The Peter McCormack Show

Jamie Bartlett is the co-writer and presenter of the BBC's podcast The Missing Cryptoqueen, an ongoing investigation into OneCoin and the disappearance of its founder Ruja Ignatova in 2017. In this interview, we discuss the latest updates on the case that triggered the first new episodes in the podcast being released in over 2 years. - - - - OneCoin was called the greatest Ponzi scheme in crypto. Obviously, a lot has happened this year that is likely to result in a reappraisal of that statement. But, the fraud perpetrated was eyewatering: allegedly $4 billion was stolen from investors. This means it ranks as still one of the biggest Ponzi schemes both inside and outside of crypto. Yet, what differentiates OneCoin from other Ponzi schemes is that the lead character has yet to be punished: in 2017, Ruja Ignatova, the glamourous and enigmatic founder of OneCoin, disappeared. Jamie Bartlett, a seasoned investigative journalist, started looking for her in 2019. Rumours turned into breadcrumb trails, which turned into credible leads, which turned into dust. Whilst Ruja remains elusive, the deeper Jamie delves into this case the more ominous the story becomes. What started out as a scam by a set of audacious schemers, soon became a broader criminal enterprise involving organised crime, corrupted state officials and powerful interests. The FBI has made Ruja one of their ten most wanted fugitives. The stakes are massive. A troubling aspect of this case is the willingness of supposedly reputable people and firms to engage in ‘legal’ support for this fraud, including intimidation of those who seek to uncover the truth. This case cuts to the core of what is wrong in both crypto and wider society: willingness within professional groups to go along with malfeasance when there is money to be made. This is why we need more people like Jamie. More than the dogged determination to see a story through to a suitable conclusion is the dedication to a life without the quick and easy financial payoffs of other professions. Journalists are willing to avoid the incentives offered by other industries to pursue truth. Perhaps such uncelebrated bravery is the real story here.

Dan Tubb is a podcaster and former venture capitalist. In this interview, we discuss the unprecedented levels of debt within the US and UK. Dan goes through one by one the various options open to the state to bring debt levels back down to manageable levels; tl;dr “none of those options is going to be viable.” - - - - Over the past few podcasts, we have discussed state indebtedness. As part of these discussions, we have referenced the amazing USDebtClock.org resource that provides real-time data on debt in the US and across the world. At the time of writing, US debt stands at over $31.4 trillion, whilst UK debt is $3.4 trillion. These figures are so large and unfathomable that we have almost become blind to their meaning. Dan Tubb has been focusing on these figures, to both put them into more meaningful contexts, and to assess the options governments have for paying them off. In summary, debt levels are off the scale: adding outstanding liabilities to US debt results in a total debt worth $1 million for every American adult. In those terms, it's easier to understand that there are no real viable options for paying down this level of debt. The issue is that as citizens are generally tuned out: there is a general assumption that the subject matter is just too complex, and further, those in power must have answers to these issues. After listening to Dan’s explanations you’ll suddenly realise that these aren’t complex subjects to comprehend. The data is literally there for anyone to see. And further, it is then obvious that governments are consciously not dealing with increasingly high levels of unsustainable debt. So, why have such discussions been missing from MSM? There are some great journalists who attempt to cover specific areas. But nobody is yet screaming that the house is on fire although we’re all feeling the heat and hearing the cracking of timber. The problem is that governments have limited ways of keeping the system from falling apart. Increasing levels of control are openly being discussed in government institutions, particularly digital identities and CBDCs. Some believe such measures are designed to avert civil unrest. So, it’s up to those who have got the receipts to start banging the drum before it’s too late.

Mike Brock is the lead at TBD, the Bitcoin-focused subsidiary of Block. In this interview, we discuss being a post-libertarian, reconciling the best elements of libertarianism with support for liberal democracy, and how Bitcoin improves the incentive structures within governing institutions. - - - - The persuasiveness of libertarian ideology is incredibly effective: the idea of individual liberty is both a simple and powerful message in a world where such freedoms are seemingly under perpetual attack. In the 20th century, the basis of modern libertarian thinking was provided by people such Ayn Rand. In recent years libertarianism has witnessed a resurgence and invigoration in the wake of the Iraq war and global financial crisis. Many young people witnessed the transparent failings of the state juxtaposed with increasing encroachments on civil liberties in a new digital world. Bitcoin’s innovation of providing financial sovereignty in this context resulted in an understandable bonding of doctrine and technology. But as Bitcoin matures, what was the pipe dream of it being able to change society is increasingly becoming a possibility. Is it therefore time to question the libertarian thinking that has been used to grow Bitcoin’s popularity? Can libertarianism provide a complete and robust basis for society? Or, are it’s ideas best assimilated into more orthodox political systems? Such discussions may be challenging for those who have been at the forefront of the battle to enable Bitcoin to grow. But, as Bitcoin’s popularity widens and it attracts people of all political persuasians, this is the time for a debate to test the limits and strengths of libertarian thinking, and establish the red lines if and when compromises need to be made.

Mark Moss is a serial entrepreneur, author, speaker and host of The Mark Moss Show. In this interview, we discuss his recent co-authored book “The UnCommunist Manifesto”, which is a critique of Communist theory in response to its continued influence in our modern world. - - - - The Communist Manifesto was one of the most influential political writings in modern history. It was written by the 19th-century philosophers, historians and political theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Despite falling into obscurity for a generation after its initial publication in 1848, it went on to provide a theoretical basis for one of the 20th century's most pervasive ideologies. The Soviet Communist Empire the Manifesto inspired ultimately failed. Proponents have argued that the Soviet political and economic system was not the same form of communism proposed by Marx and Engels. Many others have indicated that the fall of the USSR and its vassal countries showed the inherent fallacy of centralised control being the optimum political system. It wasn’t merely that communism failed, but the brutal nature of the system it inspired. There is a debate about whether the quantum of deaths under communist regimes could be referred to as genocide. Semantics aside, tens of millions of people have been killed in Communist countries. Further, it discouraged innovation whilst encouraging waste, corruption and nepotism. Boris Yeltsin acknowledged the Soviet issue when he made an impromptu visit to a US supermarket during a state visit. “There would be a revolution" he stated when contemplating how normal Russians would react to seeing the range and quality of produce. And yet, despite the epic collapse of the USSR, young people are increasingly being drawn to socialist ideas that underpin the Manifesto. Does a review of the Communist Manifesto provide adequate insight into the system it inspired? Can we identify the dangerous tenets of a communist system to better protect society? Is there anything theoretically sound in the Manifesto? Ultimately, do the transparent weaknesses of our current system give rise to society underestimating the weaknesses of competing systems?

BTC Sessions (Ben Perrin), is a Canadian Bitcoin educator with a well-known YouTube channel. In this interview, we discuss his experiences as part of a group of Bitcoiners organising Bitcoin funds for Canadian truckers being targeted by the Canadian government. - - - - In January, a large group of Canadian truckers took part in convoys to protest against their government's Covid vaccination mandates for cross-border movements. The protests grew and the convoys converged on Canada’s capital city of Ottawa. Thousands of trucks and protestors blocked the streets. It divided opinion: some Ottawans called for Government action, whilst the protest inspired copycat activities and prominent support in other countries. The Canadian government reacted with some of the most draconian responses to activism seen in any democracy. On February 14th they invoked the Emergencies Act designed to provide legal cover for government actions required in major national emergencies such as war, invasion or insurrection. It was only the 2nd time such actions had been used in peacetime. Attention was focused on the funding sources, with dozens of bank accounts linked to the protest movements being frozen. As a result, a Bitcoin fundraising initiative suddenly took centre stage as the vehicle for getting funds of any description to the truckers. This Bitcoin funding and the associated group managing it then became a target for the Canadian authorities. Ben takes us through what was a rapidly evolving and extremely stressful situation, where a group of well-meaning Bitcoiners found themselves becoming enemies of the state. Did Bitcoin stand up to scrutiny? Bitcoin did provide truckers with a financial lifeline. And, whilst there were issues that occurred, there are some very important caveats. The initial set-up of the Bitcoin fund wasn’t with a view to it being the primary source of finance. Further, nobody expected the unprecedented actions taken by the Canadian government. Nevertheless, invaluable lessons have been learned. There is a clear view of the processes required to protect funds and those involved. More importantly, activists now know what actions the state, any state, is prepared to take.

Brandon Quittem is a writer and Communications Director for Swan Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss his latest article: ‘Bitcoin is a Pioneer Species’, where he compares Bitcoin miners to species that settle and populate barren landscapes triggering the development of more advanced ecosystems. - - - - The acceptance of Bitcoin is an acceptance of the need for continuous education and receptivity. This past year has shown why: Bitcoin mining has been transformed from being a critical but specific cog in the often misunderstood Proof of Work protocol to a tool with the potential to transform the global energy industry. Nobody foresaw this. Going down the rabbit hole now involves gaining knowledge of energy systems: production methods, grids, distribution networks, batteries, energy economics etc. This knowledge is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing in that the veil of ignorance is lifted on this vital industry showing politicians are driving blind with their policy decisions. A curse in that those sceptical that Bitcoin can change finance, are now incredulous when we state it can transform energy too. But the logic is clear. Bitcoin can harness electrical energy anywhere in the world. In doing so it can facilitate and thereby fast-track the build-out of energy in isolated environments, becoming a bridge for costly downstream investment needed to connect such sources to a grid. All of this without any need for a state subsidy, or international coordination. Bitcoin can therefore revitalise existing populations: currently, a billion people don’t have access to electricity. Imagine what benefits could be brought by integrating these people into the digital economy. Bitcoin mining can also be the pioneer species for previously uninhabited areas of the planet. It can take barren areas and provide the economic basis from which further development can grow. Contemplating that should make it clear: we’re still so very early!

Troy Cross is a Professor of Philosopher and Fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. In this interview, we discuss the changing narrative around Bitcoin mining: is it finding its real utility in a bear market as the ultimate auxiliary tool, and how early are we in discovering its range of uses as a tool? - - - - The trajectory of Bitcoin mining’s narrative has been breathtaking. Over the last year, it has gone from being singularly promoted for its principal role in securing the Bitcoin network, to having a whole host of other uses identified and championed: subsidising stranded energy, stabilising energy grids, mitigating methane emissions, and providing heat for a range of activities. Policymakers are struggling to keep up. The tired old FUD of Bitcoin’s energy use and carbon footprint are still being used as attack vectors by supposed reputable institutions such as the ECB. It also feeds into the narratives picked up by policymakers such as the White House, who’s commissioned report on Bitcoin mining’s climate impacts was affected by mainstream ignorance. But, the White House report also included recognition of some of Bitcoin mining’s emerging benefits, as well as correcting some misrepresentations of its impacts. This shows that, whilst we are far from getting widespread acceptance of the importance of Bitcoin mining, the effort spent on education and advocacy by the Bitcoin community is having a vital real-world impact. Promoting Bitcoin mining’s evolving narrative is critical. This is because we’re on the cusp of some far-reaching regulation in the wake of recent crypto scams. Regulators could see this as an opportunity to constrain Bitcoin mining; politicians never let a good crisis go to waste. Yet, we are still early in understanding the scope of Bitcoin mining’s value. New uses are being researched and developed all the time: OTEC, water desalination and carbon capture are recent examples. Bitcoin mining is emerging as perhaps an engineer's ultimate auxiliary tool. The mission is therefore to not only continue to convey Bitcoin mining’s importance, but provide the widest possible frame for its significance.

Nate Harmon is CEO and cofounder of OceanBit; Steve Barbour is CEO and founder of Upstream Data; both are Bitcoiners. In this interview, we debate climate change: the reliability of climate models, climate change mitigation, adaptation and the forecast inequality of climate change impacts. - - - - What Bitcoin Did has discussed both sides of the climate change debate with a number of esteemed guests. The reasoning is two-fold: firstly, one of Bitcoin’s major attack vectors is energy use and associated climate change impacts; secondly, it is one of the major issues of our time, arguably the most pressing issue. These shows have either expressed one side or another, until now. Bitcoiners are a broad church. That is an inherent strength. But is also brings its own internal pressures. Whilst there is broad consensus on Bitcoin’s mission, there are divergent opinions on a host of other issues that this new form of money affects. None more so than climate change. Many believe in the need for fossil fuels to enable humans to continue to flourish; others argue that we need to rapidly pivot from fossil fuel reliance if we’re to avoid an existential crisis. However, the debate is not open-ended. There is a strong argument that the framing of the current discussion falls within agreed boundaries. It doesn’t feel contentious to state both sides of the debate within the Bitcoin community agree that abundant energy is needed and that the climate is warming. The disagreement is focused on the rate of climate change and the approach to mitigation. Obviously, whilst there is agreement that narrows the parameters of any debate, the outstanding issues are complex, contentious and critical. The stakes on both sides are high; discussion and compromise are vital. Can we within the community find common ground? Is it possible to attenuate the growing animosity around this subject? Can Bitcoiners lead the way in being open-minded, receptive and malleable to different ideas? Let’s start engaging and find out.

Ted Cruz is a serving US Senator for Texas. In this interview, we discuss the importance of Bitcoin for Texas and the United States, communicating the threat of CBDCs, the political and regulatory challenges, and Bitcoin’s symbiotic relationship with energy. - - - - Ted Cruz is one of the most consequential politicians of his generation. He is a strong advocate for liberty and the tools that support freedom within society. It is perhaps no surprise that he is therefore a fan of Bitcoin. But equally, it shows strength and courage as many of those in positions of power still cast aspersions about Bitcoin and its associated community. Yet, as with all firebrand politicians, Ted Cruz divides opinions. He is uncompromising in his approach to certain issues. He is also part of the modern political game whereby the opposition is deemed to be the enemy. There is an obvious political incentive to adopt such characteristics in terms of being able to clearly delineate your position where there is significant competition for attention. There are certainly strong critics of Bitcoin within the Democratic party. However, Bitcoin can not be allowed to become a political football. It is still a nascent technology, and its development in the US could still be derailed by damaging regulation. It is imperative therefore that those who back Bitcoin on both sides of the aisle not only work together, but they are seen to be working together (e.g. Lummis and Gillibrand). Ted Cruz acknowledges this. He knows that his voice has a limited reach within more progressive circles. He needs those who would otherwise be antithetical to his politics to join him, and vice versa, to ensure this technology and its community is not driven out of the US. The basis of the reasoning is sound: it is freedom money that has a symbiotic relationship with energy. Let’s work to ensure politicians can see the issues anew by discarding the broken lens of politics.

Alex Gladstein is Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation. In this interview, we discuss the IMF and World Bank - two powerful multinational institutions that have shaped the post-war world for developed nations' benefit. Alex uncovers the exploitation hidden from view and the ongoing real-world costs for the developing world. - - - - The IMF and World Bank are two major multinational institutions that have perhaps shaped the workings of the global economy more than any other. The issue is that, over the course of the past few decades, the IMF’s and World Bank’s roles and impacts have largely been forgotten. Whilst casual observers are distrustful of the IMF and World Bank, in the main, people’s concern is vague, lacking facts or evidence. It’s hard to know why this is, but it’s worth noting that internally produced IMF and World Bank content dominates google search results at the expense of independent content. And yet, the impact of the IMF and World Bank has been catastrophic for many developing nations. Specifically, it has been problematic for those outside the gilded circles of power in such countries who have had to carry the burden of debt through significant assaults on public services, food security and other fundamental quality-of-life provisions. The reason? Neocolonialism. Extraction of resources from the periphery for the benefit of the centre. Indebtedness has been the tool used. A Ponzi scheme of debt relief to support debt servicing, designed to keep countries subservient to those controlling the IMF and World Bank. The cost is dictatorships, corruption, environmental degradation, and the destruction of potentially millions of lives. It is uncertain whether Bitcoin can fix this. But, it acts as a powerful disincentive and disruption by weakening the exorbitant privilege of the dollar and enabling the innocent people subjugated by the IMF and World Bank and their own elites, an opportunity to opt-out of this system. Our role within Bitcoin is to discuss this history and help free those still bound by its constraints.