Mark Moss (02:50):

I would say, well, not really. The exact trigger of the virus potentially, but the fact that the whole world is up in arms over this isn’t really. And so the way I look at it is, if you start zooming out, you start seeing things in more context. If you’re looking at any financial markets, you’re looking for indicators, and there’s never one financial indicator that’s conclusive, you’re looking for multiple indicators. And then preferably if you can look for indicators across different segments and across different areas that start lineup, it becomes even more powerful. I think we can easily start in this financial, there’s three different ones that I’ve looked at.

Mark Moss (03:26):

One is this political, social, cultural angle. Populist uprisings, right? Revolutions. There’s that. And then there’s the financial revolution, the financial reset that we’re in right now, which I think being on an investing podcast, in Bitcoin podcast, we focus on that a lot, right? Interest rates are at zero, they’re negative. Can they raise them? We have a debt sky high, can they keep printing more debt? All those things. What are they going to do? The Fed’s stuck between a rock and hard place. And so that needs to be reset. And then we’re sitting on the edge, a beginning of another technological revolution.

Mark Moss (04:00):

We have a political revolution that goes on a 250 year cycle, a technological revolution on a 50 year cycle and a financial revolution on 80 year cycle. All three are converging right now at the exact same time. And so I can walk you through this a little bit, but when you start to see it from three different angles and all converging, it starts to be very clear. And so on the political side, as we said, right? We see people are at each other’s throat, who could have seen this? We have millions of people marching in the streets, all around the world and that’s a black swan, right?

Mark Moss (04:32):

They’re protesting against mandates, they’re protesting against governments or whatever. It’s like, before the pandemic broke out, there was 10 countries with over one million people each in the streets protesting. That was before the pandemic. This isn’t because of the pandemic, this was already starting before the pandemic. And so also financial cycles, we have, if you’re looking at technical analysis, you have mathematical formulas. And so you might have a triple bottom. And so we can also look at cycles happening in triple cycles as well. I’ll explain what I mean by that. Even though progress is moving exponentially, things are obviously a lot different today than they were a hundred years ago. They’re also repeating within that progress at the same time.

Mark Moss (05:17):

And so about every 84 years, and I say about every 84, because just like seasons on a calendar while you may have spring starts on a certain day, it doesn’t mean the weather changes exactly at that time. And so about every 84 years, we have what’s a called a populist uprising or a regime change cycle. And so 84 years ago was the end of World War II and Hitler and Mussolini. We had FDR created the new deal, turned America into a socialist nation. And about 84 years before that we had Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, which led to the European spring and the largest revolution of European history.

Mark Moss (05:51):

And of course, here we are again, seeing the same thing, populist uprising all over the place. But back to this mathematical or formula, the triple bottom. Three times 84 equals 252. And every 250 years, we go into a revolution cycle. 250 years ago was the American revolution, the French revolution. 250 years before that was the Protestant reformation. What those really signify to me when I dig in and study that, is that in the American revolution we pushed back on the centralization of the monarchy to be ruled by one king. We pushed back and we set up a decentralized government, a Republic. We rejected centralization. We moved to decentralization.

Mark Moss (06:34):

250 years before that the church and the state ruled with an iron fist, there was one way to God. They had the Bible, no one else could read it. The printing press disrupted that. People got the information, they said, wait a minute, we don’t need to only listen to what you said. We can find our own path. And they went and sought this decentralized path. And so about every 250 years, we can see that. It’s like this pendulum that swings back and forth and it goes all the way to centralization and then it peaks out and then it starts pushing back. That’s because it’s reactionary.

Mark Moss (07:05):

Almost again like a financial chart. If you look at it, the further it deviates to one side, the further it’s probably going to snap back to the other. And so we go so far to one way, it comes back the other way. And so while a lot of think that this is a black swan, that people are protesting and pushing back, well, about every 80 years, they do. And every 250 years we have the big one. And so I think when you look at it from that lens, all of a sudden it’s like, maybe it wasn’t the fact that this pandemic, this virus happened because we’ve had lots of virus epidemics for the last a hundred years or multiple hundred years.

Mark Moss (07:38):

But it was really the fact that for the last 80 years, or really for the last 250 years, we’ve been swinging from decentralized all the way to centralization and it’s time to push back. I think anybody who’s halfway paying attention sees this. We can see that we have the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization and the World Meteorological Association and the UN and the IMF, and the BIS, et cetera. And so we’re at peak centralization. I think the people are just pushing back on that. I think that’s lens number one, if that makes sense.

Preston Pysh (08:11):

What other lenses are you seeing?

Mark Moss (08:14):

Real quick before we move on to lens number two. A couple things that I think are of interest in this as well is that, if we look at this pendulum swing, it also swings in a couple of different ways. About every 80 years, in those 80 year cycles, we swing from centralization to decentralization or what’s called a we or me cycle. But also what we see swinging back and forth is a swing from creative cycles to more analytical cycles. And so 250 years ago, we started in the industrial revolution. 250 years before that we started in the Renaissance age.

Mark Moss (08:47):

And so we can also see how these things change as well, which is really interesting. Right now I believe, and you’ve probably heard other people talking about this, the Renaissance age is starting again. Something that most people have probably read, The Sovereign Individual. They talk about these mega political factors, these mega political shifts that happen. We can see what really broke the grip of the church was that new technology, the printing press, the Bible, which decentralized the information, right? And no matter how much the church tried to put a stranglehold on that, if you spoke out against the Bible, that was heresy and they would kill you, and they did, and they killed millions of people, but they couldn’t stop the information.

Mark Moss (09:25):

And today we’re seeing the same thing, right? The information is out there. And even though they’re trying to assassinate your character and shut you down online, they’re not able to stop this information. The tide is turning. I think that’s one of the big things. But what’s interesting is that, solutions are supposed to come to problems. I say supposed to, because today we got a bunch of money being printed and it’s going around trying to solve problems that don’t need to be solved. You told me about some of the questions we’ll get to later. Some of those are some solutions that we don’t need.

Mark Moss (09:53):

But if you look at the problems that we do have, and so we’re at peak centralization, so that’s a problem. What kind of problems? Well, one, we have the Federal Reserve or the central banks, they’ve centralized the money printing, the money creation and they’re printing unlimited amounts of it. And not just that, but just the government. They’re trying to control every aspect of our lives at this point, of course, in China with the social credit course system. What we have going on across the world with the passport systems and on and on and on. And so peak centralization appears to be a problem that the world is pushing back against right now.

Mark Moss (10:25):

And so on a 50 year cycle, we have these technological revolutions that happen. I’m not talking about just new technologies. A new technology would be the like iPhone, or be like Uber. That’s pretty cool. New technologies, they extend a cycle. A technological revolution is something that changes the course of humanity. Well, not like the transistor. The transistor is a piece of that, but really it’s the industrial revolution in the late 1700s, which brought people from the farms and cottage industry into cities and into factories. It changed the way humanity worked, changed the whole course of humanity.

Mark Moss (11:02):

About 50 years later, we had the invention of steam engines and railways. For all of humanity, we had horsepower and manpower. And now we had steam engines and we had rails and we could move stuff across continents. It changed the course of the world. Then we had electricity. Electricity and steel. That changed the course of humanity. When electricity came out, it was like, what is that? It’s like a digital candle. But what do we need that for? Candles have been light for 5,000 years. And look, this candle’s portable and I can move it around. I don’t need all these wires, candles are way better for light.

Mark Moss (11:36):

But of course electricity changed the course of humanity. Steel, you’re an engineer, so you know how steel changed humanity, right? We could build skyscrapers, we could build bridges and things like that. That’s what I’m talking about in technological evolution. Then about 50 years later we had the age of oil and automobiles, assembly lines. All of humanity, people walked and rode horses. And now we could drive, right? Then 1971, we had the age of the microprocessor, which then of course brought personal computers, telecommunications, the internet, zoom.

Mark Moss (12:03):

What we’re doing right now, 1971 plus 50 years puts us right here today. I believe we’re on the verge of another technological revolution. What is that giving us? It’s given us exactly what we need. We need, the problem is centralization. We have a technological revolution giving us decentralization, which I think is pretty amazing.

Preston Pysh (12:23):

You were talking about the centralization of government and central banking. I think that a huge piece of this is just the centralization of equity itself of the ownership of equity and how small, the midcap size businesses are just getting eaten up by large cap businesses. If we were playing a game of Monopoly, all the equity at this point is owned by one player in the game. You think about how unfair and how difficult that is for anybody to compete in a system where every thing is just gobbled up by the player who has so many resources and so much. It just plays into this whole idea and this theme that you’re talking about, which is everything is centralized. Everything has been consolidated, right?

Mark Moss (13:05):

Well, and as the government has gotten so big and the money printer has enabled them to not only get so big, but also allow these businesses to have all this unlimited capital. This is what happens. The beast just keeps getting bigger. And so through the regulations, the cronyism if you will, right? Between the corporations and the government working together, they build these moats that don’t allow for this competition. Last week, Alex Svetski and I got together and did a book sprint, and we took, you’re hearing it first. We haven’t officially released it yet. We took the communist manifesto and we rewrote it and we’re calling it the uncommunist manifesto.

Mark Moss (13:38):

We kept the same structure. Four chapters. Kept the same about word count 10,000 words, but wrote exactly what you’re talking about. We talked about how these businesses being unable to fail. They’re not allowed to fall down. And so we don’t have this dynamic creative destruction, right? And so it makes it harder for people to climb up and people aren’t falling down to your point of creative destruction. That’s part of this collectivism or this cronyism that we have in the system today. And so, yeah, centralization also because of the money printer. Right?

Mark Moss (14:09):

And so I think we both agree the money printer sits at the base of pretty much every problem that we have in society today. Mises talked about in the crack-up boom, right? When you have an economic expansion that’s fed by credit and monetary expansion, it starts to lead to distortions in the market, that leads to shortages and labor shortages. He explains that. And then finally the people wake up and realize that inflation is persistent, and then we have the crack up boom. But he explained how this money creation starts to have these distortions, which we’re seeing all over the place.

Mark Moss (14:43):

But back to the centralization. If the problem is centralization, then we need something that’s decentralized. And so I think it’s pretty cool when you look at it from that lens, that one’s moving on a 250 year timeframe and one’s on a 50 year timeframe, but it’s brought us exactly what we need when you look at it from that perspective. I think when you also look at, again, problems coming to solutions, if you look at the big problems, again, the centralization, but more specifically unlimited money printing, which I think sits at the base of that. And so we need something that has a fixed supply cap.

Mark Moss (15:13):

We used to have a rule of law that was easy to understand. Everybody could understand what that rule of laws is, so we could set our life. I could set my life based on those laws. You could set your life based on those laws, but today we’re ruled by men who arbitrarily change the rules on us all the time. Right? And then we also have censorship as a problem. Not just censorship that I can’t see say what I want on YouTube or Twitter, but that I can’t even hold my wealth or my value without it being taken, inflated away, nor can I send it to you without it being stopped or blocked or preventative, the banking system doesn’t want that to happen.

Mark Moss (15:44):

And so then the solutions would be decentralization. The solutions would be immutable law, not governance. The solutions would be censorship resistant. I think when you look at it from that lens and you look at 15,000 cryptocurrencies that are in the market today, I think there’s only really one that has all those attributes, which I think is pretty interesting. For example, one of the big gripes with Bitcoin was, or against Ethereum, is that Bitcoin has 21 million, but we don’t know what Ethereum’s cap is. And so was it five, six months ago, Vitalik Buterin and boys got together and they changed the monetary issuance of Ethereum.

Mark Moss (16:20):

But isn’t that the system that we’re trying to leave behind? Doesn’t that sound like the federal reserve that can change the monetary standard all the time? Or you hear about these POS networks, Cardano has this decentralized governance. Whoever has the most tokens can stake them and then they can get votes to change the protocol. But that’s again like the system that we have. What we want is immutable law, that can’t be changed. And so I think when you look at it from a problem and solution mindset, you see the case for what Bitcoin is doing.

Preston Pysh (16:52):

Do you find that Wall Street and entities out of this traditional system that have had extraordinary results and have their hand right next to the money printer? I think they’re obviously incentivized for these other systems, these other protocols to be successful. As you see this playing out, how do you see that impacting just things moving forward? Is it a battle that they’re destined to lose for some technical reason? Just walk us through some of your thoughts on those ideas.

Mark Moss (17:26):

The battle that the bankers are destined to lose?

Preston Pysh (17:29):

Yeah, kind of. You have Bitcoin, in our opinion, right? We think that it’s the decentralized choice. We think that it’s the fairest choice out there, but that doesn’t mean that all this fiat printing that they could then nest into marketing for whatever token, and they have a huge interest and they have a huge state in these other tokens. What’s preventing them from winning in the end, against what we see to be the fairest choice? Just because it’s the fairest doesn’t mean that it’s going to win. Right?

Preston Pysh (18:00):

Nature can select things in ways that a lot of people just don’t necessarily expect. Right? Moving forward, why do you think that Bitcoin will win and these other protocols will lose?

Mark Moss (18:13):

Well, you said nature. I think about natural law. And so natural law would be like the law of gravity. And so with enough money and enough technology, I could suspend the law of gravity for a while, but I’m always going to have to beholden to that law. And so we have to think about natural law. There’s another natural law called the law of sowing and reaping. I must produce before I can consume, right? And so while we can print fake fiat currency and that can work for a while and we can suspend the laws of nature and we can consume without producing, we can pull that forward through fiat currency. It won’t work long term. Right?

Mark Moss (18:48):

We can suspend it temporarily. We can get by with it for 80 years, 100 years, but eventually it fails. And that’s because some of the attributes of money, one of the main ones being scarcity, right? And so with scarcity, you have to have this true cost of capital, which is why gold has been a good proxy for that forever. Bitcoin of course fits that with its mining principle. But if you’re just going to print fiat currency or go print tokens at will, you just end up with the same fake system that isn’t based on natural law, in my opinion.

Mark Moss (19:16):

I think what happens is, is that as humans we know this, we understand this is, and we’ve seen gold battle it out with fiat for a long time. I think we’ll want to return to that. I think on a longer lens, if we look back, if we look at again, how the world shifted from when the church and the state held control over everything, and then the world went into this expansion and through the Renaissance, where we had this explosion of science and technology through the 15, 1600s, we also had sound money. We had the florin, the longest lasting coin for about three, 400 years, that wasn’t debased, globally recognized for trade.

Mark Moss (19:50):

We had the flourishment of information. But then we went into the industrial age, which caused everything to start centralizing again, like we talked about. But what we’re seeing now, is again, through the internet, we’ve started this shift back to decentralization sorority in the process. And so the pandemic has helped speed that up. We saw people already, you and I are already working over the internet. I have a team of about 15 people, they’re all decentralized working across the world. The pandemic really kickstarted that.

Mark Moss (20:16):

And so we’re seeing people leave the cities and move to Wyoming and Colorado and Idaho, but they’re also moving to Mexico and El Salvador and places like that. And so I think as people continue to move, start decentralizing, the nation starts losing its grasp on people. Instead of having big corporations they can squeeze. You did say that these businesses are consolidated and that’s true. We’re seeing Walmart and Amazon getting bigger. But at the same time, we’re seeing all these small businesses getting smaller and the money has been the key piece they continue to control.

Mark Moss (20:48):

I think once we can decentralize, we can go live where we want and we can move to a different money they can’t control, I think more people are going to want to use that. And so can they continue to print more fake money? Sure. Can they continue to create more tokens out of thin air? Sure. But I think as they start to lose their grip, people are going to want to move to a currency they can’t control. I think I made a video about this when China banned cryptocurrency for the whatever 13th time or whatever it was. It was about the Mundell-Fleming trilemma.

Mark Moss (21:15):

Mundell-Fleming trilemma is, you can’t control the monetary supply, the inflation rate and free flow of capital at the same time. And so since they wanted to continue to adjust the monetary supply and inflation rate, they had to take away the free flowing capital, because capital would leave the country. Anytime they continue to monkey with that system, people are going to want to try to find another option, which in the United States we are. Of course, that’s why real estate, that’s why stocks, that’s why those assets are sky high. People know they have to go into anything else but the currency. And so I would just expect to see that continue.

Preston Pysh (21:45):

Yesterday I think this broke, this is a really interesting news headline. BitMEX acquired a German bank that’s 268 years old, and now they’re going to be expanding their Bitcoin services into Europe through this bank. I guess it’s just not something that I had ever thought was maybe what’s going to play out next, because there’s so much regulatory friction all over the place, preventing Bitcoin exchanges from basically touching the rails where the central banks are already integrated with traditional banks. I guess I was not expecting to see Bitcoin exchanges step in and just outright buy some of these banks that are touching the central bank rails.

Preston Pysh (22:30):

What are your thoughts on this? Is this going to be something that keeps maturing as we move forward? And just, I guess your general thoughts on the regulatory path forward for a lot of Bitcoin exchanges being integrated with traditional finance.

Mark Moss (22:48):

I’m pulling up this quote that I was working on last week when I was working on that book. It was John Maynard Keynes, and he was quoting Lennon. He said, “The best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate.” I’ll skip to the end. He says, “Which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, becomes so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless and the process of wealth getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.” Capitalism will be destroyed all the way down into gambling and a lottery.

Mark Moss (23:22):

What I think about in regards to BitMEX buying the German bank, is that unfortunately the best way to make money today is theft and gambling. We saw last month the record amount of job quits ever, and people are quitting their jobs to trade options on Robinhood and trade cryptocurrencies. I think NBC, CNBC did a whole special on generation gamble. All these kids that are just trading, trading, trading. And so basically what Lennon was saying, is that through inflation, deflation, the banks will break it down to where it degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Preston Pysh (23:53):

It sounds he foresaw NFTs.

Mark Moss (23:55):

Right. And so what we’re seeing is all these people are trading cryptocurrencies, trading, NFTs, trading options on Robinhood, options trading surpass stock trading, none of that provides any value. They trade, they trade, they trade, no value is being provided. No goods or services are being created. And then they take that money and go buy goods and services from people that are actually producing wealth. And so it’s a net drag. The reason why I say that, back to the BitMEX bank thing, is that BitMEX has amassed a lot of money.

Mark Moss (24:21):

They’ve made a lot of money more than most banks, more than a 234 year old German bank. But how did they do that? They bought it because what are people doing on BitMEX? They’re gambling. And so I believe it’s a sign of the times, right? We’re seeing the end of this long term credit cycle. We’re at the end of this, we’re at about an 80 year financial revolution cycle. Lennon warned us, that banks would debauch the currency with inflation and deflation. And they would to a degeneration of gamblers.

Mark Moss (24:47):

And so 80 years ago, the entire global financial system was reset. We had the Bretton Woods agreement. The whole world agreed to go to a single monetary unit standard, on a gold standard, the dollar, et cetera. And here we are six months ago, Georgieva Kristalina, whatever, from the IMF called for a Bretton Woods too. They’re calling for a monetary reset right now, a global monetary reset. And of course we have Klaus Schwab calling for the great reset, et cetera.

Preston Pysh (25:13):

They’re saying this, but what tool or how are they going to get global cooperation in order to pull something like that off? I don’t want to tell you my opinion, but I think you know my opinion. What does the execution of that look like?

Mark Moss (25:27):

The way that I’m seeing the world is, coup d’etat of bankers. The bankers have taken over the world. I look at this hierarchy of maybe the BIS sitting up at the top of the world. We have these think tanks, the WF, WHO, et cetera, there. And then down a lower level, we have the governments, which kind of like policy enforcers. The bank, the policy creators, the policy enforcers. And so what we saw through the pandemic, I think illustrates how that would go. For example, the whole world locked down at once. I never thought that would’ve happened.

Mark Moss (26:00):

A lot of people said, the world will make Bitcoin illegal. I’m like, the world can’t agree on anything. That’s never going to happen. But all of a sudden the whole world just locked down at once. How did that happen? Well, the IMF issued a bunch of debt, a bunch of SDRs, and basically paid these nations to start locking down. We saw many reports at Belarus, so they offered him as much as $900 million to lock down. And so how could they do it? Well, very easily. They get the nations to just switch to these SDRs and central bank digital currencies.

Mark Moss (26:25):

Of course we know China’s rolling theirs out here. It’s already been out. Most of the other nations are working on it. I think the plan would be, and this starts to get into opinion, but I think the plan would be just to get these central bank digital currencies and try to get everybody to switch over to that. We’ve seen the stimi, pumping out throughout the United States. Of course, when they did the first round of stimulus, they started to build in that digital payment system into the stimulus bills. And so we know they’re getting ready for that. I think probably within the next two years, once that’s ready to go, they’ll probably be ready to try to switch the system over.

Mark Moss (26:57):

They’re not only telling us, right? The IMF said it, Klaus Schwab said it. They’re showing, they’re building central bank digital currencies. We also know it. The Fed’s stuck. If they keep printing, inflation is going to keep pushing higher and higher. If they stop stimulus, the market’s crashed. You can’t really taper a Ponzi. If you and I were playing a board game and we’re out of moves, what do we do? We reset the game. I think that’s where we’re at.

Preston Pysh (27:21):

I think you do a really good job of looking at what we’ve just got done seeing and demonstrating how it could potentially play out. I’ve always just thrown my hands in there, like, they can’t agree on anything. There’s no way that they’re going to agree on a new monetary unit or monetary standard. But I think you’re right. I think there’s a lot more global cooperation happening with the BIS. You’re seeing it through the World Economic Forum, with the messaging that they’re doing there and they’re even calling it the great reset. They’re dangling carrots of freshly printed SDRs and everything else, as the way to get compliance.

Mark Moss (27:59):

What I would say to that though, is that, also while the world is like, will the dollar remain the world reserve standard? Will it fail? Will we go to a Chinese Yuan? Will it be a central bank digital currency? Will we go back to a gold standard? And so I think everybody’s looking for what the next global reserve. What’s the powers that be tell us the next thing is? I just think the future is decentralized. It’s not centralized. Everyone’s looking for a centralized answer, the truth is that Bitcoin has my standard, my reserve, and it’s probably yours.

Mark Moss (28:27):

We know fortune 500 companies like MicroStrategy now. And now we know nations like El Salvador as well. And so it’s already starting to switch one by one. And so the way that I see it, is not that the dollar dies and in a couple years it’s gone. I think my vision is looking at this fourth turning model, for 20 year cycle and 80 year cycle, and back to Lennon, not to quote him, he is not one of my favorite guys. But he said that, “There’s decades where nothing seems to happen and there’s days where decades seems to happen.” And so that fits into that forth turning. Right? And so we’re at the end of this.

Mark Moss (28:57):

And so I think in the next three to five years, we max out at peak centralization and then the pendulum starts swinging back pretty hard. Do you know Chris MacIntosh?

Preston Pysh (29:07):

I’ve heard the name, but I’m not-

Mark Moss (29:08):

Okay. I spoke with him today. He’s brilliant. He’s been studying this a lot. He said that he thinks that we’re in a global socialism blow off top, a parabola. We’re peak socialism right now. So you know how blow off top starts working. It starts sucking in everybody and goes higher, higher, higher. He’s like, we’re in a parabolic blow off top for socialism where socialism didn’t die. I don’t want to deal with my health. Let’s just push that to the government healthcare. I don’t want to take care of my kids. Let’s just push that to the government run schools.

Mark Moss (29:39):

We’ve basically just pushed everything off to the governments and socialism, the nanny state has just gotten bigger, bigger, bigger. The way he called it was pretty interesting today, like I said, really the socialism blow off top and it’s just starting to go into this parabola, and then it just blows off. Which I think probably happens the next couple of years. But I don’t think the dollar just dies. The dollar’s going to be around, but you and I, lots of other people we’ve left. We’ve gone into the arc and we’ve gone away.

Mark Moss (30:04):

That goes back to that Mundell-Fleming trilemma that I said about China, where they had to stop the free flow of capital. What happens is the reason why is if enough people leave then their monetary and interest rate policies don’t affect that many people. If we were having a party and I was like, hey, whatever, stop doing that, you’re too noisy. I started kicking everybody out of the party, eventually I’m the only one at the party and they’ve all started their own party over there. I think that’s why I see it just more and more people, I think the Fed will continue to print more money. I think all the governments of the world will continue to print more money.

Mark Moss (30:35):

In the US, they said it’s 7% inflation, it’s probably 15% inflation. Maybe that’s not too bad. But if you’re in Venezuela, it’s 2500%, it is bad and you’re looking for an alternative. If you’re in Turkey, you’re looking for an alternative. At some point the heat gets hot enough. At some point the water is hot enough and you got to jump. I think that’s coming pretty quick.

Preston Pysh (30:53):

We’ve been talking about this a lot on the show, is just this delta between these inflationary prints that we’re seeing and what the rest of the fixed income market around the globe is at. The negative spread is just so dramatic, like nothing we had ever seen in our lifetimes. I just don’t know, if we can go another half a year or a year with inflation running as hot as it is with these fixed income markets as low as they are in yield terms. I think you might get in this situation where especially if they keep doing more of these policies, because these policies are what’s causing this massive economic calculation around the world.

Preston Pysh (31:33):

The more that they do those policies, the more I think you’re going to see that spread wide. I think that’s when maybe things just get away from these central controllers, and they might not be able to, I guess, going back to the point that you made earlier, where you were talking about how they could maybe implement this, right? If those markets start selling off and these cascading selloffs, and then they come in with yield curve control, right? Where they’re going to try to peg the yields from going up to where the inflationary prints are at. They’re just making all of that economic calculation that much worse, because they’re adding more printing into the system.

Preston Pysh (32:12):

Maybe that just runs away in such a magnificent way, not in a good way, but in a spectacular fashion that they just can’t control it. And so then everybody turns to what you’re describing as the decentralized solution, where trust is garnered, because there’s not the basement happening. Is that how you think this might play out? Is the cascading sell off happens so quickly that they can’t respond to it?

Mark Moss (32:37):

I think partially that is based off an assumption that they want to save it.

Preston Pysh (32:42):

Which you think is maybe a gross assumption?

Mark Moss (32:45):

Well, they said they’re calling for Bretton Woods too. They’re calling for a whole new monetary standard, a whole new monetary system. I don’t know. I can’t pretend to know it’s in a man’s heart or in a man’s mind. That’s the part of the problem. We don’t know a Jerome Powell or what the IMF is going to do anymore, but they’re calling for a reset of the system. And so everything that I seem to think of and what you were saying as well, is like that’s assuming that they’re trying to, they want to keep the game going, but what if they don’t? What if they want to just, that didn’t work. Sorry. And so how could they cover that up?

Mark Moss (33:17):

Again, they’re calling for it, not me. Those are their words, but like war. Typically war comes after the financial crisis happens, not before. War comes after. And so we’re in a war. Klaus Schwab two days ago said, we’re in a war against the virus. We’re in a war against the virus, he says, which we are. The world’s gone on under 20 trillion of debt in the last 24 months. 20 trillion we’ve spent fighting this war, supposedly. The next war that they’re positioning for, now there’s literally war almost with Russia and what’s going on in Ukraine over there right now.

Mark Moss (33:52):

But really what I’m starting to see with that war, isn’t the shooting war, which I think most people are looking at, a hot war. The wars are fought over information and money. And so what they’re really starting to seed is this cyber war. They’re starting to say that Russia, right? They’ve been saying for the last two years, Russia messed with the elections. Russia’s interfering. They’re in the cyber warfare. Was it today I think Biden came out and said that he thinks that Russia is going to continue to do this cyber attack on us.

Mark Moss (34:21):

And so we’ve seen them talking about, Klaus Schwab made this video. He said, the internet has a virus and we need to treat this virus. We need to be able to shut the internet down if we need to, to repair this virus. They’re starting to position for these global IDs. The internet is not safe anymore. People like you who may use the internet anonymously are putting it in danger. And so about, was it a couple weeks ago, they started saying that the treasury and some of the financial institutions, they actually were running a game, war games on if the financial institutions were to get attacked by a cyber attack, what they would do. They ran this war game.

Mark Moss (35:00):

What do you think this solution was in the war game if they had this attack on the financial system? It was a bank holiday. It was a bank holiday. We shut the banks down. And so if we had this attack, if we had this war, a cyber war, if the banking system, defense system was attacked, they went onto a bank holiday. They put it in their papers. I’m not making it up. But if that were to happen and it creates all this problem, well, it was their fault. We didn’t mean to crash the system. The system was going fine. We had everything going great.

Mark Moss (35:27):

War I think is a great cover for it. Whether it’s the virus war we’re fighting now, whether it’s a cyber war that they’re positioning right now. Of course and then there’s the climate war, which is next.

Preston Pysh (35:38):

Let’s go down that path. I’ve noticed a little bit of a shift in the narrative, in the ESG narrative, where you’re finding a lot of people starting the pushback. Maybe it’s because I have a lot of Bitcoiners that I follow. They’re all just not having it and not having it for good reason. For me personally, the thing that I think is one of the best responses to the whole ESG piece, is Jeff Booth. Jeff throwing out there, hey, we’ve got this inflationary system that requires more and more consumption of all these resources. These two models are completely incongruent with each other.

Preston Pysh (36:20):

The inflationary model that produces deflationary tech and all these deflationary things that we’ve got to keep escalating because of the printing that’s taking place in order to hit these inflationary targets for decades on end. And so his whole piece is you can’t have this environmental friendly whatever if you’re relying on these central banking inflationary policies. How do you see it? I’m assuming you see it very similarly.

Mark Moss (36:48):

Oh yeah. I love that. I love that angle. It’s exactly right. You’d create this inflationary monetary system that causes consumerism, this endless buying and purchasing. Products today are made cheap. Right? They’re made to be thrown away, et cetera. We have all this consumerism, all this waste, but then you’re trying at the same time to then limit that through ESG. You’re trying to basically hamstring companies by extracting money out of them to get them to produce less. You’re getting them to produce more with the monetary system and then tax them at the same time. He’s absolutely right. It’s a genius way to look at it and I would agree with that.

Mark Moss (37:19):

But I think, it’s not really, and again, I hate to get into this side of it, but if we want to wade into that, into the deep end a little bit. I think most of it isn’t really about trying to save the environment. Lyn Alden put out a pretty fire tweet thread. I think yesterday or the day before.

Preston Pysh (37:33):

She did. She crushed it.

Mark Moss (37:36):

She crushed it. And like, it’s not really about trying to save the environment. First of all, and this is probably going to kick the hornet’s nest. We don’t need to go there. I’m not a professional or scientist, but there’s a conversation that should be had, that the whole basis of their argument needs to be discussed in the first place. Is carbon really bad? I think there’s a whole conversation that we had around that. I’m not really prepared to have that. There’s people that are prepared and I’ve listened to them. There’s that. But in regards to what she just said, right? I think it’s more about trying to control the system at peak centralization.

Mark Moss (38:11):

They’re trying to get as much power and control of everything they can. Back to the structure of this world, and you can’t get any governments to agree on anything. Well, how can they get control of the whole world? They can’t take control of every government. What they could do is get every government to buy in to a narrative on climate change and then have them basically lay down their sovereignty in the amount of energy and the types of energy that they use. And of course, I draw blank what he said, control the food you control the people. Control the money you control the continent, control the energy you control the world. Those are the three attack vectors, right?

Mark Moss (38:46):

Food, money, and energy. You can, as he said, control the energy to control the world. If they can control this energy policy, then they can start to control the world. I think that’s really what it’s about more than really trying to save the climate. We know that pretty evidently one, the monetary policy like Booth said, but just look at nuclear. If they really wanted zero carbon energy, nuclear is zero carbon energy. With about the size of a baseball, you could run a whole city of nuclear. But in order to get windmills or solar, you got to dig out an entire nation.

Mark Moss (39:20):

And so if they really wanted it, they would be using solutions that we know are better right now. They’re hiding behind safety, but the numbers don’t support that. And so I think that discredits their whole narrative.

Preston Pysh (39:32):

How do you think proof of work versus proof of stake is going to play out politically moving forward? Because I’ve been pleasantly surprised to date, I was expecting this to be way worse politically this past year and I’ve been pleasantly surprised, but that doesn’t mean that the 2022 things could start getting derailed. I’m curious how you see it evolving.

Mark Moss (39:53):

Well, I think from a political standpoint, there’s two different things I’m seeing. One is that I think Bitcoin has reached a level of entrenchment, not just in the political system in the United States, but also in the financial system in the United States, that I think it’s past the point of no return. The political system in the United States is mainly driven by lobbyists, right? They’re the ones that write the bills and send them to get co-authored or whatever. And so who are the big lobby groups? Well, the financial industry. Most of the financial industry at this point has built out Bitcoin products, right?

Mark Moss (40:25):

They’ve probably spent collectively, I would guess billions of dollars to build out Bitcoin desks and Bitcoin products and they’re the ones lobbying. And so if there was a bill that would come under attack to shut Bitcoin down and proof of work for that matter, we come under heavy fire. We have a number probably at least two dozen senators and congressmen that are Bitcoiners, known Bitcoiners. And now we’re starting to see with midterms coming up this year, we’re starting to see lots of people starting to run on like a Bitcoin platform.

Mark Moss (40:50):

And so I think there would be this massive pushback, both from the financial industry and politicians, if they tried to go against proof of work or Bitcoin for that matter. I think there was, was it 25 million Americans own Bitcoin? I think some number like that. There’d be a massive outrage there as well. I also think that between the Fed and the government, they’ve spent eight trillion trying to prop up the markets in the last 24 months, trying to keep them from crashing. If they banned it or it illegal, they would just wipe the entire economy out. I don’t think they want to do that.

Mark Moss (41:22):

That’s the way I look at it. What scares me a little bit is with POS, what we’re really starting to see, is we’re starting to see a lot of entrenchment from the WEF, World Economic Forum, into some of these proof of state companies, like Ethereum, for example. And so it seems like the World Economic Forum is much more influential in the world than the United States is. Not to get super into politics, but when Trump went to Davos, he said, “The United States is a sovereign nation. We’re willing to work with other country, but we won’t lay down our sovereignty.”

Mark Moss (41:55):

I don’t know if Biden would necessarily take that stance. And so if the World Economic Forum, if the global power is trying to pressure the United States into this energy narrative, maybe there’s some problem there. But I think, like I said, with the entrenchment we have with the financial system, with the senators and congressmen, and then of course with the SEC, Gary Gensler, he seems to be pretty pro Bitcoin at this point. I think he’s changed his tune. Even last comment I seen from him, I think he said pretty much any token that isn’t Bitcoin, even including Ethereum is probably a security. I think that’s what he said. Probably a security.

Mark Moss (42:29):

I think there’s going to be that posturing. I think, like you said, the ESG narrative is starting to crack. There was something I saw today and I didn’t write it down who it was, but they were saying this whole thing about ESG narratives in Canada, on the oil fields, and you’re trying to take money from productive companies and put it in technologies that don’t work. He say, it’s going to ruin everything.

Preston Pysh (42:50):

It’s crazy.

Mark Moss (42:50):

It’s crazy. And so it’s breaking, it’s cracking. I’m not really worried about the government cracking down on PoW because of that.

Preston Pysh (42:59):

Even if they do, even if you see it localized where some country cracks down on it, I don’t think that’s going to stop all the other places in the world that are just moving out on proof of work. Look at El Salvador as an example, it’s like, hey, we’ve got a volcano, let’s do geothermal and ship in as many mins as we can buy.

Mark Moss (43:18):

This goes back again to the printing press and the internet. And so the printing press, right, the church tried to control that information, but they just couldn’t. No matter how many people died, they couldn’t stop it. Today we have Joe Rogan getting hundreds of millions of listens and then CNNs getting a few hundred thousand.

Preston Pysh (43:32):

It’s crazy.

Mark Moss (43:33):

It’s crazy. And so while they’re trying to control the narrative, I just don’t think people are falling for it that much anymore.

Preston Pysh (43:40):

You can make the argument that they’re making people double down against it. People can see what’s happening and they’re not happy.

Mark Moss (43:47):

You could. And so these outlandish headlines, I saw going around today, a bunch of people reposted, I think I reposted too. The World Economic Forum said in 2017, that Bitcoin would consume more energy than the rest of the world. Right? It’s like less than 1%.

Preston Pysh (44:02):

Less than a percent. Yeah.

Mark Moss (44:04):

That doesn’t even tell the whole story. Right? Because Bitcoin mining, in order to be profitable, you have to be probably under five cents a WOT. To be super competitive, you’re probably at under three cents a WOT. Well, in California, in the summer, at the top tier, we’re paying 40 cents a kilowatt-hour.40 cents. You can’t mine-

Preston Pysh (44:23):

You’re not mine in there. That’s right. You’re not-

Mark Moss (44:24):

You’re not mining there. You’re not taking power that’s being used. If it’s 40 cents in California, where could you go get it for three cents? Somewhere that there’s more supply than demand. Somewhere where it’s making a lot of electricity and nobody’s using it. Bitcoin goes to those areas where nobody’s using the electricity. I was talking to Whit, the CEO of Compass Mining, and they were talking about a new facility they’re trying to open up, I think down in Paraguay or something. There’s a new dam that got set up and there’s just nobody buying the electricity. He said that, I don’t even know if I should be saying this, but-

Preston Pysh (44:52):

We can leave it there. Keep them guessing.

Mark Moss (44:55):

It’s like a penny and a half, 1.50 cents per kilowatt hour. I’m like, how can you get it for 1.50 cents? Well, they built this whole plant and nobody’s using the electricity.

Preston Pysh (45:03):

That’s right.

Mark Moss (45:05):

Bitcoin seeks that out. Bitcoin is not competing. It’s not taking energy that’s being used by anything else. And so I think people are realizing that, it’s just a bunch of nonsense. I think what I’m seeing is that, we have the information side, but also I think technology is moving so fast that it’s not only making the nation state obsolete, but it’s also making them look irrelevant. And so I think it was two or three months ago I saw in the Europe, the ECB was talking about passing a law where you couldn’t make anonymous crypto wallets anymore.

Mark Moss (45:34):

And it’s like, really? Because I could plug in my wallet right now and make a hundred. Okay. There were some senators here in the US talking about banning 3D printed guns. Really? Because that’s code that I could just know in my head. Even saying that you’re going to ban it just makes you look ridiculous. Right? And so I think it’s just moving at such a pace that they just can’t keep up with it. So losing the war.

Preston Pysh (45:54):

We had briefly talked about the NFTs and you were mentioning about gambling and I love the quote that you shared earlier, as far as when you’re getting to the tail end of these cycles, that that’s what’s happening. I was talking to a founder that’s up in Canada, who’s from Venezuela. He said that that’s actually what they saw in Venezuela, was people were just trying to sell their cars in order to turn a profit. It was like, whatever they could do to try to sell something and sell it to somebody else at a higher price than what they had had bought it for, was the only way you could survive.

Preston Pysh (46:29):

I’m assuming, I know your position on NFTs, but talk us through your thoughts on the potential that the tech could present to the world in five, 10, 15 years from now and then how you view it optically today.

Mark Moss (46:45):

I think, I have a daughter she’s in high school and a lot of the boys in high school, they’re all [crosstalk 00:46:50] options on Robinhood. They’re not into girls, they’re just into trading NFTs or whatever crypto. It’s crazy. I want to get her involved in what I’m doing, but dude, the best way to make money is to go trade that crap. That’s just the state of where the world is. I’d say a couple things. I was in Art Basel week in Miami about a month ago. It was all these NFTs everywhere. I went to this one event and I met this guy and he’s like, Mark, I’m a big fan of your channel. Come here. I want to talk to you about my project.

Mark Moss (47:18):

I’m like, okay, what is it? He’s like, well, we do NFTs on real estate. I’m like, okay, I’ve been a real estate investor my whole career. Tell me more. He said, well, what we’re doing is we take a piece of real estate and then we tokenize it with a bunch of NFTs. And then anybody here could buy one of the NFTs which represents ownership in the property. Okay. Is that like when I own a piece of real estate in an LLC and anyone can buy a share? Yeah. It’s the same thing that we’re already doing, but you’re just calling it something different.

Mark Moss (47:45):

I think there’s a lot of, I guess snake oil could be a word, right? Where we’re using the hyped up words, but they don’t really mean anything. I got an email earlier today and it was also talking about, they wanted to invite me to this web presentation to show me how to make money with NFTs. They were going to show me how to take NFTs out and put them into real estate, tokenized real estate with NFTs. Well, first of all, if I took a piece of real estate and made a hundred tokens or a thousand tokens, wouldn’t all those tokens be fungible, not non-fungible? First of all, I don’t think they understand what NFT is. That’s funny.

Preston Pysh (48:16):

I think they would push back. Let me just try to play devil’s advocate here.

Mark Moss (48:19):

Yeah, please.

Preston Pysh (48:21):

I think they would push back and say, well, now it’s got liquidity and you can actually trade it on one of these platforms that I’m sure it’s listed on you, and you have easy access. Now they’re not talking about all the regulatory issues that are there for sure, which is the whole reason why it has liquidity compared to existing models. Let’s say that we get some regulatory stability there and you’re able to go on there and you’re able to just buy this without being an accredited investor, which I’m sure the regulatory frame work would have to address some of those pieces. What do you say to something like that?

Mark Moss (48:55):

I think if we talk about tokenizing the world, so tokenizing real estate, it adds a bunch of liquidity and the average guy could buy one token in a piece of Manhattan real estate or something like that. Sure. I think that sounds okay, but it doesn’t sound revolutionary in the sense that will change the world. Not like a technological revolution, because I can already own a share of a building in Manhattan today. Now, if I can own a token instead of a share and it’s easier for me to sell it, that’s cool. It increases the liquidity, because it’s easier. I get that. But it doesn’t change anything.

Mark Moss (49:24):

We still have an investor that builds a building. He still tokenizes it, or turns it into shares or into a REIT. Me as a person across the country can still buy a share or a token in that project. Yes. Because it’s more liquid, the value goes up. It’s more liquid. The value goes up, but it’s not changing the world. There’s no revolution there. That’s what I’d say. And I would also say the same thing about the stocks, right? If I own a share of Tesla stock and I own it through my E-Trade account. Okay? But let’s say that E-Trade puts it on a blockchain. And so I still own Tesla through E-Trade but now it’s on a blockchain.

Mark Moss (49:57):

What difference does it make? I still own Tesla. Now, I don’t own Tesla, but I’m just saying, if I owned a stock. Now I get it. I understand the way the stock market works and there’s six different people in between me and the issuer. And so the customer-

Preston Pysh (50:10):

It becomes 24/7/365, all that stuff.

Mark Moss (50:14):

There’s the famous Dole Food case where they found out there was 30% more shares issued than there were owners. It’s a much better model, 100%. And I think that it should go that way, but I don’t see how it changes anything. I guess that’s the point. And then in NFTs, as far as-

Preston Pysh (50:29):

You’re talking about FTS, you’re talking about fungible tokens.

Mark Moss (50:32):

Right. Well, if it was, whatever, a thousand shares of Tesla stock, each one of those would be fungible. And back to the real estate, those would be fungible. That’s why I don’t understand why they’re calling them non-fungible. If it was one token for one house. Okay, sure. That one house is not fungible with another house, but they’re talking about tokenizing the house, so all of those tokens would be fungible within that.

Preston Pysh (50:54):

Well maybe they should call them EFTs, equity fungible tokens.

Mark Moss (50:58):

Yeah. I see a world where assets are tokenized. It’s a better model, but it just doesn’t change anything, in my opinion. And then we have the NFTs, like the Ape’s, right? The JPEGs and things like that. Growing up as a kid, people traded baseball cards and people trade coins and people trade stamps. I never did. I was never into that stuff. My little brother, I have a brother who’s quite a bit younger than me and his whole career, his job right now is he sells Pokemon cards. He’s tried, Mark, you don’t understand, and I can make so much money. Let me show you the differences in these cards.

Mark Moss (51:30):

I’m like, I don’t care about those cards and why one’s worth more than another, but that’s cool and you’re making money. And so whether it’s a baseball card, a stamp, a coin, a Pokemon card or a JPEG, it’s the same thing. That’s not revolutionary. And so to me, I’m not that interested. I don’t understand why a lot of Bitcoiners are really upset about that. If I’m a musician and I’m selling to my fan club my collectibles and I want to sell them a JPEG. I don’t know what that has to do with Bitcoin. I don’t know why anybody’s mad about that. But something that’s already been done, there’s nothing revolutionary about that in my opinion.

Mark Moss (52:05):

I think where it could get interesting maybe in the future, is if you’re playing a video game and again, I’m not a video gamer, but I have kids and their friends, they play these video games and they play for a long time and they earn things in the game, right? They skins for their gun or they buy things. And so I guess maybe they should have a way where they could own that and then maybe sell those things to other people. That makes sense, and those could be NFTs.

Preston Pysh (52:30):

The game designers have no incentive to basically handicap their ability to add more whatever weapons. I’m not a gamer so I’m going to sound like a total idiot. If there’s 10 broad swords in the game and the person who created the game wants to add another 10, so that they can collect the IPO of broad swords or add more stock into the game in order to make some money. I think they want to have that flexibility. They don’t want to be handcuffed by something that’s sitting on a blockchain that they can’t control the issuance of. Right? It just defeats the whole purpose.

Mark Moss (53:06):

And also every single video game looks different. It’s a completely different graphic. It’s built on a different set of code. It runs on a different console or whatever it may be. And so how could one item go into another game and look exactly the same? Maybe that’ll be solved someday. I saw the movie, Ready Player One. Maybe that’s what the world looks like in, what was that? 2040 or something like that. Maybe that’s what the world looks like and maybe there will be those NFTs in there.

Preston Pysh (53:30):

Mark, for me, when I’m looking at this, I agree with, the way you’re describing this is pretty much exactly how I view this as well. The question becomes, if there is a decentralized protocol that people want to do some of these things on, who’s the winner of that? Because the tokens that are being used in order to facilitate all of this processing and all of this data storage is going to be the thing that’s going to go up way and value, just because of the utility that the world would be putting into that protocol. How do you see that playing out? Is it even an investible space today? What are your thoughts?

Mark Moss (54:08):

The first thing I would say, and this is abrupt for some people, not everything needs to be decentralized.

Preston Pysh (54:13):

Amen to that.

Mark Moss (54:15):

Not everything needs to be censorship resistant. Money does, but why does my video game need to be decentralized and immutable? I don’t understand, and I saw there’s somebody now building video games on the Bitcoin blockchain. But why? That’s a Bitcoin blockchain. I don’t understand that. Anyway, but back to the question that you asked, I got this from somebody else. I heard it somewhere. I don’t know where I got it from, But it was basically saying, if you understand how technology works and you can look at the monetary system with the base settlement layer of gold and then layer two paper money in all the layers on top. Or you look at the internet, the Internet’s a layered system.

Mark Moss (54:50):

You have the TCP/IP protocol that transfers information via packets across it. And then you build all the layers on top of it. There’s the TCP/IP layer. And then we have trillions of dollars of value and trillions of applications built on top of it, my personal website, Amazon, or Zoom, all those different applications, but they only use one protocol. Does that make me a TCP/IP protocol maximalist? We just only needed one. There’s trillions of ways that you can play that. And so I look at it as, if we have Bitcoin, which is the value transfer protocol. We just need one, right?

Mark Moss (55:20):

We need one. And there can be, I guess, trillions of different applications built on top of it. Each one making a different trade off at different levels for people that want those different things. I went on the Monero Talk show and tried to debate those guys with Monero. I’m not okay with the trade off that Monero has made. For example, I want to verify the amount of Bitcoin on the network. Monero’s privacy doesn’t allow me to do that. I have to trust them now. I don’t like that. I don’t like that trade off.

Mark Moss (55:46):

They could make that on layer two and people that are okay with that trade off could opt into that, but they’ve made that on layer one. And so I think that we need one layer one, which is hard, and it’s dumb. It’s dumb. It’s slow. The reason why is because the more basic it is, a flat table, I could build almost anything on. The more complex that base layer is, the less options I have to build on top of it. We want something slow and dumb, if you will, basics. We have unlimited optionality on top of it. And then we make trade offs for whatever we want on top of it.

Mark Moss (56:21):

One, not everything needs to be decentralized, but the things that do, I think all end up being built on one blockchain. A couple other things I think, one, if you understand how business works. Understanding Bitcoin’s difficult, because you have to know all these different disciplines. In business, my goal is to get customers. And one of the main goals to get in customers is to lower or remove the friction, make it as easy as possible to do business with me.

Mark Moss (56:44):

If I’m in Dave & Buster’s and I got five minutes before I have to meet somebody, shoot, I could play one of these video games. I got to go stand in line and I got to buy that card and I got to put 20 bucks on it. I’m not going to do that. I won’t play. Right? There’s friction there. And so we don’t want Dave & Buster cards, we don’t want tokens and cards everywhere we go, we just want one. And so I think from that perspective it’s pretty compelling why one base change is probably all that we need.

Preston Pysh (57:11):

All right, Mark. Those are the questions I have for you. I loved some of your points here, especially there at the end, just talking about how you see the protocol stack evolving, moving forward. If people want to learn more about, you have an incredible podcast, I know you do live streams and things like that as well. Give people a handoff where they can learn more about you and then anything else that you want to highlight.

Mark Moss (57:32):

The best way to catch up with everything is my website, 1markmoss.com. That’s the number one. As of October I’m a nationally syndicated radio host on the iHeartRadio network. I broadcast nationwide and I try to get my radio voice like Preston, on there. We’re broadcasting nationwide, which is pretty cool. The world’s loving it. The audience is loving it. That’s great. I make a couple of teaching videos per week on my YouTube channel, breaking down these complex subjects. And so that’s it. Check out my website for more or check me out on the radio or my YouTube channel, Mark Moss. I’m pretty active on Twitter. More active that I should be.

Preston Pysh (58:06):

Join the club.

Mark Moss (58:07):

My goal this year was to try to lower how much time I spent on Twitter, but you can find me on Twitter @1MarkMoss as well.

Preston Pysh (58:13):

Mark, I’m sure everybody’s going to be interested in learning more after this incredible interview that you gave. We’ll have links to all of that in the show notes. Mark, thank you so much for making time.

Mark Moss (58:24):

Yeah, Preston so much.

Preston Pysh (58:26):

If you guys enjoyed this conversation, be sure to follow the show on whatever podcast application you use, just search for, We Study Billionaires. The Bitcoin specific shows come out every Wednesday and I’d love to have you as a regular listener. If you enjoyed the show or you learned something new or you found it valuable, if you can leave a review, we would really have appreciate that. It’s something that helps others find the interview in the search algorithm. Anything you can do to help out with a review, we would just greatly appreciate. With that, thanks for listening, and I’ll catch you again next week.

Outro (58:58):

Thank you for listening to TIP. To access our show notes courses or forums go to theinvestorspodcast.com. This show is for entertainment purposes only, before making any decisions consult a professional. This show is copyrighted by The Investor’s Podcast Network. Written permissions must be granted before syndication or rebroadcasting.