Roxanne Davies: Investing for Family Offices | SALT Talks #187

“I started getting interested in [digital assets] watching my children. To see how they play video games and value certain things.”

Roxanne Davies is the managing partner of Parly Singapore, the Asian investment arm for the multi-century-old European family office (SFO).

The rise of digital assets is better understood by the younger generation of consumers. The inherent value of a video game skin in Clash of Clans is more easily understood and that paves the way for the normalization of the larger digital asset world. That change in mindset as a consumer trend will have a major effect on investing. Depending on a family office’s risk tolerance and tech savvy, digital assets like NFTs will likely become part of investment portfolios. “I started getting interested in [digital assets] watching my children. To see how they play video games and value certain things.”

Singapore is set up well to become involved in the burgeoning digital asset space. It’s a digital economy and regulation is designed to facilitate innovative wealth.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Roxanne Davies.jpeg

Roxanne Davies

Managing Partner

Parly Singapore Pte Ltd

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Rachel Pether: (00:07)
Everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is Rachel Pether and I'm a senior advisor to SkyBridge capital based in Abu Dhabi, as well as being the emcee for salt, a thought leadership forum and networking platform that encompasses business technology and politics. Seoul talks as a series of digital interviews with some of the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. And just as we do at our global salt conference series, we aim to provide our audience a window into the mind of subject matter experts. Today, we're going to be focusing on family offices and digital assets, and that includes everything from the spectrum, from cryptocurrencies to NFTs and digital art. And I'm very excited to be speaking to Roxanne Davies. Who's the managing partner of Polly Singapore. Now Roxanne as a seriously impressive woman. She's a senior investment professional with multi decades of experience running family offices and ultra high net worth departments within private banks.

Rachel Pether: (01:11)
She moved to Asia a little over a decade ago to set up and run Polly Singapore, which is the Asian arm of a 900 year old European family. Based out of Switzerland. She's been a speaker at multiple industry conferences, including salt sits on the investment committee of several global family offices and has held a number of board positions. She has a master's degree in finance and an MBA from at Geneva, and if that's not enough, she speaks four languages. Roxanne, welcome to soul talks. Thank you, Rachel. Or maybe we could start by you telling me a bit more about you and providing a bit more color on who you are.

Roxanne Davies: (01:53)
Um, sure. Thank you. So I, um, have been working with families for about 30 years. I was lucky. I ended up in this incredible family office when family offices, weren't really a word. Um, you know, in the late eighties, early nineties, and this family specifically put about a billion and a half to work in, um, alternative, um, assets, uh, private equity, hedge funds, et cetera, and you know, had offices around the world. So I was able as a foot soldier to kind of learn and grow with this industry. And my focus really was on research and risk management. So I had to do deep dives into, um, hedge funds and how they work and how people are thinking and how these great brilliant minds are thinking and who, how to recognize talent and solve problems. And that was really the start of my career, which took me to, you know, Asia as well as Brazil and Russia and so on, so forth. So I was, I was fortunate, you know, you're obviously

Rachel Pether: (02:55)
Very international, so you're Swiss, but you're born in New York and you've lived all over the world. What originally took you to Singapore? Was it as part of this family office? Correct.

Roxanne Davies: (03:06)
We purchased a listed financial services company around 2009 when we had a very complex operational structure with managed accounts globally. So the, the component of a fund administration technology was important to us. And we thought that a, we bought a list of financial services company, which had a trust license, which we thought was an excellent mid to back office solution for families where we in the process sold it a few years ago. But, um, you know, we are still, I would say this family is a highly progressive family when it comes to operational and, um, you know, admin and, you know, where are your custody and your assets, how it's custody and how it's structure, how are you executing trades? This, this type of thing is a, is a very important part of the investment process. And

Rachel Pether: (03:57)
You mentioned that you're, you know, you're on research and risk management, but the traits that you often use are like problem solving and, and finding talent, given that you've worked with family offices for so long, maybe you could talk a bit about what are some of the skills that you think are really important when working with family offices? That's a really

Roxanne Davies: (04:20)
Great question. And I really feel like it depends on the art type of the family office in itself. What do they want? And in the ideal world, I would say the EEQ component, as well as the IQ and investment management expertise for both the main, um, you know, two of the most important parts of the, uh, of the equation to have a great long-term family office professional, but essentially you have to have a character that is flexible, and that is able to, you know, um, operate in a non institutionalized framework in a general sense. There are plenty of family offices that are now highly institutionalized, you know, um, very, very well organized professional backgrounds, but most of them are flexible. And so you need to be able to work from home or work from anywhere, or be able to handle, um, various different tasks when they come to, you know, when they come to your desk or office, basically.

Roxanne Davies: (05:19)
So you have to deal with different family members and the issues around them. So it's a person, it's a people job. And then on the other side, um, problem solving is a, is a large word for anything that's investment related. You have to have the curiosity and be able to understand how things work, be able to derive parallels across things that you find, you know, that you see evolving, for example. And, um, having been in the alternative asset management industry, I have seen a lot of things that look similar to me. They may not be exactly same things. If you talk to experts that ever going to be able to, you're never going to be able to compare, let's say Hadoop to blockchain, but we look those factors as similar factors as to how did that change the universe of data analytics versus today? What are the applications and, um, businesses that can be built on a distributed ledger system, for example, as a pew, as opposed to a digital file system.

Rachel Pether: (06:16)
Yeah. And I'd love to go into a bit more detail about that distributed ledger technology. Cause I, I know this is an area you're very passionate about as well, but I thought what you said about AICCU was really interesting, I guess that applies both externally on the investment side, but also more importantly, as you mentioned, sort of navigating the family dynamics and the family politics as well,

Roxanne Davies: (06:39)
And as much as you can, you should avoid those things, but sometimes you can't, but then DEQ also comes to play with as an allocator. And I've been doing the allocation to hedge fund managers, private equity managers, fund managers in general, um, or company CEOs for a long time. And you are, you know, you have limited time with them and you have limited, um, ability to sort of sink in as much as you may want to. So you have to, after thousands or hundreds of interviews, you kind of get your red flags up and that's a something that you really can't quantify. It's an art versus a science, but it's extremely important to sort of be able to recognize new talent. That's a very important part of what we do. We have seeded many managers, um, many of them very successful. Um, and you know, that that's an area where I think that we, you know, they want investments or seating managers. We were very successful. And, um, I was lucky to be, you know, with some of the great managers and their very first day of trading. So I feel very good about that. Wow.

Rachel Pether: (07:46)
That's amazing. I'm sure it was a combination of, of luck and skill, but you're right. I mean the seating manager business, as many of us know is a very, very tough ones. So it's certainly difficult to spot both the talent and also the underlying investment thesis as well. And you know, what I thought was really interesting is that you mentioned that the family that you work with has invested or decided to invest quite some years ago, $1.5 billion in alternatives. And I know you were really, I mean, maybe saying one of the runners is perhaps a bit strong, but I do really think you are one of the leaders and the sort of digital assets cryptocurrency space. So maybe rewind a few years and tell me how you first got comfortable with the space and what was your own research and risk management process leading up to it? So,

Roxanne Davies: (08:35)
Um, the 1.5 was absolutely, and the head Trent and private equity world, and that was, um, you know, a different family. This family has dabbled and we certainly haven't been comfortable with, um, you know, large scale institutional investments in this area, but we've been looking at it for a while. So, um, we have direct and indirect investments. Um, personally I started getting interested in it, um, watching my children to be honestly, uh, to be honest with you, um, just seeing how they play games, how they, you know, value certain things. So for them, for example, a skin is akin to an NFT. Um, the skins are valuable, um, the way they play games, the way they trade mining, the way they communicate with people that they don't know how they can cooperate in certain specific clash of clans type of game, for example, in the day.

Roxanne Davies: (09:33)
So I've just watched how some of these games were developing and even something like Minecraft, for example, many, many years ago when my kids were playing that some, a friend of mine had built out the Minecrafter YouTube social net. So there were these very famous influencers on YouTube that represented Minecraft. And I believe the whole concept was similar, which is the Minecraft or, um, lady Gaga would actually bring in the advertising, um, revenues to themselves, right. As opposed to be able to give, let's say a YouTube or another, um, platform full rights and, you know, um, revenue. So it was really, that was kind of a social net, which we thought was an interesting model that company and specifically, um, has changed names and changed, um, DNA a couple of times, but the concept is the same. We still think that this is an interesting, you know, development and then steam. It was also from Dan Larimer, the similar concepts where the creators own the information, own their own information and are able to share it and get revenue back. So that brings us to the NFT world. Um,

Rachel Pether: (10:47)
And before we dive a bit further into the NFT world. So when your kids come to you asking for say birthday or Christmas presents, is that mainly in the, in the physical world or the digital world? Whereas there where's, their focus depends

Roxanne Davies: (11:01)
On the child, but, um, most of most, both of them and most of the kids that I know. So all the nieces and nephews would be focused more on the virtual than the physical. And I've had comments throughout, you know, the last, uh, few years, um, like, oh, you know what, I don't want your RMS bag, or I don't care about this art piece, or I wouldn't want any of these things. And I actually believe that there's a, a change in philosophy and a mindset of this generation that I think is very interesting consumer trend. Um,

Rachel Pether: (11:35)
And I guess you've got that cross generation sort of split or dichotomy with your global perspective. Have you also seen a divergence or difference between cultures? Like, do you think that Asian families are more comfortable with alternatives or digital assets than say and Americans? For example, I

Roxanne Davies: (11:56)
Think that the Asian family offices are as likely to invest in these as other families. I don't think it's a cultural thing to go for it or against it, it will really depend on their risk tolerance and their access. So access is not as easy as it was for example, to set up a Coinbase or Cumberland or crack and et cetera. So some of those, um, exchanges and custody's that are considered somewhat safe were not accessible by everybody. Um, so it really just depends on the specific family. Um, however, I think that, um, there has been, so in China they had more than 50% of the trading volume globally. So this, so China representing a big part of what, um, what we're talking about when we talk about Asia, definitely there are highly, highly advanced and Binance, for example, Neo, et cetera. These are all Chinese or Asian, um, you know, innovations and companies. So I would say it's on an equal footing. Um, however, on a regulatory front it's different. So is it considered a collectible? Is it considered a currency? Is it considered a security? How's it going to be taxed? This tax make a difference? Um, what are the main reasons for, you know, the buy and hold? Um, that kind of thing is, is different. So I would say that would a family office now collect digital assets, um, like an NFT, like be part of it people purchase.

Speaker 4: (13:30)
Yes,

Roxanne Davies: (13:32)
I, uh, there was, you know, a few months ago, a friend of mine was talking to me about a Japanese artist that had created these tokens, that he was very interested in and, you know, they bought them, but I still think that it's still, it's still early days.

Rachel Pether: (13:47)
I'd love to go into the Japanese artist side because you did share some of those pictures and videos with me and they were amazing. But I just wanted to ask a quick question on the regulatory environment within Singapore, because it is actually a jurisdiction that Abu Dhabi has looked to emulate as well, particularly on the financial regulation front. So maybe tell me a bit about what is it about Singapore in particular that makes it such a good place for digital assets, whether that's purchasing or storing or custody, et cetera. The

Roxanne Davies: (14:22)
Port is of course, a very rational wealth management destination. That's there, that's the very, um, important goal for Singapore as a country. And it's been on the innovation it's ranked on the highest innovation lists. It is a digital economy, um, and it puts its money where its mouth is. So there are, you know, there's a complete push from all parts of the government and sub-parts specialized to really, um, uh, bolster the digital economy. But that necessarily mean only crypto. So the project you've been is a Singapore dollar, uh, digital effort that's been going on for several years, maybe even five. So it's, it's to say that there has been a lot of experimentation on the side, similar to the digital one, which has been test marketed in a couple of cities in China. So the, the main currency separate from that would be the, then the payments component of it, right?

Roxanne Davies: (15:20)
So it's a unit of exchange, it's a transferable asset, so to speak. So Singapore already in 2018, 2019 updated the payment services act, um, looked at how to license looked at features. And it has to take its time on a regulatory basis to really assess, you know, the cybersecurity issue when there were plenty of, um, uh, hacks and fasts and that's not okay. So how do you handle the cybersecurity? How do you handle the AML CFT component for kind of the dark web and all the illicit, um, you know, trading that was, that, that is kind of linked to this in the main, you know, headlines, but not, aren't really, um, you know, where the potential of, uh, of cryptocurrency and blockchains lie. So how do you tax it? How do you create a legal framework? Um, what are the AML and CFT, um, protocols that are need to be used?

Roxanne Davies: (16:19)
Um, how do you resolve a dispute? What is a dispute framework going to look like that type of thing needed to be tested? So today I would say they're testing a lot of the blockchain technologies on this. Um, whether and Tamasic is intricately involved in all of this, um, out as are some banks SGX, um, the Singapore exchange, et cetera, and DBS. One of the main banks, I think was one of the first to get the recognized market operator as a legitimate digital asset, um, exchange and broker dealer, so to speak. So you, you know, the licensing component versus given so that they can test, run a few of these to make sure that their, their economy doesn't get negatively impacted by reputation or, or by actual losses. Yeah.

Rachel Pether: (17:09)
And I guess it's, it's quite hard for a regulator to maintain that balance between sufficient, robust regulation and innovation I do, then that's something Singapore has managed to do pretty well on that side. As you say, it has a great reputation. It is an excellent private wealth destination too, so they can't really afford to have any reputational risk damage or any scandal and the, you know, that, that digital asset regulatory space, right.

Roxanne Davies: (17:38)
And then there's the overseas. So how do you connect with others? Um, so they have to also be, um, they're, you know, uh, cognizant of what the us is doing or what Europe is doing and what China's doing. They have to bring all of these features. And so it's an ongoing and say, it's fluid

Rachel Pether: (17:57)
You Alicia, and date. And so now we can move on to the really fun stuff. Uh, you mentioned the, the, the artwork, um, the Japanese artists, and you actually shared an incredibly impressive digital painting with me last month. I think it was. So let's now sort of pivot slightly towards, towards digital art. And where do you see as some of the areas, the greatest areas for growth in the digital asset world, and maybe talk a bit more about the digital art space as well.

Roxanne Davies: (18:31)
The digital art spaces is fascinating. Um, however art in itself can be art. The physical art world has been manipulated for years. So the digital art world, you know, you have to, you definitely need to be careful. Do I think that there is, um, do I understand someone who would buy an initial, um, JPEG of, of the first tweet or of, um, the, the artworks of, of, of people I do get it, it's the first, right. So it's kind of interesting if you're in the collectibles business. It's interesting now you, you know, you can always look at various different perspectives to say, you know, who's, you know, who is actually, um, incentivized to make sure that this is a market that, that, you know, booms and so on and so forth. But again, going back to my children, um, if there was a skin, for example, in one of their games that they could buy and keep for themselves, or there was a limited edition, I believe because most of these are owned still by the game companies.

Roxanne Davies: (19:34)
Um, however, if there was a means to have this owned by themselves so that, you know, they could then play and that either had some super power to it or, or some aesthetic component to it, I do believe that they would go insane over something like that. So, um, so I do see that this as much as, for example, for the older generation, including myself, it's sort of a head-scratcher, um, I do understand how they, um, this generation, the younger generation would value this, um, you know, have value this for the long run, because this is coded in their culture, in their DNA. And Asia, I would say particularly is, um, is incredible with collectibles and especially art. Um, they, they just love that. And, and the Pokemon's of this world, et cetera, they're all. And a lot of the extraordinary games are really, um, you know, uh, created here and played here and then taken very seriously here.

Roxanne Davies: (20:32)
So, you know, the, um, e-sports et cetera, this, this is not a, it's not a hobby, this is a commerce, this is a real industry. So I think that that's and FTE is here to stay that being said, is there going to be manipulation and issues linked to this? Yes. Um, you know, of course this is just the beginning of this world, but if you think about, let's say an Andy Warhol, um, foundation, could they create one image that, you know, that is the original image of a digital, um, you know, iconic, uh, an iconic digital image and then sell it. Sure. Why not? Is it worth it? I don't know.

Rachel Pether: (21:15)
Yes. And maybe, you know, for those on the phone. And I must admit that I am part of the older generation that you mentioned, and B I only know about people because you told me before about it, but for those that are listening, that aren't so familiar with people mania and the people's story. Could you talk us through that and how has, how this gentleman became a bit of an icon, but he's

Roxanne Davies: (21:37)
A digital artist and, and lately, and I think, uh, most of your, um, listeners and users, uh, and viewers would have seen this, it was on financial times as well, recently that there was a Christie's auction of all his visual art, um, over the last 13 years for like $69 million. And, um, he's just a digital artist with a following. And, um, it's, it's kind of interesting when you think about art. And this is more of an art question as in some of the art that he does is not supremely original per se. But for example, my son told me that it's actually not easy to do what he does, right. So is it more complex, do this in a digital way versus in a physical way? So there's a technique component and so on, but it was really a congregation and a collection of digital art by an artist that is, um, well known in the certain, you know, uh, specific digital art, loving world.

Roxanne Davies: (22:37)
And so, um, you know, their, their variety of artists, uh, grinds, who has had a child with Elon Musk, um, a variety of different artists that have created an FTS of some kind, um, to, you know, take advantage of this growing business. And in some cases, I think that they can use them for authentication. Um, for example, Nike is going to be putting this type of chip or some kind of authentication method within their shoes. Um, but in any case, I think that, um, it's a, it's, it's just the beginning of a new world. And the Japanese artists was, it was difficult for him to sell a variety of his art because you, you know, there was a, you had to go there yet to know et cetera, but he found himself on one of the, um, and if T gateways and his art was loved and bought and overnight he became a millionaire.

Rachel Pether: (23:36)
It's amazing, isn't it? How it, I mean, well, there's no such thing as an overnight success, but I do really love the points you made about democratizing art. And I actually just listened to a podcast it's Malcolm Gladwell's revisionist history, and it actually looks at the physical art world. And just how much of that is actually held in storage and not finger pointing at any of the museums, but many of the curators haven't even seen the pictures before, you know, it's just such a closed market. So even some of the great items haven't been on display for years for public to see. So digital ad to me, and just that democratization of the art world is, you know, something quite special that opens it up to everyone. Maybe not everyone can afford, you know, the paintings at the amount that they're going for, but it does seem to standardize the playing field a little bit, but

Roxanne Davies: (24:29)
There's a fractal component to that. And it's a, there's a component for that for real estate or for art that you can buy a piece of it. Um, as opposed to the entire side, I mean, there is something called bit rot. So technically an image will, um, decrease in its in its value and beauty over time. But it's the same thing with physical art. Um, and to your point, this democratisation concept is an interesting one when it comes to the crypto world, because it is intended to democratize, but it isn't really, since it's, you know, a handful of minors, for example, that control, um, you know, Bitcoin and, and can control, for example, certain aspects about when there are releases of certain things and how they can act maybe in advanced or not advanced, I'm not pointing fingers either, but it is certainly not a democracy. And whether the digital art world will then also be somewhat in the control of a few, um, savvy players, so to speak. Um, you know, I, I thought we reached the top of the market when the banana was a scotch taped to the wall. Um, but you know,

Rachel Pether: (25:40)
We always think we've reached the top and then something more ridiculous happens and we realize it wasn't, but it actually does. Just one more point, I would really like to go back to the democratization point, but you also mentioned about Jack Dorsey's first tweet. I believe it was, was optioned for 2.5 million. So he released that as a, as a piece of digital, uh, I mean, it does seem quite toppy, right. Is this, um, or do you think this is, this is just the stat or maybe it was just a well timed release from his side? Well, I believe

Roxanne Davies: (26:20)
There was an article that had talked about it, um, prior to it's really, so I don't know the chicken and the egg story with that one, but I do understand the first of something. Right. Um, and having a tweet from the first tweet from Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter and Twitter becoming the phenomenon that it has become. And Jack isn't limited to Twitter, right. He's developed and it's on the board of major companies, but, um, that seems like, I don't know about the actual value of two and a half million. I can't really apply on that. Um, but I do think the first of something like that has its value. Now it can become a historical, um, instrument and historical token over time and saying, oh, this was the first of this type of things. First of I'm the founder of this major social media platform, it can have a historical component to it and it can, you know, it, it can have value. I'm just not sure how it would work in terms of gaining value over time. Yeah,

Rachel Pether: (27:28)
No, that's a great point about the first there's always sort of value in that. And I just let a couple touch on a couple of other points. Um, you know, you mentioned about, is it really democratization because it's still controlled by just a handful of players. I know that always used to be, or was historically quite a bit pushback of cryptocurrencies as it was controlled by a few whales who would manipulate the price, but we've sort of seen that market evolve as more players come in. Do you like, do you think that where we are now and say some of them in FTS and some of the digital art pieces that it's just because we're at quite an early phase in its development and, or do you think that it's, it's always, it would be very hard to democratize a digital outward and in the same way, it's been hard to democratize the physical world. So it's,

Roxanne Davies: (28:24)
Again, the gateways. And I think though the digital art component is a little bit easier because it's really the creator that creates something and that it can be tokenized and then distributed, um, for sale. And so I think that that is actually the easier part to control. Then let's say a Bitcoin that was, you know, subject to very, um, expensive hardware and, um, engineering ability to, to mine these Bitcoins. And then they're part of a community that needs to validate in the proof of work, et cetera. So, so that part of it is, is really, you know, um, and it's like a federal government and the states and their powers, right. So you can kind of think about it in that sense or, um, it's not a democracy, it's just a different type of central bank. Um, and there have been issues linked to, I mean, I have read not an expert, but I have read about for example, software updates that weren't happening or other issues that were blocked by, um, potentially by these minors, um, these very powerful minors.

Roxanne Davies: (29:32)
And, um, some of them may, may or may not have led to the volatility of the price of the, of the cryptocurrency, whether or not we're going see the kind of volatility we did in the beginning to something like Bitcoin, you're going to see volatility, but is it going to go back to out? I just don't know when I would be very surprised, especially because the office of the currency and controller or CCS, um, has basically allowed, regulate, you know, allowed for banks to hold, you know, cryptocurrency. And that's a big change in the framework and the regulatory framework in the United States, because it now has, has basically blessed this as an asset class, but I just volatility will exist. Um, going back to the Hadoop, um, uh, analogy, Hadoop in what it was great for that part is obsolete. So it's very hard for me to understand whether today's Bitcoin blockchain will not become obsolete at a certain point in time.

Roxanne Davies: (30:30)
Does that mean the value of Bitcoin will go down as a result? I don't think so, but I just don't know what I don't know in this situation. And I think that that's a, that's an important part. So you can't as a risk manager, um, increase, um, even if you think something's going up 100%, 300%, 500%, that's hope it's, it's a prediction. It's not a, you don't have any kind of, um, roadmap. And so you have to be careful about how you're implementing those strategies, but I definitely think that we're in a very different world than we were in before.

Rachel Pether: (31:03)
Hmm. I think you're showing your wisdom Roxanne by saying you don't know what you don't know. And it was an interesting point that you raised about the banks. Do I think over two week period, it seemed like every day, one of the new blue chip fortune 500 banks was making an announcement. You know, we had Wells Fargo, Citibank, JP Morgan, Goldman. They're all kind of coming on one by one.

Roxanne Davies: (31:29)
I think you guys announced Charles Schwab as well. And as an alternative, Charles Schwab is, which is a huge, huge firm is smaller than Coinbase, but like it's a third of Coinbase, its size and Coinbase is going for direct listening. And to that point, I believe I read somewhere that there was a, a big whale within Coinbase with whose holdings were linked to Satoshi's holdings and they could be valued at $46 billion. So what would happen in a situation like that? If those became Bitcoin got transferred, it's just, it'll be interesting to watch how that direct listening goes and what happens. But so far there, you know, they are number one in terms of exchanges and the many of the companies treasury have purchased their Bitcoin in the cold wallets, Coinbase is allowed or has.

Rachel Pether: (32:22)
Yeah, I think, I think everyone would just be so excited if it, if it meant that we found out who Satoshi Nakamoto was, they probably wouldn't, they probably wouldn't care. It was, it's been such a long, you know, decade long mystery kind of thing. Um, that I appreciate where, you know, we've, you've given up so much of your time, so generously already, but I would like to ask, you know, you have been investing in FinTech companies, you've been investing in cryptocurrencies, you've been investing in digital assets. What are you most excited about now when you look at the investment opportunities, uh, and the sort of digital world.

Roxanne Davies: (33:03)
Um, so I have actually learned that there is a lot, there are a lot of very interesting, um, developments that I think are amazing. However, where I personally would focus my attention on would be in the financial services sector, because I do understand that world in a granular basis and the family office that I've been working with for the last 15 years understands that at a granular basis. So we would understand the smart contract world that is needed in fund administration or a variety of kind of boring, but yet essential, um, essential, uh, services that, that, that are part of financial services. It wouldn't be, um, a smart move for me to spend my time looking at the altcoins from other industries that I don't have that granular knowledge about. So, so we do rely on our manager network and, and friends that have expertise there to look in that, but there's definitely, um, innovations in a variety of different areas that can help bring transparency and, um, an origin to buyer, um, track, track, um, so to speak or trajectory. So for example, we were looking at, um, trade finance as an asset backed, um, opportunity. So today, if you're sitting in cash or cash made in costume money, so you can give to these trade finance firms and they're backed up by commodities and it's sort of a collateralized or asset backed, um, financial opportunity. And so anything that's in that world, we are interested in and we're looking at, um,

Rachel Pether: (34:40)
Fabulous. There's nothing wrong with boring but necessary. That's for sure. Um, well, I, I just wanted to thank you so much Roxanne for your time today has been such a pleasure speaking to you, and thanks for sharing all your, your knowledge and insights gained from spending so long in a family office and, and then the digital asset world. So thank you so much

Roxanne Davies: (34:59)
For having me Rachel, speak to you soon. Thanks. Bye.

Jeff Immelt: What I Learned Leading a Great American Company | SALT Talks #186

“All leadership is crisis leadership. From the first minute, I had to make very tough decisions in front of crowded rooms of people and absorb fear. Hold two truths: bad things can happen, but continue to play for the future.”

Jeff Immelt is a venture partner at New Enterprise Associates, a global equity and private equity firm. He recently published his memoir, Hot Seat: What I Learned Leading a Great American Company, about his time as CEO of General Electric.

On the second day as General Electric CEO, the terrorists attacks on 9/11 sent the world reeling and created an uncertain future. Two GE employees died that day. Its business verticals from aviation to insurance were greatly impacted and forced a brand new CEO of one of the world’s biggest companies to navigate uncharted waters. GE was met with crises of a different nature like the 2008 financial crisis that called for decisive and extreme measures. “All leadership is crisis leadership. From the first minute, I had to make very tough decisions in front of crowded rooms of people and absorb fear. Hold two truths: bad things can happen, but continue to play for the future.”

GE, NBC’s then parent company, played major roles producing television like The Office, 30 Rock and The Apprentice. This includes personally convincing Donald Trump to take on the host’s role for the reality show.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jeff Immelt.jpeg

Jeff Immelt

Venture Partner

New Enterprise Associates (NEA)

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello one and welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy, salt talks, or a digital interview series that we launched in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which we hope our guests today will join us at salt in New York coming up in September, but it's to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Jeff, uh, ML to salt talks. Jeff is a venture partner today at new enterprise associates NEA, a global, a global venture capital and private equity firm.

John Darcie: (00:55)
He's also the recent author of hot seat, a memoir of leadership in the time of crisis. About his time at the helm of GE a fantastic, very candid book about his time there and prior to joining NEA in 2018. As I mentioned, he was the night chairman of GE and served as CEO for 16 years. He's been named quote, one of the world's best CEOs three times by Darren's, uh, during his tenure as CEO, uh, GE was named America's most admired company by fortune magazine. And one of the world's most respected companies in polls by Barron's and the financial times he's received 15 honorary degrees and numerous awards for business leadership and chair, the president's council on jobs and competitiveness under the Obama administration. Jeff has a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics from Dartmouth college and an MBA from Harvard university. He's also a member of the American academy of arts and sciences and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salts. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony to start the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:02)
So John got to take a shout at you, like right away, just right out of the box. Okay. I first met Jeff IML when you were in diapers, likely. Okay. He was at the sun valley conference 20 years ago. I'm kidding. He wasn't in diapers, Jeff, but, but you, you were talking at that point about taking over the reins from a legendary CEO now to cease Jack Welch and the trials and tribulations there of coming into the job right after nine 11. It was literally the week of, and so we're going to talk about the book in a second, but I think it's a precursor to the book and your experience at GE. I want you to take us back 19, 20 years ago, almost set the scene for us. You're taking the reins of GE. Tell us about what's going on.

Jeff Immelt: (02:54)
Hey, Anthony. Great to see you again, John, you as well, you know, there anything, like you said, my first as a cog was September 10th, 2001, I did an all-employee broadcast with Sue Herrera. I flew to Seattle, I spent the night there and was going to see Boeing that September 11th, um, on a stair stepper, uh, downstairs, working out and watch the second plane hit the world trade center. So at that moment, you know, you kind of knew, uh, life, as we knew it was going to change dramatically. Just the, the tragedy of what went on. And, and, and, you know, the first thing I thought about was how many employees did, did we have that were impacted, there were two that were killed and then just start combing through, you know, we, we had, uh, engines on the planes. We own 1200 aircraft. We insured the world trade center in BC, which we owned at the time was, went four days with no advertisements.

Jeff Immelt: (04:00)
And so kind of, I went from like, you know, kind of all this build up to being the CEO, to just tripping into a whole new world. And, you know, it was one of the things I discuss in the book. Anthony has really, you know, today all leadership is crisis leadership. And like from the very first minute I had to make very tough decisions and do it in front of crowded rooms of people and, and, uh, had to absorb fear, right. And not spread it on and had the kind of hold. What I say is, hold two truths, bad things can happen, but you have to continue to play for the future. And I had to do that my second day on the job. So just hard to explain. I want

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:44)
To, I want, I want to take you further back now, let's go back to your upbringing and let's go back to, uh, your decision to go to GE. And how long were you at GE prior to becoming CEO?

Jeff Immelt: (04:58)
Yeah, so my dad worked at GE, so I, I always had a context. I always thought I wanted to go to work for a company in those days. You know, like you, a lot of people that I went to school with, went to work on wall street or went to work for consulting firms. I didn't really want to do that. I remember the summer between years of business school, I worked on a project at BCG. I worked at BCG and I sat in the final presentation and I found myself sympathizing with the CEO, not the consultants. So I figured I wanted to be on the other side of the table. And I joined GE thinking, I'd stay there five years. And I ended up staying 35 years and I started in sales. I did sales and marketing product management, uh, you know, manufacturing. I went from the plastics business to the appliance business, to the healthcare business. So kind of a typical career in a conglomerate. And, you know, I never really thought about being CEO of GE until the end, because it was just too weird to think about. But, uh, you know, five years turned into 10 and 15 and 20 and all right, so the, the

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:02)
Book is well titled. The book is called hot seat, and it's what I learned leading a great American company. And, and by the way, I would recommend this book to everybody. I hope this book becomes a case study book in all of the countries, business schools, or even the undergraduate business schools, because a very candid assessment of what went on, uh, during your tenure and frankly the good, the bad and the ugly as well as the successes. Um, why did you write the book, Jeff, uh, and what do you hope readers take away from it?

Jeff Immelt: (06:36)
You know, if the truth equals facts plus context, and I felt like all the context had gone away from GE over the past few years that basically, uh, we did more good things than bad things, but people were dwelling on incomplete truce, and I wanted to tell a more complete story. And so I hired a co-writer who was a great woman named Amy Wallace. She spoke to 75 of my colleagues and investors and people in the T ecosystem. And our goal was really to tell a complete story of the good and the bad and what we saw, what we learned and put, put readers in the shoes of people, making decisions. Look, everybody can be an armchair quarterback looking back, but life has to be lived looking forward. And so, you know, you just don't have the luxury to second to second guess all the time.

Jeff Immelt: (07:31)
So I want to tell a more complete story, Anthony and I kind of view that in the time of COVID all leadership is crisis leadership. And I think if you read about the financial crisis or nine 11, or all the things that we went through as a leadership team, hopefully readers are going to say, Hey, I'm not alone. And here's some things that worked and some things that didn't work, but I wanted it to be, I wanted it to be raw and I wanted it to speak to the people I worked with because I truly loved them and I love working with them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:02)
Okay. So, but you, you paint a very stark clear, concise picture. And so let me lay it out for people that potentially have not read the book, and then you can hand check me if I'm wrong, but what you're basically writing in the book is that you had this storied celebrated CEO and you had earnings in the company. And again, a cultural standards being what they are, accounting standards being what they are, they got tougher and they got more scrupulous after things like WorldCom and after Sarbanes Oxley. And so all of a sudden now the accounting realities and the way you had to look at the company was quite different, frankly, than the way Jack Welch had to look at the company. You had the nine 11 situation and you had this transformation happening in the of technology. And of course, GE is an old line manufacturing company. And so there you were at the helm during those inflection points and a result of which you made decisions, uh, that were, uh, you know, consistent with the culture of GE and consistent with your values. So tell us about that decision making, tell us about the prism that you look through. And then I get that right, because that was my read of the book basically. And then tell us how you took your decision-making prism. Okay. And applied it to what was going on at the time.

Jeff Immelt: (09:34)
You know, Anthony Jack was a great CEO and the company really prospered under his leadership, but the world was changing and it changed dramatically. Uh, we had kind of an under-invested set of industrial businesses. We had a flourishing set of financial businesses and our price earnings ratio was greater than a tech company. So, so clearly perception didn't quite equal reality in that context. I think, you know, we set about reinvesting in the industrial company, the non-finance company, we were making great progress, but we made the decision at that time to let GE capital continue to grow. And by the time the financial crisis hit, uh, that didn't look, you know, that didn't look so smart. Right? So, uh, you know, I, I think, you know, we needed the GE capital earnings to help boost and, and support the investment in the industrial. And, uh, you know, again, the financial crisis was a huge challenge for GE

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:34)
You know, it's interesting because it's another big learning lesson I've gotten from the book. Some of our life is a serendipity. Some of our life is providential. It depends on the error that you're in. It depends on the culture of your times and the businesses that you're managing. I think you make a very, very strong case for all of those things. Um, but you had a situation beyond your control, frankly, Jeff, that I want you to describe to our listeners. And that is, uh, you had a company that had its earnings going up fairly consistently. I don't want to say manufacturer because that's unfair. It was consistent with the accounting standards of that time. Uh, but as you had changing accounting standards and you had a changing conglomerate, uh, those earnings became, uh, harder to show consistent growth with, again, I think that's fair, fair characterization. So therefore, uh, that's a situation, uh, and now you and I both know that situations get personalized. You know, it's, it's George bushes recession and it's bill Clinton's recovery, but there's a cyclicality to the thing. Um, and so explain that to our listeners, uh, the way you write about it in the book and explain what you, how you put your arms around these.

Jeff Immelt: (11:53)
Yeah. You can look, I mean, I think, you know, GE capital was a great business and, you know, very competitive and basically was run the way all financial service companies were run. But you know, what, what basically, you know, like when nine 11 happened, the Monday, the market opened our largest shareholder trimmed their position by 50%. And I spoke to them and asked them why after the market closed. And they said, we didn't realize you were an insurance, right? So here's the largest investor that didn't really see that we were in that kind of financial service business. So it took us time to, again, retrain our investors about the desire to, you know, spool up the industrial companies. And, you know, I bought a life science company had paid 16 times earnings and that in those days was considered to be crazy. The same company today would trade at 50 times earnings, right. Or something like that. So, you know, we were going about the process of change. Uh, I think making really good progress, but, you know, we were so big in financial services that when the financial crisis hit it, it really took a huge toll on the company.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:05)
And so let's talk about that. GE GE capital, uh, a grew into a very large appendage of the business. Uh, it obviously was deeply impacted by the 2008 financial crisis. What did the company ignore regarding GE capital that led up to the crisis?

Jeff Immelt: (13:24)
It's a great, it's, it's the question I thought about a lot and it's one of aggregate size, and I think it's something that CEOs or business leaders you don't sometimes pay attention to what your risk triggers really should be. Uh, we always viewed as the important thing for GE capital to be AAA rated. In other words, to have rating agencies that, that basically valued the company's debt. I think what we found is, uh, it, in the moment that labor brothers went bankrupt, the rating agencies didn't matter anymore. And it was how can you fund yourself when the capital markets, uh, froze or ground to a halt. And therefore, you know, our aggregate size, Anthony was just too fast, right? We were, we were two or 3% of the commercial paper market. We were two or 3% of the long-term debt market. That doesn't sound like a lot of share, but believe me, when the capital markets closed, that's a lot. Right? So, uh, you know, we had, we had to raise tens of billions, of dollars of capital to put into GE capital, to persevere and make it through, uh, make it through the, uh, the financial crisis. Really nobody's business model was hurt worse when Lehmann brothers went bankrupt and GE capital because we were debt funded finance company. And we were kind of on an island of one, the banks could do deposits. We had no capability to do deposits. It was really a challenge. Yeah. I

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:51)
Mean, and, and to just candidly, you couldn't draw from the federal reserve at zero interest rates. You weren't a quote unquote bank. Remember companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were able to get banking, charters to do that. And you know, you fast forward to Robin hood, as an example, Jeff, uh, Robin hood had that problem three weeks ago. They couldn't draw from the fed. So they had to go out and they had to stop trading, uh, which hurt their image and reputation. And then they had to go out and get the money from venture capitalists. And so again, it's the situations and our responses to them. The reason why I love the book is that it's so candid about the evaluation of those things and that, okay, so here I am, I'm in the hot seat. Here's what's going on. Here are the decisions that I'm making at the time. You want to judge it with 2020 hindsight, that's fine, but this is what was happening right there in the windshield. As I was driving this gigantic tractor trailer. And I want to, I want to get in, I

Jeff Immelt: (15:48)
Told the story, you know, the most important decision I ever made, I made on September 30th, 2008. And we went out and raised like 15 or $16 billion on an equity raise.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:00)
You got some from Warren buffet as well

Jeff Immelt: (16:01)
From Warren buffet. And this was the weekend after Washington mutual, uh, when declared bankruptcy and the bond holders got crushed. And, and I always say, I'll tell people today, that was the most important decision I ever made. And I got crushed for it, media, CNBC, Joe Kern, and everybody, the next day he said, oh, what a, what? Uh, you know, he shouldn't have done that and stuff like that. But you know, in a crisis, you know, the teams have to work. You have to make decisions and you have to be willing to be judged.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:32)
Well, I mean, another thing that is worth pointing out here is that if you're a CEO or let's say as an example, you're the white house communications director. You have to be a crash dummy in certain situations. And then you got to roll from the car and get up and dust yourself off. And I think that's one of the things I love about the book the most is the resilient, see the elements of resiliency in the book. I want to go to the tech giants for a second, because I think there's a resonating message here for companies like alphabet and Amazon. What could they learn from GE and its cautionary tale about inertia and excessive size and scope? What would you say to some of those people?

Jeff Immelt: (17:15)
Oh, a little bit different. I would say to alphabet, you've never seen a bad day in your markets, not one, right. Search has done nothing but grow some of the businesses they've reinvested in. Haven't really done much. So it's really a, a certain, a dominant search company. So somehow they have to create a tabletop exercise of what a really bad day looks like and make sure that their culture and their business model still works, whether it comes from a regulator or some other, uh, force. I think in the case of Amazon, you know, Anthony, I have so much respect for Jeff and what he's done, but man, you know, when you're this complicated and again, your world gets rocked. You know, I go back until the GE store look when everything was going well, it conglomerates awesome. It's amazing. Right. But when things are really choppy, it is really tough to manage so many different businesses at the same time. So I think, I think they, they both have to model what happens when really bad days occur and that's hard, but that's necessary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:21)
Uh, th they look, it's, it's a great message. I've got two last questions before I have to turn it over to the erstwhile millennial. Okay. Who will try to outshine me. I melt. So, you know, what can I say? But here are my two last questions. I want to make these fun questions. Let's go to Donald Trump and the recruiting of then a real estate mogul business mogul Donald Trump into the apprentice. Uh, you and Jeff sucker, Mark Burnett, trying to get him to do that show.

Jeff Immelt: (18:52)
Yeah. So, um, you know, the funniest story about that, uh, uh, Anthony is that we tried to seal it on his golf course in Bedford, New York. Uh, he and I are playing Randy Falco and Bob Wright, uh, Donald goes up to the par three T. He turns to us and says, I'm the richest golfer in the world. And we all say, oh, you know, you're full of, uh, stuff like that. He gets a hole in one. So this is a true story. And just kind of sit there and stay, I'm like a pizza shrunk back, or what happened, gets a whole little one. And then, well, while we're riding around, he says to me, you know, Jeff, look, let's say, you know, I want to do this, but you know, to me, Zucker and all these guys, they don't matter if I get, if I have an issue I'm going straight to you. And I want you to know that, and I want you to be there to answer my call. And, and so that was a, that was Donald. Uh, the one thing I remember about the apprentice is that it looked like it would never work on paper. He made it work. Uh, here's a guy that likes to win, you know, and, uh,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:59)
Listen, he has a charismatic television personality, whatever my, uh, political differences are with him. Uh, you have to be observant of those facts and his talent. Let's go to 30 rock because that is a cheeky rendition of the parent company, G E Alec Baldwin. Who's a great as great comic wit you know, I wasn't in love with Alec Baldwin the day that he took my head on a Christmas ornament. Unfortunately I went onto the tree of fallen Trump people, and I was in the audience there. And, uh, he was putting the ornament on the tree. Wasn't in love with Alex at that moment. I'll just confess that. But, uh, you know, there, he was playing a G suit. Let's just call it for what it is on that show. The show started out. Uh, but you kept the faith. Tell us about that. Yeah, the

Jeff Immelt: (20:51)
Only time I ever came down on the NBC team on a programming note was around 30 rock. Uh, Lauren Michaels came to see me. We weren't going to pick it up. We had another show that was kind of about Saturday night live. There was also, uh, going out that year. Uh, and he said, look, Jeff, I've never asked for anything in my entire career, but this is a good show. Uh, uh, it's, it's great writing. Tina Fey really cares. And so I said to Jeff Zucker, look, we're going to do this show, right? So we, we, we blended in, in the spring, it started very slowly, but you know, things are only funny because they're true. So I found myself seeing, you know, various scenes in 30 rock that I thought resonated with our employees. And quite honestly, I knew it was going to be a great show.

Jeff Immelt: (21:39)
The two shows that were really, uh, I liked the office cause I started in sales and I knew those people and 30 rock were two that I basically kept alive for a long time. Uh, flash forward a year or two Steven jobs. One of the few times I've talked to Steven was he wanted to get NBC content on iTunes and we weren't going to let him, he called the scream at me and before he hung up and he said, besides the only two shows people want to watch are 35 and in the office. So you got to do this for me. You're also going to be really mad, right. It's just, you know, I identified with both those shows.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
Well, listen, you've had a fascinating career. Uh, I, John's gonna want to talk to you a little about what you're doing now. I want to hold the book up again. You know, jet Javits, an incredible book. It's a great achievement. Um, lots of things happen in our lives that we don't plan for. This is a book about dealing with those things. And, um, and so I recommend it to everybody. I enjoyed reading it, uh, probably as much as you enjoyed writing it, it had to be cathartic for you to write it. Let me turn it over to John Dorsey. Uh, go ahead, Mr. Dorsey. He's he's in South Carolina, so John's a native of North Carolina. So hopefully he'll give you some guff for that, but go ahead. Mr. Dorsey

John Darcie: (23:04)
Clear South Carolina is way more backwards than North Carolina. Let's just the beautiful qui on it, backwards

Speaker 4: (23:11)
Effect DUI. Um,

John Darcie: (23:14)
But yeah, you know, again, I think the book was fascinating because a lot of times when a CEO goes through what many perceive as a disappointment, they prefer to just slink off into the sunset and enjoy the spoils of a, of a great career and not confront those issues and teach people about what they learned from, from an interesting period, uh, leading a great company and you didn't shy away from that. You know, your book, wasn't so much of a whitewash of your tenure, but just lessons that you learned and how people can apply them into the future, which I think is a great segue. So you're, you're teaching at Stanford, you know, about and leadership. You're also investing a new enterprise associates, one of the great venture capital firms in the world. What do you teach your students at Stanford? And what wisdom do you impart that you learned at GE when you're looking at new investments, new mega trends that are taking place, whether it's in technology or business in general,

Jeff Immelt: (24:05)
You know, John? So, um, I, I, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do when I retired. I thought I wanted to work with small companies and entrepreneurs. I, I knew I wanted to try my hand at teaching. Here's what I've learned from students is they don't want laundry lists of leadership, checklists. They want grit, stories, successes, and failures, because they know they're going to have to go to a world where you have to figure stuff out on your own. And so I think, you know, what I try to do is give them notions of here's how you do business in China or here's the trends are, or here's how digital industrial companies come together. And then I always end every class with a story. So some of the stories are good, some are bad. Some of my, one, some of my lost, and I want to show them that, you know, your career is really built on good days and bad days. You need a few bad days to make the good days feel better. And that resonates with them, uh, from a tech, from a venture standpoint, I, I love the healthcare space. I work there in my career at GE. And so I do a lot of, uh, healthcare investing. And I wanted to think small again, I had been in a big company for 35 years. I wanted to see what a company with 50 or a hundred people felt like, and that's been great fun.

John Darcie: (25:22)
Yeah. So Anthony asked you about Amazon and alphabet being two examples of companies that have grown massively in size and stale. And you've seen people leave places like Google over the years and talk about how they, they might've been acquired by Google and they thought they were going to be able to maintain sort of an entrepreneurial mindset inside of the greater parent company. But oftentimes those massive behemoths sort of squash that element of entrepreneurship and your ability to move fast. What advice, again, going into that theme, would you give to companies and to entrepreneurs that are working in large companies, but how do you maintain the, that innovative forward thinking mindset inside of a sprawling organization and those companies, should they, should they spin out different, uh, entities within the organization to maintain sort of some level of autonomy or what's the best approach, uh, for maintaining that innovative mindset?

Jeff Immelt: (26:11)
I think the first thing, you know, one of the sections of the book I talk about how do you make size and advantage and not a disadvantage? So like one of the places where we really played size as a real advantage was globally, you know, how do you do business in China? And, and around the world, we did that. And we did that exceptionally well. And it was only because we were a big company and then places where we failed, like investing in digital capability, analytics and things like that, where we would have been better off kind of doing a joint venture with a startup, getting it outside the company. So I think it's kind of like you, you have to play to your strengths with size. You have to be willing to be flexible, to bring in new people and new ideas and keep them from getting crushed by the, the mothership, if you will.

Jeff Immelt: (26:57)
And you have to be able to do both those. And then the last thing as a leader, when you decide you've got to get to what's next, you have to use all of the force of will to drive change. One of the things I always talk to my students about is, you know, when, when you're in school, you basically think that listening solves all problems that everybody would do well, if you only listened to everybody. And I said, that's not exactly true, right? Uh, you need to listen. You need people around you, you trust. But sometimes, you know, there's a lot of times when Jeff Bezos doesn't listen to the people around him, he just says, look, here's, what's next. Here's where we're going. And that's one of the reasons why Amazon is so successful. So surrounding yourself with good people, knowing when to listen and when to move, those are all things that you get from experience and from a good long business career.

John Darcie: (27:47)
Yeah. It's like Abraham Lincoln, uh, you know, when he was talking about emancipation, he went around the room and he says, okay, who's who are the A's and who are the nays? It was, you know, 10 days and one a in the A's habit, uh, because it was, it was, uh, Mr. Lincoln that was making the decision. Anthony uses that analogy sometimes with the decisions he makes the SkyBridge, which especially

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:07)
When you disagree with me Darcie. Okay. That's when I usually it's a contrarian indicator.

Jeff Immelt: (28:13)
So we did it in 2005, we launched a clean energy initiative and we had 30 people in the room, two or four at 28 were against it. We've got it. Right, because that's one of the chores you have as a leader is to pick what's next.

John Darcie: (28:29)
Right. So I'm going to talk about that a little bit more. You talk in the book about personnel. So you talk about how some of your regrets, as you look back at mistakes, maybe that were made was around not moving quickly enough to get rid of people that were maybe poisoning the culture. And we're focused so much on the pursuit of power and influence within the company, as opposed to, you know, not caring who gets the credit for success. How do you, how do you develop a strong organizational culture where you root out, uh, that mindset? Is it a case of just moving on from people that, that are poisoning the culture? Is it something that you can train, but how do you think about building strong organizational culture?

Jeff Immelt: (29:04)
Yeah, look so when I go back to the financial crisis, as terrible as it was, I was always very confident because the people that I was surrounded by, I trusted and, and, uh, there are other times in my career where that wasn't the case. I think one of the things that's John is, you know, we all get blind to people. And sometimes, particularly when you do a job for a long time, you're just not as sharp about it, as you need to be knowing when people have checked out and that you really on behalf of the organization have to move them aside. Right. You know, you're, you're not human. If you like firing people, we all want to see people in their best moment, but it's really critical that you take action on those people that have given up on themselves or playing for the wrong reasons.

Jeff Immelt: (29:52)
For eight years monthly, I would bring in a senior executive, we would have dinner on a Friday night with our spouses. And then I would spend six hours on a Saturday morning with him or her just talking about, uh, their, their, their, their career aspirations, how they did their work, what they thought of me. And, and you need to have, even in a big company, you need to have that kind of connection. So you can tell not just about that person, but you learn about the people around them and who's doing the work and who isn't. So it's, you know, it always sounds scribble. I would say people for the most, but they do. Yeah.

John Darcie: (30:30)
And when you show people that you care about them as people, it makes them feel like they want to work hard for you and, and not poison the culture. But, um, I want to talk about the period after you left you. So we talked about Jack Welch and I'm going to summarize it. Uh, you know, you basically felt that perception didn't equal reality in terms of how people perceive GE when you took over. And then after you left your successor, John Flannery unwound, some things that you had worked on that actually had showed some promise and maybe derailed, uh, some of the makeover that was taking place at GE, if you've been able to continue longer. And even if say you were in the seat today, what types of projects and initiatives would you be continuing? Some of which may be, uh, that you started sort of late in your tenure there,

Jeff Immelt: (31:10)
You know, I, you know, John, I, I'm gonna big out a little bit on the question cause I didn't write the book to kind of judge what what's happening to companies today. I really wanted a more complete narrative, but what I did, but look, all companies are a blend of operations and, and kind of innovation, what what's next. And so I think, you know, I would have focused on those two things where, where, like you gotta execute. If you don't execute, you don't last long, but you still have to invest in the future. You, you know, the most successful business that was in GE when I was, there was our aviation business look, we could wake up tomorrow morning and Elon Musk could launch an all electric aircraft and he could probably raise 10 or $15 billion to do it. And that changed the industry. Right? So if we're not leaning forward into those spaces and not taking risks and try new things, like it doesn't matter how long you've been around or what business you're in, you're going to get crushed someday. Right. So I would just stay focused on operations and innovation.

John Darcie: (32:10)
Yep. Last question. You know, we talked about Trump earlier, but his, his rise as a political figure, I think was born a lot out of the hollowing out of the American middle-class across the American Heartland. So you were at a major manufacturing company, GE got a lot of different businesses, but you saw firsthand the outsourcing of jobs, the effect of globalization. It didn't get quite as much attention as it was happening sort of slowly and quietly, uh, 20 years ago, let's say, uh, whereas today, you know, given the massive rise in living costs relative to wage growth, you're seeing much more outcry from those types of people who are willing to embrace some of the, maybe caustic elements of Trump because of the fact that they perceive that he's fighting for them and trying to restore some dignity to their work. What did you observe during your time at GE that maybe you saw some of this, uh, populism based on, on the hollowing, out of the American middle-class and what do you think the prescription is? I know you worked on some of these things under president Obama, what's the prescription for restoring that dignity and bringing home manufacturing and just rebuilding the American middle-class.

Jeff Immelt: (33:15)
Yeah. You know, John. So, um, my dad worked at GE for 38 years, so I never have had anybody that needed to explain to me the value of a GE job. Number one, number two, look, I I'm, I would call myself a Scaramucci Republican. I'm a, um, Romney Republican. I don't really recognize what I've seen

Anthony Scaramucci: (33:35)
Museum of natural history with that comment I knelt, you know,

Jeff Immelt: (33:39)
So I don't recognize what what's happening today. So let me just put that out there. I've never been overly political, but, but I don't recognize it's, but there's a reason why, you know, president Trump resonated with so many people and that is for 30 years basically business people like me thought we could move any job we wanted to, to chase low wages or move factories around. And that was all part of being a competitive framework. And you know, it wasn't unique to GE, but we were a part of that that actually started to change during the financial crisis. And it only accelerated with president Trump. So if you're running a company today, you need to care about where you make things. You need to respect the people who are doing middle-class work in your companies, and you need to be able to have some vision for how you include them into the, the role of your company, the vision of your company.

Jeff Immelt: (34:38)
And so, you know, it may, some economists at MIT might be able to defend here's what's happened to manufacturing jobs, but it doesn't work where it matters most. And the fact of the matter is, you know, for us, um, you know, 300,000 people when I retired, there were 300,000 people that worked at GE, probably half of whom were in the U S we were a net exporter. They were more important in, in political influence that I was right, hundred CEOs getting together in DC doesn't matter like it used to, but this string of people that work for you and work with you and that are essential to their communities, they matter a lot. So, you know, my hope is that, you know, the, this generation of business leaders understands that you can still sell around the world and you should, but you need to have some vision for this country or else you're not going to be, you know, your ticket's going to be pulled and you're not going to be allowed to compete for the future. And, and, uh, you know, or anybody in 2020, anybody that sole sourced of product in China for shipping to the U S had to have their head examined, had missed every clue for the previous decade. So, yeah, I think it's fascinating.

John Darcie: (35:51)
And it's, it's, it's very much back in the news as Ford announced, uh, recently that they're going to be moving a lot of their manufacturing activities that they were supposedly going to invest in Ohio are moving into Mexico. And I'm sure we'll, we'll re re-litigate, uh, the different approaches that Trump and now the Biden administration have taken to bringing American manufacturing home. But Jeff ML, thank you so much. The book is called hot seat. Anthony, will you hold it up again? So we get some sure promotion. The other thing I

Anthony Scaramucci: (36:17)
Want to mention, which I didn't get a chance in our interview, Jeff, is that when you started at GE, uh, and I'm on page 1 66, you had 6.4% of the corporate office were women. And yet the comparable to the rest of the corporate relations in the fortune 500 were 11.9%. And you did a masterful job of bringing that up and bringing GE into the cultural diversity and inclusion. Uh, and so I want to applaud you for that. The book is called hot seat. Uh, what I learned leading a great American company. It's a, it's a fantastic read. And I appreciate you coming on Saul talks, and I want to get you to one of our live events at some point, you know, I don't think Donald Trump will be coming to any of those live events, Jeff, but you know, you never know in life, just never know what's going to happen. So anyway,

Jeff Immelt: (37:12)
There's 12 of us left Anthony. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:15)
I exactly

Speaker 4: (37:16)
Right. Thanks again.

Jeff Immelt: (37:18)
Thanks for, thanks for,

John Darcie: (37:21)
Thank you, Jeff. And thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt. Talk with Jeff Immelt, the former CEO of GE, and now a venture investor, a new enterprise associates and a professor at Stanford teaching and investing based on what he learned during his tenure at GE reminder, if you missed any part of this salt talk or any of our previous talks, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks, and also on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. Please follow us on social media. We're on Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please tell your friends about these salt talks. We love growing our community and educating a broader constituency of people, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, uh, this is John Darcie signing off today from salt talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Don Lemon: "This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism" | SALT Talks #185

“The events that happened over the last five years uncovered the toxicity and ugliness when it comes to racism, the underbelly of society. I think the Trump administration exposed that… The boldness was fairly shocking.”

Don Lemon is host of CNN Tonight with Don Lemon and also serves as a correspondent across the network’s programming. He recently authored the book, This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism.

James Baldwin’s book The Fire Next Time marked the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation and served as the inspiration for Don Lemon’s This Is the Fire: What I Say to My Friends About Racism. The civil unrest stemming from the death of George Floyd created the urgency to write personally about the ugliness laid bare by the last four years of former President Trump’s rhetoric and policies. Language coming out of the White House offered affirmation to those motivated by white supremacist ideology. “We know there is a resurgence of neo-Nazi’s which I think would’ve been hidden if not for Donald Trump. He had become their imprimatur.”

When watching Trump’s speech on January 6th, violence appeared inevitable following months of misinformation spread about President Biden’s victory. Vulnerability to such manipulation can traced to schools’ whitewashed teaching of the country’s history. This emphasizes the importance of curriculum that contains unvarnished truths and also highlights the significant contributions to the United States by African-Americans.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Don Lemon.jpeg

Don Lemon

Anchor

CNN Tonight

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we are thrilled today to welcome the great Don lemon to salt talks. I know Anthony has been on Don show many times and, uh, we're, we're big fans of your show. They're on CNN, uh, Mr. Lemon, but Don lemon, anchor CNN tonight with Don lemon airing weeknights at 10:00 PM.

John Darcie: (00:56)
He also serves as a correspondent across CNN, us programming. Uh, he's based out of the network, New York bureau. Uh, he joined CNN in September of 2006. He's a news veteran of Chicago, however, and he reported reported from Chicago in the days leading up to the 2008 presidential election in which we saw a president Obama, a Chicago native would be elected the first African-American president, including an interview within representative Rama manual. On the day that he accepted the position of chief of staff for president elect Barack Obama. He also interviewed Anne Cooper, the 106 year old voter that president Obama highlighted in his election night acceptance speech. After he had seen, uh, Don's interview with Cooper on CNN. Uh, Don also served as the moderator for CNN political town halls and co moderated the first 2020 democratic presidential debate. And co-hosted color of COVID a special that addressed the pandemic's impact on communities of color. Don is also out with a great book that Anthony will talk about in the opening here called this is the fire talking about race relations in the United States, which is a must read, uh, in this era in any era, frankly, but hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, who I was alluding to who was a founder and managing partner of SkyBridge. I know Anthony has been on the show with Don many times. Anthony is also the chairman of salts. And with that, I'll turn it over to Anthony to begin the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:21)
So, so, so Don would Darcie wanted to say, but I had to take it out of the script that he loves your show, except when I'm on it. Okay. But I had a, I had a mark that out of the script, but just give me a sense for the type of people we're dealing with on Saltdogs.

Don Lemon: (02:36)
Did you hear that? He called me Mr. Limit. Yeah. I heard that. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:41)
Yeah. I mean, I, I may have to start calling you that I could, you know, at someday it could be sir lemon. You'd never know Don the way your career's going. I have no idea, but let, we could start out with sir, but I'm holding up the book for a reason. First of all, the covers. Fantastic. This is the fire. What I say, my friends about racism and obviously Don anchors, CNN tonight, a great cover. Why did you title it? This, I want you to go into the reasons why you've mentioned them in the book, but why do you title it this, and you write about your nieces and nephews about the fight to end racism, give us some sense for how this book came together and why you titled it

Don Lemon: (03:21)
That well, this book is a tribute to James Baldwin and it was fashion in, um, in a sense to, uh, to James Baldwin's book, the fire next time, which was my favorite book. And one of the first books, well, not one of the first book, but the book that really changed my life. And you can see, this is my original copy from one of the original.

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:41)
We, we get a lot of young people that listen into Saul talks. Obviously I want them to read that book as well as this one. So for those young people, they're not as familiar with James Baldwin as you and I are. Uh, tell us who James Baldwin was and why he had such a big impact on Don lemon,

Don Lemon: (04:00)
James Ball with Don lemons. James Baldwin was a revolutionary, uh, writer and author and thinker of his time, uh, from the 1960s, seventies and eighties. Um, and do you remember he, you know, he would do talks with William F. Buckley and, you know, he was just a great thinker, um, and, um, a great, um, uh, thought leader of his time. And he wrote a lot about race relations in this country. He happened to be gay, a gay black man from Harlem. I'm a gay black man from the south. So when I picked up his book as a freshman in college, it really changed my life. And the book is called the fire. Next time. It's a short book. He starts off the book with a letter to his nephew on the 100 year anniversary of the emancipation proclamation. And so as I was sitting around Anthony, as you know, uh, at the matrix of really what had, what has been happening in the country over the last couple of years, but especially the, the unrest that took place last summer, uh, with the death of culminating in the death of George Florida and then the protests that happened.

Don Lemon: (05:00)
Um, and in that moment, I decided it was time for me to write a book about race and I wanted to, to be as impactful as the fire next time, which is my favorite book. And as powerful as that book and as revolutionary as that book, um, not that I'm James Baldwin, I'm not trying to be him. There's only one hand. Only one person could put words on paper like he did. Uh, and so this is the answer to that. He, in his book, he said, uh, when, when he talked about race, he said, God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water, the fire next time speaking specifically about the race issue in this country. And so my book, after all those events happen this summer, I said, well, this is the fire that James Baldwin talked about. We're in the fire now. And thus came my book and I begin it like James Baldwin with a letter to my great nephew. You

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:46)
Know, it, it, it it's fascinating. Cause I read obviously the works of James Baldwin as a kid, I got invited to a, this conference on race awareness when was in high school and, uh, Eddie Glaude, professor Eddie Glaude who, you know, obviously wrote a book last summer, begin again about James Baldwin. And so I find it fascinating these back with us, but something that struck me about your book that I'd like you to address is that you talk about your trials and tribulations with racism growing up where you did. I want you to tell our listeners and viewers where you grew up and some of those tribulations, but I want to ask you a question and ask you to think about it for a second, growing up and being where you are today, the arc of your career has been tremendous, but did you think, and I'll, I'll answer for myself. I thought the racism was going to decline as we were growing up, you know, the introduction of James Baldwin, Martin Luther king Jr. The idea that we're all the same and we should judge ourselves by the content of our character, but that did not happen. And so my question to you is did you think that growing up where you aspirational, idealistic like that or?

Don Lemon: (07:03)
Yeah, I think we're both the eighties. Uh, you know, I grew up was born in the sixties. The seventies shaped me, but the eighties really had, uh, had a profound impact on me because you know, the eighties were kind of, everybody was free.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:15)
You you're not catching the smirking from Darcie who was born last week. Okay. Just want to point that out to you. Okay. You're not ignoring him. Try to ignore him. You're a fellow baby boomer like me. We have to team up on him. Otherwise we have no shot here. Nope. Nope. I'm

Don Lemon: (07:31)
Gen X, right? You're a baby boomer.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:34)
Okay. All right. That's true. The last year of the baby boomers, Botox

John Darcie: (07:38)
That can make you look as young as Don, but keep going,

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:42)
But let me tell you something, there are much more Botox experiments ahead in my future Darcie. So it may not look that way now, but it's coming. Okay. So just take it easy over there. Botox, dude, I can barely move my face at this point. Notice if you don't notice,

Don Lemon: (08:01)
Let me see if I can barely have a glass

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:05)
Of lemon. I can barely have a glass of water at this point in my life. Okay. I'm using, I'm using double straws now on my Starbucks in the morning. Now Darcie's enjoying that because I'm getting roasted. Let's go back to your thoughts about idealism and where we

Don Lemon: (08:22)
Are. So I was a child of the sixties, really. You know, I don't remember much of the sixties. I was born in 66, right. But I remember the, the seventies and eighties and the eighties. That's when I was coming into my own, I was becoming a young man and an adult. And I went to a high school at first. I went to an all-black Catholic school and then ended up going to a high school that was predominantly white. Um, and so I started having interactions with all types of people and people began being open about, you know, intermingling and, and getting together. This was, you know, a decade after had become integrated in the south. I went to my high school a decade after it had become integrated. Um, and so I thought the same way, I kept thinking as I was growing up, well, this is going to change.

Don Lemon: (09:06)
It's going to die off. When the old people die off, you know, it's going to go away. Uh, and then the events, especially that happened over the last five years or so, just started to uncover, um, all of the toxicity and ugliness when it comes to racism, the sort of underbelly of our society, if you will. Um, I think that the Trump administration exposed that, uh, and it was a rude awakening for a lot of people. It wasn't surprising that it was there, but to the boldness, that, to the degree that it was for me was actually fairly shocking. And so, I don't know if you remember in the book where I said that Trump was, I hated to say it, but he was the president we, we deserve. And probably the one we needed in the moment. No, I mean,

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:52)
I'm, I'm going to get there. I think that's a fascinating part of the book.

Don Lemon: (09:55)
I was optimistic that racism would diminish as I got older five years. It has not done. Yeah, no,

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:03)
Not only that. It was probably cloaked, a little bit of anything. President Trump, as you point out of the book exposed, it may, maybe that will help us get to a better point. I want to go to your mom first and then we'll get to Donald Trump. But, uh, and I have not met your mom.

Don Lemon: (10:18)
It's weird. What's that? She loves you. I don't know why it's weird probably cause you turned on the orange menace and she does not

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:24)
Like it. And she probably is happy. I predicted a lot of the stuff that was going to happen, that she was, she drew comfort from that. Right.

Don Lemon: (10:31)
Can I tell you later when we talk about, you know, what are you exposed as far as race? He also, um, quite frankly, made people a lot more politically engaged because my mom was never that political and now she listens to everything. She despised him. And if she didn't despise him before he started attacking me, certainly afterwards, she couldn't

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:51)
Say, yeah, well, I mean, look, I mean, listen, you're, I have not met your mom yet. Although, uh, Dierdre my wife, Deirdre and I had a chance to see her on your new year's Eve special with Brooke Baldwin and uh, no surprise to viewer. She stole the show. Uh, you, you know, she has more charisma in her little finger than all of us do. Okay. You just beautiful manifestation of authenticity, but you write something in the book about traveling to Africa, with her and the emotions that you both felt in Africa and your connection to your mom. So can you share that with us? I don't want to give the book away, but there's some beautiful passages here that I want to talk about so that I can get convinced people to buy this book and spend the time to read

Don Lemon: (11:36)
It. Well. So long story short, we did a segment on CNN, all the anchors on, uh, tracing our roots. And so I had to go back to Louisiana and then of course, you know, back to the continent of Africa to do it. And we went to the slave coast, uh, the, the Cape coast castle on the slave coast last gold coast because they can overlap in Africa and, um, to trace the journey back to America. And so we ended up at this castle with the Dungeons where the slaves with, with shackles and it was just really this just heavy experience. Um, and once we got out to, you know, we'll tell you what happened in that dungeon. You can only imagine people in the dungeon and shackles for months. Sometimes we get to the place called the, uh, the door of no return where you go out and you board the slave ship. And it was the last, really the last land that anybody saw in Africa as they left to make that journey across the Atlantic and walking through that door with my mother and us holding hands was probably the most emotional experience I've ever

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:39)
Had in my life. I mean, it, it, it, it, it moved me to tears. Uh, Don, I have to say, that's why I wanted to address it. I folded the pages over your mother says, I have to confess something said, mom, I'm glad we came, but I'm glad I don't live here. Tell us what she means.

Don Lemon: (12:58)
Well, this was after that experience. And because after that experience, you go to, they changed the name. And when you turn around, which really made us cry and gave us optimism is a door of return. And so after we shot that the door of no return, the door returned, and we saw the kids playing in the sea, which I write about and carefree in the book. We go back to the hotel that night and we're just going over the day. And we were sitting by the sea. We have a bottle of wine. My mom opens up to me and talks to me about how, how much she loved me, loves me how proud she was of me or isn't me. And, um, she said, you showed me things. I'm, I'm the adult. I'm supposed to be showing you things and teaching you things, but you have showed me things that I had never thought that I would see or learn or do in my life.

Don Lemon: (13:43)
And I'm just so proud of you. And I just, I love you so much. Um, and then she said, but I have to be honest with you. I'm glad we don't live here because I don't, um, I don't know if I could accept or understand this degree of poverty. And, um, she said, if I'd lived here, I probably wouldn't know. Um, but she also said, we also wondered about those kids in the sea if they had a freedom. Um, and, um, a lack of, self-aware not self-awareness, but a self, um, consciousness that we didn't have as adults, because we knew America. And that we had learned too much about what people can do and the degradation that people can face because those children were so carefree. So there was, um, there were positives and negatives. She was glad she didn't live there, but she wondered just how free she would be in her mind, how carefree had we stayed there.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:39)
But why you say something fascinating? The writing's excellent. By the way you say that this journey, uh, it's your own unique journey, but it's American. It's an journey. Tell us, tell us what you mean.

Don Lemon: (14:55)
Well, we went back as Americans expecting to have all of the luxuries that Americans have. You know, we get off the airplane if they're flying first class and we expect to get there and, and be in the four seasons and that's not going to happen or even to be in the holiday Inn. And that's just not what, what happened. Uh, I had been to Africa many times, but my mom had never been there. So she didn't understand the poverty that she would see. She didn't understand. Um, just how, uh, the, the, the lack of modern conveniences in many places that she would experience. And for her, it was real eye opening because she had never seen anything like that in America ever. And so we had a uniquely American experience where we expected everyone to cater to us and every, you know, everything to be ready for us and handed to us on a silver platter. We don't realize how, how you know, how good we have it here many times. Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:50)
So it's an interesting dichotomy because there's, uh, there's a racially charged society. Uh, yet there's a lot of great things that are happening in America. A lot of aspirational things. And I, and I got from you when you use the word American, uh, to me, what got me goosebumps was you're here to inject hope. You're here to provide hope and you're here to move things forward. And so as an American who loves the country, you're about progress. Is that, is that what I'm getting? Am I getting the right?

Don Lemon: (16:21)
That was well, that wasn't from the C thing, the C thing was just sort of us going over. That was more about a personal experience in journey for us about how we felt personally, the door of return was that part of it was, that was the optimism part that we were carrying forward, that, that our ancestors, um, had, had had this horrible journey and experience in America. And then we came back to the Homeland and that we were going to carry this experience back with us, to inspire other people and to teach other people that they were survivors. And that there was,

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:55)
I probably can. I probably can joining them a little bit, but again, I guess my,

Don Lemon: (17:00)
But there was a history just beyond being a slave in America. That's all I wanted

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:05)
To say. Mala, it's brilliant writing. I want to shift gears a little bit to something contemporary to get your reaction that George Floyd murder was a tipping point for a lot of black people, a tipping point for white people, frankly, I think that the graphic depiction of that on television, the eight minutes, 40 plus seconds of that, uh, we literally are watching a murder before our eyes. Why was that incident uniquely catalyzing for the fight against racism because you and I have both known of those types of stories. Uh, and we had the situation with Rodney king when we were younger, but this seemed to be a real tipping point. Why do you think that was,

Don Lemon: (17:50)
I mean, had you ever seen anything like that? We listen again, we grew up were pretty close to the same age. You hear about it, right? People tell you about their experiences, and if you don't have to experience it, if it's never happened to you, then it doesn't exist. And then all of a sudden we're sitting at home in quarantine, not knowing many people where their next dollar was going to come from. If their loved one was going to survive. COVID if they were going to catch COVID what the next day or the next week or the next year was going to look like. So we're all open and vulnerable. And then on our television sets or on our, uh, these little computers that we all carry around in our pockets, these cell phones, we saw a man died before our eyes and someone sit there and just put their knee on his neck and Rob them of the God-given right, to be able to breathe. And there was no denying what we saw. And there was no denying the experience of African-Americans, especially African-American men at the, at the hands of some police officers. That's why it resonated so much. We were open and vulnerable and we couldn't take our eyes off

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:55)
Well. And I think you, you did an amazing job during that very tragic event, explaining it to the American people. Um, you're the rare black primetime host and, you know, look, I'm just looking at it objectively, Don, it's a very white industry. So how do you use your voice to cut through the noise and communicate to people about the systemic racism that we see?

Don Lemon: (19:20)
Um, I honestly, Anthony, that's a, that's a great question. And you know, it's tough, right? Because I, I'm not only representing myself, I'm representing a company as a company that can get sued or get, you know,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:32)
Yeah. You're on a balance beam. You are, you are, the RC won't know this reference, but you're in the Nadia Comaneci, a broadcaster, you know, he's, he's Google, he's Googling her right now, lemon. He has no clue, but you know, you're on that balance beam every night and you're trying to strike the right chords of realism and authenticity, but you're also trying to wake up a group of people in our society that, you know, maybe they just haven't experienced it as graphically as you have, or, you know, people living in inner cities, et cetera. So how do you do it?

Don Lemon: (20:07)
I'm there for a reason. I'm there one because, uh, I think I do the job pretty well. I think I, you know, I'm a pretty, I do a pretty good job of anchoring a television to a show, but also, uh, I'm there because of my experience. That's what diversity is about. Well, I look,

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:21)
Look, you're, you're, you're being modest. Get you, do you do a great job? And let me tell you why. I think you do a great job. And this is just my observation of you, even when you were blasting me. Okay. When I was the white house communications director, and unfortunately I was trapped inside the Trump hotel watching you, and you were just blasting me. I was looking at this guy said, you know, this guy has a point, okay. I have to figure out how we're going to change the narrative. Here can remember taking my pen out, watching you blast me. And I was writing down how we were going to, I have to try to figure this out because a lot of the stuff that you were saying was true and you do it in a diplomatic way. Okay. But, but, so you're very good at what you do. So just cut right through it. Tell us, tell us in your mind editorially, what you're working on before you get off before the light, the red light goes on.

Don Lemon: (21:12)
Well, I, I listen one, I have to do my research and I have to know what I'm talking about. But two, now I've gotten to a place where I can speak with authority and to be quite honest, you and your former boss, uh, gave me, um, a sense of authority and urgency that I didn't have before, because I had to speak truth to power. Um, I always had to do that, but in this instance, in his instance, I had to make my voice louder and clearer. And so when I, when I go on the air, I have a responsibility to tell the truth. Not only to the people who look like me, especially to the people who look like me, but also to all of America, because all of America needs to hear that. And if I don't do it as the only black person in primetime joy, Reed is early prime. We are the only two people who share that space. And I did it for seven years by myself who is going to do it, Anthony Scaramucci. So I had to lean in and then, you know, take the slings and arrows and then worry about being fired or going too far. That, that is, that was second nature. So, um, that's how I feel. That's, that's where I am. That's why

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:22)
I admire, I want, I want to go back to an interview. I was at Atlanta, Georgia, you were interviewing Donald J. Trump, then candidate for president. He was describing the situation with Megan Kelly. I'm not going to go into what he said. It's not worth it. Uh, but you know what I'm talking about? And I, you know, and this is a poor reflection on me, by the way. So I'm just going to be very open about it. When I was watching him, I was like, okay, he can't be serious. This has gotta be part of a, you know, an act. He can't be serious, but you saw it seriously. And I guess I didn't. And a lot of people, frankly, didn't, that's my bad. I have to own that for the rest of my life. But was that an inflection point for you or did you know the nature of things prior

Don Lemon: (23:11)
To that interview? Um, that was an inflection point to me, but you know, you do the math and you, you, you do the calculus in your head, like, oh my gosh, what should I, how should I handle this? What should I do? And I didn't want to jump in on what he said in that moment and change it into something that it wasn't. And I didn't want to be a part of that moment in the sense that I wanted his words to speak for themselves and let people digest it the way that they, they should. And then I go back and I said, should I have called them out, said whatever. And then every people say, you know, I got what you were doing. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:44)
Listen, it done. That's a couple, that's gotta be four and a half years ago. I remember it vividly, maybe five years ago, five years ago, five years ago. So I remember it vividly and it left a big impact on me. You write in the book more or less. I'm paraphrasing now that Donald Trump didn't invent racism, but he made it more, uh, open. He was more almost like unashamed to openly express it live according to his prejudices. Uh, you write that, uh, he was like a symptom that alerted you, Don lemon and others for that matter to an underlying disease. Tell us what you mean by that.

Don Lemon: (24:21)
Well, that's what he was the percent rating. I think if you go down a couple more sentences, I think he said, I think I said the percent rating also, or tumor or something that drove us into the oncologist's office. And so that we could diagnose the problem and then take care of it. So that's, um, that's how I thought about it. He, he exposed, we, we know who the racists are. We know that the racists are, there are more racist in our society. And, and then we realized, we know that there's a resurgence of neo-Nazis and all of that, which would, I think would have been hidden. Um, if it had not been for Donald Trump, because those people felt that he was giving them legitimacy, how do you say it? He had become their imprimatur, right? We gave them a stamp of approval. And so, um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:06)
You were saying the quiet things out in the yellow bin. And they were like, okay, loud. Now we can say this.

Don Lemon: (25:11)
You can say the same. We don't have to wear hoods. We can wear khakis and polo shirts and March down city streets in the middle of the day, or, you know, an early evening with Tiki torches and we can do it with pride. And so that's what he did. And now we know, I don't know about you, but I want to know, I would rather know what someone is, where they're coming from, rather than you hiding your hand.

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:34)
Yeah. Some of it's so ugly down there. Sometimes I say, Jesus, I don't want to know that much, but I get, I get the point that you're making

Don Lemon: (25:42)
I'm from the south. I grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Klan used to hand out literature, Anthony in front of my high school, on the weekends, we did not have schools sponsored. Um, except for sporting events. There was no crime. There were no parties. There was nothing like that because they didn't want the racist mixing. There was a big Baptist church across the street where the clan would handout literature. My best friend lived next door to the grand wizard of the KKK, not next door, like in a house, but on a giant, giant pieces of property, you know, land acres and said he was the property next door. So I know racism, but I know that when I was growing up, people hit it or they secluded themselves. They lived in places and they dared black people to live there. They didn't want black people to live near them. And then when that started to encroach, it kept moving further up. You had the white flight, so people kept hiding and moving and hiding and, and, and now you can't right, you cannot do it. And so now I believe that we are in the death throes of white supremacy in this country, simply because of demographics. And the proof of it is the reaction that people have had to this election and to Donald Trump. And the biggest evidence I have is the insurrection that happened on January 6th.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:57)
Amen. So we'll, let's go to that for a second. And then I'm going to turn it over to the young millennial. He's not even generation Z or where the hell you just called yourself. This guy is like fresh from the

Don Lemon: (27:08)
Biggest younger than millennials, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:12)
He's like a hundred years younger than you. And let's just go to, let's go to this question about the insurrection. Uh, it's tied into the racism. It's tied into the dishonor of our democracy because ultimately you had a group of people, uh, that are feeling the heat that demography is changing. And, uh, they didn't like it. They didn't like the outcome. So give us your reaction to the insurrection.

Don Lemon: (27:40)
My reaction was I was sitting there watching, saying, oh my God, this is, as I write about in the book, if we don't deal with that, I write about Kristen Cooper and Amy Cooper remember in the park with the dog. And she called the cops on the guy because I, you know, he's a black man. And he said that he's bothering me in the park. And I write in the book about, unless you deal with this in a substantial way, then someone's going to come back with a bigger dog. Well, the bigger dog was the lie about the election that it was stolen. And then the bigger dog after that was the insurrection. And then who knows what the next bigger dog will be. And so what is that going to be a takeover of the government, a martial law, whatever. I don't know, you know, racist, marching down every major street in the country.

Don Lemon: (28:23)
I have no idea, but, uh, from the beginning I knew I knew what it was when I saw it. I knew when I saw his speech, that it was going to turn violent and I was sitting there watching it saying, oh my God, I cannot believe this. And you know, the first thing I saw was I, the first thing I thought was, I remember this last summer when there were black lives matter protestors in front of the white house. Uh, and they were gassed by the president or whoever. Um, William Barr, the justice department ordered them to be gassed. The president could make, could make a photo op in, in front of a church with a Bible. And then there were also black lives matter protestors who had gone to the Capitol that summer March did not try to go in, did not try to overthrow the government or overturn an election. Um, and then you had these guys do it. And I knew that they didn't get shot. They were able to go into the Capitol because they weren't black. If they would have been black or Muslims are Latinos, they would have either been shot. There's no way they would have let them in the Capitol. And these people, a lot of them just marched right into the Capitol. Senator, Ron

Anthony Scaramucci: (29:30)
Johnson would have been very fearful of them, but of course he was not fearful of the white people that were trying to kill Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi. So, and then he stands with the highest level of ignorance, uh, saying, what are you talking about? Why are you throwing the racist card at me? And so, I mean, we have a lot of that. What do you think of, I, I was about as a Paul does, you could be at that. I was embarrassed for him and his family. Uh, the fact that that's on tape forever is a stain on his family in terms of his lack of awareness and his lack of, uh, judgment about what's going on in our society. Uh, before I turn it over to John, one last question you're never

John Darcie: (30:15)
Going to get to ask about, because time's up,

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:18)
I'm cutting. I'm cutting into your time too bad. Okay. What do we do? What do we say to our kids? Give me something to lean on aspirationally. What do I say to my kids? Because your skin color is a little bit darker than mine and your hair is a little bit tighter and colder than mine. Not much in the winter. No, that's true. I'm from, I'm from, oh, you know, my family is

John Darcie: (30:42)
Tan, so he's suffering.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:44)
I have no, I've got no spray, but I got a lot of Botox. Everybody take it easy. I'm still asking the questions. Okay. So, so tell me something aspirational. You've got a little bit more of a kink in your hair. Your skin is a little darker than mine. Uh, but I see you where I see myself, how do I, how do I, how do we make that happen for our country? How do we relax people that we are the same? What is the big deal?

Don Lemon: (31:13)
So when you said you see me and you see me as yourself, that means that you see my humanity, right? So we all need to start seeing each other's humanity, respecting each other's, humanity and loving each other. And then that it becomes that much harder to denigrate someone. It becomes that much harder to put your knee on the neck of someone. It becomes that much harder, um, to treat someone differently or to discriminate against them. If you see their humanity, which means you have to be in some, some, some sort of a relationship with them, uh, a friendship, uh, at least in acquaintance, and maybe even romantically to people who are of different ethnicities. So I think that is the thing that you should teach your kids. You should teach your kids to get friends and to be around people who are not just like

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:57)
Them. Exactly. And because then you you'll, you'll find that we're really not that different. Go ahead. And Mr. More,

Don Lemon: (32:03)
One more thing. You have to teach them. You've got end school. I think they need to teach kids the true history of this country and the, um, the contributions of African-Americans, which are often left out of history books and kids don't know it. And by the time those kids become adults, they wouldn't try to overturn an election by, by, um, storming the Capitol because they are basing their history and their knowledge on lies about the country.

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:30)
Well, well, well, very well said. I always recommend Jill Lapore pours book, these truths. Uh, it is quite a study, quite a graphic examination of the good in the United States, but also the perils and some of the bad. Go ahead,

Don Lemon: (32:44)
Mr. Darcie. All right. That's all the time I have guys. Thank you. See you later.

John Darcie: (32:48)
Can Anthony and send my contract. I get at least one third of the show. It's a bunch of crap, but, uh, yeah. Thank you for, uh, the same

Anthony Scaramucci: (32:55)
Agent as I am. That's why I don't have a television gig. Okay. We need to get lemons agent, but go ahead. Keep going.

John Darcie: (33:03)
I grew up in North Carolina, we were talking before the show, you detected still a lingering, a Southern accent. You grew up in Louisiana. You know, there's different types of racism that exists in our society. There's deep south, you know, handing out KKK flyers racism. And there's a nimbyism, you know, I think I live in New York now on long island. There's a natural segregation that takes place a voluntary segregation. If you will, where there's not maybe as much mixing of races here in New York, a blue state, a supposedly progressive area as there was when I was growing up, going to public high school in North Carolina, what are the different types of more sort of pervasive, quiet forms of racism that you think we need to chip away at in terms of, you know, nimbyism not in my backyard type of racism. And how do you experience that in day-to-day life? Not in a way that's in your face, people wearing hoods, but in a way that's just a little bit quieter and more pervasive.

Don Lemon: (33:55)
Well, I'm glad you talked about that. Cause I haven't heard nimbyism in such a long time that not in my backyard is, um, right. Uh, I think that you, you pointed out the main one is that is that we live in a place that is probably the most diverse place in the country, in the metropolitan New York area. And even, um, in the suburbs and people don't mix people, don't talk to each other and hang out and they ha the only time that they have any interaction is if they're forced to either, uh, in business or in schools. And then even there, they don't, you know, hang out with each other. That is one of the main solutions that I talk about, uh, personally, and that I want people to get out of this book is that you're the only way, the only real way you're going to do it is through relationships.

Don Lemon: (34:42)
And I know people say, oh, it's tough because people self segregate or, or we live in a polarized society. I say, John, it's not hard to meet other people. Look how I met Anthony. Anthony came into the green room or came onto the show. And what did I say to him? Or what did he say to me? Hey, would you like to go have a drink? You want to hang out afterwards, I'm having a party. You're invited come to my holiday party or come to come grill at my house. We're having a barbecue on Saturday or Sunday. That is not that hard to do. I don't care what anybody says. You can do that at any age and to get to learn about someone, because when you don't know people, you don't know them. And the only way you get to know them is it gets to know them, right? I mean, it's just as simple as that. It's, it's, it's simplicity. And so I think that that's the key that is really for me that quiet. Um, I don't want to call it flat racism, but it's, um, it is a racial blind spot, right? It is, uh, a step towards, as Anthony and I talk about all the time, a more perfect union, because again, nothing is going to get accomplished unless we all get to know each other as human beings. That's the first and major thing for me. Yeah.

John Darcie: (36:01)
It almost just, it feels like it's more convenient for people to just, you know, live in their bubble. And I think one of the things that the George Floyd incident did was say, we really need to confront this and actively educate ourselves. And the people around us, if we're really going to make a difference, it's not enough to be an idle bystander and watch this stuff happen. We have to be active participants. If we're going to teach people to love, you know, Nelson Mandela, as Anthony was alluding to earlier, people aren't born racist. You know, they have to be taught to hate. And if they can be taught to hate, they can be taught to love, which I think was,

Don Lemon: (36:32)
Let me tell you this, that I think people say that because, um, they want to make an excuse for the way that they've always lived, that they'd been living for a long time. And if, until you get out of yourself and you, um, you, you sort of breach that bubble or whatever it is of your comfort zone. Then again, it's not going to change. Look, I had a gay pride party. The June of 2019 Anthony Scaramucci was on the invite list. He couldn't Anthony, you didn't come. I don't remember. No. I came to that came to my pride party.

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:04)
I came to the pride party chore. So I didn't work in, I've been working on marriage equality with, with New York state since 2008. Of course I came to that.

Don Lemon: (37:14)
That's the thing I did not, not invite you to the pride party because you're a heterosexual man. I just said, Hey, we would love to have Anthony at the party. We had, um, you know, an open house for Christmas. We didn't say, well, we're going to invite this many white people, this many black people, this many straight people, this many Christians, this, whatever. We invited, every one I had a party. Remember I had the party and before the election, uh, oh no. During, after the election I had like a winter party. Yeah. You invited everyone. People were like your

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:44)
Engagement party at the townhouse that you were thinking about.

Don Lemon: (37:47)
You know, everybody was there. That was amazing. Everybody was there. I met another

Anthony Scaramucci: (37:52)
Person that used to pick on me. Okay. Joy basically. Yeah. No, not joy. Bihar. Uh, Dory Reed. Yeah. Joy. Reid. I met her in the living room at your party. I said, okay, let me go back. Let me go back to my Twitter feed. Joy got on. We had a great laugh and now I do her show. I mean, come on. I mean, that's how you break things down, man.

Don Lemon: (38:14)
That's what that's anyway. I'm sorry, John, go ahead.

John Darcie: (38:17)
And Anthony has a unique ability to make people that want to hate him. Not hate him when they spend enough time with them in a private setting. We also have that money too.

Anthony Scaramucci: (38:26)
Yes, exactly. And I'm a, like a fungus. I get stuck in your toe nail and I never go away. Okay. Lemon doesn't realize this, but he'll be talking to me when he's like 95 or so I'll be, of course I'll be 97 at that time go. And Darcie w

John Darcie: (38:39)
We try to keep the payoffs secret, Don. So thank, thank you for outing us there, but I want to talk about police brutality. So we talked about the George Floyd incident, but I think police brutality and policing is a very loaded topic. These days after the election president Obama talked about how the use of the words defund the police was not constructive in terms of trying to defeat Donald Trump, you know, but also on the other side on the right, you have just this hypocrisy around, you know, backing the blue and supporting police officers during the insurrection. You had, uh, insurrectionists beating police officers with signs that said blue lives matter, which was almost the height of parody in a tragic way. But you know, black people's experience, this is one of the conversations that really resonates with me, just listening to black people talk about their experience around law enforcement.

John Darcie: (39:27)
I've been pulled over before. I've had interactions with police officers, and I have never once felt threatened or unsafe because I've genuinely always felt they're trying to protect me. Whereas I think black people feel like police officers, not all police officers of course are sometimes trying to target them. But at the same time, I think the vast majority of police officers are there to serve and protect as, as, uh, as the slogan goes, how do we reform policing? And how do we avoid painting police officers with such a broad brush that alienates them? It just is such a complex topic. How do we tackle it? And we improve policing, uh, in a way that's constructive without demonizing the whole profession. Why say you

Don Lemon: (40:06)
Have to pick up this book because there's a chapter in there on policing where I talk about what they've done in Newark, uh, Ross Baraka. I think that talks about what they've done in Philadelphia. And there's a mention of San Francisco police chief as well on how they sort of revolutionize their police departments are in the process of doing so, listen, I'm not a policing expert, but I think what you, the way you start is is that you have to treat people with dignity. As, as I had been saying. And then also I think community policing is very important that police officers are from, or at least familiar with the community that they serve and that they're not seen as occupiers in the community that they're seen as part of the community. And they're there to be peace officers and not necessarily be occupiers. Um, you know, I have interactions with police officers, mostly for traffic tickets as an adult.

Don Lemon: (40:57)
Um, and I'm concerned as a person of means when I see a police officer, um, pull me over or in some way is looking to question me because I had experiences with police officers. I was racially profiled and I called the cops. The cops showed up and they thought the person that I call the cops on actually call the cops. And they were like, you go sit over there. And this gentleman called police. And then I said, no, excuse me. I called police. And you see that thing in their head, like, uh, like the world changes like in a second. Oh my gosh. Wow. Like, wait. Okay. So the black guy called the police on white guy. Wow. That's, that's interesting. So, um, I just think that police officers need to, um, need to know the people that they are there to protect. Remember, and remember that they're there to protect people, not necessarily, um, to throw people on the ground and, and treat them horribly. But listen, I also know that policing is very tough. I would not want to be a police officer. That's why I'm a journalist and not a police officer. I don't want that job, but in that job, you're supposed to know how to deescalate situations. And, um, and I hope the right kind of person is drawn to policing in the future rather than someone who just wants to crack heads.

Speaker 5: (42:14)
Well, Don's been a pleasure to have you on, I'm a huge fan of your show

John Darcie: (42:18)
All the time I did. We're running out of time. And I have to say, I only reason I questioned your judgment is maybe your booking department needs to revisit, uh, some of their decision making on their desks because you have Anthony frequently on your show and your ratings must plummet.

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:36)
Can I get the hell out of you? We have very good chemistry on that show. Okay. Anthony, call your mom. Do your mom going to know Tim, your mom. Dierdre, I'm just, I'm telling them

Don Lemon: (42:49)
The actors listening somewhere here. The more important

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:52)
Piece, the more important people, uh, above and beyond this particular Saul talk,

Don Lemon: (42:57)
The banks are very smart. I don't know why he does. He does. He always says that you're really smart. And he actually thinks Kellyanne Conway is really smart.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:05)
Well, listen. I mean, I, I would agree

John Darcie: (43:07)
With the monkey thinks he's smart too, Don, you know, he's going to agree with you here.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:11)
I, uh, I had, I hadn't talked to Kelly. Oh, you'll enjoy this part. I, I, uh, I ran into Kellyanne on a London based show in the evening and on a zoom. I hadn't seen her in four years, as soon as she was quite polite to me. But having said that, uh, I think she also respected the fact that, uh, I didn't let her, uh, former boss walk on me. Uh, I think, you know, so it was one of those interesting situations, but I want to hold the book up one more time before you go. Uh it's uh, this is the fire. Uh, Don, I gotta tell you it was a moving book. I don't say that because you're a friend. Uh, it was a moving book and I wanna encourage people to read it. And I think you made it digestible so you can get through it in an evening. Uh, and it's very well thought out and I think it will help people get to where we need to get to. And I want to get it in the hands of many people as possible. So thank you for writing it. And thank you for joining us on, on salty. How

Don Lemon: (44:12)
Many books did you buy? You bought it for your entire company, right? And all your,

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:15)
I did, actually, we, we did, we bought it from a, we bought a French brand. We bought it from the strand trying to help out the strand cause it's stolen. Independent bookseller, seriously went to the strand and lots of books. Yeah. We have a dealer with no, we have a deal with the SRAM. We buy it. We like buying books, you know,

Don Lemon: (44:31)
Good stuff, especially Don, it's a pleasure to meet you, Anthony and whatever.

John Darcie: (44:37)
It's a pleasure to be with you. And, uh, you know, this is the fire. I think it was a great title. As Anthony said, I'm hopeful that we can not take two steps forward. One step back. I feel like there's such an energy around this anti-racist movement today that I'm hoping that, that, uh, the fervor can continue and we can really make tangible progress over the next five to 10 years, sir,

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:57)
By the way, you make more money, not being a racist. I'm just telling you more diversity, more diversity on your team, better ideas, better energy. I don't get it. We gotta, we gotta push people, get the incentives. Right.

Don Lemon: (45:10)
You know, what's your, you got a nickname like mooch,

John Darcie: (45:14)
Just Darcie. Nobody calls me by my first name. It's Darcie. Yeah.

Don Lemon: (45:20)
Alright, got it. And Doris, thank you.

John Darcie: (45:23)
And thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt. Talk with Don lemon of CNN out with a great new book. This is the fire talking about race relations in America. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access them all on our website@sault.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel called salt tube. Follow us on Twitter. We're at salt conferences are handled. That's where we're most active on social media, but we're also on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn as well, trying to do more on all those channels. So we would love a follow there and spread the word about these salt talks. We've made them free and accessible for everyone. We love growing our community and educating people on a wide variety of topics. None more important than how to end racism. So please spread the word about this talk and others that we host. And on behalf of, uh, the entire salt team, Joe Alito behind the scenes, our superstar producer, Anthony, uh, this is John Darcey signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Shabtai Shavit: Inside the Mossad - Israel's National Intelligence Agency | SALT Talks #184

“What connects people and the best recipe for healing conflicts is economic interests. In spite of what’s happened in the Middle East in the last few decades, I really do see an opening to change.”

Shabtai Shavit was director general of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, from 1989 to 1996. Shavit recently published his memoir, Head of the Mossad: In Pursuit of a Safe and Secure Israel.

Building shared economic interests represents the best way to resolve conflict and build lasting peace in the Middle East. There is currently an opening to achieve this goal with the recent normalization between Israel and key Arab countries following the Abraham Accords. The United States can play a major role by building a robust coalition that includes Israel and Arab countries. “The main common denominator between [Israel] and the Arab countries is the US leadership. I believe the change in guard in the US gives us the opportunity to be successful.”

On the global stage, Israel will continue to prioritize its relationship with the United States. Any Israel-China relationship will fit within Israel’s broader goals with the US.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Shabtai Shavit.jpeg

Shabtai Shavit

Director General, Mossad

(1989-1996)

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome director [inaudible] to salt talks. Uh, Mr. Chavez was the director of the facade, which if you didn't know, is Israel's intelligence services from 1989 to 1996. Mr. Shavita held a variety of positions within massage, uh, for over 32 years until becoming the head of the agency in 1989, he served in [inaudible].

John Darcie: (01:02)
I might be butchering the pronunciation of that Israel's elite force and received an honorary advanced degree from Harvard university after retiring from work in the security services. Mr. Chavez was the CEO of Maccabi health services for five years. Uh, since 2001, Mr. Shavita has been the chairman of the board of the directors of the international Institute for counter-terrorism interdisciplinary center and her's liar advisor to the Israeli national security council advisor to the subcommittee on intelligence of the Knesset, uh, committee on foreign affairs and national security and a member of the N Y F D task force for future preparedness against terrorism. He's also the author of head of massage in pursuit of a safe and secure Israel, which was published by Notre Dame university press and hosting. Today's talk is Michael Greenwald, who is a director at Tiedemann men advisors, a multi-family office managing over 20 billion in assets, uh, from 2015 and 2017.

John Darcie: (02:00)
Michael was the U S treasury attache to Qatar and Kuwait serving in two us presidential administrations under three treasury secretaries and held counter-terrorism and intelligence roles requiring traveled to over 20 countries. Uh, in this capacity, he was the principal liaison to the banking sector in Qatar and Kuwait. He was appointed to the U S treasury team that crafted sanctions against Russia, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda using his diplomacy background. He serves as a trusted advisor for, to men, uh, managing senior relationships with families and family offices globally. Given his experience with sovereign wealth funds and the private sector in the middle east. He leads business development in the middle east forty-two minute advisors. Uh, I'm going to turn it over now to Michael to host the interview. I might pipe in with a couple of follow-up questions here and there, but Michael, go ahead and take it away.

Michael Greenwald: (02:50)
Thank you, John. And thank you. Saul talks for having us today and director it's a real pleasure to be with you. Uh, I'm so happy to be discussing your book, which, uh, is a page Turner and it is wonderful to have you again here today. So welcome. I want to begin director, you know, more than a hundred thousand Israelis have visited Dubai, uh, since the Abraham Accords, um, have come to fruition and you're seeing air travel, uh, opening up for the first time, uh, since last summer on Friday, the United Arab Emirates, and now it's the $10 billion fund to invest in Israel. And I want to first get your thoughts on what it means that this number of Israelis are traveling to the UAE. And what do you hope this fund to invest in Israel will mean for the future director? Well,

Shabtai Shavit: (03:55)
First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to, uh, talk to you. And, uh, it's a, it's a real pleasure, especially on these days of the, uh, of the pandemic. It gives you your, your, you are situated in, uh, in, in the end of the world and you, and you are talking live with the other end of the world. Share gives you a feeling of being free. Uh, well, the, uh, I, I, uh, I really don't see the, the Abraham, uh, agreements as a, uh, as a maybe unique opportunity for a window of opportunity to, uh, to bring to the middle east large and [inaudible] of, uh, stability instead of, uh, walls in skirmishes. And they always, and then never ending conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and, um, what connects people and the best recipe for healing conflict is, uh, um, economic interests.

Shabtai Shavit: (05:22)
And, uh, here in spite of all, what happened in the zap and in the, uh, in the middle east, in the last few decades, I, I, uh, I really do, uh, um, see an opening to, to change it, but of course, it's, uh, it's a matter of, uh, a, a relatively long period of time and it needs a, um, if you're quick conditions, so, uh, uh, to be, uh, met, uh, but, but by and large, it is, it is feasible. And, and the, and the, uh, what, what we have as a society, as people, as, as nations to, to win is, uh, makes, makes it very, very deserved to, uh, to invest the, uh, all day felt, which is, which is needed. So, um, the main area, the main common denominator between us, um, there are countries, most of them, especially the, the so many countries in the middle east, um, but we need for it to happen.

Shabtai Shavit: (06:47)
We need the, uh, leadership of, of, uh, of the us. Um, and they, uh, I believe that the change of guardian in the USA in the us also gives us the opportunity to, uh, to be successful, uh, and what's needed the form, uh, from the, uh, president president is to, uh, to change a little bit the, uh, former policy of America first and, uh, let's disengage from the world. And, uh, and, and deal only with domestic abuse, American domestic, domestic, eh, eh, issues. Now, uh, the middle east is a, is a hill since the beginning of time. And, and, and one of its scars characteristic is that all along his three, it was considered to be, uh, an area region, uh, which, which, uh, stability is not the one of its icons and symbols and, uh, you know, anybody or anybody who believes that he can, uh, leave the, uh, middle east and don't pay attention to it based on my humble experience, eh, it is a, uh, it is not a vision that can, uh, can, uh, become a troll.

Shabtai Shavit: (08:18)
Um, we ever saying that, uh, um, your main neglect the middle east, but the middle east would never neglect you. So, uh, it's a, it's a, it's a issue that, uh, the Alto two parties to these, to these Stango. So, uh, that's why I do believe, uh, the United States has the, as the leading power of the free world. Uh we'll uh, we'll, uh, we'll, we'll be connected and we'll invest a diamond and sources and resources, um, to the middle east. And, and now we do have, and you're opening with a very, was a very good, eh, eh, up to, uh, to be successful. So, uh, to put it very, uh, very shortly, what I, uh, what I see is a new excess of power, uh, being built in the, in the middle east, which will include, first of all, the U S as, as the leading a thumbnail, and then the, uh, three countries, Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, the fridge that, um, all of the heirs have a peace treaties, uh, since quite a long time.

Shabtai Shavit: (09:51)
And then the, uh, the emulates who, uh, joined the, uh, the, uh, Abram, uh, gods. And I also say Saudi Arabia is a major power that, uh, should be, uh, uh, a partner in, in, in this, uh, in this, uh, ex-US now these sexes, um, will, uh, will, uh, transmit to the rest of the world. The following measures will the following message, which says that the us is, is not disengaging from, from the middle east. The us is, uh, um, going to pay a major role in the, in the middle east. And, uh, the message will be, uh, will be, uh, targeted first of all, to China on the, on the global level to Russia on the global level, um, a signal to them that, listen, we are not, eh, uh, going out from the, from the playground. And, uh, then on the regional, uh, on the regional level, it really is, will send a very strong message to a Iran.

Shabtai Shavit: (11:14)
And to Turkey. Iran is, uh, is galloping 12, the, uh, acquiring a military nuclear capability with a military surface to surface your gloomy sides. And they, uh, Delcy is undergoing a, uh, a, um, a sort of a, uh, uh, uh, becoming again, eh, um, religious, the Shalia, you slamming jealous showy, and they, uh, and they cooperate and support, uh, some of the, uh, most extreme Muslim organizations. So this new axis will, uh, will be a buffer also vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, which, which are considered to be original powers. And they, uh, at the end of this, uh, this process, it will bring hopefully peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because if the, uh, this axis will be engaged in, uh, in, in enhancing the idea of the peace and, um, and, and the Saudi Arabia will, will be a participant in it. And in all the, in order for them to, to join, uh, we'll have to, uh, all parties will have to, uh, base the, uh, uh, negotiation, eh, draft on the Saudi or the leg, eh, proposal from back 2003. And they, uh, I don't see either side, not the Palestinians and not, uh, Israeli, Israeli, whatever government it may have to, uh, to, uh, flannel, to be, to, to be opposed to such a proposal.

Michael Greenwald: (13:31)
So building on that director, and then you mentioned China, and obviously many of the Gulf states Israel's played in a unique intermediary role for years. And someone say that the role that Israel has played with, uh, weaponizing its, uh, cyber capabilities in its own Silicon valley and what it's been able to have our relationship strategically with the Gulf states and China and others that its intimidatory role has been very unique the same time. Uh, a number of the Gulf states have played a key intermediary role with China. How do you see what the Gulf states, um, can learn from Israel and what can Israel learn from the Gulf states? And in your book director, you spend time in Southern Iran in the early seventies. What do you think Israel can learn from a wall

Shabtai Shavit: (14:35)
Form form for me around? Well, the I'm smiling because the first answer that comes to my mind is, uh, is, uh, um, while stalling, uh, and, uh, and playing full time and by playing,

Michael Greenwald: (15:00)
I mean, obviously we know the Iranians are excellent negotiators.

Shabtai Shavit: (15:05)
They they've, I've invented this, uh, this out, you know, I, uh, I I've learned some of my Farsi in the Bazaar and the art of negotiation started in the Bazaar. It is an Iranian, it is an Iranian invention and, uh, you know, uh, imagining a home, well, eh, well, around the table, you have a group of Americans negotiator and a group of Belgium negotiators. Uh, I don't have any doubts whatsoever who is going to, uh, to warn the answer. Um, so this is the, this is the, uh, this is the first, the first thing that I learned and other things that I learned. And then, uh, it was, it was right those years at the, uh, mid sixties, um, that, uh, uh, you know, you know, that in order to, uh, you don't need protection if you have, if you have connections in, uh, in, in Iran.

Shabtai Shavit: (16:18)
And, uh, if I can, uh, if I can, uh, steal from our time two minutes, I try to give you a vignette from those days. Um, uh, like version any Iranian and Iranian partner of mine those years taught me one morning. You know, I, I'm going to the Bazaar to buy, uh, to buy clothes, eh, for, for short, uh, you want to join me and I, um, I joined him, so we went to job. We entered the shop, uh, the, uh, the guy in the shop didn't, uh, didn't know, well, and we started to, uh, to measure and to ask until about cloth and so on and so forth. All of a sudden the telephone in the shop rang and the, uh, shop on it went and took the, uh, telephone. And, uh, after a, uh, 30 seconds, he turned to us and he told us, uh, are you a Mr.

Shabtai Shavit: (17:21)
So-and-so the, uh, the, uh, eh, governor of, uh, of the region, uh, once you, and, uh, my partner, the union partner took the, took the phone and talk for a five, six, seven minutes. Um, he finished every, every sentence that he said by the words, yes, [inaudible] general. And then he, uh, he finished the, uh, the, uh, telephone call and, uh, then we bought what we bought and when it came to paying the, uh, the shop owner refused to, uh, to receive money from us. And it was about why we had connections. The, uh, the governor of the, of the region called us when we went out, my counterpart told me the telephone came from my wife. So he talk with, he was discussing with his mom as his wife, as if she were the, uh, secretary of the governor. So it's, it's a very colorful story, but, uh, it tells you what the, the, the, the what's behind dating in culture in, uh, in DNA and so on and so forth. So, uh, these are the basics

Michael Greenwald: (18:56)
That, that crystallizes, I think the art of negotiation, and, you know, I hope that, uh, the Israelis and the Iranians can maybe at one point go to the tailor together. Again, I want to build on Israel's relationship with China. I know that you dealt with the Chinese at different levels when you were director or at massage, where do you see the relationship with China going right now? It's a very sensitive issue here in the United States, the previous administration pressure, uh, you know, the prime minister and the government on how close the ties should be. Where do you think is the happy medium for Israel to have a strategic relationship with China, but also maintain and grow the strategic relationship with the United States without putting the relationship with China, uh, out of bounds and doing things that would potentially hurt the United States?

Shabtai Shavit: (20:00)
Well, let me, let me tell her the following. And of course I express myself only. I don't represent nobody and no one of the, uh, of the organizations it's I, uh, used to, uh, to belong in, in, in, in the bus in the past. Um, I believe I, I would rephrase your, your, your question or the answer to your question that we should define and cut out our, the nature of our relationship with China form our relationship with the us, meaning basically that between the two, I don't have any doubt. And I, and I think that nobody should have any doubt to whom to give the preference. There is no doubt that we should, uh, this, the define and build the relationship between us and the, and the, uh, us, and to come to a sort of an understanding, to what extent we, it would be acceptable fall following us, uh, that we, uh, that we, uh, build on the other hand, some relationship with the Chinese cause, uh, um, relationship between the us and Israel go back, uh, for so many years, a U us was the first, uh, the first country in the UN to support the, uh, inception and the, the establishment of the state of Israel, a relationship between Israel and the United States are based not only on fuel interests, but, uh, on, on, on the heritage of, of, of, uh, the Jewish, uh, uh, culture and, uh, and, and, and the Bible and so on and so forth.

Shabtai Shavit: (22:23)
And they, uh, and the us oftentimes, um, declared that, uh, the, the security and the survival freeze of Israel as, uh, as an independent country is one of the, uh, one of the pillars of, of the American foreign policy. Whereas with China, we, we do have a relationship that, um, it's nice to have, but, uh, those relationships when it comes to, uh, to well survival, um, we, Israel, we cannot, we cannot align them. So, uh, this is the balance. And according to this balance, or should say design and, and execute our way, our relationship with them.

Michael Greenwald: (23:17)
So director revoric turned to how Israel as utilized, uh, the COVID vaccine for its strategic influence. There was a part of your book that really, um, spoke to me as well as other people that have worked in, uh, professions of service and, and professional service. And you, you mentioned in your book, um, dealing with the eulogies, um, of, uh, some of the members of the saw that had died at the service, and it was interesting that you included those eulogies, um, you know, written over the years. And so, can you just maybe talk to us about why you included that part in your book and what it means to you when you read them about service and being away from your family during that time period? That was very tumultuous. Um, uh, um,

Shabtai Shavit: (24:25)
The, the basic logic of Silvis in, in, in Israel, and especially in, in the different security organizations, uh, starting with the idea of, and, and then the security, salvation animal sound is, uh, is based on the notion that, eh, we, people who self the, the country do it voluntarily. First of all, they don't do it for living. I can, uh, adjust in brackets 32 years. Believe me, I didn't know the amount of money that, uh, entered my bank account, eh, as, as, as my salary, when I wanted anything about, you said there was connected with money. I, I, uh, I talked to my, I talked to my wife, so, um, and the, the feeling of a, uh, an independent war that unfortunately never, never ends. And I, we went out, we are 72 years. Uh, we are 72 years since, since independence. Uh, there was no one decade was out any, I was out any encounter between us and, and our neighbors, some of our neighbors as in with the terrorist organizations. And there is Lord, they passing by without a casualty or [inaudible].

Shabtai Shavit: (26:29)
So the, the, our DNA's DNA of, of April, well, uh, well, uh, for, for the long after our alive, and this is maybe the, the, the uniqueness about our situation is compared to, as compared to other, other country around the world. And, uh, this is also the reason why you are, you're talking with me and, uh, I'm now, uh, um, 82 years old, uh, and you sit and talk to somebody who would pay a fortune in order to achieve, uh, you know, to achieve peace and, and to live and to live the Israel, uh, at peace with its neighbors, for, for my kids and grandchildren. So

Michael Greenwald: (27:33)
I want to build on that because my next question was about your grandchildren. Um, did you feel you were given your role and given the difficult areas you were tackling, did you feel as present in the lives of your children? Are you making up for that now in the lives of your grandchildren, and when, what are you hoping that when your grandchildren tell their children about you, how do you want them to describe you? What stories do you want your grandchildren tell their children, uh, about their grandfather?

Shabtai Shavit: (28:15)
You know, I am, I am a, uh, um, I am a great believer in, in, in, uh, in, in the equation that charisma is being, uh, is being expressed by deeds and not by stories. So, uh, because of this, uh, uh, definition, I, um, I've rarely, uh, discussed, uh, eh, things about, uh, about this, this issue, like, uh, any other issues I just to tell you on brackets that the, uh, the event, when the prime minister nominated me to, uh, to the, uh, to the job, there was a small modest event is with the BA all the big shots of the country. Uh, yeah, I thought that they, it was a, an opportunity for me to, uh, to say something about my, uh, how I see the world, how I see the threads, what, how I feel, I believe that we should, uh, address our problems. And, uh, I was standing vis-a-vis the appointment. His cell was delayed [inaudible] and, um, it was very well, very near to each other. It's all of Sunday. So in bending to the guy who stood the side to him, and he told him, Hey, listen, I did know the shops I know, knows to speak at all.

Shabtai Shavit: (29:59)
So, eh, I, I, uh, I'm happy that whenever I, I remember it, uh, my, my kids without me preaching, without me saying my kids, six of them, $3, they finished the army. Compulsor compa compulsory service, and three are now in the army. All of them, I don't know why I didn't use any connection, but all of them are serving in a, in, in, in elite units. Uh, they didn't learn it at school. They didn't say that they, they were not, eh, eh, led to. Uh, but, uh, this is the nature of the kind of lives that you, that you lead, which, uh, at the end of the day, influence your, your siblings smaller than anything else.

Michael Greenwald: (31:07)
So, director, I want to turn to COVID and how Israel has tackled it, because I think Israel has played a very important role and how it's used in the facade to first, um, you know, create control and order in the country, and then obviously to create its own sense of urgency, uh, to create, uh, find that vaccines working with, uh, different parts of the country. Uh, and so it's really being seen as a model. Uh, how do you S why do you think Maasai got involved with it with COVID in this capacity and how do you see Israel being talked about 20 years from now? Was this an inflection point for Israel coupled with the Abraham Accords to really blossom in a different economic way than it ever has before?

Shabtai Shavit: (32:06)
Look, it's a, it's an interesting, it's an easy question, but, uh, but, uh, I know, uh, I'm sure that some people who would listen to us now, not going to like my answer to that question, looking at it, in retrospect, it it's believe me itself, the purpose of, of, of a gimmick to, to some people without naming names, uh, judging it by the results, believe me, the, uh, the operation in which the Maasai board, the nuclear, uh, a, uh, stall book with, with all the millions of, of documents of the, uh, of the new, of the Iranian nuclear technology. I'm sure that 20 years from now, no one will remember that the Mossad was engaged to, by a vaccine sense and these kinds of things, but everybody would the member of the, uh, the operation that dealt with the Iranian nuclear project.

Michael Greenwald: (33:38)
So I want to turn to your thoughts on whether another Arab spring could brew among some Arab states. You think we're headed for a second round, do you see the, uh, another type of geopolitical earthquake happening of uprisings? Um, and if not, why do you think that wouldn't take place

Shabtai Shavit: (34:06)
Fell? So Foley took place at the beginning of the 2010, 10, and, and hence it took place because, uh, because they, uh, and I'm, I I'm talking bullets now a, uh, because they young generation in, in the Arab countries, um, underwent a sort of a, uh, intellectual revolution and, uh, and decided that it was time for the Arab countries who, uh, well, mostly to tell Italian kinds of countries to, uh, to change and, and to introduce, uh, to the middle east, a democracy and, and so democracy and, uh, and, uh, uh, um, liberal economy and freedom and so on and so forth. But it turns out that they didn't succeed because the result of the spring of solutions in the middle east brought in extremely slum instead of democracy.

Shabtai Shavit: (35:24)
And in order to beat the, uh, extreme Islam we had, we had the, uh, the, uh, different, uh, revolutions, uh, was the involvement of, uh, of a fault of the world, um, terrorism itself, expended and, uh, covers now all the world and the, uh, the, uh, extreme terrorism, which is based on, on religious, on, on religion makes the, uh, the, the, the confrontation and the end, the problem, even more difficult because of the nature of, of this kind of Islam being, being, being a Legion, religious. And, uh, yeah, eh, one gentleman who one molar Tula can the, tell me in the, uh, the, the, the, the future of the country or the future of the world. Uh, it's interesting that the only one countries who, who, who moved past the, um, spring revolution safely, well, the monarchies, it was Jordan and Morocco. And, uh, and to extort the sentence said the monarchies in the, in the, in the Gulf, they, uh, they cross this, uh, this era relatively, relatively well.

Shabtai Shavit: (37:04)
Now I, my it's not the feeling it's assessment is there that the young generation who, who, uh, uh, started it back in, in, in 2010, they still are around and the generation behind are there. And, and the urge fall for changing the, the, the middle east to become a better Middle-East economically, socially, politically, and so on. And so forth is, is, is still there. So I don't call out the, uh, the possibility that, uh, um, certain conditions, um, cause each other in a, in a given time. And we may, uh, we may see it a second chapter of, uh, of, of this say,

Michael Greenwald: (38:06)
Right? So I have two more questions for you director. Want, you talked about you going into the Taylor with your Radian counterpart and given what this administration in the United States is about to undertake with future negotiations with Iran, and what secretary of state Blinken is forming his team. How would you advise the United States from a negotiation perspective? What tactics, what areas of strength, how do you see the United States coming to the table from more of a position of strength? How can they exit the tailor, not having to pay for their suits?

Shabtai Shavit: (38:59)
Look, the, uh, the wrong speech that I, uh, gave you the, uh, the outset of our meeting. If, if, if this, um, speech becomes the strategy of the American foreign foreign policy, this alone will affect the, the, the, uh, the, the T the mind physician and the, and the strategy that they [inaudible] will shape in order to, in order to, uh, to style their negotiations around the table. Now, because if Iran realizes that not only the U S as the number one superpower in the world is staying in the middle east, but rather it's succeeds to build a very big coalition and especially a coalition where Arab countries and Israel are participating. Um, the Iranians are not stupid. They are, they are very smart, and it, it will, it will, uh, um, it will indicate to them that, uh, this coalition mean means business. And it is not only the United States that negotiate with them. It's the, uh, big top, we, the bigger part of the middle east and the Europeans, and, uh, they, they, it, it may affect them, their demands and their, uh, vision and, and so on and so forth.

Shabtai Shavit: (41:06)
Now, now, now, just to add to this, to be more, more practical, you know, the, uh, the, the, the existing treaty introducing to it, uh, a few addition, uh, demands or requests or long call it, whatever you like to call, but, uh, one that, uh, eh, and demands as regards to the, uh, what the experts call the, the sunset of, of the, of the, uh, eh, agreement, eh, the, uh, um, uh, the, uh, nuclear surface to surface Smith's size, which was not dealt with entirely with, in the existing, eh, contract, and also, uh, the issue of, uh, Iranians mingling all over the middle east and, and, and causing a troublesome havoc. So if, if, if the west, with the us succeed to deal with this, maybe one or two additional, eh, points that I don't recall it at the moment and succeed to extract form the Iranians, um, agreement on this issue, it could give us a, um, another generation of a relative peace.

Michael Greenwald: (42:40)
So, director, I want to ask you one last question before I turn it back to John and that's, if, if the prime minister asked you tomorrow to create a Passover Seder table, which countries besides the United States, would you have at that table during that Seder and why, so what countries are most important to Israel going forward besides the United States?

Shabtai Shavit: (43:21)
Um, I, it's a, it's a very good question. I never thought about it. We just, uh, we just got the news last night that, uh, we are going to have a regular Seder without any restrictions from the government because of the, because of the Corona. Eh, it will sound odd to you, but I'm going to tell you what I'm going to say, but if it, if it was possible, I would invite in addition of the Americans, I would invite the Chinese.

Michael Greenwald: (44:08)
Do you think they would like brisket and matzah ball soup?

Shabtai Shavit: (44:12)
I, uh, what I can tell you from my, uh, personal experience is that, uh, the Chinese, uh, think only good things about us, uh, in, in, in various issues. They even envious. Again, I can, I can give you another vignette. Um, when, when I used to visit, after making the round of meetings, and I, uh, during my term, I, uh, I visited the three, four times a year there, and they all do the simple cake. So after finishing the, the, the round of meetings with my counterparts, they took me to, uh, uh, to, uh, Pilsen was the number three on the police bugle, a ladder. He had three heads. He was the coordinator of all security services. He was the chairman of the, uh, nation say parliament. So say they have this body, eh, very small 6,000 members of, and he was the chairman of this body.

Shabtai Shavit: (45:35)
And the fairly, he was the fellow number three on the [inaudible] list. And in the each time during the first meetings, three, four meetings at the certain point of time, he used to, uh, to push the, uh, the, uh, the question, tell me, who's all there reminded me, who is all the, your us and the stories. They're all there. I, you can't tell me. So I had to, I had to tell him, you are older than we are. And then I thought, what, what should I do? What can I do? And it was the face to face meeting with him. I waited for him to drop the, uh, to, to, uh, to, to push the, uh, the question of any deed. I told him, listen, we have another calendar than you. Our calendar is the weight of, of, uh, the brains and all the, uh, you know, the regular calendar of fields since then. He never, he never asked the question again.

Michael Greenwald: (46:48)
Well, director, I, uh, I look forward to having Passover Seder with you. You are always welcome. And I look forward to that very much. I want to thank you so much for this wonderful conversation today, uh, for this fantastic book, which I recommend everyone to go out and read in John. I want to turn it back over to you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

John Darcie: (47:11)
Well, director Chavez. It was a pleasure to have you here on salt talks and Michael, thank you so much for moderating today's conversation. I look forward to having you again on salt talks out to talk about a lot of the things that you've worked on and continue to work on over at Tetum. And I love reading all of your articles that you send through out to your mailing list. So thank you so much for joining us. Uh, both of just a reminder, uh, for anybody who missed any part of this salt talk or any of our previous salt talks, all these salt talks are available on our website and on our YouTube channel salt.org backslash talks is the website. Our YouTube channel is called salt too. We've made all these webinars free during COVID to just try to educate people on a variety of things going on in the world. So we've really enjoyed that. We're also on social media on Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks, but on behalf of the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Sheila Warren: Why Bitcoin Is Here to Stay | SALT Talks #183

“We have a generation we’re raising of crypto-natives. Crypto is going to be commonplace… decentralized systems powered by blockchain are paving the way for that.”

Sheila Warren is the head of Data, Blockchain & Digital Assets at the World Economic Forum. She co-hosts a weekly podcast and television show called Money Reimagined on CoinDesk TV.

The journey to fully understand Bitcoin and its underlying technology came in stages. The interest in Bitcoin came first before realizing the far-reaching nature of the revolutionary blockchain technology and all of its potential applications. Often, too little thought is given to the value we ascribe to government-backed currency when criticizing Bitcoin. In reality Bitcoin and the blockchain offers a unique type of security and backing. “Bitcoin has value in part because people think it has value, but I also think the underlying principles behind it, the technology, governance have inherent value, even more so than the money printer.”

We are a raising a generation of digital natives who will more seamlessly adopt a crypto-centric approach to the world. This will only accelerate the normalization and adoption of blockchain-powered applications like non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Sheila Warren.jpeg

Sheila Warren

Head of Data, Blockchain & Digital Assets

World Economic Forum

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal in our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And again, as we've talked about many times here on salt talks, we don't think there's any bigger idea. That's disrupting finance and other industries as well. Then the digital asset decentralized finance and Bitcoin space. So we're very excited to welcome you to the latest episode of our digital asset series on salt talks with Sheila Warren.

John Darcie: (00:59)
Uh, Sheila is the head of data, blockchain and digital assets and a member of the executive committee at the world, economic forum, AKA Davos. Uh, she founded, uh, the blockchain and distributed ledger team at the forum center for the fourth industrial revolution C4 I R, where she serves as deputy head, uh, Sheila co-hosts a weekly podcast and TV show called money re-imagined, which airs on CoinDesk TV, CoinDesk being one of the leading, uh, media outlets that covers Bitcoin and digital assets. And she was also the architect of Presidio principles, the ground bay thing, a groundbreaking ethical framework for blockchain applications. Her pioneering policy work, uh, is helping shape the data and technology spaces to be more inclusive, ethical, and equitable. Sheila began her career as a wall street attorney at Cravath Swaine and Moore before turning to philanthropy and civic tech over a decade ago, she was most recently the VP of strategic alliances and general counsel at tech soup.

John Darcie: (02:00)
And prior to that role, she launched, uh, she designed and launched NGO source, which is a software as a service product focused on international grant making. She's an honors graduate of Harvard college and Harvard law school. If there was any doubt about whether she's a genius or not, she obviously well-educated as well, but Sheila, it's a great pleasure to have you on, uh, at SkyBridge, we are members of the world economic forum. I've been to Davo several times, obviously it's sort of the cream of the crop in terms of the event circuit and the thought leadership forums that exist out there. So congratulations on being an integral part of what is a fantastic event in Davos and generally a fantastic organization. But I want to talk about your Eureka moment as we often do at the beginning of these salt talks on digital assets and decentralized finance and on blockchain. So you come from a fairly normal wall street background, you were a lawyer by trade. When did you stumble upon digital assets and say, wow, this is something that's going to be really huge. And it's going to transform finance.

Sheila Warren: (03:02)
Yeah. You know, I'm one of those, uh, rare people who actually got into Bitcoin digital assets and blockchain as distinct things, which, which, you know, now I've corrected that initial, uh, uh, confusion let's call it. Uh, but I was into Bitcoin far earlier than I was into even understanding what the heck the technology was that underlay it. Right. So, um, funnily enough, my husband got me the Bitcoin. So he's like, there's this thing called Bitcoin, you know, people. And I was at that moment, I was still a lawyer practicing attorney. So my immediate frame was that's criminal money. Like what I talking about, we can't possibly, you know, and the story is kind of a funny one. So one day, uh, there were helicopters, we live in the mission in San Francisco and there were helicopters outside as sometimes happens. So we looked outside and we're like, what's going on? So we went to Twitter, as one does figure out like what's happening in my city, you know? And it turns out SWAT teams had invaded, were arresting, uh, silk road, like Ross basically. And they were like, that was all going down, pretty close to us. And my husband turned to me and he's like, Bitcoin just went on sale. So that's a story of how we got into grew into it.

Speaker 4: (04:08)
What was the price at that point? I don't want to out

John Darcie: (04:10)
You for being a Bitcoin billionaire right now, but what was the, well, if only

Sheila Warren: (04:13)
We had it flipped it earlier than we should have, we have been a, let me just say, we'd be sitting on quite the, quite the pocket, but of course, you know, we were smart enough to get back in at a different point in time. Um, you know, I think that for me, I thought of that initially very much as the alternative to gold, the digital gold narrative, you know, really struck me in the early days. And then frankly, I didn't pay that much attention to it for a little while. And then what happened was on the blockchain, on the technology side, uh, I was at the time general counsel of a group called tech state social enterprise who worked in 200 countries with non-profits. Some of whom were operating in very hostile environments. So we had this instance where we were working in Uganda. There was a law that was passed about LGBTQ, uh, being illegal, like actually, like you could get imprisoned if you were outed as being somebody who was LGBTQ plus.

Sheila Warren: (05:03)
And we had information organization servicing that community, like we had their addresses of the brick and mortar where these organizations were working. We were very concerned about how the state might get out and what might be the results of this from a very humanitarian perspective. And I had a dinner with some friends, the state department who were telling me about blockchain technology, like, oh, you should look at blockchain. And you know, we're all going to be paying, we're paying attention to this and it's a database and it's going to be a more secure database, blah blah. So that's when I actually read the white paper. So she didn't know how much white paper I went out and read it. And I was like, this is on real. So that's how I went down the rabbit hole. And then of course I connected the two biggest together and I was like, oh, that's Bitcoin. And the same thing, like, you know, so it, it took me a little while to get away from the digital goal narrative into understanding how powerful the underlying technology to consensus that governance really was. But once that connection was made, I mean, like everybody else in this space, you know, it became annoying and obsessed and wouldn't talk about it

Speaker 4: (05:58)
Exactly. Right, exactly.

Sheila Warren: (05:59)
Right. But the story then becomes, I think pretty common for all of us, right? Like we all have that. Nobody wanted to be a productive us anymore. And then of course, everybody wanted to talk to us. So that was kind of the path that we all went down.

John Darcie: (06:09)
Yeah, exactly. You know, we were a little later to our intellectual journey, uh, at SkyBridge and salt, frankly, in terms of, yeah. I I've been skeptical of Bitcoin for years as well because the same narratives that are perpetuated by, uh, people that are skeptical about it, they say, you know, it's used for criminal activity, illicit financing, uh, you know, it's, it's, uh, damaging to the environment, all the different things, the elements of FID, uh, fear, uncertainty, and doubt that you hear today. And then we just, we did more research on the space, got more comfortable with, uh, issues like security and custody, then a, and made a decision to enter the space last year in a timely, a timely manner. But we won't get too far into that, but you know, how going back into the macro themes around how blockchain technology will focus on Bitcoin, more in a second, but blockchain technology, I feel like there's this narrative in narrative that exists that, you know, I think there are some libertarian routes to Bitcoin and decentralized finance and all that type of stuff. But I think that blockchain and decentralized finance are actually tools of economic empowerment. So I think there's a little bit of a misunderstanding politically in the U S for example, you see some people on the left that attack Bitcoin. Cause I think it's, it's some libertarian nefarious scheme, but how can it really be a tool for economic empowerment?

Sheila Warren: (07:24)
I think it's important to say that it, it can be both, you know, and so the technology itself lends itself to a variety of different applications. Some of which can very much be used, uh, to exploit like any technology can be used to exploit, you know, but, uh, if the correct policies are in place, I think they can very much be tools for economic empowerment. And that's simply from the idea that there's no longer a centralized gatekeeper who is controlling the storage use of funds, uh, and they're released for that matter. And so I think that in my mind, you know, fundamentally what we're seeing in society and this goes well beyond the financial system, is people really wanting to feel like they are more active stakeholders in any system they're engaging in. You see this a lot with no centralized platform, social media and kind of push around, like, why don't I own my own data?

Sheila Warren: (08:10)
Why am I locked in here? And why is it hard to pull things from place to place? You know, the same thing is true in finance, right? So why do I need to be locked into a certain kind of currency and pay an at its orbited feed and transfer that into a different currency or whatever it might be, right? There's all these kinds of ways that people feel locked in. Um, now there's a certain level of sophistication to understand those nuances. And that's where I think you get some of the kind of criticism around this. Like how can it be economically empowering if people don't really understand it. But I think that it's not that important that you understand it. It's kind of the mechanisms that are being built around it that are so powerful. I think defy is one of these centralized finance and the entire movement there. Uh, I think that for example, NFTs, you know, non fungible tokens are another example of this, of how creators are being empowered to actually value their creations and get compensated in new and exciting ways. All of these things, I think fundamentally fundamentally are about, uh, economic empowerment and more of a stakeholder model. Just something the forum believes very strongly.

John Darcie: (09:06)
How much of Bitcoin's rise in the rise of NFTs and decentralized finance do you think is born out of the macro environment that we're in, where post 2008, uh, governments borrowed tons of money and kick the can down the road in order to stimulate the economy and trigger some level of growth. I don't think that we've grown as quickly as they would have hoped given the, the amount of debt that was printed during that time period. And then that was even accelerated and by, by several factors, uh, during the pandemic where the U S government was at the forefront of that in terms of, you know, we created 25% of existing money supply in 2020, which is a staggering amount, how much of that, uh, that ecosystem that decentralized finance and Bitcoin ecosystem is driven by all that debt and how much of Bitcoin is just a brilliant technology that was going to be inevitable, regardless of what governments did.

Sheila Warren: (10:00)
I, you know, I tend to think it's more the latter. And I think that we accelerated the adoption curve on it because of the former, right. So it's interesting to, no one knows, we don't know who's the Toshi Nakamoto is or who they were, you know, which I, my view is it's gotta be a collected, but regardless we don't know. And so it's impossible for us to assign motives to the creation of Bitcoin and people do it all the time. So why not me not to interrupt you, but I suspect at some point there will be some will or trust or document that is released upon posthumously. That's like, here's the proof that I am and what they donate.

John Darcie: (10:37)
So Toshi, whether it's Tishi or they, they donate their Bitcoin to some, some cause or something like that, or they, or they throw it out in the trash so that all the other Bitcoins are worth more, or what are they doing?

Sheila Warren: (10:47)
Well, maybe because I grew up watching a lot of television, but I feel like I like a dramatic reveal. So I feel like we're, we're on a path to some sort of very dramatic reveal that, you know, that is planned by this or those individuals. Um, and, um, I'm holding out for that, but, you know, we don't know, we just don't know. And so there's a mythology around that. I actually, by the way, don't think that the mythology around it is, uh, should be divorced from the attractiveness it had in the, especially the early days, right? The mystique around this was part of what do people to it. And the fact that there wasn't there literally is nobody had ever controlled this because the author of the paper that spawn this and the first Genesis blot, we don't know who that person is. So there is no way to influence that person because no one can do that because they don't know who it is.

Sheila Warren: (11:28)
So actually it was a very powerful and very wise move, whether deliberate or otherwise, I assume deliberate to ensure that the true lack of centrality was kept forever in perpetuity. So is, have you seen what happens? But you know, the, the problem addressed in the paper fundamentally is one of double set, right? It isn't necessarily like how to tumble economic systems or whatever. I mean, people imply all kinds of things and read and do it, whatever they want, and I've done the same guilty of the same. Um, but I do think there, there was a recognition that this was a cool cryptographic problem. We wanted to kind of solve it. We wanted to understand what it could do. I find it highly unlikely that the Scotia collective could foresaw all the phases of this would spawn. I just, I find it hard to assign that level of foresight and creative thinking to any individual group of individuals who knows, you know, I mean, maybe we're

Speaker 4: (12:21)
All in the simulation and this is all just been broken. Yeah. I mean, the point about

John Darcie: (12:25)
Satoshi, if, if that person is still alive and still holds all those Bitcoins that talk about being, having diamond hands and being a hotline, that person has just continued to hold those Bitcoins from 1 cent all the way to $58,000 per Bitcoin, they're now, you know, multi multi-billionaire. That is somebody who has incredible belief in what they created and incredible foresight. Um, but that's a whole, yeah.

Sheila Warren: (12:50)
Keep the safe. Right. You know, I mean, I, it would not surprise me if that were the case. I also think that we know for a fact there are untold Bitcoin billionaires who will never realize those gains because they lost, I lost there.

Speaker 4: (13:03)
That's awesome. A big ones. We talked about 21 million. Yeah. You talked about 21 million

John Darcie: (13:08)
Outstanding. It's actually significantly less than that because of the amount of loss. So at least at least you or I aren't one of those people we might've missed out on, on part of the that's true. That's true that

Sheila Warren: (13:19)
You do not have any mosquitoes, but you know, sad to not being a person who had the foresight to them, you know, not stored them in a device that you'd been erased or something else

John Darcie: (13:28)
Actually, you know, VJ boy potty is somebody that we had on salt talks. And if you're in the Bitcoin ecosystem, you know who that is, he wrote a great paper called the bullish case for Bitcoin. I think it does as well as anything that I've read, make the intellectual case for why Bitcoin is sound money and why it is better at being gold than gold in your view, intellectually, how do you look at Bitcoin and people who say, well, it's not backed by anything. It doesn't have any real value it's just made up out of thin air intellectually. Why does Bitcoin make sound money? And why is it inherently worth something?

Sheila Warren: (14:01)
Yeah. You know, the, the reason we started the money reimagined podcast at which I coast Michael Casey on CoinDesk is exactly the point out this, the comedy of that statement, right? I mean like what actually is money? What backs money, you know, and now you could argue the full faith and credit of the U S government went back to the us dollar and that's not nothing to sneeze at, but you know, it's certainly not the paper it's printed on, you know, there's, there's that we have that whole idea. I'm like, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Well, ha right. So, so money inherently is, is, is funny that way. Um, we point out how memes over time, you know, have generated value in and of themselves. And so, you know, Bitcoin has value. Yes, that's true in part because people think it has value, but I also think the underlying principles behind it, the technology that governance have inherent value beyond even more so than I would say the money printer, you know what I mean?

Sheila Warren: (14:50)
So, and it's, and that is less likely actually it's less in a way it's less plausible that that will, that could ultimately dramatically fail. Yeah. So right now we're relying on a lot of systems that are bolstering the value of certain kinds of currencies or relying on certain political leadership and decisions that are bolstering, you know, the value of certain kinds of currency. And I mean, Munis around the world, I'm not speaking about the, the dollar specifically, um, that is not true in Bitcoin. Bitcoin has an inherent value because of what it enables and what you can do with it. And the new system that it can eat is starting to bring into reality. And, and because of, I think, uh, the other thing that, that spawned, so, you know, there's a tendency to really focus solely on Bitcoin. And I understand why we do that, but I actually look at crypto as a space more, more generically personally, because I think that, you know, this is a rising tide and the value of it is going to be determined by the adoption that it gets by the ways it's being used by the creativity and the application layer, all of that is going to prove ultimately to be almost embedded into the value of the underlying coin.

John Darcie: (15:57)
So I want to build on what you just said about, you know, whether or not Bitcoin remains the overwhelming dominant player in the cryptocurrency space. So right now it is, and in these types of businesses, whether you look at Google or apple or Amazon, it's often a not winner take all, but win or dominate the ecosystem. Do you think Bitcoin is now so far out of the barn that it's going to continue to dominate market share in the cryptocurrency market, or you think there's a threat of a better technology and a better protocol coming through that could disrupt it and take a larger percentage of the market share than perhaps the consensus view.

Sheila Warren: (16:35)
So, you know, this just, isn't how I look at the space and I understand why, you know, people who are focusing on the price of death, look at the space in this way. But I actually don't think that there's a cage match ruin here between let's just say Bitcoin and Ethereum, right. As the two dominant players in the market, they're just, they're different things. You know, they were, they were built for different purposes. Uh, the application layer and Ethereum is, is becoming even more and more robust over time. You're seeing competitors, you know, to that. So I think for every sort of use case, yeah, there's probably going to be one thing that becomes, you know, dominant in a way with other players that are maybe, maybe they rise and fall, you know, whatever. Right. Um, but I think that, that you have to kind of look at it in that fashion.

Sheila Warren: (17:16)
So are you talking about it as a, maybe an exchange, the store value, or are you talking about an application level on top of it, that's enabling other kinds of transactions or trades. Like, I think all these things matter, and I'm hard pressed to see how one thing is suddenly gonna, I dunno, dominate everything else when we cannot even imagine at the moment, you know, what, what people are going to do with this stuff. Like we're still so early, you know what I mean? Like of tease, I mean, we have crypto kitties back in 2017, but like, I don't think any of us knew that it was going to blow up to be what it is today. You know,

John Darcie: (17:48)
Didn't think people was going to sell a piece of NFT, digital art for $69 million.

Sheila Warren: (17:54)
Right. Like we cannot even imagine what's going to happen here. So, you know, we're, we're all a role doing the best we can with information we have at the time. And in my mind, I feel like, yeah, you know, Bitcoin's dominant cause in part, because it was first in part because it's robust in part because there is color, we don't even know who built the thing. You know, like all these things I think, um, perpetuate its value. I don't see that really changing in a, in a negative way, but I do see other things coming up that are going to be probably just as valuable, you know, and they're, and they're not really competitive. So that's, that's how I see the space developing over time.

John Darcie: (18:28)
I agree with you. Uh, people like to look at the market cap of gold, you know, it's around 10 trillion, uh, but gold in an environment where people would typically think gold would outperform, uh, you know, there's this binge of debt that the U S government and global governments have been on. That's typically a very bullish environment for gold. Gold is actually performed pretty mediocre. And as, as Bitcoin has sort of taken that mantle, uh, as the alternative store value, let's talk about NFTs for a second. I think it's fascinating. Like my, my older brother, for example, he had all these old sports cards that were sitting at our parents' house that we didn't think two seconds about. They were in a plastic case. We all moved on. He's a doctor. He lives in Wisconsin. I live in New York. My parents live in North Carolina, suddenly this massive collectibles craze happens and we start fishing out these old sports cards.

John Darcie: (19:16)
And then I introduced him to NBA top shots, which is, uh, an T platform has gotten a lot of attention, but, and he started dabbling in that. And the values of those digital highlights started going crazy. And I just sort of had this Eureka moment where I'm like, wow, this is in a, in a world that's completely digital where most millennials and gen Z and gen X and whatever, all these generations are called live largely online. Why wouldn't a digital collectible have the same value as a physical collectible, if there is verifiable scarcity. But why in your view is this space exploding so much? Why is somebody willing to pay $69 million for a piece of digital art? And do you think this is just the beginning? Or do you think this is a speculative mania that's happening sort of at the early stages of NFTs driven, partly by easy money from the fed.

Sheila Warren: (20:03)
Oh, there's a lot there to unpack

Speaker 4: (20:04)
[inaudible].

John Darcie: (20:07)
But talk to me about NFTs, what they are, why they're significant and where you see the future.

Sheila Warren: (20:13)
Let me start with something that, that you, that you noted right. About the transition from physical object to a digital object. And so we talk a lot about digital nativity, right? So the generation that is, you know, it was called them gen Z. I don't even know what they're called anymore, but this generation of Pedalecs

John Darcie: (20:28)
Generation, I think I have some kids that are in the alpha generation. What might

Sheila Warren: (20:33)
Get there, my material, I have no idea what generation she's going to be called. Um, but they're digital natives, right? I mean, like just even seeing my seven year old and how she interacts with devices and just a natural way that that flow happens. And you have digital twenties, many very, very common, you know, even for generation of, of young adults right now, uh, which differs from, you know, the way that my parents' generation, right. Like, thinks about this stuff. Um, we have a generation that we are raising literally, in my case of crypto natives, like people who are going to be crypto is going to be so commonplace to them. And I can see my daughter saying to me, I can probably see her saying this in like six years when she's 13, you know, how could you possibly have given your data to a social media platform?

Sheila Warren: (21:11)
Like what the hell were you thinking, giving her anything about you as centralized player that you didn't control it? Like, what were you, I think that's going to be a math and motor people and decentralized systems that are backed by blockchain are paving the way for that, right? Like, well, you can have more ownership. NFT is, are an example of how a creator can create something and then own a stream of income that's coded basically into, you know, that, that, um, creation over time and not have to necessarily fight for that through an agency or a gallery or whatever it is right now. Uh, so I think there's going to be a natural way that people, the things that, that we find is still a little bit, maybe new or, you know, different, they're going to just be so natural to this generation. And so, so, uh, I think that we're, we're seeing some of that right now.

Sheila Warren: (21:54)
We're seeing a generation that, you know, they were never really going to buy a painting and put it on their wall because that's not how they interact with the world, right? The interact with the world, through their social media, through their, whatever it might be. And so having that image and having it be their background or their avatar or whatever it is, is much more powerful for them. And this is a way that reflects their mode of being just simply being in the world, which is, which is very digital and online. So I think we're just seeing the generational almost transition. This is a very logical extension of the way people think about these kinds of these kinds of things. That's kind of ownership right now. Next question I think is, do I think that $600 million, you know, that is really not for me to stay, right? Like, so we have to match that

John Darcie: (22:36)
Bid. You are a participant participate.

Sheila Warren: (22:40)
Yeah, no. If I had that, I would be say, San Francisco, how do we, you know, how do we get some, uh, how do we get something going here? There'll be other things I do with that money personally. Now that being said, you know, obviously that was worth that to someone, you know? And, and, and again, it's not for me to say, so I think that, yeah. You know, do I think that that is overvalued again? Totally not for me to say, because the market value of that at that price. Now, what I will say is that I think that there's a little bit of, you know, this is a fad right now, for sure. I don't want to call it hype. I don't like that term. I think it's a fad. People are really like, I want to miss something because it's cool. And a lot of what they're mentioning is kind of like, um, this, uh, there's this SNL skit that I talk about from a while ago, I was very little when this came out.

Sheila Warren: (23:25)
So I'm sure no one listening probably remembers that, but, um, the actor is playing Picasso. Okay. And so he's like painting in his studio and doing whatever and everyone's coming and biting, but, and paying all this money. And he goes to a restaurant and he's at the cafe and he doesn't have his wallet. And so the waiter's like, oh, sorry, you got to pay your bill. Right. And he's like, what? I'm Picasso. I don't know if we still got to pay man. And so he blows his nose into a napkin signs it, because, so, and he's like, [inaudible], here's what you got. Okay. So some of what we're seeing is a little more like that, you know, no matter, you know what I mean, than it is like the actual art, right. Um, and that's to be expected because people are playing around with this, you know? And so over time, I think you'll see that the true talent does emerge. And that's where the value is really captured. And a lot of NFCS are kind like, you know, they're there, but you know, it's not necessarily, uh, attracting this sort of this sort of price and the transaction level. Right.

John Darcie: (24:18)
I want to go back to Bitcoin for a second Bitcoin and decentralized finance and the cryptocurrency space at large, you work at the world economic forum, which there's a lot of big institutions that, that are members of the world, economic forum and active participants in all of your events and the programs you put together. What's, what's the, uh, the view from that institutional lens right now of Bitcoin and of this movement, you know, obviously, uh, Bitcoin has sort of libertarian grassroots type of origins, but you're seeing institutions, whether it be SkyBridge capital, where I am gainfully employed or insurance companies like mass mutual, New York life recently put someone on the board of a leading, uh, crypto Bitcoin focused investment firm. What's the lens. And the feedback that you're getting from members of your community about is this something that we need to be a part of, or are they still cast a skeptical eye at the whole thing?

Sheila Warren: (25:12)
You know, part of the beauty of my job is that we, we don't have skin in the game, right. So I'm not, uh, th the forum's not invested, you know,

John Darcie: (25:19)
You're not saying, Hey, invest in my world economic forum, a Bitcoin fund here. Yeah. Right.

Sheila Warren: (25:23)
Like we don't, yeah. We haven't issued a token. You know, we, uh, we, we aren't building, you know, we don't roll out any protocol or applications and things like that. Right. We're, we're really influencing the policy and the governance kind of landscape here. And so, you know, over time, you know, we there's always been interest in these topics. First mentioned on the program, the public program was actually 2015. We had a session that used the main Bitcoin and a title, but that of course means that prior to that, you know, there was a lot of conversation happening and closed door sessions, and that didn't make it to the public stage. So I would say, you know, almost from 2011 or so, this was a conversation happening on some of our major constituents. And part of what I see as my responsibility in this role is to really normalize those conversations, right. To say, like, you should be paying attention to this. It's fine to be open about your, the fact you're paying attention to it. It's fine to be open about the fact that you own it. You know, this is not going to be seen as like something where you're engaging in like criminal activity or fraud or laundering or whatever, right. You can be

John Darcie: (26:18)
To get fired from your job because you're delving into this sketchy asset class.

Sheila Warren: (26:22)
Exactly. And over time, I think we have been able to be a very strong influencer in, in the openness around the conversation, like people being willing to share their holdings. And then of course that leads to people be more willing to get into the market, you know, and explore the potential and figure out like what, what this really is. So a lot of the companies that, you know, we, that we've seen making some of these big moves been part of these conversations in various ways, or kind of heard the things that we've been talking about. Um, and I think, I think that, uh, that's going to continue, you know, I mean, we're, we're now getting before it used to be that we had to kind of really push to have these conversations, you know, be public and try to get speakers on our stage to be willing to talk about them now. I mean, in our lease the Davos agenda, you know, let me just put it this way. It was not hard to find very senior people who were willing to talk publicly about this topic during gender. Right. So, and that's even an only, I've only been here three and a half years, and the transition is extraordinarily dramatic in terms of that.

John Darcie: (27:18)
Yeah. I think the price appreciation will help people stick their neck out and say, yeah, actually we've been investing in this for awhile, you know, bang on their chest a little bit, but I'm talking about regulation, uh, around Bitcoin and around crypto. I think obviously the generation of regulators around the world as an older generation, they maybe don't understand certain elements of Bitcoin, but I think there's also plenty of reasons why, uh, they're just doing their job by, by continuing to be cautious. But, you know, there's this notion that that Bitcoin is used only for nefarious purposes for illicit financing. Janet Yellen has offered similar types of comments, uh, as she's assumed the role of treasury secretary, but there's also the IRS recently launched a program called operation hidden treasure, where they're training their agents to learn how to spot fraud, uh, and tax evasion on blockchains. Do you think we are inevitably going to get sound regulation of Bitcoin and of decentralized finance? Or do you think that's an impossible nut to crack what's your overall outlook on the regulatory environment globally for digital assets?

Sheila Warren: (28:26)
Well, I certainly think it's an area that is, uh, being heavily scrutinized or regulators all over the world. You know, so this is certainly not unique to United States. I think people are really struggling with how do we effectively regulate this in a way that it's going to provide the protections that we think are important for our citizens, but are also going to not, uh, you know, disincentivize innovation, right? If we want creativity. And so we've seen from, from the early days, you know, thinking like regulatory sandboxes or things like this, where you could have a more collaborative process in some jurisdictions, more than others to kind of figure out like what's the right thing. Now there's a couple of things I think are really important. And I think that along the lines that we've talked about with empowerment of actors in this space, you know, I think we have this shift in, when you think about crypto, it's a bit of a shift from consumer, you know, to user right.

Sheila Warren: (29:09)
In a way. And so I I've been saying, I think that our notions of consumer protection are kind of outdated, you know, like who's the consumer who we protected them from, you know, if there's no centralized in and to see like, who are they? Who is that? You know, and that's different from kind of like blatant fraud, like hacks and things like this that we all agree are just like, should be prosecuted. Non-starters are just like bad actors. Right. But in this case, it's, it's not, you can't quite port those concepts over, they don't work. They don't it's square peg and round hole with it. Now I think that impulses are reasonable fair. And part of, I would argue the role of a regulator, right. To make sure no one's getting fleeced or scammed or whatever it is. Um, but how do you do that? Isn't, it's very complicated question.

John Darcie: (29:50)
And part of that role is making sure that you have a regulatory framework in place. You know, I think you're seeing that play out in the U S there's only a certain number of vehicles that allow you to get exposure to Bitcoin. For example, one being the grayscale Bitcoin trust, which is now 40 plus billion in assets, some people invest in micro strategy, Michael sailors company, because they have three plus billion dollars worth of Bitcoin on their balance sheet. So you're, you're forcing people to invest in Bitcoin through channels that might not always be completely healthy. And, and, uh, and, uh, you could see a Bitcoin ETF in 2021 because you have the new sec chairman taught a blockchain course at MIT, or you have that similar mind. Do you think there's going to be more regulation and friendly regulation that at least allows the little guy to have a little bit more protection?

Sheila Warren: (30:42)
I think that's a direction of travel. You know, what the timeframe is for that? I have no idea. I think there are a lot of priorities that pandemic has raised. And so is this going to be kind of top of the agenda? You know, I don't know. Right. But I think that's the direction of travel. I think that it is not a coincidence, you know, that the Gary Gensler is in the position. Right. I think that it's interesting to see the contrast there. I think with Janet Yellen and its user are, uh, they're compatible in some ways, and in some ways they're, they're not, you know, so I think it's gonna be really, really healthy in some ways to have that sort of tension reflected, you know, across these agencies. Um, one thing I think is really important of course, is that, you know, well, this is true of many asset classes, but I think it's really true.

Sheila Warren: (31:20)
Crypto is it doesn't fall within what agency's purview. You know, you really have to think across a variety of agencies. And part of the early days of confusion was like, is it a commodity? Is it a security like, well, who was regulating it? You know? And I think with, with Bitcoin simply, it's kind of like, well, you know, it sort of depends on what facet you're looking at of the thing, you know, like, is it, is it the elephant? Is it the tail? Is this the truck? You know, so there's, there's kind of different ways of looking at this. And I think that coordination across the agencies is really critical. My hope is that with this new administration, they're really trying to put forth a much more collaborative approach. I think to these kinds of topics, you're going to see a holistic regulations. That's, that's what I want to see. And if that takes time. So I think rather than having, you know, the sec, for example, or, you know, whatever it was CFTC or whatever, just put something out there. I want that. I would prefer that, that be again, holistic thought about in context of other things that might come out of other agencies that are going to create a broader picture of, you know, exactly how to navigate this asset class.

John Darcie: (32:17)
In some ways it feels like all these different agencies they're trying to avoid the, having the responsibility of actually regulating, like, don't talk to us, talk to the CFTC, don't talk to me, talk to the STC. But, uh, eventually one of these I'll jump in the pool together, but I want to talk about the geopolitics of Bitcoin, where we're talking about regulation. So China, for example, they run 60 odd percent of global mining operations for Bitcoin, but buying and selling a Bitcoin in China has been banned because some people are using it to evade capital controls. For example, places like Iran, Venezuela has started to engage in, in mining operations as well, because they see potentially, uh, whether it be central bank, digital currencies, or Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies as a way to evade, uh, the swift system through which the United States operates a lot of their, uh, you know, financial, punitive programs to try to punish nations that they deem as being bad actors.

John Darcie: (33:21)
So do you think the United States, uh, first of all, why do you think those countries are doing it? Am I accurate and thinking that, okay, they see this as a new future that they can, uh, they can get more fairness on the global stage in terms of their economies. And do you think the us will eventually have to come to the realization that, okay, this is something that's inevitable with or without us, and we need to invest in and become a leader in Bitcoin specifically, and also in the idea of digital assets, central bank, digital currencies, and all those railings

Sheila Warren: (33:52)
On the last point first, you know, um, do I see the U S embracing Bitcoin in the ways you're describing? I'm not so sure about that, but digital assets

John Darcie: (34:01)
Are going to be out there buying Bitcoin. Yeah. I don't know that

Speaker 4: (34:04)
We'd ever know we put it that way or that it would be,

Sheila Warren: (34:09)
Yeah. You who knows, you know, what it was, would it surprise you? You know, so who knows? Um, I certainly don't and I think that, but on the digital assets a hundred percent, I mean, I think you're already seeing these statements that, you know, Jay Powell coming out and saying that digital dollar and looking at that as a priority, you know, that's a pretty strong statement for quite different from things we've heard before. That's of course, a reflection of, of five years of intense research that's been doing into the topic, you know, some of which we help facilitate some connections and things like that. So I think that, um, yeah, I think there's any question that things like CBDC are already, they're already exploring, you know, what is the use case? What makes sense, what problem solving with this? Why does it matter, you know, uh, have you ever robustly and digital assets similarly?

Sheila Warren: (34:48)
So I think those are different questions and I think we've already seen evidence that the latter is happening. Um, and then in terms of why countries are doing what they're doing, you know, it's interesting because I think there's some countries that have really embraced dollarization, you know, they're very, it's very important to them pay to form whether it's formally or informally, they've kind of embraced it and others that have not done that. And, you know, uh, there are others who are, you know, who could certainly speak to, you know, one of the patterns that we see there, you know, around that. So those patterns of you're kind of obvious, like there's just sort of political resistance on the part of leadership that can change over time as leadership changes, you know, this kind of thing. Um, but I think there is a sense that perhaps you can have a strong economy without necessarily pegging to any other currency, whether that's the Yuan, the dollar, you know, whatever it is.

Sheila Warren: (35:35)
And is that more possible if you, as a country kind of embrace these opportunities, it seems to me like a reasonable experiment, you know, so I think that's probably part of what you're seeing. I don't know that explicitly about sanctions avoidance and swift avoidance and those things. I mean, it may well be, uh, it would surprise me a bit if it were that, you know, targeted apart from maybe like a couple of jurisdictions here and there, which, you know, I think anything they can do to get away from the U S is not surprising. Um, but I also think we can't underestimate, you know, the sanctions effect has had on countries and their inability to engage in digital economy is, is quite profound. So if there are ways of circumventing that system, you know, it, it seems logical to me that they would be exploring that, although I have no evidence that that's the case,

John Darcie: (36:22)
Right? Another topic that you've written about that I think is fascinating. We had Marty Chavez on salt talks a few months ago, he's the former CTO of Goldman Sachs. And he was talking about how he's fascinated by the space and the profound impact potentially of decentralized digital identities, both financial identities and health identities and otherwise. So for example, he talked about, let's say we pass a $2 trillion stimulus package. We have a digital dollar. Every us citizen, uh, has a digital wallet through which we can instantaneously ascertain whether they're eligible to receive stimulus checks and we can zap that money into their bank account instantaneously, uh, so they can get it into the economy more quickly. And that has tremendous benefits. If we can do that all quickly, verifiably, there's also the health piece of it. So for example, we host a big conference, the world economic forum, hosted a big conference.

John Darcie: (37:18)
If we could verify that every individual who's attending our conference has been vaccinated or has antibodies for COVID, uh, we're test negative in the days leading up to the events that that has a lot of benefits as well. But there's also concerns about big brother about, you know, is this something where the government's going to have every piece of information about us and be able to track us and follow our digital lives as well? What promise to see decentralized digital identity have, and let's imagine a world where that's fully, uh, that's fully mature the idea of a digital identity. What does that look like? And are we able to avoid those concerns about big brother?

Sheila Warren: (37:57)
So, yeah, I, you know, this is the most foundational element of the entire thing, right? So when we really solve the questions and the, the, I don't want to call them problems because they're just things that have to be solved when we really crack this nut around digital identity. Uh, we're going to see massive escalation, I think, in, in the use and adoption of everything from visual currency, all these different kinds of applications, we're just going to blow up. And I use any question about that when it becomes super, super easy and obvious to hold digital, it's already very easy, by the way, to hold a digital wallet. That's not like a hard thing to do. People just don't realize how easy that is. Right, right. Um, and so once people kind of really understand that it's very normalized. You're going to see this becoming a very obvious way of decreasing the lag in stem. And you could almost have, you could imagine a super targeted stimulus, right? Like you could imagine, like you could do that because you can actually program into the code base, these kinds of people in this geography, some employment

John Darcie: (38:52)
Based on income, based on geography, you can do it in terms of it that really blew my mind when, when Marty started talking about all of that stuff. Cause that I hadn't really fully, uh, thought about what it meant.

Sheila Warren: (39:02)
Well, not just that, I mean, we know that the stimulus payments, you know, despite great effort on the part of the government, there was a lot of fraud in that system. You know, I mean, the checks were stolen, they gotta check cashing places and Mike's gone. It's lost one of the wrong people, you know? Yeah. A lot of people that are eligible

John Darcie: (39:16)
That didn't get it because they don't, they're not set up in the traditional

Sheila Warren: (39:19)
Banking that's right. Even worse, you know? And so, and so we have to recognize there's a last mile problem where an awful lot of people who really needed that money to just weren't able to claim it and file claims for it, like go through that incredibly burdensome process. So, so a lot of this I think is extraordinarily powerful. Now, a couple of comments on that since they went there, you know, I think it's really important that we recognize that last mile question, right? Like what we're, what digital wallets can do. Well, there's certain kind of profile of person that can easily hold digital wallets to clarify my earlier remark, you know, it's for you. And I, it's very easy to hold a digital wallet for a digital natives. It's very easy to do that for a lot of people. It's not easy to do that, you know, cause they have like, they like access to the right technology.

Sheila Warren: (39:59)
You don't have, the hardware is not available. You know, connectivity is not available. They can't rely on having reliable internet to access those funds as needed, whatever it might be there, you know, or the phone system, whatever it might be. There are reasons why we have to be very conscious of that and make sure that whatever we're building typically, if it's the government who's pushing us forward is going to be true inclusive. And so I think, I actually think to the credit of the U S government that has been a reason that the us government has kind of held off a little bit on these massive wide scale experiments because they really want to focus on the problems of poverty in our country, which are systemic and have a lot of other reasons beyond, you know, the ability to have a bank account. There's a lot of other reasons why that's the case.

Sheila Warren: (40:35)
So, um, so I just want to land that point and make that very clear. Now, moving away from that and saying to the point about these targeted singlets and opportunities like this, you know, I think that, um, it is tremendously powerful. I do think we're going to see a lot more normalization best. I do think we're going to see programmability. And I do think that that does lead to increased access or, or, um, on the part of, of any sort of big brother entity that could be a company. It could be a government, you know, I don't want to just use that term generically. Uh, we're seeing concern about this from China's DSF experiment. You know, so now in China, there's kind of a cultural norm around, you know, a certain level of surveillance. It's a quite different cultural expectation in here in United States, right? So rolling out an experiment, the jewel you want is not going to be as much of a dramatic thing there as it is here. You're already seeing a lot of privacy advocates to be very concerned about the implications here. And I think that that is well-placed concern,

John Darcie: (41:27)
Right? Let's talk about energy usage. So I think that's an increasingly common that Bitcoin detractors and detractors of the ecosystem are citing as a reason why there shouldn't be larger scale adoption of Bitcoin. Most specifically, I think because of the, uh, the volume of transactions and the amount of energy that uses. Do you have concerns around energy use, uh, related to Bitcoin? Janet Yellen has talked about that, uh, as along with others, but how do you view the energy consumption piece of Bitcoin?

Sheila Warren: (42:00)
So I always like to ask, you know, compared to what, like, what are we comparing the Coys energy usage to, you know, are we comparing it to software? Okay. Then, I mean maybe a buy it, are we comparing it to printing, storing, transferring, you know, money like paper and digital and sorry, paper, money and coins that I'm like, not so sure that, you know, we're doing so badly. Um, I, you know, what I'll say more generically is I find it really interesting as a society. This is true. I think across our entire society and our, the way we think about climate, we have, we, you know, the people I suppose, have decided that certain kinds of energy usage are bad and certain kinds of energy usage are good, right? Like there are some that we have no problem with. And some that were like, well, that's just terrible.

Sheila Warren: (42:43)
How dare you? And we really apply a moral judgment to these things. And I think that the moral judgment varies culture, the culture. So I think it's important to recognize that. And I think it varies, you know, person to person, right? We have different views about who should be able to use a lot of energy and who should not be able to use what energy, you know. So, um, I, I just, I always find this. There's a really interesting tell on the person who is making the claim, you know, and work what their perspective is, uh, versus others. Now, that being said, I think it's important to note that there are a couple of things that I find don't get enough airtime and be Bitcoin since we Bitcoin energy conversation. Right? So, cause I'm leaving aside the other kinds of cryptocurrencies and proof of stake and all that kind of thing.

Sheila Warren: (43:22)
But focusing on Bitcoin, number one, there's a lot of green energy being used to mine, Bitcoin like tremendous amounts of green energy are being used. And in fact, there's been a conscious effort on the part of many miners to transition away from kind of oil, gas, traditional energy, to more green energy. And I think that some of the experiments that have been done there are quite powerful for actually generating energy that can actually, uh, it kicks off access that can be used to power, you know, um, homes and other kinds of kinds of things. That's interesting. Uh, and that's getting, I think more and more, it's increasingly becoming a priority in the community and we're seeing more and more of that. Number two is a really interesting point made by Russ Stephens, which is that, uh, Bitcoin mine, mining facilities it's called them can really be set up and totally uninhabitable parts of the world.

Sheila Warren: (44:06)
So you can actually be solar for example, right? You could actually be mining Bitcoin, generating solar energy, gritting that using it to power parts of the world because you need so little, you know, maintenance of these minds. It's not the kind of thing where you have to kind of have somebody living there and have a whole infrastructure around that right. In these areas. So there's a possibility that if we really pay attention to that, and I think this remains speculative, but it's that we could actually be generating energy from sources and parts of the world that we couldn't before. And that could maybe be helpful in resolving the, the climate crisis that we're in. So, so it's a much more complicated conversation, I think, than the sort of black and white Bitcoin energy in a bad, you know, kind of thing that we often see.

John Darcie: (44:51)
Yeah. I try not to editorialize myself as the interviewer, but yeah, we've got a lot of interesting conversations around the, the energy usage piece. And I definitely believe that it actually is a great opportunity for us to equalize access to energy. We also had assault talk with Richard by Wirth, who is the CEO of digital X, which is a digital asset exchange based in Singapore. And he talked about it in a lot of countries. There are certain, uh, energy projects, whether it be hydro electric, solar wind that are being shuttered because they say, oh, we don't have the level of demand. It's hard to get it to the grid. It's more expensive to get the energy to the grid relative to producing energy. So we're going to shut down these existing projects and actually a Bitcoin mining is popping up in a lot of those places and being able to tap into what was dormant or stranded energy.

John Darcie: (45:38)
Uh, so it's a fascinating conversation. I think, you know, as ESG becomes a more and more, uh, relevant topic, which I think it will continue to be. I think that conversation around energy usage is going to be increasingly relevant. So it it's going to be important for the Bitcoin community, I think, uh, to continue to tackle those questions and continue to make sure that investment in Bitcoin mining is done through renewable sources of energy. But the last question I have for you, and I always have to ask this, so we balanced the conversation a little bit cause you and I are obviously have been orange pill, but what are the greatest risks in your, in your mind? If we sit down in 10 years, uh, at the world economic forum and we're having a glass of wine at SkyBridge is famous, a wine party that we do at the piano bar there, uh, in Davos. And we say, man, that, that Bitcoin thing that, that really failed spectacularly or, or this entire crypto experiment falls apart, what would be the reasons for that? And what are the biggest risks and threats you think, uh, to this entire movement?

Sheila Warren: (46:33)
Well, I, I personally I'll answer it two ways. I'll PR I personally think the biggest risks and threats to the world around this are some of the things I highlighted earlier, which are going to massively massively increase the digital divide. There's going to be a crypto divide that sits on top of digital divide. And that means that people that already had access to certain kinds of wealth generation or whatever now have this new avenue and there's zero access to an increasingly large number of people who, for a variety of reasons are not able to access this. And so that is something I'm very concerned about, um, it's one of the reasons I pushed so hard on more inclusive teams building in the space. You know, I focus a lot of my, try to amplify a lot of voices that are focusing on this question of inclusion.

Sheila Warren: (47:15)
So for me personally, I think for the forum, that is a big concern that we raise a lot with, uh, those ecosystems who are, you know, who are in a position to really do something about it. So, uh, so that's how I'll, I'll add to that. Now, on the other hand, I do, what do I think would kind of kill and like it cause everyone to be like, oh God, that calling it a nightmare, you know? Um, honestly I think Bitcoin is, so I think it's something that's a PR situation truly. Like I think there's going to be something that could happen, whether it's some big reveal around, you know, the biggest owner Satoshi is a

John Darcie: (47:45)
No, she's actually Bernie Madoff's, uh, nephew and,

Speaker 4: (47:49)
And, uh, got to be

John Darcie: (47:51)
A polymath, but, but he invented it and then, and runs away with it.

Sheila Warren: (47:54)
There you go. Something like that. Right. I actually think the sotoshi reveal that we were talking about joking about earlier that there

Speaker 4: (48:01)
Are some people that nobody would be happy to know

Sheila Warren: (48:04)
Where the, the, you know, the, the brain behind this, right. Even if you could kind of say, well, oh, you know, it was a crazy person did this, but it's really actually turned out to be awesome. So I think that's, that's something, I think it's something like that that's going to cause because it's just such a fickle, it's a fickle thing, right? People are, people are into it, but then the minute there's a criminal kind of a thing that happens in France. Oh God, I don't want you to, so there's a big element. I think of alignment here where people are that, that is earns the reputational risks still that people perceive, which I, again, I try to push back against, I don't think it's really baseline real, but it is there. And that's what I think. Well, things

John Darcie: (48:39)
Like, like quantum computing and 51% nation state attacks, do you think, uh,

Speaker 4: (48:45)
Those would get to the point typically I

Sheila Warren: (48:47)
Just find the 51% attack to be, I mean, it's certainly theoretically possible. I just don't, I, again, we talked about how much of that's lost, right? Like who are you? Who are the 51%? You know, a lot of those people are who they are, you know, so who are you influencing? I don't really know how that, how that would work if Bitcoin specifically on other forms of crypto more possible. So fair enough. You asked about the quintile answered that and then quantum, you know, I think that everyone's so aware of it. And so I guess I have faith in the really brilliant minds or who are working in this space in a technology layer and that they're, they're staying where they need to be with that. You know? So it's something in the early days I was, I was concerned about because I thought we kind of get, I didn't know that we'd have, there was just a dearth of developers in the space, right? So now, I mean, like there's so many people who can code in this and you know, no, uh, who knew how to affect the core. And so I think that I, I'm not overly concerned about that coming up as a, as a big surprise attack.

John Darcie: (49:38)
Well, Sheila, it's been a pleasure to have you on salt talks. We hope to see you either at, at a world economic forum forum event. I know it's scheduled, not in Davos this year, but in Singapore in August. So if that happens, maybe I'll see you there. And we hope you come to New York for our salt, New York conference. We announced that last week, uh, September 13th to the 15th, we're hoping like the world economic forum that, that late summer fall period is when people start to get back to normal in terms of traveling and gathering and largest groups. Obviously everyone's going to still be cautious. They'll probably be masked wearing. And we're engaged with partners around that digital identity piece and ensuring that everyone who enters the venue is either vaccinated and or testing negative for the virus. So anyways, we'll be great to see you in person and get you to one of our live events or, or see you in.

Sheila Warren: (50:26)
Yeah. And fingers crossed that, that timing that we're also really banking on is in fact what transpires, it'll be really great to get some in-person time with, with you and others. Yes.

John Darcie: (50:36)
Like revolutionary to see humans gathering and supporting,

Sheila Warren: (50:40)
Wow, this

John Darcie: (50:40)
Feels, this feels weird. Like, I feel like I'm doing something bad.

Sheila Warren: (50:44)
It feels good. It's going to be a big adjustment for a lot of well, thanks for having me.

John Darcie: (50:49)
Yep. And thank you everybody for tuning in to today's salt. Talk with Sheila Warren, uh, from the world economic forum, just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can access them on our website@salt.org. Backslash talks also on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but please follow us as well on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook, we're being more active. They're trying to be more, uh, generation Z if you will, digital native. But I guess if we're going to be in the digital asset space, we should be, uh, and please spread the word about these salt talks, especially these digital asset talks. I think freeing your mind and making yourself open-minded to these ideas. Even if you're still a skeptic of something like Bitcoin, I think, uh, irrefutably decentralized finance and digital assets are revolutionizing the traditional worlds of finance. So I think it's important that we spread the word about these conversations as well, but I'm half of the entire salt team. This is John Darcie signing off for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Jeff Booth: Author “The Price of Tomorrow" on Deflation | SALT Talks #182

“Just like Blockbuster didn’t notice Netflix, that’s what’s happening in our monetary system today [with Bitcoin].”

Jeff Booth is an entrepreneur and technologist serving as a leading Bitcoin advocate. He is the author of The Price of Tomorrow: Why Deflation is the Key to an Abundant Future.

With ever growing debt, governments are incentivized to continue printing more money to service that debt. The necessary inflation acts as a deflation on wages as assets are kept unnaturally high, continuing a cycle where the government is required to spend more and ultimately consolidate more control. Bitcoin acts as the systems change needed to escape this inflationary cycle, by creating a currency that allows for deflation. “Exponentially advancing technology changes the world… What that should look like in a free market is price decline. There’s a requirement, if we want that abundance, that currency allow for deflation.”

The systems change that Bitcoin represents not only offers individuals protection against inflation, but will also serve as the eventual off ramp for governments. It is likely the U.S. government will eventually hold Bitcoin as a reserve asset.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Jeff Booth.jpeg

Jeff Booth

Author

The Price of Tomorrow

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Joe Eletto: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is Joe Eletto and I'm the production manager of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform, encompassing finance technology, and geopolitics salt talks as a series of digital interviews with the world's foremost investors, creators and thinkers. And just as we do at our global salt events, we aim to both empower big, important ideas and provide our audience a window into the minds of subject matter experts. And we are very excited today to welcome Jeff Booth to salt talks. Jeff Booth is a visionary leader who has lived at the forefront of technology change for 20 years. He led bill Dereck, a technology company that aim to simplify the building industry for nearly two decades through the.com meltdown, the 2008 financial crisis and many waves of technological disruption in January of 2020, Jeff relief disburse book titled the price of tomorrow.

Joe Eletto: (01:04)
Why deflation is key to an abundant future, and it, Jeff offers his provocative thesis about the current state of our economies and what must happen to enable a brighter future. He is a founding partner of OTU labs, co-founder of Addie invest.com and knock, knock, and serves on the boards of Terra Mera, cubic farms, llama zoo, Cynthia, and the Richmond hospital foundation, as well as numerous advisory boards and hosting today's salt talk is Brett MECing, president and chief operating officer of SkyBridge, a global alternative investment firm. Now I'll turn it over to Brett to conduct today's interview.

Brett Messing: (01:40)
Thanks, Joe. And Jeff, thanks for joining us. Um, you know, I'm a bit of a fan boy, uh, your book along with, uh, the price of tomorrow, along with BJ boy, potties peace, the bullish case for Bitcoin, uh, where I think two of the most important things that I read and that, you know, led us here at SkyBridge to really lean into Bitcoin. And, you know, we now have approaching $600 million of Bitcoin across our funds. So, you know, obviously it's worked out quite well as we talk today. I think Bitcoin's around 57,000 or so. Um, I think it, it's, it's interesting time for us to get together. You know, the, the name of your book is the price of tomorrow subtitle. Why deflation is the key to an abundant future. And today president Biden signed the $1.9 trillion stimulus. And, you know, the 10 year has backed up to, you know, north of 1.6, it's come in a little bit, uh, there's increasing concerns about inflation. There concerns about, you know, rates rising, uh, adversely affecting the economy, you know, before we sort of dive into the general thesis of your book, I like to get your reaction because I think to these events, because I think it does interact nicely with the things that you wrote about

Jeff Booth: (02:54)
And what happened what's happening is in, uh, in a currency event that is going on. We, we all tend to look at the short term news, we get caught into what's happening, um, zoomed in and instead of zooming out and to see what's really happening in a macro level. And, and that macro level, when you understand what the game board will look like, um, on both sides of the game board, um, it's gonna look a lot different in the future and as the existing system, flails, it is bound to be choppy on both sides so we can get into specifically the 10 year and everything else, but it's more important to understand the game board and the game board is technology is creating exponential efficiency and that efficiency, um, is, uh, is deflationary and exponentially. So most of the deflation is in front of us.

Jeff Booth: (03:51)
And, and, and, and so what, when I kind of wrote this book and I looked at, uh, the other side of this, what's stopping that deflation. So we see in consumer price index, we see consumer price index was lower, again, lower than expectations. Again, it's because technology is driving some prices down faster than we can print into it. And so what's stopping that from reaching society that would typically be a good thing, are prices going down? We want prices to go down, we get more for less that's what technology does, but on the other side of the coin, because we've lived in an inflationary world, our entire lives, and that that world requires more and more credit. Um, governments are trying to stop that price, those price declines by lowering interest rates first, um, lower and lower and lower, which drives massive debt debt, bubbles to try to, to try to grow out of what's happening. And so those two giant forces are colliding in society today and require a different solution. So the existing, the existing system and inflationary world cannot work with the technology where it is today. It's impossible.

Brett Messing: (05:09)
Um, you know, I find interesting is, is you sort of identify these by, I think zooming out your book, I think was published at the end of 19 or

Speaker 4: (05:18)
Over foods before. Right.

Brett Messing: (05:21)
So a lot of the issues that we're talking about, I think have been highlighted right. For all of us. I mean, I can just tell you, for example, at SkyBridge, we used to have a very large travel budget. I mean, even once everyone's vaccinated, we're going to travel 80% less right. Than we used to travel. Right. So airplanes, hotel, food, right. Just think about all the jobs and right. Multiply that across. So I think it's sorta, it's sorta hit hits home. Um, you, I guess, can you talk about how Bitcoin helps us? Right. You know, and through this, out of this, to the other side of it. Yeah. And so,

Jeff Booth: (06:02)
So, so if you, if you think about, okay, first on the, um, when I said how much data has been created over the last 20 years, kind of pre-writing the book? Um, so, so, so there was, uh, the end of 2019, there was $250 trillion of global debt to support to an $80 trillion approximate, $80 trillion global economy. Um, and, and that sounds like a lot, and it is a lot. And there you, maybe you could have a thesis that somehow we could find new industries to grow our way out of the debt, maybe. Um, but when you realize that if the, for my thesis to be true, it's exponentially driving technology down and exponentially driving debt accumulation, to be able to try to stop it. When you realize that $185 trillion of the debt, uh, came in the last 20 years, it takes your breath away. And that's just the start, right?

Jeff Booth: (06:56)
So COVID accelerated these trends. Exactly what you said. So, so now you said, now you have in the world, you have approximately 130 to $130 trillion of negative, real interest ponds that people deem safe. And that becomes the economic calculation for every other economic calculation. And they're there on their best day. You're going to lose money on it. And you know, that governments have to print a lot more money because the existing system, if you allow inflation to happen, unwinds everything, and there's nothing backing it, banks fail, everything fails all the way to the ground, and there's just counterparty risk all the way down to the ground. So just like, and so, you know, from reading this, I, I was intent, how do you find a solution out of this problem? How do you, but, but COVID accelerated everything and governments did what they tell you what to do.

Jeff Booth: (07:55)
They printed a printed and print it into it. And Bitcoin is a solution out of that problem. It's a system change. And just like, just like, uh, I, I compare a lot of these examples in business, uh, blockbuster with 9,000 stores and all the attendant costs, all they missed was how fast technology was moving and now, and has technology changed, download speeds. Um, and Netflix had the advantage and all of a sudden blockbuster had the disadvantage. Um, the, uh, everything changed in an instant. And, um, and what blockbuster did is added candy aisles to their stores and you laugh at it. But if you think about what economic policy is today, is that in candy owes to the stores, it's a cannot get out of this. And so this is going to be a system change.

Brett Messing: (08:51)
So it's funny, you know, I'm an Angeleno. I was in LA week ago, I'm in New York and with, with my daughter and I got met her that early for dinner, and I walked down this sort of Brentwood village, quarter mile area, and where I used to get my blockbuster videos is now a first Republic bank. And I realized that there are eight different bank branches in this quarter mile stretch. And I just started sort of laughing. Like I felt like I was looking at at bookstores or blockbuster videos everywhere. And it sort of underscored this idea of change, but I guess, Jeff, I understand why Bitcoin is good for me, for you, for an individual, right. Against the systemic problems that I think the pandemic has really brought into focus, but I have trouble understanding how it's good for the United States of America or for your, you know, how do we get from where we are to where we want to be with Bitcoin, as opposed to Bitcoin as being, you know, as it has been, I think appropriately characterize a monetary life raft, right. To protect against systemic collapse, right. Or this shut calls it, you know, schmuck insurance.

Jeff Booth: (10:02)
Yeah. I, I think it's way more than that. Um, I think it's a, I think it's a requirement today as a life raft. Um, it it's a must in your portfolio, but I, I believe it's way more than that. So if you just think exponentially advancing technology changes the rules, look at your phone and look at all the things that are free on your phone. The, and that's that free is coming everywhere. It's word ordinarily free price declines are in front of us. And more and more price declines are in front of us in every industry because of technology. And there's nothing that governments can do about it because, because why does a CEO add technology it's to redo, remove labor and give more for less? That's kind of the point technology is supposed to free our time. And so, so what that should look like in our life is in a free market is, is price declines next year, less, less, and in a free market would make sure that the abundance gained from technology would be broadly distributed to society.

Jeff Booth: (11:08)
So with technology and with technology, how it's changed the rules, just like a change, the rules for blockbuster technology has changed the rules and that. And so there was a requirement if we want that abundance in society, that that currency allows for deflation, the only way to stop that. And just, uh, the only way to stop that is by consolidating control. So giving more power. So inflation is giving more people, a giving, giving wealthy more money dividing, essentially inflation is the same thing as wage deflation. So you're picking the pockets of some and giving it to the others and holding prices on naturally high, which, which causes you to print more money to consolidate control. It looks more like communism over time. And eventually the free market does, there is no free Marka. You have a market that's owned by the biggest hug.

Brett Messing: (12:13)
Okay. So I have to out myself as being a pretty traditional liberal Democrat. I worked in city government in Los Angeles. Um, technology everyone's life is better with technology, right? It's, it's inarguable in terms of our, day-to-day not of content. We can get food delivered like on and on and on, but it is concentrated wealth, right. In ways that make the Teddy Roosevelt trust, busting seem quaint. Right? So, um, isn't there a revolution headed?

Jeff Booth: (12:46)
I love that you asked that the reason it's concentrated wealth is because we're operating two systems, we're operating a non-free market system into technology. That's doing the more that you're doing it. You're driving wealth into the technology companies way faster. So the same thing that's manipulating market is creating those tech monopolies,

Brett Messing: (13:13)
But on a fundamental basis, Jeff don't technology companies, which are, you know, Marc Andreessen famously, software's eating the world. They just don't need as many people. Right. So what, what do we do with all these people need jobs? Right? So, um, I I'm, I believe in the free market, but I don't completely believe it that we just leave it alone and everything's going to be okay.

Jeff Booth: (13:37)
So, so th and this is a really hard concept because we grew up in a different world and every, every politician you hear and every, and I grew up in the same world, and it was her hard concept for me to even agree in. Right. And so I'm going to out myself there too, to rewire my brain and understand what was happening because of a rule change. Um, because of what technology allows for was really hard for me to comprehend because it changes everything. So we, we want more jobs. And the reason we're keeping more jobs is by driving wages down in a global fight to keep wages down, wage deflation or inflation is wage inflation. Well, technology takes them anyways. And what, by, by doing that, we're holding prices high. So the people that are leading the companies and technology companies and the people that have the assets are winning everything, and we're dividing society as a by-product.

Jeff Booth: (14:40)
And that is a, that is a human condition stopping the natural force of technology prices would fall. So, so, and it's, it's really hard concept to understand, but you don't pay for the air you breathe, and why it's the most important thing in your life. You don't, because it's abundant. And technology is a creating that abundance everywhere. And that, and that, uh, as, as more people are competing for that abundance, people think that a lot of the apps on your phone are free because, because they get advertising dollars, they're free because it's your flashlights, a line of code and it scales and scales everywhere. And it never has to be written again. Um, it's free because your phone app looks like that too, or you, so your, your, uh, your camera app looks like that too. And we take way more photos today. We have an abundance and photos, um, for, uh, for no cost, whereas before we had to take individual photos and it looked totally different as those industries change and provide abundance, they should fall in price. And if we hold up price on naturally by trying just cling to a system that's inflating, then, then we divide society.

Brett Messing: (15:58)
So, Jeff, um, well, Jan, Janet Yellen's comments about Bitcoin, notwithstanding she and I went to the same college brown. So I'm sort of proud that, you know, we have the treasury, but that being said, let's assume with a, we elbow her out of the job. And we, you know, we put Jeff Booth in the job. Okay. And you have all the tools, including Bitcoin, most importantly, at your disposal fix stuff for us. How are we going to use, how is Bitcoin used, right? How, how, how would a wise, you know, policy maker use Bitcoin to navigate the challenges that we're facing on a macro level.

Jeff Booth: (16:37)
So I think you would argue, you would, you would agree with this, the problems that we're facing on a macro level have been made exceedingly worse by ignoring the problems that created them in the first place and papering them over. And the externality is created by a papering over those problems. First in 2000, if not in 2008, before 2008, but then in 2008 and now more, and just like I predicted in the thesis, if, if is driving exponentially this way, then you needing exponential money printing to fix up this way. Now, the problem is so bad that the government is 26% of all income, personal income. So, so the government is the market there. And, and, and, and it's holding really prey, price of commercial real estate. Shouldn't not be anywhere near what commercial real estate is in, in COVID. Yeah, let's try

Brett Messing: (17:38)
If I can interject. So one of the, the SCCs resistance to a Bitcoin, but Bitcoin ETF is that the market has manipulated. Right. Right. What do you think about what let's start with the oil market, right. Where we have OPEC, right. We have the strategic petroleum reserve and to say nothing of where you were headed, um, in terms of market manipulation, just,

Jeff Booth: (18:01)
But, but again, you're holding prices high, preventing the market, the natural clearing functions in the market to take hold to, to, to allow, to re, to regrow the other side. And by doing that, there's a whole bunch of people left out of that wealth. So some people are you've made money on naturally, and you pick the pocket of other people to give them now those same prices in real estate houses, rents, everything else that you've unnaturally kept high. Then this, then a whole bunch of people that can't pay for their food or housing, come back to government and say, I need some money. So I can pay for my, uh, my food and housing, which they made the problem in the first place. And no actor in the system can change that. And by the way, if I came in, I couldn't change. Uh, I couldn't change that because it's a system problem.

Jeff Booth: (18:53)
And, and, and again, when the rules change, smart people change technology has changed the rules, the existing system will fail and, and, and the geopolitical mess. Normally these systems fail through war and they get to get reset. And first through, in a lot of times through revolution, then war, and then they get reset. I wish that wasn't the case, but the existing system creates more and more instability in the system because of, because of ignoring fundamentals. In other words, stopping creative destruction at the company level and the economy level, all that happened is creative destruction moved to the, to the currency and monetary level.

Brett Messing: (19:38)
Come on, Jeff. You're supposed to be a utopian technologist. Tell us, tell us, tell us how we use technology in the form of Bitcoin to, to get through this. You know, now

Jeff Booth: (19:48)
That now the, the, uh, now the other side, right? If, if governments today stopped printing or fiscal or anything else you would ever depression on your hands that would look like the thirties would look like a walk in the park, it would, you would have everything collapsed down to 90%. Uh, it would collapse by 90% banks would fail. All the banks would fail. Governments would fail. So that's why they can't let, because, because deflation, the debt can never be, you can't let deflation happen, and that can never be paid back. But, but the natural market is deflation because if technology, so enter a system change from outside the system, that's what Bitcoin is. It's a currency that would over time allow for deflation. So if you measured your life in Bitcoin and Bitcoin, you will see the natural market and pricing that the true pricing and prices will have everything over time will keep falling. Bitcoin will rise. But if you measure, if your, if your currency standard is Bitcoin is up, if that's what your unit of account is, you'll see over time, the natural market. And so if that happens slow enough and, and, and Bitcoin moves broadly into society, then, then that is a great thing, because it also is a forcing function for technology to be able to move broadly to society.

Brett Messing: (21:21)
Um, so, so you're setting that, that the, for an individual, right, owning the Bitcoin is a way to defend yourself. Well, what's the government doing that records. The government is, is, is in that same, same position you just, you discussed, right? Which is if they try to shut the machine off the economy collapses, they've got to find a way sort of let things out sort of slowly, right? So,

Jeff Booth: (21:49)
But what's happening right now right now, geopolitically, and this is connected. The so, so China is printing more than the us to keep their, a dollar lower, to keep their labor rate lower so that we buy more. So us buys more goods, and you asked us trying to, uh, to devalue their dollar, to be able to gain jobs lower their labor rate when technology is TA, because if you lower your layer of labor rate, then technology won't take the jobs as fast. So that's, what's happening all over the world. And it's kind of a race to the bottom on currency, more and more of this as happening. And that is creating the same geopolitical tension, um, around or around the world. Communism is defunded by a free market. If there's anybody that knows this, it's a U S U S was founded on, on these principles on the rights of the individual and a free and a free market. And, and so the only way to control citizens is through if, if, if you, if you actually, so I suspect that that the best way for, for the U S to actually kind of emerge, emerge, or really strong out of this is to embrace Bitcoin because China won't embrace Bitcoin. So when

Brett Messing: (23:08)
You say embraced, you mean, hold it as a reserve asset. So sell our gold and buy Bitcoin, what does embrace, how does that manifest itself

Jeff Booth: (23:17)
That'll happen eventually? Um, and it might happen quietly, uh, early on, but first it'll be, uh, uh, regulation around their own ramps off ramps and the whole new industry ecosystem. That is, uh, that is, that understands where technology is going and why that's a good thing for, uh, for humanity.

Brett Messing: (23:41)
Have you willing to call me back? So I, you know, I would have rightly I think, well, not really people would probably accuse me in the fall of being too bullish on Bitcoin. And the last six months, it's just been remarkable, you know, the events in terms of the institutional adoption, um, you know, banks committing to it, right from BFA Mellon, JP Morgan. I mean, they're being pulled by their invest by their clients. Like, they're not, you know, they're not going into it. They're, you know, they realize they have to do it or, or their customers are going to go somewhere else. What is it, is this what you expected? Is it happening faster? It's

Jeff Booth: (24:20)
What I expected. Um, I th uh, I, I think, um, I think in this cycle, we'll see it continue like this. And, um, and then in the next hinder, the next habit know, trade sideways for some time, it'll go away up from here this year, I believe. Um, then it'll trail back down into the next cycle, as it trails back down and, um, it down and choppy for the next kind of two years after that, um, people will bias why it's doing that because they'll say, okay, government is going to regulate it or this or this. And then into the next halving cycle, I believe it's going to take off again.

Brett Messing: (25:00)
So I want to press on this. Um, I'm not an economist, but you know, I have been a trader. And what I have experienced is that all great obvious trades eventually go away, right? So the gray scale arbitrage, where it was a great trade and we've done it. And I had this instinct in September when those to not do it and gratefully, we didn't do it, which falls in the category of like better, lucky than good. Um, but it feels to me like half the world has the following trade on. I buy Bitcoin at the having, and then I sell it 14 to 18 months out. And that feels to me like the gray scale trade. And so it's my personal view. I like your reaction to this, that one of two things is going to happen. I think this cycle looking for like the other cycles is a less than 10% chance.

Brett Messing: (25:49)
So I think either it's going to this cycle ends much sooner than people are expecting, right? And we head into a crypto bear market, you know, earlier, or, and I'm wearing a Bitcoin hat. So you can imagine this is the one I think that we're going to get to a high number. People will sell their Bitcoin, some OJI Bitcoin holders. You may even see hedge funds, short Bitcoin, and it's just going to laugh at everybody and keep moving higher. Not saying we're not going to have cycles, but that it will go higher. And that the bull market will last longer from a temporal standpoint than people expect. And then of course, if you have any thoughts on that, cause there's, I, I love that. I, I love

Jeff Booth: (26:32)
That you said that I, so, so one of the things that when, when you hear the FID around Bitcoin, um, you realize how early we are in this cycle. So you might not early and to, to make the investment or bet that you did with your funds and everything else, you would have done diligence. Like I did diligence and then every attack factor, what does this look like? And come to the realization that it's not Bitcoin that holds the risk. Bitcoin's an asymmetric bet. It's the, an existing system and everything priced in other dollars, it holds the massive risk. And there's very few people that still understand that. And so we are so early in the cycle. Um, and, and so now to you're having cycle, I agree with you. It won't look, it will, I, I suspect it won't exactly match. And whether it matches closer in this cycle or the next one, at some point that are ill arbitrage out.

Brett Messing: (27:28)
Right. Because right. It just seems there's too many people playing from the same playbook. And it, my experience with markets is, is that it just never, whenever, when there's such a strong consensus and, you know, people are treating, where are we in, in this? Where do you think we are in the cycle? You know, it just doesn't play out that way. Um,

Jeff Booth: (27:48)
But what I would say is if you ask most people, like you're, you're deeply in here in YPO, around my technology, friends and, and, and very wealthy individuals, not the foggiest, like it's really early.

Brett Messing: (28:07)
Oh, no, I, I, you know, again, I mentioned I'm from LA and, you know, my collection of friends there, all of whom, you know, done reasonably well, none of them, any Bitcoin, I mean, any Bitcoin zero, we actually, uh, last week we figured out that a lot of the emails that our sales team send out have been getting bounced back. We weren't aware of it because we have the word Bitcoin, like in a footer with like a, for a regulatory disclosure. And there are servers, a decent number of them that if they see the word Bitcoin, it's like the word Al-Qaeda. So, um, when, when I heard that, I was like, that's awesome. It's, uh, it's early. Um, and I, you know, I think that, I think that makes it, makes it very exciting. So there, so think

Jeff Booth: (28:51)
About some of the, these things, because by the way, what, um, what, um, some of these concepts that we talk about, so government today, one of the concepts about Bitcoin is bad for the climate, right? It uses energy. Now let's dig a little bit on, on that. Um, and say, so number one, I think, you know, this, that Bitcoin, which searches for low cost energy. And so it actually helps the grid of solar expand and it, uh, and, and, and that should happen at it should, can continue to advance solar because it's the Bitcoin miners are constantly searching for the lowest cost energy, but that's actually the small part of the conver conversation. The bigger part of the conversation is this technology, including energy is deflationary. And so energy is 9% of the global GDP. And it's a number one input of everything else. We do.

Jeff Booth: (29:52)
A lot of things become, they work, or they don't work because of energy. In fact, the, the, in, in entire entire oil, um, uh, us, uh, on oil reserve, everything else was about energy, low cost, low cost, energy securing energy, and it's a geopolitical game, but now, now you have new solar not ready to transition all the solar renewables, but you have new energy competing at the lowest cost additive to the energy grid. So that must therefore be deflationary and additive to deflation that we're already talking about on a kind of an exponential layer. Cause it talks, it cut, cuts across everything. Now, what do you do as a government? Because what you're trying to do, what you're saying is I care about climate. So I'm going to fund innovation and climate to reduce planet climate damage, uh, CO2 emissions. And every time that you increase more energy from lower cost, clean energy, it's lower cost.

Jeff Booth: (31:04)
And so I have to offset that lower costs by printing money to make oil prices go up, to make other things work, to be able to buy more and more and more. So, um, the existing monetary system of the world can, you cannot grow forever on a final finite planet. Growth with technology is different than growth for the last hundred years. Growth with technology makes things free or lowers the costs so much that it changes the economic calculation. And that's the thing that people are really missing. It's a penance and it's a big deal. It's impossible to solve climate, um, out of the existing system. In fact, the existing system is the cause of climate change.

Brett Messing: (31:52)
No, like I think I actually think that for the next year or so, this issue of ESG investing and Bitcoin being bad for the environment, it's going to be the single biggest obstacle to further adoption. And I think it's sort of funny that JP Morgan, you know, Jamie diamond is calling Bitcoin a dirty asset because there is probably no company in the world that has contributed to ruining the climate and the environment than JP Morgan. If we were to look at his sort of long history, including right now where it's representing Exxon in a proxy battle. Um, and I think by trying to characterize Bitcoin as a quote dirty asset, right, that would slow. I think, you know, there are investors are becoming more on that in the construction of their portfolio, but we have a challenge because, because our, that is a soundbite and you're providing a nuanced right. Intelligent, but not soundbite response. And, and, and this is something we as a community I think, need to work on.

Jeff Booth: (32:57)
I think so too, because here's what I really had believed if technology and it's not an F technology is advancing exponentially, that that technology should be giving us an abundance for less. We don't need as many things. It gives us more for free and jobs come out of there and jobs can come out of the equation. As things go to free, we don't have to be on a most wheel forever working our entire lives to try to save enough money to retire the last 10. It looks different. But in that model, which is required for the change in technology, it's a structural change in that model. Bitcoin might be the only thing that saves the planet.

Jeff Booth: (33:40)
It's actually exactly the opposite to what people are talking about. What they're talking about is the same reason they talk about real estate, always going up without measuring, because they're measuring from within a system and real estate always goes up from within a system. If you don't look, let hit $185 trillion of stimulus, it took in the last 20 years to make real estate always go up. But again, what you're talking about, even if you looked at the CPI index and everything else is, imagine the CPI index, what that would look like without that $185 trillion of stimulus over the last 20 years. So it wouldn't just be, TV's getting bigger and cheaper. It wouldn't be just your computers, the CVI index, and all of that is all the technology products are out running that at a scale and driving price

Brett Messing: (34:39)
Never I've had fracking, right. He made fracking possible. Right? All that capital was lost. Right. But it was, it was easy money that financed, right. That's sort of dirty. And I'm an energy guy. I spent a lot of time trading energy. Um, uh, no, I look, I think it's fascinating if you, right. If you look out 50 years from now, we're not going to be using fossil fuels. Right. And what general motors says at 2030, or they don't want to sell any cars right. That you, other than electric cars. So this problem self-corrects right, because let's face it. It is true that over half of Bitcoin is not renewable. Right. And some portion of it is dirty coal coming out of AutoMark Mongolia. Right. I mean, we, we, we can't hide from that. That is true. Um, but it's also true back to my roots in LA that approximately 28% of the electricity that goes into your Tesla is coal because the power that that DWP gets, it used to be about 50% coal. They've got an under 30, but they have coal plants that they own, not in California, Nevada and Utah, they have transmission lines. And so you're pouring you almost 30% of what you're putting your Tesla is coal. So it's, it's sort of all around us, but, but, you know, but, but, but, but, but, but again,

Jeff Booth: (35:59)
What ends up happening is technologies. It happens really slowly. So they happen fast, but we misjudge, we overestimate the impact early on, and then we massively underestimate the impact later and you've read it in the book, but that would be a fail. If I fold a piece of paper on itself, 50 times that piece of paper will reach from here to the sun. I've re I've asked that question to people all over the, uh, all over the world to audiences. And most people, guests, 99% of people, guests about two inches. Um, that was a piece of paper would be two inches, but it shows, and I'm not doing it for, okay. Look at a parlor Trek. What it does is shows how badly we misunder standard exponentials and is the same reason why we S we, we early on in solar, we think it's gonna work and it costs way too much. And nobody pays attention because it doesn't hit an economic calculation that matters. And, and then we underestimated on the other side because the, as, uh, as the economic viability increases, all the market moves there. Well, as the market's moving there because of lower prices, it's going to transition faster and faster and faster. And the corresponding offset for the existing inflationary system has to be more and more printing of money to try to eradicate that technology gain.

Brett Messing: (37:26)
So Jeff, if we're wrong, right. And, um, you know, embarrassed by the fact that I wore a Bitcoin hat for the rally of 2020, 21, I'm like a pitcher with a no-hitter, I'm afraid to take it off. Um, why are we going to be raw? What do you worry about, um,

Jeff Booth: (37:49)
If there's one thing I still, uh, um, uh, think about, or I'm curious about it's, uh, and, and in the next years, I'm not worried about it because I'm pretty deep into the technologists around it, but, but quantum, uh, is, is a, um, and, and next five, 10 years. And I think the network is designed in a way that it'll get, uh, um, it gets stronger and stronger against us. So it should be post quantum, uh, uh, uh, uh unfavorability and everything else in a network of ill evolve it's designed into the network. But, but that is something that, uh, that if I said to an edge case, if I was looking for edge cases of the very, so there's a non-zero chance if I'm saying technology is moving this fast, and it's hard to forecast how fast, fast technology is moving, then it would be really ignorant of me to say, it's impossible, no matter what that something is something, uh, as something that was. So I watched for that, I think right now it's almost a zero probability, um, where we are today, but, but I'll continue to watch for that.

Brett Messing: (39:07)
And how, and where would we see that bubbling up? In other words, you know, uh, uh, uh, you know, is it, I actually was an energy investor and I rightly underestimated the speed through which renewables would take the legs out of the energy market. Right. So I learned from that. Um, so I do learning from that experience, like, what are the signs that this is something that we, that is sort of happening and we need to pay really careful attention to.

Jeff Booth: (39:36)
So, so it's, it'd be hard to go into because the attack factors, aren't what people think, and there's not. Uh, and so to say, it's going to nullify the whole network. I don't believe that. And the algorithm change, uh, the, uh, the hashing changes to be able to admit, uh, to, to update that in as well, quantum computers are really bad at algorithms. And so, so it, it makes it today maybe for the next 10 years, technically unfeasible to be able to do that. But if you, if you broke through that earlier, at some point, some of their early Bitcoin, um, in the, in the wallets, weren't, weren't, uh, they were public keys or whatever. And so you could cack those, you might be able to hack those and by doing it by doing so, not vault, not invalidate the network or anything else, but it would create an incentive at some point down the road, unless the protocol changes too, to try to, because there's so much value in those early coins. So there's, there's a, there's a bunch of when you look at these different, different things, is it risk to the entire network? Is it the rest of the blockchain? Probably not, but where, where could it hold, uh,

Brett Messing: (41:02)
The value for some time? Well, look, Jeff, I follow you on Twitter. So I hope you'll tweet about it, cause I probably won't otherwise like, be aware that there's, so I'm going to count on your Twitter feed is, you know, uh, to let us know, you know, that we need to be, uh, you know, be careful, uh, this has been great, you know, um, I'm sorry if you say something. No. And, and, and, and I think the

Jeff Booth: (41:29)
Beautiful thing about this, uh, and, and, and probably the best way to at this as if you think about all the sharp minds defending this network and the innovation that's coming onto this network, and the amount of now capital innovation, the, this, the smartest technology minds, um, Bitcoin Twitter is a really great spot. It's harsh sometimes, but, but it constantly evolves in its, in its hits. It's kind of clarified the best information wins.

Brett Messing: (41:59)
No, I actually joined Twitter in September of last year, just because I, I had been told that I should follow a big one Twitter and you're right. It is a great exchange of ideas. Um, and what's really impressed me is the number of smart minds, really smart minds in Bitcoin. And then the other thing that really got me super comfortable so much. So, you know, I put my personal capital in first, but I'm riskier with my own money than I am when I'm a fiduciary of others, was that this was great. As I said, BJ's piece was great. There's a bunch of other stuff that, that not as good as the stuff that was helpful. And when we, when we started marketing, you know, uh, talking about Bitcoin, you know, regulators like us to have things that are fair and balanced. So we had to find stuff that was giving the, the negative case on Bitcoin. And there is a negative case, but there are no really thoughtful pieces out there. There is no counter to this or BJ's piece where you read it and you're like, that's really compelling, right? So you, I don't know that that, that helped me a lot because it's one thing for Nouriel Roubini to fire off tweets and write a column here, but their ad hot on the ad hominem and text. Um,

Speaker 4: (43:13)
Here's, here's what, and I'd seriously ask,

Jeff Booth: (43:16)
Ask anybody, ask on Twitter, ask anybody, how are you going to make the existing system work without concentrating all power in the state against technology, moving at this rate? And they, and, and, and what you'll find you'll find is a whole bunch of crickets on that. They'll say, well, we can't allow deflation because deflation would be bad for debts it, which is true and everything. And, but you'll find a whole bunch of crickets on that con con uh, conversation that I just had. Cause it's impossible. But then that's why I said, this is a structural change to society. And those structural changes don't come around very often. And we don't notice someone. They do just like blockbuster. Didn't notice Netflix. And, and, and that's, what's happening in our monetary system today. And there's very few people that are, are really understanding what it means for everything else, the rules, all of the rules change. It's almost upside down from the way we grew up. And, and well, I don't know if I was ready to like that or anything else. It doesn't change. It doesn't change the facts. So we better start to design. We better start to design a system that is congruent with that system.

Brett Messing: (44:35)
Well, Jeff I've become a Buddhist. I don't like, or just like, I just accept things as they are and make

Speaker 4: (44:41)
Love that.

Brett Messing: (44:43)
Well, thank you so much. This was awesome. I'm going to flash your book again, which I highly recommend the price or tomorrow. And, um, you know, this has really been great, you know, thank you for taking the time and you know, uh, let's, uh, let's stay in touch and hopefully we'll have you, you know, we're having a salt in New York in September, and we'd love to have you on a panel, uh, talking Bitcoin deflation, monetary policy. I'd

Jeff Booth: (45:05)
Love to love to do that. Thanks again for having me.

Brett Messing: (45:07)
That'd be great, Joe. You want to take us out?

Joe Eletto: (45:10)
Absolutely. Thank you again, Jeff. And thank you Brad, for leading this conversation. I'm glad we got the hold of the book and be advertorial about that. So as Brett mentioned, we are coming to New York for salt, New York in September 13 through 15. So more information will be available on our website@sault.org. If you're looking to learn more about salt talks, listen to us on podcast, salt.org backslash talks, where you can also find our full library of previous salt talks dating back to may of 2020. We're also on social media. If you want to watch any of these or engage with our conversation on Twitter, it's at salt conference, YouTube salt tube, and we're also of course on LinkedIn and Facebook, but on behalf of the entire salt team, this is Joel Leno signing off for today. We'll see you again soon.

Richard Byworth: Mainstream Adoption of Crypto | SALT Talks #181

“I have a pretty bullish view for this year. $175K is the likely peak we’re going to see this year.”

Richard Byworth is CEO of Diginex, a digital asset financial services and advisory company. Byworth has 20+ years of experience in finance, start-ups, investments and the fintech space.

Creating trusted and secure avenues through which major financial institutions can invest in Bitcoin is an important next step in its growth. The Federal Reserve will continue to expand the money supply as way to service the national debt. As the money supply grows, Bitcoin will only become more attractive as a hedge against inflation. Square, Tesla and Microstrategy have served as major catalysts in the movement towards adding Bitcoin to corporate treasuries. “Every CFO and finance department is having to explain to their board why we’re seeing this phenomenon, what is this Bitcoin asset, and why companies are putting it on their balance sheet to preserve value of their corporate treasury.”

This signals a bullish forecast for Bitcoin that will likely see its peak reach $175K by the end of 2021. As humans we are trained to think in linear progressions, but Bitcoin is growing exponentially. The Internet’s network effect saw the rapid growth of companies like Amazon, Apple and Facebook. Now, expect money to undergo the same type of transformation.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Richard Byworth.jpeg

Richard Byworth

Chief Executive Officer

Diginex

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal and our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to bring you the latest episode in our salt talks, digital assets series a with Richard BioWorth, who's the CEO of digital ex uh, Richard has over 20 plus years of experience spanning finance startups investments and the FinTech sectors. Uh, previously he was a managing director at Nomura, a Japanese investment bank, and Richard was running derivative and equity linked product sales for Asia Pacific products globally.

John Darcie: (01:06)
Uh, the youngest managing director in numerous history. Richard led the build-out of the number one franchise of convertible bonds in Asia from 2005. Richard has founded several companies and as an active investor, having started his first trading company in 1990, he's a board member of Bletchley park, asset management, Jersey digital ex, and sits on the advisory board to private market.io, which is a private equity fund marketplace. Uh, Richard is a Hong Kong regional ambassador ambassador for the global blockchain business council and has spoken extensively around the merits of blockchain for business and finance at the world economic forum, AKA Davos, and the United nations in Geneva hosting. Today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salts. And with that, I'll turn it over to you, Anthony, to begin the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:59)
John, John, thank you and Richard. Thanks for joining us on your evening in Singapore. We appreciate you being here. Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Okay. I'm sorry. In Hong Kong, the

John Darcie: (02:10)
Hong Kong, the Singaporeans and the Hong Kong knees. Don't like to be a conflict.

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:15)
Okay. So he's already starting by or C's already starting. Okay. Don't worry. I'll be kicking him at the knees here shortly, but Mr. By worth, you go from investment banking to crypto. So some of your colleagues think you're nuts. Obviously many of my colleagues have always known that I am nuts, but you don't seem nuts to me. So why did you go from investment banking into crypto?

Richard Byworth: (02:40)
Yeah, for me, um, banking was, was clearly starting to get to a point where it was, it was becoming a difficult industry. So margins have been really compressed ever since 2008. We've seen a lot of bad. She'd just been thrown at absolutely everything and all the businesses that I was involved with derivatives through the Delta, one futures and options, everything was getting compressed and, uh, it just wasn't that much fun anymore. Um, I started doing some, uh, early stage investing and, uh, I invested in a company called [inaudible], which is obviously the company that I'm now the CEO of, uh, back then digital X was a cryptocurrency mining company. I'd got interested in crypto because of the w the way that Yuval Harari in the book sapiens had framed the sort of monetary belief system and kept referencing Bitcoin, which up until then, I'd always thought it was some internet scan.

Richard Byworth: (03:40)
And, uh, so I started to pay attention to look at looking at it in some detail. And once I started to re really peel back the layers of what this asset was and the impact that it could have on the world, it became very clear to me that I wanted to be involved in it. Uh, I started by investing and then as I say, having invested indigenous ex, uh, the founder of [inaudible] approached me and said, would I help him build what he envisaged as being the leading, um, regulatory focus, financial services firm in this space. And that's obviously what we've built, uh, over the last three years. Um, so yeah, that's how I got here. So,

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:18)
So let's talk about digital X, um, your history, the mission, what the company does. Um, I apologize for confusing you with Binance, which is based in Singapore. Sorry about that. Of course. Dorsey had to say that to me and hurt my feelings, but let's talk about digital X.

Richard Byworth: (04:38)
Sure. So like did genetics, um, is a, is a full digital asset ecosystem with, with regulatory focus as its core, uh, principle. So we've got, uh, an exchange at the center of that. Actually, the reason you probably think I'm in Singapore is because the exchange is based in Singapore. Um, due to COVID, I haven't actually managed to get over there yet. Um, but, uh, the exchange ed cost is at the beginning at the middle of everything that we do, the exchange is a derivative platform. Um, it's focused on bringing much more credible derivatives to this space building on what we've already seen in perpetual swap space, and then expanding into options, structured products and everything that we know goes with it from traditional finance. Um, we have our own segregated custodian. Did you vote, that's operated by an X team, administrative defense out of the United Kingdom.

Richard Byworth: (05:33)
Um, we have our own asset manager, um, different to your own. We are a fund of hedge funds. So we look at very alpha centric strategies, looking at the very unique alpha does available in this asset class with all the various different arbitrage aspects. And obviously we spoke about gray scale earlier, um, that premium arbitrage, that discount arbitrage that we now seeing, those are some of the strategies that sit inside the funnel. Obviously the unique alpha that that crypto, uh, offers we have our own boutique investment bank at cross capital. And we also have our own trading platform access, uh, which plugs into two of the largest trading technology platforms in the world, FIS and activity. So that's the full ecosystem.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:19)
You're, you're a listing on the NASDAQ, which took place in October of last year was quite important to the company. Tell us why it was so important that digit X.

Richard Byworth: (06:32)
So we're obviously focused on bringing trust to the industry, bringing governance to the industry. And I think a lot of people certainly in this region have had issues around the way that some of the companies in this space are governed. Um, you give a good example. There was a recent one of our competitors. Um, the CEO is thrown in, uh, into custody for a while and all the Bitcoin on the platform was trapped there and no one could get the Bitcoin off. And so if you're a hedge fund or an institutional manager trying to walk right on these platforms, you know, you're getting governance, risks, highlighted all over the place, you know, for institutions, as you will know, reputational risk is everything. And if you're running reputational risk through KYC and NRS that many of these platforms run again, you are running reputational risk. And so what we did with, with the build of it was really focused on mitigating all of the reputational and governance risk. And the ultimate level of governance is being a NASDAQ listed company with that sec approval and those governance frameworks that have we're required to have. And so for us, it was really important. Uh, we were obviously the first, uh, ecosystem to be listed on NASDAQ. We've now got Coinbase following in our footsteps. So it's going to be an interesting ride for the next a year or two years, as we see more and more companies come into the space. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:56)
We were talking before this started about huddling. We were talking about how, uh, coins Bitcoin in particular, or being taken off of exchanges. And it looks like they're being put into cold storage. What are the implications of that for the space, your business, is this positive? Is it negative? Uh, how do you think it's going to affect pricing going forward?

Richard Byworth: (08:24)
Well, yeah, I mean, as I was saying to you, I think we're in what we, we refer to as a supply side crisis. Um, we've obviously had the harping that happened in may last year. We're now moving into a paradigm where, as you say, you got a lot of institutions, you just take square Tesla, micro strategy. Um, and, uh, and they learn have taken something like 45% of the annual production of Bitcoin post the Harvey and locked it into cold storage. Now they're not alone. I mean, they're the early movers. Uh, we're starting to see, I mean, we had two new corporates this week that announced that they were starting to put Bitcoin on their balance sheet in smaller size. But the point is that now every CFO, every finance department is having to at least explain to their board, why are we seeing this phenomenon? What is this asset that is Bitcoin? And why are companies putting on their balance sheet to preserve the, you know, their value of their corporate treasury? So that's obviously a much broader question, but yeah, I think what we're going to see in prices is massive expansion. I mean, I probably have a pretty bullish view for this year. Um, I'm not sure how bullish you are in Sydney, but I'm a 175,000 is the likely peak that we're going to see this year. Well,

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:50)
When are we wouldn't we inviting by words back on the next salt talk Dorsey, is it next week? Or I'd make sure you get them back

John Darcie: (09:57)
On when it hits 175,000 in a year. All right. Well, here's the problem with

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:04)
Me. Okay. I actually believe that, but when I'm on television, like CNBC, someone asked me because we have people that are not paying as close attention to this as you and I are Richard, I said a hundred thousand and I was, I was met with the shock and awe of the reflects of response of people that are not playing close enough attention to what's going on. So, and then I got ridiculed on Twitter. People said I was too bearish. There was

John Darcie: (10:32)
A dichotomy of reactions. There were, there were mainstream people saying, oh, Anthony's now bought into this cult. And he thinks it's going to go to a hundred thousand by the end of the year. And then all the, uh, the handlers on Twitter were like, why are you so bearish?

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:44)
But, but I think you just, you just brilliantly explained why with reasonably high likelihood. And again, I want to put all those caveats out there for people listening to us, Bitcoin is a volatile asset. It does, you can lose money. We're not suggesting take anything to the bank. Richard is not suggesting that, nor am I, but we're just looking at supply demand fundamentals and the brilliant exposition of what Richard just said about those supply demand fundamentals as why this asset class is moving higher. Okay. It may or may not happen. We both know that, but it's in our best guests. That that's the direction that it's going in. Is that fair to say that way, Richard? I hope, hope you. Yeah.

Richard Byworth: (11:27)
I mean, I think that that's the supply side issue and the question always becomes, why are they buying it? And then you'd have to look properly at the macro backdrop. And you know, again, this is, this is your world. You, you know, you're in a far better position to explain them myself, but you know, if I'll attend effectively what you're looking at with the federal reserve reserve, trying to create inflation, we're going into a period where massive amount of jobs are going to get lost. They've already been lost due to the pandemic, but technology and the deflation that that effectively brings you just look up automated vehicles as an example. Um, you think about truck drivers across the United States, how many people are going to be put out of work by automated vehicles, uh, or, um, with the advancement that companies like Tesla and Google are making. This is extremely deflationary. Now the fed can't have deflation. I mean, they've got a balance sheet of Davidge war 28 trillion today. I mean, they are drowning in debt. If we go into a deflationary cycle, they are not going to be able to handle it. They're never going to be able to pay off that debt. And certainly they're not going to get the tax receipts to even be able to service that debt. Okay. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:49)
Let me, let me stop you for one second, because I really want to explain this to people that are not as sophisticated as frankly, you are Richard. They can't handle it because they can't pay the debt back with dollars that are worth more than the dollars that they borrowed. And so when you have a period of deflation, the value of the currencies actually going up relative to assets. And so therefore they're in a debt trap. Uh, this is what's got central bankers scared out of their minds, and this is why the money printing presses are on overtime right now to prevent that from happening. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I we've got a lot of young people that are listening. So I just wanted to explain that to people. So go back to what you're saying. They can't handle it deflationary spiral. So therefore,

Richard Byworth: (13:39)
Therefore they're fighting this losing battle about trying to create, create growth in, in their GDP number or let's CPI number. But effectively what you've got is, is massive deflation on the horizon through technology advancement. So you've got everything getting cheaper energy production, getting cheaper, you've got massive unemployment that's going to happen. And so they have to keep trying to drive growth through the one weapon that they have. And that's monetary debasement so effectively just printing more dollars. So we're going to see all forms of this. We've started to see what is referred to broadly in traditional finance as helicopter money. And this is effectively just handing out checks to everybody. So they just start spending money. And this is the sort of, is, is, you know, as that progresses, that's really the last step in massive monetary debasement. So corporates are thinking about this from their corporate treasury.

Richard Byworth: (14:40)
And I will, if I'm getting hit on my corporate treasury by 25, 30%, as we saw with the debasement of the dollar last year, then we need to make sure that we're protecting that. And that's what happened with micro strategy. And you're starting to see it with a lot of the macro funds as well. You've got Paul Tudor Jones has moved in Ray Dalio. I'm sure will be one of the next, you've got a lot of macro managers that are starting to understand that the Bitcoin is potentially the very best hedge against this monetary deflation.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:11)
So, so the past 12 months have been transformational, right? We both would agree on that. Um, numerous institutional players coming into the market. Um, what were, in your opinion, the seminal turning points?

Richard Byworth: (15:26)
I think probably one of the biggest was Michael Saylor, um, discovering Bitcoin and discovering how that could protect his balance sheet. I think he has done an enormously, um, impressive job at educating others around what this means for, um, for their corporate balance sheet. He did a, a, um, conference, uh, a month and a half ago, I believe, um, where he had about 6,000 corporates attend, um, the CFOs finance directors of these companies. And I think this has been really a turning point. You've got CEOs that control that company like Michael and Elon Musk in, in Tesla. They're the ones that can move first. But as I said to you earlier, you've got every corporate boardroom now, trying to understand what is going on, why people are buying Bitcoin on their balance sheet and starting to move into that space and do it doing it themselves. So I think over the next couple of courses, we're going to see more and more of this. And that's why I'm going to end up on your show sooner rather than later, because Bitcoin is going to be 175,000.

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:37)
So let me ask you the question that I'm often asked, and I have a hard time answering, uh, the Bitcoin going from a penny to $175,000. Let's assume that we actually didn't get to that number in 12 or 13 years, scares the bejesus out of people, right? Because we're trained you where I was, anybody that's in the investment management business is trained for all of anything is too good to be true, Richard, then therefore, definitionally, it's not true run from it. Don't run towards it. And yet you've looked at this, Michael Saylor has looked at this, I looked at this, all three of us were trained that way, frankly, yet you see it and you're willing to accept it. Why, what was the intellectual chasm that you had to cross to get yourself intellectually around Bitcoin?

Richard Byworth: (17:36)
It's a great question. I think probably the, the coming back to, why do we think that way we're trained to think about linear progression, right? And the point is that this advancement of technology we're seeing in the current cycle, where we saw with the internet, as we did with Amazon, apple, Facebook, these were companies that were massively enhanced by the network effect of the internet. Now you're starting to see that with money and the value proposition that a digital transferable money globally decentralized from government is able to bring the world. That is just a phenomenon thing. And as Michael Saylor often says, Bitcoin's already won the network race, right. Is a trillion dollar network. Now you've got any competitor. I mean, what our competitors, Bitcoin cash like Klein, Bitcoin SV. I mean, these are dying protocols. You look at likewise, no, one's no one's out of development to that network for six months.

Richard Byworth: (18:40)
It's a dead protocol. As far as we assess it, in terms of the way that we think about listing assets on our platform. So Bitcoin has destroyed anything that has come close to trying to compete with it. And it's one that network effect. If you look at Metcalf's law and the way that network effects have this compounding effect, that's where our brain breaks. When we're thinking about linear models, right? It's this exponential effect that technology can have. And Bitcoin is, is no exception. You know, it's a, it's in a position where it could be a replacement for gold. It's better than gold in so many aspects. Scarcity, portability, divisibility, fungibility, verifiability, all these things it's beating gold, and it's still less than 10% of the entire market cap of gold. So where do we go? I think, uh, yeah, I think 175,000 is, uh, is fairly conservative, but so

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:46)
I want to, I want to see if I can put it in my words and you can agree or disagree, or what you're basically saying is we're trained to think linearly our minds are actually trained to think that way too. That's part of our survival mechanism, but the world is actually in some cases moving exponentially and you have the two things converging at the same time, this dilemma that the central banks are faced with. Uh, so therefore they've, uh, started printing the money digitally, electronically producing the money. And at the same time we need to standardize once again. So there's almost a need for a currency renewal, if you will, or a technological transformation of something that will allow us to trade goods and services that is more standardized and less manipulated by politicians or policy makers. And so this, these two things are happening at the same time and that's why Bitcoin is scaling. And so in order for it to hit that standard, those coins have to be worth blank, whatever plank is you and I can figure out that number. And therefore we'll start thinking about Satoshi's, which are, uh, units of Bitcoin, as opposed to Bitcoin itself. So what am I, what am I missing? Richard?

Richard Byworth: (21:06)
You're not missing anything. You're exactly. Spot on. I think that just to sort of elaborate on one of the points you made it, there are 56 million, according to Morgan Stanley, recent report, 56 million millionaires in the world, right? So 56 million millionaires, all ones who in one Bitcoin, they can't, they actually cannot own one. And by the way, you've got billionaires, like Elon Musk and Michael Saylor, just grabbing as much as they possibly can get before everyone realizes what this is. Right. And what's happening. Right. And then, yeah, I think that the, the thing you asked me a question, it, I walked, got my mind round breaking that linear model for me, it was really like one Bitcoin is one Bitcoin. And if I want, you know, my kids not to give me a hard time when they're 18 years old, they're eight and 10 now and say, dad, why didn't you have any Bitcoin? You know, now it's the sort of the center of everything financial and you know, you think, okay, well I want to get one Bitcoin for each of the kids. And then you go, well, hang on. Maybe I want 10. And then you're like, how many people could actually own 10? Like, you know, 2.1 million people in the world, could I actually own 10 Bitcoin suddenly it starts to really do it on you, how scarce this asset is.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:31)
Okay. So the scarcity is also a very big issue. Let me ask you this, uh, in, in PR soon to this philosophical change in your mind, uh, where are we 10 years from now? Uh, when quote unquote, to use your own words, Bitcoin is at the center of our financial experience. How do the traditional financial services in the crypto industry converge lay out the case? It's 2031? Where are we?

Richard Byworth: (23:04)
So 2031, let's say Bitcoins, um, approaching $5 million per Bitcoin, as you rightly said.

Anthony Scaramucci: (23:11)
And by the way, I'll already be through my second hair transplant by 2031. Okay. And I'm just saying that to interrupt Darcie from saying it by worth. Okay. Keep going by worth.

Richard Byworth: (23:22)
Yeah. So I think what you're going to have is you're going to have a very large value, uh, of Bitcoin as a single Bitcoin. And I think you, you highlighted it just then Bitcoin divides to eight decimal places. The unit, the final unit is a Satoshi. And we will start to think in Sitoshi. I think $1 today is 9,000 Satoshis and as the price goes higher and higher, you'll probably end up with a situation where one Satoshi is one us dollar, and that will end up being the way that we think about this in terms of scaling. So, um, yeah, I think that's probably the answer. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:06)
The traditional finance, how do they reconcile? What this, how does a old school bank get their arms around this?

Richard Byworth: (24:16)
Um, so the way that we're seeing banks move into the space at the moment is the, is the usual way. They need to understand how they avoid that reputational risk. First major reputational risk is a bank moving into this space and getting hacked, right? So they've got to make sure they don't get hacked. So the biggest thing that they have to focus on is custody. How do we deal with custody? How do we deal with custody in a safe and secure way? So many of the conversations that we have with banks are about them getting to the point of understanding how to deal with it, how to either build their own solution, use ours, or use a white label version of our solution. I think I mentioned earlier that our solution has been built by X specialists, um, security specialists from the ministry of defense in the United Kingdom.

Richard Byworth: (25:06)
His CTO is effectively, um, ex infrastructure banking head from, from UBS. And so what they've managed to do is build a very institutionally focused risk policy engine around the way that they deal with custody. And that's the way the banks are getting into it first. So once they understand how to store it, then they can start to offer it to their clients. And then once they start to offer it to their clients, then it's really just a mindset shift around how does blockchain start to really disrupt capital markets? So it's, you know, we're talking about just purely Bitcoin, Bitcoin is a particular asset, right? Then you're starting to move into the smart protocol world. Um, and how are we going to see capital markets disrupted? And I think that is probably going to be where the banks really weighed in is about understanding the way to manage these assets and then actually change the way that capital markets transactions are transmitted using blockchain networks.

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:06)
Okay. It's well said, I've got two last questions that we have to turn it over to the millennial. Okay. Who's going to ask millennial like questions. What is next for Digitech short-term and long-term

Richard Byworth: (26:19)
So in the very short term, we've got a lot of derivative product rollout. That for us is our skillset. We will came from derivative banking. Um, but what that leads into is a broader offering on a platform so effectively allowing people to manage their risk around derivatives. When you think back to what we've been discussing as Bitcoin, you're never going to want to sell your Bitcoin. You're going to, to use your Bitcoin as you will call collateral base and trade derivatives around that sell cools, buy sell, puts, do all of that, manage your finances around this core collateral base. So once you have that derivative set, it's going to be like a private bank for digital assets. So you can buy structured products. You can invest in funds that tokenized, and you can use that collateral base without actually ever selling any of your Bitcoins. And that's that's for us is the longterm goal is that you have that prime services, drug, private bank type function for institutions on the prime side, individuals on the private bank side,

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:24)
What's the symbol for digital X so that our viewers can, uh, look you guys up and potentially invest.

Richard Byworth: (27:31)
Yeah, so we did, as you say, we listed on NASDAQ. Our ticket is ETQ O S um, uh, under the name Digitech. So ed courses is, is the name of our exchange. So a Q O S was the ticker symbol is the ticket. We'll listen, Richard, congratulations. I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:50)
Who's sitting there in that very beautiful

Richard Byworth: (27:52)
Room. John Dorsey, the richest person at SkyBridge, possibly the richest person in the world. Go ahead,

John Darcie: (27:59)
Ignore him, Richard. But, uh, in terms of the regulatory environment, so you're sitting there in Hong Kong, what's the regulatory environment, uh, in Asia. And how do you view the global regulatory environment outlook over the next five years or so? Is it an inevitability that, that these countries approve it for full use? Or do you think there's going to be some level of crackdown? Whether it be in India, China, I know has various rules around Bitcoin, the U S government, Janet Yellen, our treasury secretary has made some critical comments about it. What do you see as the regulatory outlook?

Richard Byworth: (28:35)
I think that the regulatory outlook for the U S is quite positive. You look at people like guidelines are sitting at the top of the sec. I mean, he's very pro pro the technology. And I think he understands what it is. Yellen's, you know, I mean, probably not, um, for entirely about the asset, but probably understands the risk. It might be

John Darcie: (28:55)
Held, said she basically took every piece of FID that you could ever find on the internet and rolled it up into one and delivered it and her congressional testimony. Yeah,

Richard Byworth: (29:05)
I think, uh, you know, it's quite rich the fed saying that a big vine is, uh, is an environment. So is Austin, when you think about what the, you know, when you keep pushing that button on a fringing dollars

John Darcie: (29:20)
Or anything manipulated asset, you know, they say, oh, there's manipulation in the, uh, in the Bitcoin market. And that's rich too, obviously Bitcoiners

Richard Byworth: (29:27)
Exactly very rich, but, you know, I mean, I think energy consumption, GDP, everything you want to point out. I mean, everything around the dollar is, is the worst example of what, of, of the environmental issues around Bitcoin. Um, back to your regulatory question around Asia. I mean, if you look at the two key jurisdictions, um, for financial services, it's, it's obviously Hong Kong and Singapore. Um, both those jurisdictions are very focused on trying to understand what is the best way to regulate this asset class. Uh, Singapore actually moved with a very proactive and innovative approach. Uh, whereas, uh, Hong Kong were a little bit more while they move first with providing a regulatory framework, they actually were a bit more conservative. Um, that said, I think that the SFC here in Hong Kong is, is very pro the asset class. Um, they're trying to understand how they can, uh, continue to support the industry.

Richard Byworth: (30:26)
I mean, Hong Kong is probably the largest crypto hub in the world. Um, in terms of talent in this space, one of the reasons that we continue to hire ahead, even though we're based in Singapore, um, Japan has gone down a road of, uh, being the very first regulator to regulate the space, but now has gone extremely conservative, um, and really shutting the doors on foreigners coming in and providing services. So to your question, I think every country is taking a slightly different approach and the people that are looking at banning it well, you know, they, they're concerned about capital controls for obvious reasons, Bitcoin and other digital assets. Cryptocurrencies are a risk to a country that's trying to implement capital controls. So, uh, they don't want their citizens using it and moving money around very easily.

John Darcie: (31:19)
Right? Well, China obviously has, I think it's between 50 and 60% of the global mining operations for Bitcoin. Uh, but at the same time have restrictions on the use because of capital controls, like you mentioned, they're also developing a digital Yuan. What do you think the significance of them developing that central bank digital currency? Do you think down the road when there's not the maybe a stringent need for capital controls that they'll evolve their regulation and, you know, in keeping with the fact that they run 60% of the world's mining operations and are aggressively pursuing a central bank digital currency, do you think that they'll fully adopt and integrate digital currencies and decentralized finance

Richard Byworth: (32:00)
Look? Um, you know, China is very focused on control and central bank. Digital currency is all about control. I mean, they were the first country to issue the central bank. Digital currency has actually already issued the digital Yuan. Um, and so, you know, what I see the play for China is actually more about creating a currency that can be a competitor to the dollar. And so what you'll see with that digital currency for China is, is an internationalization of their currency, um, much more so, and they want to move that into, you know, basis like Russia, Iran, and, uh, and start to provide support for, for those regimes based on, you know, obviously their currency, um, profile. So I think by being the first mover into central bank, digital currencies, they they've seen the opportunity and they want to dominate and they're moving very fast.

John Darcie: (32:59)
You would expect these railings, that central bank, digital currencies are built on to replace the swift system. Do you expect the United States to have to respond by building its own, uh, you know, digitized dollar?

Richard Byworth: (33:12)
Yeah. I think that we will see that from the fed. Um, I think that, you know, because they're in such a position of strength, they don't have to move quite as fast. They can observe what everybody else is doing and then make their own move. And obviously that will be very quickly adopted. Um, so I think the Fed's in a pretty strong position to be able to defend. I mean, the one problem that you've got is that China doesn't have to deal with a democratic process and getting things, things through a Senate, they just get things done. So it's a, it's a, you know, when you're looking at the speed of technology that we touched on earlier, um, you know, when you're in a race like that, this is quite an advantage in that race.

John Darcie: (34:00)
Yeah. You know, not, not to turn this into a political conversation, but there are advantages and disadvantages of both systems in terms of, uh, whether it be drug development or, uh, experimentation with digital currencies. For sure. I want to talk about, you mentioned Michael Saylor as being a very important person and his adoption of Bitcoin being an important turning point. In my opinion, what we've seen from insurance companies in the United States is equally, if not more important, especially if you think of regulatory risks as the biggest threat to, uh, the inevitability of Bitcoin, you know, the idea that the United States could ban it or tax it in an onerous way. So you have mass mutual several months ago announced that they invested a hundred million dollars into Bitcoin by an iDIG NY Digg. Also a great partner of ours that we think is a fantastic organization. They announced this week at $200 million investment into the GP from the likes of Soros, Bessemer Morgan Stanley, the largest wealth management unit in the U S as well as New York life and New York life also put their chairman and CEO on the board of dig. So you, you clearly have several insurance companies that have significant exposure to Bitcoin. What do you think that means for the movement and, and sort of the acceleration of this adoption curve that you talked about?

Richard Byworth: (35:16)
Well, I think it's across the board. I think it's pensions. I think it's hedge funds is macro firms is yeah. As you say, it's insurers, mass mutual is the first big insurer that we've seen move into the space. Um, but it's not going to be the last for sure. I mean, all of these people are sitting on huge, um, huge amounts of capital and needs to put it best to work. And it's all the same trade, right. Is, is against the devaluation of the dollar. So I think, um, yeah, look, mass Mutual's may of gig and Heinz move pulls you to Jones move, Michael sailor's move. All of these were effectively leading their part of the industry. Uh, I think, um, I think, yeah, this is just going to continue. Those are the first movers. When you think about that in the context of the supply side crisis that we are already in, then you see how we very quickly move to 175,000.

John Darcie: (36:07)
Right? I want to talk about the energy piece because we think that you're going to continue to see a lot of comments around ESG, excuse me, around ESG energy usage and all the issues around that, that, you know, Bitcoin poses a risk to the climate. You have the Paris climate accord, you have an administration in the United States. That's more committed to those standards. And, uh, there was a Norwegian billionaire I'm going to butcher his name, but it's tell Ingo Roca. You might do a better job as a, uh, international citizen, but he announced that his company, which is the third largest energy producer in addition to being a conglomerate and Norway is investing into Bitcoin and also going to put their entire corporate treasury, uh, liquid investible assets into Bitcoin. But he talked a lot about in his shareholder letter, which was published a couple of days ago. That was fantastic about how Bitcoin can almost act as a battery that equalizes demand on some of these energy platforms. Can you talk more about the opportunity that actually Bitcoin creates from an energy perspective and why those concerns around climate change, uh, are actually misplaced?

Richard Byworth: (37:10)
I think that what Bitcoin does, and it's really interesting that analogy, I hadn't read that shell the letter, but it's a very, very good analogy because what we experienced, we were a miner ourselves. What we experienced was that you always want to be finding the cheapest energy effectively. What Bitcoin miners are doing is just tracking the cheapest possible energy. And the cheapest possible energy is generally orphaned energy. So it will be, you know, someone's built a hydroelectric power plant to, to support a forestry, uh, industry in Northern Sweden. That was a perfect example of, of, of where we mind. Um, back three years ago, that was orphaned energy because the forestry industry had moved out. Sustainability of the forestry had had limited the amount of deforestation that they could do. And so you'd been left with this hydroelectric power plant that had been built that wasn't being used.

Richard Byworth: (38:10)
And so what we did with, with mining was we effectively took that energy and we monetized it into that battery. I love that into that battery that is Bitcoin, and then transferred that energy into someone that was prepared to pay for it. And so I think, you know, w I looked at it often as this is a way of keeping the network that says, um, that a subsidization across between particularly the EU has done to really grow clean energy. You think about hydro electric power. You think about nuclear. All of this has been very heavily subsidized by the European union. Now, another example was when we were mining in a Gonda, which is the Eastern part of Switzerland, literally a kilometer down the road, we in Italy, there was a, a hydroelectric power station that was going to be shutting. Cause it didn't, it wasn't close enough to the grid.

Richard Byworth: (39:04)
It wasn't pairing enough. It was, it was just not profitable. So they were going to shut down. So we ran an optic fiber cable down to that hydro electric pass station use the energy monetize that kept the power station open and effectively kept that network in place until we get to a point where efficiency or population growth has got to a point where you can transfer that energy or use it in a national grid more effectively. So I always think about it is as being the sort of a placeholder to keep the network together. As what I like is an analogy about the battery. I think it's a perfect analogy. Yeah. Yeah. I mean,

John Darcie: (39:40)
Th that shareholder letter, we think it's one of the most important, excuse me, again, pieces that's been written on Bitcoin this year. You know, it was a, it was spoken in very plain English. It was a very sober assessment of where we are in Bitcoin of why he's decided. And it basically talked about how he missed out on several trends, including the advent of the internet and some things that took place in the energy sector. And he says, this is the next big idea, and I'm not going to miss out. It was, it was a great piece of research it's available on the company website for the entity that he launched, uh, called CT S E T e.io. So anybody who's watching this, I would definitely read that shareholder letter. Um, one of the best pieces we think that's been written on Bitcoin, but yeah, the energy piece, I think is fascinating because as we've spoken to several people on salt talks about this issue, it almost incentivizes the development of cheap clean energy because it equalizes demand on the grid. And so, you know, in some ways Bitcoin will have the opposite effect that, that some of these, uh, misinformed people have as it relates to carbon emissions, you know, inner Mongolia, as an example, just ban Bitcoin mining using coal, you know, China being very conscious of its contribution to greenhouse emissions. So a lot of interesting stuff happening in this space and, and rapid progress, but we'll leave it there. I don't want to take away all of our material for your parents at six months. When, before,

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:01)
Before Richard goes to the question about China, obviously they they're banning Bitcoin. What's your opinion there before we go, and then John can wrap it up,

Richard Byworth: (41:10)
Uh, look, China, bans Bitcoin every six to 18 months. Um, so, you know, as we always say about China, don't, don't watch what they say, watch what they do. Um, and the fact that you've still got such a high proportion of miners sitting in China, not being shut down the flow, still coming. Um, you know, they, they do want to have, uh, input on this network now. Um, I think that China is probably going to stop being one of the central banks or the PVOC is going to be one of the central banks to actually start buying Bitcoin on their balance sheet. Um, I wouldn't be surprised if they've already done it and then just not disclosing.

Anthony Scaramucci: (41:55)
Okay. Well, I just wanted to get that in there. I, that was my inkling, but in my inclination, but, uh, wanted to get it confirmed by you, Richard, go ahead. Young Darcie. We'll

John Darcie: (42:04)
Wrap it up there. I don't want to again, take all of our material for Richard's return appearance in six, 12 months when, uh, we're willing to guarantee

Anthony Scaramucci: (42:12)
On that. Now though, we're we're, we're in the bank. We have a handshake deal. The Bitcoins are at 175,000 and you're our guests on salts. Okay.

John Darcie: (42:23)
If it doesn't make it 175,000 in a year, you'd have to give me all your bills. No, they won't be worth that much in six months. No worries, Richard. Well, thank you for joining us. Uh, hopefully we'll get over to Asia here. When things clear up fully on COVID. We, we did our salt conference in Abu Dhabi in 2019. We've done it in Singapore twice, or whether we go back to Singapore or we bring it to Hong Kong, we'd love to have your participation. Of course, that'd

Richard Byworth: (42:50)
Be fantastic. I look forward to, or maybe even go say,

John Darcie: (42:54)
There you go, and you'll be able to buy your ticket in Bitcoin. So no worries, but thank you everybody also for tuning into today's talk with Richard by worth of digital X, a leading digital asset exchange. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access our entire archive@sault.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on Twitter at salt conferences where we're most active. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks for your friends. We love growing our community, uh, here on salt talks, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Adam Jentleson: “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate" | SALT Talks #180

“The filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, starting with efforts to preserve slavery in the 19th century.”

Adam Jentleson is the author of Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy. He is the executive director of Battle Born Collective and was deputy chief of staff to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The Senate has long had a reputation as the greatest deliberative body in the world. It holds an almost mythical standing, but beneath that veneer is a highly dysfunctional institution controlled by the narrow interests of select Senators. The Constitution’s framers built a system capable of adapting to each era’s unique challenges. Through the targeted and discriminatory strengthening of the filibuster, that framing has been undercut and the Senate has become a legislative graveyard. “I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life.”

The filibuster is a relic of Jim Crow. It was innovated by John C. Calhoun to prevent the inevitable abolition of slavery. Its threshold was then increased to 60 votes, serving as a block against civil rights legislation for the 87 years between the end of Reconstruction and 1964. “Civil rights bills between the end of Reconstruction and 1964 were the only category of legislation that was stopped by this supermajority threshold.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Adam Jentleson.jpeg

Adam Jentleson

Author

Kill Switch

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to bring you a very timely topic about the United States Senate with author and media contributor. Adam gentlemen, Adam, as I mentioned, is the author most recently of kill switch the rise of the modern Senate and the crippling of American democracy. Adam is currently the executive director of Battleborn collective and a former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid. So he's seen up close and personal the issues that we have with the modern Senate. He's a columnist as well for GQ and a frequent political contributor on MSNBC. And he lives, uh, near DC and Tacoma park, Maryland and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. Who's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt and he has a little bit of experience in politics, but I'm not going to slam him today on his brief stint in the Trump administration. But with that, I'll turn

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:33)
It over to him. Listen, okay. Measuring this stuff

Adam Jentleson: (01:36)
By dog years at this point, just think of those two poor dogs that were thrown from the white house after 37 days. Okay. 3.36 Scaramucci, for those of you that are counting in Scaramucci. Okay. So, but apparently the dogs are coming back, but one thing is for certain Adam, I'm not coming back. Okay. I'm going to be stuck here in salt talks, talking to great authors like you. Uh, but I, uh, just a little bit of a true, you know, for your benefit. Uh, Senator Reed was super helpful to salt back in 2009. Uh, we decided to go to Las Vegas with the live conference when obviously way before the pandemic, uh, Vegas was being devastated by the last financial crisis. And so we elected to go with the air. He helped the range speakers for us. Unfortunately he couldn't make the first one, but he came to a few thereafter and, uh, no surprise to the people that know me.

Adam Jentleson: (02:31)
I am a donor of Senator Harry Reid. So I'm fairly bipartisan when it comes to donating, um, which got me in trouble with Donald Trump. But let's move on because we're talking about policy and we're talking about what is right for the country. I thought that spoke was fascinating. I'm going to hold it up for everybody. Okay. Kill, switch. Um, why did I think it was fascinating, Adam, because you're describing the history of the Senate that most Americans don't know, you're describing procedures in the Senate, which as we've learned from the rules about the parliamentarian, the procedures actually matter to the people in the Senate as they should. Uh, but you're also describing what needs to happen

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:13)
If we're going to have policy progress. And again, this is bi-partisan policy progress, which is what I loved about the book so much. So, uh, first of all, congratulations on the book. And then secondly, if you don't mind, tell us a little bit about your background and then I'd like you to talk a little bit about the book, you know, the skeleton of the book, the history of the Senate, et cetera. Some of don't give up all the great parts because I want people to go out and buy it, but I certainly want our, our viewers and listeners to learn from me.

Adam Jentleson: (03:42)
Sure. And thank you so much, John and Anthony for having me, it's really great to be here. Um, and thanks for reading the book. Uh, so about me, I, I started in politics. I didn't think I was going to go into politics, but I sort of grew up around it. My parents were teachers. Um, but my dad didn't put us,

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:00)
I just think we're going into pilot exam. It draws us in. Okay. It's like the Michael Corleone narrative. Okay. You can't, you can't get out either once. You're drawn in sorry to

Adam Jentleson: (04:09)
Interrupt, but no, no problem. Um, but yeah, no. So for me, I was in college in 2003 in New York city. And, uh, it was the Iraq war that sort of got the turning to politics. Um, I went to work from there on, uh, presidential campaign that year, uh, and for the next 10 years sort of bounced around between presidential campaigns and jobs and the sort of political campaign and nonprofit C4 type world. Um, and then I arrived in the Senate around 2010, uh, and that was sort of the defining, uh, professional experience for me. Um, I went straight to work for Senator Reed and spent my time within there, started in communications rose up to be deputy chief of staff to him. And so I was there through most of the big fights in the Obama administration. And, you know, the, the reason that I wrote this book is because of what I saw in my time there.

Adam Jentleson: (04:58)
And, you know, you get to the Senate and it's this mythical place. And you're told that it's this bastion of wisdom and thoughtfulness and bipartisanship. Um, and it's, you know, sometimes been able to live up to that reputation. But what I saw was a Senate that uses that reputation to cloak itself and hide the dysfunction that lies beneath it. Uh, and the experiences I had. There's got me asking questions about why is it this way? And when you ask these questions, you get very unsatisfying answers. They tend to be answers about Senate tradition and this sort of circular, it always comes back to sort of, it is this way because it is this way, you know, this is how the Senate wants it to be. Um, and I found those answers unsatisfying because what I saw was a Senate where it was shaped by power plays and it was shaped by individuals with narrow political interests, publicans and Democrats, uh, who would make power grabs and change the rules and shape the rules and shape and arms.

Adam Jentleson: (05:55)
And then explain it in the, in terms of grants that have tradition and try to explain how they were the ones standing up, um, for the framers vision and stuff like that. So I thought it would be helpful to write a book that tried to level set this and ground all of this talk in what the framers really meant and what they really intended to send it to be. And I'm not an originalist here. Um, I wouldn't claim that we should hang on to framers every word for, you know, thinking about how, what our laws should say and what our policies should be. But they did design a system that was capable of change and capable of adapting and meeting the challenges of new areas. And what we have today is a system that is incapable of change, but is incapable of passing common sense by partisan bills that have broad public support.

Adam Jentleson: (06:39)
Uh, and I think the Senate is on the verge of becoming just another failed institution in American life. And if it is unable to adapt, it's unable to change. If it gets too obsessed with preserving itself in Amber, um, it's going to be a failed institution and the country is going to be worse off for it. So that's what brought me to this book and what I hope the book does offer readers, tearing down some of that it's cutting through the fog and trying to get down to, to what it was really supposed to be and how it can change.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:04)
So, so, okay, so let's go back. Cause I think this is instructive for our listeners, uh, and correct me if I'm wrong. Uh, the Senate is actually in parts of our Republican democracy are designed to protect minorities. I'm not necessarily talking about black or brown people. I'm talking about people that are in the minority as it relates to voting. And so we didn't want to have mob rule or just popular vote rule. The day we wanted to empower the states with some levels of rights and some levels of representations of the Senate is the mechanism for that. It is effectively two senators in Rhode Island, two senators in California, even though Rhode Island population is miniscule compared to California. Uh, James Madison, you write about James Madison and the book in the beginning, part of the book, uh, that explained the dangers of giving veto power to minorities potentially outweighed the benefits. Um, and so just for, for our listeners, step back for a second, tell us what you like about the Senate. Tell us what you dislike about the Senate and tell us about why the Senate was formed in the first place.

Adam Jentleson: (08:13)
Yes, yes. Yeah. It's, you know, the Senate was designed to protect minority rights. And when, like you said, when the framers were talking about minorities, they were talking about minority factions and specifically they weren't really thinking about vulnerable populations. They were more thinking about the status quo and, and the people in power. One of their overriding concerns was the threat of mob to property rights. They were basically afraid of the people

Anthony Scaramucci: (08:37)
They had to get these, they had to get these sob to ratify the constitution. So they needed each of those colonies, which were becoming states to do so. And so therefore this was an empowerment tool for that as well.

Adam Jentleson: (08:49)
Right, right. Fair enough. And, and, you know, I mean, I don't want to, you know, miss portrayed the Senate, it wasn't designed to be a of democracy per se. It was designed to be a bit of a break on the system, uh, and, and provide that protection to minority factions against the threat of mob rule. But the whole system itself was also supposed to provide that check, you know, that the checks and balances, weren't just the Senate. It was having a bicameral legislature having a judiciary and having a president. Um, and so it was the whole system that Madison designed that he saw as providing checks and balances. Even today, if you take the filibuster out of the picture, United States still has more checks and balances, what political scientists called veto players, uh, than any other modern democracy. So there are, there are a lot of checks even without the filibuster.

Adam Jentleson: (09:31)
Um, and I think that's good. The Senate should provide that check against majority mob rule. Um, it's a place where, you know, legislation goes to become more thoughtful, to be being debated more thoroughly to try to reach consensus. All that is very good. But with the framers were trying to do was strike a delicate balance. And we've lost that balance today. Um, as you said, Madison, who was sort of achieved champion of minority rights, wrote extensively about the importance of protecting minority rights, but he also very explicitly said that it was the goal is to provide the minority of voice in the process and a guaranteed role in the process, but never to provide them with detail. And he was explicit about this. He said, you know, when push comes to shove, basically I'm paraphrasing. Um, if, you know, consensus could not be attained, the majority should go forward.

Adam Jentleson: (10:19)
And he called the majority rule quote, the Republican principle, this was foundational for him. Um, and the reason it was, was that the framers had just had firsthand experience with what happens when you allow a minority to have veto power, because in the articles of Confederation, you know, the first draft of American government, the Congress in the articles had a super majority threshold for most major legislation. And it was a complete disaster. They couldn't pass anything. It crippled that emergent Republic during war time and they hated it. So they were very clear that they wanted to have checks and balances, but they wanted all decision points within that system to be majority rule, because they had seen firsthand that if you create a super majority threshold and by doing so, giving the minority veto power, because you know, 40% can, can stop. What, what 50% or up to 60% want to do, you're going to create a crippling system. So they call them. I mean, they, they said this explicitly. So that's, that's the balance that we're trying to strike. And we've tilted that balance far too far in the direction of giving the minority too much power.

Anthony Scaramucci: (11:19)
And the Republicans have taken advantage of this, of course, because they are in the minority. If you look at the voter registration, but yet states like north and South Dakota, they have the population of Manhattan, the island of Manhattan. Yet they have four senators between those two states. So the Republicans have figured out how to use these, uh, minority rules to their advantage Democrats from time to time have done as well. I'm not necessarily trying to pick on one group, what is a filibuster? Adam, tell our audience what a filibuster is.

Adam Jentleson: (11:51)
A filibuster is not what you think of when you think of a filibuster is not Jimmy Stewart standing on the floor, giving a long speech. At least it's not anymore. Right now all a filibuster is, is the ability of any individual Senator to raise the number of votes. It takes to pass a bill from a simple majority where it was for most of the sentence existence. And technically still is today, if you can get there. But, uh, what they're able to do is put a threshold higher than that majority today that had 60 votes in the path of the bills, passed the path to passage. And to throw that hurdle up, to throw that 60 vote hurdle up to every bill has to clear, uh, they don't have to debate at all. They'll don't have to go to the floor if they don't have to explain themselves, uh, they don't even have to make a public statement of any thought.

Adam Jentleson: (12:35)
All they have to do is send an email, became the other staff, just send an email to what's called a cloakroom, which was sort of the nerve center of power. Each party has one right off the Senate floor. When you see CSPAN or walking through those doors on the side, two of those doors lead to one leads to the democratic cloakroom one leads to the Republican cloakroom. So you just have your staff send an email and that automatically with one email makes a bill that should have a majority vote special for passage, go up to 60 votes. So that's all the filibuster is today.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:04)
The Republicans do that on the current spending bill.

Adam Jentleson: (13:07)
Well, so there's one category, um, of legislation that is exempt from filibusters and that's anything that can go through this process called budget reconciliation. Um, this was a process created in the 1970s that was supposed to be sort of a fast track for budgetary procedures. Congress was trying to sort of take back power from the executive at this time. This was post-Watergate. And so they wanted to say the president had too much power. The president was setting the budget and the spending priorities for the entire government Congress was trying to take that power back. So they created a special, fast track procedure to make it really easy to pass anything budget related. Um, and then they made, and then people started using that fast-track for all sorts of things. So in the eighties, Robert Bird stepped in and said, here's a, here's a new set of rules that restricts what can go through this backpack. Uh, and the basic restriction is that a policy's impact has to have a primarily budgetary impact. And the person who decides that is one individual, the Senate parliamentarian and unelected person who, um, both sides, respect, but gets to make that decision unilaterally. And, you know, it's a pretty restricted definition.

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:09)
Oh, the Senate, the Senate parliamentarian and parliamentarian has now become famous again was once famous in 2001. Tell us a little bit about that and tell us why they're famous again today.

Adam Jentleson: (14:20)
Yeah. So in 2001, um, the Senate parliamentarian had a big role in deciding the control of the Senate and, um, uh, some big debates that are going on around around the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts were going through reconciliation, this process, which put them in the spotlight. Uh, and so they had a big, big role to play there. And so basketball they're playing today, where the problem with debt with what Democrats are trying to do is that, you know, Republicans tend to use reconciliation for things that reconciliation was designed for like, like tax cuts. It's just, that matches up better with their policy agenda. It's easier for them to push tax best through a budgetary process than it is to push COVID eight or a minimum wage increase through a budgetary process. But just to demonstrate how restrictive this process can be, you know, minimum wage does have a major budgetary impact.

Adam Jentleson: (15:04)
There's no way to argue it. Doesn't right before this ruling came down, this congressional budget office came out with a report demonstrating, um, millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in budgetary impact for the minimum wage. But even that level of budgetary impact didn't meet the standard of reconciliation, which is it has to be primarily budgetary. So even though obviously a minimum wage increase would have a budgetary impact, it didn't rise to that level. And so that's how restrictive this process can be. So as people think about what else can move through it, I think people are trying to force climate change policies through immigration policies. I think now that we know where the parliamentarian stands, it's going to be hard to force these other policies through if minimum wage doesn't have a primarily budgetary impact. I think it'd be hard to argue that climate change policies or immigration have a primary.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:50)
I think it's fascinating. I want to go back to the filibuster for a second, and then I've got some other follow-up questions about it, but you write in the book, uh, that a very, um, uh, Gus gentlemen, John Lewis, who's now deceased. He said that the filibuster is a Jim Crow Relic, uh, and the harm allowed by the filibuster extends far beyond Jim Crow. What did he mean by that? Uh, give us the historical context that he's speaking.

Adam Jentleson: (16:22)
So the filibuster is deeply rooted in historical efforts to oppress black Americans, uh, starting with the effort to preserve slavery in the 19th century, the chief innovator of what we would think of as the talking to the Buster, the Jimmy Stewart style filibuster was John [inaudible] who, uh, used it to increase the great

Anthony Scaramucci: (16:42)
New biography by the way about Calhoun out, uh, came out about two weeks ago.

Adam Jentleson: (16:47)
Yes. I really recommend asking any character that there should be a musical about him, but he would, would be an antihero. But, um, but he, you know, what happened was that the country was moving towards abolition and Calhoun could see that the majority of the country left to its own devices would abolish slavery eventually. Um, so he needed to increase the power of the minority to stop them from doing that. And so that's why he started to innovate the talking filibuster, but all through the 19th century, there was no rule that allowed the filibuster ERs to raise the number of votes it took to pass a bill. So the best you could do with this talking filibuster was to delay bills by giving a speech. And the way that we tend to think of what happened in the Jim Crow era. This is when senators figured out how to start using the filibuster to increase the number of votes it took to pass a bill.

Adam Jentleson: (17:35)
There was a rule put on the books in 1917 in response to a very embarrassing filibuster. The Senate was sort of humiliated when they filibustered to build their president. Wilson was trying to put through to arm American merchant ships. Um, there was a big public backlash, senators were being burned in across the country. So the Senate came back and said, all right, we need to give ourselves a tool to end filibusters when they get too extreme. So they created what's called cloture rule. And you can think of cloture as closure. It's bringing closure to a debate because every bill has to pass through this debate period before it gets to final passage. And if you're being filibustered, the only way to end that debate period is through a closure vote. Bringing closure to that, that vote was set at a super majority threshold. And the idea was that this would be a tool that senators could reach for if they filibuster was going on too long in a reasonable group of senators could come together and say, all right, that's it guys wrap it up.

Adam Jentleson: (18:25)
Let's move on to the final vote, which was at a majority festival during this period, Southern senators started using the filibuster and sort of grafting that super majority threshold onto the filibuster to apply effectively a super majority threshold only to civil rights bills, uh, civil rights bills between the end of reconstruction in 1964, where the only category of legislation that was stopped by this super majority threshold for 87 years. And I just want to make one last point on this, which is that we sometimes think that maybe America wasn't ready for civil rights until the late fifties and sixties, but the evidence shows otherwise, um, bills to end lynching bills to end poll taxes and bills to end workplace discrimination were passing the house of representatives by wide margins. They were coming over to the Senate where they had majority support and they had presidents of both parties ready to sign them.

Adam Jentleson: (19:17)
In fact, Republicans were much better on civil rights during this period than Democrats. Uh, the only thing that stopped them was the Senate filibuster. The American people wanted action on civil rights, Gallup polled, the issue of anti-lynching laws in 1937 and found 72% of the American people in support of anti-lynching laws. They pulled, uh, anti poll tax laws in the 1940s, and they found upwards of 60% of Americans in support. So we could have had action on civil rights decades before we started doing it. Uh, but the only thing that blocked it was the Senate filibuster,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:49)
W w we're we're we're trying to figure out who the 28% is Adam, that that's, I guess for lynching, but I guess those are some of the people that stormed the capital, their descendants, or some of those people, but the reason, again, I think it's important to reference this. The reason why this book is so important is that I think that the average American particularly Americans that are managing money, like many of our viewers, they don't understand the system and the processes that are in place that are actually sludging up the ability for social progress, human progress, policy progress, uh, all of this Byzantine stuff that you're describing very clearly by the way, uh, is something that Americans need to know about so that they can, uh, help to force a change, uh, procedural or otherwise. So

Adam Jentleson: (20:41)
If I can just put on this Jim Crow air for one second, cause I think it demonstrates an important point, please. So, you know, so this was, you know, the early first half of the 20th century, right, where we built post-war America, we built the middle-class. We, we, you know, advanced a lot of the policies that GI bill, um, you know, building the highway system, all these things that we think of when we think of what made America great and allowed the middle class to pride, what's really important to think of during this period is that every other bill besides civil rights passed or failed in the Senate, based on whether it could secure a majority Medicare, uh, there was a great memo from LBJ, his top legislative aid writing to LBJ saying that he's confident Medicare is going to pass because he could count a majority of senators in support of it.

Adam Jentleson: (21:23)
After it was clear, it was going to pass a bunch more senators jumped on board and it got up to 70 votes, but Medicare needed to clear a majority to pass that skit. Uh, it never faced a filibuster. So only civil rights was the only category of legislation that was forced to clear a super majority threshold during the first half of the 20th century. So you look at the experience of every other issue and you look at civil rights, every other issue was dealt with in a relatively timely fashion, America faced the challenges that it fit, that it was facing successfully more or less on civil rights and failed today. We are applying the standard that we applied to civil rights to every other issue, every other issue, except for the budget stuff, except for yes. That's right, right,

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:03)
Right. Okay. So, so there's a couple of Democrats that want to keep this in place. Right? Joe Manchin is one of them. Um, what, what, why, why would they want to keep this in place?

Adam Jentleson: (22:14)
Well, I'm not totally sure, but I think if you asked your mansion, he would say that it's because of Senate tradition and bipartisanship, and there's

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:21)
An argument to my guest from Arizona is one of them as well, right?

Adam Jentleson: (22:24)
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think what they would say I'm trying to do, do their argument objectively is that the filibuster is the last thing that would help facilitate bipartisanship because by insisting that you need 60 votes in this era where neither party is likely to control 60 votes in the Senate, in any point in the foreseeable future, it forces you to have bipartisanship, uh, because by its very nature, you have to have some Republicans involved to get the sixties. Um, but I would argue that the filibuster is actually stifling bipartisanship because the 60 votes is a pretty much an arbitrary number that they arrived at through a series of reforms through the latter half of the 20th century. Um, and you see a lot of opportunity to maybe get a few Republicans on board with certain policies and get you to 52 53, you know, maybe even 55 votes.

Adam Jentleson: (23:14)
Um, but you can't get the 60. And it's the impossibility of getting to 60 in our polarized environment means by partisanship is never going to happen. I look at things like the vote to call witnesses and the Trump impeachment trial. You actually had five Republicans crossover and vote with Democrats on that. So that was a bipartisan vote. You only need to clear a majority in that case. So it's succeeded, but let's say you had that on an infrastructure bill and five Republicans crossed over and voted with Democrats and you have 55 votes for an infrastructure bill. That would be a great bi-partisan achievement, especially in this day age to get five Republicans to support it, but it wouldn't pass because you couldn't get to 60. So even though it seems like it would facilitate bipartisanship by setting a basically impossible standard, it's actually making it impossible to get anything done in stifling, real opportunities for bipartisanship.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:00)
So at the same time that this is going on, um, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was instigated by your former boss. Uh, some of these confirmations that once required 60 votes are now down to the minor majority, uh, which was working well for Democrats. And then all of a sudden president Trump flipped it on him and it started working well for Republicans as it related to Supreme court justices and federal judges. Uh, tell us the history of that. Tell us what, uh, Harry Reed got right. And what he did.

Adam Jentleson: (24:30)
Yeah, sure. So this is, you know, th the debates are nominations in particular, judicial nominations go back to the 1980s. Some people would trace it to the fight over Robert pork's nomination under president Reagan. Um, and this was an issue, you know, both sides argued over under president Bush Republicans, uh, tried to go nuclear themselves to, uh, confirm some judicial nominees. Um, that was when this gang of 14 arose and, and sort of took the wind out of that, uh, effort and forced to compromise. Um, but this is sort of 2013. And Reed's decision was with the culmination of a decades long fight over nominations. What Reed was facing in 2013 was Republican obstruction that had gotten, uh, beyond any historical reference point of president Obama's nominees. And I'm talking about his judicial nominees and his nominees to cabinet positions faced that. Let me put this way.

Adam Jentleson: (25:19)
Half of all filibusters in American history against presidential nominees were waged against president Obama's nominees, the other half of filibusters against president's nominees where all of American history combined. So that's how bad it was. It was extreme. And so what we faced in 2013 was Obama just been reelected and nothing had changed. I think there was a brief period after his reelection where people thought the tea party fever would break. Republicans would start working with Democrats that wasn't happening. His nominees were still being obstructed. He was on track to have the fewest judicial nominees confirmed in any president since before Reagan. So we decided that the only thing he could do was to go nuclear effectively and lower the threshold to confirm nominees from 60 votes to the majority, um, where it is today. Um, he exempted Supreme court, uh, as the one category that would remain at 60 votes because we just simply didn't didn't have the votes for it.

Adam Jentleson: (26:10)
Um, but every other, uh, nominee the threshold came down to 15. What that allowed us to do was to convert, to confirm a wave of Obama, um, judicial nominees in a year and a half that we still have the majority from 2013 to 2014. And so that got Obama on par with all other precedents. If we hadn't gone, nuclear Obama would have left office with the fewest nominees since Reagan Trump would've arrived with even more, uh, open vacancies to fill. Now you could argue as some Hab that by going nuclear, we let Republicans more traditional knowledge. Um, that's a valid argument. I personally believe that if Democrats, if the filibuster for nominees it's still been in place and Democrats had been filibustering Trump's nominees in February, March of 2017 when he was still riding high, but Mitch McConnell would have gotten rid of that filibuster in a heartbeat, uh, and confirmed all denominations going to confirm anyway, and then we went to confirm this last wave of Obama nominees.

Adam Jentleson: (27:07)
So I happen to think that it was worth it because of the nominees that we were able to get confirmed, that the caudal would would've gone nuclear itself. We know that you values judicial nominees more than anything else. I think the idea that he would have, let Democrats stand in his way with the filibuster is unsupported by the evidence. Um, so that, that went through, if anything, I think that what we got wrong was not going far enough, uh, not lowering the threshold for Supreme court justices. He, he probably would have if he could have, but he couldn't get the votes. I like to think about how the Merrick Garland fight would have been different. If Democrats had only needed to get 50 votes to confirm Merrick Garland, instead of 60, it was very easy for McConnell to keep, you know, 14 Republicans from breaking away, um, and getting to 60.

Adam Jentleson: (27:47)
It might've been a lot harder for him to, to prevent only three or four Republicans that breaking way. So, you know, I think we should go further. I think a majority votes Senate, fundamentally benefits, progressives and liberals, more than Republicans as from a progressive perspective, but even from a healthy, balanced perspective, I think our country is in a good balance. When liberals come in and expand the social safety net, expand rights, uh, to new vulnerable populations, and then concern has come in and trim it back and cut back spending like that's a healthy balance, but right now our government can't get anything done. And we're failing to meet challenges like global warming and income inequality and all these things, and we're crippled as a country. And so we've lost that, that balance between the two sides.

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:30)
So, you know, listen, you're, you're excellent at explaining it you're even better at writing about it, by the way. I thought the book was phenomenal. I have one last question that I have to turn it over to the millennial, although gentle you look a little bit like a millennial to me too. So I'm probably going to get mad at you before this thing is over that you're right at the cusp of two young people's may smack your two heads together, but the, uh, the title kill switch, I think is a very effective title. Drew my eye calls me to order the book, frankly. Uh, and then once I got it, I started reading it and I became fascinated by it. Um, why did you title it kill switch? And what is the reception for this in Washington DC?

Adam Jentleson: (29:13)
Well, I titled the kill switch cause I was writing it in the basement and I was looking at the electrical box in the basement and thinking to myself, you know, what is something that shuts down a system and, you know, in your electrical box, there's that kill switch that shuts down the entire system. And that to me is what the Senate has become. Um, you know, we think of it as a cooling sauce or a place where good ideas go to be, you know, uh, cooled and, and developed thoughtfully. It's not bad anymore. Now it's a kill switch. It shuts down our entire system's ability to process change in a thoughtful, constructive, bipartisan way. Um, so that's how I came up with, with the title there. Um, their assumption honestly has, has been very encouraging. Um, I've been, uh, very pleased, not just with how it has been received by Democrats, but also received by a lot of conservatives.

Adam Jentleson: (29:57)
Um, uh, max boot, the conservative intellectual, uh, said that my book convinced him, uh, that filibuster reform was necessary. David, from a former Bush speech writer has written very positively about it in the Atlantic. Um, uh, so I I've been, I think people have engaged with the material in a thoughtful way. Um, I, my politics are on my sleeve. I write, I state that in the book. Um, but I tried to approach it objectively to give Mitch McConnell equal time to try to help people understand what makes him tick, not just slam him. Um, and the same with, with Democrats and Republicans throughout the era. I mean, you know, as I explained in the book, Republicans were much better on civil rights than Democrats for a lot of the 20th century. And I tried to give, give credit where do there. So I'm, I've been very happy with the way it's been received. Uh, I hope, uh, folks, if they're interested we'll, we'll um, give it a try. Uh, but I think it's, it's, it's gotten a good reception so far.

Anthony Scaramucci: (30:51)
I'm going to turn it over to John Dorsey. Uh, I hope a lot of the things that you're recommending do come to pass for the United States, that he'd be very beneficial. And I think what you're saying is very balanced in terms of the course corrections that are needed, but also the expansion of our society as it relates to social justice and more progress for people that for whatever reason have been left out of the society. And so, uh, you know, one of the books that, uh, I'm sure you've read or know about is Jola Poor's book, uh, which really writes candidly about the American historical achievements, but also some of the things that were setbacks, uh, for America as it's rising towards social progress. So, um, amazing book, uh, Adam, I got to turn it over to your fellow millennial. Okay. So he'll try to outshine me now, but that's fine. In the meantime, I'm sh I'm showing your book to hopefully stop him from outshining me. The book is fantastic. Go ahead, John Dorsey. Yeah. I mean,

John Darcie: (31:50)
It's an incredibly relevant book and I don't know that you wrote about it, uh, with foreshadowing of the context that we exist in today. So it couldn't have been more timely in terms of, uh, what's happening in Congress, but you talked about Mitch McConnell. So I want to go deeper into that, you know, from a distance I look at McConnell and it's hard to figure out exactly what does make him tick and what his end game is and what he really wants. You know, he's somebody who has as much as anyone prevented progress from the left, but he also has been critical of Trump. You voted yes on Merritt Garland's confirmation, uh, this week. And, and he's somebody who every once in a while, he throws you an olive branch to signal that maybe he's not unreasonable and he's not just an obstructionist, but what does make him tick? And what's the method in the madness,

Adam Jentleson: (32:38)
What them tick is a desire for power. Um, I think that's basically, and I don't even, I don't say that necessarily in a critical way. I think that was probably true of Senator Reed as well. Um, but, but what makes McConnell especially effective at what he does is that he's able to cloak that sort of naked drive for power in this sense of institutional preservation and tradition. And he's better at that than anybody I've ever seen. But what was interesting in the research for the book is you go back and you see that this was a pattern. And that folks like Richard Russell of Georgia, who was sort of the biggest champion of the filibuster, uh, in the middle of the 20th century and an a valid white supremacist, I don't use that term lightly, his own words. He stated that his, uh, he said, uh, any Southern man worth a pinch of salt would give his all to preserve white supremacy.

Adam Jentleson: (33:27)
Uh, he was very open about the fact that his mission in public service was to preserve white supremacy. So I don't use that lightly, that those were his words. He similar to McConnell, uh, was an expert at, at making massive power grabs and changing the Senate in, in big ways and strengthening the filibuster in his own time. But convincing everybody that he was doing it in the service of traditional John Calhoun in his own time, same thing. He was the first person to start grafting this idea of minority rights onto obstruction in saying, we're not obstructing, we're trying to preserve minority rights. So I see a line, um, throughout history from Calhoun to Russell to McConnell, uh, in that ability to advance your own political interests and change the Senate in ways that advantage you, but it convinced everybody, but you're doing it in the name of tradition. Um, so I think it's, it's that what makes him tick is that drive for power and what makes them effective at it is this ability to sort of present himself as, as an institutionalist, as he does it

John Darcie: (34:24)
And his dislike for Trump. Do you think that's born out of a sorrel sort of a moral objection to things that have happened, whether it be the insurrection or things prior to that, or do you think it's the fact that Trump threatened his sort of Supreme power over the Republican party and how it operates?

Adam Jentleson: (34:42)
I think that McConnell has a complicated relationship with Trump because I actually think he owes a lot to Trump. As I write in the book in the period between 2014 and 2016 McConnell was in trouble. He was, uh, the top target of the tea party, um, who had just ousted John Bainer as speaker in October of 2015. So this was a very credible threat and they were coming after McConnell and saying, you're next? And Mark Meadows, uh, Mulvaney when they were in Congress were quoted saying, we're coming after you McConnell. And so when Trump came onto the scene, you know, McConnell opposed him and as he to the primary, but once you got the nomination, McConnell realized that Trump, he could sort of draft in Trump's wake and Trump would protect his right flank. And so I have trouble crediting McConnell's objection is deeply moral because through most of the four years of Trump's rise and time and power McConnell did everything Trump wanted him to do.

Adam Jentleson: (35:32)
He protected him to the, to impeachment trials. He protected Trump. It sort of lost a memory, but when Trump made a major power grab to end the government shutdown and unilaterally ship funds in a massive violation of Congress's power of the purse, carnal backed, um, at the time that was the thing everybody said, this is going to be the break. This is what's going to cause McConnell to break with Trump didn't happen. Um, and then, you know, he did eventually come out and acknowledged Biden's win, but he, it took him a month. And so right after the election McConnell went to the Senate floor and said it Trump's challenges to the election were valid. And I think that institutional stamp of approval on Trump's challenges for a whole month, did a lot to signal to other Republicans that they should, uh, support the challenges. So I have trouble giving him credit for sort of late in the game, trying to sort of recoup some, some respect and credibility, uh, and coming out for Trump's. I don't, I don't credit it as moral. Unfortunately I think it's, you know, he was, he was right behind Trump winning advantage him, preserve his own power. And I think that's, that's sort of just how he, how he works.

John Darcie: (36:32)
So we talked earlier about Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kiersten cinema and Arizona being the two most noteworthy Democrats that are looking to preserve the filibuster because they think it will lead to some level of bipartisanship. But if you look at the stakes of current legislation, that Democrats are putting forth, like the John Lewis voting rights act, for example, uh, that would increase access to voting rights, uh, for future elections, cyclical forces indicate that Republicans could easily take back control of Congress in 2022, uh, in both both sides of Congress as well. Do they realize what's at stake? And how is the rest of the party trying to communicate and get through to them about the importance, especially at this moment in time, specifically of ending that Philip Buster,

Adam Jentleson: (37:17)
It's not clear to me that they understand what's at stake yet, but I think, I think they will be made to understand by the, by the, their, um, colleagues, because I think initially they thought they were going to come out. You're going to have to take the Stanford Senate tradition. I think they expected a lot of people to be cheering them on. I think they probably are a little bit surprised at how quick the consensus is formed against the filibuster. You have folks like David Brooks running column saying Democrats would probably get rid of it. I don't think they expected that. I think they expected to have more of a cheering section. And then in addition, I think they thought by standing in support of the filibuster, they will be opposing far left policies like Medicare for all the green new deal. Um, but it's very clear those things couldn't pass even in a 50 votes Senate cause Joe Manchin could vote against them.

Adam Jentleson: (37:57)
And that's that. Um, and, and what they're really standing away over must pass things for all Democrats like voting rights, uh, and other major pillars of the Biden agenda. So I think these four walls are sort of closing in on them in a way, because, you know, they're not standing against far-left policy, they're standing against the basic success or failure of the Biden administration and of all of their colleagues who were up on the ballot in 2022, you know, Mark Kelly, Kristin Sinema, his fellow Senator in Arizona is up again in 2022 because even though he just won election, it's a special election. So he has to run again. He needs accomplishments to win. He needs to be able to go to Arizona lawyers and say, look at everything we accomplished, especially to withstand the historical forces. You're talking about where the party that just won the white house usually loses the midterms.

Adam Jentleson: (38:42)
So I think at the end of the day, the pressure is going to build on them where their fellow colleagues and hopefully eventually the white house are gonna come to them and say, look, we've tried everything. We've exhausted all attempts at bipartisanship. Just look at this Republican party. If you think bipartisanship is just about the flourish, I don't know what you're smoking. Uh, and we got to get things done. So I think that's the pressure that's going to build on them. And I think within a relatively short amount of time, months, not years, that will become unbearable pressure for them. And I think you will see them shift. You've already seen mansion shift a little bit, I would think is very significant.

John Darcie: (39:15)
Right? Last question, before we let you go, uh, you can answer this one quickly, but we recently did assault talk to interview with Jonathan Allen of NBC and Amy Parnas of the hill. And they, based on the research they did for their book called lucky, which is about how Biden narrowly won the election. Their opinion is that Biden actually likes having mansion and cinema as a heat shield, he and other moderate Democrats, because they, it allows them to have cover, um, to not pass some of these more progressive pieces of legislation. Uh, but at the same time, they, they liked the idea of compromise and bipartisanship as well. Do you subscribe to that notion that Biden himself, uh, doesn't necessarily want rapid progressive, uh, legislation? Or do you think that's?

Adam Jentleson: (39:59)
I think, I think that's probably right. I think Biden is very comfortable in the middle. Um, I think some of the more, uh, lefty promises he made during the campaign, you'd be happy to see those fall away melt against the heat shield. But I think that what's going to happen is eventually, you know, it's going to become clear that it's not just the far left policies that are being blocked. It's the middle of the road policies too, like an infrastructure bill. And at that point, I think the conversation gets very serious about reform. And I think you can even expect to see the white house start to engage more seriously than because, you know, they love to see bipartisanship flourish agenda Saki at the white house press secretary said recently that it was their preference not to change the filibuster rules. Um, but you know, we all have our preferences and sometimes they don't happen. So I think what's going to happen is we're going to see that the filibuster is blocking not far left policies, but middle of the road policies too. And at that point, uh, I think the conversation is going to get very real about reform.

John Darcie: (40:52)
Well, Adam gentlemen, it's a pleasure to have you on salt talks. The book again is called kill switch. Anthony, if you want to hold it up, uh, one more time, again, extremely timely, given the environment we're in, in the conversation,

Adam Jentleson: (41:03)
Good for something on Dorsey's program. So that all Sears is a phenomenal book. I wish you great success with it. And you got to get your name and your voice out there because what you're offering is common sense solutions to some of the policy inertia and some of the policy Madness's out there. Uh, and I greatly appreciate reading it because it explained a lot of the reasons why we can't get anything done at them. So anyway, kill switch, Adam Jensen, uh, best of luck to you with the book. And, uh, hopefully we can get you to one of our live events, uh, when we get back out of the pandemic. It sounds great. It was great to be here, guys. Thank you very much.

John Darcie: (41:46)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt. Talk with Adam gentlemen, author of a new book called kill switch about, uh, the Senate, how it was originally constructed and how it's operating in modern times. A fantastic again, very timely book. Just a reminder, if you miss any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes of salt talks, you can access our entire archive@salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today from salt talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Amie Parnes & Jonathan Allen: “Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won The Presidency" | SALT Talks #179

“It was all eyes on South Carolina, but more importantly, the Jim Clyburn endorsement. That wasn’t a sure thing. Clyburn had some concessions including the fact that he wanted Joe Biden to nominate a black Supreme Court justice.”

Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen co-authored Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won the Presidency, their third such collaboration. Parnes is the senior correspondent at The Hill where she covers the Biden White House and national politics. Allen is a senior political analyst at NBC News Digital, and is a winner of the Dirksen and Hume awards for reporting.

Despite receiving over 7 million more total votes, Joe Biden ultimately won the 2020 presidential election by margins even thinner than by which Trump won in 2016. This is due to the nature of the Electoral College and the role a handful of swing states play. Republicans took a laser-focused approach to deciding and executing a path victory whereas Democrats created several paths. For Democrats, the race was much closer than they ever expected. “If 22K of Biden’s voters [across GA, WI and AZ] had flipped to the other side, Donald Trump is president again.”

Early in the Democratic Primary, Biden didn’t receive significant support from the establishment in which he’d been such a powerful figure. Biden effectively navigated the Democratic Primary by placing himself between the far left wing of his party and Donald Trump, ultimately lifting himself above the fray at times. Biden performed badly in the early states and was desperate to get to his firewall state, South Carolina, where Jim Clyburn’s endorsement gave Biden’s campaign a much needed boost. “Clyburn had some concessions including the fact that he wanted Joe Biden to nominate a black Supreme Court justice.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Jonathan Allen.jpeg

Jonathan Allen

Senior Political Analyst

NBC News

Amie Parnes.jpeg

Amie Parnes

Senior Correspondent

The Hill

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome two co-authors to salt talks who wrote a brilliant book about the 2020 election. Uh, those guests are Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnas. Um, Jonathan is a senior political analyst at NBC news digital, a winner of the Dirksen and humor awards for reporting. He was previously the white house bureau chief for Politico and the Washington bureau chief for Bloomberg news.

John Darcie: (01:01)
He appears, appears regularly on national television television programs and as the author of multiple books, including his most recent book, lucky that we're going to talk about today. Uh, Amy is the senior correspondent for the hill newspaper in Washington, where she covers the Biden white house and national politics. She was previously a staff writer at Politico where she covered the Senate, the 2008 presidential election and the Obama white house. She also appears regularly on national television television programs. And as the co-author of the book that I mentioned previously called lucky, uh, hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci. He's the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital as well as the chairman of salts. And with no further ado, I'll turn it over to you, Anthony, to begin the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:47)
Well, first of all, guys, thank you so much for joining and you, you know, I'm not that self promotional, right? So look at me holding the book up here for everybody to say. So a book is a brilliantly written. It is a great narrative and it's a page Turner. You can't get to the end of the chapter without wanting to take a peek into the next chapter. And so even though people know the ending of this book, uh, it's, it's a very compelling story. So I want to start with you, Amy. Uh, why did you title the book? Lucky? Why was Joe Biden? Lucky?

Amie Parnes: (02:21)
That's a very good question, Anthony. And thank you for having us. Um, I think that it's funny, John and I got into a little bit of a back and forth over lucky. Um, but I think, you know, cause some people say, what do you mean lucky? What do you mean he barely won? Um, and I think they're looking really at the popular vote. You know, everyone is so proud of the 81 million number, but what John and I do is we take a closer look, we take you inside the campaign, obviously, but in the very end, um, the margins were a lot tighter than even 2016 and Joe Biden ended up winning by 43,000 votes. So when people say 81 million that's it's right, but it's not really accurate about how we run our electoral system, which runs on the electoral college. Um, and so that was actually ended up to be a very tight election of me end

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:12)
43,000 votes. And just for our listeners, uh, you're talking about swing, state electoral activity on the margin he won by 43,000 votes in approximately four states. Is that

Jonathan Allen: (03:26)
Yeah, it's three states is Georgia, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (03:32)
Thousand in Georgia. And what were the totals in Arizona and Wisconsin? Roughly 15. Yeah.

Jonathan Allen: (03:37)
Yeah, roughly roughly 15. Each one of the states was a quarter of a point. One was a third of a point. One was two thirds of a point. Um, you know, we're talking about an election where 158 million people voted, you're talking about Trump needed 43,000 more to win or that they think about it differently. If 22,000, essentially 21,000 of Biden's voters in those three states had flipped to the other side, Donald Trump's president. Again,

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:03)
It's interesting. Cause I, you know, I recommended the book over the weekend, just holding it up again, lucky, um, how Joe Biden barely won the presidency. I recommended it to Dick Gephardt over the weekend because it's, it's a compelling story, but it also tells you how razor thin things are in the United States. And before we get into the nits of the book, I just wanted to ask you a quick question about the Republican strategy because you know, Jonathan, it seems like the Republicans have read your book or knew the book because they're sitting there with the 43,000 votes and Lindsey Graham saying Trump plus a and his idea is Trump plus will get us back to the presidency and possibly retaking the house, the notion that they can dig up instead of expanding the base, they want to dig deeper into the base, uh, and find more and more quote unquote maggot people. What's your reaction to that?

Jonathan Allen: (04:58)
I mean, I think Lindsey Graham is as often he is reacting to the moment I was skeptical of the degree to which Donald Trump could be successful in a second presidential election by finding more of the mag of people. I mean, like I just dig deeper, seem to me to be a bad way to go about winning an election, uh, after the last time. And yet he expanded his electrode significantly, or I should say deepened, his electrode significantly 74 million votes this time. Uh, it had been 62 million, I think the previous time it's just that the democratic side grew so much, but one thing Republicans are very good at is understanding the rules of the game that they're playing. And if a presidential election of an electoral college, uh, game is essentially a chess match, there are a lot of Democrats that are trying to win by kicking field goals.

Jonathan Allen: (05:49)
They're like how many voters can we get? And we see what goes on in these two camps that Democrats are always talking about. Here are three or four paths that we could take to win the electoral college majority. And the Trump side is always talking about what is the path that's most likely, how and how do we optimize that pack? And this time the Democrats won, but I think most Americans were surprised by the closest to the race. If they looked at it, it took four days to call this racing. I mean, and anybody who says this wasn't a close race is not close to what was going on inside the campaigns where both of them between 9:00 PM and 11:00 PM on election night, didn't know how it was going to come out until Fox called Arizona, which changed things a little.

Anthony Scaramucci: (06:32)
Yeah. And they stayed with that call, which I thought was interesting despite the pressure from, uh, uh, the president's campaign. Um, you know, it's interesting because the last time I spoke to president Trump, I can tell you it was, uh, Easter Sunday. Uh, it was April 21st, 2019. He was yelling at me saying, cause I had just written a article that the press was not the enemy of the people. I know you two don't look like the enemy to me. I wrote an article. It was, it was published in the hill. Uh, he yelled at me and he said something to me, Seminole, that I'll share with you. He said, yeah. I said, well, sir, aren't you trying to expand the base and go after independence and moderates? He said, no, I'm working on the base. I'll let everything else take care of itself. It was an interesting strategy as you point out, he almost won it using that strategy. Uh, but let me ask you, do you think that, uh, Joe, Amy, do you think that Joe Biden would have one without the pandemic, without the widespread mail-in voting?

Amie Parnes: (07:33)
I think it's something that definitely contributed to his win. Um, and I think as we reported in the book, what's really interesting is we have a lot of, obviously on Joe Biden, but we have a lot on Donald Trump too. And, um, there was a point in February of 20, 20 last year when Brad Parscale Trump's campaign manager went up to him in the oval and basically said, this pandemic is going to be your undoing and Trump didn't ticket seriously. And he said, what do you mean this has nothing to do with politics. Um, and so you look at a moment like that and it's sort of revealing, um, on one hand I think the Biden campaign kind of took advantage of it. Um, they used it to their advantage by kind of keeping him, um, inside and, um, you know, parading the whole, which, which was, is the right thing to do obviously, but parading it around like he's inside and he's, he's taking all the health precautions. Um, but I think we have a quote in the book, um, that talks about Anita Dunn telling an associate COVID is the best thing that ever happened to him because what it did was it essentially, um, kept him off the campaign trail. And, um, we all know that he is prone to making gaps and this sort of kept him from doing that and kind of embarrassing himself, which is a concern that a lot of Democrats had at the time,

Jonathan Allen: (08:55)
From there on conversely you've got, uh, president Trump out there everyday, um, you know, taking charge and, uh, and telling people that they should inject disinfected. Um, you know, th th he had those daily briefings from the white house when, at a time when even the scientists were in some disagreement about where this thing was headed and what to do about it. And there's the president giving advice like, um, you know, as if you were an epidemiologist, uh, but an epidemiologist who's giving bad advice. And so it highlights that the sort of, uh, contrast that Biden would want, which is Biden is not out there making mistakes. And Trump is out there making mistakes.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:33)
So, you know, before facing off with Donald Trump Biden struggled, and th this is a great part of the book, which, uh, I was actually reading last night, he's getting destroyed in places like Iowa, New Hampshire. And now he's coming down to the quote unquote firewall. Tell us about that situation. Tell us about that seminal moment, which seems like it was the huge inflection point in his ascendancy to the presidency.

Amie Parnes: (10:03)
Well, he, um, he obviously wasn't doing so well. We all know that he was losing an Iowa came in fourth, came in fifth to New Hampshire. There was a moment in time where they actually discussed whether he should refinance his house because they were running out of money. I think at the low point, they had 1.5 million, which is not a lot of money to run a campaign. And so they, you know, even Biden was sort of trying to convince people to hang on, obviously his aids, where he told his own wife, Jill Biden, hang on until South Carolina hang on. Um, so obviously he had a lot of doubters around him. Um, but so he gets to, he goes to Nevada, he comes in second, he goes to South Carolina and it's all eyes sort of on that state, but more importantly, the Jim Cliburn endorsement. And that, wasn't a sure thing as we reported the book, um, he, Jim Cliburn had some concessions, including the fact that he wanted Joe Biden to, uh, nominee a Supreme, a black Supreme court justice.

Amie Parnes: (11:06)
And, um, so everyone's watching this debate play out, um, in South Carolina, Jim Cliburn is in the audience. And one of the best scenes, I think one of my favorite students in the book is Jim Cliburn sitting there watching Joe Biden. Um, he hasn't yet said in this debate that he's his intentions about nominating a black Supreme court justice. So during the commercial break, um, Kleiber dashes out of his seat and his colleagues think that he just has to go to the bathroom really badly, turns out he's making a beeline for Joe Biden, and he wants to talk to Biden about why he hasn't done that, why he hasn't had that moment yet. Um, and so we kind of take you behind the scenes of how Joe Biden was able to get the, the pivotal Cliburn endorsement, which key to sort of turning around his campaign. We think that obviously Joe Biden would have won South Carolina, but the collaborate endorsement made it, um, it, it gave him sort of the gravitas to go forward and keep going and win ultimately, and super cheap on super Tuesday.

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:10)
So let's talk about the left though. You know, I don't want to call it the radical left, but let's just call it the left side of the democratic party. Um, he's, you know, uh, vice and now president Biden's sought to downplay that portion of the party. Um, tell us about that. What was your experience there? You write some great stories in there about AOC, et cetera. Um, how was he able to pull that off and where do you think it goes now that he's in the presidency? Is he going to be able to contain what I would say is the hard left side of his party?

Jonathan Allen: (12:44)
That's a great question, Anthony. I mean, early on, you've got, uh, you've got Biden asking his advisors before he gets in, and we write about this in the book, ask them, you know, if I miss my moment, has the party moved so far to the left of me, that as it left me is looking at these voices, Bernie Sanders, I was Andrew Ocasio Cortez, and he's thinking like the movement within the democratic party, the activism, the volume is coming from a place that's, you know, significantly to Biden's left. Um, and I think that what you see from him is a very artful, you know, we would have called it in the old days, triangulation where he's able to use the left part of his party to like distance from them. And at the same time distances from Trump and can put himself in the middle and a little bit above it all.

Jonathan Allen: (13:29)
Um, and, uh, you know, it ends up, I think it's very difficult to win a democratic party, a direct democratic primary without being in touch with, uh, with activists on the left, unless you've got like an unusual coalition, his coalition was moderate white people and black people of all sort of all political, uh, beliefs. Um, and that turned out to be strong enough to get him through the, the primary. It gets to the general. He distances continues to descend from the left. I mean, here's a guy saying I'm not going to say it to fund the police. And there's a big argument about that within his campaign. Here's a guy saying Bernie is too far out. So spinning a board a little bit. He's going to have a little, he's going to have a problem because he had a friendly in Bernie Sanders, um, and had a friendly on, on the left side during this election, they basically stuffed their priorities into the back seat to get Joe Biden elected. And right now there's a little bit of a honeymoon period, but that's not going to last forever. So

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:29)
What happens, Amy? It can, he, can he corral them?

Amie Parnes: (14:35)
Um, it's, it's too soon to say Anthony. I mean, I think that what we've seen lately is, um, a party that is still very much divided. And so I think, um, what's fascinating about this book, I think is that it not only is a post-mortem, uh, um, the campaign, but it is sort of like a guidebook for both parties, I think, to learn what went wrong, what happened and how you play it forward to 2022 and 2024, because you take Donald Trump out of the picture. And I think it's a whole different ball game. Um, you know, obviously I think a lot of people were inspired to run, to vote against Donald Trump. I'm not sure that they'll have that sort of weapon if you will, next time.

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:22)
So let, let let's talk about the, the upcoming election, the congressional election, uh, because you do write about that, you know, the trajectory of the American electorate. So what do you guys think happens in the midterms? Let's start with you, Jonathan.

Jonathan Allen: (15:39)
Well, I mean, the easy bet to take would be that the Republicans pick up seats, uh, certainly in the house, uh, probably retake the house just on the historical basis of the first midterm after, after a new president. But even more than that, what we saw was Biden didn't really have coattails. Um, and so what you saw down ballot was Republicans winning a lot of state legislative races, which means they're going to be in a better position. Um, as, uh, the parties redraw, the states redraw their congressional districts. I mean, the Republicans should be able to squeeze at least several seats out of that. So for the Democrats to win in the midterms and keep control of the house, they're going to have to figure out how to sell something to the public even better than they did last time. The good thing they have going for them is that, uh, what you've seen is a push of educated voters into the democratic party at the same time that non-college educated voters have moved into the Republican party and you are much more likely to vote in a midterm if you're college educated and has been consistent over the course of time.

Jonathan Allen: (16:38)
So there are a lot of competing, um, sort of pressures or sort of factors that will go into it. Um, but you know, I would have to just bet from today that it's more likely that the Republicans pick up seats in the house. You gotta look at the Senate map, you know, state by state. We don't know who's running it. Um, so, but at 50 50, that could go either way.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:00)
Is Trump running again? Let's start with you, Amy.

Amie Parnes: (17:05)
Um, I don't think so. Although I, I, it asked me tomorrow. I feel like it changes day by day. I mean, I just, I think obviously there's room for him to run again, but I think, um, four years is a long time. I know it's still the party of Trump. I know Trump will be around for a long time. I just might. My hunch has to know what do you think, John?

Jonathan Allen: (17:30)
Uh, I I'll take the other side of that a little bit in that. Uh, I think he's running until he's not. Um, I think all of these people that get to that level look, Joe Biden. This is the third time he ran for president. As we write in the book, there were several other times that he didn't run, but thought about running. You get that taste in your mouth and it's real hard to get rid of it. Of course, we should defer to Anthony who's, who knows Donald Trump better than we do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:56)
I'm too much money guy. So of course he's going to run in the beginning. I mean, he has to, I mean, he wants to, uh, take his name off of Republican party fundraising because he wants to target his name for his own fundraising because that's his personality and he never made more money than he did after the election. So the whole ruse and the lie and all that stuff related to the, uh, the post election theatrically, um, you know, made him a couple of hundred million dollars and he's never made money like that before. So I think he will run again. Um, when, when, when you interview American people, not just the sources that you have inside the political arena or the business arena, but just the average Americans, because you guys do a lot of that in your field research, uh, you know, the polls say that 50 million or so people believe that the election was fraudulent. What is your reaction to that? Is that something you found in your research when you're doing a book like this, and what do you say to people about whether or not the election was a free and fair non fraudulent election?

Amie Parnes: (19:03)
It's amazing to me that people actually think that. And I think John and I had a very, um, you know, really personal kind of conversation about it, um, right after the 6th of January. Um, because as we were writing this book, I think we had some concerns that people might, uh, perceive lucky to be. Um, you know, president Trump could run with that and say, see, it was, it was all luck. It wasn't really, this wasn't really set in stone and he didn't really win. Um, so I think that part is very interesting. I think what we had to make clear in this book was that, uh, Joe Biden and we do so in our authors note, right before you even enter the first page of the book, but you sort of see that we've kind of set the ground and said, Joe Biden actually really did win this race. Um, there wasn't any fraud and we kind of wanted to say that right away before people misinterpreted what we were trying to say, because I think

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:01)
Is that the people that are reading your book know that there was no fraud. You know what I mean? You know what I mean? It's like the people that are out there in that ether, if you will, you know, yeah.

Jonathan Allen: (20:11)
The million people is amazing Anthony and how to reach those people, you know? And when we, you know, when we do, when we do reporting and obviously because of, COVID less like less able to do that toward the end of the selection we have in the past, you've talked to people, we'll have a wide variety of beliefs and some of them have a wide variety of things that they say to people that say to reporters that they don't actually believe or that they question, but would, you know, they like to be on that, that side, you know, sort of publicly. And I think that some of those 50 million probably understand that Trump lost the election and there wasn't fraud.

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:44)
Amy, there's a juicy story that guys left on the cutting room floor. Okay. And I'm sure there is a, that you guys, it's a great book, but you can't fit everything in and tell us something really juicy that you guys decided to leave out of the book.

Amie Parnes: (20:59)
Oh gosh. Well, you know, what was really tricky about this book, Anthony, is that we had 25 candidates to focus on. So there was a lot, um, you know, it's hard to cover and write a book when you're focused on so many people and we had to winnow them down. I'm trying to think, John, do you have a good anecdote? Um, something that we,

Jonathan Allen: (21:19)
I think w we cut, we actually cut out, um, a fair amount of, uh, the machinations around Pete Buddha, judge getting out of the race, which I thought was interesting. Um, you know, we kept in sort of the important parts of every moment

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:37)
Mayor budaj coming out of the race was a big moment because he was able to flip a lot of his voters over to the vice-president, right. Or

Jonathan Allen: (21:43)
Now, I mean, when you saw that coalescing right before super Tuesday, uh, it was because people would have judge and Amy Klobuchar got out because Beto O'Rourke endorsed Joe Biden because Barack Obama really, because Barack Obama got off the sidelines, um, and sort of pushing behind the scenes for people to get behind Biden. So, uh, we cut out some of the discussion that, that Buddha judge had with his staff and the sort of the evolution, the reality, the realization of reality, that he could only hurt himself by continuing to run, um, because he wasn't going to win the nomination. Uh, he might win a couple more states, you know, build this political operational a little bit more, but he would be seen as selfish if he stayed in. And we, we caught a little bit of that out just for essentially just for space. Um, but watching the machinations of Buddha judge, I think is really interesting because he is somebody who understands politics very, very well and is pretty cold, such a hard word, but he's pretty cold about the calculations of it all. And you could, you could see that and we cut some of it out. You

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:46)
Have to be a little bit cold speaking about cold. Let's go to the Obama Biden relationship. Okay. So it's a good segue. So tell us about that. Tell us, tell our listeners and viewers something about the Obeid in, excuse me, the Obama Biden relationship that they wouldn't necessarily know unless they've read your book or had your research behind it.

Amie Parnes: (23:08)
Um, I think it's a fascinating relationship, a complicated one. I do think they genuinely like each other, but the caveat as we record in the book, there's so much there. Um, I guess we should start with the fact that Obama sort of, uh, kept Biden out of the race in 2016. So that's in the back of his mind, but you know, when Biden even enters the race, he says, I asked my former partner, president Obama, not to endorse me. And what we learn is that that conversation never happened. And it's something that Biden repeatedly says throughout the campaign. I asked him not to Norse me. Um, but Obama people were kind of scratching their heads about that because that never happened. Um, we also reported the book, a really fascinating anecdote about, um, Obama going to speak to some black donors. He's close with a few of them.

Amie Parnes: (24:01)
He feels a little loose in the room. He feels like he can open up and tell them what exactly he thinking. And so they're asking him, what do you think about the horse race? Who's up, who's down. And, um, what are you, what are your thoughts? And he sort of gives a very long sermon about Elizabeth Warren, um, and it's, uh, kind of endorsing her without endorsing her. And he doesn't really say much about Kamala Harris. He, he bashes eat a little bit, um, and calls him short and gay, um, you know, sort of razzing him a little bit. And then the kicker, I think the fascinating part about this whole talk is that he forgets Biden and he has to be reminded by a donor in the room that he has forgotten by it. And someone actually said he forgot about it. Um, which kind of gives you a window into his thinking in that moment in the fall of 2019 as this election is heating up. But

Jonathan Allen: (24:57)
There are so many ways in this book that you see Anthony that Obama doesn't think that Biden's very good at politics and Biden. Doesn't think that Obama is very good at politics. Um,

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:08)
You know, I, I'm just giving you my observation, knowing some, a little bit about both of them and the vice-president obviously now president came to my, came to our conference a few years ago and I I've known president Obama dating back to law school. Uh, there's a discipline chasm there between the two candidates, you know, w w you know, I can't tell you, you know, how wide that chasm is because it's wider than the grand canyon. One is a Malaprop stir improvisational guy, you know, very chummy. And the other guy is a lot like mayor Pete, Buddha, judge, you know, he's very, you know, he's like a laser, you know, he's a, uh, he's the American sniper, uh, politics, and he's very disciplined. So I think that's where some of the tension is. That's my opinion. What's your reaction to that?

Jonathan Allen: (25:54)
Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. I mean, they look at each other, they don't, they kind of don't understand each other, right? Like Obama beach Biden in 2008, Biden gets like 1% in Iowa. Obama was like, this guy is going to not do me any damage. If I put them on my ticket, he'll balance my ticket. Is it like an old white guy that people think is like relatively avuncular, he's not a problem for me, you know? And nobody's going to pay attention with the vice-president says anyway, so like, he's good for me. He's helpful. Fine. Looks at Obama. And he's like, this guy's like so cold. There's no, like, there's no feel to them. There's no touch. There's no love that. Like sort of political glad-handing. I mean, you're absolutely right, Anthony, these, these guys couldn't be more different than what's interesting. We write this in the book, but like, they basically see their mentor and mentee, but they disagree on which one's the mentor, which one's the mentee

Anthony Scaramucci: (26:42)
Generational issue there as well. I have to speaking of generational issues, I have to turn it over to John Dorsey so that we can get the ratings up. Okay. Because he gets fan mail and it's horrifying. Amy, I got to tell you it's hurt my self esteem and my, my ego, you know, how shy and reserved I am. You you've seen that in action. So go ahead, Darcie. I know you're dying to ask some questions here,

Jonathan Allen: (27:10)
Alpha, alpha coming in. Yeah, that's exactly right now in your generation alpha squared. This

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:20)
SOP, go ahead, Darcie, go ahead. I know you're dying. I may ask the questions. So I just

John Darcie: (27:24)
Want to pry a little bit more on the Obama piece. Cause I found that one of the most fascinating aspects of the book is, you know, you dove deeper into this, uh, you know, the fact that they weren't really seeing eye to eye in this book that I've ever read previously, there was some indication in 2016 that Obama discouraged Biden from running in that election. Uh, and there's some indication that he wasn't keen on Biden running in 2020 and casting a shadow across the party. Again, do you think that's accurate based on your reporting that Obama basically didn't want Biden out there damaging his own legacy by running in these elections?

Amie Parnes: (27:59)
Yeah. I mean, we have a meeting very early on where he calls Obama calls somebody and aids to his office and wants to know more about the campaign and how they're going to run the campaign and what the tone is going to be. Like. He basically is worried that the campaign will not only embarrass Joe Biden and he he'll embarrass himself, but he'll embarrass and tarnish the Obama legacy. Um, and so we take you inside that meeting. It's actually a really fascinating one where, you know, you're kind of seeing what's on the former president's mind as Joe Biden is thinking about entering. And I always think that Biden kind of felt a little hurt by the fact that, um, Obama kind of checked him out of the race. He always sort of felt like Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate. He said as much as we report as much of the book, um, he was helping, he actually offered advice to Bernie Sanders at the time about how to beat Hillary Clinton. And so, um, that is a really fascinating angle that he, he kind of felt a little bit, um, miffed by being kind of kept out. And he was also annoyed with Hillary at the time who he felt box to now. Um, he L already, uh, she had already locked down all of his donors and, um, Hillary was at the time taking hits on him to keep him out of the race. So I think all of that is sort of, uh, permeating in his mind as he's entering the race. It's a fascinating dynamic.

Jonathan Allen: (29:29)
The greatest beneficiary of Hillary Clinton's defeat was Joe Biden. Hillary Clinton wins when's the first time she was running for reelection, Joe Biden never gets to run for president again. Now he's president United States, but back to your point about Obama and Biden, just real quick. The other thing that happened here over the course of the last two election cycles is essentially a rejection of Barack Obama. Um, not a full rejection necessarily, but you see Trump win, right? And that's its own rejection of Obama from the sort of broader electorate, but then Joe Biden winning a democratic nomination. This guy who's got this sort of moderate politics, uh, who, um, is very, very careful on issues involving race. He sort of used it as a fulcrum in his career. Um, you know, figuring out where to be on majority side at one point or another, it's basically rejection of the progressive piece of Obama, uh, within the democratic party. And so if you're Obama, you look at where are things eight years after you were president of the United States in order for Democrats to win, they've gotta be politically significantly to your right.

John Darcie: (30:34)
So do you think that portends a continued moderation of the democratic party? Have they adjudicated as a party that they can't win by running these far left candidates? Or how do you think somebody like Bernie Sanders would have fared? Uh, it will say the same scenario played out with the pandemic. How do you think Bernie would have performed in this role?

Jonathan Allen: (30:52)
It's impossible to project, how many runs, uh, you know, I would have given up with a different shortstop, um, you know, playing ball. Uh, but I do think that the Democrats have not made the decision that they are going to be a moderate party or a liberal party to the extent that they have made that decision. Um, it's with their feet and their votes and with everything except for the presidential election, uh, it's been a move to the left and I think it will continue to be a move to the left. I think the big question is whether they're able to figure out the mechanics of voting in the way that Stacey Abrams did in Georgia, where you are able to bring out people election cycle after election cycle, after election cycle and build it and build it and build it. Um, and a lot of that has to do with the basic, like on the ground work of politicking, much more than the sort of philosophical questions.

John Darcie: (31:42)
Yeah. I mean, just to insert my own anecdote in here, I'm a North Carolina native and the North Carolina Senate race, I think was a perfect example of that dichotomy that you mentioned in that Chuck Schumer and the DNC told Cal Cunningham. You'll be our guy. If you agree to just sit in your basement and run attack ads on Donald Trump, and don't try to go out there with a aggressive, progressive type of campaign, there was other better candidates in the state of North Carolina that would have run more Elizabeth Warren type left-wing populous campaigns. And I think there's a lot of hand ringing in local politics about what the best approach was. And obviously the results, uh, have borne out the fact that they think are more energetic candidacy, uh, would have performed better. But Amy, I want to go to you about staffing within the Biden administration. So obviously there's not as much friction as there was within the Trump administration, but you talk in the book about sort of the friction that existed between Obama legacy staffers and more of Biden's own people. How did that play out during the campaign and how has it playing out now that, uh, the administration has governing?

Amie Parnes: (32:46)
It was interesting during the primary. I think they wanted to portray that everything was going well and they were all one team, but you had the primary staffers. They weren't, uh, uh, I think a lot of people outside the campaign about that they weren't quite up to speed. Uh, they weren't running a great campaign. So what happens, obviously there's a silent coup that is, that starts forming to ALS uh, their campaign manager grabbed shul, um, who is really beloved in the campaign. But, um, but even people internally think that he's not doing such a great job. So th Biden, senior advisors are quietly trying to get him out there trying to bring Jenna Mallee, Dylan in who, uh, was Obama's deputy campaign manager. Greg Schultz thinks that she's being brought in as we reported in the book just to like help out a little bit.

Amie Parnes: (33:38)
Um, and he's sort of taken off, he's completely taken. Um, I think he went by surprise when she's brought in and replaces him. Um, and so that's sort of a really interesting dynamic in the book, but then after you have her come in, Jenna valley, Dylan, you have this sort of friction between the primary staffers and the general staffers, and they're essentially the general ones essentially layer over the primary staffers. They're not quite, uh, they're not all talking to each other at the same time. There is a lot of friction going on. A lot of the primary staffers, secretly hate, um, general Mellie Dylan. Um, they may or may not have come to us to complain about it as we were writing the book. Um, and so we were

John Darcie: (34:23)
Salary profiles. Yeah. She had these flowery profiles done of her, right.

Amie Parnes: (34:27)
I mean, they were, they were totally opposed to her kind of saying, oh, I'm a mom and I I'm really good at Peloton. And so you had all this sort of a, um, animosity building towards Jenna valley, Dylan, um, throughout the campaign. And I think it finally comes to a head and sort of at the tail end of the general election, but it was definitely there, um, throughout, and they had political differences as well. John, I don't know if you want to talk about that.

Jonathan Allen: (34:56)
I think what I get out of all that staff in fighting is that a lot of the people that were on the Biden campaign in the first place, uh, were looking to blame Jenna, Molly, Dylan in the event that, uh, Bob lost. Um, and many of them had not, you know, some of them were really good at what they do and some of them are less good at what they do. And, uh, gentlemen, we don't, it's like the best political operative on the democratic side. Um, and you see this infighting going on and it's just sort of, it's sort of a distraction from the campaign. Um, uh, and I think it was, was difficult, but I, uh, John, if you want to pose the, the original question again, I'm happy to pop that.

John Darcie: (35:37)
Yeah. In terms of the friction that exists both during the campaign and now in the administration between there's a ton of former Obama officials that are in the administration, we've talked about that a sort of chasm that exists between Biden and Obama, that people don't like to talk about a lot, but there is, there are a lot of Obama staffers, but then there's also some Biden people. How is that playing out as they're governing as well as,

Jonathan Allen: (36:01)
I mean, right now, you're starting to see from Biden and who knows where like, you know, six weeks in Denver, but you're, I mean, what you've seen is an effort for them to, uh, to move things in a progressive direction for the white house to go in a progressive direction. But also what do, what Biden did, you know, uh, on the campaign trail, which is to use the F the left as a, um, you know, as a foil and to be able to, you know, sort of push himself away from it, even when he's embracing what they're saying, I'll give you a perfect example. Uh, the minimum wage increase that so many, uh, so many Democrats wanted to see how happen happened. Um, you know, Biden says you score that $15 minimum wage, but he knew that when they stuck it in the reconciliation bill, in the Senate, that it wasn't going to go through. Um, and then he can go to, you know, go out to the electorate and say, we need more Democrats. So we can get a $15 minimum wage. And at the same time, there was no business that's angry at him because they're now having to pay a $15 minimum wage and, and, you know, cut back on hours for people or lay people off. Or, and there were no people who got laid off because the $15 minimum wage, when both ways I would call that good politics. So they

John Darcie: (37:13)
Use the parliamentarian as the, in the judge about whether or not they could put the $15 minimum wage in the reconciliation bill. Do you think the Republican party, this is part of a bigger question. Do you think the Republican party would allow the parliamentarian to tell them, uh, you know, you know what you can't build that wall on the Southern border, we're Donald Trump, except that response. And do you think Democrats have enough of a killer instinct? So the John Lewis voting rights act is one example where you have Joe Manchin, Kiersten cinema, basically saying, you know what we think the filibuster is actually a good thing. We're not gonna, you know, in a very partisan way, change the system. But at the same time, you have these structural forces that could cause Republicans in the midterms and beyond to wrest control back and impose, you know, more voter suppression and things like that to prevent Democrats from ever gaining control again. Do you think Democrats have that killer instinct? They need to entrench themselves,

Jonathan Allen: (38:08)
Um, collectively now, I mean, I think one of the things that is appealing, uh, and frustrating the Democrats, isn't there a party doesn't, uh, isn't willing to nuke everything in order to get what it wants. Um, and you know, you see what the reaction to Trump was, his willingness to break institutions, um, you know, to threaten the sanctity of the Republic, you saw what the reaction to that was by the public. So like there, there is an argument to be made to the Democrats by not, you know, uh, always like pulling the trigger for the, you know, the toughest, uh, toughest thing out there have actually found a way back to the power. Um, all of that said, you look at a mansion or a cinema on the, um, on the filibuster or on minimum wage. They are, um, the heat shield for other Democrats in the Senate who don't want to vote for a minimum wage to increase who don't want to break the filibuster.

Jonathan Allen: (39:02)
Um, and those are the ones that are out there publicly. And the reason there are two of them is because if it's one of them, the pressure's too much, if there are two of them, they can handle it. We saw a testimony on minimum wage the other day, eight Democrats in the Senate on that proxy vote, uh, voted, essentially voted against raising the minimum wage to $15. But before that, we had heard there were two against it. And you're gonna assume the same thing about the filibuster that if there are two out there for three out there that it's a deeper reservoir, president Biden himself has given passionate defenses of the filibuster on the Senate floor. Uh, I just don't think it's going anywhere.

John Darcie: (39:37)
Right? Yeah. And you get the sense of in a lot of ways that president Biden didn't necessarily want to raise the minimum wage, especially in that way. Um, and, and mansion and cinema, as you mentioned, are sort of his, his heat shield in that regard. But Amy, I want to go to you about Hillary Clinton. So one of your previous books was called shattered. It was again, sort of a post-mortem on the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton's failed campaign. What was different about the way that Hillary's campaign was run versus the way Biden's campaign was run? Neither one of them was perfect, but what about Biden's situation was unique that was able to get him over the line. Whereas Hillary fell short by a similar margin.

Amie Parnes: (40:16)
The one big thing that John and I found was that Joe Biden had a message. Um, he, and he had the same consistent message throughout the campaign. Um, in the primary, it was, I'm the only one who can beat Donald Trump. Um, and that obviously was true in the end. And then it was sort of like a break, the fever, let's break the fever kind of unity message going into the general. Um, and that sort of carried him through the general. But, you know, when you look at his message, when he started, when you looked at the message on his final day, it's the same. Hillary was kind of all over the place. Um, as we reported the book, she kind of didn't know her starting from her kickoff speech. It was sort of like your standard democratic stump speech, but it wasn't personal to her.

Amie Parnes: (41:04)
Um, and you know, she had her whole, um, I'm with her campaign campaign slogan, and it turned into like five other things. Um, and people never really knew if you asked any general, you know, your neighbor, what she stood for, it would be like a bunch of different things. No one really knew what her core premise was. Whereas if you asked Donald Trump, you know, about Donald Trump, people knew. Um, and so that, that was sort of, um, how we, we saw it and, and I think it really, um, he was true to himself in the end. And I think that that's how he was able to kind of win in the end. The Parker jump was

John Darcie: (41:43)
Anthony wrote about, yeah, go ahead, John,

Jonathan Allen: (41:46)
If I could just jump on that Shakespearian line there for a moment to thine own self, be true, just real quick. I think the other big difference in the messaging was a Hillary Clinton message was about her. Uh I'm with her Joe Biden's message was about something that he could deliver to the public that the public wanted. And it was basically, uh, a more compassionate, uh, and the better character person at the helm of the presidency. I mean, that's boils down to that. The other thing you could get from shattered, if you read it was, uh, we didn't say it straight out, but we said it implicitly, and this is not something that the Biden folks got from us. I think it's because our sources in democratic party were good for the last book too. Um, it was also clear from that book that we thought that, uh, Hillary Clinton should've hired Jenna Mallee, Dillon to be her campaign manager. She was the runner-up, uh, Clinton went another direction. Uh, Jen Dylan, for whatever faults shouldn't have happened. And certainly there were some, uh, is just better at operating a campaign than anybody else in the democratic party.

John Darcie: (42:46)
All right. Well, Jonathan and Amy, thank you so much for joining us here on Saul talks again, the book Anthony, if you want to hold it up, it's lucky how Joe Biden barely won the presidency. Um, and I, I'm not going to editorialize too much, but as you end your book, it was a, it was an important moment for the country, I think as evidenced by the aftermath of the election. But Anthony let's give one more plug. Anthony is a great promoter, as he mentioned.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:10)
No, I mean, listen, the book is great. I love shattered by the way, I thought that it's interesting content because your take is always based on the reality of the situation, not the form narratives of the Republican or the democratic party. And so I want to recommend this book to everybody. Doesn't matter what political Stripe you are. This is literally a satellite view of what happened. And then as most of these great satellites are, you guys can get right down to the license plates of what happened in this campaign. And so for those reasons, I love reading your work because whether you're a Democrat or Republican, there's something in here for everybody, but you are basically explaining where the country is right now and where it's potentially going. So I'm recommending the book, lucky to everybody out there, how Joe Biden barely won the presidency. Um, and I will say this I'm on page 2 93 case you guys did no, but number one in our hearts, I got my story right though, that was very accurate. Trump was very into the base. He did not care about anything else, which was evidenced by the way, he ran that campaign over the 18 months since he said that to me.

Jonathan Allen: (44:28)
Well, glad to hear that we got it right? Yeah.

Anthony Scaramucci: (44:34)
Guys, I really enjoyed the book. I'm looking forward to your next one and I want people to go out and buy it. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, John. Thank you, Anthony.

John Darcie: (44:44)
Thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnas, who wrote lucky sort of one of the quickest and definitely most thorough postmortems on the 2020 election reminder. If you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access our entire archive on our website@sault.org backslash talks and also on our YouTube channel, which is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference. We're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks. Um, and on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, uh, this is John Darcie signing off for today from salt talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Meltem Demirors & Tegan Kline: Has Bitcoin Won Over Institutional Investors? | SALT Talks #177

“Bitcoin is the ultimate collector’s item. It’s the Honus Wagner card of money.”

Meltem Demirors is chief strategy officer at CoinShares, a digital asset investment firm managing over $4B in assets. Tegan Kline is the co-founder and business leader of Edge & Node, the organization behind The Graph Protocol, an indexing protocol that makes applications on the blockchain possible.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will have the same level of impact on value and storage as the Internet had on information and communication. Bitcoin offers greater freedom in the ownership and transfer of money. 70% of the world lives under totalitarian regimes and blockchain technology creates one of the most effective remedies to the encroachment of civil liberties. “In a world where governments vie for control and want to dictate every aspect of our lives, Bitcoin is this bastion of freedom… Bitcoin is the next step in the evolution of what it means to have freedom of expression; financial censorship is to the predominant form of censorship.”

Blockchain technology has led to a fundamental rethink of money and value storage. Bitcoin can often be understood when compared to the value assigned to rare baseball cards. “Bitcoin is the ultimate collector’s item. It’s the Honus Wagner card of money.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Tegan Kline.jpeg

Tegan Kline

Co-Founder & Business Lead

Edge & Node

Meltem Demirors.jpeg

Meltem Demirors

Chief Strategy Officer

CoinShares

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:08)
And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. We're very excited today to welcome you to the latest episode in our series of salt talks about the digital asset space, uh, with two fantastic panelists who have, uh, started and ran major companies within that industry, our panelists today are Meltem to mirrors and Taegan Klein. Uh, Meltem is the chief strategy officer of coin shares a digital asset investment firm that manages about 4 billion in assets on behalf of a global client base and serves as a trusted partner to investors and entrepreneurs navigating the digital asset ecosystem prior to joining coin shares, Melton helped build and grow the digital currency group, raising capital from the world's largest corporations and managing a portfolio of 120 companies and four subsidiaries before she was bitten by the Bitcoin bug.

John Darcie: (01:24)
Meltem worked in the oil and gas industry and trading, uh, corporate treasury and MNA roles, uh, taken Klein is the co-founder and business leader of edge in node, which is the organization behind the graph protocol, which is an indexing and query protocol making applications on the blockchain possible. I've taken helps leaders and innovators connect more deeply with stakeholders across the blockchain ecosystem. She's the former, an international business development manager and OST relations lead, uh, for orchid and a 16 Z and Sequoia backed blockchain company that created tools and protocols for users to obtain digital freedom and an open and accessible internet. Taegan successfully helped to launch orchid at a $400 million valuation on Coinbase hosting. Today's talk is yours truly John Darcie, again on the managing director of salt, as well as a director of business development at SkyBridge, which is a global alternative investment firm. And the way we like to start out, most of these talks Meltem and Taegan is how did you get bit by that Bitcoin or that digital asset bug we'll start with you Melton, but how did you go from working in oil and gas to deciding that this whole decentralized internet crypto Bitcoin thing was what you wanted to be involved in?

Meltem Demirors: (02:39)
Hi, John, it's a delight to be here. Thanks for having me, um, and hosting this conversation. I like to call this story, the Bitcoin origin story, you know, um, different cultures and different communities have different rituals. And definitely the predominant ritual in our industry is everyone has their own crypto origin story. So, um, this is a fun one, and I'm sure you, now that you're a part of the crypto community have told your story many times. Uh Tayga and I know she and I are good friends, and I've heard that story many times. So I'll share mine very briefly. Um, I spent my early career working in the energy industry and at the time that I started to get into Bitcoin, I worked in corporate treasury at ExxonMobil at the duct star in Irving, Texas. These are the days of Rex Tillerson when Exxon mobile at $400 billion market cap was the largest company in the world.

Meltem Demirors: (03:28)
Uh, so it's very different. Time is hard to believe. This was only seven years ago. That was a very different world. And as I was looking around, um, you know, the world was changing very quickly. Um, the things that accrued value were no longer companies that produce physical things. There are companies that operated in the digital realm and it really didn't take a crystal ball to see the direction in which the world was headed. And then on top of that, you know, it sends so much in my time in legacy capital markets and market microstructure and legacy capital markets is just so fundamentally broken. Um, I started my career trading, physical ethanol and methanol through the financial crisis with two phones, strapped to my ear, right, buying and shipping distressed cargoes, buying LOC, et cetera. Then I started trading carbon again, you know, highly phone and voice-driven, and as I started to learn more about Bitcoin interacts with Bitcoin, it was just so obvious to me that what the internet had done for information and communication cryptocurrencies and in particular Bitcoin was going to do for value.

Meltem Demirors: (04:26)
And, um, I had never really taken a risk in my life up to that point, you know, as the good girl went rules, I know what happened to me. Um, and along the way, I was like, you know what, I'm going to take a risk and do something totally crazy. If it doesn't work out, you know, at least I'll get to work with some of the most interesting, most intellectually sort of engaged people I've ever met. And, um, that was seven years ago and the rest is history. I've never had more fun. I've never been more scared, more freaked out. Um, but look, I think if you are an intellectually curious person and you look at what's happening around you, it's just, it's not a question of if, but a question of when, and I think we've already hit that inflection points. So, um, I am delighted that I'm in this industry versus the energy industry when March of last year hit, you know, and, um, the, the oil trade went negative. I think we're at negative $40. A barrel is like, this was the right choice. I think

John Darcie: (05:23)
I was, I was calling up family and friends and trying to figure out if there was anywhere we could store barrels of oil like delivery. But I wasn't able, there was a journalist who actually

Meltem Demirors: (05:32)
Did that. There was a journalist a few years ago actually took physical delivery of a, of an oil contract. I don't recommend it. I think that like the EPA come to your house. Yeah.

John Darcie: (05:42)
I read that one and it didn't sound as glamorous as maybe I thought it would be at the time, but I have a few followup questions on your origin story, but before we get into that, I'm going to ask Taegan the same thing.

Tegan Kline: (05:52)
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for hosting. We're really, really grateful to be here and the next to melt a good friend. And also I think one of the greatest Bitcoin advocates of our time. And so it's really wonderful to be here, but yes. So my origin story, I was in finance, I was on the sales and trading floor in fixed income. And I learned about, um, Ethereum. And for me a theory was really when it kind of captivated my mind and attention. I had learned about Bitcoin in 2011, but still kind of went into a traditional wall street route. Um, but what I learned about Ethereum about four and a half years ago, I really saw the opportunity to kind of create a new financial system outside of the one that existed and kind of compete with that financial system. Um, and so I started kind of trading my own book well at Barclays and then moved over to, uh, the distributed VPN you mentioned. And then the graft really makes sure that, um, the blockchain becomes kind of the future of the internet. What

John Darcie: (06:45)
Was, what was it about a theorem that intrigued you? You know, a lot of people talk about Bitcoin as sort of their gateway drug into the digital asset, decentralized finance world. What was it about Ethereum that gave you that sort of Eureka moment

Tegan Kline: (06:57)
For me, you know, Bitcoin revolutionized finance where Ethereum kind of revolutionizes the internet and kind of Ethereum explodes it into every asset class as opposed to just money and finance. And for me, that's really what clicked. Um, but a lot of the brilliant software engineers that I know, and, and Meltem saw Bitcoin a lot sooner than I did.

John Darcie: (07:18)
Very cool. So Melton, you talked about how you felt scared, you know, you felt butterflies when you left the traditional finance industry and jumped into crypto and it's been obviously fits and starts in terms of how Bitcoin the price of Bitcoin has rallied. And in terms of mainstream adoption and an understanding and acceptance of decentralized finance, when did you start to think to yourself, wow, this actually is going to be something real and this sort of no turning back we've crossed the Rubicon.

Meltem Demirors: (07:46)
Yeah, I think it's the first time I sent a Bitcoin transaction. And I think, um, you know, I, I grew up in Europe. I've lived in the United States for the last 20 years now. Um, but my family's from rural Turkey. And so, um, for me, the aha moment was when I sent a Bitcoin transaction, I think it was, you know, a Sunday night at midnight. Um, and all I had to do was download a Bitcoin wallet, which is just as a software client. And all I needed was a 32 character string, right. Uh, a public address and I could send value. I had never had that experience before today when I want to send money. You know, I think with JP Morgan chase, I have to go to chase bank branch. I recently had an incident where I had to bring two forms of ID and I wasn't even allowed to send my own money, my own bank.

Meltem Demirors: (08:37)
Um, so this idea that 24 7 365, there is this permission was open network that allows anyone with an internet connection and a compatible software client and a public wallet address to send value to anyone anywhere. You don't need to know who they are. You don't need to know about them. Um, to me, it was just so obvious in that moment that this is the direction things were headed. And look, I think there's a really big second narrative that's unfolding here. We live in an age and time where civil liberties are being eroded on a daily basis, right? Surveillance capitalism is the predominant business model of the internet. And I think many of us are becoming aware of the perils of, of these business models. There is no alternative. And so I think what's been introduced by the client and then extended by other protocols like Ethereum, um, and other platforms that are being built and sort of this decentralized open source permissionless manner is in a world where government's right vibe for control and want to dictate every aspects of our lives.

Meltem Demirors: (09:40)
Bitcoin is sort of this bastion of freedom and it has freedom of access, freedom of opportunity. Anyone can build anything on top of the Bitcoin network. Now businesses that interact with Bitcoin are going to be regulated based on the jurisdictions in which they operate and the facts of what their business does, which you know, were subject to a whole lot of regulation. We're regulated more tightly than a bank at this point, I think. But, um, at the end of the day, you know, if you look at what's happening around our world, 70% of the world's population lives under a totalitarian regime, it's to me, right. Bitcoin is like the next step in, in sort of the evolution of what it means to have freedom of expression and financial censorship is the predominant form of censorship. Right? If we look at economic sanctions, if we look at the inability, people have to invest and allocate their capital, they way they want, or even move their capital around.

Meltem Demirors: (10:31)
And how sort of, um, money operates in these tiny networks that are still defined by physical borders, nothing in our life is defined by physical borders anymore, right? We're all in three different locations on a video chat, having conversation, how preposterous is it that our money is still constrained by physical borders that were dreamed up like three millennia ago. It's completely wild to me. And, um, so yeah, as I started interacting with Bitcoin, I was like, this is, I'm an avid reader, OSI five huge nerd. So I was like, this is the future of what money should look like. And once we do that, the types of economic activity we'll be able to enable, not just human to human, but machine to machine payments, as we start to move towards an economy where we have more automation and, you know, non-human entities that exist and operate. It's just very interesting. And I think it opens your mind to all of the possibilities and just unleashes a tremendous amount of creative potential.

John Darcie: (11:24)
Yeah, I think, uh, in terms of mainstream, uh, understanding of adoption of Bitcoin, I think honestly, things like NBA top shots have really cut through to the average American or person around the world, in terms of understanding if a physical piece of cardboard with a rookie card of Michael Jordan on it has value, why wouldn't a digital rendering of the same type of thing has value seeing digital art and things go for what most people would perceive as astronomical, uh, values. But I think it just reinforces the shift to digital money, uh, but taken, I want to build on some of what Meltem just said in terms of regulatory issues, right. Uh, you know, the decentralized finance world, Bitcoin, Ethereum, all these other protocols, they are disintermediating the world and they are, they're definitely threatening the, the autocratic power, not just of, you know, uh, nations that are fully autocratic, but even countries that, uh, monitor people's activity related to money and technology, what type of threat do you perceive as regulation, whether it be in the United States or abroad in terms of its long-term threat to decentralized finance Bitcoin and the whole ecosystem?

Tegan Kline: (12:32)
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really great question. So, you know, the most powerful thing about Bitcoin to me is that there's no government, there's no individual, there's no corporation, the middle of that, you know, you can send a transaction directly and that does threaten a lot of individuals power. Um, if you look at Bitcoin, it's kind of competition with central banks and central banks have never before had competition. And when we see the fed print $9 trillion in just one year in 2020 alone, which is over 22% of the total circulating supply, which is, you know, no individual should have that kind of power. Um, we will likely see more regulate regulations come in, um, and tried to kind of threaten that power. And we've already kind of seen some of that with, um, the limitations on, on wallets and, and things like that. Um, but I do think that a lot of the regulations that are coming, um, hopefully will kind of continue to be fair. And, um, and yeah, and so, so we'll see kind of the, the powers that be, but hopefully more folks kind of get in and, and, um, contribute to this decentralized ecosystem. And, and, um, it makes, you know, central banks, um, more favorable to individuals yeah.

John Darcie: (13:41)
And melt them in terms of the macro environment, you know, you and I were talking before we went live here, about how much of this right pre contest.

Speaker 5: (13:49)
We did a show, we did appreciate it. And the pre-show

John Darcie: (13:52)
The VIP, the VIP green room, uh, where we were loitering before the show where we talk about the super secret stuff that, you know, it's like sort of the Bitcoin Illuminati, but, um, very secret how much, how much of this recent boom in the prices of crypto assets or digital assets, Bitcoin being the poster child, but also Ethereum and others, how much of it is driven by the macro environment? So the money printing that taken just mentioned, we created over 20%. I think the number is 22% of all dollars in circulation were created in 2020. How much of that accelerated, uh, the rise of Bitcoin? Or do you think it was inevitable just based on the strength of, of the, the technology that underlies Bitcoin?

Meltem Demirors: (14:34)
Yeah. So I want to take a moment and sort of separate the two narratives. I think the macro narrative and attributing Bitcoin's success in the crypto sector's overall success to this money printer Gober narrative. If I may use that God level meme, um, is, is very popular, but look at the end of the day, right? In, in March of 2020, when Jay Powell, you know, did money printer go Burr. Um, and by the way, it's very interesting that for the first time in modern history, we had a meme enter sort of the popular lexicon that alluded to fiscal and monetary policy. I mean, I can't tell you, I had conversations with people who don't know anything about fiscal and monetary policy about the impact of money printing on their savings and their financial wellbeing. And then I think what you really saw is, um, people flocked to assets that would appreciate and value in general, right?

Meltem Demirors: (15:24)
So the momentum that we've seen and the, just the frenzy we've seen for investible assets has really been consistent across the board. We saw a rotation out of core equities into tech, right? The three most popular trades in 2020, where long tech, which continues to be the trade. And that's both in private capital markets and public capital markets, as we've seen, you know, about the crazy outperformance of IPOs Tesla, I think is the poster child for this, right. Um, we've seen this in private capital markets where companies are raising rounds at astronomical valuations pre-product and the types of people I'm competing with and venture deals that used to be other VC firms. Now it's family offices, PE firms, publicly listed companies, foreign wealth funds investing directly. So the cohort of people investing in tech has just shifted monumentally. Second, most popular trade was short dollar, right?

Meltem Demirors: (16:08)
And there are a number of different ways you can shorten dollar. But I think generally, you know, the selloff we saw across bonds and treasuries was indicative of that. And then the fact that the U S now owns, you know, an astronomical amount of the treasuries to notes and circulation is another symptom of that overall reduced foreign ownership of dollar denominated assets, I think is another symptom of that. And then the last trade was long crypto, right? And, um, the long crypto trade I think is interesting because I don't think it's people necessarily saying, wait a minute, I believe Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies are going to be the thing that defines the future. It's really people saying, I need somewhere to put my money. That isn't the dollar cause asset inflation isn't happening in CPI. I know we're looking at, you know, 2.5%, or we finally crossed into 2.6% for CPI inflation.

Meltem Demirors: (16:53)
That's not where inflation is happening. Your stocks are worth more. The market is going up. Not because these assets are worth more it's because the dollar is worth, worth less than I think that's conceptually what people are starting to grasp money is flowing into real estate collectibles, right? We look at baseball cards. You mentioned NBA top shot in December a Honus Wagner card, which is the most rare, like holy grail of all baseball cards sold for $3.7 million in January ALS good version of that card sold for 5.2 million, right? That's almost a doubling in price of that collectible in less than a month's time span. And the way I sort of described Bitcoin to people is Bitcoin is the ultimate collector's item. It is the Honus Wagner card of money. There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin in circulation. There are 47 million millionaires around the world today.

Meltem Demirors: (17:41)
So there's not even enough for every millionaire to own one Bitcoin. Um, so I think, again, as we look at that narrative that's unfolding, it really became a recursive loop, right? It's the macro environment yes. Contributed to people's awareness. But do I believe that people are buying Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation? No, they're buying that coin because then a number go up environment, which is the environment we're in, right? When you print an absolute boatload of money, numbers starts to go up. As people start plowing that money into assets, um, Bitcoin is just another asset that you can plow money into. And as a result, I also think the momentum got sort of took on a life of its own. One of the common misconceptions I want to quickly address John is there's this popular narrative, but there's a lot of leverage in crypto. And the actually is not true. The antithesis of that is true. There's no leverage in crypto.

John Darcie: (18:30)
So is this like tether thing is this whole tether thing now dead now that they settled with the New York attorney general?

Meltem Demirors: (18:35)
No, the FID never does. I've been through seven years of this. The FID never dies. The tether FID will never die. Bitcoin mining boils the oceans. Quantum computing will break the blockchain. Like we do this every cycle. It will never die. It's just that we have better data this time around. Um, but look at the end of the day, I think what happens is anytime there's momentum in decline, people want to get leveraged right now in crypto, you can't really get leveraged. There's no reg T there's nowhere. You can get margin or use your securities as collateral. So the rate to borrow cash in crypto is quite high. It's 12 to 18% annualized. And then the predominant contracts that you utilize to obtain exposure to a lever trade is something called a perpetual swap, which is a, a swap contract. And that's, that's repriced on an, at a daily basis, typically every eight hours and the cash funding cost of that contract can be as high as 10 to 15% per month.

Meltem Demirors: (19:26)
So the cost of having levered exposure to crypto is very, very high. Some periods where we have momentum in the Bitcoin space. We see a lot of people buying these perps swaps and obtaining leverage through this contract, but because the funding rate is so high, when that momentum slows down, we see a lot of de-levering in that contract, which results consequently, in a dip in prices and the market flipping back into backwardation. And so again, I think a lot of what we've seen here is just the Bitcoin market operates is operated the same for the last six years. Really, these dynamics haven't changed. So we're seeing this momentum becoming recursive and I, whenever we stay range-bound that leverage gets taken off. And then we see more people coming in, buying leverage gets added back on again, we see that momentum run, but again, I think this narrative of like, oh, it's the macro environment that has sovereign wealth funds signed Bitcoin?

Meltem Demirors: (20:11)
No they're buying anything and everything under the sun. Um, we've done research on optimal allocation. We found in a traditional 64, 40 portfolio, 4% allocation to Bitcoin that's rebalanced quarterly, sort of the optimal risk reward approach. I'm happy to share that research with your viewers, but again, you know, I'm certainly not out there telling people, put your entire treasury into Bitcoin. I don't think that's prudent. I don't think that helps with money for inter go for any of the things we talked about. Um, so I think a lot of the popular rhetoric, you know, it sounds sexy. Is it prudent or logical? Absolutely not. What I advocate for that. Absolutely not. Do I think people should be exposed to decline? Absolutely. But I also think they should be exposed to a wide range of, of different assets. Yeah.

Tegan Kline: (20:51)
And I think a lot of the listeners there, their roles are to enter, you know, allocate capital efficiently, be it into their business, be into their portfolios, their client portfolios. And at this point it's almost become irresponsible, not to put a piece of your, of that into Bitcoin and other digital assets. And the question really is, do you believe that the dollar will continue to depreciate against Bitcoin? I firmly believe it will. Um, and I think Bitcoin has gone beyond the narrative of just digital gold Bitcoin is better gold than gold. Bitcoin is better than Fiat. You know, Fiat now does not incentivize us to save saving rates are so incredibly low. It incentivizes us to spend it actually beyond that. It incentivizes us to go into debt because the rates on debt are so low that you're incentivized to take on more debt. And that's why we are at the moment in time that we have never, before seen as much debt as we are in. Um, and the market for Bitcoin, you know, is it's a gold and Fiat and savings market kind of combined. Um, and Bitcoin is teaching us to save it, enforced. It forces you to kind of have the mindset of saving because as you hold Bitcoin and think in terms of Bitcoin, everything around you gets cheaper, be it realistic, you know, the Fiat dollar, your lunch, you know, everything gets cheaper. Um, and

Meltem Demirors: (22:05)
Long time preference, I definitely bought them stuff in 2015 with Bitcoin that I wish I hadn't bought.

Tegan Kline: (22:12)
People are just like incapable of spending their Bitcoins for this reason. Um, you know, and you start to just think in terms of Bitcoin, and then you start thinking, you know, what is money and people argue money is for spending. But I disagree with that. I think money is supposed to hold value long enough so that when you do want to spend it, you can. Um, and that's why I think Bitcoin is so powerful.

John Darcie: (22:31)
Yeah. I mean, at dinner last night, I was having this conversation with my wife's grandmother. She's 82 years old, very lucid, but I was trying to explain Bitcoin and digital assets to her because, you know, anytime these things bubble up into the mainstream consciousness, orange pill, her, I tried, but I tried to just explain the origins of money and how the caveman, you know, they bartered. And then they picked rocks that they thought looked nice and they use that as currency. And then Julius Caesar stamped his face on, on coins and just the evolution of money. And she says, well, well, if I send my money from my bank of New York to, to another bank in Austin, Texas, you know that they're obviously they're delivering that money from one bank to the other. I said, well, that's, that's not exactly true. We already have digital money. But the difference is that digital money can 20% more of it can be created in one year based on the stroke of a pen from a central banker. So there's no reason why Bitcoin is any different than any other currency or, or a store of value or collectible that's existed throughout history.

Meltem Demirors: (23:29)
But John, there's something I want to touch on that. I think both of you and Taegan have just raised that maybe will help bridge us into a bit of a conversation around what's happening in blockchain technology and sort of decentralized finance and protocols more broadly. One of the things I think is so interesting to talk is, um, you know, why, why did humans utilize gold? And you articulated it really well, the association of empire and money, right? It was really made by Julius Caesar who stamped his face on a gold coin. And what gold allowed people to do is transport value and energy, right? Um, across vast distances of both space and time, right? If I'm a chicken farmer and I have a chicken, I can transport my chicken, maybe a hundred miles, but I can transport a gold coin, right. Thousands of miles and over a millennia.

Meltem Demirors: (24:17)
Um, and so I think about this idea of like gold was really a store of value because it allowed us to preserve economic activity and transmute it across space and time. Right. And over time, what human civilizations did is we created piles of this gold, right? And we built citadels and fortresses around these piles of literal shiny rocks. And that's how our, our society has developed. And today still, what does a bank do in terms of form and function? You know, BNY Mellon in New York, they have a massive vault in their basement, their stores, gold and other assets. Um, you know, it's like very Lord of Lord of the rings, Gollum style, the gold sitting in the sitting in the basement. Um, and I just think that idea in the 21st century is absolutely preposterous. Like I don't have a vault in my house if I'm traveling, you know, I'm wearing a track suit, I don't have pockets big enough to hold a gold bar. Certainly I'm not traveling around with a briefcase filled with, with gold bars. So I think this idea of, um, you know, so much of what we do in our world has been modernized. I have a super computer in my, in my pocket that I use on a daily basis. How is it that the basis of how we construct and conceptualize value is still based on shiny gold rocks that we store inside of big marble buildings. It just doesn't make any sense to me. People

John Darcie: (25:36)
Talk about Fiat. They say, well, Bitcoin doesn't have an army. That's there to enforce its credibility. I said, actually it does. It has the biggest, it has the biggest and most powerful and most of noxious meme army in the history of the planet, uh, protecting us integrity.

Meltem Demirors: (25:52)
Yeah. But I'll look, and I think this is what's so important. Right? All, all reality is just belief. Um, and we've named a new monetary reality into existence. I think if you look at what's happening in equities as well, I think, you know, Elon Musk for all his faults has also named a new reality into existence. I mean, Tesla, if you look the fundamentals of that business, you know, it's not really sure about that, but in terms of narratives and excellent job, meaning this new reality and this perception into existence. And as you alluded to, you know, Bitcoin doesn't have an ER department, we don't have leaders or people who are spokespeople for Bitcoin. What we have is a group of millions of people around the world who really passionately believe in a different version of reality in the future. And we're all working to try to bring that reality into existence.

Meltem Demirors: (26:41)
Now what's really cool about Bitcoin is from an ideological perspective, the umbrella is big enough to accommodate a lot of different viewpoints, right? And you also have all of these different sort of ancillary ecosystems, like the theory of ecosystem, what taken in her team are working on it, the graph and, you know, thousands of other networks that people are working on. And they're all sort of recursive and complimentary. Um, but what I really would love to talk about a bit more beyond just the asset it's it's felt is like, what are we doing with building companies? You know, the corporation, it is really becoming more powerful than the state. We look at apple, apple has a $2 trillion market cap, you know, more than the GDP of most countries. We look at companies like micro strategy, issuing billion dollar corporate bond is 0%. Like it's just preposterous. Um, but I think one of the things we're also experimenting with is changing the form of corporations and how people engage in economic activity. So I think maybe Taegan could tell us a bit more about, you know, what's happening with protocols and this new way of conceptualizing the way that people build economic value outside of the confines of a corporation with its leaders and mostly male leaders who then become defacto sort of leaders of, of the world. Yeah,

Tegan Kline: (27:55)
Absolutely. You know, protocols and tokens really are kind of this new business model. I think it took a while for individuals to kind of get their minds around SAS as a new business model. And then Salesforce turned it into a 200, $200 billion industry. Um, and you know, and now, you know, there's over 15,000 SAS companies, but tokens are really the next evolution of the business model. And I think that's going to take folks a lot longer to get their minds around than SAS did because it's a little bit, you know, further out there. Um, and so, you know, th th now's the opportunity for individuals to kind of get their minds around that new business model, because that's really where the alpha is. And with tokens, you know, the way, it's the way that you have a sustainable business model, when you have kind of a decentralized protocol and also open-source technology, oftentimes an opensource technology you're asking for donations, and you rely on those donations with tokens, you can see like Bitcoin and Ethereum, the graph chain length, they've all kind of mastered that art of creating the, the token as the business model and not limiting it with SAS or with revenue.

Tegan Kline: (29:00)
And it's kind of a radical idea, but that I think is where a lot of the future potential and opportunity lies. And I do think that, you know, this will be, I think we've already started to see it, but this will be probably the largest wealth transfer we see in our lifetime. And there's so much opportunity ahead. Another thing that I like to speak about is just kind of the future of work and individuals can now work for ideas or protocols, as opposed to just centralized companies where kind of the money trickles up to the top wall street gets a bad rap, you know, for being kind of greedy and money hungry. But analysts on wall street are not making a ton of money. They're like with the regulations came, you know, it kind of dried up a lot of that earning potential. And so you have to work your way up from analyst to associate VP before you can really become like, you know, wealthy within finance. And so this is giving an opportunity for individuals in centralized finance, and also in web to, to come and build in a new ecosystem.

John Darcie: (29:52)
Yeah. I mean, you saw Goldman Sachs his tone, uh, around Bitcoin and digital assets change as soon as Coinbase is a private valuation and its direct listing was trading at the same market cap as Goldman Sachs. I think they looked around the room and said, you know, this is an unstoppable train. We better get out of the way, uh, and maybe grab on, uh, as well. So interesting to see that news this week as well. So let's, let's think into the future, uh, we'll start with Meltem and, and taken. I know you have thoughts on this as well, but what does that world look like? We have flying cars and tunnels. We have web 3.0 for

Meltem Demirors: (30:30)
Flying cars since I was five years old and I haven't gotten it yet, like low key. I'm mad about that

John Darcie: (30:38)
Flying cars. And all we got was a, you know, this is crazy cryptographic money that, that transcends space and time, but, uh, what does web 3.0, look like? What does the world look like with a decentralized internet? What is investing look like in a world that's fully decentralized?

Meltem Demirors: (30:53)
Sure. Um, and maybe the way I'd articulate that John is, um, first of all, what you've just started circulated is inconceivable to most people. So I'll go ahead and say, certainly believe this is evolutionary, right. I don't think it happens overnight. I don't think this is a sudden shift. I think this is evolutionary and happens over a much longer arc of time. Like humans are notoriously bad at internalizing change. Um, and a lot of that is really a limitation, um, based on like how we construct our mental models and our view of the world. So unfortunately I do think this will be a 5, 10, 15, 20 year sort of arc of time. But as you've alluded to the macro environment, we're living in does accelerate some of that timeline because I think it started to show just the extreme level of institutional dysfunction. We have not just in corporations, but in markets, in our, um, governments, in our NGOs, just the institutions that we've constructed are so frail, frankly.

Meltem Demirors: (31:53)
Um, and you know, you see that in the United States, the way this pandemic was handled was just an absolute disaster is embarrassing to be an American during this pandemic. And it's, it's, it's frightening, quite candidly. Um, I think the other pieces, I think a lot of people have not yet accepted or recognized that we no longer live in a world where the us dollar is the great hedge Amman. We live in a multipolar currency world. It's just that most people haven't internalized that yet. And the multi-polar currency world we live in, right. We have new sort of players emerging, certainly China with DCP, their digital, remember the project. And just the fact that finance and transactions like the monetary system in China is entirely digitized. I think that is something most people don't appreciate until they go to China. Like, I went there with my little paper MMB and people were like, please, nobody wants that. Like, you need to use the app. I felt like so incompetent because I was there with like my boomer box and they were like, lady, nobody, nobody does that anymore. I felt China's

John Darcie: (32:57)
End game, you know, just to, to go slightly off topic, but you know, they, they have restricted, you know, usage of Bitcoin. Meanwhile, they're one of the largest miners of Bitcoin. They're launching their own central bank, digital currency. And they're obviously very intrigued by the space. What is the game they're playing, uh, in Bitcoin?

Meltem Demirors: (33:16)
Yeah, look, um, I think it's the idea that all empires play, right. It's domination. Um, and, and when I say domination, I don't necessarily mean that in a negative sense. So historic, I come from the energy industry, right? The last really century of human history in terms of conflict and physical conflict, um, has been defined by the quest for oil, right? And really the shift to the petrodollar as a result of what happened in 1973, like really what has shaped the modern world, even the way we drew borders after world war II, or it was predicated on the basis that we were on the hunt for fuel for oil, the new oil is semiconductors, right? The U S is woefully behind when it comes to semiconductor production. And Silicon Ray is the primary input, compute and connectivity is the most important resource that nation states will have.

Meltem Demirors: (34:08)
And Bitcoin in and of itself is just a giant telecommunications network. Bitcoin is a privately owned, privately operated source communication network that communicates value. And it's the most secure financial network that we have. It's never been hacked. It's never been taken down. There are billions of dollars of value that go into it. In fact, in December a charge in January alone, the Bitcoin network generated 1.3, $6 billion of fees and rewards for people who participated in the physical maintenance of that infrastructure. So I think the new frontier we see emerging is this, this digital frontier, digital warfighter frontier. And that gets fought on several different fronts. It's value, it's cybersecurity, it's disinformation campaigns, right. Um, and we've seen all of that over the last few years. And so what I think has been really interesting to observe, like there are these different sort of poles that are emerging.

Meltem Demirors: (34:57)
There's obviously the U S there's obviously China, Russia is a prominent player. I think we're underestimating the middle east as well. But on top of that, you start to add in online communities, right, as you alluded to Bitcoin is an online community of millions of people around the world who fervently believe in and work for, and work on advocating for making that coin better. Um, Taegan and I just funded an initiative at MIT to fund open-source development of the Bitcoin protocol, neutral and free of corporate influence. But look, there's, there's a lot of effort and energy that people are putting into this, like online, purely digital instantiation of a new type of nation state, which is the coin. Now that sounds a bit farfetched, but I think what we will start to see is, you know, I don't have just one identity anymore. Yes. My digital ID card, you know, my physical ID card, pardon says, I'm Melton.

Meltem Demirors: (35:48)
And I'm a resident of the state of New Hampshire and I'm a citizen of the United States, but online, I can have many different personas and belong to many different communities and have many different identities. And I think, again, this is just part of the natural evolution of how we live our lives. Like where, when I meet someone, I don't talk about where I'm from or where I live anymore. I talk about what I'm into and what communities I'm a part of. I talked about being a Bitcoin, or I talk about, you know, being into scifi books, great tracks. I mean, this is it's fire. Not going to lie. You have to look good. It's a global pandemic. John, I'm trying to have some fun. I know, obviously

John Darcie: (36:26)
I'm dressed head to toe in wool here. So I don't, I don't have shorts on underneath my jacket, but,

Meltem Demirors: (36:31)
And you're still, you're still operating, you know, you have your John, the financier persona on that. There are many elements of, you know, your persona. So, so I do think giving people more flexibility to choose, right, this idea of the exit or voice, right. To choose what communities they want to be a part of is so powerful. And we, as a result of the pandemic, again, we've all spent the last year sitting inside of our houses with nothing to do, but beyond line. Right? And so I think again, um, what governments are missing is like ideas are incredibly powerful and incredibly dangerous to the existing power structure. And this idea has just reached like a point of no return. Now how this idea gets expressed and implemented. There's a lot of different permutations of that. I think you will see nation states and corporations attempt to co-opt the Bitcoin narrative, which we already saw with Facebook's DM, right?

Meltem Demirors: (37:24)
Like I'm saying, oh, this is another type of Bitcoin. I'm like, absolutely not going to work. Is that going to work DM? Um, I think it, I think it well, and I actually think it might be a very positive catalyst because at the end of the day, you know, 3 billion people using Facebook now also having a digital wallet that's compatible with not only DM, but also with other public open blockchains is potentially a great way to orange pill, 3 billion Facebook users. So I'm supportive. And again, I think it's evolutionary at the end of the day, you know, the approaches we took in the past of physically shutting people down or shutting off their access to financial system, how are you going to shut down Bitcoin? Right.

John Darcie: (38:07)
Why, why is quantum computing not an existential threat to Bitcoin?

Meltem Demirors: (38:12)
Because quantum computing is not yet at a point where like it could have quote unquote, the blockchain shot 2 56 is highly secure. And also, I think people forget like the pace of technological innovation on the cryptography side. Like we're talking about robust research academically into next gen cryptography is going to keep pace with whatever innovations exist in super computing. Right. It's sort of like, um, technology is just a tool, right? And there are people it for good and use it for bad and it's sort of a cat and mouse game. Um, but I think the amount of innovation we see happening in the cryptography space will keep pace with whatever innovations we see on the computing side that allow us to potentially break, um, really complex types of encryption.

John Darcie: (38:51)
All right. Taegan, what's the next step in this decentralized internet finance world, you know, first of all, why are blockchains and distributed ledgers better than just normal databases and traditional ways of storing technology and information. And, you know, we've seen the rise of NFTE NFTs, non fungible tokens, whether it be NBA top shots, but it's, what's the next iteration of all this. Yeah.

Meltem Demirors: (39:16)
I mean, I think we're only at the beginning of kind of the decentralized internet, which I call web three. Um, I think that that is really the future. And Dubai is a piece of that, you know, Dubai, you asked, you know, why are blockchains better than databases? Um, and I think the big answer is really open data and getting access to that data. For example, in web to the centralized space with Facebook, LinkedIn, those APIs are closed. So I can't port LinkedIn data to my own application, nor can I afford it to a Crunchbase or, or another application because the API are closed. So I can't access that data in the blockchain space, specifically with the graph, we call them sub graphs, they're open API APIs. And so anyone can pull data from those open APIs to their applications, to another applications. And this is leading. This is creating a lot of innovation in the space

Tegan Kline: (40:05)
And it's kind of like Lego building blocks of innovation

Meltem Demirors: (40:07)
That we're seeing. And Dubai is a prime example of that because of the transparency within Dubai, there was so much more innovation. And I think if we look back to the mortgage crisis from, from 2008, if we had transparency, and if the banks were able to identify where those mortgage backed securities lied, who owned them, I don't think that crisis would have been as big potentially we could have prevented that crisis. And do you buy, because you have all these little fires everywhere, it prevents this big, massive fire because of that trance, that transparency that's there. And this is leading into NFTs, which are non fungible tokens that we've kind of alluded to earlier kind of having ownership of digital art and proving that it's an original, just like you have like an original Gucci belt, um, moving that it's original copy. And so we're seeing a lot of the individuals that made a lot of money in the decentralized finance space, according into the NMT space.

Meltem Demirors: (41:00)
And then that money is going to artists and creators bringing a whole new way of, of individuals into the crypto space. And I think that will only continue, you know, I think where every application that you have on your iPhone will become decentralized. Um, and you know, it will lead into the music space. We have, you know, audience, we have, um, like, you know, different storage systems. Um, and there's so much more to go, you know, we need a social network, we need the Robin hood of crypto. We need the Bloomberg of crypto, all of which, you know, hasn't arrived yet. And there's so much innovation to happen.

John Darcie: (41:32)
Three DS, uh, digital disinformation distribution. Can you tell me what that means? What those are?

Meltem Demirors: (41:40)
Yeah, so, so, um, my business partners like coin shares, um, Danny masters, Ross Newton, John Raymond, Yeti, before they started coin shares, they ran a commodities fund. Um, my background, you know, is more on the corporate finance corporate treasury dominated side. And one of the things they did, um, on the commodity side is they built a really robust approach, sort of analyzing potties market based on something they called the three D's. Um, and so we've done the same thing in the crypto space is something Dan and I like to work on. We have our, you know, daily chats where we sort of spitball and brainstorm. So what we've arrived at is sort of this framework that sort of, um, articulates our approach to building coin shares in our business, which we're an asset management firm, but we're also in an investment firm that builds digital infrastructure.

Meltem Demirors: (42:22)
So the 3d is our digital, everything's becoming digital, and we've already seen that across the finance landscape it's, um, disintermediation, right? So we're removing intermediaries and allowing people to interact directly with one another. And the rise of peer-to-peer financial systems, I think is one example of that. And then the last one that's so critical is distribution. Um, the way that financial products and services are distributed is changing. It used to be that the pipe would go from the fed to a tier one bank, right, to SyFy from the SyFy to a smaller bank, and then from smaller bank to service provider and the service provider to the consumer. And along that path, right, maybe three to 5% of the value gets shaved off through fees and whatever else. Now, what we have is the ability to distribute tokens and digital assets and value directly to consumers and users, which is something that the grafted, right.

Meltem Demirors: (43:13)
They airdrop tokens to people who are participants in sort of bootstrapping the protocol. So this fundamental shift in how we distribute financial products and services, I think is going to lead to a massive amount of, um, disintermediation. And so what we really try to do at coin shares is the analyze data in a data-driven way, right? We have a large research team and we spend a lot of time doing fundamental research on what's happening here. But as we look at the trend of digitization, which we already saw with FinTech, right, that's not a new trend, but it's happening in a much faster way of cryptocurrencies. We see this trend of disintermediation, which now for the first time as possible, I don't need a commercial bank to interact with Bitcoin, which is fun. Like it's mine, it's absolutely mind blowing. If you haven't done it, I highly recommend downloading something like blue wallet and sending even a one Satoshi lightning transaction.

Meltem Demirors: (44:00)
It will absolutely blow your mind, but really the biggest trend. And the one that I think should be scariest to financial institutions is distribution. You no longer need a broker or a guy in a suit to distribute financial products, a dog or cat on the internet, right? And then on dev building a defy protocol can distribute products and services. And because the code is publicly verifiable by anyone who wants to look at it and because everything is extremely transparent, you no longer have this information asymmetry or this gatekeeping that we've the traditional financial system. And I think that is so profoundly transformative people still aren't really grasping it. We're seeing people trying to build products and services around crypto using traditional finance business models. But I don't need to give my Bitcoin to BNY Mellon to lock in a vault. That's not going to keep my Bitcoin any more secure. Um, so I think this idea of distribution fundamentally shifting is one that people are just completely underestimating and those fees are going to flow elsewhere, and it's not going to be bankers and, and, you know, fund managers who get those fees, it's going to be developers and people building protocols and open source tools who capitalize on those feeds

John Darcie: (45:10)
Like taken so taken. What's unique

Speaker 5: (45:12)
About the graph protocol.

John Darcie: (45:14)
What's unique about the graph protocol, how you've built it. She talked about how you, you incentivize, you know, early, uh, developers who bootstrapped the protocol by, by cutting them into, uh, the, basically the currency that operates on the graph protocol. But what's unique about the way you've built in the way you've conceptualized it. Yeah.

Tegan Kline: (45:33)
So the graph has the potential to become larger than any layer, one blockchain, because the graph integrates with every level of the stack. Um, and so you have like the applications on top, they use the graph to index inquiry, their protocol kind of like what Google does for the web. The graph does for the blockchain. You have all this great data within the web, but until Google came up with search, you couldn't access that data. Same with the blockchain. There's a lot of wonderful data there, but getting to that data is really difficult and time consuming. And so we have strapped, you know, 12 months line of code away from those developers and allow the developers to easily serve data to their users. Um, but what's great about the graph is it can integrate with every piece of the stack yet, you know, the, the layer one blockchains, the layer two blockchains, like optimism scale, um, there's many, many different arbitrary, many different layer twos to help with scaling, which is one of the issues, you know, Ethereum has grown so big and there's so much development on Ethereum that folks are kind of looking to go to other places.

Tegan Kline: (46:29)
And so wherever developers and users go, the graph will be,

John Darcie: (46:33)
Yeah, obviously, you know, I have a lot of conversations with people in the digital asset space and, and graph has come up in a number of conversations. So congratulations on what you've built with that. I know there's, there's a ton of excitement, uh, in the digital asset ecosystem about what, what you've built and what's continuing to be built on that protocol. Uh, but we could probably go on for another two hours, but we'll wrap it up there for today. Uh Meltem T uh, Taegan, what's your Twitter handles. You guys are very lively on Twitter. How do we follow you on Twitter Meltem and take it.

Meltem Demirors: (47:01)
Sure. I'm at Mel underscore done. Um, and my company's at coin shares co I do have to disclose I am an investor in the graph protocol. Um, so I'm probably a bit biased and all of my personal investments, as well as those I made through coin shares are disclosed on my website, which is Meltem generis.com. Um, I always like to disclose what my interests are. Um, so I am a long-term believer in the graph and obviously in my incentives, they're pretty clear. I just wanted to disclose that since disclosure is a part of traditional finance, that I certainly think we should replicate in the crypto space.

Tegan Kline: (47:36)
Absolutely agree. And I'm the client venture on Twitter. You can follow the graph protocol at graft protocol, and you can follow edge and node at edge node.

John Darcie: (47:47)
Meltem you're my go-to source. When, when people start coming at me with the fact that Bitcoin uses all the is going to use all the world's energy in the next decade, and that it's, uh, a massive suck on, on energy use. You're my go-to resource. I just say, go, go talk to them, melt them, go, go follow them on Twitter. She'll she'll take them. We're putting out.

Meltem Demirors: (48:06)
Yeah. So I have a website. Bitcoin will not boil the ocean.com. Um, queen shares have published a lot of research on the use of renewables and Bitcoin mining. We're about to announce a whole slew of investments we've made in this space, but in my view, Bitcoin will actually be the catalyst for an energy revolution, the likes of which we've never seen before. Um, so I'd love to continue talking about that. There are a lot of great people, including Russ Stephens at N Y dig, who've done great work, sort of helping evangelize that narrative. And so, you know, the energy industry and the Bitcoin industry in an odd way, like my two loves are coming back together again. And if we want to have an intergalactic, you know, experience as humans and intergalactic existence, we need intergalactic money. That's the coin. We also need energy sources that will allow us to be an intergalactic race. So I'm, I'm very optimistic about the longterm compatibility between sustainability energy and Bitcoin more broadly. So anytime you want to chat Sean, I'm your girl. I

John Darcie: (49:01)
Love it. I love it. And Elon Musk is sort of solving all those problems at one time. He's a sorry, in the energy revolution piece, he's taken us to Mars. Uh, and he's also creating star Lincoln, new new telecommunication system, uh, via space. Okay. And

Meltem Demirors: (49:15)
He thought dank means he's got to, encomium strong. Let's not forget. Yeah. And he has tagged

John Darcie: (49:19)
Me. That's what it really comes down to. This is a meme war and he has dank memes. Uh, and so he's winning that battle, but thank you again. Meltem and Taegan for joining us today here on salt talks. It's been a pleasure and thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt talk, uh, with Meltem dimmers and Teagan Klein. Just a reminder, if you miss any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org, and you can also watch them all on our YouTube channel called salt tube. Uh, we're also on social media at salt conferences where we're most active, but we're also on Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn as well. And please spread the word about these salt talks. Particularly if you have an 82 year old, a great-grand mother-in-law who needs to learn about the history of money and why Bitcoin is not boiling the oceans, please send them to these episodes. Uh, this series that we do on digital assets, I think it's been really informative for a lot of people, but on behalf of the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

The Basics of Real Estate Investing | SALT Talks #176

“With COVID, we had an explosion of online commerce that has driven the fundamentals of industrial real estate to unprecedented levels.”

Robin Potts is co-head of real estate investments and director of acquisitions at Canyon Partners Real Estate. Mike Levy is CEO of Crow Holdings where he leads the real estate company’s overall business activities. The talk is moderated by Jan Brzeski, the founder, managing director and CIO of Arixa Capital, a private real estate investment advisor group.

COVID has brought about many changes to the real estate investment landscape. As a result of the pandemic, debt markets have reopened much quicker than the equity. We’re also seeing lenders work with their borrowers to put in place extensions and modifications to account for the challenges faced to during COVID. Industrial real estate has seen rapid acceleration in its existing growth. “With COVID, we had an explosion of online commerce that has driven the fundamentals of industrial real estate to unprecedented levels.“

There has been steady movement into the southeast and southwest of America, a trend that only accelerated during the pandemic. Real estate investment strategy will focus more and more on those regions as the populations continue to grow.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

Robin Potts.jpeg

Robin Potts

Co-Head of Real Estate Investments

Canyon Partners Real Estate

Mike Levy.jpeg

Mike Levy

Chief Executive Officer

Crow Holdings

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:08)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome you to a panel discussion about the future of real estate in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. And our panelists today are Robin Potts and Michael Levy. Uh, Robin is the co-head of real estate investments and director of acquisitions for canyon partners, real estate.

John Darcie: (00:56)
Uh, she has been with canyon for 14 years and is responsible for overseeing the origination and acquisitions of debt and equity investments across canyon partners, real estate platforms, and holds a seat on all canyon partners, real estate investment committees. Michael Levy is the chief executive officer of Crow holdings where he's responsible for leading and overseeing the company's overall business development activities, including strategy investments and organizational resources. He joined the firm in 2016 from Morgan Stanley, where he was the chief operating officer for the investment management division and a member of the firm's management committee hosting. Today's talk as a guest host. His name is Yon Brzeski, he's the founder of, uh, Rick's uh, capital, which he founded in 2006. And he serves as the managing director and chief investment officer for the firm in this capacity. He has ultimate responsibility for the firm's investment strategy, risk management and operations prior to founding a Rick Suh. Mr. Brzeski was the vice president of acquisitions at standard management company, a Los Angeles based private real estate investment firm. And with no further ado, I'll turn it over to Yon, to host today's interview.

John Brzeski: (02:04)
Terrific. Thank you so much, John. And thank you, Robin and Mike for joining this conversation. And why don't we just start out with you could each give a little background on yourself and your firm, uh, Robin, if you could go first, that'd be great.

Robin Potts: (02:19)
Absolutely. Well, thank you for having me. Uh, so I co-head real estate investments at canyon partners. I've been with the firm since 2006. Uh, canyon is an investment manager headquartered in Los Angeles. We have about 26 billion of assets under management. Uh, the firm was founded in 1990 and has a wide variety of strategies across, uh, corporate credit as well as real estate. And within our real estate platforms, we're active up and down the capital stack. So we invest in both debt and equity strategies, um, and we're active across all property types in the top 40 markets across the U S uh, so that includes, you know, being active in ground-up development repositionings lease-up situations and distressed opportunities as well. Um, and our market activity is about evenly split between our debt and our equity strategies.

John Brzeski: (03:15)
Terrific. Mike, uh, tell us a little bit about yourself and your firm and also, um, the, kind of the legacy of your firm as well. Your, your firm has an interesting history in our industry. Sure.

Mike Levy: (03:27)
Um, well, uh, first thank you for having, having me. I am a, uh, a lifelong new Yorker who built a career in real estate finance and five years ago, moved to Dallas, Texas to join the Crow family, uh, in the real estate business, uh, Yon to your, to your point in 1948, a guy named Trammell Crow started building industrial buildings. And over the past 70 years, the Crow family has overseen, uh, numerous businesses across the real estate industry throughout that period of time. Uh, the company is owned by the Crow family today, and, uh, we're engaged primarily in two areas of real estate. One is as a real estate developer. We have a national platform across the United States. We develop, uh, multi-family properties, industrial properties, office buildings across the United States. And that's about half of our business activities in real estate. And the other half of our activities are as a real estate, private equity investor through funds. We invest in value add real estate strategies throughout the United States.

John Brzeski: (04:25)
So Mike, is it fair to say then that on the family side, your holding period is longer and potentially forever. And then on the private equity side, I guess you have to hit return targets. So you need to exit after a certain number of years.

Mike Levy: (04:38)
Yeah. Yon, we have three per, I would say we have three perspectives on real estate. One is as a developer, as someone who is out in the marketplace on a local basis, securing land, going through the entitlement process, buying concrete and steel and building buildings. And we have that perspective as an undergrounds real estate for our real estate, private equity business has a slightly different perspective where we're raising capital alongside partners in co-mingled vehicles. And we're, we're targeting higher return strategies, which sh you know, relatively short duration, three to five year investment periods. And finally, in the third area, the family on behalf of the family over the years has acquired or developed many properties that we owned some of them 30, 40, 50, 60 years. And so we have the perspective of a long-term owner operator and that component of our real estate business.

John Brzeski: (05:30)
Terrific. So why don't we go into a recent investment that you made since COVID, and I think this will be a good way to segue into where's the market today and where do you see the opportunities, uh, Robin, maybe you could give us an example of, of an area where you saw some value and maybe outline a particular investment you made, and then Mike I'd love for you to do the same.

Robin Potts: (05:51)
Sure. Um, so COVID, you know, has reset the marketplace and a number of really interesting ways. So from our perspective where we have, you know, platforms that can go within the debt area, as well as the equity area, uh, there's been an expanded opportunity set in terms of what we can do relative to what we saw over the last eight years. Um, in general, within the marketplace, we've found that the debt markets have reopened more quickly than on the equity side. Although the equity side is definitely, uh, now resurfacing with the vaccine rollout. Um, so on the debt side, I think, you know, the interesting situations from our perspective, uh, that have emerged post COVID have been on the loan sale opportunities. Um, we've seen following COVID since last March, over 13 billion of loan sales that have come to market. Um, and that's really been driven by, uh, initially margin calls.

Robin Potts: (06:48)
So a lot of different lenders, uh, from debt funds to mortgage REITs and other types of lenders that had, um, mismatched leveraged facilities, uh, and faced obligations to pay down, um, uh, the leverage facilities on their portfolio at a very inopportune time. So that created some forced selling situations. Um, and now we're seeing, uh, that those margin calls situations have passed, but, uh, you still have a lot of loan sales being brought to market by banks and debt funds and other lenders who are just rebalancing and repositioning their portfolio based on, uh, where they want concentration and different areas of stress and distress that they're seeing within their balance sheet. Um, and so we've been able to, uh, capture this opportunity set, which really hasn't been available for a decade since the great financial crisis. Um, so one of the interesting transactions, uh, that we recently completed was the acquisition of a portfolio of loans, uh, in excess of 300 million, uh, across a variety of, uh, different properties, uh, the largest concentration being multifamily. Um, and in our view, just a really interesting way to gain access to a repriced situation, um, as a result of, you know, lenders, uh, need to rebalance their portfolio, um, on what in our view were really high quality assets. Um, so, you know, interesting dynamic in the marketplace were, um, kind of secondary opportunities are available, uh, in, in a much different way than they were a year ago.

John Brzeski: (08:31)
So Robin, I'm going to ask you a few detailed questions about that, and if you, if you can't provide all the detail, then just provide what you can. So you bought that at a discount to par I'm assuming what kind of discount is it a few percentage discount or is it, is it, does it get to be bigger than that? And the follow on question would be, um, did you perceive that the, that the debt was really underwater or cross or I'm guessing a few assets were, but probably the multifamily wasn't underwater.

Robin Potts: (09:04)
So, um, as you can imagine, I can't get into specifics on that transaction, but I can just kind of give you the general landscape of, of the loan sale dynamics that are happening. So, um, there are loan sales brought to market that are performing, that are, uh, needing to be sold because of the sellers balance sheet issues there alone sales, where the underlying assets in the loan are stressed. Uh, so maybe they're performing, but moving toward non-performance pretty quickly. Um, or there are loans being brought to market that are true. Non-performing already, they're already in maturity default. And so kind of the level of discount between those three categories varies pretty substantially. Um, so you, you've seen a lot of loans, um, trade, you know, in the nineties are at par, um, uh, but the true non-performing loans, uh, you know, those, those ultimately are a much more tailored discount because you're really anticipating to end up owning the property. Um, and I would say that the, the true non-performing loans that ended up being, uh, ultimately priced at a very significant discount, um, uh, are much more concentrated toward hospitality and retail, um, given the overall, you know, challenges that COVID has presented toward those,

John Brzeski: (10:27)
Right. I'd love to come back to that because this whole, this is an area of, uh, that kind of speaks to what's how, how everything's repriced and what types of assets of reprice. Just one last question, before we go back to Mike for one of his recent investments, uh, who who's actually selling, like, where are the transactions actually clearing the market right now? Because there's been a lot of talk about sales of debt, but, but who is it? Debt funds that are the first to sell? Is it, um, special servicers of CMBS loans? Is it banks, is it domestic, regional, national international? Who are you seeing? That's actually first to acknowledge what's changed and ready to sell,

Robin Potts: (11:10)
Uh, debt funds have been the most active sellers, uh, in what we've seen. Um, banks and insurance companies have also brought a number of loan situations to market. Uh, the least active seller has been CMBS. Um, and it's, I think that's pretty interesting. And I think the, the reason for that is, um, it takes special servicers, such a long time to make decisions and for loans within CMBS to work through the system. Um, whereas debt funds can make much, uh, you know, much more expedient decisions in terms of how to adjust their balance sheet. Um, and we've seen, uh, you know, banks be able to do that as well. Um, but CMBS will just take, I think, a lot more time to work through the system. Um, I would also say that, uh, there've been many situations where loan sales have been brought to market, and then they ultimately didn't transact and the, uh, loan holder just use those bids as a way to mark their balance sheet.

Robin Potts: (12:17)
Um, so kind of sussing out whether someone's a real seller or not has been a challenge throughout this process. Um, and, uh, you know, in addition, a lot of lenders have taken the approach of working with their borrowers and providing for barons and modifications and extensions. So, um, you know, as much as possible, I think that's the approach lenders have taken. And then the loan sales that have been brought to market, um, for the most part have been situations that, uh, kind of are past that for Berenson modification, um, and for whatever reason that's no longer possible, uh, to do, which is really, I think, most lenders first choice.

John Brzeski: (13:02)
Terrific. Mike, um, tell us about a recent transaction that you, that you did at Crow holdings.

Mike Levy: (13:10)
Um, um, I'm going to comment on that investment theme is I suppose, as, uh, uh, as compared to a one-off investment and, but that investment theme is e-commerce, um, and that theme isn't distressed from e-commerce, but growth from e-commerce. And specifically what I'm talking about is in the industrial space. Um, we have seen, you know, this was a trend we could see beginning in 1994 with Netscape navigator, that the beginning of e-commerce, if people were going to buy goods online, but what, what we had happen here as we went through COVID in this period of time, is an explosion of online commerce that has driven, uh, the fundamentals of industrial real estate to levels that are unprecedented. And certainly my lifetime and industrial real estate today across the United States is being driven by three primary forces. One is just the sheer penetration of online commerce and the movement from retail stores into industrial fulfillment centers to get to the customer.

Mike Levy: (14:04)
But there are a couple other trends that are bubbling up and have been bumbling up one directly as a result of COVID. And we've moved from a world of just-in-time inventories to resilient inventories and have corporate America needs to have just a little bit more inventory of certain essential goods like pharmaceuticals or other supply chain, disruption items that, that small amount of additional space results in large amounts of additional demand for industrial real estate. And then finally you had this last trend, which was taking place pre COVID, but I it's pretty clear it's continuing today, which is onshoring and the movement of manufacturing around the world and because of tax and trade matters, moving to the United States. And so what we've been doing in response to that is financing the development and developing, uh, significant of industrial real estate across the major distribution markets. The United States, we will probably this year finance and developed 25 million square feet of industrial real estate. And so it's not about one industrial building or the exact economics of the building in Los Angeles versus the building in New Jersey. But fundamentally we're seeing this across the country and the major distribution markets, unprecedented levels of bright red growth and impressing them to levels of net absorption. And that's been an opportunity

John Brzeski: (15:19)
Financing. Um, the development Mike is that equity financing. So are you prevail providing JV equity to the local, uh, developer typically? Correct.

Mike Levy: (15:30)
We we're, we're, we're not a lender, uh, we're not in the credit business, but we have a real estate development company that builds industrial properties across United States. And we have a real estate private equity business that, that partners with other developers and provides the equity financing for their projects. And so we see the market from both lenses.

John Brzeski: (15:50)
Is that a traditional JV equity, or is it ever take the form of sort of fixed return preferred equity that can be refinanced out later by the owner? Or is it all

Mike Levy: (16:03)
It's traditional common JV equity. It's where traditional, you know, 95, 5, uh, common equity, we'll put up a construction loan of 60 or 65% below that equity. And we'll, uh, we'll build a building together and, and, and sell it either before it's leased or after it's leased in today's market. Sometimes selling a building before it's least as, uh, as attractive to investors is they anticipate more and more rent growth, but it's traditional JV equity. And

John Brzeski: (16:34)
Last question on that, are you doing that both on the family side and also on the real estate private equity side, where you provide a JV equity to the local developer.

Mike Levy: (16:45)
So we're, we're doing it, we're doing it on the real estate, private equity side. So about 40% give or take of our activity as a real estate. Private equity investor today is an industrial development. Uh, but we also pursue it in the real estate development company. Uh, and that activity is in partnership with institutional investors. And so, so those are the two areas that we're approaching the market today.

John Brzeski: (17:05)
Got it. And then, um, Amazon, are they building their own industrial now? And what does that mean for industrial developers like yourselves?

Mike Levy: (17:16)
Well, Amazon is doing many things. They're doing many things on their own, and they're doing many things in partnership with other people and they're acting in built to suit opportunities. And they're also acting as a tenant for buildings. Uh, the people like us build on a speculative basis and they decide as a tenant that, that we built a building in the right location to the right specifications. So Amazon is clearly a major market participant in building out their industrial footprint across the United States today. Uh, and they're, they're, they're certainly able to move the market from there, their solo activity, but this is much bigger than Amazon.

John Brzeski: (17:50)
Okay. Let's move on to winners and losers with COVID. And I want to kind of touch on that, the, the kind of the obvious, but also get into some things that may not be as obvious to, to all of our listeners on this, on this webcast. So, for example, I think it's, it's easy to say that working in the office five days a week is not going to be, uh, as it's not going to be necessary and every single company going forward. So office demand is going to be a little lower hotel. Demand clearly has been terrible the last year, but maybe it comes back. Let's get underneath the surface a little, we talked about industrial, um, being a long-term trend and maybe, uh, COVID has accelerated that. But, um, what, what are some other winners and losers? And you could go a product type, or you could also go geographically, like, like a, I mean, here in Los Angeles, in west Los Angeles, the suburbs are doing a little better, smaller cities are doing better. California's kind of doing worse. Phoenix is doing better. So, so, so maybe how about one observation, which is just you can't, you can't miss this, you gotta know that this is happening. And then one observation that might be, um, not as obvious to people that are outside of our industry. So Mike, why don't we go with you first?

Mike Levy: (19:15)
Okay. The obvious people are moving to the Southeast and Southwest in America, that trend was occurring pre COVID COVID, it's accelerated that trend. It's for many, many different factors that are in it that are engaged in that you can argue it's taxes. It's not just taxes. It's the totality of experiences. It's infrastructure. It's whether it's the build up of these cities, but America is moving to the Southeast and the Southwest. You can look at the domestic migration trends. You should not miss that. If ultimately you want to be successful in real estate, being in a market where people are moving to is a great formula for being successful over long periods of time. So that would be an area that I would, I would find as a bit self-evident, um, maybe in an area that gets a lot of discussion, um, and we're not active in it, but nonetheless is, is, uh, we've obviously seen a secular impact against malls.

Mike Levy: (20:07)
And there's a lot of discussion about converting these malls into whether it's industrial fulfillment centers or mixed use properties, uh, across America. And, uh, and that seems to be something that's grabbed a lot of attention from the marketplace. I would just caution people that converting malls into other uses requires, uh, entitlement and zoning, restructuring, and community groups and residential communities around these malls. That the last thing that these people want is 18 wheel trucks coming through the neighborhoods at night. And they're going to work really hard to keep a single family homes or apartment buildings from being built because they don't want to tax their school systems with additional kids. And so the duration to convert these malls, what they are today to alternative uses it'll happen. But the duration is not three to five years. This will take a long period of time in order for these properties to be redeveloped because the entitlement and zoning considerations that may not be self-evident to everybody involved in the business. Terrific.

Robin Potts: (21:08)
Um, you know, to echo, uh, some of Mike's commentary, uh, certainly the kind of secondary market growth has been an area that we're very, very focused on. Um, uh, you know, meaning we want along with a lot of other managers, uh, exposure in those high growth markets like Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Charlotte Raleigh, et cetera. Um, but beyond the headlines of just, um, those secondary growth markets, uh, to your comment at the beginning, um, I do think an area that, that does deserve more focuses just the strength of, um, suburban or secondary markets within, or very close to, uh, the gateway markets, um, because you do have this tale of two cities just within, uh, kind of the greater gateway markets as well. Um, so for example, if you look at, uh, the bay area and the challenges that multi-family rents have had, um, an occupancies within the bay area with, you know, double digit, uh, impacts on rents, um, and significant occupancy challenges.

Robin Potts: (22:20)
Um, you're seeing the inverse of that in Sacramento, which has been, you know, a top three rent growth market, uh, over the last 12 months. Um, and so, you know, there are, well, there are a number of people, um, and companies focused on, uh, you know, moving from California to a different location. There are also a lot of people who need to stay in California for a variety of reasons. Um, and it's making those secondary locations within some of these, um, uh, areas, very attractive and high growth. Um, so we've been spending some time on that as well. Um, and then from a property type perspective, you know, I would just say, uh, our view on the hospitality industry, um, is you really have to dig down asset by asset because it's not one size fits all in terms of the effects of COVID on, on hotels.

Robin Potts: (23:16)
And we, um, absolutely think that this is a kind of temporary shock to hospitality, as opposed to what you're seeing in retail, which has been, you know, a structural decline over a very long period of time. Um, but within hospitality, you see, um, areas of bright spots and, and, uh, segments of the hotel industry that are going to come back much more quickly. So, you know, your select service sets that don't have a heavy FNB component, um, you know, your assets in a drive to markets that have, you know, demonstrated a lot of resilience, uh, post COVID. Um, and then at the other end of the spectrum, in terms of the assets that are going to take longest to recover, you know, it's those assets that rely on group business and corporate travel. Um, so your big box convention center hotels, uh, really do need quite a fair amount of time to restabilize. So, um, you know, it, it's, it's the winners and losers really require a granular exercise and, uh, you know, pursing asset profiles and sub-markets in a quite detailed way.

John Brzeski: (24:24)
Okay, I'm going to give you each a little, uh, heads up I'd like for you to each think of one question for each other that you can ask the other person based on what each, each of you does that you'd be interested in knowing more detail about. And I'll get back to that in a minute, in the meantime, uh, want to do a quick, quick feedback question. So let's talk about New York city and San Francisco, how long in each case until COVID is in the rear view mirror, and things are going great guns again, and everybody wants to be there again, if ever, if ever, if you think that's going to happen in our careers. And, and, you know, I, I give me, give me, uh, an estimated number of years for each one, when you think fully back to where it was. Um, and let's go with you first, Mike, as a native new Yorker

Mike Levy: (25:15)
Look, th the, the mega trend, the 500 year trend can continue to be around urbanization and major cities in great cities like New York and San Francisco being, uh, along the coasts and in port areas. Uh, I wouldn't bet against them over a 10, 20, 30, 40 year period of time. Uh, that's not exactly the question you asked. So we're going to this as society be vaccinated by the summer, give or take, that's pretty clear whether anyone chooses to get vaccinated, it's their decision, but it will be available to us. And so arguably one would think that by the end of this year, that we will absorb, have absorbed this in our lives and be able to manage it a level to allow us to engage with one another in a city like New York has been so crushed like San Francisco because of public transportation and tall buildings and elevators and people not wanting to get close to one another.

Mike Levy: (26:04)
So that should begin to burn itself off, you know, as we go into the end of the year and people are expected to get back to work, but there will be a residual here for quite a number of years. There are people who have already taken decisions to leave. There are people who've made temporary decisions that are turning into permanent decisions. New York's mega trends around population growth had already started to turn against it prior to COVID. There were, there were forces at work prior to COVID that were not positive in terms of continued migration into the city. Um, you know, I think it's going to be 3, 4, 5 60 years, uh, before the totality of these burn off on a generation of people. And now a new group of 22 to 26 year old people come into the city who didn't have any of these experiences. I don't think it's 24 months from now, and we're back to the same population, the same economic activity, uh, and the same tax base that we had.

John Brzeski: (27:01)
Do you think Sanford, do you think San Francisco snaps back sooner then New York? Is that one of the things you're saying,

Mike Levy: (27:07)
You know, it's interesting, cause we're all biased by the seats. We sit in and I now sit in Dallas and I can't tell you the number of people from Los Angeles and San Francisco that are moving here between Dallas and Austin. And so I see a stronger tug away from California than New York right now, based upon my interaction with people and the experience that they have that are not just COVID, but that are the totality of their life experiences in these cities right now. And whether those are taxes or other like quality of life factors, uh, I've also seen quite a number if you listen to corporations across America, the most prolific corporations across America that have said my workforce will work from home and no longer need to be here. They're from San Francisco. The company's making the strongest statements that you'll never need to come back into. The officers are coming from San Francisco. So I wonder how will that take hold? Okay.

John Brzeski: (27:58)
Robin, what do you think

Robin Potts: (28:03)
I agree with, with at least a three-year timeline to see, um, kind of the convergence back to 2019 numbers across asset classes for New York and San Francisco, um, and maybe longer in certain areas, but, uh, three years seems I think a reasonable assumption. Um, the challenges with the gateway markets and New York and San Francisco in particular is that, um, COVID has shut down the international migration and international travel. And so all you're seeing right now is the domestic trends and, um, New York and San Francisco relies so heavily from a demographic perspective on that international activity. Um, you know, for a long time, if you've, if you've stripped out, um, uh, the international and migration, uh, the New York and California, uh, population growth would not have been positive. And it's that, you know, international attraction that keeps, keeps that growth positive. So this isn't, um, necessarily COVID specific in terms of the kind of domestic and migration shifting to, um, lower cost and more affordable states. Um, so once you're able to have that, uh, international movement resume that will really help support those two cities in particular. Um, and that's also why they've been hardest hit from a hospitality perspective, you're missing all of that tourism element, um, as well as the longer term, uh, movements as well.

John Brzeski: (29:44)
Okay. Let's talk about office for a minute. I know I'm neither of you as an office specialist, but, uh, many international investors, especially sovereign wealth funds and pension funds. They're attracted to class, a office central business district, and the, you know, in the top markets in the U S is there any distress buying opportunities for those types of buildings today? And, and talk about how much have values come down and give me give a range if you can, from peak values, which presumably would have been a little before the pandemic to today, any information either of you can shed on that.

Robin Potts: (30:25)
So I think, you know, um, the, the winners in terms of multifamily and industrial and life science are very clear post COVID and the losers that are having the most challenged time in terms of hospitality, the hospitality and retail are very clear and office sits in, in this middle area that people, um, it's going to take time to play out because you still have, um, the, the corporate decision makers in terms of leasing and relocation activities. A lot of those decisions have been put on hold. I mean, you've obviously seen some, uh, companies make those decisions during COVID, but for the most part, the leasing, uh, activity has been kind of short-term extensions and companies have postponed a lot of that normal decision-making for the long-term. Um, and as a result, just overall office transaction activity is, is way down. Um, you know, if you're an office owner, uh, selling right now in this, you know, strange environment obviously is something that, that most owners are looking to avoid.

Robin Potts: (31:30)
So there's not a lot of data points in terms of valuations to, you know, really answer your question. Unfortunately, I would say we've seen more movement on the office side, um, on the notes sale, uh, side. And, um, the values that we've seen be impacted from that perspective really are you're kind of class B older commodity office product. That type of office is very, very challenged, um, especially coming out of COVID. Um, there's a lot of cap ex that's needed in those buildings to address today's health and wellness standards to attract or keep tenants. Um, so the, the amount that it costs for older class B office, um, to, to, uh, essentially keep your rent roll is pretty extraordinary, um, for your newer class, a office that can actually meet the, um, you know, new technology and health and wellness and touch, you know, touchless and outdoor amenities standards that people want to see in this post COVID worlds. Um, you know, there's going to be in our view, this flight to quality from both the tenant and buyer perspective. Uh, so I think there's going to be this winner and loser segment within the office market as well, but the transaction activity hasn't transpired to really pinpoint the value impact.

John Brzeski: (32:55)
So no, there are no data points really on, on how much office values have changed. I mean, I'm sure that you could, uh, there must have been some transactions of, of, you know, large office buildings. Mike, do you have any insight into that? Look there.

Mike Levy: (33:11)
What there is in the office space. Now I'm going to repeat quite a bit. What was said is just, uh, an uncertainty. Um, look, you've seen big, w you asked the question about distress, big distress in big retail, big distress in hotels. Now there's not a lot of trades there either because the lending community is being too cooperative, but, and maybe that's a question I'll ask the Rob and later about distress, but in office it's uncertainty, right? And uncertainty paralyzes people. And unless the lenders are going to foreclose and take control, but there hasn't been massive operational distress in office, even New York city, where I believe something like only 15% of the office buildings are occupied today, people are still paying rent. And so you haven't seen that kind of distress forcing, you know, the sales and the lenders have actually been too cooperative. You've been willing to work with waiting to get to the other side.

Mike Levy: (34:01)
But when you talk to people in the office business, whether you're a buyer or seller, it is the uncertainty. What percentage of people will really work from home? How many, a days a week will they come in? How do I underwrite the future cash flows? How do I know what this thing might be worth? And as a seller, if your lender is enforcing you to sell it, you're not going to sell into that uncertainty. And as a buyer, you're careful about your capital buying into that uncertainty. And so this uncertainty has really stifled activity. One of the things that seems to be clear from a design perspective is we went through a 40 year trend to densification, right? We went from 250 square feet to 125 feet, 125 feet per, per person in an office building. My sense is this COVID is certainly going to push people a little bit further apart from one another.

Mike Levy: (34:51)
And that's going to be a lingering feeling. And then owners of office buildings, if they're not modern buildings with modern, uh, health and wellness and ceiling Heights and HVAC systems, there's going to be a real renewed focused on wellness and the office space. And how close are you to me every single day. And that could be ultimately, that's going to be a big cost to the owners of office buildings, but it could expand in some areas, the actual square footage that a given company's going to need, because they may, might not be as dense with one another, but those are all topics on design. But in terms of transaction activity, I'm not an office investor. We do develop office buildings in high growth states in Greenfield areas like Frisco, Texas, where people are moving to, but we're not acquirer of existing office buildings, but I don't see a lot of transaction flow out there right now

John Brzeski: (35:43)
That raises another question. You both invest on behalf of institutional investors, and I believe your, you need to mark to market quarterly, the value of assets that are in the portfolios that you, that you manage do either of you have data points, either from your own portfolios or elsewhere of, of asset types that have declined based on the appraisal, or have the appraisals come through close to their peak value because cap rates have compressed since, since COVID as well.

Robin Potts: (36:18)
Um, we've seen appraisal adjustments and, um, hospitality, um, and non-grocery anchored retail as a retail. You know, the grocery anchored and high credit tenant, long duration retail is, is actually a favorite asset class still, but all other types of retail, uh, definitely are reappraised downward. Um, and, you know, uh, kind of anything that has restaurant FNB, entertainment, oriented exposure, that's, uh, that's been, uh, shut down during COVID or a very low occupancy during COVID. All of those have certainly had effects, um, from an appraisal perspective. Um, but otherwise, you know, the, the, just the broad lat lack of transaction activity, um, uh, because appraisers are backward looking in terms of comparable sale data points, uh, it continues to be largely supportive. Um, for us, that's not to get reappraised significantly beyond the most hurt property types, because appraisers just don't have those new data points, uh, to comp to,

John Brzeski: (37:33)
Okay, Mike, um, if you have anything to add, go ahead. Otherwise I want to get to one other topic, and then I want to let you each ask questions of each other.

Mike Levy: (37:42)
Well, I'll, I'll try and just go a little further out of the limb. UK obviously looked up public markets and, and you can look to appraisers and private markets I'll make a generalization across the spectrum just for, for the group. It seems to me that when you're looking at these various metrics of value, it looks like the hotel industry kind of down 10 to 25%. Uh, you know, you look at these big malls and these big power centers, these big retail, these, the, these are worth less today as well, but not all retail is worth less today. Grocery-anchored shopping centers and small food and service centers have done great, right? And so retail is a dichotomy of values. You know, the office sector we talked about, it's uncertain. It's probably not a net positives, but you haven't seen much movement there. Multi-families done great. I know there are headlines out there that people aren't paying rent, but the truth of matter is in class a in high-quality multi-family throughout the United States, people nesting in their homes and they're paying rent and rent is going up and multi-family is more attractive today than it was. Cap rates are lower and industrial is on fire and worth more. And so this valuation spectrum, the impact here has been, there's been winners and losers from evaluation perspective. And that's how I see it based upon appraisals and private market pundents and public market forecasters and, and transactions that are taking place today.

John Brzeski: (39:02)
Okay. I want to switch gears. We've got probably a little less than 10 minutes to go and ask a different type of question. Many of the people in our audience are in a position of placing capital with sponsors, either fund managers or individual transaction sponsors that are raising LP capital. And I want to see if you could each give them some advice, maybe even ideally, based on mistakes that you've experienced in your career, that, you know, the, the worst transactions you've been involved with, what would you tell our audience that, that they should not do or avoid that maybe so they could save them some trouble that you experienced through each of your extensive careers in real estate when they're making investments with real estate sponsors of any time, whether it be a fund manager or a, um, or someone that's buying a specific property and is raising capital for that project, any, any learnings that you can share and maybe, uh, whoever chooses, uh, whoever's got something to say first, please go ahead.

Robin Potts: (40:08)
Um, I guess I'll jump in first. Uh, so, you know, when investing with the fund manager, um, I think one of the things that, that a lot of investors may have learned over the last year is that, um, you know, that fund managers existence and experience across multiple cycles really does matter. Um, you've seen, you know, over the last 10 years, just a proliferation of new funds and new managers, uh, that didn't have experience managing portfolios through the great financial crisis. Um, and a lot of those new funds and new managers, uh, didn't necessarily have a fully built out asset management team to deal with the very unusual types of challenges that COVID is thrown at all of us. Um, and may not have, uh, you know, we've seen firsthand a lot of funds who didn't structure their leverage in a way that, um, could withstand shocks to the system and, um, uh, you know, ciao deep challenges within the portfolio. Um, so, you know, my, my advice would, would really be to dig into the track record and understand how, um, a manager has performed at different challenging points in time. And, uh, there should be lessons learned. There will be deals that have lost money if you've invested through multiple cycles, um, and making sure that you have a manager who, um, has actually incorporated best practices based on those lessons learned, I think is just incredibly impressive.

Robin Potts: (41:44)
Um,

Mike Levy: (41:45)
Look as any asset class, there are many ways to invest in real estate and, and, and, and different funds and sponsors out there looking for lower risk, low return strategies, higher, higher risk, higher return strategies. But within all that, if I had to boil down to one thing over cycles, and over time, it's leverage, it's fundamentally our ability where private illiquid asset class, no one can guess economic trends or capital market cycles with any degree of specificity, make sure that you financed your property in a way that if you get that incredibly wrong, that there's no scenario where you can't get to the other side of that economic cycle. It is fundamentally leverage that will destroy your returns more than anything else. Uh, and that's something to be incredibly careful of and make sure that your sponsor manager is really capitalizing their investments in a way that if they're wrong in terms of their exit, and they need to hold this through a cycle or through a period of time that they'll be able to do that, whether it's the underlying leverage of the real estate or the capital reserves necessary to protect, protect, and preserve that asset during a period of financial market distress.

John Brzeski: (42:53)
Okay. Mike, why don't we go to your question for Robin?

Mike Levy: (42:58)
So when COVID first broke, there was a huge amount of activity and energy around raising large pools of capital to pursue distress in real estate, let alone the tens hundreds of billions of dollars. It's already on the sidelines from existing market participants, but there was all sorts of folks out there raising large funds to pursue it. What's going on in the pursuit of distressed real estate today. What is the reality of the capital being, being, being put to work in, in any of these distress real estate areas?

Robin Potts: (43:32)
Um, so I think a lot of, a lot of the capital that was raised initially post COVID, um, uh, was best suited if it was able to take advantage actually of distressed in the public markets where, you know, things are liquid and could actually transact a distressed prices, um, within the private real estate markets. Um, there definitely has been, uh, I think less distressed volume than investors were anticipating because of the dynamics that we discussed originally, where, um, lenders have been forbearing and modifying and extending, um, uh, to the extent possible with their borrowers, uh, to, to provide a lifeline. Um, but it, you know, it will unravel it's, it's just a matter of time. Um, and there have been situations to, uh, to pick off over the last 12 months. And I think that as the, the, uh, economy reopens, you'll get to the point on a number of assets where the borrowers just, or the owners just aren't able, uh, to continue to fund the operating deficits, uh, given that this has gone on for so long. And so it will just take time for the distress to work through the system. Um, but ultimately, uh, from a volume perspective, we are not expecting it to be as large as, uh, what everyone saw on the great financial crisis where essentially, uh, parties on multiple sides of a transaction were forcing that sale. And, uh, in many cases that that's not happening today.

Robin Potts: (45:11)
Thank you.

John Brzeski: (45:12)
All right. And Robin, your question for Mike.

Robin Potts: (45:16)
So, you know, we've seen, uh, cap rates on a multi-family and industrial over the last 12 months, tighten up to 50 basis points in certain markets, um, given that, you know, incredible pricing dynamic, are you a buyer or seller today and multifamily and industrial?

Mike Levy: (45:37)
So we're where for the most part, whether it's as an investor, as a developer, we're in the manufacturing business right now, or those asset classes is what I would say. Um, the opportunity for us to, as we look at the marketplace, we think, uh, cap rates are a component, but, but it's fundamental rental growth and rental demand is what we see. It's the operating fundamentals behind those asset classes. That that is what is attracting us. And those operating fundamentals, uh, seem to be screaming for more supply. You know, America is under house by millions of housing units, right? It's not all going to be met in single family homes. A lot of it's going to be met in apartments. Uh e-commerce and other forces are at work. And so this fundamental demand, uh, has, is putting us in a position that we see the opportunity is creating new properties, you know, for this underlying demand.

Mike Levy: (46:28)
And as we build on some of them, we do hold for long periods of time because that's the investment strategy for ourselves and our partners we're looking to build to core. Um, and when we develop these properties, we can develop them at, you know, 100 to 200 basis point yield on cost differentials to the current cap rate environment. And, and, or we'll sell at that point in time to someone who wants to own a core piece of real estate at those attractive cap rates. And we'll realize the profits at that moment in time from taking that risk and that work of building these buildings.

John Brzeski: (47:03)
Okay. So we're down to our last question and I'm going to make it a hybrid. So I'd like for you to share anything that you think might be valuable to the audience, um, if you have anything like that and, or answer my last question, namely interest rates and inflation, obviously, um, those two things both affect real estate investment decisions. And I'd like to know what your internal assumptions are today about both interest rates and inflation. When you underwrite, when you discuss investment strategy, what are you, what are you internally talking about with respect to both those things? So why don't we go to Mike and then let's end with Robin.

Mike Levy: (47:48)
So on the one hand, I've spent my entire career now from the very beginning that interest rates were on their way up, uh, then inflation was on its way up and I've spent my entire career now watching the exact opposite thing happen and the smartest people in the world from the most well-heeled institutions consistently telling the marketplace that it was going up tomorrow. And so now the question is we go to the COVID and we wind up with a 0.7, 10 year bond. The answer is, it must go north from here and there's in the marketplace in the past week or two, there's been inflation concerns out there, the ability for any of us to guess the future with respect to interest rates and inflation is a bit of a fool's errand. And so the question is when, you know, you don't know, right, how do you run your business?

Mike Levy: (48:30)
And so fundamentally we, we generally are from a modeling perspective, making some increase in interest rates on a forward curve. Uh, we're looking at exit cap rates that are slightly, uh, greater than the entry cap rates in the, in the, in the investments that we have. Uh, but we are not looking at a scenario of runaway inflation, uh, in our investment period over the next three to five years. And we would expect an inflation environment to be consistent with what it has been in the, in the very, very low single digits. That is how we're running our business at this moment in time, not withstanding all of the anxiety, given all of this money that is being pumped into our system today, uh, and the longterm implications that may happen.

Robin Potts: (49:16)
I think it's a really interesting, uh, backdrop economically for commercial real estate. You know, you have, um, the recent stimulus package hitting this quarter quarter of, you know, 900 billion, which just as an unprecedented enormous amount of stimulus being pumped into the economy. Um, and then you have on top of that, you know, the new administration's, uh, proposal that's multiples of that, uh, potentially also hitting this year. Uh, so you have just this tremendous amount of stimulus, which gives kind of a backdrop of inflation. Um, while at the same time, uh, the fed has been very clear from a monetary policy perspective that we're in a continued low interest rate environment for the meaningful future. Um, so that is just a broadly favorable backdrop for commercial real estate. Um, and, uh, you know, all of this, uh, underlying support, uh, between interest rates and stimulus, um, I think sets us up very well for an interesting recovery across, you know, multiple asset classes within real estate. Um, so we're, you know, we're pretty excited about, uh, leaning into those asset classes and markets that are going to benefit the most from that dynamic

Mike Levy: (50:42)
Yon. I think for the audience as well, inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing for the real estate industry. You know, we should, we should step back. And first of all, cap rates are not a hundred percent correlated with interest rates at all. Second thing is real assets and hard assets seems to do generally well and inflation of periods of time. And there are some asset classes like multifamily that rent to reset literally every day and taking advantage of that inflation environment. The hotel business rents are reset every day. So maybe if you have a 20 year fixed bondable lease with no, uh, with no bumps on an annual basis or CPI bumps that works more like a fixed income instrument. And that's physical building may be disadvantaged during an inflationary period of time, but a lot of real estate will do well in an inflationary period of time. And so it's not all bad

John Brzeski: (51:32)
Well said. I want to thank Robin pots from canyon, Mike Levy, from Crow holdings, uh, John Darcie and salt organization. And then I want to thank our audience as well for joining us for this conversation today. Thank you very much.

Robin Potts: (51:49)
And thank you everybody who tuned into today's salt talk with Robin Potts and Michael Levy hosted by our friend Yon. Brzeski just a reminder. If you missed any part of today's talk or any of our previous talks, you can access our entire archive and sign up for all future salt talks on our website@salt.org backslash talks. You can also watch all these episodes on our YouTube channel and you can become a subscriber there. Uh, it's called salt tube. We're also on social media. We're most active on Twitter at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook. And please spread the word about these salt talks. We love growing our community and on behalf of the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off for today. We hope to see you back here soon again on salt talks.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez: How Can I Help? | SALT Talks #175

“Miami has an incredible opportunity to be the knowledge capital and monetary capital of the world and that’s something that’s happening because of a confluence of factors that’s turning this from Miami moment to a Miami movement.”

Francis Suarez serves as the mayor of Miami and also vice chair of the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization. His father, Xavier Suarez, was also mayor of Miami, making them the city’s first father and son to hold the office.

The meteoric rise of Miami is based on a three-pronged approach: low taxes, safety and quality of life. This approach has seen a massive migration of people and capital into the south Florida metropolis. The increase in remote-work has meant more people can work from anywhere, and many of them are choosing Miami. Leading on the integration and development of Bitcoin-friendly business ecosystems has Miami poised to be a leader in innovation. “I’ve been following Bitcoin and the blockchain for a while… If we want to be an innovative city, we have to be on the cutting edge of technology.”

The COVID pandemic presented many challenges to leaders, especially because the issues around handling the deadly disease became hyper-partisan. Mayors have seen their profiles rise because they are required to deliver practical real-world solutions. “Mayors see the world differently… We don’t care much about where [a problem] originated or how it originated or who’s to blame. I don’t have the luxury of making things partisan.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Francis X. Suarez.jpeg

Francis Suarez

43rd Mayor of Miami

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Saul talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salts talks the same as our goal at our salt conference series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome a guest that covers all those three pillars of salt finance technology, and public policy, maybe more so than anybody in the country right now. And that's the mayor of the city of Miami Francis X Suarez, uh, mayor Suarez serves as the mayor of the city of Miami.

John Darcie: (00:55)
He also currently serves as the vice chair of the Miami Dade transportation planning organization tasked with approving federally required plans and transportation policies. And as president of the Miami Dade county league of cities, he's the oldest of four siblings. Mayor Suarez was born into a family where, as he describes it, being socially conscious was sort of a requirement. Uh, mayor Suarez is focusing on transportation and connectivity issues within the city and beyond nurturing the growth of tech based economies in the area and by extension job creation and international opportunities within Latin America. And if you've been on Twitter or follow the news recently, you can, uh, you know, about all the migration that's taking place from places like Silicon valley in New York and elsewhere, uh, into Miami right now, Miami is absolutely on fire, but his priorities also still include affordable housing, tackling the poverty pandemic and reducing crime locally.

John Darcie: (01:46)
Uh he's he graduated from Florida international university where he majored in finance and graduated in the top 10% of his class. He graduated loudly from the university of Florida, Frederick G 11 college of law. And prior to running for public office, mayor Suarez founded a successful real estate firm. He's also a practicing attorney with the law firm of Carlton fields, specializing in real estate and corporate transactions and hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt. We don't have an office in Miami yet mayor, but I don't know that that's very far away. We have an office up in Palm beach gardens. We love spending our time down in Florida, but with, without any further

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:27)
Miami, yet that's not properly. We're going to have an office in Miami and we're looking and

Francis Suarez: (02:31)
I kind of break it to you. But Palm beach gardens is Miami because when you go to Europe, you don't say I live in Palm beach gardens. You say, I live in Miami. So everything is my aunt. There

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:40)
You go. That's like my kids. I tell them, even though the mother was a Irish, they're 100% Italian mayor Suarez. So just saying, that's how it works. So well, first of all, God bless you on everything. And I definitely wanted John to read that introduction because it is incredibly impressive and you building an amazing career in public service, but also you're a great American, but what ignited this public service passion in you?

Francis Suarez: (03:08)
Well, I mean, in my case, uh, my dad who, uh, was the first Cuban born mayor of Miami, who was, uh, elected mayor in 1985, but he's, uh, an immigrant to this country as is my mom both exiles from a communist Cuba in the 1960s. My dad was a ninth of 14 kids. He came to this country with nothing. Um, God was blessed to get scholarships, went to the best schools in the country and then ran for office multiple times before he was elected. He had to build up his name recognition for zero. Um, and I was fortunate enough to see him, uh, be mayor from 1985 to 1993 for three years. Um, and he was a very dynamic mayor. Uh, ironically, he was actually 36 when he became mayor. I was 40 when I became mayor. So we're the first father and son mayor. He was the second youngest mayor in the history of Miami. I was a third youngest, but often tell him that, uh, when you were 36, you look like you're 40 and I'm 40. And it looked like I was 36. So, um, you know, that's, that's the difference there, but, uh,

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:09)
Mayor I'm 75. So I guess if you need my dermatologist, I can tell you, but you don't right now, you look great. So I wouldn't do a thing, but someday you're going to need my dermatologist. I'm going to refer it out. So let let's talk a little bit about what is happening to your amazing city. You have the introduction of further introduction of venture capitalists, hedge fund managers, financial professionals are migrating out of places like San Francisco and New York. It's not just pandemic related. It was happening before the pandemic. Sure. Talk to us about your, the vision that you have for the city, because it's an interesting one. You want it to be a home for entrepreneurs, but you also want it to be a place where there's affordable housing and there's aspirational living standards for a middle and lower income people. Tell us about that vision.

Francis Suarez: (04:57)
No doubt. And for me, I think that's really the American dream. I mean, that's what we all grew up with, right? Everybody having the dream of owning a house with a picket white, you know, white picket fence. And obviously that that narrative has changed in terms of urban America. But the truth is that our formula for success is very simple. The first thing is we've kept taxes low. We don't have an income tax. We don't have a state income tax. We've reduced property taxes. The only tax that we charge to the second lowest level in the last six years. Um, so one of the things is we want our residents to keep the maximum amount of their money so that they can invest in the things that are going to create high paying jobs in our community. Secondly, we want to create the safest city in America.

Francis Suarez: (05:36)
Um, at least the safest big city in America and for us, while other cities have defunded police, we've actually increased funding and police. We have the most police officers who've ever had in our history. We reduce crime by 25% last year, we had the lowest homicide rate since 1954, the year before. So we're excited about delivering on that promise because we're seeing that other cities are not getting a right and, and other countries frankly, are not getting it right. We get a lot of people from Brazil and other parts of the world, uh, that are fleeing, uh, places where they don't feel safe. And so for us, that's important. The third thing is we're focusing on quality of life. We realize the fundamental truth that you don't get to live yesterday again. Um, once yesterday happens, it's over. So, you know, everybody now in today's modern day economy wants to live in the best place possible.

Francis Suarez: (06:22)
This is not a virtual background. That is not a virtual crane. That is a legitimate crane. Those are legitimate Palm trees is a beautiful place. Uh, but we also focus on having the buffet of, of, of offerings, right? Whether it be sports or culture, we're not negotiating with an MLS team to bring MLS to Miami. We're also going to be one of two cities in America was formula one racing. We have obviously all the major sports teams. Um, we have a performing arts center. We have a science museum. Uh, we have, uh, uh, an art museum. Uh, we have, uh, one of the large largest art festivals in the world, in our Basel and some of the best private collections in the world as well in terms of private galleries. So, you know, Miami has really matured over the last 10 years. And now I think we have an incredible opportunity that we've really been working on for 10 years, uh, to be the knowledge capital and the monetary capital of the world. And that's something that is happening because of a confluence of factors that are making this a Miami moment into a Miami movement.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:21)
Suarez. I want to ask you a philosophical question that is weighing on my mind, uh, places like New York and San Francisco, the executive management teams of those governments, those administrations have been combative with business have been obstructionist to business, but have also decided that it's okay to have a proliferation of homeless people and human excrement, frankly, right there on the street. What are, why are they like that? I mean, you, you must be studying this as a public servant. Why are they like that? Why do they think that that's good? And what would the message be? What they're getting wrong and what's your philosophy. So start out with what they're getting wrong and then what you're getting. Right. So,

Francis Suarez: (08:03)
So part of my narrative, right, is that my parents were Cuban exiles, right? And so my parents came from a place, a country where a charismatic leader, um, sold them, probably the biggest prod in the history of humanity, which is that we, as a government can just take over everybody's property, right? And we can deny everybody that, you know, fundamental human rights and we'll just divide the property equally and everybody will be equal, right? And that doesn't work. It's never worked in the history of humanity. All it does is create equal misery. And I think unfortunately there is this false notion that, um, wealth or what creation, uh, is, will cause us societal problems. And I think in so many cities, there is an antagonism towards people being successful towards working hard, instead of embracing the fact that you want to, or lift people out of poverty, you want to give people right.

Francis Suarez: (08:55)
And that happens through creating high paying jobs in the creating the educational pipeline that allows people, whether they're in high school, college, or, or out of college, uh, to be able to occupy those jobs, that's our philosophy. Um, and, and, and what we're seeing in terms of results is, you know, while so many cities have, you know, 30,000, 40,000 homeless, how many homeless, the city of Miami have, according to the last sentence, 555, okay. 555. And we're actually coming out with a plan hopefully soon, which we call functional zero, which is we want to end up being the first city in America, the first major urban city in America that has zero homeless. Um, and that's something that we're focusing on. Um, like I said, we've reduced crime by 25%. Um, we've invested in our police department, they've gone in the opposite direction. And I think, um, they really need to understand that, um, people can, I mean, in today's day and age, they're not even tethered.

Francis Suarez: (09:46)
People are not tethered to their city with remote work, with all the stuff that we're doing right now. I mean, right now we're on zoom and doing this interview. Um, there are more offerings and options than people have ever had in the history of humanity. And all they have to do is meet and that's it. And now places like Miami that'd before were kind of seen as a fun and fun place and place where you can retire are now seen as a, as a real player in the knowledge based economy and the innovation economy. And, and my role is not just to attract those people and to juxtapose the F Elon Musk. And let's push Amazon out of, out of New York with a, how can I help? Which is, which was my viral tweet in response to, uh, DeLeon from founders fund saying, Hey, what if we move a Silicon valley to Miami? Right. I just said, you know, uh, how can I help? That's it, it was that simple, uh, government as a facilitator, uh, versus like you said, government as an obstructor.

Anthony Scaramucci: (10:39)
Well, I think the tagline, how can I help is going to be a, it's going to be with us a long time mayor Suarez, because of you want to talk about the decisions being made around, COVID-19 get your reaction to those decisions. Uh, uh, governor DeSantis has had a different philosophy say than, uh, uh, the governors of California and New York. How do you feel about the COVID-19 situation? I know that you went through COVID and your family did as well. Thank God that you're well, you look, you look well, thank God. Um, what, what, what do you, what do you say about the philosophy and about the intersection of an open economy and the restoration of the economy, but also being worried about the health and safety of your citizens?

Francis Suarez: (11:24)
Look, it's there. There's no doubt that, um, you know, COVID presented it and tremendous challenge for leaders across the country. I think the problem was that it became hyper-partisan number one, I think number two, there was a false narrative and the false narrative was that you either cared about people's lives, or you cared about the economy and that's not true. I mean, all public officials should care about both things, right? You should care about doing the maximum amount that you can to protect people while at the same time, preserving people's ability to, to, uh, to provide for their families. Because let me tell you something, getting sick and passing away is a tragedy, but not being able to feed your family, not being able to pay your rent, not being able to pay your mortgage is a tremendous tragedy as well. You know, these are, these are, you know, the degrees of suffering that we should never, as leaders have to confront in terms of a juxtaposition.

Francis Suarez: (12:16)
And, you know, the governor took a lot of heat, uh, for some of the decisions that he made. But at the end of the day, there's two things that I think are true. Number one, it's inevitable that it helped Miami that's for sure, in terms of, you know, the fact that we were open with a lot of these cities were closed. We became an option, right. Where people came and they realized, Hey, wait a second. Things are not that bad here. Right. Um, you know, we had, I think, less per capita deaths than some of the states that you site. Um, and, and then, and then the second part is that, uh, you know, now with remote work, uh, you realize that you could come to a different place and you wouldn't even lose your job. You could be physically anywhere you want it to be without even losing your job. And when they, when people came to Miami, they realized that the density of talent, the density of capital was significantly greater than what they thought. And they also realized that Miami had changed. I mean, Miami has, is a radically different city than it was 10 years ago. It's a radically different city than it was 10 years before that. Um, and we're one of those cities that's just on like the, like the crane behind us. We're on one of those, uh, exponential growth curves.

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:17)
Yeah. W we want the crane to be going the other way for purposes of our zoom call. We've got to go on up in this direction. And I, but I hear what you're saying. If I looked at your Wikipedia page, it says you're a Republican. Um, my Republican party seems like it's, uh, re identifying itself. And so are you a Republican, uh, in terms of the way the Republican party is now reidentifying itself. Um, and then the secondary question is you seem to be a leader that's more focused on right. Or wrong as opposed to left, or, right. So what is your recommendations? Assuming you're still a Republican, what's the recommendations to the GOP,

Francis Suarez: (13:56)
So I'm still registered Republican. Um, and I, I do think that, and I'm going to give you a quote from a friend who's a mayor, uh, was actually a Democrat, um, uh, the mayor of, of, uh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, bill Peduto. And he wants to, you know, in America, Mr. Mayor, there's three parties, there's Republicans, there's Democrats, and there's mayors, you know, and, and, you know, I think, I think there's some truth to that, you know, may or see the world differently. We're kind of like engineers, you know, we see the world as problem solution, problem solution. We don't really care that much about where it originated or how it originated or who's to blame for it, or, or what party has, you know, the, the, the, the solution, all we care about is solving the problem. So when there's flooding, I have to solve that when, you know, when there's a civil disturbances, I have to be in the forefront of that.

Francis Suarez: (14:47)
We don't, I don't have the luxury of being able to, you know, make things partisan. And so I think, you know, one of the reasons why in this presidential election and the previous one, you saw mayors, uh, starting to ascend in, in sort of the, uh, in the, in the political spectrum of potential presidential candidates is in part, because we do think we do things differently. We see things differently, we talk differently. And I think that, uh, it really appeals to people because it's not about, um, you know, it's not life lived through a, a binary prism, right? It's life lived through, through a problem solution prism. And I think that, like you said, it's more of a true false narrative. And I think that, that, that cuts through, and that's why I'm able to go on a variety of different shows and people know me as a straight talker. And sometimes I wrote people the wrong way, by the way. And, and I don't do it intentionally, just probably not

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:39)
Beyond me. I don't know. I don't, I've never rubbed anybody the wrong way. I mean, you'll find that about my person. I'm a very easy going guy, not polarizing at all. Uh, so I, I've never, I, I wouldn't understand how you could rub anybody the wrong way. Uh, let's talk about Bitcoin for a second. Mayor Suarez. Uh, you are a revolutionary when it comes to Bitcoin or an evolutionist, I should say. And obviously you probably know this, but it's worth noting SkyBridge capital. Our firm, the firm that I founded has over a half a billion dollars in Bitcoin, I have attended the Miami Bitcoin conferences in the past. I will be one of the keynote speakers in June at the upcoming Bitcoin Miami conference. Tell us about your and the city's fascination with Bitcoin. And why are you so gung ho

Francis Suarez: (16:24)
You know, I've been following Bitcoin and the blockchain for awhile. I, um, uh, was part of a team that tried to do the first tokenized transaction of real estate in Miami. Um, I'm on the block, Florida blockchain foundation, and I was on, uh, and I am on the Ford of blockchain task force appointed by the CFO of Florida. So all that work predates, uh, my latest positions on Bitcoin when I, when I, um, began talking about tech at this bogging level, right, and, and was getting national attention about it, I very quickly realized that there was a subpopulation of people in the crypto community space that were extremely positive, that were paying attention, um, that were very bullish on the technology. And it, it made me realize that if we want to be an innovative city, we have to be on the cutting edge with new technologies.

Francis Suarez: (17:13)
And so what I did was I presented to the city commission, a resolution, which did three things. One, it allow for employees to get PR to get paid a percentage of their salary in Bitcoin, if they so choose it, it allowed for our residents to get paid, uh, to I'm sorry to pay, uh, fees and taxes potentially in Bitcoin, if they so choose. And it allowed us to study the possibility of investing a portion of our treasury as a hedge in Bitcoin. Um, so, you know, for me, I think that creates a narrative about the city of Miami, that we are innovative, and we want to push the envelope that we believe that, um, you know what I mean, that we don't always have to be playing by the, the normal set of rules. And I think that's, that's getting us out of Godness. A lot of attention.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:00)
I've got one last question for him here. Then I have to turn it over to our resident millennial with the good blonde hair, and we're trying to get the ratings up here. So, you know, my last question is about public school education in Miami, in your jurisdiction, you, you have, uh, no state income tax property taxes in Miami are, I would qualify them as reasonable. You tell me if I'm wrong, but they look reasonable on a per capita per resident basis. Sure. So tell me about what you're doing in the public school area. That's yielding such high quality public schools, uh, given that dynamic. Sure.

Francis Suarez: (18:40)
Well, first of all, we have a great superintendent, our superintendent, one superintendent of the year, uh, he was actually tried to be hired by, uh, the city of New York. Um, and that didn't quite work out for New York.

Anthony Scaramucci: (18:51)
There's no, there's no Palm trees up here in New York, kind

Francis Suarez: (18:54)
Of, he kind of left them at the alter, but, uh, but, but it's all good. And, uh, and so, and we also won the Brode prize for the best school system in the nation as well. Um, we have the fourth largest public school system in America. And, you know, we were just, uh, a community of entrepreneurial people of, of, of, of people who put a premium on education of parents who put a premium on our children being educated, because that's how we were all successful. So we're still working by the way, with the public school system on making sure that our K through 12 curriculum is the best curriculum from modern day economy for an innovation economy, a knowledge based economy. And so we want to make sure that coding robotics, uh, you know, all the things, uh, data analysis and science are all being taught at our, at our schools. And it's something we're very intentional about because as I said, as we create this ecosystem, we want to make sure that, uh, the children of our, every single child in our community has an opportunity to be successful. And to occupy one of those jobs,

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:50)
John Dorsey, mayor Suarez,

John Darcie: (19:52)
All right, I've been chomping at the bit, get right into it. Uh, mayor you're also, as I read in the bio, the vice chair of the Miami Dade transportation planning organization, uh, you've led several initiatives to improve mobility in Miami. It's a city that's grown very quickly, but also, uh, you know, maintain the ability to get around without being stuck in traffic for, uh, five hours the way it is in some cities and Austin being another destination that I think people are leaving Silicon valley and moving there that that's suffering from rapid growth. How have you been able to do that, uh, from a transportation mobility perspective, you recently toured Elon Musk's tunnels, uh, for the boarding company. What innovative ways are you thinking about in Miami, uh, to, to improve quality of life by maintaining that level of mobility?

Francis Suarez: (20:37)
Every single one, uh, you know, we start with, uh, we're building in our transit nodes. So instead of trying to figure out how to make transit, go to the people we bring to the transit that already exists. And it's shockingly simple idea, right? As you actually build buildings where there's transit station, which is called transit oriented development, we've been doing that very successfully in the city for the last five years. Um, we're creating, uh, neighborhoods that are self-contained. So we're doing it sort of around the concept of a 15 minute walkable city where every neighborhood has every, all the amenities that you would want to have that you could walk to. Also, you don't need to use a car. Obviously there are macro innovations like micro mobility, which is we have a scooter, a scooter program. We have a free trolley system, um, in the city.

Francis Suarez: (21:21)
And we also have a variety of different, uh, you know, we have a bus system, we have a Metro rail system. I mean, those are the things that all major cities, uh, presumably have, but I think the last thing is we are getting a foothold because we want to be a technological enforcement city in transportation technology. So like you talked about it, we're touring, uh, um, you know, the boring company, actually, their representatives are coming tomorrow, uh, to Miami, uh, to, to, to look at some of the engineering specs on some of our potential projects, uh, where I'm actually going. Uh, it was actually the poor Lauderdale mayor that I sent up, uh, to, uh, to, to Las Vegas I'm actually going on the 18th. So I'm going up to see their, their tunnels up there. Um, we're also looking at, um, you know, urban air mobility, which is another big, uh, uh, potential technological way of getting people across the city.

John Darcie: (22:09)
What about climate change for a second? Obviously, a lot of people are moving down to Miami, first of all, they haven't experienced maybe a Miami summer. So we'll see how they deal with that. Although I think it's perfectly manageable. Um, but also climate change is something that's top of mind for people we've seen increasing, uh, prevalence of hurricanes that have devastated different areas of the country. And in Puerto Rico, we haven't seen any, you know, real direct hits on Miami that have, that have incurred massive damage. But how are you thinking about adapting the city to a world where we're going to have a rising sea level, uh, and increasing preponderance of hurricane,

Francis Suarez: (22:43)
Uh, in a few different ways, first of all, um, you know, most people don't know some of the facts, which is that New York has actually suffered more damage from hurricanes in Miami, has in the last 10 years. That's just something that people don't often know. Um, but the second thing is Miami is the most wind resilience. Again, the planet, this building that I'm in right now is a Pan-Am seaplane hangar from the 1950s. And this building has hurricane windows that ain't coming down. No, sir, that's, that's retrofitted. So we're, we're the most, we're already the most wind resilient city on the planet. There is no doubt that we are hardened for, uh, 200 mile per hour or teens plus, which by the way, are far less dangerous than of course wildfires and earthquakes that you can't predict. Right? But in the case of, uh, of us, we have invested in resiliency.

Francis Suarez: (23:30)
We have a program called Miami forever, and it is what it, what it says, right? Which is we have a 200 million residential package, uh, rising seawalls, urban reservoirs, uh, pump systems, uh, you know, backflow preventers, a variety of, uh, engineering techniques that we have implemented to adapt to climate change. We're also getting in the mitigation game, we have a, a carbon neutrality plan that we're going to unveil on earth day. This year, I'm on a global council and adaptation, the only mayor in the United States, only one of two mayors in the world. That's on that council. I'm the vice chair of our council. And, uh, and I was the chair of the environment committee for the us conference of mayors. And I'm going to be now in January, the president of us conference of mayors. So I'm gonna be the president of all the mayors in United States. So that's a huge honor for me. It gives me a tremendous platform to talk about these important issues.

John Darcie: (24:20)
So SoftBank, I saw a tweet recently from Marcello Claure. He said they, they invested a hundred million dollars or pledged to invest a hundred million dollars into the Miami tech ecosystem. There's a lot more, uh, ammunition coming behind that what's the impact of large asset allocators like a SoftBank coming in. I know a group out of Dubai also pledged a several hundred thousand Bitcoins or tens of thousands of Bitcoins also to cultivate Miami as a, as a digital assets hub as Anthony referred to. But what is that doing to the local tech ecosystem? What type of founders and people are you seeing gravitate to Miami as a result of, you know, greater capital,

Francis Suarez: (24:59)
Every everybody, I mean, there's something anybody isn't coming. I mean, you know, like you said, Marcello, uh, uh, SoftBank already had a presence here, but they, they initiated this a hundred million dollar Miami initiative, uh, to, uh, sponsor companies that are coming here and, or already, uh, that are founded here already. We're coming here. Um, you have Blackstone, you have Starwood Connie capital. Um, you know, you have, uh, Microsoft, uh, the list really goes on and on, uh, Keith we're, blah, Peter teal. Um, I mean, it's just, it's just a non-stop flow of people that are coming here. Uh, Orlando Bravo from Thoma Bravo, it's a $70 billion fund. Um, the amount of capital that is coming to Miami from both different places, um, is unprecedented. And what's interesting about it is that nowhere in the world, in the history of the world, right, has the confluence of investment banks, banking, hedge funds, private equity, come to combine with VCs, you know, and founders that's never happened. So their business models are completely different and they don't interact because they're in different parts of the U S they're both coming here, which is going to create a pool of capital that has never been deployed in the way that it's going to be deployed in Miami in the future.

John Darcie: (26:13)
Last question. So back into politics for a minute, but it's really not a question about politics. So again, I wouldn't have known whether you were a Republican or a Democrat, and unless I read your bio, right, I don't, I don't think you come across as being parsed in, in any way. How do we take that mentality, taking the quote that you offer from the Pittsburgh mayor about the fact that we have Republicans, Democrats and mayors, why don't we, how do we get to the point where we have Republicans, Democrats, and presidents or leaders at the federal level that think in terms of sense and pragmatism, as opposed to partisanship,

Francis Suarez: (26:46)
We've got to start electing people like me. I mean, I think, I think, I think at the end of the day, really we have to, as voters, our criteria has to change, right. Rather than having somebody who, um, speaks only to a certain audience, right? I think when you think about trends, you know, a transformational years or meters or leaders that transcend time, they're the kind of leaders that can speak to anyone. I mean, when I think of Ronald Reagan, when I was young, when Ronald Reagan spoke, everybody listened to it didn't matter whether you were public and whether you were independent, whether you were Democrat, when he spoke his command, his presence, the way he articulated things, the words he chose, obviously you had an amazing speech writer and Peggy Noonan, but, you know, I mean, you had somebody that can talk to me, anybody. It didn't matter what you wore.

Francis Suarez: (27:34)
There wasn't even a competition because it wasn't about party. It was about America. It was about American exceptionalism. It was about, you know, this being the most important, uh, freedom, loving, uh, country in the world and understanding what our values are. I think we get back to our values and we get back to debates about how to solve problems, as opposed to, you know, the Republicans feel this way about one thing, and the Democrats feel this way about another thing, or this is a Republican issue or a democratic issue, which is kind of silly. You know what I mean? Especially when you think of the important things like climate change and, and some of the things that we've talked about in this show, um, they're not partisan issue. They're really about a problem that we have to solve.

John Darcie: (28:14)
Amen brother. Well, thanks so much for joining us, Anthony. Uh, we're going to let the mayor go here, but just want to give you a chance to just want to, I just

Anthony Scaramucci: (28:20)
Want to say thank you, mayor. We're, we're, uh, we're doing these live events at some point again, we'd love to have you at one of them so that you can expose, uh, I'm afraid to invite you to New York city though, because I still live here. I'm afraid you're gonna suck the whole city out of here. You know, I don't know. You're totally capable of doing it, but anyway, congratulations on everything that you're doing, sir. Uh, we're so grateful as citizens of the United States and friends of Miami to have you in public service. And we appreciate your time here today on smalltalk. Thank you so much, likewise. Okay. Be well Francis. Thank you. Bye-bye terrific. Thank you ma'am

John Darcie: (28:59)
And thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk with mayor Francis X Suarez of the city of Miami, uh, which is going through a moment. But as, as the mayor said, they're trying to turn that into a long-term movement. And I wouldn't bet against them being successful in that endeavor. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this salt talk or any of our previous salt talks, you can access our entire archive on salt.org, our website backslash talks, uh, and you can also sign up for all of our future talks there as well. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel. All of our episodes are there for free for you to view it's called salt too. We have a growing subscribership there, and we appreciate everybody engaging on our videos on our YouTube channel. We're also on social media. We're most on Twitter at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook, and are doing more and more each one of those outlets. So please follow us there and please spread the word about these salt talks, but on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Dan Held: Bitcoin’s Market Cycles | SALT Talks #174

“Bitcoin is a great antidote to bad central banking policy. In this world where literally trillions are being printed weekly, Bitcoin shines out as this great way to store value.”

Dan Held is works as Growth Lead at Kraken Digital Asset Exchange. Held has built some of the most popular crypto products like Interchange (acquired by Kraken), ChangeTip (acquired by AirBnB) and ZeroBlock (acquired by Blockchain.com).

The COVID pandemic and the resulting government spending has woken up more people to concerns about inflationary central bank policy. The 2013 and 2017 Bitcoin runs were part of bull markets and suffered pullbacks in a speculative cycle. Bitcoin is set to enter a Super Cycle where it exists within its own local market, especially as it gains broad acceptance. “I call it the Super Cycle because we could see a more intense bull run as the whole world wakes up to Bitcoin’s value prop. Bitcoin’s total addressable market should place its per Bitcoin value at $1M to $10M.”

There have been major inflection points in Bitcoin’s evolution. The latest example is corporate treasuries’ buying of Bitcoin, ultimately creating stability for the crypto asset and moving it towards the mainstream. “To see Tesla buy Bitcoin really put Bitcoin on the map. I did not expect Bitcoin to be bought by treasuries this soon… this was a pivotal moment where people accepted Bitcoin as this mainstream idea.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dan Held.jpeg

Dan Held

Growth Lead

Kraken

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:01)


John Darcie: (00:07)
Everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on the salt talk is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we don't think there's any bigger idea right now, whether it be in the world of finance or elsewhere than digital assets. And we're very excited to bring you the latest episode in our series of salt talks on digital assets and Bitcoin being our focus. Our guest today is Dan held.

John Darcie: (00:55)
If you are involved in the Bitcoin or digital asset world, you will know his name because he's one of the most prolific and interesting writers on Bitcoin. Uh, but if you are not familiar with Dan, you should be, and you should definitely follow up on a lot of his writings, uh, both macro stuff that he's written on Bitcoin, as well as his regular commentary through his newsletter. But Dan is currently the growth lead for cracking his former former company interchange, uh, portfolio reconciliation tool for crypto institutional craters traders was acquired by cracking in July of 2019. Uh, prior to that, he was at Uber on the rider growth and global data side of that business. And before Uber, he helped build some of the most popular early crypto products, including change tip, which was acquired by Airbnb and zero block, which was acquired by blockchain.com and the second ever all Bitcoin acquisition.

John Darcie: (01:52)
He was part of the original 2013 crypto meetup group in San Francisco, which was comprised with the founders of Coinbase ripple, cracking and others. But I know Dan is now coming to us from Austin, Texas as are many people who maybe started out in San Francisco, but Dan welcome hosting. Today's talk is Brett messing. Who's the president and chief operating officer of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm that now has I believe about $500 million of exposure, long exposure to Bitcoin. Uh, he's going to host today's interview I'll pipe in with a couple of questions maybe at the end, but, uh, with that, I'll turn it over to you, Brett for the interview.

Brett Messing: (02:29)
Thanks, John and Dan, thanks for joining us. Um, you know, I'm a big fan, you know, I subscribe to your newsletter and, uh, your, your stuff has been very helpful to me and, and us on our sort of intellectual journey. Um, we're going to get bullish today. We're going to be unapologetic about it. Um, and I want to start by saying that, you know, I've been on wall street for quite a while and I've seen, you know, many great trades and they all end. And so the trade that I think is going to is buy Bitcoin at the, having sell it 14 to 18 months later. Repeat, repeat like the Olympics. Um, you have a S uh, a Supercycle thesis. I'd like you to share that with our audience. And, um, I'll talk about it a little bit. Sure.

Dan Held: (03:19)
Uh, Brett John, thanks for having me on, uh, always fun to talk Bitcoin, especially bullish Bitcoin, um, been through a lot of different, uh, been through three distinctive bull bear cycles. You don't want to talk

John Darcie: (03:31)
FID. You don't want to talk FID, Dan, you want to stay on the other side of it. We

Dan Held: (03:34)
Can talk about as well, happy to you can throw them my way and I can, I can, I can take him. Um, but today, yeah, talking about the Supercycle theory, you know, we've got these cycles that have occurred in Bitcoin, 20 13, 20 17 are the most prominent newer ones that most people people are aware of in these, we saw Bitcoin's price go up 10 X, 20 X, a hundred X from trough to peak. And then we saw, you know, after that it go down another 80% and the proof for seeding bear market. Now with this new cycle that we're going through, going through currently, Bitcoin is far different than these other ones. Uh, the in 20 13, 20 17, the macro markets were largely in a bull run. It was a bear, it was a bull market. Uh, everything was going well. And so, you know, these speculative cycles were basically a local phenomenon, uh, based on Bitcoins, having, having the, having events that occur every four years reduce the amount of newly-minted Bitcoin that are released to the market.

Dan Held: (04:35)
So if demand stays the same or increases in supply has diminished that the price tends to naturally go up and then we see this speculative cycle occur with this moment. We've not only got a local, um, you know, traditional four year boom bust cycle that's occurring. And we're currently in the bull run part of this cycle. And this is the having cycle that I mentioned before, but also COVID occurred. And the whole world woke up to, you know, starting to question, can my government be trusted with the money with our money? And when we looked at money printer go Burr occurring, you know, during COVID in 2020, people are really starting to question, uh, will my money retain its value over time? Well, can I trust my government to be prudent, uh, to be fiscally responsible? And Bitcoin is a great antidote to bad central banking policy.

Dan Held: (05:28)
It's got a fixed 21 million hard cap. And in this world where literally trillions are being printed weekly, Bitcoin shines out as this example of a great way to store value. That is hard to seize. The monetary policy is immutable. Can't be changed. And just as a very distinctly, you know, different goal, 2.0 sort of assets. So I don't think we're going to see Bitcoin behave like we did in the other cycles where it goes up and then it dropped to 80% of the proceeding bear market. I think we could see, and this is why I call it a Supercycle. We could either see a more intense bull run as the whole world wakes up to Bitcoin's value prop, uh, Bitcoin's Tam or total addressable market should place it as a per Bitcoin value of between a million and $10 million a Bitcoin. Now, this could be one of the final cycles where Bitcoin steps in and is realized by the world as a global store of value asset. Um, we could also see a flavor of the Supercycle where we see maybe a normal bull run, but less of a bear market where we, you know, peak to trough might be only 30% or 40% versus an 80% peak to trough. So that's what I mean by the Supercycle. And that's why I think this time might be a little bit different than the previous market cycles.

Brett Messing: (06:46)
Um, there've been a lot of big events right over the last where ranging from corporate spying, which is something I never thought possible. That was certainly not in the, in the, in the coming years, uh, PayPal. So the on-ramps are becoming easier. Um, the oldest bank in America, and it seems like all the large, which one of them is they're all important. Is there one that you think we'll look back, you know, with the perspective of history and say, you know, that was a key moment that was, uh, you know, that actor played a special role in this.

Dan Held: (07:23)
I think the Tesla moment, just that moment, Michael Saylor played a great moment of, you know, making Bitcoin owned by company. Treasury's a reality, but Tesla, you know, micro strategy and sailor are much lesser known than Elon Musk, who is a legendary investor, a legendary, a product builder, a tech technological innovator. And he's considered like a Steve jobs ask sort of level, um, to see Tesla buy Bitcoin, I think really put Bitcoin on the map. I did not expect Bitcoin to be purchased by treasuries this soon. Uh, this kind of bloom blew away my expectations as well. Um, and we're only getting started, you know, how many companies are currently going through the exploratory process of adding Bitcoin to their balance sheet. You know, when will PayPal do that? When will all of these other companies that are embracing Bitcoin start to put Bitcoin on the balance sheet? I certainly didn't expect this to happen this soon. Um, this kind of blew my mind and I think Tesla was the moment when, you know, micro strategy doing it was cool, but then Tesla was like, whoa, this is a, this is a huge deal. I mean, Tesla is a huge, huge company in Elan's really well known. So I think that was sort of the pivotal moment that Bitcoin people are starting to really accept Bitcoin as a mainstream idea.

Brett Messing: (08:40)
I, I agree with that. And I think there's a, there's another element to that. That's interesting, which is, as you know, whenever anyone buys Bitcoin, they feel like they're late, right? Like they missed it. Elon Musk saw this really right. You know, he and Reed Hoffman and Peter Thiel, and those guys have been in it right since I don't know, eight, nine years. So, you know, for him to take, you know, a billion and a half dollars right up a Tesla, right at 33 34 35, can't remember what their average price was. It doesn't really matter. I think sort of addresses that, that challenge that we as investors all make in making our first Bitcoin purchase.

Dan Held: (09:23)
Yeah. I think what's really interesting about this too, is that this increases Bitcoin's protection against, um, I would say like aggressive anti Bitcoin regulation in the future. If large corporate started buying Bitcoin, it makes it very hard for countries to ban it because if they start banning it, then it immediately causes a huge stock panic where, uh, all these different equities that hold Bitcoin would start to drop. And these are popular equities. Like for example, Tesla is held by a lot of millennials. Um, you know, so I think that, you know, these sort of moments are really, really pivotal for Bitcoin to be perceived as a globally recognized money or a store of value asset it's, um, kind of a night and day sort of, uh, it's like pre corporates buying Bitcoin and post, you know, really represent distinct stages in Bitcoin's development. Um, you know, when I was thinking about the Supercycle theory, which I came out with, uh, over a year and a half, two years ago, you know, I always think he may be, oh, okay, well, the big macro traders will start to buy it. That was kind of a big check mark for me as like Bitcoin being recognized as a global store value asset. Um, but then the corporates coming in, I think this was just a really surprising, really awesome unexpected sort of movement that occurred very, very early. Um, there's so there's trillions of dollars sitting in cash or cash equivalents and, you know, all it takes, I think, um, the Ark invest folks did some research and found if 10% of corporate treasury cash moved into Bitcoin Bitcoin's price per Bitcoin would be around $400,000, the coin.

Brett Messing: (10:59)
And the thing that makes that I think even more exciting, right, is if you look at the S and P 500, most of the cash is on the balance sheets of technology companies, right. You know, apple, Oracle, Microsoft, because like energy companies are all debt financial services companies don't hold that much cash retailer. You can just go sector by sector. So the people who are most inclined to be comfortable with Bitcoin, coincidentally are the ones who were sitting on the vast majority of the cash on S and P 500 balance sheets. So that's, you know,

Dan Held: (11:33)
Yeah. I think that's a great note to make, which is that, you know, who better who's sitting with all the cash and would they be open to investing in some of that cash balance into Bitcoin and the answers as we're increasingly seeing the answer is yes.

Brett Messing: (11:46)
So Dan, I, I am a, um, uh, I guess call me disciple of your super cycle, um, uh, theory. But when you look at the, the overall cryptocurrency market, a lot of those sort of almost call them garbage. Stuff's going up also. So do you think that we may just be seeing a risk on trade? Um, when was your, what's your reaction to that? That observation?

Dan Held: (12:14)
Yeah, I think Bitcoin is still becoming, it's a Bitcoin's evolution. We've seen it be highly volatile and act like a risk on trade for most of its existence. Um, Bitcoin, however, in its final iteration or whatever it is aspiring to be as the risk off trade Bitcoin is aspiring to be a gold 2.0 risk-off sort of sort of trade. Uh, and sometimes it reflects that, for example, uh, Cyprus in 2013, when they started to do the, do the bail ends Bitcoin and started the pump in 2013, based on that, that news, that was the catalyst, uh, when Donald Trump got elected in 2016, Bitcoin moved on that same with Brexit. So Bitcoin does exhibit some, uh, you know, catalyst moments that it exhibits characteristics of a risk-off asset or a risk-off trade. However, I would largely agree that Bitcoin is sort of buoyed in this moment.

Dan Held: (13:07)
Um, based on, you know, we've seen a lot of, uh, as the commonly term, the common fund term stocks as the stocks go up, the kind of like very frothy equities market. You know, I think some of what, how Bitcoin is moving is probably because of that. Uh, as folks are looking across the world and, and looking to put money into different assets in a more frothy environment, Bitcoin is a very volatile fund asset to go trade. Um, so I'm not sure if we can like cleanly classify Bitcoin's price movement as like, oh, this is, uh, this is, uh, uh, folks piling into a more risk on or risk off sort of traded. It's kind of both, which makes it a really weird type of investment because it ultimately is gold 2.0, so it's a risk off trade, uh, but it's becoming a gold 2.0, so it's a speculative as Jerome Powell puts it into a speculative store value. So in that regard, it might be considered more risk on. So the answer is kind of both it's, it's not really a, a clean answer for what your questioning was, but I would say it's exhibiting behaviors of both.

Brett Messing: (14:09)
No, I think it's interesting, you know, I, I think of Bitcoin as being the next great tech stock, right. For the, for this, this coming decade. And I find it interesting that, that the gold narrative has really caught on it as well as it has. And, and Gold's down 20% since August. So it's indisputable that Bitcoin is sucking capital at, at of gold. But I bet if we were to take owners of gold and owners of Bitcoin and created concentric circles, we would see actually very little overlap. Um, so I think the narrative helps people intellectually, but, you know, I, I think it's limiting. Um, but anyway, move, moving along. Um, I don't want to talk FID, right? So FID for those who, who aren't on Bitcoin, Twitter is fear, uncertainty and doubt. But I do want to, I want to ask you is what are the one or two or three real risks to Bitcoin? So if you and I are talking in five or 10 years, and we're like, we got that wrong, I don't know, like we were just wrong. Right? Why?

Dan Held: (15:17)
Yeah. We're sitting down with a whiskey going, why did it all, why didn't it work out? Yeah. So I would say the number one threat to Bitcoin would be governments. Bitcoin was created as an antidote to poor central banking policy and directly undermines the authority and legitimacy of governments across the world. If the money supply is ripped away from governments, it dramatically reduces the size of government and also reduces their power. So Bitcoin inherently is, is anti-government. Um, and so governments have the capacity to limit the growth of Bitcoin. In certain ways they can ban exchanges, they can ban ownership of it. Um, they can heavily tax it. So I would say that's probably the number one threat to Bitcoin would be governments. Those are the most powerful forces that we have on earth that could change and alter Bitcoin's growth trajectory. Do I think that they have the capacity to kill Bitcoin?

Dan Held: (16:11)
No. I just think they could Swart the growth or, or stall the growth. What's kinda funny about Bitcoin though, is that it's, it's such a wild, new idea that most governments haven't taken it seriously, um, that, uh, of its threat, uh, they, they consider it kind of like a very strange, weird child. They're like, great, Bitcoin, you go do your weird thing and you be volatile and exhibit all this behavior that we consider, we consider the asset to be not a threat. Um, but Bitcoin moves so intensely that by the time governments perceive it as a threat, it may be too large to stop where Bitcoin is owned by 30% of fame. Uh, 30% of like the top tech stocks, um, maybe 40% of the population owns Bitcoin to some extent. And at that point, Bitcoin has achieved such a network effect that it becomes impossible to stop at that point.

Dan Held: (17:04)
Um, so I would say governments are the biggest threat to Bitcoin. I wouldn't say it's a killer threat to Bitcoin. Um, there's other ones as well, like flaws in the protocols zero day exploits. These would be unforeseen, uh, technical issues with Bitcoin. So with Bitcoin broke, um, or w which I would consider a very, very low probability. Um, Bitcoin has operated with 100% uptime since 2013. So Bitcoin's network is super resilient and not many changes are made the Bitcoin because changes introduce more complexity and potential for flaws to be found or exploited. Now, I think the Bitcoin community and the Bitcoin developers are very cognizant of that. So changes can occur very slowly to Bitcoin. So I would say like, you know, the, the, uh, very rare occurrence that there could be a big exploit that causes a material issue, especially as Bitcoin is being increasingly adopted by institutions.

Dan Held: (17:57)
And they might perceive that as untrustworthy. Um, you could lump in, I would say like, uh, quantum, quantum computing underneath that that's a popular piece of FID that people like to bring up. I don't think we're anywhere close to quantum computing being in reality. And I think we're going to see far ahead of time, uh, based on NSA and other NIST encryption standards, those would change before those were changed a decade before quantum computing becomes a reality that would crack like AEs 2 56. Um, but you could lump that under, like maybe we are way underestimating, how fast things are moving on the quantum side. So like a technical issue I would say is like a bucket of risk. And then we have like Bitcoin being attacked on that government level. Ultimately there could be another threat which is more societal and behavioral around. What if the world becomes socialist like very, very socialist, um, where almost everyone buys into socialism and that case people don't care as much about preserving wealth.

Dan Held: (18:57)
And if Bitcoin is a very minority sort of group, as we've seen in world war II, different minority groups can be persecuted. If they remain a minority and don't become integrated into, you know, or become such a small group that can be isolated and attacks. I think Bitcoin, in a circumstance where the world almost the entire world becomes socialist, that would be a very hard thing, you know, for Bitcoin to be able to, um, remain if it remains a minority sort of trade, if a very few percent or very small percentage of the population owns it. I don't think that's going to be the case. I think almost all humans choose to want to preserve value and preserve their wealth, no matter what income status they come from or where they come from the across the world. So, but that, that could be a threat to which would be a large behavioral shift in humankind of just people caring less and less about preserving value.

Brett Messing: (19:48)
Uh, that was a little bit of a bummer, but I asked the question, um, you know, but I do agree, I do agree with government and, um, you know, I think one of the exciting things about Bitcoin is as you think about the nature of the institutional adoption, it's happened along different verticals, right? So you've had corporations, hedge funds, mutual funds, endowments, pension funds, the one you haven't had yet as countries, right. We're waiting for it to become a reserve asset. And it's done on me recently. Well, what happens if I ran, starts buying a bunch of Bitcoin, right? Or North Korea, um, again, uh, it's probably unlikely to be sort of a country that we embrace that will go first for the very reasons, um, that there'll be attracted to Bitcoin, I guess that probably just ties back to your government risk, right? Those that agitate our government in a way that's unhelpful.

Dan Held: (20:41)
Correct. I, it, Bitcoin is the enemy of your enemy, right? And I see countries like China and Russia probably embracing Bitcoin first before the United States government, in terms of them buying it as like, we're going to hold this as one of our reserve assets, uh, you know, sort of replacing gold reserves that China and Russia have both stocked up on. Um, I do, you know, I am, I'm a libertarian, so I'm naturally critical of any government. Uh, but I do love the United States. I think the United States is a great shining example of, of how to go build and, and, you know, we, we have a lot of things that we can fix, but I, I still think we're a great country. And I would really, really love to see the U S step into owning Bitcoin and really owning this as an innovative thing, instead of like embracing Bitcoin versus, you know, bracing against it, hoping that it hoping to hold onto the us dollar dominance versus going well, we see this new paradigm of this new sound money coming out. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity to keep America great, but also understand that things are changing and that we should embrace it.

Brett Messing: (21:42)
I think one of the things that, that Bitcoin benefits from, you know, I'm, I'm a Goldman Sachs alumni and I've been disappointed at, at Goldman hasn't moved more quickly. Although I do think they're the one firm that has the capacity to catch up quickly. And I was talking to a colleague and when he's former Goldman guy, and he said, you don't understand David Solomon can't get through his emails on a day. Right. So he, doesn't, it's very hard for these large legacy. And I think, you know, yelling and Powell like, like Bitcoin is isn't on the list, right. They just don't have time in a day to really spend a lot of time thinking about it. You know, when, when I'm going to brown, Janet Yellen went to brown, I was really proud that she became, you know, treasury, but she said some stuff that was really just uneducated.

Brett Messing: (22:28)
And, and, and I thought about this sort of David Solomon line and, you know, uh, applying, but, um, I do have a question about interest rates. So rates have moved up somewhat and the, and what you hear among Bitcoiners. Again, I wearing a Bitcoin hat. I'm very bullish, but you hear some folks say, well, if rates go up, that's inflationary, that's good for Bitcoin. If the economy sucks and rates go down, that's good for Bitcoin, because then there's nowhere to put your money either. That feels like you're just looking for a bull case wherever you can find it. Um, and you know, what do you think about the back backing up of the 10 year? Right. That's not generally good for long duration assets. Bitcoin is the ultimate long duration asset. Um, I have my own thoughts, but I'd love to hear yours.

Dan Held: (23:17)
Yeah. That's a great question. And there's a joke in the Bitcoin space called, uh, you know, this is good for Bitcoin. Uh, you know, FID is printed. Oh, well, uh, people don't understand Bitcoin, which means a lot more could come realize, come to realize the value. So this is a good thing for Bitcoin. So it's a very classic Bitcoin argument that this is good for Bitcoin. Um, I think Bitcoin, I mean, as an uncorrelated asset, which was kind of a, a way that Bitcoin was framed before the gold 2.0 narrative really, really sunk in, in late 20, 20 as an uncorrelated asset, Bitcoin is kind of a weird sort of asset that doesn't really follow a lot of existing paradigms of like, oh, Bitcoin naturally will trade up or down given a certain catalyst or certain other asset moving up or down. So I'm not sure if there's like an easy answer to describe Bitcoin's behavior as interest rates climb or as they, or is it they go down?

Dan Held: (24:08)
Um, I don't think, I don't think Bitcoin is old enough yet. Uh, you know, it's only been around 12 years, but, you know, in terms of being like, even, even sort of a base level of analysis or being liquid enough to be considered like a mainstream asset, it's a very new asset. Um, so I don't think we've really seen that behavior. Now. We could look at other traditional assets like gold and be like, oh, maybe Bitcoin should mimic some of those gold characteristics. Or, uh, as people, you know, as interest rates move up, we would see as a gold is dropped, maybe Bitcoin would drop as well. But as we kind of described earlier, Bitcoin is simultaneously a risk on more technology in investment. Um, but at the same time is aspiring to be a risk-off gold 2.0 sort of trade.

Brett Messing: (24:53)
You know, this is probably where I date myself. You know, when I was in high school, you know, the tenure was at 12, 13, 14, 15% and cash was as high as 20. So to me, one and a half, half a percent to it's all the same. Right. You know, it's almost like it's ridiculously low rates. It's just, it's hard for me to get really agitated about moving from 90 basis points in the 10 year to one for, you know, it's, it, it all seems ridiculously well. Um, uh,

Dan Held: (25:25)
And if we look at rates over time, over the last couple of decades, we've seen a continually decline, you know, as, as we've just really seen, uh, quantitative easing and other central bank mechanisms distort, I would say, accurate market pricing of, of what an appropriate level of risk is. So I, you know, we we've seen sort of, uh, from, from that era, back in the eighties, we had double digit interest rates. You know, that was, that was really, really crazy. But I would say now is equally surprising with how low rates are, right? Like, you know, you look at these interest rates on mortgages and everything else, and you're like, wait a second. Why, why is risk price to so low? Uh, did, did we come up with better ways to assess risk? And, and you look at this and you're like, this is insane. I mean, um, you can go out and borrow really, really cheaply. Uh, but the world hasn't changed how risk is manifested. Um, we've central banks have very much distorted that risk reward mechanism in the form of interest rates, uh, to where I think the market's hugely mispriced.

Brett Messing: (26:27)
So, um, in thinking about Bitcoin, right, in a very fundamental way, it gets simple, right. Which is there's more demand than supply. Right. Um, now, now a big part of the demand was coming from, let's say, I would say one of the big stories of two 20 was gray scale, right? So gray scale is the investment manager who runs GBTC, which is essentially a closed end fund trades on the pink streets. And I think it started 2020 at approximately called $2 billion in assets. And it's over 30 million. Obviously the price has had contributed a lot, but their inflows were so staggering. And, you know, they were accumulating a large percentage of Bitcoin that was mine in a day. And in fact, JP Morgan issued a report that if gray scale inflows were too slow, that Bitcoin would probably fall from 40,000 to 20,000. As we talked today, it's over 50. So we know that was wrong. Grayscale. I didn't check today, but as the weekend was trading at a 5% discount and their, their inflows have really, you know, come to us ground to a halt. Um, can you just give your thoughts on, on that market mechanism, how important it is or is not?

Dan Held: (27:47)
Yeah, great question. So GBTC is a grant or a trust and the way that it functions is that it owns Bitcoin exclusively. So it's a single asset trust and owns Bitcoin and a S institutional traders or high net worth individuals who are accredited can transfer their Bitcoin in, uh, in an in kind transaction or buy it with, with dollars and they can buy at the underlying price. And then there's the market price, which is what the world is, is, is buying GBTC add on, uh, different brokerages. So GBTC, um, the, uh, retail investor level is a great way to get exposure to Bitcoin because you, you can buy it using your traditional brokerage account. And, and so for this convenience, typically GBTC trades at a premium because there is more demand for GBTC than there is Bitcoin and GBTC, and that the ability to arbitrage that away is, is, is tricky.

Dan Held: (28:44)
I'm I'm given folks who are listening a little bit more of a thank you for doing that. Yeah. I it's, it's pretty complicated to a lot of people. Uh, I've I've done a bit of digging into this and, and some people just, you know, if we're, if we just jammed on it, it's a little hard to get context. So, um, the reason why people buy GBTC, it's a great way to get exposure from your traditional brokerage account. The reason why people buy the underlying or transfer in Bitcoin is they can arbitrage the difference between the market price and the underlying price. Um, now it's not reversible, they can't, uh, you know, you can't redeem your shares of GBTC. So it's a one-way transaction. You can't redeem your shares. It'd the GBTC for the underlying asset. Um, you can contribute the underlying asset and then sell it, uh, after a brief lockup period of six months.

Dan Held: (29:28)
So with the GBTC, um, what we've seen is that there's a premium typically over time, then there's a few moments when a trades at a discount, the premium, uh, insure typically what the ensures is that more and more Bitcoin will flow into the fund. And this causes a suction on spot where it sucks away all these coins to take advantage, and they get locked up into this fund to take advantage of that GBTC premium. So, as you mentioned before, this suction from the GBTC fund was so large that it was larger than the total mind, newly minted Bitcoin per day, which is a big deal. And what we've seen though recently over the last week is that the premium has collapsed down to a discount. Now this does occur. Um, hasn't occurred very often, but it does occur for this instrument. What that means is that folks could buy GBTC on the open market and that share of GBTC is worth less than the actual underlying value of all that Bitcoin that's held by the, the grand tour trust.

Dan Held: (30:29)
Um, I expect this discount to only exist for a brief period of time. Bitcoin had a traditional, uh, during these bull runs, there's a couple of pullbacks that occur as the price climbs higher and higher. And we recently had that, and that's where this discount started to appear was during a pullback. So as demand increases again, as, as fervor for Bitcoin increases, I expect the demand to start to build again for the GBTC instrument for these traditional brokerage accounts. Um, there's also the benefit of like, if there's a discount, you technically can arbitrage that the other way, where like, if you buy it, you're buying it at a discount relative to the underlying asset. So I think GBTC discount will probably be a short lived phenomenon maybe for a week or two more now longer term, if an ETF was approved, the GBTC instrument could trade at a, at a permanent discount.

Dan Held: (31:25)
And in that case, there's all sorts of different things that could occur. Uh, the trust could be dissolved and the coins could be redistributed back to the holders of the grant or trust, um, or the fund could be converted into an ETF. So, uh, that, that's sort of my holistic view on, on how, how, why this premium or discount occurs, uh, where we are long-term with this. And then, um, you know, what, what could, what does this mean for the market? I don't think that's a hugely bullish or bearish sentiment. I think it is largely just demand for GBTC as a financial instrument dropped. Um,

Brett Messing: (31:59)
Let's make some reckless predictions. Um, uh, what's your view on an, uh, an ETF, the U S ETF.

Dan Held: (32:08)
All right. Well, I can, I can throw out a random number here. So, uh, from my understanding, so when I, when I first looked at the GBTC trade, I won on it to understand the mechanics around it, but also they reached out to a couple of buddies who are really knowledgeable with the Bitcoin ETF sector or that sector, but, um, process or the application process. And from my understanding, there's a lot of blockers there on the, what would make the sec comfortable with approving a ETF. There were some weird things around, uh, like market pricing, uh, for example, like, uh, they were uncomfortable with some dynamics of how spot prices found with Bitcoin and they wanted market surveillance installed. And most of the venues, uh, that would be used to source spot liquidity for the ETF, um, which is strange because I believe with gold, the gold has a pretty old pig spot trading market and the, and the sec approved a gold ETF.

Dan Held: (33:09)
So from my understanding, there are some blockers that will be unlikely to be resolved in the year 2021. So my guess would be probably 20 early, 20, 22. And this would be after I think we see the peak of the bull run in, in late 20, 21, early 20, 22. So the demand for a Bitcoin ETF becomes so big that the sec has to kind of reconsider some of their, their, um, you know, red Xs on the applications and go, okay, okay, fine. We'll, we'll give you that instrument that you're looking for. So based on insiders that I've talked to, it seems to be pretty far away. Um, so my best guess would be early 20, 22.

Brett Messing: (33:48)
Wow. I'm more bullish than Supercycle Dan held. I think it's definitely a 2021 event. Um, I think that the Canadian experience is an important one, so it kinda announced an ETF and it, and I think it, it serves as a laboratory that addresses, I think, concerns that we're probably well-grounded two, three years ago when the sec last took a very serious look at a Bitcoin ETF, but I think the market has just matured past them. And I also think that, you know, when you have GBTC at 30, 40, $50 billion, just from a pure investor protection standpoint, it trades on the pink sheets. It is a high fee product relative to ETFs that the sec is mission, you know, almost mandates them to, to, um, to do something. Now you may be right because the government just can't move fast so they could, you know, get on this right away. And we could slip into 20, 22, but I don't think that'll happen, but who knows? Right? I mean, it's,

Dan Held: (34:50)
I mean, I, I hope I hope I'm not right. I would prefer a Bitcoin ETF comes sooner than later because I think it's an instrument that needs to be created to allow retail investors better exposure to Bitcoin. I mean, now of course I would recommend that anyone who wants exposure to Bitcoin to buy it on spot and eventually self custody, but certainly folks will want to buy it with their traditional brokerage. And an ETF is an easy way to do that. So I certainly hope it happens in 2021. I would be overjoyed. I think that will be a, a huge pivotal moment for Bitcoin. And just to introduce a ton of new flow, uh, on the demand side to where I, yeah, I, I would be overjoyed to have it. I, I, I guess just over the years, I've, I'm a little bit more cautiously optimistic when it comes to the government moving quickly on Bitcoin regulations or Bitcoin instruments.

Brett Messing: (35:36)
No. Well, it's funny. I, you know, I'm friendly with a number of, uh, Goldman Sachs alumni. Who've been in Bitcoin for a long time. And what I think they have felt until recently a bit like, you know, Charlie brown, Lucy, and the football, where like, they've heard the institutions are coming, they, and, and I'm like, no, no, this is actually happening now. Like I know, you know, it's happening now. And, and I do think that the combination of gray scale size and the Canadian experiment, uh, being so successful are, are game-changers. But again, you always would want to bet on the government taking, you know, a while, you know, versus sort of, you know, moving quickly it, John, sorry.

Dan Held: (36:20)
And to throw a question back at you, I heard that the Goldman Goldman's considering reopening their trading desk, like a crypto trading desk, any, anything that you can share there, Brett. Cause I thought that was super interesting.

Brett Messing: (36:32)
No, I think, um, uh, you know, I think the, the Goldman Sachs CIO is on CNBC about a month ago and, you know, she was taking a sorta cautious position and I think that she sort of threw people off the scent. Um, that's one person's view and, you know, uh, I think, uh, anyone who, you know, I'm not our CIO CIO, you know, you let your CIO do their thing, but you also have to have a business to run. And, you know, Goldman Sachs I think is, is, is seeing everything that's going on. I think this'll be the first step. Um, I can tell you that, you know, I'm a client of theirs on the brokerage side, they have massive demand from their high net worth clients and other people are going to have products and they're going to have to do it. And I think they'll do it quickly. I think you'll probably see them, JP Morgan, maybe Morgan Stanley, you know, be sort of at the forefront in terms of, you know, having products, you know, probably first, uh, for, you know, people that meet certain, you know, net worth thresholds. And then, you know, eventually when the sec cooperates things that are registered and can go out more broadly, Johnny, you want to hop in here,

John Darcie: (37:46)
FID guy. My job is to come in here and rain on the parade and make Dan confront all the different elements of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that exists in Bitcoin world, because I think you do it as well as anyone. And it started with tether or it didn't start with tether, but tether was one of the main, uh, sources of FID people accused tether of essentially creating leverage in Bitcoin know, people are buying Bitcoin with dollars that don't exist. You wrote what I think is the best analysis of why that might not be a problem, but is the tether issue now dead due to this settlement with the New York attorney general or, or, uh, where does that stand right now?

Dan Held: (38:26)
Yeah. Great question. So, uh, by the way, if anyone wants to read these, we keep bringing up my newsletter. If you Google Dan held sub stack, that's where he can go find some of these longer of articles. So I write this every Thursday. Um, you can check it out there now regarding tether tether is a stable coin created by a combination of tether. Plus some entities that are associated with Bitfinex and exchange. Um, tether has been a long source of, uh, FID. So fear, uncertainty, and doubt. There's a couple of different worries. Uh, one is that tether is pumping the price of Bitcoin. Now this is largely based off of a academic research report done by two unit of university of Texas researchers who, uh, violated the core principle of any sort of data science endeavors, which is finding that correlation is causation. So they, they felt that, uh, oh, tether, uh, issuance of new tethers, uh, coincided with Bitcoins, a value rising.

Dan Held: (39:27)
So tether pumped Bitcoin, no that's like saying that umbrellas cause rain that's not the case. Um, so that was the first, uh, worry and fut around tether was at tethers using a pump, the price of Bitcoin, but that has largely been debunked as very poor intellectually dishonest sort of research. Um, there's no correlation, there's no causational analysis that's been done to prove that tether causes Bitcoin's price to rise. The second big component of tether FID is that tether in terms of trading volume and an asset in this space is so large that it could represent a systemic risk to Bitcoin. Um, we've seen a lot of different assets come and go in the cryptocurrency space that are of equivalent size in terms of like market cap percentage relative to Bitcoin, we've had outright scams. Um, BitConnect being one of the top five tokens was literally a fabricated scam and that came and went in Bitcoin's price.

Dan Held: (40:23)
Wasn't effected, uh, we've had a lots of other coins come and go. We've also had a lot in other large corn, like XRP that had a recent issue with the sec where there being a there's a there's litigation going on there with concerns over. Um, I think it's either a fraud or securities risk based on how they've launched earth or their token. Uh, ripple is a very highly traded asset and across many different exchanges, including the one I work at cracking. And we didn't see Bitcoin's value plummet when demand for tethers decreased or concerns around Heather's legitimacy increased. Um, we, so with tether the worry that this asset, which I think only represents if we look at the total market capitalization of tethered relative to Bitcoin, I believe it's under two digits. So it's, it's like under 10%. Um, I think, you know, if that went to zero, we wouldn't see this spill over into Bitcoin.

Dan Held: (41:18)
Bitcoin's not buoyed by tether. You can use dollars, [inaudible] Euro pounds to go buy Bitcoin. And there's billions of dollars a day of that good flowing in as demand for Bitcoin, um, tether. Wasn't the only instrument to use to buy a Bitcoin and neither is it a systemic risk to the space. And then finally exchanges like crack. And the one I work at our users hold together, um, just like our users might hold and another asset that, that could go down to zero, uh, as an exchange we don't have there, isn't a fundamental risk to us based on the tether. And we're not holding tether as an asset. Um, it's, it's simply the, uh, asset that's being held by some of our users, just like any other crypto assets and many of those, as we all know, go up and down in value tremendously. Uh, but we haven't seen the exchanges were all built to be, to protect themselves against, you know, highly volatile assets and even scenarios where assets go down to zero.

Brett Messing: (42:17)
Dan. So I like, I agree that the tether thing is nonsense, but the one thing I do find curious, and just given the time you spend in an ecosystem, I like your take on this is, you know, they don't audit together. Um, I, I don't think these guys are going down in the business hall of fame. Um, it's probably the case that they're not back one-to-one fault. Why are people using it? In other words, why isn't there another USDC, stable coin where the market demands, you gotta hot it. Um, I just don't understand why it's actually grown substantially while under investigation by the New York attorney general. It offers to me nothing. I don't see what the attribute is relative to other stable. What am I missing?

Dan Held: (43:05)
Yeah, that's a, that's a great question. And what's really funny here is like w when I wrote about this in my newsletter, I started out with the caveat of like, I don't find tether orbit for next to be a reputable business. I am not defending them as a place I would want to go trade personally. Um, you know, and I don't, I don't want to disparage them too much or throw them under the bus, but needless to say, yes, there have been a lot of shady things done with tether with Bitfinex that I would find very unsavory and I would not recommend folks go trade there for sure. Um, tether is used by offshore exchanges that want to circumvent the U S government regulatory environment. And they need a us dollar equivalent style asset, an exchange like this would be like Binance. Uh, the main Binance exchange, a tether is used as an instrument to essentially as a synthetic dollar or as we call it a stable coin.

Dan Held: (44:00)
And so that it replicates a dollar function for the exchange. So it's largely used by non us folks to have a dollar equivalent asset that they can use to trade with. Um, so that's either they can use it to arbitrage so they can move it between different exchanges for, for more quant arbitrage style trading. They can use it as a way to exit Bitcoin or another crypto asset and hold it in something stable. And so it, it largely replicates the dollar function for exchanges that don't want to go through the regulatory hoops of actually holding you as toddlers and having to interact with the us banking system. Okay. All

John Darcie: (44:40)
Right. We're going down the list of fun energy. So people talk about how Bitcoin, if it continues on its current trajectory of transaction volume and price, it's going to consume more energy than we create on earth. It causes the emission of greenhouse gases. It's not ESG friendly, is that correct? If it's not, why is it not correct? And what is it, what is the situation around energy usage related to Bitcoin?

Dan Held: (45:06)
Yeah. So this is a, this is a very common, very old piece of FID around, uh, concerns of environmental concerns with bees. Don't tell Janet

John Darcie: (45:13)
Yellen that it's an old piece of FID, Dan.

Dan Held: (45:15)
Yeah. I mean yelling, I mean, yelling his or her comments on Bitcoin are literally all the pieces of FID put together into one giant piece of flood. So I wasn't, I was very much impressed whoever she's talking to has literally incepted into her head. All the top pieces of FID rolled together. Um, energy FID though. Okay. People worry that Bitcoin uses a lot of energy. Well, let's look at the existing financial system and look at Bitcoin relative to the enormous amounts of energy that our existing legacy system users think about how big this is. We've got bank, uh, we've got investment bank servers. We have tens of thousands of employees that work in the investment banks that also go home to their homes and they have cars and they have food requirements. And then you have all the regional banks, and then you have all of the commercial bank, the commercial banks and all the regional commercial banks.

Dan Held: (46:06)
And then you have all the bank branches, every single bank of America, JP Morgan, chase, all those retail branches, all the physical energy use to go build those and run the air conditioning and then to pay, to feed all those people in the homes that they occupy. And then you have the court system, which enforces legal contracts or, or money-related contracts and in our, in our economy. Um, and then you have the treasury and they have printing presses that print dollars and they have servers. And then you have the fed, which I think the fed has some absurd amount of employees, like 70,000 people work at the fed or some like that. It's ridiculous. I mean, what do you need 70,000 people for, to enforce a monetary policy. It's insane. Um, and then, and then the list goes on. Then you have the military, which is also used to enforce the legitimacy of the U S dollar.

Dan Held: (46:55)
I mean, think about the atomic, uh, you know, nuclear, uh, like, uh, nuclear reactors that are on, um, submarines and in battleships and the, the, it goes on and on. And it's an absurd amount of energy that's spent on the existing financial system. So Bitcoin should never be viewed in isolation. We should always examine it relative to other energy consumption, especially another monitoring system. Um, and the dollar is a great one to look at because it's massively less efficient than Bitcoin. What happens is folks isolate Bitcoin's metric of consumption, because it's easy to do that versus the long kind of list of different ways you could calculate the existing systems, energy requirements, and because of how simple it is to distill Bitcoin's energy consumption. Folks never look at it relative to everything else. Um, when we look at energy consumption of many other activities, for example, playing Xbox or PS three here, PS4, um, the energy consumption of gaming consoles is equivalent to some countries.

Dan Held: (47:55)
Same with Christmas lights. Uh, the U S uses more energy than an entire country just to power our Christmas lights. Now, energy consumption. Isn't a bad thing. People use the energy because they want to get, they paid for it and they want to go use it for something. I want to watch the Kardashians and you want to watch Nova and someone else wants to go play baseball. Energy consumption is inherent to our universe. The universe is based on the laws of thermodynamics, and we all use energy to live, breathe and do anything we want to do. Every human activity requires energy. And so I think at the core root of this argument, not only is it absurd to look at a Bitcoin's energy usage in isolation, because it's much more efficient than the existing system, but also at the core root it's people don't believe Bitcoin is doing something useful.

Dan Held: (48:41)
That's ultimately what these detractors don't like about Bitcoin is they don't like Bitcoin itself, but how ridiculously subjective, right? The idea that you can criticize someone else's energy consumption, but you don't criticize your own. Like what TV shows do they watch? What food do they eat? Maybe a hamburger has uses more energy than a hotdog. I mean, if you went down the list of like us having a constantly championed the morality of my energy consumption per decision, I make, it would be an absurd world that we live in. Luckily we have a market mechanism that allows us to do this. It's called, I paid for it. I bought my energy. I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want with it. And there's not like an energy police that goes around and shoots me because I'm watching the Kardashians and that's considered a subjectively wasteful thing. Um, so ultimately at the core root of this argument, people just don't like Bitcoin. And they find that its energy consumption is wasteful because they just don't like it.

John Darcie: (49:36)
Yeah. And I find that because Bitcoin has some roots in libertarianism, you know, some prominent libertarians were some of the early evangelists and adopters of Bitcoin. There is this notion among people on the left that Bitcoin is somehow like a libertarian conservative instrument. When in reality it's actually a tool for economic empowerment. And Jack Dorsey has been very vocal about this. And we agree, and I know Brett is fairly progressive guy. He worked for a Democrat as the, uh, basically vice mayor of Los Angeles. And I consider myself a very progressive guy. And if you really educate yourself on Bitcoin, it's, it's a tool for empowerment and allowing people to disentangle themselves from the whims of government. And, um, so I, I hope that over time as members of the progressive movement, start to understand Bitcoin, that it can lose that stigma, uh, as a purely, you know, hyper libertarian type of tool. So it's funny.

Dan Held: (50:34)
Uh, what what's funny is, uh, in this new paradigm over the last couple of years, libertarian ideology is now considered right wing ish, which is kind of bizarre because libertarians really dislike both sides equally, right. Returns are like the weird kid. And they're like, Hey, we don't like Democrats or Republicans. Um, and they're, they're traditionally very like freedom oriented, you know, very socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Um, but which both I would say are very more, actually more liberal when you think about it. I mean, they're both about freedom and, and, and expression and ownership of, of, you know, enforcing property rights and just having basic freedom. Um, but yeah, it is. I do think it's really cool to see Jack Dorsey who's, um, you know, I would consider like more liberal and, and kind of a west coast liberal B uh, really embracing of Bitcoin. I think that changes the narrative. So yeah, I agree. The earlier narrative of Bitcoin being libertarian is being replaced by Bitcoin is kind of for everyone sort of narrative. Yeah.

Brett Messing: (51:28)
Yeah. I think we're wearing, I'm wearing my west coast liberalism. Um, I think getting Bitcoin over 50% renewable and, you know, 67, 8 will be super helpful because I think you're right Dan, but it's a nuanced argument and, you know, I just think it's easier to say it's sun it's when it's hydro, what do you care? Right. And, and I think that that will be the thing that will really end this FID Mo I don't know that we're going to win while you're right. I don't know that that's going to be the winning argument for the people that don't want to hear it.

Dan Held: (52:03)
That's tricky. I, I don't disagree with your premise. That that is a good argument to make around Bitcoin's energy mix. Uh, how much renewable energy does it use? What I have found in my experience debating folks is that even when you address that they move the goalposts. Um, you know, at first it's using too much energy and then, then you go, well, how about the existing financial system? And they go, oh, okay, well fine. But the energy it's using is bad energy. And then you give them metrics around that. And they're like, yeah, but actually Bitcoin is not, you know, I just don't really like Bitcoin. I don't think it's doing anything useful. And so I don't disagree with you, Brett, that's the logical way to argue it. Um, which would be to talk about its energy mix. Um, but I do think with these folks, what I've found is like the core root of the problem is they just don't like Bitcoin,

Brett Messing: (52:51)
Right? We've got to keep working on him, Dan, you know what I mean? It's sort of like, you know, like Martin Luther king said, you know, you gotta, you gotta keep giving people a chance and they'll eventually come around. So, um, sorry, John,

John Darcie: (53:03)
Anna's definitely the Martin Luther king of Bitcoin. And, you know, we're, we're bumping up against our allotted time here. Uh, so I want to cut it off there and I want to have you back on in the future, Dan, again, we were very excited about this talk. We have done the intellectual journey into Bitcoin. You've been a big part of that in terms of reading your newsletters. And so we appreciate all the work you've to educate people. Uh, and, and this was fantastic. So thanks. And we hope to have you on again soon,

Dan Held: (53:31)
I had a blast. Thanks for having me guys. And it does sound like you've done your research. I think these questions were really informed really in depth and a lot of fun to, to answer.

John Darcie: (53:40)
We appreciate that. We're, we're definitely, uh, you know, not, not as deep down the rabbit hole as you, but we're learning. And obviously we have a significant amount of exposure to Bitcoin. So it would be irresponsible for us not to be doing the homework, but thank you. And thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk again, we, we love engaging with an audience, which is our traditional community at salt that might not be quite as informed on digital assets and Bitcoin in particular. But we love doing these episodes of salt talks to educate people, you know, whether it be financial advisors, RAs, other alternative investors, uh, to help them learn and go down the same journey that we went down. So thank you for tuning in just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks, you can access them all on our website@sault.org backslash talks and on our YouTube channel, which is titled salt tube.

John Darcie: (54:26)
They're all free for anyone to access. Uh, we're also on social media, we're most active on Twitter at salt conference. Dan has a fantastic Twitter follow as well. If you are so inclined, we're also on Twitter. Uh, in addition to Twitter, we're on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram. Uh, and please spread the word about these salt talks. Again, we love educating a broader cohort of people and growing our community, but on behalf of Brett and the entire salt team, this is John Darcey signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Betsy Cohen: All About SPACs | SALT Talks #173

“SPACs democratize investment in these companies and it distinguishes correctly among companies. Not every company is the same and has the same needs.”

After serving as law clerk to the honorable Chief John Biggs, senior judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Betsy Z. Cohen became the second female law professor on the east coast teaching anti-trust law and government regulation of business at Rutgers University Law School. Cohen went on to build many international financial companies and is now active in the SPACS space.

A special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) is not new, but has seen its utilization rise sharply in the last year. Where IPOs focus on the past financial records of a company, SPACs take a more forward-looking approach in its evaluation, especially useful for fast-growing companies. Launching a SPAC requires a wide range of knowledge and skills typically acquired from experience and exposure to all levels of business. “A SPAC looks easy, but it’s very difficult to execute. It has many components from capital markets to understanding the business to assessing the management.”

As a pioneering woman entrepreneur, with a long storied career in law and business, Cohen understands the resilience it takes for women to succeed in male-dominated industries. A key driver of success involves, particularly for women, identifying what one’s self tick and centering a career around that. As more women hold executive level positions at major companies, more women will ultimately lead the launch of SPACs.  

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Betsy Z. Cohen.jpeg

Betsy Cohen

Chairman

FinTech Group

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators and thinkers. Our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Betsy Z Cohen to salt talks, uh, Betsy, uh, in short, she builds financial businesses after serving as law clerk to the honorable John Biggs, chief judge of the U S court of appeals for the third circuit. She became the second female law professor on the east coast, teaching antitrust law and government regulation of business at Rutgers university law school.

John Darcie: (01:02)
Using that knowledge capital before age 30 Betsy had founded a shipping business in Hong Kong, a leasing company in Brazil, and a joint venture with a bank in Spain. And co-founded a Philadelphia law firm that specialized in representing financial institutions and industry clients in complex real estate and financial matters. Uh, Betsy has been very active in the SPAC space of late, which we'll talk about a lot here on this salt talk, but hosting today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salt, uh, and with no further ado, I'll turn it over to Anthony for the interview.

Anthony Scaramucci: (01:41)
John, thank you, Betsy. Welcome to Saul talks. You've had this legendary career, so congratulations on all that. Um, I want to start with the brief overview, if you can, for what is known as SPACs, uh, which is an acronym for special purpose acquisition corporations, um, in a squawk on the street interview on February 3rd, you said SPACs give investors better knowledge of forward potential for companies that are growing very quickly. So it's almost like a, it's a portal. If you will, into the potentiality of growth and investment opportunity. Uh, again, my opinion I'm on new dispatched. So I confess that's why I'm starting at this cursory level, but it does seem like SPACs were born from excess regulation, frankly, because uh, many private companies decided not to go public. The speck goes public for them, does all the work, and then they make a decision to sleeve into the spec or not. If I'm wrong about that, please correct me, but give us your view of SPACs for viewers that may not be familiar with the spec as a structure and or investment vehicle.

Betsy Cohen: (02:54)
Well, I agree with many of the things that you just said, Anthony, but not all of them. I don't, the driver was really the excess regulation, although it may have been the pain that was inflicted and the time line that it created, which is much longer than a spec. And you're right, that the spec sponsor by taking the company public, uh, is able to provide to the seller or the private company that is transitioning to the public markets, a method of reaching those markets. That's both faster and in some ways easier. Um, the spec is really in its basic structure, just a merger, it's the merger of a private company into a public company. Uh, and then, uh, the resulting company, uh, takes on the characteristics of the private company. Uh, it allows companies that are growing quickly to reach investors in a way that's very differentiated from, uh, initial public offerings in those offerings.

Betsy Cohen: (04:17)
Uh, accompany will look backward and provide audited financials for what they did, uh, in a spec, a quickly growing company. And we have many areas in which that kind of growth is really, uh, possible, uh, whether it be technology or, uh, bio-science or some or various other, a very quickly growing, uh, areas for companies to grow really has an opportunity and a requirement from the sec to reflect the merged entities, the public company with its cash and the private company with its business on a forward-looking basis. And since we are in a moment of time, when a couple of vectors are coming together, when companies are growing quickly, uh, when, uh, the opportunity for financing of additional growth is really important when institutions in the capital markets are full, uh, all of these things are coming together to proliferate, uh, the number of specs and that's, I think what we're seeing today,

Anthony Scaramucci: (05:41)
You're, you know, it, let's, it's a brilliant exposition. You are a pioneer in so many different things. And so I want to, I want to go back a second. Tell us a little bit about your career arc. Uh, obviously John read some of the things that were, uh, in your bio, but tell us some things that are perhaps not in your bio or that we couldn't find on a Wikipedia page. How did you get to be this, a polymath entrepreneur and judicial genius at the same time at it? How did you manage all of that in one lifetime? Well, I

Betsy Cohen: (06:11)
Love those, uh, characteristics. I'm going to take them with me. Um, I hadn't really would very early in my career. Uh, what was for me, uh, sort of seminal experience. Um, I was a very good student at law school served on the law review was recruited during a summertime to remove from as is traditional, uh, to be, uh, an intern. And to generally at the end of the summer, uh, a law firm would offer its chosen interns, um, a job for the following year, but the person who hired me said to me, um, my senior partner is not ready to have a woman in the law firm.

Betsy Cohen: (07:05)
And with that, I looked at this person, I don't know where I got the nerve, but I looked at the person and said, you know, I think this is your loss. Um, he was a little surprise, but it made it quite clear to me that I was never going to work for anybody else again. And so out of that came probably what was already there, a desire to start things on my own to move them forward, to grow them and to, uh, to be an innovator in, uh, certainly not in 1966 in, in technology, but in, uh, a variety of different ways.

Anthony Scaramucci: (07:52)
You know, it's, it's a fact, it's a fascinating story. I'm gonna regale you with a quick story. I think, uh, uh, Darcy will appreciate this, uh, Mario Gabelli, the legendary investor. I went to see him when I was 30. I was at Goldman Sachs, had a pretty good career going. He told me, leave Goldman Sachs. And I was like, shocked. I was like, why? He said, well, someday you're going to turn 50. And Goldman Sachs will put you on the dustbin of history. There are, you know, there's very few people that make it past 50, you'll feel young. And if you have your own business, you'll be able to run it. And I took his advice to heart that see, and so I left at the age of 32 and started my first business and never looked back. And so it was an interesting story about being an entrepreneur. So tell us about those tribulations though for you getting started. Um, for me, uh, I'm always reminded of, would Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx said about starting FedEx. He said, if he knew how hard it was to start FedEx, Betsy, he never would have started FedEx. And I'm sure you've had that feeling as an entrepreneur as a, as I have. And so tell us a little bit about that early life as an entrepreneur, the early

Betsy Cohen: (09:04)
Life of an entrepreneur is that you turn out the lights, just reap the floors and do everything in between. And to the extent that it's hard, um, that's one of the consequences, but the, I think for me, at least, um, the adrenaline flow, which comes with starting something new offsets, all of those hardships and maybe it's because I've been through it so often there are eight companies that I started from scratch that I took to the public markets and became not became was the CEO. Uh, so I really had both the, uh, pain and the pleasure.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:53)
Yeah. And I, I have experienced that as well. I want to shift gears to your newest venture or one of the newest ventures. Payoneer hopefully I'm pronouncing it right. It's a pay payment startup. It's agreed to merge with Ft, a C Olympus acquisition Corp. Now Payoneer is going to receive $300 million from your SPAC investors in a deal that valued the FinTech company that about 3.3 billion. And so, uh, tell us about a little bit about that deal, why that deal and where do you think things are going

Betsy Cohen: (10:28)
Payoneer uh, when you refer to it as a startup, uh, it's a little bit misleading Payoneer as a 15 year old company that has been building out its technology, uh, for that period of time, it is facilitating and democratizing, uh, the access of people, small business people all over the world, uh, who are on e-commerce, uh, with a, the opportunity to operate as if they were a very large company. So they facilitate payments and, uh, tax payments and services. Even beyond that, that a small business, uh, operator really needs, but can't afford to buy on a one by one basis. And so they've created a network it's, uh, headed by a remarkable leader, Scott galette, who has combined both the mission of, uh, democratization of, of, um, small businesses, uh, with the financial savvy of being able to bring this company to profitability. So it is a great of a 15 year old company that has layered service upon service, upon service, listening to, uh, the needs and understanding the needs of a small business people on a global basis, we were really delighted to take what was a $750 million, um, spec Corpus $750 million in cash and raise another $300 million above that, to both satisfy the capital needs of the company so that it could, at this time when all the tailwinds of, for that kind of company are in place, it could go forward vigorously and continue to grow together with looking at the needs of the existing shareholders who, uh, many of whom had been shareholders for 10 or 12 or 13 years for some liquidity, uh, with, for their stuck.

Betsy Cohen: (13:04)
So it was a, a win-win for sellers for the marketplace. And for the company

Anthony Scaramucci: (13:15)
You you've been described by many people as precious, you see things, uh, you know, for some reason you've been able to, uh, look around the corner. You've found a Jefferson bank in 1974, you've encountered, uh, roadblocks in your career. Uh, but you have a touch for these things. Betsy, why, uh, what, what is it about your personality? What is it that you're reading? Who are you meeting with? How, how did you, uh, develop this skillset?

Betsy Cohen: (13:46)
I wish I knew, uh, but I, I can only reflect, uh, what members of my family who know me best say, which is that I just don't think like other people. Uh, and I think that perhaps are you left-handed, I am

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:05)
My husband

Betsy Cohen: (14:06)
And children. So we think we brought something to the world, uh, uh, and maybe it's the left-handedness, but certainly it is green, uh, continuing curiosity. Uh, and what I think of in, um, in, in Eastern terms as a negative space, looking for negative space that have really propelled me through, uh, the identification of opportunities,

Anthony Scaramucci: (14:45)
Your, your story is also one of resilience, you know, you're, you're, uh, you know, I'm reminded of what Alan Greenspan said in his memoir, uh, the former federal reserve chairman, he said in the 1950s, he hired women economists and, and he was once asked, well, why are there so many women on staff? He said, well, they couldn't get jobs elsewhere because there were these patronizing male chauvinist that prevented them from getting jobs. And so it was, uh, it was an opportunity for them and an opportunity for me because I realized how brilliant they were. Uh, but, uh, these obstacles for women, particularly women of your era, um, how did you overcome them? We had a lot of young people that are listening to our Saul talks, and one of the things we want to teach our young people, particularly as a parent, I have five children, how to be resilient, how to overcome naysayers and doubters and doubters on your businesses, doubters on your personhood, if you will, how did you do that, Betsy? And what are some of the tips you could recommend to others?

Betsy Cohen: (15:49)
Um, I think that I found my own voice if I could put it that way in, early in my life. Um, I was not always confident, but I had a sense that I could accomplish things. Um, and I, I was very focused in whatever I did, uh, on being professional, um, being firm, uh, sometimes to my own detriment, um, but always had a very strong sense of what was right and wrong. Um, and finding not everybody is the same and we wouldn't want them to be, but I would say women in particular, finding out what it is that makes you tick and communicating that and pursuing that as a goal, uh, is I think, uh, what is, is very important. Not everyone wants to be an entrepreneur, not everyone can be an entrepreneur. So I often say to young women who are, uh, in looking for jobs in corporations, that you must look for a job in a company where the CEO has only girls not has girls, not a has daughters, but has only daughters because the, the transition from really the emotional transition of empathy to, uh, women succeeding that can't takes place in a, in a corporate setting is really, the tone is really set by the CEO.

Betsy Cohen: (17:47)
And if that CEO success, uh, in an absolute sense, uh, being possible with women, much like Alan Greenspan, who I think has many, many wonderful qualities, including trumpet playing, uh, is, uh, you know, is clear. Uh, the commitment, uh, by a CEO, uh, is really critical. I often think of, uh, Harold Shapiro, who one time was the president of Princeton university, and he made it his business to, uh, promote to provost or a Dean or one of the important posts within the, uh, administration, uh, a number of very talented women. And those women went on to fill the positions of president of many of the Ivy league universities. So it's a process, it takes commitment. You have to find the right spot and you have to continually analyze it and, um, uh, identify what is working for you. And what's not.

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:15)
Yeah. You know, it's a good segue into culture. You're describing a lot of elements of what makes for a successful culture and a business and entrepreneurial startup you in a large scale corporation. Um, before I turn it over to our resident millennial, who will try to outshine me Betsy. So I've got to try to come up with a really good clue. I have to come up with a really clever question here before I turn it over to him, but it it's one about culture. You know, one of my mentors said to me a long time ago, a Goldman that we have the same desks. We have the same telephones, the same ink, the same printer toner. Uh, so what's gonna make our business more competitive or more successful. And my mentor once said to me that it was culture, it was the putting the values in place and the commitment you clearly had that in spades. So I'm wondering how do you identify that in others? And then if you had to describe the recipe for a good corporate culture entrepreneurial or otherwise, what would it be?

Betsy Cohen: (20:16)
Um, I think it's communicating, uh, to everyone that there are, uh, opportunities, uh, within the corporate structure, uh, that they have as much responsibility to identify as to be identified, uh, and that, um, the supportiveness of allowing people to make of, uh, learning together, all of those things are important in terms of, uh, creating a culture in which people are going to, uh, feel that they're supported in reaching for participation. Decision-making all the rest of the things cause that's where your next group of leaders comes from.

Anthony Scaramucci: (21:16)
So, John, I know you have some questions from our audience and I know you have your own questions. I'm going to I'll, I'll turn it over to you. Uh, but it is, uh, it's wonderful to have you with us and I love the story. Uh, and I love the fact that you're just getting started. I love that about you. And I hope, I hope, I hope that people realize that that the, the best is yet to come. But go ahead, John.

John Darcie: (21:43)
Yeah. I want to start with, uh, a lighthearted question sort of, you know, you have the FinTech spec line, uh, but you also have the FTAC Olympus, uh, which debuted in August of last year. And you have a whole nother family of SPACs with Greek names. You have, uh, Thena you have Hara, is there anything behind the naming convention of these specs?

Betsy Cohen: (22:05)
Oh, indeed. There is. My husband is an internationally known scholar in the field of Greek history. And so we've all been embedded with it, uh, imbued with it. Uh, so I think we're very prone to, to, uh, the Greek Pantheon, uh, but we thought everybody was doing numbers. We really ought to be doing something else. So, uh, I am Athena. There'll be, uh, uh, I'm sure Zeus will not be far behind. Yeah.

John Darcie: (22:40)
So I'm going to talk about specs, uh, even more in depth than unsa Anthony, we're already talking about them. So, uh, when investors are looking at potential specs, uh, what, what should they be looking for in the team that's put together this back, uh, you know, even prior to identifying the target company,

Betsy Cohen: (23:00)
I think they really have to look to the, uh, depth of expertise of the sponsors. And in fact, their past history, not that their history will predict success necessarily, but at least, uh, they have done it before a spec looks easy, but it's very difficult to execute. It has many, many components to it from capital markets to understanding the business, to assessing the management, uh, and so on and so on. Um, so really you're looking for someone with whom you can partner because as you go forward a transaction, uh, the market's changed, the company's changed. The, uh, many things can, can be altered and you really have to be able to work with that partner, uh, through the entire transaction. So it's that whole range of things, but expertise, knowledge, experience are all part of it.

John Darcie: (24:12)
Yeah. My, my Uber driver, uh, that I had this morning launched a spec. So you're saying I shouldn't, I shouldn't necessarily go into that one.

Betsy Cohen: (24:19)
Well, um, you'll have to, uh, tell me more about your Uber driver.

John Darcie: (24:27)
All right. Yeah. I shouldn't judge a book by its cover, I guess. Um, but going to the next stage of the process for a spec, what do you as management look for in companies that you're taking public? So obviously there's this preponderance of specs. I think obviously there's some spec targets that maybe aren't quite as ready for public life as others, but what do you look for in terms of characteristics for the targets?

Betsy Cohen: (24:49)
We're really looking for a company that is what we call public ready. And that's a combination of characteristics. It's having a, a good corporate infrastructure, a well-developed management team, a business that is, uh, has recurring income and has predictability, uh, a growth profile that is perhaps beyond that, uh, which one generally sees in the marketplace, all of these things combined some in greater amounts in some, in lesser, depending upon the situation. And I think, uh, uh, a company that has differentiated itself from others in the field.

John Darcie: (25:37)
Yeah. That that's very interesting in September of 2020 Bloomberg called you the lone Wolf of specs, a reference to you being one of the only few women that are in this space, leading these blank check companies. Uh, and then in December, again, writing for Bloomberg crystal se, uh, noted that your FinTech acquisition Corp could be the only SPAC with an all female board, uh, in aggregate specks of race. I think now more than 20 billion over the last couple of years, why do you think women are so underrepresented in the SPAC world and how could, you know, SPACs and markets in general benefit from greater female representation? I,

Betsy Cohen: (26:14)
I think, uh, where you will see more and more women in this back field, remember that, um, uh, the knowledge that is required of a spec sponsor is really a multifold. It's really knowing the capital markets, knowing trading, knowing the companies, knowing the field, uh, all of those things are important. And it may be that there are not as many women who have reached that level of multiple skills. Uh, I benefit from my age, uh, you know, uh, as maybe there are men, a lot of the specs that are now being, uh, offered, are being offered by retired CEOs of large companies.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:15)
Uh, if

Betsy Cohen: (27:16)
You take a look at the profile gender profile of, uh, large of CEOs of large companies, you know, if it's probably going to be a lot like the spec market, yeah. It's a,

John Darcie: (27:30)
It's a chicken and egg, you know, you have fewer female executives. So you have fewer that are in the marketplace looking to, you know, race back, but

Betsy Cohen: (27:38)
There is a female. Um, or so it's rumored a female CEO. Who's now retired, who is going to launch a speck. There are lots of women in technology who are readying themselves to a launch specs. So I think over the next six to nine months, uh, you'll see many, many more women coming to the fore, but I have to tell you that my grandchildren call me grandma lone Wolf.

John Darcie: (28:11)
All right, well, you're going to be a Wolf pack here for a few other, uh, former female CEO step up to the plate. So you'll still be the leader of the pack, Betsy. Absolutely. So, you know, like I mentioned earlier, you were one of the pioneers in this space. We saw SPACs coming online last year. Obviously it's not a brand new phenomenon, but the market has now become so flooded with specs. I was joking about my Uber driver, but you're seeing former NFL players, athletes, entertainers, a part of sponsorship groups for specs. How has the spec market change, whether it's for better or for worse as a result of this preponderance of, of new specs?

Betsy Cohen: (28:50)
I, I mean, it, we talk about it as if the spec market has changed, but it's really the underlying businesses that have changed. So you have a, whether it's e-sports or on the field sports, if we ever get back to that, uh, you know, that had, that are growing significantly. So it would be a natural thing for someone with a real knowledge of the sports area to be doing, uh, leading a business venture that required that kind of information. Uh, there are specs that are growing and excuse me, there are businesses that are growing in, uh, financial technology, which is my own area, but also in electric vehicles, in other areas. And as Anthony said at the very beginning, uh, I feel that, that the SPAG is an opportunity for a company to talk about its future instead of its past. And so if there are many more companies that meet that profile, there'll be many more specs because there are many more opportunities. So

John Darcie: (30:09)
There's obviously, uh, the traditional IPO route, but there's now, you know, this, the SPAC market has grown more robust. You're seeing Coinbase, uh, the leading exchange for digital assets going public via direct listing. And that, uh, according to sources is already trading at about a $100 billion valuation, uh, which puts it on par with Goldman Sachs in terms of market cap. What do you think in general, this sort of, uh, diversification of paths to public life and just the blurring of public life and private companies, is that a healthy phenomenon for markets providing greater access to investors at an earlier stage for companies? Or is it somewhat dangerous, uh, given the lack maybe of, of information and, and proof of concept for some of these companies, for them to be available to public investors? I

Betsy Cohen: (31:00)
Think it is both. Uh, I think that it it's helped me in the sense that it allows, um, particularly retail investors and, you know, retail investing has, uh, increased from about 12% to about 22% over the last couple of years. So it, it, it democratizes investment in these companies and it distinguishes correctly among companies, not every company is the same, not every company has the same needs, often an IPO, whether direct or in a investment bank supported, uh, is, uh, a branding exercise, as I would think it would be for Coinbase, or it was for Airbnb, not every company meets those criteria or has those criteria and needs that kind of branding exercise. Uh, so it allows companies to take a look at themselves, uh, say, what are my needs? How can I best achieve them? And which of these paths suits me best?

John Darcie: (32:21)
So last question, I'm curious about your views on the digital asset space. You know, not necessarily whether you're a Bitcoin bull or, or a Bitcoin skeptic, but about the general growth of that sector of the market, you know, it can be characterized as FinTech of, for sort of a disintermediation and decentralization of finance. Do you think digital assets defy Bitcoin? Do you think that is something that maybe is a little bit frothy or do you think that's just, we're, we're at the beginning of a brand new era of how finances run?

Betsy Cohen: (32:52)
I think both. I mean, I think that, that we are at, at, uh, remember that that adoption there there's another adoption curve and it's really of people having facility and knowledge and use of the internet and digital sources. So as more individuals gain that, uh, knowledge, the access to digital assets is actually much easier. And so the audience for digital assets grows and whether, uh, I'm not advocating that digital assets should be your whole portfolio, but, um, it might be worthwhile to, for, uh, some people in certainly for younger people to have in their portfolios. Some bet that digital assets will in fact, uh, become more and more important.

John Darcie: (34:00)
Well, fantastic. Betsy, it's been such a pleasure to have you on Anthony. You have any final words for Betsy before we let her go?

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:07)
No, I just, I'm trying to figure out how to get hired by her. Okay. I, you know, I'm, I'm sitting here and figuring out if I'm doing well in this job interview, John. I mean, that, that's what I'm doing, you know, doing just fine. Okay. Well, thank you. We really appreciate the time

John Darcie: (34:23)
For her Anthony. She's looking for, you know, young FinTech type

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:27)
Spike when you're dealing with millennials, Ms. Cohen, do you see what it's like when you deal with these people all day long is the next person in the room. I have to put my battle armor on every day, Betsy, but in all seriousness, I think your story, your life story, your a Odyssey of entrepreneurship, all of these things, uh, make you a true role model for so many people. So we're very grateful to you for coming on, uh, to salt talks and sharing that with us. And I hope we can get you at one of our live events, uh, once we're able to do that again, uh, John and I are working on something in New York city, uh, which will help, you know, we hope in a small way to revitalize the city and so forth. So, uh, we'll be in touch with you. Hopefully we can convince you to come. Uh, we do some pretty fun things when there's no pandemics around you bet. Thank you. Be safe.

John Darcie: (35:26)
Great to have you, uh, thanks again to Betsy Zico and for joining us today on salt talks. And thank you everybody who tuned in to today's salt talk, talking about this exploding SPAC market of which Betsy has been at the forefront of that. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of today's talk or any of our previous talks, you can access them on our website. It's salt.org backslash talks or on our YouTube channel, which is titled salt tube. Uh, we're also on social media on Twitter is where we're most, most active at salt conference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram as well. So please follow us there and please spread the word about these assaults talks. We love educating an even wider audience, but on behalf of the entire salt team, this is John Dorsey signing off for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

The Rise of ESG Investing & Analysis | SALT Talks #172

“[ESG progress] is a policy issue. We need to move a few big levers and create the financial incentives for the free market to solve the problem. Price on carbon would go a very long way in giving entrepreneurs and innovators something to compete against.”

Erika Karp is founder of Cornerstone Capital Group, bringing the disciplines of finance and economics together in pursuit of a more regenerative and inclusive form of capitalism. John Streur is president and CEO of Calvert Research & Management, specializing in responsible and sustainable investing.

ESG investing has started entering the mainstreaming among investors and investing strategy, but it needs to accelerate. This requires investors to understand the value and pragmatism of adopting a truly impact-oriented approach. It is important for the dialogue around climate change to focus on reforming whole systems rather than judging an individual and their behavior. “I believe that all investing has impact. When you look at the environmental, social and governmental factors in an analytical way, you realize this is really important to be a good investor.”

Public policy enacted by government is the most important way to address the dangers of climate change. Relying on the current market to deliver solutions is insufficient. Enacting a carbon tax is one of the most effective tactics to create a market structure that incentivizes innovation around truly impactful ESG-centered growth.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKERS

John Streur.jpeg

John Streur

President & Chief Executive Officer

Calvert Research & Management

Erika Karp.jpeg

Erika Karp

Founder & Chief Executive Officer

Cornerstone Capital Group

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darcie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series that we launched in 2020 with leading investors, creators and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And both of our guests today, uh, are two people in the investment world that are shaping the future through their pioneering work in the field of ESG. So we're very excited to bring you this episode. ESG investing has become a huge part of the investment mandates of institutions that we work with, uh, on salt and that come to our conferences and, and tune into our salt talks.

John Darcie: (00:59)
So it's a very relevant conversation as I think we'll find out, uh, from the dialogue that we have today, uh, with Anthony. So our two guests are Erica Karp and John stroller. I'll read you a little bit about their bios before I turn it over to Anthony. Uh, Erica Karp founded cornerstone capital group to bring the disciplines of finance and economics together in pursuit of a more regenerative and inclusive form of capitalism. She's a wall street veteran of 25 plus years, and she developed a deep belief in ESG analysis as a critical input to investment decision-making over the course of her career prior to launching cornerstone, Erica was a managing director and the head of global sector research at UBS investment bank. She chair the global investment review committee served on the UBS securities research executive committee and served on the environmental and human rights committee of the UBS group.

John Darcie: (01:48)
Executive board. Erica holds an MBA in finance from Columbia university here in New York and a bachelor's in economics from the Wharton school at the university of Pennsylvania. She recently recently joined the board of directors of conscious capitalism as well. And though she works with a variety of different organizations ranging from the UN to the Clinton foundation on a variety of, of, uh, ESG and sustainable finance initiatives. Uh, John [inaudible] is the president and chief executive officer for Calvert research and management, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eaton Vance management, specializing in responsible and sustainable investing across global capital markets. John is also president and trustee of Calvert funds as well as a board director of Calvert impact capital and chair of its audit and finance committee. Uh, John began his career in the investment management industry in 1987, before joining Calvert research and management. He was president and CEO, uh, with Calvert investments is a founding member of the investor advisory group for sustainable accounting standards board SASB then a group of leading asset managers, uh, committed to improving the quality and comparability of sustainability related disclosure by corporations for by investors is also one of the eight members of the leadership council of the impact weighted global accounts initiative.

John Darcie: (03:06)
Uh, so I think these are two guests that I think better than any guests we could have on salt talks will be able to give us the lay of the land across ESG impact and sustainable finance investing. John earned his bachelor's from the university of Wisconsin, college of agriculture and life sciences. Uh, so thank you both for joining us here today. Hosting our talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, a global alternative investment firm. He's also the chairman of salt and if you've been watching salt talks, he needs no introduction. And without further ado, I'll kick it over to you, Anthony, to conduct the interview. Um, I'm still mad at John Dorsey for telling John and Erica that I failed the bar exam because I was out water skiing in Manhasset bay. So that wasn't a nice thing to do. Okay. I'm trying to be like, I want to tell you to bring up the first impression with these people and you had a fire that in there to make me lose some of my confidence in this interview, you know, cause I'm obviously a little shy and introverted. So let's start with you, Erica. Uh, tell us about your background. Why did you become impact so passionate about impact oriented investing?

John Steur: (04:13)
You know, so I came to sustainability and impact in a really organic way. You know, I believe that, you know, all investing has impact, right? And so when you look at the environmental, social and governance factors in an analytical way, uh, you realize that this is really important to be a good investor. You know, when you think about revenues and costs and risk, you need to think about ESG factors. So as a director of research, I'm just trying to push people to kind of earn the right, to make an investment call. Tell me what you know that nobody else knows. And so when you go down there and you try to find out what matters around ESG factors, it's first of all, endlessly fascinating. Secondly, it gives you serious predictive insight. Thirdly, you start to realize that you can combine your investments with your values. And so, you know, I got there in a way that's really very organic. It's not about ideology. It is about values and it is about pragmatism.

John Darcie: (05:15)
Uh, same question for you, John.

Erika Karp: (05:17)
I think the, um, investing business is a business about understanding, change, understanding what's changing around us and understanding how companies are likely to navigate that change. So for us, ESG investing is about understanding a company's management of critical functions and factors that allow us as investors to do two things, understand how they're managing these risks that are changing and evolving, but also to participate and help drive positive change. A big part of what we do at Calvert is engaged with corporate to try to get them to improve their operations in ways that address these critical environmental and social risk factors. So that concept yet they to really be involved in innovation, helping to improve the system that we all participate in and drive positive change that relates to financial value creation really brings together all of the best elements of investing in participating in these capital markets. Are

John Darcie: (06:29)
We doing enough? And what I mean by that when I sit back and I look at the landscape of where we are as a society where we are in the environment, uh, we have a group of people that are in the ESG world, but should the whole world be in the ESG world, I guess is what I'm saying? I mean, are we doing enough? And if we're not doing enough, how do we do more? And that's a question for both of you. So I'll start with Erica first and then John, you can respond and add on.

John Steur: (06:57)
So the answer is no, we're not doing enough. Um, but part of it is because we need this massive consciousness raising exercise, right? So I said that all investments have impact. It's a question of knowing, is it positive or negative? And what is it? So if you have to understand kind of the magnitude of what we need to be doing, I mean, just think about climate, right? So if maybe over the past year, a $500 billion was invested in alternative energies, right? Well, we actually need that number to be about 1.5 trillion. If we're going to get anywhere near where we want to be. And we think about these other big initiatives towards water and energy and infrastructure, education broadband, we need billions, something like seven, uh, excuse me, trillion suddenly like 7 trillion to move, to have the kind of impact we need. That said there is some consciousness, but it hasn't come to the mainstream yet it's starting, but we need to move a lot more money, a lot faster. Um, so there are certain things that we need, like infrastructure, like standards, uh, for disclosure like leveraging AI, leveraging social media. So there's this, um, this fierce urgency of now that hasn't been infused into the economy yet. Um, I think we're making progress though.

Erika Karp: (08:21)
Yeah, I agree, Erica, we're not doing enough. Um, what is it, what is enough and how is this really going to play out so far? We're relying entirely on market-based solutions. Of course we believe in market-based solutions, particularly in the United States. Um, so we're following the playbook that we've used, uh, particularly since the 1980s, what can be done to change that dynamic and what are the things that are needed in order for us to do enough, um, a carbon tax, a price on carbon at the right level, um, would facilitate an even a more aggressive response, uh, from the market. Uh, Erica mentioned regulatory. We haven't yet built the market infrastructure to facilitate Anthony doing enough. Um, but we're not far from it. Uh, I think it's very encouraging to think about the fact that we're doing what we're doing without regulatory help without having built the necessary infrastructure and without having put a tax or a price on carbon.

Erika Karp: (09:30)
So what we're experiencing right now is something that is led by investors. As I said earlier, completely market-based if we can make a few policy adjustments, which I think most people in the capitalist system want to see made, I do believe that well, uh, allow us to continue to operate within market-based solutions and significantly accelerated. And I would just add one element, which is any quality. Um, we are operating way below our potential because of the massive financial and other inequalities in our system. We can begin to address that. Um, also through these solutions, I think we can improve the lives of literally billions of people across the board. Um, so in addition to the environmental concerns, the, um, inequality issues are significant.

John Darcie: (10:26)
So I, I just started reading this, uh, which is, uh, bill gates, his new book on how to avoid a climate disaster. And so I guess my, my question to both of you again, same sort of question is Mr. Gates is obviously a brilliant guy. The book is very well written. There's a lot of practical solutions in here. Um, but we seem to have lots of forks in our roads in terms of going towards a more sustainable climate environment, more ESG, if you will. And I think some of the critics of Mr. Gates would say, well, he's got a portfolio of homes. That's second to none, very large in scale, a fleet of private planes. He owns the four seasons hotel complex among other things. Uh, is he the right guy to be writing about climate change? And so then the question is, what do we do? Uh, do we sit in a small room that has, uh, um, solar panels on the top of it? Um, how do you, how do you reconcile billionaires that are writing about climate change that are flying around on private planes, et cetera? What do you say to people?

John Steur: (11:35)
So I got to tell you, I have no issue with this because there is no such thing as perfection. Everything is on a scale of, you know, good, not good, whatever we don't have to be judgmental. And what I would say is if we can bring transparency and an honest dialogue to this, we're fine. It's okay to have your toys as it were, but it's better to be, you know, transparent, talk about your toys and figure out how we can get your choice to be better. Right. And so what no, but

John Darcie: (12:07)
Eric, I mean, should I be living like Teddy Kaczynski? You remember the unit bomber and like a small shack somewhere in the middle of nowhere, not using that much energy, having an outhouse,

John Steur: (12:18)
I would have to. All right, again, I go back to this issue of transparency. There's a lot of stuff that people don't realize that we have to get, get out there first. Um, there's this stupid notion that using ESG analysis, um, is in some way, giving you, um, concessionary returns false to the notion that ESG analysis is, uh, against a fiduciary duty, totally false, right. Three, that you have to be a purist. That is not the case either. If we're trying to move kind of the, the quantum of the capital markets, right? So we can, you know, have our lifestyles try not to be judgemental ideological, but let's make progress. And the single most important thing we need to understand, not that this is simple, but we have to have systems change. Everything relies on everything else. We can't get to climate. If we don't talk about a women's economic empowerment, we can't talk about a broadband.

John Steur: (13:22)
Unless we talk about data privacy and human rights, we can't talk about, you know, one of these sustainable development goals that the UN has put out without talking about the complexity and the interrelationships. So this is complex. There's no such thing as perfection transparency should allow us to be nonjudgmental and have system change to get, for instance, to a circular economy one day where there won't even be a concept of waste. And by the way, I should tell you, I am a little bit of a nihilist. So in terms of a climate crisis, unfortunately we're already there. There's a lot of bad stuff that's already baked in. That doesn't mean, you know, we will wipe out, you know, humanity, uh, probably, but, um, there's a lot of work to do.

Erika Karp: (14:13)
I, um, if you don't mind me, Anthony, I would, um, take a little different position. I don't think bill gates is the guy who's going to solve climate change. Uh, I think it would be better if the bill gates and even the Anthony, um, DiCaprio's of the world, stop, stop talking about it. Um, it's not about what an individual says or does, and it really doesn't matter what you do with your air travel and those types of things. Um, so getting the liberal left out of the picture, staff talking about it, this is a policy issue. We need to move a few big levers and create the, um, financial incentives for the free markets to solve the problem. As I said, earlier, price on carbon would go a very, very long way to giving us something for entrepreneurs and innovators to compete against it's policy makers right now that are needed more than, you know, rich, famous people talking about the problem and telling us about their pet solution. So I think, um, I'm going to stop there. Uh, I've got another book for you, by the way. I see your in your library, the new climate war by Michael Mann came out about the same time as gates' book. He's a professor I'm not getting the kind of publicity that gates is getting be more consistent with my thinking.

John Darcie: (15:42)
All right, well, well maybe we'll get him on assault dog. I'd love, love to meet him. Love to talk to him. It'll also force me to read the book. Uh, we, we, I will point out that we did invite Mr. Gates on assault talk, but, you know, cause I have a little bit of a roguish personality. I'm somewhat unpredictable. I would say that the chances of him coming out assault talk are 0.0, but one can hope, but let's continue on this. Cause think this is important for me. And I'll start with you, John, are corporations stepping up to the plate and adapting better ESG frameworks, John? Or is it lip service?

Erika Karp: (16:16)
I think there's a little bit of both. Um, so I think companies for a long time at the operational level at big, quite a bit attention to how they use resources, operational efficiency, but it's all been based on economics. Um, so to the extent that fossil fuels have been cheaper than renewables, those are the decisions they've made to the extent that it was much more profitable to pursue a product line or service that had negative impact on the environment. That's what they've, they've pursued. Um, that's a very, very slow change to, uh, to think about happening. So while companies are providing us more information about how they're managing these very risky activities, um, and they are doing a better job of managing those, they're not really making the big changes needed to protect the environment and to create a better, more sustainable future for, for all of us. Do we have any, it's a little bit of both, they're doing a much better job managing these risks, but they're still involved in a big, big way. An actual change is very slow to come.

John Darcie: (17:27)
Is it a drop in a bucket Eric Erica, or do you think it's,

John Steur: (17:31)
I think it's more than a drop in the bucket and there's certain pieces of infrastructure that we've needed to help. So I was, um, uh, a founding board member of the Salisbury, the sustainability accounting standards board. And that is about having, you know, trying to get standards for corporate disclosure of material ESG factors. That that is very helpful, but setting standards take a long time, but again, getting good data comparable and projectable data, um, is an important thing because that goes into, uh, the ratings and the indices and then the products that are created. So we have a long way, not a drop in the bucket, but it's helpful. And then what you're starting to see is that the leading corporations are figuring out how to truly, um, um, change or adopt their business models around ESG issues. They are starting to align compensation around ESG issues.

John Steur: (18:27)
They are starting to ask questions that are specific to industries, to companies around the risks and reward opportunities. So you ask different questions of, let's say a hotel or an airline industry. Um, then you ask of a, um, uh, mining, uh, or shipping company or, you know, a technology company. So understanding how to zero in on what matters, what is material is really critical. And in fact, there's been some good research, uh, uh, George, Sarah from as an example, um, put out a piece that talked about, um, the fact that companies who give us data on issues around sustainability that are not material to their economic outcomes, actually underperform rather than not putting any data out whatsoever. So we want companies to report on the stuff that matters. Um, and, and again, it's, it's still early days, um, but it's, it is more than a drop in the bucket. So,

John Darcie: (19:28)
So John last year, uh, we saw according to the financial times is not my information, but I read it in the financial times, a 17% reduction in carbon emissions. You'll correct me if that's accurate or not, but that's what I read, uh, is that sustainable? Uh, obviously it came from the pandemic, uh, or we smarter now or who are working more efficiently or are we going to be on our Airbus three eighties, the middle of the pandemic breaks and traveling around the world? Uh, is there anything that the world's learned from the pandemic that can make our societies more sustainable and more energy efficient?

Erika Karp: (20:10)
Well, I certainly think the pandemic makes very real these risks, right? So we all know that really bad things can happen if we don't attend to risks associated with all of these behaviors and certainly the, uh, the storm in Texas and what happened with the Texas grid, uh, it just makes it very, very real and we can see it happening. Um, so I do think it, it, it does make a difference, but the carbon reduction number is simply because of the economic slowdown due to the pandemic. And as soon as things bounce back, um, those numbers will go right back up. And as we bring of millions of people online into the industrial society in China and India, those energy systems are still primarily driven by coal and fossil fuel. Even though they're also deploying a lotta renewables, you know, the, the, the concept of bringing all these people out of poverty and into the industrial society, we can't change the energy system fast enough with the current policies to keep up with that growth in the industrialized world. So dropping the bucket, those numbers don't bounce right back. Um, and we haven't done nearly enough. So

John Darcie: (21:24)
Erica, I've got you in charge of everything. Okay. You, you look like somebody that would like to be a Georgia. Everything has to do why by the way. So that's not a, it's not an attack, it's just an observation. And so now you're the czar and, uh, let's go with what John is saying about public policy and, uh, I've already ordered the book, new climate war by Michael. How did he say his last name? Mark and Michael. Okay. So I just, I just, I used my Amazon, which is going to burn up a cardboard now and they're going to start their engines and they're going to have that book to me tomorrow. I'm going to open up the cardboard and plastic and throw it in the garbage. I'm going to have the book sitting here next to these other books. And because it's about the climate and I'm Catholic and feeling guilty about my consumption, I'll be reading it, but you're now the czar of all of this. And so go ahead. What are we doing from a policy perspective to move people towards what you and John are doing?

John Steur: (22:25)
Well, um, big question and, um, I definitely don't run stuff anymore. I'll give you a little headline. Cornerstone is going to be merging with Paston. Uh, so that's a new headline for you, John. You're smiling. I'm glad in any case, we're I to be running stuff. I think John is right first carbon price. You know, I think that that comes first. It's the biggest, it's the biggest impact we can have initially. Um, secondly, you know, I talk about a more regenerative and inclusive economy that inclusiveness critically important because the kind of income inequality and wealth and economy inequality we have is growth killing, right? So that inclusiveness is key. What I would do, and coincidentally, what we have done, uh, at cornerstone pat stone, is that we've created a framework where we think about the idea of access. All right. So a single common denominator to get to these huge global challenges I would argue is access, right?

John Steur: (23:31)
So the whole world needs access to clean energy, to water, to education, healthcare, capital, um, access is where it's at. So I think what we have to do, if we're going to use the private sector, so we're gonna have for policy going to have, um, uh, carbon pricing, uh, for the private sector, we're going to have disclosure. And particularly, we're going to start thinking about what is a company doing to give access to the system. So SDG the sustainable development goals, number 17 is about, um, uh, collaboration. And I think that's, what's so critical. So companies need to understand what's their contribution. What is the true cost of, um, of what they're creating? I E those externalities, um, that, that they're giving out. And by the way, I don't know how we're going to answer this one. And it's partly why I am I not as us, but if the, um, if the emerging world has consumption patterns that are like the Western world, honestly, I don't think there's anything we can do to recover from that. Um, meaning, you know, is humanity kind of not long for this planet, honestly, it's possible. Um, but I think those are the couple of things we can do to get public sector, private sector. Um, moving forward,

John Darcie: (24:54)
John, are you as pessimistic?

Erika Karp: (24:57)
Um, probably not as I don't know about pessimistic, but, um, you know, the incentive that got us here is money. Um, and I think the incentive that will get us out of this is money plus data. There's two things I would do. Uh, yes, I, I put a global carbon tax on things and I allow it to ask light and use that tool, which is just an amazingly powerful tool, um, to create change at the pace we need to see change and work within the system. We've got the second tool that I think is going to become more powerful than money is data information, uh, mean we need to, and we are doing it. And this is the other piece that's changing that I think can facilitate the kind of change we need at the speed. We need check out impact weighted accounts initiative. We're running it out of Harvard business school.

Erika Karp: (25:55)
Sarah FIM is, uh, is overseeing the project. Serani Cohn, great venture cap player out of the UK is a senior advisor to the project. I'm advisor to it. We're creating the data and need it to understand the impact so that we can have information that's investor useful. It can sit next to the data on the income statement and people can understand the trades they need to make, to work within this incentive system. So, you know, I don't think we're going to get there without using the same incentive tools that got us where we are the profit motive. That's why we need the carbon tax. Second. We need to understand how powerful information is becoming, and we need to use that to the full extent. I think Erica, that's the only way we're going to deal with it. Given what you observed, um, Asia and the rest of the world, coming into the industrial. Ultimately they're going to want the same things that everybody else has and they deserve them, right? We need to be able to adjust the energy system so we can do all that. Let those, everybody in the world have access and do it in a way that won't destroy the planet. We need the, we need the capital incentive and we need the data.

John Darcie: (27:17)
Well, I have to, I have to invite my colleague, John Dorsey into the conversation because we've got too many baby boomers in this conversation. So baby boomers are just planning that next generation us baby boomers have had a frat party with the, with the world. We now want the millennials to live on Sunday morning in that frat house with the bond smell and the beer stain rugs and so forth. So go ahead, young millennial fire away at these baby boomers that are destroying your planet. You guys are always talking trash about, you know, millennials and gen Z, but we're the ones that have to clean up your mess. You're exactly right. Thank you for being self-aware about that fact, Anthony, but, uh, you know, we've talked a lot about the E we've talked a lot about environmental. That's only one third of the puzzle. If you're talking about ESG, I want to talk about the S for a second.

John Darcie: (28:09)
And obviously in the wake of the George Floyd murder, uh, we had sort of an explosion in awareness about the systemic racism that exists in our society. And there's been, you know, more corporate engagement on ways that we can sort of root out the systemic nature of that racism. You know, maybe the idea that we're going to eradicate racism is probably a fool's errand, but we can do more to chip away at sort of the cycle of racism, racism that exists in our society. But we're gonna start with you Erica, on the, the S piece of it. So what are companies doing or what can they do to address issues related to racism and discrimination in our society? Uh, where do you think where you see things heading? Are you optimistic about that? And what can we do in addition,

John Steur: (28:51)
Actually, I am optimistic about this. I'm optimistic about kind of social justice, generally speaking, and that goes to the consciousness issues. So whether it's gender, whether it's race, um, these are critically important for, for, for productivity. Um, and, and even beyond the moral issue, it's a, it's a, it's a functional issue in business. But the thing about, um, racial equity, I think we have to start by acknowledging, um, you know, that white privilege is something that most of us don't think enough about, you know, face it, America was built on white supremacy to some degree. So we really have to start thinking if I, what is that? Who am I, what do I want to be? And arguably moving towards kind of a, you know, a truly multicultural, thoughtful organization, let's talk about companies is a continuum. You know, it starts with organizations that you can see are flat out racist, and then it moves to an organization more of kind of compliance, right?

John Steur: (29:59)
And then it moves towards an organization that is a learning and accepting entity. And then it moves towards a place where you really have, you know, everyone in, at the table in terms of decision-making in positions of authority. And that's how you move organizations forward. It's a continuum. And the idea of accelerating that continuum now, I think is, is very encouraging what's going on. And so for instance, we will do, um, pieces of, of investment research on investing, um, for racial equity. And you really can move your money in such a way that you are accelerating, uh, that continuum. So I am quite optimistic about progress, but it starts with a consciousness. And I think that, you know, George Floyd's murder in front of our eyes, you know, I really think it was a pivotal moment, um, that of, of, of self-reflection. Um, so I am positive on what we can do here.

John Steur: (30:59)
Um, and again, it goes racial equity and gender equity, and not even thinking about gender as, as women's economic empowerment, but it's, it's, you know, old genders, um, LGBTQ eye, all of it. Um, and then when it comes to, um, issues of education and healthcare and all kinds of people of color in the, in the BiPAP world, what's happened with COVID shines and incredibly powerful light on the impact of, um, uh, of, to everyone much, much greater disproportionate impact of people of color. So thank God we're a learning, um, society, or at least I hope we are John.

John Darcie: (31:42)
So I want to go to you on that one. I've I've seen you speak and write very empathetically about just the human side of the issues that Eric had just spoke about. And I think we all want to make sure that, you know, we have a level of equality in our country where people feel like they have access to the same, uh, you know, American dream that everybody else does. But from a practical perspective, you've talked a lot about market forces and how do we communicate to people, uh, about the importance of investing in diverse teams and investing in companies that are going to drive that diversity for? So from a practical basis, how does, how diverse boards and diverse organizations drive better returns? Is that a, is that a fact that's backed up by empirical data and what type of companies can help drive that change as well?

Erika Karp: (32:26)
Yeah, that's backed by empirical data. Uh we've by the way, at Calvert, I want to tell you what we're doing and what we've done since, um, that terrible day, uh, in may. Um, we, we said, we'd do something about it. We've gone after the 100 largest companies in the United States, and we've asked them to disclose their EEO one survey data. This is the demographic information about who has what job within that company, what level and, uh, gender and rates. This is information that these companies have to provide to the EEOC, but they take great pains to keep secret. You can't even get it with a foyer request. So we've asked these companies to disclose it. So as investors, we want to know the answer to your question, which of these companies have diverse teams, which of these companies have recreated a workplace where black people, women, people of color can have jobs throughout the organization.

Erika Karp: (33:24)
We need the data. Uh, we think we've got about half of the companies agreeing, um, to release that data and make that public. That's a first step. Let's get transparency, let's get the data out there. So investors can see it. And people who want to work at great companies who create a diverse workforce, know where they are. They know what's happening. I think we have filed about, um, up to, I'm going to say 20 shareholder resolutions, ready to go to proxy against these teams. Um, I think we've been able to successfully negotiate agreements with about half of the companies we have filed on, as they've also now agreed to disclose this information. So I think you have to take action to make management and boards aware of how serious we are, how important this, um, information is to everybody, investors and employees. I think, I think that action is useful.

Erika Karp: (34:22)
It's helpful. You asked about, um, you know, does a diverse team, is there a case to say a diverse team is better, makes better decisions? Let's just build the business case for this in the us white males have actually been declining in terms of the percentage of the overall workforce. Women are increasing. People of color are increasing in terms of the percentage of the workforce. So if you're an employer, you need to be able to create a great work environment. So you can work across the entire labor market. Additionally, educational attainment by women and by people of color across the board is increasing. Um, so your highly skilled portion of a labor pool is becoming more diverse running a company. If you're only good at putting white males into senior management positions and that all you can do, you're actually not that good. We want management teams that can create a great work environment, get the best out of all people in participate across the board.

Erika Karp: (35:26)
And yes, getting different points of view, hearing different voices really works. Look at Calvert, 56% women over 50% people of color doing well against our investments across the world. We invest in emerging markets, developed markets equity and debt, great track record. We've got a diverse team and we've also done the research to show that across large companies globally diversity works and is, is, and really matters. So we'll have to say there, John, I appreciate the question. Um, things are changing, but we've got to really push these companies hard. Uh, and we needed as investors, right? This is about driving value. This is about improving companies, getting them to adjust to what's changing. Our demographics are changing. Companies are dragging their heels in terms of building the processes. And I just want to close on a really important point. People matter more than ever, uh, book value doesn't matter. Um, what matters today? This is, uh, an idea economy. We've heard it. We know it. We've transitioned from industrial manufacturing to intellectual capital and ideas. It's all about people and bringing the right people together to make it happen, really differentiates companies. So super important point all the way around.

John Darcie: (36:56)
Thank you for that. John is very well said. I think that's one of the unique characteristics of both Calvert and Erica cornerstone and everything you've done throughout your career is being able to apply these principles that can be somewhat subjective or a morphous, uh, on the surface, but really digging down and quantifying the benefit. Erica, when you talk to people about the return benefits of ESG, uh, how do you think about that at cornerstone?

John Steur: (37:20)
Well, I mean, we, again, we're very pragmatic. So if you look at the research and, you know, we did a meta-study of like 1200 other studies, but when you look at the research, um, in integrating ESG factors into analysis, it is unequivocal that you do either as well, or frankly, better, uh, with companies over the long-term when you're looking for, uh, the key factors in ESG. So th the research is unequivocal and think about it. Why would you not want more information rather than less? Right. So what we do like to see for our part is, um, we like to make sure that our asset managers are analyzing companies as deeply as they should be understanding the intersectionality. So it really does take a skilled manager to integrate those ESG factors. And, and again, it's not easy and there's a lot of bad data out there still.

John Steur: (38:18)
So any single ESG factor is not enough to make an investment decision upon, right? You take a factor in ESG factor rating, anything else? It's a starting point for inquiry, but again, all the research shows and it's a little different, different asset classes, but it's pretty unequivocal that you can do better with ESG analysis. Now, what's really interesting is that in some quarters in the past, um, it has been seen as kind of a risk mitigation strategy. That's just simply not the case that said we have seen sustainable strategies outperform in down markets. What if we look at what's been going on in the past year, we've actually seen ESG strategies so-called out before me and the up markets too. Right? And so in our view, um, sustainability, um, is a proxy for quality, for good governance for innovation and for resilience. And that's actually how we've seen these companies and these managers perform recently and again, innovation and the way the market is.

John Steur: (39:30)
So bifurcated now in terms of what forms well and what doesn't right. Innovation is so critical. So we argue that sustainability is again, a proxy for that. And by the way, I should say that in the E and the S and the G that G governance is first among equals. If a company is not analyzing the impact of the E and the S um, themselves, well, they're not well-governed by definition. And so when we do this analysis, the manager selection, diligence, you know, it is a really critical kind of holistic effort. And just because a manager labels themselves as sustainable or impact, that's not what we're looking for at all. Um, it's quite the opposite because about 91% of the products that are called sustainable that have been introduced over the past year are simply relabeling a different strategy that existed. That's not enough in our view. This is why we need these skilled managers.

John Darcie: (40:32)
I have a little more time. I want to ask you each one more question. And John, uh, again, reading and watching a lot of stuff that you've put out there, you talk about infrastructure. So when people hear the word infrastructure, they think about fixing our potholes and fixing our airport. So LaGuardia doesn't look like you're flying into a third world country or, or other physical infrastructure, but I think the pandemic is crystallized in people's minds, even more than need to ramp up our investment in digital infrastructure. What would that do? Uh, you know, you could look at it through an ESG lens, but what would that do for our country, from an environmental, from a societal perspective and our ability to improve governance, frankly, if we invested very heavily in giving everybody fast internet and access to tools in the United States,

Erika Karp: (41:17)
Well, it matters you bet. And, um, I think two things to think about, um, the kind of infrastructure that you're talking about, uh, to the extent that is a use the term transparency earlier to the extent that we can create transparency. It really helps you get the facts. It helps you get to the truth. Um, it eliminates the potential for greenwashing. It puts reality sort of in everybody's, um, the Palm of everybody's hand. So if we can build, um, an information system, they can create transparency and people can really understand what we're doing, why it matters and where the solutions are. Uh, I think we'll be much more likely to get to the economic structure that we need to make these changes, but you also talked about, um, kind of equality, right, getting that big broadband pipe, uh, getting access to that information to everybody.

Erika Karp: (42:17)
Um, and this is an area that is extremely important for us to, um, solve the inequality challenges that we have. We know that any quality in one form starts because of lack of access to opportunity, um, access to learning, access, to information, access to finance, um, in, if we can use our knowledge in our growing ability to manage and distribute real information and data and democratize that entirely, I think we can make significant progress towards, um, giving everybody the opportunity to be included in this capitalist system in this society. Uh, so it's a, it's an important step, but I would just go back to what I said earlier. Um, even though companies have become overwhelmingly powerful relative to government and relative to all of our other governing institutions, like the big NGOs, even though that's happened, we need government to come through for us, not necessarily with big fiscal spending plans or, um, pulling the levers on the monetary system, we need real regulation that will be helpful to create the incentives within our capitalist system. So we can solve these problems. In addition to building that digital infrastructure that we're talking about, we need the government to play its role into sure that the information is accurate, it's helpful, and that we get the incentive structures aligned. So your generation can have the great opportunities that ours has had. Absolutely.

John Darcie: (44:07)
Erica, how do you look at technology FinTech, decentralized finance, and ways that we can use technology to improve what John is talking about, the transparency and the reliability of data and information?

John Steur: (44:20)
Hmm. Well, I mean, like Joan said critically important, and I have to say something and I think Anthony liked this, but, um, Winston Churchill said that we build our buildings and thereafter they build us, right. He's standing in front of parliament after over too easily. And I think that's really, really interesting because what that says is, you know, it, it shapes us when we put an infrastructure in place, it really does shape us. And again, I like, and John likes to use that term access, but, you know, if people don't have access to good data, high-speed data, it, it changes everything, access to health, access, to education, access, to good jobs. It's so critically important that we build this infrastructure. And when we think about technology and the infrastructure around technology, we do have to think about the system, right? I mean, we haven't had a proper public dialogue yet about data privacy.

John Steur: (45:22)
We really haven't, you know, we've just scratched it and we have to have that discussion again, it's about infrastructure. And if we want to bring that discussion over to the investment decisions in the public markets, well, we have to start thinking about companies and here is where we go back to governance. And then we have to think about which business models, which companies engender trust, right? Because the idea of trust in the context of data privacy and an it infrastructure critically important. So the reason I talk about that is just because this is so integral to everything we want to do and, you know, for, for, for cornerstone, well now pat stone for pat stone to think about, you know, our access impact framework to measure impact, well, the idea of, of measuring access, we need AI to do that. And ultimately we need quantum computing to do that. And if the us is spending a tiny fraction on developing quantum computing versus China and the rest of the world, we are screwed in terms of infrastructure. So it's kind of, you know, it's kind of everything.

John Darcie: (46:32)
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I can tell you firsthand from our salt conferences, so many, uh, large investment allocators that come to our conference and engage in our salts ox, ESG impact sustainability is at the forefront of their minds. So in terms of themes that we cover at our events and on our, on our talks, you know, ESG, pervades, everything that we do. So we're very hopeful that we can have you guys at one of our live events here in the near future, as soon as it's safe, uh, to do so, uh, hopefully later this year, but thank you so much again for joining us, Anthony, you have a final parting word for, uh, John and Erica, before we let them go mute. This is, this is why the millennial took over the conversation. John has, Anthony doesn't even know how to unmute a computer muted it because my kids are coming through the door and I've had those moments on live television in which I was trying to avoid Mr.

John Darcie: (47:22)
Millennial, but in all serious to continue the great work and continue raising the awareness of what is going on. And, and frankly, you talk about the situation TA Nehisi coats, uh, wrote an amazing book last year. You said in 1860, the property value of all of the slaves was 3 billion us dollars, and that was 18 $60. And of course that was the largest amount of property in the society at that time. So I just want you to take that and digest that for a moment in terms of understanding where the issues and where the consequences are, not just for the United States, but for the world, as we push more awareness and we push more progress, uh, as it relates to the social and racial justice and also, uh, the environment, you know, and we have to do this, whether we like it or not, if we love our children and our grandchildren and our potential children, we have to continue to do this.

John Darcie: (48:27)
So I appreciate everything you guys are doing. And thank you very much for joining us on salt talks. And, uh, and since there's a lots of white males in the employment population, John, I'm sure you're updating your resume. I just want to make sure that you keep that fresh. I, I'm not going to pretend to be persecuted as a, a white Anglo-Saxon male in our society. So I appreciate your continued employment. Okay. Just want to make sure, keep you on your toes Darcie. Absolutely. Thanks again, guys, for joining us and thank you everybody for tuning into today's salt. Talk on ESG investing. Just a reminder. If you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, you can access our entire archive of salt talks on our website and our YouTube channel. It's salt.org backslash talks, and our YouTube channel is called salt tube. We're also on social media. Please follow us on Twitter is where we're most active at salt conference, but we're also on Instagram, LinkedIn, and Facebook as well. Please tell your friends about salt talks. We love growing our community and providing people access to these educational resources. Uh, everything's for free again on our website and our YouTube channel. And on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team. This is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here. So.

Vanessa Colella: The Innovation Ecosystem | SALT Talks #171

“Whether it’s climate change, inequity or racial justice… none of these are issues that anyone will independently solve. We’re going to have to figure out how companies and governments work together in new structures in order to make some headway.”

Vanessa Colella is Citi Group’s chief innovation officer, accelerating and discovering new sources of value by championing innovation so Citi can compete more effectively in a world of technological, behavioral and societal change.

Within Citi Group, Citi Ventures is dedicated to promoting innovation and entrepreneurialism. This involves venture and equity investing in entrepreneurs and start-ups around the world designed address some of the most pressing challenges. D10X acts as an internal Citi Group incubator to promote entrepreneurialism and innovation from its over 200 thousand employees while adhering to regulations and protecting clients from any risks. “This is built around the idea that entrepreneurs want to change the world and we’ve got over 200k employees globally at Citi and they want be a part of force for positive change also.”

Citi Ventures invests in solutions around some of the biggest problems like income inequality, racial justice and climate change. While the economy is set to rebound in many areas, investment and innovation related to vulnerable populations most affected by the pandemic should get the most focus. “We’re going to have to be vigilante about the things that don’t change.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Vanessa Colella.png

Vanessa Colella

Chief Innovation Officer

Citi; Citi Ventures

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to salt talks. My name is John Darcie. I'm the managing director of salt, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance technology and public policy. Salt talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these salt talks is the same as our goal at our salt conference series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And our guest today has a long history of investing in a lot of these big ideas, a lot of very profitable investments in these big ideas as well. Uh, her name is Vanessa Colella and she comes to us from Citi group. Uh, Vanessa is city's chief innovation officer and leads the city ventures and city productivity teams.

John Darsie : (00:57)
Uh, Vanessa's goal is to accelerate and discover new sources of value by championing innovation. So the city can compete more effectively in a world of technological behavioral and societal change. The city ventures team drives innovation by exploring incubating and investing in new ideas and partnering with category, defining startups to help people, businesses and communities thrive. Uh, before joining Citi as chief innovation officer, she led their venture investing and D 10 X group, uh, at Citi ventures and ran marketing for cities north American consumer bank. As she joined Citibank in 2010 from us venture partners where she was an entrepreneur in residence, uh, prior Vanessa was the head of north America marketing and SVP of insights at Yahoo, uh, where she was responsible for developing and executing their consumer data strategy. She was previously a partner at McKinsey and company as well. Uh, she received her master's degree from Columbia university here in New York and MIT as well as a PhD from MIT media lab.

John Darsie : (01:58)
And as Vanessa may or may not know, Citi group, uh, also has ties here into SkyBridge, uh, Anthony, who is hosting today's talk, uh, was able to acquire city group's alternative investments unit after the global financial crisis in 2010. So we have city groupers among us here at SkyBridge. So it's great to have you on, and obviously we're great friends with the team at city group. As I mentioned, the host for today's talk is Anthony Scaramucci, the founder and managing partner of SkyBridge capital, which is a global alternative investment firm. Anthony is also the chairman of salts and with no further ado, I'm going to turn it over to Anthony for the interview. He says that now, Vanessa, that I'm the host of the interview, but he's going to try to outshine me for the next 45 minutes, just so you know how this works okay.

Vanessa Colella: (02:42)
To keep score, not really,

Anthony Scaramucci: (02:44)
You know, you're, you're a fellow boomer like me. Okay. We're competing against these millennials. It's two on one. I'm pretty confident that you and I can take him, but by the end of the show, you won't be needing to keep score. Let's just, let's leave it at that. He'll be running up the score on me. You see that it's, it's a protal, it's brutal Vanessa, but first of all, congratulations on everything you've done. Uh, and Darcy just for the record, we've established who the smartest person is on this salt talk. Okay. We can take your IQ and my IQ multiply by four and we're not reaching Vanessa. So Vanessa, I want I'm, I'm more interested in your family of origin, if you don't mind and your career, or where, where did you get all this drive and ambition? And when did you start to think that your career was going to unfold with this trajectory?

Vanessa Colella: (03:34)
Um, so I grew up, uh, in a very small town in Wisconsin and, um, I guess like many people in the Midwest was raised to believe that you work hard and then learned over the course of my life. It's work hard. And, and I feel like I've been very fortunate and very lucky. So I, um, as some people know, I started my career as part of the charter Corps of teach for America, uh, and have done as, as was mentioned earlier by John, I've been able to do a bunch of other things since then, but, uh, but I think, you know, have been really fortunate to be involved in lots of major scale transformation, which is what I enjoy.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:15)
And so let's talk about Citi ventures for a second. Um, what was the small town by the way? [inaudible] awesome. Okay. So

Vanessa Colella: (04:23)
You're old enough Anthony to remember the advertisements on 60 minutes, uh, how to spell Wausau. If you can't find it, I'll find a clip for you.

Anthony Scaramucci: (04:32)
I am old enough and see John is smiling right now because that was a shot to my kneecaps. Okay. Referencing my age. That's fine. I can take it though. I'm a, you know, a little sensitive, but I'll be, I'll be able to get over. So you've eaten a lot of cheese curves though, in your life though. Yes, absolutely. Yeah. My first partner, when we left Goldman Sachs, his name was Andy Bozart. His father worked for Alice traumas, which was a farm equipment company up in Wisconsin and they lived in, in Greendale. So I've been in my share of Milwaukee brewer games, uh, and I own one share of the green bay Packers. See that that's as close as I can get to Wisconsin. And I've been, I've been eating cheese curves, which is sort of obvious. So let's go to city ventures for a second because you've done some phenomenal things in your career and you've done some phenomenal things at city ventures. So tell us a little bit about Citi ventures. Tell us what you're looking for. And then this is sort of that Simon cowl question about the X factor. You've been very successful in identifying that in companies. So tell us a little bit about city ventures and then tell us how you find that X factor.

Vanessa Colella: (05:43)
Sure. Thank you. So Citi ventures, we really do a couple of things. Um, each of which have come together to think about how do we accelerate innovation, accelerate growth, uh, both for the company and for our clients. Um, first of all, we do our venture venture capital or equity investing, um, almost all of it for the company. Um, and in that, as you just referenced, you know, we're looking for, so looking for entrepreneurs who are really trying to change the world, who are trying to think about what it is that could, could make the world better in the financial services sector, whether that's safety and soundness, whether that's, you know, fraud prevention and data or more customer facing types of technologies. Uh, and you know, as you might imagine, we, we end up working with a lot of those entrepreneurs at Citi where we're collaborating with them to bring their plans and services to market.

Vanessa Colella: (06:36)
Um, we also, as part of Citi ventures run an internal incubator called D 10 X, um, to the X-Factor point, this is built around the idea, yeah, entrepreneurs want to change the world. We've got over 200,000 employees globally at Citi and they want to be part of a force for positive change also. Uh, but of course we are a highly regulated bank, so we can't have everyone just coming in every day and experimenting. Um, we've had to create a setting whereby employees can bring their ideas forward and we can test out those ideas in a way that doesn't introduce any incremental risk to our clients. It's our company. Um, and lastly, we run a group called the studio, which is really mostly thinking about how would you redefine banking? What if you opened the aperture a little bit and thought more broadly about financial services?

Vanessa Colella: (07:27)
So I'll give you just two quick examples there. Then we can talk about the X factor. Um, two things we've done in studio. We started a group a couple of years ago called Cupid, which stands for city university partnerships and innovation and discovery, and really was all focused on how do we bring diversity into the financial services sector? And we focus on many different types of diversity, racial diversity, ethnic diversity, gender diversity, also different kinds of backgrounds, right? I don't have a banking background as you've heard. I never worked in a bank before I came to city. And what we find is that people who are passionate about computer science or data science or design, they don't necessarily know. I know that there are lots of different places that they could use those skills, for instance, financial services. So we bring a wide variety of people into the bank, um, with the idea that we can give them a window on what a career might look like.

Vanessa Colella: (08:23)
And we can talk about some of the other data-driven platforms that we've have you launched as well. And in terms of X-Factor yeah, I have an amazing group of investors on my team. Um, they, they come from investing and so, you know, a lot of, I think people think your venture capital is very sexy. So, so isn't it neat. It's, it's a lot of block and tackle work, right? It's building networks. It's, it's trying to make sure that you're finding entrepreneurs who, you know, maybe are being by other venture capitalists and expanding beyond. So the obvious places. Um, so it's a lot of, I mean, it used to be a lot of coffees. Now it's a lot of zoom chats, uh, and it's really being an expert in your field, having a thesis about where the world is going and then kind of rolling up your sleeves and proving that as you know, Anthony proven that it's not just about the money, right? The money is important, but also how can we help these entrepreneurs create jobs, grow their companies, um, have the impact that they want.

Anthony Scaramucci: (09:29)
Well, we, we totally agree on that, but you're, you're doing something that is cutting edge and unique. If you don't mind me saying it. So because you're, you're sitting in what you just described as a highly regulated company that has structure layers of bureaucracy to protect its employees, to protect its customers, and obviously do adhere to the governmental strictures on the company. And yet you're sitting at the forefront of identifying trends and cutting entrepreneurs that are literally at the cutting edge of different things. So how are you managing that Vanessa? Like how do you get to get that feel for where the next trend is or where things are going as it relates to FinTech and, and the future, uh, from a venture perspective?

Vanessa Colella: (10:14)
Yeah, it's a really important question. I think, you know, sometimes people assume, oh, you're an innovation. Like you must stay on top of everything. And what I would say to all of your listeners is no one can stay on top of everything, but it's, it's just a mental impossibility at this point. There's too much information. So we tried, I try and think about with the team, what themes do we think are going to be important? And the nice thing is because I have the privilege of running a number of different things as part of Citi ventures, I get signals about those themes from different places, right? It could be from startups or venture capitalists that we work with, but could also be from client work that we do with our banking clients who are facing the same kind of challenges that we're facing. And out of all that every year we, we try and distill a handful of themes.

Vanessa Colella: (11:07)
Um, things like, you know, purpose goes mainstream is one that we've been thinking about for a number of years, right? This idea that it used to be only a very small number of companies that embedded purpose into their business, right? You could buy Bombas socks or Toms shoes or shop at Patagonia. And you knew that those were brands that had a purpose that was interwoven into their very business. And then a lot of other brands thought about what they did and then what they did to do good as related, but somewhat separate things. And we've been watching for years now, this idea that purpose was going to get fully integrated into business. And where that comes from is, is trying to tease out. When do you start hearing signals that resonate around a theme from different areas in your life? Like when did your parents bring up something that you also heard about at work? When do you hear from, you know, another investor that your kids were also asking you about? Um, and we try and do that same thing within Citi ventures, which is where, when these singles come together from very different places, it's a pretty good indication that there's some accelerating irreversible trend to pay attention to,

Anthony Scaramucci: (12:25)
And, and certainly COVID has affected all of that. And you're, you're intersecting now this purpose driven movement with the trends of what's going on in the pandemic. So how has that changed for thought process if at all?

Vanessa Colella: (12:39)
So certainly one thing that's changed is in my job, I used to have to spend a lot of time convincing people that disruption was a real thing. Uh, I now have to spend zero minutes doing that. We've all lived through really three and a half different crises over the past year, right? From the pandemic to sort of massive economic dislocation, to crisis around racial equity, by the way, all of these things already existed just 2020 sort of rip the bandaid off and said, made it impossible for anyone to not see what was happening. How has it affected us? I think, you know, one, it's made me proud of the work that we've done at city, whether around racial equity, uh, or just around the work that we've done on, on wealth, inequity and income inequity. We we've been working on a platform for a couple years that we launched in April of last year called the worthy.

Vanessa Colella: (13:37)
That was all about how could we help people earn more money. So as an example, you hear all the time about up-skilling and re-skilling, but people are trying to up-skill right. And the U S we've gotten $1.6 trillion worth of unpaid student debt. We shouldn't need any more information than that, to know that people are trying to up-skill, but they haven't been able to connect what skills they need to the ability to put more money in their bank accounts. Uh, and so we said, well, we could use a lot of publicly available data to launch a platform that allows you to go on and say, Hey, my name's Vanessa, I have 30 years of experience. I'm a school teacher in San Francisco. What can I do to improve my skillset? What can I do to increase my paycheck? Well, it turns out if you're a school teacher here in San Francisco, the answer is learn Mandarin because in this location, dual language, Chinese education is really sought after.

Vanessa Colella: (14:39)
Uh, but I started my career as a school teacher in Brooklyn. And if I were still sitting there, the answer is Spanish. So when you think about sort of, how do we, how do we help address some of these massive, whether it's climate change or inequity or racial justice? You know, we think it's a combination of providing people with tools to make effective decisions, um, and then working differently, creating different kinds of partnerships, because none of these are issues that any one of us is going to independently solve. We're going to have to figure out how companies governments work together in new structures in order to make some headway

Anthony Scaramucci: (15:19)
That, um, it, it, it makes total sense, uh, at the same time that you're doing all that. And you're trying to figure out what is going to change again, as we start to reopen the economy and create some level of normalization. So, so what are your thoughts there, Vanessa, in terms of things have changed and we accept that there's been a massive acceleration of certain things. Um, but then some things will go back or maybe no things will go back. What, where do you think we will be six or 12 months from now in terms of trends? Assessment.

Vanessa Colella: (15:51)
Yeah. So I think, you know, as you, as you see all the stimulus, not just here in the U S um, but in many countries around the world and particularly here, um, I think there's, there's pretty good consensus that, you know, we, there will be a lot of sectors that do come back. Uh, I tend to be more focused because I think I'm interested in pointing innovation at, at the places of greatest need. Um, I think in my group, we tend to be focused on, okay, it's great if, if some sectors come roaring back, but what about all those small businesses that weren't able to make it? What about all those people who, you know, had, you know, eviction, moratoriums, but, uh, but nonetheless our are well behind in, in rent and trying to think about how to get back on their feet. So I think, you know, we, we've had a miraculous year from a, um, a medical perspective in terms of the vaccines, obviously devastating you're in terms of the, the, the health effects and, and mortality around the world.

Vanessa Colella: (16:57)
But by the vaccines are nothing like, I think we ever would have expected if you and I had been having this conversation a year ago. Um, and, and so I think we will see improvement and I just think we're, we're actually going to have to remain vigilant around the things that don't change, uh, as opposed to getting kind of back on the wagon of, you know, now there's 5g, now there's six G now, you know, that those things will all happen, but we've got some real stars from what we've all been through around the world that I think we're going to have to retain focus on.

Anthony Scaramucci: (17:33)
So, eh, w w we're in agreement that companies are moving for more social purpose for more positive change. Um, could you share some examples of what Citibank is doing in that space in terms of what you are thinking about?

Vanessa Colella: (17:50)
Uh, sure. Just a couple of quick, but I think important ones. I mean, we've talked a little bit about income inequities city was the first, um, first company, first major bank that came out with an unadjusted gender and racial pay gap numbers, right. With the idea that if we're not willing to talk about the fact that there are discrepancies between pay for four different people, then it's going to be really hard to ever solve that problem. And so, you know, I think that's an important one. We obviously launched a number of initiatives totally over a billion dollars in 2020 to address racial equity and racial equality. Right. How do we think about me? One that my team is involved in is how do we think about using our impact fund at city to support black entrepreneurs, who we all understand get a minuscule fraction of venture capital funding, um, all the way to, you know, leveraging some of our municipal relationships around the world to help cities rebuild. Right. We talked earlier about how small businesses have really been impacted over the past year. So how do we help those cities attract investment? How do we get those businesses are back up and running? Uh, so a wide variety of activities, but again, I think importantly tied to the, our business, um, being separate of that, that was something really important to us. Uh, particularly when we launched the racial equity work was how do we do that in a way that is that's fully tied into the core of cities business?

Anthony Scaramucci: (19:31)
I think it's very well said, but you also have the dilemma of balancing risk, risk management, the regulatory scrutiny that you guys are under with all of the concepts of innovation. So how do you make that balance work fast?

Vanessa Colella: (19:46)
Yeah, I mean, I, I sometimes give the analogy I said earlier, you know, we can't have 200,000 people coming to work at city every day and decided that they want to experiment. It's a little bit like going into surgery and lying on the Cod with that little tiny blanket on top of you and having your surgeon walk by and say, Anthony, I thought this afternoon, I try something new. And you think that was

Anthony Scaramucci: (20:10)
My brain surgeon, by the way. So that's probably some of the problems that I've had in my life. That was my brain surgeon that did that

Vanessa Colella: (20:17)
To me. Yeah. Well, if that happened, you said, man, I don't want you to try something new. I just want you to do the thing that you do. That's predictable, that's repeatable. I don't want volatility in this situation. So yeah, we've, we've thought about this a lot at Citi and we've worked over the last, uh, certainly decade and I can speak for my group at the company and making sure that we have systems to be able to experiment without introducing risks. So let me give you one example of, we talked about [inaudible] earlier, which is our internal incubator. Um, we've developed a process whereby we can test ideas before we actually move a dollar, uh, put anything into market. And while that sounds incredibly obvious, you'd probably be surprised at the number of large companies that when someone has an idea, they pitched that idea and a senior person says, okay, I like that idea.

Vanessa Colella: (21:16)
And they go and build it and they do it. Um, we do just the opposite. Someone has an idea, and then we say, okay, let's first validate the idea before we go into building it and putting it into production. So just that simple switch of sort of the order of operations, lets us create an environment that is safe and doesn't introduce incremental risk for people to experiment. And I think that's been really important to our ability to explore new innovations at city because, you know, we, we work in an industry that does not, it's not the right place for like fail fast and break things. Right. That is not how, how we think about things as you know, in financial services.

Anthony Scaramucci: (22:02)
Yeah. But, you know, listen, I, I guess I have a, uh, a bias towards city because of my experience, uh, you know, Mike Corbat and I became personal friends after the transaction where we bought a business from you guys, Jane Frazier. And I have also, uh, developed a relationship because of that. And it does seem like you, you guys have a culture that is a little bit more entrepreneurial, um, than most. And so, so why is that Vanessa? Cause you like working there of course. And the, and uh, you're an innovator. So what is it about Citi's culture that makes it work?

Vanessa Colella: (22:41)
Yeah, that's a really great and insightful question. I don't, I don't get that question a lot. Um, but I've thought about a lot. So I think in a city is, um, it's a very multifaceted institution. Obviously we operate in, you know, more than a hundred countries around the globe in many different businesses. And therefore I would say, well, well, lots of companies are large city is multi-faceted. And so it, it tends to attract people who are problem solvers. So when we look at the kinds of traits that entrepreneurs have, you know, they're, they're curious, they're, they're brave, they're tenacious, they're they they're empathetic. They try and put together teams of people who are diverse and think about things in different ways. We find a lot of those same traits in employees at Citi and, and my own hypothesis is that because of the multifaceted nature of the company, it actually people self-select for some of those traits.

Vanessa Colella: (23:43)
Uh, and therefore, you know, I, I believe that a lot of the innovation that we've been able to drive at Citi, we have been more successful because of our employee base, because we have a group of people who, um, who thrive in an environment that has, there are many different things going on and your career can be, you know, one year in the consumer bank and the next year and treasury services, right. There are lots of different kinds of, of challenges to tackle. And so I really do believe that it comes down to kind of the, the character and sort of the, the passions of our employees and have really been the fuel for us to be successful.

Anthony Scaramucci: (24:25)
Before I turn it over to our resident, millennial, who will ask the real spiffy questions about the new economy, give me some predictions that you have about our near term and our intermediate term future.

Vanessa Colella: (24:41)
Um, well near term future, I think, you know, it, it's so funny, human nature is so fine, right? None of us, none of us love change. Um, and, and, you know, none of us love having to be super adaptable and, and we're also generally very bad with any sort of information that has latency or probability attached to it. And so we've been living for more than a year now around the globe in many situations that none of us thought we would ever be in, in fact, if we were doing this in another era, we would have met in person rather than over zoom. Um, and, and yet people are, you're wearing a lot of makeup

Anthony Scaramucci: (25:23)
By the way, but if we're meeting in person, I'm just letting you know my hair and makeup would've looked terrific on that debt, but keep going. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Likewise. See that Darcy's hair and makeup. He doesn't need it unfortunately, but you know, you and I would have looked great. So go ahead and tell me,

Vanessa Colella: (25:40)
Yeah, so, so I think, you know, right now people are in this mode of like, it's so hard to see when sort of the, the fog might lift right in the same way that a year ago, it was so hard for any of us to see how radically our lives were going to change. Uh, and so I actually believe that, that, you know, given we talk about vaccines earlier, um, I am optimistic that that things will start improving faster than people expect right now because our expectations are, we're sort of in this like, oh my gosh, what if it's like this for years? Um, and so I think we will start to see, um, we will start to see things reopen as more of the world gets vaccinated. Obviously that's predicated on as a globe, us making sure that, um, that countries all have access to vaccinations.

Vanessa Colella: (26:36)
So, uh, and as we do just as in the pandemic, you saw certain sectors, boom, and other sectors suffer. Um, we'll see the same thing, you know, coming out of that. Um, what's been interesting from, from my vantage point, is that, you know, that at the beginning of the pandemic, we weren't sure if from a startup perspective, you know, we were going to see sort of a real slowdown in activity. Um, and actually we, we didn't, um, we we've seen whether you look at the FinTech sector or venture capital overall. Um, we've seen really robust activity all the way through 2020 with maybe the exception of March of last year. Um, and so I think that will, that will continue. We've seen entrepreneurs pivot their businesses, figure out how they can, can continue to grow. So I think we'll see sort of more developed sectors emerge just as you'd expect, as, as people are able to do things like travel again. Uh, and, and you'll see in, in my world, um, you, we have not seen so much of a slowdown in the startup world, so I don't expect that that will change.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:45)
So my colleague, John Dorsey has questions for you. Um, but this has been a fascinating conversation and, uh, uh, congratulations on everything

Vanessa Colella: (27:55)
That you're doing. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Anthony Scaramucci: (27:58)
Yeah. Finally get my opportunity here. It's actually mandated in my contract, as I say, on some of these talks that I get at least one third of the air time. So thank you Anthony, for fulfilling that contract, but I want to talk about purpose goes mainstream and citizenship, which is sort of the name for city groups, uh, ESG type of efforts. So w we also did a recent talk, uh, with a couple investors, prominent investors that focus on ESG. Uh, and, and I think there's two categories of people that are involved in the ESG space. There's people that are paying lip service to tick a box so that they can, uh, go out and say that they're implementing ESG initiatives. And there's people that genuinely dive deep into these metrics and, and, uh, meaningfully enact change through initiatives going on at their company and, uh, companies they invest in. What do you think are the primary drivers behind sort of the demand for these ESG oriented strategies and impact investing and what is Citi group doing? Maybe that's different and deeper than others that, that do it more, uh, going through the motions.

Vanessa Colella: (28:57)
Yeah, so, so great question, John. I think, I think the primary drivers are a number of things. First of all, I think, you know, we've already talked in this conversation about the fact that, that a lot of these issues that ESG has been trying to address by the way ESG is, as we all know, not a new thing, but it's sort of a newly embraced thing of these issues have existed for a long time, but they have, they have risen to the point of being unable to be ignored. Um, so I think that's one driver. I also think, I mean, Anthony was joking earlier about generational differences, but I do think that the push from both millennials and gen Z to take some of these societal issues much more seriously, uh, has, has been a really good push. Um, you see all sorts of surveys about how, you know, how those generations feel that these are not nice to have this.

Vanessa Colella: (29:47)
Isn't like the thing that you do after work. This, this has to be, this has to be something that is part of what you do at work. So I think the drivers are both, um, are both kind of, you know, the reality of these challenges becoming bigger and bigger around the globe and generations of people saying enough, like stop ignoring this stuff. Um, you know, we have to, we have to pay attention. I do think to your point, there still are, you know, there's some places that sort of talk the talk and some places that walk the walk, uh, and you know, I've, as I mentioned before, I'm really proud to be at city because I think, you know, we, we haven't necessarily rushed into things. I think, you know, when you rush into things, you got to build the right infrastructure to really be able to do things like issue green bonds and, and make these things part of the natural course of business.

Vanessa Colella: (30:43)
Right? Why is that the case? Well, it turns out, you know, to issue green bonds, you've gotta be able to tag your assets as to whether they're green or not. And many companies haven't done that yet. So how do you, how do you help do that? So I think we have been very sort of both forward-leaning and methodical about building the, the structures necessary to make ESG a core part of what we do. Uh, and, uh, and I think that's that, that is an accelerating an irreversible trend. And, and you'll see, you know, many companies move in that direction. I don't think that's going away anytime soon.

Anthony Scaramucci: (31:22)
And so what's the next iteration of this. You talked about how we went from, you know, ESG existed, but maybe there wasn't the same level of investment or application of ESG, uh, the ESG mentality in businesses and investment institutions, where are we potentially in 10 years, if this framework continues to take hold, what are concrete steps, uh, you know, that companies can take to drive these positive social changes and what can be the output from that?

Vanessa Colella: (31:48)
So let me first maybe comment John, from the perspective of, of venture capital. Um, since I spent a while in my, my day in that space, um, you know, venture capitalists are obviously looking for companies that they think they can scale. And part of that scale is to be able to exit in a, in a way that returns capital to, uh, to all the LPs and, you know, part of having confidence about investing in a startup is having confidence that there's that pathway to that startup having an exit at some point. Um, yeah, there was a lot of green investing when I first came Silicon valley 20 years ago. Um, but it wasn't as widespread because there weren't any really good examples, like scaled examples that you could point to entrepreneurs being. Um, the good thing about venture capital is it is a virtuous cycle.

Vanessa Colella: (32:43)
Uh, and once people start to see companies that are able to exit successfully, then that will cause more capital to flow into those types of companies. So, you know, through our impact fund that city, we've got, you know, $200 million impact fund focused on ESG and black owned businesses. And we see many more companies today, many more entrepreneurs successfully raising capital, whether it's for things like, um, sustainable energy or workforce development, things that that would have been niche a decade ago are now sort of part of the, the general sort of flow of capital. And, and part of the reason for that is, is that virtuous cycle of you've seen some success and that will be, get more success. So if you asked me about 10 years from now, you will see many more companies that one might have thought about. You know, when I was at MIT, we did a lot of, you know, we were young, like you are now.

Vanessa Colella: (33:44)
And, and, you know, we did a lot of dreaming about like, what if this technology could be used for this good. Right? And then, then you sort of grew up in thought, well, no, one's gonna, no, one's gonna fund me to use that technology for this that will now people will. And so you will see many more companies, uh, we just, uh, are investing one right now because I can't disclose yet because it's not public, but really interesting way of thinking about how do you, how do you modify energy usage to reduce the, the pressure on the grid? Obviously super timely, given what happened in Texas, um, and 10 years from now that those will all be mainstream companies. And, and hopefully it will be really proud investors in many of them.

Anthony Scaramucci: (34:31)
So I want to go back to an earlier comment. You made it wasn't in your official bio, but you mentioned that you were part of the founding group founding core for teach for America, which is a fantastic organization. I had a lot of friends from college that went into teach for America before going on to their maybe full-time career, whether it be as a lawyer or a technology investor or a founder. Um, uh, it's a multi-part question about, you know, why do you think teachers am I, my mom was an educator. Um, she worked for an organization, uh, in addition to teaching in a classroom called newspapers and education, where she took, uh, content that was in local newspapers, went to low-income school districts and taught teachers how to leverage, uh, current events, things that were happening in the real world to teach their students about various concepts.

Anthony Scaramucci: (35:13)
So, uh, what is your outlook for education? Why do you think teachers are well-suited like you were, you know, you went from a teaching background into a successful career in venture capital. Why, why do you think teachers are well suited, uh, to be potentially technology investors and, and forecast trends and understand human behavior? And what are your, uh, what's your outlook for education given, you know, COVID has sort of accelerated our move a digital world and giving people an idea of how we can scale quality education. So I know there's a lot in there about your background as a teacher, uh, but I just find it fascinating that you came from teach for America. And, and I think teachers are well-suited to, to follow the path you have, but try to unpack all of that, that I just throw.

Vanessa Colella: (35:54)
All right. I'll do my best in a few minutes. So you get all of your airtime. Um, so why are teachers well, well-suited, I talked before about a couple of traits that, um, that we think are really important for driving change, um, uh, you know, curiosity being empathetic, bringing in diverse points of view, being brave or tenacious. Um, I think, you know, teachers, teachers really embody a lot of those traits and, you know, I can certainly speak for, you know, many, many of us around the world who have realized in 2020, um, with our children at home and unable to go to school, just how important those teachers are and, and how, you know, how important having, having kids get access to people who think in those ways, how important that is. So, you know, why do I think teachers are, first of all, I think, you know, many people are well-suited to do lots of things.

Vanessa Colella: (36:52)
And so you have many, many people will have very diverse careers in the future. Um, but I do think teachers, teachers ultimately are very good listeners, um, because you have to be to maintain control of a classroom. Um, I, I remember when I first moved into corporate America and someone asked me, you know, how did I manage that meeting that people were so difficult? I said, I used to teach 42 eighth graders at once. Like that's difficult, you know, adults are I actually generally reasonably well behaved. Um, so I think teachers have a lot of passion, a lot of, a lot of grit, a lot of, you know, intellectual preparation and, and those are all things that the economy is sorely in need of both in the education sector and then other sectors, um, where do I think education will go? I think, you know, some sectors were already very disrupted well before 2020, right?

Vanessa Colella: (37:51)
If you think about, um, news and media, I think about, um, retail and lots of things had gone on, you know, there are a handful of sectors like healthcare, financial services, education that had not been through that same level of disruption. Uh, and I think, you know, many people thought, even though, you know, some of us are passionate about education reform, we felt like the old school, like way schools work didn't have to stay the same for a hundred years, or it could have moved forward. But, but, and there were, by the way, there are lots of educational reform that's already going on. As you mentioned, you know, the work that your mother is doing, uh, but none of it ever really got scale. And 2020 was the year that education changed at scale. Now, the other thing that happened in 2020 that everyone's aware of is that education changed at scale in ways that like double down on the inequity of education.

Vanessa Colella: (38:48)
So, you know, a massive body of work that needs to be done for everything from, you know, folks in New York working to make broadband accessible, um, in a much more equitable way, because it turns out you can't be in zoom school if you can't get on zoom. Um, and, and so, so 2020 both accelerated the idea that you could teach in lots of different ways. And, and I think sort of mandated us all to get much more serious about making sure that that is broadly accessible. So just like we were talking before about, you know, venture capital and, and the fact that success begets success in these sectors, um, years ago, ed tech was like a small thing. Ad tech was the thing that you did. If you were a double bottom line investor, or you were interested in social, but you didn't care quite so much about what your returns look like. Ad tech will be a big place that people put money into, right?

Anthony Scaramucci: (39:45)
And you're seeing the, you to me IPO, they've been doing a lot of advertising as well. It's just a Testament to how the sector has grown. I want to dive deeper into FinTech and thank you by the way, for unpacking that complex and meandering question that I pose to you, you did a fantastic job, uh, but FinTech, this sort of goes back to the theme that Anthony was talking about. You're working in this sprawling organization that does a lot of different things. And in the FinTech space, I would say to some extent, there's this intermediation that's happening as a result of technology and FinTech. Uh, so when you're working in an organization like Citi group, that has a lot of, you know, I'm going to call them legacy, uh, financial operations and business lines, and then you have FinTech, uh, that's, that's potentially disintermediating some of those businesses.

Anthony Scaramucci: (40:30)
There's obviously exciting things happening, but you have to be sensitive to, um, you know, things that are happening with your organization and things, trends that are happening in the FinTech space. How do you communicate internally about, okay, this is a, an unstoppable train that's moving, and this is how we need to sort of, uh, position ourselves to, to not be left behind by it. But at the same time, not fully disrupt what we think are, are good models for, for running our business. But again, uh, somewhat of a meandering question, but, but within the framework of our Lord large organization, how do you look at FinTech and identify which trends, uh, you try to sort of help accelerate and which ones you, you know, uh, maybe decide that, that the old way of doing things has merits and, and there's reasons to stick with

Vanessa Colella: (41:13)
Them. Yeah. So, so a couple of things I'll take you're inside the organization first, and then sort of what has merits, um, inside the organization. I mean, it's a real dialogue. Like we're privileged to have great working relationships with our business leaders and business operators across the company. And, you know, city is not the arbiter of, of what trends are going to move or not move, right? We have to be responsive to what's happening in the environment, what our clients need, how you bring those opportunities to our clients. And so, you know, I think we try and not only bring companies to bear and help entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs be successful, but we spend a lot of time on thought leadership. We talked at the beginning of this discussion about, you know, themes, et cetera, right. We, we try and contextualize a lot of the change so that it's easier for people who have a 24 by seven day job running a large business, but who aren't afforded the opportunity to meet thousands of entrepreneurs every year, right.

Vanessa Colella: (42:20)
We try and distill what we're learning from the outside and bring that in so that our operators can make decisions that they need to make about their businesses. Um, the other thing I would say is that, that, you know, very rarely, not never, but very rarely in life does change happen instantaneously. Um, that that's both a bad thing because actually humans are really good at recognizing instantaneous change and really bad at recognizing change over time, which is why everybody knows the story, the story of the frog in the boiling pot of water. Um, but it's really good because it does give us time to adapt. And, and I think that that dialogue that we have with our businesses, the exchange of ideas, they, you know, the pushback that we get from them sometimes about, you know, you're busy talking about this trend, but we see it differently over here. Nope, that's a two way conversation. And I think the robustness of that conversation is probably the thing that makes me most heartened about, you know, where, where we end up as change continues to happen in how we serve our clients, because this isn't about, you know, tomorrow morning, we're going to wake up and everything's going to be different, but also not. Everything's going to be exactly the same and, and helping each other, see that continued evolution of change, I think is, is a big part of what we do.

Anthony Scaramucci: (43:48)
And again, going back to Anthony's prior comments about Citi, I think it's a credit to the organization that they're willing to, to have those conversations and to have people now tell them where things are moving and how they need to change, as opposed to just sort of building walls and trying to defend the old way of doing things. But Vanessa, thank you so much for joining us today. Anthony, do you have any final words for Vanessa before we let her go? No, listen, I think it's a, it's a phenomenal conversation and I think you've left. No doubt that people inside a very large scale corporations, uh, can see innovation, invest in innovation, uh, make bold decisions. And in some ways you're getting the benefits of both of those things. You're the benefits of the scale and infrastructure of Citibank with the nimbleness of your astute leadership and entrepreneurship. So congratulations, Vanessa. Uh, don't let these millennials beat you down. Mola. I'm counting on you. Okay. I'm doing my part. I'm doing my part over here on the salt talks, Vanessa. I'm expecting you to do the same.

Vanessa Colella: (44:54)
Excellent. Listen. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, John. And real pleasure to, uh, to be with both of you today. I appreciate the invitation,

Anthony Scaramucci: (45:01)
Vanessa. Thanks again, everybody for tuning into today's salt talk. We love educating people on a variety of different topics. And it's great to get the perspective that I think is a unique perspective that Vanessa brings just a reminder, if you missed any part of this salt talk or any of our previous talks, so you can access them all for free on our website and on our YouTube channel, our websites, salt.org, backslash talks to access all these salt talks. And our YouTube channel is called salt tube. We post all of our episodes on demand there as well. We're on social media. We're most active on Twitter at salt conference, which we hope to have Vanessa in person at one of our future salt conferences have a we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook, and looking to grow our audiences there. And please spread the word about these salt talks. We love again, educating people. Uh, we would like to be a resource on a variety of different topics covering finance tech and policy. So please spread the word. And on behalf of Anthony and the entire salt team, this is John Darcie signing off from salt talks for today. We hope to see you back here. So.

Yan Pritzker: Introduction to Bitcoin | SALT Talks #170

“We are at the Internet moment of 1995 with Bitcoin... we’re standing on the floor of the exponential curve coming up.“

Yan Pritzker is co-founder and CTO of Swan Bitcoin, a Bitcoin investment service that allows users to set up a recurring Bitcoin purchase plan. He is the author of Inventing Bitcoin.

Bitcoin represents the inevitable progression into the digital age where money is digital too. Bitcoin removes the central intermediaries required for financial transactions that serve as barriers for many around the globe. Bitcoin guards against the kind of monetary policy that can render a person’s savings worthless. This has been seen in places like the Soviet Union. “Americans may not always be aware of what’s going on in the rest of the world with how money works because we live in a very different system. We basically make the world reserve currency.”

Due to the distributive nature of Bitcoin and its network effect, it becomes stronger and more valuable as more people enter the space; Bitcoin becomes more de-risked as adoption grows. “We are at the Internet moment of 1995 with Bitcoin... we’re standing on the floor of the exponential curve coming up.“

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Yan Pritzker.png

Yan Pritzker

Co-Founder & Chief Technical Officer

Swan

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:08)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:38)
And we're thrilled today to bring you the latest episode in our digital asset series. Certainly one of those ideas that we'd like to cover at SALT that we think is changing the world fundamentally, and we're excited to bring you a guest who we think provides one of the best resources out there for people that are just learning about Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (00:54)
We love when those types of people turn into these talks, so they can start to go down the rabbit hole, if you will, that we started going down a few years ago that landed us on Bitcoin. So our guest today is Yan Pritzker, he's the co-founder and chief technology officer at Swan Bitcoin. He spent the last 20 years as an engineer and product and technology leader for early stage startups.

John Darsie: (01:17)
In 2012, he was the co-founding CTO at reverb.com, which was acquired by Etsy for 275 million in Fiat dollars in 2019. While he was exposed to Bitcoin in early 2011, Yan didn't take it seriously until about 2016 when he began to research it on a daily basis. By 2018, he decided that it was the most important thing he could be working on and left Reverb to start consulting for Bitcoin related companies prior to launching Swan together with Corey Klipstein in 2019.

John Darsie: (01:50)
Yan is the author of the book that I referenced earlier, it's called Inventing Bitcoin. And again, if you're new to the space and even if you're not, and you still want to get a stronger technical understanding of how Bitcoin works, there's no better book out there to start with than Inventing Bitcoin by Yan Pritzker.

John Darsie: (02:06)
Posting today's talk is Brett Messing, president and chief operating officer at SkyBridge Capital. Before I turn it over to Brett to conduct most of the interview, he's sort of our resident Bitcoin maximalist here at SkyBridge. Although we're all very enthusiastic about our entrance into the space.

John Darsie: (02:21)
I want to talk to you about Inventing Bitcoin for a second. So obviously we only have 45 minutes or so here, and you could probably go on for much longer than that talking about all the intricacies of Bitcoin. But if someone was coming to you for the first time saying, "I know nothing about Bitcoin, could you explain it to me in a succinct way relatively quickly." How would you do it sort of going through the outline of your book?

Yan Pritzker: (02:47)
The book is very much focused on understanding Bitcoin as money because this is the key understanding for me that really flipped me. I started writing the book and the subtitle of the book is the decentralized technology blah, blah, blah. And I really started thinking about Bitcoin as technology when I was writing the book, but I very quickly flipped my own thinking to Bitcoin as money.

Yan Pritzker: (03:06)
So succinctly Bitcoin is a new form of money and it's very similar to the digital money that we already know, with digital dollars, with Apple Pay and Google Pay and PayPal and all of that, except for there's no intermediary. And that's a really key point because instead of those dollars flowing over these systems which are either governments or corporate systems, now there's these Bitcoins are flowing between peers. Peer to peer cash is the subtitle of the Bitcoin white paper.

Yan Pritzker: (03:32)
So Bitcoin is a new type of money that kind of takes us into a different world where we don't need these centralized entities in the middle of every transaction where they can censor it, they can change the monetary policy on us and they can make our money worthless. I do come from a country that did that to the money, which is the former Soviet Union.

Yan Pritzker: (03:53)
So Americans may not be always kind of aware of what's going on in the rest of the world with how money works, because we live in a very different system here. We basically make the world's reserve currency and we have that privilege. But everybody else lives in a very different society. And we are all going to be living in a digital society where all of our money will be digital.

Yan Pritzker: (04:12)
So I always think about Bitcoin as a new form of money for a digital society, native to that idea of internet money, but it's open source, it's borderless, and it's not under anybody's control, which is really important for us to have or to continue to have a free society.

John Darsie: (04:26)
And from a technical perspective, again, without going too deep into the science, Bitcoin sort of solves the Byzantine General's problem, which you write about and Vijay Boyapati who we're also having on SALT Talks wrote about in his Bullish Case for Bitcoin. But how does that puzzle work? How do you remove the intermediary in a way that still maintains trust verification and everything you need to operate a financial system?

Yan Pritzker: (04:51)
So Bitcoin is a system that anybody can join. That's really a difference with the financial system. In order for you to transact, you need to have a bank in the middle or a company and that company or bank is specially licensed by the government to do these kinds of things. With Bitcoin, in order to participate in the network, all you have to do is run some software on your computer and anybody can do that.

Yan Pritzker: (05:10)
So Bitcoin takes that ledger that your bank typically has and in your bank there's a database and there's some numbers in it. It says how much money does everybody have? And there is guards around that database. There's either a physical security guards, there's software intrusion systems. There's all this security around that, but essentially it's just a database with the numbers in it.

Yan Pritzker: (05:28)
Bitcoin is very similar. It's just a database with numbers in it. But the difference is that everybody has a copy of the database and anybody can participate in that. Bitcoin provides the same idea that your bank does with the security, but in Bitcoin that security is provided through the usage of real world resources, which is energy. We actually expend electrical energy and very large quantities of it in order to secure Bitcoin from attacks or somebody basically changing those numbers on us.

Yan Pritzker: (05:55)
And that allows anybody in the world wants to participate in the process that we call mining, which is really the production of Bitcoin and also the securing of Bitcoin transactions. It allows that process to be fully trustless, meaning we don't actually have to worry about who these people are that are doing the mining. We don't have to worry about whether they're following the rules, because everybody basically checks that the work that they're doing is correct. And there's a system of checks and balances there that keeps the whole system functioning very similar to how our government has checks and balances, but I would argue even stronger.

John Darsie: (06:26)
Well, we run a full node here at SkyBridge and the power of the Bitcoin network is how distributed it is. And everybody who's involved in it is obviously they have something invested in protecting the integrity of the network. So we're proud to do our small part in that process, but I'll turn it over to Brett, to dive a little deeper into Bitcoin intellectually with you for the rest of the conversation.

Yan Pritzker: (06:49)
Thanks.

Brett Messing: (06:49)
Hey Yan, thanks for joining us. Let me just ... I want to hold up your book so everyone can see-

Yan Pritzker: (06:54)
There you go.

Brett Messing: (06:54)
Because anyone interested in Bitcoin should buy the book. I think your journey is interesting and I think you can help us help other people, which is there's a question we get asked often. So you found Bitcoin in 2011, I'm assuming it was 10 bucks or less. You re-engage with it in 2016, it's probably 500-ish. Maybe you buy some in, I'll let you speak. And then you start building a business when it's 10,000. It's kind of it's up 20X.

Brett Messing: (07:26)
So I think you might know where I'm going with this. We get asked a lot am I too late? It feels late, it's hard enough to buy Bitcoin the first time for a new buyer because you're remembering 2017 and Jimmy Fallon making fun of it and your neighbor's kid asking you about it. And it's something you couldn't take serious and now you realize you might have to, but it's still so hard.

Brett Messing: (07:49)
And then when you couple that with being the guy who top ticks it, I think it just makes it difficult. So how did you think about that? And then how do you think others who are addressing it here today at 50,000s think about it?

Yan Pritzker: (08:06)
So I think it's a very common story that people have multiple touch points with Bitcoin. As you said, my first touch point was in 2011 and I heard about it on Slashdot which was a website for nerds. I think it still exists, not very popular anymore. But essentially it had tech news and it said, "Hey, there's this open-source payment system people are building." I said, "That's interesting. And maybe I'll buy some." Bought some at 30 bucks, watched it go down to $2 and just exited the market?

Yan Pritzker: (08:29)
I just thought, "Okay, I've been taken for a fool." I mean, I didn't have very much money in that. I had like $1000 in. But just the feeling that you got taken for a fool is so strong and you just sell the bottom, you get out of it and you never look at it again. And that's exactly what happened to me. And in 2011, I did that.

Yan Pritzker: (08:44)
Now 2013, there was a change in the market. The price was actually $1000 when I kind of revisited in 2013. So it's gone up tremendously from my first experience at 30. And what made me think of it differently is now there was an app called Coinbase and it was pretty shiny, it looked nice, looked like somebody had put the time into to do it right.

Yan Pritzker: (09:04)
And it was a very different world from in 2011 when you were buying on a very shady exchange called Mt. Gox, was really poor user interface. You have to wire money to very questionable places. And it was basically the change in user experience that made me think, you know what? Maybe there's something here. And then in 2016, again, you had this massive shift in the way that people were thinking about Bitcoin. You had more and more companies coming into it. You had more building. And for me as an engineer and as a startup person, I started seeing an ecosystem emerge.

Yan Pritzker: (09:32)
And watching an ecosystem emerging around something, you start to think of it differently. You don't think of it as this, "Oh, this is just this thing that's worth X amount of dollars." No, actually it's a system and there's infrastructure being built. And that makes you wake up and say, "Okay, well, why are people building infrastructure on this?" There must be something more to it.

Yan Pritzker: (09:48)
I think as the price grows and as the adoption grows, what we're actually creating here is essentially an unstoppable monster. So price is a very good measure of adoption but the reason the price is going up is because there's more demand. It's very simple because Bitcoin supply is very constrained. So the demand goes up, the price goes up.

Yan Pritzker: (10:04)
So as price goes up, more money is invested in infrastructure, more money is invested in mining. For example, in 2011 or 2013, miners were just people with a machine in their garage. Now miners are public companies with millions of dollars at stake, sometimes hundreds of millions, billion dollar market caps.

Yan Pritzker: (10:21)
So it's a dramatic shift in how the network has evolved. And that means that we're at a different place. And this year we know there's a major development with public companies now entering into the space. Tesla, MicroStrategy, or a dozen other companies that are now buying large quantities of Bitcoin at these prices. So now you have to ask yourself, why are they doing that and how many more companies behind them will follow? And we know that there's very, very large demand for this. So for me it's actually being de-risked as it goes further.

Yan Pritzker: (10:49)
All of these kinds of early narratives around Bitcoin is for criminals or Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme are being disproven every day as more and more people and more and more companies and smart people enter the space. Folks like Jack Dorsey and Peter Thiel don't just do things for fun. They're smart people and they're doing things because they have a reason. So if you really pay attention to these folks, and you also recognize that the ability to enter into Bitcoin, isn't even there for some of them.

Yan Pritzker: (11:14)
If you're $100 billion dollar asset manager, it's very difficult for you to buy a significant stake in Bitcoin, just because of the liquidity and that liquidity is growing every day. So for me, it's not at all about am I too late, is that we're actually too early. If you look at the adoption of Bitcoin, how many per cent of the world has any Bitcoin?

Yan Pritzker: (11:33)
It's certainly a single digits. It's probably under 5%, almost certainly under 2% with any significant allocation. So if you look at that, it's kind of like internet in 1995, where you could have said, "Hey, the internet sucks. It's over, it's been two decades. It's not going anywhere." And people have said that. There's a Newsweek article by Cliff Stoll in 1995, that totally dismissed the internet, and said, "My local mall is doing more business in a day than the internet does in a month." But that was at a time when internet penetration worldwide was half a percent and it was 5% in America.

Yan Pritzker: (12:04)
And I would argue, we are at the internet moment of 1995 right now in Bitcoin, where that's exactly the penetration we have in the world. And we can see it growing exponentially. And you can either dismiss it and say I missed the boat, or you can realize that we're standing on the floor of the exponential curve that's just coming up.

Brett Messing: (12:23)
Thank you. That's interesting. I have a lot of thoughts. I'm trying to think where to go to it. It does seem to me that the defining feature of Bitcoin is the restricted supply. And that it's predictable and it doesn't respond to demand. But as Bitcoin goes up, each coin is worth so much more. So I was thinking about Square. So Square issued earnings yesterday, there was a lot of focus on the fact that they put 170 million of their balance sheet into Bitcoin, which is exciting.

Brett Messing: (12:57)
But if you looked at the amount of Bitcoin they sold to their customers, quarter over quarter, it sort of flattened. It went from like 1.6 billion or 1.7 billion. And if you look at where the price is today relative to where it was in the third quarter, it's up about 4X. So their contribution to the supply demand, balance imbalance is less significant materially so. So doesn't Bitcoin have to become an institutional asset to maintain this price?

Yan Pritzker: (13:31)
Well, I think there's interest from institutions certainly this year. And I think one of the ways you can explain the retail cool off if you will, of Bitcoin is probably because people are looking at it and saying, "Hey, this thing just went up 10X from March, 4X in the last couple of months. Why would I buy the top?" Everybody's thinking they're buying the top.

Yan Pritzker: (13:48)
And when you're a retail investor ... Which is, I mean, I'm happy that they're thinking that way. Maybe they're being a little smarter than the 2017 when everybody did buy the top. And then the top only lasted a few hours, but this time, it seems a little bit different. I mean, these prices are sticking around for weeks, now months, and maybe we've been kind of grinding from 30,000 to 50,000. I do think there's a difference in how institutions are thinking about it.

Yan Pritzker: (14:11)
And as both from my own experience at Swan, because I mean we onboard smaller businesses, but there's certainly no small and medium-sized businesses that are not going to sell tomorrow. They're here for 10 years, 50 years. Some of them are looking at it as something that they're going to just keep in the family and pass on for generations. So it's a very different mindset. So I'm not too worried that retail people are buying less on Square.

Yan Pritzker: (14:32)
Actually, they shouldn't be buying on Square because there's ridiculous withdrawal limits. So don't do that. But I think there is a certain amount of cool off there. I wouldn't use Square as the judge of how Bitcoin is being sold at all. We know, for example, there's $25 billion of interest at NYDIG right now from institutions.

Yan Pritzker: (14:49)
Again, I believe that's because it's just very, very early. It's not going to be 25 billion. It's going to be 250 billion next year, potentially. So we're looking at the beginning of that cycle. And so yes, institutions are going to be adopting it, but you also have to look at what's going on all over the world. We are in the such an American bubble here. And I just have to hammer this home for people who have never been outside the US or haven't looked at financial systems outside the US.

Yan Pritzker: (15:14)
Right now in Argentina, you cannot buy more than 200 American dollars per month. That's Argentina, a reasonably developed first world country, if you will, that's having some issues with their currency. That problem is all over the world. Nigeria, Libya, Turkey, Iran in all of those countries, people are buying Bitcoin. And it's going to be much smaller amounts than institutions obviously, but in mass, as billions of people enter into Bitcoin and hundreds or thousands of institutions do, you're going to see an appreciation in the price. You're going to see an appreciation in adoption. It's hard to see how that doesn't happen.

Brett Messing: (15:48)
I want to push back on that just a little bit. And at the risk of sounding parochial, I mean I think you bring a unique perspective and clearly in the early years, Bitcoin appealed to people in places outside of the US. They got it immediately because they lived through currency collapses. But if you think about what happened in the fall, it was some combination of Michael Saylor, Square, the gray scale vacuuming up and PayPal.

Brett Messing: (16:17)
Four US actors, it just feels like the US financial system is so critical. When people say, "Well, if the US banned Bitcoin, I'll just go somewhere else and sell my Bitcoin." Well, that's fine, but Bitcoin is going to be worth 75% less than it was the day before the US banned it because BlackRock is not going to hold it. It's like you can just go through, so isn't the US important just because of its role in financial markets?

Yan Pritzker: (16:48)
No, I would agree with that. Absolutely. I think the US is important and it's kind of like you just have to think about it proportionally where's the wealth? The wealth is here. So the wealth and the knowledge frankly, is here. So we have the access to the Bitcoin and we should be buying it. The US is absolutely in a position to be a world leader here whether they voluntarily give this position up by banning is a question I don't think it's going to happen because frankly I mean the government is run by corporations and the corporations are now buying Bitcoin.

Yan Pritzker: (17:15)
So I don't really see that happening. We also have senators that are now Bitcoin friendly on the banking committee. So I don't see that ban happening. It's also a big free speech problem. But even if it did, it would be the America basically as if America said, "Oh, you know what? Well, we're just going to ban gold. We're not going to allow our central bank to hold the gold." And like you're pricing it. You're taking yourself out of this system, which is clearly the future of money. And yes, it may cause a dip in the price but another country that is not as scrupulous as the US is going to come in and do that.

Yan Pritzker: (17:46)
So somebody's going to take the reins on this thing. But yes, I do think the US is systemically important in the sense of adoption. Yes they're driving the adoption right now. But just like with the internet, 1995, 5% was in the US, half a percent worldwide. The US was the leader in the internet. And it's good that they continue that leadership and continue encouraging that innovation instead of saying, "Oh we're going to ban open networks and we're going to force everybody to register to run a website."

Yan Pritzker: (18:13)
They could have done that too and they didn't. So I think the US is as pretty smart as far as the regulation is concerned. I think they're going to wake up to this idea that this is innovation, this unlocks unlimited financial potential and it makes us a world leader when it comes down to the Bitcoin replacing the reserve currency. If that ever happens, we better have our beds hedged. You don't want to be at a zero allocation if Bitcoin starts to be used for all trade.

Brett Messing: (18:40)
Does it bother you that we have sort of people that are the head of a sort of regulatory system here in Europe, sort of peeing on Bitcoin at every opportunity, for lack of a better word. I'm talking about obviously Janet Yellen and Christine Legarde.

Yan Pritzker: (18:58)
It doesn't bother me. I mean, they're pretty ... Frankly they're kind of aging themselves out. I mean, if you look at the adoption of Bitcoin, it is very stratified by age. I would argue that probably folks like in the boomer generation, at least for us, they're the majority of the money is coming from them. But the numbers are coming from the millennials people, gen X. So I do think there's a certain amount of old guard that's just going to get turned over.

Yan Pritzker: (19:21)
And also that I mean Bitcoin threatens their entire job. What would be the job of Janet Yellen, or it would look very different than on a Bitcoin standard. So I think it is a big threatening thing. It's kind of like the horse salesman saying cars are noisy and dirty. And it's just going to be a generational shift as people will think of it differently. So I'm not too worried about them saying these things, they're going to have to say them until they are forced not to say them.

Brett Messing: (19:52)
Do you worry about the bands around the globe between China and India, some African countries. We're probably approaching half the world population where Bitcoin has been banned.

Yan Pritzker: (20:06)
I don't know that that's true. I mean, there's definitely been some gray area stuff going on. I don't know if it's half the world where it's banned. I'm not sure about that number. Maybe you have better data than I do, but-

Brett Messing: (20:19)
Wasn't sure if you have 40%. So I was just rounding for [crosstalk 00:20:22].

Yan Pritzker: (20:23)
But hold on a second. If it's abandoned China, then why is all of the Bitcoin mining in China? It's not banned in China and people are getting Bitcoin out of China as well. So it's very hard to stop Bitcoin. And another thing to think about is every time it has been banned in any sort of way, whether it be restrictions on trade or whatever, it causes the local price of Bitcoin to skyrocket. And what does that do? It creates the black markets and what do black markets do? They topple governments. Historically, that's what they do.

Yan Pritzker: (20:51)
If the currency of your local government is weak. And the black market currency is strong, that black market currency starts to gain usage and then game over.

Brett Messing: (21:03)
Yan I'm only asking you these things because I've been accused of being ragingly bullish, so help me moderate a little bit here.

Yan Pritzker: (21:10)
I appreciate that. I'm also raging bullish so it's very difficult.

Brett Messing: (21:12)
To quote a friend Raul Paul, I'm irresponsibly [crosstalk 00:21:17].

John Darsie: (21:17)
We've been told we have to be balanced in these conversations.

Yan Pritzker: (21:19)
Yes, balanced.

Brett Messing: (21:21)
So that's what I'm striving for. We'll have an off Robert cheerleading session after. Can we talk about particularly given your background and the way I think you probably think about things. I'm interested in, what kind of valuation methodology you use or you think people should use. Because it'd be just at a very high level where capital's competing with each other, stocks are competing with bonds, and right now gold is ... So capital is looking for the best pace to allocate it.

Brett Messing: (21:50)
And I think most traditional investors will look for ... How do they know if it's cheap or it's expensive? How do you think people should think about Bitcoin in that context?

Yan Pritzker: (21:59)
Yeah, it's very tricky because I think traditional investors always look at what are the cash flows? What am I getting? What am I actually buying here? You're not buying a cash flow, yielding asset with Bitcoin. You're buying an adoption curve of the future of money, which is a very different thing. And I think a lot of people are still thinking of Bitcoin as a hedge or as an asset in their portfolio with a high sharp ratio or you name it.

Yan Pritzker: (22:22)
I really think that's a flawed way of thinking about it. What you really have to ask yourself is what percentage of the world's value would be stored on a network that allowed that value to move freely, borderlessly, frictionlessly, as opposed to sending money from America to Venezuela and getting horrible fake exchange rates in the middle and getting censorship and getting that money stolen or getting it lost in the bank to bank settlement system, versus I can send $1 billion dollars in a minute to any country in the world instantly.

Yan Pritzker: (22:56)
That's a pretty different experience of money. So the question is what percentage of the world's wealth would be interested in that kind of functionality. You can look at things like the stock market, real estate, gold, all of these things, they have a certain ... And I'm not an economist so this is just me parroting things that I've learned, but these things have a certain amount of money-ness.

Yan Pritzker: (23:16)
The reason people buy the stocks when they have cheap money, what we're seeing Saylor do, he's taking a loan for 0%. He's buying Bitcoin. They can buy a Bitcoin, they can buy real estate, they can buy stocks, they can buy things that are highly liquid, easy to sell and they can park their value in these things. And so the question is, what percentage of those assets are ... What percentage of my house is worth X because I'm living in it versus because I'm going to be able to resell it later.

Yan Pritzker: (23:43)
For example, I live in a neighborhood that is constrained. There's only 100 houses in this neighborhood and you can't build inside of it. So that's it. So my house retains its value really, really well. Because I know that anytime I want to, I can leave the resell at instant demand. Other places where there's unlimited land, they don't hold value so well. So you see people buying a luxury condo in New York for $10 million and holding it and nobody's living there just because of the store of value.

Yan Pritzker: (24:08)
So when you're talking about those kinds of functions, how much better is Bitcoin at that than those other things? And I would argue almost infinitely because a house it has its use value and has its kind of money-ness premium. And then stocks like you have Tesla, it has its future cash flows, but it also has it's premium just because we think it might be easy to sell somebody else, a greater fool, if you will.

Yan Pritzker: (24:30)
Bitcoin is better at those things because it's all pure monetary premium, it's purely money, it's literally cash. So if you believe that, then the way you have to value it as what percentage of the world will want to store their wealth in cash if that cash didn't lose value. And I think that's a very high percentage. I don't know what that number is, but it's certainly tens to hundreds of trillions quite easily.

Brett Messing: (24:54)
I agree. How do you think about Bitcoin volatility? We've had we had a 25 plus percent pullback in January. We had a 22 or 23% pullback this week. I guess personally and at Swan, what are you telling clients? Was your phone ringing a lot this week?

Yan Pritzker: (25:24)
Frankly, no, which is very interesting. So we've only ever had one person sell and that person just had to take some money off the table for personal reasons. We don't actually have a sell button right now on our website. We encourage everybody to hold their Bitcoin for a very long time.

Yan Pritzker: (25:41)
We open up IRAs and Trusts where people are passing on the Bitcoin to their children. The companies that we're onboarding are all looking at it at a 10 plus year horizon. Most of them beyond that. Again, a lot of these are family businesses where they're thinking about keeping Bitcoins-

Brett Messing: (25:54)
You're going to get the opposite of Robinhood. [crosstalk 00:25:57].

Yan Pritzker: (25:57)
Literally yeah. I mean completely the opposite. And I think this is very interesting. This shift to Bitcoin as a store of value, as an inheritance asset, as a long-term play is relatively new. I don't think that's the case in 2017. And that was people just getting retail FOMO, trying to trade all their crypto assets and basically just getting wrecked buying the top.

Yan Pritzker: (26:18)
It's a very different experience right now. People are really thinking about it for the longterm. And with that in mind, the volatility is really not a problem. Again, yes, it goes down by 20 or 30%, but then it goes up by 10X. So I would I would ask where's the problem if you're really in it for the long-term, there shouldn't be any issues with volatility. You can always size your investments to your comfort level.

Yan Pritzker: (26:39)
So I think it's what it is. Dollar cost averaging is we highly promote. Obviously it's kind of how we launched, but dollar cost averaging really it's a very hard to lose strategy on Bitcoin. If you look at it in any three-year timeframe, you're pretty much up. So it's very ... As long as you're willing to stick around three to five years, basically enough to live past the having cycle you should be okay.

Yan Pritzker: (27:01)
And again, looking at it at a 10 year horizon, there's no issue about volatility at all. You can't have Bitcoin without volatility. It's being adopted by people in bursts. So you're going to have that volatility as it gets overvalued and it kind of comes down a little bit.

Brett Messing: (27:17)
Although as Anthony says, everyone's a longterm investor till they have short term losses. So it's-

Yan Pritzker: (27:25)
I really believe that Bitcoin is changing people's emotional ability. Before I used to worry about my stock portfolio, my S&P going down with two or three points in a day, it would be like, "Oh my God, that S&M is dipping. I'm losing a lot of money." Now I look at a Bitcoin dip, 20, 30%. I mean, we're talking about a lot of money here. I don't blink, I don't think about it. And I know that that's the case for a lot of folks that get into Bitcoin because the volatility actually just trains you out of your system to even worry about it. Just because it is so volatile, you have to eventually start ignoring it, or you're just not going to be able to sleep.

Brett Messing: (27:56)
So here's my theory on why that's the case. I think it's true, and you're probably too young for this. Disney used to have these e-ticket rides. When you go to Disney World, the rides were based on how intense they were. Bitcoin is like a Z ticket ride. So when you get on the ride, you know what you're doing, you know what I mean? You're going in with open eyes. It's not like someone's buying GE stock and well all of a sudden it got bottled. All right. So I think probably-

Yan Pritzker: (28:27)
I think that's a good point but I also think though that this has changed in the last couple of years, because in 2017, when people were getting into it, I don't think they knew that what kind of ride they were getting on. They just saw the number going up and they wanted to buy it. And then all of a sudden it started crashing like crazy. But now I think with more history behind us and a little bit of a rear view mirror, it's easier to see that Bitcoin does have these really big "bubbles" that then pop up, but they pop at a two or 3X above their previous top and it's not an issue in long-term.

Brett Messing: (28:55)
Sounds good. That's a good segue. Do you think the cycles continue this way?

Yan Pritzker: (29:02)
It's very hard to say. I mean, Bitcoin has a very interesting release schedule where it's tapering off and we're having less and less Bitcoin released over time. So for the folks that don't know, Bitcoin is actually going to continue to distribute all the way in the year 2140 or a little bit ahead of that. So we have 100 years ahead of us of Bitcoin mining, but it's a smaller and smaller and smaller amounts.

Yan Pritzker: (29:21)
So I think we're going to see different behavior potentially as the amount of Bitcoin on the market shrinks. And people start to really understand the scarcity of it. And perhaps that's what we're seeing now with this year, because one of the differences this year versus 2017, is that we're actually seeing a net outflow or a large outflow. I'm not sure if it's net outflow, but a large outflow of coins from exchanges.

Yan Pritzker: (29:43)
So in other words, it's not people buying Bitcoin and then trying to trade it, it's them taking it off of the exchange and trying to store it for the longterm, which may change the nature of the market because people aren't necessarily trading it all the time. I mean, sure you have guys doing 100X leverage on Bitfinex, but most of the institutional interest is not in that. It's really just to take it and hold it for a long time. So it may change the nature of the market as more of that float is pulled off, we're glad to see.

Brett Messing: (30:09)
My experience with sort of what are called great trades is they never last. And so the great trade is, well, I buy the coin that they're having when the supply is reduced in half and I hold it 14 to 18 months and then I sell it. Maybe I even short it there. And then I repeat this. So it becomes like the Bitcoin Olympics. Every four years, I'm going to do this. And I've spoken to too many people who have that mindset. And if you go on Twitter, people are tracking where we going after the having.

Brett Messing: (30:38)
And it's my personal view that one of two things is going to happen. Either the bull market's going to end way earlier than people think, or it's just going to keep marching forward. So you're going to have these people who get off, regret as they watch it go off. And given that I'm wearing a Bitcoin hat, I'll let you guess which of those two outcomes I think is likely. But I would say the idea that this predictable trend continues, I would put it-

Yan Pritzker: (31:06)
I agree.

Brett Messing: (31:06)
A low percentage.

Yan Pritzker: (31:08)
I agree. I don't think it's going to be as predictable. And I know so many people who have gotten wreck trying to short tops thinking that it is the top of Bitcoin where it has no real top. And again, I would bring it back to the analogy of the internet where in 1995 you saw it like it had a dip in adoption around 1999 or 2000. And there was the dotcom bubble burst. And all of a sudden there was articles about people quitting their internet accounts or something like that. And if you would short the internet at that point that you would have been just destroyed.

Yan Pritzker: (31:35)
Absolutely wrecked, all your models are destroyed. It's the same thing with Bitcoin. If the truth here is that one an adoption curve and this is not a financial asset that goes up and down. No, it's an asset. It just hasn't yet been fully adopted. So it was just like shorting TCP/IP or the internet. I mean, you would be an absolute fool to do that or Amazon for that matter, if you try to short and long-term, you would be just destroyed.

Yan Pritzker: (31:56)
So it's the same problem here. We're in a place where the final state has not yet been achieved and may not be achieved for decades or longer. So you can try to trade those ups and downs. Good luck, but again, it's like trading ... Trying to short the internet. It's just not smart.

Brett Messing: (32:14)
So Yan what do you worry about? If we're wrong, you and I are having a beer, it's 10 years from now. And this seems like a ridiculous video that we made, me wearing a Bitcoin hat and you being bullish having built a business and we're just totally wrong. Why are we wrong?

Yan Pritzker: (32:35)
I think there's some things we don't know about maybe there's fatal flaw discovered in the technology or in the encryption that we just never thought about. Maybe somehow like the government just decides to just perpetually spend billions of dollars attacking the networks, never let it continue forward. And literally just decides to just continue to print money and to do so only for the case of stopping the Bitcoin network to move forward.

Yan Pritzker: (33:01)
I mean, these things could happen. They seem kind of outrageous but those could be probably the things that would make it really at least unusable in some medium term. But I mean, imagine that the US government just taking over the Bitcoin network and amassing all of the world's mining capacity and building factories just to out pace the rest of the world, just to make the thing stop. It seems ridiculous, but it can happen.

John Darsie: (33:24)
Elon's taking us to Mars Yan. We don't have to worry about regulation here on earth.

Yan Pritzker: (33:28)
Exactly, there you go. And we're going to need free money on Mars. We're going to need the money that is not controlled by the US government.

Brett Messing: (33:38)
I guess it's ... What I always say is I think regulatory is always risk number one. I mean, that's and then it's the unknowns. We're talking on Zoom, we're doing this SALT Talk because of the pandemic. Which is what Donald Rumsfeld said, "The unknown unknowns." Which is that's ... But it's far different. I spent most of my career trading energy where you worry about OPEC, you worry about war breaking out or peace breaking out or I mean regulation. There's just ... Bitcoin, I don't know. To your point, I don't worry about it that much but I-

Yan Pritzker: (34:12)
Sorry, go ahead.

Brett Messing: (34:15)
No, you go, please.

Yan Pritzker: (34:17)
I was going to say that I really like to look at Bitcoin's incentive structure and its underlying mechanics to think about what could probably go wrong. And what's interesting about Bitcoin is that has all this self-balancing behavior. The US decides to ban it. Probably we're going to take ourselves out of the mining industry. We're going to tell Peter Thiel to go home. We're going to tell everybody to stop mining, stop buying. Great, then what?

Yan Pritzker: (34:42)
Some other country, there's a vacuum, there's a power vacuum. This is a thing that is worth a lot of money. So it drops by 75%, it's still worth a lot and it starts to gain traction in other places. That country bans it. Somebody else steps in, I mean there's no real game theoretical scenario here where it just dies.

Yan Pritzker: (34:59)
You would have to kill it everywhere and kind of all at once. And it's a very difficult thing to do because it has so many different heads. And again, those heads, if you think about it, the places that would more likely ban it, I don't worry about the US banning it. The places that are more likely to ban it and where you've seen the bans are the places that actually have problems with their currency.

Yan Pritzker: (35:16)
Those are the same places that ban you from buying dollars. Those are the places that are really worried. And what happens in those places is that Bitcoin goes up in value and the people who end up holding it are able to pay bribes in the Bitcoin. They're able to buy off government officials in the Bitcoin. The local currency is worthless. And so you have this self pressuring cycle.

Yan Pritzker: (35:33)
So over time, it kind of self-regulate itself. It's really difficult for it to be killed in any one place and any attempt to kill it that fails only makes it stronger because it's just demonstrated Bitcoin's whole value proposition, which is it's money that can't be killed by governments. So as soon as we see those failures, value goes up, price goes up, adoption goes up, black markets go up, everything goes up. So it's very difficult for that reason. If you look at structurally how it works, and structurally what the incentives are for everybody in the system, it's very difficult to kill it for those reasons.

Brett Messing: (36:05)
It seems to me that as it gets broader ownership and both from the populace and corporate, it becomes unkillable. So maybe you could have killed it five years ago easily, you could have killed 10 years ago. Maybe you can still kill it, but if it continues on the rate it's at, I think it becomes like the Terminator. You can't stop it. I do worry a little bit right now.

Brett Messing: (36:32)
My history is I'm [inaudible 00:36:33] the democratic deputy mayor in Los Angeles, the progressive movement isn't cool with Bitcoin right now. And I think that's important just given what's going on in both the United States politically and globally that it's not seen as a libertarian right-wing idea.

Brett Messing: (36:53)
There was an unhelpful legislation introduced in Congress in the fall. It didn't go anywhere, but I think there's some educating to do. And just to making sure it doesn't ... Everything gets politicized. We don't want Bitcoin to become a partisan issue.

Yan Pritzker: (37:07)
I would agree there and look, my friends, I mean I probably have a circle of friends that's 95% liberal. So I know this better than anybody. And I don't know if I would consider myself a liberal or in the center or where, but I actually think that Bitcoin is very well aligned with liberal values in terms of helping the world and fixing the problems for other people and for society and all that, because it's just a matter of having them see the problem from a different perspective.

Yan Pritzker: (37:32)
And that what is for example liberals are very concerned about wealth inequality. Well, what's the problem. Should we just steal money from billionaires and give it to poor people, or is the actual problem that we're exacerbating wealth inequality because our money's unfair. And if you start to think of it that way, and start to sell the solutions well Bitcoin is a much fairer money than we've ever had because nobody can manipulate it. Nobody can print more of it. Nobody can issue handouts to somebody.

Yan Pritzker: (37:56)
If you're a bank, you can get bailout from the government. You're not going to get a Bitcoin bailout. That's just not going to work that way because nobody can print it. Is there an energy problem? Are we worried about not enough renewables, but guess what? Bitcoin helps balance green energy grids.

Yan Pritzker: (38:10)
It's a solution for many problems that liberals care about. And again, because of my circle of friends, I'm constantly talking about this stuff. I really do think that liberals will wake up to these things at some point when they realize what the truth is, but unfortunately a lot of people have their heads up certain bodily area that and they just don't think of outside of their own bubbles. So they're conditioned to think that the only solution to everything is government. And that's just I think the more you read about this stuff and think about it, it's just not.

Brett Messing: (38:40)
I think the Bitcoin is bad for the energy, is going to be something we hear a lot about this year. I don't think it's coincidence that Janet Yellen mentioned it this past week. Where does that go? That goes to, "Well, should you tax Bitcoin in some way?" Or a form of a Bitcoin carbon tax, if you will.

Brett Messing: (39:00)
I've always worried more about the government taxing Bitcoin in an unfriendly way than a ban. A ban just seems very severe. You can achieve a lot of what you might want to gain with tax policy.

Yan Pritzker: (39:14)
But I also think that we're going to start to see a shift around seeing Bitcoin as a national security issue and not having the government on any Bitcoin being a problem. I'm not saying this is gonna happen this year, but I do think in the next four years is going to start being viewed that way. Especially once we start seeing bigger countries settle trades between themselves as with Bitcoin.

Yan Pritzker: (39:34)
We're already seeing some of that with Iran and Venezuela and Turkey. So it's possible that as that happens, the government starts to change their tune a little bit. But I mean, yes, they could text Bitcoin mining and then what? Then we're just going to shift that entire industry to China. Is that what we want? Do we want to give our entire Bitcoin mining industry to China? That's not the narrative that has been played in America. China's now an enemy number one and we have to be better than them in every way.

Yan Pritzker: (39:59)
If we're going to voluntarily give up an entire industry, potentially an industry that's important to national security. I think we're going to do it wrong if we do that.

Brett Messing: (40:07)
All right. So I have one last question for you then I'll let John take us home. So one of the things that I have found so exciting about this stretch of institutional adoption is if you think about institutions as verticals, you've had corporations buying it, you've had endowments buying it. You've had a few pension funds, you've had a few mutual fund, almost every category has been filled, which is better than I think if we had lots and lots of corporate adoption, but nothing else in those various verticals. So to me, that's super encouraging. So my question to you is who's going to be the first country?

Yan Pritzker: (40:49)
I really do think it's going to be one of the disadvantaged countries. One of the countries has been pushed out of the dollar system. We have reports from Iran that they were forcing their miners to sell Bitcoin to the central bank. We have those reports already. I don't know if they're true. I'm not on the ground, but I'm assuming that the people who are know this.

Yan Pritzker: (41:07)
We know that Ukraine is about to mine Bitcoin in their nuclear facilities. This is being discussed. We know that Venezuela has these problems. Is going to be the countries that we don't like. It's going to be the countries that we're going to claim are terrorists and blah, blah, blah. But I feel really strongly that America has really abused its role in the world to say something like, "Oh, I ran is just like out of the dollar system because we don't like their leaders."

Yan Pritzker: (41:31)
We're punishing an entire country worth of people. They're fine people, they're normal people. They're people trying to live their lives and we're punishing them for their leaders. And those countries, they need to survive. And when there's necessity, necessity is the mother of invention. So it's exactly what we're going to see. We're going to see the "access of evil countries." The Irans and the Venezuela's of the world are going to be the first to adopt Bitcoin.

Yan Pritzker: (41:52)
Our government's going to react very negatively to it. We're going to try to do more censorship and more sanctions and all this. And we're going to find that it's totally ineffective and they're able to trade with each other just fine. And then we're going to look at the situation and say, "Well, guess what we just did? We created a monster." And we either play the game or we're out.

Brett Messing: (42:11)
So you're sort of predicting Silk Road two?

Yan Pritzker: (42:14)
I am predicting Silk Road Two on a national level. That's what it is. It's going to be that. It's going to be, Bitcoin's not for criminals, this for terrorists and it's for terrorist countries and it's for North Korea and Iran and stuff like that.

Brett Messing: (42:24)
It kind of present a marketing problem for Bitcoin. You know what I mean? On some level. I hadn't thought about this, this access we were going first. I had always thought it'll be an African country or Caribbean country or-

Yan Pritzker: (42:37)
It could be Nigeria. I mean Nigeria has a ton of Bitcoin adoption as well. Internally we know that something like 30% of Nigerians have claimed that they've used Bitcoin. And I know for people on the ground that it's very, very high adoption. People are building businesses down there. But I really do think because of the necessity to settle trades is where it comes down to.

Yan Pritzker: (42:56)
It's the necessity to settle trades when you can't use dollars or you can't use any currency of your neighbors because you don't trust them. It becomes a problem and I think that problem gets solved. But look, the Silk Road was a marketing problem for Bitcoin too. For people that don't know, it was 2013, it was a site for selling drugs and assassinations, and God knows what else. It was a huge problem for Bitcoin, but we need to pass that and all of a sudden we have Tesla buying it.

Yan Pritzker: (43:20)
So it's the same thing here where even if there's negative publicity in the first place, then it's the mind shift around yes, it's for criminals because money is for everybody just like the internet's also for criminals. And so are shoes and computers. Yes, these things are for criminals because they're for everybody. So once we get past that idea of is for criminals now, it's all of a sudden what are the actual benefits for that?

Brett Messing: (43:42)
So I'm going to let John speak. I just have one comment, I'm going to lose some Bitcoin cred. I actually read on vacation or spoke about Silk Road, Nick Hilton's book and it was fascinating and fun, but you won't see me wearing a free Ross t-shirt. I'm not saying you should stay in jail forever. I think the sentence was wrong, but we can spend a little time there. I think he's only been there five years. Anyway, so my Q-Rating just went down a little bit in the community.

Yan Pritzker: (44:15)
Nonviolent criminals should not be jailed. Come on.

Brett Messing: (44:16)
So true. We got a discussion on whether there was not-

Yan Pritzker: (44:21)
That's a separate discussion.

Brett Messing: (44:24)
No, I agree with that statement. I just don't know that it's that characterization, but yes, 100% agree with that. John, you want to finish us off?

John Darsie: (44:32)
Yeah. And my Q-Rating going to go down and Switzerland and in my home country, because you talk about criminal enterprise. I mean, most criminal enterprises take place with physical US dollar notes and run through the traditional banking system. So when you see banks attacking Bitcoin because a very small percentage of transactions are used for illicit activity. It rings a little bit hollow if you really understand how money laundering and criminal enterprise works.

Yan Pritzker: (44:58)
And I mean, they pay billions of dollars of fines and nobody talks about it as if it's a problem. It's just the status quo. We're just going to pay a couple of billion no problem, yeah we did some bad stuff. But with Bitcoin, all of a sudden it's like, "Oh no, one thing happened and now we have to talk about it now." It's just because it's new. It's the same thing. When the internet came out, it was the same stuff was said about the internet.

Yan Pritzker: (45:19)
It's going to be for criminals. There's all this nefarious activity online, there's child pornography and there's all this other stuff, look at all these problems. But the internet is a huge net benefit for humanity. I think pretty much everybody at this point would agree on that. Yes, it's used for illicit activity, just like anything else in life is. People are going to do illicit activity if you make things illegal.

John Darsie: (45:40)
So I want to talk about question. You referenced it very briefly. It's a common refrain from Bitcoin skeptics or Bitcoin haters that it uses this massive amount of energy. If we scale Bitcoin, it shows a basic lack of understanding about how Bitcoin works, but they talk about what if we scale the volume of transactions and the price. It's going to consume more energy than we consume on the entire planet.

John Darsie: (46:01)
What do people misunderstand about energy usage and how can we continue to develop energy solutions? You talked about Ukraine using nuclear power to mine Bitcoin, but how can we sort of re build our energy grid in a way that's friendlier for all purposes, but including within the context of Bitcoin?

Yan Pritzker: (46:20)
I think one thing just to address is how Bitcoin actually does scale or how the energy usage is ... What it's proportional to. It's very different mentally from what you might think of. It's not a per transaction usage cost, which a lot of people get wrong. And then project it outwards to say Bitcoin's going to eat the world's energy. And this was written in 2017. It was an article that said by 2020 Bitcoin will use all the energy output of the world. Well, guess what? It didn't do that and the price went up quite a lot.

Yan Pritzker: (46:44)
So what actually happens in Bitcoin is that Bitcoin uses energy proportional to the value of the coin. So if it's $50,000 per Bitcoin, then it costs almost $50,000 worth of energy to produce that Bitcoin. It's just proportional because as the price goes up, more miners come in to want to try to mine it. And Bitcoin actually self adjusts to always be exactly the same amount of difficulty to mine. So if more miners come in, it becomes more difficult so that we can only produce a certain amount of Bitcoin per time period.

Yan Pritzker: (47:15)
So Bitcoin's energy use does not scale with more transactions. It only really scales with the price, but even then as the price goes up and like I said if you Ukraine starts mining in a nuclear power plant, and all of a sudden they're able to mine more than anybody else, then only other nuclear power plants will be able to present the pain of mining.

Yan Pritzker: (47:32)
That's what actually comes down to is that everybody's has to get leveled up in their ability. And this is why I really believe that over time Bitcoin mining will be very strongly co-located with energy companies. You have to be at the source of production. You have to be right by that windmill or by the hydro station or wherever you're producing your Bitcoin.

Yan Pritzker: (47:49)
Because outside of that, you're going to have higher energy costs. And whenever you have higher energy costs, you're now become uncompetitive in the market. Bitcoin has an effect to push out anybody who is not on the absolute cheapest Bitcoin energy production costs. So that's number one is Bitcoin's energy usage is not specific to transactions. We can have a million transactions, and by the way, a Bitcoin transaction is not a person to person payment. This is really another thing people don't understand.

Yan Pritzker: (48:17)
A Bitcoin transaction could be settling thousands of payments. It could be a batch of millions of payments that came from a second layer, like a lightning network, or even from you using your Visa credit card and then paying the bill on Bitcoin. That could be millions of transactions bashed into one Bitcoin transaction. So a Bitcoin transaction is more like a container ship that you send over the ocean containing all this cargo. And you don't talk about it as like it didn't cost you $1 million to ship a piece of plastic from China, is because all this plastic was inside of that container.

Yan Pritzker: (48:45)
So Bitcoin is a very much a settlement network. It's more like fed wire. There's a great article by Nick Carter that came out in CoinDesk if you guys want to more about that, where he makes that analogy and really drives it home. So Bitcoin doesn't scale with ... Its energy usage does not scale the transactions. In fact, that's not a problem at all.

Yan Pritzker: (49:04)
But the second thing to flip the energy narrative on its head is that a lot of these green power plants like Texas, they have wind energy. In order for them to be economical, they have to be built of a certain size and they can't be built of a certain size if there's not that demand for that energy.

Yan Pritzker: (49:19)
So what Bitcoin does is it comes in and it's the buyer of last resort for any energies that's unused. So rather than wasting energy, Bitcoin is actually reclaiming waste energy. It's reclaiming energy that would otherwise not be used by anybody. And it's creating a price for that power plant to be operational, to be profitable and to invest in continuous innovation.

Yan Pritzker: (49:38)
So if we want green energy, we need Bitcoin at every green power plant creating that load so they can actually continue to expand, innovate and develop better solutions. Bitcoin is very unique in that way, because it can be turned on and off. If you want to learn more about that, there's an article I think it's in Forbes.

Yan Pritzker: (49:54)
If you Google about [Orchard 00:49:56] and how they're using Bitcoin with the company called Layer1, they're acting as a dynamic load on that a system where they can be turned on and off in order to balance the grid, which is really, really cool. It really is the key to more renewable development.

John Darsie: (50:10)
We just have a couple of minutes left. So I'm going to do some rapid fire questions where I'll be looking for rapid fire answer. So Bitfinex and Tether just settled with the New York attorney general for 18 and a half million bucks. No admission of wrongdoing. No insinuation that they've been using Tether to manipulate and boost the price of Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (50:30)
Is that issue settled now with Tether? Is all the fear, uncertainty and doubt related to Tether dead, or still that an open issue about whether there's other issues within Tether?

Yan Pritzker: (50:39)
It's probably going to be a perennial issue just because people love to come up with something to criticize. Frankly, we here at Swan. I mean, we sell millions of dollars of Bitcoin and we've never touched Tether. I think if you talk to anybody who actually operates an exchange, they could tell you how much of that is Tether affecting prices. People don't look at OTC markets where Tether may not be used.

Yan Pritzker: (50:57)
I mean, there's a host of issues. This is already been debunked in it. Honestly, I don't think it's going away. People are going to keep going at it, but it doesn't really matter because you could see the price of Bitcoin is just fine.

John Darsie: (51:07)
All right. So next question. We recently had the launch of the first North American Bitcoin ETF in Canada. Purpose Investments was the first, or there was another that came soon after, but Purpose did $400 million of volume in its first two days of trading, despite the fact that the ETF market in Canada is a small fraction. I think it's around 200 plus billion versus 5 trillion in the US. What does that tell you about what it's going to look like when a US ETF comes out and what's your prediction for the timeline for a US ETF?

Yan Pritzker: (51:37)
I think it has to happen very soon and the reason for that is that you have all these proxy stocks that people are buying because they want Bitcoin exposure. They're buying MicroStrategy, they're buying Tesla, the stock is going vertical. It's frankly, irresponsible of SEC not to approve an ETF because what they're doing is they're just creating bubbles and stocks that talk about Bitcoin in any way. So I think it's going to happen very soon and now we have to do it to save face because you can't let Canada win. Come on guys.

John Darsie: (51:59)
Exactly. All right. This was fantastic. Really enjoyed this conversation. Brett, do you have any final words for Yan before we let him go?

Brett Messing: (52:06)
No, just thank you, Yan. And again, we're really grateful that you wrote the book and if you write another book, we'll be at the front of the line.

Yan Pritzker: (52:15)
Awesome.

Brett Messing: (52:16)
And we will continue buying and distributing them because as I said, it's the best one-on-one book I've read.

Yan Pritzker: (52:23)
I appreciate that so much. Thank you guys for taking the time and for having me on. I really appreciate it.

John Darsie: (52:27)
Yep. And again, that's Inventing Bitcoin by Yan Pritzker. It's a relatively quick read. You can get it straight on Amazon but it's a great place to start in terms of understanding the technology and Vijay Boyapati as we've mentioned, the Bullish Case for Bitcoin. You put those two resources together, you're on the path to becoming a Bitcoin maximalist the way Brett and the way Yan is. But thank you everybody for tuning into today's SALT Talk.

John Darsie: (52:50)
We love educating people about digital assets, is something that we've been on a journey over the last several years to learn about it and get comfortable with the custody and the security and other issues that people bring up when they express skepticism about Bitcoin. But just a reminder, we have all these episodes of SALT Talks focusing on digital assets on our website, salt.org\talks. You can go there and view them all on demand, and you can view them all on our YouTube channel as well, which is called SALT Tube.

John Darsie: (53:17)
We're on Twitter, which is where we're most active on social media @saltconference, but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram, and Facebook, and we're trying to grow our presence there. So we'd appreciate a follow and please spread the word about SALT Talks and about these digital assets SALT Talks. Again, even if people aren't going to be buying Bitcoin, we think it's important to educate yourself about it so you can sort of get over some of these common criticisms whether it be related to energy or other items that people frequently bring up. But on behalf of the entire SALT team and Brett, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Vijay Boyapati: “The Bullish Case for Bitcoin” | SALT Talks #169

“If you look at addressable market for Bitcoin, it’s gigantic. It’s the largest market on earth, by far. The market for storing wealth and savings is a $100 trillion market, at least.”

Vijay Boyapati, a software engineer who joined early-stage Google in 2002, has become a major Bitcoin advocate, authoring one of the most read articles in support of the monetary good: The Bullish Case for Bitcoin.

It is natural for anyone to feel like they’re late to Bitcoin because they’ve seen people who’ve gotten in earlier, but the crypto-asset is only in its infancy. The addressable market is the largest on earth with Bitcoin able to serve as the world’s means of wealth storage and saving, able to reach a $100 trillion-plus market cap. Liquidity will be pulled from more traditional sectors like real estate and government bonds into Bitcoin, a secure and portable store of value. “Bitcoin as the global reserve currency takes on the role gold had in the 19th century where it’s the final means of settlement for banks and nation-states. If you believe that valuation model, you can go into the ($) tens of millions per Bitcoin because it becomes the global means of saving.”

One of the last credible threats to Bitcoin is nation-states who may see Bitcoin as a threat to their central-bank currency. Excessive regulation or outright bans will be made more difficult as adoption grows. Governments and officials will face growing pressure to accept Bitcoin because its citizens and constituents will have savings in the crypto-asset. “Imagine if you’re a congressman and 20% of your constituents own Bitcoin and you try to regulate or ban Bitcoin. You’re going to get a lot of pushback.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Vijay Boyapati.jpeg

Vijay Boyapati

Author

The Bullish Case for Bitcoin

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers, and our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conference series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:38)
We're very excited to bring you the latest episode of our digital asset series, which is an area we've been focusing on especially over the last six months as mainstream interest in the asset class has grown. And our guest today is Vijay Boyapati, who's the author of what I think is one of the most insightful pieces. The Bullish Case for Bitcoin is the name of the essay that he wrote, and it's something that I share with members of my family and people that are just learning about the space. There's complexity to the intellectual arguments that he makes about the value of Bitcoin, but it's also very accessible for the average person. So, I would highly recommend you read that Bullish Case for Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (01:15)
But Vijay, to go more into his background, was born and raised in Australia and moved to the United States through a PhD in computer science. He never started that PhD and he took a job offer at a little firm called Google. And after leaving the much bigger Google in 2007, Vijay spent a year campaigning in the 2008 presidential election, helping to raise millions of dollars for Ron Paul. After becoming disillusioned by politics, Vijay decided to continue to seek change in the world through technology. He discovered Bitcoin in 2011, and he quickly went deep down the Bitcoin rabbit hole.

John Darsie: (01:51)
With a background in Austrian economics, he spent years thinking about the economic framework within which Bitcoin's value proposition could be understood. His thinking on the economics of Bitcoin culminated in an article, as I mentioned before, called The Bullish Case for Bitcoin, which is one of the most read articles on Bitcoin after Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin, his original whitepaper. And Vijay's essay has been translated into 20 languages, and it's often cited as the most useful resource to give newcomers who are attempting to understand Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (02:23)
Hosting today's talk is SkyBridge Capital president and chief operating officer, Brett Messing, who has led a lot of our digital asset and Bitcoin research here at SkyBridge, and we're very excited to be more involved in the space and thankful to Brett for helping to lead that charge. But with no further ado, I'm going to turn over to Brett to conduct the interview.

Brett Messing: (02:44)
Thanks, John. And welcome, Vijay. I am a fanboy because I'm a geek and because it's a pandemic, I think I've read every serious piece that's been written on Bitcoin and I think yours is the best. I'm pretty excited that you're here.

Vijay Boyapati: (02:59)
Thanks, Brett. I really appreciate that. As I was saying before we started, I'm really excited that you guys have gotten into Bitcoin. It's always exciting for me to see brilliant, successful people have that light bulb go off in their head and understand Bitcoin and then get active and start building around the community, building technology or launching funds. So, I'm really excited to see what you guys are doing as well.

Brett Messing: (03:27)
Well, that's kind of you to say. We're up to about $500 million in Bitcoin and as is often the case, it doesn't feel like enough. If we had anything that was like this amount a year or two years ago, everyone would have fired us. So, why don't we use that as a launching pad, which is, as we were discussing, it feels like Bitcoin is at an inflection point. So, if I can give you a framework, which is your piece, your bullish take combined with where we are, essay question.

Vijay Boyapati: (04:06)
Yeah. I think we were talking about this feeling that a lot of people have when they come to Bitcoin is that "I've missed out" and all of the gains are in the past and not in the future. And I want to sort of break it to everyone who comes to Bitcoin. Everyone feels that way. No matter what price you buy Bitcoin at, you feel like you got in late and that's true of me, it's true of everyone. Whether it be $10 or $100, $1,000, $10,000, whatever it is, you feel late because you've seen people you know before you get in at earlier prices.

Vijay Boyapati: (04:41)
I would just say ... I'll give you a story from my earlier career when I was at Google before it IPO'd. Google IPO'd and there were a lot of analysts who said, "This is crazy. This company is worth more than Ford Motors? That is insane. This is way overvalued. This isn't going to last. It's going to crash." But really Bitcoin was at the beginning of its story, and a long story and probably 30X higher than it was at IPO.

Vijay Boyapati: (05:13)
I feel the same way about Bitcoin right now, especially because if you look at the addressable market for Bitcoin, it's gigantic. It is the largest market on earth by far. The market for storing wealth, storing savings is a $100 trillion market at least. And Bitcoin has taken 1% of that market. So, there's a lot more addressable market to take before Bitcoin reaches saturation. How much of that market will it take in the next decade, I don't know, but I think it has a lot further to go.

Brett Messing: (05:51)
When you look at the events that have happened in the last, I don't know, six, eight months from PayPal making it available to people and they're going to be rolling that out around the globe, to the Tesla purchase, to BNY Mellon getting into the Bitcoin business, to BlackRock, which do you think is the most significant in terms of the adoption curve, if you will?

Vijay Boyapati: (06:18)
I mean, I think they're all significant in their own way. They all add social proof. They all add credibility to the average investor who's looking at Bitcoin and thinking, "Well, I don't know if I trust this thing. Who controls it? What's the authority that's backing this thing?" I think each is a touchpoint, a psychological touchpoint, that everyone sees and it increases their belief that there's something to this. And for some people, they only need one or two touchpoints to sort of get onboard and say, "Yeah, I want to put some savings in this." For some people it's 10 or 20, and it really depends on whether they trust these institutions or other people that they're seeing getting in.

Vijay Boyapati: (07:03)
Elon Musk, I think he's a big one for sure. He has 50 million followers on Twitter, and he has one of the most iconic companies around. And to see that company allocate a meaningful amount of its treasury to Bitcoin is a big signal. So, I guess if I was to put my finger on one, I would say Tesla is a big one.

Brett Messing: (07:27)
Well, I guess in terms of the price move, that would sort of validate that. Right? That was I think the largest one-day move in Bitcoin that we've had, certainly in dollars. I'm not sure on a percentage basis, but the market certainly reacted to that. How do you think about Bitcoin from a valuation perspective, in terms of being too high or too low? There's a couple different models out there. Right? There's the stock-to-flow, which just to remind people, that's where you look at the amount of existing Bitcoin relative to the amount of newly produced Bitcoin and you compare it to other assets. There's Metcalfe's law. Right? That's sort of a networking effect. As more people join the Bitcoin network and Bitcoin itself become more valuable. There's using gold as a proxy, as a percentage of gold's overall market. How do you think about those, or do you, when you think about valuing Bitcoin?

Vijay Boyapati: (08:25)
Yeah. That's a great question. I think stock-to-flow is a really interesting model. I'm still not entirely sure about it. It's certainly been very predictive, and it's interesting just to observe how predictive it has been. The way I think about it is I see that there are largely four valuation models that people have used for Bitcoin over time in my observation following this market for the last decade. And I want to assign a target price to each of this valuation models so you can ballpark think about where Bitcoin should be if you believed each of these models.

Vijay Boyapati: (09:01)
The first one is that Bitcoin is basically short mania. It's a huge bubble. It's completely irrational. Bitcoin has no comparative advantage to anything else. Why does it exist? And if you believe that, then the long-term target price for Bitcoin is obviously zero.

Vijay Boyapati: (09:17)
The second model is that, and this is the model I think people held for quite a long time until the last couple of years, is that Bitcoin, it's an interesting technology and there's something to it, but it has a limited addressable market. It's only interesting to geeks and libertarians and people who want to do things in the gray market. And if you believe that model for Bitcoin, you'd think that its target price would be somewhere in the ballpark of 10,000, maybe on the higher end to 100,000, something like that. The addressable market is tech people essentially and libertarians.

Vijay Boyapati: (09:57)
The third valuation model I have and that I've observed is that Bitcoin is digital gold. It's a monetary good and its closest cousin is gold. It's a non-sovereign store of value. It's a place to store value that's not controlled by any nation state. If you recognize it as superior to gold, the attributes it has as money is superior to gold's attributes so for instance, it's much easier to transport Bitcoin and to transmit it over the wire. Then you look at gold's market capitalization, which is approximately 10 trillion and you can easily slap a target price on Bitcoin as 500,000, which gets Bitcoin to that same capitalization. And if you believe it's superior to gold, as I do, I think it's 10x or 100x superior to gold. I think you could easily see valuation from 500,000 to maybe a couple million.

Vijay Boyapati: (10:52)
Then the valuation model is Bitcoin as a reserve currency, the global reserve currency and it takes on the role that gold had in the 19th century where it's the final means of settlement for banks and nation states to settle trade between each other and settle accounts between each other. If you believe that valuation model, then I think you can go into the tens of millions per Bitcoin because it becomes the global means of savings and it's going to suck liquidity out of every major market. It's going to take liquidity out of government bonds. It's going to take it drastically out of gold. It's going to pull it out of real estate.

Vijay Boyapati: (11:35)
So, for instance, in Vancouver, Washington, which is near where I live, a lot of Chinese investors want to have some of their assets out of the country as a safe haven. What's a good safe haven? Vancouver. They can move to Canada and they can have some savings when they arrive. All of that's going to get blown away. Why would you have a house that stays empty in Vancouver when you can have it in Bitcoin? If you believe that Bitcoin is going to become eventually the reserve currency of the world, as I do, then you get very, very high target numbers for Bitcoin.

Brett Messing: (12:12)
So, Vijay, I've been accused of being overly bullish, so let's stay on this point for a second, which is the idea that Bitcoin demonetizes other assets, right? Real estate, as you pointed out. Art, as you're probably aware, most privately owned art sits in just warehouse, right, mostly in Switzerland for tax reasons. No one's looking at them. Most of it's bought anonymously. So, people aren't even getting credit for owning the art, right? So, it's clearly a store of value and I could see the monetary premium getting slowly diminished out of those assets where let's say art appreciates but the rate of appreciation goes from being double digits to mid single digits, right, where it's almost not noticeable, this demonetization.

Brett Messing: (12:56)
But what I hear you talking about becomes disruptive to the monetary system globally, right, and it seems to me, I'm doing too much talking, that Bitcoin, at least in the United States, is in a great place from a regulatory standpoint, right? Banks are allowed to do it. Anchorage has been designated the first digital bank. So, I feel like we have this one way from now until that point, which we start becoming, we, see I'm using Bitcoin and me as we, a threat. But how do you think about that regulatory risk when you combine that with your endgame?

Vijay Boyapati: (13:33)
Yeah, I think that's another great question. I think it's one of the biggest risks to Bitcoin that people should really think about when they're investing in Bitcoin. The way I think about it is how does Bitcoin or can Bitcoin get enough regulatory capture before it's seen as a threat? I think some nation states are getting that first inkling that hey, this might be a threat to our monetary policy if the world's savings start flowing into something that we can't inflate and something that we can't control. How do we control our own monetary policy?

Vijay Boyapati: (14:10)
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago where they said, "Well, maybe the biggest threat is that Bitcoin doesn't go up but that it keeps going up and it keeps going up and then, hey, we, as central bankers thinking about monetary policy, we've lost control. The way I think about this is kind of the same way I think about Uber as a company.

Vijay Boyapati: (14:33)
Uber is a company that would go into markets where the local government and the established players were very antagonistic to Uber and the taxi lobby would lobby the local city government and say, "Look, we don't want Uber to come in and completely disrupt our business," and they were very cozy with local government. So, local governments were typically very antagonistic to Uber and what Uber would do is just barge into this city and say, "Okay, we're providing this app here. We're hiring a bunch of drivers." Users really love it, they start using it and you get this entrenched lobby, which starts saying, "Hey, you can't attack this company. This benefits us. We want this here."

Vijay Boyapati: (15:13)
I think the same thing is true of Bitcoin. We're starting to see some of that capture where, imagine you're a congressman and four years from now 20% of your constituency owns Bitcoin and you start saying, "Well, maybe we should regulate this thing or ban it." Well, you're going to get a lot of pushback. So, I think in the Western democracies the question is whether we get to that point of regulatory capture before nation states begin to crack down and I see really positive signs in that regard.

Vijay Boyapati: (15:45)
We have a senator who's very pro Bitcoin from Wyoming. I think we're going to see several more congressman in the next election and then one election hence from that a lot more because we're really transitioning from Bitcoin being this niche thing to being very widespread and owned by a lot of people in the US and when you have a lot of people with their savings in something, that's a natural protection, a natural lobby and throw in the fact that corporations are now getting into Bitcoin, large funds. These institutions have much more lobbying power than the average person. They don't want their balance sheet to be blown away by a government doing something stupid. It's kind of like it would be very difficult for a government to outlaw 401ks right now. You just can't do that.

Vijay Boyapati: (16:36)
So, the big question to me is, do we make that transition quickly enough? I am optimistic.

Brett Messing: (16:44)
No, I think that's right. I think that the mass adoption rate is the best defense against political actors. I do have to say in the short term, I have a little history in politics. I was actually deputy mayor of Los Angeles. I worry about Bitcoin not being embraced by the progressive movement. [inaudible 00:17:03] being sort of a right wing libertarian thing and I think as a community that's an important bridge for us to build soon. As you're aware there was some legislation that came out of the house that didn't go anywhere from the progressives in the house that was unhelpful to the idea of digital assets. That's something that's just on my radar screen.

Brett Messing: (17:29)
Can you talk about the recent ban in India because they seem like a nation and an economy that should be embracing Bitcoin and instead they're going in the opposite way. You talked about large democracies. Last I checked that's the largest one, right?

Vijay Boyapati: (17:47)
Yeah, I have Indian heritage. I was raised in Australia but I have Indian parents and one thing I could tell you about the Indian government is the Indian government does not trust it's people. That's the problem right there. The Indian government makes people go through all sorts of hoops just to buy a cell phone. So, the lack of trust I think is the fundamental problem there. I think ultimately it's inevitable.

Vijay Boyapati: (18:16)
India could ban Bitcoin and be the last in line, make it's population be the last in line to get Bitcoin. They're just harming their own people, in my opinion. To me it's like saying, "We're going to ban the internet because we're worried people might talk about stuff that we don't like." Okay, sure, you can do that but you can live in the dark ages for another decade while the rest of the world advances. I think their hand will be forced. When that happens, I don't know.

Brett Messing: (18:45)
Okay. Let's discuss volatility, right? It's my personal view that volatility is wrongly characterized as a risk. I view it in Bitcoin as more of an opportunity because most of the volatility has been up. As we talk today Bitcoin has moved. It was 58 on Sunday, it got to 45 today after having a 25% pullback last month. This isn't made for everybody. How do you think about the volatility? Do you think it's going to change? Just your reaction to that.

Vijay Boyapati: (19:27)
Yeah, absolutely. I just think that the criticism that Bitcoin has got that it's volatile is really nonsensical. You can't go from something that was worth zero a decade ago to being a trillion dollars without volatility. It's just impossible. I completely agree with what you're saying. It's really the other side of the coin of opportunity. There's so much upside to Bitcoin that you're going to see a bumpy ride for a while because what's happening is the volatility, especially the upward volatility is a function of new savings moving into Bitcoin.

Vijay Boyapati: (20:06)
When you have, especially in the early days when you had people like the Winklevoss twins put in $10 million into Bitcoin when the price was, I don't know, $20 or $30, that is going to have a sharp effect on the price because the supply is strictly limited and more Bitcoin won't be produced due to the extra demand.

Vijay Boyapati: (20:26)
So, that's part of the reason for the volatility on the upside and that's really magnified now with the size of the institutions who are coming in. We're not talking about $10 million coming in at a pop now. We're talking about $1.5 billion coming in at a pop when an institution says, "Hey, yeah, let's get some of our treasury into Bitcoin." So, I think that's part of the explanation.

Vijay Boyapati: (20:49)
The other part of the explanation is that the concentration of Bitcoin being held by relatively few people, say a few tens of thousands, is still quite high and that's really just part of the process of monetization. Those early owners who had large chunks of Bitcoin, they will diversify as their net worth gets into stratospheric levels and I sort of view it as an iceberg with a tide crashing against the iceberg. The price is going up, crashing against the iceberg, and eventually these ice sheets break off and that's really just a long time holder saying, "Hey, I've got 10,000 Bitcoin. I'm going to sell a thousand Bitcoin now to diversify and improve my standard of living," and that's a chunk of the iceberg, the supply iceberg falling into the ocean, crashing into the ocean and causing some volatility.

Vijay Boyapati: (21:43)
So, I think this is just a natural part of the process of monetization and I think it's going to taper off meaningfully when Bitcoin gets to the market capitalization of gold. Gold still has some volatility. In 2011 to 2014 it dropped almost 50% but it's certainly less volatile than Bitcoin.

Vijay Boyapati: (22:06)
The larger Bitcoin becomes the less volatile, I believe, it will become because when some savings moves into Bitcoin it will be much smaller relative to the size of Bitcoin.

Brett Messing: (22:17)
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Okay, that's interesting. So, the volatility it seems has tracked these cycles, right? The bull cycles have tended to start with havings, right, when the supply of Bitcoin is reduced in half every four years. We really have two data points on this and I sort of wonder ... I have tremendous respect for the Bitcoin community and all the hard work that's happened over the last decade but I wonder if that history sometimes isn't a burden when you look forward. In other words, has something changed meaningfully with the events that we've discussed and the maturation of the asset class? Have you reflected on that? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Vijay Boyapati: (23:06)
Yeah, one thing I find most fascinating is that we have never seen a monetary good being monetized in real time. This is the first time in history that we get to watch it in real time. The process of the monetization of gold took millennia. It's thousands of years before gold transitioned from being a lump of rock in the ground to being used in coinage and then backing on paper notes and so forth. So, we get to see how this works and one thing we're learning, just as you mentioned there, are these hype cycles and it's absolutely fascinating to me that they have this patent, this almost fractal like patent of increasing magnitude where if you look at the 2017 bull market and you superimpose it on the 2013 bull market it looks almost identical and to someone with an engineering or scientific mindset that cries out for an explanation, why is that?

Vijay Boyapati: (24:10)
My feeling is this is kind of part of the social dynamic of monetization that it happens in these phases where you get some cohort of people that are reachable in the cycle that have enough understanding or have heard about Bitcoin enough to be interested in investing in it and you start out with the really strongly convicted in the beginning and then you get people who are more long term investors coming along and the price starts coming up and in the final stage you see speculators who just want to make some quick profits and then you get this crescendo and parabolic move and eventually a climax and a correction and a crash and we see this over and over again. It's just the cohort of people that are reachable in each cycle grows.

Vijay Boyapati: (24:57)
So, the first cohort, who were they? They were cipher punks and cryptographers and people who understood what Bitcoin was immediately. The next cycle was libertarians and people who wanted to use Bitcoin in the gray market. Then the next cycle, 2017, was early adopters. But I think the same social dynamic applies in each of these cycles regardless of who the cohort is.

Vijay Boyapati: (25:23)
Now the cohort is corporations and institutions and it could be the FOMO phase of the cycle is dampened a little bit because corporations are a little more logical than retail investors but maybe not, maybe not. Maybe you'll see corporations and institutions have some of that FOMO too if enough of them jump on board Bitcoin. So, what happens when Google says, "Hey, yeah, we want some Bitcoin," and Facebook does? Do Amazon and Microsoft sit back and say, "Well, okay, we're just going to not have any." I think this could possibly apply to corporations as well.

Vijay Boyapati: (26:05)
Yeah, I'm not sure if I answered your question [crosstalk 00:26:09]-

Brett Messing: (26:08)
[crosstalk 00:26:08] I guess I bring a market perspective to it and when a trade seems to easy it usually ends. The easy trade right now is, okay, I'm going to buy Bitcoin at every halving and I'm going to sell it somewhere between 14 and 18 months thereafter and I'm just going to keep doing that, right? Every couple years I'll put a trade on. I might even short it two years out and whenever something looks that simple it ends up blowing people up. So, I'm just imagining and maybe it's not this cycle, a bunch of people seeling, right, anticipating that. Okay, I got it. My time, the stock-to-flow, everything's telling me it's the peak and then it just goes and it laughs at everybody. You know what I mean?

Vijay Boyapati: (26:51)
Yeah, if I was to think that the model would blow up I'd almost believe it would blow up in the other direction in that the crash doesn't happen and it just slowly, steadily continues to go up. The reason I think that is that the number of people who have become diehard Bitcoiners, regardless of price, these are people who are saying, "I don't want to save in dollars. I just don't and I'm not going to." So, that is a constant flow of capital into Bitcoin.

Vijay Boyapati: (27:22)
So, you look at someone like Russell Okung in the NFL and he's really started a trend in the NFL, several players in the NFL now, I think that's also going to grow, who say, "I want my salary in Bitcoin." So, that financial energy's going to constantly move into Bitcoin. The question for me is, do we ever get to critical mass where we don't have these corrections and it just keeps going up because there's enough financial energy to keep pushing it up?

Vijay Boyapati: (27:48)
I think that's an open question. It might be the case that it doesn't follow past trends but at this point in time it is eerily similar, eerily similar to 2017 and if you were someone who was trying to make a prediction about the future you would say, "This is scary what's happening."

Vijay Boyapati: (28:11)
I was skeptical. I was honestly very skeptical that some of these models were true, skeptical of stock-to-flow, but I'm kind of watching the price movement and if anything, it's moving faster than the 2017 cycle, which shocks me. I thought at this scale Bitcoin would have to slow down a little bit and I think what I've learned is that although it's much bigger, the size of capital moving into Bitcoin is also commensurately much bigger as well.

Brett Messing: (28:40)
But I guess there's an offsetting challenge, right, which is people talk about how on the supply side, right, so we're presently at a place where there's only 900 Bitcoin are mined daily, right? So, at 50,000 to Bitcoin, that's $45 million that has to be accumulated just to keep the price constant, right? At 500,000, right now we're up to $450 million a day of new buying that has to just come in and I guess I wonder how that ... So, the supply, it's not completely constant, right, in terms of ...

Vijay Boyapati: (29:21)
Yeah, that's a good point. The miners are marginal producers. So, they have electricity costs that they need to pay off so when they mine Bitcoin they typically have to sell it very quickly to pay for their expenses but you now have a new dynamic where companies are raising funds on public markets to pay to buy Bitcoin at very low interest rates, which is astounding to me and I think there's one company, I've forgotten what it's called, which is a mining company doing this where they're raising funds in the public markets so that they don't need to sell the Bitcoin that they mine, that they can continue to hold them.

Vijay Boyapati: (30:01)
So, you could have this double effect where not only are people buying but new supply isn't coming on the market, not just the supply was reduced by the halving but miners are holding back and saying, "Look, I don't want to sell for a while because I think this is going to go up." If their expectations change and they're able to pay their costs, their electricity bills, they might become longer term holders too. Then you get a real supply shortage and then that's when things can go incredibly parabolic very quickly.

Brett Messing: (30:33)
So, we got to talk about energy, right, because I think there's been a bunch of nonsense out there. Tether was nonsense and today there was a settlement with a New York attorney general and so I think that issue and use your time well and not dive into that. I think the concern about energy is going to be a real one and one that we're going to hear for a while. So, I guess I'd like your take on that, just generally.

Vijay Boyapati: (31:04)
Yeah, that was one issue I didn't cover in my article and as I discussed with you before we started, I'm turning my article into a book and this is one of the issues that I'm going to be discussing in the book because it is, like you say, it's a big issue. It's a big political issue. It's an issue where certainly one side of the political spectrum is very concerned about it and if that makes them antagonistic towards Bitcoin that is a cause for concern as an investor in Bitcoin.

Vijay Boyapati: (31:31)
What I would say is that firstly you need to compare Bitcoin, if it becomes global money, to the energy footprint of it's competitors and you need to look at gold, how much energy is. If Bitcoin completely disrupts gold, how much energy is going to be saved that way? Gold mining not only consumes a massive amount of energy but it's very, very destructive to the environment, unlike Bitcoin mining.

Vijay Boyapati: (31:59)
Bitcoin mining happens in data centers and typically it happens in places which are using green energy or areas where there's been a massive overbuild and is over capacity of energy.

Vijay Boyapati: (32:13)
So, I'll give you an example. Sichuan in China is a region where they had massively overbuilt, had built hydroelectric dams and there just weren't enough people there. So, that energy was essentially being thrown away. It couldn't be used because energy is not fungible unless in the form of a barrel of oil. Energy that you create in Sichuan can't be transported to Texas, it just can't happen.

Vijay Boyapati: (32:41)
So, that energy gets thrown away. So, Bitcoin is actually a great technology in a sense that it can rescue stranded energy. That's energy that's in places where it's hard to transport or get out or to use in other forms. Really where you see Bitcoin mining happening is in places where they've overbuilt and they're like, how do we use this excess capacity? Or where they may have volatility in demand.

Vijay Boyapati: (33:10)
So, in the United States there's a city called Wenatchee which is quite close to me where a number of large companies like Facebook and Google have their data centers but their usage is very bursty. They'll have a lot of traffic at one point in the day but maybe not in the other parts of the day and they have to sign contracts for a certain amount of energy and say, "We need this amount of energy, peak energy in case our demand, our servers need that much energy at a particular point in time."

Vijay Boyapati: (33:43)
When their servers don't need that much energy that energy is thrown away. So, it's really great in places like that where Bitcoin miners can set up and say, "Look, we'll take all of the excess energy that you're not using at any point in time and we'll pay for it." It is great for these energy providers to be able to sell to Bitcoin miners. It really flattens their demand. It's not so bursty.

Vijay Boyapati: (34:05)
So, Bitcoin mining has, I think, a positive effect on the energy market because it can unlock stranded energy and it can make energy consumption much more reliable for energy providers when they're thinking about investing in building out things like dams.

Brett Messing: (34:25)
I just saw a report that I think it's miners energy usage is 40% renewables. It seems to me that once we get that, right, over 50% and moving higher, will probably be the best way to address this issue, right? Who cares how much hydro or solar you're using.

Vijay Boyapati: (34:45)
Yeah, yeah, exactly and part of the problem is not just Bitcoin specific. It's just a global issue of how do we move people onto sources of energy that don't destroy the environment. It becomes the case that renewable energy is cheaper than the alternatives. That's where Bitcoin mining is going to go.

Brett Messing: (35:08)
So, I have one more question before I throw it to John who I know is chomping at the bit having read your essay again last night. At the Microstrategy conference when Ross Stevens and Michael kicked it off, Ross talked about Bitcoin the network and he specifically spoke about a company called Strike and there's a company I guess called Bottlepay in the UK and it's doing somewhat substantially similar. I'll, in a bad way, just summarize my understanding of what they claim to be able to do.

Brett Messing: (35:40)
Again, coming from LA, the idea of remittances in that market very much strikes home to me. But my understanding is that they'll be able to use the Bitcoin technology where they'll take a dollar, turn it into Bitcoin, essentially zap it to Mexico, it'll then get converted to a Mexican peso at virtually no cost almost instantaneously.

Brett Messing: (36:04)
What would that mean for Bitcoin? Could they actually do that? It sounds like Jetsons kind of stuff but it's super exciting if they can.

Vijay Boyapati: (36:15)
Yeah, so this is all technology that's built with the lightning network and the lightning network, it's like a financial layer built on top of the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin network is the base layer, it's the settlement network and what it's really for, what it's purpose is for large scale settlement.

Vijay Boyapati: (36:34)
Now people were a bit confused about this in the early days because there weren't many users of Bitcoin and it looked like transaction fees on the base network were very low and it could be like a payment network or a credit card network but it's become very clear that that's not what Bitcoin is for. It's for settlement. It's the equivalent to gold in the 19th century. It's a means of settling between large institutions.

Vijay Boyapati: (36:59)
We'll see that more and more over time but it's still unclear to someone. The payment stuff is going to happen on the higher level, which is the lightning network, which allows people to transact without the cost of transacting on the blockchain, which is becoming more and more expensive. So, you can send payments between people near instantly at almost zero cost on the lightning network.

Vijay Boyapati: (37:23)
It doesn't have quite the trust assurances that you get on the blockchain but for small payments that doesn't matter. You don't need the same kind of level of assurance that your payment has settled when you're buying a coffee, right? You don't need that that you might need if you're a bank settling with another bank and trying to settle a billion dollars.

Vijay Boyapati: (37:45)
So, what you're saying is certainly possible and people are working on it. I think there's a great potential in this and certainly great potential for the remittance market. It's possible. The lightning network is still fairly new and I would say it's not in it's complete final form. It's technically ... It still has some holes in it. So, I think there's a lot of people working on it and it's going to be developed and we're going to see this kind of thing in the future. So, I'm optimistic about what you were saying.

Brett Messing: (38:21)
I imagine it's good for Bitcoin both in terms of it's utility but also again it's social proof, right, just in terms of everyone being aware of what Bitcoin can do for the greater good and therefore, why you should be more comfortable investing in it.

Vijay Boyapati: (38:38)
Absolutely, and it also allows people to own much smaller quantities of Bitcoin and be able to transfer them economically. If you only own five or six dollars of Bitcoin it's not really very economical to be able to transfer that on the blockchain because the fees are in the order of a couple of dollars sometimes. That's incredibly cheap if you're settling an account for $10 million or $100 million. That's a bargain especially because you can do it with a very high level of assurance very quickly but for people who want to make small transfers it's just no economic.

Vijay Boyapati: (39:14)
So, the lightning network is going to make these much smaller micro payments economic for the mass of people in countries like India and Africa and places like that.

Brett Messing: (39:24)
That's great. All right, John, you can have at him.

John Darsie: (39:26)
All right. Finally got my shot at glory here, Vijay. Again, I just want to compliment your piece, the Bullish Case for Bitcoin. If anybody watching this hasn't read it it's sort of a foundational piece in terms of understanding intellectually why Bitcoin could be valuable. You go through the same conversation and journey with everybody when they get introduced to Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (39:47)
Well, this is just funny money, it's made out of thin air. Why would it be worth anything when it's just this computer program and I try to explain. My parents have gone through this, my brothers have gone through this, who aren't in the business, intellectually about why it has value and I think, talking about the game theoretic nature of monetary goods and the Nash equilibrium within your paper. Could you just explain that? Going back to the fundamentals a little bit about why would Bitcoin, just this invention that was created 12 years ago by a pseudonymous inventor named Satoshi Nakamoto. Why would it have value going back to the history of money?

Vijay Boyapati: (40:23)
Yeah, so money is a very confusing subject for a lot of people because money is not valued in the same way that regular goods like stocks or real estate are valued. These goods are valued through cash flow, discounted cash flow analysis. How much dividends is a stock paying or how much rent are you getting from a piece of real estate and you discount that future cash flow into the present, discounted by the interest rate.

Vijay Boyapati: (40:53)
It's not valued like goods like oil or wheat, which are used in production of higher order goods like bread or oil is used for all sorts of things. Money is valuable because everyone else believes it's valuable and it's something that's called an intersubjective reality, which is, it only gets value because other people value it.

Vijay Boyapati: (41:19)
If we'd stop believing it has value then it loses it's value. So, there's this game going on at all times where people are trying to figure out which monetary good should I keep my savings in because there are a number of monetary goods out there. There's fiat, there's gold, there's now Bitcoin and you're in this constant kind of game where people are deciding, should I keep my savings in this one or should I keep my savings in this one and that's the game theoretic part. You're trying to standardize on a money because when I society standardizes on a single money that's tremendously valuable to all of society because money accounts as the foundation for all trade and savings.

Vijay Boyapati: (42:06)
So, the game theory is really people trying to anticipate what other people are going to do. So, when you are making a bet on Bitcoin you're really thinking, are other people also going to make that same bet? You're doing that really based on the attributes that make Bitcoin good as money and you say, "Well, I recognize these attributes are good and I think other people are going to recognize these attributes are good in the future." So, you jump in first in the hope that other people will jump in later on.

John Darsie: (42:40)
Right, and what are those attributes, just very quickly, that make Bitcoin such effective money relative to something like gold or fiat?

Vijay Boyapati: (42:48)
Yeah, so we've known about the attributes that make for good money since the time of Aristotle, so for thousands of years, as durability. So, wheat is not a good money because it decays over time. Portability, so cows are not a good money. They're hard to transport. Divisibility. So, can it be broken into smaller pieces to facilitate trade? Fungibility is another one. So, gold is better as money than diamonds because diamonds are irregular in shape and quality whereas gold, one piece of gold is equivalent to another piece of gold, another one is established history that the longer people have used something as money the more that people will trust that it's going to be valuable as money into the future.

Vijay Boyapati: (43:34)
I think probably the most important attribute of all for anything to be money is scarcity. You don't want to store your wealth in something that can be produced very easily or that's super abundant like sand. So, Bitcoin is superior to gold and fiat along all of the attributes that make for a good money except maybe establish history. Gold is the king of established history.

Vijay Boyapati: (44:01)
But in my mind, that advantage or that attribute is quickly diminishing for gold relative to Bitcoin because I think as people recognize Bitcoin is still around and is still working after a few decades they'll view it as a permanent institution of the world in the same way that people view the internet as a permanent institution of the world. So, that advantage of established history I think is going to be mostly gone in the next decade.

Vijay Boyapati: (44:35)
The other comment I just quickly want to make is that I think fiat money is good for transporting value through space because it can be digital and you can transmit value to another person digitally using PayPal or Venmo. Gold is good for transporting value through time and that's because gold can't be inflated and it can't be debased by governments.

Vijay Boyapati: (44:58)
Bitcoin is good at both. It's good at transporting value through space and time. So, I think it's superior to both gold and fiat money.

John Darsie: (45:07)
I want to dive into risks a little bit and you devote time in your paper to this and in your subsequent writings about what are the legitimate risks to Bitcoin versus some of the fallacious criticisms that it draws from people who either aren't invested and maybe have some FOMO and FUD in terms of missing out on the upside. But what in your view are the real legitimate long term potential risks to Bitcoin?

Vijay Boyapati: (45:33)
Yeah, that's a really important question. So, I think in the early days probably the biggest risk was protocol risk. Was the cryptography that Satoshi built Bitcoin on sound? Was the protocol he built sound? Really that was a test, an experiment that had to be done over many years.

Vijay Boyapati: (45:52)
If you go back and look at some of the early emails, the cryptographers who were first presented his whitepaper were very skeptical. They had been trying to work on decentralized money for over a decade and along comes this person that no one had heard about and said, "I've solved this problem."

Vijay Boyapati: (46:09)
But just over the years after thousands and thousands of very smart people have been trying to break Bitcoin, to hack it, to find some flaw in it we've come to understand that Bitcoin's protocol is rock solid.

Vijay Boyapati: (46:25)
In terms of real risks now I think and speaking with Brett about this, nation state attack to me is the last credible risk to Bitcoin. Are we going to see nation states wake up to the potential threat that Bitcoin poses to their monetary policy and what are they going to do about it? As we discussed, I think that's really a question of whether Bitcoin gets enough political capture, gets enough adoption that it becomes infeasible for nation states to attack Bitcoin and they have to come to terms with it and say, "Well, this is a [inaudible 00:47:02]. Bitcoin has now become a global store of value. What do we do? Do we add it to our reserves? Do we incorporate it in our monetary policy?"

Vijay Boyapati: (47:15)
So, that's an open question for me and I think it's a question that we're going to see answered over the next five to six years because the amount of savings that are going to flow into Bitcoin over the next five years is going to be stupendous. I think Bitcoin's going to overtake gold. It's going to overtake gold and I think it's going to have this geopolitical significance which will make nation states sit up and pay attention.

John Darsie: (47:40)
Right. I want to talk to you about Satoshi for a moment. Satoshi Nakamoto again is the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin. Satoshi, to my knowledge, has never sold any Bitcoin that's attributed to him whether it's a him or her or a group of people but conceivably Satoshi is the wealthiest person on the planet if it's an individual that's walking among us.

John Darsie: (48:02)
What risk, in your eyes, do you see to Satoshi at some point in the future ripping off the mask and saying ... What you were talking about earlier is that you're basically buying Bitcoin with the expectation there's going to be greater adoption in the future and it's really a game theoretical sort of money. What is the risk that Satoshi was just running some type of scheme to enrich themselves and make themselves the wealthiest person on the planet and they flood the market with the Bitcoin that is attributed to him, her or that group?

Brett Messing: (48:32)
John, I want a shot at this one.

John Darsie: (48:34)
All right, you take it first, Brett.

Brett Messing: (48:35)
[crosstalk 00:48:35] I want Vijay goes first. He may say what I'm going to say [crosstalk 00:48:39]-

Vijay Boyapati: (48:41)
I'd love to hear what you have to say, Brett.

Vijay Boyapati: (48:44)
I'll give a quick answer. I think it's a tail risk. I think it's a very low probability event. Even if Satoshi were to reveal him or herself and say, "Look, I'm about to dump my Bitcoin on the market." It's a one time thing and it's a part of the process of monetization, the distribution of his coins. It's kind of like discovering gold in the new world. That caused inflation in Europe. That was a one time event but it didn't mean that gold suddenly disappeared from use as money. There was a period of inflation. I think the same thing would be true for Satoshi.

Vijay Boyapati: (49:18)
I think it's extremely unlikely. He has had, or she has had to financial incentive for a long time. Billions and billions of dollars. That would change the lifestyle of any person yet not a single one of those coins has moved. The other reason I think that Satoshi will never reveal themselves is this great physical risk to be known as the person who holds the most Bitcoin. You would need a huge staff of armed guards because Bitcoin has it's property that transactions are not reversible. So, if someone finds you and if you haven't really done a good job of your security they can do what's called a five dollar wrench attack where they say, "Give me all your Bitcoin or I'll take your fingers." If you have a million Bitcoin, it's a scary proposition.

Vijay Boyapati: (50:12)
This is why, honestly, a lot of large Bitcoin holders have custodied their Bitcoin with institutions rather than holding it themselves just for that fear.

John Darsie: (50:22)
Right.

Vijay Boyapati: (50:22)
So, Brett, I'd love to hear your answer.

Brett Messing: (50:24)
Same basic thing. I think the Bitcoin were destroyed when they were valueless and it was launched. Just what I know about human nature, I don't know any human being who could have the discipline to not touch it, setting aside buying a house or an airplane or a sports team. This was a noble mission. They could be solving poverty, solving the pandemic and they're sitting on all this money not doing anything when they could help so many people. It's inconceivable to me that this Bitcoin is accessible by a human being. Anything's possible but as you said, I would put very, very low odds on it.

Vijay Boyapati: (51:07)
Yeah, could I just quickly add to that point that Brett made? I think it was created as a noble pursuit because unlike a lot of these other cryptocurrencies, Satoshi announced it before he launched the network. He said anyone could mine it. In the early years he only mined it to keep the network going because there was only one or two computers on the network.

Vijay Boyapati: (51:29)
A lot of these new cryptocurrencies are what's called pre mined, like the people who create them will take a big chunk of the supply just to enrich themselves. It's very clear that that is not what has happened with Bitcoin. This is something that was created to benefit mankind and I agree with Brett. I think that the highest likelihood is that the keys to those coins were destroyed or perhaps Satoshi's dead. He's not alive anymore so I think it's an extreme tail risk that those coins come back online.

Brett Messing: (52:03)
How many coins do you think are missing? Let's assume the Satoshi's are gone. So, when we say 21 million. What's the real number of float, if you will, once we get them all mined?

Vijay Boyapati: (52:14)
Yeah, the best estimate I've seen is somewhere between three and five million are missing.

Brett Messing: (52:21)
That's a lot, right? You're turning 21 into 16 to 18.

Vijay Boyapati: (52:26)
Yeah, and of those 16 to 18 ... The great thing about Bitcoin is the blockchain is open and transparent and you can do all sorts of analysis on the flow of funds on the blockchain and you can look at Bitcoins that have stayed dormant for a long, long time. It actually gives you a sense of where the market's going. You can tell that you might be getting to a crescendo top when coins from three to five years ago start moving and people who've had Bitcoin for that long say, "It's time for me to cash out." You can look at that and see that on the blockchain.

Vijay Boyapati: (52:58)
What you'll see is that actually the set of coins that are trading on the market at any particular time is a very, very small fraction of the total supply. Most people who are into Bitcoin are in it for the long term so you don't see much movement of the total supply.

Brett Messing: (53:17)
Hmm. Thank you.

John Darsie: (53:17)
Well, I'm going to save the rest of my questions and demand that Vijay comes back for a second episode. We've had multiple episodes with the great Michael Saylor, given there was so much to talk to him about related to his decision of Microstrategy to invest what is now four plus billion dollars into Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (53:36)
So, we're very thankful for your time, Vijay. Thank you for joining us and we hope to have you back and we'll dive even deeper. Maybe after your book comes out. We'll distribute the book to our SALT community and have you back on to dive even deeper into some of the themes that you cover there.

Vijay Boyapati: (53:51)
Yeah, I'd love that. Thanks, John and thanks, Brett. It was a pleasure for me to speak to you guys. Like I said, I'm really excited that you guys are getting into Bitcoin and spreading the word and doing what you're doing with your fund.

Brett Messing: (54:03)
Thanks so much. Thanks for joining us, Vijay. This was great.

Vijay Boyapati: (54:06)
Thanks guys.

John Darsie: (54:07)
Yup. Thank you everyone who tuned in to today's SALT Talk with Vijay Boyapati, the author of the Bullish Case for Bitcoin, which again is one of the seminal writings in Bitcoin in terms of understanding intellectually why Bitcoin has value and the price cycles that it's currently undergoing over the last several years.

John Darsie: (54:27)
Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this talk or any of our previous talks you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks at salt.org/talks. You can access them all on our YouTube channel as well which is called SALT Tube. Those are all free to access for everyone.

John Darsie: (54:43)
We're also on social media. Please follow us there. We're most active on Twitter @saltconference but we're also on LinkedIn, Instagram and Facebook.

John Darsie: (54:51)
Please spread the word about these SALT Talks. Again, the digital asset space is an area that we've been doing research on for several years and we're excited to bring the leading voices in that space to you via our SALT Talk series so definitely if you're interested in learning more go to our YouTube channel and watch all episodes of our digital asset series including the aforementioned episodes with Michael Saylor, which were both tremendous conversations about his decision at Microstrategy to invest their corporate treasury assets into Bitcoin.

John Darsie: (55:18)
But on behalf of Brett and the entire SALT team, this is John Darsie signing off from SALT Talks for today. We hope to see you back here soon.

Fundraising in the Middle East (Mena) | SALT Talks #168

“We’re seeing new interest on the technology side… with a view to invest in sectors like edutech, healthtech, agritech and fintech.”

Kamar Jaffer is a counsel in the Allen & Overy Funds and Asset Management Group where she is also a member of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

The pandemic made 2020 a difficult year for those looking to fundraise and establish investment funds, but more recent signs have shown a positive shift. Fund managers have had to adjust by taking a more deal-by-deal approach when convincing investors to commit. The MENA region has seen investments grow particularly in technology across all sectors. “We’re seeing new interest on the technology side… with a view to invest in sectors like edutech, healthtech, agritech and fintech.”

Sovereign wealth funds continue to play major roles in allocating funds with an aim to diversify the economy both regionally and internationally. US SPACs have received greater investments from MENA region funds. Managers in the Middle East are now looking to raise their own SPACs in the region.

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Kamar Jaffer.jpeg

Kamar Jaffer

Counsel

Allen & Overy

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:07)
Hello everyone, and welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the managing director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology, and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series that we launched in 2020, with leading investors, creators, and thinkers, and our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT conference series, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future. And we're very excited today to welcome Kamar Jaffer as our guest on SALT Talks, moderated by our good friend, Huda Al Lawati , who joined us at our SALT Abu Dhabi 2019 conference. And we're looking forward to having both of these speakers today, join us at our next SALT Middle East conference, hopefully at the end of 2021.

John Darsie: (01:00)
But a little more about Kamar. Kamar is the counsel in Allen & Overy's Middle East Funds and Asset Management Group, with 15 years of experience in the business. She helps clients structure and establish investment funds, including Shariah-compliant funds. Prior to joining A&O, Kamar was the head of legal Mena and Turkey at PineBridge Investments, a global multi-asset class manager providing cross-jurisdictional legal advice on private equity, real estate, and distribution of financial products.

John Darsie: (01:30)
Prior to moving to the Middle East, Kamar worked for a global law firm in London. Kamar is passionate about emerging markets and, with senior industry executives, has led podcasts exploring reinvigorating the Mena economy by focusing on mid-caps and SMEs, and the role of private equity in emerging markets. She's also edited publications, including Euromoney's Investing in Emerging and Frontier Markets. Kamar is a member of A&O's Middle East Diversity and Inclusion Committee, and leads the gender initiative at the firm.

John Darsie: (02:01)
And, as I mentioned, hosting today's interview is Huda Al Lawati . Huda's career has spanned 18 years in private equity and investments across emerging markets. As partner at Gateway Partners Group, she is a member of the investment committee and leads deal origination, execution, and portfolio management in the Middle East and Africa regions for the firm. Prior to Gateway, Ms. Al Lawati was the chief investment officer for Savola group, one of the largest publicly listed strategic investment holding groups for food and retail businesses in the Middle East and North Africa. She's also currently a board member at Tim Horton's Middle East and Gateway Delta Development Holdings in Africa, and served on the boards of Pan Retail Company, Herfi Al Kabir, Savola Foods Company, SMG, The Entertainer, and Kudu. Among many other accomplishments, she holds a Bachelor of Science degree in neuroscience and a Bachelor of Arts degree in business economics from Brown University in the beautiful town of Providence, Rhode Island.

John Darsie: (03:02)
So, thank you both for joining us today. Huda, I'll turn it over to you for the interview.

Huda Al Lawati: (03:06)
Perfect. Thank you so much, John. And thank you SALT for having us. Thanks Kamar for joining. I thought it's a very good time for us to discuss fundraising in the Middle East region and, more broadly, the emerging markets. Kamar is very well placed as a counsel for funds and asset management to talk to us about this.

Huda Al Lawati: (03:28)
You talked a little bit about what she does. I would ask her to elaborate just a little bit more to set the stage for her place, in terms of fundraising. She sees money coming in and out of the region, and then we'll go into the discussing fundraising in more detail.

Kamar Jaffer: (03:42)
Thank you, Huda. Thank you very much for having me on the SALT Talk. So, my focus is on structuring and establishing funds to raise capital for investments, as well as representing some of the institutional investors in this region that are investing into funds globally. So, my clients include sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and other institutional investors, and also private managers that are establishing funds in this part of the world.

Huda Al Lawati: (04:15)
Perfect. Thank you for that. So Kamar, you basically help people like me who want to do deals or raise money, actually turn that into reality.

Kamar Jaffer: (04:23)
That's right.

Huda Al Lawati: (04:24)
And in that context, if we just look at the big picture over the last 12 months, in a very eventful COVID year that we've had, how do you see the environment, the fundraising environment, whether it's from a manager perspective or a investor perspective?

Kamar Jaffer: (04:40)
So, I'd say that generally for the Middle East, fundraising has been challenging in 2020. We've seen it pause initially when COVID-19 hit in the initial months, March, April, May, and then we start to see much more of a positive outlook on fundraising, as managers are structuring and establishing funds and going to markets and closing their funds as well. What we've seen last year, is that managers and investors transition to remote worlds. I've been holding, so we have been doing their due diligence together remotely, and that's been very positive. So, there's been engagement from both sides, and we've managers trying to do this in a very efficient way.

Kamar Jaffer: (05:27)
We've also seen that, the trend we've been seeing, which is very aligned with what we're seeing internationally, is that investors continue to allocate so very well-known and established managers, as well as ones that they have preexisting relationships with. So they tend to re-up with the managers they know. We're seen a lot more difficulty for first time or emerging managers that are looking to start their first fund, for example. And that's where the challenge is.

Huda Al Lawati: (06:02)
That's very much in line with what we've seen as well. Do you see that changing? Or, in the recent months, or do you think that's going to continue being the case, so long as we can't physically travel and do due diligence on new, or the investors can't do due diligence on new names?

Kamar Jaffer: (06:20)
I think that managers are trying to be as reactive as they can to investors' needs. And I think that they're looking at alternative models, as well, to raise capital. So, if they can't trace it by raising a blind pool fund, they look at, for example, a deal-by-deal structure, or a pledge fund structure, in order to get to, for example, in a deal-by-deal structure, they'll have a pre-identified investment, and they'll look to get their investors comfortable with the investment, get them to invest, and build their track record in that way, by making those sort of deal-by-deal structures, and then with a view to perhaps seeding their first fund. So, I think that we're seeing that managers are trying to adapt to the current markets.

Huda Al Lawati: (07:03)
Great. And on those sort of deal-by-deal situations, are the economics similar? Is it very much per situation? How does it work?

Kamar Jaffer: (07:14)
Yeah. So on the deal-by-deal structures, I think that there isn't a very set market terms, like there is on the fence lines. So, I think we see that managers do this in different ways, and it depends on whether they've had the track record, whether they've done this before, whether investors know them, and whether they've got a pipeline as well. So, I think there are many factors that come into play, but we do see, for example, a closing fee that gets put in place. And of course, the carry, those are typical structures we still see in those deals. And then, after that, the range of what those are, will differ depending on the manager.

Huda Al Lawati: (07:56)
So, going away from the how and the investment structures, getting into what, in terms o?f the industry verticals or the investment strategies that you see having the most traction, where would that be in your view either in the Middle East or broadly, emerging markets?

Kamar Jaffer: (08:13)
Sure. So, what we've been seeing is that the managers that are established, that have a track record, they tend to be able to raise their successive funds, and those can be in PE, in private equity, credit, they can be in venture capital, and the list goes on. But I think where we're seeing a lot of new sort of interest is, for example, on the technology sites. So we're seeing a lot of interest in VC, in tech, with a view to investing in sectors like edu-tech, healthcare, so healtht-ech, agri-tech, FinTech, all of those are attracting a lot of attention in the region.

Huda Al Lawati: (08:59)
Now, you talk about attracting attention, which takes us now to the who. And I'm just trying to sort of understand where that interest is coming from? Is that, you have families, sovereigns, international, local, where is the interest today? Who are the active pockets, let's say?

Kamar Jaffer: (09:19)
So, I think sovereign wealth funds continue to allocate, so they have continued to allocate, both regionally and internationally, to funds, and they continue to do so. In particular, to help diversify the economy, and that continues. Family offices also continue to invest, both regionally and globally. And again, they're trying to diversify their businesses away from their traditional areas of focus.

Kamar Jaffer: (09:49)
We're also seeing, we do see some interest from U.S. and European players that have invested with managers in the region, and continue to do so, and those are the ones that have had experience of investing in the Middle East or emerging markets. And they continue to invest, particularly with managers that they know. And then DFIs, I think in particular, are continuing to invest in markets such as Egypt and Africa, to sort of help support their agenda as well.

Huda Al Lawati: (10:24)
And how about outward investment from the Middle East?

Kamar Jaffer: (10:28)
So, outward investment, we're seeing a lot of interest in U.S., in Europe. So those are the big fundraising markets at the moment. And I think that the sectors that we see a lot of interest in, are credit. So, special situations, dislocation funds, have attracted capital from the region, and we're also seeing this across sectors. So, it doesn't necessarily need to be just a credit fund, it will be a specific industry or area that they're allocating to. And what's interesting here, is that we're seeing [inaudible 00:11:04] sovereign investors that want to deploy capital very quickly in specific industries or strategies. They invest through separate managed accounts, so SMAs, with managers, which means that they give a big ticket slice to the manager to invest, and it's effectively investing as a fund of one, let's say, in two specific areas.

Huda Al Lawati: (11:28)
And just parking on the sovereigns for a few minutes, we've seen the like of [inaudible 00:11:36] talk about doubling AUM. We've seen pockets such as Jeddah and capitalists come out and say that they're going to support the local managers and develop the industry further. Have you seen that translate into activity? Have you seen that translate into allocation? And what, if any impact does that have on the terms that managers have to sign up to when they bring in pockets like that?

Kamar Jaffer: (12:02)
So I think we're seeing these seed funds, which is a relatively unusual feature, I think, which is parts of our region, becoming very active. I think that that is great for managers because they have that support system in play, and those seed funds are very active in promoting their ecosystem, whether it be in Saudi, in the UAE, or in Bahrain or elsewhere. And I think that they invest, but they will basically allocate, but also have other investors join. And so, the negotiation with the manager will not necessarily just be with a seed investor, it will also need to cater to other investors that are joining the fund. So, it will have to be on the basis of market terms.

Huda Al Lawati: (12:51)
And is there a Domo salary requirement associated with all of them ,or some of them? Are there any localization requirements that this comes with?

Kamar Jaffer: (13:02)
So I think, as you know, [inaudible 00:13:04] we've seen a historically, Cayman Islands being the preferred domicile for funds in the region. And what we have seen in recent years is that the financial centers in the region are attracting managers because they're closer to home. So they have their teams locally based in the region, and those continue to attract those managers. But based on common law, international standards, so they provide comfort and, at the same time, they allow 100% foreign ownership of managers, so they can set up their funds and have the ability to adapt the terms of their fund documents. So I think it's very similar to what you would have in the Cayman Islands, in terms of legal regulatory framework, in a way. And I think that those jurisdictions will continued to attract managers, and that will also enable them to continue to raise capital from the region.

Huda Al Lawati: (14:05)
And when you talk to international pockets, and talking about these jurisdictions and the new jurisdiction, do you see resistance? Are people wary of the lack of history, lack of precedence?

Kamar Jaffer: (14:19)
So I think we do see international investors looking at the region and investing in the region, but we also see that, at times, there may be some investors that are very used to investing in other parts of the world, and so they prefer to use their domiciles. So we do establish, for example, a fund, named fund, let's say, in the region, with a parallel fund in Luxembourg to cater for European investors. So, we do structure in such a way to be able to attract different types of investors, depending on their requirements. And I think this is driven by different factors, including tax, as well.

Huda Al Lawati: (14:58)
And talk about catering to... So, tax, or other reasons, people being used to domiciles, another pocket of investors that I know I asked you a lot of questions about and pick your brains on it, the Shariah investors. Do you think that that's a pocket that's being tapped enough? Or successfully, unsuccessfully? Do you see it as an impediment? Do you see it as an opportunity? How do you view that?

Kamar Jaffer: (15:27)
So I would say that most of the funds, we, about 50% of the funds we work on are Shariah-compliant funds in the region, or structures to tap into those investors. And I think it is an opportunity, definitely, in terms of tapping into those investors. I think it's a challenge in terms of understanding the requirements. So, Shariah compliance, I would say, is an art, not a science. So many of the investors will have different requirements, depending on their Shariah board. And the Shariah board also has different views of what Shariah-compliance is, which evolve over time. So, certain investors will only invest in fully Shariah-compliant funds, and others may be comfortable at the other end of the spectrum, with excuse rights, whereby they will invest in a conventional fund, but they will be excused from investments that are not Shariah-compliant.

Kamar Jaffer: (16:31)
And then there are some other options in between. So we do see some investors requiring parallel funds to be set up, which is some of the structures we've been discussing, or using a debt financing instrument, so financing instrument, to access the conventional fund, to be one step removed from the conventional fund effectively, to invest into that. So I think overall, there are different ways of approaching Shariah investors and it's important to really understand what their requirements are.

Huda Al Lawati: (17:06)
Do you see that getting streamlined as more, as there is more interest and more activity in this Shariah pocket? Or do you think people will continue to have their own requirements?

Kamar Jaffer: (17:18)
I think there will continue to be their own requirements because depending on the investors, their jurisdictions, across the emerging markets, not just the Middle East, but also Asia, they will all have their own specific requirements, and the Shariah scholars who advise the investors as well, have evolving views of Shariah law, over time, that really will also impact the restructuring too.

Huda Al Lawati: (17:48)
Zeroing in on the terms, whether it's a Sheriah-compliant fund or a conventional fund, have you seen specific fund terms evolve over the last 12 months?

Kamar Jaffer: (18:00)
Yes. I mean, firstly, the time to close has extended. So we've seen that extend beyond the typical 12 months. So you see that go to 18, 24 months in some cases. So that's, and we've seen sort of a lot of discussion between managers and investors as to whether they hardwire the period in, whether they build in flexibility to get investor consent, to extend it, and all of those types of things.

Kamar Jaffer: (18:28)
We're also seeing a lot of discussion around the investment mandates. So managers are getting back to their investors and trying to negotiate to have a broader investment mandate, in order to capitalize on opportunities, or to invest across the capital structure of companies. So that's another area that we're seeing movement on.

Kamar Jaffer: (18:47)
And then there's also the investment period that may be longer, because it may take more time to exit the current markets. And that has also knock-on effects, because you may have to look at the definition of [inaudible 00:18:59] investments, if you want to continue to invest in your portfolio companies, and there are restrictions and terms around that. And so just looking at what that means.

Kamar Jaffer: (19:10)
And then I think that, generally, on the economic terms, those tend to be fairly in line with where we were before, and those continue to be, sort of, not necessarily very strongly effected, especially for established managers, as to what they were before COVID-19.

Huda Al Lawati: (19:34)
So size matters there more? Or less?

Kamar Jaffer: (19:37)
They're still very long [crosstalk 00:19:41]

Huda Al Lawati: (19:41)
It's been very long. [crosstalk 00:19:42] Painful, right?

Kamar Jaffer: (19:43)
Yes.

Huda Al Lawati: (19:43)
Talk to me about structures. Another area that has seen a lot of activity and actually has boomed, is SPACs.

Kamar Jaffer: (19:54)
Yes.

Huda Al Lawati: (19:55)
Sitting here in the Middle East, what do you see?

Kamar Jaffer: (19:59)
So I think we are definitely seeing a lot of interest in Special Purpose Acquisition vehicles, or Companies. So SPACs. In the U.S., as you know, the numbers of SPACs that have come to the market last year were significant. I mean, there were over 240, I think, SPACs, raising over $80 billion, are some of the numbers that I've read. And I think that has attracted investor interest in the region. And we are seeing some investors who are looking to invest in SPACs. I think what has brought a lot more investor familiarity are some of the players that have some of the high profile names of business leaders, as well as PE sponsors that have been backing the SPACs. And I think that is also sort of attracting a lot more interest, and we're seeing a multitude of structures, as you've said. So, some would be sponsored individually, and others through the private equity firms as well.

Huda Al Lawati: (21:08)
And in terms of SPACs, you mentioned managers and private equity players being involved in that, is that typically done as private equity players doing a new activity? Or is that done through funds? Or, is the fund the SPAC sponsor? Or is the private equity manager we've seen individuals do it, or is it a mix?

Kamar Jaffer: (21:31)
I think I would say it's a mix. So, I think I would say that what we're seeing on the SPAC side, is that the team is key, in terms of the fundraising. And that's one of the key aspects, because they have to identify the target within 24 months. So the question is whether that team has the pipeline to be able to use them.

Huda Al Lawati: (21:59)
So if I were talking to you from the point of view, and I'm going to ask you this from a few perspectives, if I talk to you from the perspective of an international investor, looking to put money here, what would be the things that you would tell me to focus on?

Kamar Jaffer: (22:17)
So I think it's similar to every other market in the world, right? So it's basically, it's the team, the managers' performance, on other funds, how it's dealt with sort of crises, let's say, in previous times, so how they've dealt with the financial crisis every time, how they've dealt with COVID. How they've managed at portfolio companies. I think there will be a lot focus on the existing portfolio investments and how they stand, and how managers are supporting those. And also looking at the pipeline, trying to understand how the managers are actually continuing to secure a pipeline across the board range of geographies, and able to actually diligence those and how they put process in place to assist them on all of that.

Huda Al Lawati: (23:08)
And if I flip that and ask you from the point of view of somebody who's raising money, as the manager, what would your advice be?

Kamar Jaffer: (23:14)
So I think, from a manager's perspective, I think the importance is really to highlight those success stories, like basically the transition to the virtual world, the support that has been provided to the portfolio companies, where the portfolio companies are 12 months later. I think it's all about continuing communication and engagement with investors. So, keeping them up to date to be more transparent. And I think that, and just the future pipeline and the dialogue that they have with those management teams as well, given there are still travel restrictions in place.

Huda Al Lawati: (23:59)
And you touched on portfolio management and the focus on that from the investors' side. And you also touched on potentially longer holding periods because of inability to exit. Have you seen continuation funds or people looking to manage the end of life for funds during this period?

Kamar Jaffer: (24:24)
So, yes, we are talking to players that are looking at continuation funds, for us it's where they see opportunity for growth. And so they would look to transfer them into a fund and either roll over their existing investors and bring on new investors to those. So I think that there are those discussions going on. And so I think it's really a question of the underlying targets and the opportunities there, as to whether it's successful or not.

Huda Al Lawati: (24:55)
Are they difficult conversations?

Kamar Jaffer: (24:58)
I think it's a question also of just being able to manage the existing investors on one side, getting the necessary approvals and consent, and also just managing the new investors. So there are the conflicts of interest provisions that are in fund documents and just understanding how to navigate all of those issues. Valuation as well, making sure that the valuation is on the button made by an independent third party to be able to provide comfort when the asset gets transferred to the continuation [inaudible 00:25:32] So I think all of those issues have to be properly, sort of, addressed.

Huda Al Lawati: (25:39)
Right. Good. But thank you so much Kamar, for your views. I think that gives a great overview of what's happening and what you're seeing and really appreciate your time and sharing your knowledge.

Kamar Jaffer: (25:50)
Thank you [crosstalk 00:25:51]

John Darsie: (25:53)
Thank you Kamar, and thank you Huda for joining us. It's always great to touch base with our friends in the Middle East. We haven't gotten to see enough of your faces, obviously during COVID, but look forward to hopefully getting over to see you guys soon in beautiful Dubai, and resuming our conference series, as I mentioned in late 2021. So thank you both for participating today in SALT Talks.

Huda Al Lawati: (26:15)
Thank you.

Kamar Jaffer: (26:15)
Thank you.

John Darsie: (26:18)
Thank you everybody who joined us today on SALT Talks with Huda Al Lawati and Kamar Jaffer. Just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, and we've had plenty of guests hailing from the Middle East, a region that we're very familiar with and that we like a great deal, you can access all those SALT Talks salt.org\talks, and you can also sign up for all of our future talks there, if you're going to participate in these episodes live.

John Darsie: (26:44)
And just a reminder, please follow us on our YouTube channel where SALT Tube is the name of our YouTube channel. We're also on Twitter, which is where we're most active at, @SALTconference. We're also on Facebook. We're on LinkedIn, we're on Instagram as well. So please follow us there, and please spread the word about SALT Talks, we love growing our community, especially in new places, which we've done a lot more in the Middle East over the last few years. So,, love growing our community there. And on behalf of the entire SALT team and our guests today, this is John Darsie signing off for today from SALT Talks. We hope to see you back here soon.

Dr. Yossi Bahagon: Israel's Vaccine Rollout | SALT Talks #167

“As human beings, some of our behaviors will evolve. The first thing that’s evolving is how do we [and the health care system] approach our health care.”

Dr. Yossi Bahagon is a family physician and serial entrepreneur who founded and managed the digital health division at Clalit Health Services – the second largest health maintenance organization in the world. Dr. Bahagon is a founding managing partner at OurCrowd, a global venture investment platform.

The pandemic will inevitably force human behavior to evolve in many ways. This is especially true for our approach to health care and its delivery. Israel has been an early adopter of health care digitalization and telehealth. Clalit Health Services was created over ten years ago and allows 100% of Israel’s population to access one’s own health information through a phone or computer. Empowerment through digital access creates a more collaborative relationship between patient and doctor, a dynamic termed participatory health. “Participatory health is about how do you make the patient a true partner in his or her own health care… this is what the digital health revolution is all about.”

This digital health foundation in Israel has been central to its successful vaccination efforts. Citizens have become familiar with the digitalization of their health care which has made communication and delivery of vaccines into patient arms more seamless. “Within a month and a half, 45% of the Israeli population is already vaccinated. If things continue at this pace, in a month or two, we will gain herd immunity.”

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE

SPEAKER

Dr. Yossi Bahagon.jpeg

Dr. Yossi Bahagon

Founder & Manager

Clalit Health Services' Digital Health Division

MODERATOR

Anthony Scaramucci

Founder & Managing Partner

SkyBridge

EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

John Darsie: (00:12)
Hello everyone. And welcome back to SALT Talks. My name is John Darsie. I'm the Managing Director of SALT, which is a global thought leadership forum and networking platform at the intersection of finance, technology and public policy. SALT Talks are a digital interview series with leading investors, creators, and thinkers. And our goal on these SALT Talks is the same as our goal at our SALT Conferences, which is to provide a window into the mind of subject matter experts, as well as provide a platform for what we think are big ideas that are shaping the future.

John Darsie: (00:44)
And we're very excited today to welcome you to the latest episode of SALT Talks that we're doing in partnership with OurCrowd, which is an Israeli-based crowdfunding platform. And today's episode is going to focus on the miracle of the Israeli rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, something that we could definitely learn a lot from here in the United States, as in various parts of the countries, we're achieving success and in some cases not achieving success in rolling out the vaccine in a efficient way.

John Darsie: (01:13)
But our guests today on this SALT Talks episode is Dr. Yossi Bahagon. Dr. Bahagon is a clinically active family physician, a serial entrepreneur, and a global key opinion leader in the field of digital health. Dr. Bahagon founded and managed Clalit Health Services Digital Health Division. CHS is the second largest health maintenance organization in the world. CHS's digital activity led the digital transformation of the Israeli healthcare system and became a global benchmark for nationwide digital health deployments. It serves today millions of patients in tens of millions of interactions monthly, and they were definitely ahead of the curve in what is now a mega trend in terms of telemedicine. Dr. Bahagon has also been a founding team member of several successful digital health companies and co-founded Qure Ventures, Israel's first digital health focused investment fund. Dr. Bahagon serves as the special advisor for the World Health Organization, as well as an advisory board member of Best Buy Health and Almirall Pharmaceuticals and a mentor at Microsoft's Think Next Accelerator and Biocat's Digital Health Accelerator.

John Darsie: (02:28)
And hosting today's talk is David Suisa. David is the Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, the largest Jewish weekly in the country, Los Angeles being one of those locations I was referring to earlier that could learn a lot from Israel's vaccine rollout. For the past 13 years, David has been writing a weekly column in the Journal that earned him the Best Columnist Award by the LA Press Club and First Prize for Editorial Writing by the American Jewish Press Association. Prior to journalism, David was a founder and CEO of Suisa Miller Advertising, a marketing firm that was named Agency of the Year by USA Today. In 2005, he sold that company so he could dedicate himself full time to the Jewish world and we're very excited that David is joining us as a first time moderator here on SALT Talks. And with no further ado, I'm going to turn it over to David to conduct today's interview.

David Suisa: (03:22)
Thank you, John. Thank you to SALT Talks and to OurCrowd. I have a special fascination with our subject today. For one thing, every time I go to a doctor's office, I still have to fill out all the forms on real paper with an old pen. And all I see is hundreds and hundreds of old paper files. And I always ask myself, when are we going to enter the digital age here in America? But then at the same time, recently, I have a sensor on my skin that has really changed my life, because it helps me measure my glucose. So I've tasted both worlds, and I'm delighted to be able to talk about this subject with Yossi today.

David Suisa: (04:07)
So I'd like to start, Yossi, with something you wrote 10 years ago in a medical journal that caught my attention. And let me quote from what you wrote. "In the upcoming decade, digital platforms will be the backbone of a strategic revolution in the way medical services are provided, affecting both healthcare providers and patients. Digital-based patient centered healthcare services allow patients to actively participate in managing their own care in times of health, as well as illness, using personally tailored interactive tools." That sounds like a wonderful world, Yossi. When you think back of what you wrote 10 years ago, how does it look today?

Yossi Bahagon: (04:52)
So first thank you, John. And thank you, David and OurCrowd for connecting the dots here on this SALT Talk. Hearing what you are quoting me, I probably should read back what I wrote a few years ago. Maybe I will know how to read the future better. So definitely we are speaking over Zoom in a world that half of it is under lockdown. And unfortunately that COVID led to the revolution that we are experiencing today in remote care services.

Yossi Bahagon: (05:35)
But actually this came true faster than I imagined. It's just a year, a year and a half ago, people, as you described, every time had to go to the physician's office for every routine check, for every child check, for an ear pain and so on. Things have dramatically changed these days and accelerated and COVID which accelerated this change. We see a world that is actually going today through what you just read. And I believe that what we are seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg, meaning COVID is going to stay with us, whether we like it or not, even with the vaccinations, which we will speak about later on, it's going to stay with us for the months. And maybe even for the two, three years to come, if everything will go right.

Yossi Bahagon: (06:40)
And some of our behaviors as human beings will evolve and started evolving during this period. And since it's a healthcare crisis, the first thing that is evolving is how do we approach our health care and how does the healthcare system approach healthcare? So exactly that, how healthcare is delivered and how healthcare is perceived.

Yossi Bahagon: (07:13)
I think the main thing that I pointed out back then, and I can still reiterate it today is what I like to call participatory health. Participatory health is how do you make the patient a true partner in his or her own healthcare? So the technology aims that we will speak about later on, we need to remember that they are only means for this objective of making the patient a true partner, just like you hinted with regards to your continuous glucose monitoring that is attached to your arm, which gave you the power to know where your glucose stands with a glimpse of an iPhone or a smartphone that you get nearby the sensor. So this is exactly what the digital revolution is all about.

David Suisa: (08:20)
You know what I find also fascinating is that there is an acronystic system that seems very, very difficult to change, which is a human being entering a doctor's office. And that's something that's been with us for hundreds of years. And I still feel that it's like granite. It's like an old school. The doctor expects it, the patient expects it. I go into an office and I see a doctor in person. And what I've noticed is that we've been forced to change that during the pandemic, because we had no choice. So now we're entering telemedicine, whether we like it or not. And I'd like to discuss now the situation in Israel, because it seems to me that you were better prepared for the pandemic and for the spread of the vaccine, especially than other countries. And you personally, Yossi, you were involved with creating a digital health system in Israel through Clalit, correct? Could you spend a few minutes discussing how you helped create this digital health system and how it helped you when the vaccine finally came, helped spread the vaccine so quickly?

Yossi Bahagon: (09:45)
Sure. Happy to, thank you, David, for the question. I don't know if you and the audience know that, but for more than 10 years now in Israel, 100% of the population, 100% of the population have access to their personal health record. Meaning I can with one tap, go into my smartphone and enter my personal health record. And not only I can see all my data there, meaning diseases, medications, hypersensitivities, my last x-ray, my last lab test and so on, everything. I can also act upon it in various ways. So having telemedicine sessions, ordering my chronic prescriptions, all the data is analyzed at the background so to enable personalized medicine. So for example, the system crunches the data in order to find a woman who have a higher risk for developing breast cancer and send them proactively notifications for doing preventative medicine in order to find it in early stage.

Yossi Bahagon: (11:10)
If you ask me why am I personally attracted to this field beyond the cool stuff and technology, which will... It's about the ability to change people's life in the masses. When I was a physician in a clinic, I had 1,000 patients that were under my responsibility. When we established the Digital Health Division at Clalit, as John said, it's the second largest health organization in the world after Kaiser. Now, and this is what I told my team, it's not about technology. It's about the human experience that you create. And it's about touching the lives of millions of peoples through this digital platforms and changing their lives. We can point out to this specific woman that because of the system that we built, we saved their lives from a deadly breast cancer. And similarly with regards to men, that we saved their lives from a myocardial infection from a heart attack.So it's not numbers and digital. It's people's lives and people's experience.

Yossi Bahagon: (12:32)
From this platform, again, I'm speaking 10 years before COVID. When we started it, I told people telemedicine, they asked me, "Tele who?" So today, obviously everybody knows what telemedicine is, but this platform was the foundation of the great success that we are experiencing this days and in the vaccination rollout. We are moving from a startup nation to a vaccination. So I can describe you my experience. I got the text message inviting me with the date and place and with a QR code, got there five minutes before time, the gate opened based on me presenting the QR code. 10 minutes later, I was out. A day after, I got a text message for my second vaccine booking, together with an electronical form there to fill if I had any adverse effects. This system is built on what we built, what we are building for the last 10, 15 years in which enables now that's 45, within a month and a half, 45% of the Israeli population is already vaccinated.

Yossi Bahagon: (14:01)
And if things will move forward in this space, in a month to two months, we will get in what is supposed to be the herd immunity. And we are already starting to see the numbers go down and we are already starting to see that the economy's opening. And this is because again, yes, you can call it digital health, but it's essentially, now digital life.

David Suisa: (14:31)
What I'm hearing from you is that the digital technology is encouraging a model of cooperation between the doctors, the providers, and the patients. Now here in America, I've seen something different. When people encourage patients to take ownership of their health, they tell you to do your homework on Google, find out and almost interrogate your doctor. Ask questions, and also look for second opinions. From the doctor's standpoint, he pays huge malpractice insurance. So he needs to protect himself against malpractice. There's almost, I don't want to exaggerate the point, almost a confrontational thing where so many of us, first of all, are taught to really trust the doctor completely or interrogate them. What I'm sensing hearing you speak now is a completely different model, where the doctor sees the patient in a kind of a partnership model, where the technology encourages partnership.

David Suisa: (15:41)
And it's amazing, because I've been living this partnership for only two weeks now because of my Libra Sensor, and I emailed back and forth now with my doctor. So this is the first time in my life I'm actually living through this and I see it as a real game changer, but it's happening because I have the kind of doctor who is willing to work with me as a partner. So is this what we're hoping for, for the future of healthcare around the world, to create a model of partnership that may even be introduced in medical schools as the model to strive for? And hence technology can be a facilitator of that new, more productive model.

Yossi Bahagon: (16:26)
You describe it in a beautiful way, and I can only fully agree. Maybe I will give one example to anchor to what you just said. So what we are seeing today is that the digital platforms are entering the traditional healthcare world and they are providing the physician and the patient better tools to provide better and more personalized medicine. This is supposed to create a situation where the physician, instead of focusing on crunching the data and collecting the data himself, will be able to go back to the traditional model of the interaction between the patient and the physician, meaning humanity. Because this is something, that at least for the foreseeable future, digital platforms are not supposed to do. So, for example, if you just ate lunch and your blood glucose is above the target, you will get the message, "Hey, David, your glucose levels is 183. If you would walk now for seven minutes, based on your past logs, you will bring your glucose levels back to target." So it's combining advanced data science with behavioral science and user experience in order to improve your clinical outcomes.

David Suisa: (18:05)
Yossi, I want to get more personal if you don't mind. You are a doctor who is now the managing partner of OurCrowd Qure. I'm interested in how you've added the investment side to your life. What made you think of adding this component to your life? And tell us a little bit more about OurCrowd Qure.

Yossi Bahagon: (18:34)
Yeah, so it's a good personal question. My grandmother, when people asked her, "Your grandchild is a physician, what exactly does he do?" And she didn't know to tell, "He's an expert in medical infomatics." She didn't know how to explain it. So she said, "Oh he's some kind of physician of computers."

David Suisa: (19:05)
Sounds like my mother.

Yossi Bahagon: (19:09)
There is the personal things that you are attracted to. So I was attracted by technology, but at some point I saw early on that this could change so many people's lives. Usually when people ask me about my background, I say, "This is digital [inaudible 00:19:27] is not what I do for a living. It's my life's mission. It's my passion. It's my way to bring back good to the world." That I'm saying it though, it's very, very personal. I'm saying it here because I feel it's genuine enough to put it on the table.

Yossi Bahagon: (19:48)
I want to tell you a story about one of the things that led me to where I am today. So I was sitting there one Friday in my clinic, and I got a call from a patient of mine. She was back then in a small island in Thailand called Ko Phi Phi. I remember it because you will understand in a second. And she told me that her son, a four-years-old son is suffering from fever and is coughing for the last three days. And can I help her because it was an island without any communication and so on. And I told her I opened, I think it was Skype back then, and I looked at the child and I said to her, "Rachel, I really want to help you, but I can't. Why? Because you are there and I am here. And I can't listen to the child's lungs and diagnose whether he has pneumonia and you needs some antibiotics and so on."

Yossi Bahagon: (20:52)
After this call, I gave a call to two entrepreneurs that I knew, and I asked them, "Listen, can we build a solution that will enable me to send a long hand from Israel to Thailand, and not only see my patients, the way we talk to each other now, but also check them up as if they were now entering my clinic." Seven years later, there is this Israeli company called Tyto, which is now used by tens of thousands of families in Europe, in US, in Israel, which enables exactly that, to enable not only remote visits via video, but to enable actually remote examination as if you were entering the physician clinics.

Yossi Bahagon: (21:52)
Now these are the type of experiences that you say, "Hey, it's not about the funding. It's not about the return." These are, I don't want to say side effects. It's not. Good business usually leads also to good execution, but the motivation lies in the doing good. And the investment side is an enabler.

David Suisa: (22:19)
I'll tell you another thing, Yossi, that fascinates me. When we talk technology here in America in terms of healthcare, we often talk about the kind of technology that has made healthcare exorbitant, that had made the costs skyrocket. For example, new surgery techniques, new big machines, and new technologies that a lot of times doctors feel they got to use. Sometimes they overuse any, and it skyrockets healthcare costs in America. And what I'm hearing from you is a different type of technology, the type of technology that actually makes healthcare not just more human and more cooperative, but also more efficient and cost effective.

Yossi Bahagon: (23:09)
Definitely.

David Suisa: (23:10)
So when you consider, because you're always exposed to these kinds of new innovative technologies as the leader of this OurCrowd Qure, do you make a distinction between those two categories?

Yossi Bahagon: (23:25)
So definitely. And this is also an opportunity to say a bit more about Qure. So Qure, as John described at the beginning, is the first fund in Israel that was purely dedicated to digital health and we've so far invested in 12 companies in different areas, in genomics, in telemedicine, in preventative care and so on. And the criteria that you just expressed, meaning it the fact that it's a cool tech is by far not being enough. And we put a rule. It was one of the things that when we started investing was in front of our eyes. If it makes medicine more expensive, it's not for us, because the hurdle is how to gain better care, with better partnership from the patient and to reduce the costs, because the costs are already going through the roof, especially if, you mentioned the US and it's about, I believe today, 20% of the US GDP. So indeed this was one of the criteria of how do we take the costs down? And it's an important criteria.

David Suisa: (24:51)
Now another thing I've noticed with technology is sometimes you just have really, really cool gadgets and the new generation, they're used to having cool gadgets, new apps and new social media. Everybody's on Clubhouse now. And I'll give you an example. All right, gadget happy. I go for walks every day. And my sister in Montreal also goes for walks. And my mother is getting on my case because my sister counts all her steps through her iWatch, right? And my mother bugs me every day. "Why aren't you doing what Judy's doing? Count your steps. She does 10,000 a day." And I'm saying, "Mother, I'm not the gadget type of guy." Right. I go for an hour walk, whether it's going to be 8,000 steps or 11,000, it doesn't make a big difference for me. I'm not gadget happy. However, the Libra is unbelievably useful and game-changing. So I'm wondering if that's also one of your criteria, that you stay away from stuff that may look too cool. And does that come up in your [crosstalk 00:26:04]?

Yossi Bahagon: (26:04)
Actually it comes up, it comes up a lot. We were in a discussion with the large global pharma company just a few days ago. And they asked exactly the same question. This is a very good point that you bring. Many times, the people that suffer from chronic diseases are not the ones that go to jog three times a week at the Central Park. On the contrary, they are are the ones that are less tech savvy. There are the ones that you need to motivate in order to encourage them to do work. They are the ones that are standing in front of Apple Stores all the night to get the latest version of Apple. And, you know, guess what? This is 80% of the chronic patients, the type of people that I just described.

Yossi Bahagon: (27:01)
We have a very strong collaboration with Johns Hopkins, with regards to doing clinical trials with these digital health solutions. So one very important point to emphasize is that digital health is more health than digital. Meaning if you want to bring solution, you need to verify that it brings results. And the only way to verify it brings results is to create this evidence together with leading organizations like Hopkins, as an example. And in choosing the population that will come into these clinical trials, you need to choose not only the young ones or the tech savvy. On the contrary, you need to see how it affects the average Joe was is 75-years-old, who is low to medium socioeconomic state and so on in order, indeed, to make sure that you point and you target to the masses. This is where the change will come from.

David Suisa: (28:11)
I saw an interview with Steve Jobs years ago, and I never understood why he started crying. It was after the iPad came out and he said of everything he did in his life, that was the one thing that touched him the most deeply. And I never really understood that. And then I went into a place that was for crippled children, and I saw how they were using iPads to discover color and sounds. And then 10 years later, I saw my mother, who never used a computer in her life. Finally press a finger on an iPad to see videos of her grandchild in Israel. And I understood. The reason he cried that day is because he understood that that was the ultimate product for the masses, because all he was asking was something that was true millions of years ago, which is the ability to just touch.

Yossi Bahagon: (29:06)
Exactly.

David Suisa: (29:07)
The ability to touch. And what you bring up is such an interesting point. If 80% of the people that are severely ill don't have that high tech capability, then those kinds of innovation now are going to have to have that high-touch component. Can you give us a few examples, Yossi of some of the innovation that is happening right now under OurCrowd Qure that you're excited about?

Yossi Bahagon: (29:34)
Yeah, for sure. So I gave already two examples of Tyto, the remote physical examination solution and of Sweetch, which is an AI-based solution for chronic disease prevention and management. Zebra, who is the company, if we started our discussion from the data that was accumulated in Israel during the last 15 years, so Zebra collected tens of millions of images from different healthcare providers in Israel, and based on creating this smart algorithms, the company, the system now knows how to diagnose in a very precise way, a variety of health conditions. If we want to connect it to COVID, so we know, one example is, when a patient enters the ER and the staff takes a chest x-ray, based on this chest x-ray, Zebra is able to predict which patients will be prone to a more severe disease, so they need more medical attention and which can be just with a watchful waiting.

Yossi Bahagon: (31:04)
Again, when you combined large data sets with advanced data science in order to improve clinical outcomes, and likewise Side Diagnostics, Side Diagnostics is clinic-based lab, which can use one drop of your blood to get a full, a complete blood count reading based on a technology that uses higher again, advanced data science together with advanced imaging solutions. And you can get in 60 seconds exactly whether you suffer from a most probably from a viral infection or from a bacterial infection. So these are just a few of the companies that we've invested in out of hundreds of companies that we've screened along the way.

David Suisa: (32:07)
So when John from SALT Talks introduced us at the beginning of the show, he brought up the idea that's probably the highest subject of interest, where I live anyhow, the vaccine. Everywhere I go, it is the number one subject of conversation. Everyone wants to know did you get your first shot. Did you get your second? How did you do it? It's unbelievable. I have really wealthy people that I connected that have not been able to get a shot. High-risk people that have not been able. It's just the number one subject. It's seen as a miracle, and everybody wants to get their vaccine.

David Suisa: (32:45)
So you mentioned, we are fascinated here in Los Angeles by what's happened in Israel and how fast you did it. So you mentioned at the top of the show that the data management was absolutely critical. In fact, I remember interviewing the head of the prenatal center at Sheba, and he mentioned that as soon as a baby is born in Israel, they immediately go into the data bank. I don't know if that's accurate, but that's what I recall from interviewing. So you really have a huge importance on getting this consolidated data, ID database, but is that the only reason why the vaccine has had such a rapid rollout?

David Suisa: (33:30)
I heard that your Prime Minister called the head of Pfizer 17 times. This is from the head of Shaare Zedek, Jonathan Halevy.

Yossi Bahagon: (33:39)
Yeah, Jonathan Halevy.

David Suisa: (33:42)
He told me that Prime Minister Netanyahu called the head, Bourla at Pfizer, 17 times. I wish we had that same kind of, I don't know what you call it, chutzpah maybe. And they paid extra. Basically, there was a sense of urgency that started from the top in terms of we're going to do absolutely everything we can to acquire as many doses as possible. And I almost said that there's been almost an army-like execution. Can you talk more about the success of the rollout?

Yossi Bahagon: (34:19)
So I think it's a combination of several factors. The political thing that you've mentioned and the data played, we've discussed at the beginning of the show, but the truth is that it goes back to what you said about chutzpah. This is a very important point when it comes to understanding the Israeli innovation, and why we don't get no as an answer. It's as simple as that.

David Suisa: (34:53)
No. Is there a request for more information?

Yossi Bahagon: (34:57)
Yeah. So I don't know if the story about Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and the 17 calls is a reality, but I'm sure that it reflects a reality and it's reflects a very Israeli thing. We don't get no as an answer, whether it's we have an issue that is related to defense and security issues, so we need to build Iron Dome in order to continue our normal life here. Or we have an issue with overcrowded roads, so we need to build the Mobileye for autonomous driving, or we have an issue with chronic diseases, so we need to build an interoperability system that will consolidate all the data. And at the end, this spirit of innovation that simply doesn't get a no as an answer. The common thing, you ask why, if you would ask me at the beginning, who would be the country, that when there will be vaccines will unroll it the fastest, I will tell you Israel because of this main fact.

David Suisa: (36:09)
Now there is a backlash, right now. It's what I call the dark side of technology. Everything has two sides, the plus and the dark. And right now the dark side of technology that I'm sensing both here and in Israel, which is the spread of misinformation throughout social media, where you see these videos of so-called experts that are talking about how vaccines are dangerous, that vaccines are not necessary, that the COVID itself is just like the flu, and they're getting, Yossi, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of views on the internet.

David Suisa: (36:50)
And in fact, I was reading an article this morning in one of these Israeli papers that show that there's a rise in the number of Israelis that are skeptical of the vaccine. So it's not obvious that every Israeli now wants to get vaccinated. And we need a certain amount percentage of the population to get vaccinated so we can get to herd immunity. Now are you aware of this backlash? And can you talk a little bit about it? Is that something that concerns you?

Yossi Bahagon: (37:24)
Of course, something that I think we are all over the world are suffering from this fake news related to the vaccine and we all pay the price. So the only thing, there is the media that can fight it, but there is also, us as human beings, every one of us have to push the close and far interactions that we have and to state it in a very clear way. We want our life back. So it has a pathway which we can walk through and discuss that these vaccines did went through proper clinical trials. And these vaccines, the numbers now in Israel, they are already very loud. I'm speaking about millions of people that, for example, in Clalit. Clalit published a study just last week of 1.2 million people that were compared to a group that was not vaccinated. And the results are outstanding with regards to the immunity and with regards to stopping or reducing the infectious factor of the virus.

Yossi Bahagon: (38:49)
So it's no longer a clinical trial. It's already real world evidence. And for people who ask me, you don't know what the longterm effects of this vaccine will be. No, there is a very simple answer. It's the risk-reward question. Nobody also knows what the long-term effect of getting COVID will be. And if I decide in which hands to be with regards to long-term effects, whether in the hands of scientific evidence or in the hands of a virus, I prefer to take my chances with the scientific evidence.

David Suisa: (39:32)
Well my rule of thumb is, I ask my doctor friends, "Is this something you will put in your body?" And if they are willing to put it in their body, they have quote, unquote, literally skin in the game, then who am I to say no? Before I let you go, Yossi, I'd like to talk a little bit more about OurCrowd. I knew OurCrowd before it was born. I'm a big visitor of Israel. And then I saw OurCrowd when it was born and I visited your offices. And over the years, it's become this phenomenal global investment platform. I'm curious if I can get your impressions of OurCrowd in general, what brought you to be associated with them and give us a little bit of an overview of what OurCrowd brings to the picture?

Yossi Bahagon: (40:25)
So OurCrowd today is one of the largest, I believe the largest and the most active VC in Israel. So it fuels the innovation that we spoke about in many areas, whether it's automobile and healthcare and cyber security and digital consuming and so on. And it actually became, I joined OurCrowd four years ago after I did my own diligence and met with the leadership and understand what are the values behind this. So there is the democratizing of investments value. So today if you have even a small amount, relatively small amount that you want to invest, you can do it just like the big ones. This is a big value. And we hear about it a lot today with regards to companies like Robinhood. So think of OurCrowd as a Robinhood, not for investing $500, but for investing $10,000 or $5,000 or $50,000. For a bit of the larger amounts, where all the investments are validated by a professional team before they are brought to the platform. So this is one value.

Yossi Bahagon: (41:49)
The second value goes to Israel and OurCrowd in many aspects became the window for Israeli innovation. Just a year ago, last February, 2020, there was the famous OurCrowd Summit happening in Jerusalem. 15,000 people, for more than 80 countries came to this conference. And if this is not a [foreign language 00:42:22], I don't know what is. So now, bringing the data about vaccination to the world, bringing Mobileye to the world, bringing all the other weeks that helps companies build the digital based solutions, Tyto, Sweetch, Site Agnostic, Zebra, Brain Queue, which we didn't even discuss that is utilizing AI to make people who suffered from a spinal cord injury walk again.

Yossi Bahagon: (43:04)
So for me, what OurCrowd is, it's building a healthier and a better humanity. And that's the core value. And from that you go to the investment thesis and so on. Part of the success is it all starts and ends with the people that you have and the quality of the people that you have and the values that they carry. So if we talk about the OurCrowd success, I believe it belongs to the people who created it and who will maintain it on an ongoing basis. Maintaining, we discussed it before, to maintain the high-tech touch and the human touch.

David Suisa: (43:50)
On that note. I want to show you my screen. Check my glucose. This is my Libra. And this is the example of everything you spoke about today. I want to thank you so much, Yossi. I know it's late in Israel right now, and you took a whole hour to really discuss some really, really important issues. And I'm very grateful for you taking the time. John, do you want to have any final?

John Darsie: (44:16)
Yeah, I'll say a few words just to send us off here, but thank you, David, for joining us as a first time moderator here on SALT Talks, and Dr. Bahagon, thank you for joining us as well. Hopefully we can learn a little bit from the amazing technology that is taking place and has been taking place in Israel, as well as everything you guys are doing to contain the virus and now roll out the vaccine. So thank you so much for joining us.

Yossi Bahagon: (44:41)
Thank you, John, for hosting us and thank you, David, for the great moderate.

David Suisa: (44:46)
My pleasure. God bless. Stay safe.

John Darsie: (44:48)
Thank you everybody who tuned into today's SALT Talk as well. We always enjoy doing these episodes with our friends over at OurCrowd. They bring us fascinating guests and interesting companies that are doing interesting things and innovating in a variety of different fields. So just a reminder, if you missed any part of this episode or any of our previous episodes, including ones that we did with OurCrowd back in December, you can access our entire archive of SALT Talks free on demand on our website at salt.org/talks, and also on our YouTube channel, which is called SALT Tube, where we have a fast growing subscribership there.

John Darsie: (45:23)
Now we're also on social media. We're on Twitter @saltconferences where we're most active, but we're also on LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram as well. And please spread the word about these SALT Talks. We think a lot of the topics that we cover, it's important to educate people about things that are going on in the world. And on behalf of the entire SALT team and our hosts today, David, to signing off from SALT Talks for today, we hope to see you back here again soon.