First things first, just in terms of the markets and where we're at right now, the biggest story in the last couple of weeks has been Michael Saylor selling Bitcoin. Myself and my producer Jordan backstage were at BTC Prague the week after he first sold that 32 Bitcoin, and then obviously last week he sold significantly more Bitcoin, $260 million worth. Quite surprising that Bitcoin didn't react sharply to that news. I want to get your thoughts on that and your general thinking about Saylor selling so much Bitcoin now and what it all really means for his strategy going forward and for Bitcoin.
Well, look, I guess in terms of guessing around the price, I'm not one that usually likes to do that. In terms of strategy, there's nobody that's more invested in Bitcoin than Strategy. They're going to figure out a good way through this. It reminds me a bit of Netscape. It had stratospheric heights, then Microsoft came in and the stock price got hammered down to like 15 or 16 bucks a share. But smart people running the company figure their way out. Netscape was acquired by AOL at around $100 a share. Smart people with strong business interests aren't affected by monthly or quarterly market cycles. The Bitcoin game is not measured in a quarterly cadence, even though public companies are. He's a public company measured on a quarterly cadence, but that's not the real game. I think he's proceeding forward responsibly. He has a large pile of Bitcoin. There's an interesting question for Bitcoiners about how large a concentration of risk is too much. I'm sure Strategy is working on that. Overall, the industry is getting more comfortable that there will be management through buys and sells, and we shouldn't overreact to every 32 Bitcoin sale.
Yeah, for sure. We had Jesse Myers on the show yesterday and he was talking about the ratio of Bitcoin sold versus Bitcoin bought in Q2. I think it was something like 1 to 22.5, with the 3,000-ish Bitcoin that Saylor has sold in the last quarter versus the 80,000 that they've acquired. He was saying that he needs to prove to the credit market that they can sell Bitcoin when needed to satisfy dividend payments and keep everyone happy, and also not nuke the market. Do you think that's a fair assessment?
Mostly, I mean, yeah, the buying is far outpacing the selling. But I think really what's going on is how you think about Strategy as a management team. They have a strong vested interest in making sure Bitcoin remains healthy, and I don't think there's much risk they won't manage that reasonably well. I'm not too worried about Strategy. I look forward to seeing Bitcoin further diversified across many holders. That's the number one thing we want. Continue to make Bitcoin strong, understood, and used globally. It's a normal long-term trend.
Yeah. You also made mention very briefly there, and my last question about Saylor, I promise. The concentration risk. You've got guys like BitMine and Tom Lee saying they only want to hold maximum 5% of the ETH supply. Do you think a similar cap needs to apply to how much an entity like Strategy holds of the total Bitcoin supply?
Well, it's an interesting conundrum. On one hand, these guys want to be great stewards and say they'll never sell. But that was the initial story. Over time, management changes. Who replaces Michael Saylor? Fong is running it now, and I trust him, but management teams change. It's difficult for a company to act that way over the long term. If he acquired 50% of Bitcoin, everyone would say that's too much. So what is the magic number? I'm not sure. But there's a point where you acquire so much that it affects the price and other people wonder if they can invest because one guy could affect their investment. Single-digit percentages is probably right.
Yeah, that does seem fair. We could judge by the market reaction to this biggest sell now, $260 million. In the scheme of that, it's not even 1% of their total holdings. So it's very small.
Yeah, you could look at corporations. They often have concentration risk on individuals holding far more than 10%. Those are usually smaller companies. Bitcoin is a global asset, so I don't know if the same percentages apply, but the same psychology applies: if there's concentration risk, it affects how you value the asset because risk should come off the price.
Yeah, definitely. Okay, enough about Strategy. Let's talk about the Clarity Act. We've had lots of conversations with people connected to US politics, and everyone's been saying the Clarity Act will pass in the summer. We're into the beginning of summer now. What are your thoughts on timelines and what clarity will mean for the crypto industry? Will it kick off a Wall Street super cycle, especially with tokenized equities on exchanges like BitGo?
Well, we get excited about silver bullets. I'm a huge fan of clarity. Having a legislative pathway is a big step, but there are still many unanswered questions. The law hasn't passed, and even after it passes, there's rulemaking by the CFTC. I've heard milestone after milestone, and if we don't hit them, we may not get it this year. The odds seem smaller. But that doesn't mean we won't get institutional adoption. All the major financial institutions are moving in: asset managers like BlackRock and Fidelity, banks like Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan, and Vanguard is hiring into the space. The current administration is positive. I met with Paul Atkins, who is a breath of fresh air for capital markets. Even without clarity, innovation continues. Institutions are already in. BitGo is highly regulated. I wish the Clarity Act was a sure thing, but it could still happen. We're all wondering which way it goes.
Yeah, definitely. My next question, staying with policy. You've got a new Fed chair in Kevin Warsh. What do you think his impact on crypto markets will be? I've seen interesting takes on crypto Twitter.
Well, I'm one of those who thinks it's a shame we spend so much time thinking about what this one guy thinks. He affects the stock market, bank rates, and flows into high-risk assets like Bitcoin. It's ridiculous how we hold our breath. Others have asked: if it's so critical to get the interest rate right, why not tweak it daily or algorithmically? I don't think he's good or bad. He has a job. I expected he would cut rates since Trump wanted that, but I'm glad he acts independently. I don't think he's bad for Bitcoin. He's managing the Fed, a different job.
