The Peter McCormack Show

Hyperbitcoinization has long been discussed within Bitcoin circles. To some it is an inevitability, to others, it is a pipedream. Notwithstanding the differences of opinion, it is generally assumed the process requires top-down nation-state actions. In the meantime, adopting, using and living with Bitcoin is a ‘side hustle’ to the practical reality of having to operate within a fiat economic system. However, it shouldn’t be a surprise that amongst the growing number of people promoting freedom money, there is a growing community who are going all in on Bitcoin. At the extreme end of ‘getting off zero’ in terms of Bitcoin adoption, there is a movement promoting ‘getting on zero’ in terms of fiat rejection. It’s hyperbitcoinization at the individual level. But how does one go about using Bitcoin as your personal medium of exchange and unit of account? There are a number of technical issues that need to be addressed: our fiat economic system is deeply embedded into every facet of our way of life. But there are current and emerging technologies that can assist in that process. But arguably more important than the practical issues that need to be surmounted is the change in attitude that’s required to make this financial adjustment. Our fiat economy is also deeply embedded into our individual and collective psychologies. A change in mindset is required, particularly in relation to price. This approach is not for everyone. Different people have specific personal needs and responsibilities that make ‘getting off zero’ unfeasible at this stage of Bitcoin’s adoption cycle. It is not a dogmatic and fanatical action, coercing others to follow suit. But at the same time, ‘getting off zero’ should be applauded as being perhaps the ultimate vote of confidence in Bitcoin.

David Morris is the Chief Insights Columnist at CoinDesk. In this interview, we discuss the contagion that has ripped through the crypto market, and how it mirrors the worst failings of the 2008 financial crisis. Is regulation required for crypto to protect people from getting rekt? - - - - Over the past few months, the crypto industry has experienced a series of seismic events resulting in yet untold numbers of retail investors being wiped out. Those to blame are considered to be, at best, criminally negligent. What the heck happened? By now, the “I told you so” refrain has long been worn out amongst groups of Bitcoiners. Unfeasibly high APRs, complex stablecoin algorithmic pegs, crypto funds attracting huge amounts of capital - this was background noise that many just cancelled out by a blanket rejection of the whole sector. But there were targeted warnings of danger within the altcoin ecosystem. Those with a keen interest in the sector, who couldn’t be co-opted, started to investigate the fabulous promises being offered. They found alarming weaknesses, obvious failings and ruinous incentives structures. The red flags were hoisted, but, by this time, too many were caught up in the hysteria to take notice. As we start to undertake the autopsy, on what is still metaphorically a warm body, the obvious questions arise. How did we as a collective let this happen? How can we stop this from happening again? Are we in the same position as the banking sector following the global financial crisis? Do we need regulations to enforce protections for investors?

Lyn Alden is a macroeconomist and investment strategist. In this interview, we discuss the fundamentals of the current global economy: the Eurodollar system, central banks, money printing, debt, inflation and deflation. - - - - WBD528, “Everything You Know About the Economy is Wrong with Jeff Snider”, was very popular with listeners. It raised the concept of the global economy being controlled by the Eurodollar system, an esoteric and opaque financial market outside of the control of the United States. The issues emanating from this theory are manifold, not least that central banks aren’t in control. A common request was to have us discuss the issues arising from Jeff Snider’s arguments with Lyn Alden. Lyn has written extensively about these issues: her November 2020 paper “Banks, QE, and Money-Printing” is a peer-leading explanation of QE. It clarified why, up to the end of 2020, QE hadn’t led to the inflation that many commentators had been warning of since 2007. Jeff and Lyn are aligned on the theory that the Eurodollar system is a critical driver of the global economy, and that the risk of deflation is of concern. The differences in opinion center on the importance of sovereign debt. Jeff thinks we need more debt to unlock liquidity and combat recessionary forces. Lyn’s concern is that unprecedented levels of indebtedness, in the context of recessionary forces, are an existential threat. Could the Ponzi scheme fall apart? The warning signs are there: the issues in the repo market in 2019; the breaking of the US treasury market in 2020; numerous currency crises around the world, which include developed economies. If the situation is at risk of collapse, what are the mitigations? There seems to be no official alternative to the central banks' plan to continue printing money to resolve economic problems. But, as Japan may be finding, that approach may have its natural limits. The risks are apparent, whilst the solutions are limited. Maybe we need to have Jeff and Lyn debate in person.

  Dan Weintraub is a retired history teacher, author and Bitcoin advocate. In this interview, we discuss how fiat money results in a cycle of increasing consumption to meet our need for stimuli, destroying our neurological systems, and how Bitcoin arrests and reverses this cycle. - - - - Previous societies had been more spiritually centered and had long regarded the roots of materialism (i.e. pride, greed, lust, envy etc.) as being the worst of sins. Then, following industrialisation, materialism has been distorted and promoted as a desirable mindset. The capitalist rationale is obvious: meeting people's needs generates wealth. But, have fiat currencies locked the capitalist system into a dangerous charade? Increased debt within the system means there is a need for increasing economic activity. This can be met by exploiting people to create superficial desires and wants beyond their actual needs. Advertising is now a ubiquitous facet of modern living: a 24/7/365 machine of selling. Thus, it is not surprising that as materialism has grown, so has the reaction to it. It has long been lambasted as being harmful to society: excessive consumption can be at once wasteful, polluting and divisive. However, increasing concern has been raised over its destructive effects on human neurology: our brains are being rewired, and we have lost the memory of an alternate way to live. Materialism enslaves us in an elusive search for satisfying stimuli. A lot of our consumption is driven by an addiction to our brain's chemical reaction: a release of endorphins and dopamine gives us momentary pleasure. With the body's exposure to any drug, we build tolerance. Then, we need a greater high to satisfy our need for stimulation. We’re biologically locked in. Bitcoin is heralded as the opportunity for a new and more honest economic paradigm. The question is though whether Bitcoin can reset more than just the economic system; can it reset our damaged neurological systems? Can it enable us to re-establish an understanding of the path to more centered and happy lives?

Steven Lubka is Managing Director of Private Client Services at Swan Bitcoin. In this interview, we discuss the true meaning of inflation, the different types of inflation, and why this means Bitcoin is the best hedge against monetary inflation. We also discuss the crazy alchemy of bonds. - - - - Given Bitcoin’s fixed monetary policy and increasing scarcity, it has long been promoted as being a reliable inflation hedge. It was one of Bitcoin’s principal utilities. Then the consumer price index (CPI) began to rise, Bitcoin’s price tracked downwards, and commentators rushed to dismiss the “inflation hedge” theory. This included Bank of America, Mark Cuban, and a wave of financial journalists. However, inflation is a broad term used to describe a range of phenomena within an economy. Generally, people ascribe inflation to increases in the price of goods. Originally though, inflation has been defined as an increase in the money supply. These definitions matter in examining whether Bitcoin has failed as an inflation hedge. Have people used the wrong definition? The failure of the inflation hedge theory relates directly to the decrease in Bitcoin’s price whilst the CPI has increased over the past few months. Changes in the CPI can be caused by increased money supply, but they are also driven by supply-side changes such as supply chain shocks resulting from the pandemic and more recently the war in Ukraine. We are going through a period of money supply deflation as the economies of the world are starting to contract. Prices are going up whilst value is going down. Yet, significant money supply inflation has occurred since 2008. Various measures of broad money show that the US Fed has increased the money supply around 3 times since the global financial crisis. Over the same period, Bitcoin was launched, established a price, and grew to a market capitalization on par with some of the world's major currencies. As the money supply has expanded, Bitcoin’s value has increased. Now money supply is contracting Bitcoin’s price has decreased. So, has Bitcoin actually done what it set out to do and hedge against monetary inflation? Is the real issue people’s misunderstanding of the true meaning of inflation?

Pete Rizzo is the editor of Bitcoin Magazine, and one of Bitcoin’s leading journalists. In this interview, we discuss Bitcoin maximalism in terms of how it should be defined and rationalised, the moral lens of maximalists, and maximalism’s advantages and limitations. - - - - Following our interview with Udi to discuss Bitcoin Maximalism, we now host another interview on the topic with Pete Rizzo. The two shows together designed to look at maximalism from alternative perspectives with this interview attempting to understand if a definition of maximalism possible or is it necessarily opaque and fluid. Bitcoin maximalism has long been discussed and has gone through numerous evolutions. WBD first did a podcast on maximalism 4 years ago. Since then, there has been a new wave of adoption, and with that a new wave of maximalists. Pete Rizzo outlines his definition of maximalism for the current cycle: all efforts should be focused on supporting and improving Bitcoin; investments in other cryptocurrencies should be discouraged and ignored. And the market’s best method of policing this is the imposition of moral penalties on those working against maximalism. However, is there a contradiction within maximalism? In seeking to vehemently defend the integrity of Bitcoin, could it harm specific projects outside of Bitcoin that aim to provide unique and objectively useful utility? Or, is Bitcoin’s mission so valuable that it can not afford to be nuanced, and therefore collateral damage is unavoidable?

Aaron Daniel is an Appellate attorney and author of The Bitcoin Brief, a newsletter analysing Bitcoin’s effect on law and society. In this interview, we discuss the legal arguments around making Bitcoin US legal tender, and whether it would actually confer any meaningful benefits. - - - - It is assumed that for Bitcoin to become widely adopted within the US, it would need to be made legal tender. Without such legal clarity, Bitcoin may continue to be viewed by the general population as an unofficial and risky form of money, liable to be prohibited by the state. Therefore, gaining legal tender status would be a seismic positive shift in Bitcoins development. Attempts to move the country in this direction are often applauded by Bitcoiners. Whether it is US states commencing processes to establish protections for Bitcoin’s use (including efforts in Arizona to declare Bitcoin as legal tender), to activists and politicians advocating for the Federal government to consider making Bitcoin legal tender. The assumption is these are worthy actions. But, what is legal tender? What utility and protections does such status provide money? What legal framework(s) would be used to confer legal tender status? And, is it necessarily so that such a classification would benefit Bitcoin and it’s users? The consideration of any nascent technology in legal terms is always fraught with uncertainty and interpretation. The constitution and bill of rights are a firm basis for the development of the world's oldest and most enduring democracy. But, the consideration of modern developments through the prism of the 18th-century founders results in legal arguments that need testing. Whist such testing is worthwhile, seeking to make a private digital currency legal tender in the US will be a huge endeavour. And, rushing to develop the legal case misses the more essential policy question: is it beneficial to Bitcoin and its users to mandate its legal standing? Fundamentally, should freedom money remain free: free from state interference, but also free for all people to accept or reject?

In this interview, I talk to Jeet Sidhu and we discuss whether the promotion of obviously deficient ESG standards is a signal of a wider societal malaise: decivilisation, overregulation, political incompetence and consistent policy failures. Is human flourishing on the ropes? - - - - Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) is a framework that was established by the UN in coordination with financial institutions in 2004. It was an attempt to expand the boundaries of the Friedman doctrine, which limits the social responsibility of businesses to increasing shareholder value. ESG essentially seeks to introduce altruistic goals for businesses. The business community's reaction has been both rational and ironic: it has sought to use and capture ESG to maximise profits for shareholders. According to Bloomberg, ESG is the fastest growing asset management class, which is expected to exceed $50 trillion in value this year. Yet, according to EY, ESG is confusing, opaque, and subject to rampant greenwashing. Is this exploitation of a worthy initiative an isolated anomaly that can be corrected? Or, is it evidence of a wider and more malevolent decline in society? The reality is that this isn’t the only major fault within our systems. Everyone is aware of the soft corruption of competence and the hard corruption of honesty. These have cascaded and infected our institutions. We now live in a world that has exploited and tainted progressive language: selfish designs are hidden behind worthy declarations. We have rejected hard truths in return for expedient fiction. To what end? Are we more resilient? Do we have more efficient systems? Is society fairer? Seemingly not. This seems like an existential decline. Now is the time for honest new ideas.

Udi Wertheimer is an independent developer and consultant, and an active member of Bitcoin’s Twitterverse. In this interview, we discuss the evolved status and definition of Bitcoin maximalism, what success for Bitcoin means, and how Bitcoiners should interact with crypto investors. - - - - Nearly 2 years ago I interviewed Udi to discuss Bitcoin, Ethereum and maximalism. He’s an important voice as, whilst being a Bitcoin advocate, Udi also provides valid critical analysis. As the merits and risks of Bitcoin maximalism are again at the forefront, it is valuable to hear his current views. The fundamental issue is whether maximalism is a net positive or negative for #Bitcoin. The difficulties start with defining maximalism, and what unique utilities of Bitcoin maximalists are to coalesce behind. Is it a movement to protect the technical development of Bitcoin i.e. protecting monetary policy, protecting the protocol? Or is maximalism a cultural phenomenon predicated on developing a moral framework that seeks to provide refuge from more brutal capitalist behaviours? Does maximalism need to be unrelenting in its dismissal of other developments within crypto for the purposes of protecting green retail investors from scams? When, if ever, does defence need to become attack? Maximalism has served as a moral check on the development of Bitcoin. Adherents are right to treat manifestations of the status quo with suspicion. However, there is a delicate line to be taken. History is littered with examples of principled movements being radicalized into counter productive factions.

Jeff Snider is co-host of the Eurodollar University podcast and Head of Global Research at Atlas Financial Advisors. In this interview, we discuss the fundamentals of money, how the Eurodollar controls the global monetary system, and signals of a deflationary depression. - - - - The common narrative about the global economy is bleak. Money printing by central banks has been out of control. This new money fed into the economy and resulted in runaway inflation. Years of interest cuts to stimulate economies means cash is now trash, whilst economies are stagnating. Debt is unmanageable. The search for alpha is focused on wealth protection. But others think this narrative is wrong. Our perceived reality is a mirage. Central banks are not in control of the levers of money, they are mere bystanders playing the role of the wizard behind the curtain. The global monetary system is controlled by an opaque and unregulated dollar exchange market developed in the 1950s: the Eurodollar system. The Eurodollar market is sending signals that defy the forecasts that inflation will endure. The market predicts inflation will be transitory. In its wake, an aggressive period of deflation will soon rock the global economic order. Various economists over time have argued that whilst inflation is damaging, deflation is a worse evil. It has been blamed for depressions throughout history. If these forecasts are right, we could be about to enter a period of significant economic stress. Whilst there is consensus on the cause of the current economic malaise, i.e. profligate behaviours within the financial industry, opinions on solutions couldn’t be more different. Those who follow Eurodollar signals believe global financial systems need more US dollars in the form of debt. A lack of liquidity is leading to a lack of risk-taking that is hurting the global economy. So, as we stand on the brink of widespread societal hardship, we have a representation of cause and response at odds with conventional wisdom. With the stakes so high, can we afford to reject these emergent opinions?