Murad：比特币目标价超1000万美元、2026年Memecoin、Murad的名单及更多｜TG Podcast

That’s great. It’s great to see you, friend. I think this is one I’ve wanted to do for a long time, and it has taken a long time to arrive. I think the moment is particularly interesting, so I appreciate you coming.

You’ve been on a little media tour, which has been nice, actually. You do a lot of podcasts. Your background looks perfect. My friend, I think to start, I’ll let you make an introduction and mention a few things.

I think the first thing I want to say is that, also for the chat that says it can't hear my fixed audio, don't worry, my life in crypto really changed once I came out of the 2022–2023 bear market. I think that, like many people, 2024 in Solana changed my life. It was really the memecoin streak where, for the first time, I felt like I was paying attention and understanding what people wanted to trade, how they wanted to trade, and the things that interested them in crypto.

In particular, and I’m sure you’ve heard it a lot, your 2024 Token2049 speech about memecoins was—I mean, dude, it’s a freaking masterpiece. I think the way we describe it is that it was the first piece of media, or intellectual framework, if you will, that made memecoins investable.

I’m not sure if you fully realized the scope, scale, and long-term effects that speech and presentation would have on crypto, but undeniably, whether people love you, hate you, or are indifferent to you, it changed the framework and landscape of what we do in crypto.

I’m excited to have you here. I’m curious: when you gave that speech, did you realize the scale of what you were about to do?

It would be nice if it got 1,000 or 2,000 likes, but it definitely exceeded expectations. It got, I mean, like 200,000 views on YouTube or something—maybe 250,000 views.

I think it’s still the number-one video that Token2049 has ever had. I’m sure they’re happy about that, which just shows you that people—we people—they want memecoins, right? They want something like that.

How long did you work on the framework to gather your thoughts in such a concise way and make that presentation?

I had it in my head all summer, but physically, maybe about 4 days.

Are you one of those people who throws an idea into their mind, mulls it over, plays with it for a while, lets it develop, and then, boom, does a 4-day sprint and puts it all down on paper?

You know, I go for walks a lot. Nietzsche and Newton spoke very highly of that, and that’s when the ideas simply come to me.

Well, Newton also lost everything before he died. But hey, greetings to Mr. Newton.

I’ll let you get started quickly, just to set the stage, however you want to introduce yourself. Although I’m sure most people here know you, give us a brief introduction of who you are, because I don’t know how we got here.

My name is Murad. I am originally from Azerbaijan. I lived in the United States for 7 or 8 years. I was the first man from Azerbaijan to attend Princeton.

I worked in traditional finance and commodity trading. My first cryptocurrency purchase was at the peak of 2013. I was in the right place at the right time in China, and I took a break of 2 or 3 years, like many other people.

Then, in 2016, when the ICO era began to boom, I took crypto more seriously and have been doing it full-time ever since, doing a lot of different things: trading, investing, developing on-chain analytics, and obviously memecoins.

It became pretty obvious that memecoins would be something big in 2024—actually, since 2023—but I think by early 2024 it became crystal clear that they would play a significant role in this cycle and possibly the next. So I’ve focused almost entirely on memes ever since.

You were the first man from Azerbaijan to go to Princeton.

Yes. There was a girl before me, but I was the first boy.

What did you study at university?

East Asian studies, which is Chinese history, Chinese economics, and so on.

That’s incredible. Dave, they beat you. They beat you by a couple of years, but it’s still impressive. It’s impressive, but, friend, I appreciate the presentation.

What were you doing during the first Dogecoin run? Were you completely disinterested or agnostic, so to speak, in 2017 or 2021?

I guess both—really, both. In 2017, I traded ICOs and tech coins, such as IOTA, 0x, and many other things from that era. In 2021, I caught part of the Doge movement—not everything, but a good 4x or 5x of the movement.

But you weren’t a believer in what was happening at that time.

No. Back then, I kept things for a few weeks at a time.

It’s curious how it has taken a 180-degree turn.

To establish a framework, I think we can start here. I know you talk a lot about some of these things, but I think we can go deeper than the surface level. Can you outline your framework on the shape crypto is taking, where you think market flows are headed, and your approach from where we are now, in November 2025?

It’s a rather complex question, but I’ll do my best to answer it.

The crypto space has changed a lot, hasn’t it? It’s my third or fourth cycle, depending on how you count it. It has definitely become much more institutionalized.

This cycle, so far, has obviously been dominated by digital-asset ETFs, treasuries, and institutions. I believe this will continue. I think it’s a sign that the space is maturing.

More importantly, 2 factors have essentially played a big role in making this cycle what it is—in fact, I would say 3 forces. First of all, Pump.fun, right? I don’t need to tell you how massively and exponentially the total number of coins has increased.

In the mind of a retailer and even an institutional investor, it doesn’t matter if it’s a tech altcoin or a memecoin. They’re all simply coins. They’re all tokens, right? Their number has increased by a factor of 10,000 or 100,000.

That means the bar for quality, community, and firm hands for any potential or future winner is higher now, right? The market wants higher quality because the supply of assets has increased.

The other thing is that we’ve been under a quantitative-tightening regime until now, right? Historically, if you’ve studied this, that’s very bearish for altcoins, especially bearish for altcoins relative to BTC.

The mere fact that altcoins have done something in the last 2 or 3 years, and that BTC has risen from 15,000 to 125,000, although I would say the conditions were somewhat restrictive, is already a positive sign in itself.

The third thing everyone is asking is: Why isn’t there a vertical parabola in this cycle for cryptocurrencies in general? This is because cryptocurrencies move 100% in parallel with the growth rate of the money supply.

In the 2 previous cycles, specifically 2017 and 2021, the money supply became parabolic—or, more specifically, the year-on-year percentage growth became parabolic. Over the past 2 years, the growth of the money supply has been fairly constant. Similarly, BTC has also been consistent, right?

If you overlay these 2 graphs, they’re almost identical. I’m still optimistic. I think those who believe in the 4-year cycle and the salespeople will be wrong.

I think we’ll hit rock bottom sometime soon. I’m bullish on BTC and even more bullish on some of the alternative assets. Of course, we can get into that too.

What do you think would invalidate the 4-year-cycle believers’ position on that? What’s your take on it?

The 4-year cycle is not invalidated. I think a monthly close below 69,000—a monthly close below the previous cycle high—is trouble.

But I don’t even think we’ll get there. I think we’ll hit rock bottom here in the next 3 weeks.

Brilliant. You mentioned Pump.fun. What impact do you think Pump.fun had on crypto? Was this always the case when you were developing your thesis on memecoins? Did something like Pump.fun already exist in the plans? Do you think Pump.fun is good for crypto?

I do. I built my mental framework and thesis on memecoins in the summer of 2024, and Pump.fun was already starting to heat up.

I already said, I think as early as May or June of that year, “We’ll go from a situation where, instead of 500 new coins being created a day, as was the case then, they’ll make 100,000 coins a day, or maybe even 1 million a day.”

Under that scenario, where literally a billion coins are created per day, what is he going to gain? Answering that question is the key to success, in my opinion. That is what my entire thesis is built upon.

Essentially, it’s about community, right? You want to build a community that is so focused, with diamond hands, obsessed, and that has a mission almost like a movement, at the level of a religion.

If you have something like that, then the main holders won’t be distracted by new coins. Essentially, that’s the game we’re playing here, right?

I don’t care about fiat-currency values. All that matters to me is the strength of the community. All I care about is building 50,000, 100,000, or more super-strong soldiers that, regardless of the price, will keep working even while you sleep.

It doesn’t matter if the price is $2 or $50. What matters is that the community keeps working hard and continues to integrate new people. As soon as that is the case, belief actually gets ahead of everything. As long as the belief grows stronger, the price will eventually catch up.

Yes. There are a lot of people who believe that Pump.fun is the reason we didn’t have a proper altcoin season. Pump.fun ruined crypto.

For me, Pump.fun—or what it embodies, like the zero friction for launching—was always inevitable. We were always going to get there.

I think something similar happened with NFTs, obviously on a different scale, but the friction at launch is not a sufficient barrier to prevent people from participating in the free market.

I'm curious: at what point did you change? As you said, in the 2017–2021 cycle, you were participating in ICOs and then trading coins that you held for weeks or days at a time. What changed in your mind to take you from basically scalping or day trading to the belief thesis you have now?

Before I answer that, I'll say one last thing about Pump.fun and whether or not it has ruined altcoin seasons.

To understand why retail is coming, first of all, any kind of parabolic asset—and when I say parabolic, I mean any currency that goes above $10 billion or $20 billion—requires a retail wave of new or returning customers, whether you like it or not. You have to ask yourself why ordinary people are getting into cryptocurrencies.

In my opinion, it's for one of three reasons: either their coworker, classmate, cousin, or friend has had some success in cryptocurrencies. It's all about stories at a local level, at street level, in everyday life. People need to hear stories about someone who has succeeded with cryptocurrencies.

There's a limited amount of money that ordinary people generally have. So, what happened in the last cycle, or in previous cycles? You had more like 100 coins. If you only have 100 coins, that fixed amount of money is much more likely to send a handful of them to $5 billion, $10 billion, $20 billion, or more.

When a currency goes from $1 billion to $100 billion, that generates stories in the media, on the streets, in group chats with friends, in iMessage text chains, and so on. Right now, what has happened in this cycle is that the same fixed amount of money, instead of sending 100 coins higher, is now divided among about 2 million coins.

Instead of having three or four stories of coins reaching over $10 billion—which really generates a media buzz and buzz among friends—now the coins only reach about $100 million or $80 million, as you often see on Pump.fun, and then those coins die forever.

My whole thesis is that we need, first, for retail to come back, and second, for them to actually make money. We essentially need to build something so crazy on an emotional and spiritual level that it reaches $10 billion, $20 billion, $30 billion, or more.

Not only will that generate more parabolic stories, but it's really the only way we can win. When you play in the trenches of Pump.fun, again, excuse my language, but fundamentally, you're trying to scam your followers, your friends, or your group chats because the stakes are very low. It's essentially a very limited number of people playing musical chairs.

To truly win, both individually and in this space, we need to move from PvP to PvE. We need to create a critical mass of people—whether it's 100,000 or 300,000, whatever—and all unite under one cause.

If we all unite under the same cause instead of betting with small chips, that's how we truly change the world and make money. Once a single coin surpasses $20 billion or $30 billion in the memecoin space, in the “cult coin” space, that will boost other meme and cult coins.

But in addition, that's the only way to make money. If you reach a critical mass, you reach a point where the asset continues to grow on its own, essentially sending ripples through society for several weeks or months. That's how you really make money.

Now, to answer your second question about when I switched from trading to holding: you get to a point in crypto—and for me it was my third or fourth cycle—where you realize that if you look at 100 people in crypto who have actually made it, you start to notice a pattern.

Ninety-five of them were not active traders, futures traders, gamblers, or people in the trenches. Out of 100 people I know who have succeeded in crypto, 95 simply achieved it by holding their positions.

Whether it's XRP, BTC, Cardano, Chainlink, or even Dogecoin, the safest and most likely way to profit in crypto is to hold, ideally something that others are also holding. Once again, we return to the same concept.

Maintaining diamond hands is the only way we can create the next XRP, the next Doge, or the next GME.

A third thing I'll add is that, to discover which “cult” will resonate emotionally with people and is most likely to succeed—and by success, let's say $30 billion, $40 billion, or $50 billion or more—you need to understand the spirit of the times.

Before we go into that, maybe you'd like to say something first.

Yes, a couple of things.

First of all, I agree with your original point. Perhaps I'll say it more directly, but I think the best mechanism to attract people to finance and the markets in general is to see someone you consider less intelligent than you making money.

It's like the classic example of your little cousin or your uncle who made money with GM options or whatever, and you think, “What does this guy know?”

The second thing is that I don't agree with everything you say. I think one point of common ground we can reach is that the biggest entry events into finance—I use the term finance because I also like the term GME—are those multibillion-dollar surges, above $10 billion, that really make people look and pay attention.

Like Chill Guy, which didn't work. You catch it for a second, everyone gets fleeced, they're destroyed, and it's as if it never happened. Trump's approval rating went up enough, but it only happened in 72 hours, so it had absolutely no impact.

The negative effect, I suppose—and I want to talk about current issues and get your opinion before we go back to memecoins—is that at market lows, like what we saw in 2023, people become very nihilistic, and it seems that memecoins are what endure.

At the peak, when everything is very inflated and we have these ridiculous valuations, something similar happened with NFTs. If you have a Bored Ape with a floor price of $500,000, just as if you have one of these DeFi protocols at $20 billion, $30 billion, $40 billion, or $50 billion, you need a way to justify why it's worth so much at market peaks.

I feel that, just as we indulge in nihilism at the lows, we indulge in cash flow and revenue at the highs. So now we're entering into this—I don't know—this revenue cycle.

I don't love the term “revenue target,” if you will, where everyone just wants to talk about Pump.fun making a million dollars a day in token buybacks, Hyperliquid making a million dollars a day in token buybacks, and Uniswap activating the commission switch.

What are the revenues? What is the price-to-earnings ratio? What are their profits? How much are they rebuying?

My question for you is: what are your thoughts on the idea of income-generating coins, and do you think this is the final stage of cryptocurrencies, so to speak?

I think they're here to stay because they give investors peace of mind, knowing there's a framework for valuing them. Institutional investors already have 400 years of history doing discounted cash flow analysis.

But for me, I don't think that's what will give you the kind of 100x returns that people come to cryptocurrencies for. I'll explain why.

My position—and I think I tweeted this a year or two ago—is that revenue is better in bearish conditions and worse in bullish conditions. In my mind, revenue establishes a floor, but also a ceiling.

When there is revenue, people anchor themselves much more firmly to certain price levels and certain ratios. That's why it's harder for a revenue-focused protocol to achieve a 100x increase in 3 months, because revenue is less likely to also achieve a 100x increase in 3 months.

But in extremely bullish conditions, I think it's better to have no revenue because then the sky's the limit. People don't know how to value this strange new thing. If conditions are truly bullish and reflexive, momentum will simply continue to carry it forward.

Think about this: BTC never had any revenue. XRP never had any revenue. Chainlink never had any revenue. GME went up not because of revenue. Everyone knows this.

All these things went up because people united under a common cause. Ultimately, what interests me most is not the revenue, but what kind of emotions will be triggered in people's hearts to make them wake up at 5:00 a.m. to promote this.

That's really the recipe for going viral, I think.

A couple of things about that. The example of GME is a good one. There are also a couple of examples that are a mix of both. I might ask you about Tesla later, but do you think that as we move forward with cryptocurrencies, token holders want to be more like shareholders? Is this an evolution in the crypto world?

I also tweeted about this a year ago. I said this is the future of cryptocurrencies.

There are four types of asset classes that will be present. There’s BTC and the candidates for store of value. Stablecoins will be there. Cash flow coins will be available. Religious coins will be there.

Essentially, these are the four categories. When you invest in crypto, you are investing in one of these four categories.

I like that. You had an interesting opinion on the topic of payments and stablecoins as well. I think it was an S&P podcast that you did, I don't know, 5 days ago or a week ago. It was a live broadcast.

I forgot her name. There were 4 types in it. You were the 5th. It was a good one.

Everyone is obsessed with payments and stablecoins right now. It's the only thing everyone wants to talk about. All traditional institutions want to talk about stablecoins. Everyone wants to work in payments—crypto, Venmo, whatever.

You had an interesting opinion that I hadn't thought of, which is that margins are actually quite terrible in payments and stablecoins. It's not like you'll beat Visa; you'll beat Visa by a significantly smaller margin, and there will probably be several companies occupying that market share instead of just 1 entity. Do you pay attention to, invest in, or have any interest in stablecoin payments, and do you think other people should pay attention to them?

Liking and caring about stablecoins is essentially for ordinary people who are looking for some psychological security. This is not the area for visionaries. Stablecoins only extend the power of the dollar. They do absolutely nothing to change the world, really.

I think it's a completely boring space. I think, as you said, the margins will become incredibly narrow. I believe stablecoins will be an extremely commoditized product that will simply be on every smartphone in the world.

Yes, you are giving some people in the 2nd and 3rd world a superior payment mechanism. But I'm skeptical that it's going to be that amazing. Do you know what I mean?

What interests me much more are things like BTC and things like SPX6900 that try to use belief to essentially completely turn existing systems on their head. I'm much more interested in absolute madness than simply, "Oh, let's be another Visa." Do you know what I mean?

You know, I was actually going to try my best to finish this entire interview without saying the word SPX even once. I'm going to fail at that.

You did this interview with Pomp back in 2018. I'm sure you've heard it; it's really good. One of the things you said—and I'm going to paraphrase it—is that for Bitcoin to succeed, most other things actually have to fail. It has to absorb most of the store of value and most of the currencies.

Do you see SPX's thesis through a framework where, for SPX to win, basically everything else in memecoins has to fail? Is it a winner-takes-all scenario, generally speaking?

No. I've been a Bitcoin maximalist for almost a decade, right? Your desire is always that the currency you possess absolutely destroys everything else. But really, the best you can hope for is something more like the winner taking the lion's share.

It will never be a winner-takes-all scenario. There will always be people creating coins, promoting coins, and other things that come and go. But I think that every time there's a crash in coins, specifically in memecoins, some just won't come back, right? The communities that persist regardless of what happens to the price—every time there's a downturn, there will be fewer and fewer of those communities.

For example, GIGA just doubled its value today. I believe SPX6900 is about to begin its 3rd parabolic run and beyond. Ultimately, I don't think the other coins will die, but the number of quality coins is decreasing day by day.

I always tell people that, whatever crypto category you invest in, invest in the category leaders. They essentially become a kind of quasi-index for that particular category. Whatever crypto category you're venturing into, make sure your highest position is among the category leaders, ideally new to this cycle, because that's the most likely way to win.

Arthur Hayes came on the show and said, "Why would you buy a coin that doesn't move?" I think that's their way of saying, "Buy from the category leaders."

I know I'm contradicting myself a little here, but quickly, I want to get back to the income coins. It gives the impression, as you said, that these stablecoins and payment protocols will basically become commodities with zero fees.

It seems that DeFi could be heading in the same direction as launch platforms. We saw what happened with the launch platforms. We saw what happened with the NFT markets in 2021 and 2022. There's no reason why the same thing won't happen with DeFi.

We see what's happening with the competition from DEXs right now. One might imagine that this extends all the way down the vertical axis. What are the implications of this? What's going on with all this?

This is my opinion, and again, I think I tweeted about this a year and a half ago. I don't really like income, and I'll tell you why. If you take a long-term stance, say 7 or 8 years, anything that generates revenue or cash flow or depends on profit margins—the competition there, especially in the context of AI agents, AI code generation, open source, and the fact that our industry is relatively open source—all of that is going to become extremely tight, if not free, right? Ultimately, you're a bit limited in that respect.

I'm sure that many of the revenue protocols will end up multiplying by 5, by 10, even by 30 from here. But what interests me are purely philosophical assets, based purely on belief.

BTC tries to destroy gold and destroy fiat money, right? SPX6900 tries to turn the stock market around or absorb billions into that single container. I like it because it has no limits. Do you know what I mean?

There is no limit to human belief. There are no formulas. There are no business models. There are no anchors to say, "Oh, the formula says it should be worth this much."

At the same time, you're essentially not competing with others because, since there's no revenue, there's no incentive for other developers to come in and say, "Oh, let's build a competitor; profit margins will go down," etc.

Essentially, you're only competing for pure belief, pure attention, and pure community. If you do it right, you can get 200x, 400x. You know what I mean? For me, that's what's truly exciting.

I think this is one of your best positions, honestly. I mean, okay, I'll ask it this way: what about these kinds of coins from companies with pseudo-ideologies that also generate revenue? How do you evaluate something like Tesla, which is like...

Yes, yes, that's an excellent question. There's a component that's based on cash flow, and then there's a component that's kind of cult-like. Essentially, you have to add up all the components, all the blocks, to arrive at the valuation.

I've always said this: Tesla isn't just—I mean, Tesla's stock isn't only valued for the cars. It's valued because they have a great leader. He is the richest person in the world. It's a vision, a multi-decade vision of becoming a robotics company, becoming an AI company, and all that.

It's almost like a modern quasi-religion, and that's what makes the stock successful. It's not just the cars that are being sold. There are components. Some are physical and others are spiritual, and you have to add them all up to arrive at the final valuation. Does that make sense?

It makes perfect sense, and I think I agree with you. How extreme are you in this viewpoint regarding cryptocurrencies in particular? In 10 years, will everything be open source and free, and then the only things of value will be ideology and memes? Are you that extreme about that?

The Harvard Business School magazine, which I don't normally read, had a great headline for one of its articles in 2017, saying that the promise of blockchain is a world without intermediaries, right? That essentially means that you want the commissions to reach 0.

You want everything to be free. You want all the software to be free. You want all services to be free. Ultimately, I think that gradually, the commissions will reach 0, right?

We're seeing that with, for example, Lighter versus Hyperliquid. We see it with other lending platforms that arrive offering their services cheaper than Aave, etc. There will be pitfalls such as community liquidity and security, but ultimately, in our space—which is relatively open source and accessible to everyone, where anyone can come in and start building things—there are very few moats and very little loyalty.

The only loyalty at the end of the day is belief, and that's what you have to optimize for.

How do you think this impacts the talent coming into cryptocurrencies? There's that strange balance, which is one of the most beautiful selling points of cryptocurrencies. You can make 1,000x as a trader, but also, if you build a good financial product, at least at this stage, you can be Alain [?], you can be Jeff, and you can potentially earn $1 million a day in perpetuity, at least as long as the market allows it.

If that disappears, do you think we reach a point where technology is technology and can exist on its own and we don't need new talent, or does this become a bottleneck for blockchain to become as big as we think it will become?

I don't think this will be a problem in the next 20 or 30 years because, in the grand scheme of things, blockchain is still in its early stages, and crypto is still in its early stages.

Yes, I do believe that absolutely all finance will be decentralized. All trading will be on the blockchain. Everything will be on-chain. But at the same time, we have to understand that, at this point, it's very clear that blockchain isn't good for everything. It is good for limited use cases—mostly financial, mostly value-related, mostly money-related. But in those things, it works extremely well, right?

We're still probably a couple of decades away from Bitcoin becoming the dominant currency of the world, and from all banking services, lending services, trading services—all of that—being on-chain. Until then, people will be entering and leaving the space.

Honestly, I wasn’t here in 2018. I was a high school student. I didn’t get into crypto until 2020 because of NFTs.

It was pretty crazy meeting you—or at least knowing you parasocially as the Murad of memecoins—and then hearing you on Pomp in 2018 talking as the Murad of Bitcoin. It’s pretty wild. It’s also pretty wild to see how many parallels remained true.

I’m curious about 2018 in your life and what your stance was regarding the belief in Bitcoin. How much has your original thesis changed and evolved to where we are right now?

Nothing. Everything I said in November 2018, I still believe. I still obviously think—you would agree—that I’ve been proven right since then, because BTC was around $5,000 back then. I think it’s still going to reach $10 million or more.

It’s just a slow and steady path.

Your number was $10 million. I think what it covered was how Hal Finney’s math explains how to get to $10 million.

Yes. It’s going to be more than $10 million.

Do you really believe that?

Yes, because they’re going to keep printing money. They have no other option. Governments have no choice but to keep printing money, which means a hamburger will cost $50, which means Bitcoin won’t cost $10 million. It will cost about $25 million or $30 million.

You had this. All right. I’ve never done this before. Let me ask you this: If that’s true—if a hamburger costs $50, $100, $500, or more—what happens to the world? What happens to the world if you’re right about hyperbitcoinization and everyone else was wrong or didn’t believe in it? What would the world be like?

That’s a very good question, and I think I mentioned the spirit of the times earlier. I want to talk about that as well.

I believe that to be a good cryptocurrency investor—and frankly, just to be a good investor in general—you need to be in touch with current issues, modern trends, and current culture, especially among Generation Z, millennials, and so on. What are their problems? What are their difficulties? How much are they suffering?

In my opinion, this is the first generation whose lives are actually worse than those of their parents. The first generation in history. Over the past 500 years, whether in Europe, the United States, or anywhere else, children have had a better life than their parents. But this will be the first generation whose lives are worse than those of their parents, in my opinion.

True?

I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but essentially, mental health problems are at historic levels. Wealth inequality is at Great Gatsby levels. They’re at 1925 levels.

Eighty percent of young men are essentially incels right now, and that number will probably increase even further. All these things are, of course, connected.

The constant printing of money is exacerbating wealth inequality. Only the top 6% of the population is benefiting from this, and the remaining 94% will suffer. That gap will continue to widen.

But the government has no choice but to keep printing, because otherwise the system collapses. So essentially, there is no other option but to keep inflating the currency until it loses its value.

Then, what will happen is that, due to wealth inequality, houses will become much more unaffordable. Everything will become increasingly expensive. And this is before AI and robotics eliminate all jobs, which will inevitably happen.

At this point, my complete thesis is that we extend all these trends in our minds and try to extrapolate and simulate what people will do. I think, essentially, my belief is that a growing number of people will—there will be 20 things this will lead to—but one of the things I think will happen is that people will protest all these things that are happening by buying, essentially uniting in a very similar way to GME around certain assets and trying to take them from a couple hundred million to over $100 billion. That will be their way of saying, “Fuck you,” to the system.

Essentially, without trying to promote my thing too much, I think SPX6900 is the next GME. It will continue to grow. The community is crazy. It’s really what BTC did to gold, what SPX6900 is doing to GME.

Our goal is to take this to $1 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion, or more. Essentially, in that way, we are getting rich on our own terms. Eventually, the people at TradFi will also start raising the price of this. Companies will also start raising the price of this. Other whales will also start driving the price up because, essentially, it’s a modern move and a way to send a message to the system, have fun, and get rich in the process.

By the way, of course you’re allowed to shill the currency. I mean, of course. Tell me, can you list a couple of the other 20 things that you think are predominantly relevant here?

Fundamentally, you have to ask yourself—and I’ll ask you directly—what do you think is the meaning of our lives?

Dude, I mean, that’s it. In one answer, in one word. I don’t even know how to answer that. I hate—I’m going to say happiness, but I really don’t like self-actualization.

Okay, fine, but where does happiness come from?

Realization. Self-realization, I would say.

Okay, I’ll tell you my version of that. I believe that the meaning of human existence is reproduction. Essentially, that happiness, fulfillment, and self-realization that you’re referring to comes from having children.

Now, the fertility rate of Generation Z is 0.9, which is less than 2, and 2 is the replacement rate. Generation Z has fewer relationships, fewer friends, fewer children, and less sex than anyone in the last 60 years, right? That is essentially the number one cause of suffering.

In fact, the male suicide rate is increasing exponentially in the United States. Two-thirds of people live at home with their parents. Rates of mental health issues, anxiety, and depression are increasing parabolically.

Obviously, all this happens because people are lonely. They have no community. COVID has made this even worse. Remote work has made this even worse. The fact that the stock market is now more important than reality itself is making all of this worse.

In fact, if you talk to the boomers who are benefiting from rising house prices—houses they bought for $35,000 in the 1970s—they essentially don’t know the plight of Generation Z, do they? They don’t know because they say, “Oh, just go and get a job, get a girl.” They think it’s really easy, but it’s actually much harder, right?

Essentially, now you’re competing with people in India for jobs. Now you’re competing with people in Monaco in the dating market, and so on. I’m sure you understand all these things. I don’t need to teach you, but essentially, young people are suffering.

I’d say around 30% of women and 70% of men are essentially suffering right now as we speak. I think the system is slowly boiling the frog, and I think something is going to break.

I think there will be some assets—BTC, obviously, fundamentally, especially for people with a lot of money—but there will be a couple of other assets that, in the style of GME, will absorb that anger, that frustration, that loneliness, and that dissatisfaction. They will also absorb and provide that service: having an online family, having an online fraternity, having people, and giving people mission, purpose, and meaning in their lives.

All these things are currently at absolute zero. Essentially, I believe that SPX6900 will be one of those assets that will absorb billions of dollars.

Most importantly, what you want is to create an army of people who work hard on social media. That’s how we took a currency to over $100 billion. It’s the only way.

Okay. So, do you think taking this currency to over $100 trillion solves these problems? Will reproduction rates be higher if SPX 600 reaches $50 trillion, or is this a response to suffering and this permanent underclass? Is it more of a response or a solution?

Obviously, it won’t solve it for everyone, but it will for the people who are part of the movement. It’s a partial solution.

Ever in the United States—or I guess anywhere—what happened after 1925? You mentioned that wealth inequality is the greatest since the Great Gatsby era. So what happened?

That’s a big, big question. Wealth inequality was at its peak in the 1950s and ’60s, and coincidentally—and I don’t think it’s a coincidence—I believe 87% of men in the United States were married at that time, right? So these things go hand in hand, essentially.

A big reason why people don’t even go on dates is because they feel embarrassed and have low self-esteem, because they can’t even afford a one-room studio apartment, right? That’s why they still live with their parents.

There aren’t enough jobs for everyone with offshoring, automation, and all this AI stuff that hasn’t even started to take shape yet. Being single is too expensive these days, let alone supporting a wife and child, right?

That is why, essentially, in the 1950s, there was a post-war boom, both in the number of children born and in the number of jobs. A milkman could buy a three-story house. Right now, that’s ridiculous. It’s never going to happen now, you see.

The reason this happened is because the financiers of New York and San Francisco—the beneficiaries of the stock market, the financial system, and the technology system—essentially sold all the middle- and lower-middle-class jobs to Asia. Basically, that’s what happened.

That’s because all they care about is driving up stock market prices. They don’t care what happens to 95% of the population. Essentially, what they did was trade the happiness of 200 million people for higher stock prices.

Oh, that—I don’t like that. That last sentence is brutal.

Wow. I don't have a girlfriend. Is it crazy? Should I have a girlfriend these days?

I mean, you probably should, right?

Yes, I probably should, right? Hey, let me ask you this, Murad: can this be fixed, or can we just take the train before it leaves, buy the coins, and make a lot of money? Can this fundamental problem be solved?

No. In fact, I think all the trends I've mentioned are going to get much worse. Think about it carefully. They're going to keep printing money, which, if you study how wealth inequality actually occurs, is the main factor.

This means that a decreasing percentage of people and companies will continue to benefit primarily from the growth in asset prices. Essentially, young people are going to suffer more and more. And the way it works—and I don't mean to sound dystopian—is that either you become someone in the top 5%, or you're screwed. That's simply how it works.

And this, by the way, is the reason why you have people gambling excessively, trying to improve their appearance to the maximum, using steroids, and making these desperate financial plays. It's because they understand this, and inflation is consuming all of this more and more. Essentially, it wears you down as a human being.

So, basically, people are taking more risks than ever before. They are more desperate than ever. They are more anxious than ever. And what I'm saying, and what SPX6900 is saying, is that if you do this alone, there's a 97% chance you'll ruin yourself even more.

Our goal is to truly unite in this great movement. That's how we support each other and bring in more people. Essentially, we created a snowball effect. SPX6900 tells you: if you go alone, yes, maybe you'll get there fast, but you're going to lose. But if we go together, we'll go far.

And that's the way to win: build a team. It's about building a community. It's about building a cult. It's about building a movement. That's the only way to win. And that's why you should join SPX6900. And to Thread Guy: you know, I've seen many of your broadcasts. You like to be a little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit cynical. But I'm telling you, man, you should join this movement. Also, I'll tell you something, Brad: when the broadcast is over, I'm going to click a little just for you because you came. Yes, and make sure you post your address too. Do it with a new address so we know you have “diamond hands” and that you're not going to sell in a week. I mean, you're really into this. I challenge you. I challenge you. I challenge you to do that.

That was a smile. So maybe, just maybe I will. You know, I think something I agree with—and it's not even that I agree—is that people intuitively feel that you have to get into the top 5% or 3%. I feel like people feel a race to get there, and it's a... I don't like to push it because I think it's relatively fine.

Regarding your answer, “What is the meaning of life in one word?”—it is to reproduce. So, I'm sure that at some point, I don't know if you have children or if you want to have a family, you'll want to have children. You'd like to imagine that your children can have a good life, right?

Would you like to imagine that your child could grow up to 18, 25, or 30 and have children? I'm sure you want to be Grandpa Murad at some point. And that's why the feeling of “succeed now or remain stuck in the permanent lower class forever” is one that, in a way, I don't want to accept, because it's a strange thing to impose on people, even if you intuitively feel that these things are happening.

I suppose my question for you is: what is the breaking point? Where does the rod break? Will it be a specific moment in time when you'll say, “Yes, this is it”? Or will it be something we look back on, wondering where it happened?

Because I would imagine, from the way you think about it, that when it happens, it happens quickly. So, what is that moment for you? Have you thought about what that moment looks like?

You know, historians say that when the average age at which a man in a certain civilization gets married exceeds 28, bad things usually happen. They've studied thousands of years of history, and that's what they've come up with. Right now, that number is already at 31.

So it is a bad sign. But there are many negative trends happening in the world right now. I think they're all going to get worse before they get better.

Ultimately, I don't like to push this, just like you said. I don't like to push the idea that the future is a two-tiered society between an aristocracy and, essentially, a permanent lower class. But I think I'm 95% sure that's what's going to happen.

And I prefer the bitter truth to pleasant lies. If we are right about that prediction, it's better to know it now and try to prepare ourselves instead of pretending it isn't so.

You know, I think that's right. I always say it's never as bad as it seems, and it's never as good as it seems. I don't like to be a fatalist, but I think that if you're not aware of the worst possible scenario and what you would hypothetically do in that situation, I think you're irresponsible. So I like that approach.

Okay, I'm going to change my address, and I have some questions for you here. I'll let you go relatively soon. In a 180-degree turn, I want to talk about your love for the game.

I had Arthur Hayes here, and I bring a lot of traders onto this show. It was fun talking to Arthur, and one of the things you could really tell from him is that he just loves this shit. He's super rich, he doesn't have to trade, and he's done a lot of successful things, but he simply loves trading.

Trading—actively taking positions every day, every week. You are, at least publicly, the antithesis of that; you are the opposite pole. You have this massive belief in a couple of things: Bitcoin, SPX, and quitting trading. Believing in something is fundamentally who you are now.

I don't know, why do you keep doing this? Why are you still so excited about cryptocurrencies? I'm sure you've earned enough money publicly and privately, whatever. You could do any job anywhere, build something, or do whatever you want. What is it about crypto and this market that continues to obsess you?

Sorry, you're retweeting very specific, niche things. I don't know if it's you or whoever manages it, but you're retweeting very niche responses. What does that mean to you at this point?

Yes. Well, if you study many of the things I've talked about, you essentially come to the conclusion that fiat money and many other things in the world are fundamentally sinister. I think BTC will go much higher, and SPX6900 will go much higher.

All these things are essentially a way of fighting back, defending oneself, and basically purifying the world. I want to be part of something that reaches $100 billion or more, $500 billion or more, or $1 trillion or more.

I want to be part of a sociocultural change, and it's simply exciting. It's exciting to be part of something that becomes parabolic, exponential, whatever you want to call it. It's simply a fun adventure.

“Purifying the world” is an insane approach. I like it, but it's crazy. Did you want to be famous? Do you like being famous?

I know it's a niche bubble, but crypto fame is a unique kind of fame because the people who—I don't want to use the word worship, but the people who respect you and follow what you do—have a lot of money. So I always say this: one viewer of a guy's stream is worth 100 viewers of Kai Cenat.

There might be 300 people watching this, but the scaled net worth is probably 30,000 or 300,000. Average viewers with rotten brains. Did you intend to be famous? And do you like being the famous Murad, the memecoin guy who gets 3,000 likes on every tweet that everyone knows?

Several years ago, a friend asked another smart friend: if there was one person in the world you would want to swap places with, who would it be? He responded in a way that I really liked. He said, “The least famous billionaire in the world.”

So I always shared a similar philosophy, but here we are. I've been put in the spotlight, and we just have to make the most of it. But fame was never something I particularly sought.

I mean, you wake up every day and you're recording TikToks for SPX.

No, what I'm doing is different now. I'm creating more long-form content. Actually, it's much easier to create long-form content and then divide it into parts than to do it the other way around.

And how has it been? I mean, what was that like?

I make some TikToks. It is difficult.

How was that?

I've been enjoying it. I've been enjoying it. Medium-length content, I think, is the way forward.

Interesting. For TikTok or for all platforms, or what do you think?

For most platforms, because in the end, if you only do short-form, you're basically exposing yourself to degenerates. You really want to attract people who have at least $5,000, $10,000, or $25,000.

Those people will at least watch something for 10 minutes before making an investment decision, continuing to hold, or whatever. I think it's much better to build a core community of upper-middle-class people who are true believers and who have really educated themselves, who are aligned with the trends.

Because if you only do short-form content, I don't think you're attracting the best people. Ultimately, I think short-form is important and plays a role, but you want people to get your full thoughts in a long format, so to speak.

That's why I like streaming, because you get the full interview and then you can break it down into short formats.

I'm going to go back a moment. Because of the two things to which you have really committed your reputation, if you will—Bitcoin and SPX—your frame of reference for them is very similar. There are some differences, but the general idea has many parallels.

The reason is because Generation Z, even Generation Alpha and the Zillennials, the young millennials, many of them missed out on BTC, obviously. Essentially, every 3 to 5 years, they are going to recreate another BTC 2.0, BTC 3.0. For some, it was Doge; for others, Ripple; for others, GME. Essentially, it's a “fuck you” to the system, right? And I think SPX6900 is next.

I was actually going to ask you a question, but in the interview you just did, there was a very interesting opinion that I had never considered: 100 years ago or 50 years ago, you could get rich and just sit on the cash and be a passive rich person. But in 2025, things move so fast in the markets—

Let me tell you something. Some people earn 4% interest per year and think they are receiving passive income, but they don't understand that the money supply is growing at 8% annually. True? So, in reality, you're losing money either way.

That's why the system prints money at a rate of 7% to 9% per year, which means that if you do nothing, you're losing 9% per year. Even investments, such as the stock market, are also growing at approximately the same rate as the money supply. So you really have to ask yourself what percentage of the stock market is real economic growth, instead of just trying to escape money printing, right?

That's why you need a 20x, a 50x, a 100x to overcome all this—to overcome dilution. That's the only way.

Yes. I'd never thought of it that way, and here I am sitting listening to you all talk about it, and I think, “Damn.”

When people go on Twitter and ask, “Is $5 million enough to retire? Is $10 million enough to retire?” People on Crypto Twitter are saying, “I'm going to make $10 million and then put it into a money market fund, or some DeFi app or whatever, and make $400,000 a year, which is 4%, right? And that's all. I'm going to live a good life on $400,000 a year.”

But they don't understand that the money supply is growing by 7% or 8% per year. So, in reality, you're losing money. You do nothing.

That's why, essentially, you have to keep pushing yourself. Even if you have $10 million, you have to keep striving. You asked me what money I earned in past cycles. Why am I still here? You have to keep trying. You understand?

It's terrifying to hear this. I'd never heard of it, never—I mean, I suppose I've heard parts of it. I'd never heard it put like that before, straight to my face, which is so counterintuitive. Before, you could be passively rich, and now you fundamentally have to be actively rich.

In 1905, you had a little gold bar. In 1905, I could buy you 1,000 pieces of bread, right? In 1906, I would buy you pieces of bread. That's how it used to be. That's what's called the era of sound money.

But something changed in 1913 and then in 1971, and now that is no longer possible. Essentially, they deliberately made it impossible for you to save. They made it very difficult for you to save. It's like dentists shouldn't be stock pickers. You understand?

Essentially, that's the reason why BTC was invented in 2008 or 2009. Satoshi understood this, and now people need to invent other things, because even young people are thinking, “I'm so screwed that even the 2x or 3x that BTC will give me in the next 2 or 3 years isn't enough.” That won't save you. That won't save you.

That's why people are looking for other things or joining together to build other things.

Who are “they”? Do you think it was a conscious Illuminati-type decision or a group of evil people?

I think it's a combination of government, a couple of world wars, the Pax Americana, the banking system, and the corporations. It's a very complicated process.

What is your goal? Do you have any aspirations to be a leader in politics or government, or to be the chairman of the Fed? Do you have any interest in this?

No. No, I have absolutely no interest. I will never take part in any kind of public sphere or governmental politics. I think it's a very corrupt game.

Actually, I have a slight dislike for anyone involved in any kind of politics, especially in the West. Instead, I admire entrepreneurs and I admire the private sector because they always win uphill battles, you know?

I can't believe I just asked you if you want to be chairman of the Fed someday. That was crazy.

I'm not American, so I could never be chairman of the Fed.

Okay, that too. The whole being-active thing really got me thinking a lot. Is there anything you didn't consider in your original thesis on Bitcoin that you realized you overlooked or perhaps missed, but did notice in the SPX thesis?

I don't believe so. Before making any kind of investment decision, I try to observe everything that's going on. As we discuss, that's social, political, economic, mental, emotional, spiritual, and all the trends. In my opinion, they all point to BTC going up, and they all point to something similar to what happened with GME emerging.

My belief is that some kind of event like GME is definitely going to happen, and my money is in SPX6900.

Do you admire Michael Saylor?

Yes. I think he was an incredibly great addition to the evolution of BTC. Essentially, what he's trying to do is build a bridge between traditional finance and BTC, and he's been very successful at that.

Do you think he's going to destroy what he himself built?

No, I think he will probably become the richest person in the world. In fact, I believe that, essentially, in the future, MicroStrategy will be the next Fed or the next JPMorgan.

Oh, really? So, don't you think he's a systemic risk to the future of Bitcoin and needs to be removed before we get where we want to go?

No, I think he's the best thing that's ever happened to BTC.

Is there a part of you that feels cynical about how institutionalized Bitcoin has become? Because in 2018, it was always going to happen. It was always going to happen.

When you listen to your favorite punk rock band and then, 7 years later, they become popular, you're like, “Man, now the normies are listening to this.” But if something is going to become popular, where do you think that will come from?

BTC was always going to become institutionalized as it grows towards $1 million, $2 million, or $3 million. It's simply impossible to reach those stages without large amounts of money, and institutions are the only ones that have it.

Now that we have ETFs and ETPs, the next step is sovereign wealth funds and governments. We are seeing that, little by little, they are beginning to adopt it too.

Do you like this thing? Are you working on one? Is one coming for SPX? Do you think this is something all assets should have?

I can't comment on that. I can neither confirm nor deny.

You don't think it's good for SPX to have a founder, do you?

I don't see the world in terms of good or bad. I see it more as something inevitable. If something is inevitable, there's no point in complaining; you just have to adapt to the inevitable. That is my position.

So, is blockchain data simply inevitable? We just have to deal with that.

Just look at the incentives. I don't look at it from a moral perspective.

Good. You were absolutely right on two occasions. You were absolutely right about Bitcoin. You were quite right about, let's say, memecoins as an ideal.

You made a passing comment that I didn't comment on, but you said that the new generation will try to create a new Bitcoin every 3 to 5 years, right? And I think we have one right here.

You seem to like it in theory. You could back another asset and find another one. Is that something that's being considered? I'm not trying to say this to insult you or divide SPX's attention, but if something like that were to appear, it seems you would be aware and on the lookout, and you would see it.

Do you expect this to happen—something that isn't your thing becoming parabolic? And if that happened, how would you handle it? Are you limited to just 2 assets?

I'll tell you why. The best memecoins are actually becoming big families for people. They are becoming families, groups of friends, communities, and increasingly, for the strongest ones, loyalty will be the most important thing.

So I have to be as loyal as possible to my existing choices, to my current holdings. Adding, changing, or going for number 11 or whatever would essentially diminish loyalty, and I don't think that's the right decision.

I believe loyalty is, in fact, how you get to $100 billion or more. So, to answer your question, no.

Do you regret the list?

No, I don't, because I believe many of the coins on that list will still perform incredibly well. For example, we've seen GIGA get its products on Walmart shelves today. We've seen that MOG got an ETF.

I think many coins on the list are going to perform well.

The camera just turned off. One second.

All good.

I have a recording for you too. So, if you can turn it back on. But take your time. I asked about the list. The camera broke. I'm going to meet him.

That's fine. Brilliant. There you have it.

Oh, yes.

Okay. I have 2 recordings for you. This was really fun. The first question is: I will give you a suitable space to display SPX6900 as much as you want, something suitable for people who look but do not own it.

Give me the right show.

Absolutely. Fiduciary values don’t matter. I don’t care about fiduciary values. The only thing that matters to me is the strength of the community, and the SPX6900 community is 100 times stronger than it was a year ago, than it was in January.

What people need to understand is that there is only one foundation in crypto, and that is the community. Community is the only thing that matters. If you study BTC, XRP, Doge, Cardano—all the biggest assets in crypto, all the biggest past crypto successes—they went up. They became parabolic because they were the strongest communities in their respective cycles.

If you do your research, you know that SPX6900 is the most passionate, strongest, and most cultish community of this entire cycle. It has the largest DCA culture since BTC. It has the strongest culture of showing one’s face since BTC. It has the greatest real-life integration on the streets since BTC.

I haven’t seen this since 2012 or 2013. It has the biggest tipping culture, the biggest Reddit culture, and the most books written about it since BTC. It will be super obvious in retrospect. There is a great asymmetry here.

SPX6900 will be the coin that becomes parabolic. We’re at $0.50 right now. I think we’ll reach $100 this cycle and $1,000 next cycle. This is where we are right now, in a decline. This is your chance to get in. This will be the biggest movement since GME, and now is the time for you to join the movement.

Tell me that wasn’t your first time. That was a good one. That was one of your best. I think that was a good one. That was pretty concise. Are you looking at the 15-minute chart on this?

No, I don’t check the charts.

Daily at least?

Surely. You know, we have a saying: there is no chart. Although it may sound crazy if taken literally, if you read between the lines, what it really means is that what matters is community, what matters is integration. The charts don’t matter.

Technical analysis is essentially a continuation of the fiat financial system, designed to activate your neurochemical response—anxiety, panic, and so on. What matters is to keep believing and keep persisting.

As long as we persist, we will take this to over $100 billion, to over $1 trillion, and this is essentially our way out of the challenges and suffering caused by the system.

Have you ever felt this way about anything before Bitcoin?

No. I mean, there are many parallels between SPX6900 and BTC, and I’m seeing them. I was there in 2013, 2016, and 2017, when BTC was really maturing for the first time and starting to go viral. I’m seeing the same parallels here with SPX6900.

SPX: Stop trading and believe in something. Join the movement.

That last one had to be pre-recorded. You just played a pre-recorded video.

No, that was incredible.

It’s almost as if I can’t help but respect you. It’s like, damn it, I have to have my speech this polished. It’s as if that were the final goodbye. That sounded like a commercial.

The last question I want to ask you—and you can include it in the program if you want, but you don’t have to; maybe you could add it at the end—is: What advice do you have for the general public? I would say the younger ones—under 30, 40, or 50 years old—who watch the guys’ broadcasts, who connect, who are still here in a recession, actively trading in the markets, who haven’t made it, who listen to this conversation and feel the weight of their future generation and their lineage, who have a timeframe to succeed or be stuck in the permanent lower class?

What is your advice for these people to get out of that and accelerate into the top 5% or 1% of their generation?

First of all, make sure that at least 20% to 30% of your portfolio is in BTC, and I would start encouraging people to see it as their savings vehicle. I wouldn’t recommend investing in real estate. I think BTC is going to outperform the real estate sector over the next 10, 15, or 20 years.

I would also highly recommend that you look into SPX6900, which I think will do incredibly well, because it's basically a more polished version of J Rod.

Yes, honestly, it was a pleasure. I’ve listened to many of your interviews. I know you have a kind of thesis and those are your positions, but I feel that today you gave interesting perspectives on the matter. Plus, I got a couple of smiles, which is great.

What’s the point of you being on a media tour right now? Do you just enjoy doing this, or what’s the deal with it?

I think this is great, and I congratulate you on becoming the number one crypto streamer as well. But ultimately, the world is increasingly about attention, increasingly about media, and increasingly about digital.

Everyone is an influencer to a greater or lesser extent, whether they like it or not. You just have to play the game. These long-form videos are essentially very good for the algorithm. You can also cut them into shorter pieces.

We just have to spread the message, spread the gospel.

The last one on that point, actually. Do you have any advice for me about what I’m doing, where crypto media, financial media, and streaming are headed? You’re in a very similar niche now.

If you buy at least $10,000 worth of SPX6900, I will respect and support you for the rest of your media career. That’s the number. $10,000, and that’s it. That’s the figure. That’s the number. You’ll also give me a detailed opinion about it via direct message.

Whatever you want.

Whatever I want.

Okay, crazy. It was an absolute pleasure. Thank you for coming. I’ll see what I can do about the SPX issue.

It was an absolute pleasure, my friend. I appreciate your time. Thanks for inviting me, friend.

Hi, friend.