🇬🇧🇮🇱 The UK & Israel Just Got Regime Changed for the AI Era… While Bitcoin Crashes | Simon Dixon

Hey, hey, sovereign wealth builders. Simon Dixon here, and welcome to another episode of Simon Dixon Hard Talk Live. We are headed to the real regime change, and that is that we've had UK regime change, and I think we're headed for the Israeli regime change as well. We're going to dive into all of that, and we're also going to be diving into the meltdown in the Bitcoin Treasury market, and of course, we're going to be connecting the dots and how you need to protect yourself.

So, this episode of Simon Dixon Hard Talk Live is called "The UK and Israel Just Got Regime Changed for the AI Era." We are moving into the Mick era, or we're moving away from the Mick era, military-industrial complex, over to the Tick era, the technical industrial complex, and that was all while Bitcoin was crashing. How do we interpret that, and what are we meant to do in order to take advantage of this opportunity? Well, we'll be discussing this in two parts.

In part one, as usual, this is a live part of the show. This is where we're going to be discussing the regime, the UK regime change. We're going to be diving deep into UK politics and how it intersects with US politics, and particularly the bond market, the Treasury market. We're also going to be reviewing and actually going back to exactly where we are in the Middle Eastern 5D chess. I've always been saying the Iranians, the Chinese, and BRICS, and the GCC have all been on the same side in order to expel us from the region by partnering with FIC in order to 5D's outmaneuver Mick. So, the financial industrial complex is the Middle East while the technical industrial complex regime change operations happen. So, what does that mean for the military-industrial complex? Well, that's where Europe comes in. And so, we are also going to be discovering the Bitcoin Treasury company meltdown.

And as always, in part two, we can then go over to a new premier video. And that premiere was an interview I did a while back on Bitcoin Archives. We played part one and premiered it on my channel, but we're now going to be doing part two, which was really focusing on the fact that Bitcoin has now effectively crashed below $60,000. At the time of the recording, I was expecting continual weakness and guiding people why it's happening, what's happening with the Treasury companies, what Wall Street is doing, and what to expect over the months and the years ahead. So, this is really the battle for Bitcoin sovereignty, and that's where I was interviewed on Bitcoin Archives with Archie, and that's part two of the interview. So, hang around till the end, and it will redirect you if you're on YouTube, or you can head over to my YouTube channel on Simon, uh, Simon Dixon 21, and you'll be able to see the premiere there right after this live show. Um, and as always, you can get them on my podcast, Apple Podcast, Spotify, uh, or you can watch this on Rumble or X as well.

Right, let's jump right into the UK regime change. A lot of people have been asking me, "Can you tell me what's going on in the UK?" We've had our seventh regime change in the last 10 years because one president or prime minister in the UK serves a particular agenda. Then they get regime changed, and then we move on to the next agenda. And they need you distracted, thinking that if you change the prime minister, then everything's going to change. And they keep giving you a different flavor and a different rotation between the military funding, the technical funding, and the financial funding. So, what does this regime change represent? We're going to be diving in. We're going to be going through also the legislative changes that are happening and how they coincide with what we're seeing in the regime change.

So, why is Britain entering into another phase of likely austerity? What does that mean for you? What does that mean for your investments? Uh, we'll also, as we said, we'll be going through why the Middle East has fundamentally changed already, and our theory and our framework. We're going to be reviewing it that we've been covering over the years. If you're a long-term listener, if you're new, welcome. We'll share the framework. We'll share how I think it's been vindicated and how many of my followers were prepared for it while everyone else is left scratching their heads. Why we've got Iran meeting the UAE, and Iran meeting with Saudi, and this new Muslim nation alliance that has formed that we knew was coming all along, because we were able to follow the money and see the capital flows. Um, and we'll also be covering why Bitcoin treasury companies are becoming increasingly more important in understanding where the market goes next.

So, just before we do that, let's do a little bit of a market check-in. Um, so this week, we had, for the first time, um, since, well, how long ago was it? 2021. Um, Bitcoin has now traded below $60,000. Um, and we'll be diving into that in the next, in the towards the end of this. Uh, gold went below its $4,000 mark at $3,960, and I think it jumped right up slightly. Uh, Bitcoin Treasury Company structured product that we need to follow now, STRC, that was sold as a, you know, kind of like a money market fund where you would get your $100 back as principal plus receive a dividend on it. Well, now that $100 went below $73, and I think it's about $75 now. Thankfully, all my long-term listeners would have avoided this. And now it's kind of become cool to talk about this stuff, but we were covering it when everyone hated us for covering it as well. Uh, the dollar has been strengthening relative to the other Western-aligned currencies, DXY. Uh, it's over $11. Uh, we were expecting a weakening and a return to a dollar weakening strategy into a multipolar world. But ever since the Iran war, it spiked up from $96 to approximately $11. There was significant dollar strengthening ever since the Iran war and US started. And now we've got to get through all of this restructuring of oil. And of course, all oil is priced in dollars. Um, and this is going to take us some time to get through, but in the meantime, WTI, West Texas, um, oil is now and went below $70. Um, and Brent was about $75, which is Brent crude oil in the North Sea, um, of England. Now, all this time, people were paying, you know, Japan was paying approximately $170 for its oil in any kind of relationship it could get through the Strait of Hormuz. Um, but we were watching the bond market and recognizing that this war has to come to a resolution, but it was a bounded escalation based upon following the oil markets and the bond markets.

So, where are the bond markets now? Now that we have signed the deal, the 30-year yield has come back below its 5% to approximately 4.86%. Now, now, remember, the current, the current debt of the US, almost $40 trillion, is paying an average of 3.3%. And so, even at these rates, um, even if they roll over on very short-term Treasury bonds, it's still going to be above 3.3%. And if they do it on the 30-year, it's 4.68%. And in the case of the 10-year, 4.37%, uh, 4.37% rather. So, you know, the yield is going up on the national debt, and that is the problem that we're dealing with here. And so that is having an impact on inflation. We got a print of PCE inflation. PCE is normally lower than CPI, which is consumer price index, and this is what the Federal Reserve actually uses. So, CPI was at 4.2%. PCE is about 4.1%. So, it gives the Fed a little bit of wiggle room to say that the numbers are better. And Kevin Walsh is talking about having a committee installed in order to try and change the definition of inflation.

We had a big correction in the AI trade. Trillions of dollars were wiped off global markets. We've currently got the Korean and the Taiwanese market corrections, and that was after a US market correction, which was led by the AI companies. The SpaceX IPO is now just a little bit higher than the initial IPO price, but it's corrected back a little bit. So, we'll be watching with interest. Uh, that AI trade really is the entire market right now. And you can see that the AI companies are trying to get as much debt and equity capital into these markets, but OpenAI decided to delay its IPO until 2027 due to market concerns at the moment. So, let's see what that actually means.

In terms of Bitcoin ETFs, we continue to have a huge institutional sell-off via the BlackRock ETFs and the other ones. We had, in fact, the largest 30-day outflow from Bitcoin ETFs, and it was a record of about $6.4 billion last week alone. And that is the rotation that we've been talking about, out of the Bitcoin ETF and into the AI trade as well. That was about $233 million of selling pressure and outflows via the ETFs at the same time as some of the things we've been talking around the Bitcoin treasury companies. So, that's giving you a little bit of a flavor of the market. Um, and at the end of this, of course, we'll be saying how you can protect yourself and position yourself through. But let's dive into the main topic right now, the UK regime change.

So, Britain is entering into another managed regime regime change. Um, you know, we've had so many different regime changes in the UK. Whether it be Liz Truss, whether it be Rishi Sunak, whether it be Boris Johnson, uh, whether it be Keir Starmer, each of them performed a very specific function. It was Boris Johnson who was there to enforce the lockdowns, um, and all of the blackmail operations that exist around him and his controversial character. Rishi Sunak, of course, was our ex-Goldman Sachs guy that was the biggest investor through his family in vaccines and Manurva, um, and so he was there to profit significantly from the rollout of vaccines, um, and play along with the narrative, um, that was pushed out there. Notice that Tulsi Gabbard has been actually releasing files now around the bioweapons that were developed in Ukraine, and then Fauci was sending that money over to the Wuhan lab that led to the COVID outbreak. We've now got official confirmation that this was a bioweapon that was developed by the West, um, and lab-grown in China as well, in order to have the plausible deniability story that Trump called, you know, the China virus, and then we had Operation Warp Speed 2.0 to inject everybody with these vaccines.

So anyway, in the UK, the faces change. Then we had Keir Starmer, um, and there was Liz Truss in the middle. Liz Truss was regime changed by the Bank of England after the gilt markets crash. We're going to be discussing the relationship between the UK gilt market, which is UK national debt, um, and the US Treasury and the US national debt as well. Um, but the faces change, the agenda remains the same. They're just paid by slightly different factions of power within the financial industrial complex or the, um, the different, um, you know, complexes that sit underneath it. So anyway, um, I've always said that Starmer represents, in terms of this more aligned faction of power, military-industrial complex first, financial industrial complex third, and technical industrial complex second. So, Mick, Tick, and then Fick in that order. He was always meeting with Larry Fink. We had the different tax policies that destroyed the energy industries in the UK. We also had, um, the civil unrest campaign by fueling up, um, racial tensions, immigration, you know, always having an other to blame with immigration policies, energy policies that discouraged the development of energy from the North Sea, um, and, and also the funding of the Ukraine war and pushing out the narrative, um, that we've seen continually.

And so, remember that if you look at Starmer's background, the reason that I always said that is that he used to be the DPP. And so he would be in charge of prosecuting various people. And who was his biggest target? What made his career? Well, it was prosecuting Julian Assange, which was effectively trying to push allegations of sexual, I won't say it on YouTube, you know, rape claims, um, and pinned them on Julian Assange, while because Julian Assange created WikiLeaks, that was powered by Bitcoin, which exposed the military-industrial complex for much of its crimes against humanity in Iraq, the various funding of ISIS, the various other operations in Syria, um, and all of the Mick whistleblowers that want to anonymously leak documents, you know, like, uh, also, uh, Edward Snowden as well. Um, but anyone that wants to do that, um, it was Starmer that tried to pin these grave claims on Julian Assange. And that later into, you know, turned out that he was innocent of those claims. And he was able to have all those charges dropped. But that was his connection to military intelligence and the military-industrial complex. Remember how these operations work? You have to prove your utility to real power, and then you get to have a role as a politician, and your job is to pretend that you work for the British people while you work for your lobby power. And, um, politicians are, you know, they're not elected, they're installed rather than elected. And so, [clears throat] what was his real role? Well, his real role was to create the narrative that we are defending democracy. So, while the UK is having record levels of dissatisfaction in terms of wealth inequality, in terms of homelessness, in terms of the need for immigrants in order to facilitate a pension crisis, and then creating white nationalist movements, and fueling strategic tensions between these different factions, then having a legal immigration that is able to be weaponized in order to create this strategic tension. While we're having higher than ever suicide rates, drug addiction, homelessness, um, and wealth inequality is really starting to create this environment of constant regime change, he needed to play the role of pretending that we were defending democracy while he sends vast amounts of money over to Ukraine, and then it is siphoned off through these political systems and spent back into the military-industrial complex in order to create these Mick stimulus checks. Um, and that was really his main role. And so that's why you would always have pictures of him hugging, you know, um, the, um, you know, the Ukrainian prime minister, president. I always forget which one it is. Is he a prime minister or a president in this one? Uh, but Zelensky, you know, who was installed via CIA ops after the 2014 regime change that happened, and then the CIA was stoking the war in order to stoke a retaliation from Russia so that America could vassalize Europe into the McFick and Tick, um, while BlackRock was managing its strategic investments in renewable energy and shutting off various forms of nuclear energy, and then making it where those sanctions would lead to the cutting off of the LNG from Russia into Europe, or at least severely making it at a price due to sanctions enforced by Europe where it destroys the economy, destroys the manufacturing base. And then what happened to Germany? Germany then starts taking all of its car production, all of its productive manufacturing base, and now we're getting more and more IPOs into the German military-industrial complex. So, it was to change the region into a Mick stimulus check ahead of the fact that we were going to have the operation in the Middle East that I've been covering. And you could see all of those flows if you were following, you know, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, if you were following their balance sheet, you could see the contracts that were changing in the Middle East and Europe. Um, and moving also towards cybersecurity and artificial intelligence to stimulate the Tick as well.

Well, that phase is becoming politically exhausted. The jig is up. People sense the corruption. People no longer believe that they're defending democracy. People are starting to really figure this out and start to say, "What is going on in our country?" And so, what's the next phase? The next phase belongs to the technical industrial complex, and that is where AI surveillance, sponsored by Elon Musk through nodes like Tommy Robinson, who's paid by Israel, are here in order to manufacture the type of environment where the average Brit starts to become more and more dissatisfied so that they can justify the acceleration of the digital prison that's being built, that was beta-tested in Gaza, is now more and more, you know, the most extreme version was in Gaza, now coming to the UK, spread out across Europe, um, and then implemented most likely through false flags, and border controls, and various other things across the US. And so, this now becomes all about AI surveillance, digital identity, predictive policing. And the best way to do that is to have one of these far-right, while you have the remnants of a left labor leadership. And so, you regime change Starmer so that we move away from this Mick-led order, move to a Tick-led order, manufacture civil unrest and strategic tension. And then you have an uprising from the far-right aligned factions that all work for the same powers, all sponsored by the same lobbies. The end result is you get more P-A-L-A-N-T-I-R contracts, more digital infrastructure, more monitoring, more facial identity, more CCTV, more social division used to justify all of these different changes. You start highlighting, you know, sexual crimes against underage children, you know, grooming gangs, whatever it may be. You then say that all right, the internet now needs you to have an identity in order to use it. You say you're protecting our children, but really what you're doing is you're adding the identity layers that later will be enforced where you have to have the digital ID that is integrated into the CBDC or stablecoin in order to access these processes. And so, um, really, this is a political, um, you [clears throat] know, personalities changing in order to distract people into blaming. All right, that was the Labour party that did this. Now we need this new party, whether it's Reform, whether it's Nigel Farage, whether it's Rupert Lowe, different flavor of the exact same thing. But the infrastructure won't change, the setting will remain, and you'll always be thinking it's those idiot politicians. And maybe you get a few more regime changes on the way up. But the next political cycle really, I think, will be dominated by more civil unrest, and, um, that will be, you know, monetized through the rollout of these large government contracts with these artificial intelligence social credit scores. And so that requires more fear, more division, more media outrage, more algorithmic turning you into the most extreme version of yourself. And you need to control the inputs of your information and make sure that you're not blaming the other, and really allowing the government to be the battering ram, when really the government is just a front for real power, and you vote with your money. And that's why we focus on sovereign strategies, as I cover every single week. Um, but media and outrage will all be used to justify this expanding surveillance power. That's why you have Tommy Robinson, who's paid by Israel. That's why he's partnered with Elon Musk, who's a node of the Tick. That's why you have these ultra-high focus on racial tensions, religious tensions, um, immigration policy, and various other things. Again, I'm not saying that the changes aren't real, but the real reason that these are happening is your World Economic Forum agenda. It's the real corporates that have captured the government that are able to manufacture these different operations as well. And so, don't fall for it. If you think Andrew Tate's going to create something with the Reform Party that's going to change anything, no, he's not. He's there to make Muslims look crazy. He's Nigel Farage is there in order to manufacture the anti-immigration policy. Rupert Lowe is there as an ex-financier to do the same thing. They all need financing, and even if they are not aware of the power dynamics and power structure right now, as soon as they come into power, they will be, because they need the campaign financing. And then as soon as they get into power, Liz Truss, you know, gets a little bit of a meeting with the Bank of England and the bondholders and the lobbies and the real power and the Bank of England and various other factions are able to, you know, soon show them how power actually works if they don't know already, which I'm pretty sure they do. But anyway, they all just become useful political vehicles. And regardless of whether they understand or whether they actually have incentives that drive that type of behavior, or whether they actually need to be in a blackmail operation, nothing stops this train. And it's the same similar power dynamics that is and the same type of thing that's emerging in America right now because, as we've always said, Palantir, via Peter Thiel, groomed JD Vance, whose name is not JD Vance, who had a venture capital fund, who was not a venture capitalist that received $15 million of political funding despite the fact that he wasn't a politician, and he's the one that is being shown as the sane one next to Trump's craziness. Trump gets to make all the profit. JD Vance gets to look like the sane one. And then at the same time, you do a similar strategy on the Democrat side. And you just get a different flavor of the same thing. So, JD Vance is complete, is, you know, repeatedly, you know, and increasingly being represented as the next political phase, which is a Tick node. And so, if you get that in the UK and you get that in America, then you have the European Union, which is captured by the European Central Bank, then you have all of the Bank for International Settlements nodes, and you have this Tick transfer, and normally you do that via central bank digital currencies integrated into stablecoins. And so, what did we start to see? [clears throat] Well, the first thing in order to transition to either a CBDC standard or a stablecoin standard, and one can lead to the other, you just try two different operations. Britain isn't financially sovereign. That's the first thing to understand. It is over, you know, it is at 100% debt to GDP, but at the same time, growth is slowing down. Inflation is rising, which makes, you know, a stagflationary environment. But also, you've got to understand the structure of this debt. The structure of this debt is Britain is no longer a world reserve currency. It can't run the structural twin deficits that the US can, i.e., imports more than it exports in the case of America, and also taxes significantly less than it spends. That is what gives America the ability to have the world reserve currency because it has to continually and always create demand for US Treasuries. And so, that is the nature of the relationship. That transition during and pre-World War I between the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve was the structure and the nature of this sovereign relationship to subordinate the government to its bondholders, to the Bank of England, and the private corporate interest, which was the remnants of the British East India Company that was concentrated and consolidated into its neo-form across BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard today. And so, the biggest misconception in British politics is that British Britain issues its own currency. But as it is not financially sovereign in practice, here's how it actually works. So, the Bank of England has a debt-based Ponzi scheme. There are private four state clearing, four to five clearing banks in the UK: HSBC, RBS, Lloyds, I think they added Metro Bank there. Um, and, uh, what am I missing? Uh, whatever it is, NatWest or something, I forget. But the big four clearing banks with the other additional ones that they've added, as well as the neo ones, they basically get to create the pound, but they get to create the pound every time somebody borrows through a mortgage, through credit card debt, through any type of debt, or any debt restructuring. Um, that is, you know, and then the Bank of England socializes the losses and privatizes the gains, guarantees the system, but the debt has to continue. But as the UK became a vassal state when the Bank of England became less interesting than the Federal Reserve because GDP determines how many shares you get in the Bank for International Settlements. The UK separated the City of London, where all the banks and the Bank of England are, from the UK. That's its own jurisdiction. It is independent of London and the rest of the UK. And so, but the UK depends heavily on leverage, US capital buying of British gilts. And remember what I said, ETFs, the now that 50% of markets are controlled by ETFs are the new way of subordinating governments. And BlackRock is the largest issuer of many of those ETFs. But it is the leverage US capital that buys British gilts that makes Britain subordinate to US bondholders and the US capital markets. What happens is that you have institutions that borrow dollars, and BlackRock has several funds of leveraged loans to borrow the dollars in order to purchase the UK bonds. So, the institutions are able to borrow those dollars. Now, remember that can be connected to the Japan carry trade, where they can get 0% money from the Bank of Japan. They can then lever it up and hedge out the currency risk between the Bank of Japan and the Fed and the dollar JPY. They can then use that as collateral to get a leveraged loan. With that, they can use those dollars, which are continually strengthening against the pound in general, to hedge out some of the currency risk, do some FX swaps between the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England to create more eurodollars, and then they can use that in order to buy UK debt in order to get a basis trade, and then they can do that on a riskless basis using these arbitrage, but they use the gilt then as collateral, and then they can expand the leverage. And so, the UK is a collateralized debt obligation, that is where the losses are socialized, and the gains are privatized through this too big to fail collateralized leverage debt obligation. And so, you can take the gilts, then use it as leverage in order to expand more leverage and just repeat the cycle again and again and again, and use the UK government as the collateral in order to pull out any of these returns and concentrate wealth and make the UK subordinate to bondholders. And so, this really makes Britain a complete dependency upon the American balance sheet. And so, the American balance sheet becomes very significant. It's not British savers that are purchasing the vast majorities of these gilts. It is, in fact, US leverage and access to the markets and the connection between the central banking markets. So, that's why every incoming prime minister within the UK, they have a plan. They may be giving all of these promises. They may know how the power structure works. They may not know how the power structure works. But they then suddenly meet the gilt market and they realize how they need to be subordinate to a Fick agenda, a financial industrial complex agenda, which rotates between Mick and Tick at the moment. And so, below the Fick, you have military-industrial complex, technical industrial complex. You can manage those portfolios. And that's the transition we're going through right now. It was Liz Truss that found this out in the most obvious way, that it really demonstrated how quickly markets can remove a government and regime change. And now we're getting that very same regime change as we move from Mick to Fick, sorry, Tick. Now, the way you do that is, as I said, you put a leftist labor leadership, regime change a previous one, have all eyes on the new one, which we're being told is Andy B, Andy, Andy Burnham, is the new person that apparently we, the UK, is meant to have. It's been regime changed to. And then you create a far-right alternative movement that you draw more and more attention to. So, whether it be Nigel Farage or it be Zack Polini, whoever comes next faces basically the same structural problem. So, it doesn't matter who you get, and that is that the United Kingdom, as a government, and as even monarchy, is subordinate to the City of London, which is its separate jurisdiction, and that's Britain's real economy, and it has been weakening for decades because power shifted from the Bank of England to the Fed, which is really the structural shift that we've been seeing ever since World War I, which is the same shift that the Fed is putting America through now that it's maxed out on its debt-to-GDP ratios. And we have hit extinction levels in terms of birth rates in both the UK and America, and across Europe, and across Western colonized parts of Asia. And really, the birth rates are only really happening in the Middle East, in Southwest Asia, in some of the Muslim countries, and then also in Africa. And so, really, you know, these demographic changes, which is why we're seeing so much strategic tension around these immigration policies, which are the remnants of the wars that Fick profits from when they fund both sides as well. And so, the City of London has essentially become embedded inside of the US dollar system ever since Britain, the Bretton Woods, you know, collapsed, and that was the post-World War II order, then we moved to the petrodollar, and then that came off the gold standard, and that's when we entered into the eurodollar, Japan carry trade, and petrodollar system, all of which are being systematically dismantled. Now, if you move the UK into austerity and you crash some of the various assets through tax policy, then you can asset strip the UK, get all of that value back into the US liquid markets, and then manage via ETFs and currency regimes the switch to a multipolar order. And so, that's the operations that we're currently seeing right now. American capital again borrows dollars. That American capital, then with the borrowed dollars, buys the UK gilts. It then uses the UK gilts as collateral. It uses your money to structure it into a fund. Then it has leverage funds, and then they lever up more as we enter into more of these pension crises, which then requires immigrants to come in in order to facilitate more tax to pay for the aging population as a result of the boomers retiring. And then you keep basically monetizing all of this leverage, getting fees on all of these collateralized debt obligations, and Britain's sovereignty it complacently depletes and is maintained over time by increasing needs to asset strip the country, fully subordinate to the Fick, that creates more strategic tension as the wealth inequality in the K-shaped economy accelerates. Operate, and then you monetize that through either military operations, the police and surveillance state, which requires technology. So, that's a cycle. Fick to Mick to Tick is what we're going through. But nothing stops the train in terms of my outlook for the UK, and same across Europe as well. Austerity will likely continue. If you enter into a stagflationary environment, then there may even be an IMF bailout. IMF bailout connected to again, transnational capital, which is why the Ukraine war was all funded via collateral from the Bank of England through the IMF and Russia. The IMF and BlackRock will end up with all the assets through the strategic operation, which is why the CIA escalated, agitated Russia in order to destroy Europe, and move towards this operation that we've seen. And then the Mick gets to test new weapons in Ukraine on Russia. And the Tick gets to integrate their technology into these drones until the last Ukrainian, when they've all either left the country, or there's no one left to fight, in which case you then get a rebuild contract phase based upon the outcome of those operations. So, Starmer was there in order to allow that to happen. You know, uh, you know, Boris Johnson was there in order to do the lockdowns. Rishi Sunak was there in order to profit from the vaccines. Liz Truss was there in order to be regime changed by the bond market when she tried to do something. And then we ended up with Keir Starmer, and now, which is the Mick node, and now we need to move over into a Tick node, and the foundation has been set. So, expect higher taxes. Millionaires and billionaires have left, which reduces tax revenue. So, that means you tax higher on those that are left. You get reduced benefits from those that are on the benefits. You get a stagflationary environment, highly likely with low growth rates and higher inflation, and the only way to fix that is through AI robotics unemployment, which pushes through the police and surveillance state. You basically get lower living standards, which has been the trend, and the politicians keep changing in order to, you know, excuse the change and make you think that all we need to do is change the politicians, while the trajectory never actually changes.

So, what else did we have in the UK? Well, there was an announcement around ISA changes. ISAs are Individual Savings Accounts in the UK, and what they do is they give you tax benefits for saving and consuming fake project products. The UK has now confirmed that the taxation of interest earned on cash on any cash inside stock and share ISAs from April 2027 is now going to be increasing, and so the cash and ISA allowance for that is now going to be removed in 2027. We also had windfall taxes on energy. We also had massive changes around real estate in order to encourage institutional ownership of real estate but discourage people from owning their own houses and renting them out. So, you will own nothing and be happy. What does that mean? Sell your assets or hold them in custody with Fick, and then by manufacturing an inflation crisis or cost of living crisis, you then get replaced with a universal basic income where you're happy because you don't have to necessarily work. AI takes your job. That's what you will own nothing and be happy. Um, we also saw that the cash ISA allowance is being reduced. So, the amount you're able to contribute to your ISA and get tax exemption, that's all being reduced. The government is gradually closing basically every avenue available to savers with the exceptions of those that are able to structure their life around some kind of institutional structure as well. This is happening across real estate, across energy, across savings. And in the end, the Fick sends the private equity sharks in in order to acquire those assets on the cheap and asset strips the country further and further and further. Um, we also had an announcement this week around a change in policy. So, we had new regulations around crypto in the UK, but suddenly we get a reversal around stablecoin policy. Surprise, surprise, an essential Tick node. So, while the Bank of England works on its CBDC policy, while the digital euro accelerates the CBDC, in case it's not ready to implement that, you have to slowly implement it. In the meantime, you build privatized programmable money through stablecoins, and the financial and technical industrial complex is able to, you know, build and slowly roll out that programmable money. So, Bitcoin, basically, sorry, Britain has simultaneously relaxed its stablecoin rules because what is programmable money or stablecoins? What are they backed by? Well, it's becoming the infrastructure in order to roll over the debt and integrate with some of the social credit scores and AI in things that are being built. But what are stablecoins backed by? They're backed by government debt. In the case of a pound stablecoin, gilt. In the case of a US stablecoin, US government treasuries. And that US government can then, through regulations like the GENIUS Act, be used by taking your reserves at the Fed and issuing a stablecoin against it. So, this is to lever up the system in the back end while having full reserve on the front end, which incentivizes you to full reserves. You still have fractional reserve in the central banking system, but you have full reserve on the front end with programmability. And then you can encourage people and do different payouts, bailout schemes, helicopter money, whatever it may be, using these stablecoins and CBDC. And that is leading into regime change that is to favor the [snorts] the Tick. And so, who benefits from all of that government debt? Well, as we said, it is mainly done through these leveraged ETFs. And so, BlackRock is able to create more of these leveraged ETFs. And then they're able to tokenize them, and then they're able to use stablecoins as well in that as well. That means that they custody the asset, and you get the token, and so you will own nothing and be happy, ready for the UBI rollout, which encourages adoption of either stablecoins or CBDC, which then can be used as collateral for that capital, capital in order to asset strip further and further and concentrate wealth upwards. And so, this really, the Tick provides the AI, the surveillance, the digital identity, all of the excuses to roll it out. The predictive policing, which is where, you know, we had protests and various other things. Now we're getting more and more about quantum computing as well, which is the pinnacle, you know, the pinopticon or the octagon, the digital octagon, whatever we call that, of the programmable money and the and the control grid. And so, together they build a programmable strategy, and then you back it by the debt, the gilt, so that the bondholders control the government. And then you asset strip into the private sector, into those own assets, which are then controlled by the asset managers. This is the full Fick cycle. And so, CBDCs aren't really the only route to do it. You can do it via the central bank, or you can do it via the large technical companies or the financial houses as well.

So, [clears throat] we had an announcement by on the US side, switching gears slightly, that the US House has put together an act that essentially will delay a Federal Reserve CBDC until 2030. So, they're giving stablecoins a head start while CBDCs can happen in 2030. What they don't say is that the Fed already has a wholesale CBDC called FedNow for clearing between the banks. Now, that can be rolled out in retail by 2030 after getting stablecoin adoption. And so, it's not stopping a CBDC, it's delaying a CBDC while you have the privatized stablecoin version. But it doesn't stop the architecture persisting because you had the GENIUS Act and likely the CLARITY Act as well after that. So, stablecoins and tokenized treasuries and digital identity and private payment rails are all producing basically the similar outcome, but just a different beneficiary and a different structure of getting there.

So, we started, we saw some announcements from Trump around investing into quantum war. And so, Trump has accelerated quantum computing. This is basically billions of dollars that are now going to be flowing into quantum infrastructure, and that is a stimulus check for Tick. At the same time as the government investing in Intel, stimulus check for semiconductor chip manufacturing, domesticating, and agencies are basically participating for the post-encryption security model. I've talked about quantum-resistant addresses in Bitcoin. You can check out my blog on simonixon.com. But this has impacts on some of the early Bitcoin wallet addresses, and then the different phases that need to go as quantum becomes another pillar alongside AI, digital identity, social credit scores, surveillance, stablecoins, and CBDCs. And quantum really is the endgame control grid that has enough power as a result of this. Now, what do you need? Where's the energy going to come from? Well, that was the SpaceX IPO. SpaceX, and we're starting to see similar structures built out in different nodes in Japan and South Korea as well. So, while these markets are at these inflated rates, we're seeing a lot of fundraising action. So, SpaceX got the $2 trillion IPO out there, that gives it what's known as an ATM, where your stock can print money through stock to acquire company through securities. Then you do a debt offering, which subordinates it to corporate debt bondholders. And SK Hynix, one of the big AI infrastructure players within South Korea, is now raising the fifth largest IPO. Now, relative to what we've seen with many of the SpaceX IPOs, it kind of looks small, but it's still huge. These are numbers we've never seen before. That's accelerating what I said, the liquidity drain that we talked about, where liquidity that would have been invested in other things, i.e., Bitcoin ETFs. Many of the institutions using BlackRock's Aladdin technology for scenario planning is allowed to engineer sell Bitcoin, manufacture treasury company weakness, release some of the Epstein files around operations to infiltrate Bitcoin and make everyone sell their Bitcoin, get as much of it leveraged in perpetual futures or margin-called collateralized Bitcoin loans so that you can concentrate coin as possible. That's the long-term operation we've been saying, and the liquidity drain really accelerates that, which is why you're getting corrections in the price of Bitcoin to fool you into selling your Bitcoin so it ends up in a Bitcoin treasury company, and some of the things that we've been covering. So, SpaceX is now, rather than just doing the equity raise, it's reported it's now trying to get out another $20 billion of debt, and we were told that that's 5x oversubscribed. So, the demand for these debt instruments is still there, which is a reflection of the fact that now everyone's passive investing into these ETFs. The debt creates more dependency. The equity basically creates more dependency on BlackRock and the ETF, and this is increasingly more funded by Pentagon contracts, which provides the revenue that's needed in order to create these SpaceX dependencies, and then that's providing a lot of the infrastructure that's needed for the energy to power all this quantum and all this AI and all these data centers. And so, now you have bondholders ultimately able to, you know, control the future in combination with the institutional shareholders, and Elon's incentivized through its share price and share options and the upside, and the shareholders get to control the narrative in order to create the AI arms race that justifies the money printing that will eventually happen through QE and the additional government spending in order to get the money to stimulate the stock price, leave the debt, the national debt on the average American person, and transfer all the wealth through fiscal dominance into the asset holder. And then the owners of the infrastructure is Fick in the end. They beef up their balance sheet with the actual assets, while you end up with the token or the security as well. As I said, SK Hynix is now raising approximately $29 billion into these liquidity rotations, and that is ginormous AI capital, which is, you know, it's going to continue for a while now. Interestingly, OpenAI delayed their IPO. That was the announcement, but now we're getting into Anthropic and various other parts of the ecosystem. So, liquidity is being drained and fully integrating, and we had a big correction in AI securities, which is how you concentrate wealth higher up into these chains as well. And that really is what's causing a lot of the price correction in Bitcoin. Now, you circumvent that by having a longer-term strategy. And the more fiat currency you own in order to buy Bitcoin at cheaper prices when you're dollar-cost averaging every month means that you get to have more Bitcoin as we get through this cycle. And the longer it goes for, the longer you get to accumulate, and we'll be covering that in the end. Now, that's everything I wanted to cover in the UK, how it connects to the US market, and the regime change operations, and what it means as we transition, you know, from Mick-led to Tick-led as the new weapon that Fick is monetizing.

Now, I want to switch attention into the next regime change operation. So, I've long forecasted that after you get the changes that were a partnership between Iran and the Gulf countries.

Backed by China, um, that were able to exert influence over Fick, where the FIC can then regime change from Mick to Tick in the Middle East and therefore provide a lot of their energy into a multipolar world as a large Chinese and tickled, um, global control grid is built. Is my longer-term zoom out what is happening here? Um, when we zoom into those operations like the UK regime change, I've always said that the next part, when the Strait of Hormuz opens and the Iran, um, war moves to this next phase, which it is right now, then we move to Israel regime change. And the Israel regime change will be moving Israel from a thick node to asset stripping all of its tick assets that will be acquired and integrated into the GCC. That will then allow for the rise of a Palestinian state and, uh, a Gulf-led order that is normalized with Iran and backed by China. That requires the expulsion of the US and the changing of the world order that FIC is on board with in order to invest into multipolarity. And that is really the Middle Eastern thing that we've been covering for years now, time and time again. And so that is the core analytical framework, um, that I've been sharing. So let's look at really the recent developments and review exactly what happened this week and what has happened. I think everything is validating the framework.

Now, if you've been joining me on spaces, you'll know that for the years, both on this show and many of the spaces, um, I've been debating, I've been violently opposed, I've been ridiculed and called everything under the sun, forgetting people years ahead of exactly what is happening now. And those people that were saying Israel rules the world, they're all like, you know, and the Z, you know, the Zionists control all the Gulf countries. They're now saying they can't make sense of what is actually happening. They're like, "All right, so the Gulf countries are normalizing with Iran and a new framework is being built between Turkey and Egypt and Pakistan and Iran and the Gulf countries, and now they're leaning into BRICS infrastructure, and the US bases are being..." I thought Israel ruled the world. Turns out that when the timing is ready, as I always told people, that Fick, uh, and Mick can introduce via their US relationships regime change within Israel because it is a plausible deniability operation, but it is to launder money back to power that is hosted on the US markets. And so I think this really vindicates now. I think personally, everything that people are watching, more and more people are saying it now that it's becoming very clear that this is the power dynamics and power structure. And so, um, this really, I think, validates what we've been covering. And, you know, if it didn't, then I tell you what I got wrong because I only care about accuracy. I don't care about popularity. I don't care about what is the popular narrative. You know, I was sharing people about Israel when it was very, very unpopular. Now it's very, very popular. And I'm sharing the real power dynamics of that, which is very unpopular. And in another couple of years, it will become apparent. Um, and me saying that the Gulf countries were working with Iran, that upset people that are pro-Iran, that upset people that are pro-Zionist, that upset people that for some reason have a weird belief or, you know, are connected to some kind of dominatrix that Israel controls them. Um, and, and, you know, all of these different narratives. And all I've been trying to share is what I think is factually accurate, whether it's popular or not, because with accuracy, we can get ahead. Now, everyone else is reporting this as it happens, but we've been covering this for a long time. And so I think events are leading towards what we've been saying for a long time, which is a negotiated regional reconstruction, set of reconstructions that changes the world order.

Uh, when I was debating people like Professor Jang, you know, he was in our debate respectfully. He was saying that Israel is going to blow up Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Muslims are going to be then in World War II, and then China is going to get involved, and Russia's going to get involved. Um, and, uh, you know, everyone was really saying, and then Israel's rules the world, and they're going to do the Samson Option, and then we're going to move to nuclear war. You know, that was the main dominating projection if you don't understand the power dynamics. And many people are really holding on to that belief. Now, if I was completely wrong, then I'd adjust because I want to be able to, in a world of imperfect information where I'm not connected to intelligence agencies, I don't have access to information that the world leaders do that are negotiating and managing these these shifts, as well as the private corporate interests that can manage these operations. Um, but I'm using and analyzing with you in real time where I think this goes. And I think I've been vindicated. Um, and I think that I got a lot of people ahead of this stuff. And I think it took a lot of stress off people because they weren't constantly trying to manage for World War II while everyone else was whipping them up into a frenzy, um, and making them feel powerless because they're dominated by this undefeatable Israel that apparently controls everything. Uh, and then, and then, you know, it gives them an excuse not to do anything because this power is too great, and they don't become sovereign, and they don't put together a 10-year plan, and they don't get ahead. They don't start to understand that you vote with your money, and they start trying to change your political process, and they're in the cycle of working for power, whether they know it or not. But the war was never the endgame. Um, we were predicting that the endgame is the new regional architecture that is being set up right now. That is set up around diplomacy, negotiations, pragmatism, um, reorganization of world order. Destruction where it is needed, and rebuild where it needs to be negotiated so that we can move into an environment of mutual trade, mutual investment. And the framework that we used in order to get there was, um, something that, um, there was a brilliant video that brother Shahed Bolson released, um, on the Middle Nation channel, uh, where he went through this, all of the factors of this controlled demolition framework. Um, I've been a student when it comes to Middle Eastern, um, politics, of Shahed for a while. Um, and, uh, this whole controlled demolition, um, and this new regional order. He released a video where we reviewed it. I'm going to go through many of the things, um, that were covered in that video as well. But basically, the managed transition towards a multipolar system, and basically this internal struggle that was happening with Iran that was aligned with China, um, between the different factions of power within, um, Iran, and that is the pragmatists, we, um, you know, the pragmatic side, and really the hardliners. Now, hardliners is weaponized by the West as a, you know, a propaganda term to make it out like, you know, the Islamist terrorist or whatever, which are often funded by intelligence agencies in order to achieve geostrategic goals. And people think it's something to do with religion or whatever the soldiers may be there, uh, but the leaders are doing it for geopolitical resource extraction, change of order type of things, often funded by the West, by the way. Um, but hardliners, I define as somebody that wouldn't be on board with the plan for ideological reasons. And so therefore, they would never be on board a more pragmatic plan, uh, because maybe they got belief systems that state that can't happen, uh, for whatever reason. And those hardliners are in Israel as radical Zionists as well. They're also in America as evangelical Christians, radicals as well, as well as some of the hardliners in the Shia, um, IRGC aligned factions that may hold belief systems that would never put them in line with a plan. And so the hardliners would resist the plan. And they're mainly inadvertently or advertently serving a Mick agenda, the forever war model in the Middle East. You know, the hardliners in Iran alongside the, um, hardliners in Israel alongside the hardliner neocons in America justify trillions of dollars of forever war spending by having a continual narrative of strategic tension that justifies the war. And so within these regional power structures, we, I believed, um, and this framework believed, and the Major Nation analysis believed that the pragmatists aligned with China, um, were aligned with the Gulf countries, and they were able to exert, um, um, leverage over transnational capital and the Fick, who were on the same page, but they needed a war in order to transition to a maligned version of the hardliners in Israel, IRGC, and America. And that was the operation. And in order to achieve that, it required China and Fick powers via Trump to negotiate, um, you know, based upon whatever covert signals or whatever, um, but an agreement that World War II was not practically possible. And then so we enter into the Trump administration. Remember, Trump was always paid off by the Gulf. People focused on his Israeli funding. That was to radicalize, and then the media would then expose Israel for what it is. Meanwhile, Jared Kushner, via Affinity Partners and Capital, has been paid off by Saudi Arabia to the tunes of billions through an investment fund called Affinity Partners. They then set up through the envoy Steve Wickoff in the Middle East, and Jared Kushner, and the Trump family, World Liberty Financial crypto project that's 49% owned by UAE in order to siphon off stable coin-backed funds for the Trump family. Those blackmails effectively made Trump a puppet for real capital, which was significantly greater than the lobby money he received from Mick, Tick, and Fick, and Israel. And so the strategy was, I believe, led by Fick in partnership with the Gulf sovereign wealth funds who had normalized with Iran via China, that was purchasing all of the energy. Um, an agreement between OPEC members and Western private corporate big oil and big LNG, um, basically engineered what we witnessed with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But the end result is that it would need vast amounts of reconstruction capital across Gaza, across Lebanon, across the Gulf countries, and across Iran. And so by basically, um, reconstruction capital would end up replacing military intervention as the primary mechanism for exerting influence over the region, i.e., replacing the forever war model with regional stability based upon reconstruction contracts. And so that was the Islamabad Accord. And that negotiation was happening before the war, I believe, even during the Trump administration, one with the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and the kind of weak attack, return attack, um, from Iran, and then the slow movement through up to October the 7th, and the slow removal and weakening of the resistance factions, um, and the regime change internally within Iran with helicopters that fell down, decapitation campaigns, and part of that would have been outsourced, as crazy as it sounds, to America to destroy the infrastructure, Iran to destroy the infrastructure within the Gulf, and Israel to engage in the decapitation campaigns with an exit narrative, and Israel ending up significantly weaker at the end of it, and regime change afterwards, once Trump changes his narrative.

Now, how were we able to cover that before it actually happened? Well, because we were following the money. Now, we didn't get all the details right. You know, you can't follow every step and get to that. It's the directional momentum that I believe has been spot on. And so, what did the memorandum of understanding? Well, we covered this last week, but let's recap the key elements, um, that are actually in it, and what's changed this week that kind of shows us that we're moving in this direction. Well, there was an immediate and permanent termination of military operations across all fronts, and including Lebanon. Now, that has happened in Lebanon, but there is continual destruction and bombing that is happening. Now, I prophesied that maybe Israel and Hezbollah are going to be able to strategically weaken each other, and potentially there'll be a retaliation from Iran to exert and blow its final weapons for more reconstruction contracts, or that doesn't necessarily need to happen. Um, and we, and the, the agreement holds here. So either way, it's not an escalation that destroys theou. The agreement will be signed. The deal will be done. There were negotiations before the war, during the war, and after the war. And all that were negotiating are still alive today. The ones that wouldn't be on board the plan are not with us today. So, um, [clears throat] so what do we end up with at the end of this? Well, the end, we end up with a mutual respect for sovereignty, um, and, uh, that was part of theou and, um, non-interference clause. Now, let's look at that. What does that mean on US? That effectively means the operation is over. So theou states that the US will not interfere in politics. Now, on the Iran side, they haven't done anything in US interfere in Gulf politics, interfere in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, Israel side. And so if we're removing all of that, what does that effectively mean? It means that you are trading resistance for regional stability and investment contracts. And that's what I believe will be signed in the end deal. Now, it won't be explicit, uh, but Lebanon is one way of getting that, uh, to actually happen. Um, and so Hezbollah is still there right now. That's the current state of, um, the current state. But the US has now committed, uh, to lift the blockade and not interfere in Iranian politics. That's the exact set of circumstances that are needed. Like Iran never interfered in US politics. So that doesn't mean anything. So effectively, that clause means US isn't going to be interfering in Iranian politics politics anymore. Um, now, in exchange for the removing of the blockade from the US side, Iran guarantees, um, commercial passage through the Strait of Hormuz, but that's for the next 60 days, and it's going to be without a fee. Now, prior to this, there were fees charged in Bitcoin, um, or Chinese yuan. Um, and the stable coin fees were, um, frozen by Scott Percent under Operation Economic Fury and Operation Epic Fury. Um, but now for the next 60 days, there'll be no fee. Now, we're getting this whole argument between Rubio saying there'll be no fee, and, uh, Iran saying we'll be charging a service charge, uh, to guarantee safe passage, which is different from a toll, which is even if there's no safe passage on there. So we're arguing over semantics. My prediction is that there will be some kind of fee at the end of it because I believe that's part of changing the world into multipolarity. And so once you start charging on the Strait of Hormuz, then we'll, we'll look at other ones that can do that as well. Um, so that's being debated back and forth, and we're getting a bit of theatrics. Trump saying it will never be charged. Um, I believe it will in the end of it. Let's see if that, uh, works out. Um, the Iran nuclear program has just completely remained as the status quo. Um, and the final negotiations will define it. That's what we've always seen. Um, the nuclear program was always the front narrative for the military-industrial complex. And so whether that stays or goes, it will be phased out over time because it kind of holds people onto the return for war if things aren't going back. If, uh, I don't think it will. Um, but, you know, that's kind of hold on to the narrative, maybe. Um, Iranian oil exports, um, will be, will continue through US waivers. Um, and frozen investment assets are due to be released. We've had a whole load of back and forth. Apparently, we've had some money and not other. Um, but the waivers on sanctions, uh, are that we've had many, many shipments from Iran, uh, that have left the Strait of Hormuz. Now, we've had some from Qatar, um, but also the removal of sanctions on prochemicals. So this is a mechanism for removing sanctions in exchange for investment contracts that will most likely come from the GCC. GCC influenced Fick. Fick influenced Mick. Trump was able to create the current political narrative. And the reason he wasn't able to say what was coming next is because he probably didn't know. He was getting instructions. He's not the governor. He's the middle management, the communication of the US narrative. And so the infrastructure that was destroyed, likely being driven by the Gulf countries, and Iran was retaliating by destroying US infrastructure in the Gulf countries, which benefits China, that throughout this whole thing stopped importing oil. So it couldn't have been about choking off China, and they were controlling the price of oil because China knew about what was happening in Venezuela, what was happening in Syria, and what was happening in Iran, and the trade war all ahead of time, because before the trade war, they stopped purchasing oil and LNG from America. And now returning to that is is a return to the status quo. So it's quite clear that either they had intelligence that knew about it, or there's a degree of coordination between factions of power and trading into these trade wars.

So, um, in the announcement was a reconstruction contract worth hundreds of billions of dollars is established. And I said last week, whoever pays for it, and what I've been saying constantly is, whoever pays for it sets a world order. Uh, now that determines how much power does FIC have, and how much power does GCC have, because I reckon it's going to be predominantly GCC. Um, there was also, uh, future reductions in US military presence near Iran, and that's built into the agreement as well, which is a strategic retreat of America to a regional power. And so what's the current situation that we have today, this week? Well, we have Hezbollah that has remained in Lebanon, and that is despite anou that is calling, uh, for the end of all of the different operations within Lebanon. The further Israel goes, the more it violates it, the more negotiation power F has. So that means Israel is no longer working for Mick in this sense. It is now working for Fick. Israel says it's not, um, bombed by part, you know, it's not bound by parts of the agreement. So that's, uh, allowing leverage to continue. Israel remains heavily dependent upon the US for military support, for arms, um, transfers, uh, and for diplomatic backing. And so Israel can be dumped in a second. Um, the, so Israel clearly is, you know, that's the power dynamic there with Mick and Fick there. The Gulf states, um, basically increasingly, um, hold all of the reconstruction capital. The only one that can afford this capital is China, Fick, and the Gulf sovereign wealth funds. And the Gulf sovereign wealth funds are going to be the one that are going to be creating the economic influence and shaping the region's future instead of Mick and the forever war in Israel. So we got lots of announcements. We had an announcement and a meeting last week that Egypt is hosting meetings, um, and that was done between Pakistan and Qatar and the GCC, um, and many of the representatives. There were meetings between UAE and Iran. There were meetings between Saudi and Iran. There were representatives with the GCC, Pakistan, Qatar meetings with Iran as well. And suddenly we're moving towards what I talked about a long time ago, that Turkey would provide the US military-industrial complex manufacturing base, Pakistan the nuclear might, Saudi the capital, UAE the purchasing of Israeli assets, Yemen controlling the strategic ports, Iran and Oman controlling the strategic ports, an agreement and investments in those ports with Gulf Capital to set the order, um, with a US strategic exit and new defense agreements with China, Israel, and Egypt that provides the military might and the, and the very advanced, um, you know, physical ground and based military, which Turkey also contributes to. So now you got Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi, GCC, UAE, Iran all doing agreements together. The part that nobody said could happen, because they were say Iran was at war with UAE, UAE was at war with Iran. And now they're kind of saying, oh, right, they're just negotiating on the fly based upon reality. No, there was 5 DJs being played, and it wasn't by Trump. It was by the region, and this was a new regional order in order to change it. And Washington is, as part of this, becoming increasingly frustrated by Israel. Everyone told me that can't happen because Israel has full control over America. But what we haven't heard from is is Gaza yet. And so I believe that it will start with Lebanon being the leverage. Then we'll move into that framework being used in Gaza, which will be GCC controlled for both, and GCC capital, um, while we enter into broader regional settlements, and that they're being negotiated, set the framework. And then while JD Vance, and even Hillary Clinton was talking about how bad the US-Israel relationship is, and how they tell them what to do, and Trump's doing it, and JD Vance is doing it, like the things that people said are based upon their understanding of power dynamics, they're not allowed to say because they're Epstein filed or whatever. Now, this is showing the real structure. What did Trump say? He started talking about US, Syria, and Lebanon. We covered this a bit week as well. Uh, there was Trump's comments on Syria that was, uh, basically saying that Israel can't manage this Lebanese situation. Instead, it should be Syria managing the affairs. What is that? Think about it. Everyone else was saying that Syria's Israeli puppet because Galani's ex-ISIS, and I said no, Galani was paid for by Turkey and GCC, and he's a placeholder while the new order is being set up to represent Turkey and GCC interests. Now we're seeing that, and now people are starting to realize that Syria is controlled by GCC and, uh, Turkey interest with a negotiation for Israel that used to be Mick Forever War is now Fick Regional Stability. And now people are thinking suddenly everyone's changing, and Egypt's exerting power. I said, no, Egypt right at the beginning on October the 7th started pushing back against US IMF bribes. They were bribed to pay off their IMF debt of $18 billion. Egypt said no. It took, uh, Gulf money. It took China Belt and Road Initiative money. And everyone was telling me, "Yeah, but Egypt's a vassal state for America, and so is Lebanon." I was saying, "Yes, Lebanon is, but that's why we're having change here." And that's why, uh, Egypt is no longer because they didn't ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. And people were stuck on old narratives of America dominates the world and Israel controls America. So they got all the interpretations wrong. Um, basically, when you look at what's happening there with Syria, is that you're basically replacing a GCC-backed Syria that used to be an Iran-backed and Iran-influenced Assad regime across the entire Levant through Hezbollah in Lebanon, through the Hamas in Gaza, and through the Houthis in Yemen. But the Houthis signed an agreement with Saudi. Um, Lebanon's now negotiating the agreement with Hezbollah. Uh, Iraq has been, you know, pretty much changed. And, uh, now Iran is signing a deal, which means that there's no longer need for resistance. Resistance is only needed if Israel rules the world. Israel doesn't rule the world. And that's what we're about to see. Um, and so influence is gradually changing from Iran, you know, um, managed networks that were there to lift sanctions and get negotiation leverage, to sanctions now being lifted. The leverage removing there, which no longer means that there's no, there's no justification for Israel, and Israel can't add value to Mick. So it has to add value to Fick and Tick, which requires regional stability, and then regime change in Israel. So it's moving from Iran-led countries to actual state sovereign integration of those resistance into the state armies and the state political systems, which are effectively controlled by GCC-managed regional integration, um, and the rails that have been built. That will also have investment contracts into, um, into, uh, Iran. And so all I interpreted this is that the players are now learning from the IMF strategies, but building their own version. Um, and that's what the, the analysis and the Middle Nation analysis laid out as well. So Lebanon remains, um, you know, the key kind of, um, unresolved piece, um, of the broader settlement. Um, and I think that continues while we enter into this 60-day phase, because there are important things in terms of one of the most important things, who's going to invest in the reconstruction, and will there be a toll or a payment mechanism on the Strait of Hormuz, and who will control that? Those are the most important things right now. Um, and the US-Israel dynamic is already shifting. There's more and more criticism of Israel from figures that previously, you know, would never have said it, and anal supporters. That's movement towards the Israeli regime change operation. So, um, the political preparation for, um, reconstruction is everything that's happening right now. And the US-Israel relationship, um, will get weaker and weaker and weaker. Um, Netanyahu's political, you know, his case and the dependency upon perpetual crisis and conflict goes away. Um, Israel appears increasingly isolated all around the world, um, from the emerging regional order and architecture. We've gone from talking about Abraham Accords to talking about, um, these different, you know, a Muslim version of NATO being formed. Um, we've got Switzerland meetings where Iran would cancel certain diplomatic meetings following, you know, um, renewal of Israel going aggressively over Lebanon. That may be the Mick factions trying to get their lost power, but they're being controlled and dominated by Fick and Washington repeatedly applying pressure. Um, and, uh, then these major, um, Saudi agreements that are happening between Washington and Saudi without any Israeli participation. So, Israel started the war, and now the memorandum of understanding is being negotiated without Israel being in the room. And more and more, Israel is saying, we think, um, in Israel media, now look at this, the polls that I saw, and, you know, polls can be manipulated, of course, but apparently 10 to 15% of Americans in this poll believe that, um, Iran won the war, which means that 85% believe that US won the war. So on the propaganda side, Fox News, CNN, all that side, apparently, according to this poll, 85% of Americans think they won the war, even though theou was so, uh, pro-Iran. But then based upon this new regional stability, now compare that to the polls that we saw this time in Israel. 90% of Israelis believe Iran won the war. Only 10% believe Israel won the war. So the majority of Americans believe that Trump won. The majority of Israelis believe that Iran won. That's how you set up for regime change. And who's being positioned as the peacekeeper? JD Vance. Techno. Techno. That we covered earlier. So that tells you that media is being used, either through these polls, which bear no reality, or to shape perception in order to lead to Israeli regime change, in order to lead to, um, Trump being rewarded for his work for Fick, and then JD Vance being positioned for, for Tick next. Um, so all of the focus has shifted away from Iran being the number one funder of terrorist states, which is only an old narrative that's held up by Laura Loomer, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, whose ratings are going down. You saw Ben Shapiro traffic is going down. He's trying to raise finance right now and trying to do an IPO for his, uh, for his network. What's it called? I can't forget. Uh, Daily Wire. They're trying to go public. I mean, who would invest in Daily Wire? Only somebody that wanted to acquire Israeli propaganda assets. Maybe the Gulf countries buy it. And the people that get the power dynamics wrong will say that's because Israel controls the Gulf when Gulf is depleting these assets. So, it will be interesting to see. I mean, you know, let's watch these flow of funds. Or it could just be the last grasp of Israel's old power and radical Zionists that are trying to, um, that haven't quite got the memo yet and can't read the room, and they're still trying to shift. But all of the heat that was in Iran right now is now on Israel. The narrative has completely shifted from Iran to Israel. Now, US has always been the largest sponsor of terrorism. That's always been the case, but they get to blame shift it. Um, and Israel gets to be weakened and acquired, and the assets of the left, Fick, GCC, um, and the slow rise and the managed rise. And what will all the Israelis that aren't bored? They'll just leave. They're all leaving. And that depletes the population, weakens it as well. Um, and so Iran's internal transformation, I believe, has already happened. And, uh, in the Middle Nation, it went through who was actually taken out during this campaign within Iran. And so the conflict, I, you know, believes that this was never primarily about an actual regime change that would be Israel power. Um, and it was more about some kind of, um, change in the conventional sense of who the IRGC is aligned with, which is this whole pragmatism versus hardliner debate. Um, and this is about facilitating an internal political transformation within Iran by Iran on Iran's terms, based upon a pragmatic alignment with China. Um, and so the hardline factions that were significantly weakened as a result of this, um, indicates that the pragmatic leadership is now consolidating power where it didn't exist before. Um, and, uh, the officials that were actually removed during this, um, campaign over the last 90 days, which remember I thought would be like a 12-day war, it turned out it was a 30-day war, and then 60 days of shenanigans in order to move to anou being signed. Um, but look at who's actually no longer with us: the commander-in-chief of the IRGC, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, the intelligence minister, the commander of the, uh, B, besiege, the senator, sorry, the senior IIG intelligence leadership, the head of the military office of the Supreme Leader, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. All of these people are no longer with us today. And everyone that was involved in the negotiations is still with us. And so these removals basically, um, I think represent the institutional hardline veto votes that would never move towards this, nor this new vision of the region, and were most likely aligned with the strategic tension between Iran and Israel that led to massive war profiteering, whether they know it or not, or whether they've controlled by certain factions or not, for whatever reason. We don't need to know. We just need to know incentives. Um, and this is what prevented Iran from basically becoming pursuing this regional strategy. Um, and that is now, I think, the pragmatic leadership that exists today. So we've got, um, [clears throat] uh, Masud Pureskin, which is the political arm. We've got Abbas Arachi, which is the diplomatic, um, negotiations. We've got, uh, [clears throat] Muhammad Javid Zarif, which is the, um, intellectual architecture of the region and the investment contracts and how to remain regional stability, stable. And we have Much is, um, um, which is basically the continuity between the Ayatollah, the previous Ayatollah, and the family continuity, um, which is the religious establishment, um, and the pragmatic direction of the religious establishment to keep Iran under the same structure that has continuity as well. But now everyone is framed completely differently, and everyone's focusing on Israel as a terrorist rather than Iran as a terrorist. And so we saw, as I said, more and more US diplomatic signals. JD Vance publicly stated that he's, um, that Israel, oh, [clears throat] um, basically, yeah, JD Vance, there was another quote this week as well where he stated that, um, those that were responsible for killing the protesters in Iran, which was the manufactured narrative that justified the war, they've all gone. So now JD Vance is saying that, now that doesn't mean I believe that, but why are they signaling that? Um, Washington views the post-war Iranian leadership as basically a re, a differently than the previous one. They're not calling it a regime. Right now, the news is saying the Iranian Republic a lot more when they used to say regime. So now we're starting to see diplomatic language, and we're starting to see Trump that came out and suggested, um, that Syria, you know, would be better placed to manage Lebanon than Israel. That was a very famous comment. We had Hillary Clinton that came out and was criticizing, um, Netanyahu specifically, um, and really, you know, criticizing the US-Israel relationship, um, based upon her experience. Never could have happened before. Um, and, uh, basically this was all to interrupt the part of the broader political, um, you know, repositioning that is happening right now. This is all being repositioned. Um, and this, [clears throat] wasn't an isolated statement. They keep happening. Um, GCC reconstruction, um, strategy is really being laid, the framework. Um, and so we expect Gulf-dominated investment contracts and reconstruction with Gulf companies supported by China and Russia, increasingly with compensation contracts for FIC based upon how much leverage was exerted here, which is mainly based upon how much did they bribe Trump in order to support Fick in this managed transition. Um, and, uh, so what we need to focus on next, and what we'll be focusing on the years ahead, is the reconstruction efforts and who gets to invest and reconstruct, both in terms of contracts and money, of the energy infrastructure, the oil and gas facilities, the refineries, and the ports. All importantly, um, the rail and transport, um, corridors, the housing that was destroyed, the commercial real estate, the telecommunications, the logistic infrastructure. Um, and that was all destroyed via America in Iran. Now, we'll watch who gets those contracts and who puts the capital in. Uh, the reconstruction capital is the primary mechanism for basically setting the long-term regional, um, integration, and it will be very different from Western IMF capital because these are neighbors, and the defense packs are being set up across Iran, across Turkey, across Pakistan, across Egypt, across the Gulf. Um, so more and more investment will increasingly replace military interventions. There will be further ones in order to get to these resolutions. Um, but nothing stops this train in terms of the mechanism for exerting influence through destruction and rebuild contracts. Now, the bit that we really need to understand that sets the multipolar world order is looking at what happens with the Strait of Hormuz and the maritime sovereignty and different ports around the world as a result. So I believe that after the 60 days, there will be a framework for service fees, toll fees, whatever they need to call it diplomatically in order to achieve this. And it won't just be Oman and Iran, because there will be the Gulf interests that need to be factored in as well. And that will be tied into sanction relief and reconstruction contracts to determine where the money comes from. You know, US is showing posturing saying we want to, we want you all the sanction money will buy US soybeans, and Iran is showing this posturing saying we don't want those genetically modified, um, soybeans. All to be, you know, all true. We'll see what actually happens there. Uh, but more to say, the sanction money being spent there will likely be because there's some give and take around the Strait of Hormuz, which is the important part. So Iran has indicated that, um, Hormuz, um, basically will never return to its previous operating model. What was its previous operating model? It was US defense, a regional defense agreement between different powers. Um, but it was to allow for the free passage based upon the British naval fleet and the American naval fleet, old world order, which was to stop other countries having leverage over Western imperialism. And so if that changes, we've seen what leverage can do, and other countries have seen what leverage can do. So expect the temporary toll-free period over the next 60 days to eventually be replaced with some form of commercial fee structure, whatever it may be. Um, and if that happens, it basically completely ends, um, the old world order. Um, and it creates, uh, precedence for all the different ones. Um, we've already seen Bab al-Mandeb. Now, what's interesting is that is Yemen or the Houthis that control that. Now, if Houthis have signed an agreed agreement with Saudi Arabia, and Yemen needs reconstruction contracts based upon Gulf money, then that is a resolution there. What about the Strait of, uh, Malacca? I mean, that's the most strategic port into the Asian corridors that's controlled by Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Two sectarian, sorry, two secular Muslim countries, Yemen, Muslim country, Iran, Muslim country, Singapore, obviously they're representing, um, Fick, but now BRICS aligned, and as corridor interest into the Asian nations. You also have the, uh, the Sunda Strait as well. You have the, uh, Lombok Strait. You have the Suez Canal, which is controlled by Egypt as a result of decolonization and nationalization from the British Empire, another Muslim country. Um, you have the Panama Canal being resolved in the Western Hemisphere. Um, and Indonesia has already basically floated, um, that the Malacca Strait might be something that needs to be negotiated or changed prior to this. Egypt already controls the Suez. The Houthis have already demonstrated strategic leverage, um, over the Bab al-Mandeb and the Red Sea that leads into the Suez Canal. And prior to this, Panama has become basically a geopolitical choke point between the US and China, as is many of the assets across Venezuela. And so this is the negotiation into the multipolarity. Basically, every major maritime choke point is basically, um, watching what will happen in the Strait of Hormuz, and that will likely set the model. Um, and then we'll manage to that transition. Maritime sovereignty may be become the, um, basically, in, you know, increasingly negotiated, and the choke points will become strategic, um, leverage for a country exerting sovereign power, and regaining asset, you know, some of access to some of their assets, rather than simply being just transit routes. This challenges basically the framework of the post-World War II, um, freedom of navigation act and the framework that was set up. And so again, this is a, a big indication of the multipolar transition again. This is a historic shift away from, um, the US unipolar freedom of navigation order, towards this multipolar regional framework. And the Middle East increasingly is organized through all of these diplomatic routes, investment agreements, sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure rebuilds, investment contracts, and basically regional economic integration. Um, and so this is not permanent military intervention. This is the end of the forever war model. This is G capital replacing American military powers and international monetary fund subordination. This is China providing the diplomatic architecture via Pakistan, um, that the GCC is providing basically the investment and financial frameworks and architecture into this multipolar world. This is US gradually reducing its direct military footprint and influence across the different financial architectures across the region. And that is what I, um, said when norm, when China normalized between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023. And so really, what is the end result of this? Well, the end result is not who won the war. It's how who now reshapes peace. It's not who won the war, it's who reshapes peace. And who reshapes peace changes everything. It is Gulf capital versus Western capital via FIG. And Fick becomes the enemy of subordination into these capital structures, up to old tricks, and that's really the danger of the future here, um, and the GCC-led investment in terms of being distinct and distinct different from basically IMF and World Bank model and capital. Um, [clears throat] you know, effectively, if you can't beat them, Iran applied the military pressure while the Gulf negotiated the financial pressure, and that was the 5D chess. Um, and now we'll see what happens during the peace agreements. Um, and the goal is regional integration, um, through Gulf sovereign wealth, um, and regional defense contracts, um, and bribing or paying off Western diplomacy into a declining empire as the manufacturing base in China rises. Um, [clears throat] and that's, um, the new financial industrial complex era that we'll have to continue, um, to benefit. Obviously, there's dangers involved there, and that's what we need to, uh, look at. Okay. What else have I got here? Right. So, what will we look out for next? Um, Lebanon is what we're looking out next. That's the next major, um, negotiating priority. After Lebanon, I think we'll be returning to what's happening in Gaza based upon the border peace framework, but the new Gulf reality and the new reality of the Iranou. Once we've got Gulf and, uh, sorry, once we got Gaza and Lebanon as a framework, then I think we move into North Africa. Sudan sets starts to set itself, unwinding the crimes against humanity, uh, that the that the that the Mick inflicted there. Then you get Libya, and then I think there is a model for reconstruction and capital allocation that will be dominant across the region in terms of all the strategic choke points, as well as the important places across North Africa as well. Um, and that will set the new regional order. Um, and, uh, and so now, how is oil markets reacting, and what are they telling us? Well, this week, basically, oil markets continued to fall despite the fact that there were still some geopolitical tensions. And so, what have we learned from this? Well, we've learned that the geopolitical tensions are not signaling that the market believes this will escalate further, and the deal won't hold. Oil markets are telling us the deal will hold despite any tensions we see. But what else did we see? We saw that China reduced their imports of oil significantly, and it was China, Japan, and US that were really determining the strategic bounded escalation of oil prices. China by not importing, um, US by draining its strategic petroleum reserves, and Japan by consuming its energy while it's managing a currency crisis. So who were the net losers? India and Japan were the net losers. The Japan carry trade, while the Bank of Japan was increasing rates, breaking the Japan carry trade. India weakened into a BRICS order and away from an American order. UAE given the thick nodes to break the pro-dollar as it leaves and sets up an alternative network of CBDCs and FX swap lines where it can create dollars with its own currency that breaks the pro-dollar. And then the strategic weakening of the UK into this Eurodollar market and the Western Hemisphere and the operations that we saw, um, uh, here. So, China effectively controls the marginal price and the marginal demand for oil, and that led India into, um, Iran. Now, why were the ports in Israel not targeted? Because Iran has relationships with India, and India controls the ports. And so this is the asset stripping of Israel into these regional orders as well. Um, [clears throat] Saudi continued to expand its storage capacity. The alternative routes between Iran. Sorry, the alternative, the unsanctioning of oil from Iran and Russia. The draining of the strategic petroleum reserves from America and Japan. The alternative pipelines from UAE and Saudi Arabia, and the reduction of imports from China meant that all of the demand for oil was being met. In hindsight, it was the chain, the supply chains that were breaking. It was the force majeure LNG contracts that were the real story, because LNG is determining the future of the inputs of AI, as well as the future reconstruction of nuclear energy across the region, as well as the new Qatari LNG contracts, because Iran has the second largest LNG reserves in the world. So India was effectively importing at a record amount while its currency, uh, was being revalued, and it's where did it all of its imports come from? Record amounts of oil from Russia. The US exports, they were increasingly elevated. Um, but they were keeping their domestic fuel prices, um, basically under pressure. Because they were exporting, and so when Trump started to say, start to have a go at those, you know, the gas companies, the gas companies are the smaller businesses, it's the exporters that were exporting the LNG, and the transition and the time lag that is keeping the gas prices higher, while Trump puts pressure to try and take pressure away from himself. Um, and it's the outbound shipping of Hormuz that is now significantly higher because the MOU, um, was signed, and the exports are significantly higher than the inbound flows. And so the closing and reopening of Hormuz is basically no longer simply about physical disruption. It's shaping increasingly, um, the, you know, the switching routes, um, who's receiving it, um, the insurance premiums, um, and, uh, basically, um, the reporting, um, and everything that's, uh, the adoption, and who's Iran aligned with, and the storage capacity, and everything that needs to be negotiated. But India and Japan were the net losers. India pushed more into China. Iran pushed more into China and BRICS. But what about Japan? The Japan, the Japanese yen was weakening towards, uh, basically its, the lowest levels, um, since the mid-1980s. So while the price of oil was going up, Japan's currency was weakening. So Japan had to pay the highest price for oil of all, at the same time as the Bank of Japan increasing its rates and not giving America and the Japan carry traders free money. So, Japan has already spent approximately $73 billion, um, in trying to intervene in its currency, because the price for paying for that oil was unbearable, and Japan's important for the AI trade as well. So it's only got limited intervention capacity, which is reportedly basically ma, you know, this is making breaking the Japan carry trade and

What assets does Japan have to pay for this? US treasuries and so foreign reserves, including US treasuries. Um, basically, uh, is the strategy of how they can recover from this. So, continued yen weakness is basically, um, bas, you know, could put additional pressure on the global bond market if Japan, the second largest holder of bonds, has to sell them. What about the UK, the other largest foreign holder? Uh, so Japan and the UK, and so these are why it's very important to watch the regime change in the UK and the regime change in Japan.

One more regime change that we need to cover. All eyes on Venezuela. Um, the Maduro operation, um, and everything that's happening right now, it could be preparing for what could become one of the largest sovereign debt restructurings in history. So, Venezuela needs approximately $250 billion of debt to restructure. It's the largest debt restructuring in history. Oil production is central to the entire future of Venezuela, and it is very hard, clunky, gunky oil that maybe Saudi Arabia's infrastructure in Saudi Aramco in Texas would be the one that benefits from that. But the reconstruction investment opportunities that were fueled by China prior to this, um, and whether it's FICK, whether it's Gulf beneficiary refinement infrastructure, or whether it's, um, you know, Chinese money, um, or whether it's Western money, that's going to determine, I believe, the level of civil unrest in Central and South America and the degree of control of the, that side of the global south, that the, that the, um, privatized FICK controls. So, I'm going to be watching it very, very carefully.

And coincidentally, amidst all of that debt restructuring, after the regime change operation, after the lack of investment that required higher energy prices to get it, that required the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, there were massive earthquakes, um, and natural disasters, uh, that happened this week. Um, and, uh, sadly, that creates more subordination. Um, the level of reconstruction contracts, and we already saw US aid coming in. US is never aid to help. It is always strategic infrastructure acquisitions and removal and subordination power, just like the IMF has always done in Venezuela. Um, so expect this is going to, I'm really going to be watching the destruction of the currency wars, the rebuild contracts, um, as well as, um, any stable coin adoption in the Western Hemisphere as a result of the regime change operations. So, expect more political and economic realignment, um, around Venezuela, and it may return to US-aligned, or it may go more into influence in the other direction. So, those are all the regime change operations.

Um, talking of regime change and the other operations, we need to close off, as we did last week, on the updates on Bitcoin Treasury Companies. So, the market, um, is basically now, after all the warnings I gave over the years in the Hard Talk, is beginning to reprice the Bitcoin Treasury Companies, um, in every way. Um, capital is becoming more expensive for Bitcoin Treasury Companies. In fact, the options to sell equity when their equity is trading at a discount to the Bitcoin that they hold, the MNAV, means that they can't sell more equity because it dilutes Bitcoin per share. And so, shareholders get screwed in terms of the amount of Bitcoin. So, um, that really shuts off that form. The only thing they can do is hold up their Bitcoin as collateral in order to borrow against it. In the case of the non, I'm not talking about Strategy here or MicroStrategy, MSTR, talking about the other ones like Nakamoto, which now has 85% collateral in Kraken, uh, for distressed loans, which can lead to margin calls, which can lead to Chapter 11 and distressed acquisition. So, most of the chat, and that allows you to lock in the Bitcoin price at the bottom, um, as we learned. And so, leverage and balance sheet quantity, um, mean that they're probably not going to be able to acquire more Bitcoin, and that matters more than anything else as we lead into acquiring the different infrastru, the companies, you know, that's a distressed acquisition operation through and through.

Now, the companies that are dependent upon continual equity issuance are basically increasingly facing this pressure, this liquidity, the deeper trading of discounts, and more and more tightness. Some of them are selling their Bitcoin, which is creating the downward pressure, um, on this. Uh, we've got a new node that is being collateralized as a strategic debt obligation into Wall Street subordination, which is Adam's BSTR. Um, shareholders are going to be voting on the basically Bitcoin stranded treasury company, um, merger, which is a SPAC, which is the strategy that Cantor Fitzgerald follows in order to acquire companies, put them into public offerings, and then subordinate them to the financial industrial complex. Um, the voting will happen on the merger. So, Adam Bach's company, basically, is expected to debut with approximately 30,021 Bitcoin immediately, which would make it one of the largest corporate Bitcoin holders out there after Strategy. So, we'll keep watching that, and I expect that it will go through continual stress and merge Blockstream into the structure, um, and then be set up for some kind of M&A activity or Chapter 11, um, distress in order to hold in the, the Bitcoin price at the bottom of the market after the manipulation through Jack Maller's vehicle that Cantor Fitzgerald is also managing.

Now, the one that will remain, in my opinion, and again, don't trade on this. Avoid all this. You know, I've always been advocating to avoid this. It's just important for us to understand the dynamics. The one that will remain, I believe, is Strategy, because its equity, um, MNAV, again, is negative right now, but it's got the dollar reserves to see through it. STRC, its, uh, structured product that's meant to remain at 100 is now increasingly remaining at a discount, but it's got approximately one year of runway, um, uh, with where it doesn't need to sell any of its Bitcoin. How it can sell its Bitcoin, um, and that can be used as a mechanism for controlling the price of Bitcoin in the short term as well, through these Wall Street vehicles. But I personally don't believe its future is in Chapter 11. I think the FICK want to keep this vehicle. Um, this is basically a fear and an accumulation vehicle to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible. Now, by not owning it, you don't need to participate in that, but I don't think it's got the same future as the other, uh, Bitcoin Treasury Companies. Um, the ATM to acquire, um, more Bitcoin is basically dying until Bitcoin recovers. And when they want to turn it back on again in order to manipulate the price upwards again, then they can just turn the ATM on again, and they can start to play with the different structured products around Strategy. Now, I believe Wall Street's in the accumulation phase, and they want to, you know, get you leveled up so that you end up on the wrong side of those trades. But the only option I see right now for Strategy is to use some of those dollar reserves in order to buy back more STRC. So, you want to, I think that he'll be looking to potentially, or the strategy that I think he should follow, is try and get STRC back to $100. It's currently at $75, 25% discount, and paying a 11.5% dividend on top of that, which may have to go up. If it goes up, then that increases the, uh, the obligation on all of the STRC structured products, which can lead to shortening the cash flow. And so, the only real option, I think, is to take some of those dollars, buy back STRC, and try and get it back to $100 par. And that eliminates STRC, which reduces the amount of yield. And it, my understanding is, it could buy it at the $75. So, we get a 25% upside there, while simultaneously reducing the amount of obligations of yield and not buying any more Bitcoin. That's what I think it should do next. U, now, whether it will do that or not, we shall see. But F decide, shareholders decide. Um, and then it may lead into an M&A spree in order to get more Bitcoin by concentrating some of the other Bitcoin Treasury Companies in the years ahead. Then it can lead into a cycle of distress, that's more weakness in Bitcoin, and then it can turn around the price of Bitcoin by reversing all of the cogs, uh, as the cash need comes over the next year or so. This is what I think FICK's strategy is. Um, so the key distinction for investors is don't mess around with those centralized games where you're subordinate to the counterparty risk and the executives and the board, and not knowing what they'll do. Owning Bitcoin is not the same as owning a Bitcoin Treasury Company. Um, owning any shares in a Bitcoin shares leverage vehicle, ETFs, these are all completely different things. Um, where we are today is that I believe that, uh, basically Bitcoin is trading below $60,000 now. And I think it's a patience game, which means that the way you win into a potentially, uh, weakening market, and I expect more weakness here, is to not try and guess the bottom of the market because you'll never get it wrong, and then it could go off without you, as historically done. But dollar-cost averaging, as I've always said, own more Bitcoin this month than the previous month. If you earn income in fear on a weekly basis, own more Bitcoin this week than last week. If you earn fear on a daily basis or whenever you receive income, own more Bitcoin as you receive that income than you did the previous day or before you receive the income. Um, the further that goes down in price, the more Bitcoin you end up with on the other side, and you value your wealth in Bitcoin, um, as it goes up, or when it goes up, or if it goes up, not financial advice, then you get more fiat purchasing power in order to leverage, um, or, you know, your influence over the future direction when you have increased dollar purchasing power in the fiat world. I don't mean leverage your job, you know, we want to get more sovereign rather than subordinate.

But if we look at Bitcoin as a snapshot today, how are we doing? So, we've mined about 20 million Bitcoins. There's another million Bitcoin to be mined over the next 120 years. Um, and there's only a million left, which means that the four-year cycle is less relevant in terms of its impact. But almost 11 million Bitcoin are sitting in unrealized losses, according to a service where I was analyzing the blockchain called, uh, Glassnode. If you want to check out all that data, Glassnode's got some interesting tools. So, 11 million Bitcoin are currently at an unrealized loss. So, 75% of all the circulating supply, and I'm not quite sure how they measure circulating supply, um, but they're held by long-term holders that, you know, roughly one-third of them, they basically, um, are temporarily underwater. So, long-term holders that they define never move their Bitcoin, and one-third of them are underwater. And so, we either flash them out, which is what I think the FICK operation is, get them to lever up, borrow against their Bitcoin, um, if they don't do that, get the new investors to not buy Bitcoin, but buy financial products instead. Um, or make them think that the market's dead and it's not recovering. Basically, fear them out of the market. Um, and the fear is basically returning to the market, um, in a historically, um, you know, high level right now. And that's always been the opportunity. The fear times is when you get to actually really increase the number of Bitcoin you own as a person at cheaper and cheaper prices. Um, and so Bitcoin, in what it does, is not collapsing in any way, shape, or form. I have zero concern about that. It still allows me to own my own money in self-custody without a bank. It still allows me to send any transaction peer-to-peer without government permission and without anyone in the middle. It still allows me to know that the monetary policy will never change, and when people lose their Bitcoin, it decreases the number of Bitcoin available, and there's only ever going to be another million Bitcoin mined, and 20 million have already been mined. And so, all of that is known without any intervention from central banks. And there's still the largest distributed network of miners in a multipolar world where countries that hate each other are mining, which decentralizes it further. More and more options around nodes. We've got another Bitcoin war coming up in August, and then the next year, uh, where miners get to signal before it reverses back to another version of the code. You can go to simonixon.com and see, um, some of the blogs I did around the different operations in hijacking Bitcoin, um, and knots versus core. You can see all that type of stuff on my blog if you want to get involved in that. Those are coming to a dead, you know, upcoming deadlines in August, and then one year from that as well. And we'll see how that new potential internal attack vector plays out to make Bitcoin stronger, as it always does. Um, the nodes are stronger than ever. The mining, every time anyone switches off mining to, to power some AI or anything like that, the difficulty rate adjusts, and that's built into this cycle. Um, and then it becomes more profitable for people to mine, which incentivizes new efficient energy sources, um, and new integration with grid infrastructure, um, new opportunities to decentralize further, um, and, uh, we've had more attention on the coders and regime change in the core developers with alternatives coming, um, as well. So, all of those are going stronger than before. So, nothing around Bitcoin is collapsing. It's just having this liquidity squeeze, which I think creates a massive tightening with issues around these treasury companies, Wall Street, and the liquidity rotation into AI. All of those are happening at the same time, which for me buys you more time to dollar-cost average and end up with more Bitcoin, um, when the, the tide changes. Uh, can't give you financial advice. Um, but I think it's a, it's a great, um, chance for people to increase the number of Bitcoin that they own into these, uh, these different narratives.

So, remember, [clears throat] all asset classes are kind of competing for the same liquidity right now. Um, you've got ETF outflows, which is institutions selling their Bitcoin ETF, that leads to selling a Bitcoin so that they can invest in other things. You've got treasury companies which are in peak, as I covered, as well as the strategy, um, around MSTR, [clears throat] and the different narratives that's causing all the fear. Um, we have treasury, uh, reorganizations, which is giving more control to FICK. We have all of the AI fundraising that's happening that's cap, that's cap, that's creating the capital rotation. We've got the sovereign bond issues with yields around the Eurodollar, the petrodollar, [clears throat] and, uh, the, uh, and the Japan carry trade. We've got more and more issuance that's needed to roll over the government debt in the Ponzi scheme, while central banks are no longer using treasuries to the same degree as a reserve asset and using gold instead. We've got the AI bubble in the stock market. We've got the derivatives paper contracts in the commodity markets. Um, we got potentially higher interest rates into the regime change that's happened at the Fed. We've got quantitative easing that requires a massive correction and narrative in order to socialize losses and privatize gains. How do you protect yourself through it all? The only way is long-term strategy, and whatever percentage of your approach is buying into self-custody Bitcoin, um, dollar-cost average in order to, because you ain't going to get the speculation right, and speculation is what they want you to do. Investing outside the system is not what they want you to do. So, my view hasn't changed in terms of the long-term advice that I've been sharing in terms of since Bitcoin's at $3. The safest way to own Bitcoin remains self-custody. Counterparty risk means that ETFs have custodial risk. Treasury companies means corporate risk and counterparty risk on top of each other. Um, using it within a custodian to borrow against it, by getting a bank loan, means counterparty risk, margin risk, as well as custody risk. Self-custody, uh, preserves your sovereignty so that you can move further and further under from subordination to sovereignty. And so, my framework for what's actually happening, we will complete, um, um, complete, you know, continue to give updates on, but I believe Bitcoin into a multipolar route, which we are transitioning from one dominant monetary dollar-based system towards another monetary order, supports the need for Bitcoin in the longer term. And the fact that sovereign debt is expanding supports the need for fixed supply assets over the long term. The fact that AI is demanding more and more capital supports the fact that more and more institutions that don't hold, that hold Bitcoin in self-custody, would want to sell their custody Bitcoin in order to invest into the higher return AI trade at the moment. The fact that governments need more and more buyers of their debt supports the fact that a fixed supply asset that is not dependent upon any central bank is how you understand what may happen here when it, when the policy is enforced through, um, mass and code. The fact that there's going to be a change for the tick to a stable coin standard reiterates the difference between Bitcoin and self-custody and stable coins that can be frozen and freeze-functioned and programmed. The fact that there is now going to be tokenized government debt reiterates the need for self-custody, running nodes, using coin joins, and engaging in things, um, that, uh, can't be programmed at the base layer. The fact that digital identity is coming into integration with CBDs, AI, and surveillance control grids reiterates the need for sovereignty over subordination. And the fact that this architecture tells me from every aspect that this is where we're heading means that Bitcoin remains the only GL globally scarce digital asset that operates without, outside the system, that gives you more of that sovereign ability, and you need more of it into weakness.

So, my closing thoughts on this episode of Simon Dixon Hard Talk Live is that this analysis has never been, um, ever about predicting every headline and following the news and listening to politicians. It's always been about understanding the different incentives by the most important ones that have the power, not the ones that have the fake power that need access to the different capital flows that tell us a different story, and who benefits from those capital flows. And so, each week, we follow liquidity, we follow incentives, uh, we follow capital, and most importantly, uh, we follow the money. Um, and so that's going to be everything, uh, for this episode of the UK and Israeli regime change while Bitcoin is crashing and the consequences for you. So, now I'm going to ask you to go over to part two. And in part two, it was from a recent interview I gave in London with Bitcoin Archives before all this happened with the Treasury companies that outlined everything that happened with the Treasury companies and why I was expecting Bitcoin to continually have weaker prices. And so, now we've got Bitcoin below 60K, um, and the battle for Bitcoin sovereignty. That's going to be, um, with Bitcoin Archives and an interview with Archie. Um, and that was actually part two of a podcast that I released, and Bitcoin Archive released as well. Right.

So, just before that starts playing, I'm going to ask you to do several things. Firstly, if you've watched all of this and you got to the end and you're not a subscriber, I don't have any monetization on. I don't take any sponsorship. I don't have any adverts. Um, I don't upsell you into any type of business model. I'm not changing my narrative to push, um, some kind of agenda into a treasury company or a bit back, bit Bitcoin back loan, or any of that stuff. Um, and so what I ask for you is, please hit the subscribe button, hit the bell symbol, and hit all. I will then continue to give you notifications every time I upload a new interview. Every Friday, I'll do a long-form analysis just like this. And if YouTube doesn't like this, then please head over to Rumble right now and become a follower of my channel on Rumble. The links will be below as well. Uh, now, if you use Apple Podcasts, look up Simon Dixon Hard Talk Live and subscribe to my podcast on either Spotify or Apple Podcast. That way you can download this and you can break it up into pieces, watch the whole thing, go to the gym, drive, and, uh, listen to it at the same time. Also, follow me on Simon Dixon Twitter, um, on X, which is when it used to be called Twitter, where I give you all my real-time updates as well. And then finally, one last thing I'd like you to do, head over to simonixon.com. We're building an environment in Craig. Apple takes us down, Google takes us down, Amazon takes us down, um, YouTube takes us down, uh, any of these different services take us down. And what I do is I take all of this long-form content, and my team and Azard feed it into AI, and we post five 10-minute whiteboard videos, as well as 20-30 minute AI summaries, as well as written blogs using AI, in order to make it easier for you to consume this with all the links to the long-form content, part one, part two, um, you know, various other, um, things, all in one place. Um, and a membership portal that gives you access to all my previous content. You know, Great Depression of 2020 video series, uh, a PDF download of the first ever book I wrote in 2011 that was the first published book to include Bitcoin, um, and a community of other people that are all building their sovereign strategies that you can communicate with, and you can get a username and login. The reason I do that is because if I get taken out of any of these networks, I'd like to email you a newsletter with these updates. Um, again, no upsells, no products, no business model, no monetization, no sponsorship, just a community of people that are trying to get themselves from fully subordinate, partially subordinate, to as sovereign as they could possibly be, and build a longer-term plan. And, uh, me sharing the things that I'm doing, and the community sharing the things that they're doing. So, always remember, you are alive at one of the craziest, harshest, but exciting times in financial history if you're on the right side of these trends. Some are going to get wrecked. The majority are going to get wrecked. Others are going to do incredibly well. I'd like you to be on the right side of that change by following the money. I'd also hope that we can do this and build a community of people that are as sovereign as possible so that we can do this with as much peace, love, and unity as possible, because sadly, I think it's going to be carnage for the rest. And so, uh, please take those actions, uh, subscribe to this channel, and please leave a comment below on YouTube, like it, and let me know what you'd like to see in future episodes, and how I can, what you thought about any of this stuff, and push back on anything I covered as well, because I'd like to know how you think my analysis may be wrong so that we can get better analysis and better information, um, and, uh, and follow the money together. So, enjoy now, part two of my interview with Archie from Bitcoin Archives on the battle for Bitcoin sovereignty. Now, Bitcoin has crashed below $60,000. Peace, >> Simon. Uh, Bitcoin is now being accepted for payment at the Strait of Hormuz. >> Let me, let's put some disclaimers out there. Nothing we're talking about is circumventing sanctions. Like, um, that's a serious crime, circumventing sanctions. Um, and so, you know, uh, what I'm really talking about is as an intellectual exercise, but I think the Bitcoin and Iran story is the real adoption story. El Salvador is interesting, but it's still got the IMF, you know, layers that exist. It's still dollarized. So, it's still, it's still Fed, IMF, and there's a, a previous infrastructure that creates an interesting, what can you do with Bitcoin in a dollarized world? >> So, we're going to, okay, we're contrasting the two separate sovereign uses of Bitcoin here. What El Salvador has done, >> from my point of view, has been absolutely amazing. They were the first. They did, they went all in. Okay. They've been, they've been pressured a fair bit to sort of walk it back. And they're not really a nation at a scale or in a situation to be, um, adversarial towards international financial institutions. They still need help. They're relatively, uh, a poor country that's still trying to get up on its feet, and they're doing a really good job of that. Iran. The reason why I find what's happening in Iran particularly interesting is because there is no nation under more severe sanctions than Iran. It is totally being antagonized by the global financial system led by the United States. And in that context, when we say Bitcoin is for enemies or it's got to be adversary proof and permissionless, in that context, I kind of agree with you that it is a better proof, um, of Bitcoin's use case. >> Yeah, I completely agree. And, um, I think it's a big part of the story that we haven't been told yet. >> Mhm. One day we'll know the real story, but I'm pretty sure that Iran is the largest Bitcoin sovereign miner in the world. >> Didn't we see evidence of that when was it the first bombing or the second bombing? I don't recall. Yeah, that was there was, um, so during the 12-day war, um, prior to the B2 bomber, um, mid-operation midnight hammer, um, there was clearly an understanding that, um, there was going to be a bombing, which was, I think that was what was very theatrical. Um, but there was clearly an understanding that one of the nuclear, um, uh, you know, plants is, is going to be bombed, and there was lots of movements of things that seemed to be happening from like satellite imagery, and at the very, at the exact moment that they were moving their, um, highly enriched uranium and preparing for that, there was a massive drop in Bitcoin hash rate that suddenly. Now, to be fair, it did coincide with, um, some weather outage in Texas as well, which could explain it, but the two happened at the exact same time, and there was a really big drop in Bitcoin hash rate, and then the bombing happened, and then the hash rate came back online like shortly after. And so, one, one speculation was that they were using nuclear, uh, power plants in order to mine Bitcoin, which we do have an example of that in, in the US, as that Terror Wolf. It doesn't scale, but they manage, they've managed to get like 2 cents energy cost, uh, to be the mo, one of the most efficient Bitcoin miners in the world, but they only managed to get like a couple of thousand ASICs from my understanding. >> Um, into that, and now we've got AI competing for things. >> Well, interesting you mentioned Terror Wolf. Just as an aside, yesterday they came out with a statement saying, we no longer view ourselves as a Bitcoin mining company. We're an energy infrastructure company. Yeah. >> I think we're going to, it's going to be a really interesting discussion to see how that all plays out, because now AI essentially not only competing for capital from Bitcoin, uh, the Bitcoin ecosystem, but also now for energy, and we might see a lot of these corporate consolidated centralized Bitcoin miners massively pivot away from Bitcoin mining, and so a lot of the Bitcoin maxis will end up getting what they wanted, which is a decentralization of the hash rate. >> Yeah, agree. And that's why Bitcoin is so interesting because it can, it can adjust to these large corporate interests that are mining, >> and it can adjust to the downside, and then you just get the difficulty rate adjustment, and we get to a more decentralized network, which is why it's, it's so interesting. But I think the, a big part of the story was Iran's ability to use a nuc, civilian nuclear energy program to mine Bitcoin. And when you look at all the different rails, it, it's very interesting that they were, from the public bits that we can see, they were using stable coins and Tether on Tron, um, which we know has freeze functions. And so it's not like Iran didn't know that. You know what I mean? It's like, it's not something we know that they wouldn't have known. And then at the same time, when all those, um, conversations was happening, uh, with Iran's Tether, and Tether had to pull the freeze function, we got that whole hacks and DeFi stuff. All seems very coincidental that these things happened at the same time. But the Bitcoin, they couldn't touch. [laughter] And so, it genuinely shows that a real threat, uh, to the FICK is the ability for a sovereign country to have its own nuclear energy program and mine Bitcoin. And then when we got this story that, uh, they will accept, they're doing a bespoke insurance service, and the only way to pay is in Bitcoin. Uh, I'm not sure to the extent of what that's, you know, what that's like, but they did release a website. Um, and the whole thing was that they were saying that they're going to become, well, it was, it was an attack not just on SWIFT, uh, but it was also an attack on Lloyd's of London, because they were looking at, it's not quite insurance, but you can imagine how an insurance model could happen here with all on-chain transactions and pulled together into a multi-signature wallet. Um, you can imagine how that can work in the future. Uh, but they said the insurance contract will be delivered by cryptographic proof within the Bitcoin blockchain, and, uh, it will be held in some kind of multi-signature setup, and then upon delivery, the funds are transferred. So, whether they're using the full extent of what Bitcoin can do in order to develop a new parallel Bitcoin insurance market that circumvents both SWIFT and Lloyd's of London, I think it signals to us that that that Iran is going to be most likely that that sovereign country that utilizes Bitcoin to the, the fullest extent with no custodians, the way that Bitcoin was actually designed. And so, I, I was really interested in in watching that progress, and I think there's been a lot of progress that that hasn't made the headlines for obvious reasons. >> Have we been able to spot any on-chain activity related to Iran yet? I haven't seen anyone profile anything yet. >> No, I haven't seen any decent analysis yet. Uh, I, there was also the potential that just breakoff corruption was happening and they were accepting Bitcoin and saying, yeah, we'll get you your shipment or something. I mean, I can't imagine a country at the sovereign level >> falling for something like that. But the reality is, is that, you know, right now you need Lloyd's of London insurance. You need America to provide Lloyd's of London with assurance they're not going to attack a shipment. And you need to do the same on the IRGC side. That's how you get a shipment through. Right now, the only country willing to do that is China, or someone that's got a guarantee, um, with directly with the IRGC and some kind of brokerage relationship. Um, and they've, they used Bitcoin in order to try and, um, solve that problem. Um, so they haven't published any wallet addresses, but also I think it's interesting that they could publish those wallet addresses, but then we've got the whole CoinJoin story, right? Um, that if they wanted to sanction those wallet addresses, they'd have to use a CoinJoin, um, and, uh, and perfectly legally, mix up those transactions. >> Well, that's a really interesting proposition because now we're seeing, is it Samurai? Not Samurai, is it Samurai Wallet? The >> developer. Samurai Wallet is the guys that got taken out. >> Yeah. And we, we've seen mixers being attacked through law as well. >> So, could we in fact now see the first sovereign Bitcoin/crypto developer who builds their own mixer that everyone then uses? Because if the attack vector is on, well, we're going to go after the people who build these things. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> If Iran builds it, no one can attack them. And if they build it, and it's kind of, and it's open source as well, that makes it even more sort of open for global adoption. >> Suddenly we have an international >> um Bitcoin mixer that can't be attacked by the United States. So that presents an interesting proposition for people. >> Yeah. Yeah. And, and I do remember way back in like 2013 when Chinese China national media allowed like Bitcoin documentaries to air on their TV, which has to have approval at the government level, cuz I believe they saw it as an attack on, um, a geopolitical attack in 2013 as well, um, on the dollar. And so I, I remember those days. But yeah, we, uh, it's very important for the Americans to keep an eye on what's happening with all this Clarity Act, Genius Act, and all that stuff, because under the Biden administration, there was definitely the coordinated attack and Operation Choke Point 2.0. You know, you know, FTX was on the board was Sullivan & Cromwell, which is the CIA's law firm that was set up for them. You know, we got all these very, uh, more and more of that's coming out as well. The Signature Bank team are now speaking. They built the FTX rails that allowed them to do all the crime using the blockchain settlement rails using, um, Signature Bank and integrated with Silvergate. Just so happens, all the banks have got taken out in Silicon Valley Bank. So, they built all that alternative rails, and there was deep, I think connections at both Celsius and FTX with deep state operations. When we transitioned to the Trump administration, he said, we want to be make, you know, Bitcoin capital or crypto capital, I think he always said. >> Mhm. >> He did all the pardons. Now, the big pardons were connected with corruption. So, at the Binance, CZ, UAE level. Uh, and then you had the Justin Sun, World Liberty Financial, Steve Wozniak, um, all of that rabbit hole. But the other pardons were genuinely, I think, to, you know, try and from the crypto lobby. So, you know, to try and win favor with the crypto lobby that emerged at the Bitcoin conference. But the one that they, uh, the Trump administration still had arrested, and he did publicly comment on it, so he knows about it, um, was the Samurai Wallet case, which was the open-source CoinJoin using technology that was, um, created a long time ago, like with Gregory Maxwell and Amir Taaki, and, um, all of those early, I think, operations of infiltration that tried to happen in those days. So, the real common theme here is that that CoinJoin. Um, and the interesting part about that is he didn't go down because he developed the CoinJoin. He went down because of his comments on X, um, where he was talking about how to facilitate money laundering in an ambiguous way, and then they use lawfare. So, it didn't actually go, it didn't actually get taken out. Um, so we don't have the case law. Uh, but he settled, because they confiscated his funds, and he said he didn't have the money to defend himself. So, he settled, and now he's in prison for five years. That's still something that, you know, the whole code is freedom of speech. That whole CoinJoin stuff is the friction point. [laughter] You know, so it kind of shows where they're trying to take us. They're okay with Strategy. They're okay with BlackRock. They're okay with Coinbase. They're okay with, um, everything else. And they're okay with self-custody. But the friction point is the privacy side, which has always been, you know, the thing. If you combine open-source code, distributed supercomputing with a network of nodes, and then you combine that with privacy and anonymity via CoinJoins, I think they still want that for elites, but they don't want that for every person. >> Do you think there are other use cases or there are other circumstances around the world that could look upon Iran's use of Bitcoin as an example for them to take on as well? >> Yeah, I think the interesting side here is that, okay, so Bitcoin and, and I do believe that Russia's the probably the second largest sovereign Bitcoin miner, and the third is UAE. >> What about Ukraine? Before, before the war, before Russia launched the war, they were deep into Bitcoin mining using nuclear power, state, um, owned nuclear power plants, but we haven't heard anything since then. >> Correct. So, there's definitely a silent network that's being built in the background. >> Yeah. >> Um, around this. And so you've got the two most sanctioned countries in the world, Iran and Russia, that seem to have a Bitcoin [snorts] strategy. I think that bricks figured out that having a single currency on a federated network was a scope, like the Euro, and so they're not doing it. All the central banks are accumulating gold. We're getting the stable coin standard being built out in America. We're getting the CBDC network being built out in UAE, China, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, um, Hong Kong, and then we got the digital Euro that's going to be part of the European surveillance state. So, all of that breaks SWIFT. It creates programmable, freezable money that allows for sanctions. You got the clunkiness of these gold oil like physical shipments with the demonstration of the, the Strait of Hormuz and the limitations >> of shipments. In the end, you're only left with one thing, which is Bitcoin and self-custody. And so, moving into a multipolar world and a world, one world government control grid, which is where I think we're going, those two tracks, I think Bitcoin helps in the multipolar settlement layers, digital rails, CoinJoins, um, and to defang, like, uh, Western banking power, legacy power interests. And then you have the, um, self-sovereign, self-custody escape, escape from the global control grid, which will be run by stable coins and, um, and various other, uh, centralized Wall Street custodian wrappers. And so, they're now taking all of the, uh, securities and financialization, and they're tokenizing the whole thing, and they're, uh, trying to turn everything into a security, whether it be water, whether it be energy, and you're going to be competing with AI for it. So, you'll either be heating your house, or AI will be using that energy. Um, you'll either be drinking water, or AI will be consuming that water, and they're going to create tokenized markets out of the whole, out of the whole thing. [snorts] And Bitcoin is the resistance against that. And so, now everyone needs to learn that skill if you want to remain sovereign, because nothing in crypto helped Iran stay sovereign, but Bitcoin did. I mean, I look around at since, uh, Iran's asserted its authority over the Strait of Hormuz, there's been talk about other waterways around the world, um, with nearby countries looking to, you know, equally assert their authority. So, but we've already got a situation like in Panama, the Panama Canal, for example. Do you think they could accept Bitcoin? Would they accept Bitcoin? The canals. Um, I think Panama is, um, a very interesting story in itself, very similar to Iran. >> You know, a victim of economic hitmen, assassinations, um, all sorts of stuff. Then privacy, Panama Papers, like so much interesting history there. Um, but they've seem to be making a distinction in this post US-dominated, um, naval world. They seem to be making a distinction between international waters and, um, canals. And so they always use the canal as like a privatized carve-out to say that you can charge the toll. Um, at the moment, we're getting a lot of legal language negotiations in the memorandum of understanding. I think they wanted to call it an environmental fee. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's right. [laughter] >> An environmental fee, a service charge, >> insurance. Uh, the reason is, is because that is, this is now a legal argument. Um, because if Iran is able to charge a fee, the legal language around that fee has an impact on international law. Um, and, uh, whatever Iran does will be the model for many other countries. Then you bring in Malaysia, then you bring in Singapore, uh, then you bring in all the other strategic choke points. Iran may just create the model, uh, with Bitcoin around how to solve these settlement layers in a, in a world where there's no longer freedom of navigation. >> It's really the perfect use case, isn't it? Sovereign, adversarial, permissionless, global, borderless, >> and that applies at the, at the country level. >> Mhm. >> The corporate level, and the individual level. It's going to be a really interesting one to watch. And it doesn't matter if it doesn't happen. Bitcoin was designed to just adapt to whatever happens. And so, just like you get this centralizing forces in mining between private public companies, you know, a bunch of it goes, it was originally, it was all a loads of it was in China, then it was in Texas. Then we have all these public companies that are loaded up with that. But in their desire to maximize returns, they've decided that the energy is best used and the data centers are best used with AI. And so the market adjusts to that mechanism. We got the difficulty rate adjusts. There's a movement towards home mining as a result of, you know, some of the tensions that are happening between developer implementations and node implementations. Um, and so this is driving us to some of that, uh, more decentralized side. And if it turns out that governments don't adopt Bitcoin in order to have sovereign in a multipolar world, then great, you know, um, and it will adjust to that reality. And, and that is why, you know, the Bitcoin story is, is a never-ending story, um, that takes us to the depths of technology, geopolitics, and macro, >> because the simplicity of an individual being able to exert sovereignty by owning their own asset, sending it to anyone that's willing to accept it voluntarily, and having no control grid over its supply is still the most disruptive to the fixed power. >> Do you think this, this current bare market was kicked off by potentially Iran selling its Bitcoin just as the sort of the war drums were starting to beat louder and louder? We saw that massive single-day sell-off in October, right at the peak, and then ever since then, it's just been a gradual sell-off until the recent sort of mini rally in the bare market. >> Yeah. And I think these are all FICK operations. Um, so, you know, we had the coordinated takeover of much of the infrastructure with Operation 30.2.0. Uh, we had the rise of the Bitcoin industrial complex to get custody, derivatives, Bitcoin back loans, treasury companies, co-op developers, um, influencers, push media companies into treasury companies. Um, get some of the Bitcoin back loan service integrated with Cantor Fitzgerald and Tether, and all of that. The, the operation to get as much Bitcoin in custody is why we're getting these weaker prices. And I think if I were to speculate, um, that's a, a complex that is being built by Cantor's, um, by Strategy and Jane Street and BlackRock, and many of the other players, or the carve-out departments of Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. I think there is a, a part, a, a, a coordinated strategy, um, to use ETFs and, uh, debt instruments, um, to control the short-term price of Bitcoin, just like they did with gold. When I, when I look at the evidence for what's happening right now, where is the evidence that this is an attack on Bitcoin from the financial industrial complex and not just a regular bare market? Um, I couldn't point to the evidence. All I could say is that they built every instrument that they build for every single new commodity. >> Mhm. >> Um, and the FICK have been doing this for years, for decades. Uh, and this is a modus operandi, you know. Um, and, uh, they've built all the instruments. So, two of those instruments, I would say, two of the biggest, most influential instruments are the ETFs, and then what we're seeing now with, um, the Bitcoin Treasury Companies. >> Mhm. >> So, the ETFs have actually been the biggest holders. The, so, the outflows from the ETFs have been minimal. And then on the Bitcoin Treasury side, you've got MicroStrategy, Strategy, Michael Saylor's company, clearly the largest Bitcoin Treasury Company. If anything, they, they're accelerating their purchases of Bitcoin through the preferred share issuance stretch. On one hand, we're seeing fairly minimal outflows. On the other hand, we're seeing an acceleration of buying. So, if these two major instruments of the financial industrial complex aren't really doing anything to affect the price, where is the attack coming from? Yeah, that's why they built the derivative complex, and that's why they built stretch, and, uh, all these, uh, vehicles for taking the options market volatility, um, all the different instruments that they charge fees from. And the ETF has the whole appointed representative relationship, and the difference between the spot and the, uh, [clears throat] the issuance of the shares that are held at Coinbase, that has a suite of pro products that do we really know what Bitcoin is allocated and what Bitcoin is unallocated. And that's

been the model that that is exactly how the gold markets work, the silver markets work, all all the products that they have. Um, they have, uh, you know, significantly more paper contracts than they do the underlying asset.

The evidence to me is just build, build the products, follow the model that they've always followed. And if they're buying while the price is slowly going down over an extended period of time where the media is being weaponized, then that's just consistent with every market that they engage in. They won't be able to control the long-term price, but what they will try and do is patiently get you to sell your Bitcoin, maybe pump it into the AI bubble, um, and have higher returns elsewhere, lower returns in Bitcoin so that they can centralize as much of it as possible.

And if you think about the strategy business model, it is, we will issue as many securities as Fick and retail will buy to get as much Bitcoin in our vehicle as possible. And if they could get 21 million Bitcoin in strategy, they would. If BlackRock could get 21 million Bitcoin in their ETF, they would. And then they would want to keep all the Bitcoin and issue a Bitcoin-backed loan. And they'd want to try and create treasury companies that co-opt a developer like Adam Back, someone that has a large Bitcoin wallet and a Bitcoin-backed loan company like Jack Mallers, somebody that has Bitcoin conferences, Bitcoin VC funds like David Bailey, um, and everyone else. And I'm sure everyone else got the call that I got in order to try and co-opt as much of the ecosystem by saying that, why don't you get a bunch of Bitcoin in a tax-efficient wrapper that we manage and then that we can then issue Bitcoin-backed loans against? And we'll get you a bunch of Tether and stablecoins and fiat currency and, uh, we'll build the whole fractional reserve Bitcoin market around it. And we'll end up with all the Bitcoin and you end up with all the paper contracts. And so that's their strategy.

And and and our job is to do what Iran did: keep the Bitcoin in self-custody. Don't take the paper contract. Um, spend it in our own circular economies to anyone who wants to receive that Bitcoin. Um, and don't allow them to change the paper, uh, you know, to change the money supply because spot Bitcoin will only ever have 21 million. M. >> But there's going to be a lot many, I'm sure there's already 28 million paper, paper, paper contracts of Bitcoin that they're building up to.

>> I'm, I mean, I'm interested in in your position that these preferred shares, stretch, for example, Strategy Stretch, could be an attack vector by Wall Street onto Bitcoin because I see it the other way around. I see it as an attack vector on Wall Street to suck capital out and pour it into Bitcoin. Why do you see it the way you do?

>> Uh, Wall Street's model, you can look at the central banks and you can look at BlackRock to see their model. Their model is to create IOU securities so that they can end up with the actual asset on their balance sheet. That's the model. Strategy is an IOU security to end up with the [snorts] Bitcoin in Coinbase. And Coinbase is a vehicle for the Fick now. It's a public company. Um, and, uh, so >> Well, Coinbase is only one of their custodians though.

>> Okay. Yeah. So multiple custodians where it's under their control so that then it can be in that can be used in the lending market in order to create more Bitcoin than there is [clears throat] in custody. That's their game. That's what they've always done. And so they want you to own the IOU so that they own the actual underlying asset. And then they, um, you know, BlackRock right now is creating tokenized everything. Mhm.

>> But then if you look at their actual balance sheet, it's real estate, it's gold, it's commodities because they don't want the paper. They want the actual asset, but they want you to buy the paper.

>> So it wouldn't be in the interests of Strategy to allow their custodian to do that. And surely it would be, you know, within their contractual arrangements for custodianship of their assets that their Bitcoin could not be lent out, rehypothecated, and the like.

>> Yeah. So that's one part of it. The other part of it is that they've monetizing volatility.

>> Mhm.

>> And monetizing volatility means you create a suite of products that somebody like Jane Street, who is there to monetize all of that volatility and all of those arbitrage um and play prices. Um, that's what they do. They do it for all assets. Why aren't they going to do it for Bitcoin?

>> Yeah, fair enough. I I still view them as, um, not as an alternative to Bitcoin and I don't think most Bitcoiners view it as an alternative to Bitcoin either, even those who are who are, um, investing in them. Yeah, I still think they're an attack on on TradFi and Wall Street rather than an attack on on Bitcoin. So, I'm interested in in that.

>> They give they give the Fick all the tools they need to manipulate the short-term price of Bitcoin through the the complex that they built. Um, and remember, a complex is not one institution. It's a, it's a, it's a series of products where they can, um, obfuscate the rules between what needs to be allocated and fully backed, >> between what is just a paper contract that doesn't need to be fully allocated and backed. And so it's in the complex and Tether's a part of it, you know, Circle's a part of it, BlackRock's a part of it, um, and Strategy has been the most useful vehicle to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible and put a bunch, bunch of um volatility products around it that can be utilized in order to manipulate the price of Bitcoin.

So, a lot of the discussion around risk for Bitcoin treasury companies has been around their financial models. For example, some of the assumptions baked into Bitcoin's growth and their rising obligations to pay out dividends and the like. Um, but you seem to hold the view that actually it's more about the operational risks of custodianship and the the potential to create paper Bitcoin or the imid the image and the perception that there's an existence of an asset that's actually been taken away.

>> Yes. The derivative complex that they that they build around it. Um, and, you know, you've created the rails and the the the foundation >> for all the different products that the hedge funds layer on top. Um, and >> [clears throat] >> uh, that's what, you know, that's what Strategy is. I think people are focusing on the wrong thing. They're looking at, is Strategy a company that could go bankrupt and steal all the Bitcoin or something like that and end up in a Chapter 11? The answer is no. Why would they want to kill Strategy? Strategy is their tool. It's their strategy. It's the Fick's strategy. Why would they want to kill the, you know, one of the vital nodes in their derivative complex? And it's a foundational node in that complex. Uh, and all the products that they keep building on top add a new, a new mechanism for extracting fees, centralizing as much Bitcoin as possible, and extracting value. Um, that may end up people not owning Bitcoin and them ending owning as much Bitcoin. I don't know why they'd want to kill that. They they'd want that to exist. So in itself, it has to be a low-risk product, uh, so they can build on top of it and build around it.

I'm fascinated to see how that plays out because there are a lot of uh conflicting opinions on that. There's a lot of speculation and so like I I see a lot of conviction on the part of Saylor and I posted about that earlier. I think they've they've unlocked something that we have not yet seen in the entire life of Bitcoin and that is huge demand to finance Bitcoin purchases even in a bear market where previously we've seen, you know, Saylor was kind of handicapped in the last bear market where the demand for their convertible bonds pretty much capped out, whether or not they saturated the market or, you know, it was a bear market so no one was really interested in in taking up the convertible bonds in a bear market and their interest in Bitcoin was diminished. But what we're now seeing is in the depth of a bear market, they are buying every other week, it's a billion, billion and a half, sometimes two billion dollars worth of Bitcoin through the financing of their preferred share issuance. That's demonstrating a level of demand that was typical of, you know, peak bull market mania. And so it looks to me like they've cracked open the damn wall and money is just going to pour into Bitcoin even faster as the price rises.

>> So there's a couple of things there. So firstly, is it creating, is it sucking up a lot of Bitcoin? Yes. Does that create buy volume? Yes. Does that have impact on price dynamics? Yes. Uh, but it also gives more purchasing power to the Bitcoin derivative complex. Um, so the bigger that gets, the more the more power they have to manipulate prices with their with their suite of products >> around [clears throat] it. And he's just like Trump. He gets to have a narrative for who he's talking to and an action for who he works for. And who does he work for? His shareholders, his bondholders, his preferred holders. And yeah, a bunch of those are retail, but it's the institutions that matter. Mhm.

>> Yeah. And that's, um, the Jane Streets and the largest um institutions in in Fick. And so, um, that that's the boss.

>> Is is there any way that, um, a listed Bitcoin treasury company cannot be an attack vector on Bitcoin?

>> I think it depends what what game you're playing. If if you're in the game of number goes up only, then you'd embrace it. Bitcoin will succeed no matter what at this stage, >> right? But there are attack vectors and the attack vector is centralization versus decentralization in every layer, whether that's nodes, mining, ownership, and every layer. And so this is not something that concerns me in terms of the long-term viability of Bitcoin, but it is an attack vector to centralize. There has to be a community of people, just like there has to be a community of people that are focusing on quantum, or a community of people that are focusing on more nodes, >> or a community of people that are focusing on, um, more decentralizing. There needs to be a community of people that are focused on, let's make sure that the ratio of centralized Bitcoin to self-custody Bitcoin uh remains at a healthy pace.

I was reading a discussion online precisely about this and the concern that some people have about Saylor and his company owning too much Bitcoin as a percentage of the distribution, uh, the circulating distribution. And Mr. Huddle, who seems to have have been in every single argument since about 2011. He, it's amazing how many old uh threads that he's embedded into. He said, "Well, I bought Bitcoin back when Satoshi had a million and was a far greater percentage of the circulating distribution, and that wasn't a problem. So why should this be a problem now?" Yeah, I think the answer is in, um, there has to be that, like, decentralization is is the game here.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, and and this is >> the ideal, it's the aspiration, right? Cuz it's a core, it's a core virtue and value, sorry, core property which is a virtue within Bitcoin is decentralization.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. And so Strategy is a centralizing attack vector that gives more power to the very same people that we were trying to disrupt and and take more power away from. And so the self-custody people are opting out, are boycotting, are giving less power to Fick, and everyone else is giving more power to Fick. And I want to make sure, or if I'm on this earth to talk about one thing, I'm not going to change that. I'm irrelevant. There's nothing that I could say that's going to change what Fick are going to do. What I can do is try and shape individual behaviors so that they end up more sovereign. And there's a huge advantage of that. We take the best shot we have ever ever had exiting from the Fick control grid and making that as a block more influential, >> just as Iran made themselves more influential in negotiating with Fick. At some point, you either become free or you become subordinate. And what Strategy and everything represents is subordination, control grids, centralization, Fick, more power. What Bitcoin represents is sovereign, freedom, resistance, leverage, negotiation, freedom. And if that gets smaller and smaller and smaller, then there's going to be more and more people in the control grid.

>> Mhm. And and my my aspiration and my goal is to try and be a bigger force to negotiate against Fick because if Fick could, they just take all the Bitcoin and control this whole thing. It's interesting because, you know, Bitcoin serves a particular role in financial sovereignty. It's the best tool for financial sovereignty. There's nothing that comes close to financial sovereignty. But financial sovereignty is not the only financial need either. Some people require a stream of income, for example. And so if someone, let's let's put age aside, but if someone needs um both, isn't there a legitimate way, isn't there a legitimate place for a Bitcoin treasury company's preferred shares in their portfolio?

>> Um, yeah, this is not me placing a judgment because I understand the world. They the world wants you to centralize. They want you to be in control and they make it really a lot easier for you to do that by design. You know, the reason they want you owning it in a pension wrapper is because BlackRock wants to charge you fees on it and you get tax incentives for that. Um, and, uh, the reason that they want to create securities is to entice you um through yield and various other things into giving them or them controlling the Bitcoin in the end at the underlying of it. Um, so I don't judge people because people need to focus on their own micro world and you need to get the balance right between growth and income and and how you manage your world. And some people are trying to escape debt subordination and they need to lever up. Um, others are retiring and they just want less stress and, uh, others are in countries where they trust their government and they're Fick, you know. So, uh, there's a complete spectrum um of uh needs. One way of changing the system is to play within the system as it is. Extract as much as you can, which is what I think most people think Strategy is doing >> and then be the person that can actually influence, lobbies, can actually um make a difference because they're incredibly wealthy and they can speak out against the system. If you think about the world, it kind of puts people into two broad categories. There's a bunch of really subordinated people that are almost like in a in a debt slave world that don't have much money and they can, they've got freedom of speech and they can talk about anything. They could say, "Hey, Jeffrey Epstein this," but no one cares because they don't have power. They don't lobby. They don't have their money. Their vote doesn't matter. They think it matters, but the vote is with the money. Then you got people that are co-opted into the system. Michael Saylor, as an example. His fiduciary duty to his shareholders means that structurally he has to prioritize them and say whatever he needs to say within the confines of regulations to maximize the return for his shareholders. That's structural. You're not going to change that. That's a subordination vehicle, a public company where the board have to act in a governance framework and they can't go off on their own path in order to break that cycle. But the ones that have sovereign businesses with no debt dependency, with no vote, no VC, no shareholder that can tell them what to do, and they're wealthy, those are the ones that can change the world. There's not many of those. The system doesn't like those. That's why the pe, that's why the system didn't like Bitcoiners because we created a class of billionaires um that had no subordination and their wealth in self-custody, and they took them out and they tried to co-opt them into treasury companies and they did everything they could to co-opt them because they don't like those people. Um, and so that is where I want people to be because that's where we as a community may change. That's how we take on Fick. And I'm in a, I'm under no delusion that anything I'm going to do is going to actually, you know, change the system. And so I want to be in my exit. But if more and more people would join this exit, then we're the ones that can actually take the system down. But they don't want you to. They'd rather you have Strategy.

I agree. There's there's still no second best Bitcoin. Uh, there's no, there's no substitute for Bitcoin for financial sovereignty. I I think a lot of people looking at the price chart right now, someone someone put up an analysis of Bitcoin sentiment on on Twitter on the timeline, taking content posted, and they're saying Bitcoiners right now have never been angrier on the timeline [laughter] and well, I'd dispute that to be honest, but there seems to be a lot of, uh, a lot of people who are kind of jaded.

Yeah. And we didn't really get a blow-off top. We didn't get that level of excitement. And we're suddenly back down to a level that >> was pretty, we're pretty much at the same place. We've tried water for 5 years, >> right? Haven't really gone anywhere. Yeah. >> And so people are getting frustrated as a result of that. They're expecting, >> you know, the price to be around 140, 150, to be floating around that. But here we are going into, we're well and truly into another bear market. Uh, speculation whether or not we've reached a bottom. I think we have. Um, I think there's upside from here. How do you see it?

>> Yeah. So, um, there's two ways to tackle this, right? One way is that you decide, I'm going to always try and put my capital in the best place it should be. All right. And so if you were in Bitcoin and you missed the AI trade, you lost a lot of money. A lot of money, >> a lot of money. [laughter] Um, but the other way to see that is that you have a long-term belief around the need for Bitcoin and what it does in the future and, uh, you accumulate into weakness. And so if you've been buying at these cheaper prices for the last 5 years, well, you know, we had the the spike or whatever, but if you've been dollar cost averaging, um, and if you really are valuing your wealth in Bitcoin rather than valuing your wealth in dollars, then you want the Bitcoin price to be as low as possible for as long as possible, knowing what you think the endgame is.

>> Yeah.

>> Which gets you more Bitcoin. And so if you're valuing your wealth in dollars, you're going to be pissed right now. And you probably didn't get the trade right because, you know, picking picking where to be in every moment, it's the trading game. And and Bitcoin gave you the simplicity of, uh, you know, value my wealth in Bitcoin and accumulate as much Bitcoin as possible. So if you're if your accumulation into weak markets and your goal is in the next 10 years, I want a life-changing amount of Bitcoin, then this is great. This is the best thing that can ever happen. But if your goal is to always be in the highest performing fiat value asset, then you've made the worst decision. Yeah, there there is there is another thing is that some people are at the point where, yeah, they do want to cash out some Bitcoin and buy a house, some Bitcoin and maybe put just put a deposit on a house, some Bitcoin and upgrade their lifestyle for their family as well. And, you know, perhaps they would have been looking to do a little if if they've been in it for a while, they might have been looking to do that at the peak of every subsequent cycle, for example.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, rather than constantly trying to maximize the allocation of your capital at any particular point.

And I think most of us are kind of like that. Yeah, I do want to sell some Bitcoin occasionally and um, upgrade life or buy a house or an apartment or look after some people every now and then. Otherwise, what's the point of wealth anyway, right?

>> Absolutely. Um, you know, what what are we here for other than to try and circulate what we achieve in order to do things that are more fulfilling?

>> Yeah.

>> Um, that's what life's about. And and I believe there is an energy in money and if you're allocate if you're using your Bitcoin to make the world a better place, I think it comes back with an energy. You know, that's just a philosophical belief around what you do with your money. So, I always try and um, you know, circulate some Bitcoin with that in mind as a as a bucket.

Um, but that's a privilege as well, cuz I I was in a position one time where if the price of Bitcoin went down, I'm broke. You know what I mean? So, I I know what it's like to be in both both positions. Yeah.

>> And reality kicks in. And Wall Street knows it. Fick knows it.

>> Fick knows that the solution to that is that they can outinvest you because they got a longer-term horizon.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, or they can say, "Give it to me and I'll give you a loan against it." And I'm not judging those, but you just need to know that um you are pushing yourself into the spectrum of subordination as you do that in exchange for the tradeoff of what I value in life more.

And and and that's the friction of life. You know what I mean? There's there's no ideal here. There's a spectrum of opportunities. There's a spectrum of decisions. Um, and I will give some subordination in order to borrow against my Bitcoin knowing that I'm empowering Fick and I'm decreasing my sovereign power. Um, and perhaps I can play the game like Michael Saylor played, you know, in order to turn my public company into an incredibly valuable public company. And that's the game we all have to play. Um, and and so I I don't judge that. And and if you get the pricing wrong, if you're making short-term decisions on a longer-term asset, then sadly you're subjected to price decisions and that will either go wrong or right.

So, do you have a read on on what's happening to the Bitcoin price right now with respect to I guess, you know, year-end target, but also like how do you see the cycles? Do you see last year as a conclusion of another cycle or are they over for you? And do you have a projection for like what happens from here on in in terms of trend?

I've always stayed away from it in my whole Bitcoin journey.

Um, but I'd look at I I I don't think we're decoupled from geopolitics and macro in the end. And so at the moment, I think a lot of Bitcoin liquidity is being sucked out for the AI trade. I think we're in an AI bubble. That doesn't mean that I don't think AI is going to change everything and and the entire world, because it is. Uh, but so did the internet, but there was still a bubble um, and I think there is um, a utility need for Bitcoin in the in the multipolar world and an escape from the control grid. But in the meantime, I think they're pumping the stock market um like crazy. And for as long as that AI trade is outperforming Bitcoin, we may get just what we got: weakness, an environment that makes people want to capitulate further and further depression. Um, and, uh, so the only solution to that is to value your wealth in Bitcoin and use it to accumulate Bitcoin and have a longer-term strategy. But if you're still valuing your wealth in dollars and you got some short-term goals, then sadly you're in the capital allocation game and and you might want to think, is Bitcoin the right place to be right now?

Uh, for a percentage of it, and it doesn't have to be everything. Um, [clears throat] but, uh, if I were to to try and speculate, I think we might be in that for the rest of the year. I think you'll get an opportunity to buy cheaper Bitcoin.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

Interesting.

I I [clears throat] I'm I'm thinking along the lines of the resolution of, uh, the war on Iran. That resolution, I think, will serve as a kind of tailwind, as well as the, I think the AI IPOs are going to be good for markets in general. Yeah. Um, but we've got that very inconvenient question to answer.

Why is AI done so well and Bitcoin didn't go up with it? Because it was following AI before. It was a tech stock effectively, but now it's not. So, what is it? [laughter]

Um, >> it's hard to tell. And that's that's why I raised a question earlier in previous part about whether or not it was Iran that was selling.

Yeah.

>> In preparation for the war. [clears throat] Maybe. Yeah. I mean, Iran does have a whole payment infrastructure integrated into China's system. So, and UAE system. So there are there are rails. But maybe >> well, if you if you can hear the >> the war drums beating and you're thinking >> Bitcoin's up, we can liquidate at a fairly good price right now in preparation for, you know, whatever purchases that they needed to make. And Israel and, um, US did target the largest exchange in Iran and um, try and hack it and steal the assets. Um, so they did did they did try and choke the the Bitcoin exchange. We we spoke briefly about AI and um, and Bitcoin mining. Um, it seems that AI is now well and truly competing with energy and energy infrastructure, uh, with Bitcoin mining. And a lot of the Bitcoin miners have, I wouldn't even say they pivoted into AI. They pivoted away from Bitcoin. I think a lot of them don't really want to come out and say it straight off. So, they say, "Oh, we do both. We're data processing. We do energy infrastructure." Um, but basically they're now AI AI processing centers, data centers. So like what what does that mean for for Bitcoin's security and Bitcoin mining?

It it's the difference between the the private infrastructure versus the public infrastructure in terms of a vehicle. So as a public company, you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders to maximize returns. Um, and utilizing your data centers for AI. Um, and using the, uh, well, utilizing it is more profitable at the moment and using the narrative is more profitable for your share price because it's a narrative. We're in bubble territory as well. And so if you get the double whammy of share price, access to capital, plus a more profitable business, you're gonna, as a fiduciary, you have to make that make that switch. Um, in the private side, you don't necessarily have to do that. And so you're going to get you're going to be able to utilize your equipment. You're going to have a [clears throat] difficulty rate adjustment. It moves away from Fick control to private control. So to me, it's a, it's a better, it's a better thing um to have less, uh, you know, it's kind of like a cleansing force and it will adjust and it will bound and then AI will get its crash and um, and then narrative change and you move over to the next narrative. AI is the foundation of the control grid and Bitcoin is the foundation of the sovereign grid. And I think those are the two most important stories of our lifetime. And I don't think any of us know what the world's going to look like in 10 years. But I do know that AI is something I need to follow and Bitcoin and self-custody is something I need to use to protect myself.

You mentioned, uh, about the move towards something that looks like a one-world government >> and when you have a look at the emerging forces, the emerging sovereign powers who are, I guess, they seem more, they're not really aligned with Bitcoin, but they're closer to Bitcoin than the existing, uh, powers like Europe and and the United States. So what role does Bitcoin play in that kind of situation?

>> Yeah. So the two centralizing powers of the world are Fick and China. >> They're creating the one-world government. Fick and China, you know, with their control over Tech. Then you have countries that want to get their own data centers and be sovereign, and that's the Bitcoin story. So for them, they they need, you know, they need their mechanism of fitting into the two controlling powers of the one-world government, and so that's their story. And so Bitcoin helps them like Iran, like El Salvador. El Salvador is a resistance against IMF with Bitcoin. Um, Iran is a resistance against sanctions with Bitcoin. Those are our two stories that we have. Um, UAE is utilizing Bitcoin in order to attract capital in a multipolar world. And what are US and China doing? CBDCs and stablecoins. Really? Will we get that Bitcoin strategic reserve in America? I doubt it. Will we get the ability to try and confiscate as much Bitcoin as possible in America? Yes, they already are doing it. And who is battling over those confiscations of Bitcoin? China and America.

>> Why, why not just buy? Why, why confiscate? Because of course, you know, America's got, you know, property, property right protections for its citizens and and corporations as well. So, that seems to me like a more, um, troublesome route to take than just buying it outright.

>> When the Fick want to kill the dollar, then they'll do that. They'll buy Bitcoin.

>> Uh, because you're going short treasuries in order to buy Bitcoin. You're printing money to buy Bitcoin. Um, if China is ready to put a blow onto the Western Empire, they'll engineer a derivative collapse of the commodities market. They'll use their cheaper AI in order to crash the stock market. They'll sell their treasuries in order to collapse the bond market. Um, and they'll print some money to buy Bitcoin because they're not world reserve currency and they don't want to be world reserve currency because they want capital controls. And so the moment that America starts and China starts buying Bitcoin, then then you know that that's the end of the world reserve currency. Uh, so there is a moment when the Fed and the Bank for International Settlement and PBOC is ready to do that, but we're not there yet. They're still using the banks are still using treasuries as collateral.

Um, and so Bitcoin's kind of how you mark a moment when you're ready to change the order.

You could use Bitcoin for it. Do do you think that there will be a watershed moment when when the world just suddenly starts moving towards Bitcoin or um, or is it just going to be a gradual thing?

I think it's gradual. Um, I don't think I I think they're doing a silent depression. I think they're doing a managed transition. And when things go wrong, they engineer collapses. Um, so you get a little bit of a mix of both. And I don't pretend to know which one they're going to do in in every moment. I think it's slow and steady and and not as not as dramatical as people would like it to be. We don't need a Bitcoin standard for Bitcoin to succeed. I'd rather not have a Bitcoin standard. I'd rather have loads of people just owning Bitcoin than a bunch of governments and companies centralizing as much Bitcoin as possible. I'd much rather that. I'm irrelevant. [laughter] You know what there what's going to happen is is either way is the same story.

>> Yeah. I I also don't believe fiat will disappear. I I don't. So long as we have functioning states, we will have functioning fiat um currencies.

>> Yeah, I debated Jeff Booth on this one. Like he thinks like Bitcoin kills everything, we end up in a utopia and fiat currency fails. Oh,

>> okay. That's interesting because I'm going to interview him for the first time in Prague. Um, so we're going to have a really good discussion after >> I mean, at least he's a he's a thoughtful guy. You, this is what I like about having people that I don't necessarily agree with on everything is that you can have some really interesting discussions, fleshing out the disagreements, you know, respectfully, of course, and um, and you never know, you might learn something.

>> No, you'll feel a lot better after speaking to Jeff. He's an optimist, right?

>> Oh, he's an optimist.

>> Yeah.

>> Um, you know, and I'm, uh, I I lived in that world. I remember being an optimist and you kind of have to play that role um at one point in your life, but then I hit a point where I was like, "Yeah, I want to figure out how the world really works now." [laughter]

>> And then I'm like, "Okay, now I understand how the game works because I've been beaten in politics, in business, in not-for-profit, in investing, in, you know, 25 years of that." You you see how all these subordination networks and operations work. It it's interesting we we've come across this topic now because I heard Elon, he said a few times, Elon Musk, that in the long term it pays off much more to be an optimist than a pessimist. Right? And I wonder actually whether it depends on the different stages of your life that you're at or different stages of wealth creation as well. So if you're a builder, you have to be an optimist. You can't be a pessimist and a builder. But once you've created a certain amount of wealth, I'm talking about as a private individual, not as a public company CEO like Elon Musk is, once you've made wealth, you've got to protect the wealth because wealth is easier lost than it's made, right? Making wealth is much harder than losing it.

>> Yeah. And I wonder whether or not it just, you know, that pendulum swings towards becoming more conservative and aware and focused of on risks once you've made a certain level of wealth.

I think there's something to be said that like, I mean, my journey, you know, I worked in investment banking, then I went self-employed and, you know, started [clears throat] working on banking reform and consulting and contracts. Then I built a business which was around, um, you know, it was ironically the business I didn't realize I was building at the time, but it became the BlackRock of Bitcoin companies because we, that's how I know about all these voting rights because I ended up shareholder and voting rights in 100 different Bitcoin companies.

Um, >> but it's [clears throat] a bang to the future.

>> Yeah. Yeah. And then we ended up selling that to Coinbase. So >> Are they still operating that? And and that's the interesting. Yes, they're operating that and BlackRock's using it for the tokenized everything joint venture with Coinbase. So it's, it's life works in very mysterious ways. Like, uh, yeah, the company we built ended up being repackaged into something that Coinbase used that ended up being used by Securitize, and which was one of the companies I invested in that's doing all the tokenized bonds for BlackRock. Um, and the tokenized everything with Coinbase was the broker that we created. Um, so it's very interesting. But then you become an investor. And when you're an investor, I'd say when I was an entrepreneur, you know, you have to have a deluded belief around what you can achieve. And when you're an investor, you get screwed over by everything. And you need to um, you need to be way more realistic around all the that people are pitching you. Um, and so that optimism to skepticism was a journey from owning a business, selling a business to then becoming an investor. I'd say in my life, I also think there's an age element to it. May maybe there's a a youthful deluded ignorance that's needed to succeed at a younger age. And as you get older, you have lots of life experiences that make you a bit more a bit more skeptical.

>> Humiliation, and loss. [laughter] But I do struggle with this philosophical question. Uh, because I I've done the whole, you know, red pill, black pill, white pill type of thing.

>> Mhm.

>> But once you know the difference in results of the different pills, [sighs] I've hit upon a stage in life where I've said I only care about what I believe to be true, which may not be true, but what I believe to be true is all I care about. And I've hit a stage and Bitcoin gives you a bit an element of FE money. You know, that was the whole thing. But I've hit the stage where um I don't care about popularity. I only really care about being accurate in my analysis. And sometimes being accurate is very unpopular. Even in analyzing Iran, everyone hates you because my analysis is kind of very nuanced and and everyone thinks that you're, oh, you're a Zionist, or no, you're you're an Iran terrorist. You know, every type of label gets put on you when you're when you're saying that no, it's very nuanced. You know, two things can be true.

I feel that way in politics. You know, some people accuse me of being a socialist communist and other people accuse me of being a right-wing fascist. And I'm not, and I'm not a centrist either. So, like, I just have different opinions on on different [laughter] topics.

>> Yeah. And so, um, yeah, I've I've kind of hit this stage right now where maybe just being positive and ignoring all the crimes against humanity that I've unearthed is a better way of producing output.

>> Well, maybe for your mental health anyway.

>> But it doesn't feel right. And when I wanted to figure out what's creating wars and how this thing will happen, it's really dark. It's incredibly dark. Um, but I don't feel like I have I've been in the world where I ignored the truth and I ended up preserving systems that I think are fundamentally evil. And then once I understood the truth, I understood the rules as I understood them and then I was able to play the game in a better way. But I had to accept the evil that I was a cog in the wheel of. Um, and once I understood the rules, I was able to say, well, you know, I've got an iPhone. I know what happens in Congo and in order to produce that iPhone. Um, but I still need an iPhone to be productive. I still need to use AI. I know I'm building my social credit score, but I can't be unproductive. And so once you have the truth, there's a bit of a liberation in the spectrum of decision making. And then it comes to a bit of, I think, a philosophical question, which is, I think every day I'm thrown decisions and I've got a better analysis to say, is that good and is that bad? And the further I can get to making more good decisions and more bad decisions, um, in terms of an understanding of what makes the world a a better place and what good and bad is. Um, I found that, uh, that the truthfulness um of sometimes not being an optimist, actually just seeing how bad that actually is >> has led me to what looks like an initial bad decision, but then paid off many times over in terms of some spiritual energy that took me in a different direction. You know, I can look back at every decision, every major decision I've made where I turned down what looked like a great opportunity or an opportunity didn't surface. Turned out that was a key defining moment of a network and path that I didn't really want to go down, and I can only see it [clears throat] a few years later.

Interesting. Just thinking about Bitcoin relative to AI now. The most valuable company in the world at the moment is Nvidia.

Four or five trillion. Yeah, it hit 6 trillion at its peak, but it's around about 5 trillion now.

5 trillion. So, Bitcoin is just under 1.5 trillion. That seems to me like we're falling behind. And I feel like it should, Bitcoin should be the equal at the least, and possibly two or three times the most valuable company in the world, especially if we're thinking gold is an analog for Bitcoin in terms of market cap. It feels like we're so far behind. It really does feel like we're we should be in the mid 100s and we're we're [laughter] down to 73,000 right now.

>> Yes. If but but but I think it's a miracle we're here. It's an absolute miracle that we're here having this conversation.

>> Yeah. Like when I think back to like that first Bitcoin conference when there was like 50 of us in a room and the the weirdest but most interesting people I've ever met and [sighs] [gasps] I used to have meetings in crack dens and squats in Old Street to meet developers that were working in Bitcoin that were good, that were, you know, that were excited about buying drugs with Bitcoin. That's where we started. Wow.

>> And now we've got the biggest powers in the world like the Chinese Communist Party, like the Trump administration, uh, global south, El Salvador, players, sanctioned countries like Iran, um, you know, oil OPEC producers like UAE, uh, discussing or, you know, saying how Bitcoin might be a part of this equation. That's unbelievable. And that was what, so 2011, we're in '26. That was 15 years. How you go from a few people in a crack den to the biggest drug dealers in the world [laughter] or the biggest countries in the world, the biggest power structures in the world, BlackRock, >> you know, say I talk about all these things, but now the fact that we even had this debate today about these topics is unbelievable and far superseded any expectation I could ever imagine is possible. And now if we're deciding between the market cap of Bitcoin versus the market cap of gold and Saudi Aramco and Nvidia, the biggest trends in the world, I'm I if nothing changes from here, I'm happy. Um, but I think we got a lot further to go. I think we got a lot further to go. Um, and and it's cyclical.

How how far do you think we've got to go? Because a lot of people use the gold market cap as a baseline.

>> Yeah. And I think I think that would be a good starting point. Like I think once Bitcoin gets to one-third of gold at some point, >> uh I just think there's, you know, that's that's hugely significant.

>> Yeah. If you if you take like the top 30 assets in the world, like Bitcoin's in there in the top 30, and that's including the Chinese yuan, the US dollar, gold as a market cap, silver, Saudi Aramco, Nvidia, every asset that we go for, there is a new story >> of why did we overtake silver? You know, what's the story behind that? What's the story? You know, why did we become bigger than Amazon? Why did we become bigger than Google? Uh, why did we become bigger than the Brazilian currency? [clears throat] Why did we become bigger than the Chinese yuan? Why did we become bigger than the dollar? And every everyone's a story. So I think it's I think people should always be looking at that relative asset, but we're a top 30 asset in the world. That's remarkable.

Bitcoin was in, I think, top five or six at one point.

>> Yeah. That's just just market cap of shares, gold, and Bitcoin. But when you include like currencies, real estate, I mean, real estate and various other things.

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> I mean, the total market cap of real estate, I think it's like 187 trillion or something like that.

>> Um, so that's the top >> Bond market's a couple hundred trillion, right? At least two 300 trillion.

>> Yeah. I'm not going to embarrass myself. I can't think of the number right now, but it's a big number.

>> Yeah, I had Jesse Jesse in [clears throat] here. uh he he's got that beautiful chart that profiles all the entire asset base of the globe. I think one box from memory was about 300 trillion.

>> Yeah.

>> Bonds, fixed income, that sort of thing. And that's that's what that's what I think, you know, the preferred shares of these Bitcoin treasury companies are trying to attack.

>> Yeah. I'm not sure what percentage of that they'll attract, but it does feel like it does feel like that's an infinite amount of demand that's going to come through. If if they're doing a billion a week in a bear market, I just I think they will outpace ETFs in a bull market.

>> Yeah, they're already outpacing ETFs.

>> Yeah.

>> All I ask is in the future, are more people or less people going to need to own their own money? I think more.

>> More. Yeah. Are more people or less people going to want to spend money peer-to-peer? I think more.

>> Are more people or less people going to need to protect themselves from central bank debasement? I think more.

>> Yeah.

>> And let's enjoy the journey.

On that note, Simon Dixon, it's a pleasure as always.

>> Thank you for having me. Listen.