0:00

Hey, hey, welcome to the Bitcoin

0:02

Matrix. I'm your host, Cedric Youngelvin.

0:04

This episode is a recording of

0:07

an X-space I have the pleasure

0:09

of hosting on March 24th. It

0:11

features a compelling debate between Kevin

0:14

Brent Cook, a veteran Nevada analyst,

0:16

and probability trader, and grain of

0:18

salt, a successful Silicon Valley investor

0:21

who went all in on Bitcoin

0:23

back in 2017. Serving as our

0:26

impartial juror is Joe Collissari, a

0:28

seasoned commercial litigator and respected voice

0:30

in the Bitcoin legal space. At

0:33

the heart of our discussion. is

0:35

one of the most fascinating moments

0:37

in recent market history. Josh Mandel's

0:40

precise and publicly stated prediction that

0:42

Bitcoin would hit $84,000 on Pi

0:44

Day March 14th at precisely 8

0:47

p.m. Eastern Time. And remarkably, it

0:49

did. Kevin argues that many are

0:52

being fooled by randomness. Green believes

0:54

Josh is simply an elite trader

0:56

and maybe even tapped into something

0:59

unconventional. Memories Multiverse is time loops,

1:01

who knows? But what if he's

1:03

right again? This time about Bitcoin

1:06

hitting $44,000 in November of this

1:08

year. At the very least, he

1:11

deserves our attention. Maybe not everything

1:13

we see is all there is.

1:15

If you're into trading, probability, human

1:18

potential, or the mysterious pace between

1:20

science and the unknown, this episode

1:22

is for you. The world's largest

1:25

Bitcoin conference hits Las Vegas, May

1:27

27th to May 29th at the

1:29

Venetian Resort. Use Code Matrix for

1:32

discount on your tickets at B.T.S.

1:34

to/conference,/2025. Or grab a link in

1:37

the show notes. Join me for

1:39

an ice cold beer in Vegas.

1:41

Get your tickets now. I hope

1:44

you enjoy this rip. If you

1:46

want to smash by this dip,

1:48

use my Code Matrix over at

1:51

River. And earn up to $100

1:53

when you buy Bitcoin on River.

1:55

If you do want to get

1:58

in touch with me, it's Cedric

2:00

at the Bitcoinmatrix.com. And now, let's...

2:03

enter the Bitcoin Matrix for this

2:05

fascinating discussion between

2:08

Grain of Salt

2:11

and Kevin Brent

2:13

Cook. What is real?

2:15

How do you define

2:17

real? You can't jump

2:19

into cash. Cash is

2:22

trash. What do you

2:24

do? You get out.

2:26

I'm super excited for the

2:28

chat. But we have agreed

2:30

to sort of a structure

2:32

here where Kevin and Brain a

2:34

few minutes each to introduce themselves

2:36

and begin with five to 10

2:39

minutes each for constructive for some

2:41

constructive speech and to make their

2:43

case. I think everyone's kind of

2:46

agreed to have a beforehand

2:48

and then get a thumbs up from

2:50

Green and Kevin. Yeah, that's great. And

2:52

Cedric now you have you have the

2:54

echo now. So I do. Okay, I'll work on

2:56

that after I pass it over to you. So

2:59

let me do that. So Kevin, why

3:01

don't you take five to 10 minutes

3:03

to maybe give us your story, your

3:05

backstory, and who you are? Fantastic.

3:07

Thank you. All right. This should be fun.

3:09

All right. So let me tell a little

3:11

bit of my story and why I'm here.

3:14

I've been an invidia analyst since 2017.

3:16

I wasn't paid for that. My investment

3:18

research firm. I just slowly

3:21

created it on my own on top

3:23

of my other duties. Once I learned what

3:25

a massively parallel architecture was. I

3:27

was hooked. It broke down the

3:29

mystery of a supercomputer in a

3:31

way that I could grasp. So ever

3:33

since, I've been encouraging teenagers

3:36

and other big kids to put down

3:38

the video controller a few hours a

3:40

week anyway and learn about GPUs

3:42

and machine learning. Now as an investor

3:44

for it and picking stocks for other

3:46

people for the past 15 years, I've

3:48

made my share of mistakes. But one

3:50

thing I did right was learn what

3:52

invidia could do with GPUs and

3:55

then always explain that why you should buy

3:57

the dips. In 2017, I made my first

3:59

videos and podcast about massively parallel architectures,

4:01

deep learning, AlphaGo, deep stack, and neural

4:03

networks. And there should be, or I

4:06

can post in the nest, one of

4:08

my pieces from 2018 titled, Who Cares

4:10

in Video Makes Great Gaming Graphics? And

4:12

there was a point there where we

4:15

should have all paid attention in 2017,

4:17

2018. So that year, I also submitted

4:19

a pitch to the National Science Foundation

4:22

Fund for an AI powered concept for

4:24

youth STEM education. I called it the

4:26

learning design engine. I was inspired to

4:28

do this because I grew up allergic

4:31

to algebra and didn't teach myself probability

4:33

of statistics until I was in my

4:35

30s. And I did it primarily with

4:37

stories. So, you know, that inspired me

4:40

to learn the math like going back

4:42

to Pascal and Vermont. My concept was

4:44

to use an interface that would let

4:47

teens and their teachers enter curiosity prompts

4:49

based on their interests and aptitude. and

4:51

then the engine could create personalized immersive

4:53

experiences in any STEM area using AR

4:56

and VR. This was before the transformer

4:58

paper in the summer of 2017 and

5:00

some have said I was channeling chat

5:02

GPT before any of us knew what

5:05

an LLLM was. Unfortunately I didn't get

5:07

the grant from the National Science Foundation

5:09

and you may have seen the national

5:12

news lately about an AI tutor rocketing

5:14

student test scores at a private school

5:16

to the top 2% in the country.

5:18

I think it's called Alpha. Amazing stuff.

5:21

So I was early and I was

5:23

naive. I listened to people who told

5:25

me that I didn't know what I

5:27

was doing because I wasn't a technical

5:30

person. To be clear though, I'm not

5:32

an expert. I'm not an engineer, I'm

5:34

not a computer scientist. I'm just super

5:37

curious. And when I tackle an area,

5:39

I try to quickly get to first

5:41

principles, especially the origin stories, because I

5:43

like stories better than equations. And it's

5:46

really about doing the work. Just like

5:48

many of you have done in Bitcoin

5:50

and micro strategy. But our interests may

5:52

have diverged a little recent this past

5:55

week as you were talking about Bitcoin

5:57

or micro strategy and sailors latest presence.

5:59

I was needy in Invidia GTC

6:01

for three sessions a day learning

6:04

all I could about that juggernauts.

6:06

All right, so what inspired me

6:08

to go to ground truth and

6:10

first principles of probability? When I

6:13

first walked into the trading pit,

6:15

the CME in 1994, I was hooked.

6:17

Here was in here, an average Joe or

6:19

Jane could lease a badge and trade

6:21

global 3D chess in pork bellies,

6:24

Deutsch marks, gold, and your

6:26

dollar deposit, rate deposits. And

6:28

I was walking among some of the market

6:31

wizards, you know, still on the trading

6:33

floor in the offices that Jack Schweiger

6:35

wrote about in his books. I devoured

6:37

those books. And when I did, when

6:39

I read his books, I distilled six

6:41

common themes that I called

6:43

the keys to the kingdom.

6:45

Psychology, risk management, systems, consistency,

6:48

discipline, and probability. There was

6:50

just one problem. I was the math

6:52

flunky. But the wizard said probability

6:54

thinking and system was

6:57

non-negotiable. to be a successful trader for

6:59

the long term. And it was in

7:01

fact the antidote to irrational emotional

7:03

trading. But I was just a lowly

7:05

clerk making six bucks an hour. But because

7:08

I was tenacious I learned fast

7:10

in several areas simultaneously. Math,

7:12

options, currencies, forward rate curves,

7:14

hedging, contangle rolls. Within a year

7:17

I was teaching introductory courses at

7:19

the CME that I designed for

7:21

new hires on futures and global

7:23

hedging interest rates. Now who knew that

7:25

I could understand synthetic loans that

7:28

could be created from forward euro

7:30

dollar contracts? I named the

7:32

amphitheater that was the euro dollar pit

7:34

the Swiss watch of finance because of

7:36

its precision fine tuning of corporate

7:39

paper bank lending and yield curve

7:41

spreading going out 10 years. Then I got

7:43

two breaks, one little break and one

7:45

giant one. In 1998 as I watched

7:47

more floor traders move out of the

7:50

pits to the electronic trading desks. and

7:52

no millionaire CME gold badges were putting

7:54

their arms around me like they did with

7:56

their cousins and their nephews, I

7:58

decided to look off-floor. I took

8:00

a job as another type of clerk

8:02

in the back office of a currency

8:05

arbitrage shop. I was basically a glorified

8:07

bookkeeper creating and tracking payments of two

8:09

billion worth of British pounds or Japanese

8:11

yen every night. But I was doing

8:14

it at 3 a.m. and it was

8:16

brutal. After the first week I wanted

8:18

to jump up the window into the

8:21

Chicago River. But I got a young

8:23

family at home and had our first

8:25

house. So I crushed it for a

8:27

year and then the chief dealer offered

8:30

me a position on the trading desk.

8:32

I had finally made it. That's when

8:34

my learning really took off. The new

8:36

euro currency had just launched in 1999

8:39

and volatility picked up on all the

8:41

fear and loathing around that. Would China

8:43

dump dollars and treasuries to buy oil

8:46

and euros? All that stuff. It was

8:48

a cage match training. I survived multiple

8:50

face rippings as the ECB, the European

8:52

Central Bank, would intervene to support the

8:55

euro from 85 cents back up to

8:57

95 cents. Within a year I was

8:59

transacting 100 million per night doing spot

9:01

futures arbitrage. Yeah, we still had work

9:04

the midnight shift because CME FX futures

9:06

weren't allowed in the day. But my

9:08

most important lessons were still about the

9:10

basics, probability and my own mind and

9:13

emotions. I studied anti-conements and behavioral finance

9:15

and Antonio COs experiments in the neuroscience

9:17

of decisions involving risk and uncertainty. Even

9:20

before I read, Nassine Tellebs fooled by

9:22

randomness. I was working on research about

9:24

rogue traders and how what the rogue

9:26

does to a billion dollars of other

9:29

people's money we can do to our

9:31

own accounts if we're not aware of

9:33

our biases. So I have an article

9:35

I can put in the nest titled

9:38

Mental Models of Financial Sabotages on Medium.

9:40

And it's about how traders fooled themselves

9:42

with numerous perceptual and behavioral biases. I

9:44

concluded that if you didn't get your

9:47

probability basics right and know your behavioral

9:49

biases that interfere was rational. of systems

9:51

and rules, then you were never going

9:54

to make it as a trader. Around

9:56

2004, I devised a probability training to

9:58

solve this. problem for professional traders who

10:00

were coming off the floor, many of

10:03

whom had been lucky on the trading

10:05

floor in the pits with their access

10:07

to information and public order flow.

10:09

I called the training the Silla and

10:11

Karibdis because it used a simulation

10:13

that would root out whether traders were

10:16

operating with a mental system that

10:18

capitalized on randomness or they were gamblers

10:20

in search of ruin. If you know the Homer's

10:22

myth, you know, the adventure of Odysseus, you

10:24

could figure out why I named it, the

10:26

Silla and Karibdis. My tagline for the

10:28

simulation was risk software for your

10:31

brain. There's a tech guy that VC Guy

10:33

follow on on acts named Greg Eisenberg. He's

10:35

a good follow. The other day he wrote,

10:37

every industry will be rebuilt around

10:39

multimodal AI, not because of cost

10:41

savings, but because humans suck

10:44

at integrating information across modalities.

10:46

AI can see patterns across

10:48

text, images, voice and data that

10:50

we physically cannot. This is something

10:52

I believe for decades, but have trouble

10:54

explaining to most people because They have

10:57

a lot of trouble in it. The

10:59

first step in lots of endeavors is

11:01

admitting that you suck. The best learning and

11:03

drive come after that. Every successful

11:06

trader, entrepreneur, business manager, athlete,

11:08

or musician knows the first

11:10

step is admitting you suck. I went out

11:12

of my way in the 20 tens to make sure I

11:14

knew where I sucked and to fix that

11:17

with black shoals options pricing, volatility

11:19

arb, Vix derivatives, and put call

11:21

parody. I often say that if you haven't

11:24

taken the time to study blacksholes, you shouldn't

11:26

be talking about anything in markets and

11:28

trading. It's like commenting about your education

11:30

system or NASA without understanding what

11:33

Archimedes, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein

11:35

actually accomplished. I'm not saying you

11:37

have the passiculous class. I'm saying if you

11:40

study enough probability and statistics and

11:42

grasp the primary functions of

11:44

blacksholes, especially second derivative curvature,

11:46

then you will be a reasonably

11:48

educated and intellectually flexible skeptic in

11:50

markets and in life. For example, there's

11:53

an epidemic on X of traders posting

11:55

about gamma squeezes, and they don't

11:57

even know what second derivative curvature

11:59

is. from Black Sholes. Even more

12:01

basic, most don't know what book

12:03

call parody is and how it

12:05

logically precedes Black Sholes. I tried

12:07

to fix that by offering my

12:09

2008 article for free, but very

12:11

few micro strategy traders are interested.

12:13

I can put that the nest

12:16

too. I always offer free. If

12:18

you've spent more and I suggest

12:20

what I say, you know, speaking

12:22

of Italians like Galileo, if you

12:24

spent more time watching the Sopranos

12:26

than reading Galileo, My Options Physics

12:28

might be for you. Lastly, on

12:30

the education front, I'm currently writing

12:32

a book called Deep Time and

12:34

the UFO Paradox. Science education is

12:36

my most important mission, especially for

12:38

teenagers. And I would like to

12:40

spend all my time focused on

12:42

this because pseudoscience is the worst

12:44

thing we can give our teens.

12:46

You can also get a free

12:48

copy of the first five chapters

12:50

of my book Deep Time. And

12:52

I pick on the UFO crowd

12:54

because they are easily the worst

12:56

and most prolific prolific offenders. And

12:59

since I've been studying evolution, astrophysics,

13:01

and neuroscience, you know, as a

13:03

hobby, you know, in my free

13:05

time, I'm not just a skeptic

13:07

of UFO narrative, I actually do

13:09

the work. This said, I'm not

13:11

here to criticize anyone today. I'm

13:13

just here to have a conversation

13:15

about science and probability and math,

13:17

and hopefully I can elucidate some

13:19

key concepts that can help us

13:21

all. I am also completely open to

13:23

having my mind changed, or at least learn something new at

13:25

any point during or after the discussion. And finally, I would

13:27

hope this would be a civil, highly educational debate, and no

13:29

one in the audience walks away angry or ready to docs

13:32

anyone else. If my words defend anyone, that's not my intent.

13:34

You know, just be willing to look at that where that

13:36

reaction and where it leads you. And if you are also

13:38

free to make fun of me for not fully getting Bitcoin

13:40

until March of 2024. That's right. I'm you know, I'm barely

13:42

a yearling and Bitcoin. And it took Sailor to do it.

13:44

And my video that I made in September about this.

13:46

called Bitcoin for Family Offices, has

13:48

nearly 3 ,000 views. So if

13:51

you've watched it, I thank

13:53

you. I find it still educational,

13:55

no matter what your level

13:57

of investing. So thank you. Yes,

13:59

thank you, Kevin. I hope

14:01

Echo is gone. I hope I

14:03

corrected that problem. Thank you

14:05

for sharing that. I think it's

14:07

good to hear your background

14:10

and your approach. I think there's

14:12

also an opportunity now to

14:14

give grain a chance to share

14:16

a little bit about his

14:18

background or what he flew with

14:20

before we get started. And

14:22

I'll outline a little bit more

14:24

about how we'll arrange the

14:26

conversation after a grain's introduction. That's

14:30

great. Thank you. So for the people that have

14:32

heard of me before, grain

14:34

assault, I do get questions on why

14:36

did I pick that name? And that's because

14:38

I approach things with a degree of

14:40

skepticism. So if I'm skeptical about something, then

14:42

I put the work and effort into

14:44

it to figure out why this should be

14:46

something that I do or why I

14:49

put my money in it. So I've said

14:51

before in spaces, I got into a

14:53

lively discussion of a guy that reported to

14:55

me who was an MIT graduate, was

14:57

not Michael Saylor. And in December of 2014,

14:59

but I didn't buy any Bitcoin because

15:01

you had to buy them out of Gox

15:03

in Japan and the price had crashed.

15:06

So I was in about $240 at the

15:08

time. So I didn't buy any. And

15:10

it was very immature at that time in

15:12

terms of the wallets holding it on

15:14

exchanges and so forth. So I didn't buy

15:16

any. I've also said in everything that

15:18

I'm saying on this, I've said in previous

15:20

spaces. So I went all in in

15:22

2017 because Brian Kelly goes on CNBC and

15:25

says, as everybody knows, and as soon

15:27

as somebody says, as everybody knows, you don't

15:29

know what they're gonna say next. So

15:31

Brian Kelly says, as everybody knows, and I

15:33

believe May 17, 2017, Bitcoin hit its

15:35

all -time high a week ago of $2 ,000

15:37

and it was trading at 1930. And

15:39

I'm like, oh my God, I missed the

15:41

run. So I said this before and

15:44

I basically, I was a successful Silicon Valley

15:46

guy and I went all in 100 %

15:48

then. And I knew that in the

15:50

future. And I did, I had done lots

15:52

of research preview to this. And I

15:54

knew that if this was right, then in

15:56

the future, I'd look back and be,

15:58

why didn't I go? all in. I

16:01

do have a degree in economics. I've

16:03

said this before, I'm

16:05

approximately 57 years old and

16:07

I'm a tech guy. So I

16:09

understand that these inflection points happen.

16:11

So I went all in and Greyscale

16:14

Bitcoin Trust was an imperfect product.

16:16

That product ran up. I

16:18

basically made a 12X on the money I

16:20

put in. I had set in previous space

16:22

as I put in $1 .7 million. It shot

16:24

way up. I should have cashed out more,

16:26

but I didn't. Everything was fine. Then we

16:28

had the second run up. I talked about

16:30

that. I've cashed out even more in the

16:32

second run. So I've now been through two

16:34

crypto winters. And then in January of 2023,

16:36

I'm like, well, this Bitcoin thing is not

16:38

having a volatility for me. So I have

16:40

to switch to MSTR. It's just because

16:42

I'd been in it for a while. And

16:45

so this mail be eight years. So I

16:47

just said, wow, I got to go into

16:49

it. Then everything changed in August of last

16:51

year. I got a blue checkmark. I started

16:53

being much more aggressive than my post. I

16:55

started posting my portfolio, which I'm not doing

16:57

anymore. And everything went bananas obviously in fourth

16:59

quarter on MicroStrategy. It shot way up. I

17:01

went to Bitcoin first, Fred Kruger's event, which

17:03

I think is one of the best events

17:05

in my whole career that I ever went

17:07

to even in tech, not even close to

17:09

tech. And the reason why is because people

17:11

had hope. They went there knowing that they

17:13

knew about Bitcoin and you had to pay

17:15

the go there, but you can only

17:17

be invited. And there was no PowerPoint

17:19

presentations and everybody was able to have

17:21

these discussions. So we went there and I

17:24

met a bunch of people. I met

17:26

a very controversial Italian power law guy.

17:28

I spoke to him directly. I spoke

17:30

to Fred directly. I spoke to other

17:32

people there that I

17:34

met. And it was an amazing

17:36

event. Ryan was there. Panther Jeff was

17:38

there. We talked about MSTR options.

17:40

Dan Hillary was there. So it was

17:42

a great event. So that continued.

17:44

So with that said, where we are

17:46

today. So I think MSTR changed

17:48

everything because of a couple of

17:50

things. I believe that MSTR is

17:52

securitizing Bitcoin as a Bitcoin Treasury

17:54

asset and they're doing that through

17:56

a publicly traded company. Everybody should

17:58

understand that. So then what's

18:00

happened, where are we today? I went to

18:03

Bitcoin Investor Week a couple weeks ago, and

18:05

after the price, both Bitcoin, after hit

18:07

the all-times high and fourth quarter, it crashed

18:09

down. I have famously said about how much

18:12

money I have lost, but I didn't say

18:14

what the net gain was. My net gain

18:16

was really large. So even though I lost

18:18

$40 million, I'm still excited to get on

18:20

these calls. And I think that that's a

18:23

warning to everybody is that. You can be in

18:25

this for eight years. And you could think you

18:27

get it. And in three days, you could lose

18:29

50% of your money and options. So nobody

18:31

should copy trade me. I posted where

18:34

I think it's going today. I have

18:36

different views. I work with Dan Hillary.

18:38

This is a known thing. There's

18:40

an option. Optimizers that we built

18:42

based upon how I want to

18:44

see at work. And some people

18:46

have accused me that I don't

18:48

understand first and second order Greeks.

18:50

And they're entitled to their opinion.

18:52

Free speech. So where do I think

18:54

we are right now? This is a

18:56

thing that I want to talk about

18:59

and then I'll mention Josh for a

19:01

second. I have mentioned that I have

19:03

spoken to Josh over the past year.

19:05

He calls, he calls me every once

19:07

in a while. I call him. I

19:09

did speak to him before the prediction

19:12

happened on Monday of that week, and

19:14

then I did speak to him after

19:16

that. With that, what I could say

19:18

is, is that's why I took the

19:20

position here is that we're not being So

19:22

Kevin has his side, I have my side. And

19:25

I think a couple things I will say

19:27

is that I do not believe in the

19:29

efficient market hypothesis. Based upon the people

19:31

that I have contact with in

19:33

New York, Bitcoin Investor Week, digital

19:35

asset summit that just happened, if

19:37

the market was efficient. If the

19:39

information was well known, there would never be

19:41

a short squeeze or a long liquidation because

19:44

all the smart people, all the hedge funds

19:46

would already know this. And since those events

19:48

do happen, and in some cases, maybe a

19:50

gamma squeeze happens, where the market maker has

19:52

to cover versus the investor, I think that

19:54

the markets are not efficient. And one of

19:56

the things that I do is I try

19:58

and arbitrage that difference. between where the

20:00

market price is something and where it's

20:03

actually priced. And some of that could

20:05

be, it could be a pseudoscience, but

20:07

I have to look at the numbers.

20:10

And that's where on this call, you're

20:12

gonna have me as a skeptic saying.

20:14

We released a philosophical conversation about Bitcoin

20:16

every Sunday. I too have a little

20:19

background with Josh. I hosted a space

20:21

just with him back in January. M.

20:23

you know and then I for myself

20:26

I thought the biggest thing for me

20:28

was the shared experience that I think

20:30

we all went through watching Josh's call

20:32

so before we get into the constructive

20:35

dialogue here I want to give Joe

20:37

a chance to introduce himself and he's

20:39

been invited as our impartial jurors impartial

20:42

Joe can be maybe Joe can kind

20:44

of talk a little bit about who

20:46

he is and how he's gonna. Thank

20:49

you for having me up. So it's

20:51

Joe Carla. Sorry. I'm a commercial litigator

20:53

at the Chicago-based law firm Amundsen Davis.

20:55

We have a national cryptocurrency and Bitcoin

20:58

practice group. I've also served, which kind

21:00

of makes me well suited for the

21:02

purpose of this discussion as an arbitrator

21:05

in private claims previously. I don't do

21:07

that very often, but I've done it

21:09

a few times in the past. So

21:11

really, from my perspective, I just want

21:14

to hear the arguments that persuasive in

21:16

this. We can, you know, abandon any

21:18

ad homonyms or any personal attacks. Let's

21:21

just stick on the greater way to

21:23

the evidence and see who makes the

21:25

better case. So thanks for having me

21:27

out. Awesome. So let's get into it.

21:30

Just a few things. Again, Kevin doesn't

21:32

know Josh, and this is not about

21:34

his greatness as a trader or his

21:37

character as a person. Obviously, we've all

21:39

heard great things about Josh and those

21:41

categories. Also, you know, we don't know

21:43

Josh's model, neither does Kevin. So, you

21:46

know, that's not really part of the

21:48

discussion. And the structure is going to

21:50

be a typical debate structure is going

21:53

to be a typical debate structure. And

21:55

then we can have rebuttals and a

21:57

cross examination for about five minutes each.

21:59

And then Joe will have an opportunity

22:02

to jump in or either have questions

22:04

at the end and then we'll see

22:06

if we have time for Q&A. So

22:09

with that, I'm going to turn it

22:11

over to Kevin for about eight to

22:13

10 minutes, if needed. Awesome. Thank you.

22:15

Well, like a couple weeks ago, probably

22:18

after it happened. So the first question

22:20

any intelligent person should ask is. Hey,

22:22

Bitcoiners, get your Sats off your exchange

22:25

now. This is not a drill. Thea

22:27

is the world's simplest Bitcoin self-custody solution.

22:29

With their module multi-sig vault, you decide

22:31

how to hold your keys. Thea is

22:34

working day in and day out to

22:36

bring you the most intuitive Bitcoin self-custody

22:38

solution, regardless of how much you own

22:41

or what your storage goals are. And

22:43

they support your favorite hardware. Download thea

22:45

now for hassle-free Bitcoin self-custity at thea

22:47

dot US/Cedric that's THEYA.US/C-E-D-R-I-C. The first question

22:50

any intelligent person should ask is what

22:52

was remarkable about the prophecy that Bitcoin

22:54

would close at 84,000 on March 20

22:57

on March 14th? Clearly it was that

22:59

a veteran trader predicted it over four

23:01

months prior. Seems remarkable, even magical. And

23:03

you can tell a lot of folks

23:06

in the BTC and SDR communities believed

23:08

mystical things about the prophecy. Judging from

23:10

the posts and likes and comments on

23:13

X that weekend. Magic was definitely in

23:15

the air. I'm here to tell you

23:17

that most observers are being fooled by

23:19

randomness. And this has nothing to do

23:22

with this and eventually, and the ones

23:24

that win get the most attention. We

23:26

could judge a prediction by asking, what

23:29

was meaningful, and how many people benefited?

23:31

How much did Miss Randomness play a

23:33

role? Miss as in or Misses if

23:35

you will. And could it be repeated?

23:38

And with what frequency and error rate?

23:40

The prophecy was clearly not remarkable on

23:42

election day with price around 70,000. Given

23:45

the trader's reputation, I don't think it

23:47

was the shot in the dark, but

23:49

most of us, myself included, have not

23:51

seen the trader's prediction model nor any

23:54

of his pattern or cycle work that

23:56

might entreat us even more. So we

23:58

can't talk about any of that today.

24:01

I'm here to talk about our reactions

24:03

to famous predictions. So look about what

24:05

we do now. On October 27th, I

24:07

published an article, not a poem, titled

24:10

Scaling Laws 101. It's beyond exponential and

24:12

Bitcoin will benefit. At the time, Bitcoin

24:14

was trading 67K. In that piece, I

24:17

described the huge breakout that was imminent

24:19

for Bitcoin based on my technical and

24:21

fundamental work. I listed 10 fundamental drivers

24:23

and then a final technical one that

24:26

sealed a deal. Here are two sentences

24:28

from that article that I published on

24:30

LinkedIn. I'll add one more behavioral trigger.

24:33

the seven month consolidation between 70 K

24:35

and 50 K. I think the surge

24:37

will happen quickly in a matter of

24:39

week to 85 K and then another

24:42

month to 100 K. Again these two

24:44

sentences were from my October 27th prediction

24:46

piece which seemed like what any good

24:49

technical trader might have been watching and

24:51

the fundamental drivers are worth reading too

24:53

and I can put that piece in

24:55

the nest. We can pick any day

24:58

among the hundred days and analyze subsequent...

25:00

possible price pads. But I'll pick a

25:02

few events in particular that stand out.

25:05

First, view of us knew for sure

25:07

who would win the presidential election. I

25:09

thought it did or others will say

25:11

it mattered a lot. In any case,

25:14

my call for a swift move to

25:16

85K came in six days after the

25:18

election. It didn't seem like a stunning

25:21

prediction. It was just, you know, but

25:23

it was a moneymaker for those that

25:25

followed me. And then it was only

25:27

another 11 days to hit 100K. Again,

25:30

I wasn't surprised. I wasn't surprised at

25:32

all. I was using BITX calls and

25:34

price gyrated to and fro around 100K

25:37

during December, including a new all-time high

25:39

of 108 960. I started to get

25:41

a little concerned about my bitter call

25:43

for 125,000 in Q1. Why? Because we

25:46

were knocking on the door of 992

25:48

a few too many times. Now what

25:50

should be noted here is that the

25:53

84K prophecy didn't say anything about a

25:55

giant post-election CME gap. nor didn't say

25:57

anything about what highs would altruist events.

26:00

The prediction didn't have to suffer

26:02

ridicule or losses. In fact, it was helped

26:04

by these unpredictable events because

26:07

these were dynamic market reaction events

26:09

that could have heavily influenced

26:11

subsequent probability branches and paths.

26:13

We can also throw in

26:15

the support cluster between 87 and

26:17

92K that was making Bitcoin bounce in

26:19

December. So here I am a Bayesian probability trader

26:22

dealing with these dynamics in real time

26:24

and I was not alone. Thousands

26:26

of other traders and many institutions in

26:29

Wales who really moved the market

26:31

were also involved in a gigantic

26:33

dynamic feedback loop with millions

26:35

of economic events in December.

26:38

Those events included the speculation

26:40

and chaos of Trump moves

26:42

toward and away from an

26:44

SBIR. I didn't need an SBIR, but it

26:46

made sense that if the U.S. followed

26:48

the plan proposed by RFK at the

26:50

July Nashville Shindig, it could and likely

26:53

would propel other nation-state FOMO.

26:55

So, but where was the

26:57

sovereign cavalry, as I call them?

27:00

Why weren't they pushing price

27:02

higher? On December 22, I

27:04

started posting charts about

27:06

the trapdoor at 90-92, that

27:08

had now been knocked on three

27:10

more times, and that when broken,

27:13

would bring 85K pretty fast. Most

27:15

in BTC SBR land, but if

27:17

85K could hold my 125K

27:19

prediction still look good. Then

27:22

December 30 made a total of

27:24

five knocks on the trapdoor. As the

27:26

events of early January unfolded, we

27:28

ended up with more bounces off

27:31

of 1992. Another failed rally bounced

27:33

up to 102K, and another trip

27:35

sent BTC scurrying back to 91K,

27:37

followed by a tag of 89K,

27:39

January 13th, which reacted with a

27:41

two-week search to new highs

27:44

above 109. Plenty of volatility

27:46

and whiplash to activate and

27:48

reactivate trend models going both

27:50

ways. and Monday, February 3rd, brought

27:52

the AIDS visit to 19-19. Thank

27:54

you. Thank you, Kevin. Now, grain

27:57

will be afforded eight to 10 minutes

27:59

to speak. And, you know, we'll

28:01

see, I was about in time, really

28:03

you need grain. Yeah, I don't think

28:05

I'll need, I got, I got 536

28:08

here, so let's see if I can

28:10

keep it in, in shorter time frame.

28:12

So I'll concede all the points that

28:14

Kevin made, and then I'll just tell

28:16

you my differences based upon what he

28:19

said. So books, there's lots of books

28:21

for, and as I said before, I

28:23

might think the most books on economics,

28:25

given the time frame that takes to.

28:28

to publish a book now, unless it's

28:30

self-published and done. Most of the time,

28:32

they're basically obsolete since they've been out.

28:34

So everything has changed so quickly, specifically

28:36

after 1971. Nixon shocked, 1987, free-floating currencies.

28:39

Sovereign nations able to go bankrupt. You

28:41

have a Russia that did that. So

28:43

if you look at all these things

28:45

that have happened, the age of turbulence

28:47

by... What happened here is that things

28:50

have changed faster than we can expect.

28:52

The human brain was not set up

28:54

for this. So what we now have

28:56

is that we have these communities that

28:59

gravitate around areas of interest. And it

29:01

could be what's cars, it could be

29:03

about what people are wearing to the

29:05

Oscars, all about that. So things have

29:07

changed with social media. And so what

29:10

happens is that you try and apply.

29:12

these different social constructs that these these

29:14

great thinkers that Kevin had mentioned had

29:16

thought about and what happens is is

29:19

that do those hold are they still

29:21

relevant in a post-2020 year with COVID,

29:23

where you don't have to go back

29:25

to your office or maybe you do

29:27

have to go back to office now.

29:30

And so everything changed. It forced people

29:32

to change how they work and live.

29:34

And so now people look for online

29:36

communities where they could fit into. And

29:39

once they do that, they become rabid

29:41

followers. And then they see these things

29:43

that happen. And then the markets move.

29:45

So what's remarkable? There was a prediction.

29:47

The prediction came true. The facts have

29:50

not changed on that. Really. Pretty much

29:52

you made one prediction and one prediction.

29:54

came true. Mathematically that doesn't make any

29:56

sense, right? Guy makes one prediction that

29:59

one comes from. Now he could have

30:01

made a thousand predictions that walking around

30:03

his house, we just don't know things

30:05

or backflips in a row. Wow, I

30:07

can't do any. I can't do any.

30:10

I don't even want to try it.

30:12

But there are people that are just

30:14

that good. So my take away is

30:16

the constructs are if somebody does something

30:18

that you don't think is possible, but

30:21

we all saw it. So I believe

30:23

my eyes, I believe science, I believe

30:25

what we can measure. And once you

30:27

do that, you're like, this is the

30:30

so-called evidence. Do you want to take

30:32

beliefs in a book that were written

30:34

before the last five years saying, this

30:36

is the way markets work? No, they're

30:38

telling you about math. What I think

30:41

is, I think the math might still

30:43

be the same, but the inputs are

30:45

different. And that's where we see this

30:47

massive technological improvements that happen. Talked about

30:50

this all the time. What I'm going

30:52

to end with here is that I

30:54

believe that there are many remarkable people

30:56

in the world. And there are people

30:58

that have talked to me in person

31:01

and I make decisions very quickly with

31:03

a lot of money. And for me,

31:05

I don't know how to say it,

31:07

but a lot of decisions that I

31:10

make with a lot of money or

31:12

high percentages of my net worth are

31:14

very easy for me. In fact, I

31:16

don't even think about it. I just

31:18

go, oh, like 2017. Crap. If I

31:21

think that Bitcoin is the best asset.

31:23

Why wouldn't I want to own as

31:25

much of it as possible? If I

31:27

truly believe that, if you don't believe

31:30

it, then why would you buy it?

31:32

But because I knew about it already

31:34

for almost three years before I bought

31:36

it. This is like the shift from

31:38

normal humans all of a sudden to

31:41

synthesize medications or bodybuilders. The world changed

31:43

when things became synthetic. And Bitcoin is

31:45

synthetic money. And so where we stand

31:47

today is I don't put is, I

31:49

put my view in the science and

31:52

the price. I think the price is

31:54

absolute. You can always look at the

31:56

price. How it got to that price,

31:58

in many cases you don't know. So

32:01

I look more at lagging indicators forward.

32:03

What I think with Josh is that

32:05

because he's so good at option trading,

32:07

he's like, hmm, he was built

32:10

for this cycle. The previous cycle,

32:12

there was no options on GBTC. There

32:14

was no options on Bitcoin. There were,

32:17

there's on it. Because Josh has been

32:19

doing this for so long for 35

32:21

intrinsically. Josh can calculate this because it

32:23

has been on call with him. He

32:25

is so fast with the calculations. You're

32:28

like, was in at 8 p.m. UTC

32:30

on the dot. I thought that was a

32:32

really amazing. I mean, just it was seen prophetic.

32:35

It seemed like the Mendel effect. It seemed

32:37

like maybe we all willed it there. And

32:39

while this was happening, you know, I do

32:41

think that Kevin brought up a good point about the

32:43

CMA gap bills. Those tend to just always seem to

32:45

just always seem to fill like I think 98 to

32:47

98 out of 98 out of 98 out of a

32:49

100. have filled, you know, maybe big players

32:52

able to push Bitcoin price discovery through the

32:54

options market. I mean, I think we can

32:56

kind of get a little bit. But while

32:58

this was all happening, I mean, Josh did

33:01

like trade the whole time and what seemed

33:03

like against market sentiment, and it seemed like,

33:05

and I got all this from just speaking

33:07

with grain though, is that it seems like

33:10

Josh, you know, basically learned how

33:12

to trade against humans and then

33:14

against the algorithm, and then against

33:16

the algorithm, and it seems like Josh can

33:18

read the algorithm or wants in some probabilistic

33:21

fashion and maybe gets his way there. So

33:23

I still think there's a lot here

33:25

maybe don't pack and while this was happening,

33:27

Josh was laying breadcrumbs around memories, multiverse timelines,

33:29

things that happened 30 years ago. So I

33:32

think that all brings in a discussion of

33:34

like what is random. But with that I'll

33:36

turn it over to Joe for any

33:38

commentary here before I turn it back to

33:41

Kevin for five minutes. Yeah and I have

33:43

a lot of specific questions of the speakers

33:45

and I'll save those for I guess the

33:47

real interesting things exactly what you said there at

33:50

the you know there's there's a difference

33:52

between what grain was alluding to which

33:54

he used the analogy of an athlete

33:56

right someone who's exceptional in their craft

33:58

that is far above the that is

34:00

hone certain abilities and can channel those

34:02

towards some end, right, in a general

34:04

sense. That is one thing. But being

34:06

able to predict the future and being

34:08

able to do so based on memories

34:10

and the multiverse and I've heard all

34:12

the things, that's entirely different. And I

34:15

draw a real distinction there because with

34:17

one, you're talking about someone who's built

34:19

up a skill set. And with the

34:21

other, you're basically transcending science, which is

34:23

where I think there's a huge disconnect

34:25

between what I've heard Kevin in grain's

34:27

position. And I guess that might, my

34:29

initial question just to frame this for

34:31

both of you is, you know, if

34:33

it is truly like, if we're going

34:35

to wade into the, the non-scientific realm,

34:37

that's a, to me, I don't find

34:39

it to be a very fruitful discussion.

34:41

If you're going to lean toward what

34:43

I understand grain trader and he can

34:45

use his skills, to make probabilistic bets

34:48

in a basing way based on the

34:50

information, that makes more sense to me.

34:52

But, you know, the problem is that's

34:54

not what Josh has said. Josh is

34:56

on position, and again, I don't want

34:58

it to be due to disservice to

35:00

him, but I've heard him, I talked

35:02

to him, I talked to him, I

35:04

talked to him, I talked to him

35:06

privately, his view, his view is not

35:08

what he said, and again, I don't

35:10

want to be doing to do to

35:12

a question. as we go on. Yeah,

35:14

where I blended, I feel like maybe

35:16

his memories and experience blend with his

35:18

skill set as an athletic, you know,

35:21

the highest athlete, you know, elite trader

35:23

in the way that you look at

35:25

Michael Jordan as a, you know, an

35:27

elite basketball player. Joe, though I will

35:29

open up, do you have a specific

35:31

question for Kevin that is just for

35:33

Kevin and or grain before Kevin starts?

35:35

And I'll give you the same opportunity

35:37

as grain of question before he rebuts.

35:39

He did bring up this idea of

35:41

the athlete. And I guess, do you,

35:43

to what point are you discounting some

35:45

of the comments you have made about

35:47

this being a memory? And he said

35:49

this multiple times, said that I have

35:52

a memory of this happening on this

35:54

date. Because to me, that is not,

35:56

I can't throw the needle. Respectfully, Cedric,

35:58

I don't understand. I can't reconcile those

36:00

two. So maybe grain can comment on

36:02

that. Yeah, and I'll give a direct

36:04

answer. I think, you know, as we

36:06

set the ground rules here, what Josh

36:08

thinks about how he did I think

36:10

is immaterial to what happened. And so

36:12

if Josh could say whatever he wants,

36:14

and that's not for me to speak

36:16

for him. So I think that with,

36:18

I think the purpose of this discussion

36:20

is position is one of the hardest

36:22

things that I have to do is

36:25

I took a philosophy class in college.

36:27

And one of the things that. that

36:29

it's the hardest thing for me to

36:31

do as an investor as a trader

36:33

that if the positive is true if

36:35

I believe the positive is true on

36:37

the same thing and I know that

36:39

there's a negative situation coming then I

36:41

have to take that also as being

36:43

logically true and that goes against my

36:45

comfort what I could say with the

36:47

exceptional people that I've met in my

36:49

life and I've met just through just

36:51

whatever through in my career in Silicon

36:53

Valley and then just skiing, you know,

36:55

back in the old days of the

36:58

skier, I actually skied at Snowbird and

37:00

I actually skied with the U.S. ski

37:02

team. I could not make it. I

37:04

was not that, I was not even

37:06

close, but I was able to ski

37:08

with those people and they could just

37:10

do things that I just, even though

37:12

I skied 70 days that year, I

37:14

could not do things that they could

37:16

do. And so I have just witnessed

37:18

people throughout my life that are exceptional.

37:20

And then we try and make sense

37:22

of what they've done. So logically, if

37:24

there's exceptional people, I think that there's

37:26

a small number of just like normal

37:28

distribution. Most people are just regular and

37:31

normal. And then you try and make

37:33

sense of what those people have done.

37:35

And so I take it as a

37:37

logic question. I don't take it with

37:39

Josh says. Josh can say whatever he

37:41

thinks, whatever he wants, that's Josh. I

37:43

can't speak for him. But for me,

37:45

I'll go with logic. I'd love to

37:47

hear Josh Simon at some point, maybe

37:49

I'll get to a show with him.

37:51

Kevin, out of respect for the structure

37:53

of the conversation, I'll turn it to

37:55

you here for rebuttal, for either anything

37:57

that grain is said, and or Joe

37:59

has asked or said. Thank you. Thank

38:01

you, Cedric. So I'm going to say

38:04

right now, just to put a cap

38:06

on this, that I don't think. that

38:08

Josh's prediction was random, assuming I someday

38:10

will all see his model and know

38:12

how he did it. The reason that

38:14

we frame the, I mean, first of

38:16

all, we created a space and, and,

38:18

you know, you can only fit so

38:20

many words in the title of a

38:22

space and have it make sense. The

38:24

real title of the space, for my

38:26

point of view, could have been, Josh's

38:28

prophecy was cool. people

38:31

watching it are being fooled by

38:33

randomness. I'm not saying what Josh

38:35

did was random. I'm saying people

38:37

watching it are being fooled by

38:39

randomness. Hey, I just got a

38:41

message that my mic is too

38:43

hot. All right, I talk loud

38:45

and I got a, I got

38:48

a yeti here that is probably

38:50

too close or something. So I

38:52

apologize for that. All right, so

38:54

I have, now I have, you

38:56

know, that said that that really

38:58

the title of the space could

39:00

have been. I think everybody's being

39:03

fooled by randomness, which would not

39:05

have made an exciting topic for

39:07

the space. I have three points.

39:09

One, if you've been around futures

39:11

or stocks, you know that gaps

39:13

get filled. But I told you

39:15

that I thought something so significant

39:18

happened in November and the breakout

39:20

from the seven-month consolidation that BTC

39:22

was in a state change change

39:24

and we were never going to

39:26

look back. Like sovereign adoption was

39:28

coming. In fact, one of my

39:30

pieces I wrote in September for

39:32

my clients was a major adoption

39:35

is imminent. And I laid out

39:37

the pieces of why, you know,

39:39

the whales, you know, governments, corporations

39:41

were coming for Bitcoin. Well, guess

39:43

what? It didn't happen. So all

39:45

of a sudden, that put the

39:47

CME gap in target down to

39:50

77,000. There, you know, there was

39:52

weakness. Like, I was disappointed. Many

39:54

of us were disappointed. Hey, where's

39:56

the cavalry? You gonna lift the

39:58

sire. All right, so that's one.

40:00

Two, the beauty of CME Futures

40:02

and then I bet and then

40:04

options is if you've been involved

40:07

in markets for a while is

40:09

market structure and liquidity. The more

40:11

players you have, the more liquidity

40:13

you have, two-way action, it creates

40:15

more liquidity so that large. And

40:17

so one of the elements here

40:19

is that while I bet was

40:22

going off the charts, right, Black

40:24

Rock is buying everything. you know

40:26

there was also a somebody could

40:28

live on the edges of that

40:30

and short the futures short the

40:32

CME futures while buying I-bit and

40:34

and these transactions happen all day

40:36

long you know they funnel liquidity

40:39

for players big and small so

40:41

that was a dynamic there too

40:43

pushing things down. Oh my last

40:45

point for the 84K pin you

40:47

know in options we talk about

40:49

the price getting pin on expiration

40:51

day. So that, you know, you

40:54

know, let's say you're talking about

40:56

the 85 calls and puts. Nobody

40:58

makes money if the market makers

41:00

can pin the price at 85,

41:02

roughly speaking, right? Like keep the

41:04

damage low. In this case, Bitcoin

41:06

flirted with, you know, filling the

41:08

CME gap and now what's it

41:11

going to do? Was it being

41:13

driven low? Was there volume coming

41:15

in to drive it lower? No,

41:17

it took a few weeks, right?

41:19

It took from late Fab to

41:21

March 11th to really complete the

41:23

gap fill. And then what's the

41:26

market going to do? Is it

41:28

going to drift higher? You have

41:30

to consider the possibility that some

41:32

big players out there and some

41:34

whales who can move Bitcoin around

41:36

said, yeah, you know, let's go

41:38

ahead and pin it at 84

41:40

and make Josh's prediction come true.

41:43

Thank you. That would be wild.

41:45

I'll turn it back to Joe

41:47

Endor Grain. I think Joe, if

41:49

you want to jump in with

41:51

any questions for grain before we.

41:53

Can I ask cabinet question? Sorry.

41:55

Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Okay, first

41:58

question. Kevin, you've invoked this a

42:00

couple different times, and I want

42:02

you to drill down on it

42:04

a little more. You've talked about

42:06

fool by randomness, the telebook, and

42:08

obviously there are many key concepts

42:10

about like survivorship bias, I'd say

42:13

bias overfitting, these types of things

42:15

in that. So I guess to

42:17

what do you attribute Josh's remarkable

42:19

ability to get this, the market's

42:21

ability to get this remarkable prediction

42:24

correct? Well, first of all, you know, Josh did

42:26

something. I just don't know what he

42:28

did, and I would love to hear

42:30

about it someday. You know, whether it's no

42:32

matter how mystical it is, I would

42:34

love to hear it because it's just

42:37

fascinating. And, you know, but

42:39

again, I just want people to look

42:41

at like the probability paths

42:43

to get us there from No Five to

42:45

Pie Day. There were billions and

42:48

billions of economic events, huge

42:50

CME gap that should or should

42:52

not be filled. And then, hey. Where's

42:54

the sovereign cavalry? How come

42:56

nation states aren't just the

42:59

FOMO regardless of what what Trump

43:01

did? Where's the FOMO? You know,

43:03

and one thing I realize is, hey,

43:05

to take Bitcoin from 50,000 to

43:07

100,000 requires X amount of

43:09

capital and force. But it

43:11

doesn't get any easier to double from

43:14

100,000 to two-way they work. So, you

43:16

know, we've all seen sailors maps of

43:18

how, hey, we can go from, you

43:20

know, one trillion to two trillion. and

43:23

then take on gold at 16 trillion

43:25

eventually that's a that's still a heavy

43:27

lift and then all of a sudden it sort

43:29

of sunk in I think for a lot of

43:31

big players like yeah we're not going to 150,000

43:33

you know in before June so yes but we would

43:35

have I mean can't we agree that we you

43:38

know again it was an infinite different

43:40

possibilities if you would have had a

43:42

different messaging out there if you would

43:44

have had another buyer to come into

43:46

the marketplace these things are inherently unpredictable

43:48

That's my point. When you say Josh

43:51

did something, and let's just reserve our

43:53

skepticism for a second, if he would

43:55

have done something, whatever he did, and

43:57

you would have had three or four

43:59

different. on the macroeconomic chess board go

44:01

in a different direction, things change entirely.

44:04

So I guess that's why it's interesting

44:06

to me from your point of skepticism

44:08

and the fool by randomist comment that

44:10

you conclude at the outset that Josh

44:12

did something rather than just make a

44:14

probabilistic guess. Yeah, so you know, I

44:16

think Joe, most people on the call

44:19

don't even understand survivorship bias. And so

44:21

everybody needs to look at that. Oh

44:23

my God, yeah, Survivor Chip Bias. I

44:25

see, oh my God, it's happening all

44:27

around me. It happens in my industry.

44:29

It happens at work. It happens in

44:32

my son's soccer game. You know, it's,

44:34

you know, it's happening all around us,

44:36

and it's what we pay attention to.

44:38

But had sovereign adoption come through, come

44:40

through the way I thought it would,

44:42

look at RFK's plan. So we own

44:45

19% just like our gold reserves and

44:47

since the alumnus got on board with

44:49

that, if they had done that, if

44:51

they had announced that plan, I don't

44:53

think Josh's prediction would have come true

44:55

because I think it would have created

44:57

nation-state FOMO. Josh didn't seem to be

45:00

responding much to geopolitics or macroeconomic talk

45:02

or chatter. And one thing he seemed

45:04

to end up is he didn't want

45:06

to talk too much about his process

45:08

or what was happening so that he

45:10

could stay open to reading almost like

45:13

new signal and new signs to stay

45:15

as best suited that he could read

45:17

his own trade to his own thing

45:19

and not so much because he almost

45:21

talked about it more he talks about

45:23

it he would almost it wouldn't happen

45:26

or it would cease to happen in

45:28

the way that he's you know the

45:30

ability to read it would go way

45:32

was kind of interesting I'll turn it

45:34

back to grain and then maybe a

45:36

lot of time for Q&A or we'll

45:38

just wrap time for Q&A or A

45:41

or just wrap up with respond because

45:43

I gave an answer to his question

45:45

about how he did it and I

45:47

talked about logic and exceptional person. Joe,

45:49

do you have any questions for me

45:51

before I chime on? So, okay, so

45:54

I totally believe that there are extremely

45:56

astute Margaret participants. that can make forecasts

45:58

months ahead of time. You know, you

46:00

see this in currencies, you see this

46:02

in the bond traders, some of whom

46:04

I have as clients, right? They're extremely

46:07

bright. They're far smarter than I will

46:09

ever be. But I guess the interesting

46:11

thing in this dynamic, and this is

46:13

where, again, I want, the interesting thing

46:15

in this dynamic, and this is where,

46:17

again, I want to go back to

46:19

your, your sort of analogy to, or

46:22

a great athlete, is that any one

46:24

of the other day, we're digesting all

46:26

the information. filtering through models. Right now

46:28

they're using, you know, deep research and

46:30

analytics and all sorts of complex tools.

46:32

But they'll tell you, like, these things

46:35

have confidence intervals. These things have probability

46:37

rates, error rates, right? And, you know,

46:39

I made, you know, one thing, I

46:41

tweeted this out at the time, I

46:43

made, you know, one thing, I tweeted

46:45

this out of the time, I said,

46:48

look, there are a couple exchanges, right,

46:50

right, right? And, you know, I made,

46:52

I made, you know, you know, you

46:54

had, you had a, solid estimate for

46:56

Bitcoin price, knowing that we were overbought.

46:58

I mean, you look at basic technicals,

47:00

RSI, these types of things, were overbought

47:03

into the end of the year. It

47:05

had to correct, there were logical support

47:07

levels, and there's a significant part of

47:09

luck in the extraordinary, not to be

47:11

discount in any way, forecasting of Josh.

47:13

So it's not to take him away,

47:16

but I mean, to what, I guess,

47:18

great, really pointing, really pointing, you know

47:20

within a few thousand bucks of where

47:22

it needed to be rather than you

47:24

know if it would have come in

47:26

85 you would have been as you

47:29

know impressed by the prediction because honestly

47:31

85 would have been an amazing call

47:33

when we called 84 for my standpoint

47:35

I would have still patted him on

47:37

the back and said that's commendable Josh

47:39

you got within a thousand bucks yeah

47:41

so I don't think it was luck

47:44

once we put that price out there,

47:46

I think the fact that somehow, I

47:48

don't think there's a player, is some

47:50

of hive mind that says, hey, this

47:52

price is there, it'll gravitate to it

47:54

because of a CME gap, or whatever

47:57

constructs that we think. the way the

47:59

world works to make us feel comfortable

48:01

with how something happens. We're like, well,

48:03

it must because of the CME gap,

48:05

it must because of this, must because

48:07

of that, it must become, if you,

48:09

if you ask somebody to predict the

48:12

price of, of Bitcoin in the future,

48:14

you ask 10 really smart people that

48:16

have been in space for a while,

48:18

they may use 10 different metrics, maybe

48:20

you use five different R squares to

48:22

say or R regressions about where it's

48:25

going to go to. And then you

48:27

have an argument over which. You know

48:29

what, I don't know how Josh made

48:31

his prediction, what he put into his

48:33

end to model it. But I've been

48:35

on spaces with him, and look, I

48:38

could do math him about on a

48:40

space with first and second order Greeks.

48:42

He's just so much faster than everybody

48:44

else. It's like, I don't think he

48:46

even needs to think. His mental model

48:48

just happens. And I think that that

48:50

price ended up being gravitating. I don't

48:53

know why it hit the price. Then

48:55

he kept on doubling down on the

48:57

exact time zone, which is absurd. And

48:59

logically, if you would have told me

49:01

to make a bet on Josh being

49:03

right, I, you know, if it was

49:06

a thousand to one odds, yeah, I

49:08

would have bet a thousand bucks on

49:10

it. Do I think it would have

49:12

came through? Okay. I don't know. So

49:14

let me ask you a question. Does

49:16

your thinking on this, we're recording right

49:19

here now, and you know, recording at

49:21

the end of March, does you're thinking

49:23

on this, or will you're thinking on

49:25

to fruition? Will you think on the

49:27

past events change? Just to clarify, I

49:29

don't think it's by November. I think

49:31

it's been sort of more 2026 market

49:34

top. I have a tweet from him

49:36

that says I think the question and

49:38

the relevantly grain. That sounded like an

49:40

objection there from a non-lawyer, but I'll

49:42

take that. Could something change my mind?

49:44

Yes, I have to adapt my I

49:47

think one of my advantages in life

49:49

being able to to be able to

49:51

trade and invest, was that the market

49:53

that we're in 2017 is not the

49:55

same as now. 2021 is not the

49:57

same. And this market is not the

50:00

same of where it wasn't you for

50:02

any time last year, where one year

50:04

after spot Bitcoin ETF, I think that

50:06

information that we're seeing, anybody believe in

50:08

the old stuff, and I mean new

50:10

stuff, things that happened today, right? And

50:12

where we could be in one week

50:15

from now, is that if you're, if

50:17

you're, if you're thinking this is the

50:19

way this is the way it, this

50:21

is the way it went, what I

50:23

know, what I know to be true

50:25

to be true to be true to

50:28

be true to be true, what I

50:30

know to be true, what I know

50:32

to be true, it, it, My advantage

50:34

is that I could logically, if I

50:36

think that the input parameters change on

50:38

a daily basis, then logically I have

50:41

to change my trading strategy, even though

50:43

I'm not comfortable with what I have

50:45

to do. And for me, for me

50:47

to change that in my comfort zone,

50:49

that's something that's relatively easy for me

50:51

to do. That's something that's relatively easy

50:53

for me to do. Very easy for

50:56

me to do it. And I'm like,

50:58

I just can't. And my friends that

51:00

for 15 years have watched me invest

51:02

and do it. So, well, your question

51:04

to me, Joe, is very clear. Will

51:06

something change my mind in the future

51:09

about this, whether or not some future

51:11

price prediction he makes again about Josh?

51:13

Now, in the end, I don't think

51:15

that he could, I don't think it

51:17

serves him right to get this, to

51:19

make another prediction besides a 444. But

51:22

in my view, what I think will

51:24

not change about... I don't think my

51:26

view on what this prediction happened in

51:28

84K. I don't think that will change.

51:30

Could I change it? It's possible. But

51:32

I think my belief about Josh again

51:34

is the exceptional person category. Yeah, I

51:37

agree with Grant. I don't think it

51:39

would change it, but I think it

51:41

could enhance it. I think it could

51:43

enhance it. I think it would definitely

51:45

I'll be looking for it. I thought

51:47

some that hasn't come up here that

51:50

I thought was very interesting was I

51:52

think level 39 noted. specifically around PiDay

51:54

of 21 million Bitcoin, he predicted PiDay

51:56

which is March 14th, 2014, that's 42,

51:58

and he predicted 84K on 314, and

52:00

then he said, you know, 360 plus

52:03

84 brings us to 444 and 444

52:05

has a lot of sort of numerology

52:07

behind it. It's a very protective number.

52:09

There's a lot of security in 444.

52:11

So who knows if the world is

52:13

sort of operating on fractals. Something else

52:15

he brought up was sort of how

52:18

this signifies the fourth turning, which was

52:20

in. To focus on Bitcoin, and frankly,

52:22

I have a November 2025 target 10%

52:24

higher, which would be $140,000, then $400.

52:27

That's a great one to share,

52:30

I really appreciate that. Okay, so

52:32

I want to chime in on

52:34

numerology here for a second. Hey,

52:36

Bitcoiners, I'm heading to Bitcoin 2025

52:38

in Las Vegas from May 27

52:40

to May 29th, and you need

52:42

to be there. This isn't just

52:44

another conference. It's the ultimate Bitcoin

52:46

party. Grab your ticket now using

52:48

promo code matrix or at the

52:50

link in the description. See you

52:52

in Vegas, Freaks. Let's make this

52:54

one legendary. Okay, so I want

52:56

to chime in on numerology here

52:58

for a second. One of the,

53:01

so, so my test score is

53:03

in math, they're not particularly high.

53:05

And I know lots of people,

53:07

just because I'm in Silicon Valley,

53:09

they score 800 in the math,

53:11

SAT. And so I have had

53:13

the pleasure of meeting very, you

53:15

know, I would consider PhD in

53:17

math, like they have a PhD

53:19

in math, and they're that smart

53:21

in math, true mathematicians. I'm not

53:23

even, on, on, on the academic,

53:25

academic level, I'm not even close.

53:27

College calculus. Okay. What that said,

53:29

um, I've talked to these mathematicians

53:32

and I've argued mathematical points with

53:34

them. So when somebody mentioned numerology,

53:36

I do not like irrational numbers.

53:38

I hate irrational numbers. I like

53:40

them that it always ends. I

53:42

don't like anything right of the

53:44

decimal point. I like multiplication tables

53:46

that I can do very fast

53:48

in my head. I'm able to

53:50

calculate percentages very quickly. I can

53:52

calculate multiples very quickly and I've

53:54

honed this over the years. So

53:56

if I go talk to somebody

53:58

that's a mathematician, that's a mathematician.

54:00

Wow, he's just using numerology. A

54:03

double double double. like two to

54:05

the third power. And I'm like,

54:07

for me, I can just rattle

54:09

that off. It's just because it's

54:11

built in my head. But if

54:13

you were a standardized test to

54:15

me, I wouldn't get high scores.

54:17

I think Josh would get very

54:19

high scores in standardized testing. So

54:21

I think what happens is to

54:23

the casual observer is that people

54:25

that are exceptional in math, it

54:27

looks like numerology because it sounds

54:29

like gibberish. It's like, you're going

54:31

with two to two to three.

54:33

If it makes you feel more

54:36

comfortable to think that it was

54:38

numerology, okay. And if you're directionally

54:40

right, does it matter? So again,

54:42

Josh's method, I don't know. Do

54:44

I think he used numerology? No.

54:46

I just think he could do

54:48

it. It's just one of those

54:50

things. It's like all these. They

54:52

don't know how. And I'm I'm

54:54

comfortable with not knowing. We did

54:56

it. Great. Grant, you're your right

54:58

guy. Anybody who knows you're a

55:00

bright guy and you're very successful

55:02

to the call. Don't trust verified

55:04

type crowd in the coin, how

55:07

we should just, you know, stick

55:09

ahead and sand, not that question,

55:11

not be, I mean, like you

55:13

said, your, your, your, your, your,

55:15

your, your, your, your, your, your,

55:17

your, your handle. How are you

55:19

able to just say I'm comfortable

55:21

with? I'm comfortable with not knowing

55:23

how somebody is smarter than me

55:25

can do something. I am. I

55:27

don't know how I do that.

55:29

Take very large positions with large

55:31

sums of money and I can

55:33

be comfortable with it. It's just

55:35

the way I am. Josh is

55:38

different because he's able to calculate

55:40

things even faster than me. And

55:42

so from that perspective, I'm like,

55:44

so I think that, again, we

55:46

go back to the exceptional people,

55:48

you know, Olympic athletes, Michael Jordan

55:50

and so forth, and believe me,

55:52

I'm not on that category. were

55:54

they were genetically born with some

55:56

gift and they were just there

55:58

and so. I don't, you know,

56:00

if that makes people uncomfortable on

56:02

this call, then I'm comfortable with

56:04

not knowing how something happens. Maybe

56:07

that's the insight for the call. I don't

56:09

know, but to me, I'm able to, I'm able

56:11

to sleep at night not knowing. Yeah, I mean,

56:13

it was just astonishing to watch. I think that

56:15

I had to lean towards I'm comfortable not knowing

56:17

how we did it. I just stand in amazement.

56:19

and it happened regardless and it was a shared

56:22

experience I think for those of us that went

56:24

through it was like I found myself rooting for

56:26

Bitcoin price to go down even though it's not

56:28

in my best interest you know I've enjoyed this

56:30

conversation matrix podcast we put out a philosophical conversation

56:33

every Sunday with some of the best thinkers in

56:35

the space and outside the space talk about things

56:37

with a Bitcoin lens I'll turn it over to

56:39

Joe for any final questions for either guest and

56:42

then I'll give each guest maybe a minute or

56:44

two to just wrap up. Yeah, I

56:46

mean, to me, I guess the question I

56:48

want to say is that I like

56:50

data points, right? And I've seen fantastic

56:52

things. in my career and life, things

56:54

that seem like more than mere coincidences,

56:56

some I even say on the verge

56:59

of miracles, right? But the thing I

57:01

always have to remind myself about is

57:03

that there are, there's a lot of

57:05

luck in life, there's a lot of

57:07

luck in life, there's a lot of

57:09

things that just happen. And sometimes there's

57:11

combinations of extreme, ordinarily talented people, people

57:13

that have exceptional abilities that also fall

57:15

into extremely fortunate circumstance. And that's when

57:18

really magic can happen in a

57:20

lot of ways. by view of

57:22

hearing all this, is I think

57:24

Dr. is an extraordinarily talented, gifted

57:26

person. And it's amazing for him

57:28

to do some of the forecasts.

57:30

I've heard him go on, like

57:32

you said, going through the Greeks

57:34

and doing these things in real

57:36

time. It's incredible. That being said,

57:38

there's a lot of exceptional people

57:40

in life. That being said, I

57:42

know that there's a lot of

57:44

exceptional people in life, and they'll

57:46

always play a role. So I guess the

57:48

way I would leave it here, if you

57:50

had to put a ratio on it, you

57:52

know, for Josh's ability to forecast this, what

57:54

percentage of the makeup will you attribute to

57:56

just good fortune, and what would you be

57:58

able to attribute to? his skill and his

58:01

unique attributes and assessing the market. And

58:03

we'll start with Kevin. Yeah, as I

58:05

said the last time I spoke, I

58:07

attribute a lot to his background and

58:09

skill and, you know, his brain. I'm

58:11

challenging everybody else who doesn't understand survivorship

58:13

bias to first look at that before

58:16

you, because, because until we've seen Josh's

58:18

model, we don't really know how he

58:20

did it. So, you know, everybody else

58:22

just needs to take a step back.

58:24

You know for instance, I don't know

58:26

how to post in the nest. So

58:28

I just started sharing my articles, you

58:30

know, like in the comments section. And

58:33

so the three things I want to

58:35

share are my call parody Options Physics

58:37

101, free for everybody. My video, Bitcoin

58:39

for Family Offices, to show my how

58:41

I went from Invidia AI to understanding

58:43

Bitcoin, thanks to Sailor. And then number

58:45

three, my October 27th predictions. You know,

58:47

take a look at this like. If

58:50

I told you on October 27th about

58:52

my strong conviction and my positions, that

58:54

that Bitcoin was about to break out

58:56

and go very quickly to 85,000 and

58:58

then to 100,000 within a month, if

59:00

you had believed my conviction and followed

59:02

me even a little bit, I mean,

59:04

you know, how much money would you

59:07

have made? But nobody wants, nobody talks

59:09

about my prediction because I don't have

59:11

a, you know, I don't have a

59:13

Twitter following. So like, like, um, So

59:15

this is an example of a prediction

59:17

that worked in a very short time

59:19

to make some money. So back to

59:21

Josh, until I see his model, I'm

59:24

going to assume the same thing as

59:26

brain, that there are exceptional things going

59:28

on. Just like the way Isaac Newton,

59:30

you know, discovered the calculus and planetary

59:32

motions and Kepler. Kepler was driven by

59:34

religion largely because his passion for God

59:36

and his belief in God drove him.

59:38

but he discovered amazing things with his

59:41

loss and then Galileo. So there are

59:43

exceptional people among us who have insight

59:45

that will never have. And so I

59:47

hopefully one day will see Josh's model

59:49

of how he did this. And until

59:51

then, I think it is very remarkable.

59:53

I just wanted to come on to

59:55

educate people about survivorship bias and being

59:58

fooled by randomness. Thank you, Kevin. I

1:00:00

hope everyone's enjoying this conversation. I hope

1:00:02

if Josh is listening or tuned in

1:00:04

at some point. Josh Mandel, aka Josh

1:00:06

Wadamus, hope he finds this call about

1:00:08

us doing service to this sort of

1:00:10

prophecy and prediction rather than a disservice.

1:00:12

I'll turn it over to grain for

1:00:14

any final thoughts before we either wrap

1:00:17

it up or go to. Yeah. Yeah.

1:00:19

So my final thoughts on this. I'm

1:00:21

going to answer Joe's question directly. He

1:00:23

said, make a proportional assuming out of

1:00:25

100% what amount was skill versus luck.

1:00:27

Is that correct, Joe? That was your

1:00:29

question terms exactly. Yeah. So what I

1:00:31

found out recently, I'm a terrible, if

1:00:34

you ever want to lose money, follow

1:00:36

my bets at the sports book in

1:00:38

Vegas. Even with the line, I will

1:00:40

probably get everything wrong. So I'm the

1:00:42

most horrible sports better ever, although I'm

1:00:44

quite entertaining in Las Vegas with my

1:00:46

friends, but they noted just the opposite

1:00:48

all my bets. So anyway, what I

1:00:51

found out was the best sports betters.

1:00:53

right 56% of the time, they can

1:00:55

make a living at it. And maybe

1:00:57

if somebody does exceptional, maybe it'll be

1:00:59

a point or two higher than that

1:01:01

over the course of a season or

1:01:03

a year or so forth. So to

1:01:05

answer your question, Joe, I think based

1:01:08

upon my calculations, he's a solid 80-20,

1:01:10

80% skill, 20% luck. I will attribute

1:01:12

20% of this of luck high of

1:01:14

mine willing it to be beliefs you

1:01:16

have. That's the remaining 20%. But I

1:01:18

think that Josh is just so far

1:01:20

beyond on that. And one of the

1:01:22

things that I've had to do, and

1:01:25

Joe, you said this on a call,

1:01:27

it changed the way that I, my

1:01:29

online persona, is I rat, things that

1:01:31

are comfortable with me or I don't

1:01:33

even think about, is not appropriate for

1:01:35

me necessarily to say, when I make

1:01:37

option plays in space. So I've had

1:01:39

to be very careful about that with

1:01:42

copy traders. So that changed my persona

1:01:44

over time, because something that was very

1:01:46

easy. for me is dangerous for other

1:01:48

people that don't understand the risks involved.

1:01:50

So Joe, with that, I thank you

1:01:52

for being the voice of reason on

1:01:54

many spaces that I've been with on

1:01:56

you and listening to you. I appreciate

1:01:59

you, you know, asking tough questions. And

1:02:01

I think that people need to change.

1:02:03

And my last point is is that

1:02:05

I don't need to see Josh's model.

1:02:07

I'm completely comfortable with that. If he

1:02:09

told it, if he said, I'll tell

1:02:11

you what it was, I'll tell you

1:02:13

what it was, I'd be like now.

1:02:16

I'd be like now. I'm good. That's

1:02:18

great. I just want to emphasize before

1:02:20

we break real quick, set it for

1:02:22

a second. What you just said there

1:02:24

grandi and there, that's so important, because

1:02:26

so many people want to have someone

1:02:28

else do the work for them. And

1:02:30

I know people that have taken out

1:02:33

big positions since Josh made the initial

1:02:35

call. Betting on 400, that's why I

1:02:37

knew people that have taken out big

1:02:39

positions since Josh made the initial call,

1:02:41

betting on 400. Since Josh made the

1:02:43

initial call, I mean, he tells everybody,

1:02:45

But do not do some of these

1:02:47

trades because it's him. He's confident in

1:02:50

it. He has the work, you know,

1:02:52

he has behind it. And you know,

1:02:54

you shouldn't have to be held responsible,

1:02:56

whether it's grain or Josh or anybody

1:02:58

else, or someone else's piggybacking off your

1:03:00

trade. So, you know, don't take this

1:03:02

space. I hope you aren't taking the

1:03:04

space as some sort of mandate on

1:03:07

whether they should follow Josh Mandela in

1:03:09

the next trade. Right. And I do

1:03:11

want to make a point about a

1:03:13

point about that. on the call and

1:03:15

I have talked to Josh before people

1:03:17

ask me do I understand what Josh's

1:03:19

trades are his videos I'm like yeah

1:03:21

I understand and there's times to make

1:03:23

sure I get all his points and

1:03:26

then people like you're gonna copy trade

1:03:28

him I'm like no and they're like

1:03:30

why not you could do it I'm

1:03:32

like because I don't have the conviction

1:03:34

that he has for his trades whatever

1:03:36

method that he uses I'm not privy

1:03:38

to that I don't know if he

1:03:40

told me would that change my conviction

1:03:43

high enough to copy trade him no

1:03:45

So, you know, Joe, I think that

1:03:47

what you're saying is that people take

1:03:49

away about this is that, you know,

1:03:51

sometimes you just look at it and

1:03:53

you're like, wow, that's awesome. And I,

1:03:55

and I do that. I watch, I

1:03:57

watch. Josh's videos and I just say

1:04:00

wow that is awesome I'm so happy

1:04:02

I get to see it and I'm

1:04:04

not going to do what he does

1:04:06

even though I could I could match

1:04:08

him I mean in terms for dollar

1:04:10

dollar but I would never do his

1:04:12

trades that he does specifically he could

1:04:14

trade up market down market and sideways

1:04:17

market and I tend to just be

1:04:19

an up market guy so I know

1:04:21

my limitations and Josh's limitations are way

1:04:23

different Yeah, I appreciate those wise words.

1:04:25

And, you know, it's fast thing to

1:04:27

watch Josh do what he do, but

1:04:29

you can watch Michael Jordan dunk. It

1:04:31

doesn't mean that you can dunk or

1:04:34

that Michael Jordan could any way explain

1:04:36

it to you how he does it.

1:04:38

Joe, I'll leave it to you for

1:04:40

any parting words. I think you should

1:04:42

answer your question. Maybe, you know, what

1:04:44

do you, how much you attribute this

1:04:46

to luck versus his experience in the

1:04:48

market? And then we'll roll out on

1:04:51

that. Actually, when we'll roll out on

1:04:53

that. Same 20 and I would have

1:04:55

the exact same ratio and I must

1:04:57

have understood because earlier I thought he

1:04:59

was saying it was zero luck but

1:05:01

but I think it's exactly I think

1:05:03

8020 makes a ton of sense it's

1:05:05

the overwhelming majority is Josh's great ability

1:05:08

to forecast the market but like anything

1:05:10

else like there were macro and economic

1:05:12

events that helped tip the scale slightly

1:05:14

in the favor of what his probability

1:05:16

models or whatever model he's using showed

1:05:18

so that's my my ratio. So real

1:05:20

quick point about that, Joe. You forced

1:05:22

me, and I've done this with other

1:05:25

people before, what is the probabilistic outcome

1:05:27

of a particular event? So what I

1:05:29

would suggest to people is that anything

1:05:31

in life, type it into Grock or

1:05:33

ChatGPT, and ask it, make sure he

1:05:35

asks the question, try and deceive ChatGPT.

1:05:37

I try and do that, or Grock,

1:05:39

and say, what's the probabilistic outcome that

1:05:42

this will be successful? And it will

1:05:44

give you a number. And so I've

1:05:46

been doing a lot of talking to

1:05:48

AI about this. So because you forced

1:05:50

me to say from zero to 100%

1:05:52

to give a probabilistic outcome of what

1:05:54

was contributed between skill and luck, you

1:05:56

could ask that question to AI. And

1:05:59

when you asked, you forced me to

1:06:01

answer that question, I do have to

1:06:03

contribute that, no, about 80-20. And that's

1:06:05

your typical period of distribution. So. I

1:06:07

think that the fact that we're aligned

1:06:09

on this, I don't know, I'm pretty

1:06:11

happy about that. So I'll leave it

1:06:13

there. Yeah, and I hope we get

1:06:15

to reconvene in November. That kind of

1:06:18

lines up with Dr. Jeff Ross's call

1:06:20

for $4.75, I think, in December of

1:06:22

this year. So, you know, a lot

1:06:24

of Rudy there. Yeah, so maybe we'll

1:06:26

all be getting together about $44. Should

1:06:28

I make a prediction on that? If

1:06:30

for some reason the price goes to

1:06:32

400 or 450,000, I would go full

1:06:35

gamma and only buy $300,000 strikes. Because

1:06:37

I needed to exceed the 300,000 to

1:06:39

maximize the position. So if I think

1:06:41

that something's going to go to 450,

1:06:43

let's say 500,000, I would buy 30%

1:06:45

under it. Because if it does hit

1:06:47

500 like the prediction, I would want

1:06:49

to buy the 350,000 call options on

1:06:52

it at that price as an option

1:06:54

trader. Josh calculated that way faster than

1:06:56

I could even speak it. He would

1:06:58

be like, oh, he would already have

1:07:00

different numbers in his head. But if

1:07:02

I know it's going there, given what

1:07:04

I learned from fourth quarter and what

1:07:06

I learned today, is I would definitely

1:07:09

buy it a 30% under, right? Because

1:07:11

I would definitely buy it a 30%

1:07:13

under, when it's, right? Because I want

1:07:15

to be 30% over when it hits

1:07:17

that number. So mathematically I learned over

1:07:19

time. Go ahead. Let's do it. All

1:07:21

right, David are I get them up

1:07:23

here. Okay. Yep. All right. Go for

1:07:26

it. Hi, Dave here. So I kind

1:07:28

of feel like a little micro expert

1:07:30

here in watching this pretty closely through

1:07:32

this whole thing unfolding. And let me

1:07:34

just preface by saying I'm a complete

1:07:36

Bayesian. I completely believe the Bayesian trader.

1:07:38

I'm with you. 100% I'm going to

1:07:40

look you up. Thanks for coming on.

1:07:43

But this was just remarkable to watch

1:07:45

and I enjoyed job. Hey, thanks. I

1:07:47

just want to say this was a

1:07:49

fantastic discussion. Brain, Cedric, Joe, so glad

1:07:51

we could put this together and everybody

1:07:53

who stayed on board. Brain, did you

1:07:55

say there were like 500 people on

1:07:57

here? That's amazing. That's fantastic. Yeah, I

1:08:00

think it's awesome. I want to thank

1:08:02

everybody also. Cedric, thank you for putting

1:08:04

this together. Joe putting this together and

1:08:06

Kevin you know I really appreciate discussing

1:08:08

this as I'm looking at right now

1:08:10

there's 400 it's dropping off 486 but

1:08:12

I think it peaked a little bit

1:08:14

over 500 and and you know I

1:08:17

definitely want people that are skeptical about

1:08:19

what I say and people should fact

1:08:21

check me and come to their own

1:08:23

conclusions so thank you guys I'm gonna

1:08:25

drop off I'd be happy to do

1:08:27

this again if something else you know

1:08:29

in any other topic that come well

1:08:31

for the obviously obviously the obviously the

1:08:34

big coin there are you done thank

1:08:36

you've done thank you don't Kevin, this

1:08:38

has been awesome. It's been so dope.

1:08:40

I hope you guys tune into the

1:08:42

Bitcoin Matrix. I'm Cedric Youngelman. We'll definitely

1:08:44

do this again, and we'll probably roll

1:08:46

this back in November when Josh hits

1:08:48

his next target. Thanks for tuning in

1:08:51

to this episode of the Bitcoin Matrix.

1:08:53

If you enjoyed the conversation, don't forget

1:08:55

to like, subscribe, and drop a comment

1:08:57

below with any questions or thoughts you

1:08:59

may have. We'd love to hear from

1:09:01

you. You can support the show by

1:09:03

checking out our sponsors and affiliate links

1:09:05

in the description. It helps keep bringing

1:09:08

you great content while connecting you with

1:09:10

awesome products that I believe in. Share

1:09:12

this episodes with your friends, family, or

1:09:14

anyone curious about Bitcoin. And let's keep

1:09:16

growing this community together. Stay curious, keep

1:09:18

stacking, and I'll catch you in the

1:09:20

next one.