Transcript
00:00:00 remember George Washington? You know how he died? Well meaning physicians bled him to death,
00:00:04 and this was the most important patient in the country, maybe in the history of the country,
00:00:10 and we bled him to death trying to help him. So when you’re actually inflating the money supply
00:00:17 at 7% but you’re calling it 2% because you want to help the economy, you’re literally bleeding
00:00:24 the free market to death. But the sad fact is George Washington went along with it because he
00:00:31 thought that they were going to do him good, and the majority of the society, most companies,
00:00:38 most conventional thinkers, you know, the working class, they go along with this because they think
00:00:46 that someone has their best interest of mind, and the people that are bleeding them to death
00:00:50 believe, they believe that prescription because their mental models are just so defective.
00:00:58 The following is a conversation with Michael Saylor, one of the most prominent and brilliant
00:01:03 Bitcoin proponents in the world. He is the CEO of MicroStrategy, founder of Saylor Academy,
00:01:10 graduate of MIT, and Michael is one of the most fascinating and rigorous thinkers I’ve ever gotten
00:01:16 a chance to explore ideas with. He can effortlessly zoom out to the big perspectives of human
00:01:21 civilization and human history, and zoom back in to the technical details of blockchains, markets,
00:01:28 governments, and financial systems. This is the Lex Friedman podcast. To support it,
00:01:34 please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Michael Saylor.
00:01:40 Here’s Michael Saylor. Let’s start with a big question of truth and wisdom. When advanced humans
00:01:49 or aliens or AI systems, let’s say five to ten centuries from now, look back at Earth
00:01:55 on this early 21st century, how much do you think they would say we understood about
00:02:02 money and economics, or even about engineering, science, life, death, meaning, intelligence,
00:02:07 consciousness, all the big interesting questions?
00:02:12 I think they would probably give us a
00:02:17 B minus on engineering, on all the engineering things, the hard sciences.
00:02:22 A passing grade.
00:02:24 Like, we’re doing okay. We’re working our way through rockets and jets and electric cars and
00:02:30 an electricity transport systems and nuclear power and space flight and the like. And if you look at
00:02:39 the walls that grace the great court at MIT, it’s full of all the great thinkers and they’re all
00:02:47 pretty admirable. If you could be with Newton or Gauss or Madame Curie or Einstein, you would
00:02:57 respect them. I would say they’d give us like a D minus on economics, like an F plus or a D minus.
00:03:08 You have an optimistic vision. First of all, optimistic vision of engineering,
00:03:12 because everybody you’ve listed, not everybody, but most people you’ve listed is just over the
00:03:17 past couple of centuries. And maybe it stretches a little farther back, but mostly all the cool
00:03:23 stuff we’ve done in engineering is the past couple of centuries.
00:03:25 I mean, Archimedes had his virtues. I studied the history of science at MIT and I also studied
00:03:34 aerospace engineering. And so I clearly have a bias in favor of science. And if I look at the
00:03:40 past 10,000 years and I consider all of the philosophy and the politics and their impact
00:03:47 on the human condition, I think it’s a wash for every politician that came up with a good idea,
00:03:53 another politician came up with a bad idea. And it’s not clear to me that most of the
00:03:59 political and philosophical contributions to the human race and the human conditions
00:04:06 have advanced so much. I mean, we’re still taking guidance and admiring Aristotle and
00:04:13 Plato and Seneca and the like. And on the other hand, if you think about what has made the human
00:04:22 condition better, fire, water, harnessing of wind energy, try to row across an ocean, right?
00:04:33 Not easy.
00:04:34 And for people who are just listening or watching, there’s a beautiful sexy ship from
00:04:40 16th, 17th century.
00:04:42 This is a 19th century handmade model of a 17th century sailing ship, which is of the type that
00:04:48 the Dutch East India’s company used to sail the world and trade. So that was made, the original
00:04:56 was made sometime in the 1600s. And then this model is made in the 19th century by individuals.
00:05:04 So both the model and the ship itself is engineering at its best. And just imagine,
00:05:08 just like rockets flying out to space, how much hope this filled people with,
00:05:12 exploring the unknown, going into the mystery, both the entrepreneurs and the business people
00:05:19 and the engineers and just humans. What’s out there? What’s out there to be discovered?
00:05:24 Yeah, the metaphor of human beings leaving shore or sailing across the horizon,
00:05:29 risking their lives in pursuit of a better life is an incredibly powerful one.
00:05:33 In 1900, I suppose the average life expectancy is 50. During the Revolutionary War,
00:05:42 while our founding fathers were fighting to establish life, liberty, pursuit of happiness,
00:05:47 the Constitution, average life expectancy is like 32, somewhere between 32 and 36.
00:05:54 So all the sound and the fury doesn’t make you live past 32, but what does, right? Antibiotics.
00:06:01 Conquest of infectious diseases. If we understand the science of infectious disease, sterilizing
00:06:09 a knife and harnessing antibiotics gets you from 50 to 70. And that happened fast, right? That
00:06:15 happens from 1900 to 1950 or something like that. And I think if you look at the human condition,
00:06:24 you ever get on one of those rowing machines where they actually keep track of your watts output when
00:06:30 you’re on that? Yeah. It’s like 200 is a lot. Okay, 200 is a lot. So a kilowatt hour is like all
00:06:39 the energy that a human, a trained athlete can deliver in a day. And probably not 1% of the
00:06:48 people in the world could deliver a kilowatt hour in a day. And the commercial value of a kilowatt
00:06:54 hour, the retail value is 11 cents today. And the wholesale value is 2 cents. And so you have to look
00:07:03 at the contribution of politicians and philosophers and economists to the human condition. And it’s
00:07:12 like at best a wash one way or the other. And then if you look at the contribution of John D.
00:07:17 Rockefeller when he delivered you a barrel of oil and the energy in oil, liquid energy, or the
00:07:25 contribution of Tesla as we deliver electricity. And what’s the impact on the human condition if I
00:07:34 have electric power, if I have chemical power, if I have wind energy, if I can actually set up a
00:07:43 reservoir, create a dam, spend a turbine, and generate energy from a hydraulic source?
00:07:52 That’s extraordinary, right? And so our ability to cross the ocean, our ability to grow food,
00:08:00 our ability to live, it’s technology that gets the human race from a brutal life where life
00:08:09 expectancy is 30 to a world where life expectancy is 80.
00:08:14 You gave a D minus to the economists. So are they too like the politicians a wash
00:08:20 in terms of there’s good ideas and bad ideas and that tiny delta between good and bad?
00:08:26 Is how you squeak past the F plus onto the D minus territory?
00:08:31 I think most economic ideas are bad ideas.
00:08:34 Most.
00:08:35 You know, like take us back to MIT and you want to solve a fluid dynamics problem. Like design
00:08:43 the shape of the hull of that ship, or you want to design an airfoil, a wing, or if you want to
00:08:50 design an engine or a nozzle in a rocket ship, you wouldn’t do it with simple arithmetic.
00:08:59 You wouldn’t do it with a scaler. There’s not a single number, right? It’s vector math.
00:09:04 You know, computational fluid dynamics is n dimensional, higher level math,
00:09:10 you know, complicated stuff. So when an economist says the inflation rate is
00:09:15 2%, that’s a scaler. And when an economist says it’s not a problem to print more money,
00:09:22 because the velocity of the money is very low, monetary velocity is low, that’s another scaler.
00:09:29 Okay, so the truth of the matter is inflation is not a scaler. Inflation is an n dimensional vector.
00:09:38 Money velocity is not a scaler.
00:09:40 The saying, what’s the velocity of money? Oh, it’s slow or it’s fast. It ignores the question of
00:09:49 what medium is the money moving through. And the same way that, you know, what’s the speed of sound?
00:09:57 Okay, well, what is sound, right? Sound, you know, sound is a compression wave. It’s energy
00:10:05 moving through a medium, but the speed is different. So for example, the speed of sound through air is
00:10:11 different than the speed of sound through water. And sound moves faster through water,
00:10:16 it moves faster through a solid, and it moves faster to a stiffer solid. So there isn’t one.
00:10:21 What is the fundamental problem with the way economists reduce the world down to a model?
00:10:26 Is it too simple? Or is it just even the first generation?
00:10:30 I think that the fundamental problem is, if you see the world as a scaler, you simply pick
00:10:38 the one number which is, which supports whatever you want to do, and you ignore the universe of
00:10:46 other consequences from your behavior. In general, I don’t know if you’ve heard of the
00:10:53 Eric Weisen has been talking about this with gauge theory. So different kinds of approaches
00:11:01 from the physics world, from the mathematical world to extend past this scaler view of economics.
00:11:08 So gauge theory is one way that comes from physics. Do you find that a way of exploring economics
00:11:15 interesting? So outside of cryptocurrency, outside of the actual technology,
00:11:19 and so on, just analysis of how economics works. Do you find that interesting?
00:11:26 Yeah, I think that if we’re going to want to really make any scientific progress in economics,
00:11:31 we have to apply much, much more computationally intensive and richer forms of mathematics.
00:11:38 So simulation, perhaps, or?
00:11:40 Yeah, you know, when I was at MIT, I studied system dynamics at MIT.
00:11:45 You know, when I was at MIT, I studied system dynamics. You know, they taught it at the Sloan
00:11:50 School. It was developed by Jay Forrester, who was an extraordinary computer scientist.
00:11:59 And when we created models of economic behavior, they were all multi dimensional nonlinear models.
00:12:08 So if you want to describe how anything works in the real world, you have to start with the concept
00:12:14 of feedback. If I double the price of something, demand will fall, and attempts to create supply
00:12:22 will increase, and there will be a delay before the capacity increases. There’ll be an instant
00:12:28 demand change, and there’ll be rippling effects throughout every other segment of the economy,
00:12:34 downstream and upstream of such a thing. So it’s kind of common sense. But most economics,
00:12:40 most classical economics, it’s always, you know, taught with linear models,
00:12:46 you know, fairly simplistic linear models. And oftentimes, even I’m really shocked today
00:12:52 that the entire mainstream dialogue of economics has been captured by scale or arithmetic.
00:13:00 For example, if you read, you know, read any article in New York Times or the Wall Street
00:13:06 Journal, right, they just refer to there’s an inflation number or the CPI or the inflation
00:13:12 rate is X. And if you look at all the historic studies of the impact of inflation, generally,
00:13:20 they’re all based upon the idea that inflation equals CPI, and then they try to extrapolate from
00:13:27 that and you just get nowhere with it. So at the very least, we should be considering inflation
00:13:35 and other economics concept as a nonlinear dynamical system. So nonlinearity, and also
00:13:42 just embracing the full complexity of just how the variables interact, maybe through simulation,
00:13:46 maybe some have some interesting models around that.
00:13:49 Wouldn’t it be refreshing if somebody for once published a table of the change in price of every
00:13:55 product, every service, and every asset in every place over time?
00:14:00 LR You said table, some of that also is the task of visualization, how to extract from
00:14:06 this complex set of numbers, patterns that somehow indicate something fundamental about
00:14:14 what’s happening. So like, summarization of data is still important, perhaps summarization,
00:14:19 not down to a single scale of value. But looking at that whole sea of numbers, you have to find
00:14:27 patterns, like what is inflation in a particular sector? What is maybe change over time, maybe
00:14:33 different geographical regions, you know, things of that nature. I think that’s kind of,
00:14:38 I don’t know even what that task is. You know, that’s what you could look at machine learning,
00:14:43 you can look at AI with that perspective, which is like, how do you represent what’s happening
00:14:49 efficiently, as efficiently as possible? That’s never going to be a single number, but it might
00:14:54 be a compressed model that captures something, something beautiful, something fundamental
00:14:58 about what’s happening.
00:15:00 It’s an opportunity, for sure, right? You know, if we take, for example, during the
00:15:09 pandemic, the response of the political apparatus was to lower interest rates to zero, and to
00:15:18 start buying assets, in essence, printing money. And the defense was, there’s no inflation.
00:15:26 But of course, you had one part of the economy where it was locked down, so it was illegal
00:15:33 to buy anything. It was either illegal or it was impractical. So it would be impossible
00:15:41 for demand to manifest, so of course, there is no inflation. On the other hand, there
00:15:45 was instantaneous immediate inflation in another part of the economy. For example, you lower
00:15:53 the interest rates to zero. At one point, we saw the swap rate on a 30 year note go
00:15:59 to 72 basis points. Okay, that means that the value of a long dated bond immediately
00:16:07 inflates. So the bond market had hyperinflation within minutes of these
00:15:49 financial decisions. The asset market had hyperinflation within minutes of these
00:15:59 financial decisions.
00:16:01 So here again, it’s about how we insights whether the market will
00:16:13 react to the hyperinflation within minutes of these financial decisions.
00:16:17 asset market had hyperinflation. We had what you call a K shape recovery, what we affectionately
00:16:24 call a K shape recovery. Main Street shut down, Wall Street recovered all within six weeks.
00:16:30 The inflation was in the assets, like in the stocks, in the bonds. If you look today, you see
00:16:38 that a typical house, according to the Case Shiller Index today, is up 19.2% year over year. So if
00:16:48 you’re a first time home buyer, the inflation rate is 19%. The formal CPI announced a 7.9%.
00:16:58 You can pretty much create any inflation rate you want by constructing a market basket,
00:17:05 a weighted basket of products or services or assets that yield you the answer. I think that
00:17:13 the fundamental failing of economists is, first of all, they don’t really have a term for asset
00:17:21 inflation. What’s an asset? What’s asset hyperinflation? You mentioned bond market swap
00:17:29 rate and asset is where the majority of the hyperinflation happen. What’s inflation? What’s
00:17:35 hyperinflation? What’s an asset? What’s an asset market? I’m going to ask so many dumb questions.
00:17:40 In the conventional economic world, you would treat inflation as the rate of increase in
00:17:48 price of a market basket of consumer products defined by a government agency.
00:17:54 LW. So they have like traditional things that a regular consumer would be buying.
00:18:01 The government selects like toilet paper, food, toaster,
00:18:06 refrigerator, electronics, all that kind of stuff. And it’s like a representative
00:18:12 basket of goods that lead to a content existence on this earth for a regular consumer.
00:18:19 CM. They define a synthetic metric, right? I mean, I’m going to say you should have a thousand
00:18:25 square foot apartment and you should have a used car and you should eat three hamburgers a week.
00:18:33 Now, 10 years go by and the apartment costs more, I could adjust the market basket by a,
00:18:40 they call them hedonic adjustments. I could decide that it used to be in 1970 you needed
00:18:45 a thousand square feet, but in the year 2020, you only need 700 square feet because we’ve
00:18:51 miniaturized televisions and we’ve got more efficient electric appliances and because
00:18:56 things have collapsed out of the iPhone, you just don’t need as much space. So now I, you know,
00:19:02 it may be that the apartment costs 50% more, but after the hedonic adjustment, there is no inflation
00:19:07 because I just downgraded the expectation of what a normal person should have.
00:19:11 TG. So the synthetic nature of the metric allows for manipulation by people in power?
00:19:16 CM. Pretty much. I guess my criticism of economists is rather than embracing inflation
00:19:25 based upon its fundamental idea, which is the rate at which the price of things go up, right?
00:19:31 They’ve been captured by mainstream conventional thinking to immediately equate inflation to the
00:19:40 government issued CPI or government issued PCE or government issued PPI measure, which was never the
00:19:47 rate at which things go up. It’s simply the rate at which a synthetic basket of products and
00:19:55 services the government wishes to track go up. Now, the problem with that is that the
00:20:00 problem with that is two big things. One thing is the government gets to create the market basket,
00:20:08 and so they keep changing what’s in the basket over time. So I mean, if I said three years ago,
00:20:16 you should go see 10 concerts a year and the concert tickets now cost $200 each. Now it’s
00:20:22 $2,000 a year to go see concerts. Now I’m in charge of calculating inflation. So I redefine,
00:20:28 you know, your entertainment quota for the year to be eight Netflix streaming concerts,
00:20:33 and now they don’t cost $2,000. They cost nothing, and there is no inflation,
00:20:37 but you don’t get your concerts, right? So the problem starts with continually changing
00:20:44 the definition of the market basket. But in my opinion, that’s not the biggest problem.
00:20:49 The more egregious problem is the fundamental idea that assets aren’t products or services.
00:21:00 Assets can’t be inflated. What’s an asset?
00:21:03 A house, a share of Apple stock, a bond, a Bitcoin is an asset, or a Picasso painting.
00:21:15 LW. Not a consumable good. Not an Apple that you can eat.
00:21:22 RL. Right. If I throw away an asset, then I’m not on the hook to track the inflation rate for it.
00:21:30 So what happens if I change the policy such that, let’s take the classic example,
00:21:35 a million dollar bond at a 5% interest rate gives you $50,000 a year in risk free income.
00:21:40 You might retire on $50,000 a year in a low cost jurisdiction. So the cost of social security
00:21:47 or early retirement is $1 million when the interest rate is 5%. During the crisis of March
00:21:55 of 2020, the interest rate went on a 10 year bond went to 50 basis points. So now the cost
00:22:01 of that bond is $10 million. The cost of social security went from a million dollars to $10 million.
00:22:08 So if you wanted to work your entire life, save money, and then retire risk free and live happily
00:22:14 ever after on a $50,000 salary, live in on a beach in Mexico, wherever you wanted to go,
00:22:20 you had hyperinflation. The cost of your aspiration increased by a factor of 10
00:22:26 over the course of some amount of time. In fact, in that case, that was over the course of about 12
00:22:32 years. As the inflation rate ground down, the asset traded up. But the conventional view is,
00:22:41 oh, that’s not a problem, because it’s good that the bond is highly priced because we own the bond.
00:22:49 Or what’s the problem with the inflation rate in housing being 19%? It’s an awful problem for a
00:22:57 22 year old that’s starting their first job, that’s saving money to buy a house. But it would
00:23:02 be characterized as a benefit to society by a conventional economist who would say, well, housing
00:23:09 asset values are higher because of interest rate fluctuation, and now the economy has got more
00:23:14 wealth. And so that’s viewed as a benefit. So what’s being missed here, like the suffering
00:23:24 of the average person, or the struggle, the suffering, the pain of the average person,
00:23:34 like metrics that captured that within the economic system? Is that when you’re talking
00:23:37 about different… One way to say it is a conventional view of inflation as CPI
00:23:43 understates the human misery that’s inflicted upon the working class and on mainstream companies by
00:23:56 the political class. And so it’s a massive shift of wealth from the working class to the property
00:24:01 class. It’s a massive shift of power from the free market to the centrally governed or the
00:24:09 controlled market. It’s a massive shift of power from the people to the government. And maybe one
00:24:17 more illustrative point here, Alexis, is what do you think the inflation rate’s been for the past
00:24:23 100 years? Oh, you’re talking about the scalar again? If you took a survey of everybody on the
00:24:30 street and you asked them, what do they think inflation was? What is it? You remember when
00:24:35 Jerome Powell said our target’s 2%, but we’re not there. If you go around the corner, I have posted
00:24:43 the deed to this house sold in 1930. Okay. And the number on that deed is $100,000, 1930. And if you
00:24:55 go on Zillow and you get the Z estimate. Is it higher than that? $30,500,000. So that’s 92
00:25:05 years, 1930 or 2022. And in 92 years, we’ve had 305x increase in price of the house. Now,
00:25:17 if you actually back calculate, you come to a conclusion that the inflation rate was approximately
00:25:23 6.5% a year every year for 92 years. Okay. And there’s nobody, nobody in government,
00:25:33 no conventional economists that would ever admit to an inflation rate of 7% a year in the US dollar
00:25:39 over the last century. Now, if you dig deeper, I mean, one guy that’s done a great job working on
00:25:48 this is Seyfettin Amos who wrote the book, The Bitcoin Standard. And he notes that on average,
00:25:54 it looks like the inflation rate and the money supply is about 7% a year all the way up to the
00:26:00 year 2020. If you look at the S&P index, which is a market basket of scarce desirable stocks,
00:26:09 it returned about 10%. If you talk to 10% a year for 100 years, the money supply is expanding at
00:26:17 7% 100 years. If you actually talk to economists or you look at the economy and you ask the question,
00:26:24 how fast does the economy grow in its entirety year over year? Generally about 2% to 3%. Like
00:26:32 the sum total impact of all this technology and human ingenuity might get you a 2.5, 3% improvement
00:26:39 a year. As measured by GDP. Are you okay with that? I’m not sure. I’m not sure I’d go that far yet,
00:26:45 but I would just say that if you had the human race doing stuff and if you asked the question,
00:26:53 how much more efficiently will we do this stuff next year than this year? Or what’s the value of
00:26:59 all of our innovations and inventions and investments in the past 12 months? You’d be
00:27:05 hard pressed to say we get 2% better. Typical investor thinks they’re 10% better every year.
00:27:13 So if you look at what’s going on, really, when you’re holding a million dollars of stocks and
00:27:19 you’re getting a 10% gain a year, you really get a 7% expansion of the money supply. You’re getting
00:27:25 a 2% or 3% gain under best circumstances. And another way to say that is if the money supply
00:27:34 stopped expanding at 7% a year, the S&P yield might be 3% and not 10%. It probably should be.
00:27:42 Now, that gets you to start to ask a bunch of other fundamental questions. Like
00:27:47 if I borrow a billion dollars and pay 3% interest and the money supply expands at 7% to 10% a year,
00:27:54 and I ended up making a 10% return on a billion dollar investment paying 3% interest, is that fair?
00:28:03 And who suffered so that I could do that? Because in an environment where you’re just
00:28:10 inflating the money supply and you’re holding the assets constant, it stands the reason that
00:28:15 the price of all the assets is going to appreciate somewhat proportional to the money supply.
00:28:22 And the difference in asset appreciations is going to be a function of the scarce desirable
00:28:27 quality of the assets, and to what extent can I make more of them, and to what extent are they
00:28:33 truly limited in supply? Yeah, so we’ll get to a lot of the words you said there. The scarcity,
00:28:41 the scarcity, and so connected to how limited they are and the value of those
00:28:49 assets. But you also said, so the expansion of the money supply, which is put another way,
00:28:55 is printing money. And so is that always bad, the expansion of the money supply?
00:29:01 Just to put some terms on the table so we understand them. You nonchalantly say it’s
00:29:07 always on average expanding every year, the money supply is expanding every year by 7%.
00:29:13 That’s a bad thing? That’s universally a bad thing? It’s awful. I guess to be precise,
00:29:21 it’s the currency. I would say money is monetary energy or economic energy. And the economic
00:29:31 energy has to find its way into a medium. So if you want to move it rapidly as a medium of exchange,
00:29:37 it has to find its way into currency. But the money can also flow into property, like a house
00:29:42 or gold. If the money flows into property, it’ll probably hold its value much better if the money
00:29:50 flows into currency. If you had put $100,000 in this house, you would have 305x return over 92
00:29:59 years. But if you had put the money, $100,000, in a safe deposit box and buried it in the basement,
00:30:04 you would have lost 99.7% of your wealth over the same time period. So the expansion of the currency
00:30:16 creates a massive inefficiency in the society, what I’ll call an adiabatic lapse. What we’re
00:30:22 doing is we’re bleeding the civilization to death. What’s the adiabatic, what’s that word?
00:30:30 Adiabatic lapse. Right. In aerospace engineering, you want to solve any problem, they start with
00:30:38 the phrase, assume an adiabatic system. And what that means is a closed system. So I’ve got a
00:30:46 container and in that container, no air leaves and no air enters, no energy exits or enters.
00:30:52 So it’s a closed system. So you got the closed system lapse.
00:30:56 There’s a leak in the ship.
00:31:01 I’m going to use a physical metaphor for you because you’re the jujitsu, right? Like you’ve
00:31:06 got 10 pints of blood in your body. And so before your next workout, I’m going to take one pint from
00:31:13 you. Now you’re going to go exercise, but you’ve lost 10% of your blood. You’re not going to perform
00:31:22 as well. It takes about one month for your body to replace the red blood platelets. So what if I
00:31:28 tell you every month you got to show up and I’m going to bleed you? Yeah. Okay. So if I’m draining
00:31:34 the energy, I’m draining the blood from your body, you can’t perform. If you, adiabatic lapse is when
00:31:41 you go up in altitude, every thousand feet, you lose three degrees. You go at 50,000 feet, you’re
00:31:47 150 degrees colder than sea level. That’s why you look at your instruments and instead of 80 degrees,
00:31:54 you’re minus 70 degrees. Why is the temperature falling? Temperature is falling because it’s not
00:32:00 a closed system, it’s an open system. As the air expands, the density falls, the energy per cubic
00:32:13 whatever falls and therefore the temperature falls. The heat’s falling out of the solution.
00:32:18 So when you’re inflating, let’s say you’re inflating the currency supply by 6%,
00:32:25 you’re sucking 6% of the energy out of the fluid that the economy is using to function.
00:32:34 So the currency, this kind of ocean of currency, that’s a nice way for the economy to function.
00:32:39 It’s the most kind of, it’s being inefficient when you expand the money supply, but it’s
00:32:47 the liquid. I’m trying to find the right kind of adjective here. It’s how you do transactions at
00:32:53 a scale of billions. Currency is the asset we use to move monetary energy around and you could use
00:33:00 the dollar or you could use the peso or you could use the bolivar. Selling houses and buying houses
00:33:06 is much more inefficient or like you can’t transact between billions of people with houses.
00:33:14 Yeah. Properties don’t make such good mediums of exchange. They make better stores of value
00:33:20 and they have utility value if it’s a ship or a house or a plane or a bushel of corn, right?
00:33:29 Can I zoom out just for, can we zoom out? Keep zooming out until we reach
00:33:33 the origin of human civilization. But on the way, ask, you gave economists a D minus.
00:33:39 I’m not even going to ask you what you give to governments.
00:33:44 Do you think their failure, economists and government failure is malevolence or incompetence?
00:33:52 I think policymakers are well intentioned, but generally all government policy is inflationary
00:34:00 and all government, it’s inflammatory and inflationary. So what I mean by that is
00:34:05 when you have a policy pursuing supply chain independence, if you have an energy policy,
00:34:13 if you have a labor policy, if you have a trade policy, if you have any kind of foreign policy,
00:34:20 a domestic policy, a manufacturing policy, every one of these, a medical policy,
00:34:26 every one of these policies interferes with the free market and generally prevents some rational
00:34:35 actor from doing it in a cheaper, more efficient way. So when you layer them on top of each other,
00:34:42 they all have to be paid for. If you want to shut down the entire economy for a year,
00:34:46 you have to pay for it, right? If you want to fight a war, you have to pay for it,
00:34:50 pay for it, right? If you don’t want to use oil or natural gas, you have to pay for it.
00:34:56 If you don’t want to manufacture semiconductors in China and you want to manufacture them in the
00:35:02 US, you got to pay for it. If I rebuild the entire supply chain in Pennsylvania and I hire a bunch of
00:35:08 employees and then I unionize the employees, then not only am I idle the factory in the Far East,
00:35:16 it goes to 50% capacity. So whatever it sells, it has to raise the price on. And then I drive up
00:35:23 the cost of labor for every other manufacturer in the US because I’m competing against them,
00:35:29 right? I’m changing that condition. So everything gets less efficient, everything gets more
00:35:34 expensive. And of course, the government couldn’t really pay for its policies and its wars with
00:35:41 taxes. We didn’t pay for World War I with tax. We didn’t pay for World War II with tax. We didn’t
00:35:46 pay for Vietnam with tax. In fact, when you trace this, what you realize is the government never
00:35:52 pays for all of its policies with tax. Because it’s too painful to ask to raise the taxes to
00:35:57 truly transparently pay for the things you’re doing with taxes, with taxpayer money because
00:36:04 they feel the pain. That’s one interpretation or it’s just too transparent. If people understood
00:36:10 the true cost of war, they wouldn’t want to go to war. If you were told that you would lose 95%
00:36:18 of your assets and 90% of everything you ever will be taken from you, you might reprioritize
00:36:28 your thought about a given policy and you might not vote for that politician. But you’re still
00:36:32 saying incompetence, not malevolence. So fundamentally, government creates a bureaucracy
00:36:38 of incompetence is kind of how you look at it. I think a lack of humility. If people had more
00:36:48 humility, then they would realize. Humility about how little they know, how little they understand
00:36:55 about the function of complex systems. There’s a phrase from Quint Eastwood’s movie, Unforgiven,
00:36:59 where he says a man’s got to know his limitations. I think that a lot of people overestimate
00:37:06 what they can accomplish and experience. Experience in life causes you to reevaluate that.
00:37:17 So I mean, I’ve done a lot of things in my life and generally, my mistakes were always my good
00:37:24 ideas that I enthusiastically pursued to the detriment of my great ideas that required 150%
00:37:33 of my attention to prosper. So I think people pursue too many good ideas. They all sound good,
00:37:41 but there’s just a limit to what you can accomplish. And everybody underestimates the
00:37:47 challenges of implementing an idea. And they always overestimate the benefits of the pursuit
00:37:58 of that. And so I think it’s an overconfidence that causes an overexuberance in pursuit of
00:38:04 policies. And as the ambition of the government expands, so must the currency supply. Well,
00:38:13 I could say the money supply, but let’s say the currency supply. You can triple the number of
00:38:19 pesos in the economy, but it doesn’t triple the amount of manufacturing capacity in the set
00:38:25 economy. And it doesn’t triple the amount of assets in the economy, it just triples the pesos. So
00:38:31 as you increase the currency supply, then the price of all those scarce desirable things
00:38:39 will tend to go up rapidly. And the confidence of all of the institutions, the corporations,
00:38:47 and the individual actors and trading partners will collapse.
00:38:52 TK If we take a tangent on a tangent, and we will return soon to the big human civilization
00:38:59 question. So if government naturally wants to buy stuff it can’t afford,
00:39:10 what’s the best form of government? Anarchism, libertarianism. So there’s not even armies,
00:39:19 there’s no borders, that’s anarchism. The smallest possible, the best government would
00:39:28 be the least and the debate will be over that. TK When you think about this stuff,
00:39:33 do you think about, okay, government is the way it is, I as a person that can generate great ideas,
00:39:39 how do I operate in this world? Or do you also think about the big picture if we start a new
00:39:44 TK civilization somewhere on Mars, do you think about what’s the ultimate form of government?
00:39:50 What’s at least a promising thing to try?
00:39:58 TK You know, I have laser eyes on my profile on Twitter, Lex.
00:40:05 TK What does that mean?
00:40:06 TK And the significance of laser eyes is to focus on the thing that can make a difference.
00:40:12 TK Yes.
00:40:14 TK And if I look at the civilization,
00:40:19 I would say half the problems in the civilization are due to the fact that our understanding of
00:40:27 economics and money is defective, half, 50%. I don’t know, it’s worth $500 trillion worth of
00:40:34 problems. Like money represents all the economic energy in the civilization and it kind of equates
00:40:43 to all the products, all the services and all the assets that we have and we’re ever gonna have.
00:40:49 So that’s half. The other half of the problems in the civilization are medical and military and
00:40:58 political and philosophical and natural. And I think that there are a lot of different solutions
00:41:09 to all those problems and they are all honorable professions and they all merit a lifetime of
00:41:18 consideration for the specialists in all those areas. I think that what I could offer it’s
00:41:26 constructive is inflation is completely misunderstood. It’s a much bigger problem
00:41:34 than we understand it to be. We need to introduce engineering and science
00:41:39 techniques into economics if we wanna further the human condition. All government policy is
00:41:45 inflationary. And another pernicious myth is inflation is always and everywhere a monetary
00:41:54 phenomenon. A famous quote by Milton Friedman, I believe, it’s like, it’s a monetary phenomenon
00:42:00 that is inflation comes from expanding the currency supply. It’s a nice phrase and it’s
00:42:05 oftentimes quoted by people that are anti inflation. But again, it just signifies a lack
00:42:12 of appreciation of what the issue is. Inflation is, if I had a currency which was completely
00:42:19 noninflationary, if I never printed another dollar, and if I eliminated fractional reserve
00:42:25 banking from the face of the earth, we’d still have inflation. And we have inflation as long
00:42:31 as we have government that is capable of pursuing any kind of policies that are in themselves
00:42:40 inflationary and generally they all are. So in general, inflationary is the big
00:42:46 the big characteristic of human nature that governments collection of groups that have
00:42:52 power over others and allocate other people’s resources will try to intentionally or not hide
00:42:59 the costs of those allocations, like in some tricky ways, whatever the options ever available.
00:43:07 You know, hiding the cost is like, is like the tertiary thing, like, the primary goal
00:43:14 is the government will attempt to do good. Right. And that’s the fundamental, that’s
00:43:19 the primary problem. They will attempt to do good and they will and they will do it.
00:43:24 They will do good imperfectly and they will create oftentimes as much damage,
00:43:30 more damage than the good they do. Most government policy will be iatrogenic. It will,
00:43:35 it will create more harm than good in the pursuit of it. But it is what it is.
00:43:39 The secondary, the secondary issue is they will unintentionally pay for it
00:43:47 by expanding the currency supply without realizing that they’re, they’re actually
00:43:54 paying for it in in a suboptimal fashion. They’ll collapse their own currencies while they attempt
00:44:01 to do good. The tertiary issue is they will mismeasure how badly they’re collapsing the
00:44:08 currency. So for example, if you go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you know, and look at the
00:44:14 numbers printed by the Fed, they’ll say, oh, it looks like the dollar’s lost 95% of its purchasing
00:44:19 power over 100 years. Okay, they sort of fess up that there’s a problem, but they make it 95%
00:44:26 loss over 100 years. What they don’t do is realize it’s a 99.7% loss over 80 years. So they will
00:44:34 mismeasure just the horrific extent of the monetary policy in pursuit of the foreign
00:44:43 policy and the domestic policy, which they overestimate their budget and their means to
00:44:52 accomplish their ends, and they underestimate the cost. And they’re oblivious to the horrific
00:45:00 damage that they do to the civilization because the mental models that they use that are
00:45:06 conventionally taught are wrong, right? The mental model that, like, it’s okay, we can print all this
00:45:13 money because the velocity of the money is low, right? Because money velocity is a scalar and
00:45:21 inflation is the scalar, and we don’t see 2% inflation yet, and the money velocity is low,
00:45:25 and so it’s okay if we print trillions of dollars. Well, the money velocity was immediate,
00:45:33 right? The velocity of money through the crypto economy is 10,000 times faster than the velocity
00:45:41 of money through the consumer economy, right? I think Nick pointed out when you spoke to him,
00:45:47 he said it takes two months for a credit card transaction to settle, right? So you want to
00:45:52 spend a million dollars in the consumer economy, you can move it six times a year.
00:45:58 You put a million dollars into gold, gold will sit in a vault for a decade, okay? So the velocity
00:46:04 of money through gold is 0.1. You put the money in the stock market and you can trade it once a
00:46:10 week, the settlement is T plus 2, maybe you get to 2 to 1 leverage. You might get to a money
00:46:15 velocity of 100 a year in the stock market. You put your money into the crypto economy,
00:46:21 and these people are settling every four hours. And you know, if you’re offshore,
00:46:27 they’re trading with 20x leverage. So if you settle every day and you trade the 20x leverage,
00:46:34 you just went to 7,000. So the velocity of the money varies. I think the politicians,
00:46:44 they don’t really understand inflation and they don’t understand economics, but you can’t blame
00:46:49 them because the economists don’t understand economics. Because if they did, they would be
00:46:55 creating multivariate computer simulations where they actually put in the price of every piece of
00:47:04 housing in every city in the world, the full array of foods, and the full array of products,
00:47:09 and the full array of assets. And then on a monthly basis, they would publish all those
00:47:16 results. And that’s a high bandwidth requirement. And I think that people don’t really want to
00:47:24 embrace it. And also, the most pernicious thing, there’s that phrase, you know, you can’t tell
00:47:32 people what to think, but you can tell them what to think about. The most pernicious thing is I get
00:47:38 you to misunderstand the phenomena so that even when it’s happening to you, you don’t appreciate
00:47:47 that it’s a bad thing and you think it’s a good thing. So if housing prices are going up 20% year
00:47:53 over year, and I say, this is great for the American public because most of them are homeowners,
00:47:58 then I have misrepresented a phenomena. Inflation is 20%, not 7%. And then I have misrepresented it
00:48:08 as being a positive rather than a negative. And people will stare at it and you could even show
00:48:15 them their house on fire and they would perceive it as being great because it’s warming them up
00:48:20 and they’re going to save on their heat costs. It does seem that the cruder the model,
00:48:25 whether it’s economics, whether it’s psychology, the easier it is to weave whatever the heck
00:48:31 narrative you want and not in a malicious way, but just like it’s some kind of emergent phenomena,
00:48:41 this narrative thing that we tell ourselves. So you can tell any kind of story about inflation.
00:48:46 Inflation is good, inflation is bad. The cruder the model, the easier it is to tell a narrative
00:48:51 about it. So if you take an engineering approach, I feel like it becomes more and more difficult
00:48:58 to run away from sort of a true deep understanding of the dynamics of the system.
00:49:05 I mean, honestly, if you went to 100 people on the street and you asked them to define inflation,
00:49:10 how many would say it’s a vector tracking the change in price of every product service
00:49:18 asset in the world over time? Not many. Now, if you went to them and you said,
00:49:25 do you think 2% inflation a year is good or bad? The majority would probably say,
00:49:30 well, I hear it’s good. The majority of economists would say 2% inflation a year is good.
00:49:37 And of course, look at the ship next to us. What if I told you that the ship leaked 2% of its
00:49:48 volume every something, right? The ship is rotting 2% a year. That means the useful life of the ship
00:49:54 is 50 years. Now, ironically, that’s true. Like a wooden ship had a 50 year to 100 year life,
00:50:00 100 would be long, 50 years, not unlikely. So when we built ships out of wood,
00:50:05 they had a useful life of about 50 years and then they sunk, they rotted. There’s nothing good about
00:50:12 it, right? You build a ship out of steel and it’s zero as opposed to 2% degradation. And how much
00:50:20 better is 0% versus 2%? Well, 2% means you have a useful life of, you know, it’s half life of 35
00:50:29 years. 2% is a half life of 35 years. That’s basically the half life of money and gold.
00:50:35 If I store your life force in gold, under perfect circumstances, you have a useful life of 35 years.
00:50:42 0% is a useful life of forever. So 0% is immortal. 2% is 35 years average life expectancy.
00:50:53 So the idea that you would think the life expectancy of the currency and the civilization
00:50:58 should be 35 years instead of forever is kind of a silly notion. But the tragic notion is it was,
00:51:05 you know, seven into 70 or 10 years. The money has had a half life of 10 years except for the fact
00:51:13 that in weak societies in Argentina or the like, the half life of the money is three to four years
00:51:21 in Venezuela, one year. So the United States dollar and the United States economic system
00:51:30 was the most successful economic system in the last hundred years in the world. We won every war.
00:51:36 We were the world superpower. Our currency lost 99.7% of its value. And that means, horrifically,
00:51:43 every other currency lost everything. In essence, the other ones were 99.9% except for most that
00:51:51 were 100% because they all completely failed. And, you know, you’ve got a mainstream economic
00:51:59 community, you know, that thinks that inflation is a number and 2% is desirable. It’s kind of like,
00:52:11 you know, remember George Washington? You know how he died? Well meaning physicians bled him to
00:52:18 death. Okay, the last thing in the world you would want to do to a sick person is bleed them,
00:52:26 right? In the modern world, I think we understand that oxygen is carried by the blood cells and,
00:52:32 you know, there’s that phrase, right? A triage phrase, what’s the first thing you do in an
00:52:42 injury? Stop the bleeding. Single first thing, right? You show up after any accident, I look at
00:52:49 you, stop the bleeding because you’re going to be dead in a matter of minutes if you bleed out.
00:52:54 So it strikes me as being ironic that orthodox conventional wisdom was bleed the patient to
00:53:01 death. And this was the most important patient in the country, maybe in the history of the country,
00:53:07 and we bled him to death trying to help him. So when you’re actually inflating the money supply
00:53:14 at 7% but you’re calling it 2% because you want to help the economy, you’re literally bleeding
00:53:22 the free market to death. But the sad fact is George Washington went along with it because he
00:53:28 thought that they were going to do him good. And the majority of the people who were in the
00:53:35 majority of the society, most companies, most conventional thinkers, you know, the working class,
00:53:45 they go along with this because they think that someone has their best interest of mind and the
00:53:50 people that are bleeding them to death believe that prescription because their mental models
00:53:57 are just so defective. And then an understanding of energy and engineering and the economics that
00:54:06 are at play is crippled by these mental models. But that’s both the bug in the future of human
00:54:13 civilization that ideas take hold, they unite us, we believe in them, and we make a lot of cool stuff
00:54:22 happen by, as an average, sort of just the fact of the matter, a lot of people believe the same
00:54:31 thing, they get together and they get some shit done because they believe that thing. And then
00:54:36 some ideas can be really bad and really destructive, but on average the ideas seem to be progressing
00:54:43 in a direction of good. Let me just step back. What the hell are we doing here, us humans on
00:54:49 this earth? How do you think of humans? How special are humans? How did human civilization
00:54:57 originate on this earth? And what is this human project that we’re all taking on?
00:55:03 You mentioned fire and water and apparently bleeding you to death is not a good idea.
00:55:08 I always thought you can get the demons out in that way, but that was a recent
00:55:13 invention. So what’s this thing we’re doing here? I think what distinguishes human beings from
00:55:23 all the other creatures on the earth is our ability to engineer. We’re engineers, right?
00:55:31 To solve problems or just build incredible cool things?
00:55:37 Engineering, harnessing energy and technique to make the world a better place than you found it.
00:55:45 Right? From the point that we actually started to play with fire, right? That was a big leap forward.
00:55:53 Harnessing the power of kinetic energy and missiles, another step forward. Every city
00:56:01 built on water. Why water? Well, water is bringing energy, right? If you actually put a turbine
00:56:11 on a river or you capture a change in elevation of water, you’ve literally harnessed gravitational
00:56:17 energy. But water is also bringing you food. It’s also giving you a cheap form of getting
00:56:26 rid of your waste. It’s also giving you free transportation. You want to move one ton blocks
00:56:31 around. You want to move them in water. So I think, I mean, the human story is really the
00:56:38 story of engineering a better world. And the rise in the human condition is determined by those
00:56:49 groups of people, those civilizations that were best at harnessing energy.
00:56:53 Right? If you look at the Greek civilization, they built it around ports and seaports and
00:57:02 water and created a trading network. The Romans were really good at harnessing all sorts of
00:57:08 engineering. I mean, the aqueducts are a great example. If you go to any big city,
00:57:14 you travel through cities in the Med, you find that the carrying capacity of the city or the
00:57:19 island is 5,000 people without running water. And then if you can find a way to bring water to it,
00:57:25 it increases by a factor of 10. And so human flourishing is really only possible through
00:57:31 that channeling of energy, right? That eventually takes the form of air power, right? I mean,
00:57:42 that ship, I mean, look at the intricacy of those sails. I mean, it’s just the model is intricate.
00:57:49 Now think about all of the experimentation that took place to figure out how many sails to put
00:57:53 on that ship and how to rig them and how to repair them and how to operate them.
00:57:59 There’s thousands of lives spent thinking through all the tiny little details,
00:58:06 all to increase the efficiency of this, the effectiveness, the efficiency of this ship
00:58:12 as it sails to water. And we should also note there’s a bunch of cannons on the side.
00:58:17 So obviously another form of engineering, right? Energy harnessing with explosives
00:58:23 to achieve what end? That’s another discussion. Exactly. Suppose we’re trying to get off the
00:58:28 planet, right? I mean, well, there’s a selection mechanism going on. So natural selection,
00:58:33 this, whatever, however evolution works, it seems that one of the interesting inventions on earth
00:58:39 was the predator prey dynamic that you want to be the bigger fish.
00:58:43 That violence seems to serve a useful purpose. If you look at earth as a whole,
00:58:48 we as humans now like to think of violence is really a bad thing. It seems to be one of the
00:58:55 amazing things about humans is we’re ultimately tend towards cooperation. We want to, we like peace.
00:59:03 If you just look at history, we want things to be nice and calm and
00:59:08 calm. But just wars break out every once in a while and lead to immense suffering
00:59:16 and destruction and so on. And they have a kind of like resetting the palette
00:59:25 effect. It’s one that’s full of just immeasurable human suffering, but it’s like a way to start over.
00:59:32 We’re quite the apex predator on the planet. And I Googled something the other day,
00:59:40 you know, what’s the most common form of mammal life on earth?
00:59:46 By number of organisms?
00:59:48 Count.
00:59:49 By count.
00:59:49 And the answer that came back was human beings. I was shocked. I couldn’t believe it, right? It says
00:59:55 apparently if we’re just looking at mammals, the answer was human beings are the most common,
00:59:59 which was very interesting to me. I almost didn’t believe it, but I was trying to,
01:00:04 you know, eight billion or so human beings. There’s no other mammal that’s got more than
01:00:08 eight billion. If you walk through downtown Edinburgh and Scotland and you look up on this
01:00:13 hill and this castle up on the hill, you know, and you talk to people and the story is, oh yeah,
01:00:21 well that was a British castle, before it’s a Scottish castle, before it was a Pict castle,
01:00:26 before it was a Roman castle, before it was, you know, some other Celtic castle.
01:00:32 Then they found 13 prehistoric castles buried one under the other under the other.
01:00:38 And you get to the conclusion that 100,000 years ago, somebody showed up and grabbed the high
01:00:44 point, the apex of the city, and they built a stronghold there, and they flourished,
01:00:51 and their family flourished, and their tribe flourished until someone came along and knocked
01:00:55 them off the hill. And it’s been a nonstop, never ending fight by the the aggressive,
01:01:02 most powerful entity, family, organization, municipality, tribe, whatever.
01:01:08 All for the hill.
01:01:09 For that one hill, going back since time immemorial. And, you know,
01:01:16 you scratch your head and you think, it seems like it’s like just this never ending.
01:01:23 But doesn’t that lead, if you just, all kinds of metrics, that seems to improve the quality
01:01:30 of our cannons and ships as a result. Like, it seems that war, just like your laser eyes,
01:01:36 focuses the mind on the engineering tasks.
01:01:39 It is that. And it does remind you that the winner is always the most powerful.
01:01:48 And we throw that phrase out, but no one thinks about what that phrase means.
01:01:53 Like, who’s the most powerful, or the, you know, or the most powerful side one,
01:01:58 but they don’t think about it. And they think about power, energy delivered in a period of
01:02:04 time. And then you think a guy with a spear is more powerful than someone with their fist,
01:02:10 and someone with a bow and arrow is more powerful than the person with the spear.
01:02:14 And then you realize that somebody with bronze is more powerful than without,
01:02:19 and steel is more powerful than bronze. And if you look at the Romans, you know,
01:02:23 they persevered, you know, with artillery, and they could stand off from 800 meters and
01:02:28 blast you to smithereens. You know, you study the history of the Balearic slingers, right?
01:02:35 And, you know, you think we invented bullets, but they invented bullets to put in slings
01:02:40 thousands of years ago. They could have stood off 500 meters and put a hole in your head,
01:02:46 right? And so there was never a time when humanity wasn’t vying to come up with an asymmetric form
01:02:58 of projecting their own power via technology.
01:03:01 And absolute power is when a leader is able to control a large amount of humans, they’re
01:03:10 they’re facing the same direction, working in the same direction to leverage energy.
01:03:17 The most organized society wins.
01:03:20 Yeah.
01:03:20 When the Romans were dominating everybody, they were the most organized civilization
01:03:26 in Europe. And as long as they stayed organized, they dominated, and at some point they overexpanded
01:03:33 and got disorganized and they collapsed. And I guess you could say that, you know,
01:03:39 the struggle of human condition, it catalyzes the development of new technologies one after
01:03:45 the other. It penalizes anybody that rejects ocean power, right, gets penalized. You reject
01:03:53 artillery, you get penalized. You reject atomic power, you get penalized. If you reject digital
01:03:59 power, cyber power, you get penalized. And the underlying control of the property keeps
01:04:07 shifting hands from, you know, one institution or one government to another based upon how
01:04:14 rationally they’re able to channel that energy and how well organized or coordinated they are.
01:04:20 Well, that’s a really interesting thing about both the human mind and governments,
01:04:24 that they, once they get a few good, and companies, once they get a few good ideas,
01:04:28 they seem to stick with them. They reject new ideas. It’s almost, whether that’s emergent or
01:04:35 or however that evolved, it seems to have a really interesting effect because when you’re young,
01:04:43 you fight for the new ideas. You push them through. Then a few of us humans find success.
01:04:50 Then we get complacent. We take over the world using that new idea. And then the new young person
01:04:58 with the better new idea challenges you. And you, as opposed to pivoting, you stick with the old
01:05:06 and lose because of it. And that’s how empires collapse. And it’s just both at the individual
01:05:11 level that happens when two academics fighting about ideas or something like that, and at the
01:05:16 at the human civilization level, governments, they hold on to the ideas of old. It’s fascinating.
01:05:23 Jay Famiglietti An ever persistent theme in the history of science is the paradigm shift. And
01:05:29 the paradigms shift when the old guard dies and a new generation arrives, or the paradigm shifts
01:05:36 when there’s a war and everyone that disagrees with the idea of aviation finds bombs dropping
01:05:44 on their head, or everyone that disagrees with whatever your technology is has a rude awakening.
01:05:49 And if they totally disagree, their society collapses, and they’re replaced by that new thing.
01:05:56 Trey Lockerbie A lot of the engineering you talked
01:05:58 about had to do with ships and cannons and leveraging water. What about this whole digital
01:06:05 thing that’s happening, been happening over the past century? Is that still engineering in your
01:06:13 mind? You’re starting to operate in these bits of information?
01:06:17 Jay Famiglietti I think there’s two big ideas.
01:06:21 The first wave of ideas were digital information. And that was the internet way been running since
01:06:28 1990 or so for 30 years. And the second wave is digital energy. So if I look at digital information,
01:06:37 this idea that we want to digitally transform a book, I’m going to dematerialize every book
01:06:44 in this room into bits. And then I’m going to deliver a copy of the entire library to a billion
01:06:52 people. And I’m going to do it for pretty much de minimis electricity. If I can dematerialize music,
01:07:01 books, education, entertainment, maps, that is an incredibly exothermic transaction. It
01:07:13 gives… It’s a crystallization when we collapse into a lower energy state as a civilization and
01:07:19 we give off massive amounts of energy. If you look at what Carnegie did, the richest man in the world
01:07:25 created libraries everywhere at the time, and he gave away his entire fortune. And now we can give
01:07:30 a better library to every six year old for nothing. And so what’s the value of giving a
01:07:36 million books to eight billion people? That’s the explosion in prosperity that comes from
01:07:44 digital transformation. And when we do it with maps, I transform the map, I put it into a car,
01:07:52 you get in the car and the car drives you where you want to go with the map. And how much better
01:07:58 is that than a Rand McNally Atlas right here? It’s like a million times better. So the first wave of
01:08:06 digital transformation was the dematerialization of all of these informational things which are
01:08:13 non conservative. I could take Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, played for by the best orchestra in
01:08:20 Germany, and I could give it to a billion people and they could play it a thousand times each
01:08:26 at less than the cost of the one performance. So I deliver culture and education and erudition and
01:08:33 intelligence and insight to the entire civilization over digital rails. And the consequences of the
01:08:40 human race are first order, generally good, right? The world is a better place, it drives growth,
01:08:47 and you create these trillion dollar entities like Apple and Amazon and Facebook and Google
01:08:52 and Microsoft, right? That is the first wave. The second wave…
01:08:57 I’m sorry to interrupt, but that first wave, it feels like the impact that’s positive,
01:09:07 you said the first order impact is generally positive. It feels like it’s positive in a way
01:09:12 that nothing else in history has been positive. And then we may not actually truly be able to
01:09:20 understand the orders and magnitude of increase in productivity and just progress of human
01:09:28 civilization until we look back centuries from now. It just feels, or maybe, just looking at
01:09:36 the impact of Wikipedia, giving access to basic wisdom or basic knowledge and then perhaps wisdom
01:09:46 to billions of people. If you can just linger on that for a second, what’s your sense of the
01:09:51 impact of that? You know, I would say if you’re a technologist philosopher,
01:10:03 the impact of a technology is so much greater on the civilization and the human condition
01:10:09 than a non technology that is almost not worth your trouble to bother trying to fix things that
01:10:15 conventional way. So let’s take example. I have a foundation, the Saylor Academy, and the Saylor
01:10:23 Academy gives away free education, free college education to anybody on earth that wants it.
01:10:30 And we’ve had more than a million students. And if you go and you take the physics class,
01:10:36 the lectures were by the same physics lecturer that taught me physics at MIT.
01:10:40 Except when I was at MIT, the cost of the first four weeks of MIT would have drained my family’s
01:10:48 life, collective life savings for the first last hundred years. Like a hundred years worth of my
01:10:54 father, my grandfather, my great grandfather, they saved every penny they had after a hundred
01:10:58 years. They could have paid for one week or two weeks of MIT. That’s how fiendishly expensive and
01:11:04 inefficient it was. So I went on scholarship. I was lucky to have a scholarship. But on the other
01:11:11 hand, I sat in the back of the 801 lecture hall and I was like right up in the rafters.
01:11:18 It’s an awful experience on these like uncomfortable wooden benches and you can
01:11:22 barely see the blackboard. And you got to be there synchronously. And the stuff we upload,
01:11:29 you can start it and stop it and watch it on your iPad or watch it on your computer
01:11:34 and rewind it multiple times and sit in a comfortable chair and you can do it from
01:11:38 anywhere on earth and it’s absolutely free. So I think about this and I think you want to improve
01:11:44 the human condition. You need people with postgraduate level education. You need PhDs.
01:11:52 And I know this sounds kind of elitist, but you want to cure cancer and you want to go to the
01:11:58 stars, fusion drive. We need new propulsion, right? We need extraordinary breakthroughs
01:12:06 in every area of basic science, you know, be it biology or propulsion or material science or
01:12:14 computer science. You’re not doing that with an undergraduate degree. You’re certainly not doing
01:12:19 it with a high school education. But the cost of a PhD is like a million bucks. There’s like 10
01:12:26 million PhDs in the world if you check it out. There’s 8 billion people in the world. How many
01:12:31 people could get a PhD or would want to? Maybe not 8 billion, but a billion, 500 million. Let’s just
01:12:38 say 500 million to a billion. How do you go from 10 million to a billion highly educated people,
01:12:46 all of them specializing in, and I don’t have to tell you how many different fields of human
01:12:52 endeavor there are. I mean, your life is interviewing these experts and there’s so many,
01:12:59 right? You know, it’s amazing. So how do I give a multimillion dollar education to a billion people?
01:13:07 And there’s two choices. You can either endow a scholarship, in which case you pay $75,000 a year.
01:13:14 Okay. $75,000. Let’s pay a million dollars a person. I can do it that way. And you’re never,
01:13:24 even if you had a trillion dollars, if you had $10 trillion to throw at the problem,
01:13:30 and we’ve just thrown $10 trillion at certain problems, you don’t solve the problem, right?
01:13:36 If I put $10 trillion on the table and I said educate everybody, give them all a PhD,
01:13:40 you still wouldn’t solve the problem. Harvard University can’t educate 18,000 people
01:13:47 simultaneously, or 87,000, or 800,000, or 8 million. So you have to dematerialize the
01:13:53 professor and dematerialize the experience. So you put it all as streaming on demand,
01:13:58 computer generated education, and you create simulations where you need to create simulations,
01:14:05 and you upload it. It’s like the human condition is being held back by 500,000 well meaning
01:14:16 average algebra teachers. I love them. I mean, please don’t take offense if you’re an algebra
01:14:23 teacher, but instead of 500,000 algebra teachers going through the same motion over and over again,
01:14:30 what you need is like one, or five, or 10 really good algebra teachers, and they need to do it a
01:14:37 billion times a day, or a billion times a year for free. And if we do that, there’s no reason
01:14:45 why you can’t give infinite education, certainly in science, technology, engineering, and math,
01:14:53 right? Infinite education to everybody with no constraint. And I think the same is true,
01:15:01 right? With just about every other thing. If you want to bring joy to the world,
01:15:06 you need digital music. If you want to bring enlightenment to the world, you need digital
01:15:12 education. If you want to bring anything of consequence in the world, you got to digitally
01:15:19 transform it. And then you got to manufacture it something like a hundred times more efficiently
01:15:25 as a start, but a million times more efficiently is probably, you know, that’s hopeful. Maybe you
01:15:35 have a chance. And if you look at all of these space endeavors and everything we’re thinking
01:15:40 about getting to Mars, getting off the planet, getting to other worlds, number one thing you
01:15:45 got to do is you got to make a fundamental breakthrough in an engine. People dreamed
01:15:50 about flying for thousands of years, but until the internal combustion engine,
01:15:56 you didn’t have enough, you know, enough energy, enough power in a light enough package
01:16:03 in order to solve the problem. And the human race has all sorts of those fundamental
01:16:09 all engines and materials and techniques that we need to master. And each one of them is a lifetime
01:16:19 of experimentation of someone capable of making a seminal contribution to the body of human
01:16:26 knowledge. There are certain problems like education that could be solved through this
01:16:30 process of dematerialization. And by the way, to give props to the 500k algebra teachers,
01:16:37 when I look at YouTube, for example, one possible approach is each one of those 500,000 teachers
01:16:43 probably had days and moments of brilliance. And if they had the ability to contribute to
01:16:49 in the natural selection process, like the market of education, where the best ones rise up, that’s
01:16:56 a really interesting way, which is like the best day of your life, the best lesson you’ve ever
01:17:03 the best lesson you’ve ever taught could be found and sort of broadcast to billions of people.
01:17:14 So all of those kinds of ideas can be made real in the digital world. Now traveling across planets,
01:17:21 you still can’t solve that problem with dematerialization. What you could solve
01:17:27 potentially is dematerializing the human brain where you can transfer, like you don’t need to
01:17:34 have astronauts on the ship, you can have a floppy disk carrying a human brain.
01:17:41 Touching on those points, you’d love for the 500,000 algebra teachers to become 500,000 math
01:17:47 specialists, and maybe they clump into 50,000 specialties as teams, and they all pursue 50,000
01:17:53 new problems, and they put their algebra teaching on autopilot. That’s the same as when I give you
01:17:59 11 cents worth of electricity and you don’t have to row a boat eight hours a day before you can
01:18:08 eat. It would be a lot better that you would pay for your food in the first eight seconds of your
01:18:15 day and then you could start thinking about other things, right? With regard to technology, one
01:18:23 thing that I learned studying technology when you look at S curves is until you start the S curve,
01:18:31 you don’t know whether you’re a hundred years from viability, a thousand years from viability,
01:18:39 or a few months from viability. Isn’t that fun? That’s so fun. The early part of the S curve is
01:18:47 so fun because you don’t know. In 1900, you could have got any number of learned academics to give
01:18:55 you 10,000 reasons why humans will never fly, right? And in 1903, the Wright brothers flew,
01:19:01 and by 1969, we’re walking on the moon. So the advance that we made in that field was extraordinary,
01:19:09 but for the hundred years and 200 years before, they were just back and forth and nobody was
01:19:14 close. And that’s the happy part. The happy part is we went from flying 20 miles an hour or whatever
01:19:23 to flying 25,000 miles an hour in 66 years. The unhappy part is I studied aeronautical
01:19:33 engineering at MIT in the 80s. And in the 80s, we had Gulfstream aircraft, we had Boeing 737s,
01:19:41 we had the Space Shuttle. And you fast forward 40 years and we pretty much had the same exact
01:19:48 aircraft. The efficiency of the engines was 20, 30% more. We slammed into a brick wall around
01:19:59 69 to 75. In fact, the Global Express, the Gulfstream, these were all engineered in the 70s,
01:20:10 some in the 60s. The fuselage silhouette of a Gulfstream of a G5 was the same shape as a G4,
01:20:19 is the same shape as a G3, is the same shape as a G2. And that’s because they were afraid to change
01:20:24 the shape for 40 years because they worked it out in a wind tunnel, they knew it worked.
01:20:29 And when they finally decided to change the shape, it was like a $10 billion exercise with modern
01:20:36 supercomputers and computational fluid dynamics. Why was it so hard? What is that wall made of
01:20:44 that you slammed into? The right question is, so why does a guy that went to MIT that got an
01:20:49 aeronautical engineering degree spend his career in software? Why is it that I never a day in my
01:20:54 life, with the exception of some Air Force Reserve work, I never got paid to be an aeronautical
01:21:00 engineer and I worked in software engineering my entire career. Maybe software engineering
01:21:04 is the new aeronautical engineering in some way. Maybe you hit fundamental walls uncertain
01:21:12 until you have to return to it centuries later. Or no.
01:21:16 STUART The National Gallery of Art was endowed by a very rich man,
01:21:22 Andrew Mellon. And you know how he made his money? Aluminum. Okay? And so,
01:21:29 and you know what kind of airplanes you can create without aluminum? Nothing. Nothing, right?
01:21:36 LARRY So it’s a materials problem.
01:21:38 STUART Okay, so 1900, we made massive advances in metallurgy, right? I mean, that was US steel,
01:21:46 that was iron to steel, aluminum, massive fortunes were created because this was a massive technical
01:21:52 advance. And then we also had the internal combustion engine and, you know, the story of Ford
01:21:58 and General Motors and Daimler Chrysler and the like is informed by that. So you have no jet
01:22:04 engines, no rocket motors, no internal combustion engines, you have no aviation. But even if you had
01:22:10 those engines, if you were trying to build those things with steel, no chance. You had to have
01:22:15 aluminum. So there’s like two pretty basic technologies. And once you have those two
01:22:23 technologies, stuff happens very fast. So tell me the last big advance in like jet engines,
01:22:33 there hasn’t been one. Like the last big advance in rocket engines, hasn’t been one. The big
01:22:39 advances in spaceship design from what I can see are in the control systems, the gyros and the
01:22:45 ability to land, right, in a stable fashion. That’s pretty amazing, landing a rocket. Also in the,
01:22:54 at least according to Elon and so on, the manufacture of the more efficient and less
01:23:03 expensive manufacture of rockets. So like it’s a production, whatever that you call that
01:23:07 discipline of at scale manufacture, at scale production, so factory work. But it’s not 10X.
01:23:13 I mean, maybe it’s 10X over a period of a few decades.
01:23:16 When we figure out how to operate a spaceship, you know, on the water in your water bottle for
01:23:23 a year, right? Now, then you’ve got to break through. So the bottom line is propulsion,
01:23:29 propellant, propulsion technology, propellants and the materials technology, they were critical
01:23:36 to getting on that aviation S curve. And then we slammed into a wall. And then we had to
01:23:42 switch to a new S curve in the 70s. And the Boeing 747, the Global Express, the Gulf Stream,
01:23:51 these things were, the Space Shuttle, they were all pretty much reflective of that. And then we
01:23:56 kind of, then we stopped. And at that point, you have to switch to a new S curve. So the next
01:24:02 equivalent to the internal combustion engine was the CPU. And the next aluminum equipment was
01:24:08 the S curve. And then we actually started developing CPUs. The transistor gave way to CPUs.
01:24:14 And if you look at the power, right, the bandwidth that we had on computers and Moore’s law, right?
01:24:22 What if the efficiency of jet engines had doubled every three years, right, in the last 40 years,
01:24:31 where we’d be right now, right? So I think that if you’re a business person, if you’re looking for
01:24:38 a real application of your mind, then you have to find that S curve. And ideally,
01:24:46 you have to find it in the first five, six, 10 years. But people always miss this. Let’s take
01:24:53 Google Glass, right? Google Glass was an idea in 2013. The year is 2022. And people were quite sure
01:25:02 this was going to be a big thing. And it could have been at the beginning of the S curve.
01:25:06 But fundamentally, we didn’t really have an effective mechanism. I mean, people getting
01:25:12 vertigo and they’re, you know. But you didn’t know that at the beginning of the S curve, right? I mean,
01:25:17 maybe some people had a deep intuition about the fundamentals of augmented reality. But you don’t
01:25:23 know that. You don’t have those, you’re looking through the fog. You don’t know. So the point is,
01:25:29 we’re year zero in 2013. And we’re still year zero in 2022 on that augmented reality. And when
01:25:37 somebody puts out a set of glasses that you can wear comfortably without getting vertigo,
01:25:44 right? Without any disorientation that managed to have the stability and the bandwidth necessary to
01:25:51 sync with the real world, you’ll be in year one. And from that point, you’ll have a 70 year or
01:25:58 some interesting future until you slam into a limit to growth. And then it’ll slow down.
01:26:06 And this is the story of a lot of things, right? I mean, John D. Rockefeller got in the oil business
01:26:13 in the 1860s. And the oil business, as we understood it, became fairly mature by the 1920s,
01:26:24 the 30s. And then it actually stayed that way until we got to fracking, which was like seven
01:26:29 years later, and then it burst forward. So… The interesting story about Moore’s law, though,
01:26:34 is that you get this constant burst of S curves on top of S curves on top of S curve. It’s like
01:26:41 the moment you start slowing down, or almost ahead of you slowing down, you come up with another
01:26:48 innovation, another innovation. So Moore’s law doesn’t seem to happen in every
01:26:52 technological advancement. It seems like you only get a couple of S curves and then you’re done
01:26:58 for a bit. So I wonder what the pressures there are that resulted in such success over several
01:27:04 decades and still going. Humility dictates that nobody knows when the S curve kicks off,
01:27:12 and you could be 20 years early or 100 years early. Leonardo da Vinci, you know,
01:27:20 they were… Michelangelo, they were designing flying machines hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
01:27:25 So humility says you’re not quite sure when you really hit that commercial viability,
01:27:30 and it also dictates you don’t know when it ends. Like, when will the party stop? When will
01:27:36 Moore’s law stop and we’ll get to the point where they’re exponentially diminishing returns on
01:27:42 silicon performance? And when you… Just like we got exponentially diminishing returns on jet
01:27:48 engines, you know, and it just takes an exponential increase in effort to make it 10% better.
01:27:56 But while you’re in the middle of it, then you know you can do things. So the reason that the
01:28:02 digital revolution is so important is because the underlying platforms, the bandwidth of and the
01:28:09 performance of the components, and I say the components are the radio protocols, mobile
01:28:17 protocols, the batteries, the CPUs, and the displays, right? Those four components are
01:28:26 pretty critical. They’re all critical in the creation of an iPhone. I wrote about it in the
01:28:31 book, The Mobile Wave, and they catalyzed this entire mobile revolution. Because they have
01:28:38 advanced and continue to advance, they created the very fertile environment for all these digital
01:28:46 transformations. And the digital transformations themselves, right? They call for creativity in
01:28:56 their own, right? Like, I think the interesting thing about… Let’s take digital maps, right? When
01:29:03 you conceptualize something as a dematerialized map, right? It becomes a map because I can put it
01:29:11 on a display, like an iPad, or I can put it in a car, like a Tesla. But if you really want to
01:29:18 figure it out, you can’t think like an engineer. You need to think like a fantasy writer. Like,
01:29:23 this is where it’s useful if you studied… If you read… Played Dungeons and Dragons, and you read
01:29:28 Lord of the Rings, and you studied all the fantasy literature. Because when I dematerialize the map,
01:29:36 first I put 10 million pages of satellite imagery into the map, right? That’s a simple physical
01:29:43 transform. But then I start to put telemetry into the map, and I keep track of the traffic
01:29:50 rates on the roads. And I tell you whether you’ll be in a traffic jam if you drive that way, and I
01:29:54 tell you which way to drive. And then I start to get feedback on where you’re going, and I tell
01:29:58 you the restaurants closed, and people don’t like it anyway. And then I put an AI on the map, and
01:30:05 then I put an AI on top of it, and I have it drive your car for you. And eventually, the implication
01:30:12 of digital transformation of maps is, I get in a self driving car, and I say, take me someplace
01:30:17 cool where I can eat. And how did you get to that last step, right? It wasn’t simple engineering.
01:30:27 There’s a bit of fantasy in there, a bit of magic. Design, art, whatever the heck you call it.
01:30:33 It’s whatever, yeah, fantasy injects magic into the engineering process. Imagination
01:30:41 precedes great revolutions in engineering. It’s like imagining a world of what you can do with
01:30:50 the display. How will the interaction be? That’s where Google Glass actually came in, augmented
01:30:54 reality, virtual reality. People were playing in the space of sci fi, imagination.
01:30:59 They called a moonshot. They tried. It didn’t work, but to their credit, they stopped trying,
01:31:03 right? And then there’s new people. They keep dreaming. Dreamers all around us. I love those
01:31:10 dreamers, and most of them fail and suffer because of it. But some of them win Nobel prizes or become
01:31:16 billionaires. Well, what I would say is, if half the civilization dropped what they were doing
01:31:24 tomorrow and eagerly started working on launching a rocket to Alpha Centauri,
01:31:34 it might not be the best use of our resources because it’s kind of like if half of Athens
01:31:41 in the year 500 BC eagerly started working on flying machines. If you went back and you said,
01:31:47 what advice would you give them? You would say, you know, it’s not going to work till you get to
01:31:52 aluminum. And you’re not going to get to aluminum until you work out the steel and certain other
01:31:56 things. And you’re not going to get to that until you work out the calculus of variations and some
01:32:01 metallurgy. And there’s a dude, Newton, that won’t come along for quite a while, and he’s going to
01:32:05 give you the calculus to do it. And until then, it’s hopeless. So you might be better off to work
01:32:11 on the aqueduct or to focus upon sails or something. So if I look at this today, I say,
01:32:18 there’s massive, profound civilization advances to be made through digital transformation of
01:32:25 information. And you can see them like that. This is the story of today. This is not the story of
01:32:31 today, right? It’s 10 years old, what we’ve been seeing. We’re living through different manifestations
01:32:36 of that story today, too, though. Like social media, the effects of that is very interesting
01:32:42 because ideas spread even, you talk about velocity of money, the velocity of ideas keeps increasing.
01:32:49 So like Wikipedia is a passive store. It’s a store of knowledge. Twitter is like a water hose
01:33:00 or something. It’s like spraying you with knowledge, whether you want it or not. It’s like
01:33:04 social media is just like this explosion of ideas. And then we pick them up, and then we
01:33:10 pick them up. And then we try to understand ourselves because the drama of it also plays
01:33:16 with our human psyche. So sometimes there’s more ability for misinformation, for propaganda to take
01:33:22 hold. So we get to learn about ourselves. We get to learn about the technology that can decelerate
01:33:27 the propaganda, for example, all that kind of stuff. But like the reality is we’re living,
01:33:32 I feel like we’re living through a singularity in the digital information space. And we’re not,
01:33:38 we don’t have a great understanding of exactly how it’s transforming our lives.
01:33:43 This is where money is useful as a metaphor for significance, because if money is the economic
01:33:52 energy of the civilization, then something that’s extraordinarily lucrative that’s going to generate
01:34:00 a monetary or a wealth increase is a way to increase the net energy in the civilization.
01:34:05 And ultimately, if we had 10 times as much of everything, we’d have a lot more
01:34:11 free resources to pursue all of our advanced scientific and mathematical and theoretical
01:34:16 endeavors. So let’s take Twitter. Twitter is something that could be 10 times more
01:34:20 valuable than it is. Twitter could be made 10 times better.
01:34:27 No, by the way, I should say that people should follow you on Twitter. Your Twitter
01:34:29 account is awesome. Thank you. It could be made 10 times better. Yeah.
01:34:33 Yeah. Twitter can be made 10 times better. If we take YouTube or take education,
01:34:42 we could generate a billion PhDs. And the question is, do you need any profound
01:34:48 breakthrough in materials or technology to do that? And the answer is not really.
01:34:53 So if you want to, you could make Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, all these things
01:35:00 better. The United States government, if they took 1% of the money they spend on the Department
01:35:08 of Education and they simply poured it into digital education and they gave degrees to
01:35:15 people that actually met those requirements, they could provide 100x as much education for
01:35:22 one one hundredth of the cost and they could do it with no new technology. That’s a marketing
01:35:28 and political challenge. So I don’t think every objective is equally practical.
01:35:36 And I think the benefit of being an engineer or thinking about practical achievements is
01:35:45 when the government pursues an impractical objective or when anybody, an entrepreneur,
01:35:53 not so bad with entrepreneur because they don’t have that much money to waste,
01:35:55 when a government pursues an impractical objective, they squander trillions and trillions
01:36:00 of dollars and achieve nothing. Whereas if they pursue a practical objective or if they simply
01:36:07 get out of the way and do nothing and they allow the free market to pursue the practical objectives,
01:36:15 then I think you can have a profound impact on the human civilization.
01:36:19 And if I look at the world we’re in today, I think that there are multi trillion, 10, 20,
01:36:31 50 trillion dollars worth of opportunities in the digital information realm yet to be obtained.
01:36:40 But there’s hundreds of trillions of dollars of opportunities in the digital energy realm
01:36:47 that not only are they not obtained, the majority of people don’t even know what digital energy is.
01:36:54 Most of them would reject the concept. They’re not looking for it. They’re not expecting to find it.
01:37:00 It’s inconceivable because it is a paradigm shift. But in fact, it’s completely practical.
01:37:07 Right under our nose, it’s staring at us and it could make the entire civilization
01:37:13 work dramatically better in every respect.
01:37:18 So you mentioned in the digital world, digital information is one, digital energy is two,
01:37:26 and the possible impact on the world and the set of opportunities available in the digital energy
01:37:34 space is much greater. So how do you think about digital energy? What is it?
01:37:39 So I’ll start with Tesla. He had a very famous quote. He said, if you want to understand the
01:37:44 universe, think in terms of energy, vibration, and frequency. And it gets you thinking about
01:37:52 what is the universe? And of course, the universe is just all energy. And then what is matter?
01:37:58 Matter is low frequency energy. And what are we? You know, we’re vibrating, you know, ashes to ashes,
01:38:06 dust to dust. I can turn a tree into light. I can turn light back into a tree. If I consider
01:38:16 the entire universe, and it’s very important because we don’t really think this way. Let’s
01:38:20 take the New York disco model. If I walk into a nightclub and there’s loud music blaring in
01:38:29 New York City, what’s really going on there, right? If you blast out 15, 14 billion years ago,
01:38:37 the universe is formed. Okay, that’s a low frequency thing. The universe formed a billion
01:38:43 years ago, the sun, maybe the earth, or form. The continents are 400 million years old. The schist
01:38:50 that New York City is on is some hundreds of millions of years. But the Hudson River is only
01:38:55 20,000 years. There’s a building that’s probably 50 years old. There’s a company operating that
01:39:02 disco or that club, which is five to 10 years old. There’s a person, a customer walking in there
01:39:09 for an experience for a few hours. There’s music that’s oscillating at some kilohertz. And then
01:39:17 there’s light. And you have all forms of energy, all frequencies, all layered, all moving through
01:39:26 different medium. And how you perceive the world is the question of at what frequency do you want
01:39:33 to perceive the world. And I think that once you start to think that way, you’re catalyzed to think
01:39:44 about what would digital energy look like? And why would I want it? And what is it? So
01:39:54 why don’t we just start right there? What is it? The most famous manifestation of digital energy
01:40:00 is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a crypto asset. It’s a crypto asset that has monetary value.
01:40:06 Can we just link on that? Bitcoin is a digital asset that has monetary value.
01:40:18 What is a digital asset? What is monetary? Why use those terms versus the words of
01:40:23 money and currency? Is there something interesting in that disambiguation of different terms?
01:40:29 I’d call it a crypto asset network. The goal is to create a billion dollar block of pure energy
01:40:39 in cyberspace. One that I could then move with no friction at the speed of light.
01:40:49 It’s the equivalent to putting a million pounds in orbit. How do I actually launch
01:40:56 something into orbit? How do I launch something into cyberspace such that it moves friction free?
01:41:02 And the solution is a decentralized proof of work network. Satoshi’s solution was,
01:41:10 I’m going to establish a protocol running on a distributed set of computers that will maintain
01:41:17 a constant supply of never more than 21 million Bitcoin subdividable by 100 million Satoshis each.
01:41:24 Transferable via transferring private keys. Now, the innovation is to create that in an ethical,
01:41:42 durable fashion. The ethical innovation is I want it to be property and not a security.
01:41:49 A bushel of corn, an acre of land, a stack of lumber and a bar of gold and a Bitcoin are all
01:41:58 property. And that means they’re all commonly occurring elements in the world. You could call
01:42:04 them commodities, but commodity is a little bit misleading and I’ll tell you why in a second.
01:42:08 But they’re all distinguished by the fact that no one entity or person or government controls them.
01:42:15 If you have a barrel of oil and you’re in Ukraine versus Russia versus Saudi Arabia versus the U.S.,
01:42:23 you have a barrel of oil. And it doesn’t matter what the premier in Japan or the mayor of Miami
01:42:32 Beach thinks about your barrel of oil. They cannot wave their hand and make it not a barrel of oil
01:42:39 or a cord of wood, right? And so property is just a naturally occurring element in the universe,
01:42:48 right? Why use the word ethical? Sorry to, I may interrupt occasionally. Why ethical assigned
01:42:55 to property? Because if it’s a security, a security would be an example of a share of a stock
01:43:03 or a crypto token controlled by a small team. And in the event that something is a security because
01:43:12 some small group or some identifiable group can control its nature, character, or supply,
01:43:20 then it really only becomes ethical to promote it or sell it pursuant to fair disclosures.
01:43:28 So I give you maybe practical example. I’m the mayor of Chicago. I give a speech. My speech,
01:43:36 I say, I think everybody in Chicago should own their own farm and have chicken, a chicken in the
01:43:42 backyard and their own horse and an automobile. That’s ethical. I give the same speech and I say,
01:43:50 I think everybody in Chicago should buy Twitter stock, sell their house, or sell their house,
01:43:56 or sell their cash and buy Twitter stock. Is that ethical? Not really. But at that point,
01:44:04 you’ve entered into a conflict of interest because what you’re doing is you’re promoting
01:44:09 an asset which is substantially controlled by a small group of people, the board of directors or
01:44:15 the CEO of the company. So how would you feel if the president of the United States said,
01:44:20 I really think Americans should all buy Apple stock, especially if you work to Google.
01:44:27 But you worked anywhere. You’d be like, why isn’t he saying buy mine? Right? A security is a
01:44:34 proprietary asset in some way, shape, or form. And the whole nature of securities law, it starts from
01:44:42 this ancient idea, thou shalt not lie, cheat, or steal. Okay? So if I’m going to sell you securities
01:44:53 or I’m going to promote securities as a public figure or as an influencer or anybody else,
01:45:01 if I create my own yo yo coin or Mikey coin, and then there’s a million of them, and I tell you
01:45:08 that I think that it’s a really good thing, and Mikey coin will go up forever, right? And everybody
01:45:13 buys Mikey coin, and then I give 10 million to you and don’t tell the public, right? I’ve cheated
01:45:19 them. Maybe if I have Mikey coin, and I think there’s only 2 million Mikey coin, and I swear
01:45:26 to you, there’s only 2 million, and then I get married, and I have three kids, and my third kid
01:45:31 is in the hospital, and my kid’s going to die, and I have this ethical reason to print 500,000
01:45:37 more Mikey coin or else people are going to die, and everybody tells me it’s fine. You know,
01:45:41 I’ve still abused, you know, the investor, right? It’s an ethical challenge. If you look at ethics
01:45:50 laws everywhere in the world, they all boil down to having a clause which says that if you’re a
01:45:58 public figure, you can’t endorse a security. You can’t endorse something that would cause you to
01:46:05 have a conflict of interest. So if you’re a mayor, a governor, a country, a public figure, an
01:46:10 influencer, and you want to promote or promulgate or support something using any public influence
01:46:19 or funds or resources you may have, it needs to be property. It can’t be security. So it goes
01:46:27 beyond that, right? I mean, like would the Chinese want to support an American company, right? As
01:46:33 soon as you look at what’s in the best interest of the human race, the civilization, you realize
01:46:40 that if you want an ethical path forward, it needs to be based on common property, which is fair.
01:46:50 And the way you get to a common property is through an open permissionless protocol. If it’s
01:46:56 not open, right, if it’s proprietary, and I know what the code says, and you don’t know what the
01:47:01 code says, that makes it a security. If it’s permissioned, if you’re not allowed on my network,
01:47:10 or if you can be censored or booted off my network, that also makes it a security.
01:47:19 So when I talk about property, I mean, the challenge here is how do I create something
01:47:25 that’s equivalent to a barrel of oil in cyberspace? And that means it has to be a nonsovereign bearer
01:47:35 instrument, open, permissionless, not censorable, right? If I could do that, then I could deliver
01:47:45 you 10,000 dematerialized barrels of oil, and you would take settlement of them, and you would know
01:47:54 that you have possession of that property, irregardless of the opinion of any politician
01:48:00 or any company or anybody else in the world. That’s a really critical characteristic. And
01:48:08 it actually is, it’s probably one of the fundamental things that makes Bitcoin special.
01:48:14 Bitcoin isn’t just a crypto asset network. It’s easy to create a crypto asset network.
01:48:19 It’s very hard to create an ethical crypto asset network, because you have to create one
01:48:29 without any government or corporation or investor exercising in due influence to make it successful.
01:48:37 So open, permissionless, noncensorable. So basically no way for you without explicitly
01:48:47 saying so, outsourcing control to somebody else. So it’s a kind of, you have full control.
01:48:54 Even with a barrel of oil, what’s the difference between a barrel of oil and a Bitcoin to you?
01:49:03 Because you kind of mentioned that both are property. You mentioned Russia and China and
01:49:09 so on. Is it the ability of the government to confiscate? In the end, governments can
01:49:14 probably confiscate no matter what the asset is, but you want to lessen the effort involved.
01:49:21 A barrel of oil is a bucket of physical property, liquid property, and Bitcoin is a digital property.
01:49:27 But it’s easier to confiscate a barrel of oil.
01:49:32 It’s easier to confiscate things in the real world than things in cyberspace. Much easier.
01:49:38 So that’s not universally true. Some things in the digital space are actually easier to
01:49:43 confiscate because just the nature of how things move easily with information, right?
01:49:50 So I think in the Bitcoin world, what we would say is that Bitcoin is the most difficult
01:49:56 property that the human race possesses or has yet invented to confiscate. And that’s
01:50:02 by virtue of the fact that you could take possession of it via your private keys.
01:50:06 So if you got your 12 seed phrases in your head, then that would be the highest form of property,
01:50:13 right? Because I literally have to crack your head open and read your mind to take it.
01:50:18 It doesn’t mean I couldn’t extract it from you under duress, but it means that it’s harder than
01:50:25 every other thing you might own. In fact, it’s exponentially harder. If you consider every other
01:50:30 thing you might own, a car, a house, a share of stock, gold, diamonds, property rights,
01:50:38 intellectual property rights, movie rights, music rights, anything imaginable, they would all be
01:50:44 easier by orders and orders of magnitude to seize. So digital property in the form of a
01:50:53 set of private keys is by far the apex property of the human race.
01:50:57 In terms of ethics, I want to make one more point. I might say to you, Lex, I think Bitcoin is the
01:51:02 best, most secure, most durable crypto asset network in the world. It’s going to go up forever,
01:51:08 and there’s nothing better in the world. I might be right. I might be wrong.
01:51:14 But the point is, because it’s property, it’s ethical for me to say that if I were to turn
01:51:21 around and say, you know, Lex, I think the same about microstrategy stock, MSTR. That’s a security.
01:51:27 Okay? If I’m wrong about that, I have civil liability or other liability because I could go
01:51:36 to a board meeting tomorrow and I could actually propose we issue a million more shares of
01:51:40 microstrategy stock, whereas the thing that makes Bitcoin ethical for me to even promote is the
01:51:48 knowledge that I can’t change it. If I knew that I could make it 42 million instead of 21 million
01:51:56 and I had the button back here, right, then I have a different degree of ethical responsibility.
01:52:04 Now, I could tell you your life will be better if you buy Bitcoin, and it might not. You might go
01:52:08 buy Bitcoin, you might lose the keys and be bankrupt and your life ends and your life is not
01:52:12 better because you bought Bitcoin, right? But it wouldn’t be my ethical liability any more than if
01:52:19 I were to say, Lex, I think you ought to get a farm. I think you should be a farmer. I think a
01:52:26 chicken in every pot, you should get a horse. I think you’d be better. I mean, these are all
01:52:32 opinions expressed about property, which may or may not be right, that you may or may not agree with,
01:52:40 but in a legal sense, if we read the law, if we understand securities law, and I would say,
01:52:47 you know, most people in the crypto industry, you know, they didn’t take companies public,
01:52:52 and so they’re not really focused on the securities law. They don’t even know the securities law.
01:52:57 If you focus on the securities law, that would say you just can’t legally sell this stuff to
01:53:03 the general public or promote it without a full set of continuing disclosures signed off on by
01:53:10 a regulator. So there’s a fairly bright line there with regard to securities. But when you get to the
01:53:19 secondary issue, it’s how do you actually build a world based on digital property if public figures
01:53:29 can’t embrace it or endorse it? You see, so you’re not going to build a better world based upon
01:53:38 Twitter stock, if that’s your idea of property, because Twitter stock is a security and Twitter
01:53:44 stock is never going to be a non sovereign bearer instrument in Russia, right, or in China, right?
01:53:50 It’s not even legal in China, right? So it’s not a global permissionless open thing. It will never
01:53:55 be trusted by the rest of the world. And legally, it’s impractical. But, you know, would you really
01:54:02 want to put $100 trillion worth of economic value on Twitter stock if there’s a board of directors
01:54:06 and a CEO that could just get up and like take half of it tomorrow? The answer is no. So if you
01:54:12 want to build a better world based on digital energy, you need to start with constructing a
01:54:20 digital property. And I’m using property here and open permissionless in a legal sense. Okay,
01:54:28 but I would also go to the next step and say property is low frequency money. So if you if I
01:54:37 give you a million dollars, and you want to hold it for a decade, you might go buy a house with it.
01:54:44 Right. And the house is low frequency money, you converted the the million dollars of economic
01:54:51 energy into a structure called a house. Maybe an after a decade, you might convert it back into
01:54:57 energy, you might sell the house for currency. And it’ll be more worth more or less depending
01:55:03 upon the monetary climate. The frequency means what here? How quickly it changes state? How
01:55:10 quickly does something vibrate? So if I transfer $10 from me to you for a drink, and then you turn
01:55:21 around, you buy another right, we’re vibrating on a frequency of every few hours, right? The energy
01:55:26 is changing hands. But it’s not likely that you sell and buy houses every few hours. Right? The
01:55:32 frequency of a transaction in real estate is every 10 years, every five years, it’s a much lower
01:55:39 frequency transaction. And so when you think about what’s going on here, you have extremely low
01:55:49 frequency things, which we’ll call property, then you have mid frequency things, I’m going to call
01:55:58 them money or currency. And then you have high frequency, that’s energy. And that’s why I use
01:56:05 the illustration of you got the building, you got the light, and you got the sound, and they’re all
01:56:11 just energy moving at different frequencies. Now, Bitcoin is magical. And it is truly the innovation.
01:56:22 It’s like a singularity, because it represents the first time in the history of human race
01:56:28 that we managed to create a digital property, properly understood. It’s easy to create something
01:56:37 digital, right? Every coupon and every scan on Fortnite and Roblox and Apple TV credits and all
01:56:45 these things, they’re all digital something, but they’re securities. And that’s why I use the
01:56:51 word something, but they’re securities, right? Shares of stock are securities. Whenever anybody
01:56:56 transfers, when you transfer money on PayPal or Apple Pay, you’re transferring in essence a
01:57:01 security or an IOU. And so transferring a bearer instrument with final settlement in the internet
01:57:11 domain or in cyberspace, that’s a critical thing. And anybody in the crypto world can do that.
01:57:18 All the crypto is going to do that. But what they can’t do, what 99% of them fail to do,
01:57:24 is be property. They’re securities, correct? Well, there’s a line there I’d like to explore
01:57:29 a little further. For example, what about when you, like Coinbase or something like that,
01:57:36 when there’s an exchange that you buy Bitcoin in, you start to move away from this kind of,
01:57:43 some of the aspects that you said makes up a property, which is this
01:57:53 noncensorable and permissionless and open. So in order to achieve the convenience,
01:58:01 the effectiveness of the transfer of energy, you have to leverage some of these places that remove
01:58:10 the aspects of property. So maybe you can comment on that. Let me give you a good model for that.
01:58:16 If you think about the layer one of Bitcoin, the layer one is the property settlement layer,
01:58:23 and we’re going to do 350,000 transactions or less a day, 100 million transactions a year is
01:58:29 the bandwidth on the layer one. And it would be an ideal layer one to move a billion dollars from
01:58:36 point A to point B with the massive security. The role of the layer one is two things.
01:58:44 One thing is I want to move a large sum of money through space with security. I can move
01:58:52 any amount of Bitcoin in a matter of minutes for dollars on layer one. The second important
01:59:00 feature of the layer one is I need the money to last forever. I need the money indestructible,
01:59:06 immortal. So the bigger trick is not to move a billion dollars from here to Tokyo. The big trick
01:59:13 is to move a billion dollars from here to the year 2140. And that’s what we want to solve with
01:59:22 layer one. And the best real metaphor in New York City would be the granite or the schist.
01:59:27 What you want is a city block of bedrock. And how long has it been there? Like millions of years
01:59:34 it’s been there. And how fast do you want it to move? You don’t. In fact, the single thing that’s
01:59:40 most important is that it not deflect. If it deflects a foot in 100 years, it’s too much.
01:59:47 If it deflects an inch in 100 years, you might not want that. So the layer one of Bitcoin is
01:59:53 a foundation upon which you put weight. How much weight can you put on it? You put a trillion,
01:59:58 10 trillion, 100 trillion, a quadrillion? How much weight’s on the bedrock in Manhattan, right?
02:00:06 Think about 100 story buildings. So the real key there is the foundational asset needs to be there
02:00:14 at all. So the fact that you can create a hundred trillion dollar layer one that would stand for
02:00:20 100 years, that is the revolutionary breakthrough first time. And the fact that it’s ethical,
02:00:27 right? It’s ethical and it’s common property, global, permissionless. Extremely unlikely that
02:00:33 would happen. People tried 50 times before and they all failed. They tried 15,000 times after,
02:00:40 and they’ve all generally failed. 98% have failed and a couple have been less successful. But
02:00:47 for the most part, that’s an extraordinary thing. Now,
02:00:52 just really quickly pause just to define some terms. If people don’t know, layer one is that
02:00:58 Michael’s referring to is in general what people know of as the Bitcoin technology originally
02:01:06 defined, which is the blockchain. There’s a consensus mechanism of proof of work,
02:01:11 low number of transactions, but you can move a very large amount of money. The reason he’s
02:01:20 using the term layer one is now that there’s a lot of ideas of layer two technologies built on top
02:01:25 of this bedrock that allow you to move a much larger number of transactions,
02:01:33 sort of higher frequency. I don’t know what terminology you want to use, but basically be
02:01:38 able to use now something that is based on Bitcoin to then buy stuff, be a consumer,
02:01:45 to transfer money, to use it as currency, just to define some terms.
02:01:51 Yeah, so the layer one is the foundation for the entire cyber economy, and we don’t want it to move
02:02:02 fast. What we want is immortality, immortal, incorruptible, indestructible, right? That’s
02:02:13 what you want, integrity from the layer one. Now there’s layer two and layer three, and layer
02:02:18 two I would define as an open, permissionless, noncustodial protocol that uses the underlying
02:02:27 layer one token as its gas fee. So what’s custodial mean and how does the different markets,
02:02:35 like is lightning network? So lightning network would be an example of a layer two, noncustodial.
02:02:41 So the lightning network will sit on top of layer one, it’ll sit on top of Bitcoin,
02:02:48 and it solves the, what you want to do is solve the problem of it’s well and fine, I don’t want
02:02:54 to move a billion dollars every day, what I want to move is five dollars a billion times a day.
02:03:02 So if I want to move five dollars a billion times a day, I don’t really need to put the entire
02:03:07 trillion dollars of assets at risk every time I move five dollars. All I really need to do is put
02:03:15 a hundred thousand dollars in a channel or a million dollars in a channel, and then I do
02:03:19 ten million transactions where I have a million dollars at risk. And of course it’s kind of
02:03:25 simple, if I put, if I lower my security requirement by a factor of a million,
02:03:33 I could probably move the stuff a million times faster, right? And that’s how lightning works.
02:03:38 It’s noncustodial because there’s no corporation or custodian or counterparty you’re trusting,
02:03:46 right? There’s the risk of moving through the channel. But lightning is an example of how I go
02:03:53 from 350,000 transactions a day to 350 million transactions a day. So on that layer too, you
02:04:00 could move the Bitcoin in seconds for fractions of pennies. Now that’s not the end all be all,
02:04:07 because the truth is there are a lot of open protocols. Lightning probably won’t be the only
02:04:12 one. You know, there’s an open market competition of other permissionless open source protocols to
02:04:18 do this work. And in theory, any other crypto network that was deemed to be property, deemed to
02:04:28 be non a security, you could also think of as potentially a layer two to Bitcoin, right? There’s
02:04:34 a debate about are there any and what are they, and we can leave that for a little bit of a
02:04:38 debate about are there any and what are they, and we can leave that for a later time.
02:04:43 But why do you think of them as layer two, as opposed to contending for layer one?
02:04:50 Yeah, actually, if they’re using their own token, then they are a layer one. If you create an open
02:04:55 protocol that uses the Bitcoin token as the fee, then it becomes a layer two, right? Bitcoin itself,
02:05:05 right, incentivizes his own transactions with its own token, and that’s what makes it layer one.
02:05:11 Okay, what’s layer three, then?
02:05:13 Layer three is a custodial layer. So if you want to move Bitcoin in milliseconds for free,
02:05:21 you move it through Binance or Coinbase or Cash App. So this is a very straightforward thing. I
02:05:27 mean, it seems pretty obvious when you think about it that there are going to be hundreds of thousands
02:05:32 of layer threes. There may be dozens of layer twos. I mean, Lightning is a one, but it’s not the only
02:05:39 one. Anybody can invent something, right? And we can have this debate about custodial, noncustodial.
02:05:50 Don’t you think there’s a monopolization possibilities at layer three?
02:05:56 So, you know, Coin, you mentioned Binance, Coinbase. What if they start to dominate,
02:06:03 and basically everybody’s using them, practically speaking, and then it becomes too costly to
02:06:09 memorize the private key in your brain? I mean, or like the cold storage of layer one technology.
02:06:18 The idealists fear the layer threes because they think, and especially they detest,
02:06:23 they would detest it. There’s almost like a layer four, by the way, if you want to.
02:06:28 A layer four would be, I’ve got Bitcoin on an application, but I can’t withdraw it.
02:06:35 So I’ve got an application that’s backed by Bitcoin, but the Bitcoin is sealed.
02:06:40 It’s a proprietary example. And I’ll give you an example of that. That would be like
02:06:44 Grayscale. If I own a share of GBTC, and so I own a security, actually, you know, you could own MSTR.
02:06:54 If you own a security or you own a product that has Bitcoin embedded in it, you get the benefits
02:06:59 of Bitcoin, but you don’t have the ability to withdraw the asset.
02:07:04 To get out of the security market at layer four? Am I understanding this correctly?
02:07:09 I don’t know if I would say, I don’t, not all securities are layer four, but anything that’s
02:07:15 a proprietary product based upon what with Bitcoin embedded in it, where you can’t withdraw the
02:07:21 Bitcoin is another application of Bitcoin. So if you think about different ways you can use this,
02:07:29 you can either stay completely on the layer one and use the base chain for your transactions,
02:07:34 or you can limit yourself to layer one and layer two lightning. And the purist would say we stay
02:07:41 there, get your Bitcoin off the exchange. But you could also go to the layer three.
02:07:46 When Cash App supported Bitcoin, they made it very easy to buy it, and then they gave you the
02:07:51 ability to withdraw. When PayPal or I think Robinhood let you buy it, they wouldn’t let
02:07:56 you withdraw it, and there was a big community uproar, and people wanted to withdraw.
02:08:01 They want these layer threes to make it possible to withdraw the Bitcoin so you can take it to
02:08:06 your own private wallet and get it off the exchange. I think the answer to the question
02:08:11 of, well, is corruption possible? Corruption is possible in all human institutions and all
02:08:18 governments everywhere. The difference between digital property and physical property is when
02:08:25 you own a building in Los Angeles and the city politics turn against you, you can’t move the
02:08:31 building. And when you own a share of a security that’s like a U.S. traded security and you wish
02:08:39 to move to some other country, you can’t take the security with you either. And when you own
02:08:47 a bunch of gold and you try to get through the airport, they might not let you take it.
02:08:51 So Bitcoin is advantageous versus all those because you actually do have the option to
02:08:59 withdraw your asset from the exchange. And if you had Bitcoin with Fidelity and you had shares of
02:09:06 stock with Fidelity, and if you had bonds and sovereign debt with Fidelity, and if you own some
02:09:12 mutual funds and some other random limited partnerships with Fidelity, none of those things
02:09:18 can be removed from the custodian. But the Bitcoin, you can take off the exchange, you can remove
02:09:25 from the custodian. So there’s a deterrent that’s an anti corrupting element. And the phrase is an
02:09:36 armed society is a polite society, right? Because you have the optionality to withdraw all your
02:09:43 assets from the crypto exchange, you can enforce fairness. And at the point where you disagree
02:09:50 with their policies, you can within an hour, move your assets to another counterparty or take
02:09:56 personal custody of those assets. And you don’t have that option to withdraw all your assets.
02:10:02 And you don’t have that option with most other forms of property. Maybe you don’t have as much
02:10:08 optionality with any other form of property on Earth. And so what makes digital property distinct
02:10:15 is the fact that it has the most optionality for custody. Now coming back to this digital energy
02:10:22 issue, the real key point is the energy moves in milliseconds for free on layer threes. It moves in
02:10:30 seconds or less than seconds on layer twos, it moves in minutes on the layer one. And I don’t
02:10:39 think it makes any sense to even think about trying to solve all three problems on the layer one
02:10:44 because it’s impossible to achieve the security and the incorruptibility and immortality if you
02:10:51 try to build that much speed and that functionality and performance. In fact, if you come back to the
02:10:58 New York model, you really wanted a block of granite, a building and a company. That’s what
02:11:04 makes the economy, right? If I said to you, you’re going to build a building, but you can only have
02:11:10 one company in it for the life of the building, it would be very fragile, like very brittle. What
02:11:16 company a hundred years ago is still relevant today? You want all three layers because they
02:11:21 all oscillate at different frequencies. And there’s a tendency to think, well, it’s got to be
02:11:29 this L1 or that L1, not really. And sometimes people think, well, I don’t really want any L3.
02:11:36 But companies, it’s not an even or, companies are better than crypto asset networks at certain
02:11:44 things. If you want complexity, you want to implement complexity, or you want to implement
02:11:49 compliance or customer service, right? Companies do these things well, right? You couldn’t
02:12:00 decentralize Apple or Netflix or even YouTube. The performance wouldn’t be there and the subtlety
02:12:07 wouldn’t be there. And you can’t really legally decentralize certain forms of banking and insurance
02:12:14 because they will become illegal in the political jurisdiction they’re in. So, unless you’re a
02:12:19 crypto anarchist and you believe in no companies and no nation states, right? Which is just not
02:12:27 very practical, not anytime soon. Once you allow that nation states will continue and companies
02:12:33 have a role, then the layered architecture follows and the free market determines who wins.
02:12:43 For example, there are layer threes that let you acquire Bitcoin and withdraw Bitcoin.
02:12:51 There are other applications that let you acquire but not withdraw it. And they don’t get the same
02:12:58 market share, but they might give you some other advantage. There are certain layer threes like
02:13:04 Jack Dorsey’s Cash App, where they just incorporated lightning, an implementation of it.
02:13:10 So, that makes it more, that makes it advantageous versus an application that doesn’t incorporate
02:13:21 lightning. If you think about the big picture, the big picture is 8 billion people with mobile phones
02:13:28 served by 100 million companies doing billions of transactions an hour. And the companies are
02:13:38 settling with each other on the base layer in blocks of 80 million at a time. And then the
02:13:45 companies are trading with the consumers, right, in proprietary layers, like layer three. And then
02:13:55 on occasion, people are shuffling assets across custodians with lightning layer two,
02:14:00 because you don’t want to pay $5 to move $50. You want to pay a 20th of a penny.
02:14:06 You want to pay a 20th of a penny to move $50. And so, all of these things create efficiency
02:14:15 in the economy. And, Lex, if you want to consider how much efficiency, if you gave me a billion
02:14:21 dollars in 20 years, I couldn’t find a way to trade with another company or a counterparty in Nigeria.
02:14:28 Like, no amount of money. Give me $10 billion. I couldn’t do it because you get shut down at
02:14:37 the banking level. You can’t link up a bank in Nigeria with a bank in the US. You get shut down
02:14:43 at this credit card level because they don’t have the credit card, so they won’t clear.
02:14:47 You would get shut down at the compliance FCPA level because, you know, you wouldn’t be able to
02:14:57 implement a system that interfaced with somebody else’s system if it’s not in the right political
02:15:02 jurisdiction. On the other hand, three entrepreneurs in Nigeria on the weekend could
02:15:08 create a website that would trade in this lightning economy using open protocols without asking
02:15:14 anybody’s permission. So, you’re talking about something that’s, like, a million times cheaper,
02:15:20 less friction, and faster to do it if you want to get money to move.
02:15:27 What do you think that looks like so that now there’s a war going on in Ukraine,
02:15:31 there’s other wars, Yemen, going out throughout the world in this most difficult of states that
02:15:40 a nation can be in, which is a war, a civil war, or war with other nations? What’s the role of
02:15:47 Bitcoin in this context? I mean, Bitcoin’s a universal trust protocol, right? A universal
02:15:55 energy protocol, if you will. English is one, okay? What I see is a bunch of fragmentation
02:16:02 of applications. For example, you know, the Russian payment app is not going to work in
02:16:08 Ukraine. The Ukraine payment app is not going to work in Russia. You know, US payment apps won’t
02:16:14 work either of those places, as far as I know. So, you know, and in Argentina, their payment
02:16:20 app may not work in certain parts of Africa. So, what you have is different local economies
02:16:29 where people spin up their own applications compliant with their own local laws, or,
02:16:35 you know, in war zones, not compliant, but just spinning up, you know?
02:16:41 So, how do you build something that’s not compliant? What is the revolutionary act here
02:16:47 when you don’t agree with the government or what you want to free yourself from the constitution?
02:16:52 So, here’s the thing. When a nation is really at war, especially if it’s an authoritarian regime,
02:17:01 it’s going to try to control the pop, like lock everything down, the spread of information.
02:17:06 How do you break through that? Do you do the thing that you mentioned, which is you have to build
02:17:09 another app, essentially, that allows the flow of money outside the legal constraints placed on you
02:17:17 by the government? So, basically, break the law? Is that possible?
02:17:22 Metaphorically speaking, if you want to break out of the constraints of your culture,
02:17:25 you learn to speak English. For example, it’s not illegal to speak English, or even if it is,
02:17:30 right? It doesn’t matter, but English works everywhere in the world if you can speak it,
02:17:36 and then you can tap into a global commerce and intelligence network. So, Bitcoin is a language,
02:17:43 so you learn to speak Bitcoin, or you learn to speak Lightning, and then you tap into that network
02:17:49 in, you know, whatever manner you can. But the problem is it’s still very difficult
02:17:54 to move Bitcoin around in Russia and Ukraine now, during the war. And there was a sense to me that
02:18:02 the cryptocurrency in general could be the savior for helping people. There’s millions of refugees
02:18:08 that are moving all around. It’s very difficult to move money around in that space to help people.
02:18:17 I think we’re very early. Like, we’re very embryonic here. If you look at the…
02:18:23 Who’s we, sorry? We as a human civilization, or we operating in the cryptocurrency space?
02:18:28 I think the entire crypto economy is very embryonic, and the human race’s adoption of it
02:18:35 is embryonic. We’re like one, two percent down that adoption curve. If you take Lightning,
02:18:42 for example, you know, the first real commercial applications of Lightning are just in the last
02:18:47 12 months. So we’re like year one. We might be approaching year two of commercial Lightning
02:18:53 adoption. And if you look at Lightning adoption, Lightning’s not built into Coinbase, it’s not
02:18:59 built into Binance, it’s not built into FTX. Cash App just implemented the first implementation,
02:19:07 but not all the features are built into it. There’s a few dozen, a dozen Lightning wallets
02:19:12 circulating out there. So I think that, you know, we’re probably going to be 36 months of
02:19:19 software development. At the point that every Android phone and every iPhone has a Bitcoin
02:19:29 wallet or a crypto wallet in it of sorts, that’s a big deal. If Apple embraced Lightning,
02:19:36 that’s a big deal. So the adoption is the thing, like in a war zone adoption, the people who
02:19:44 struggle the most in war are people who weren’t doing that great before the war started. They
02:19:51 don’t have the technological sophistication. The hackers and all those kinds of people will find
02:19:55 a way. It’s just regular people who are just struggling to make day by day living. And so
02:20:01 if the adoption permeates the entire culture, then you can start to move money around in the
02:20:09 digital space. If you can psychoanalyze Jack Dorsey for a second. So he’s one of the early
02:20:18 adopters, or he’s one of the people pushing the early adoption, this layer three, so inside Cash
02:20:24 App. What do you make of the man of this decision as a business owner, as somebody playing in the
02:20:32 space? Like what, why did he do it? And what does that mean for others at this scale that might be
02:20:40 doing the same? So incorporating Lightning networking, incorporating Bitcoin into their
02:20:45 products. I think he’s been pretty clear about this. He feels that Bitcoin is an instrument of
02:20:51 economic empowerment for billions of people that are unbanked and have no property rights
02:20:58 in the world. If you want to give an incorruptible bank
02:21:07 to eight billion people on the planet, that’s the same as asking the question,
02:21:14 how do you give a full education through PhD to eight billion people on the planet? And the answer
02:21:22 is a digital version of the 20th century thing running on a mobile phone. And Bitcoin is a bank
02:21:31 in cyberspace. It’s run by incorruptible software and it’s for everybody on earth.
02:21:35 So I think when Jack looks at it, he’s very sensitive to the plight of everybody in Africa.
02:21:39 If you look at Africans, you’re going to give them banks, you’re not going to put a bank branch on
02:21:43 every corner. That’s an obscene waste of energy. You’re not going to run copper wires across the
02:21:47 continent. That’s an obscene waste of energy. You’re not going to give them gold. So how are
02:21:56 you going to provide people with a decent life? The metaphor I think is relevant here,
02:22:03 the biological metaphor, Lex, is a type one diabetic. If you’re a type one diabetic,
02:22:09 you can’t form fat. And if you can’t form fat, then you can’t store excess energy. So
02:22:15 that means that, I mean, fat is the ultimate organic battery. And if you’ve got 30 pounds of it,
02:22:20 you can go 60 days without eating. But if you can’t generate insulin, you can’t form fat cells.
02:22:27 And if you can’t form fat cells and store energy, then you can eat yourself to death.
02:22:32 I mean, you will eat and you will die. You’ll starve to death. So the lack of property rights
02:22:38 is like being a type one diabetic. And so if you look at most people everywhere in the world,
02:22:46 they don’t have property rights, they don’t have effective bank, and their currency is broken.
02:22:53 Like what are the two things that in theory would serve as the equivalent of a
02:22:57 organic battery or an economic battery to civilization? It would be, I have a currency
02:23:03 which holds its value and I can store it in a bank. So a risk free currency derivative.
02:23:13 I pay you your money, you take your life savings, you put it in a bank, you save up for your
02:23:18 retirement, you’ll have happily ever after. That’s the American dream.
02:23:22 Right? That’s the idyllic situation. The real situation is there are no banks,
02:23:28 you can’t get a bank account. So I give you your pay in currency, and then I double the supply and
02:23:34 I give it to my cousin, or I give it to whatever cause I want, or I use it to buy weapons. And then
02:23:40 you find a loaf of bread cost triple next month is what it costs. And your life savings is worthless.
02:23:47 And so in that environment, everybody’s ripped back to Stone Age barter. And the problem with
02:23:53 that even Stone Age barter is you’re going to carry your life savings on your back. And what
02:23:58 happens when the guy with a machine gun points it at your head and just takes your life savings.
02:24:01 So I think from Jack’s point of view, he thinks that life is, this is maybe too strong, but these
02:24:10 are my words, life is hopeless. It’s hopeless. It’s hopeless. It’s hopeless. It’s hopeless.
02:24:14 It’s hopeless for a lot of people. And Bitcoin is hope. Right? Because it gives everyone
02:24:26 an engineered monetary asset that’s a bearer instrument. And it gives them a bank on their
02:24:34 mobile phone. And they don’t have to trust their government or another counterparty
02:24:41 with their life force. So there’s a secondary thing I think he’s interested in, which is the
02:24:50 first thing is the human rights issue. And the second thing would be the friction to trade cross
02:24:57 borders is so great. Right? Like, you know, you like AI. So I’ll give you a beautiful notion.
02:25:07 Maybe one day there’ll be an artificially intelligent creature in cyberspace that is
02:25:14 self sufficient and rich. Like that, we would have sovereignty. Can a robot own money or property?
02:25:26 How about kind of Tesla car? Can I actually put enough money in a car for it to drive itself and
02:25:32 maintain itself forever? Or can I create an artificially intelligent creature in cyberspace
02:25:38 that is endowed such that it would live a thousand years and continue to do its job?
02:25:44 Right? You know, we have a word for that in the real world is institution, Harvard, Cambridge,
02:25:50 Stanford, right? There are institutions with endowments that go on in perpetuity.
02:25:55 But what if I wanted to perpetuate a software program? And with something like digital property
02:26:05 with Bitcoin and lightning, you could do it. And on the other hand, with banks and credit cards,
02:26:15 you couldn’t, right? You couldn’t ever. So, so you can create things that are beautiful and lasting.
02:26:25 And what’s the difference in speed? Well, so I can either trade with everybody in the world
02:26:32 at the speed of light, friction free in 24 hours writing a Python script, or I can spend $100 billion
02:26:41 to trade with a few million people in the world after it takes them six months of application.
02:26:48 The impedance is like a 10 million to one difference, right? And the metaphors are
02:26:56 literally like launching something in orbit versus almost orbit or vacuum sealing something.
02:27:03 Does it last forever and does it orbit forever or does it go away?
02:27:07 Does it last forever and does it orbit forever or does it go up and come down and burn up?
02:27:13 Right. And I think Jack is interested in, you know, putting freedom in orbit. All right.
02:27:21 Putting freedom.
02:27:22 Putting freedom in orbit. And he said it many times. He said,
02:27:26 this is the internet needs a native currency. Right. And no political construct or security
02:27:34 can be a native currency. You need a property and you need a property that can be moved a million
02:27:40 times a second. Can you oscillate it at 10 kilohertz or a hundred kilohertz? And the answer
02:27:46 is only if it’s a pure digital construct, permissionless and open. And so I think
02:27:54 that he’s enthusiastic as the technologist and he’s enthusiastic as the humanitarian.
02:28:00 And what he’s doing is support both those areas. He’s supporting the Bitcoin and the lightning
02:28:05 protocol by building them into his products, but he’s also building the applications,
02:28:10 which you need at the cash app level in order to commercialize and deliver the functionality
02:28:17 and the compliance necessary and they’re related.
02:28:21 And I should also say he’s just a fascinating person. I, for a random reason that
02:28:28 I couldn’t even explain. If I tried, I met him a few days ago and gave him a great big hug in the
02:28:35 middle of nowhere. There was no explanation. He just appeared. That’s a fascinating human,
02:28:40 his relationship with art, with the world, with human suffering, with technology is fascinating.
02:28:47 I don’t know what his path looks like, but it’s interesting that people like that exist.
02:28:53 And in part, I’m saddened that he no longer is involved with Twitter directly as a CEO,
02:29:00 because I was hoping something inside Twitter would also integrate some of these ideas of what
02:29:07 you’re calling digital energy to see how social networks, something I’m really interested in and
02:29:13 passionate about could be transformed. Let me ask you just for educational purposes,
02:29:18 what’s the, can you please explain to me what web three and the beef between Jack and Mark
02:29:24 Andreessen is exactly? Did you see what happened? Sorry to have you analyze Twitter like it’s
02:29:30 Shakespeare, but can you please explain to me why, why there was any, any drama over this topic?
02:29:37 First of all, web three is a term that’s used to refer to, you know,
02:29:43 the part of the economy that’s token financed. So if I’m launching an application and my idea
02:29:49 is to create a token along with the application and issue the token to the community so as to
02:29:55 finance the application and build support for it, I think that that’s the most common
02:30:03 interpretation of web three. There are other interpretations too. So I’m just going to refer
02:30:08 to that one. And I think the beef in a nutshell, not articulated, but I’ll articulate it is whether
02:30:15 or not you should focus all your energy creating applications on top of an ethical digital property
02:30:21 like Bitcoin, or whether you should attempt to create a competitor to it, which generally would
02:30:32 be deemed as a security by the Bitcoin community. So I’m going to put on my Bitcoin hat here. Yeah.
02:30:38 Right. All the tokens that are, if it’s driven by a venture capitalist, well, it’s a security.
02:30:42 If there’s a CEO and a CTO, it’s a security. All these projects, they’re companies. Foundations
02:30:49 are companies, right? If you call them a project or a foundation, it doesn’t make it not a security.
02:30:55 They’re all, in essence, collections of individuals that are issuing equity in the form of a token.
02:31:03 And if there’s a pre mine, an IPO, an ICO, a foundation, or any kind of protocol where there’s
02:31:15 a group of engineers that have influence over it, then that’s a security.
02:31:21 If there’s a group of engineers that have influence over it, then to a securities lawyer, or to most
02:31:32 Bitcoiners and definitely to anybody that’s steeped in securities law, you’re looking to say,
02:31:35 well, that passes the Howey test. It looks like a security. It should be sold to the public pursuant
02:31:43 to disclosures and regulations. And you’re just ducking the IPO process, right? And so now we get
02:31:52 back to the ethical issue. The ethical issue is if you’re trading it as a commodity and representing
02:31:59 it as a commodity, while truthfully it’s a security, then it’s a violation of ethics rules,
02:32:05 and it’s probably illegal. Well, you keep leaning on this. Let me push back on that part. Maybe you
02:32:10 hit me, but you keep leaning on this line of securities law as if it would all do respect to
02:32:17 lawyers, as if that line somehow defines what is and isn’t ethical. I think there’s a lot of
02:32:25 correlation as you’ve discussed, but I’d like to leave the line aside. If the law calls something
02:32:32 as a security, it doesn’t mean in my eyes that it is unethical. I mean, there could be some
02:32:39 technicalities and lawyers and people play games with this kind of stuff all the time. But I take
02:32:44 your bigger point that if there’s a CEO, if there’s a project lead, that’s fundamentally,
02:32:49 well, that to you is fundamentally different than the structure of Bitcoin.
02:32:54 It’s not that creating securities is unethical. I created security. I took a company public,
02:32:59 right? That’s not the unethical part. It’s completely ethical to create securities.
02:33:04 A block is a security. All companies are securities. The unethical part is to
02:33:09 represent it as property when it’s a security and to promote it or trade it as such.
02:33:16 This whole promotion, that’s also a technical thing because what counts and not as promotion
02:33:25 is a legal thing and you get in trouble for all these things, but that’s the game that lawyers
02:33:31 play. There’s an ethical thing here, which is what’s right to promote and not. To me, propaganda is
02:33:39 unethical, but it’s usually not illegal. If you roll the clock back 20 years,
02:33:48 all the boiler room pump and dump schemes were all about someone pitching a penny stock,
02:33:53 selling Swampland in Florida. And if you roll the clock back forward 20 years and I create my own
02:34:00 company and I represent it as the same thing and I don’t make the disclosures, you’re just one step
02:34:06 removed from the boiler room scheme and that’s what’s distasteful about it. There are ways to
02:34:13 sell securities to the public, but there are expectations. Maybe we could forget about whether
02:34:20 the security laws are ethical or not. I will leave that alone. We’ll just start with the biblical
02:34:27 definition of ethics. Don’t lie, cheat, or steal. So if I’m going to sell something to you, I need
02:34:33 to fully disclose what I’m selling to you, right? And that’s a matter of great debate right now.
02:34:42 And so I think that that’s part of the debate. But the other part of the debate is
02:34:47 whether or not we need more than one token. We need at least one, right? We need at least one
02:34:56 digital property because zero means there is no digital economy. And by the way, the conventional
02:35:05 view of maximalists is they think there’s only one and everything else isn’t. That’s not the point
02:35:10 I’m going to make. I would say we know that there is at least one digital property.
02:35:16 And that is Bitcoin. If you can create a truly decentralized, noncustodial, bearer instrument
02:35:26 that is not under the control of any organization that is fairly distributed, then you might create
02:35:34 another or multiple. And there may be others out there. But I think that
02:35:42 the frustration of a lot of people in the Bitcoin community, and I share this with Jack, is we could
02:35:48 create $100 trillion of value in the real world simply by building applications on top of Bitcoin
02:35:56 as a foundation. And so continually trying to reinvent the wheel and create competitive things
02:36:06 is a massive waste of time and it’s diversion of human creativity. It’s like we have an ethical good
02:36:16 thing. And now we’re going to try to create a third or a fourth one. Why?
02:36:23 Well, let’s talk about it. So first of all, I’m with you. But let me ask you this interesting
02:36:28 question because we talked about properties and securities, and we talked about how you
02:36:32 have a popular Twitter account. It’s hilarious and insightful. You do promote Bitcoin, in a sense.
02:36:43 I don’t know if you would say that. But do you think there’s a conflict of interest in anyone
02:36:48 who owns Bitcoin promoting Bitcoin? Is it the same as you promoting the first Bitcoin?
02:36:54 I would say no, there’s an interest. I think that you can promote a property or an idea to the extent
02:37:07 that you don’t control it. I think that the point at which you start to have a conflict of interest
02:37:15 is that you don’t control it. I think that the point at which you start to have a conflict of
02:37:22 interest is when you’re promoting a proprietary product or a proprietary security. A security,
02:37:28 in general, is a proprietary asset. So for example, if you look at my Twitter, you will find
02:37:34 that I make lots of statements about Bitcoin. You won’t ever see me making a statement that,
02:37:39 say, MicroStrategy stock will go up forever. I’m not promoting a security MSTR because at the end
02:37:47 of the day, MSTR is a security. It is proprietary. I have proprietary interest in it. I have
02:37:54 a disproportionate amount of control and influence on the direction.
02:37:59 The control is the problem. The control is the problem. Because you have interest in both.
02:38:04 If Bitcoin is as successful as we’re talking about, you very possibly can become the richest
02:38:12 human on earth, given how much you own in Bitcoin, right? The wealthiest, not the richest. I don’t
02:38:19 know what those words mean.
02:38:20 I would benefit economically.
02:38:22 You would benefit economically.
02:38:24 That’s true.
02:38:25 So the reason that’s not conflict of interest is because the word property, that Bitcoin is an idea
02:38:35 and Bitcoin is open.
02:38:37 It’s because I don’t own it. I don’t control it. In essence, the ethical line here is,
02:38:45 could I print myself 10 million more Bitcoin or not, right?
02:38:51 Or can anyone, right? It’s not just you. Can anyone? Because can you promote somebody else’s?
02:38:57 Yes, I guess you can. Like, can you promote Apple when you have no stake?
02:39:04 You could have a Twitter account where you promote oil or you promote camping or you promote
02:39:11 family values or promote, you know, a carnivore diet or promote the Iron Man, right?
02:39:17 You’re not going to get wealthier if you promote camping because you can’t own a stake. I mean,
02:39:24 you own a lot of Bitcoin. What is that? Don’t you own the stake in the idea?
02:39:30 Yeah, I would grant you that.
02:39:34 But the lack of control is the fundamental ethical line that you just, you don’t have,
02:39:41 all you are is you’re a fan of the idea. You believe in the idea and the power of the idea.
02:39:47 You can’t take that idea away from others.
02:39:50 Let’s come back to, let me give you some maybe easier examples. If you were the head of the
02:39:54 Marine Corps, right? And someone came to you and said, I created MarineCoin. And the twist on
02:40:05 MarineCoin is I want you to tell every Marine that they’ll get an extra MarineCoin when they
02:40:13 get their next stripe. And then I’m going to let you buy MarineCoin now. And then after you buy
02:40:19 MarineCoin, I want you to promote it to them, right? At some point, if you start to have a
02:40:29 disproportional influence on it, or if you’re in a conversation with people with disproportionate
02:40:34 influence becomes conflict of interest, and it would make you profoundly uncomfortable, I think,
02:40:39 if the head of the Marine Corps started promoting anything that looked like a security.
02:40:44 Now, if the head of the Marine Corps started promoting canoeing, you might think he’s kind
02:40:50 of wacky, like maybe, like that’s kind of a waste of time and distraction. So, but to the extent
02:40:58 that canoeing is not a security, not a problem, unless you, you know, ultimately, the issue of
02:41:05 decentralization is really a critical one. So not having a head. So is it something,
02:41:11 can Bitcoin be replicated? So the, all the things that you’re saying that make it a property,
02:41:18 can that be replicated? Have any other…
02:41:20 I think it’s possible to create other crypto properties.
02:41:24 Does it, does the having a head, like of a project, a thing that limits its ability to be a
02:41:32 property, if you try to replicate a project? Is that the fundamental flaw?
02:41:38 No, I, look, I think the real fundamental issue is you just never want it to change.
02:41:46 Like, like, if you really want something decentralized, you want a genetic template
02:41:54 that substantially is not going to change for a thousand years. So I think Satoshi said it at one
02:42:00 point, he said the nature of the software is such that by version 0.1, its genetic code was set.
02:42:06 If, if there was any development team that’s continually changing it, you know, on a routine
02:42:11 basis, it becomes harder and harder to maintain its decentralization because now, now there’s the
02:42:18 issue of who’s influencing the changes. So what you really want is, is a very, very simple idea,
02:42:28 right? The simplest idea, I’m just going to keep track of who owns 21 million parts of energy.
02:42:33 And when someone proposes big functional upgrades, you almost don’t, you don’t really want that
02:42:40 development to go on the base layer. You want that development to go on the layer threes, because
02:42:46 now, cache app has a proprietary set of functionality and it’s a security.
02:42:51 And if you’re going to promote the use of this thing, you’re not going to, you’re not going to
02:42:56 promote the layer three security because that’s a, an edge to a given entity and you’re trusting
02:43:04 the counterparty, you’re going to promote the layer one or at most the layer two.
02:43:09 Okay. So one of the fascinating things about Bitcoin, and sorry to romanticize certain notions,
02:43:18 but Satoshi Nakamoto, that the founder is anonymous. Maybe you can speak a little bit
02:43:24 about that. Maybe you can speak to whether that’s useful, but also I just like the psychology of
02:43:31 that to imagine that there’s a human being that was able to create something special and walk away.
02:43:37 So first are you Satoshi Nakamoto?
02:43:40 I’m certain I’m not. No, actually I, you know, I think the providence is really important. And
02:43:49 if I were to look at the highlighted points, I think having a founder that was anonymous
02:43:55 or should anonymous is important. I think the founder disappearing is also important. I think
02:44:00 that the fact that the Satoshi coins never moved is also important. I think the lack of an initial
02:44:07 coin offering is also important. I think the lack of a corporate sponsor is important. I think the
02:44:14 fact that it traded for 15 months with no commercial value was also important. I think that
02:44:24 the simplicity of the protocol is very important. I think that the outcome of the block size wars
02:44:31 is very important. And all of those things add up to common property. They’re all indicia,
02:44:40 indicators of a digital property as opposed to security. If there was a Satoshi sitting around,
02:44:47 sitting on top of $50 billion worth of Bitcoin, I don’t think it would
02:44:55 cripple Bitcoin as property, but I think it would undermine its digital property.
02:45:02 And if I wanted to undermine a crypto asset network, I would do the opposite of all those
02:45:07 things. I would launch one myself, I would sell 25% or 50% of the general public, I would keep some
02:45:14 of the initial, I would pre mine some stuff or early mine it, you know, and I would keep an
02:45:19 influence on it. Those are all the opposite of what you would do in order to create common property.
02:45:28 And so I see the entire story as Satoshi giving a gift of digital property to the human race
02:45:36 and disappearing.
02:45:37 Do you think it was one person? Do you have ideas of who it could be?
02:45:41 I don’t care to speculate.
02:45:44 But do you think it was one person?
02:45:47 It was one person, maybe in conjunction with a bunch of others. I mean, it might have been a
02:45:51 group of people that were working together, but certainly there’s a Satoshi.
02:45:55 I mean, it’s just so fascinating to me that one person could be so brave and thoughtful. Or do you
02:46:01 think a lot of his accent, like the block size wars, the decision to make a block a certain size,
02:46:07 all the things you mentioned led up to the characteristics that make Bitcoin property.
02:46:14 Do you think that’s an accident? Or it was deeply thought through? Like how does this is almost like
02:46:19 a history of science question.
02:46:21 They tried 40 of them, right? I mean, I think there’s a there’s a history of attempting to
02:46:26 create something like this. And it was tried many, many times and, and they failed for different
02:46:30 reasons. And I think that it’s like Prometheus tried to start a fire 47 times and maybe the 48th
02:46:36 time it sparked. And that’s how I see this. This is the first one that sparked. And it sets a
02:46:44 roadmap for us. And I think if you’re looking for any one word that characterizes it, it’s fair.
02:46:51 The whole point of the network is it’s a fair launch, a fair distribution. Like, yeah, I have
02:46:59 Bitcoin, but I bought it. In fact, I, you know, at this point, we’ve paid $4 billion of you real
02:47:08 cash to buy it. If I was sitting on the same position, and I had it for free, then there’s
02:47:16 always this question of, did I, you know, or I bought it for a nickel, a coin or a penny, a coin.
02:47:21 The question is, was it fair? And that’s a very hard question to answer, right? Did you acquire
02:47:28 the Bitcoin that you own fairly? And if you roll the clock back, you know, you could have bought it
02:47:34 for a nickel or a dime, but that was when it was a million times more likely to fail, right? When
02:47:40 the risk was greater, the cost was lower. And then over time, the risk became lower and the cost
02:47:47 became greater. And the real critical thing was to allow the marketplace, absent any powerful
02:47:55 interested actor, right? It’s almost like if Satoshi had held a million coins and then stayed
02:48:01 engaged for 10 more years, tweaking things in the background, there’d still be that question.
02:48:08 But what we’ve got is really a beautiful thing. We’ve got a chain reaction in cyberspace or an
02:48:14 ideology spreading virally in the world that has seasoned in a fair ethical fashion. Sometimes it’s
02:48:26 a very violent, brutal fashion with all the volatility, right? And there’s been a lot of,
02:48:32 you know, a lot of sound and fury along the way.
02:48:34 How do you psychoanalyze? How do you deal from a financial, from a human perspective with the
02:48:41 volatility? You mentioned you could have gotten it for a nickel and the risk was great. Where’s the
02:48:46 risk today? What’s your sense?
02:48:48 You know, we’re 13 years into this entire activity. I think the risk has never been lower.
02:48:56 If you look at all the risks, right, the risks in the early years are, is the engineering protocol
02:49:03 proper? Like one megabyte block size, 10 minute clock frequency cryptography is first, will it be
02:49:12 hacked or will it crash? 730,000 blocks and it hasn’t crashed. Will it be hacked? Hasn’t been
02:49:19 hacked. But you know, it’s a Lindy thing, right? You wait 13 years to see if it’ll be hacked.
02:49:23 But on the other hand, with a billion dollars, it’s not as interesting a target as it is with
02:49:28 a hundred billion. And when it gets to be worth a trillion, then it’s a bigger target. So the
02:49:35 risk has been bleeding off over time as the network monetized. I think the second question is,
02:49:43 will it be banned? You couldn’t know. It literally could have been banned at any time, many times
02:49:49 early on. In fact, in 2013, I tweeted on that subject. I thought it would be banned. I made a
02:49:54 very infamous tweet. I thought it was going to be banned. In 2014, the IRS designated it as
02:50:03 property and gave it property tax treatment, okay? So they could have given it a tax treatment where
02:50:09 you had to pay tax on the unrealized capital gains every year and it probably would have
02:50:15 crushed it to death, right? So it could have been in any number of places banned by a government.
02:50:25 But in fact, it was legitimized as property. And then the question is, would it be hacked
02:50:29 or would it be copied? Well, it’d be something better than that. And it was copied 15,000 times.
02:50:34 And you know the story of all those. And they either diverged to be something totally different
02:50:41 and not comparable or someone trying to copy a non sovereign bearer instrument store of value
02:50:48 found that their networks crashed to be 1% of what Bitcoin is. So now we’re sitting at a point where
02:50:56 all those risks are out of the way. I would say that year one of institutional adoption
02:51:02 is it started August 2020. That’s when MicroStrategy bought $250 million worth of
02:51:08 Bitcoin and we put that on the wire. We were the first publicly traded company to actually buy
02:51:15 Bitcoin. I don’t think you could have found a $5 million purchase from a public company
02:51:18 before we did that. So that was kind of like a gun going off. And then in the next 12 months,
02:51:26 Tesla bought Bitcoin, Square bought Bitcoin. And I’d say now we’re in year two of institutional
02:51:32 adoption. And there are about 24, should be 24 publicly traded Bitcoin miners by the end of this
02:51:38 quarter. So you’re looking at 36 publicly traded companies. And you’ve got 50, at least in the
02:51:48 range of $50 billion of Bitcoin on the balance sheet of publicly traded companies and hundreds
02:51:55 of billions of dollars of market cap of Bitcoin exposed companies. So I would say the asset,
02:52:04 decade one was entrepreneurial, experimental. Decade two is a rotation from entrepreneurs
02:52:14 institutions and is becoming institutionalized. So maybe decade one, you go from zero to a trillion
02:52:19 and a decade two, you go from one trillion to a hundred trillion.
02:52:22 Trey Lockerbie What about governments, government adoption,
02:52:25 institutional adoption? Are governments important in this? Maybe making it some governments
02:52:32 incorporating it into as a currency into their banks, all that kind of stuff. Is that important?
02:52:39 And if it is, when will it happen?
02:52:41 John Ligato It’s not essential for the success of the asset
02:52:45 class, but I think it’s inevitable in various degrees over time. But the most likely thing
02:52:52 to happen next is large acquisitions by institutional investors of Bitcoin as a digital
02:53:02 gold, where they’re just swapping out gold for digital gold and thinking of it like that.
02:53:08 And the government entities most likely to be involved with that would be sovereign wealth
02:53:12 funds. If you look at all the sovereign wealth funds that are holding big tech stock, equities,
02:53:18 the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Middle Easterners, if you can hold big tech, then holding digital
02:53:24 gold would be not far removed from that. That’s a noncontroversial adoption.
02:53:33 I think there are opportunities for governments that are much more profound. If a government
02:53:40 started to adopt Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset, that’s much bigger than just an asset
02:53:48 investment. That’s 100x bigger. And you could imagine that’s like a trillion dollar opportunity.
02:53:56 Like any government that wanted to adopt it as a treasury reserve asset would probably
02:54:01 generate trillions of dollars, a trillion or more of value. And then the thing that people
02:54:08 think about is, well, will oil ever be priced in Bitcoin or any other export commodity?
02:54:15 I think there’s like $1.8 trillion or more of export commodities in the world. And right now,
02:54:21 they’re all priced in dollars. I think that this is a colorful thing, but not really that relevant.
02:54:27 Like you could sell all that stuff in dollars. The relevant decision that any institution makes,
02:54:33 whether they’re a nonprofit, a university, a corporation, or a government, is what’s your
02:54:38 treasury reserve asset? And if your treasury reserve asset is the peso, and if the peso is
02:54:45 losing 20% or 30% of its value a year, then your balance sheet is collapsing within five years.
02:54:56 And if the treasury reserve asset is dollars and currency derivatives and US treasuries,
02:55:04 then you’re getting your seven. Right now, it’s probably 15% or more monetary inflation. We’re
02:55:12 running double the historic average. You could argue triple, somewhere between double and triple,
02:55:16 depending upon what your metric is. So do I think it’ll happen? I think that they’re conservative,
02:55:23 but they have to be shocked. And I think there is a shock. The late Russian sanctions are a big
02:55:30 shock. When the West sees $300 billion worth of Russian gold and currency derivatives, I think
02:55:37 you got the famous quote by Putin that we have to rethink our treasury strategies. And that pushes
02:55:45 everybody toward a commodity strategy. What commodities do I want to hold? I think that’s
02:55:50 got a lot of people thinking. I think it’s got the Chinese thinking. Everybody wants to be the
02:55:54 reserve currency, right? So if I buy $50 billion worth of dollars every year, then I buy $500
02:56:03 billion over a decade, and I probably pay $250 billion of inflation cost on the backs of my
02:56:15 on the backs of my citizens in a decade. So inflation could be one of the sources of shock.
02:56:23 And you wonder if there is a switch to Bitcoin, whether it will be a bang or a whimper. Like,
02:56:29 what is the nature of the shock or the transition? I think that the year 2022 is pretty catalytic
02:56:38 for digital assets in general and for Bitcoin in particular. The Canadian trucker crisis,
02:56:43 I think, educated hundreds of millions of people and made them start questioning their property
02:56:50 rights and their banks. I think the Ukraine war was a second shock. But I think that the Russian
02:56:59 sanctions was a third shock. Yeah, I think all three of them. And I think hyperinflation in the
02:57:08 rest of the world is a fourth shock. And then persistent inflation in the US is a fifth shock.
02:57:12 So I think it’s a perfect storm. And if you put all these events together, what do they signify?
02:57:19 They signify the rational conclusion for any person thinking about this is, I’m not sure if I
02:57:27 can trust my property. I don’t know if I have property rights. I don’t know if I can trust the
02:57:32 bank. And if I’m politically at odds with the leader of my own country, I’m going to lose my
02:57:40 property. And if I’m politically at odds with the owner of another country, I’m still going to lose
02:57:47 my property. And when push comes to shove, the banks will freeze my assets and seize them.
02:57:54 And I think that that is playing out in front of everybody in the world, such that your logical
02:58:05 response would be, I’m going to convert my weak currency to a strong currency. Like I’ll convert
02:58:13 my peso and lira to the dollar. I’m going to convert my weak property to strong property.
02:58:20 I’m going to sell my building downtown Moscow. And I’d rather own a building in New York City. I’d
02:58:29 rather own in a powerful nation than be stuck with a building in Nigeria or a building in Argentina
02:58:36 or whatever. So I’m going to sell my weak properties to buy strong properties. I’m going to
02:58:41 convert my physical assets to digital assets. I’d rather own a digital building than own a physical
02:58:47 building. Because if I had a billion dollar building in Moscow, who can I rent that to?
02:58:53 But if I have a billion dollar digital building, I can rent it to anybody in any city in the world,
02:58:59 anybody with money. And the maintenance cost is almost nothing. And I can hold it for 100 years.
02:59:05 So it’s an indestructible building. And then finally, I want to move from having my assets
02:59:11 in a bank with a counterparty to self custody assets. And this is not just Ukraine, but this is
02:59:19 like the story in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, South America. You don’t
02:59:26 really want to be sitting with $10 million in a bank in Istanbul, the bank’s going to freeze your
02:59:32 money converted to lira, devalue the lira and then feed it back to you over 17 years, right?
02:59:39 So self custody assets will be layer one Bitcoin.
02:59:42 Self custody assets, it’s like, if I if I got my own hardware wallet, and I’ve either got
02:59:50 your highest form of self custody would be Bitcoin on your own hardware wallet or Bitcoin
02:59:56 and your own self custody. And the other the other thing people think about is how do I get crypto
03:00:01 dollars like tether, like some stable coin? Yeah, like I’d rather if you had a choice, would you
03:00:08 rather have your money in a bank in a warzone in dollars or have your money in a stable coin on
03:00:15 your mobile phone in dollars? Right? I mean, you take the latter risk rather than the former
03:00:22 warzone. Definitely. Yeah. And you can see that happening. Like we’ve gone from 5 billion in
03:00:27 stable coins to 200 billion. Yeah. In the last 24 months. Yeah. So I do think there’s massive demand
03:00:34 for crypto dollars in the form of a US dollar asset. And there’s and everybody in the world
03:00:42 would say, Yeah, I want that. Well, unless you’re just an extreme patriot, but most people in the
03:00:48 world would say I want that. And then a lesser group of people would say, I think I want to be
03:00:53 able to carry my property in the palm of my hand. So I have self custody of it. So the
03:01:00 Bitcoin price has gone through quite a roller coaster. What do you think is the high point
03:01:05 is going to hit? I think it’ll go forever. Right? I mean, I think the Bitcoin is going to,
03:01:12 it’s going to climb in a serpentine fashion, it’s going to advance and come back and it’s going to
03:01:18 keep, it’s going to keep climbing. I think that the volatility attracts all the capital
03:01:25 into the marketplace. And so the volatility makes it the most interesting thing in the financial
03:01:31 universe. It also generates massive yield and massive returns for traders. And that attracts
03:01:38 capital. Like we’re talking about the difference between 5% return and 500% return. So the fast
03:01:46 money is attracted by the volatility. The volatility has been decreasing year by year by
03:01:53 year. I think that it’s stabilizing. I don’t think we’ll see as much volatility in the future as we
03:02:00 have in the past. I think that if we look at Bitcoin and model it as digital gold, the market
03:02:10 cap goes to between 10 and 20 trillion. But gold is, remember, gold is defective property. Gold is
03:02:18 dead money. You have a billion dollars of gold that sits in a vault for a decade. It’s very hard
03:02:23 to mortgage the gold. It’s also very hard to rent the gold. You can’t loan the gold. No one’s going
03:02:28 to create a business with your gold. So gold doesn’t generate much of a yield. So for that
03:02:35 reason, most people wouldn’t store a billion dollars for a decade in gold. They would buy a
03:02:42 billion dollars of commercial real estate property. And the reason why is because I can rent it and
03:02:48 generate a yield on it that’s in excess of the maintenance cost. So if you consider digital
03:02:54 property, that’s 100 to 200 trillion dollar addressable market. So I would think it goes from
03:03:04 10 trillion to 100 trillion as people start to think of it as digital property.
03:03:08 What does that mean in terms of price per coin?
03:03:11 At 500,000, that’s a 10 trillion dollar asset. At 5 million, that’s a 100 trillion dollar asset.
03:03:20 So I think it crosses a million. It can go even higher.
03:03:24 Yeah, I think it keeps going up forever. I mean, there’s no reason it couldn’t go to 10 million
03:03:27 a coin, right? Because digital property isn’t the highest form, right? Gold was that low frequency
03:03:34 money. Property is a mid frequency money. But when I start to program it faster, it starts to
03:03:43 look like digital energy. And then it doesn’t just replace property, then you’re starting to replace
03:03:52 bonds. It’s 100 trillion in bonds, there’s 50 to 100 trillion in other currency derivatives.
03:04:00 And these are all conventional use cases, right? I think that there’s 350 trillion to 500 trillion
03:04:09 dollars worth of currency derivatives in the world. And when I say that, I mean things that
03:04:16 are valued based upon fiat cash flows, any commercial real estate, any bond, any sovereign
03:04:23 debt, any currency itself, any derivatives to those things, they’re all derivatives,
03:04:30 and they’re all defective. And they’re all defective because of this persistent 7% to 14%
03:04:37 lapse, which we call inflation or monetary expansion.
03:04:41 Can we switch subjects to talk about the energy side of it, like the innovative piece?
03:04:48 Yeah.
03:04:48 Let’s just start with this idea that I’ve got a hotel worth a billion dollars with a thousand
03:04:53 rooms. When it becomes a dematerialized hotel.
03:04:57 I love that word so much, by the way, dematerialized hotel.
03:05:00 We’re crossing the fountain blow here. Imagine the fountain blow is dematerialized.
03:05:05 The problem with a physical hotel is it got to hire real people moving subject to the speed of
03:05:09 sound and physics laws and Newton’s laws, and I can rent it to people in Miami Beach.
03:05:16 But if it was a digital hotel, I could rent the room to people in Paris, London, and New York
03:05:21 every night, and I can run it with robots. And as soon as I do that, I can rent it by the room hour,
03:05:28 and I can rent it by the room minute. And so I start to chop my hotel up into
03:05:33 a hundred thousand room hours that I sell to the highest bidder anywhere in the world.
03:05:40 And you can see all of a sudden the yield, the rent, and the income of the property
03:05:47 is dramatically increased. I can also see the maintenance cost of the property falls.
03:05:54 I get on Moore’s Law, and I’m operating in cyberspace. So I got rid of Newton’s
03:05:59 laws. I got rid of all the friction and all those problems. I tapped into the benefits of cyberspace.
03:06:07 I created a global property. I started monetizing at different frequencies. And of course, now I can
03:06:14 mortgage it to anybody in the world. You’re not going to be able to get a mortgage on a Turkish
03:06:21 building from someone in South Africa. You have to find someone that’s local to the culture you’re in.
03:06:28 So when you start to move from analog property to digital property, it’s not just a little bit
03:06:34 better. It’s a lot better. And what I just described, Lex, is like the DeFi vision, right?
03:06:41 It’s the beauty of DeFi, flash loans, money moving at high velocity. At some point,
03:06:48 if the hotel is dematerialized, then what’s the difference between renting a hotel room
03:06:57 and loaning a block of stock, right? I’m just finding the highest best use of the thing.
03:07:03 It feels like the magic really emerges, though, when you build a market of layer two and layer
03:07:10 three technologies on top of that. It’s like, maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong, but for
03:07:16 all these hotels and all these kinds of ideas, it’s always touching humans at some point. And
03:07:25 consumers or humans, business owners, and so on. So you have to create interface, you have to create
03:07:31 services that make all that super efficient, super fun to use, pleasant, effective, all those kinds
03:07:38 of things. So you have to build a whole economy on top of that. Yeah, and I happen to think that won’t
03:07:42 be done by the crypto industry at all. I think that’ll be done by centralized applications.
03:07:48 I think it’ll be the citadels of the world, the high speed traders of the world, the New Yorkers.
03:07:55 I think it’ll be Binance, FTX, and Coinbase as a layer three exchange that will give you the yield
03:08:03 and will give you the loan and the best terms. Because ultimately, you have to jump these
03:08:10 compliance hoops. It comes like BlockFi can give you yield, but they have to do it in a compliant
03:08:16 way with the United States jurisdiction. So ultimately, those applications to use that digital
03:08:23 property and either generate a loan, give you a loan on it or give you yield on it are going to
03:08:29 come from companies. But the difference, the fundamental difference is it could be companies
03:08:37 anywhere in the world. So if a company in Singapore comes up with a better offering,
03:08:44 right, then the capital is going to start to flow to Singapore. I can’t send 10 city blocks of
03:08:50 LA to Singapore to rent during a festival, but I can send 10 blocks of Bitcoin to Singapore.
03:08:59 So you’ve got a truly global market that’s functioning in this asset. And is there second
03:09:05 order asset? For example, maybe you’re an American citizen and you own 10 Bitcoin and someone in
03:09:10 Singapore will generate 27% yield in the Bitcoin. But legally, you can’t send the money to them or
03:09:16 the Bitcoin to them. It doesn’t matter because the fact that that exists means that someone in Hong
03:09:22 Kong will borrow the 10 Bitcoin from somebody in New York, and then they will put on the trade
03:09:28 in Singapore. And that will create a demand for Bitcoin, which will drive up the market.
03:09:33 A demand for Bitcoin, which will drive up the price of Bitcoin, which will result in an effective
03:09:38 tax free yield for the person in the US that’s not even in the jurisdiction.
03:09:43 So there’s nothing that’s going on in Singapore to drive up the price of your land in LA.
03:09:50 But there is something going on everywhere in the world to drive up the price of
03:09:54 property and cyberspace if there’s only one digital Manhattan. And so there’s a dynamic
03:10:02 there which is profound because it’s global. But now let’s go to the next extreme. I’m still
03:10:07 giving you a fairly conventional idea, which is let’s just loan the money fast on a global network
03:10:15 and let’s just rent the hotel room fast in cyberspace. But let’s move to maybe a more
03:10:23 innovative idea. The first generation of internet brought a lot of productivity, but there’s also
03:10:29 just a lot of flaws in it. For example, Twitter is full of garbage. Instagram DMs are full of
03:10:36 garbage. Your Twitter DMs are full of garbage. YouTube is full of scams. Every 15 minutes,
03:10:42 there’s a Michael Saylor Bitcoin giveaway spun up on YouTube. My Office 365 inbox is full of garbage,
03:10:50 millions of spam messages. I’m running four different email filters. My company spends
03:10:57 million dollars a year to fight denial of service attacks and all sorts of other
03:11:01 security things. There are denial of service attacks everywhere against everybody in cyberspace
03:11:07 all the time. It’s extreme. And we’re all beset with hostility. You’ve been a victim of it in
03:11:14 Twitter. You go on Twitter and people post stuff they would never say to your face. And then if you
03:11:20 look, you find out that the account was created like three days ago and it’s not even a real
03:11:26 person. So, you know, we’re beset with phishing attacks and scams and spam bots and garbage.
03:11:33 And why? And the answer is because the first generation of internet was digital information
03:11:38 and there’s no energy. There’s no conservation of energy in cyberspace. The thing that makes
03:11:45 the universe work is conservation of energy. Like if I went to a hotel room, I’d have to post a
03:11:53 credit card. And then if I smashed the place up, there’d be economic consequences. Maybe there’d
03:12:00 be criminal consequences. There might be reputational consequences. You know, a lamp
03:12:06 might fall on me. But in the worst case, I can only smash up one hotel room. Now, imagine I could
03:12:12 actually write a Python script to send myself to every hotel room in the world every minute,
03:12:18 not post a credit card and smash them all up anonymously. The thing that makes the universe
03:12:26 work is friction, speed of sound, speed of light, and the fact that it’s ultimately it’s conservative.
03:12:34 You’re either energy or your matter, but once you’ve used the energy, it’s gone and you can’t
03:12:39 do infinite everything. That’s missing in cyberspace right now. And if you look at all of
03:12:47 the moral hazards and all of the product defects that we have in all of these products, most of
03:12:55 them, 99% of them could be cured if we introduced conservation of energy into cyberspace. And
03:13:04 that’s what you can do with high speed digital property, high speed Bitcoin. And by high speed,
03:13:10 I mean, not 20 transactions a day, I mean, 20,000 transactions a day. So how do you do that? Well,
03:13:20 I let everybody on Twitter post 1000 or 10,000 Satoshis via lightning wallet, a lightning badge,
03:13:28 give me an orange check. If you put up 20 bucks once in your life, you could give 300 million
03:13:35 people an orange check. Right now, you don’t have a blue check, Lex. You’re a famous person. I don’t
03:13:42 know why you don’t have a blue check. Have you ever applied for a blue check? No. There are 360,000
03:13:48 people on Twitter with a blue check. There are 300 million people on Twitter. So the conventional
03:13:55 way to verify accounts is elitist archaic. Yeah, how does it work? How do you get a blue check?
03:14:03 You go to apply and wait six months and you have to post like three articles in the public
03:14:11 mainstream media that illustrates you’re a person of interest. Generally, they would grant them to
03:14:17 CEOs of public companies. The whole idea is to verify that you are who you say you are.
03:14:26 But the question is, why isn’t everybody verified? And there’s a couple of threads on that. One is
03:14:31 some people don’t want to be doxxed. They want to be anonymous. But there are even anonymous people
03:14:37 that should be verified. Because otherwise, you’re subjecting their entire following to
03:14:45 phishing attacks and scams and hostility. But the other… What’s the orange verification? So
03:14:53 this idea, can you actually elaborate a little bit more if you put up 20 bucks? Yeah, I think
03:14:58 everybody on Twitter ought to be able to get an orange check if they could come up with like $10.
03:15:02 And what is the power of that orange check? What does that verify exactly? You basically post a
03:15:09 security deposit for your safe passes through cyberspace. So the way it would work is if you’ve
03:15:16 got $10 once in your life, you can basically show that you’re credit worthy. And that’s your pledge
03:15:23 to me that you’re going to act responsibly. So you put the 10 or the $20 into the lightning wallet,
03:15:31 you get an orange check. Then Twitter just gives you a setting where I can say the only people that
03:15:36 could DM me are orange checks. The only people that can post on my tweets are orange checks.
03:15:41 So instead of locking out the public and just letting your followers comment, you lock out
03:15:47 all the unverified. And that means people that don’t want to post $10 security deposit can’t
03:15:52 comment. Once you’ve done those two things, then you’re in position to monetize malice,
03:16:01 monetize motion or malice for that matter. But let’s just say for the sake of argument,
03:16:06 you post something and 9,700 bots spin up and pitch their whatever scam. Right now,
03:16:15 you sit and you go report, report, report, report, report, report. And if you spend an hour,
03:16:21 you get through half of them, you waste an hour of your life. They just spin up another 97
03:16:26 gazillion because they’ve got a Python script spinning it up, so it’s hopeless. But on the
03:16:30 other hand, if you report them, and they really are a bot, Twitter’s got a method to actually
03:16:37 delete the account. They know that they’re bots. The problem is not they don’t know how to delete
03:16:42 the account. The problem is there are no consequences when they delete the account.
03:16:45 So if there are consequences, Twitter could give, they could just seize the $10 or seize the $20
03:16:52 because it’s a bot. It’s a malicious criminal act or whatever. It is a violation of the platform
03:16:58 rules. You end up seizing $10,000, give half the money to the reporter and half the money to the
03:17:05 Twitter platform. And… It’s a really powerful idea, but that’s tying it, that’s adding friction
03:17:10 akin to the kind of friction you have in the physical world. You’re tying, you have consequences,
03:17:15 you have real consequences.
03:17:17 It’s putting conservation of energy.
03:17:19 Conservation of energy.
03:17:20 There’s no friction, there’s no nothing on this earth. Right? I mean, you can’t walk across the
03:17:25 room without friction. Right? So friction is not bad, right? Unnecessary friction
03:17:33 is bad. So in this particular case, you’re introducing conservation of energy. And in essence,
03:17:39 you’re introducing the concept of consequence or truth into cyberspace. And that means if you do
03:17:46 want to spend up 10 million fake less Freedmen’s, right?
03:17:51 It’s going to cost you a hundred million dollars to spend up 10 million fake Lexus.
03:17:56 But the thing is you could do that with the dollar, but your case, you’re saying
03:18:00 that it’s more tied to physical reality when you do that with Bitcoin.
03:18:06 Yeah. Well, let’s follow up on that idea a bit more. If you did do it with the dollar,
03:18:12 then the question is how to 6 billion people deposit the dollars, right? Because what you’re
03:18:19 doing is, yeah, could you do it with a credit card? Like how do you send dollars? You have to
03:18:25 docks yourself. Like it’s not easy. So you’re talking about inputting a credit card transaction,
03:18:31 docksing yourself. And now you’ve just eliminated the 2 billion people that don’t have credit cards
03:18:36 or don’t have banks. You’ve also got a problem with everybody that wants to remain anonymous,
03:18:41 but you’ve also got this other problem, which is credit. You know, credit cards are expensive
03:18:47 transactions, low frequency, slow settlement. So do you really want to pay two and a half percent
03:18:55 every time you actually show a $20 deposit? And maybe you could do a Kluge version of this for
03:19:02 a subset of people. It’s like it’s 10% as good if you did it with conventional payment rails.
03:19:10 But what you can’t do is the next idea, which is I want the orange badge to be used to give
03:19:20 me safe passage through cyberspace, tripping across every platform. So how do I solve the
03:19:27 denial of service attacks against a website? I publish a website. You hit it with a million
03:19:34 requests. OK, now how do I deal with that? Well, I can lock you out and I can make it a zero trust
03:19:41 website and then you have to be coming at me through a trusted firewall with a trusted credential. But
03:19:47 that’s that’s a pretty draconian thing. Or I could put it behind a lightning wall. A lightning wall
03:19:55 would be, you know, I just challenge you, Lex, you want to browse the web, you want to
03:20:02 show me your 100000 Satoshis. Do you have 100000 Satoshis? Click. OK, now you click away 100 times
03:20:11 or 1000 times. And after 1000 times, you know, well, now, Lex, you’re getting offensive to take
03:20:16 a Satoshi from you or 10 Satoshis, a microtransaction. You want to hit me a million
03:20:21 times? I’m taking all your Satoshis and locking you out. What you want to do is you want to go
03:20:27 through 200 websites a day. And what you want every time you cross a domain, you need to be
03:20:35 able to, in a split second, prove that you’ve got some asset. And now when you cross back,
03:20:41 when you exit domain, you want to fetch your asset back. So how do I, in a friction free fashion,
03:20:48 browse through dozens or hundreds of websites, post a security deposit for state, state, state
03:20:55 passage, and then get it back? You couldn’t afford to pay a credit card fee each time.
03:21:01 When you think about two and a half percent as a transaction fee, it means you trade the money
03:21:08 40 times and it’s gone. Yeah, it’s gone. Yeah. So you can’t do this kind of hopping around through
03:21:14 the internet with this kind of verification that grounds you to physical reality. It’s a really,
03:21:21 really interesting idea. Why hasn’t that been done? I think you need two things. You need an
03:21:28 idea like a digital asset like Bitcoin that’s a bearer instrument for final settlement. And then
03:21:34 you need a high speed transaction network like Lightning where the transaction cost might be a
03:21:40 20th of a penny or less. And if you roll the clock back 24 months, I don’t think you had the Lightning
03:21:50 network in a stable point. It’s really just the past 12 months. It’s an idea you could think about
03:21:56 this year. And I think you need to be aware of Bitcoin as something other than like a scary
03:22:05 speculative asset. So I really think we’re just the beginning. The embryonic stage. I have to ask
03:22:12 Michael Saylor, you said before, there’s no second best to Bitcoin. What would be the second best?
03:22:19 Traditionally, there’s Ethereum with smart contracts, Cardano with proof of stake,
03:22:23 Polkadot with interoperability between blockchains. Dogecoin has the incredible power of the meme.
03:22:31 Privacy with Monero. I just can keep going. There’s of course, after the block size wars,
03:22:40 the different offshoots of Bitcoin.
03:22:43 I think if you decompose or segment the crypto market, you’ve got crypto property.
03:22:50 Bitcoin is the king of that. And other Bitcoin forks that wanted to be a bearer instrument store
03:22:56 of value would be a property, a Bitcoin cash or Litecoin, something like that.
03:23:02 Then you’ve got crypto currencies. I don’t think Bitcoin is a currency because a currency I define
03:23:10 in nation states since a currency is a digital asset that you can transfer in a transaction
03:23:18 without incurring a taxable obligation. So that means it has to be a digital asset.
03:23:23 It’s a taxable obligation. So that means it has to be a stable dollar or a stable euro or a stable
03:23:29 yen, a stable coin. So I think you’ve got crypto currencies, Tether, Circle, most famous.
03:23:34 Then I think you’ve got crypto platforms. And Ethereum is the most famous of the crypto platforms,
03:23:39 the platform upon which with smart contract functionality, et cetera.
03:23:45 And then I think you’ve got just crypto securities. It’s just like my favorite
03:23:49 or whatever meme coin. And I love it because I love it. And it’s attached to my game or my
03:23:54 company or my persona or my whatever. I think if you push me and said, what’s the second best?
03:24:01 I would say the world wants two things. It wants crypto property as a savings account,
03:24:06 and it wants cryptocurrency as a checking account. And that means that the most popular thing really
03:24:13 is going to be a stable coin dollar. Right. And there’s a maybe a fight right now. It might be
03:24:20 Tether. Right. But a stable dollar, because I feel like the market opportunity, it’s not clear that
03:24:28 there’ll be one that will win. The class of stable dollars is probably a one to ten trillion dollar
03:24:34 market easily. I think that in a crypto platform space, Ethereum will compete with Solana and
03:24:41 Binance Smart Chain and the like. Are there certain characteristics of any of them that
03:24:46 kind of stand out to you? Don’t you think the competition is based on a set of features? Also,
03:24:54 the set of features that a cryptocurrency provides, but also the community that it provides.
03:24:59 Do you think the community matters in sort of the adoption, the dynamic of the adoption,
03:25:04 both across the developers and the investors? If I’m looking at them, I mean, the first question is,
03:25:08 what’s the regulatory risk? How likely is it to be deemed a property versus security?
03:25:13 And the second is, what’s the competitive risk? And the third is, what’s the speed and the
03:25:18 performance? And all those things lead to the question of what’s the security risk?
03:25:26 How likely is it to crash and burn? And how stable or unstable is it? And then there’s the marketing
03:25:34 risk. I mean, there are different teams behind each of these things and communities behind them.
03:25:40 I think that the big cloud looming over the crypto industry is regulatory treatment of
03:25:48 cryptocurrencies and regulatory treatment of crypto securities and crypto platforms. And I think that
03:25:54 won’t be determined until the end of the first Biden administration. For example, there are
03:25:58 people that would like only US FDIC insured banks to issue cryptocurrencies. They want JP Morgan to
03:26:06 issue a crypto dollar backed one to one. But then in the US right now, we have Circle and we have
03:26:12 other companies that are licensed entities that are backed by cash and cash equivalents, but
03:26:18 they’re not FDIC insured banks. There’s also a debate in Congress about whether state chartered
03:26:24 banks should be able to issue these things. And then we have Tether and others that are outside
03:26:30 of the US jurisdiction. They’re probably not backed by cash and cash equivalents. They’re
03:26:35 backed by stuff, and we don’t know what stuff. And then finally, you have UST and DAI, which are
03:26:43 algorithmic stable coins that are even more innovative further outside the compliance
03:26:50 framework. So if you ask who’s going to win, the question is really, I don’t know, will the market
03:26:56 decide or will the regulators decide if the regulators get out of the way and the market
03:27:01 fall out? Well, then it’s an interesting discussion. And then I think that all bets are off if the
03:27:07 regulators get more heavy handed with this. And I think you could have the same discussion with
03:27:11 crypto properties like the DeFi exchanges and the crypto exchanges. The SEC would like to regulate
03:27:18 the crypto exchanges. They’d like to regulate the DeFi exchanges. That means they may regulate the
03:27:22 crypto platforms and at what rate and in what fashion. And so I think that I could give you
03:27:30 an opinion if it was limited to competition and the current regulatory regime. But I think that
03:27:38 the regulations are so fast moving and it’s so uncertain that you can’t make a decision
03:27:48 without considering the potential actions of the regulators.
03:27:53 I hope the regulators get out of the way. Can you steel me on the case that Dogecoin is,
03:27:59 I guess, the second best cryptocurrency if you don’t consider Bitcoin a cryptocurrency,
03:28:04 Bitcoin a cryptocurrency, but instead a crypto property?
03:28:08 I would classify it as crypto property because the US dollar is a currency. So unless your
03:28:14 crypto asset is pegged algorithmically or stably to the value of the dollar is not a currency,
03:28:20 it’s a property or it’s an asset.
03:28:22 So then can you steel me on the case that Dogecoin is the best cryptocurrency then?
03:28:29 Because Bitcoin is not even in that list.
03:28:31 The debate is going to be whether it’s property or security. And there’s a debate whether it’s
03:28:36 decentralized enough. So let’s assume it was decentralized.
03:28:40 Yeah.
03:28:41 Well, it’s increasing at not quite five, what, 5% a year inflation rate, but it’s not 5%
03:28:48 exponentially. It’s like a plus 5 million, 5% something captain is less. I forget the
03:28:55 exact number, but it’s an inflationary property. It’s got a lower inflation rate
03:29:01 than the US dollar. And it’s got a much lower inflation rate than many other fiat currencies.
03:29:08 So I think you could say that.
03:29:10 But don’t you see the power of meme, the power of ideas, the power of fun or whatever mechanism
03:29:18 is used to captivate a community?
03:29:24 I do, but there are meme stocks. It doesn’t absolve you of your ethical and securities
03:29:29 liabilities if you’re promoting it. So I don’t have a problem with people buying a stock.
03:29:37 It’s just the way I divide the world is there’s investment, there’s saving, and there’s speculation
03:29:46 and there’s trading. So Bitcoin is an asset for saving. If you want to save money for
03:29:53 100 years, you don’t really want to take on execution risk or the like. So you’re just
03:30:00 buying something to hold forever. For you to actually endorse something as a property,
03:30:06 like if you said to me, Mike, what should I buy for the next 100 years? I say, well,
03:30:10 some amount of real estate, some amount of scarce collectibles, some amount of Bitcoin,
03:30:15 right? You can run your company, right? But running your company is an investment. So
03:30:20 the savings are properties. If you said, what should I invest in? I’d say, well, here’s
03:30:24 a list of good companies, private companies. You can start your own company. That’s an
03:30:29 investment, right? If you said, what should I trade? Well, I’m trading as like a proprietary
03:30:36 thing. I don’t have any special insight into that. If you’re a good trader, you know you
03:30:42 are. If you said to me, what should you speculate in? We talk about meme stocks and meme stocks
03:30:49 and meme coins, and it kind of sits up there. It sits right in the same space with what
03:30:56 horse should you bet on and what sports team should you gamble on and should you bet on
03:31:01 black six times in a row and double down each time. I mean, it’s fun, but at the end of
03:31:07 the day, it’s a speculation, right? You can’t build a civilization on it. It’s not an institutional
03:31:17 asset. And in fact, where I’d leave it, right, is Bitcoin is clearly digital property, which
03:31:23 makes it an institutional grade investable asset for a public company, a public figure,
03:31:28 a public investor, or anybody that’s risk adverse. I think that the top 100 other cryptos
03:31:37 are like venture capital investments. And if you’re a VC and if you’re a qualified technical
03:31:42 investor and you have a pool of capital and you can take that kind of risk, then you can
03:31:47 parse through that and form opinions. It’s just orders of magnitude more risky because
03:31:52 of competition, because of ambition, and because of regulation. And if you take the meme coins,
03:31:59 it’s like when some rapper comes out with a meme coin, it’s like maybe it’ll peak when
03:32:05 I hear about it, right? I mean, SHIB was created as the coin such that it had so many zeros
03:32:13 after the decimal point that when you looked at it on the exchanges, it always showed zero,
03:32:18 zero, zero, zero. And it wasn’t until like six months after it got popular that they
03:32:24 started expanding the display so you could see whether the price had changed.
03:32:27 That’s speculation. You’ve been, maybe you can correct me, but you’ve been critical of Elon
03:32:33 Musk in the past in the crypto space. Where do you stand on Elon’s effect on Bitcoin and
03:32:39 cryptocurrency in general these days? I believe that Bitcoin is a massive breakthrough for the
03:32:46 human race that will cure half the problems in the world and generate hundreds of trillions of
03:32:51 dollars of economic value to the civilization. And I believe that it’s in an early stage
03:32:59 where many people don’t understand it, and they’re afraid of it, and there’s FUD,
03:33:04 and there’s uncertainty, there’s doubt, and there’s fear, and there’s a very noisy crypto
03:33:09 world. And there’s 15,000 other cryptos that are seeking relevance. And I think most of the FUD
03:33:19 is actually fueled by the other crypto entrepreneurs. So the environmental FUD and
03:33:24 the other types of uncertainty that surround Bitcoin, generally they’re not coming from
03:33:31 legitimate environmentalists. They don’t come from legitimate critics. They actually are guerrilla
03:33:37 marketing campaigns that are being financed and fueled by other crypto entrepreneurs
03:33:45 because they have an interest in doing so. So if I look at the constructive path forward,
03:33:52 first, I think it’d be very constructive for corporations to embrace Bitcoin and build
03:33:59 applications on top of it. You don’t need to fix it. There’s nothing wrong with it, right? Like
03:34:06 when you put it on a layer two and a layer three, it moves a billion times a second at the speed of
03:34:10 light. So every beautiful, cool DeFi application, every crypto application, everything you could
03:34:18 imagine you might want to do, you can do with a legitimate company and a legitimate website or
03:34:27 mobile application sitting on top of Bitcoin or Lightning if you want to. So I think that
03:34:37 to the extent that people do that, that’s going to be better for the world. If you consider what
03:34:42 holds people back, I think it’s just misperceptions about what Bitcoin is. So I’m a big fan of just
03:34:50 educating people. If you’re not going to commercialize it, then just educate people on
03:34:56 what it is. So for example, Bitcoin is the most efficient use of energy in the world by far,
03:35:05 right? Most people don’t necessarily perceive that or realize that. But if you were to take
03:35:09 any metric, energy intensity, you put like $2 billion worth of electricity in the network
03:35:16 every year and it’s worth $850 billion. There is no industry in the real world, right, that is that
03:35:25 energy efficient. Not only that energy efficient, it’s also the most sustainable industry. We do
03:35:32 surveys. 58% of Bitcoin mining energy is sustainable. So there’s a very good story.
03:35:40 In fact, every other industry, planes, trains, automobiles, construction, food, medicine,
03:35:46 everything else is less clean, less efficient. So the basic debate was…
03:35:54 I wouldn’t say there is a debate. I would just say that to the extent that the Bitcoin community
03:35:58 had any issue with Elon, it was just this environmental uncertainty that he fueled
03:36:07 in a couple of his tweets, right? Which I think just is very distracting.
03:36:13 But that was one of them. But I think it’s like the Bitcoin maximalists, but generally,
03:36:17 the crypto community, what you call the crypto entrepreneurs are… It’s also… They’re using
03:36:25 it for investment, for speculation, and therefore get very passionate about people’s celebrities,
03:36:35 including you, like famous people, saying positive stuff about any one particular
03:36:43 crypto thing you can buy in Coinbase. And so they might be unhappy with Elon
03:36:51 Musk that he’s promoting Bitcoin and then not, and then promoting Dogecoin, then not.
03:37:00 There’s so much emotion tied up in the communication on this topic.
03:37:05 And I think that’s where a lot of the…
03:37:08 Look, I don’t have a criticism of Elon Musk. He’s free to do whatever he wishes to do.
03:37:13 It’s his… In fact, Elon Musk is the second largest supporter of Bitcoin in the world.
03:37:21 I think that the Bitcoin community tends to eat its own quite a bit. It tends to be very
03:37:27 self critical. And instead of saying, well, Elon is more supportive of Bitcoin
03:37:34 than the other 10,000 people in the world with serious amounts of money, they focus upon…
03:37:41 Yeah, this is strange. Eating your own is just…
03:37:46 I mean, I think he’s free to do what he wants to do. And I think he’s done a lot of good for
03:37:51 Bitcoin in putting it on the balance sheet of Tesla and holding it. And I think that
03:37:56 sent a very powerful message. Do you have advice for young people?
03:38:02 You’ve had a heck of a life. You’ve done quite a lot of things.
03:38:07 Start before MIT, but starting with MIT. Is there advice here for young people in high school and
03:38:12 college, how to have a career they can be proud of, how to have a life they can be proud of?
03:38:23 I was asked by somebody for quick advice for his young children. He had twins when they
03:38:32 enter adulthood. He said, give me your advice for them in a letter. I’m going to give it to them
03:38:37 when they turn 21 or something. So then he handed… I was at a party and then he handed me
03:38:44 this sheet of paper and I thought, oh, he wants me to write it down right now. So I sat down,
03:38:48 I started writing and I figured, well, what would you want to tell someone at age 21?
03:38:53 You wrote it down.
03:38:54 So I wrote it down. And then I tweeted it and it’s sitting on Twitter, but I tell you what I said.
03:38:58 I said, my advice if you’re entering adulthood, focus your energy, guard your time, train your
03:39:08 mind, train your body, think for yourself, curate your friends, curate your environment,
03:39:20 keep your promises, stay cheerful and constructive, and upgrade the world. That was the 10.
03:39:30 Upgrade the world. That’s an interesting choice of words. Upgrade the world. Upgrade the world.
03:39:37 It’s like an engineering train.
03:39:39 Focus your energy. It’s a very, yeah, it’s a very engineering themed…
03:39:43 Keep your promises too. That’s an interesting one.
03:39:50 I think most people suffer because they don’t focus. I think the big risk in this world is
03:39:59 there’s too much of everything. You can sit and watch chess videos 100 hours a week and
03:40:06 you’ll never get through all the chess videos. There’s too much of every possible thing,
03:40:12 too much of every good thing. So figuring out what you want to do and then everything will suck
03:40:20 up your time, right? There’s 100 streaming channels to binge watch on. So you got to
03:40:25 guard your time and then train your body, train your mind and control who’s around you, control
03:40:33 what surrounds you. So ultimately in a world where there’s too much of everything, then
03:40:41 It’s like those laser eyes. It’s like those laser eyes. You have to focus
03:40:48 on just a few of those things.
03:40:51 Yeah. I mean, I got a thousand opinions we could talk about and I could pursue a thousand things,
03:40:56 but I don’t expect to be successful. And I’m not sure that my opinion in any of the 999 is any more
03:41:04 valid than the leader of thought in that area. So how about if I just focus upon one thing
03:41:13 and then deliver the best I can in the one thing. That’s the laser eye message.
03:41:20 The rest get you distracted.
03:41:22 Well, how do you achieve that? Do you find yourself, given where you are in life,
03:41:26 having to say no a lot? Or just focus comes naturally when you just ignore everything?
03:41:32 So how do you achieve that focus?
03:41:36 I think it helps if people know what you’re focused on.
03:41:40 So everything about you just radiates that people know.
03:41:44 If they know what you’re focused on, then you won’t get so many other things coming your way.
03:41:52 If you dolly or if you flirt with 27 different things,
03:41:59 then you’re going to get approached by people in each of the 27 communities, right?
03:42:03 You mentioned getting a PhD and giving your roots at MIT. Do you think there’s all kinds of
03:42:12 journeys you can take to educate yourself? Do you think a PhD or school is still worth it?
03:42:20 Or is there other paths through life that…
03:42:23 Is it worth it if you have to pay for it? Is it worth it if you spend the time on it?
03:42:26 Yeah. The time and the money is a big cost.
03:42:32 Time probably the bigger one, right?
03:42:34 It seems clear to me that the world wants more specialists. It wants you to be an expert
03:42:43 and to focus on one area. And it’s punishing generalists, jack of all trades,
03:42:52 especially people that are generalists in the physical realm. Because if you’re a specialist
03:42:56 in the digital realm, you might very well… You’re the person with 700,000 followers on
03:43:02 Twitter and you show them how to tie knots. Or you’re the banjo player with 1.8 million followers.
03:43:10 And when everybody types banjo, it’s you, right? And so the world wants people that do something
03:43:19 well. And then it wants to stamp out 18 million copies of them. And so that argues in favor of
03:43:28 focus. Now, the definition of a PhD is someone with enough of an education that they’re capable
03:43:34 of or have made. I guess to get a PhD, technically, you have to have done a dissertation where you
03:43:41 made a seminal contribution to the body of human knowledge. And if you haven’t done that,
03:43:47 technically, you have a master’s degree, but you’re not a doctor. So if you’re interested
03:43:53 in any of the academic disciplines that a PhD would be granted for, then I can see that being
03:44:00 a reasonable pursuit. But there are many people that are specialists. You know the agitator?
03:44:07 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
03:44:08 The agitator on YouTube?
03:44:10 Yeah, yeah, yeah.
03:44:11 He’s the world’s greatest chess commentator.
03:44:13 Yeah.
03:44:14 And I’ve watched his career, and he’s gotten progressively better, and he’s really good.
03:44:18 He’s going to love hearing this.
03:44:20 Yeah, if the agitator hears this, I’m a big fan of the agitator. I have to cut myself off,
03:44:25 right? Because otherwise, you’ll watch the entire Paul Morphy saga for your weekend.
03:44:30 But the point really is YouTube is full of experts who are specialists in something,
03:44:36 and they rise to the top of their profession. And Twitter is too, and the internet is. So I
03:44:45 would advocate that you figure out what you’re passionate about and what you’re good at, and you
03:44:54 do focus on it. Especially if the thing that you’re doing can be automated. The problem is,
03:45:03 back to that 500,000 algebra teacher type comment, the problem is if it is possible to be automated,
03:45:10 then over time, someone’s probably going to automate it, and that squeezes the state space
03:45:20 of everybody else. It’s like after the lockdowns, it used to be there were all these local bands
03:45:26 that played in bars, and everyone went to the bar to see the local band. And then during the
03:45:31 lockdown, you would have like these six super groups, and they would all get 500,000 or a
03:45:37 million followers, and all these smaller local bands just got no attention at all.
03:45:45 Well, the interesting thing is one of those 500,000 algebra teachers is likely to be part of
03:45:51 the automation. So it’s like, it’s an opportunity for you to think, where’s my field, my discipline,
03:46:00 evolving into? I talked to a bunch of librarians, just happened to be friends with librarians,
03:46:04 and libraries will probably be evolving. And it’s up to you as a librarian to be one of the few
03:46:12 that remain in the rubble. If you’re going to give commentary on Shakespeare plays,
03:46:18 I want you to basically do it for every Shakespeare play. I want you to be the Shakespeare dude,
03:46:23 because once I, just like Lex, you’re like, you’re the deep thinking podcaster, right?
03:46:33 You’re the podcaster that goes after the deep intellectual conversations. And once I get
03:46:42 comfortable with you, and I like you, then I start binge watching Lex. But if you changed
03:46:49 your format through 16 different formats, so that you could compete with 16 different other
03:46:55 personalities on YouTube, you probably wouldn’t beat any of them, right? You would probably just
03:47:01 kind of sink into the, you’re the number two or number three guy, you’re not the number one guy
03:47:06 in the format. And I think that the algorithm, right, the Twitter algorithm and the YouTube
03:47:14 algorithm, they really reward the person that’s focused on message, consistent. The world wants
03:47:21 somebody they can trust that’s consistent and reliable. And they kind of want to know what
03:47:26 they’re getting into because, and this is taken for granted maybe, but there’s 10 million people
03:47:35 vying for every hour of your time. And so the fact that anybody gives you any time at all is a huge
03:47:42 privilege, right? And you should be thanking them. And you should respect their time.
03:47:48 It’s interesting. Like everything you said is very interesting. But of course, from my perspective,
03:47:52 and probably from your perspective, my actual life has nothing to do with, it’s just being focused
03:47:58 on stuff. And in my case, it’s like focus on doing the thing I really enjoy doing and being myself
03:48:06 and not caring about anything else. Like I don’t care about views or likes or attention. And that,
03:48:12 just maintaining that focus is the way, from an individual perspective, you live that life.
03:48:17 But yeah, it does seem that there’s the world and technology is rewarding the specialization
03:48:24 and creating bigger and bigger platforms for the different specializations. And that lifts all
03:48:31 boats, actually, because the specializations get better and better and better at teaching people to
03:48:36 do specific things and they educate themselves. And it’s just, everybody gets more and more
03:48:40 knowledgeable and more and more empowered. The reward for authenticity more than offsets
03:48:47 the specificity with which you pursue your mission. It’s like, another way to say it is like,
03:48:53 nobody wants to read advertising. Like if you were to spend a hundred million dollars
03:48:58 advertising your thing, I probably wouldn’t want to watch it. But we see the death of that.
03:49:08 And so the commercial shows are losing their audiences and the authentic
03:49:15 specialists or the authentic artists are gaining their audience.
03:49:21 And that’s a beautiful thing. Speaking of deep thinking, you’re just a human. Your life ends.
03:49:29 You’ve accumulated so much wisdom, so much money, but the ride ends. Do you think about that?
03:49:36 Do you ponder your death, your mortality? Are you afraid of it?
03:49:41 When I go, all my assets will flow into a foundation and the foundation’s mission is to make
03:49:50 education free for everybody forever. And if I’m able to contribute to the creation of a more
03:50:01 perfect monetary system, then maybe that foundation will go on forever.
03:50:06 The idea, the foundation of the idea. So each of the foundations.
03:50:14 It’s not clear we’re on the S curve of immortal life yet. Like that’s a biological question.
03:50:19 And you asked that, you know, on some of your other interviews a lot. I think that we are on
03:50:24 the threshold of immortal life for ideas or immortal life for certain institutions.
03:50:33 Or computer programs. So if we can fix the money, then you can create a technically perfected
03:50:40 endowment. And then the question really is, what are your ideas? What do you want to leave behind?
03:50:47 And so if it’s a park, then you endow the park, right? If it’s free education, you endow that.
03:50:53 If it’s some other ethical idea, right?
03:50:58 Does it make you sad that there’s something that you’ve endowed, some very powerful idea
03:51:07 of digital energy that you put out into the world, you help put it into the world,
03:51:13 and your mind, your conscious mind will no longer be there to experience it.
03:51:21 It’s just gone forever.
03:51:23 I’d rather think that the thing that Satoshi taught us is you should do your part during
03:51:30 some phase of the journey, and then you should get out of the way.
03:51:35 I think Steve Jobs said something similar to that effect in a very, very famous speech one day,
03:51:42 which is, you know, death is a natural part of life, and it makes way for the next generation.
03:51:47 And I think the goal is you upgrade the world, right? You leave it a better place,
03:51:53 but you get out of the way. And I think when that breaks down, you know, bad things happen.
03:52:04 I think nature cleanses itself. There’s a cycle of life.
03:52:09 And speaking of one of great people who did a great job,
03:52:13 and speaking of one of great people who did also get out of the way is George Washington,
03:52:19 so hopefully when you get out of the way, nobody’s bleeding you to death in hope of helping you.
03:52:29 What do you think, to do a bit of a callback, what do you think is the meaning of this whole thing?
03:52:34 What’s the meaning of life? Why are we here? We talked about the rise of human civilization.
03:52:39 It seems like we’re engineers at heart. We build cool stuff, better and better use of energy,
03:52:47 channeling energy to be productive. Why? What’s it all for?
03:52:55 You’re getting metaphysical on me.
03:52:57 Very. There’s a beautiful boat to the left of us. Like, why do we do that? This
03:53:01 boat that sailed the ocean. Then we build models of it to celebrate great engineering of the past.
03:53:07 To engineer is divine. You can make lots of arguments as well. We’re here to entertain
03:53:15 ourselves or we’re here to create something that’s beautiful or something that’s functional.
03:53:22 I think if you’re an engineer, you entertain yourself by creating something that’s both
03:53:25 beautiful and functional. So I think all three of those things, it’s entertaining, but it’s ethical.
03:53:31 You know, you got to admire, you know, the first person that built a bridge, crossing a chasm,
03:53:38 or the first person to work out the problem of how to get running water to a village,
03:53:44 the first person to figure out how to, you know, dam up a river, or mastered agriculture,
03:53:52 or the guy that figured out, you know, how to grow fruit on trees or created orchards,
03:53:56 you know, and maybe one day he had like 10 fruit trees, he’s pretty proud of himself.
03:54:02 So that’s functional. There is also something to that, just like you said, that’s just beautiful.
03:54:08 It does get you closer to, like you said, the divine. Something,
03:54:17 when you step back and look at the entirety of it, a collective of humans using a beautiful
03:54:25 invention, or creation, or just something about this instrument is creating a beautiful piece of music.
03:54:37 That seems just right. That’s what we’re here for. Whatever the divine is, it seems like we’re here
03:54:42 for that. And I, of course, love talking to you because from the engineering perspective,
03:54:47 the functional is ultimately the mechanism towards the beauty.
03:54:50 Isn’t there something beautiful about making the world a better place for people that you love,
03:54:56 your friends, your family, or yourself?
03:55:02 When you think about the entire arc of human existence, and you roll the clock back 500,000
03:55:11 years, and you think about every struggle of everyone that came before us and everything
03:55:16 they had to overcome in order to put you here right now, you got to admire that, right? You
03:55:25 got to respect that. That’s a heck of a gift they gave us, but it’s also a heck of a responsibility.
03:55:33 Don’t screw it up. If I dropped you 500,000 years ago, and I said, figure out steel refining,
03:55:40 or figure out silicon chips, fabric production, or whatever it is.
03:55:48 Fly, or fire.
03:55:50 And so now we’re here, and I guess the way you repay them is you fix everything in front
03:55:55 of your face you can, right? And that means to someone like Elon, it means get us off the planet,
03:56:02 right? To someone like me, it’s like, I think, you know, fix the energy in the system.
03:56:09 And that gives me hope. Michael, this was an incredible conversation. You’re an incredible
03:56:13 human. It’s a huge honor you would sit down with me. Thank you so much for talking to me.
03:56:18 Yeah, thanks for having me, Lex.
03:56:20 Thanks for listening to this conversation with Michael Saylor. To support this podcast,
03:56:24 please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, let me leave you with a few words from
03:56:33 Francis Bacon. Money is a great servant, but a bad master. Thank you for listening,
03:56:42 and hope to see you next time.