control the governance of that network. If BlackRock is now going to be launching tokenized exchanges and is going to be using Ethereum as that mechanism, like it has with securitized and tokenized treasuries, then they are accumulating a position. This is exactly why proof-of-work was created the way that it was rather than proof-of-stake, because owning the Bitcoin in a Bitcoin ETF does not mean that you control the network or the governance of it, but it does with an Ethereum ETF. So once BlackRock essentially controls the ETH stakes, you'll find out why Bitcoin proof-of-work matters as some of those code changes happen and things happen with stablecoins being listed and this network becomes centrally controlled with some of the largest pools of capital.

Under the Clarity Act, they decided to create a process for how these different types of crypto tokens would be classified as either being regulated by the securities regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or being classified as a commodity which is sufficiently decentralized. They created a definition which is called a "mature blockchain system." In the Clarity Act, it defined a mature blockchain system as a blockchain that is, quote, "not controlled by any person or group of persons under common control." So projects can now gain this status by certifying themselves with the SEC. The SEC is now going to become the arbiter of whether these things are decentralized or not. This involves a project issuer, and if there is a foundation and a person, to apply. This is why Bitcoin is so different. There was no way of applying to the SEC; there was no one to make that application. There was no foundation that controls and changes the codes. But essentially, this involves the project demonstrating that it is decentralized, and it needs to demonstrate it to the SEC in terms of decentralized governance, decentralized development in terms of open source, and decentralized operations. The maturity status leads to a lighter regulation and the treatment of the associated digital asset as now being a digital commodity rather than a security.

The real difference with that is that you now go through a certification process. The project issuer must file this maturity certification, and the SEC is going to be doing it. The SEC makes the evaluation, and there'll be a team to do that. It needs to demonstrate the decentralized nature of this. The certification is going to become effective if the SEC does not object. So you apply, the SEC does not object, and now you are classified, and now exchanges can list you and treat you as a digital commodity rather than a security. At this point, the crypto is considered mature and subject to reduced regulatory obligations.

The Clarity Act in its opening decided to take three assets that it has already classified as mature. One of them is Bitcoin, obviously, the other is ETH, and the other is Cardano (ADA), as already being certified and exempt from the SEC. We also know that the founder of Cardano, Charles Hoskinson, was a big contributor to the crypto lobby when installing Trump in order to get this crypto legislation and regulations and was hugely likely involved in all of these processes because there is now a big crypto lobby that exists, and Bitcoin doesn't really lobby because Bitcoin doesn't have any central counterparties that print these tokens and lobby to try and get this favorable treatment.

The big difference, of course, is if you get treated as a security—I know this is a little bit geeky—then securities are subject to what's known as accredited investor rules, which means that you can only buy those if you're exempt by being a high-net-worth investor. If you are not a high-net-worth investor, then you may not qualify to invest in these different exemptions, which is a huge amount of the liquidity. So this could suck a lot of liquidity out of tokens and push them into those that are certified already. This is essentially, with the exception of Bitcoin, a way of SEC regulatory capture and being the arbitrator of who is sufficiently decentralized when there is a centralized counterparty that will be applying for that. And guess what? It will be lobby pressure and shadow Fed chairs, just like SBF when he was involved in Operation Choke Point 2.0, a Federal Reserve operation to hand over parts of the market to BlackRock and the TradFi players. SBF was the only one that could meet with the chair, Gary Gensler, of the SEC during the Biden administration and therefore was the only one that was drafting legislation for the crypto market that meant that it would lead to having to use an exchange or a hedge fund like Alameda Research, which was a massive fraud, in order to create distress in the market and profit from the pumps and dumps and all the bankruptcies that those in the know at the proof of weapons network were bidding on, buying all those assets on the cheap at the bottom of the market. Everybody that had Bitcoin at FTX got like $16,000 for their Bitcoin. Today it is worth approximately $117,000. That excess value went to paying lawyers and banksters; a billion dollars was spent in the bankruptcy process.

This also highlights that when you have things like the Clarity Act, people tend to circumvent adding utility to these different types of securities or tokens. This is why prior to the Clarity Act, a memecoin exchange or a memecoin decentralized marketplace, whatever you want to call it, Pump.fun, which I don't use for all of these meme coins, they essentially launched a utility token with no utility because they're trying to make sure that they're not classified as a security. A bunch of people invested half a billion dollars to buy this token that does nothing and is not even connected to the exchange in any way. But hopefully with this, it could be classified as a security, but then you have all of the different types of rules. So this is regulatory capture of the shitcoinery part of the market and the reason why Bitcoin exists. Obviously, BlackRock is favoring their token that they're accumulating the stakes in as we list these stablecoins and various other real-world assets in these tokenized exchanges. Which is why in the end, everything comes back to the resistance of Bitcoin proof-of-work because it doesn't require any of these types of regulators or approvals or human failures. Prior to the Clarity Act commencement, they couldn't have any connection to the business because they didn't want to fall under the Securities Act. Therefore, investors get this token that does nothing, and then maybe later they can connect it to the business as this clarity comes through.

A few more news stories. I told you there's a lot on the Bitcoin side. We've got a few more stories, and we're going to also give a little bit of updates. It's going to take the majority of Bitcoin Hard Talk today, and then we're going to move over to a shorter macro section, and we'll try and get all this done in the three parts.

Let's move over to what's happening with some of the companies, the Bitcoin Treasury companies. MicroStrategy has now become the first publicly traded Bitcoin company in the world that now owns over 600,000 Bitcoin. So of the 21 million Bitcoin, 610,550 of them sit on the balance sheet with Coinbase custody in MicroStrategy, which is a publicly traded company. So, MicroStrategy shareholders get exposure to 3% of all of the Bitcoin with a promise that they will never sell it and they will continue buying the top forever. People are paying a premium because they're using their operational business on top of that. I don't recommend messing around with these things, but sometimes in your pension and various other things, people are using these products.

Now, Vanguard, which is one of the largest players in the proof of weapons network—you've got large asset managers like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard; then you've got other types of investment banks like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs; and then you got retail brokers like Morgan Stanley; and then you got the creators of money like Chase Bank and Citibank—this makes up the financial industrial complex division of the proof of weapons network. At the top are the asset managers that pull together all of your money, insurance money, endowment money from universities, pension money, and they package it all together into ETFs. By doing this, they get the board seats and they get the voting power in many of the 20,000 companies that they own shares in. But one of the vital players, which is a private player, Vanguard, is now the biggest shareholder of MicroStrategy. So they have indirect exposure to Bitcoin, but at the same time as BlackRock and State Street, Vanguard is the only one that is not embracing offering Bitcoin ETFs or Bitcoin products to their clients. They still won't offer Bitcoin to their customers, but they are the largest shareholder in MicroStrategy because they want Bitcoin exposure as well via these types of mechanisms. There's a difference between actively managed funds and passive funds and various other things, but let's not go into the detail for this.

Remember what we said earlier, that the Financial Times reported that Trump is going to be signing an executive order. They said this week, maybe it comes next week, but it will allow 401(k) retirement plans to invest in crypto. So, even if Vanguard is resisting for either PR or regulatory reasons or whatever it is, everyone that's got a 401(k) is now going to be able to have Bitcoin in their 401(k). And if they can do it via BlackRock and State Street and others, then Vanguard is going to be capitulated into the market, which is complete exposure to all the different players that have to now allow retirement funds to be protected by having Bitcoin in their retirement funds as well.

Now, remember, I always say self-custody is the true power. I'm going to go a little bit into how you can make those decisions because it's quite nuanced between self-custody and custody, and I want to give you some resources so that you can practically make some of those decisions as well.

Just before we do that, we got a few more stories. If you're in Australia, Bitcoin holders can now, just like in the US with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, use their crypto as collateral in order to take out mortgages. So, it can be part of your net worth. If you are in France, French lawmakers have now proposed a 5-year Bitcoin mining pilot program, which is going to be taking excess electricity in France. Take the surplus wasted electricity and utilize it for Bitcoin mining in order to stabilize some of the electricity grids, which is something that happens in Texas, happens in the Kingdom of Bhutan, and happens around the world with different players in different African nations. So now we have European nations, and France is going to be the first one that I'm aware of that is going to be utilizing Bitcoin mining in order to make their mining grid more efficient and utilize wasted electricity.

On the surveillance side, because on the AI side we're always been covering it, there was an announcement that Elon Musk—I'll be covering more on Elon Musk in the macro section as well—but xAI announced that it has Grok for governments. Yikes. Their first contract is with the US Department of Defense. While Palantir is using artificial intelligence to do genocide as a service in Gaza, occupation as a service in the West Bank, drones as a service in Ukraine, surveillance as a service in the UK, Hajj as a service in Saudi Arabia, state surveillance and CCTV as a service in Europe, and also pretend border service in America so it can be used against the American people. Now the beta tests are through. You've also got xAI, which is the PayPal mafias: Peter Thiel behind Palantir, Elon Musk behind X and xAI and Tesla and various other massive data centers, and Doge. All of that data in the big beautiful bill can all be consolidated and rolled up and used with contracts at the Department of Defense. Initially, they'll say it's for borders, then they'll use it on you, just like the Patriot Act and various other legislation that can be used so that they can start defending and using and building those social credit scores and various other things. This is why we need decentralized data. Musk is definitely going to be issuing a stablecoin now that they have the Genius Act and will likely be using X data for social credit scoring. More and more banksters are essentially jumping on board these different types of crypto assets. But hopefully, you understand that Bitcoin proof-of-work is your resistance against it, even though with your spending money, you may need to engage in some of these bankster projects.

I guess I've got a list of my little updates from the deep state actors at the proof of weapons network that are now deciding how they can engage in this. So, let's list off some of those projects. This week alone, Standard Chartered launched their spot Bitcoin trading for institutional clients in the UK. The $700 billion Deutsche Bank, which was a product of the Nazi regime after the Bank for International Settlements handed over much of the gold through the Federal Reserve and the closing of the Reichsbank and the opening of the new central bank, and then you had the chosen Deutsche Bank, they're going to be offering Bitcoin as it is now maturing and that pensions and sovereign wealth funds will be the next to allocate funds to Bitcoin and the market. The number one shareholder in the Federal Reserve, JP Morgan, and Jeffrey Epstein's bankster, the CEO Jamie Dimon that settled $280 million with Jeffrey Epstein victims as a result of facilitating this pedophilia network, their company said that they will get involved in crypto stablecoins. They're already involved in stablecoins because they were involved in the lobby money to make sure they were the only shareholder of the Federal Reserve that could offer yield on their stablecoins.

Speaking of the PayPal mafia, the PayPal ex-co-founder Peter Thiel, the Palantir financial terrorist, has now acquired a 9.1% stake in Bitfarms, which is one of the largest Bitcoin mining companies out there. The Bank of America expects to launch a crypto stablecoin, which was reported by Reuters this week. And one of the people that were mentioned in the white paper, Adam Back, that created a company called Blockstream that had a bunch of Bitcoin, has now gone full-on deep state and is engaging with financial terrorists like Howard Lutnick, who created Cantor Fitzgerald, who is the neighbor of Jeffrey Epstein that is deeply connected to Mossad and always sits behind Trump whenever he's handling Trump at important meetings, like his recent comment this week. We'll be covering a bit more about that in the macro section. But anyway, Adam Back has decided that he's going to be launching a new Bitcoin treasury company, BSTR, and it's going to be launching with 30,021 bitcoins that are going to instantly become the fourth-largest Bitcoin treasury company on the New York Stock Exchange. That's a $1.5 billion cash application in funding, and this will make it the biggest SPAC. A SPAC is where you buy a shell public company, then you reverse merge a business into it. What is he doing? He's basically doing Cantor Fitzgerald financial engineering because when you live in the US, you have to go through all these crazy tax structures in order to do a deal. So, while they'll be saying that this is a game-changing company—look, you might get a pump and dump out of it—stick with Bitcoin. You don't need to know any of this stuff, but I want to give you the detail so that you can understand the crazy shenanigans that are being played because TradFi wants your Bitcoin and they don't want you to own it in self-custody. When they want you to do that, you should do the opposite.

Cantor Fitzgerald is raising this $4 billion SPAC deal with Adam Back, using Adam Back's reputation to buy billions of dollars of Bitcoin. This I consider the opposite of the cypherpunk movement and it should be condemned. But why are they actually doing it? I looked a little bit deeper into that. You're doing business with Jeffrey Epstein's neighbor's firm and Trump's Mossad handler, from my perspective, allegedly. I'll give you a little bit more in this week in macro on the connection between everything that's happening with the Epstein files and Trump. But basically, it's a tax incentive. Blockstream, I'm guessing, has a shitload of Bitcoin held by its company. From my understanding, Blockstream is a Canadian company, and what it will probably be doing is transferring the Bitcoin through some kind of mechanism from Blockstream to the SPAC. Then they're hoping the Bitcoin will trade at a premium to the Bitcoin value by having a bunch of pump-and-dump artists that manipulate the price or do whatever they're going to do with the price so that the stock trades higher than the net asset value of the Bitcoin. Then Adam Back or Blockstream or Cantor or whoever can use the stock as collateral, borrow against the stock, and turn a beautiful asset, Bitcoin, into a construct of the debt-based fiat currency Ponzi scheme because it has tax benefits in order to do that, and it will be backed by a stock which has got some Bitcoin in it, essentially constructing a Bitcoin structured product. More and more of these are going to be coming, and they want you to buy their stock with some Bitcoin rather than you just owning the Bitcoin itself. So, you can either be a product of a Bitcoin structure…

Awesome. Right, let's get back right into it. Okay, so I've been warning people against borrowing against their Bitcoin and the risks. I'm not going to go through all of that today. I told you we got a long one on the Bitcoin side today. But Bitcoin-backed loans has now crossed $1 billion in collateral on Coinbase. As this fiat currency product network and structured products through all of this ecosystem is building, people are going to be doing that. Make sure you watch some previous videos on my warnings. Make sure you risk-manage these things, if not avoid these things altogether. I've been given many of these different things.

Hopefully, we're going to play the AI video soon. We're going to go straight into this. My hope is that you understand the difference between self-custody and custody. To try and help you with that, I did a bit of a debate with people that support TradFi, come from TradFi, and some of the cypherpunk movements and people like myself that really encourage self-custody, with also some of the nuance of understanding that there is tax, inheritance, and various other considerations as well. So while I'll tell you what I think you should be doing, at the same time I recognize that there are different types of elements and pension products and various other things. But my hope is that now these acts are passed, there are strong protections for you to be able to self-custody. But I haven't read through everything, and I'm hoping the Twitter sphere of lawyers and FinTwit are going to go out there and make sure that there aren't too many problems in terms of allowing Americans to self-custody.

I've got one more major story to cover in the Bitcoin section. It's a longer section than usual, which is on the Bitcoin strategic reserves. Just before that, I wanted to give a little AI summary of a blog post that I think is going out today. I'm not sure if it's live yet or will be live shortly after this, and we'll link to it in the description. Just to give you a little AI summary of a debate around to self-custody or to custody, so that you can have that educational content. If you want to watch it yourself, the full one with a blog and summary and links to resources, head over to simondixon.com, click on the blog link, and type in "custody" in the search field, or you'll just find it on page one depending on when you're watching this. So, just to give you a little bit of a teaser of the content and the TL;DR for those that don't read it, let's now play the AI summary of to custody or self-custody.

Narrator 1: Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're tackling a really big question. It's technical, sure, but also kind of philosophical.

Narrator 2: Yeah. Once you actually own Bitcoin, how do you store it?

Narrator 1: We're going to dive into this debate that flared up, I think it was July 1st, 2024. And we're using Simon Dixon's blog as a guide. He was right in the middle of it.

Narrator 2: Yeah. And it's fascinating because it really highlights this core tension, doesn't it? It's this battle between keeping Bitcoin pure to its original ideas and, well, making it practical for everyone to use.

Narrator 1: Right. But Dixon's first piece of advice, his constant advice really to you, the listener, is super simple. Just get off zero.

Narrator 2: Meaning, just own some Bitcoin. Anything.

Narrator 1: Exactly. Own any Bitcoin. And you know, the kicker is he's been saying for 14 years, just buy a bit more each month. Simple rule.

Narrator 2: And that simple rule for anyone who's stuck with it for at least four years, Bitcoin has beaten well, every other asset class. That's quite a track record.

Narrator 1: It really is. Okay. So, let's unpack the two main sides of this storage debate. First up, the argument for self-custody. People like Simon Dixon, Dustin Stockton.

Narrator 2: Right? They see self-custody as like vital for the soul of Bitcoin.

Narrator 1: The soul of Bitcoin. What does that mean in practice?

Narrator 2: It comes down to those original revolutionary ideas. You know, money you can actually own, money you can spend without asking permission, and that fixed supply.

Narrator 1: Okay. So, the ownership part is key.

Narrator 2: Absolutely. Because if you use a custodian like an exchange or a bank, you just have an IOU. It's not really yours in the same way. You need their okay to spend it, which opens the door to censorship.

Narrator 1: Precisely. Dixon even calls self-custody a way to boycott what he terms the "proof of weapons network," basically bypassing the traditional financial system, the Fed, big players like BlackRock. And Dustin Stockton had that really powerful story.

Narrator 2: Oh yeah, that was quite something. He was apparently debanked, kicked out of eight banks, he said, for political reasons, and he survived for four years with no bank account. How? He self-custodied Bitcoin.

Narrator 1: That just makes it so real, doesn't it? It's not theory anymore. It shows why self-sovereignty matters, especially if you might face censorship like that.

Narrator 2: It really underscores the point. But then there's the other side, right? The pragmatists, the ones focused on mass adoption.

Narrator 1: Uh-huh. People like Joe Carlasare, Grant Cardone. Their focus is bringing in the next billion Bitcoin users. And for them, that means it has to be easy, low friction, no complex stuff.

Narrator 2: Exactly. Carlasare basically called self-custody a usability nightmare. You know, seed phrases, hardware wallets, he thinks it just scares people off. Those long lists of words can be intimidating.

Narrator 1: Totally. He even brought up Hal Finney's prediction from way back in 2010, suggesting Bitcoin might just end up as like a reserve currency for banks, not something everyone holds directly.

Narrator 2: And Grant Cardone, he seemed pretty frustrated, too.

Narrator 1: Yeah. He shared his own bad experience trying to use hardware wallets. Called them frustrating. And he criticized Bitcoin's marketing, calling it horrific for making newcomers feel dumb with that "not your keys, not your Bitcoin" purity test.

Narrator 2: Ah, the classic line. His point was, look, we need to make it easy to get trillions of dollars into Bitcoin, and things like ETFs, custodial solutions, they do that.

Narrator 1: Okay, so we have these two strong, almost opposing views, ideology versus practicality, security versus usability. How does Simon Dixon suggest you, the listener, navigate this? What's the takeaway?

Narrator 2: Well, he concludes it's not really a binary choice. Not strictly one or the other. It's more of a spectrum.

Narrator 1: A spectrum. And let's be honest, most people starting out, they'll take the easiest path, buying on a centralized exchange, which goes back to his first point.

Narrator 2: Yeah. Just get off zero. Don't let the complexity stop you from starting. Avoid that analysis paralysis.

Narrator 1: Exactly. But here's where Dixon adds a crucial next step, something he thinks is really important for your journey.

Narrator 2: Okay.

Narrator 1: He believes once you own some Bitcoin, you shouldn't just stop there. He really urges everyone to buy a hardware wallet, take some Bitcoin off the exchange, and actually learn how to use it. So it's not just about the security aspect.

Narrator 2: Not entirely. He calls it experiential learning, learning by doing. And he thinks this skill, managing your own keys, your own digital assets, is going to be vital, especially with things like decentralized identity coming, AI, and let's face it, a growing surveillance state.

Narrator 1: Interesting perspective. Learning self-custody is a future-proofing skill.

Narrator 2: Right? So ultimately the right way for you to store your Bitcoin, it probably involves a mix. Diversification. It depends on your situation, taxes, inheritance plans, how comfortable you are with security.

Narrator 1: So this deep dive really shows that storing Bitcoin is about balancing these big principles with, you know, day-to-day reality.

Narrator 2: Yeah. The key message seems to be, don't let the fear of self-custody keep you from starting. Get some Bitcoin first. Get in the door. But then don't let the convenience of just leaving it on an exchange stop you from learning what makes Bitcoin truly revolutionary. Learn how to be sovereign with at least some of it.

Narrator 1: Get in the door, then understand the power. That makes sense. Which leaves a really important question for you to think about. As technology keeps changing, as society shifts, how will your own approach to managing your digital assets, your sovereignty, evolve? Something to mull over.

Okay, I hope you like my little AI buddies giving you a little break from my voice as we do these Bitcoin Hard Talks. I got one more story in the Bitcoin section, and then we're going to go right into this week in macro, and then we've got the final section, this week in geopolitics. Let's go straight into the final story, and this is an interesting one.

If you're a long-term listener of Bitcoin Hard Talk, you'll know that we've shared this journey of America stating that it's going to be having a Bitcoin strategic reserve. What this essentially means is that the Treasury, which is independent of the central bank in the case of the US, can free itself or have an asset of equivalent value to the balance sheet of the central bank in case it ever needs to reform or do some of the monetary reforms that I've been sharing my whole career, even before Bitcoin was created. You can build an asset called a Bitcoin strategic reserve, and when you need to in a time of crisis, you might be able to reshape the financial system and the Fed and implement some of these things like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Thomas Massie have been advocating for over the years from the libertarian side.

America announced, and Trump's entrance into the market was at Bitcoin 2024, and in Bitcoin 2024, this whole concept of doing a Bitcoin strategic reserve led to a bunch of the crypto lobby and Bitcoin lobby giving him tons of money for his campaign. Then he immediately did an executive order to form a Bitcoin strategic reserve, and it was that it needs to be done in a market-neutral way. What that means is they can't take taxpayers' money and print money to buy Bitcoin, which is actually better than printing money to buy weapons in the proof of weapons network, but that's how the proof of weapons network works. But if you can do it in a tax-neutral way, i.e., America's gold is valued at 42 cents from the legacy gold standard system and the post-Bretton Woods pegs when the Nixon shock happened and they decoupled fiat currency from gold, you could revalue it at today's price, which is approximately $3,400, and then you could use that value in order to accumulate Bitcoin, sell down some gold, or you could use a number of different assets in a tax-neutral way. Basically, you can't print money to buy Bitcoin was the executive order.

They've been going through all these different acts first: the Clarity Act, Genius Act, anti-CBDC act as I said. But what they did realize is it didn't require an act of Congress in order to buy Bitcoin in a tax-neutral way, and also to essentially take the seized crypto assets and Bitcoin that the government and Department of Justice has stolen from those that engaged in criminal activity and were tried for that and handed over to the Treasury. I talked a long time ago about how if it's held at the Department of Justice and there's an executive order to hand it over to Treasury, that's like a massive asset off this separate balance sheet. It's not like the government is one monolith; they actually have individualized budgets and balance sheets, and whoever's holding those bitcoins, which wasn't apparently that clear and there needed to be an investigation into that which we haven't seen yet, would have to take billions of dollars, like 200,000 bitcoin, from their balance sheet, and they'd probably prefer to sell it so that they don't have to transfer the bitcoin. There were elements of whether that's happened, and it should be investigated, and that was real speculation on my behalf and whether that was something that they would engage with in doing.

There was essentially an update from the US Marshals Service as a result of a Freedom of Information request, and it was updated on X and people were trying to verify it. Over the last four years, and we don't have all the full details and the blockchain analysis couldn't corroborate it as well, but the US government has essentially sold off almost 80%, approximately 80 to 85%, of all of the Bitcoin strategic reserves that it thought it had. My question immediately was, because I was saying remember America doesn't have all of those 200,000 because 119,000 I can see on the blockchain that were retrieved as a result of a hack, and there was a Department of Justice case where the exchange that was hacked, Bitfinex, that I'm also a shareholder in, I happen to know that those belong to Bitfinex. So it turns out that those coins are still there. So this must be separate wallets, but we don't have clarity even though we got the Clarity Act. So this investigation should happen.

But immediately I asked, what happened to the 119,000 Bitcoin from the Bitfinex hack? Have they sold those? If they have sold them, they owe the Bitcoin. If they owe the Bitcoin, they were essentially short Bitcoin during this massive bull market, and they'd have to buy those Bitcoin back, which is a big problem for the department as well. But they still show on the blockchain, so I know those 119,000 bitcoins are still there. The US essentially admits through this Freedom of Information Act and providing a bunch of data that didn't have blockchain analysis that the US now only holds 28,988 Bitcoin, which is separate to that 119,000 Bitcoin. So the US officially holds 28,000 Bitcoin, which is a massive drop from the previously proposed 200,000+ Bitcoin. This means that America is no longer the largest sovereign nation owning Bitcoin and therefore either has to catch up in a tax-neutral way and buy that Bitcoin, or it won't do that and China is now the largest government holder of Bitcoin reserves in the world because our data shows that China owns approximately 220,000 Bitcoin that they seized from the PlusToken Ponzi scheme.

So America's no longer got that spot. This opens up a game-theoretical scenario that China is essentially the largest government holder of Bitcoin and America has to catch up. They can catch up in a market-neutral way. There is an executive order that apparently allows that to happen without Congress, but at the same time, Cynthia Lummis is trying to get a bill passed which hasn't made priority over the Genius, Clarity, and anti-CBDC acts. So America does not currently have a significant Bitcoin strategic reserve, which means that it doesn't have the strategy to protect itself, which also means Thomas Massie's "End the Fed" bill couldn't be combined with a Bitcoin strategic reserve strategy.

While America and the Trump administration are creating the environment for you to own your Bitcoin, make sure you do what the Trump administration is doing. Follow his money and protect yourself from America, because America is not protected. So you need to protect yourself. You need to understand custody and self-custody and do not rely upon your government. Your government may have a slogan of "Make America Great Again," but when I follow the money, I see backhander deals via stablecoins that are making the Middle East great again, making China's borrowed money be used and invested through foreign direct investment and a bunch of investment in foreign countries with Nvidia, which we'll be covering in the macro section, that is making BRICS great again, making the GCC great again, and some things that might make America great again as long as you own stocks, Bitcoin, and real estate, because they are pumping through fiscal dominance and socialism, quasi-communism, crony capitalism, whatever label you want to put on it. The big beautiful bill is no doubt a stimulus package which is inflationary and will only benefit those that have assets. So make yourself great again, because your government certainly ain't doing that unless you follow the money. The macro is getting worse.

That's going to be everything we do for this week in Bitcoin, part one of Bitcoin Hard Talk, Episode 90. Just before I end and we move into part two, we got a lot more we want to cover. In the macro section, I'm going to be going over what you can learn from the EU and Japan and how that relates to what is next for the US and China just by analyzing those markets and where the proof of weapons network is taking these markets. In part three, we're going to be going through the two stories, which are the connection between the Epstein files and all the drama that happened this week, and everything that happened in the Syrian war and how those are two military operations that connect to the same types of monetary chains.