Anthony Scaramucci Reveals His Crypto Investment Strategy!

Good to be here. Thank you guys for having me.

So I'm old school. I've been in the category that this is a cyclical bear market traditional to the four-year cycle of Bitcoin and you've just crossed the halfway mark of the halving and so you're on your way to the back half of this thing. You typically don't get any type of real recovery until the first quarter of next year. And because we had this slightly accelerated and I think this was macro related to President Trump and some of his tweeting and the tariffs and then obviously now there's a war, although I would say Bitcoin has been fairly sticky during the war, over the last five or six weeks of the war you probably won't see a recovery in Bitcoin until maybe the first month of the last quarter, right? So we're talking October, possibly November of this year. And so, you know, people will be very down on Bitcoin, they'll be very down on the alt market, be very down on Solana. And of course, they'll be wrong because it's really just more of a cyclical thing. But I think where people are upset is that they thought, 'Wow, we got a new administration is positive on crypto. We're basically in like a jailhouse with Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren.' You know, we were talking before the show started. I mean, these people were brutal. And so, you were thinking that you were going to get better regulation. You were going to get better legislation and you were going to get a ton of buying as a result of the ETF activity. Solana ETF, Ethereum ETF, obviously the Bitcoin ETF quite celebrated and you didn't necessarily get that, but you did not get it. Meaning you're still seeing a lot of Bitcoin buying. A lot of boomers are buying Bitcoin, but it's just not enough, you know, because you got whales that are selling into the, you know, the OGs in this industry believe in the four-year cycle. And so what they do is they fulfill the prophecy of the four-year cycle by acting on the four-year cycle and selling. You know, the whales were pumping lots of coins into the supply at around 100,000 and that's why we dropped into the high 60s.

I do. I mean, I applaud Morgan Stanley for making the decision to launch its Bitcoin ETF. They priced it at like 14 basis points, which was a very competitive price. And they've got a huge wealth management division. So, if they even just move a half a percent or 1% into Bitcoin, it'll be very, very good for the market. And it's another sustainability issue. But I think what's completely off the table is the notion that Bitcoin is valueless and all that other stuff. Just the network alone makes Bitcoin very valuable. But if you don't get the Clarity Act legislation passed, you're not going to get the banks to really open up. Sure, Bank of New York has an experimental program. I think SoFi now has an experimental program and there's probably others where you can store or hold your Bitcoin in custody in those places. But until the big money center banks, you know, when my private banker calls me and says, 'Yeah, move all your Bitcoin and you can move it here into our bank and we'll give you yield on it or you can really borrow on it as opposed to the 25% LTV as some of the big money center banks,' you're not going to see the real full-throated adoption. So, you know, I think the estimate was in November of 2024, and I would have gotten this wrong, of course, because if you had asked me this question, would the Stablecoin Genius Act, the Clarity Act both be passed by the end of 2025, I would have said yes. But here we are about to start, you know, we're in middle of April, heading into May, we don't have Clarity passed.

Well, I mean of course they are right. I mean, so this is a bigger meta question for the United States which is if you pay the lobbyists the regulation will come pursuant to what you're paying the lobbyists. This is the whole Citizens United thing. You know, we've gone up 8x in the last 15 years in terms of campaign donations and donations related to policy. And so, you know, the banks have a huge stronghold in the marketplace. The big irony is talking about Elizabeth Warren. She supposedly hated the big banks, but now she's basically one of the big advocates for the big banks. I mean, she basically takes their memos and puts them into her writings and her proposed legislation. So, I'm of a, you know, I respect Brian Armstrong at Coinbase and I understand the position he's taking and I mean, it may lead to us not getting it done this term and if the Congress switches, it'll probably be two or three years before you get something done. I'm a little bit more practical. I probably would have tried to get something done and I would not make the perfect deal the enemy of progress. And so just quickly, the best example I can give you that is the Bitcoin ETF. Gary Gensler hates us. He did not want that to happen. He lost the lawsuit, so he was forced to have it happen. But the way it came about was ridiculous. It was just like punishing. You had to put cash into the ETF. And then if you wanted to get liquid, you know, get your money out of it, you had to take cash out of it. It was ridiculous. Paul Atkins had to rewrite the rules to allow Bitcoin to go in and Bitcoin to come out. He did the same thing on Ethereum with the staking. Couldn't stake it. It was ridiculous, you know. So, but we got it done and so that was progress on the way to perfection. I think if you put the perfection before the progress, particularly in a place like Washington, it gets gummed up and it may not happen. So, you know, I would prefer the progress over the perfection, but that's me.

Yeah, you know, on the margin, yes, but I think that was out of necessity because they really didn't have a choice. I mean, the Democrats decided that they were, I mean, Choke Point 2.0. I mean, I was in the meetings. You could ask Novogratz or Mark Cuban, you know, I was in the meetings with the White House people in July of 2024 and then we set up another meeting at Treasury. And these guys were like very antagonistic. So, you know, if one party is going to be that antagonistic to you, you're going to be probably one-sided on the other side. Now, I would like to see, and I think David Sacks has said this more eloquently than me, I would like to see this be post-partisan. You know, whether or not we have gold in our reserve, like our strategic reserves is post-partisan. The answer is we have gold, so do all the other countries. Do we have oil as a strategic reserve? The answer is yes. It's not a partisan debate. You don't have Elizabeth Warren like saying can't have oil. It's bad and it's a horrific asset and we don't have that. So we have to get off of that. But I understand why it got in that position.

Yes, but I think it's very hard to hold Bitcoin in a strategic reserve if it's a partisan issue. And I think if we can get this to be a transformative post-partisan, what's right or wrong for the country, what's right or wrong for the American taxpayer, then the answer is yes. But if you're in a position now where lots of people in the Congress don't understand it, lots of people don't really understand the future of money and where it's going and what Bitcoin represents in terms of the operating layer of decentralized forward money, it's not going to happen. And so I wouldn't push it. I'd be more or less where they were on the executive order last year where they said, 'We're going to, we won some in a lawsuit. We're going to keep it. We're not going to sell it. Whatever on the balance sheet of the government right now, we're not going to sell.' I mean, the Biden administration was selling it right up to the end. I'm not sure if we've done an audit yet, so don't quote me on this, but I sort of think we haven't done an audit yet of how much Bitcoin the US government actually holds. But my attitude is my mission would be, let me rephrase that. My mission would be to explain it to people so that they get it the way the three of us get it and then it doesn't have to be debated anymore. It just becomes one of the things. You know, we have 28 different assets in our strategic reserve from a government balance sheet perspective. It's not just gold and oil. There's rare earth minerals in there. There's other commodities that we think are valuable in the manufacturing process. There's medical equipment, medical supplies in there and god forbid we go through another pandemic. And so those things, no one's sitting around saying, 'Oh geez, you know, let's debate the partisan benefit or detriment of having that stuff.' We got to get Bitcoin there. But yeah, it should certainly be in the reserve.