Coin Talk #47: đ Bitcoin Bugz & Weed Stock Mania â Coin Talk â Medium
Transcript
Aaron Lammer: Hello and welcome to Coin Talk. I am Aaron Lammer. I am so sorry that we missed you last week. We were bound to miss an episode, eventually. But thanks to everyone for bearing with us. I was on the road last week. This week Jay is on the road, but thankfully heâs on the line from undisclosed location. Do you want to disclose your location, Jay?
Jay Kang: No, no, no. But I also feel like the place I actually am is so unremarkable that disclosing it is almost embarrassing.
Aaron Lammer: Have you read Pale Fire by Nabokov?
Jay Kang: Yeah, of course. Not of course. I feel like that was very pretentious. But yes, I have read it.
Aaron Lammer: I feel like, heâs writing the book and that motel.
Jay Kang: Yes.
Aaron Lammer: Thatâs basically where I perceived you are right now. Youâre holed up in some motel scribbling paranoid fantasies down on the page.
Jay Kang: That would actually much more glamorous and fun than the reality right now. But thank you. Itâs good to be compared to Charles Kinbote, I guess.
Aaron Lammer: Before we forget, I just want to say, thanks to our partners over at Medium. Theyâve got a really great collection of new crypto writing. If youâre enjoying it, become a member. Itâs five bucks a month. You can find us at medium.com/cointalk. Thatâs all the transcripts. There is all kinds of stuff at me.dm/crypto. The collection, I forget the URL. Jay, I donât even know what the URL for that special collection is.
Jay Kang: Me.dm/crypto, right?
Aaron Lammer: Well no, thatâs their always collection. They have a special collection of 11 articles.
Jay Kang: Oh, well you can click ⌠I bet that there is a link on me.dm/crypto that you should definitely click.
Aaron Lammer: You can figure it out. You people can figure it out.
Aaron Lammer: Okay, letâs play the music.
Speaker 1: This episode of Coin Talk was taped Tuesday, October 2nd at 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The Bitcoin price index was $6,500.
Aaron Lammer: Okay, here we are. Two weeks have passed. Jay may or may not be visiting Harry Potter World.
Jay Kang: What is Harry Potter World? Is that a ride at Disney World or something like that?
Aaron Lammer: No, no. Itâs an entire amusement park in Orlando.
Jay Kang: Oh, really?
Aaron Lammer: You could be there now instead of taping this podcast.
Jay Kang: I donât think itâs open at 7:30. Just to divulge, I am in Orlando, and I am staying near the airport. Iâm here for a reporting trip. I got to say, Aaron, I am somebody who travels quite a bit for work. My reporting generally takes me to places that are not the glamor cities of America.
Aaron Lammer: You self-identify as a rambling man.
Jay Kang: Yeah. It has installed in me a great tolerance for a lot of Americaâs shat on cities. I try and find something worthwhile, or else you just go crazy.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, youâre in one of the most shat on cities in America right now.
Jay Kang: Yeah, yeah, yeah. When I was in Oklahoma City for basically two weeks, I found really good things. In the end I liked Oklahoma City. But I got to say, Orlando is fucking terrible.
Aaron Lammer: Well you say that, but you havenât been to Harry Potter World.
Jay Kang: Thatâs true.
Aaron Lammer: Let me ask you, in the Harry ⌠I think this actually is an important question for all crypto buyers, which is, which school within Hogwarts would you declare for there? Do you see yourself as a Hufflepuff?
Jay Kang: I got to be honest, I have never read the books. I saw the first movie and thatâs it. I donât know.
Aaron Lammer: Jay, I thought you were a literary man.
Jay Kang: I know one is Gryffindor, and the evil one is Slytherin. But I only know that through pop culture, like osmosis.
Aaron Lammer: Next Coin Talk book club is apparent gonna have to be Harry Potter book two.
Jay Kang: Definitely not. I havenât even read book one. But I did see the movie, which if I remember right, isnât the first move books one and two?
Aaron Lammer: No. I think itâs just one, âcause itâs one school year for each one. I donât want to give anything away. Iâll move on, come back to it. You probably donât want to go to the amusement park until youâre at least halfway through the series. I guess youâre probably gonna catch it when your daughter is of the age, anyway. Maybe itâs a waste to read it right now.
Jay Kang: Yeah, I actually considered bringing her down here because when youâre on a reporting trip, the hotel and everything is paid for. First of all, I couldnât go, so my wife would have had to take her by herself. I donât think sheâs really ready for the whole Disney experience, or even the Sea World experience. Generally her time is about 45 minutes before she canât stand a place anymore. I just didnât think it was worthwhile. But yes, I think for both of us in the next four years or so, we will probably be] back down in Orlando, unhappy.
Aaron Lammer: I like how weâve both been doxing our locations. I feel like itâs part of our crypto moderate stance, where weâre just like, âIâm in Orlando, by the airport.â
Jay Kang: Come steel my Bitcoin.
Aaron Lammer: Come and get me if you got a problem.
Jay Kang: You ought to kidnap me for âŚ
Aaron Lammer: Better come all the way down to Orlando for my Bitcoin.
Jay Kang: For 0.07 BTC. Please go for it. Yeah.
Aaron Lammer: Itâs been a couple weeks. A lot of Bitcoin news, a lot of crypto news. I donât know if weâre distinguishing those things or what. But should we just try and fire through it, as any of these things as we can?
Jay Kang: Yeah, yeah. There is one thing that really did interest me over the past couple weeks. I think this happened when you were in Spain, which is that there was a Bitcoin bug. It made a lot of crypto news, but it didnât really make that much of the mainstream news. I have a theory about that, and I wanted to run it by you, like a journalism theory.
Aaron Lammer: Iâm interested in your take. Iâll tell you about how I heard about this bug, just before you give me your journalism theory which was, I was walking the Camino Santiago which meant I only had WiFi at the inns. Just as I was leaving at six in the morning and it was dark out, I got a push Twitter thing that was like, âBug discovered in Bitcoin. Could affect 80%.â I was like, âUgh, guess I lost all my money. I donât have the wifi to investigate this any further.â
Jay Kang: Are the people that you were walking the Spanish roads with, were they Bitcoin people?
Aaron Lammer: There was some coiners, and then there was some no-coiners. I will say, yes it did come up a lot.
Jay Kang: Okay. I would think that if I was a no-coiner and I was doing this once in a lifetime trip to walk across parts of Spain, that the last thing I would want to talk about is Bitcoin. Itâs like hearing about somebodyâs fantasy team if you donât like sports, I think.
Aaron Lammer: Iâll say this, thereâs a lot of free time. Youâre walking 100 miles with the same group of people. Bitcoin comes up once every 90 minutes.
Jay Kang: Thatâs sounds not great.
Jay Kang: The Bitcoin bug was a ⌠Look, if you are really into crypto and youâre listening to this, you already know. But to recap, it was a security flaw that Bitcoin Core was dealing with, that they were just alerted with. The implication of it was that if it wasnât patched and it wasnât closed, then anybody could have accessed it, and exploited the vulnerability, and printed as many Bitcoins as they wanted. Instead of hav âŚ
Aaron Lammer: This doesnât even just affect Bitcoin. This would be pretty much everything that forked itself off of Bitcoin.
Jay Kang: Anything that used the Bitcoin code.
Aaron Lammer: The entire family tree of Bitcoin. I think we could agree that if this were to happen in full, this would be the end on some level.
Jay Kang: It would be the end. Yeah.
Aaron Lammer: More realistically, they would have to wield Bitcoin back, and the whole myth of decentralization would end, and probably the price would crater, and it would be very bad.
Jay Kang: I think it would have bee close to fatal because the one thing that has been keeping to Bitcoin ⌠I think the mystique and the intrigue around is that these types of things donât happen very much. For the most part it really is seen as being something that hasnât had any major failures since it launched out of Satoshiâs Caribbean cabana, 10 years ago. This would have been a disaster.
Jay Kang: But letâs go back to my journalism theory, which is that I think the reason why this wasnât covered that much is because I actually think that crypto ⌠You know how journalism works, which is that these places, whether The Times, or Buzzfeed âŚ
Aaron Lammer: George Soros runs them all..
Jay Kang: Yeah. Thatâs a global level. Iâm talking about the George Soros worker bees.
Aaron Lammer: Youâre talking about the local level.
Jay Kang: Yeah, yeah. Amongst the Soros bees, they assign pieces a little bit ahead of schedule. They are trying to anticipate what the market is going to be and where the interest level is gonna be. I think at the point, maybe six months ago, maybe a little bit longer, that a lot of people banked a lot of anti-Bitcoin stories because the media is generally no-coiner media. I think that they are basically releasing those on auto schedule, and they have stopped paying attention to crypto, because the stories that we read in mainstream media outlets, theyâre all reported, theyâre all pretty good, theyâre all negative uniformly, but they donât feel particularly timely or relevant to this market. I think whatâs happened is because thereâs so little interest in Bitcoin compared to what there was last year around Christmas time, that people arenât really paying attention.
Jay Kang: But this should have been a huge story because it wasnât just the fact that this was a potentially fatal bug. It was that Bitcoin Core revealed itself to be a real centralized power here because they were the ones that had to patch it, they also withheld information from the public after they first announced that there was some sort of problem. They didnât tell everything how bad the problem was. Then they had to go around and basically go on Reddit, go on Twitter, go in any type of thing and tell anyone who had downloaded the Bitcoin Core software, which is a lot of people, that they have to update it and put in the patch, or else the whole thing can crumble. âCause it really only takes one person creating a vulnerability to do something that fucks this whole thing up.
Aaron Lammer: Well, itâs not like one person can individually fuck it up. But if the ecosystem is not thoroughly patched, for the most part, then itâs vulnerable, at least until that patch happens. I think youâre right to say itâs difficult to get everyone to patch things without being a dictator.
Aaron Lammer: This is a problem that is dealt with in the world of iOS software, by being like, âThis is a mandatory upgrade. You can no longer use this app until you upgrade it.â Itâs actually pretty seamless in situations like that. You just put a hard kill switch and the kill switch says, âIâm no longer gonna connect until this is updated.â This is one of these problems that exists in decentralization land that I seriously thought for a minute, âMaybe this is it.â
Jay Kang: Really? It was that bad.
Aaron Lammer: I feel like thereâs a little bit of an element in crypto of not with a bang, but with a whimper where weâve always said, âIf it all goes down in flames itâs not gonna be what we expected.â Itâs not gonna be the FBI raiding a bunch of Bitcoin exchanges. Itâs probably gonna be something weird and off-brand, like this âŚ
Jay Kang: That nobody knew about.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, itâs also a little bit of our human nature to imagine operative outcomes, and not simple code based outcomes that this is all pretty uncharted territory. But to their credit, they did fix it. In the same week there was the biggest breach in Facebook history.
Jay Kang: I donât know, did they fix it? Do we know. I donât think that we can really fundamentally say that it is definitely fixed given the fact that all this started with some disinformation on their end.
Aaron Lammer: I agree with that. It seems like weâre out of the most dangerous zone around it. I will say also, I was shocked and Iâm surprised. I wonder what your take is on this. I fully expected, when I got to the next inn, and I immediately refresh Blockfolio that we were gonna be talking about at least a five or a 10% hit. Just the knowledge that this could happen, even if it wasnât a full catastrophe, just seemed like it was a pretty bad beat for the market. Nothing happened. No one cared.
Jay Kang: I have a question then. Do you feel like ⌠Are you fully confident that this canât be replicated? If this was a problem that they didnât know about, there might be other problems they donât know about, right?
Aaron Lammer: I think it would be fair to say in the full Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns that there are other problems in Bitcoin that we donât know about it yet. Yes.
Jay Kang: I would say that is a known unknown. That theyâre most likely âŚ
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, exactly. Thatâs a known unknown.
Aaron Lammer: I think if we had thought hard intellectually about this, we would have said, yes, that these things are looming out there. But think our theme today. Can I set a theme and an intention today for us, Jay?
Jay Kang: Sure.
Aaron Lammer: I think the theme is stability. The final question I want to ask for our final segment today is, is Bitcoin stable? If so or if not, what would stability look like? This event made me think about how if Bitcoin is stable. Letâs say I could guarantee you Bitcoinâs probably gonna be worth, within a fact, up or down a few percent the same next year. Okay, thatâs not a terrible thing to imagine, but knowing there might be this land mine sitting out in the water, I donât know how much Iâd want to hang around with stable Bitcoin.
Jay Kang: Yeah, yeah. I mean stable Bitcoin, if we all we think about it is not as you and I being Bitcoin moderates, but also gamblers who have get-rich-quick impulses, stable Bitcoin is not a great get-rich-quick investment. I donât even know if itâs a good stable investment.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, itâs clearly not a great get-rich-quick investment if we assume itâs stable. But stable investments are generally okay. A stable investment in the stock market could be a blue chip stock thatâs never gonna appreciate rapidly in a year, but is not risky. Bitcoin, even outside of its own stability, is risky.
Jay Kang: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I donât think that there is any corollary between Bitcoin and any big U.S. corporation that you can invest in. Our blue chip large cap stock, itâs certainly is way more volatile because nobody really knows whatâs going on with it.
Jay Kang: I will say that this bug did frighten me a little bit more than I expected, partially because I think that the fact that there are a lot of shit coins that are built, that just basically copy and pasted part of the Bitcoin code. All of those are also vulnerable. Today, about a few hours ago, one of those shit coins was exploited. It was called Pigeoncoin, which I didnât know existed, but I actually like the name. But somebody within Pigeoncoin printed out 235 million Pigeoncoins using this exploit because of people who were writing Pigeoncoin who may or may not exist anymore, they didnât patch it up. That is worth about $15,000. I do wonder if these types of vulnerabilities, there must be people who are looking for them, not only in Bitcoin, but also in some of the larger alt-markets as well. I just think itâs gonna keep happening. Everything expanded so quickly. There are so many projects that were not made in good faith. I feel like this type of fraud and this type of hacking is just gonna continue.
Jay Kang: I donât want to be Mr. Negative because the thing that Iâll say to that is I feel like you should have known that if you wanted to get into crypto.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, we should have known better.
Jay Kang: But at the same time, I will say that I donât think itâs disputable that these types things will keep happening. I donât think that anybody who goes out and says, âWe fixed this thing and nothing bad is gonna happen again at this level,â either theyâre delusional or theyâre lying. It does factor in a lot more risk, especially if it is not counterbalanced by possibility of meteoric Bitcoin now. If youâre a Bitcoin maximus, and youâre in this for the philosophy, or if youâre in it for âŚ
Aaron Lammer: The friends.
Jay Kang: Yeah. Or like the community or any of those things, then you shouldnât care, because you can see it as a evolving project.
Aaron Lammer: Even if you care about the community, if the whole five years of community you have invested gets wiped out in a bug, at the very least itâs a bummer. At the very least it sucks.
Jay Kang: Yeah, it definitely sucks.
Aaron Lammer: The other thing that it made me think a little bit about is we have this idea of holding your private keys. Where usually if something bad happens, itâs like, âYou should have held your private keys. You had your stuff on the exchange.â Thatâs what happens with these exchange hacks.
Aaron Lammer: Whatâs happening here is an event that could destroy the value of a coin while you still hold your coins. I think this idea that if you live on a desert entirely meat-based diet island and never deal in anything but Bitcoin, that youâre walled off from the problems of Bitcoin, I donât really buy that. Itâs the same way that Saif Ammous would say, âNo oneâs immune to Bitcoin. Your currencies gonna sink against Bitcoin.â Simultaneously, no oneâs immune to Bitcoin bugs.
Jay Kang: That is true. But that is also saying if you drive around a safety approved Volvo Tank, you can still die. You might as well just drive a motorcycle around. There are differently levels of risks.
Aaron Lammer: No, no, no. What Iâm saying is just that there is no walling yourself off from the risk of Bitcoin collapsing.
Jay Kang: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course.
Aaron Lammer: A Bitcoin collapse would take down all of crypto. Even the person whoâs doing everything perfect is vulnerable. There is no person whose approach to crypto is completely without vulnerabilities.
Aaron Lammer: Did you see this big Facebook hack this week?
Jay Kang: Yeah.
Aaron Lammer: Facebook lost 50 million accounts, the worst breach in Facebook history. Itâs a big deal, I guess. Although, for the most part theyâre just like, âSorry, reset your passwords.â If the people âŚ
PART 1 OF 3 ENDS [00:21:04]
Aaron Lammer: Sorry. Reset your passwords. If the people who are trying to protect Facebook canât do it perfectly, Iâm going to assume that Bitcoin Core also canât do it perfectly. I know theyâre different pursuits, but letâs just say people who are excellent at their job, thereâs always flaws.
Aaron Lammer: Thereâs such a different amount of risk when youâre just talking about identifying data about people and their passwords versus their money.
Jay Kang: Yeah. So what are you saying here, Aaron? Are you out? Are you out of Crypto?
Aaron Lammer: I canât get out now, Jay. We need a little run here. Come on. Come on. All right. Well, speaking of runs, I donât know if you caught Joe Weisenthalâs article for Bloomerg, but-
Jay Kang: I did.
Aaron Lammer: ⌠he wrote an article about the overlap between the weed boom and the Crypto boom, included a quote from your cohost, truly, over here. So thanks to him for really showing me as an expert in both fields when I am actually not one in either.
Jay Kang: I forget. Did it say host of Coin Talk?
Aaron Lammer: It said, I think, that he hosts podcasts on both topics or something like that.
Jay Kang: Come on, Joe. Get that name in there.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, I encouraged him to show note it, okay?
Jay Kang: Get the subscribe link in to Bloomberg.
Aaron Lammer: Well, as long as Iâm showing, I will say everyone should subscribe to my other podcast, Stoner, which is about creative people and the relationship to marijuana. It actually has nothing to do with weed penny stocks, which is a shame because if it was about weed penny stocks, I probably would have bought some and then went fucking crazy last week.
Aaron Lammer: Jay, were you still in the game at this point? I canât remember how your weed penny stock bags were holding up.
Jay Kang: I have one weed penny stock that I had a lot of shares in, but not for that much money. But letâs say it was ⌠I donât know. It wasnât that much money. But-
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. You maximized the amount of shares you could get for the least amount of money. Is that the hypothesis?
Jay Kang: Yeah, exactly. It was with Ripple. I was like, what can I buy the most of for the-
Aaron Lammer: You like it?
Jay Kang: Yeah.
Aaron Lammer: So far, I like it. So far, I like it.
Jay Kang: It was like Ripple times ⌠Like I would say ⌠I think it was probably, like, 3,000. If you say Ripple was a dollar, it was like each share was 3,000% less than Ripple. That stock went down 96% or something like that while I was holding it, and it did not recover at all. I think the company is probably dead. So I did not hold any weed penny stocks that went crazy, which is too bad because weed penny stocks really were something that I was very interested in, being the speculative person I was.
Aaron Lammer: You were the first person who was trying to get me into weed penny stocks, and Iâm sorry I said no, although, as I understand it, and Iâll admit I didnât follow this run that closely because I didnât have any skin in the game, but it wasnât the penny stocks that were really going so crazy. But as the quasi-legitimate Canadian exchange stocks ⌠I think the big one is Tilray, which owns a bunch of subsidiary companies that youâve probably heard of, I think.
Aaron Lammer: So what do we make of this? What do we make of this big Crypto run followed by a big weed run?
Jay Kang: I think a few things it probably points to. One is that I think that young people are uninterested in investing in traditional ways. I think that thereâs many reasons for that. The first is that there are so much more sources of information out there right now, which is a very banal thing to say, but it is true.
Jay Kang: When you and I were growing up, if either of us had had any money in our 20s, which I ⌠I donât know about you, but I certainly didnât. I assume you didnât either.
Aaron Lammer: I didnât even have a bathroom in my apartment in my 20s.
Jay Kang: Yeah. I barely had a bathroom. I lived in many apartments without a kitchen, though ⌠that if we had had money in, letâs say, 2002, 2003 to invest money that we would have probably been pushed into thinking that a stock like Apple or something like that was very, very risky and that all of our investments would be in stuff like GE, GM, most likely some sort of mutual fund.
Jay Kang: I think that partly was because there wasnât that ⌠It was similar to TV, how when there werenât that many channels, everyone just watches the same thing. I think that now that everybody can figure out how to invest in these weird OTC markets that more people are doing so. Same with Crypto; itâs just a lot easier.
Jay Kang: But the other thing is ⌠And I think that this is also a sort of banal point thatâs said about young people all the time but also is true, which is that they donât have any promise of stability at all, and so their impulse, I think, is closer to the impulse that you and I just have because we have a mental illness, but theyâre doing it out of necesity.
Aaron Lammer: Youâre saying weâre like millennials because we like gambling?
Jay Kang: Yeah. But for millennials, it makes more sense because ⌠You and I, it makes no sense. We have families.
Aaron Lammer: I agree. If I was writing a cultural history of this, I would also say they came of age in the great boom in fantasy sports.
Jay Kang: Yeah, yeah, yeah. For sure. I think that all that sort of ⌠And video games. All this stuff becomes normalized.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, and video games. Well, as Iâve said, the biggest cultural forces in the world are weed, rap, and video games.
Jay Kang: Sure. I agree with that. Yeah.
Aaron Lammer: Crypto is like their shitty cousin.
Jay Kang: Yeah, whoâs kind of related to all of them.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. The Crypto mining rig sits on top of the slightly broken video game system.
Jay Kang: Thatâs true. That is true. I just bought ⌠Aaron, I have to admit something. I bought a gaming PC, like a high-end ⌠Not a high-end, but a high-powered gaming PC.
Aaron Lammer: Oh my God. Does it have crazy lights and stuff like that?
Jay Kang: Oh yeah, yeah. My wife is trying to buy a screen for our room because my gaming computer is in our bedroom, and she was like, âIâm going to buy a Japanese screen so I can block off all those stupid lights that are coming out of your computer.â
Aaron Lammer: It does seem like thereâs all these weird coincidences and overlaps in the world, like Crypto mining and high-end gaming chips coming of age at the same time and might be competing.
Jay Kang: One goes with the other. But the only reason I mentioned it is because I now have a high-powered GPU that could be employed for crypto money.
Aaron Lammer: Okay. Well, Iâm going to say letâs fire that up and at least catch a little background Monero. But hereâs what I think about the weed and Crypto. I donât really know ⌠As I said, while I do host a podcast about weed, it is not about investing. The main thing I told Joe Weisenthal was these Crypto stocks remind me of shit coins because I actually do follow weed brands a little bit. If I go to a dispensary, I kind of know whatâs for sale. And the stuff thatâs available on the stock market has no relation to the sellable products you can get in legalization states. This is a purely speculative market of people trying to build big medical conglomerates out of thin air. Itâs a ton of smoke in mirrors.
Aaron Lammer: The main thing that this run made me think is maybe people got a little bored of Crypto and are moving on to other speculative markets that are also fun. Crypto kind of, for me, invented gamified investing. Or it didnât invent it; it took it to another step further in terms of just being purely nonsense speculation. But it doesnât have any sort of a patent on that kind of behavior. That whole shit coin market could just become the weed shit coin market, and no one would blink and nothing would change very much.
Jay Kang: Yeah. Look. If Iâm being am empiricist and the type of person who points out that-
Aaron Lammer: Please only bring Socratic logic into this.
Jay Kang: All right. But everything-
Aaron Lammer: I donât want to hear any relativism at all.
Jay Kang: Okay. Thank you. I would say that speculative investing has been around in America for a long time and that weâve seen it in both type rooms, etc., etc., etc. But I will say that it generally frustrates me having conversations with people when they do this, where they just point out that thereâs something else that is similar in the past and therefore we shouldnât talk about the new crazy thing thatâs happening.
Jay Kang: I think that media people do that a lot because it is a way to sound both knowledgeable and smart. Iâm not going to do that to you, even though obviously there were other things. I am going to focus on what I think your point was, which was that it made everything into the realm of the absurd in a way that was far beyond the tech market, that people were literally ⌠You and I, who are ⌠We do have gambling problems, but we were speculating based on logos and stuff like that. People are just buying and selling this stuff like crazy.
Aaron Lammer: I donât know why weâre talking about this in past tense. I still have Sumokoin. The reason I donât have any of this weed stuff is because I didnât get out of shit coins. But it will say, and I think youâve captured this correctly, that blockchain isnât that cool. If I can get a similar thrill of gambling on weed or the blockchain, itâs not like all this blockchain stuff is just ⌠Itâs so fun to innovate cross-border bank transfers that I just canât stop being involved in it. You know?
Jay Kang: Exactly. Yeah. No, I agree. Just to take it further, for example, if you could take all these SoundCloud rappers and you could buy shares in them, you get some portion of their future earnings and itâs just speculating, donât you feel like that would also be a huge market that would be way more fun than Crypto?
Aaron Lammer: I think you joke. You kid with me.
Jay Kang: No, Iâm not kidding. I would.
Aaron Lammer: But I think thatâs a little bit where weâre going. Letâs look at what this weed thing really is. Itâs individual consumers getting really, really early access to a market that could be huge and also could be a total bust. Generally, in American history, everyone else gets a-
Jay Kang: Wait. Why do you think it could be a total bust? I think these stocks most likely will bust, but I donât think that the market will bust.
Aaron Lammer: Well, hereâs what I think, and I am arguing against my own beliefs here. But itâs just like Bitcoin in that the regulatory response is strongly going to define price over the next few years. As long as Jeff Sessions is the attorney general of this country, I believe that weed is not going to achieve its full potential.
Jay Kang: Yeah, but look. Itâs not like Crypto.
Aaron Lammer: That said, itâs priced in, and Trump keeps shit-talking Jeff Sessions, and every time he does, I go, âI should just go all-in on weed stocks right now,â because the minute that Jeff Sessions is gone, itâs going to go away up. And I agree with you: itâs probably going to work. But there is a way in which weed doesnât work. Itâs not a 100% hole-in-one; itâs absolutely going to happen.
Jay Kang: Oh, I think it is the closest thing to 100% that some market will exist that will be massive. I mean, people are going to smoke weed, and-
Aaron Lammer: But itâs like Ripple, where itâs already been ⌠The mania has already rallied several times. So itâs not like youâre buying in at no one believes in weed.
Jay Kang: Oh, sure. But-
Aaron Lammer: Youâre buying in at pretty deep speculation, particularly if you buy it after that run.
Jay Kang: Iâm just comparing it to Crypto.
Aaron Lammer: Okay, yeah.
Jay Kang: There is a decent chance that Bitcoin does not exist in 15 years.
Aaron Lammer: Thatâs true. Or three.
Jay Kang: There is zero chance that a weed market of some sort does not exist across the world.
Aaron Lammer: No, itâs true. At the end of the day, you can put weed in your pipe and smoke it. The blockchain has no value.
Jay Kang: Wow. I gotta say this is the most negative that Iâve ever heard you on this podcast about Crypto.
Aaron Lammer: Iâm just salty about how I missed the weed boom because I was stuck over here in jerk-off shit coin land.
Jay Kang: And youâre blaming Crypto?
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. I blame Crypto for getting my eye off the prize.
Jay Kang: Youâre like, âLet me get your shit coin,â like, âOh my God. If it wasnât for you guys, I would be rolling in.â
Aaron Lammer: I only have so much dumb money, and clearly I was interested in putting dumb money into weed because I started a podcast on the topic. But it happened to occur during the tail end of a bear market when I couldnât exit Crypto and still canât. If I had money, I would put it into weed. I still think that weedâs probably a good buy.
Jay Kang: Should we just do that? Should we just take the rest of both of our Crypto holdings and just buy penny weed stocks and then turn this into a penny weed stock podcast?
Aaron Lammer: I was looking at the Auger odds on Jeff Sessions, and Jeff Sessions is less than 50% to make it to the end of the Trump term.
Jay Kang: Thatâs his predicted?
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. You can see why, based on the way heâs being treated with the Trump administration. So I feel like this is a 2x potential the minute he resigns for the weed market. I mean, we just saw it go crazy on basically no news.
Jay Kang: I donât know if thatâs going to be a sustained rise because I donât know how much these markets are stagnating, especially speculatively based on this Jeff Sessions thing because I think what most people assume, and I think correctly, is that Jeff Sessions canât be the attorney general of America forever. Most likely, he will be less than the next two years.
Jay Kang: So I think that maybe some of the price spike that might happen when heâs gone is probably already baked in because itâs not like this is an intractable situation, like somebody who is pro weed-
Aaron Lammer: Itâs possible that thatâs true, but I just think, based on the fact that itâs now in the Crypto bull run mania narrative story where people just saw it spike a bunch here, I would expect we have a few more of those to go before we reach whatever the top is. But I think thereâs an argument, so letâs talk about this: should we just split the difference and be buying pot coin or whatever?
Jay Kang: Definitely not. One thing I would say is that I think if you and I just wanted to keep the same speculative risk that you shouldnât just think, âHey, Iâm way too deep into Crypto and itâs too down for me to sell it.â Some of these coins, there is no chance that theyâre going to recover, and if you are down 80% and you have $2 from 10 left, itâs better to put that $2 into penny weed stocks ⌠And this is terrible advice, by the way, not investment advice.
Aaron Lammer: Well, but Iâm not really holding that many of my worst bags. Iâm basically just sitting here waiting for Bitcoin and Ethereum to recover, mostly Ethereum. If I see Ethereum, $500, Iâm happy.
Jay Kang: Do you think thatâs going to happen?
Aaron Lammer: I do think thatâs going to happen in the next year.
Jay Kang: That would be double from here, right?
Aaron Lammer: In the next year, I expect that to happen.
Jay Kang: Okay. Iâm going to bet that it wonât happen.
Aaron Lammer: I mean, itâs going to happen or Ethereumâs dead. Ethereum has got to recover to some extent.
Jay Kang: Why does it have to go to 500? That-
Aaron Lammer: 500 would still be flat for the last six months or something. Letâs talk a little about that. Letâs actually ⌠I was just poking around at Bitcoin, some Bitcoin charts here. What do you think Bitcoin has done over the last three months?
Jay Kang: The last three months? I donât know. It went up to-
Aaron Lammer: -3% over the last three months.
Jay Kang: Yeah, but it went up and went down, and went up and went down. It never-
Aaron Lammer: No, no, this is serving my point. Over the last six months, itâs -7%. If you ignore the rollercoaster thatâs happening to produce that, everyone previously was saying, âWell, maybe Iâll buy some Bitcoin when itâs stable. How could anyone possibly invest in this while itâs so volatile?â If not this, what would stable Bitcoin really look like? Is this stable Bitcoin weâre talking about?
Aaron Lammer: My argument for Ethereum, why I do think we will see $500, is simply that that would just be Ethereum recovering some of its ground against Bitcoin while Bitcoin has been relatively flat. So I would think that Ethereum eventually has to make a move here or become a more obscure coin, whereas Bitcoin ⌠This has not really happened before, at least in the run of this show, where weâre talking ⌠Like I was just listening to an old episode, and the price was within $20 of the price right now.
Jay Kang: Yeah, but first of all, it has happened in Bitcoin historically, right? Like their one-and-a-half-year-long bear markets.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. There were some protracted flat periods. Yeah.
Jay Kang: Yeah. So I donât really think that your logic is particularly sound, Aaron. I donât think that Ethereum has to gain back against Bitcoin here. It just seems like it could just go down, or it could just stay here. Those are also two options.
Aaron Lammer: What has fundamentally changed about Bitcoin and Ethereum, I guess, would be my question. How has the situation materially changed?
Jay Kang: Well, the whole thing was based on speculation and frenzy, the bull run. And thatâs all gone now. So that is a fundamental change.
Aaron Lammer: Right, but does that explain a shift between Bitcoin and Ethereum that Ethereum would lose a third to half of its value against Bitcoin, I guess, would be my question.
Jay Kang: Oh, sure. Of course. Yeah, because I think that part of the Ethereum speculation was based on the fact that people were bored with Bitcoin but also because I think there was a narrative out there amongst retail investors, which is best exemplified by the fact that ⌠Like I was out late one night, and Iâm never out late, but I was around NYU talking to a friend. We were talking about Bitcoin, and this drunk NYU dude walks by and is like, âNo, dude. Ethereum.â
Aaron Lammer: There was a lot of that. I like how youâre Thomas Friedman. Thomas Friedman talks to the cab driver. You talk to the dude drunk buying a piece of pizza.
Jay Kang: Yeah, NYU bro. Exactly. The only bravado I had in my entire journalistic career is talking to drunk NYU bros. Thatâs basically my-
Aaron Lammer: Okay. Let me reframe the question, then. If you donât think this is stability, what would stability look like? We talk about Bitcoin reaching the second stage eventually-
Jay Kang: No, no, no. I agree with you. I think that this is relative stability, but I donât think that the stability is meaningful because I donât think that it has proven itself to be something like old General Motors stock or Philip Morris or whatever, like RJR Nabisco, where these are massive blue-chip companies where the stock itself is ⌠Thereâs the assumption that itâs always going to appreciate, even if it appreciates slowly. Youâve read Barbarians at the Gate, right?
Aaron Lammer: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, the way I look at it is I think weâve established something of a floor. Obviously, I could be wrong, but listen to our last episode, which myself and Mike Novogratz collectively, without actually.. calling a bottom, but ⌠Itâs always safe to call a bottom. Thatâs like me saying Iâm not going to eat anymore tonight. Then itâs like, Iâm calling a moratorium not eating, but not the moratorium not eating.
Jay Kang: Thatâs true.
Aaron Lammer: And I still might eat more. So weâve got this bottom under us, and it also seems like weâve exhausted the interest in menial-type buying. There doesnât seem to be a huge swell of people who are like, âIâll buy Bitcoin at any price.â We have none of that feeling we had before where it was like, âIf you donât buy it now, itâs probably going to be double next month.â
Jay Kang: Oh yeah. Nothing like that.
Aaron Lammer: Does anyone think that?
PART 2 OF 3 ENDS [00:42:04]
Aaron Lammer: If you donât buy it now itâs probably going to be double next month. Does anyone think that right now?
Jay Kang: Good Lord, no.
Aaron Lammer: So it almost feels like one of those situations like, did you play chess?
Jay Kang: No.
Aaron Lammer: It feels like a little like one of those situations where itâs like easy to defend but itâs very hard to attack. Like there isnât an easy way out of this price that I see. Which is kind of a weird pants on backwards way to achieve stability.
Jay Kang: But it also could go down, Aaron, you know?
Aaron Lammer: I could. I thought it would when a massive bug was discovered. I thought a piece of bad news would be the thing that would really cause that floor to be tested. What did you think?
Jay Kang: I donât know at this point what would cause the price to go up or down. But it does seem like I agree with you in the sense that it is hard to envision a scenario in which it moonshots again in the near future. Because in our basement tapes, but also in the first episodes that we were taping, we would go through Twitter, we would go through Reddit, we would talk to, not talk to, but we would read more mainstream economists and people who were bullish on bitcoin. And every single one of them had a scenario as to why this thing was going to be the entire future, whether it was block chain technology or whether it was just bitcoin speculation.
Aaron Lammer: And very few of those narratives have actually been invalidated at this point.
Jay Kang: No I agree with that. But I would say that it is harder to see them becoming eminent. You know there was a time when I could envision that a countryâs failing economy, if it was a catastrophic failure, that it would be propped up in some significant part by bitcoin. Now that could still happen, but I donât think that it is the go to move that a lot of people used to think it was, if that makes sense. I think people are much more wary about it.
Aaron Lammer: I 100% agree with you. Look, thereâs only two types of people who can buy bitcoin. The only way the price can go up is if people buy it. And thatâs either institutional buyers or individual, weâll call them retail buyers. And I think you and I both would agree, we donât really understand institutional buyers very well.
Jay Kang: Yeah, thatâs part of our problem.
Aaron Lammer: Thatâs part of our problem. Well I think thatâs part of everyoneâs problem, itâs a black hole. And clearly the institutional buyers are not piling on and buying because the price is flat to slightly down over the last six months.
Jay Kang: Sure.
Aaron Lammer: So I donât know what the hellâs going on over there. But when I look at the retail buyers, who are the ones I can understand because thatâs me and you, right? The Jays and Aarons of the world. Either you bought in before the bull run and subsequent crash, in which case your positionâs probably pretty good right now but I donât see why youâd really want to be piling on it right now. Like your original positionâs probably better. Everyone would know this except me, the person who thought you should pile on a position above $10,000. But everyone else would know thatâs stupid. Or you bought during that massive up swing, in which case youâre probably fucked and if youâre lucky, you bought around where we are now at $6,500. More likely you bought above that and are now under water. Youâre definitely not buying anymore bitcoin.
Aaron Lammer: Or youâre someone who came in after this whole thing. But I feel like if youâre that person, youâre sitting there going, âIs this a good time to buy?â And no oneâs telling you itâs a good time to buy anymore. I donât see those people on Reddit who are like, âYou have to buy now.â
Jay Kang: Yeah, no I agree and I think that the number of people who are coming to bitcoin now, itâs probably pretty small.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. And theyâre choosing like, âShould I do this or just buy some weed stocks? Or just some weed?â
Jay Kang: I think buying weed stocks at this point is probably way more fun and speculative and hopeful. So I think âŚ
Aaron Lammer: I liked your tokenized sound cloud rapper thing though. Letâs keep an eye out for that. Because I think the idea that people just want to invest in whatever they think is going to appreciate is there and if anything maybe the crypto era gave people that bug that they could make small investments in whatever it was. And once youâve got hat bug, I could see going a lot beyond blockchain investing with it.
Jay Kang: Yeah I mean micro investing is a thing, right? And itâs not as much of a thing as it was before but you know âŚ
Aaron Lammer: Well itâs legally dubious. I mean the American government would prefer people who are not accredited not do that. So like everything else in crypto, the real innovation is doing something that would otherwise be illegal.
Jay Kang: I donât know, but I do think that that type of model is definitely catching on. I mean you can argue that itâll fail eventually but people, even in our field, are moving to Patrion with some success. I mean I subscribe to a couple of Patrions now, which I never thought I would do.
Aaron Lammer: I got a nice note from our friend, nocoinerpatient0, Adrian Chen, heâs got a newsletter over there on substack, which is a subscription newsletter service so everyone go subscribe to that.
Jay Kang: Okay. He didnât tell me. I talked to Adrian the other day.
Aaron Lammer: We got to get him back on the show here to spread his lies. I feel like Adrian could rejump start the market because usually when he starts talking shit about bitcoin the bulls awaken.
Jay Kang: Thatâs true. We should get him an off head at the time so he can write another bitcoin article.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. Thatâs what Iâm talking about. But this whole idea that you can buy into whatever it is that you believe in or you think is gonna appreciate, it suggests this future in which you could have a portfolio thatâs like bitcoin and like housing in Northwestern Philadelphia and this rapper. You have a little bit of each of those markets.
Jay Kang: Yeah, that sounds way more fun. It sounds way more fun.
Aaron Lammer: I think so too. And maybe thatâs the ultimate goal. Maybe thatâs where the blockchain and all this token stuff should go. Instead of tokenizing things that are obviously nonsense, if you tokenized real estate in some American city that I thought was going to come back up, Detroit real estate, Iâd be a little interested in that if I thought it was all right.
Jay Kang: Some people have tried to do things like that. Like some of the ICOs were about buying shares and artists and stuff like that. But it was all nonsense. I mean, can you imagine like five years ago if you had bought an ETF of all teenage white rappers with face tattoos? You would be so rich right now and it would be so fun. Every song that came out would be amazing. Youâd be like, âIâm making more money on my face tattoo, white teenage ETF.â I donât know, Iâm for this but I mean, I donât know if the blockchain is really necessary for this either.
Aaron Lammer: Okay, can I talk about, to tie this show up I want to talk about two sponsored Instagram posts that came through my feed today. Okay?
Jay Kang: Okay. Tell me.
Aaron Lammer: The first one was for a car company called Fair in which you can buy a car, or I guess lease a car, but instead of a three year obligation, whatever, you just pay the month.
Jay Kang: Oh yeah, they have that and that must be like an app based version for some stuff that people do in LA on CraigsList.
Aaron Lammer: Yeah. So itâs like you use it until youâre done with it and theyâre like, âWe have enough people that we can just recirculate this. We have the proper liquidity in the car market to just keep this whole thing running.â
Jay Kang: Yeah thatâs a smart idea.
Aaron Lammer: Itâs a smart idea and it suggests that the missing ingredient, which I guess is the app and the large pool of people, that once you do that, you can start moving seamlessly in that way. And that does remind me a little of the token conversation weâre having. Which is some of these things can be made more efficient through things like group ownership and massively dividable expense and benefit. And you