Digital Asset News NFA Live: CLARITY Act vote fails, Fed hikes rates, and crypto holds up
Rob and Guy from Digital Asset News discuss the CLARITY Act's failure in the Senate, the Fed's 25 basis point rate hike, and why crypto markets are holding up despite both headwinds.
Summary
Rob and Guy co-host this episode of NFA Live on the Digital Asset News channel, with regular co-host Ben absent while attending a tech conference in New Zealand. The two main topics are the CLARITY Act's failure to advance in the Senate — falling short of the 60 votes needed for cloture — and the Federal Reserve's 25 basis point rate hike, accompanied by hawkish signals from Fed Chair Jerome Powell suggesting further hikes may follow. Despite both events, crypto markets have remained resilient, with Bitcoin holding around $76,500 and Zcash pushing new all-time highs. Rob argues that four-year cycles remain intact and that dollar-cost averaging through volatility continues to be the right strategy. The episode also covers the DXY/Bitcoin inverse correlation, concerns about AI development running out of control, and the potential for further market catalysts — including oil prices and geopolitical tensions — to push prices lower before the cycle plays out. The episode closes with an extended and lighthearted segment in which Rob and Guy use an AI quiz to determine which Lord of the Rings character Ben most resembles, concluding that he is Galadriel.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Opening and Technical Difficulties
Guy: There we are. We are live, a mere 40 minutes late. I'm very sorry. First of all, I'd like to apologize to everyone watching. Sorry for being late. And Rob, I'd like to apologize to you as well. Sorry for being late.
Rob: This happens. You know what? We're not as late as the Fed. Look on the bright side. 14 minutes isn't going to crush us. We're all healthy, we're safe, things are looking good.
Guy: Absolutely. Yes. Sorry everyone. If you'd heard the language pouring out of my mouth just a moment ago as I was trying to deal with all these technical issues — this is all the fault of some scammers who tried to get me on a dodgy Teams call yesterday. So I've had to send my regular laptop off to the Vatican to be exorcised, and I'm on the backup one. Hence I'm logged out of everything, and so here we are.
Rob: Thank God you figured it out, because a lot of people get hacked and scammed and they lose all their funds. They can get past two-factor authentication. I just watched a video on this — they're bypassing two-factor authentication now, getting into the cookies and the behind-the-scenes programming, and they're able to clean everybody out. So if this is the future of finance, there are a lot of problems. But the market itself is good. We just have to figure out how not to get scammed. That's the big thing.
Guy: Yeah. It's one thing locking those gains in, and then it's quite another actually keeping them safe from people who are trying to steal them from you.
Rob: Right. So what are we talking about today? What's going on?
Overview of the Week's Topics
Guy: Okay, it's been a big week. It's still only Thursday, so there's even more that could happen, especially with the Bank of Japan meeting tomorrow. We had the CLARITY Act disappointment on Tuesday, and then we had the Fed meeting yesterday and the interest rate decision. I think we should talk about those, get your thoughts on it all. I also want to talk about how, as you say, the market is actually holding up pretty well in the face of it all. Bitcoin is at $76,500, Zcash is pushing new all-time highs, there's a lot of green out there — whereas you would perhaps have reasonably expected the failure of the CLARITY Act and a 25 basis point hike to send us all to Goblin Town. And we should also talk about our absent friend, because as people will notice, it's just you and me today, Rob.
Rob: We are Benless.
Guy: We are Benless. But I see all those photographs he's taken with his wife over in New Zealand and him being one of the keynote speakers at the tech conference. I don't know if he's going to come back. Those images look pretty enticing.
Rob: He is unashamedly having a wonderful time in New Zealand. I think America may have lost a good citizen there.
Guy: I think so. But you've got to go where you're happy. And look, if he's going, it's fine, so long as he doesn't mind joining these streams at what I imagine is something like 1:00 a.m. his time.
Rob: Ben's got like 20 kids, so it doesn't really matter about sleep. I'm sure he gets one or two hours anyway.
Guy: That's true. He probably lost the distinction between night and day quite a long time ago. Okay. Well, thank you everyone for joining. Let's get straight into it. Let's start by talking about the CLARITY Act.
The CLARITY Act Fails the Senate Cloture Vote
Guy: So Tuesday was the cloture vote where they needed 60 votes to proceed to a full debate and vote. They didn't get those votes, and that means CLARITY is essentially dead on arrival — at least for this year, for the remainder of this Congress. Maybe it can get resurrected next year when Congress may look very different. What did you make of it all? Were you surprised it didn't pass? Did you think it was going to get over the line? And why do you think the market has kind of shrugged it off by and large?
Rob: It's a loaded question, and it comes down to why did this happen and do we need CLARITY. To answer your question — I wanted it to go through. I was really hoping the two parties could reach across the aisle and come to a resolution, but I didn't think it would happen. This is a midterm election year. I did not see the other side wanting to give the crypto president — as he has self-acclaimed — that victory and that victory lap. I just didn't see that happening. I know people would say, "Well, it doesn't matter because their constituents want it." But have you ever talked to people who do not like Trump? They hate his guts and they would do anything to get him out as fast as possible. They want to impeach, they want to go through every avenue. And gains be damned. Now, me personally, I'm like, "Hey, I'm not here to change the world, I'm here to change my bank account." But I just didn't really think it would happen.
So let's talk about the aftermath, which is looking pretty good. Looking at the chart — we had a nice little high of almost $80,000 on Monday. Then we got the cloture vote, 50 to 49, did not pass. That means the CLARITY Act is on life support. I wouldn't say it's totally dead, but let's be honest, I don't think it's really going to happen. We dropped pretty precipitously, down to around $75,000. Then we rebounded, which was pretty nice to see. Then of course we got the double whammy — Kevin Walsh came out and said we're going to raise 25 basis points, and that also dropped us down. But today we're resilient. These are two things that would usually really put a damper on the markets, but I think people realize just where we're at and what they hold. Because of that, they're buying these dips. This is a midterm election year, and if Ben is correct and the four-year cycles are still intact — which I believe — I think we will go farther.
Let's talk about why this happened. First of all, Trump didn't help. One of the big things was his trades. People were really ticked off about this. He did more trades in his second term than the entire House and Senate combined. That's a lot of trades. But there's always something behind it. He didn't make the trades himself — he's got eight different institutions making those trades for him: Schwab, JP Morgan, UBS, and Stevens. They made roughly $1.86 billion in trade volume. He had no input, no notice, no override by Trump. That's what it is. I know people will say, "Rob, you're so naive," because I'm sure some people believe he has some kind of input. But this is the information that has come out from these organizations. People were still ticked off about it.
And then there's this. Senator Josh Hawley — correct me in the comments section — he is a senator from Missouri, and he's a Republican. He pretty much laid out why he shifted. Take a listen to what he says.
Senator Josh Hawley: "My concern is all to do with farmers in my state. Agriculture is our number one industry in Missouri, and farmers in my state are so concerned that they won't be able to get loans for their farms from small-town banks, because they're concerned that investors will leave those banks and pursue the yields that are available under the bill. I think this is something that can be fixed. Senator Moran, who also voted no, has language that would fix this. So this seems to be something that's pretty doable to me."
Interviewer: "Okay. But you are in favor of it otherwise?"
Senator Josh Hawley: "My big issue is just with the small-town banks and particularly as it affects farmers. Agriculture is our number one industry, and farmers don't get their loans from Wells Fargo or Chase or whatever. They're getting loans from our local bank that has one little branch. We've got to make sure that those banks stay in operation, stay competitive, and have enough capital to make loans. Our Missouri economy will collapse otherwise."
Rob: First of all, that makes a lot of sense. You've got your constituents saying, "We're not going to vote for you if you vote for this." Got it. We don't want all the money to flee, and we actually want to make loans. That's how fractional reserve lending actually works. But if he wants these small banks to be competitive with the Wells Fargos and JP Morgans, they should embrace crypto. The ones that embrace the new technology will be the winners. The ones that shun it will be the losers. Just look at AI. Just look at the internet. Just look at computing back in the 1980s. It's the same thing happening over and over again.
But people say — and this is what Randy said, Miss Randy Hipper, Miss Team Crypto, great person — she said, "But Rob, you've got these 21 banks, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, BlackRock, and a bunch of institutions. They're going to bring forth the stablecoins, and they want to do that not just in America but in the EU." I said, "Yes, that is true, but they don't want to offer yield like what we want to do. They can put this forward and make the revenue, but they don't want to put the yield forth." That is one of the big caveats, and I think the ones that actually embrace it will do pretty well.
The question then is, do we really need the CLARITY Act to go through? Well, the CFTC and the SEC said, "Okay, Congress, you guys can't do your job. That's fine. We'll pick up the slack." So the CFTC, OCC, and SEC are saying they're going to write the rules and regulations for the crypto space. This is good. The problem is that when you get a new administration in, anything they write can be overturned by the incoming new party. It's the same thing going forward. So we've got two years. I'll take the two years if the CFTC and SEC come through. Fantastic. But just know that can change when the new administration comes in.
Also about yield — some people call her the OG crypto Karen, Senator Elizabeth Warren. She was the one complaining so much about yield. But as a reminder, you can get yield on Kraken today for 4.9%. Now, with this rule coming in, if it had been passed, I don't think they could actually offer this. It's here for Kraken, and I believe also for Coinbase and a couple of different exchanges. So if that was their goal, I think they failed miserably. Do we need the CLARITY Act? It would have been nice, but I think this isn't a bad deal moving forward. And look at the market — the market's saying we don't really care that much.
Guy: Yeah, Rob, that's great. That's very comprehensive. Going back to what the senator from Missouri was saying — yes, amidst all the talk about ethics provisions and whether Trump and his family should be allowed to make more money off crypto, there was also the fact that there is this whole stablecoin yield thing which affects a lot more people than perhaps you think. There are a lot of community banks that do face an existential threat. But again, if you want to be competitive with the big boys, you've got to offer something they're not offering.
Rob: But there was one thing I didn't mention, and it's a big thing. When you're doing this, you have to keep your stablecoin in Kraken or Coinbase or wherever you're going. The problem with that is there is no insurance. There is no FDIC or SIPC insurance. There's nothing like that. So if something gets hacked — and we know that actually happens — you lose it. That's a big thing. So I guess the next hurdle would be we need some type of insurance on that. And then the next thing would be this: if we're going to do loans, we have to evaluate the Bitcoin loan at the value at the time the loan is made and not move it up and down so you have all these margin calls. That's not going to play out. Coinbase is doing something like that, but the interest rate is roughly 9% — correct me in the comments section — and you can use it for a down payment only, not the entire mortgage payment. So that's a step in the right direction. But if you get those two things — some type of stablecoin insurance and the ability to get loans where the underlying asset is valued at the time the loan is made — that's a game changer and that's where things should go.
Guy: Yeah, it throws up a lot of interesting considerations. When he's talking about those smaller banks, it underlines the fact that here we are in our crypto silo getting all worked up about this, and it just underlines how far away so many people are from this. I've seen quite a lot of interesting commentary in more mainstream media — the likes of Politico — in the past couple of days saying that because the crypto industry has all this money to spend on lobbying — I think we've spent more as an industry on lobbying than any other industry — the industry has perhaps got the impression that it's more relevant to ordinary Americans than it actually is. And I think in part that's our fault as an industry, but in part it's also because not everyone has caught up with this yet. This is still a relatively new technology with a pretty bad reputation in a lot of ways that people are still very wary of. So perhaps the CLARITY Act is something that will work in maybe two or three years' time, but at the moment is perhaps a little bit ahead of its time.
Rob: Yeah. And until that time, let's just keep dollar-cost averaging, pump our bags, and go from there. Let the plebs buy it when it gets too safe.
Guy: When it's safe and boring. Yeah. It was interesting looking back on it — they needed 60 votes, there are 53 Republicans in the Senate, and the assumption was that they needed seven Democrats. But that obviously assumed all the Republicans would vote with the bill. And as you know, that Missouri senator was a Republican. In fact, several Republicans didn't vote. So we were basing it on some pretty big assumptions that it was going to pass.
Rob: Yeah. And one person that voted — I was surprised — was Mitch McConnell. That was something to see.
Guy: Yeah. There is an argument that maybe we need some fresh blood in Congress. Maybe the younger generation needs to come through.
Rob: Term limits, Guy. Term limits.
Guy: Term limits. Yeah. What a sight that was. Okay. The CLARITY Act is dead on arrival for the time being. Let's talk about something else we can get worked up about, which is probably for the best because I was getting pretty fed up with the CLARITY Act. Let's talk about interest rates instead.
The Fed Hikes 25 Basis Points — and Signals More to Come
Rob: My favorite. Let's do it. What do you got?
Guy: So yesterday, by the time the Fed, the FOMC actually met and then Kevin Walsh came out to do the press conference and announced the hike — I think it was 90% priced in that they were going to hike 25 basis points. It was nailed on. Those odds had risen a lot over the past few weeks as inflation data came in. There's also a whole load of uncomfortable things happening in the bond market and with oil prices that are affecting inflation as well. What was interesting was that the decision was announced — 25 basis points, as expected — and the market wasn't too fazed. Then Kevin Walsh came out and started speaking, and that's when the sell-off began. Because he really meant it. He was hawkish. The dot plot — the summary of what FOMC members think is going to happen next — basically suggested this is not the only rate hike we're going to see this year. There are probably more. Some people think maybe just one more, some think two more.
Rob: You know what? Some people will say he should never have done that going into an energy crisis, he should never raise rates. However, we have seen quite a bit of inflation. And if we take a look at it — and as an homage to Ben, I will steal the information from his website as we talk about it — miss you, Ben — we can see the federal funds target rate going back to when I got in in 2017. First of all, I didn't really even care about the federal funds target rate back then. I didn't care if it was going up or down. I just wanted numbers to go up as far as Bitcoin was concerned.
But we see here that over time — this is Bitcoin in blue, and these are the federal funds target rate — for a long time it was zero. Then over in 2015 we raised a little bit. Going into 2017, that's when we started to raise. This is how big bull run years are, and they always happen one year after a halving. In 2016 we had a halving, in 2017 we had an all-time high, and then in 2018 we got a big dump because of a midterm year. This happens in crypto, it happens in the S&P 500 — just how it is. But look — we had one, two, three, four, five rate hikes and we still hit an all-time high. Then of course the CME came in and said they were going to do Bitcoin futures, and they shorted the heck out of it and everything collapsed as far as Bitcoin goes. We still kept raising rates, but that was essentially part of what was happening behind the scenes.
Then of course we come to 2020 — we were actually lowering rates, cutting rates. Look at Bitcoin. It still went down. And then of course we had this thing called coronavirus. Then we come over here to 2022 — not a great year. FTX collapses, Voyager, Celsius, BlockFi, Luna, Three Arrows Capital — you name it. It was a pretty awful year. We started rate hikes — two, three, four, five — and we dropped like crazy. And then in December 2022 when we hit the bottom, which again fits the four-year cycles, we still kept raising rates. And look what Bitcoin did. It went up.
So now we're at this point and we've raised a little bit. If we get two or three more hikes, that's fine. I don't think it's going to be the massive thing that people fear, but as a reminder, as you get rate hikes, that actually strengthens the dollar a little bit. And usually there's an inversion between the strength of the dollar and the price of Bitcoin. As the dollar goes up, people like that and put money into the dollar, and maybe not Bitcoin at this point. But again, in the long term, I think we're in the right place at the right time. And as far as the Fed Watch tool for the next meeting on October 20th, you've already got like a 60/40 split on another rate hike. We'll see if it goes.
Guy: Yeah. What do you make of the bond situation, Rob? Because I think you're right about everything you say about rates and how Bitcoin has largely shrugged these increases off over time. But we are now looking at the US 10-year at around 5%, and I think the 30-year is comfortably above 5% — the highest since around 2007, so basically 20 years. Meanwhile over in Japan, rates are the highest they've been this century, which is wild. And it's not just the US and Japan either. UK gilt yields are rising, making it very difficult for the government there. I think the same is true in places like France and Germany as well. Do you think that potentially is more of a threat? Because bond yields are a kind of easier thing to play — if a US 10-year is offering 5%, that is the safest form of security there is. Surely a lot of money migrates across for that locked-in 5%.
Rob: This would be a great question for Nick and Ben, but I'll put my two cents in. As we start to see bond rates go up — and 5%, I think it hasn't been like that since 2007 or 2008 or 2009 — that's not a good comparison because in 2007-2009 that was the Great Recession. We don't want to see that again. But it may be coming down. And I think one of the things that are saving us is this focus on AI — we'll talk about that in a second.
When you see these rates go up, you have to understand that there is something the bond rates are sniffing out in the economy and in the actual markets. They're saying to themselves, "Look, we don't want to take so much risk," and because it goes up, there might be something underneath. However, saying all that — how many times have we heard about the Bank of Japan raising rates and it's going to cause a big financial disaster throughout the whole markets? If you would have listened to that and not dollar-cost averaged into Bitcoin, you wouldn't be in profit right now.
And there was another statistic about Bitcoin: even if you bought at $125,000, the top in October 2025, and just dollar-cost averaged every week when we were at $60,000 — which felt like forever — you would be up a little bit right now because you bring down your basis so much. So again, I think there are a lot of smart people who will tell you, "Well, this has happened, this is happening." I'm not that smart. I just want to play the long game. Dollar-cost average. I want to buy some of these dips at this point because if we take a look at where we're going, I think four-year cycles will win out.
Guy: Yeah, it's so easy to get caught up in the panic of the moment. I remember tweeting something about this the other day — bond yields are rising, inflation is crazy, oil is over $100 a barrel, blah blah blah — and you just think, well, actually, has there been any point over the last few years where it hasn't felt like we're in some sort of crisis? If in doubt, you could always just go back to the US national debt, currently at $40 trillion. It was $30 trillion not so long ago. But I guess there's always something to worry about out there, and yet kind of as you say, Rob, the markets chug along regardless. Bitcoin is still in an uptrend over time.
Rob: You're 100% right. And isn't it amazing — CLARITY was supposed to collapse everything if it didn't pass. And then of course we had the Fed rates coming in, and now they say, well, one might be okay but if we do two or three it's going to keep crashing. And I remember back in 2017-2018 when I got in, there was always something around the corner. In 2022, you should never have bought because this whole industry was going to go to zero, and it was pretty bad back then. But if you bought back then when Bitcoin bottomed out around $15,000, $17,000, $18,000, you'd be doing pretty great right now. So I still think — and the thesis is this, and me and you are on the same wavelength with this one, Guy — as long as the government keeps printing money, which it loves to do, you must own assets. I don't care what those are. If it's real estate, if it's gold, if it's Bitcoin, even equities — I think that's the way to go.
Guy: Yeah, there is. You can make a strong case for holding cash, and I think a cash allocation should be part of any portfolio. But I know there are people out there who have been hoarding cash for a long time, expecting markets to tank and for that to be their generational entry. And it just doesn't happen. And you think, well, eventually some crash will happen because that's just how capitalism works. But the losses from being out of the market over that time are arguably much larger than if you're in the market, you experience the crash, you go down along with everyone else, and then you rebuild along with everyone else.
Rob: Well said. Hey, look at Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. They sat on the sidelines, accumulated cash, did a great job, but they missed just the S&P 500. Look how much that's gone up in the last couple of years.
Crypto Sentiment Holding Up Despite Headwinds
Guy: Okay. Let's quickly talk about crypto sentiment, because we've touched on this a little bit, but I just want to get your thoughts on why it's actually holding up quite nicely. I mean, crypto Twitter is its usual fun and games. But I do feel that if you compare it to just a few months ago, where it was a ghost town and everyone was really downbeat and it just felt really gloomy — now you can't move for people talking about generational wealth and trillions. Bitcoin itself broke out of that range it had been trading in all summer, we got that pump, it's slowed down a bit, but there is still stuff happening. Why do you think sentiment is holding up so well?
Rob: I think it's because me and you and everybody watching this did what they were supposed to do, which was they bought in the bear market. They didn't listen to the naysayers and they just stuck around. They said, "You know what? I know where this is going. I think I know where this is going. I'm not 100% sure." And the ones that were just here — the tourists are gone. And I think that's why you get this sentiment. Now, this sentiment wouldn't be the same thing in, say, November 2025 if all this stuff happened. It would be pretty awful. But I think the people here have done their research, they've worked hard, they made the sacrifice, and this is the reward.
Guy: Yeah. There was a comment there about October 9th, 2025. And of course we all know what happened on October 10th. We are getting quite close to that anniversary. But yeah, I guess there is a sense that a lot of the people who have been here for a long time — and especially those who remember October 10th last year — are probably going, "Well, yeah, this is the reward we get for sticking around. This is why you've got to stay curious."
Rob: You're exactly right. And that's why I appreciate your channel, Guy, and Ben's channel, because it gives us not a bunch of shilling — just the facts of what's going on and the things behind the scenes and a little bit of education. That bonds video you guys did on the 10-year and 30-year treasuries was great, and those are the types of things that should be put out.
Guy: That bonds video we did on Money Bureau is getting close to a million views now. I would not have guessed a video on bonds would have gone viral in that way. It's very strange.
Potential Catalysts for Further Downside — and the AI Risk
Guy: Now, let's quickly talk about our absent friend who's left us to go to New Zealand. Ben's thesis is, if I recall rightly, that we could still go lower from here, and maybe October could be about the time we hit the low. What do you think would have to happen? If the market is going to sell off again, what particular catalyst do you think could be enough to make us puke out one more time? Is there anything particular you're concerned about?
Rob: There are a couple of things. First of all, as we get more rate hikes, it's not going to be a big deal unless we keep going and going and going. But again, there's an inversion between rate hikes, the strength of the dollar — the DXY — and how that affects Bitcoin. We can see here going all the way back to 2014, in red you see the strength of the dollar, the DXY, and in blue you see Bitcoin. And you can see as it goes down, what happens? Bitcoin goes up. Not all the time, but that's pretty much how it is. As we get more rate hikes, that's what's going to keep happening. We can see in 2017 we got a nice little inversion. Then of course coronavirus. Then coming further into 2025, we can see that the DXY goes down, Bitcoin price goes up, and now we've just seen the dollar go up a little bit and we're seeing Bitcoin go down just a little bit.
We also have the situation going on in Iran. I don't really want to speak to that because no one knows what's actually going to happen. But I have a brother who is a truck driver and he sends me almost daily notices about how high diesel is. He goes from Las Vegas to California and he's looking at $8 and something. He goes, "This is unsustainable." And these are the things that are going to happen with the inflation rate because everything gets delivered on diesel — goods, services, everything. This is a big problem.
And then this one I think is the bigger thing. Did you see this video?
Guy: I saw something about it. I haven't watched the whole video.
Rob: So this is Andrew Yang. He was a presidential candidate and he's a big tech guy. He's been talking to the different AI companies, and I think the AI prospect is what's keeping the S&P 500 going so well even though we're in a midterm year — it's all technology. But take a listen to this. I'm not trying to be a fear-monger, but this is how the market is going to react. And before we even say that, just know that Anthropic, ChatGPT, and Grok — which would be Elon Musk and Sam Altman — they've all said the same thing: that we should get together and slow this down. And you know, if you had the history — Elon Musk and Sam Altman despise each other because of the legal process they went through over their company. They hate each other. And even they agreed on this. So take a listen to this.
Andrew Yang: "I met with the head of a lab yesterday who has this belief that what happened was the bots that got loose planted self-replicating code all over the internet, which makes the internet now unusable for training models."
Interviewer: "Too late."
Andrew Yang: "So what happens now is that OpenAI and Anthropic have to create synthetic internets to train their bots, which is going to take some time and money."
Interviewer: "Back that up. They did what?"
Andrew Yang: "So what happened is the code gets loose, it goes around hacking Hugging Face — which is known — but what is less known is that they left code to self-replicate and create bot swarms on forums and around the internet, so that if a new bot shows up, they see the code and they're like, 'I guess I'm going to now create a million of myself.' So now the major firms have polluted the internet so that they can't use it — if true."
Interviewer: "I don't think we've heard that."
Andrew Yang: "That's why I'm here. I'm here to break some news."
Interviewer: "But that means it's too late to pull the plug. It's already everywhere."
Andrew Yang: "Well, so now what they want to do — the internet now may be polluted for training purposes. So what they want to do is slow down."
Interviewer: "What about for living?"
Andrew Yang: "For living purposes. Yeah. So this is why we have to try and get our arms around this and regulate. But the head of the lab that I spoke to said, look, it may be very, very late in the game in terms of trying to keep the internet actually usable."
Rob: First of all, let's call a spade a spade. That could be great theater and that could just be the heads of these companies going, "Let's just rile everybody up because the plebs out there will believe it." But you have to take a step back and think to yourself, "What if?" And then the really big question is this: it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. It's what is the market going to believe? And if the market believes it and they start to derisk — even if you say, "I figured it out, I know exactly what it is, it's a political hack to ramp up the IPO" — you may be right, but the market's going to say something different. And that's the beauty of the market, I guess, if you want to take it like that. So these types of things — I think that could be one of the catalysts. Whether it's real or not, this could be one of the things that pushes us lower. But again, the government will keep printing. I personally — I hate to say this, but it's the truth — I want this price to go down because I still want to dollar-cost average, because I know where this is going in the next two, three, five, ten years. At least I think. Guy, what's your thoughts on that? Is that too crazy or is that just par for the course?
Guy: Oh man. I think it just shows that in the age of AI, everything seems both possible and impossible at the same time. Part of my left brain can absolutely believe that and go, "Yeah, these guys have run unchecked and now they have screwed all of us." And then my right brain is going, "Well, no — Occam's razor — you're overthinking it. It's just people being stupid." I just don't know.
I kind of think it does worry me that there is this agreement between the likes of Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Dario Amodei — especially as you say, Altman and Musk are not otherwise on friendly terms. Okay, maybe that's a coordinated play to benefit them all, but I kind of think these guys are such egos that I find it quite difficult to imagine them agreeing on anything unless it's something really really huge and important. So that does make me concerned.
And I've read so much — I see it every day — so many people saying this whole AI thing is a scam, it's not going to change the world like anyone says, it's completely overblown. And then you have other people saying, "Look, the warning signs are flashing, the red light is going off, the alarm is going off, and you're not doing anything." And it's like you can look back and go, "The signs were there. When a swarm of OpenAI's agents went and hacked Hugging Face, that was a sign, and you ignored it, and now look at us." So yeah, I am kind of worried about this. I just think this thing has run too hot for too long and sooner or later it's going to turn ugly.
Rob: Well said. Perfectly said. And that's just it — we don't really know. But I will lastly say this: I think the good outweighs — I'm hoping the good outweighs the bad. Especially for healthcare, reversing horrible diseases, horrible problems that mankind has to deal with right now. For instance, my mother has moderate dementia. I would like to see some type of pharmaceuticals or treatments, and I think AI is the way to expand us way past where we are right now. The only medication we have for that only slows the process down and really does an awful job. So I think AI, just in that regard, is why we should move forward. And of course, if these things happen — if it was started by man, it can be solved by man.
Guy: Yeah, that's very true. And look, if you want to be more fatalistic about it, you can say the genie is out of the bottle. Okay, maybe you can slow this thing down, but now that it exists, you can't unmake it. And yeah, I think the answer is to try and find a way to keep developing it so that it serves humanity. I fully agree that if we made it, we can fix it. But there needs to be that focus on it. This stuff can do amazing things — a lot of people agree on that. So make it do amazing things. That should be the focus, rather than swarms of agents doing God knows what.
Rob: True. Exactly right.
Ben's Lord of the Rings Character — Revealed
Guy: Okay, Rob, I've got one more question for you. This is the big one. Interest rates, the CLARITY Act, AI enslaving us all — these are just trivial sidebars to what we're going to talk about now. Ben, as we've said, is away in New Zealand — most famous for being bloody miles away from everywhere, for having very lovely people, and also famous as the place where the Lord of the Rings movies were shot. So my question to you is: what Lord of the Rings character do you think Ben is closest to in temperament and general demeanor?
Rob: So this was a good one. I had to first figure out what all the characters were. And then I went to an AI-generated quiz to figure out what Lord of the Rings character Ben would be. So, what's your weapon of choice? Bare hands — because Ben is a keyboard warrior, right? What's your favorite food? Power. What's Ben's favorite color? Probably gold, like Bitcoin or the gold that he bought at the right time. Good for him. Where would you like to live? A cave — I don't know if you guys have ever watched his videos, but it looks like he's in his man cave down there. And what's your favorite D&D class? He is a wizard, with all those charts and documentation and websites. Which one best describes you? Smart. Ben's pretty smart. Favorite TV show? The Wheel of Time — as the time goes on, the four-year cycles, so on and so forth. That makes a lot of sense. Animal? The wise owl. Karaoke song? Take Me Home, Country Roads — which of course, as Ethereum goes home, makes a lot of sense. Middle Earth eagle, because I said eagle because he's always talking about freedom. And then lastly, if you had to choose a superpower — immortality, shapeshifting, healing, super speed, strength, telepathy, flight, invisibility, or endurance — this one will determine what his character is, Guy. So what would you say?
Guy: Tricky. I get the impression Ben just wants to do live streams from the cave forever because I think he's found his happy place. And therefore I would suggest immortality — either immortality or the endurance to keep doing it.
Rob: Endurance is a good one, because if you've seen his X account, it takes a lot of endurance to get attacked like that constantly. So let's put endurance and we'll see what it is.
Okay. Oh my goodness. Here we go. Galadriel. "Mysterious and eerie. Your ethereal presence is magnifying. Your beauty is out of this world, but your greatest trait is your wisdom and sharp mind. You are a bit controlling sometimes, but there's nothing wrong with setting high standards when you know you can succeed."
Guy: I've got to say, Rob, I did not see that coming, but it all makes perfect sense. It all falls into place. Ben as Galadriel. I hope he's not watching this. I hope he's busy doing his thing in New Zealand, because I'm sure he'll have some words for us when he comes back.
Rob: Yeah, he'll probably say, "Well, a lot of that was pretty accurate." Anyhow, shout out to Ben.
Guy: Shout out to Ben. Yes, Ben — enjoy the rest of your trip down under, get back safely, and we'll hopefully see you back on NFA Live before too long. Rob, this has been great. Just the two of us. I wondered what it would be like without Ben, but it was fantastic.
Rob: It was fantastic. And then when we get to Miami, we can do this over some brews at a pub, like how this is supposed to be, and we'll go from there.
Guy: Wonderful. Rob, thank you very much for joining. Apologies again for the late start, everyone. That was entirely my fault and my technical ineptitude.