Tulip King——为什么 Meme 币不再容易赚钱

Yo. How are you, dude? What's new? Nice to see you again, friend. How are you?

It seems like you haven't officially been on stream for a while.

Always happy to be on the air. I'm fine, man.

Yes, a lot of time has passed.

Every time I connect, you guys are bigger. It's nice.

Yes, that's true. You little brat. I wanted to call you a scoundrel, but I won't.

Tell me, what is your intuition telling you right now? How are you feeling? Maybe we'll discuss crypto and then stocks. What do you want to talk about?

Dude, we can talk about anything. I feel pretty good.

I think it's a market for traders. In stocks and crypto, it's not so simple: everything doesn't just go up or everything go down. You have to choose the categories you want to be in, and frankly, you need to choose the right names in those categories.

For example, AI is quite tough for trading right now. Pharmaceuticals have always been crazy, but now it's just trash.

Same thing in crypto, right? For example, on-chain versus DeFi versus memecoins, and so on.

I feel really good. I think there are a lot of opportunities, but there are also a lot of ways to lose money right now. This really looks like a traders' market.

Well, I don't know. It could be different. This is the most exciting period in trading in a long time, honestly. You can trade, or you can just sit in the hype for the last 6 months and do nothing.

Yeah, hype is good if you have a lot of money, right? If you're like, "Okay, I have a lot of money," I can't just throw it away. Do you know what a real project is that you can invest in?

But I think I'm kind of a turbo-hype. It seems we're doomed to go above 100, but there are better returns elsewhere.

Another thing you like right now is Zack, and I like the guys from Zack, man.

I don't have any right now. I can't believe it—as soon as it started gaining momentum again, I'm like, "Oh, yeah. I like this coin. I'm buying."

I bought some for the Ironwood upgrade, which was a pretty prophetic purchase, and then just kept accumulating more as it grew.

You had one of the craziest short-sale trades, man.

I'll be frank: I figured out this chart over the last 12–18 months. It wasn't like I could close my eyes and tell you where Zcash was going at any given time. It was a real masterpiece for me.

What do you think of our small group of good coins now? What about the hype around Zcash and the pump? What do you have? What do you like?

I don't know. How do you think this group will play? Besides, they want to know where it's going, bro.

Of course. Where is it going?

Above. I mean, very, very up.

For a group of good coins, I like the saying that it's not enough for me to win; I need my enemies to lose. It seems to me that it's not enough to simply win with good coins. I think bad coins should continue to lose.

This is your signal that a real redistribution of capital is taking place. If you believe that redistribution is happening, then there's so much "dead" money in all this garbage, right?

Just scroll through the top, okay? I'm not bearish on Ethereum, but I'm not bullish either. You pass by Avalanche. Litecoin still seems to be in the top 100 coins. It's a bunch of junk, right?

I think this is probably one of the most controversial opinions, but let's say Arbitrum, Optimism, Avalanche, maybe Solana. All these coins also aren't money and don't bring any profit, so you're just fooling yourself by holding on to them.

But that's great if you want to know where the money for the pump comes from. It would be people selling Solana to buy Pump, right?

Just like Pump. They sell Solana to buy Pump.

I think as long as we see a divergence between good and bad coins, the cycle could last much longer than people expect and could reach much higher levels even without an influx of external capital.

It seems like people are finally ready to reconsider their assumptions about crypto and start investing wisely.

The only coin that stands out from the rest, and that causes a lot of hate on streams, is Solana. I also often hate it.

Here's Ansem. I don't know if Anom likes the hate on SOL, but give me the same capital rotation that will turn Solana around.

Why is that? What needs to happen so that SOL doesn't give up its position and start falling behind?

If you support the thesis of Solana as a decentralized NASDAQ—a networked NASDAQ—then the first problem you'll face is a lot of competition, right? Hyperliquid is clearly ahead, and in second place is Lighter.

I thought it was Celestia.

Oh, man. Sorry, sorry, sorry. It's just decentralized. Sorry.

But if you support this thesis, the first problem you'll face is a lot of competition, right? I don't know if Solana even ranks third in this game. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not 100% sure.

NASDAQ is a public company, right? You can look at its market capitalization—not the NASDAQ index, but the company that runs the exchange. Why does no one ever talk about this? Because they don't earn anything, right?

There are tens of billions of dollars or something, but all the companies traded on NASDAQ make more than NASDAQ itself.

Wait, Solana is worth more than NASDAQ right now, right?

Solana has more competitors than NASDAQ. At the same time, trading volumes on Solana are much smaller than on NASDAQ, right?

So I look at it and think, "Dude, it's overrated, right?"

Let's say you implemented the plan. The first problem is that there's a good chance they won't become a second NASDAQ at all. That's the first pessimistic scenario.

The second one—let's imagine that they did become a networked NASDAQ. Is it really worth the money everyone is talking about?

Got it. I definitely think that's a little problematic.

This is not the right coin. You don't need to make a hero out of yourself here, right?

Pump makes significantly more money than Solana. The tokenomics are great because they literally dump Solana to buy Pump, right? Just look at the trade. I don't think there's much more to be said here.

You don't have to try to catch a falling knife, right? Good coins grow. Buy them.

Hmm, okay. Another thought: Ansem said in the group that the problem with Solana is that it competes with Robinhood and Pump on both sides.

I completely agree. I think you know what else is a valid idea? If Solana had another Pump—a successful application at roughly the same level as Pump, but which wasn't a launchpad for memecoins.

Then I suddenly think, "Damn, Solana Network. Maybe this idea that blockchains are cities is totally true."

If they had another powerful application that makes 6 figures a day, then they would have to admit, "Okay, the network on this chain is crazy, and it's really valuable."

But when it's just Pump, it's hard to say anything other than, "Drain the SOL. What's the difference?"

And maybe it's the cards. I don't know.

There's a big problem with that too, right? Here's Phantom—a top-tier product. I've seen great working relationships between Solana and other social-trading apps, but they abstract the user from the chain itself. There's no "Solana app," right?

Now look at how many Solana phones were sold. I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure they're meager.

Have you discovered it? There's more than one of them, brother. Did you turn that thing on? Did you turn it on?

Okay. Well, here's the problem: you didn't even turn it on.

Yes. I use mine. I love mine. I bought it and made a profit on the Doge airdrop or whatever it was. But it's essentially a paperweight.

So the problem is that Solana doesn't have a price advantage, right? Because if they start raising fees, FOMO will just redirect people to other networks. Phantom will redirect people to other networks.

They're kind of in an existential crisis. If they can't get users, then the way they make money is by exploiting the users of all the other apps that have the order flow, right? They can direct it anywhere they want.

Most people don't make money ignoring Phantom, so I could very well be wrong. Solana is a big name, and it's good technology on which to build a real business, but they're in an extremely difficult position.

I don't want to bet just because everyone is trading memecoins on Solana. If there is no accumulation of value, it's better to bet on something that actually gains value from this activity, not on Solana.

Yes, I think this will take one application away from Phantom. Solana is crazy again. I really believe in this.

What do you think about Hyperliquid? You're a big Hyperliquid fan too, right? Do you think there's still potential for hype?

I like the trio of ZK, Hype, Pump.fun. It's like Solana, AVAX, and Luna.

I mean, Hyperliquid is easy to hold, right? You could just hold Bitcoin before, then Bitcoin and Ethereum, then Bitcoin, Ethereum, and SOL.

But the problem is that you inadvertently created a very skewed barbell strategy. The theses were: Bitcoin is money, Ethereum has a premium because it's money, and Solana has a premium because perhaps it's money.

My long-term crypto portfolio is 3 types of money, but for the other 2, as we've found out, it's debatable how much monetary premium they deserve, especially compared with Bitcoin, which is simply king.

But Hyperliquid comes along and becomes big enough for the institutional level, which means patient capital—meaning it can be held as an institutional asset—and instead of being money, it earns money, right?

So you can actually create the perfect barbell strategy between some Bitcoin-to-Zcash ratio as the cash aspect of your portfolio and some Hyperliquid-to-Pump ratio as the profit-making component of your barbell.

At this point, you think, “Okay, maybe it will happen today, maybe in a year. It doesn’t matter, but all this could double or triple.” I have exposure to crypto, and now I can do whatever I want—trade everything else and allocate funds into these barbell ratios as I see fit. So I think this is the most blue-chip exposure you can have in crypto, and within the supercycle, it’s pretty obvious.

Okay, so I think that’s a good idea. Listen, man, when we hired you, wasn’t the biggest reason you told me you had 200% of your capital in Bitcoin? I’ve never heard anyone say anything remotely like that in my life. I didn’t even know that was possible. I think you’ve started changing your tune. You didn’t change your tune, but you started talking about things that aren’t Bitcoin.

When I knew you, you only wanted to talk about Bitcoin. Now we’re at this very interesting point where we’re knocking on the door of what could be another manic Bitcoin breakout. I also ran around shouting that this was the first cycle in which Bitcoin would not participate. I really mean that altcoin pairs are going crazy against BTC, whereas in the last cycle they didn’t, except for a few legendary ones like the hype around SOL.

What are your thoughts on BTC, given where we are now? What about the macro environment? Where is Bitcoin headed, or is that all?

I’m still at the stage where Bitcoin is probably the smallest percentage of my portfolio. I’ve been trading, and I’ve been taking profits in HYPE. I’ve been taking profits in Zcash.

You used to only take profits in BTC, right?

Yes, I used to do this all the time, like a religion. I think I mentioned this in the first interview: there were times when I only had enough money left in my bank account for next month’s rent and groceries, and every other dollar was in leveraged Bitcoin. I immediately invested the profit from each trade back into that position.

Actually, I still don’t have any free money. Everything is invested. Everything is in cryptocurrency. I love this shit. You’ll have to pull me out of here by force, with screams and resistance.

Now I’m allocating funds to HYPE. I distribute them to Zcash. I insist that this is not a Bitcoin cycle because you have to keep two opposing points of view in your head.

The first is Buffett’s view, which is correct. Gold is a bad investment, Treasury bonds are a bad investment, and money is a bad investment because they’re not productive. It’s better to just buy and hold a business. There’s a reason Buffett made more than all of us.

But the problem is that this is true almost always, except when money is worthless. When money depreciates and it’s time for a regime change, it creates an investment opportunity to move from bad money to good money.

The current crypto cycle is dominated by the ideas of the Buffett school: let’s buy good projects that generate profits. There’s a lot of discussion about how to value revenue, buybacks, tokens, and equity. There’s much debate about how to build this and what the value of this tokenomic model is.

But people are starting to do it right. On-chain projects have become intellectually as far removed from Bitcoin as ever before. It’s like we broke these shackles.

It just so happens that 30-year bonds are flying into the abyss. We’re effectively losing the war in Iran. China’s technological dominance continues. Artificial intelligence is sucking all the money out of the market, and this is putting a lot of pressure on the dollar system.

So Bitcoin is skyrocketing. Bitcoin is going crazy because it’s essentially the base, the basic collateral of the crypto economy. It allows you to use a bunch of leverage, and that triggers a bull market.

Therefore, I stand by my intellectual opinion that this is a cycle without Bitcoin. It just so happens that Bitcoin is doing very well right now.

The thing is, and we talked about this before, I keep mentioning AVAX. They’ll send me a pretrial demand, but I think we’re safe until Kleo genuinely posts a fractal targeting an all-time high.

Then I get a little stressed. Even during this last little drop, Bitcoin is down 4%.

I know, but everyone was in the chats posting ApeCoin’s P&L. I’m like, “Guys, what the hell are you doing? ApeCoin’s P&L? What are you doing?”

I think it’s good that it’s pretty clear what to position yourself in, where the money is going to go if it consolidates, and what could skyrocket. As we know from every cycle, there are always a couple of new things that come out and take all the attention.

How do you position yourself with new things—Robinhood, on-chain experiments, AI coins, and things like that?

I respect memes. I love memes, and I’ll throw some money into memes when I have a good idea or find something funny, but that’s not my game. I probably did an incalculable amount of meme trading and made $4. I worked infinitely harder trying to make money on memes than I did actually making money on them.

But with a primitive like on-chain stocks, and with memes having proven themselves as a long-term asset class, I think it’s fair to say that memecoins are an emergent property of completely permissionless capital markets. If NASDAQ allowed anyone to list anything, NASDAQ would have memecoins.

If that’s a key property of the technology we’ve built here, then memecoins aren’t going anywhere. I respect memecoin traders. You can just be a memecoin trader. That’s cool. They’re not going anywhere. They’re going to go up and they’re going to go down.

There are going to be market cycles here, just like in any other sector, but memecoins are always going to be around. Of course, it’s easier to make money when the market is going up than when it’s going down, but that’s true of any asset in the world.

You can become a memecoin trader. I really like all these creators. I like the whole social movement that’s happening there. It’s really interesting to watch, and it’s going to be good for our industry as a whole.

You can buy into the infrastructure of memecoins, like Pump.fun, or maybe buy into stocks like Robinhood. Sector A is the idea that memecoins have become a stable asset class, even though they weren’t considered that a year ago. The whole asset class is undervalued right now, and we’ve yet to find a fair price for the memecoin ecosystem.

Then there are the on-chain projects that I think are different from memecoins. These are things like FWAs, brokers. They’re financial experiments. I’m glad that people are having fun and trying new things.

I’m glad that we’ve learned from the past because these projects are doing buybacks. These projects aren’t spending time on DAOs. They’re just saying, “This is how it is. Here’s a buyback.”

I think we still need to work on the structure of these projects. Maybe we should go the Metadow way. Maybe that’s the right way to launch an on-chain business, or maybe there’s some other way.

What Anom is doing with his coin is building social interaction around it, combining off-chain social capital with a team and a real business. He can bring in a team to work with market bubbles like a real business. He can do on-chain experiments with his index.

Maybe you don’t need a DAO or a launchpad. Maybe you just need a trusted founder whom you trust. Maybe that’s the point. Maybe we were wrong to try to put trust on the on-chain level. Maybe it should just be at the market level, and maybe trust should actually exist off-chain, on the social level.

It’s so exciting to see all of this happening. While I feel the anger at all this, it’s not enough that good coins go up. Bad coins have to go down. I would like to see Compound or Aave go to zero, or Uniswap really suffer.

I think these overvalued tokens have a kind of toxic capital allocation from labs. They’ve done nothing but squeeze the most out of the DAO.

I think this, by the way, seems like a trio.

Yeah, hold on.

But just for the record, Anom’s coin made more money on its first day and gave it back to token holders through the first-day burn than Compound has in its entire existence in terms of revenue to token holders.

Compound just pulled another $52 million out of the DAO. This is a token that should go to zero. The same goes for Aave. They’re doing buybacks and stuff, but I want these on-chain kids to get the hell out of here and sell this shit. Don’t short it. Just sell all of this and buy tokens that treat you with respect.

Maybe you don’t like memes or something, but Anom has done more for its token holders than it took Hayden Adams and all of these guys years to do. So I think we should think about that.

The other great thing is, again, it’s not enough for good coins to go up. Bad coins have to go down. The institutional crypto venture class is so heavily allocated to all of these projects.

They’re allocated based on the principle that we have lab capital. We can sell a token to get liquidity, and then we’re profitable and essentially have a free position in the labs.

When these tokens start to go down, and you realize they didn’t really get any value out of them, you think, “Oh my God, the labs don’t make that much money either.” They’re basically job-placement programs, paying a couple of people to hang out in Williamsburg and drink bubble tea all day.

When they go down and on-chain coins like PAWNS go up, and on-chain coins like FWA go up as well, VCs find themselves sidelined by Pump, so they’re forced to buy. At some point, their LPs look at them and say, “How come you didn’t buy the most profitable app in the world because it was in meme coins?”

They’ll say, “Why would I invest? At some point, they’re going to say, ‘Hey, you invested in Compound, but they didn’t make anything.’” Or, “The team took all the money and is having these token parties, and you invested in a team that was just enriching itself.” What do you do? What about this Paws thing? It went up to 100 million and bought out 30% of the supply or something.

I’m really looking forward to either these projects getting hurt enough that they have to change their behavior and can actually grow because they’re creating value, thank God, or getting hurt enough that all that capital can flow into these good projects. For the last time—I’ve said this a million times—if these bad coins can go down, these good ones can go up so high. They’re so undervalued.

I think, overall—not really, but I’m making up numbers here—I’d bet you three-quarters of the institutional capital in crypto, the professional capital, is just completely exposed. They put themselves out there as absolute junk. It’s true if you look at the top 100 cryptocurrencies. It just sucks.

So it’s time. I’ve never been more optimistic and excited about the state of on-chain than I am right now. Liquid Fund has been holding onto DeFi bags for years. Anom said it right. It’s time for them to refocus. It’s time for them to sell and buy our assets instead.

Although I like Robert Leshner. He’s my guy. I adore him. He started Compound back in the day. Things were different back then, and I’m willing to forgive everyone a little bit for what they did in early DeFi. The DAOs were cool. Were you going to get sued or not?

But there are no more excuses. Robert left before the sins of Compound happened. He was forgiven, but the others—I don’t know. Big Lash, the legend, friend of the stream.

How big of an existential threat is Pon to Pump.fun? I’m starting to think about it. They’re only on Solana, which is historically similar to Bitcoin’s problem.

Hear me out: Bitcoin remains resilient—Lindy—because it does nothing in the face of any threat. And then there’s the quantum fear, perhaps the most significant one we’ve had. Bitcoin owners say, “There you go. We didn’t do anything. We did a million Xs, and Bitcoin survived because we didn’t do anything. Why should we stop doing nothing?”

In many ways, Pump does the same thing. They only use Solana. They never added mainnet. They never added Base. They added Blast at one point, and it was a disaster. They never added Monad. With every new hyped ETH chain, Pump says, “No, no, no. Sol, Sol, Sol, Sol.” That’s Lindy.

Here comes this Robinhood Chain. I totally understand why they didn’t add it on day 1, but Vlad Tenev is being aggressive. The share of non-Solana coins is at an all-time high, Pown is going straight up, and their revenue is going straight up. If it gets too crazy, Pump’s valuation could get a little shaky.

What do you think about Pump having to take the hit and add Robinhood Chain, and their failure to do that?

Yeah, I think people underestimate the kind of masterclass Pump is doing. First of all, they’re making more money than anyone else with this launchpad, and they beat out all the competition, like BonkBot and other launchpads. In the first wave, they beat out all that competition.

Then the bear market comes, and of course, meme coins die and volumes drop. But why didn’t Pump’s revenue go to zero? Revenue dropped less than the market cap and volume of meme coins, and that’s because they launched PumpSwap.

Before that, they were basically just making money from issuing meme coins. Then they started making money from issuing and trading meme coins. They started verticalizing, and that protected their revenue during the bear market.

Then FOMO came along, and now you have social trading. That’s the interesting thing: if FOMO drives any volume to PumpSwap, Pump makes money. I don't know if they realize it because there's a little war going on there, but Pump probably makes a lot of money on FOMO. They’re actually probably better friends than they might realize.

FOMO relies on Pump coins. Pump likes FOMO traders. I’d bet they benefit each other to some extent.

Exactly.

To continue verticalizing, Pump is starting to change course—the Pump app—toward social trading. You see everyone saying that Pump.fun only hit the mark with the launchpad because they botched streaming, which was a good idea, by the way.

When you had it, it was a good try. I’ll stand by that.

Yeah, it was decent. It didn’t work great. But this is a business. You have to be like Google. Look at Google’s investment portfolio: SpaceX, Anthropic, and Waymo. There are also a lot of failed projects.

When you’re as big as Pump.fun, you have to invest in these asymmetric opportunities, and because they’re asymmetric, most of them fail. I think the talent at Pump.fun gets a lot of hate because streaming was so obvious, and the bounty story—the bounties were a little morally repugnant. I don’t think anyone should defend that, but it was another attempt to achieve a goal.

It’s not just that. They launched PumpSwap and an app. I don’t have any information, but the future of Pump is obvious. It’s a continuation of verticalizing. Maybe they develop lending, come up with bonuses, and figure out what kind of ecosystem they can build around these projects.

If you have an app, should they just hold your money in Pump, or should they do some staking? There are so many paths to development, and they’ve already proven that they’ve done verticalization once. They’re in the process of the next stage of verticalization.

They don’t even have to win. They could be the second-, third-, or fourth-most popular social app if the whole category is that big. Remember, I think the Pump app has no trading fees because they make money from trading the Pump tokens and Pump itself.

They have a competitive advantage because they make money from order flow. They don’t even have to charge a fee in the app, so they’re in a pretty good position.

Would I be worried about Pawns? No. I just think Pump is at that advanced stage. Pawns has to reach a point where people realize that Pump’s growth is coming from all these other opportunities, once it’s priced fairly relative to its current revenue.

Then people will realize that the new market cap is coming from these expansion opportunities. If you don’t see Pawns doing that as well—and maybe they will, but they’re a long way from that today—then Pump’s future cap has nothing to do with what Pawns is doing. I’m not really worried about that.

By the way, JPMorgan just announced that they were launching a stablecoin, and Circle went down 5%.

Wait. Yeah, I don’t—I mean, it’s such a fragile business. It’s such a weird business. It’s quite complicated.

What’s Google+? Google Social. What’s Google Social?

They were basically trying to do something like Twitter or Instagram—a social network where you used your Google account—and it was a complete failure. But it was another thing that looked like, “Okay, Threads for Google.”

If I was sitting in a Google boardroom and they said, “Hey, let’s try to make a social app,” I’d probably say, “Yeah, let’s try. Good idea.” It’s another one of those things that failed, but it was a good bet.

You didn’t have Google+? What the hell is Google+? I’ve never heard of it.

Maybe I have. It could have been before you, man. It launched in June of 2011.

Yeah, you might be too young. Dino, let’s do a story on that tomorrow. Hell. Ann was in high school when this [ __ ] came out.

Mr. King, anything else you think happened in high school? Are there any final thoughts that inspire you? What do you think we should know? What if Bitcoin goes to 75,000 right now?

I think Bitcoin looks—it’s just a graphical mess at this point—but it looks good above 72, or 72–74, wherever you draw your fancy lines. I don’t know. I think the coin looks good.

If we go below 70, I’m going to start getting worried and be like, “Oh, shit. They really got me on this bull trap.” But for now, I feel pretty good.

I also think AI is starting to get a little bit bigger, which is definitely good for our profits today.

Maybe. We’ll see. Yeah, I mean, gosh, I just don’t think there’s a number they can call that’s enough. They can’t let Leila Harpin [?] be right about this liquidity fundraiser, right?

Oh, no, no, no. She says, “No hate.” No hate. No hate.

By the way, I didn’t mean to say your name wrong. I really didn’t mean to.

She says she was short. Nvidia is a tulip. Also, Flood [?] really is short. I don’t understand why people don’t like the analogy to the 2000s, when it was basically: okay, the internet gave us the opportunity to build fundamentally new businesses with a new economy.

So let's all get wildly bullish and bet everything on that opportunity. Cisco, which provides networks and connectivity, goes sky-high, but the profitable businesses built on the internet don't show up at that moment, so everything collapses. Cisco takes 10, 15, 20, whatever years to get back up again, right?

Dude, I don't know. I think we're at this point with AI where we're putting all of our GDP into AI, and the only businesses that are making money are the ones that are building it. But if you and I have an internet connection that doesn't do anything, it only matters if we're trading over that connection.

Yeah. That's right.

So building AI for your religious project of creating a machine god is cool, I guess, but it doesn't create any real economic activity. Then you listen to Doresh's podcast that he just did with Dell, and they're like, "Oh, you know, I see a 10% increase in GDP. This will require so much capital that it will start taking it away from the government. Anthropic will be the only private company in the world."

And I'm like, "Dude, GDP growth has been below average since ChatGPT launched." What are these guys smoking? I understand that GDP is a deeply imperfect indicator, but damn, shouldn't we? By that I mean, we went from Chat GPT 3 to Fable 5, and we still have below-average GDP growth.

Every company wasn't in a bubble, because these were profitable businesses that were using excess cash flow to build AI. So even if everything went down, these companies still had profits left, right? But then they started raising debt in the markets, and the debt markets dried up. Then they started raising equity, and that's drying up too.

Now Nvidia is in a position where they say, "Oh, here's a magic coalition for half a trillion dollars of support, and everyone's going to use that half a trillion dollars to buy Nvidia chips." Dude, that's just impossible. There's no fucking number that they can say that makes me think, "Oh, we're there."

At the same time, China—what's the history of China other than taking something and scaling it to infinity? We take electric cars and scale them to infinity. We take steel and scale it to infinity. We take fabrics and scale them to infinity. The Chinese models keep catching up, right?

They're building these DUV machines, these deep-ultraviolet lithography machines. They've already taken DUV lithography to a level that I just didn't think was possible 5 years ago. The way they've advanced this technology is incredible. Maybe their machines are 25% less efficient at making chips than the EUV machines of the Western alliance, but if they have 100 times more of them, it doesn't matter anymore, right?

Apple is going to China to invest in CXMT to ramp up memory supply. China is building all of its own lithography machines. I don't think you have to be very smart to figure out what this is all about.

The final summary is basically boring, right? The tweet exchange between Dario and Gavin Baker—I read 3 sentences of that. I did an angry retweet, and then I deleted it a minute later because I hadn't even read this. I don't care.

I'm like, okay, we get it. You're building a god, you think, blah blah blah, and all this coin crap—crypto, yeah, yeah, Bitcoin. It's just, yeah, yeah, so you can confuse everyone with your $30 trillion total market cap. It only works when the story is interesting, but I'm so tired of listening to these guys.

This is worse than when they're mad at you or happy for you. Data center hate—I promise you, I could be wrong, but not a single data center investor I've talked to has factored data center hate into their funding, right? They all go online and read, "Everyone hates that these data centers use a lot of energy, so we're going to build these data centers on off-grid power so they don't impact the local community."

This is cool. But techies are so ignorant about politics that they don't realize it won't change anything. I guarantee you can build your data center on off-grid power and your local government will still vote for you to subsidize their electricity bills.

I promise you, Oracle didn't calculate this. Galaxy Digital did not model this. IN did not model this. CoreWeave did not model this. None of these companies have modeled what it means to lose in politics.

And they don't understand that when they lose in politics, it will simply result in attacks on them. So as the cost of capital increases and costs arise that were not factored into the models, there will soon be purely economic reasons to slow down this construction.

If development slows down, and Nvidia was counting on its half-trillion-dollar cyclical funding, I'm not betting on AI going down because I don't want to end my life, but I'm not betting on AI going up either, man. I really don't play for promotion. Nvidia reports today, dude.

An important day. This is a fucking important day. Hope for the best, dude. This is long overdue.

Yes, this is long overdue. This sounds like a sell position.

"It sounded like a short thesis to me," he says. No, don't do that, Anom. Don't—just don't look.

Some things shouldn't be sold on principle.

This is scary.

Yes. Yes. The consequences of this.

TH, you're the best. You're the fucking best. I love it when you come. I love it when you're optimistic. I love it when you're optimistic about my coins. And you did all 3 things today. You came, you were optimistic, and you were optimistic about my coins.

Do you have any final thoughts you would like to share?

No. Good luck. Good luck to everyone in the trenches. I hope we all make money.

You're the fucking best. Thank you for coming again. See you in a quarter. Peace.

My fucking best, man. This guy has a special brain, man. I'll tell you this: I think he sometimes beats his head against the wall. He has to talk to me for hours every day. I think he bangs his head against the wall for a couple of hours every day when he has to talk to me. Shad [?] is a tulip.